text:
History of the Jews in England (1066–1290)

The first Jews in England arrived after the Norman Conquest of the country by William the Conqueror (the future William I) in 1066, and the first written record of Jewish settlement in England dates from 1070. Jews suffered massacres in 1189–90, and after a period of rising persecution, all Jews were expelled from England after the Edict of Expulsion in 1290.

In some accounts, the later half of the period is contrasted with the earlier half, in terms of rising persecution and violence, but evidence of tolerance between people living close to each other continues to be found throughout. Persecution and violence appear to have been imposed and incited by people with power, whether from the Church, crown or aristocracy. Plenty of evidence for peaceful coexistence of the different religious populations exists from the thirteenth century, such as mentions of gentile attendance at Jewish weddings. Ultimately, as Jewish people were dependent on the Crown for their presence and protection as non-Christians, the attitude and response of the English crown was decisive for their safety or lack of it.

The experience of English Jewry was particularly significant, both in terms of its political, economic, religious and social importance to England as a whole, and in terms of the development of anti-Semitism; many false accusations and associations were developed in England in this period, and prejudices were more deeply felt, than in other parts of Europe. Most notorious is the accusation of ritual child murder, but also included an association of Jewry with international conspiracy and magic. Anti-Jewish prejudices were expressed in some of the "earliest and most elaborate" devotional artworks to do so, at Lincoln Cathedral and the Cloisters Cross, for example, or, more recently identified, the Hereford Mappa Mundi.

Edward I is also identified as internationally significant, as the first monarch to attempt state-sponsored conversions, to permanently exclude Jews from his kingdom, and the first English monarch to use anti-Semitism as an instrument of state policy.

The Expulsion and its surrounding events also led to the formation of a strong strain of anti-Semitism within English identity that outlasted the period, including the idea that England was unique precisely because it did not include Jews.

Nevertheless, treatment of Jewish aspects of English medieval history in mainstream texts is often held to be under-represented, despite the continuing significance of events such as the expulsion of the Jews, as the first statewide, permanent expulsion in Christian Europe and for its impact on European anti-Semitism which ultimately led to the Shoah.

William I to Henry I: 1066–1135
There is no record of Jews in England before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The few references to Jews in the Anglo-Saxon laws of the Roman Catholic Church relate to Jewish practices about Easter.

Soon after William I's Conquest, Jewish merchants, probably from Rouen, in Normandy, began to settle in England. However, Jews were not permitted to own land or to participate in trades (except for medicine). They were limited primarily to money lending. As Catholic doctrine held that money lending for interest was the sin of usury, Jews dominated this activity. The earliest immigrants spoke Judeo-French founded on the Norman dialect.

Around 1092, Gilbert Crispin, the Abbot of Westminster, issued a disputation about his exchange with an erudite Jew, whom he knew as a friend and business colleague, entitled "Disputation of a Jew with a Christian about the Christian Bible." Crispin wrote:

"Now on a certain day, God granted both him and me greater leisure than usual, and soon we began questioning as usual. And as his objections were consequent and logical, and as he explained with equal consequence his former objections, while our reply met his objections foot to foot and by his own confession seemed equally supported by the testimony of the Scriptures, some of the bystanders requested me to preserve our disputes as likely to be of use to others in future."

This disputation was notable for the even-handed presentation of both the Christian and Jewish points of view, and for the congenial tone of the exchange.

At first, the status of Jews was not strictly determined. An attempt was made to introduce the continental principle that all Jews were the king's property and a clause to that effect was inserted under King Henry I in some manuscripts of the so-called Leges Edwardi Confessoris "Laws of Edward the Confessor".

However, during Henry's reign (1100–1135) a royal charter was granted to Joseph, the chief rabbi of London, and all his followers. Under this charter, Jews were permitted to move about the country without paying tolls, to buy and sell goods and property, to sell their pledges after holding them a year and a day, to be tried by their peers, and to be sworn on the Torah rather than on a Christian Bible. Special weight was attributed to a Jewish person's oath, which was valid against that of 12 Christians, because they represented the king of England in financial matters. The sixth clause of the charter was especially important: it granted Jews the right of movement throughout the kingdom, as if they were the king's own property (sicut res propriæ nostræ).

Jews did not settle outside of London before 1135.

Stephen to Henry II: 1135–1189
Christian-Jewish relations in England were disturbed under King Stephen who burned down the house of a Jewish man in Oxford (some accounts say with the owner in it) because he refused to pay a contribution to the king's expenses. It was also during this time that the first recorded blood libel against Jews was brought in the case of William of Norwich (March, 1144).

While the crusaders in Germany were attacking Jews, outbursts against the latter in England were, according to the Jewish chroniclers, prevented by King Stephen.

With the restoration of order under Henry II, Jews renewed their activity. Within five years of his accession, Jews are found at London, Oxford, Cambridge, Norwich, Thetford, Bungay, Canterbury, Winchester, Newport, Stafford, Windsor, and Reading. However, they were not permitted to bury their dead elsewhere than in London until 1177. Their spread throughout the country enabled the king to draw upon them as occasion demanded; he repaid them by demand notes on the sheriffs of the counties, who accounted for payments thus made in the half-yearly accounts on the pipe rolls (see Aaron of Lincoln).

Strongbow's conquest of Ireland (1170) was financed by Josce, a Jewish man from Gloucester; and the king accordingly fined Josce for having lent money to those under his displeasure. As a rule, however, Henry II does not appear to have limited in any way the financial activity of Jews. The favourable position of the English Jews was shown, among other things, by the visit of Abraham ibn Ezra in 1158, by that of Isaac of Chernigov in 1181, and by the resort to England of the Jews who were exiled from France by Philip Augustus in 1182, among them probably being Judah Sir Leon of Paris.

In 1168, when concluding an alliance with Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II seized the chief representatives of the Jews and sent them to Normandy, while tallaging the rest 5,000 marks). When, however, he asked the rest of the country to pay a tithe for the crusade against Saladin in 1186, he demanded a quarter of the Jewish chattels. The tithe was reckoned at £70,000, the quarter at £60,000. It is improbable, however, that the whole amount was paid at once, as for many years after the imposition of the tallage arrears were demanded from the Jews.

The king had probably been led to make this large demand upon English Jewry by the surprising windfall which came to his treasury at the death of Aaron of Lincoln. In this period, Aaron of Lincoln is believed to have been, probably, the wealthiest man in 12th-century Britain, in liquid assets. All property obtained by usury, whether Jewish or Christian, fell into the king's hands on Aaron's death; his estate included £15,000 of debts owed by some 430 debtors scattered around the English counties. In order to track down and collect these debts a special section of the Royal Exchequer was constituted, which was known as the "Aaron's Exchequer". The cash treasure of the Aaron's estate, that came into the king's hands, however, was lost on a shipwreck during a transport to Normandy.

In this era, Jews lived on good terms with their non-Jewish neighbours, including the clergy; they entered churches freely, and took refuge in the abbeys in times of commotion. Some Jews lived in opulent houses, and helped to build a large number of abbeys and monasteries. However, by the end of Henry's reign they had incurred the ill will of the upper classes, and anti-Jewish sentiment spread further throughout the nation, fostered by the crusades.

Massacres at London, Bury and York (1189–1190)
Richard I had taken the cross before his coronation (3 September 1189). A number of the principal Jews of England presented themselves to do homage at Westminster; but there was a long-standing custom against Jews (and women) being admitted to the coronation ceremony, and they were expelled during the banquet which followed the coronation, whereupon they were attacked by a crowd of bystanders. The rumour spread from Westminster to London that the king had ordered a massacre of the Jews; and a mob in the Old Jewry, after vainly attacking the strong stone houses of the Jews throughout the day, set them on fire at night, killing those within who attempted to escape. The king was enraged at this insult to his royal dignity, but was unable to punish more than a few of the offenders, owing to their large numbers and to the considerable social standing of several of them. After his departure on the crusade, riots with loss of life occurred at Lynn, where some Jews attempted to attack a baptised coreligionist who had taken refuge in a church. The Christian population burned down the Jews' houses and murdered them. So, too, at Stamford Fair, on 7 March 1190, many were slain, and on 18 March, 57 were slaughtered at Bury St Edmunds. The Jews of Lincoln saved themselves only by taking refuge in the castle.

Isolated attacks on Jews also occurred at Colchester, Thetford, and Ospringe.

A significant loss of life occurred at York on the night of 16 March (Shabbat HaGadol, the Shabbat before Passover) and 17 March 1190. As crusaders prepared to leave on the Third Crusade, religious fervour resulted in several incidents of anti-Jewish violence. Josce of York, the leader of the Jews in York, asked the warden of York Castle to receive them with their wives and children, and they were accepted into Clifford's Tower. However, the tower was besieged by the mob of crusaders, demanding that the Jews convert to Christianity and be baptized. Trapped in the castle, the Jews were advised by their religious leader, Rabbi Yomtov of Joigny, to kill themselves rather than convert; Josce began by slaying his wife Anna and his two children, and then was killed by Yomtov. The father of each family killed his wife and children, before Yomtov and Josce set fire to the wooden keep, killing themselves. The handful of Jews who did not kill themselves died in the fire, or were murdered by rioters. Around 150 people are thought to have been killed in the incident.

Ordinance of the Jewry, 1194
During Richard's absence in the Holy Land and during his captivity, the Jews of England were harassed by William de Longchamp. The Jewish community was forced to contribute 5,000 marks toward the king's ransom, more than three times as much as the contribution of the City of London.

On his return, Richard determined to organise the Jewish community in order to ensure that he should no longer be defrauded of his just dues as universal legatee of the Jewry by any such outbreaks as those that occurred after his coronation. Richard accordingly decided, in 1194, that records should be kept by royal officials of all the transactions of the Jews, without which such transactions would not be legal.

Every debt was to be entered upon a chirograph, one part of which was to be kept by the Jewish creditor, and the other preserved in a chest to which only special officials should have access. By this means the king could at any time ascertain the property of any Jew in the land; and no destruction of the bond held by a Jew could release the creditor from his indebtedness.

This "Ordinance of the Jewry" was, in practice, the beginning of the office of Exchequer of the Jews, which made all the transactions of the English Jewry liable to taxation by the King of England, who thus became a sleeping partner in all the transactions of Jewish money lending. The king besides demanded two bezants in the pound, that is, 10 per cent, of all sums recovered by the Jews with the aid of his courts.

At this point in time Jews had many of the same rights as gentile citizens. However, their loans could be recovered at law, whereas the Christian money lender could not recover more than his original loan. They were in direct relation to the king and his courts; but this did not imply any arbitrary power of the king to tax them or to take their money without repayment, as is frequently exemplified in the pipe rolls.

Leadership of the Chief Rabbis, 13th century
Jews were allowed to have their own jurisdiction, and there is evidence of their having a beth din with three judges. Reference is made to the parnas (president) and gabbai (treasurer), of the congregation, and to scribes and chirographers. A complete system of education seems to have been in vogue.

At the head of the Jewish community was placed a chief rabbi, known as "the presbyter of all the Jews of England"; he appears to have been selected by the Jews themselves, who were granted a congé d'élire by the king. The latter claimed, however, the right of confirmation, as in the case of bishops. The Jewish presbyter was indeed in a measure a royal official, holding the position of adviser, as regards Jewish law, to the Exchequer of the Jews, as the English legal system admitted the validity of Jewish law in its proper sphere as much as it did that of the canon law.

Six presbyters are known in the 13th century: Jacob of London, reappointed 1200; Josce of London, 1207; Aaron of York, 1237; Elyas of London, 1243; Hagin fil Cresse, 1257; and Cresse fil Mosse.

Under John, 1205–1216
As early as 1198 Pope Innocent III had written to all Christian princes, including Richard of England, calling upon them to compel the remission of all usury demanded by Jews from Christians. This would render the Jewish community's very existence impossible.

On 15 July 1205, the pope laid down the principle that Jews were doomed to perpetual servitude because they had crucified Jesus. In England the secular power soon followed the initiative of the Church. John, having become indebted to the Jewish community while in Ireland, at first treated Jews with a show of forbearance. He confirmed the charter of Rabbi Josce and his sons, and made it apply to all the Jews of England; he wrote a sharp remonstrance to the mayor of London against the attacks that were continually being made upon the Jews of that city, alone of all the cities of England. He reappointed one Jacob archpriest of all the English Jews (12 July 1199).

But with the loss of Normandy in 1205 a new spirit seems to have come over the attitude of John to his Jews. In the height of his triumph over the pope, he demanded the sum of no less than £100,000 from the religious houses of England, and 66,000 marks from the Jews (1210). One of the latter, Abraham of Bristol, who refused to pay his quota of 10,000 marks, had, by order of the king, seven of his teeth extracted, one a day, until he was willing to disgorge.

Though John squeezed as much as he could out of the Jewish community, they were an important element on his side in the triangular struggle between king, barons, and municipalities which makes up the constitutional history of England during his reign and that of his son. Even in the Magna Carta, clauses were inserted preventing the king or his Jewish subjects from obtaining interest during the minority of an heir.

Increasing persecution, 13th century
With the accession of Henry III (1216) the position of the Jews became somewhat easier, but only for a short time. Innocent III had in the preceding year caused the Fourth Council of the Lateran to pass the law enforcing the Badge upon the Jews; and in 1218 Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, brought it into operation in England, the badge taking the form of an oblong white patch of two finger-lengths by four. The action of the Church was followed by similar opposition on the part of the English boroughs.

Petitions were accordingly sent to the king in many instances to remove his Jews from the boroughs, and they were expelled from Bury St. Edmunds in 1190, Newcastle in 1234, Wycombe in 1235, Southampton in 1236, Berkhamsted in 1242, Newbury in 1244. Simon de Montfort issued an edict to expel the Jewish population from Leicester in 1231, "in my time or in the time of any of my heirs to the end of the world". He justified his action as being "for the good of my soul, and for the souls of my ancestors and successors". The Jews appear to have found refuge in the suburbs outside his control.

The Papacy continued to develop its theological commitment to restrictions on Judaism and Jews. In England, a number of Benedictine priories showed particular hostility to Jews, or sought to capitalise on it. The fictional stories of Jewish ritual murder, for instance, emerged from Benedictine priories, apparently attempting to set competing local cults. In Worcester, Bishop William de Blois pushed for tighter restrictions on Jews, writing to Pope Gregory IX for assistance in enforcing segregation between Jews and Christians, including wearing of badges and prohibitions on Christians working for Jews especially within their homes.

The value of the Jewish community to the royal treasury had become considerably lessened during the 13th century through two circumstances: the king's income from other sources had continually increased, and the contributions of the Jews had decreased both absolutely and relatively. Besides this, the king had found other sources from which to obtain loans. Italian merchants, "pope's usurers" as they were called, supplied him with money, at times on the security of the Jewry. By the contraction of the area in which Jews were permitted to exercise their money-lending activity their means of profit were lessened, while the king by his continuous exactions prevented the automatic growth of interest.

By the middle of the 13th century the Jews of England, like those of the Continent, had become chattels of the king. There appeared to be no limit to the exactions he could impose upon them, though it was obviously against his own interest to deprive them entirely of capital, without which they could not gain for him interest. The great financial pressure Henry placed on the Jews caused them to force repayment of loans to the sale of bonds, fuelling anti-Jewish resentment. Taxation of 20,000 marks in 1241, £40,000 in 1244, £50,000 twice in 1250, meant that taxation in 1240-55 amounted to triple the taxation raised in 1221-39. Bonds were seized for a fraction of their value when cash payments could not be met, resulting in land wealth being transferred to courtiers. Jewish bonds were purchased and used by richer Barons and members of Henry III's royal circle as a means to acquire lands of lesser landholders, through payment defaults.

Henry had built the Domus Conversorum in London in 1232 to help convert Jews to Christianity, and efforts intensified after 1239. As many as 10 percent of the Jews in England had been converted by the late 1250s in large part due to their deteriorating economic conditions.

Blood libels and Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln
Many anti-Jewish stories involving tales of child sacrifice circulated in the 1230s-50s, including the account of "Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln" in 1255. The event is considered particularly important, as the first such accusation endorsed by the Crown. In August 1255, a number of the chief Jews who had assembled at Lincoln to celebrate the marriage of a daughter of Berechiah de Nicole were seized on a charge of having murdered a boy named Hugh. Henry intervened to order the execution of Copin, who had confessed to the murder in return for his life, and removed 91 Jews to the Tower of London. 18 were executed, and their property expropriated by the Crown. The king had mortgaged the Jewish community to his brother Richard of Cornwall in February 1255, for 5,000 marks, and had lost all rights over it for a year, Henry thus receiving no income from it except in the case of executions. The story was referred to in later English literature including Chaucer and Marlowe, and entered popular folk culture through a contemporary ballad. It was quoted as fact by Thomas Fuller in his posthumous 1662 book Worthies of England.

Further restrictions and the Statute of Jewry 1253
Henry III passed the Statute of Jewry in 1253, which attempted to stop the construction of synagogues and reinforce the wearing of Jewish badges (rather than accepting fines). A prohibition on Christian servants working for Jews was to reduce the 'risk' of sexual contact, also prohibited. It remains unclear to what extent this statute was actually implemented by Henry. The laws themselves were following the Catholic church's existing pronouncements.

In the later 1250s, as Henry was not fully in control over government, the Barons asked for limits on the resale of Jewish bonds. Jewish loans became a motivating factor in the following war. Henry's policies up to 1258 of excessive Jewish taxation, anti-Jewish legislation and propaganda had caused a very important and negative change.

Targeting of Jews during the conflict with the Barons
While the level of debts to Jewish moneylenders was in fact lower in the 1260s than the 1230s, Henry III's policies had made the landowning classes fear that debts to Jews would lead to them being deprived of their lands, which were used to secure loans. Excessive taxation of Jews, forcing them to collect no matter what the circumstances, was one factor in this. The other was the King's support for courtiers and relatives who bought Jewish loans in order to dispossess defaulters of their landholdings. These were the fears that de Montfort and his supporters played on to bring support to their rebellion.

With the outbreak of the Barons' war violent measures were adopted to remove all traces of indebtedness either to the king or to the higher barons. The Jewries of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Winchester, Cambridge, Worcester, and Lincoln were looted (1263–65), and the archæ (official chests of records) either destroyed or deposited at the headquarters of the barons at Ely.

Simon de Montfort, who in 1231 had expelled the Jews from his town of Leicester, when at the height of his power after the battle of Lewes cancelled the debts and interest owed to Jews of around 60 men, including those held by his baronial supporters.

Montfort had been accused of sharing the plunder but issued edicts for their protection after the battle. Nevertheless, his closest allies including two of his sons had led the violence and killing, so it seems implausible to regard him as ignorant of the likely consequences of the campaign.

Later policies of Henry III
Once de Montfort was dead and the rebels were defeated, Henry's policy went into reverse and as best as he was able, the debts were reimposed. However, Henry's finances were very weak, and he also wished to pursue the Crusade that he had tried to mount in the 1250s. Parliament refused to comply without legislation that restricted the abuse of Jewish finances, particularly by Christians. In 1269 Henry agreed to limits on perpetual fee-rents, an end to the sale of Jewish loans to Christians without the permission of the Crown and a prohibition on levying interest on loans purchased by Christians. These were the grievances that had helped fuel the wider crisis since 1239. In 1271 he conceded a ban on Jews holding freehold land and again ordered that the previous legislation be enforced. Nevertheless, these policies would not be adequate in allaying wider fears, which quickly resurfaced under Edward I.

In Lincoln, Henry III ordered for a man by the name of Jopin, who was accused of murdering and torturing an 8/9 year old Christian boy in a witchcraft ceremony, to be killed along with another 91 Jews and all to be sent to London. When the executions were ongoing in London, Richard, Earl of Cornwall stopped the executions while 18 had already died. Similar cases happened in London and Northampton in the 1260s and 1270s.

Edward I and the Expulsion
Edward I is noted for his violence against the Welsh and Scots, but his reputation concerning the Jews is not well recognised. This has been a matter of controversy for scholars concerned with Jewish history, who see a blind spot in works of general history failing to explain his actions and prejudices. For contemporaries, however, his reputation was noted, and the events of the Expulsion even seen in a global context; for instance in the widely circulated Commendatio lamentabilis dedicated to him after his death, he was said to be greater than the Pharaohs for his expulsion of the Jewry.

Edward can be said to be the first English monarch to use anti-Semitism as an instrument of government policy. Prior to his reign, Kings had generally tried to preserve their ability to extract taxation from Jews, so had acted to limit violence and other attacks on them. Anti-Semitism had been utilised by opponents to the crown, rather than by the crown itself, but during the reign of Edward I anti-Semitism was "deliberately deployed and developed in the interests of the English state". Edward began to take measures which were designed to focus discontent on Jews, or to take credit for acting against them; most significantly through the allegations of coin-clipping which labelled the entire Jewish community as criminals. He also appears to have taken a strong interest in specific actions taken against Jews, such as in cases of alleged blasphemy by Jews.

There is disagreement about the motivations behind some of Edward's actions. It is possible to see some of Edward's actions as purely financially inspired, including ultimately the Expulsion, which can be seen as primarily a concession to Parliament in return for grants of taxation. This tends to be the conventional view, but risks underestimating his own "sincere religious bigotry" especially when considering other actions made in the run up to the Expulsion.

Other questions of controversy include whether Edward's attempts to convert Jews to Christianity or provide them with alternative employment to money lending when usury was banned were genuine. These can be interpreted as positive steps or as cynical actions that were certain to fail. It is difficult to know what was in Edward's mind, as there is not a documentary record for it, other than official statements and justifications. It is also possible to infer the likely influences on him, from his relatives and advisers, many of whom were extremely hostile to Jews, such as Robert Grosseteste.

Edward's restrictions on Jews took place in an environment where Church leaders, including figures like Thomas de Cantilupe and his successor as Bishop of Hereford, Richard Swinefield, were campaigning for harsher measures against Jewish communities. In this, they were supported by the Holy See, which through his reign, introduced progressively tougher calls to separate Jews from gentiles, through enforcement of the wearing of Jewish badges, and restrictions on social contact.

Jews were expelled from some towns, often where they had been long present. With Edward's permission, they were expelled from the dower lands of his mother Eleanor of Provence in January 1275, which included towns such as Marlborough, Gloucester, Cambridge and Worcester). Other local expulsions took place in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Warwick, Wycombe (1234), Northamptonshire (1237), Newbury (1243), Derby (1261), Romsey (1266), Winchelsea (1273), Bridgnorth (1274) and Windsor (1283). Jews were banned from entering any of the new north Welsh boroughs created by Edward I under their town charters.

Statutum de Judaismo, 1275
Edward I returned from the Crusades in 1274, two years after his accession as King of England. In 1275, he made some experimental decrees. The Church laws against usury had recently been reiterated with more than usual vehemence at the Second Council of Lyon (1274), and Edward in the Statutum de Judaismo (Statute of the Jewry) absolutely forbade Jews to lend on usury, but granted them permission to engage in commerce and handicrafts, and even to take farms for a period not exceeding ten years, though he expressly excluded them from all the feudal advantages of the possession of land.

This permission to own land, however, regarded as a means by which Jews in general could gain a livelihood, was illusory. Farming can not be taken up at a moment's notice, nor can handicrafts be acquired at once. Moreover, in England in the 13th century the guilds were already securing a monopoly of all skilled labour, and in the majority of markets only those could buy and sell who were members of the Guild Merchant.

By depriving the Jews of a resort to usury, Edward was practically preventing them from earning a living at all under the conditions of life then existing in feudal England; and in principle the "Statute of the Jewry" expelled them fifteen years before the final expulsion. Some of the Jews attempted to evade the law by lending money against goods to be received. Others joined the Domus Conversorum and a proportion left the country.

Despite the impoverished state of the Jews, Edward I continued to try to exact taxation. A tallage was exacted in 1277 and 1278, the latter yielding just 3,000 marks. Threats were made to defaulters, including exile and loss of their property, but this meant little to the vast majority of Jews who were poor and unable to pay the sums demanded by the state. The Crown ceased demanding tallages, a fact that Richardson calls "significant". The community had run out of money.

In 1287-8, yielding around £4,000 of a hoped for £13,333. It is likely that the Crown arrested the Jewish population prior to collecting the tax as a means of extorting as much as possible.

Exploitation of Jewish debts by the Crown
From the 1270s onwards, the Crown stepped up the acquisition of land from indebted English landowners by forcing the sale of debt bonds held by Jews. Since the early 1200s, the Jewish community had been taxed well beyond its means, leading to a reduction in the capital the small number of rich Jewish moneylenders had to support their lending. Jews were also disallowed from holding land assets. To recoup against a defaulted debt, the bonds for the lands could be sold. Continued excessive tallages would force Jewish lenders to sell their bonds very cheaply to release their capital, which would be bought by courtiers, Edward, and most prominently, his wife Eleanor of Castile. Access to the purchase of Jewish bonds was in effect a form of royal patronage.

By the 1270s, this had led the Jewish community into a desperate position, while Edward, Eleanor and a few others gained vast new estates. Contemporaries, however, saw the problem as resulting from Jewish "usury" which contributed to a rise in anti-Semitic beliefs. Eleanor's participation in "Jewish usury" and dispossession of middling landowners caused her to be criticised both by members of the landed classes and by the church. A spectacular example of an estate picked up cheaply can be seen in the release of Leeds Castle to Edward and Eleanor by William de Leybourne, which became a favourite residence.

Discontent built up about these transactions, and fed into the political demands made by the landowning classes for restrictions on the Jews, both financial and social. Concerns were also picked up by the church, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Peckham, writing to her to warn her against acquiring "lands which the Jews have extorted with usury from Christians under the protection of the royal court".

Coin clipping crisis
During the 1270s and 80s, the Crown attempted to crack down on tampering with coins, by "clipping" the edges. The Crown organised arrests in 1276, and then further mass arrests of Jews in 1278. This took place in the context of diminishing tax returns from the Jewish community, while Edward was in extreme financial difficulties.

Approximately 600 Jews were imprisoned in 1278, probably representing nearly every Jewish head of household, as the Jewish population stood at no more than 3,000 at the time. 298 Jews were executed in London alone. Instructions to justices administering the process "made plain that the proceedings were unequivocally anti-Jewish" and extended their remit to blasphemy charges. There is evidence of Edward regularly briefing (viva voce) leading actors, especially regarding the seizure and disposal of property, but also regarding sentencing, including late in the process, to rein back the numbers being sentenced to death.

Overall, in the 1270–1290 period slightly more Christians than Jews were arrested, but nearly ten times more Jews were executed than Christians, indicating that "religious prejudice was the crucial factor involved in the degree of punishment". In the short term, profits were made by the Crown from seizures and fines, but there was no improvement of the coinage itself; problems with the coinage persisted well into the 1300s.

Property from the condemned was forfeit, and anything that had been hidden or was dealt with after the trials was due to Queen Eleanor, who thereby profited extensively from the executions. An identifiable £16,500 was collected by the Crown in fines and sales of seized assets over a five year period.

Intervention of the Church
In Easter 1285, the Prelates, (senior church leaders) of the Province of Canterbury under Peckham's leadership drew up complaints to Edward, two of which were regarding what they saw as lax restrictions on Jews. They complained about converts lapsing back to Judaism, and called for a crack down on usury, which although banned since 1275 under the Statute of the Jewry, they believed was still being practiced, asking that "the Jews' fraud and malice be vigorously opposed". Edward replied that there was little that could be done,"because of their evilness". In response, the prelates expressed their shock and stated that the Crown was permitting Jews to "ensnare Christians through usurious contracts and to acquire the manors of nobles through the sink of usury". Edward was, they said, capable of stopping this "perversity", and advised that "through the threat of horrible punishments, which our lips will not name, he may strive to punish all userers".

Relations between Christians and Jews could be convivial, but was in theory at least heavily restricted, and a matter the church viewed as highly threatening. The Bishop of Hereford, Richard Swinefield, was outraged when in early summer 1286 when he heard that a Jew had invited local dignitaries to a wedding. First, he demanded that nobody attend, "under pain of canonical discipline". The Jews, he said, "have invited - not secretly but quite openly - some of our Christians in order to disparage the Christian faith of which they are the enemies and preach heresies to the simple people thus generating scandal by their intercourse".

When Swinefield was disobeyed, he threatened those who had attended the wedding with ex-communication, unless they repented and he was given "satisfaction". He reported the whole affair directly to the Papal See, in part as he was at the time concerned with securing the canonization of his predecessor Thomas de Cantilupe. It is often believed that this correspondence to led to Pope Honorius's intervention demanding that restrictions on Christian-Jewish relations in England be applied rigorously.

Whether related to Swinefield's complaints or not, in late 1286, Pope Honorius IV addressed a special rescript to the Archbishops of York and Canterbury claiming that the Jews had an evil effect on religious life in England through free interaction with Christians and called for action to be taken to prevent it. The Church responded with the Synod of Exeter in 1287, restating the Church laws against commensality between Jews and Christians, enforcing the wearing of Jewish badges and prohibiting Jews from holding public office, have Christian servants, or appear in public during Easter. Jewish physicians were also forbidden to practise and the ordinances of the Synod of Oxford of 1222 which prohibited the construction of new synagogues and the entry of Jews into Churches were restated.

Expulsion of the Jews from Gascony
Local expulsions of Jews were not new. They had happened frequently in many countries, and regularly in England. Edward would have been very conscious of these. In 1275, Edward had permitted the Queen mother Eleanor, to expel Jews from her lands, which included a number of towns with significant Jewish populations.

In 1287, Edward was in need of cash to free Charles of Salerno and ordered the local Jews expelled from the duchy of Gascony. This and other heavy expenses led to the need to raise revenues wherever he was able. As a result, some historians link the expulsion of Gascony's Jews and the seizure of their property and transfer of outstanding to the King's name to this need for cash. Others believe that the amounts raised were in fact small and note that they seem to have been distributed to mendicant orders in Aquitaine, and conclude it is more plausible to see the expulsion as a "thank-offering" for Edward's recovery from illness.

Charles of Salerno himself expelled the Jews of Maine and Anjou in 1289, accusing them of "dwelling randomly" with the Christian population and cohabiting with Christian women. Understanding that he would suffer financially, he linked the expulsion to general taxation of the population as "recompense". Huscroft speculates that Edward and Charles learnt from each other in the model of expulsion which Edward shortly after implemented in England.

Expulsion, 1290
By the time he returned to England in 1289, King Edward was deeply in debt. His experiment to convert the Jews to Christianity and remove their dependence on lending at interest could be seen to have failed. Moreover, it was increasingly impossible to raise money from the Jewish population; they had been repeatedly overtaxed.

On 14 June 1290, he summoned Knights of the shires to attend Parliament by 15 July. Then, on 18 June, Edward sent secret orders to the Sheriffs of cities with Jewish residents that the archae containing records of Jewish debts be sealed.

Parliament met on 15 July. Taxation granted by Parliament to Edward was very high, at £116,000, probably the highest of the middle ages, apparently in return for the expulsion of the Jews. The Church later voluntarily agreed to pay tax of a tenth, in gratitude.

On the Hebrew calendar, this date was 9 Av (Tisha B'Av) 5050, commemorating the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem; it is unlikely to be a coincidence, and was noted "with awe" by Jewish chroniclers. Writs were sent to Sheriffs on the same day, explaining that all Jews were to leave by All Saints' Day, 1 November 1290.

Proclamations were made ordering the population not to "injure, harm, damage or grieve" the departing Jews. Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told to make arrangements for their safe passage. There were limits on the property that Jews could take with them. Although a few favoured persons were allowed to sell their homes before they left, the vast majority had to forfeit any outstanding debts, homes or immobile property, including Synagogues and cemeteries.

Henry wrote to the Barons of his Exchequer on 5 November, giving us the clearest official explanation of his actions available. In it, he claimed that Jews had broken trust with him by continuing to find ways to charge interest on loans. He labelled them as criminals and traitors, and said they were expelled "in honour of the Crucified". Interest on their debts was to be cancelled.

Although it is believed that most of the Jews leaving England were able to do so free from harm, there are some records of piracy leading to the death of some of the people forced to leave. In October, a ship was chartered by poorer London Jews whose captain convinced the Jews to walk with him on a sandbank, and left them stranded on it. Other incidents of piracy and murder are recorded in Portsmouth and near Burnham-on-Crouch in Essex.

The condition of the sea in Autumn also led to deaths, as poorer Jewish passengers crossed the Channel to Wissant near Calais. Ships were lost at sea, others arrived with their passengers destitute. It is unclear where most of the migrants went. There are Anglo-Jewish names and documents recorded in France, Germany, Italy and Spain; including the title deeds to an English monastery found in the wood store of a synagogue in Cairo.

For the Crown, there was an immediate windfall in terms of Jewish property to be sold. Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family, in a total of 85 grants. For example, Queen Eleanor's tailor was granted the Synagogue in Canterbury. Property sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £20,000 worth of debts were seized, buit barely anything was collected. The reasons for this are unclear, but could include an attempt to win political favour by providing benefit to those previously indebted.

Between the expulsion of the Jews in 1290 and their informal return in 1655 there is no official trace of Jews as such on English soil except in connection with the Domus Conversorum, which kept a number of them within its precincts up to 1551 and even later.

Attitudes to the Jewry after 1290
Edward I continued to use the expulsion of the Jewry as a political tool after 1290. He took care to ensure that he was seen as a protector of Christendom from the criminality of Jews, for instance by sponsoring the cult of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, a child Saint supposedly murdered and crucified by Jews. His own craftsmen rebuilt the shrine in the same style as the Eleanor crosses, and included memorialisation of Queen Eleanor and the Royal coat of arms; by which a "more explicit identification of the crown with the ritual crucifixion charge can hardly be imagined." Hillaby believes that the Eleanor crosses and renovated shrine played a critical role in disseminating the Little St Hugh myth.

The promotion of the cult of the former Bishop of Hereford Thomas de Cantilupe by Swinefield and Edward I also appears to have played a role in propagandising anti-semitic values well beyond the expulsion, including within the Hereford Mappa Mundi.

Longer term, it is often believed that English identity after the Expulsion held a strong strand of anti-Semitism, developing negative ideas of what Jews were, and what dangers they posed. Images of Jews are "rife" in devotional literature of the late middle ages including sermons and plays. Cohen writes that: "the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw the proliferation of the Host-desecration story in England: in collections of miracle stories, many of them dedicated to the miracles of the Virgin Mary; in the art of illuminated manuscripts used for Christian prayer and meditation; and on stage, as in popular Croxton Play of the Sacrament, which itself evoked memories of an alleged ritual murder committed by Jews in East Anglia in 1191." Depictions of Jews and anti-semitic themes can also be found in literature from Chaucer through to Shakespeare's time and beyond, albeit they softened in comparison with the thirteenth century. Before the readmission of Jews, the idea that England was unique in part because it was free of Jews appears to have developed, feeding into an idea that English identity excluded Jewishness: "between 1290 and 1656 the English came to see their country defined in part by the fact that Jews had been banished from it."


text:
Wachstedt

Wachstedt is a municipality in the district of Eichsfeld in Thuringia, Germany.

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

title: Wachstedt


text:
TIAA

The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA, formerly TIAA-CREF) is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields. TIAA is listed on the Fortune 100 and serves over 5 million active and retired employees participating at more than 15,000 institutions and has $1 trillion in combined assets under management with holdings in more than 50 countries.

Profile
Long organized as a tax-exempt non-profit organization, a 1997 tax bill removed TIAA's tax exemption. It is now organized as a non-profit organization, the TIAA Board of Governors, with taxable subsidiaries; all profits are returned to policyholders.

TIAA bought its Manhattan headquarters building, 730 Third Avenue, in 1955. It has major offices in Denver, Colorado; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Dallas, Texas; as well as 70 local offices throughout the U.S. In 2018, TIAA ranked 84th on Fortune's list of the 500 largest corporations in America. , TIAA is the largest global investor in agriculture, the second-largest grower of wine grapes in the United States (by acreage), and the third-largest commercial real estate manager in the world.

History
In 1918, Andrew Carnegie and his Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, under the leadership of Henry S. Pritchett, created the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), a fully funded system of pensions for professors. Funding was provided by a combination of grants from the foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York, as well as ongoing contributions from participating institutions and individuals. The policyholders voted in 1921 to implement policyholder representation on the TIAA board so that educators would have a role in running the organization. TIAA's namesake and signature investment/insurance product is the TIAA Traditional, which offers a contractually guaranteed return on principal and, at the discretion of the board of trustees on a periodic basis, additional profit/dividend interest over and above the guaranteed return. From the relatively illiquid and stable, long-term investments of its general account, TIAA has been able to consistently add some dividends to TIAA Traditional contributions since 1948.

Annuities and Real-Estate
In 1952, TIAA created the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF) a variable annuity, in order to diversify its retirement funds.

In 1995, TIAA introduced the TIAA Real Estate account, also a variable annuity, but more stable than equity investments and more flexible than TIAA Traditional.

21st century
On June 15, 2007, TIAA became one of the first U.S. companies to voluntarily adopt, and the first to implement, a policyholder advisory vote on executive compensation policy.

On February 22, 2016, TIAA-CREF rebranded as simply TIAA as part of a new marketing and imaging campaign. CMO Connie Weaver explained that the old name was perceived by customers as being complicated, and that the new branding scheme was meant to portray a simpler and friendlier image of the organization.

, TIAA was providing parental leave irrespective of the parent's gender.

Environmental Impacts
In May 2021, TIAA announced its net zero by 2050 commitment for the General Account. In 2022, TIAA’s annual climate report, “Ensuring Our Future,” stated that TIAA views climate risk as investment risk. A November 2022 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) asserts that TIAA’s failure to divest its fossil fuel holdings to clear its portfolio of financial and environmental risk is strategically unsound.

On October 19, 2022, nearly 300 TIAA clients filed a complaint with the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment initiative (PRI), asking PRI to remove TIAA from its list of sustainable investors. TIAA is one of the world’s largest fossil fuel investors, pouring at least $78 billion into coal, oil and gas industries. After the top two coal investors Vanguard and BlackRock, TIAA is the fifth largest holder of coal bonds worldwide with $6.7 billion invested in companies that mine, transport, and burn coal for energy. PRI agreed to review the complaint but dismissed it after internal review.

In March of 2024, TIAA clients and university student activists published their response  to TIAA sponsoring the Big10 while utilizing harmful investing practices. Clients stated land grabs, the spraying of toxic chemicals, and fossil fuel investments are contributing to the climate crisis.

Investments and diversification

 * 2012: bought Festival Place, a shopping center in Basingstoke, England for £280 million.
 * 2013: purchased a 50% stake in the Grand Canal Shoppes, including the Shoppes at the Palazzo, in Las Vegas, Nevada, for net proceeds of US$410 million as part of a new joint venture with General Growth Properties. GGP will continue to oversee the asset management of the project.
 * 2014: announced that it would acquire Nuveen Investments in a deal valued at $6.25 billion.
 * 2016: announced deal to buy EverBank Financial Corp. for $2.5 billion in cash; completed June 12, 2017. The combined bank's legal entity name is TIAA, FSB.

Nearly a year after the acquisition of EverBank, TIAA began rebranding all of its banking activities under the TIAA Bank name on June 4, 2018. In November 2022, TIAA announced plans to sell TIAA Bank to private investors. TIAA Bank changed its name back to EverBank when the transaction was completed.

title: TIAA


text:
File:Staind 14 Shades of Grey.jpg

Summary
Cover of 14 Shades Of Grey, by Staind.

Image from Amazon.com.

Fair use rationale for 14 Shades Of Grey
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It illustrates an educational article about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.
 * 2) The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
 * 3) The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) It is a low resolution image.
 * 5) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 6) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

title: File:Staind 14 Shades of Grey.jpg


text: Category:Lazio

title: Category:Lazio


text:
Ambassador Auditorium

Ambassador Auditorium is located on the historic Ambassador College campus in Pasadena, California, United States. The auditorium's main hall has a capacity of 1,262 people.

History
Called by some concertgoers "The Carnegie Hall of the West", this concert hall hosted 20 seasons of musicians and performers from 1974 to 1995. Ambassador Auditorium is a large chamber music-sized hall with large concert halls. It was built under the guidance of Herbert W. Armstrong as both a facility to be used by the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) for church services, college functions for the then adjacent Ambassador College, and as a concert hall for public performances celebrating the performing arts. It seats 1,262 people. It was officially opened by the Vienna Symphony Orchestra.

It is estimated that 2.5 million attendees saw over 2,500 concerts at Ambassador Auditorium by Pavarotti, Plácido Domingo, Claudio Arrau, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Horacio Gutierrez, Alicia de Larrocha, Arthur Rubinstein, Andrés Segovia, Yo-Yo Ma, Jean-Pierre Rampal, Gerhard Oppitz, Bing Crosby, Sammy Davis Junior, Frank Sinatra, the Vienna Philharmonic, the Vienna Symphony, the Berlin Philharmonic under Herbert von Karajan (including Mahler Symphony No. 9 on the last program in 1982) and others during this period.

After 2,500 concerts and recitals, the WCG, which operated the college and auditorium, ceased operation of both in the 1990s and sold the property. Under Joseph W. Tkach Sr., the performing arts series was shut down in 1995, saying they could no longer afford to subsidize the program and that it was not central to the mission of the church. The WCG later relocated its operations to nearby Glendora.

On January 26, 1996, National Public Radio staged a battle of the bands between the contending cities in Super Bowl XXX. Pittsburgh's River City Brass Band played Semper Fidelis by John Philip Sousa and the Battle Royal March by Fred Jewell in concert at Ambassador Auditorium, followed by a performance from Dallas at the Meyerson Symphony Hall.

On May 14, 2004, the church announced the sale of approximately 13 acres (53,000 m²) of its former 31-acre (125,000 m²) campus to Harvest Rock Church (HRC) and Maranatha High School. The sale included the Ambassador Auditorium, now under the sole ownership of Che Ahn's HRock Church of Pasadena. Since the acquisition of Ambassador Auditorium, HRC has re-opened the venue to the public. It hosts many regional ensembles, including the Colburn Orchestra and the Pasadena Symphony. HRock Church's services, conferences and special events are also held at the Auditorium along with Maranatha's.

From 2010–2019, the Ambassador Auditorium surroundings underwent massive change as the original Ambassador College campus was parceled up and sold to developers who tore down most other structures on the campus, including the Fine Arts & Science Centers, Hall of Administration, and the library, in favor of apartment and condominium structures.

As of late June, 2024, HRock Church has announced the Ambassador Auditorium will be offered for sale for $45m.

title: Ambassador Auditorium


text: Template:Gbmapping

title: Template:Gbmapping


text:
Anzen Chitai

Anzen Chitai (安全地帯) is a Japanese rock band, formed in 1973 by five musicians in Asahikawa, Hokkaido. After debuting in Tokyo in 1982, they became one of Japan's most successful rock bands of the 1980s.

1970s: Beginnings
Formed in 1973 as the high-school garage band Invader in Asahikawa, Hokkaido, its original members included vocalist Koji Tamaki, guitarist Yutaka Takezawa and guitarist/keyboardist Toshiya Takezawa, who is also Yutaka's brother. Later, in late 1973, Koji's brother and drummer, Kazuyoshi Tamaki and bassist Takahiro Miyashita joined. In 1977, the band changed its name to Anzen Chitai ("Safety Zone"), and Kazuyoshi Tamaki left the group to be replaced by Ichiji Ohira. By December 1977, Anzen Chitai merged with another band, the Haruyoshi Rokudo Band (六土開正バンド), and added three more members: bassist Haruyoshi Rokudo, guitarist Wataru Yahagi, and drummer Yuji Tanaka. By this point, they had expanded to an eight-member group. Within the next three years, Toshiya Takezawa and Takahiro Miyashita left. Yuji Tanaka also left at this point.

1980s: Commercial success
In 1981, they began work as a backup band for singer-songwriter Yōsui Inoue, and released their debut single, "Moegi Iro no Snap" (萠黄色のスナップ) under the Kitty Records in February 1982. However, the final personnel change occurred as Ichiji Ohira left, and Yuji Tanaka returned in his place, establishing the current lineup.

Under the guidance of their producer and co-arranger Masaru Hoshi (星 勝), lead guitarist and vocalist of the psychedelic rock group The Mops, the band continued to refine their craft in the studio. Their status as a backup band soon changed: in 1984, "Wine Red no Kokoro" (ワインレッドの心) reached No. 1 on the Oricon charts, to be followed by among others, "Kanashimi ni Sayonara" (悲しみにさよなら) and "Suki Sa" (好きさ) (featured on the popular Rumiko Takahashi anime series Maison Ikkoku). "Wine Red no Kokoro" was composed by Koji Tamaki with lyrics by Yōsui Inoue. Koji Tamaki was credited as the sole composer in virtually all of Anzen Chitai's music, with Gorō Matsui being the lyricist frequently. Their popularity in the 1980s culminated in a five-day sold-out concert tour at the Nippon Budokan in 1987, which had a total attendance of 60,000.

1990s and 2000s: Frequent hiatuses
Despite a couple of hiatuses for the sake of solo careers (July 1988-March 1990, 1993–2001), Anzen Chitai continued to record and tour. A new studio album was released in October 2003, titled Anzen Chitai X (their tenth studio album). After their Japanese concert tour in support of the "Anzen Chitai X" album, the band announced at the end of 2003 that they are taking yet another indefinite hiatus.

In 2006, Koji Tamaki remained active as a solo performer and television actor, with Wataru Yahagi performing in both his solo albums and concerts. Yutaka Takezawa was also active in the music business as a composer, producer, arranger and session guitarist.

On April 28, 2008, fan club members were notified that Tamaki had announced his retirement from music, as well as the closing of the official Koji Tamaki & Anzenchitai fan club, Star. Illness requiring long-term treatment was cited as the reason for as his decision.

During the second half of 2009, the band held secret meetings and decided to regroup. Similar to their amateur days, band members lodged together to practise and compose music.

2010–present: Returning from hiatus
On January 8, 2010, the band announced the resumption of their career along with making appearance on the television program Tokudane!. Switching back to Universal Music Japan (which has absorbed their former label Kitty Records and is the distributor of their pre-Sony Music Japan catalog) as their record label, a music video for their new single "Aoi Bara" was released. Their double A-side single "Aoi Bara/Wine Red no Kokoro (2010 version)" was released on March 3, 2010. Tamaki wrote the lyrics and music of "Aoi Bara." The single debuted at #9 on Oricon weekly charts, becoming their first Top 10 single in 21 years and 6 months since "Hohoemi ni Kanpai" in 1988.

Anzen Chitai released Anzenchitai XI Starts "Mata ne...", their first album in nearly seven years, on May 26, 2010. They then released Anzen Chitai Hits on June 30, 2010. This album encapsulated the rerecorded versions of their singles throughout the 1980s. Their next studio album, Anzenchitai XII, was released on September 14, 2011, quickly followed by Anzenchitai XIII Junk just months later on November 16, 2011. The band's fourteenth studio album, Anzenchitai XIV ~The Saltmoderate Show~, was released on March 16, 2013.

On December 23, 2022, it was announced that drummer Yuji Tanaka had died on December 17, at the age of 65.

Current members

 * Koji Tamaki (玉置浩二) - vocals, guitars, percussion (1973–present)
 * Yutaka Takezawa (武沢豊) - guitars (1973–present)
 * Wataru Yahagi (矢萩渉) - guitars (1977–present)
 * Haruyoshi Rokudo (六土開正) bass, piano, keyboards (1977–present)

Former members

 * Toshiya Takezawa (武沢俊也) - guitars, keyboards (1973–1981)
 * Takahiro Miyashita (宮下隆宏) - bass (1973–1978)
 * Kazuyoshi Tamaki (玉置一芳) - drums (1973–1977)
 * Ichiji Ohira (大平市治) - drums (1977–1982)
 * Yuji Tanaka (田中裕二) - drums (1977–1978, 1982–2022; his death)

title: Anzen Chitai


text:
Landline

A landline (land line, land-line, main line, fixed-line, and wireline) is a telephone connection that uses metal wires from the owner's premises also referred to as: POTS, Twisted pair, telephone line or public switched telephone network (PSTN).

Landline services are traditionally provided via an analogue copper wire to a telephone exchange. Landline service is usually distinguished from other more modern forms of telephone services which use Internet Protocol based services over optical fiber (Fiber-to-the-x) or other broadband services (VDSL/Cable) using Voice over IP, although sometimes modern fixed phone services delivered over a fixed internet connection are sometimes referred to as a landline (non-cellular service).

Characteristics
Landline service is typically provided through the outside plant of a telephone company's central office, or wire center. The outside plant comprises tiers of cabling between distribution points in the exchange area, so that a single pair of copper wire, or an optical fiber, reaches each subscriber location, such as a home or office, at the network interface. Customer premises wiring extends from the network interface ("NID") to the location of one or more telephones inside the premises.

A subscriber's telephone connected to a landline can be hard-wired or cordless and typically refers to the operation of wireless devices or systems in fixed locations such as homes. Fixed wireless devices usually derive their electrical power from the utility mains electricity, unlike mobile wireless or portable wireless, which tend to be battery-powered. Although mobile and portable systems can be used in fixed locations, efficiency and bandwidth are compromised compared with fixed systems. Mobile or portable, battery-powered wireless systems can be used as emergency backups for fixed systems in case of a power blackout or natural disaster.

Other aspects of landline is the ability to carry high-speed internet popularly known as Digital subscriber line (DSL) which links back to the digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) within the central office, T-1/T-3, or ISDN.

Usage and statistics
In 2003, the CIA World Factbook reported approximately 1.263 billion main telephone lines worldwide. China had more than any other country, at 350 million, and the United States was second with 268 million. The United Kingdom had 23.7 million residential fixed home phones.

A 2013 International Telecommunication Union report showed that the total number of fixed-telephone subscribers in the world was about 1.26 billion.

In many parts of the world, including Africa and India, the growth in mobile phone usage has outpaced that of landlines. In the United States, while 45.9 percent of households still had landlines as of 2017, more than half had only mobile phones. This trend is similar in Canada, where more than one in five households used mobile phones as their only source for telephone service in 2013. However, voice over IP (VoIP) services offer an alternative to traditional landlines, allowing numbers to remain in use without being tied to a physical location, making them more adaptable to modern ways of working. The FCC maintains both landline and Voice over IP subscriber numbers to monitor long term trends in usage.

2000s
In many countries, landline service has not been readily available to most people. In some countries in Africa, the rise in cell phones has outpaced growth in landline service. Between 1998 and 2008, Africa added only 2.4 million landlines. In contrast, between 2000 and 2008, cell phone use rose from fewer than 2 in 100 people to 33 out of 100. There has also been a substantial decline of landline phones in the Indian subcontinent, in urban and even more in rural areas.

In the early 21st century, installations of landline telephones has declined due to the advancement of mobile network technology and the obsolescence of copper wire networking. It is more difficult to install landline copper wires to every user than it is to install transmission towers for mobile service that many people can connect to. Some predict that these metallic networks will be deemed completely out of date and replaced by more efficient broadband and fiber optic landline connections extending to rural areas and places where telecommunication was much more sparse. In 2009, The Economist wrote "At current rates the last landline in America will be disconnected sometime in 2025."

In 2004, only about 45% of people in the United States between the ages of 12 and 17 owned cell phones. At that time, most had to rely on landline telephones. Just 4 years later, that percentage climbed to about 71%. That same year, 2008, about 77% of adults owned a mobile phone.

2010s
In the year 2013, 91% of adults in the United States owned a mobile phone. Almost 60% of those with a mobile had a smartphone. A National Health Interview Survey of 19,956 households by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released May 4, 2017 showed 45.9 percent of U.S. households still had landlines, while 50.8 percent had only cell phones. Over 39 percent had both.

In Canada, more than one in five of households use cell phones as their only source for telephone service. In 2013, statistics showed that 21% of households claimed to only use cellular phones. Households that are owned by members under the age of 35 have a considerably higher percentage of exclusive cell phone use. In 2013, 60% of young household owners claimed to only use cell phones. In 2019, 54% of Canadian households and 80% of French households had a landline telephone.

2020s
In June 2020, it was reported that 60% of Australian adults used only mobile phones, with no landline. In 2021, only 14.5% of Australian and 29.4% of American households used landline at home. In contrast, 73% of UK households still used landline in 2020. In 2022, 82.9% of German households had at least one landline phone while 73 percent of U.S. households had only a cell phone, 25 percent had a landline and cell service, and 1 percent had only a landline.

Estonia and the Netherlands have retired the legacy parts of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). In the United Kingdom, the analogue copper landline network is due to be terminated in 2025. The VoIP replacement is known as "Digital Voice" (on a BT service) in the UK. France, Germany and Japan are also in the process of replacing theirs.

By means of porting, voice over IP services can host landline numbers previously hosted on traditional fixed telephone networks. VoIP services can be used anywhere an internet connection is available on many devices including Smartphones, giving great flexibility to where calls may be answered and thus facilitating remote, mobile and home working, for example. VoIP porting allows landline numbers to remain in use, whilst freeing them from actual landlines tied to one location. This is useful where landline numbers are believed to be preferred by callers, or where it is preferable that legacy landline numbers remain connected.

title: Landline


text:
Palau Micronesia Air

Palau Micronesia Air was an airline based in Palau. It operated services under the Air New Zealand air operators certificate. It suspended operations in December 2004.

History
The airline was established in September 2002. In October 2003 Air New Zealand reached an understanding with Palau Micronesia Air committing to provide a range of support services for the new company, including operating its aircraft under the Air New Zealand air operators certificate. Operations started on 5 August 2004. It suspended operations on 23 December 2004, attributing it to high costs and under-performing sales.

Services
It served Palau, Guam, Saipan, Micronesia, Australia and the Philippines. It was the first airline to provide direct service between Palau and Australia.

title: Palau Micronesia Air


text:
Poynting's theorem

In electrodynamics, Poynting's theorem is a statement of conservation of energy for electromagnetic fields developed by British physicist John Henry Poynting. It states that in a given volume, the stored energy changes at a rate given by the work done on the charges within the volume, minus the rate at which energy leaves the volume. It is only strictly true in media which is not dispersive, but can be extended for the dispersive case. The theorem is analogous to the work-energy theorem in classical mechanics, and mathematically similar to the continuity equation.

Definition
Poynting's theorem states that the rate of energy transfer per unit volume from a region of space equals the rate of work done on the charge distribution in the region, plus the energy flux leaving that region.

Mathematically:

where:

 * $$-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$ is the rate of change of the energy density in the volume.
 * ∇•S is the energy flow out of the volume, given by the divergence of the Poynting vector S.
 * J•E is the rate at which the fields do work on charges in the volume (J is the current density corresponding to the motion of charge, E is the electric field, and • is the dot product).

Integral form
Using the divergence theorem, Poynting's theorem can also be written in integral form:

where
 * S is the energy flow, given by the Poynting Vector.
 * $$u$$ is the energy density in the volume.
 * $$\partial V \!$$ is the boundary of the volume. The shape of the volume is arbitrary but fixed for the calculation.

Continuity equation analog
In an electrical engineering context the theorem is sometimes written with the energy density term u expanded as shown. This form resembles the continuity equation:

\nabla\cdot\mathbf{S} + \epsilon_0 \mathbf{E}\cdot\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} + \frac{\mathbf{B}}{\mu_0}\cdot\frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E} = 0 $$,

where

 * ε0 is the vacuum permittivity and μ0 is the vacuum permeability.
 * $$\epsilon_0 \mathbf{E}\cdot\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}$$ is the density of reactive power driving the build-up of electric field,
 * $$\frac{\mathbf{B}}{\mu_0}\cdot\frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}$$ is the density of reactive power driving the build-up of magnetic field, and
 * $$\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$$ is the density of electric power dissipated by the Lorentz force acting on charge carriers.

Derivation
For an individual charge in an electromagnetic field, the rate of work done by the field on the charge is given by the Lorentz Force Law as: $$\frac{dW}{dt} = q \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{E}$$

Extending this to a continuous distribution of charges, moving with current density J, gives: $$\frac{dW}{dt} = \int_V \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{E} ~\mathrm d^{3}x$$

By Ampère's circuital law: $$\mathbf{J} = \nabla \times \mathbf{H} - \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t}$$ (Note that the H and D forms of the magnetic and electric fields are used here. The B and E forms could also be used in an equivalent derivation.)

Substituting this into the expression for rate of work gives: $$\int_V \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{E} ~\mathrm d^{3}x = \int_V \left [ \mathbf{E} \cdot (\nabla \times \mathbf{H}) - \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t}\right ] ~ \mathrm d^{3}x$$

Using the vector identity $$\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H}) =\ (\nabla {\times} \mathbf{E}) \cdot \mathbf{H} \,-\, \mathbf{E} \cdot (\nabla {\times} \mathbf{H})$$: $$ \int_V \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{E} ~ \mathrm d^{3}x = - \int_V \left [ \nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H}) - \mathbf{H} \cdot (\nabla \times \mathbf{E}) + \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t}\right ] ~ \mathrm d^{3}x$$

By Faraday's Law: $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}$$ giving: $$ \int_V \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{E} ~ \mathrm d^{3}x = - \int_V \left [ \nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H}) + \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{H} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}\right ] ~ \mathrm d^{3}x$$

Continuing the derivation requires the following assumptions:
 * the charges are moving in a medium which is not dispersive.
 * the total electromagnetic energy density, even for time-varying fields, is given by $$u = \frac{1}{2} (\mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{D} + \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathbf{H})$$

It can be shown that: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{D}) = 2 \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{D}$$ and $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathbf{H} \cdot \mathbf{B}) = 2 \mathbf{H} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{B}$$ and so: $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{H} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t} $$

Returning to the equation for rate of work, $$ \int_V \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{E} ~ \mathrm d^{3}x = - \int_V \left [ \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H})\right ] ~ \mathrm d^{3}x$$

Since the volume is arbitrary, this can be cast in differential form as: $$-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nabla\cdot\mathbf{S}+\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$$ where $$\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H}$$ is the Poynting vector.

Poynting vector in macroscopic media
In a macroscopic medium, electromagnetic effects are described by spatially averaged (macroscopic) fields. The Poynting vector in a macroscopic medium can be defined self-consistently with microscopic theory, in such a way that the spatially averaged microscopic Poynting vector is exactly predicted by a macroscopic formalism. This result is strictly valid in the limit of low-loss and allows for the unambiguous identification of the Poynting vector form in macroscopic electrodynamics.

Alternative forms
It is possible to derive alternative versions of Poynting's theorem. Instead of the flux vector E × H as above, it is possible to follow the same style of derivation, but instead choose E × B, the Minkowski form D × B, or perhaps D × H. Each choice represents the response of the propagation medium in its own way: the E × B form above has the property that the response happens only due to electric currents, while the D × H form uses only (fictitious) magnetic monopole currents. The other two forms (Abraham and Minkowski) use complementary combinations of electric and magnetic currents to represent the polarization and magnetization responses of the medium.

Modification
The derivation of the statement is dependent on the assumption that the materials the equation models can be described by a set of susceptibility properties that are linear, isotropic, homogenous and independent of frequency. The assumption that the materials have no absorption must also be made. A modification to Poynting's theorem to account for variations includes a term for the rate of non-Ohmic absorption in a material, which can be calculated by a simplified approximation based on the Drude model.

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathcal{U} + \nabla \cdot \mathbf{S} + \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{J}_\text{free} + \mathcal{R}_{\dashv\int} = 0$$

Complex Poynting vector theorem
This form of the theorem is useful in Antenna theory, where one has often to consider harmonic fields propagating in the space. In this case, using phasor notation, $$E(t) = E e^{j\omega t}$$ and $$H(t) = H e^{j\omega t}$$. Then the following mathematical identity holds:
 * $${1\over 2} \int_{\partial \Omega} E\times H^* \cdot d{\mathbf a} = {j\omega \over 2}\int_\Omega (\varepsilon E E^* - \mu H H^*) dv - {1\over 2} \int_\Omega EJ^* dv,$$

where $$J$$ is the current density.

Note that in free space, $$\varepsilon$$ and $$\mu$$ are real, thus, taking the real part of the above formula, it expresses the fact that the averaged radiated power flowing through $$\partial \Omega$$ is equal to the work on the charges.

title: Poynting's theorem


text:
Talk:Ambassador Auditorium

I have created a basic entry for Ambassador Auditorium. It would look a lot better with a more complete listing of performers who have appeared in the auditorium, together with a list of live and broadcast perfomances made during its hey-day. If you have this information, please add to the text. MPLX/MH 19:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ambassador Auditorium


text:
Talk:Thermistor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bgrant14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Basic Operation is largely unhelpful?
The first section merely states the definition of a first-order approximation, without mentioning the applicability (or lack thereof) to most thermistors. It then goes on to offer the differential form without adding the solution to that equation. A visit to digikey shows that thermistors being sold are rarely identified by k value OR alpha (linear and exponential models are rather poor, the linear model is sometimes used for "normal" resistors).

Since (I'm guessing) the vast majority of people coming to this page are interested in thermistors from the perspective of using/choosing one for a project, I proposed removing this section, and replacing it with a more hacker/tinkerer-friendly explanation of functionality (charge carriers increase/decrease resulting in more or less resistivity, named ntc/ptc for that reason) and an equation that will make use of the β and Ro values typically given:

 * $$\frac{1}{T}=\frac{1}{T_0} + \frac{1}{B}\ln \left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)$$

And explaining that R0 and T0 are the values commonly given in datasheets.

Possibly go on to explain that β effectively changes with temperature (causing manufacturers to spec multiple β values), which leads into the next section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.41.153 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Target Audience
Who is your target audience? A scientist knows this better. An electronic engineer doesn't need it. Neither do enthusiasts who may want to learn about it's use. For them it's far too high. What most people would would need is HOW ARE THEY MARKED AND HOW TO CALCULATE THE RESISTANCE AT A TEMPERATURE. Explain it on a simple and straightforward way.

 * I agree that this article should include a simple and straightforward explanation "up front".
 * After that, later sections "down below" should be written for an expert reader who may want to be reminded of some technical detail.
 * See the Make technical articles understandable guideline for more details of the 3 target audiences. --DavidCary (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree: I came here to find the critical parameters to allow me to select a Thermister. I left no wiser.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself" Albert Einstein  Gutta Percha (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semiconductor based thermistor question
Nice article. One question: "Many NTC thermistors are made from a thin coil of semiconducting material such as a sintered metal oxide. They work because raising the temperature of a semiconductor increases the number of electrons able to move about and carry charge - it promotes them into the conducting band". This is nice simple explanation for NTC, but how does PTC work then? Thanks! --User:Chinasaur
 * Not really, not a nice article. Full of mistakes and there is no acknowledgement of the corrections. Possibly written by a first year physics or science student.

B-Constant
I've seen the b-constant specified on many datasheets for thermistors, yet can't find a good description of it. My understanding is that it is a way to approximate the R-T relationship that is much worse than the Steinhart-Hart equation? --User:Pigrew

 * Yes, when I simplify the 3rd-order Steinhart-Hart equation by forcing c=0, I get the somewhat less accurate 2nd-order beta equation. The beta equation is still more accurate than the 1st-order approximation. How could we make the Thermistor section better? --DavidCary (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Revisions
I removed this application: Wow - it appears to have been in the article a long time. I think this is totally wrong because thermistors aren't light sensitive! The author must have been thinking photoresistor, but those are typically slower and used to determine exposure when no flash is used. I could also see them used in flash battery packs, but again, no light-sensing application.
 * Thermistors are used in smart camera flash guns which adjust for proper film exposure according to the light reflected.

Added B parameter equations
I added the B (beta) parameter equations. They are the ones used by engineers. Mircealutic 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Mircealutic! --DavidCary (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture
Trivial point but there must be a better picture of a thermistor out there. Also it may be an idea to get it put onto the page rather that linking to it. Wheatleya 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That blown inrush current limiter is a PTC, not an NTC. A PTC has higher resistance, when getting hot, so limiting the current. Eur (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I noticed that pic description too. Maybe confusing "inrush limiting PTC" with a "circuit breaking safety device" in which case it's meant to fail in adverse conditions like an AC voltage spike. I have seen both after they failed, they do look similar. Neither is meant to measure temperature. But is the other one NTC then? Original pic poster account no longer exists. Perhaps the pic was introduced here only because it was incorrectly labelled as NTC. Walkingstick3 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

NTC vs. PTC
Our physics laboratory tutor claims that all the thermistors are NTC type and in fact there are no such that of the coefficient positive. Or maybe it is just him who hasn't met them yet.

 * A combination of a ptc and an ntc thermistor have been used to control CRT degauss coils since the year dot.

Tabby (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

B-parameter equations
The first B-parameter equation is incorrect. It is algebraically inconsistent with the second B-parameter equation, which is correct. The first equation should be... 1/T = 1/T0 + ln(R/R0)/B. Please note also that T0 in these formulas is Kelvin temperature, while the last part of the B-parameter addition says "R0 is the resistance at temperature T0 (usually 25C)". It should say "T0 (usually 298.15K)". That's the same temperature, of course, but if 25 is used in the equations as T0, they won't work. -- John O'Flaherty

 * Hopefully they are fixed, but please check. PAR 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It looks right, now. Also added parentheses around the denom. in eqn.4 of that section. J.O'F,8-5-2006.

Steinhart-Hart parameters for 3 KOhms Thermistor
A very nice article. Thank you!

However I think there is a mistake: Using the parameters you give for a 3 KOhms thermistor

a = 1,40E-03 b = 2,37E-04 c = 9,90E-08

at 25°C (= 298.15 K) I get a resistance of 5264,260842 Ohms. The expected value of 3000 Ohms I get at 35.9906°C. Is there an error in the parameters?

Another question: Can you please publish the parameters for most common thermistors (like 30K, 100K), or help me where I can find them?

Email: m31415@nurfuerspam.de

Thanks,

Martin

 * I don't know what you did wrong but when I use:

 * $$R=e^{{\left( \beta-{\alpha \over 2} \right)}^{1\over 3}-{\left( \beta+{\alpha \over 2} \right)}^{1\over 3}}$$

 * with T=298.15, I get 3067.5 ohms, which is off by about 2 percent, which is about the roundoff error in the abc coefficients. If you still get a different answer, list all your steps and values, so we can find the error. Theres a lot of good information at the at the YSI technical page PAR 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I just ran in to the same problem.... I had mistaken alpha for a in the "beta=" equation because this mistake had been made in the Steinhart-Hart_equation page (now fixed).  But this article had an error in the R= equation, too (what PAR found)- it used a instead of alpha. So I changed the units to x and y instead of alpha and beta to avoid confusion. It should work now - I verified it with the example & got 3067.500051  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morcheeba (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

R is wrong
Equation of R in function of T is wrong!

Suggested merge with Resistance thermometer
NO MERGE - these are two entirely different devices and should not be confused. PAR 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Seconded. Different principles are at work here (& different equations to approximate) Morcheeba (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Dear Author of the article “Thermistor” I would like to draw attention to some misuses of language that plague technical literature. You start your article with the definition of a thermistor:

“A thermistor is a type of resistor with resistance inversly proportional to its temperature.” A physical quantity y  is said to be inversely proportional to a quantity  x  if the following equation holds:y=A/x where  A is a quantity that does not depend on  x. What you wanted to say is that the function  R(T)  is monotonically decreasing. Note that monotonic decrease and inverse proportionality have absolutely no relationship with each other. For instance the function y(x)=A/x is increasing rather than decreasing if x>0 and A <0 and  even if  A >0  one has y(x1)<y(x2) for all  x1<0 and 0<x2  even though for these values one has x1 < x2.

Another comment I would like to make: It would be nice to write equations in technical literature always in unit independent form so that it is unnecessary to state in which units the quantities have to be used. For instance the equation 1/T = a + b ln(R) + c ln3(R) Should be written as 1/T = a + b ln(R/ohm) + c ln3(R/ohm) and the values of the constants are a=1.4 10-3/K b=2.37 10-4/K c=9.90 10-8/K This way the user of the formula may write his values with any kind of units and the result will not depend on the units he uses. Sincerely Yours Bernhard Lesche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.17.69.109 (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NTC linearity
"Over small changes in temperature, if the right semiconductor is used, the resistance of the material is linearly proportional to the temperature." This cannot be true for an NTC thermistor unless the resistance is negative. I think that what is meant is, "Over small changes in temperature, if the right semiconductor is used, the rate of change of resistance of the material with respect to the temperature is constant." However, I suggest that this observation is trivial, since it is true for any differentiable function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction of reordered Steinhart-Hart equation
Using a numerical exempel it's easy to verify that the correct formula for ß in the rearranged Steinhart-Hart equation is:

beta = sqrt ((b / 3c)³ + alpha² / 4)

not:

beta = sqrt ((b / 3c)³ + a² / 4)

For example using a thermistor with these properties (typical values of part number B57861S0103F040):

T = 243.15 K -> R = 177000 ohm T = 273.15 K -> R = 32650 ohm T = 303.15 K -> R =  8057 ohm

and solving the system of linear equations from entering these into the Steinhart-Hart equation gives:

a = 0.0011249909 b = 0.00023475694 c = 0.000000085529225

Using T = 273.15 K gives:

alpha = -29650.698

Note how (b / 3c)³ = 765857450, (a² / 4) = 0.00000031640113 and (alpha² / 4) = 219790970

Adding (b / 3c)³ and (a² / 4) obviously make little sense, considering the big difference in magnitude.

Using the corrected formula with (alpha² / 4) above:

beta = 31395.038

R = e ^ ((beta - alpha / 2) ^ (1 / 3) - (beta + alpha / 2) ^ (1 / 3)) = 32650.027

which is the expected result (after some rounding errors)

Instead using (a² / 4) would give R = 96345.655

Shirifan (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Category
Some Thermistors are given a "Climatic Category" in accordance with IEC 60068-1. This is a way of representing the temperature specifications of a thermistor using three different numbers separated by a slash (/). For example, a Climatic Category 55/155/56. The first number is the minimum operating temperature expressed in negative degrees Celsius. The second is maximum operating temperature in positive degrees Celsius. The last is the duration of test Ca (damp heat, steady state) at a relative humidity of 93% +2/-3% and an ambient temperature of 40 °C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girmann (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious source
The Jim Williams ap note discusses Wien bridge oscilators and thermisters, but not both together, at least on the pages listed.Constant314 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is needed for this paragraph is a reference that says that there is a "thermistor principal" and its exact definition. Its use in this paragraph suggests that any two terminal device exhibiting an increase of resistance as it get hotter is exhibiting "thermistor principal".  NTC (Negative temperature coefficient) thermistors are far more prevalent than PTC thermistors, so if there is a thermistor principal it would mean a device showing a decrease of resistance as it got hotter.  Furthermore the second paragraph of this very article says "Thermistors differ from resistance temperature detectors (RTD) in that the material used in a thermistor is generally a ceramic or polymer, while RTDs use pure metals."  A lamp is much more like an RTD than a thermistor.Constant314 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History
The history section says that "The first NTC thermistor was discovered in 1833 by Michael Faraday", but that "The thermistor was invented by Samuel Ruben in 1930". Surely these two statements cannot both be correct. At the very least some clarification seems to be required. 86.167.6.253 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm too sexy for my love to sexy for my love too sexy for my love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.67.208 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Appears to be solved, by saying "A commercially viable thermistor was invented..." Walkingstick3 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the article Iron–hydrogen resistor some early thermistors were made from uranium dioxide. This might be worth including in the history section.150.227.15.253 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

confusing
The article started out so good and then it becomes useless at the temperature coefficient of resistance formula. Please explain everything and don't use the lazy approach, use the redundant one. For example: What does the d mean? Is it a substitute for a Delta or does it mean something else? Is the R(T) another equation? Which equation is inserted?  --Jangirke (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * "R(T)" is standard notation for a function. It simply means the resistance at a particular temperature.  An approximation of R(T) may be expressed by an equation.  "dR/dT" is standard notation for the first derivative of Resistance with respect to Temperature.  It refers of the slope of resistance vs temperature curve at a particular temperature. Constant314 (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong electrical symbol
Is the electrical symbol correct? The same symbol is for the varistor and the two are not the same. Here by us we use another symbol for thermistor that has the little horizontal line vertical. TrinarSK (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I've also seen a resistor with a circle around it as a schematic symbol for a thermistor. I think this should be mentioned or highlighted on the page as well. Kchoboter (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

PTC Latched State
This statement is incorrect. "PTC thermistors 'latch' into a hot / low resistance state: once hot, they stay that way, until cooled", when the device is hot the resistance is high, causing a larger voltage drop across the device that dissipates heat and keeps the device latched. It should read, "PTC thermistors that have become hot, and therefore have higher resistance, will remain hot; the higher resistance causes more voltage drop across the device ensuring the resistance does not drop. This hysteresis can be used as a latch." Nagaru (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

IEC symbols missing
The two IEC standard symbols are missing, and none of the images found in Commons are correct. Widefox ; talk 23:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The exact difference between "thermistor" and "resistance thermometer".
I think the article lacks a clear explanation of the difference between a thermistor and a resistance thermometer, as does the Wikipedia article called "Resistance thermometer" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_thermometer. I found it very frustrating to read the two articles and find that neither of them explains this. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thermistor