text:
User talk:Vanished user svinet8j3ogifm98wjfgoi3tjosfg/oldtalk3

Talk Previous To 24 December 2004 is located at User_talk:Micahmn/oldtalk Talk from 24 December 2004 to 15 April 2005 is located at User_talk:Micahmn/oldtalk2

=Please start new comments at the bottom of the page, thank you.=

Womanfriend

 * Hi Micah. I'm interested in the term you described at girlfriend, "womanfriend".  Do you have any more information about it (who first used it, people who endorse its use, that sort of thing)? Cheers, Slac  speak up!  23:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The term womanfriend has been around at least since the feminist revolution of the 1970s and is used by many men and women feminists as an alternative to what they see as the degrading or at least inaccurate alternative term girlfriend. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand this. It'd be cool if we could get some kind of source for it though.  My impression is that it's not terribly widespread - so if we have some source, some examples of use, it helps to prove it exists and defines its sphere of usage. Slac  speak up!  02:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Paul Wellstone
M, Can you take a look at this page? How is the intro paragraph? Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 18:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproposal notice
You may (or may not) be interested in weighing in on the discussion at A_proposal_re_BCE-CE_Debate. Tomer TALK 10:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Would you please speak to your friend Edwin about repeatedly removing the reference to the sex abuse settlment form the Lutheran page.It make it look like he's trying to hide it. So long as it remians the largest church sex abuse settment in the U.S. it is notable to include in the article. Further more if thinks the page should be include in a seperate article via link, he should create the article and move the text ther himself rather than delete it from the article. I'd speak to him myself, but am in such a fowl mood I might say something unwarranted or unkind. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:33, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

New user category
I have created a couple of new user categories modeled after UK Wikipedians. One of them is for our generation, born in the 1980s or 1990s. Please consider listing yourself under Category:Millenial Wikipedians Thanks. -JCarriker 18:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

SLP & UWEC
hahaha. you wikilinked SLP to Jewish. I mean "St. Jewish Park". Anyways. Have you been keeping track of the edits to UWEC? The pix are cool, but I'm wondering whether or not I'm the only one who might be worried about copyvios on them. Tomer TALK 09:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay ·  Talk 15:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for casting one in my RfA too :) Redwolf24 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Digg
Good work on the Digg article! Thue | talk 19:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk info. By the way, is there a way to fix the history where I was logged out when I posted a bunch material. I thoguth I was logged in but I guess I timed out. I posted a bunch of stuff to dig under the IP 24.179.66.98 before I realised I was logged out. Drderail 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncredited edits
There is a way for an uncredited edit to be credited to a user. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
I looked over the discussion on the talk page, and it seems to me that the consensus is that the material should stay, and a single anon is constantly removing it (just as you stated on my talk page). If it continues, make a request for page protection, or if the anon violates 3RR, have him blocked. Actually, I think the issue could be considered disruption and the anon warned for vandalism. Mention it at the RfC and see what the others think. If consensus develops to block for disruption, I'll be happy to enforce the consensus. -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just relax there Micah, 198 and 130 are my pages. I've read the rules and am on board now. Sheesh.

So do I have your permission to delete my old pages or will I get my ass kicked again? lol AFethke 12:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. AFethke 13:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject of possible interest to you
When you get time, wander over to WP:WPWI and see whether you'd be interested in signing on and helping out. Tomer TALK 05:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise
And wow, that was FAST! --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 02:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Select Committee on Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill 2003

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Select Committee on Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312230705/http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/0/103F5675261A75F248256D6A0020268A?opendocument to http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/0/103F5675261A75F248256D6A0020268A?opendocument

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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


text: User talk:80.134.11.52

title: User talk:80.134.11.52


text:
Per Joar Hansen

Per Joar Hansen (born 17 August 1965) is a Norwegian football coach. He grew up in the small community of Trofors in Nordland. He played for and managed Rosenborg BK, and he has managed GIF Sundsvall, Aalesunds FK, Ranheim and the Norwegian under-21 football team.

Club career
Known by the nickname "Perry", he began his career in the lower flight clubs of Mosjøen IL and Steinkjer FK, before enjoying a brief spell at Rosenborg from 1987 to 1989. He contributed to Rosenborg winning The Double in 1988. He then went on to play in lower divisions for Umeå FC, Stjørdals-Blink, Strindheim IL (first tier in 1995), Byåsen IL, Fram Skatval, and actually serving as player-manager from 1995 in Strindheim, Byåsen and Varden.

Managerial career
From the late 1990s "Perry" first joined the coaching staff of Rosenborg, but went on to Swedish top flight club GIF Sundsvall in the autumn of 2001 where he enjoyed great success in his first season.

After just avoiding relegation in 2003, he resigned from the club and returned to Rosenborg, turning down the job as manager of Swedish champions Djurgården of Stockholm. He was assistant manager to Ola By Rise during the not too impressive 2004 season, and he was appointed manager going into the historic start of the Royal League, which was not a successful competition of Scandinavian football.

Considered by the press as only the third best man for the position, he led Rosenborg into a difficult reconstruction process, seeing the stem of the team closing in on retirement from professional football. Halfway into the 2005 season, he resigned after a string of bad results, and was immediately replaced by Per-Mathias Høgmo.

Hansen signed a two-year contract with the Adeccoligaen club Aalesunds FK on 6 December 2006. Aalesunds got promoted to Tippeligaen the following year. He left Aalesunds and returned to GIF Sundsvall in December 2007. He was the manager there until 2 October 2008, when he got fired. From the 2009 season, he coached Ranheim Fotball in the Adeccoligaen. During the 2010 season, he was head of a coaching team including Otto Ulseth and Christer Basma.

He began 2011 managing the Norway national under-21 football team. On 16 October 2012, the team qualified for the UEFA European Under-21 Championship with an astonishing 5–4 aggregate win over France. His assistant manager Tor Ole Skullerud led the team to the semi-finals, as he returned to Rosenborg for his second spell as manager of the club.

In September 2021, Hansen was hired by Swedish club Östersunds FK. He left it at the end of the year, as the club only gained 5 points in 13 games under his helm and was relegated from the top-tier Allsvenskan.

title: Per Joar Hansen


text:
Talk:English Madrigal School

Shouldn't the Composers section be sorted by e.g. last name? Now it doesn't appear to be sorted by anything.

 * It was originally in increasing level of obscurity, as I dug up more names to add, but now it is fixed. Antandrus 16:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:English Madrigal School


text:
Talk:Demographics of Hungary

Interesting Figure
Just look at the historical population chart of Hungary, it shows that by 1800 there were about 3 million population. consider the area occupied by Hungarians and the long history of it, its population size is really a small one, probably the smallest population size of any significant country in EU, by the time of 1800, Russians had a population of about 40 million and Ukrainian had 10 millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.230.34 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * That is because of the Turkish Wars and occupation of 1526-1699. If one looks at the population growth of Portugal on Population Statistics, it increased from 1,100,000 in 1527 to 2,140,000 in 1732, to 2,970,000 in 1801, to 5,450,000 in 1900 and 10,230,600 to in 2000, all in all an increase of 94.55% between 1527 and 1732, and an increase of 830.05% between 1527 and 2000.  Had Hungary, minus Croatia, with a population of 4,000,000 in 1526 followed a non-war population increase, it would have had a population of around 10,800,000 in 1801, 19,818,000 in 1900 (compared with the actual of 16,838,000 in 1900 minus Croatia-Slavonia) and of 37,202,000 in 2000.  However when combining the various censuses of 2000, 2001 and 2002 for the Carpathian Basin territory, only 26,369,757 inhabitants (26,410,000 rounded including the Polish areas) lived there (10,198,315 in Hungary, 7,221,733 in Romania/Transylvania, 5,379,455 in Slovakia, 1,794,628 in Serbia, 1,254,614 in Ukraine, 277,569 in Austria, 161,059 in Croatia and 82,384 in Slovenia with about 40,000 in Poland around Orawa-Spiss).

 * Also, going by the 'average' of Hungary being 78.63% Hungarian in 1490 (all of the 15 listed sources percentages added up and divided by 15), one would have expected 8,492,000 Hungarians in 1801, 15,583,000 in 1900 and 29,252,000 in 2000, assuming no Magyarization, no immigration to Hungary and no emigration from Hungary. However, according to the 1900 census, there were only 8,588,834 Hungarians in Hungary, of whom 594,281 were Jews and a sizable number, perhaps even equal to the Jewish portion, being minorities who listed themselves as Hungarians.  All in all the real figure being less than half the hypothetical figure had the Turkish Wars not consumed Hungary.  As of 2001-2002, there were only 11,806,952 Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin (9,416,045 in Hungary, 1,415,718 in Transylvania, 520,528 in Slovakia, 284,772 in Backa/Banat(Serbia), 151,500 in Transcarpathia(Ukraine), 7,187 in Baranya/Medimurje(Croatia), 6,498 in Prekmurje(Slovenia) and 4,704 in Burgenland (Austria), and this figure counts a sizable Gypsy minority.  Even counting that minority, the actual Hungarian population is only about 40% as large as the hypothetical one had the Turkish Wars not occurred. Prussia1231 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1720 Figure is Unreliable
The 1720 figure of 3,500,000 people inhabiting Hungary with only 1,225,000 or 35% of whom are Hungarians seems at the very least illogical, if not skewed. The fact that in 1711 one had 1,600,000 Hungarians out of a population of 3,000,000 supports that. In order for the 1720 figure to be accurate, the population of Hungary would have had to increase by 16.7%, while the ethnic Hungarian population would have to decrease by 30.6%. Given that the wars had ended by 1711 and that there is no recorded large-scale flight from Hungary around this time, that seems impossible. Even if one assumes that there was no growth in the ethnic Hungarian population between 1711 and 1720, it would still make Hungary 46% Hungarian, a far cry from 35%. I see no point in keeping this 1720 estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussia1231 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, this figure is not well established. Due to the new -partly- foreign settlers (from 1711 to 1780) the the native Hungarian population ratio decreased however this the demographic effect was grown up to the end of the 18th century. We should withdraw that number.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't be sure which one of the two sources is right and which one is wrong. I agree that it is a contradiction, but perhaps the percentages given by Historical World Atlas. With the commendation of the Royal Geographical Society. Carthographia, Budapest, Hungary are overestimated. I do not support the deletion of that number before a discussion on this talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Hungarian(Magyar) population had to be around 50% in Kingdom of Hungary around 1700 however this percentage started to decrease immediately -irrespective of the expectant German settlers- because of the new waves of Serb, Croat and Romanian etc. settlers from abroad as well (Croatia is 'abroad' in this case). By 1720, it was around 45-50%. After the Kuruc wars we must not forget that 800 new German villages were built in Kingdom of Hungary between 1711 and 1780. How could we explain that German 'mass' at the end of the 18th century? If it had been 35% in 1720, the Hungarian (Magyar) population would have been around 15% to 1780.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fikret Adanır, Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottomans and the Balkans: a discussion of historiography, BRILL, 2002
 * M. L. Bush, Rich noble, poor noble, Manchester University Press ND, 1988
 * A History of Hungary, ndiana University Press, 1994 Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look in The Ottomans and the Balkans: a discussion of historiography, By Fikret Adanır, Suraiya Faroqhi and I found the information that the real percentage of Hun. at the end of the 15th century would be 60-70%, and not 80% how it is written now. So a new contradiction(Iaaasi (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

You are right, I am going to seek more sources about these ratios because there are too many contradictions.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please show me these data in the source text? The only thing I can find is that the initial no of Hungarians was 400,000 (Iaaasi (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Cited from there: "Estimates are that about 400,000 people made up the exodus, in seven Magyar, one Kabar, and other smaller tribes."
 * Cited from there: "Romans, Goths, Huns, Slavs, and other peoples had previously occupied the region, but at the time of the Magyar migration, the land was inhabited only by a sparse population of Slavs, numbering about 200,000."
 * I just summed it. 400.000+200.000 (It also means that 66% of the total population)Fakirbakir (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Northern Transylvania
The 53% - 39% percentages do not seem to be correct. Here it is written that the Romanians were at least 48% in the ceded area. Some statistics are also presented in this article. We should include the 1940 Romanian estimation too (Iaaasi (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC))
 * True, We can use that source. We should present the Romanian estimations as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I inserted this source to the page of Second Vienna Award. I have checked page of Northern Transylvania. It contains that source.

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Historian Keith Hitchins (Hitchins 1994) summarizes the situation created by the award: Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Rumania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Rumanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Rumanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Rumanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south."

Missed subject?
Well, as most other "Demographics" articles, I think that this article should contain only data about current demographics of Hungary and that data about historical demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary should be moved to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary Opinions? PANONIAN 18:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not think so. Kingdom of Hungary is just one table here and if we talk about Hungary it has to contain historical data from 895 to 2011. Principality of Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary, Word Wars, Socialist era etc. How could we explain the demographic processes(population trends, languages, fertility, migration, health etc) of Hungary without the past? This article is not complete and it should not need to be split. Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary should have to be improved too, however this historical data needs to be here as well because the article is more understandable with that.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

POV presentation of early demographics
Ok, let discus this from the point of scientific objectivity. It is not disputed that this source mention that 400,000 Hungarians settled among 200,000 Slavs. The disputed issue is the question why this source is used as "the only truth" when numerous other sources are contradicting to this. For example, this source claims that "Hungarian language was spoken only by knights and nobility" in the early Kingdom of Hungary, while this source claims that the "Magyar genetic contribution was not enough to alter the population's predominant genetic similarity to its neighbors". This source claims that "very few of the ancient Magyar genes remain among modern Hungarians". These are valid academic references and there is no reason that they are ignored. Part of the article that speaks about time of Hungarian arrival to Central Europe should be rewritten to reflect more balanced approach that will reflect data from mentioned sources. PANONIAN 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the above concerns the time of the foundation of Hungary (895) therefore there is no contradiction between them and the original statement. You are taking the second source out of context, which talks about "Hungary came to rule over Walachia Bosnia and Serbia" Showing that the period that the source talks about is different, not to mention using extreme POV terms as "magyarization" in a 14th century context with no explanation or factual basis (a 19th century concept, such as nationalism, equally nonsense in the 14th century context). By usage of this term the source contradicts itself. Hungarian was widely spoken by the population this is why other population segments slowly assimilated to it (a completely different concept from magyarization). Finally modern genetical research findings should be included in genetics themed articles and have no direct relevance to historical topics. Not to mention that a population living in the Carpathian basin for over 1100 years would be surprising if they did not intermarry and mix with other population groups during that period. Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So? It is just your personal opinion. Do you have any evidence for such claims? We have here one academic source that say that "Hungarian language initially was spoken only by knights and nobility" and here we have another one which say that "very few of the ancient Magyar genes remain among modern Hungarians". It is quite evident that these sources referring to origin of modern Hungarians and that first one referring to the period of creation of the Principality of Hungary in Central Europe. Tell me, why you removed that info from the article? As a Serb, I am proud that my ancestors were not only Slavs, but also Illyrians and Sarmatians, so I do not understand why would you deny your own genetic origin? PANONIAN  13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you continue like this you'll get blocked for sure. Just sayin. Referring to your last sentence of course. The evidence is already in the article, which contains the population data for Hungary based off of many sources. The first source does not refer to what you say. It is quote obvious too, talking about "knights and nobility", which are features of a kingdom, which Hungary was not at the time... The same sentence mentions "Hungary came to rule over Walachia Bosnia and Serbia" which is a sentence completely disconnected from the 895 and shows, which is also evident from the book title, that this is not a topic dealing with Hungarian history, it mentions all this in passing, jumping several hundred years within sentences. I am sorry but this content is just not suitable for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Hello. I noticed this discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard and am happy to offer my assistance to help have this issue resolved. Could you both briefly clarify the issues at hand so I can offer some advice? Thanks. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Problems with the first source presented by PANONIAN, (Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern) p 266, p. 267; It's a coverage of about a thousand year's worth of history in less than 2 pages (from the 800s to 1867) And there a sentence is mentioned in passing "Initially Hungarian was only spoken by knights and nobility" First we don't know what the sentence is referring to, and seems completely illogical. Even PANONIAN admits that Hungarians arrived to Hungary at some point in time. And that they (the Hungarians were speaking Hungarian...) were these Hungarians all knights and nobles? Hardly possible. I already mentioned the nonsensical term magyarization used in that early context, these are all signs of problems that come with forced inaccuracies when someone covers 1000 years in 1.5 pages. Can we agree to discount this source? (also consider the fact that a lot of sources already in the article directly contradict this one in addition to the already mentioned problems). Hobartimus (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the problem is that there are two opposite theories about ethnic composition of Principality of Hungary in the 9th-10th century. According to one theory (which is present by this source), that country had Hungarian majority (400,000 people) and Slavic minority (200,000 people). According to other sources (for example this one), Slavs were in majority and Hungarians were minority. User Hobartimus is trying to keep only first theory in article text and to remove mention of other theory. That is basic problem here. PANONIAN  15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If both of the sources are relevant and reliable, what's wrong with stating something like, "In the 9th-10th century, the composition of Hungary's demographics was under dispute, some sources said X while others say Y . If both viewpoints are relevant and backed up by reliable sources, then a compromise is all that is needed. On Wikipedia, it's our role to report what reliable sources state on a subject. As long as you aren't overly presenting a minority viewpoint (see WP:UNDUE) then there should be no major issues with including both viewpoints. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that PANONIAN's source does not talk about the ethnic composition, it talks about language used, and does not mention any numbers, or even state which century is it referring to? (only say 'initially' while at the same sentence, mentioning Hungary ruling Serbia, Walachia, Bosnia and Dalmatia, at the time, bringing up the question which territory should be accounted for here in which century? And then about language used, language is not always even relevant in the middle ages in terms of deciding demographic composition. For example someone speaking latin (language of the church at the time and all around common language) couldn't be Hungarian? I know of several counter-examples from the middle ages. Hobartimus (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the source mentioned earlier (have to click page 266 to see the whole page). Hobartimus (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it, the reference that actually quotes the dates and figures of populations is quite explicit. The estimated dates and population is in black and white on the page. The other references, as I've seen, don't actually list dates or figures. While this isn't a major issue, the reference does not clarify the dates period the population demographics was sampled. It looks quite vague to me. I'm not saying we can't incorporate the contents into the article, what I'm saying is that the first reference gives dated facts and figures, which the other references does not directly contradict, and seems a bit vague to me. Adding details of what the second source says, sure. But removing the info provided by the first source would be unwise, as it appears to me the info in the reference backs up the content in the article. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to bed for the evening, I will review these discussions in the morning. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand
Don't understand why is this necessary? I'm ready to discuss with you every issue that you have. Hope we can keep these personal notifications to a minimum in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that against any rule here? I can have personal correspondence with other users here, can I? I do not understand why you track my edits and look with whom I talk on private pages? PANONIAN  16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can have personal correspondence, but then you could for example have the same correspondence (notification) towards user:Rovibroni and user:Fakirbakir as well. Because otherwise it would seem that we don't get enough diverse opinion... My suggestion was that we simply talk about it, in the future, I don't think this issue is so big like you make it out to be. We could have solved this between the two of us from the start. Hobartimus (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you examine again my comment addressed to used Iadrian yu, you will see that I just asked him for opinion about the issue - I did not asked him to "come here and vote" or something like that. :) It is my personal business whom I will ask for opinion about various subjects. And if we "could have solved this between the two of us" what that solution might be? Do you accept that data about 25,000 Hungarians is included or not? PANONIAN  16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you think that I should ask some other users for opinion, you should remember what happened when I done that last time: :)))  PANONIAN  16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look it's your business who you ask for opinions but I don't want to get into a situation where I would need to ask others for opinions too. I do not want to do that. I'd rather we could talk about stuff, without any problems, that's all. And I realized that it already happened, so I wasn't talking about this time. But what happens in the future and asking you if you could avoid this type of stuff in the future or not. Hobartimus (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are free to ask for opinion whom ever you want. Why would I should have any problem with that? PANONIAN  17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources
Well, Hobartimus, you objected that we do not have numbers. So, please see these additional sources that saying that only 25,000 Magyars crossed the Carpatians in the 9th century:
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

So, are you able to "defeat" validity of all these references or not? Due to all this, sentence in the article should say that, according to various sources, between 25,000 and 400,000 Magyars lived in the Principality of Hungary in the 9th-10th century. And in addition, we have now 5 sources with number of 25,000 and only one with number of 400,000, so the number of 25,000 looks like much stronger case here. :) PANONIAN  16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See, this is something we can discuss, let's start with the first one. At your link we can read the 600 000 number as well right below the 25 000 number. But I'm not against adding more estimates but we have to work out some things as well like where to add them in the article, but let's discuss the source a bit more, the source itself mentions the 25 000 number as "excessively low". In other words you made a big misrepresentation above, because a lot of your sources mention 25 000 warriors which doesn't actually contradict a total population of 125 000 (20% militarization like in that example) or 250 000 (10% militarization) or even the 400 000 (in that case only 6,25% would be warriors). What is more your first source talks about 5000 warriors only so all the rest of your sources heavily contradict it :). Not only did you bring a source but you brought many counters to it as well. So this is a very important point not to confuse "warriors" with total population and we shouldn't try to misrepresent the numbers. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this source say "25,000 individuals", not warriors. But, two descriptions are not contradicting one to another. It was common that various early medieval peoples and tribes were composed only of warriors. Even recently, we had Spanish conquistadors who conquered Mexico and married with local women (that is how modern Mestizo people emanated). In fact, it would be quite unlikely that Magyar warriors who came to conquer an land had their women, children and old people in their company. They obviously married local Slavic woman, exactly like Spanish conquistadors. Also, number of 25,000 is not "excessively low" - it is one that could best fit into research results of modern geneticists who claiming that Hungarians are not genetially different from neighboring Slavic peoples. In fact, if number of 25,000 is wrong then entire modern genetic science is wrong too. PANONIAN  17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you read the own source that you link? THAT SOURCE describes the 25 000 number is "excessively low" it is a direct quote from there. Your absurd theories about a population having "only warriors", "like spanish conqustadors" is also directly contradicted and denied by the same source which puts the number of warriors at 5000 while the total at 25000 meaning an 1:5 ratio of warriors to total population. You should at the very least read the sources that you link because writing "not excessively low" is unacceptable when that is exactly what you have linked above. In this all the sources agree, this one states it outright and all the others bring at least five times the numbers (starting at 125 000 total - 25 000 warriors). Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional source (it is the same as PANONIAN's) ; talks about "A total of 600,000 for the total Magyar population settling in the Carpathian Basin between 870 915 AD" So you see 400 000 mentioned by the other source is not something that remarkable indeed... Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Then article description should say between 25,000 and 600,000. This is exactly confirmation that number of 400,000 is not an example of "generally accepted truth". PANONIAN  17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 25 000 number is contradicted by every other source thus far, and is described as "exceedingly low" by the source itself that it's in. That is the exact definition of a WP:FRINGE view, so I cannot accept that number as factual only in a sentence like, (this is just an example) "Some fringe theorists claimed that the total number of Hungarians were 25 000, however this is number is "exceedingly low" and is directly contradicted by accepted research putting the lowest realistic number for the total Hungarian population at 125 000" (5x the 25 000 warriors mentioned earlier). So yes I can accept it as a fringe view as described in the source (exceedingly low). But it cannot go into the article as factual information because it is not. Hobartimus (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way in the same book on page 21 that you quote it is mentioned that the highest estimate for the size of the Hungarian population at the time of the conquest is 1 070 000, which is over a million (Its in Eurasian studies yearbook, Volume 78 page 21.) Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of other data seems to be on page 21, But I can't get the thing to open up the whole page only bits and pieces. Page 21 seems to be where they have a collection of estimates about the size of the population. Other numbers there that I can see include 523 600, 400 000, 120 000, 750 000, the 21th page is titled "Size of the Hungarian population at the time of the conquest", so these are all relevant numbers just can't see the whole page because of the prieview system. Hobartimus (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of Hungarian and German speaking Jews in Hungary 1880-1910
Jews:

1880=624,826

1890=707,961

1900=831,162

1910=911,227

By Language:

1880: 362,399 Hungarian or 58.0%, 216,190 German or 34.6%, 46,237 Other or 7.4%,

1890: 450,971 Hungarian or 63.7%, 233,627 German or 33.0%, 23,363 Other or 3.3%

1900: 594,281 Hungarian or 71.5%, 208,622 German or 25.1%, 28,259 Other or 3.4%

1910: 700,734 Hungarian or 76.9%, 196,825 German or 21.6%, 13,668 Other or 1.5%

The trend is interesting as it shows the increased Magyarization, especially after 1890 with regard to the German-speaking Jewish population being reduced at the expense of the Hungarian-speaking Jewish population. These figures could also be helpful in establishing just how many 'ethnic Hungarians' there were in the pre-WWI census data. Prussia1231 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Source

Unreliable authors
Andrew L. Simon (a "board-certified urologist practicing in Brick, NJ") and A. Pidhainy (who is him?) look like unreliable authors. If there are no counter arguments, I will remove their works from the article. 178.41.146.129 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew L. Simon: "The author, a professor of engineering for 30 years, reviews the status of America's undergraduate education using statistical data and numerous references".. But you are right he isn't a historian or a demographer. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A. Pidhainy is a historian.   Fakirbakir (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, Pidhainy's work has been published in 1966 and the links you have provided are not about the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but about bolshevism (published in 1974 and 1978). This is not a reliable source.--Ditinili (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just provided a source which proved that Pidhainy is a historian. In this topic, studies from historians (and demographers) are regarded as reliable sources. (Identifying reliable sources (history)) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "In this topic" we follow standard rules and recommendations how to evaluate reliability. The referenced work has been published 50 years ago by the author who seems not to be an expert in the area. His qualification in the area of medieval Hungary and demographics really cannot be documented by 2 works about bolshevism. Note: the second one is his thesis/dissertation published in 1978, but the referenced work is from 1966 (12 years earlier). I am not sure if he had any qualification in 1966. Maybe yes, maybe no - I have never heard about him and I cannot find any info. Ditinili (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Sisa does not look like a specialist either. He is not in the staff of an university. I think I am entitled to remove his nationalistic work.195.168.46.162 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, I am going to find out who he is. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stephen Sisa (1918-2012) had a diverse life story. It seems he was a writer and editor at various publications. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not enough. He is not a scholar, so I will remove his book from here. 88.80.225.28 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

POV

 * 1) Other opinions. It does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints. It must be clear also for Hungarian editors, that many non-Hungarian historians can hardly agree with such data as are presented here for middle ages. These views are completely ignored and there is not any mention about existing objections.
 * 2) Sources. Let's look on percents for year 1490. One-half of references are completely outdated, 40-80 years old publications: 1971, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1941 (!!!), 1974. If you exclude these dinosaurs and include also sources as it is recommeded above, it looks very differently.
 * 3) Neutrality. Theories like "According to the demographers, about 80 percent of the population was made up of Hungarians before the Battle of Mohács, however the Hungarian ethnic group became a minority in its own country" sound more like mid-war propaganda than serious analysis. After this complaint, the author remained silent about a minority policy in the 19th century.
 * 4) Fringe theories. Data like "90% of Hungarians in 1490" can be presented only as a some kind of curiosity and with an explanation. Where did all other nationalities live? Where are Germans, Slovaks, Romanians and Ruthenians, etc? Are they in remaining 10%?--Ditinili (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"90% of Hungarians in 1490" I don't think that the medievalist George Richard Potter's opinion is fringe.... Anyway, why don't you contribute in the article instead of senseless accusations. ALL estimations are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Domokos Kosáry (the author of the study from 1941) is definitely NOT a dinosaur, it seems you are just trying to discredit some well-known historians. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, I have specific objections (e.g. missing opposite views) not "seemless accusations". Of course, it is unfortunate to cite work from 1941, because such old publication obviously cannot reflect any later research.Ditinili (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute in the article to present "opposite" views. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recommendation, I will.Ditinili (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120519001208/http://www.nepszamlalas2001.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_30_1.html to http://www.nepszamlalas2001.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_30_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970204103909/http://www.feefhs.org/banat/bhistory.html to http://feefhs.org/BANAT/BHISTORY.HTML
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5n51MSF7t?url=http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_26.html to http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_26.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502074726/http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/migration/15-19/gr/v2/central_europe.html to http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/migration/15-19/gr/v2/central_europe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502074707/http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/migration/15-19/gr/v2/mayar.html to http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/migration/15-19/gr/v2/mayar.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Census
ZZARZY223,

still disagree why we should arbitrarily grab just to census data...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I apologize for the lateness of my response. I was wondering if we could also add the evolution of the ethnic composition through the years reported by the offical censuses. (ZZARZY223 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700, Rhoads Murphey, 1999
KIENGIR,

the loss of population prodouced by the Ottoman–Hungarian wars and the ethnic changes are still debated by historians, and calling the claims of Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700 by Rhoads Murphey "unrelated speculation about demographics", while accepting the ones of this source ONE LAND — TWO NATIONS TRANSYLVANIA AND THE THEORY OF DACO-ROMAN-RUMANIAN CONTINUITY as valid is unfair, considering that the second source doesn't mention any numerical estimation at all about the population before and after those wars, giving very vague explanations about the sudden increase of ethnic Romanians in Transylvania ("The cause of this was mainly the immigration of peasants from Muntenia and Moldavia, the Rumanian countries, where they lived in squalor, being exploited bythe Turks as well as by their own lords."- if the population of Transylvania was mainly Hungarian before the Battle of Mohacs, that would mean that a massive emigration hit both Wallachia and Moldova for almost 3 centuries - which is not mentioned by any source, unlike that of the Great Migrations of the Serbs, for example - for Romanians to be just 40% of the population in the 1700s as claimed by the source, and then 60% as reported by official censuses from the 19th century, and then suddenly a great increase in percentage of Hungarians as reported by all the censuses from 1850 to 1910), and other affirmations that are not accepted by all historians regarding the Daco-Roman continuity. Also I would like to know the "problematic parts" of Murphey's work. (ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC))
 * It's not about acceptance or not, the whole addition is an unrelated, unnecessary speculation, this section is about something else, do not compare it it to anything other. Does not give really anything to the issue, subject about Romanians, etc., hence inclusion is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Murphey in his work explains how the population of Transylvania didn't have a huge growth during the Ottoman occupation, which was needed if Romanians overtook numerically the Hungarian population (since, as claimed by Murphey, the pre existing population wasn't as much affected, because the losses regarded mainly the military rather than the general population), and the inclusion of that part is related to the claiming, reported in this section, that Romanians overnumbered the ethnic Hungarians after the Battle of Mohacs, in a very short time. Why should be Murphey's claimings considered a speculation, while the claiming that the the "Hungarian ethnic group in Transylvania was in decent majority before Battle of Mohács and only lost its relative majority by the 17th century" is not? (ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC))
 * What you are speculating here seems OR, you are trying to assert and use two different source's content and contradict them. Here in this section, if both point of view is represented about population statistics, it's enough, this section should not serve of endless speculations of when who was the majority or not. Btw., population may not change just by military casualties, and also other nations's would be also part of this equation regarding the Ottoman wars, this is out of scope. Hence no consensus for this addition, different estimations are already present.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC))

Name
L'grand Anonim,

please try to understand you don't have to demonstrate that the name Oláh what means or whatsoever, please avoid WP:NOR, we summarize what the source says.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Iconian42,
 * per the discussion you may refer, I'll react here better
 * - I disagree, there is no bias, these are statistical data, within the article's scope
 * - it is not so clear, since refugees have been also, of course this does not exclude later others left the country for several other reason
 * - no, the user as well mistaked percentages and dates
 * - well it seems
 * - yes

 * On the further,not all of them were annexations, and disagree adding estimates and detailed other stuff, which is out of scope, the concise mention of the censuses is enough, no consenesus for these changes.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

As they were citizens of Hungary before 1920, just like the 3,425,000 ethnic Hungarians found themselves separated from their motherland. Citizenship is not limited to ethnicity.
 * - It is very clear, the term has a specific definition in English, which does not apply to that case. I don't understand what you mean by the rest of your sentnece, refugees have been also whom? who are the later others what what are those several other reasons?
 * - She did not. The estimations were made in 1940, by the Romanians pre-Vienna and the Hungarians post-Vienna. And the percentage she came up with are correct. Anyway, in my edit, instead of the 1940 Hungarian estimations I used the 1940 Romanian estimations and 1941 Hungarian census, I also took the time to explain why there is such a huge difference between the two. Would you be okay with that?
 * - I'll add the name then. Iconian42 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Nobody said that citizenship would equal ethnicity, these article is mainly about Hungary and Hungarians, so the scope correlates to that
 * - There were refugees who fled. There were also other subjects who fled several reason, i.e. persecution, or just decided to leave for several other reasons
 * - I don't argue on this, it is a fact the user's contribution has been more times corrected. As I said, no because the best concise form to mention the two official censuses, anything further detailed is out of scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

 * - Fleeing doesn't automatically make you a refugee, you have to flee because your life is in danger, otherwise you relocated. Unless the article contains sources about the Hungarians in question fleeing because they were forced to or their life was in danger, we cannot conclude that they were refugees. Discrimination, while terrible, does not mean your life is in danger.
 * - It is also a fact that the percentages and dates were correct. So the fault is of those who "corrected" it more times. The best concise form is to present the numbers closest to the year the change happened, which is 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Iconian42 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Nobody said it is limited, in fact, the description has more information
 * - It seems that is in the source
 * - I really don't know what you are talkung about the diffs prove what I said, fault cannot be on anyone who correct mistakes. The further is your opinion, official censuses have more weight than estimations
 * - yes(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

 * - Although a refugee is someone who leaves either by force or because he is not safe there (ethnic cleansing or war), if that's what the source says the source won't be questioned.
 * - Which diffs? If you were the one who were correcting them, you weren't correcting mistakes. An official state estimation from 1940 has more weight than an official census from 1930 when the point of interest is the population of 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the diffs made on that section by the account L'grand Anonim clearly attest the happenings as I described, and yes I corrected mistakes, and I won't reiterate anymore obviously verifiable happenigs. For the rest, this is your opinion, btw, there is no settlement of such point of interest.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

What is the problem with L'grand Anonim's diffs? as I described, he was correct about percentages and dates. While your description on the other hand, is wrong. You don't seem to offer any specific reasoning for the removal of his contribution. Just because it seems "obvious" to you it doesn't mean it's correct, it simply means you have an opinion, which in this particular case is wrong. It's not my opinion, it's simply being on topic. The sub-section of the article are about the demograhpic changes in Hungary caused by the two Vienna Awards in 1938 and 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Hungary"
Template:Largest cities of Hungary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of Hungary - Ethnic Map - 1495.jpg

title: Talk:Demographics of Hungary


text: Category:Mathematics awards

title: Category:Mathematics awards


text:
Clarkstown radio transmitter

The Clarkstown radio transmitter was a longwave radio transmitter in County Meath, Ireland. The mast was located approximately 3.5 km east of the village of Summerhill, in a field south of the R156 regional road at Clarkstown. At 248 metres high, it was more than double the height of the Spire in Dublin.

History
Constructed in 1988 for the transmission of Atlantic 252 on 252 kHz, it used one 248-metre (814') high guyed steel framework mast with triangular cross section, insulated from ground. The original transmitters were two 300 kilowatt Continental transmitters built by Varian Associates of Dallas. These were replaced in 2007 by a single 300 kilowatt Transradio TRAM 300L transmitter. The ground around the mast and the entire transmission site bed are lined with copper for conductivity. The site has an ITU-cleared transmission power of 500 kW by day and 100 kW at night but was later only capable of operating at 300 kW by day and 100 kW at night.

Atlantic 252 ceased operations on 2 January 2002 and sports radio station TEAMtalk 252 briefly took over the frequency for a few months in 2002. The transmitter was later taken over by RTÉ Networks Limited (now 2RN). It was used for the AM version of RTÉ Radio 1 on 252 kHz from 2004 to 2023, and was the sole source of RTÉ Radio 1 on AM from 24 March 2008, when the medium wave Tullamore transmitter on 567 kHz was taken off air., to 2023.

In 2007, the transmitter was carrying a Digital Radio Mondiale multiplex overnight, featuring Radio 1, RTÉ Digital Radio Sport, RTÉ Digital Radio News and the World Radio Network, before reverting to AM transmission for the daytime. DRM tests since ceased, with AM transmissions operating full-time once again until closedown in 2023.

On 24 September 2014, RTÉ announced that broadcasting of RTÉ Radio 1 on 252 kHz would cease on 27 October 2014, however following representations from Irish listeners in the UK and others, that date was postponed. On 31 March 2023, RTÉ announced that the longwave service would be discontinued on 14 April of that year. As planned, this did happen.

The mast was felled on Thursday 27 July 2023.

Timeline

 * 1988: Construction of Clarkstown Transmitter by Radio Tara (RTÉ/RTL)
 * 1989: Launch of Atlantic 252 on 1 September 1989, a pop music station aimed at UK and Irish market
 * 2002: 2 January, closure of Atlantic 252
 * 2002: 11 March, launch of TEAMtalk 252, aimed at UK and Irish market
 * 2002: 30 June, TEAMtalk 252 closes
 * 2002: RTÉ take over the running of the Clarkstown Transmitter following demise of TEAMtalk
 * 2004: January, official launch of RTÉ Radio 1 on Long Wave
 * 2004: While the Tullamore transmitter was offline for maintenance Clarkstown provided Radio 1's AM service
 * 2007: Major upgrade of transmitter
 * 2007: RTÉ runs DRM tests, in parallel with analogue AM service
 * 2008: 24 March, closure of RTÉ Medium Wave service leaving 252 Long Wave as the only AM Broadcast by RTÉ. Services which were on Medium Wave transferred to Long Wave.
 * 2008: 1 December, launch of RTÉ Radio 1 Extra which was extra content not broadcast on FM was now relayed on Long Wave 252
 * 2014: RTÉ announces plans to close Long Wave 252, September 2014
 * 2014: RTÉ postpones closure plans until 2017
 * 2017: RTÉ announce a further postponement of closure plans until June 2019
 * 2019: Oireachtas Communications Committee announce the rebuilding of the antenna system and postponement of closure plans at least until 2021
 * 2023: March 31, RTÉ announces the closure of 252 kHz
 * 2023: April 15, RTÉ stops broadcasting on long wave
 * 2023: July 27, The Clarkstown Mast is demolished

title: Clarkstown radio transmitter


text: User talk:203.135.0.66

title: User talk:203.135.0.66


text:
William LeMessurier

William "Bill" James LeMessurier, Jr. (June 12, 1926 – June 14, 2007) was a prominent American structural engineer.

Early life and education
Born in Pontiac, Michigan, Bill was the youngest of four children of Bertha (Sherman) and William James LeMessurier Sr., owners of a dry cleaning business. After finishing high school, he left Michigan to major in Mathematics at Harvard College. He graduated with an AB in Mathematics in 1947, then went to Harvard Graduate School of Design. He later transferred to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned his Master's Degree in building engineering and construction in 1953.

Career
While at MIT, LeMessurier worked for Albert Goldberg, an established Boston structural engineer; eventually LeMessurier became a partner and the firm was renamed Goldberg-LeMessurier Associates. In April 1961, the two separated and Bill launched his firm LeMessurier Consultants.

LeMessurier was responsible for the structural engineering on a large number of prominent buildings, including Boston City Hall, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Singapore Treasury Building, and the Dallas Main Center.

LeMessurier is perhaps best known for his role during the Citicorp Center engineering crisis, when he secretly reassessed his calculations on the Citicorp headquarters tower in New York City after the building had been finished in 1977. In June 1978, Princeton University engineering student Diane Hartley contacted LeMessurier's office after she identified winds that could topple the building under certain circumstances. Later, another young student, Lee deCarolis, prompted LeMessurier to redo his analysis. He discovered that the contractor had replaced the required welded joints with lower-cost, and potentially weaker bolted joints. This weakness could contribute to the building collapsing in "quartering" winds. This realization triggered a hurried, clandestine retrofit which was described in a 1995 article in The New Yorker entitled "The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis". The case is now an ethical case-study in architectural degree programs.

Awards
He was awarded the AIA Allied Professions Medal in 1968, elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1978, elected an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects in 1988, and elected an honorary member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1989. In 1999, he received the American Institute of Steel Construction's J. Lloyd Kimbrough Award, its highest honor. In 2004, he was elevated to National Honor Member of Chi Epsilon, the national civil engineering honor society.

Death
LeMessurier died in Casco, Maine, on June 14, 2007, as a result of complications after surgery he underwent on June 1 after a fall the day before.

title: William LeMessurier


text:
Ngāi Tūhoe

Ngāi Tūhoe, often known simply as Tūhoe, is a Māori iwi of New Zealand. It takes its name from an ancestral figure, Tūhoe-pōtiki. Tūhoe is a Māori-language word meaning 'steep' or 'high noon'. Tūhoe people also bear the sobriquet Nga Tamariki o te Kohu ('the children of the mist'). Tūhoe traditional land is at Te Urewera (the former Te Urewera National Park) in the eastern North Island, a steep, heavily forested area which includes Lake Waikaremoana. Tūhoe traditionally relied on the forest for their needs. The tribe had its main centres of population in the small mountain valleys of Ahikereru and Ruatāhuna, with Maungapohatu, the inner sanctum of the Urewera, as their sacred mountain. The Tūhoe country had a great reputation among the neighbouring tribes as a graveyard for invading forces.

Tūhoe people have a reputation for their continued strong adherence to Māori identity and for their unbroken use of the Māori language, which 62% of them still speak (2018 figure). Of the Tūhoe people, estimated to number between 33,000 and 46,000, about 30 per cent still live on their tribal lands; most of the rest live in towns on the fringes of Te Urewera and in the larger North Island cities. At least 5,000 live in Australia. Subtribes of Tūhoe include Ngāti Koura, Ngāti Rongo, Ngāti Tāwhaki, Tamakaimoana, Ngāti Whare, Te Whānau Pani, Ngāti Hinekura and Patuheuheu.

The Tūhoe continue to maintain camps in Te Urewera and help run conservation programmes for endangered birds, such as the North Island brown kiwi and the North Island kōkako. Many Tūhoe return to their homelands every two years for the Te Hui Ahurei ā Tūhoe (Tūhoe Festival), which features kapa haka, debates, sports competitions, and fashion shows. The event provides an important opportunity to maintain ties with friends and relatives.

19th century
Tūhoe had little direct contact with the early European settlers. The first major contact occurred when the iwi fought against the settler government in the battle of Ōrākau in 1864. Rewi Maniapoto, who had some tribal links to Tūhoe, visited the Urewera in 1862 and persuaded them to take part in the rebellion against the government; he went against the wishes of some of the elders. Initially reluctant, the Tūhoe gave Rewi ammunition to back the rebellion. During a cease-fire in the Battle of Orakau, under a flag of truce, Gilbert Mair, a translator, was shot in the shoulder by a Tūhoe warrior. Nearly all the Tūhoe at the battle were killed.

The following year authorities accused the Tūhoe of sheltering Kereopa Te Rau, a Hauhau wanted for killing and beheading Karl Volkner, a missionary of the Church Missionary Society, in what was called the Volkner Incident. Initially, the Tūhoe had cooperated in tracking down the Hauhau leader and had taken him prisoner. The Tūhoe tried to use him as a bargaining chip but the government demanded Te Rau be handed over for trial. After the Tūhoe released him, Te Rau hid in the Ureweras. As punishment, in 1866 the government confiscated 5700ha or about 7% of Tūhoe land on its northern coastal border. The confiscated Tūhoe land adjoined the land confiscated from Bay of Plenty rebels after the battle of Gate Pā. The Crown took the Tūhoe's only substantial flat, fertile land, which also provided their only access to the coast for kai moana (sea food). The Tūhoe people retained only interior, more difficult land, setting the scene for later famines.

In 1868, Tūhoe sheltered the Māori leader Te Kooti, a fugitive who had escaped from imprisonment on the Chatham Islands. Te Kooti arrived in the area with a large group of escaped convicts, fully armed with modern weapons he had stolen from the ship he had hijacked. It is doubtful that the Tūhoe could have resisted his demands for sanctuary. Some Tūhoe joined his armed Ringatū band, but other Tūhoe told government forces of Te Kooti's whereabouts. Some joined the armed forces to hunt him down. Government forces punished those Tūhoe who supported Te Kooti during the manhunt. Te Ara, the Online Encyclopedia of New Zealand, notes:

"Old enemies of Tūhoe fought on the side of the government; they carried out most of the raids into Te Urewera during a prolonged and destructive search between 1869 and 1872. In a policy aimed at turning the tribe away from Te Kooti, a scorched earth campaign was unleashed against Tūhoe; people were imprisoned and killed, their cultivations and homes destroyed, and stock killed or runoff. Through starvation, deprivation and atrocities at the hands of the government’s Māori forces, Tūhoe submitted to the Crown."

Te Kooti himself escaped to the King Country, and after the events surrounding the hunt for him, Tūhoe isolated themselves, closing off access to their lands by refusing to sell, lease or survey them, and blocking the building of roads.

Twenty years later, Te Urewera leaders, Premier Seddon, and Native Affairs Minister Timi (James) Carroll negotiated the 1896 "Urewera District Native Reserve Act" (UDNR). It provided for Tūhoe self-government through a General Committee and local committees, with the Native Land Court excluded and titles determined instead by a commission comprising two Pākehā and five Tūhoe commissioners. In practice however, the Crown through a mixture of ineptitude and bad-faith "...totally failed to give effect to its promises in the UDNR Act; failed to act fairly, reasonably, and honourably...and failed to protect the Treaty rights of all the peoples of Te Urewera..."

1916 police raid
Historian James Belich describes the Urewera as one of the last zones of Māori autonomy, and the scene of the last case of armed Māori resistance: the 1916 New Zealand Police raid to arrest the Tūhoe prophet Rua Kenana.

On 2 April 1916 a 70-strong, and heavily armed, police party arrived at Maungapohatu to arrest him for sedition. Because Rua's village was so remote, the police had to take a lot of equipment and camped on the way. They moved like a small army with wagons and pack-horses, and included New Zealand Herald photographer Arthur Breckon. So as not to alert the Maungapohatu village of their intention to spring an attack they did not wear their police uniforms till just before the raid. They were convinced that when they reached Maungapohatu there would be an ambush.

There was no violent resistance from Rua personally, but his supporters fought a brisk half-hour gun battle with the police in which two Māori, including Rua's son Toko, were killed and two wounded. Four constables were also wounded. Rua was arrested and transported to Rotorua, his hair and beard removed. From Rotorua, with six other Māori prisoners including Whatu, Rua was transferred to Auckland and sent directly to Mount Eden prison. Rua was held, at first, on a nine months sentence imposed for the 1915 charges and now increased by his default of fines. After a trial on sedition which lasted 47 days, New Zealand's longest until 1977, he was found not guilty; but sentenced to one year's imprisonment for resisting the police.

Twentieth century
Significant European penetration did not occur in the Urewera district until the 20th century. A road was built by the government from Rotorua to Ruatāhuna in 1901 to end the isolation of Tūhoe by opening up the first motor road.

Tūhoe did eventually realise, especially in the Great Depression, that to develop their local economy they needed good roads to the outside world. They donated some land for road rights of way. As early as 1906, Tūhoe had given land for roads and offered free labour to assist in the construction, but building arterial roads in the Ureweras had a low government priority. In the early 1900s traces of gold were found in the Ureweras and Rua Te Kanana tried to sell illegal mining rights to raise money. At the same time Rua wished to sell very large areas of land to the government to raise funds for his new Jerusalem, but despite having a petition signed by every Tūhoe adult, the government insisted that he stick to the law.

In the 1920s Gordon Coates, Minister of Public Works, went to the area to check its suitability for a railway and to discuss roads. The land was very steep with the Poverty Bay Herald describing the gradient as "one in nothing". Coates knew that by this time, Tūhoe refused to make any contribution to the road at all. The mountainous terrain was daunting for farming. Tūhoe could not accumulate any capital to develop land they had cleared from 1907. Instead they sold all their sheep and cattle to pay for legal costs. These debts were not paid until 1931.

In the early 1930s the government helped develop Tūhoe land at both Ruatoki and Ruatāhuna. It understood that, like many New Zealanders in the Great Depression, Tūhoe had hard times. In 1934 a teacher wrote that "they have no money apart from what is given by government as Family Allowances and Old Age Pensions". A 1936 report noted that land development at Maungapohatu Mountain (a Ringatu stronghold) "would be a social success if undertaken". The report pointed out that the venture would probably fail if Tūhoe were required to pay back both the interest and the capital. In 1937, after several other studies, the government decided that it was uneconomic to invest in roads or settlements. By this time, the isolated Maungapohatu settlement had collapsed anyway.

Late 20th and early 21st century
The Tūhoe population was always small and living conditions were poor. School records from the 1920s and 1930s show very high death rates, especially of children. 75% of those who died were people under 25. The main causes of death were infectious diseases, such as influenza, gastroenteritis, typhoid fever and whooping cough. Between 1924 and 1936, the Depression period, 57 people died in a community of 30 families.

From the late 1990s, some Tūhoe started identifying as the "Tūhoe nation", and emphasising widespread Tūhoe rejection of what they call Pākehā rule. It has been argued that because no Tūhoe or Tūhoe representative ever signed the Treaty of Waitangi, they never gave up their sovereignty.

Tūhoe and other local iwi brought the Urewera claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in 2002, with submissions accepted up until 2005.

2007 police raid
There was a major armed-police raid in the Ureweras on 15 October 2007 amid claims that some Tūhoe had run terrorist training-camps there. Roadblocks were set up between Ruatoki and Taneatua by armed police, who searched and questioned everyone who passed through, including a school bus,  and locals said they felt intimidated.

No terrorism charges were laid, and the Police Commissioner Howard Broad later publicly apologised for the actions of his officers during the raid, acknowledging they had set back relations between police and Tūhoe people: "We regret the hurt and stress caused to the community of Ruatoki and we will seek an appropriate way to repair the damage done to police-Maori relations. History tells us that episodes such as this can and do take decades to heal." A 2013 IPCA review found "...police searches, vehicle stops, roadblocks and photographs taken in Tuhoe country on October 15, 2007, unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable."

Waitangi settlement
A final settlement was signed in June 2013, after being ratified by all Tūhoe members. Under the deal, Tūhoe received financial, commercial and cultural redress valued at approximately $170 million; an historical account and Crown apology; and the co-governance of a new legal entity, Te Urewera. It was put into law by the passing of the "Tūhoe Claims Settlement Act 2014".

Ngāti Koura
Ngāti Koura is a hapu (subtribe) in the eastern Bay of Plenty in the North Island of New Zealand. Two marae are traditionally associated with Ngāti Koura: Otenuku and Te Papakainga. Otenuku marae is the site of Te Tapuwae, a cemetery in which many tribal chiefs of Tūhoe are buried.

title: Ngāi Tūhoe


text:
Berrylands

Berrylands is a residential neighbourhood in Surbiton, London, originally forming part of the Municipal Borough of Surbiton, and since 1965 part of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. It is a suburban development situated 10.1 mi south west of Charing Cross. Nearby places include Surbiton, New Malden, Old Malden, Tolworth and Chessington. Berrylands railway station is 24 minutes from London Waterloo by train.

History
Berrylands is a settlement of Anglo-Saxon origin that is close to the Thames. Berrylands originally formed part of the Municipal Borough of Surbiton, however in 1965 it was incorporated as part of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. Most of the present housing development took place in the 1930s on the former Berrylands Farm.

Old Maps from the 1860s show the western banks of the Hogsmill River and everything around them to be mostly empty apart from a few small trails and farm buildings with no evidence of real human settlement. In addition the area had absolutely no annotations of the word Berrylands to mark the area. In the late 19th and early 20th century the only prominent structure was the Regent House. It was the main building of Berrylands Farm.

The land was developed around the early 1930s and was complemented in 1933 with the opening of Berrylands Station. The construction of all the homes in one go was the reason why they all look similar. The Regent House was demolished to make way for new housing, with the street where the building used to stand appropriately being named Regent Road and in some gardens, parts of the regent house's foundation are still visible.

The Surbiton Lagoon lido opened in 1934, but later closed in 1980, and then demolished at the end of the decade. This area was subsequently transformed into a park now owned and managed by Kingston Council, known as Berrylands Park, with a small area to the south developed into housing, creating Meldone Close. By Meldone Close a small car park was also constructed.

Etymology
Berrylands is a place-name that misleadingly suggests "land where berries grow". It actually means "land on a tumulus or hill", from Old English beorg (modern dialectal "barrow" meaning "hill"), cognate with Old Norse bergr, bjorgr and borgr which mean the same thing, and Old English land ("land"). The name was recorded as Berilendes in 1126, and as Berulind in 1148 (wrongly suggesting Old English lindr "lime-tree" as the second element), and more recently as Barrilands in 1378, which shows the true origin as being from Old English beorg. The name has occasionally been mistaken as meaning the bottom of the hill as opposed to the hill itself.

In a sense, the name corresponds to the modern English "Hill Farm", a common name for farms (and some new residences) across the United Kingdom.

Housing, shops and transport
There are four separate parades of shops. These are Alexandra Drive, Berrylands Road, Chiltern Drive and a smaller parade along Surbiton Hill Park. Chiltern Drive is at the centre of Berrylands, and houses over 22 businesses as well as the Berrylands public house, ‘The Berrylands’, known locally as 'The Berry'. The shops were built in the 1930s, and currently consist of a newsagents, doctors surgery, hairdressers, beauty salon, CCTV shop, barbers, coffee shop, printer and bookshop, as well as the Berrylands railway station.

The neighbourhood is primarily residential. It houses a large commuter population using Transport for London travel routes, including two bus routes, the K2 and 665, and the Berrylands, Surbiton or Tolworth links to London Waterloo.

The majority of houses in the neighbourhood were built in the 1930s and have features typically found in housing stock of the inter-war period. Although most houses are semi-detached there are also many detached properties and a small number of flats. On the fork of Grand Avenue and Elmbridge Avenue, there is a cluster of Modernist Art Deco houses, built as part of the Parkside estate in 1934 (developer Bell). There's also a little variety in architecture with small flat blocks on Surbiton Hill Park just north of the railway station.

Geography
Berrylands Station is the closest station to the sports ground of the London School of Economics and Political Science, which is in New Malden. There is a large water treatment plant on the opposite side of the railway. There are two large parks in Berrylands - Fishponds and Alexandra Park. Additionally nearby there is Green Lane park which is officially located within New Malden, however most locals consider it to be within Berrylands.

Rivers
The Hogsmill River marks much of the border between Berrylands and New Malden. There is also its small tributary, a man-made brook which runs through the nature reserve on the site of the former Surbiton Lagoon and through Alexandra Park before leaving the neighbourhood.

Raeburn open Space
In 2017 The Environment Trust acquired a grant for £168,000 from Thames Water, to support a three-year community project enhancing the river habitat, creating wetland habitat, and improving the undermanaged woodland. In July 2018 a footbridge was opened to create a nature trail into previously inaccessible corners of the nature reserve. The Small River running through the nature reserves had some changes done to it, there were blocks of dirt placed in corners of the river to make it meander more and the weirs were removed. This was done to allow the fish within the river further down stream to be able to freely swim across the whole river.

The nature reserve had existed prior to 2017 but it was just a small park, with the river and some trees. Additionally there were some pathways on either side of the river bank but the only bridge was at the edge of the nature reserve at Stirling Walk. Also the Berrylands Scout Camp was situated at the edge of the nature reserve by the bridge and the scouts often used the field in that nature reserve for games. Adjacent to Raeburn open space was Berrylands Park, the former site of the Surbiton Lagoon.

Rose Walk Nature Reserve
There is another small nature reserve just south of the railway line at the corner of Raeburn Avenue and Surbiton Hill Park called Rose Walk Nature Reserve. It has had no large investment and is more of just a small green area where people can walk their dogs and be around nature. Its only fault being it is directly south of the South Western Main line which generates a lot of noise.

Education
There are a two main schools in Berrylands, these being Christ Church Primary School and Grand Avenue Primary School. Grand Avenue according to official boundaries is within Tolworth however is widely recognised alongside all the housing around it to be a part of Berrylands and most students of the school reside there.

Sport
The Surbiton Racket and Fitness club on Berrylands was established in 1881 - the club was founded and was known as the Berrylands Lawn Tennis Club. There were 200 members and 11 grass courts. Directly Adjacent to the Grass courts are a variety of clay courts often used by Christ Church Primary School directly south of it. Also on the other side of the grass courts there's a building which contains various squash courts which are also used occasionally by the nearby school. In Grand Avenue Primary school there's a swimming pool which on top of serving both schools in Berrylands, also does private lessons.

Berrylands Festival
Each year the local scout group organises a summer festival opposite their scout hut on the site of the old Surbiton Lagoon, now known by Kingston Council as Berrylands Park.

title: Berrylands


text:
USU

USU or Usu may refer to:
 * Universal Student Unionism (Australia)
 * Usu (mortar), a Japanese mortar

Science and Technology

 * Unseptunium, a hypothetical chemical element with symbol Usu

Universities

 * Universidade Santa Úrsula (Brazil)
 * Utah State University (Logan, Utah)
 * Ulyanovsk State University (Ulyanovsk, Russia)
 * Uniformed Services University
 * University of Sydney Union
 * Ural State University aka Ural A.M. Gorky State University (Russia)
 * United States University
 * Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, a state university in Uttarakhand, India
 * University of North Sumatra in Medan, Indonesia

Places

 * Mount Usu, a volcanic mountain in Hokkaido, Japan
 * Ushu, a mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre, called in the Amarna Letters Usu
 * Wusu, a city in Xinjiang, China
 * Francisco B. Reyes Airport, serving Coron and Busuanga Island, Palawan Province, Philippines (IATA code USU)

Computers

 * USU Software, a German software and IT business
 * USU (operating system), a Bulgarian linux distribution

title: USU


text: User talk:81.109.165.33

title: User talk:81.109.165.33


text:
Tindersticks (1995 album)

Tindersticks is the second album by the British alternative band Tindersticks, released in 1995. It is often referred to as The Second Tindersticks Album to distinguish it from the band's first album, which was also called Tindersticks. It reached no. 13 in the UK Album Chart.

On 17 September 2006, the album was performed live in its entirety at the Barbican Centre in London, as part of the All Tomorrow's Parties-curated Don't Look Back series. The concert was the last time the original six members of Tindersticks played together.

Recording
The band chose Conny's Studios in Cologne after a recommendation from Blixa Bargeld when Tindersticks were supporting Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds on their tour of the UK in 1993. The group spent a week at Conny's Studios in May 1994 where most of the backing tracks for the album were recorded. On their return to London they enlisted the help of Terry Edwards for the string arrangements: "Sleepy Song" was recorded on a single microphone in one night at Abbey Road Studios on 30 June 1994, and the string sections were recorded a few days later at the same studio. The remaining recording sessions for vocals and additional instruments were done at Orinoco Studios in early July, and the album was mixed during July and August 1994 by the band and their engineer Ian Caple at the house the band shared, and at Studio 3 of Townhouse Studios.

Release
The album was released in April 1995 on This Way Up in the UK and in August 1995 on London Records in the US As with their first and third albums, a remastered edition was released on Island Records in 2004 as a two-CD version, featuring the original album on the first disc and the live album The Bloomsbury Theatre 12.3.95 on the second disc.

The album's first single, "No More Affairs", was accompanied by a video filmed at the Rivoli Ballroom in south-east London, and second single "Travelling Light" is a duet between Tindersticks' singer Stuart Staples and Carla Torgerson of The Walkabouts. The track "My Sister" features a spoken monologue from Isabel Monteiro, singer of the band Drugstore.

Artwork
The album's artwork features black and white photographs of the band being fitted for suits at Timothy Everest's atelier in London; the front cover shows guitarist Neil Fraser. The band's keyboard and accordion player David Boulter recalled in 2003 that "we'd always worn very ill-fitting second-hand suits, shirts, whatever, and, as a treat for our hard work, we arranged to have a tailor-made suit each. I could never be seen without my Timothy Everest suit for a long time after. Phil Nicholls took photos of the fitting, which became the sleeve."

Critical reception
Like its predecessor, the album was well received by the critics. AllMusic said "Tindersticks' second consecutive, eponymously titled double-LP set refines the approach of their debut; while every bit as ambitious and adventuresome, it achieves an even greater musical balance, stretching into luxuriously long compositional structures and more intricate arrangements ... Another awesome triumph of mood and atmosphere."

Rolling Stone proclaimed that "their music is frequently as beautiful as it is brooding, and in the space between lies its enigmatic, enduring appeal".

NME wrote that "time and again the 'Sticks weld crashing orchestral drapes onto the sparsest acoustic frames. What with Stuart Staples' inchoate mumbles veering towards the realms of self-parody, the initial impact is so understated as to be infuriating. Before long, however, the music's sheer otherworldly beauty acts like a virus and we're locked in, transfixed by the dreadful acts being perpetrated to and by these songs' characters ... the key to this immense, beguiling record: you can't aspire to Heaven unless you're well aware of Hell."

Melody Maker stated, "It's hard to explain just what a marvellous piece of work this record is ...The Tindersticks' Second Album contains gentle, tender crucifixions, nails through your heart, administered by a loving hand. Also the record is uncommonly beautiful. It has the unexpected contours and sudden perception-changing angles of the most dangerous and heart-stopping faces ... Tindersticks create cameos of such detail, such fidelity, that at moments you wonder if they have spies in every bedroom in the land. Like the lover it documents, The Tindersticks' Second Album is ravishing and complex, inexplicable and contradictory. It is compassionate and merciless. Gorgeous as sin. Buy it because you'll love it. Keep it because one day you'll need it."

Accolades
Melody Maker ranked the album at no. 5 in their critics' list of the best albums of 1995. NME placed the album at no. 13 in their equivalent list.

Track listing
All songs written and arranged by Tindersticks.

 * 1) "El Diablo en el Ojo" – 3:32
 * 2) "A Night In" – 6:25
 * 3) "My Sister" – 8:11
 * 4) "Tiny Tears" – 5:45
 * 5) "Snowy in F♯ Minor" – 2:28
 * 6) "Seaweed" – 5:14
 * 7) "Vertrauen II" – 3:19
 * 8) "Talk to Me" – 5:00
 * 9) "No More Affairs" – 3:49
 * 10) "Singing" – 0:57
 * 11) "Travelling Light" – 4:51
 * 12) "Cherry Blossoms" – 4:19
 * 13) "She's Gone" – 3:29
 * 14) "Mistakes" – 5:44
 * 15) "Vertrauen III" – 2:20
 * 16) "Sleepy Song" – 4:37

Additional personnel

 * Ben Chappell – cello on "My Sister"
 * Terry Edwards – trumpets, saxophones and French horns
 * Biff Harrison – saw on "My Sister" and "Vertrauen III"
 * Mike Kearsey – trombone on "My Sister"
 * Isabel Monteiro – whisper on "My Sister"
 * Carla Torgerson – duet vocals on "Travelling Light"
 * Sendrine – French translation and narration on "Mistakes"
 * String quartet on "El Diablo en el Ojo" and "She's Gone", arranged by Tindersticks and Terry Edwards:
 * Ann Louise Child, Calina de la Mare, Lucy Wilkins and Sarah Wilson
 * String section on "A Night In", "Tiny Tears", "Talk to Me", "Travelling Light" and "Mistakes", arranged by Tindersticks and Terry Edwards, organised and conducted by Rosie Lindsell:
 * Violins – Heather Broadbent, Vic Evans, Zillah Hawley, Suzanna Horne, Tanja Housten, Becky Leetch, Caroline Luckhurst, Kate MacKenzie, Suzannah Marsden, Jeff Moore, Julie Nicholau, Louise Walters, Amanda Westgarth and Lucy Wilkins
 * Violas – Hannah Bliss, Maritza Bulcock, Ann Louise Child, Kate Fraser and Samie Pullman
 * Cellos – Clare Parkholm, Annabelle Simmons, Andrew Skrimshire and Sarah Wilson

NB: Some names are misspelled on the credits on the album sleeve.

title: Tindersticks (1995 album)