text:
Japanese writing system

The modern Japanese writing system uses a combination of logographic kanji, which are adopted Chinese characters, and syllabic kana. Kana itself consists of a pair of syllabaries: hiragana, used primarily for native or naturalized Japanese words and grammatical elements; and katakana, used primarily for foreign words and names, loanwords, onomatopoeia, scientific names, and sometimes for emphasis. Almost all written Japanese sentences contain a mixture of kanji and kana. Because of this mixture of scripts, in addition to a large inventory of kanji characters, the Japanese writing system is considered to be one of the most complicated currently in use.

Several thousand kanji characters are in regular use, which mostly originate from traditional Chinese characters. Others made in Japan are referred to as "Japanese kanji" (和製漢字), also known as "[our] country's kanji" (国字). Each character has an intrinsic meaning (or range of meanings), and most have more than one pronunciation, the choice of which depends on context. Japanese primary and secondary school students are required to learn 2,136 jōyō kanji as of 2010. The total number of kanji is well over 50,000, though this includes tens of thousands of characters only present in historical writings and never used in modern Japanese.

In modern Japanese, the hiragana and katakana syllabaries each contain 46 basic characters, or 71 including diacritics. With one or two minor exceptions, each different sound in the Japanese language (that is, each different syllable, strictly each mora) corresponds to one character in each syllabary. Unlike kanji, these characters intrinsically represent sounds only; they convey meaning only as part of words. Hiragana and katakana characters also originally derive from Chinese characters, but they have been simplified and modified to such an extent that their origins are no longer visually obvious.

Texts without kanji are rare; most are either children's books—since children tend to know few kanji at an early age—or early electronics such as computers, phones, and video games, which could not display complex graphemes like kanji due to both graphical and computational limitations.

To a lesser extent, modern written Japanese also uses initialisms from the Latin alphabet, for example in terms such as "BC/AD", "a.m./p.m.", "FBI", and "CD". Romanized Japanese is most frequently used by foreign students of Japanese who have not yet mastered kana, and by native speakers for computer input.

Kanji
Kanji (漢字) are logographic characters (Japanese-simplified since 1946) taken from Chinese script and used in the writing of Japanese.

It is known from archaeological evidence that the first contacts that the Japanese had with Chinese writing took place in the 1st century AD, during the late Yayoi period. However, the Japanese people of that era probably had little to no comprehension of the script, and they would remain relatively illiterate until the 5th century AD in the Kofun period, when writing in Japan became more widespread.

Kanji characters are used to write most content words of native Japanese or (historically) Chinese origin, which include the following:

 * many nouns, such as 川 (kawa, "river") and 学校 (gakkō, "school")
 * the stems of most verbs and adjectives, such as 見 in 見る (miru, "see") and 白 in 白い (shiroi, "white")
 * the stems of many adverbs, such as 速 in 速く (hayaku, "quickly") and 上手 as in 上手に (jōzu ni, "masterfully")
 * most Japanese personal names and place names, such as 田中 (Tanaka) and 東京 (Tōkyō). (Certain names may be written in hiragana or katakana, or some combination of these, plus kanji.)

Some Japanese words are written with different kanji depending on the specific usage of the word—for instance, the word naosu (to fix, or to cure) is written 治す when it refers to curing a person, and 直す when it refers to fixing an object.

Most kanji have more than one possible pronunciation (or "reading"), and some common kanji have many. These are broadly divided into on'yomi, which are readings that approximate to a Chinese pronunciation of the character at the time it was adopted into Japanese, and kun'yomi, which are pronunciations of native Japanese words that correspond to the meaning of the kanji character. However, some kanji terms have pronunciations that correspond to neither the on'yomi nor the kun'yomi readings of the individual kanji within the term, such as 明日 (ashita, "tomorrow") and 大人 (otona, "adult").

Unusual or nonstandard kanji readings may be glossed using furigana. Kanji compounds are sometimes given arbitrary readings for stylistic purposes. For example, in Natsume Sōseki's short story The Fifth Night, the author uses 接続って for tsunagatte, the gerundive -te form of the verb tsunagaru ("to connect"), which would usually be written as 繋がって or つながって. The word 接続, meaning "connection", is normally pronounced setsuzoku.

Hiragana
Hiragana (平仮名) emerged as a manual simplification via cursive script of the most phonetically widespread kanji among those who could read and write during the Heian period (794–1185). The main creators of the current hiragana were ladies of the Japanese imperial court, who used the script in the writing of personal communications and literature.

Hiragana is used to write the following:

 * okurigana (送り仮名)—inflectional endings for adjectives and verbs—such as る in 見る (miru, "see") and い in 白い (shiroi, "white"), and respectively た and かった in their past tense inflections 見た (mita, "saw") and 白かった (shirokatta, "was white").
 * various function words, including most grammatical particles, or postpositions (joshi (助詞))—small, usually common words that, for example, mark sentence topics, subjects and objects or have a purpose similar to English prepositions such as "in", "to", "from", "by" and "for".
 * miscellaneous other words of various grammatical types that lack a kanji rendition, or whose kanji is obscure, difficult to typeset, or considered too difficult to understand for the context (such as in children's books).
 * Furigana (振り仮名)—phonetic renderings of hiragana placed above or beside the kanji character. Furigana may aid children or non-native speakers or clarify nonstandard, rare, or ambiguous readings, especially for words that use kanji not part of the jōyō kanji list.

There is also some flexibility for words with common kanji renditions to be instead written in hiragana, depending on the individual author's preference (all Japanese words can be spelled out entirely in hiragana or katakana, even when they are normally written using kanji). Some words are colloquially written in hiragana and writing them in kanji might give them a more formal tone, while hiragana may impart a softer or more emotional feeling. For example, the Japanese word kawaii, the Japanese equivalent of "cute", can be written entirely in hiragana as in かわいい, or with kanji as 可愛い.

Some lexical items that are normally written using kanji have become grammaticalized in certain contexts, where they are instead written in hiragana. For example, the root of the verb 見る (miru, "see") is normally written with the kanji 見 for the mi portion. However, when used as a supplementary verb as in 試してみる (tameshite miru) meaning "to try out", the whole verb is typically written in hiragana as みる, as we see also in 食べてみる (tabete miru, "try to eat [it] and see").

Katakana
Katakana (片仮名) emerged around the 9th century, in the Heian period, when Buddhist monks created a syllabary derived from Chinese characters to simplify their reading, using portions of the characters as a kind of shorthand. The origin of the alphabet is attributed to the monk Kūkai.

Katakana is used to write the following:

 * transliteration of foreign words and names, such as コンピュータ (konpyūta, "computer") and ロンドン (Rondon, "London"). However, some foreign borrowings that were naturalized may be rendered in hiragana, such as たばこ (tabako, "tobacco"), which comes from Portuguese. See also Transcription into Japanese.
 * commonly used names of animals and plants, such as トカゲ (tokage, "lizard"), ネコ (neko, "cat") and バラ (bara, "rose"), and certain other technical and scientific terms, such as mineral names
 * occasionally, the names of miscellaneous other objects whose kanji are rare, such as ローソク (rōsoku, "candle"); the kanji form, 蝋燭, contains the hyōgaiji 蝋.
 * onomatopoeia, such as ワンワン (wan-wan, "woof-woof"), and other sound symbolism
 * emphasis, much like italicisation in European languages.

Katakana can also be used to impart the idea that words are spoken in a foreign or otherwise unusual accent; for example, the speech of a robot.

Rōmaji
The first contact of the Japanese with the Latin alphabet occurred in the 16th century, during the Muromachi period, when they had contact with Portuguese navigators, the first European people to visit the Japanese islands. The earliest Japanese romanization system was based on Portuguese orthography. It was developed around 1548 by a Japanese Catholic named Anjirō.

The Latin alphabet is used to write the following:

 * Latin-alphabet acronyms and initialisms, such as NATO or UFO
 * Japanese personal names, corporate brands, and other words intended for international use (for example, on business cards, in passports, etc.)
 * foreign names, words, and phrases, often in scholarly contexts
 * foreign words deliberately rendered to impart a foreign flavour, for instance, in commercial contexts
 * other Japanized words derived or originated from foreign languages, such as Jリーグ (jei rīgu, "J. League"), Tシャツ (tī shatsu, "T-shirt") or B級グルメ (bī-kyū gurume, "B-rank gourmet [cheap and local cuisines]")

Arabic numerals
Arabic numerals (as opposed to traditional kanji numerals) are often used to write numbers in horizontal text, especially when numbering things rather than indicating a quantity, such as telephone numbers, serial numbers and addresses. Arabic numerals were introduced in Japan probably at the same time as the Latin alphabet, in the 16th century during the Muromachi period, the first contact being via Portuguese navigators. These numerals did not originate in Europe, as the Portuguese inherited them during the Arab occupation of the Iberian peninsula. See also Japanese numerals.

Hentaigana
Hentaigana (変体仮名), a set of archaic kana made obsolete by the Meiji reformation, are sometimes used to impart an archaic flavor, like in items of food (esp. soba).

Additional mechanisms
Jukujikun refers to instances in which words are written using kanji that reflect the meaning of the word though the pronunciation of the word is entirely unrelated to the usual pronunciations of the constituent kanji. Conversely, ateji refers to the employment of kanji that appear solely to represent the sound of the compound word but are, conceptually, utterly unrelated to the signification of the word.

Examples
Sentences are commonly written using a combination of all three Japanese scripts: kanji ( in red ), hiragana ( in purple ), and katakana ( in orange ), and in limited instances also include Latin alphabet characters ( in green ) and Arabic numerals (in black):

The same text can be transliterated to the Latin alphabet (rōmaji), although this will generally only be done for the convenience of foreign language speakers:

Tī shatsu o san - mai kōnyū shimashita.

Translated into English, this reads:

All words in modern Japanese can be written using hiragana, katakana, and rōmaji, while only some have kanji. Words that have no dedicated kanji may still be written with kanji by employing either ateji (as in man'yogana, から = 可良) or jukujikun, as in the title of とある科学の超電磁砲 (超電磁砲 being used to represent レールガン).

Although rare, there are some words that use all three scripts in the same word. An example of this is the term くノ一 (rōmaji: kunoichi), which uses a hiragana, a katakana, and a kanji character, in that order. It is said that if all three characters are put in the same kanji "square", they all combine to create the kanji 女 (woman/female). Another example is 消しゴム (rōmaji: keshigomu) which means "eraser", and uses a kanji, a hiragana, and two katakana characters, in that order.

Statistics
A statistical analysis of a corpus of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun from the year 1993 (around 56.6 million tokens) revealed:

Collation
Collation (word ordering) in Japanese is based on the kana, which express the pronunciation of the words, rather than the kanji. The kana may be ordered using two common orderings, the prevalent gojūon (fifty-sound) ordering, or the old-fashioned iroha ordering. Kanji dictionaries are usually collated using the radical system, though other systems, such as SKIP, also exist.

Direction of writing

Traditionally, Japanese is written in a format called tategaki (縦書き), which was inherited from traditional Chinese practice. In this format, the characters are written in columns going from top to bottom, with columns ordered from right to left. After reaching the bottom of each column, the reader continues at the top of the column to the left of the current one.

Modern Japanese also uses another writing format, called yokogaki (横書き). This writing format is horizontal and reads from left to right, as in English.

A book printed in tategaki opens with the spine of the book to the right, while a book printed in yokogaki opens with the spine to the left.

Spacing and punctuation
Japanese is normally written without spaces between words, and text is allowed to wrap from one line to the next without regard for word boundaries. This convention was originally modelled on Chinese writing, where spacing is superfluous because each character is essentially a word in itself (albeit compounds are common). However, in kana and mixed kana/kanji text, readers of Japanese must work out where word divisions lie based on an understanding of what makes sense. For example, あなたはお母さんにそっくりね. must be mentally divided as. In rōmaji, it may sometimes be ambiguous whether an item should be transliterated as two words or one. For example,, composed of and , is variously transliterated as aisuru or ai suru.

Words in potentially unfamiliar foreign compounds, normally transliterated in katakana, may be separated by a punctuation mark called a to aid Japanese readers. For example,. This punctuation is also occasionally used to separate native Japanese words, especially in concatenations of kanji characters where there might otherwise be confusion or ambiguity about interpretation, and especially for the full names of people.

The Japanese full stop (.) and comma (、) are used for similar purposes to their English equivalents, though comma usage can be more fluid than is the case in English. The question mark (？) is not used in traditional or formal Japanese, but it may be used in informal writing, or in transcriptions of dialogue where it might not otherwise be clear that a statement was intoned as a question. The exclamation mark (！) is restricted to informal writing. Colons and semicolons are available but are not common in ordinary text. Quotation marks are written as 「 ... 」, and nested quotation marks as 『 ... 』. Several bracket styles and dashes are available.

Importation of kanji
Japan's first encounters with Chinese characters may have come as early as the 1st century AD with the King of Na gold seal, said to have been given by Emperor Guangwu of Han in AD 57 to a Japanese emissary. However, it is unlikely that the Japanese became literate in Chinese writing any earlier than the 4th century AD.

Initially Chinese characters were not used for writing Japanese, as literacy meant fluency in Classical Chinese, not the vernacular. Eventually a system called kanbun (漢文) developed, which, along with kanji and something very similar to Chinese grammar, employed diacritics to hint at the Japanese translation. The earliest written history of Japan, the Kojiki (古事記), compiled sometime before 712, was written in kanbun. Even today Japanese high schools and some junior high schools teach kanbun as part of the curriculum.

The development of man'yōgana
No full-fledged script for written Japanese existed until the development of man'yōgana (万葉仮名), which appropriated kanji for their phonetic value (derived from their Chinese readings) rather than their semantic value. Man'yōgana was initially used to record poetry, as in the Man'yōshū (万葉集), compiled sometime before 759, whence the writing system derives its name. Some scholars claim that man'yōgana originated from Baekje, but this hypothesis is denied by mainstream Japanese scholars. The modern kana, namely hiragana and katakana, are simplifications and systemizations of man'yōgana.

Due to the large number of words and concepts entering Japan from China which had no native equivalent, many words entered Japanese directly, with a similar pronunciation to the original Chinese. This Chinese-derived reading is known as on'yomi (音読み), and this vocabulary as a whole is referred to as Sino-Japanese in English and kango (漢語) in Japanese. At the same time, native Japanese already had words corresponding to many borrowed kanji. Authors increasingly used kanji to represent these words. This Japanese-derived reading is known as kun'yomi (訓読み). A kanji may have none, one, or several on'yomi and kun'yomi. Okurigana are written after the initial kanji for verbs and adjectives to give inflection and to help disambiguate a particular kanji's reading. The same character may be read several different ways depending on the word. For example, the character 行 is read i as the first syllable of iku (行く), okona as the first three syllables of okonau (行う), gyō in the compound word gyōretsu (行列), kō in the word ginkō (銀行), and an in the word andon (行灯).

Some linguists have compared the Japanese borrowing of Chinese-derived vocabulary as akin to the influx of Romance vocabulary into English during the Norman conquest of England. Like English, Japanese has many synonyms of differing origin, with words from both Chinese and native Japanese. Sino-Japanese is often considered more formal or literary, just as latinate words in English often mark a higher register.

Meiji period
The significant reforms of the 19th century Meiji era did not initially impact the Japanese writing system. However, the language itself was changing due to the increase in literacy resulting from education reforms, the massive influx of words (both borrowed from other languages or newly coined), and the ultimate success of movements such as the influential genbun itchi (言文一致) which resulted in Japanese being written in the colloquial form of the language instead of the wide range of historical and classical styles used previously. The difficulty of written Japanese was a topic of debate, with several proposals in the late 19th century that the number of kanji in use be limited. In addition, exposure to non-Japanese texts led to unsuccessful proposals that Japanese be written entirely in kana or rōmaji. This period saw Western-style punctuation marks introduced into Japanese writing.

In 1900, the Education Ministry introduced three reforms aimed at improving the process of education in Japanese writing:

 * standardization of hiragana, eliminating the range of hentaigana then in use;
 * restriction of the number of kanji taught in elementary schools to about 1,200;
 * reform of the irregular kana representation of the Sino-Japanese readings of kanji to make them conform with the pronunciation.

The first two of these were generally accepted, but the third was hotly contested, particularly by conservatives, to the extent that it was withdrawn in 1908.

Pre–World War II
The partial failure of the 1900 reforms combined with the rise of nationalism in Japan effectively prevented further significant reform of the writing system. The period before World War II saw numerous proposals to restrict the number of kanji in use, and several newspapers voluntarily restricted their kanji usage and increased usage of furigana; however, there was no official endorsement of these, and indeed much opposition. However, one successful reform was the standardization of hiragana, which involved reducing the possibilities of writing down Japanese morae down to only one hiragana character per morae, which led to labeling all the other previously used hiragana as hentaigana and discarding them in daily use.

Post–World War II
The period immediately following World War II saw a rapid and significant reform of the writing system. This was in part due to influence of the Occupation authorities, but to a significant extent was due to the removal of traditionalists from control of the educational system, which meant that previously stalled revisions could proceed. The major reforms were:

 * gendai kanazukai (現代仮名遣い)—alignment of kana usage with modern pronunciation, replacing the old historical kana usage (1946);
 * promulgation of various restricted sets of kanji:
 * tōyō kanji (当用漢字) (1946), a collection of 1850 characters for use in schools, textbooks, etc.;
 * kanji to be used in schools (1949);
 * an additional collection of jinmeiyō kanji (人名用漢字), which, supplementing the tōyō kanji, could be used in personal names (1951);
 * simplifications of various complex kanji letter-forms shinjitai (新字体).

At one stage, an advisor in the Occupation administration proposed a wholesale conversion to rōmaji, but it was not endorsed by other specialists and did not proceed.

In addition, the practice of writing horizontally in a right-to-left direction was generally replaced by left-to-right writing. The right-to-left order was considered a special case of vertical writing, with columns one character high, rather than horizontal writing per se; it was used for single lines of text on signs, etc. (e.g., the station sign at Tokyo reads 駅京東, which is 東京駅 from right-to-left).

The post-war reforms have mostly survived, although some of the restrictions have been relaxed. The replacement of the tōyō kanji in 1981 with the 1,945 jōyō kanji (常用漢字)—a modification of the tōyō kanji—was accompanied by a change from "restriction" to "recommendation", and in general the educational authorities have become less active in further script reform.

In 2004, the jinmeiyō kanji (人名用漢字), maintained by the Ministry of Justice for use in personal names, was significantly enlarged. The jōyō kanji list was extended to 2,136 characters in 2010.

Romanization
There are a number of methods of rendering Japanese in Roman letters. The Hepburn method of romanization, designed for English speakers, is a de facto standard widely used inside and outside Japan. The Kunrei-shiki system has a better correspondence with Japanese phonology, which makes it easier for native speakers to learn. It is officially endorsed by the Ministry of Education and often used by non-native speakers who are learning Japanese as a second language. Other systems of romanization include Nihon-shiki, JSL, and Wāpuro rōmaji.

Lettering styles

 * East Asian sans-serif typeface
 * Edomoji
 * Shodō
 * Minchō

Variant writing systems

 * Gyaru-moji
 * Hentaigana
 * Man'yōgana

title: Japanese writing system


text:
Monaghan United F.C.

Monaghan United F.C. (Cumann Peile Mhuineacháin Aontaithe) is an Irish association football club based in Monaghan currently playing in the Ulster Senior League. The club joined the League of Ireland in 1983 and subsequently went on to play in the B Division, the First Division and the Premier Division. They resigned from the league midway through the 2012 season. The club continued to field a women's team in the Dublin Women's Soccer League and, together with the Cavan Monaghan Underage League, they entered a combined team in the League of Ireland U13 Division, League of Ireland U15, U17 and the U19 League of Ireland Divisions, until 2020, whereupon the partnership was ended, the CMUL continued to field a team in the national underage leagues. In 2019 the club entered a senior team into the Monaghan Cavan League, and in 2021, the club joined the Ulster Senior League.

League of Ireland
Monaghan United were founded in 1979. Among the club's founding members was Sean McCaffrey who was also the manager of the club when they joined the League of Ireland B Division in 1983–84. In 1985–86 Monaghan United became founder members of the League of Ireland First Division. United played eight seasons in the First Division before winning their first promotion. After finishing third in 1992–93 they became the first League of Ireland club to gain promotion via a promotion/relegation play off. They defeated Waterford United 5–2 on aggregate and were subsequently promoted to the 1993–94 Premier Division. They survived just two seasons in the Premier Division before being relegated at the end of the 1994–95 season. Monaghan United gained promotion to the Premier Division for a second time in 2000–01 after finishing second to Dundalk. This time their stay in the Premier Division last just one season. After managing to win just two league games, they finished last and were relegated following the conclusion of the 2001–02 season. Monaghan United reached the final of the 2010 League of Ireland Cup but lost 1–0 in the final to Sligo Rovers. They also finished third in the 2010 First Division and qualified for the promotion/relegation play off. They subsequently beat Waterford United before losing to Bray Wanderers on penalties. In 2011, under the management of Roddy Collins, Monaghan United again qualified for the promotion/relegation play off. This time they won promotion after beating Galway United 5–1 on aggregate. However, midway through the 2012 season, Monaghan United withdrew from the league for "mainly but not only financial" reasons.

Source:
 * Statistics

Dublin Women's Soccer League
Monaghan United formed a ladies football team in 2006. They won Division Four of the Dublin Women's Soccer League in their first season and were promoted to Division Two. In 2007 they again won the league along with the Leinster Junior Cup. In 2008 they won the DWSL Intermediate Cup after defeating Santry 3–1 in the final. In 2012 they reached the semi-finals of the WFAI Intermediate Cup.

Monaghan Cavan League
In 2019, Monaghan United formed a senior team to play in the Monaghan Cavan League First Division. They finished off their debut season by winning the Sean Woods Cup and Jimmy Smith Shield Cup in September 2020, beating Glaslough Villa in both finals.

Ulster Senior League
2021 saw Monaghan United join the Ulster Senior League, the first club from Cavan or Monaghan to do so. In 2022, The Mons decided to withdraw from the league to continue football in the MCL.

Grounds
Monaghan United originally played their home games at Belgium Park which served as their home ground between 1979 and 1988. Since 1988 they have played at Gortakeegan, the first ever game being against Drogheda United in the 1988-89 League Cup.

Honours

 * Men
 * League of Ireland Cup
 * Runners Up: 2010: 1
 * League of Ireland First Division
 * Runners Up: 2000–01: 1
 * Sean Woods Cup
 * Winners: 2019-20: 1
 * Jimmy Smith Shields Cup
 * Winners: 2019-20: 1
 * Women
 * DWSL Intermediate Cup
 * Winners: 2008: 1

Source:

Internationals

 * Republic of Ireland internationals
 * 🇮🇪 Jonathan Douglas

 * League of Ireland XI representatives

 * 🇮🇪 Mick Byrne
 * 🇮🇪 John Coady
 * 🇮🇪 Joe Hanrahan
 * 🇮🇪 Brian Mooney

 * Republic of Ireland B internationals
 * 🇮🇪 Brian Mooney

 * Republic of Ireland U23 internationals
 * 🇮🇪 Derek McGrath
 * 🇮🇪 Brian Mooney
 * 🇮🇪 Stephen Rice

 * Republic of Ireland U21 internationals

 * Republic of Ireland U19 internationals
 * 🇮🇪 Robert Bayly
 * 🇮🇪 Ricky McEvoy

 * Republic of Ireland U17 internationals
 * 🇮🇪 David Freeman
 * 🇮🇪 John Lester
 * 🇮🇪 Ger Robinson

 * Other Internationals
 * 🇧🇧 Alvin Rouse

Goal scorers

 * First Division Top Scorer
 * Most League Goals in a Season
 * Most League Goals

Source:

Others
🇮🇪 Paddy Andrews – All-Ireland football winner with Dublin

Managers

 * Sean McCaffrey (1979–?)
 * Bobby Browne (1999–2003)
 * Mick Cooke (2003–11)
 * Roddy Collins (2011–12)

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

title: Monaghan United F.C.


text:
File:Leo Sayer - Thunder in My Heart.jpg

Album cover for Thunder in My Heart by Leo Sayer

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright


text:
List of countries and territories where Portuguese is an official language

The following is a list of the nine sovereign states and one territory where Portuguese is an official language.

Sovereign states

 * 🇦🇴 Angola
 * 🇧🇷 Brazil (see Brazilian Portuguese)
 * 🇨🇻 Cape Verde
 * Timor-Leste (co-official with Tetum; 51,800 L1 speakers as of 2007)
 * 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea (co-official with Spanish and French)
 * 🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau
 * 🇲🇿 Mozambique
 * 🇵🇹 Portugal
 * São Tomé and Príncipe

Territory

 * Macau


text:
Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne

Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne (1498 – 28 April 1519) was a younger daughter of Jean III de La Tour (1467– 28 March 1501), Count of Auvergne and Lauraguais, and Jeanne de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon (1465–1511). She was a penultimate representative of the senior branch of the House of La Tour d'Auvergne. Madeleine is best known for being the mother of Catherine de' Medici, the future Queen of France.

Marriage negotiations
As part of his efforts to gain power in Italy, Francis I of France turned to making certain strategic alliances. On 8 December 1515, he and Pope Leo X met and signed an agreement of friendship, in which Francis agreed to ensure the Vatican's authority over the Catholic Church in France, and Leo promised to support Francis' claim to the throne of Naples. This agreement, like most others of the time, was cemented with a marriage alliance. Leo's nephew Lorenzo II de' Medici had just become the leader of the Florentine republic in 1516. Francis wrote to congratulate him by stating, "I intend to help you with all my power. I also wish to marry you off to some beautiful and good lady of noble birth and of my kin, so that the love which I bear you may grow and be strengthened". The "good lady" Francis proposed: his wealthy and distant relative Madeleine. Lorenzo duly accepted, as it was a great honor to be tied to the French royal family, especially since he was of lesser nobility (the Medici being ennobled only recently), albeit an extremely wealthy one. For Madeleine and her family, they were delighted to be tied into the sphere of the Pope himself.

Wedding celebrations
She married Duke Lorenzo II de' Medici in Château d'Amboise on 5 May 1518. Their wedding was a sumptuous festival that marked not only their union, but also the birth of a dauphin for Francis I. As with the other festivities Francis put on throughout his life, dancing figured very prominently. Dancing was done mostly in the Italian style. Seventy-two ladies were disguised in Italian, German, and other fashionable costumes, making for quite a rich display of silk and color. Francis gave Madeleine 10,000 gold coins, while Lorenzo offered rich gifts to France's nobility.

Death
She died in Italy shortly before her husband on 28 April of the following year, of what is believed to have been the plague (some speculate that she may have been infected by syphilis from her husband). She had just given birth to a daughter, Catherine de' Medici (1519–1589), the future Queen of France and consort of Henry II. Both she and her husband were said to have been delighted at the birth of Catherine as if she were a boy.

Inheritance
As both of their parents were deceased, Madeleine and her elder sister Anne shared extensive properties in Auvergne, Clermont, Berry, Castres, and Louraguais. Anne inherited Auvergne and married John Stewart, 2nd Duke of Albany in 1505. She outlived Madeleine by five years but died childless, after which the Counties of Auvergne and Boulogne as well as the barony of La Tour passed to Madeleine's daughter Catherine de' Medici and then to the French Crown.

title: Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne


text:
Talk:Duḥkha

Switched?
From the article:

 * Dukkha-dukkha (all pervading pain) is the obvious sufferings of physical pain, illness, old age, death, the loss of a loved one.
 * Sankhara-dukkha (pain of pain) is a subtle form of suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things, including the skandhas, the factors constituting the human mind.

Looks like these translations are switched, right? - Nat Krause 09:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expansion
I propose expanding the latter and clarifying the definition of sankhara-dukkha. To a non-Buddhist this probably makes little or no sense, so I think it needs to be explained a bit better. I'll toy around with it a bit, but if someone can rewrite it better, go for it.- Theli 93 13:53, 16 Aug 2005

Remove Chakras and dukkha section
This section is maybe an idea or opinion of one teacher but it is definitely not common buddhist theory. I propose to remove it. Wintermute314 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Arrow740 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed External Link: dukkha Yahoo Group
dukkha Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Spelling should be dukh jal--13:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)150.129.52.182 (talk)

Kanji
Interesting to note that the kanji for suffering 苦　has a cross in the middle of it...Andycjp 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chinese ideographs were composed more than a millennia before Christ. Also, China, being a completely different culture (if you can imagine that) has an altogether different viewpoint on what a cross-like symbols represent. The radical 十 can just mean the number ten. Nothing to do with Christian mythology. Please don't promote your own biased perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.146.243 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove external link to "Panetics"
While this project may be laudable, and apparently uses the word "dukkha" in its literature, its aim "to reduce human suffering inflicted by individuals acting through governments, institutions, professions, and social groups" really has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching about dukkha, its cause and its cure. If someone wishes to inform Wikipedia readers about the Panetics project, an entry under that heading would be more appropriate. Homohabilis (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Inherent"
"suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things" If it were inherent, it would be inescapable. This one sentence negates all of Buddhism! Mitsube (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, does someone have a good source explicitly saying that the whole key is that dukkha is itself empty and not truly existent, thus negatable? Mitsube (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * In Theravada, dukkha IS inescapable as long as a refuge is sought among causes and conditions. Only unconditioned phenomena (nirvana) are entirely free from suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.241.228 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes. What I am saying is this. Is there suffering inherent in eating? If yes, then when the Buddha ate he suffered. But he did not. So suffering is not inherent. Mitsube (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Only in Theravada, yes. Eating, like all other conditioned experiences is deemed "unsatisfactory in and of itself", not necessarily "suffering" as it's used in English. So "eating" is not worth grasping at (as self or grouped self) being impermanent, not self, and empty. Before the Buddha attained paranirvana, he still experienced dukkha (conditioned consequences that are unsatisfactory in and of themselves; "suffering" or otherwise) from the unwholesome actions of his previous lives including dualistic existence, the need to eat, sickness, etc. He even suffered from dysentery once. But since he had become an Arahant, physical suffering did not give rise to any suffering or aversion in his mind and he reacted to all experiences with understanding, equanimity and compassion. So even when his body was suffering from dysentery, his mind never once wavered from it's attentiveness and tranquility. The Mahayana formula is slightly different though, reflecting the tighter coupling of the body and the mind suggested by Mahayana scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.193.47 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, if a dhamma is "unsatisfactory in and of itself", that doesn't mean it can't be satisfactory in the right context. This is slightly closer to the Mahayana formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.254.77 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink for "suffering"
I am going to remove the wikilink for the word "suffering" in the lead paragraph. It's confusing to have that wikilink in the lead, since we are trying to provide translations for the term "dukkha", and the wikilink for suffering seems to imply that "suffering" and "dukkha" are synonomous (and they are not). So instead of the link in the lead paragraph, I have added a link to suffering in the section, "see also". - Dorje108 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent updates
I've made a lot of updates and added a lot of citations and references. If you have comments, please leave them here. Dorje108 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Six Great Sufferings
Aung San Suu Kyi listed the Six Great Sufferings of Dukkha at her Nobel Lecture, delivered on 16 June, 2012.

 * To be conceived
 * To age
 * To sicken
 * To die
 * To be parted from those one loves
 * To be forced to live in propinquity with those one does not love

Reference: Nobel Peace Prize transcript

I thought that this would be of note to this article as these seem to differ with the number and specifics of each suffering on the article. This may be her interpretation although I think that translations from different people aren't always absolutely identical, especially on a philosophical or theological topic.

— RW Marloe (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Awesome. :) Thanks very much for the reference. I'll work this into the article. Peace, Dorje108 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Aung San Suu Kyi's Six must originate from her Theravada branch of Buddhism in Burma. — RW Marloe (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up
The same problem: More of the same does not necessarily lead to greater clarity or understanding. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Overreliance on primary sources from contemporary popular teachers
 * Too many quotes
 * Too many details

 * Jonathan, your views are not supported by the Wikipedia guidelines, and so far there is not a consensus on the Wikiproject Buddhism page. The RFC will be listed for one month on the Wikiproject page. Please be respectful of the views of other editors and allow the RFC process to take its course. Dorje108 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Too many details". Ah, erm... Isn't this actually a good thing?-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Clean-up is right, but painful. So it is dukkha too:) Nimelik (talk) 15:53, 4.01. 2015  — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that the article might need to be cleaned up, but "too many details" seems silly, especially if you look at the amount of detail that goes into the math and science pages. Yadojado (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Yadojado's comment is comparing apples and oranges; this is neither a math nor science page. Keeping the mission of - and audience for - any written project uppermost in mind is basic to the writing's effectiveness. It is therefore key (again, in my opinion), to think about the purpose of this page for most readers: defining dukkha in sufficient detail that those unfamiliar with the term can get a basic understanding of it, which (I believe) this page pretty much accomplishes in its first 'graph. This is not to suggest the myriad translational inferences and points of view which follow that basic definition be excluded, but if our true interest is in "cleaning up" this page, has any consideration yet been given to grouping all qualifications and descriptions subsequent to the basic definition on a separate page (or pages), or at least structuring this page so that elaborations on/further theorizing about the basic definition are clearly labeled as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.227.105 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dukkha translation as "bad hub" contrasts with Sukha "good hub."
Dukkha can be translated from Pali a number of ways, and one is "bad hub."

This practical concrete translation distinguishes Dukkha from Sukha which is the desirable state of relative freedom from Dukkha. Sukha can be translated from Pali as "good hub."

Analogies to ox carts abound in the Pali scriptures in the Pali scriptures. Even the Dhammapada, a widely-studied text of teaching verses from earliest Buddhism, begins with with an analogy based on how predictably the wheel of an ox cart follows the ox.

The Four Noble Truths presents the eight aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way to the cessation of dukkha. Each of eight aspects must be present to support liberation from dukkha. A common ox cart wheel has eight spokes. The analogy of the eight aspects of the path to the eight spokes of a wheel is common sense to one familiar with ox carts. The more that one or more of the spokes is short, the more the hub will be off-center (dukkha), and the more the difficulties of moving along will increase. A wheel with dukkha resists forward motion half of the time, as the off center hub must be raised by the effort of the ox, an analogy to the resistance of aversion (Dvesha). The wheel would be pushing the cart forward as its off-center hub descended after reaching the apex, an analogy to the uneasy rushing of greed (Taṇhā). By following the eightfold path aspirants lengthen the too-short spokes to free themselves from the problems caused by the off-center hub (Dukkha) so that a centered hub (Sukha) and smooth progress results.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dukkha. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130313141505/http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3207&Itemid=244 to http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3207&Itemid=244

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 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortened
Long-due clean-up: removal of an overkill of quote and details which detract and confuse. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Real meaning of DUKKA is not the suffering "pain" or "unsatisfactorines
The pali word "DUKKA" is wrongly translated as suffering,pain or unsatisfactorines. Real meaning of the pali word ,"DUKKA" is more closer to term insecurity of life. That's what lord Bbuddha meant.-- Rs  Ekanayake  09:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * that's a nice translation. Would be good to add it, but have you got soiurces for it? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * source ? why not. the word DUKKAදුක්ඛ itself is the source.You refer one pali dictionary ,or study the Pali.-- Rs  Ekanayake  10:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 * @Rsekanayake: This article already summarizes content from Pali-English references. If you know of another reliable source which states "Dukkha really means insecurity" or something equivalent, please identify. Please see wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:RS guidelines for content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ms Sarah Welch sources you referred is reliable to you but it is not reliable to me. this is totally deception.  wikipedia is lying always. by realization i know it  . we have made researches. i dont want to teach anybody.  yes ! "Dukkha" is suffering according to common people who follows  dictionaries. --  Rs  Ekanayake  17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rsekanayake, this is not a forum for general discussion about Dukkha. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article - based on reliable sources. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dukkha at the Reference desk. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @JimRenge The great thing about wikipedia is there are no gatekeepers. just delete it.Thank You.-- Rs  Ekanayake  15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dead link is live again
The last external link, for "Ku 苦 entry" in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, was marked as "permanent dead link". I checked, and it has been reincarnated, so I removed the tag. --Thnidu (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it has been reincarnated Lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect web link
It is beyond my editing skills, but the web link to Bhikku Bodhi is incorrect, and leads to a commercial page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonybelle (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Done. Teishin (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove devanagari transliteration of Pali Term.
Recently a user reverted changes that I've made to the article. The change I made as removing the devanagari transliteration of the Pali term for Duhka. I've already stated that Devanagari has no historical or scholarly basis for it to be used as a script for transliteration Pali. The sinhala script and the Thai script are more apt for representing Pali. Writing Pali with Devanagari is like writing Japanese with the Nastaliq script. It makes no sense historically and there's no basis for such use. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What RfC
what RfC are you referring to diff? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The one Mathglot had been discussing on Talk:The Buddha and plans to begin shortly. Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  13:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your explanation. It's inconsequnetial, though, to this article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * My version directly links suffering to dukkha.
 * PS I see Patliputra has rudely reverted the dukkha page, relentless rudeness being his wont. Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  13:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * , you do not seem to realize how mass-reverting the painstaking work of another seasoned editor diff is highly offensive (talk about "rudeness"...), but also totally inappropriate as a means to improve the encyclopedia: your mass-revert here actually erases many peripherical or janitorial improvements in addition to material you supposedly object to. At the minimum, you should take the time to identify and explain which content you specifically object to, explain it on the Talk Page, and remove that content only if you think it is absolutely necessary to delete it. WP:BRD or WP:ONUS is not a blank check to wipe out any and all of someone's contributions, especially in the case of an editor of high repute. Doing so is disruptive. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * My version directly links suffering to dukkha ah yes, I see. Link it to sources; wiki-links provide additional info, but are not sources (as our policies say). But before you rush yourself to collect another pile of quotes and sources, just take some time to read this page; there are abundant sources here which explain why "suffering" is inadequate. Note that Monier-Williams himslf provided an alternative (or better) etymology. Shall we take a break here, then? We've already invested quite a lot of time yet, haven't we? Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And are you the policemen Patliputra? The edits were all made earlier today in a couple of hours. And why are you butting in here, reverting?  You have made no contributions to the page?  You aren't a part of the discussion.  JJ did not care to revert my reversion.  So why are you edit warring? Old habits die hard?  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  17:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Issues with Beckwith source
hey @Joshua Jonathan, I noticed you reverted my removal of the Beckwith source. My main concern with it is that the viewpoint it holds does not reflect the consensus of scholars about the influence between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism. Other scholars, cited on the Pyrrhonism page, do not think that the conclusions drawn by Beckwith are supported by the evidence. I'm happy to provide additional references as well, there really is a lot of research that's been on this topic and it's fairly clear that if there was any mutual influence, it's not as clearcut as Beckwith's account.

that particular block of text was also pasted in by an (indef blocked) user that I now believe willfully added original research and unsourced claims to support Beckwith's theory in exclusion of more accepted theories, which is why I removed it. If you think that there's other  scholarly material supporting a link between Dukkha and Greek philosophy I'm happy to hear it but I strongly think this particular WP:FRINGE source should be removed.  - car chasm (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 * thanks for your message. I wasn't sure about thiz text either; that's why I moved it into a note. I'll take another look at it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the note. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Duḥkha


text:
Thunder in My Heart

Thunder in My Heart is the fifth album by the English singer-songwriter Leo Sayer, released in 1977. In 2006, a remixed dance version of the track, entitled "Thunder in My Heart Again", was released, credited to Meck featuring Leo Sayer. It reached No. 1 in the United Kingdom, and No. 16 in Australia. Along with a follow-up single, "Easy to Love", the song reached the Top 40 in the US and Canada.

Side one

 * 1) "Thunder in My Heart" (Leo Sayer, Tom Snow) – 3:37
 * 2) "Easy to Love" (Sayer, Albert Hammond) – 3:43
 * 3) "Leave Well Enough Alone" (Kerry Chater, Snow) – 3:15
 * 4) "I Want You Back" (Sayer, Hammond) – 4:28
 * 5) "It's Over" (Sayer, Snow) – 3:48

Side two

 * 1) "Fool for Your Love" (Sayer, Michael Omartian) – 3:26
 * 2) "World Keeps on Turning" (Sayer, Omartian) – 3:25
 * 3) "There Isn't Anything" (John Vastano) – 3:14
 * 4) "Everything I've Got" (Snow, Vastano) – 2:39
 * 5) "We Can Start All Over Again" (Sayer, Bruce Roberts, Snow) – 3:38

Musicians

 * Leo Sayer – guitar, harmonica, vocals
 * David Paich – piano, keyboards
 * Ben Adkins – bass guitar
 * Jack Ashford – percussion
 * Larry Carlton – guitar
 * Lenny Castro – conductor, congas
 * Jay Graydon – guitar
 * Bobbye Hall – percussion, tabla
 * Pat Henderson – background vocals
 * David Hungate – bass guitar
 * Bobby Kimball – background vocals
 * Clydie King – background vocals
 * Abraham Laboriel – bass guitar
 * Becky Lewis – vocals, background vocals
 * Sherlie Matthews – vocals
 * Ira Newborn – guitar, rhythm guitar
 * James Newton Howard – keyboards
 * Michael Omartian – piano, keyboards
 * Ray Parker Jr. – guitar
 * Jeff Porcaro – drums
 * Petsye Powell – background vocals
 * Lee Ritenour – guitar
 * Tom Scott – saxophone
 * Tom Snow – piano
 * James Stroud – drums, synthesizer
 * Fred Tackett – guitar

Production

 * Record producer: Richard Perry

title: Thunder in My Heart


text:
2C-T-19

2C-T-19 (2,5-dimethoxy-4-butylthiophenethylamine) is a psychedelic phenethylamine of the 2C family. It was first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin.

Dosage
In his book PiHKAL, Shulgin describes synthesis of the final intermediate of 2C-T-19 but did not bioassay the compound.

Canada
As of October 31, 2016, 2C-T-19 is a controlled substance (Schedule III) in Canada.

United States
In the United States, 2C-T-19 is not specifically scheduled, but possession and sales of 2C-T-19 could be prosecuted under the Federal Analog Act because of its structural similarities to 2C-T-7.

title: 2C-T-19


text: Talk:Thunder in My Heart

title: Talk:Thunder in My Heart


text:
Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

The Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway (CL&N) was a local passenger and freight-carrying railroad in the southwestern part of the U.S. state of Ohio, connecting Cincinnati to Dayton via Lebanon. It was built in the late 19th century to give the town of Lebanon and Warren County better transportation facilities. The railroad was locally known as the "Highland Route", since it followed the ridge between the Little and Great Miami rivers, and was the only line not affected by floods such as the Great Dayton Flood of 1913.

The line was completed in 1881, and the CL&N was formed in 1885. The company went through multiple bankruptcies until the Pennsylvania Railroad gained control in 1896. CL&N continued its own operations until 1921, and existed until 1926, when the parent company merged CL&N and other smaller companies. Except for several years in the mid-1880s, when the line was under control of the narrow gauge Toledo, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railroad, it was not a major line, in part due to its steep approach to downtown Cincinnati. For this reason, portions of the line have been abandoned, beginning in 1952 with a segment north of Lebanon.

Passenger services from Cincinnati terminated at Lebanon until the early 1900s. Passenger service was eliminated circa 1910 and restored as of 1915, extended to Dayton until 1928. Passenger trains were eliminated entirely in 1934. Conrail, the Pennsylvania Railroad's successor, sold the remaining trackage in the 1980s to the Indiana and Ohio Railway, a short line now owned by Genesee & Wyoming. That company continues to provide local freight service on the ex-CL&N, and the Lebanon Mason Monroe Railroad operates tourist trains on a portion of the line near Lebanon.

Planning and grading, 1850–1876
The town of Lebanon, Ohio, laid out in 1802, was bypassed by the Miami and Erie Canal in 1830; the branch Warren County Canal to Lebanon was wrecked by flooding in 1848. The Little Miami Railroad (1846, later a Pennsylvania line) and Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad (1851, later a B&O line) followed the valleys of the Little and Great Miami rivers (the M&E Canal had used the latter), also bypassing the highlands on which Lebanon lay. Residents of the town obtained a legislative charter in March 1850 for the Cincinnati, Lebanon and Xenia Railroad (CL&X), which would extend from Cincinnati northeast through Lebanon to Xenia. At the latter town, the incorporators decided the most likely connection would be the New York and Erie Railroad, which was planning on extending into Ohio. Thus the line was planned to use the Erie's broad gauge.

To enter the city of Cincinnati, the CL&X would join the Dayton and Cincinnati Railroad (D&C), which was planning the 10011 ft double-track Deer Creek Tunnel through the Walnut Hills, at Sharonville (then known as Sharon). Tunnel construction began in late 1852, and the CL&X was finally organized under the charter in November. The CL&X located right-of-way, and began construction in about April 1853, but was forced to stop work by the end of 1855 due to lack of funds. Only grading between Sharon and Lebanon, mostly north of Mason, had been completed. (The tunnel project also failed, and was eventually acquired by the CL&N.) In July 1861, the courts appointed a receiver for the CL&X, who in March 1869 sold the unfinished railroad, which had cost $83,885, to 40 area residents for $4,000. Five trustees would ensure that the property was not sold without a majority of its owners consenting. Twenty years after its canal connection was destroyed, Lebanon was still without a modern connection to the outside world, and its economy continued to stagnate.

The 1870s fad of the narrow gauge railway, which was cheaper than broader gauges to build and operate (for low volumes of traffic), presented a new possibility. The Dayton and South Eastern Railroad (D&SE, later a B&O line) was planning a narrow gauge line from the Jackson County mines through Xenia to Dayton, and a branch from Xenia through Lebanon would connect to the markets at Cincinnati. The editors of the local newspaper, The Western Star, encouraged citizens to support the project, but by taking a more active role and organizing a locally owned railroad company to ensure its completion. Editorials likened the situation to Aesop's fable of Hercules and the Carter, where Hercules tells a stuck carter that he will not assist unless the carter himself is willing to help. In November 1874, residents of Lebanon and the surrounding area organized the narrow gauge Miami Valley Narrow Gauge Railway (renamed Miami Valley Railway in October 1876), which would complete the unfinished CL&X as a branch of the D&SE.

Slow stock subscriptions delayed surveying until June 1875, when a line was located between Xenia and the Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad (M&C, later a B&O line) west of Norwood. Property owners in the villages of Norwood and Pleasant Ridge, wishing to develop their land as suburbs, put forward a proposition to relocate the line to the east through their land in exchange for free right-of-way, and to build a steam dummy line between Norwood and the horse car lines in Walnut Hills, which would provide Miami Valley passengers with a more direct entrance to downtown Cincinnati than the circuitous M&C. However, in August, an even more direct route south of Norwood, through the rugged Deer Creek Valley, was suggested, by which the Miami Valley could obtain its own access to Cincinnati. After imposing heavy restrictions, which would require the construction of several trestles and a tunnel, the Cincinnati City Council granted the right-of-way through the valley, including Eden Park, to the railroad company. The owners of the old CL&X grade sold it in April 1876 for $8,000 in stock of the new company, and most of the land outside Cincinnati had been bought by that summer. The Miami Valley resolved in May 1876 to build only north to Waynesville, a village southwest of Xenia, where the projected Waynesville, Port William and Jeffersonville Railroad and Jeffersonville, Mt. Sterling and Columbus Railroad would extend to Columbus, crossing the D&SE at Octa. (The former completed most of its line, but abandoned it in 1887; the latter was able to grade only a portion.)

Construction and early operations, 1876–1885
President Seth S. Haines of Waynesville broke ground in Eden Park on September 1, 1876, although most early work was done outside Cincinnati. The company continued to be plagued by lack of funds, and, despite completion of the grade between Norwood and Waynesville within a year, work soon slowed and eventually stopped in late 1878. Contractor John B. Benedict brought a suit in December for breach of contract, alleging that he was not properly paid. During the trial, two embarrassing facts came to light: Haines and Benedict had signed a "secret contract" giving Haines a portion of the bonds paid to Benedict, and the price of the line south of Norwood had been artificially inflated so that the connecting Cincinnati and Eastern Railway (C&E, later a N&W line) would have to pay more for trackage rights into Cincinnati. However, it was nonpayment of interest on bonds that forced the Miami Valley into receivership in January and foreclosure in March 1880. Another decade had passed and Lebanon still lacked a railroad.

The Toledo, Delphos and Burlington Railroad (TD&B), a growing narrow gauge system with roots in the town of Delphos, would finally give Lebanon its rail line. Together with a group of suburban Cincinnati investors, the TD&B bought the unfinished grade at the foreclosure sale for $61,000 and incorporated the narrow gauge Cincinnati Northern Railway as its successor on June 8, 1880. (The TD&B would also acquire the Dayton and South Eastern in February 1881.) At first the TD&B and Cincinnati-area residents shared stock and management equally, but soon this was changed so that the former party would control all the stock for ease in future consolidation, and the latter would locally manage the road. As the TD&B was in the process of building into Dayton from the north, it was decided that the new company would not use the grade all the way to Waynesville. Instead, the TD&B would construct a connection from the D&SE at a point they called Lebanon Junction, now inside Dayton near the intersection of Woodman and Rainier Drives, to the small village of Dodds. There the Cincinnati Northern would begin, following the Miami Valley's route through Lebanon to Cincinnati. Construction resumed in late 1880, and proceeded rapidly thanks to funding from Ohio and Northeastern capitalists. Mixed train operations between Lebanon and Norwood, where connections could be made with the M&C, began on May 30, 1881, and on September 5 the line was opened south to a streetcar connection at Oak Street, just north of the tunnel. Service was extended through the tunnel to the Eden Park entrance on January 12, 1882, and on February 13 a temporary Cincinnati depot opened just north of Court Street. With the completion of the TD&B's branch from Lebanon Junction to Dodds in December 1881, the Cincinnati-Dayton line was finally complete; Jackson County coal was first shipped over it in February 1882. Two short branches to the suburbs of Montgomery and Avondale—the latter built separately as the Spring Grove, Avondale and Cincinnati Railway (SGA&C)—opened on November 14, 1881 and July 1, 1882, respectively. C&E operations to Court Street began by April 1882, using the Cincinnati Northern south of a junction at Idlewild, and in October the Cincinnati Northern laid tracks across that street into its permanent depot at the southeast corner of the Broadway Street intersection.

The TD&B absorbed its subsidiary, the Toledo, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railroad (TC&StL), in March 1882, and took its name as more descriptive of the growing system, which hoped to become part of a nationwide narrow gauge network stretching southwest to Mexico City. One year later, in May 1883, the Cincinnati Northern and the SGA&C were consolidated into the TC&StL. However, the TC&StL was constructed cheaply, with poor drainage and little ballast. While the Cincinnati Northern had been built to better standards, the connecting line between Lebanon Junction and Dodds was just as bad. The inadequate facilities and equipment, as well as difficulties in interchanging equipment with lines, contributed to its entering receivership in August 1883. The TC&StL had six divisions at this time. Four of the five TC&StL divisions south of Delphos were sold to their bondholders at auction in June 1884, and separate companies were soon organized for three of those: the Dayton and Toledo Railroad, Dayton and Ironton Railroad, and Iron Railway (named Iron Railroad prior to TC&StL receivership). The Toledo-St. Louis line was sold in December 1885 and reorganized as the Toledo, St. Louis and Kansas City Railroad, commonly known as the Clover Leaf Route. In July, George Hafer of Avondale replaced William J. Craig of Toledo as receiver of the Cincinnati Northern Division, allowing it to recover from Craig's deferred maintenance. Hafer obtained a short-term lease from the trustees of the Dodds-Lebanon Junction line (officially the Cincinnati Division), allowing continued access to Dayton. Finally, on June 27, 1885, the Cincinnati Northern Division was sold for $200,000 to its bondholders, who incorporated the Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, with Hafer as president, on July 14 and transferred operations on August 1, 1885. The narrow gauge movement of the 1870s had failed, and all the ex-TC&StL lines were converted to standard gauge within the next ten years.

CL&N, 1885–1926
The newly organized CL&N initially operated a main line from Court Street in Cincinnati to Dayton, leasing the track from Dodds to Lebanon Junction from the Cincinnati Division trustees, and trackage rights over the Dayton and Ironton Railroad (the old narrow gauge D&SE line) into Dayton. But the latter was converted to in April 1887, and CL&N service was cut back to Dodds, since the operations north of there were unprofitable even when it was able to reach Dayton. (The line from Lebanon to Dodds was leased in 1892 to the company organized to operate north of Dodds.) Avondale Branch operations were discontinued in August 1889, due to competition from the cheaper Mt. Auburn Cable Railway. Under Hafer's leadership, new passenger and freight depots opened on the north side of Court Street in December 1885. In preparation for conversion to standard gauge, the CL&N relaid rail and replaced bridges, including a straight trestle in the Deer Creek Valley, completed in January 1889, in place of a curving old narrow gauge structure. The first standard gauge rails were laid by August 1889 as part of a dual gauge setup south of Idlewild, when the Ohio and North Western Railroad (O&NW, successor to the C&E), which had converted its line to standard gauge, moved its trains from the Little Miami Railroad (Pennsylvania Railroad system) back to the CL&N. Several months later, a third rail was laid north to East Norwood, allowing the O&NW to connect with the Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad (successor to the M&C). After undertaking more improvements to the alignment, the company completed the conversion of the main line to Lebanon to standard gauge on September 16, 1894, although, until it acquired a full set of standard gauge equipment, much of the commuter service to Blue Ash continued to use the narrow gauge tracks.

Throughout the CL&N's independence, various larger companies were looking to acquire it, mainly for the valuable Court Street terminal property. The most persistent rumor was that the Cincinnati, Jackson and Mackinaw Railroad (CJ&M, later a NYC line) would buy the CL&N as an entrance to Cincinnati. The CJ&M had built south from Michigan to Carlisle, Ohio in 1887, and initially acquired trackage rights over the CH&D to reach Cincinnati. Negotiations between the CL&N and CJ&M convinced the CH&D that the latter was capable of becoming a strong competitor, despite its poor financial state, and the CH&D attempted to acquire the CJ&M in 1892. But the CL&N stopped the consolidation based on Ohio's laws prohibiting such anti-competitive practices, and the CJ&M continued to look at the CL&N as a possible part of its line. After the CL&N's conversion to standard gauge was completed in 1894, the CJ&M secured trackage rights over the CL&N into Court Street, beginning service on January 27, 1896 via an extension from Carlisle to Franklin, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway (Big Four, later a NYC line) to Middletown, and the recently opened Middletown and Cincinnati Railroad to the CL&N at Hageman. The CJ&M also acquired the long-dormant Deer Creek Tunnel project in an attempt to construct its own route into the city, tired of dealing with Hafer and the CL&N. The Pennsylvania Railroad, owner of the Little Miami Railroad that had been constructed east of Lebanon in the 1840s, entered the negotiations in 1896 to protect its Cincinnati-area interests, and in March it (through the Pennsylvania Company) acquired a majority of the CL&N's stock. Pennsylvania officials took over management in May, and in 1902 the CL&N acquired the tunnel property and some terminal property near Court Street from the Cincinnati Northern Railroad, successor to the CJ&M, which had become part of the Big Four and terminated its use of the CL&N in 1901.

As a part of the Pennsylvania system, the CL&N continued to operate its own property (which included the line north of Dodds after 1914) until January 1, 1921, when it was leased to the Pennsylvania. Starting at the end of 1918, the Interstate Commerce Commission classified the CL&N as a Class I railroad, meaning that it made at least $1 million per year in operating revenue. (This designation was dropped in 1921 when the CL&N was leased.) However, net operating income, revenue minus costs, which had steadily climbed from the 1890s, began falling in 1916, becoming a deficit in 1920. Subsequently, effective January 1, 1926, the Pennsylvania merged the CL&N with several other small companies—the Cleveland, Akron and Cincinnati Railway, Manufacturers Railway, Pennsylvania-Detroit Railroad, and Toledo, Columbus and Ohio River Railroad—to create the Pennsylvania, Ohio and Detroit Railroad, a non-operating subsidiary. That company was merged into the Connecting Railway, previously a short link in Philadelphia, PA, in 1956, and its lessee merged with the New York Central Railroad in 1968 to form Penn Central Transportation.

Other lines, 1889–1915
 The 16.96 mi line north of Dodds, built by the TD&B to connect the Cincinnati Northern to the D&SE at Lebanon Junction, was sold separately at the June 1884 foreclosure sale, to its first-mortgage bondholders for $20,000. Initially operated under lease by the CL&N, service was discontinued in April 1887 when the ex-D&SE was converted from narrow gauge to. With its northern connection gone, and no on-line sources of revenue, there was no profit in operating the line. However, one such source would soon be created, when local businessman Henry Lewis decided to purchase nearby "Dayton limestone" quarries at Centerville. He bought the abandoned rail line from the bondholders' trustees for $40,000 in December 1888, and in January 1889 organized the Dayton, Lebanon and Cincinnati Railroad (DL&C). Extensions on both ends were planned, north into downtown Dayton and south to a standard gauge connection. Lewis finished converting the narrow gauge line to standard gauge in January 1891, and initially leased it to the Dayton, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway, successor to the D&SE. He leased in 1890 and later bought land in Dayton for the proposed terminal, and in early 1892 he acquired the quarries at Centerville, giving the line its source of traffic. The DL&C bought the line from Lewis in March 1892 for $189,000 in stock, and in June it acquired a lease on the CL&N's 5.52 mi line between Dodds and Lebanon. After converting the track to standard gauge, the DL&C began operations into Lebanon in late December 1892. However, it was unable to negotiate trackage rights with the Cincinnati, Dayton and Ironton Railroad (the latest name for the ex-D&SE), and only operated north to Lebanon Junction, where passengers could transfer to that company's trains into Dayton. Throughout its life, the DL&C competed with the CL&N wherever possible; for example, the CL&N advertised (along with the Middletown and Cincinnati Railroad and Big Four) a faster route between Lebanon and Dayton via Hageman and Middletown.

Lewis died in 1893, and in the next decade the DL&C built no new lines. However, a group of investors bought the company, including the Dayton terminal property, in 1901 for $250,000 from Lewis's heirs. The first segment of the line into downtown Dayton was completed in late 1902, branching off the main line at Hempstead and ending at Lambeth, site of the Dayton State Hospital. Unable to obtain a franchise from Dayton, and still unprofitable, the DL&C entered receivership in January 1905, and was sold at foreclosure in April 1907 and reorganized in May as the Dayton, Lebanon and Cincinnati Railroad and Terminal Company. The bondholders who had organized the new company succeeded in obtaining the franchise, and sold the stock to a new group of investors in January 1909. Construction was restarted in April, and in November the branch reached the intersection of Brown and Caldwell Streets and the National Cash Register plant. Finally, after completing the cuts and fills required along the east bank of the Great Miami River, the DL&C opened its new main line in 1912, to a passenger depot on the north side of Washington Street, several blocks south and west of the city's main Union Station. A freight depot was located just to the north, at Eaker Street, and just beyond was an interchange track (not part of the original line) connecting to the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway (B&O system) and, via that line, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway (Panhandle Route, part of the Pennsylvania system).

The other line eventually acquired by the CL&N was the Middletown and Cincinnati Railway (M&C, not to be confused with the Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad discussed earlier). Paul J. Sorg, owner of a tobacco plant east of Middletown, was unhappy with the service provided by the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad (then independent) and Cincinnati and Springfield Railway (Big Four system), both of which bypassed the center of town. Sorg and associates incorporated the M&C in early 1890, and surveyed a 14.23 mi line from Middletown, which lay in the Great Miami River valley, southeast to a point that would be known as Middletown Junction on the Little Miami Railroad (Pennsylvania system). Construction on the majority of the route, which crossed the CL&N at Hageman, was complete by September 1891, and a 365 ft truss bridge over the Little Miami River opened in early 1892, linking the line to the Pennsylvania. Access into central Middletown was delayed until December, when it was finally able to cross the CH&D to its depot. As opposed to the CL&N and DL&C, the M&C was straight and flat, giving a smooth ride, and turned a reasonable profit. The revenue was not enough, however, to pay off the bonds, and the M&C entered receivership in July 1894. The holders of liens against the property bought the line at foreclosure in October for $335,000, incorporated the Middletown and Cincinnati Railroad in December, and elected Sorg president.

Sorg died on May 28, 1902, and six days later the CL&N, owned by the Pennsylvania since 1896, bought its property for $400,000 and began operating it as a branch. The DL&C would be acquired twelve years later, after the Great Dayton Flood of 1913. The CL&N and DL&C, built on the highlands between the river valleys, combined to provide the only access into Dayton during the disaster. The Pennsylvania realized that the DL&C would make a good acquisition in the event of future flooding, and had the CL&N buy and begin operating the DL&C for about $700,000 in December 1914. (Through service between Cincinnati and Dayton had begun that summer.) The DL&C built a short connection from Lebanon Junction to the Panhandle Route at Clement in early 1915, and on July 1 its property became that of the CL&N.

Abandonments, 1917–1975
Competition from interurbans, specifically the Cincinnati-Lebanon Interurban Railway and Terminal Company, took away passengers from the CL&N beginning in 1903. But the interurban began to decline, going out of business in 1922, and it was motor vehicles that would kill the CL&N's passenger service. The first line to go was the Middletown Branch, discontinued in 1917; the short branch to Montgomery became freight-only in 1926. All service north of Lebanon ended in 1928, and in 1931 only one mixed train between Court Street and Lebanon was left on the schedule.

The less-convenient Cincinnati Union Terminal replaced Court Street in 1933, as agreed upon by all railroads participating in its construction. CL&N trains reached the station via trackage rights on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (ex-M&C) south of East Norwood. This was never popular among CL&N riders, and the last scheduled passenger train on the former CL&N ran on January 31, 1934.

With passenger service gone, and several cross-connections to other Pennsylvania lines, the CL&N was no longer needed as a through route. Several years after the Montgomery Branch was fully abandoned in 1933, the Pennsylvania discontinued freight service between Blue Ash and Mason and between Lebanon and Lytle; trains continued to reach Lebanon via the Little Miami Railroad and Middletown Branch. Service was resumed on the entire line during World War II, but the Lebanon-Lytle segment was torn up in 1952.

After the Pennsylvania merged into Penn Central in 1968, a 3 mi piece north from Brecon was again abandoned, as was the short piece of the Middletown Branch east of the main line at Hageman, with Lebanon service now coming from the ex-New York Central at Middletown. The line through the Deer Creek Valley into Court Street was also abandoned, and the old freight depot was torn down in 1975.

Sales, 1975–present
When the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) acquired the assets of the bankrupt Penn Central in 1976, it was allowed to choose which lines to keep and which to abandon. The line between Avondale and Brecon still saw heavy freight traffic, and there would still be a reasonable amount of traffic to Mason and Hempstead. Thus Conrail bought about half of the ex-CL&N, including the main line from Cincinnati to Brecon (Blue Ash Secondary Track), Mason to Hageman (Mason Secondary Track), Hempstead to Pasadena (Kettering Running Track), and Patterson Road to Dayton (DP&L Industrial Track), as well as Middletown to Hageman (Middletown Secondary) and Hempstead to Clement (Clement Running Track).

Ownership of the remaining segments—Brecon to Mason, Hageman to Lebanon, Lytle to Hempstead, Pasadena to Patterson Road, and Hageman to Middletown Junction—remained with the Penn Central trustees, although, with local funding, Conrail operated the two segments from Hageman to Lebanon and Centerville to Hempstead as "light density lines". Tracks between Lytle and Centerville were torn up in 1979. Since then, several more segments have been abandoned, including Avondale to McCullough and Centerville to Kettering.

Short line Indiana and Ohio Railway (IORY) acquired most of the remainder in the 1980s, beginning operations from Monroe (near Middletown) to Mason and Lebanon in March 1985, and McCullough to Brecon in December 1986. The city of Lebanon has bought the Hageman-Lebanon segment, initially owned by the Penn Central trustees, and the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority acquired the property between McCullough and Brecon in 1997 for a proposed public transit line. (IORY continues to operate freight on both these segments.)

The IORY began running tourist trains on the Lebanon segment in 1985. The passenger operations were split in 1996, going through several renamings to Turtle Creek Valley Railway, Turtle Creek and Lebanon Railway, and finally Lebanon Mason Monroe Railroad. Three short segments of line at Middletown and Dayton remained with Conrail until its 1999 breakup, when the Norfolk Southern Railway acquired Conrail's assets in southwestern Ohio.

As of 2022, two segments on the southern part of the former line are in use by IORY as the Blue Ash Subdivision and Mason Subdivision, with a gap between them, while a short section of its northernmost extent is used as a siding by Norfolk Southern. The rest of the track has been removed, although the right-of-way is discernible in places.

Route description
Lying on the highlands between the Little and Great Miami Rivers, the CL&N was commonly known as the "Highland Route". While it normally received only local traffic, its location was a distinct advantage during floods. This was first demonstrated during the Flood of 1884, when the rising Ohio River cut off all other railroads from downtown Cincinnati. But the load was too much for the narrow gauge TC&StL, and several companies switched to Miami and Erie Canal boats to make the connections until the waters subsided. Similar Cincinnati floods happened in 1883, 1897, 1898, 1907, and 1937, but in 1913 the Great Dayton Flood inundated that city, then lying at the north end of the independent DL&C. That company had just completed its line into downtown Dayton, when, less than a year later, the Loramie Reservoir broke through its levees and sent a swell of water through down the Great Miami River and into the city. As with the Cincinnati floods, only the CL&N and DL&C were unaffected, and relief supplies were sent north from Cincinnati via Lebanon to the National Cash Register plant.

The line began on the east side of downtown Cincinnati, at the corner of Eggleston Avenue and Court Street. The site of the brick freight depot, closed in 1969 and demolished in 1975, is now owned by Greyhound Lines, which uses it as an intercity bus terminal. A track built in 1887 crossed Court Street, connecting with the Little Miami Railroad's Eggleston Avenue Connection for freight transfer. The line began by climbing the Deer Creek Valley, the only feasible rail entrance to downtown Cincinnati that did not follow a river valley. When the railroad was built in the late 1870s, the valley was used by the city as a dump. An 1852 city ordinance provided for raising the ground level, beginning with the raising of Court Street by as much as 50 ft. To follow the eventual surface level and avoid the steep hillsides, the railroad was built on trestles for much of its ascent, with a maximum grade of 3.5%. After leaving the depot, the line traversed an S-shaped trestle to the east side of the valley, before crossing Elsinore Place and Eden Park Drive at grade, with a second trestle between these streets. (The former was replaced in January 1889 with a straighter single-track trestle. ) A bridge took the line over Florence Avenue, and it then passed through the neighborhood of Mount Auburn before passing under the summit through the cut-and-cover Oak Street Tunnel north of McMillan Street. The line started its gradual descent as it left the tunnel, generally following the existing ground level and crossing streets at grade.

Double tracks initially stretched from Court Street to near Fredonia Avenue, where the 1.25 mi Avondale Branch split for the Cincinnati Zoo. When the line was converted to in 1894, the tunnel and McMillan Street underpass were not wide enough for a double-track line, yet two standard gauge tracks were laid side-by-side. After an accident in 1916, the tracks were relaid as a gauntlet track. The trestles were rebuilt as single-track in 1888 and 1889, after which double track extended only from Eden Park Drive to Avondale. Due to increased passenger traffic, the line was re-widened not only south to Court Street but also north to Norwood from 1902 to 1904, once the valley had been filled in. Beyond Avondale, the CL&N descended through Idlewild, where two Norfolk and Western Railway lines diverged—the Cincinnati and Eastern Railway east to Portsmouth and the Cincinnati Connecting Belt Railroad northwest to a junction near Elmwood Place. The railway began to climb again at East Norwood, where it crossed the Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad), reaching the flat highlands at Deer Park. In the late 1880s, the CL&N, with its frequent commuter service, contributed to the development of suburbs along its line including Idlewild, East Norwood, Silverton, Deer Park, and Hazelwood. At Hopkins Avenue in Norwood, commuters unsatisfied with the bare platform built by the railroad company raised $1500 to build a station building, which opened on August 1, 1888, and was owned by the Hopkins Avenue Depot Company until service ended in the 1930s. It was later used as a gas station, and now houses a chiropractor. As part of its bicentennial celebration, the city of Silverton built a replica of its former CL&N station with a museum inside.

Just beyond East Norwood, the Pennsylvania built McCullough Yard in 1927, improving switching operations for the growing industrial base in Norwood. A connection was included to the Pennsylvania's Chicago-bound Richmond Branch, which the CL&N crossed over north of the yard. In Butler County, north of Brecon, the CL&N curved abruptly northeast onto the original line, partially graded in the 1850s between Sharonville and Lebanon. Just beyond, it began to descend slowly through Mason to Hageman, where it crossed the Middletown Branch, and then rose slightly, alongside Turtle Creek, to Lebanon. The Pennsylvania tore down the original Lebanon passenger station in 1960, replacing it (for freight purposes) with a smaller building from Kings Mills on the Little Miami Railroad. The Lebanon Council of Garden Clubs acquired the land in 1972, tore down the freight depot, and erected a replica of the old passenger depot in its place, with a gift shop inside.

Leaving Lebanon, the line ascended a small gully and then headed north-northeasterly across the highlands to Dodds. The never-used grade from Dodds to Waynesville descended into the Little Miami River valley via Newman Run before turning north and ending at the latter village. Portions of the right-of-way and stone abutments for several never-built bridges remain on what is now farmland. The line as completed turned north at Dodds, and required several cuts and fills to traverse the rolling terrain. At Hempstead, just north of Hempstead Road, the line split. The original route continued north, parallel to Woodman Drive, to the old Dayton and South Eastern Railroad (now the Iron Horse Trail) at Lebanon Junction. A 1915 extension was built parallel to the ex-D&SE, and ended at the Panhandle Route (now the Creekside Trail to the east) at Clement. Part of this line is still operated by the Norfolk Southern Railway, and to the south the right-of-way is being used for an extension of the Iron Horse Trail. The other branch headed northwesterly into downtown Dayton, steadily descending as it passed south of the University of Dayton and alongside the Great Miami River. The main passenger and freight depots were at Washington Street, which the CL&N passed over on the first such grade separation in Dayton. The first freight depot opened with the line in 1912, and was replaced in 1930 by a larger structure, itself torn down in 1966.

Presidents
Joseph Wood was the first of at least two Pennsylvania Railroad men elected president after that company gained control in 1896.
 * J. P. Gilchrist (1852–1861)
 * Seth Silver Haines (1874–1879)
 * Nathan Keever (receiver, 1879–1880)
 * John M. Corse of the TD&B (1880–1882)
 * Elijah B. Phillips of the TC&StL (1883)
 * William J. Craig (receiver, 1883–1884)
 * George Hafer (receiver, 1884–1885; president, 1885–1896)

Equipment
When the CL&N converted to in 1894, it initially mounted its  narrow gauge passenger cars on standard gauge trucks. These were replaced with standard gauge cars after the Pennsylvania acquisition in 1896.

The first locomotive on the line, a Baldwin 4-4-0 named "Warren County No. 1", was bought in 1877 by the Miami Valley Railway. In all, the CL&N and predecessors had nine narrow gauge locomotives, bought from four different manufacturers. Two were disposed of in the 1880s, and, of the seven remaining into the 1890s, six provided main line service and one was used as a switching and helper locomotive.

Standard gauge operations began in 1894 with five locomotives, and the narrow gauge equipment was kept temporarily for commuter runs to Blue Ash. Later acquisitions, as well as consolidations with other companies, raised the number to 23 in 1920, its final year of independent operation.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation

Language Creation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Language Creation
I'm sure that this doesn't belong here.

It is quite interesting to read, but is not encyclopedic - perhaps it should be moved to Wikibooks.

Jeff Knaggs 17:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. DenisMoskowitz 18:21, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

 * Me too. Edwinstearns 18:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. There is already a conworlding book in wikibooks - Ingolemo 21:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete or transwiki. Wikipedia is not the place for how-tos or personal essays. 力伟|☺ 21:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I wrote this Page! How dare You!!!!! (D. de Weck)
 * Above is by User:62.252.0.5, article created by User:62.252.0.4.
 * Those IPs are both used by NTL in the UK, so unfortunately it's not appropriate to block this nuisance. Noisy | Talk 12:11, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Personal essay. Non-encyclopedic. --jpgordon{gab} 01:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. But this could make good h2g2 material with a little re-working.  P Ingerson 03:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but it's out of context here. Delete and/or transwiki.  Also a prime Everything2 and Wikigeeks candidate. - Lucky 6.9 20:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. - and Block user who is a vandal. Jeff Knaggs 11:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Original research.  Noisy | Talk 12:11, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.