text:
Feebate

Feebate is a portmanteau of "fee" and "rebate". A feebate program is a self-financing system of fees and rebates that are used to shift the costs of externalities produced by the private expropriation, fraudulent abstraction, or outright destruction of public goods onto those market actors responsible. Originally coined in the 1970s by Arthur H. Rosenfeld, feebate programs have typically been used to shift buying habits in the transportation and energy sectors.

Examples
California's proposed "Clean Car Discount" program (AB493-Ruskin) was designed to help reduce the state's global warming/greenhouse gas emissions by imposing a fee of up to $2,500 on new, high carbon emitting vehicles (starting with 2011 models), and then rebating the fee to buyers of new low emission vehicles, thereby theoretically shifting the social cost of the destruction of public goods by global warming onto those who contribute to global warming. This Bill failed to pass.

Supporters point towards what they feel are feebates' tendency to promote personal responsibility by having those responsible for the involuntary expropriation (by means of force and fraud) of public goods from the public—and each and every private individual—by destruction of the environment or other negligent behavior towards private and public property, by having polluters pay for the externalities that they impose upon society. In the case of personal cars, feebates share some of the same aims as fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, congestion charging, and road pricing.

In some situations, feebates can be a more efficient (or complementary) way of promoting greater fuel efficiency and other socially-desirable outcomes than traditional taxes or quotas. Fuel taxes create important price signals that can make consumers aware of the non-internalized costs of fuel consumption (greenhouse gasses, other pollution)—and raise funds to offset this externality. But retail consumers have very high discount rates, meaning buyers do not take into account the additional cost high gasoline taxes or poor gas mileage when purchasing a car. A feebate internalizes that cost into the initial purchase price, thereby requiring the buyer to prepay for the taking of public and private environmental goods.

Another example of a feebate is proposed in the Rocky Mountain Institute's 2004 publication, "Winning the Oil Endgame". For each class of car and light truck, a feebate mechanism is used to reward buyers of vehicles that are more fuel efficient than the average vehicle in that class and penalize buyers of less fuel efficient vehicles. This feebate is revenue-neutral, meaning that the amount of money collected through fees (surcharges) equals the amount paid out in rebates.

title: Feebate


text:
Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

Older
How legal was his 20 minute reign? If it was then should he be under Louis XIX of France? Timrollpickering 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "Legitimist" fantasies, imagined long afterwards out of dreaming over a genealogical tree by someone who refers to "La Madame de France," wouldn't you say? "The duc d'Angoulême set aside any claims he might have had on the occasion." That's the ordinary assessment, though I won't intrude into this current entry. The occasion, on August 2, 1830, was well-recorded at the time in memoirs. A contemporary quote would be an unlikely surprise, however, forcing me to kow-tow in apology upon the Savonnerie. --Wetman 08:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, On this page the duc de Bordeaux is also referred to the comte de Chambord very close together, and it might make someone not familiar with the history think that they are two seperate people. Should I try to clarify this myself or do I just note this and then someone elmse changes this? Oh I should probably read the instructions. Sorry.

 * Louis XVII is listed as such, even though he was never king. This guy was technically king if only for 20 minutes, so he deserves a number too. --dllu \17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to Louis-Antoine, Dauphin of France-Croix129

Requested move (2007)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême → Louis XIX of France and Henri, comte de Chambord → Henry V of France - (Discuss) — even only for a very short time, they were French kings in fact, so there's no reason not to use their regnal names as titles of their articles. - Louis88 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Strongly oppose We have no business deciding whether they were kings in fact, which happens to be strongly controversial. (Even from the legitimist PoV, neither was crowned; and the question of when the Bourbons ceased to be the government is infinitely debateable.) We should merely call them what English does, which is the Duke of Angoulême and Count of Chamfort (comte is artificial). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how crowning comes into it - Louis XVIII was never crowned, either, and all kings were clearly kings before their crowning, as well. As to "Comte" being artificial, there are 13,000 English google hits for "Comte de Chambord" and only 1000 for "Count of Chambord", once wikipedia results are excluded.  There's only 26 Google Scholar hits for "Count of Chambord", as opposed to 200 for "Comte de Chambord" (although this may include some foreign language journals, I don't see any in the early hit results.)  In English French title are often left untranslated, and in this particular instance, it seems to be left untranslated the majority of the time. john k 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you checked, I won't insist on Count. I suppose Charles VII, whom I was thinking of, is a special case. That would be another move request anyway. The only point about Louis XVII is that he is so called (and there is less dispute about this because the numbering was supported by a later actual government of France; Louis XIX never was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Louis XVIII, was never crowned. The one who reigned from 1814-1824. I agree about Louis XVII - he's called that.  Angoulême is rarely called Louis XIX. john k 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as PMA says, it is controversial whether they were kings in fact, and they are, at any rate, better known by their other titles - Louis for his pre-1824 title of "Duke of Angouleme" (which he was known by for his first 45 years or so), Henri for his post-1830 title of "Comte de Chambord.". john k 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while my preference is to extend them their regnal names and ordinals, it is just that, my preference. Majority usage is for the ducal and comital titles. Charles 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

King of France??
Err, if I recall correctly, historians don't recognize Louis' twenty minute reign. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hideous lead sentence
The article begins as follows:

 * Louis-Antoine of Artois [1], Dauphin of Viennois and Duke of Angoulême (Louis XIX, disputedly King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes in 1830 and Legitimist Pretender to the throne from 1836 to 1844) (August 6, 1775 – June 3, 1844) was the eldest son of King Louis XVI of France's youngest brother, the Comte d'Artois, and his wife, Marie-Thérèse de Savoie.

As someone somewhere once said, "that sentence should be taken out and shot"! --207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Instead of passing what you perceive to be a fault, how about you do something about it? It's easy to edit, in fact I would encourage you to register to make such changes in the future easier to do and track. Charles 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Angoulême Son of France?
"Louis-Antoine, Dauphin of France and Duke of Angoulême (born Louis-Antoine d'Artois, son of France...",
 * as per 15 August 2009 change by Montjoy Pursuivant.

How can the duc d'Angoulême be born a son of France? He was born in 1775 during the reign of his uncle Louis XVI and is thus in the same category as Louis XIV's nephew, Philippe II d'Orléans, who was the son of the king's brother or, if you prefer, the king's nephew, and a "grandson of France" because the grandson of a king (Louis XIII). Very simple.

Now, to go back to Angoulême. At the time of his birth, he was
 * great-grandson of a king (Louis XV),
 * grandson of the Dauphin,
 * son of the fifth son (Charles Philippe) of the Dauphin,
 * nephew of the third son (Louis Auguste = Louis XVI at the death of his grandfather Louis XV in 1774) of the Dauphin,

I do not understand the logic that would give Angoulême the title "son of France" when he was born, instead of "grandson of France".

The way I understand it, Louis Antoine d'Artois, duc d'Angoulême, was born a grandson of France, and became "son of France" in 1824 when his father Charles X acceded to the throne.

Now, let's take children of the same generation as Angoulême, the children of his father's brother, Louis Auguste, who was king Louis XVI at the time of Angoulême's birth.

All of Louis XVI children are "sons or daughters of France", the eldest son being also the "dauphin".

How could Angoulême, the nephew of the king, be given the same title "son of France" as his cousins, the children of the king?

I may be mistaken, in which case I would like this to be explained to me.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 * This time, you would be right... if all was always logical. The general rule is, as you say, that only sons of Kings, sons of the Heir apparent (and probably sons of the firstborn son of the Heir apparent) are Sons of France. However, the Duke of Angoulême was a special case. As the son of a Son of France who was not the heir apparent, he should have been a Grandson of France, but at his birth his uncle the King decided he would be granted the honours of a Son of France. See for example Guyot, Traité des droits, fonctions, franchises, exemptions, prérogatives et privilèges annexés en France à chaque dignité, vol. 2, Paris 1787, p. 307: "Monsieur le duc d'Angoulême, quoiqu'arrière-petit-fils de Roi, porte le titre d'Enfant de France. Mais s'il a un jour des enfans, on appellera son fils aîné premier Prince du Sang. C'est ce qui a été décidé par le Roi à la naissance de ce prince". Guyot implies that it would apply to all great-grandchildren of a King when the King is the grandson of a King, and not his son, but he is wrong on that as shown by the exemple of Berry: Angoulême was a one-time case. For what reason I don't know, but "Son of France" is indeed the title which Angoulême always used, for exemple in documents produced in emigration (so long before Louis XVIII's death). Note however that the privilege was not extended to his children, who would have been only princes of the blood (not Grandsons of France).

 * The Duke of Berry, Angoulême younger brother, was a different case (I have also corrected his notice). The ordinary rule applied to him: he was born a Grandson of France, and that is the title he used in emigration. However, sometime early during the Restauration (I don't know when exactly) he also was elevated to the rank of a Son of France, which he is given in his contract of marriage and in other official documents. The reason is obvious: it was unlikely that his brother would have children.

 * What made however Angoulême and Berry a special species, different from "real" Sons of France, was that they had a surname, which was "d'Artois", when "real" Sons of France have no surname at all. That changed for Angoulême when Charles X became king (he was upgraded from "L-A d'Artois, Son of France, Duke of Angoulême" to "L-A [no surname], Dauphin of France, Duke of Angoulême". But this never happened for Berry who was already dead at the time.

 * Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Artois or France?
When Charles X became king did Louis Antoine not automatically bear the name "France" instead of "Artois"? Seven Letters 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think so. john k (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll change it. Seven Letters 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not done. Doesn't seem to have persuaded people. Fences &  Windows  11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême → Louis XIX of France — He was technically Louis XIX (for 20 minutes.) --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He never effectively ruled France, and is best known as the Duke of Angoulême (although he was indisputably dauphin). john k (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I can see how his reign was rather short and, if French monarchs could abdicate, that he was King of France and Navarre, but he is known as Duke of Angoulême. I still, however, believe that encyclopedias should have their own internal style guides and that the common names should be redirects in some instances. Seven Letters 14:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? "He never effectively ruled France", says John K, and neither Louis XVII.  Charles X abdicated in favor of his grandson, the duc de Bordeaux, and his son had to countersign the abdication, thus abandoning his rights to the throne of France in favor of his nephew. In order to abdicate, you have to be whatever you are abdicating. Non? In which case, for a few minutes, he was king Louis XIX (and his wife was queen). Now, if we move him to Louis XIX of France, since he abdicated in favor of his nephew, the duc de Bordeaux who was king for about a week, then the article on the latter will have to be moved to Henry V of France. (A "fun discussion" looming on the horizon !)
 * --Frania W. (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He never effectively ruled France and is not known as Louis XIX. Louis XVII is usually referred to that way.  That is not the case for Angoulême. john k (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It really depends on which side of the pond or the channel the conversation is taking place.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even that article isn't titled "Louis XIX". Moreover, it refers to him as "Louis XIX" for the 1836-1844 period, not the 20 minutes in 1830. john k (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you begin looking into books, quite a few authors do call him Louis XIX. What I am saying is that he is also known under Louis XIX, even if it was a blitzreign.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose I don't think that anybody who knows my published work could fault my legitimist credentials. But it doesn't matter whether or not I believe that Louis reigned or not.  It is purely a matter of what he is generally called in the scholarly literature. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose Charles was deposed on July 30, 1830,, and when he abdicated on 2 August, Charles was not king of France at that time, therefore neither his son, the duke of Angoulême nor his grandson the duke of Bordeaux, they could be kings of France. This reign of 20 minutes rather looks like a false legitimist hoax. Trasamundo (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...this is problematic. Charles was deposed in Paris by an illegal provisional government, but, as I understand it, the rest of France continued to acknowledge him and his government continued to be recognized by foreign powers.  Louis XIX's 20 minute reign, and, more broadly, the question of who was the legal government of France between July 30 and August 9, is debatable, but this is not a "false legitimist hoax."  Until August 2, at least, I don't think the Paris provisional government can be considered the undisputed de facto government of France. (I'll add that historical dictionaries from the late nineteenth century are a horrible source for proving anything) john k (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there really a government of Charles X over France? Perhaps did this government recognize the reign of the duke of Angulema and of the duke of Bordeaux? The facts show that Charles X attempt to repeal the ordinances, but it was not possible, their authority was not recognized then. And in fact, his own ministers abandoned him.  The government of the Duke of Orleans (not the Municipal Commission of Paris) was recognized by the Chamber of Deputies  and that of the Peers.  before Charles X's abdication. Finally, when Charles X abdicated he had been abandoned by his own regiments. Trasamundo (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shall we pretend
Well &, it appears that here & at the infobox of Louis' nephew. You both have something to work out, as to what goes in both their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it affects readers negatively for the infobox to clearly state that there reign is disputed. The info box makes it more clear that they were “disputed” monarchs. Orson12345 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And then there's Louis XVII's infobox. Anyways, you both will iron out some kinda compromise, I'm sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox shouldn’t change for Louis XVII because the number 17 was skipped because the Bourbons wanted to to include him as king of France. So his claim is more solidified. Orson12345 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that there is no way for the infobox to succinctly and clearly explain something so complex as Henri's (and to a lesser extent Louis Antoine's) status, but I do not feel that strongly about it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. I wish there was a better way to explain it in the infobox. I think it’s best to have the infobox (though very complicated) at least there’s something there instead of being blank. Orson12345 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême


text:
Kaya

Kaya may refer to:

People

 * Kaya (given name)
 * Kaya (surname)

Places

 * Kaya, Burkina Faso, a town in Burkina Faso, capital of the department
 * Kaya Airport, serving the town
 * Kaya Department, a department or commune of Sanmatenga Province in central Burkina Faso
 * Kayaköy, a village in Muğla Province, Turkey
 * Kaya, Hopa, a village in Artvin Province, Turkey
 * Kaya, Kyoto, a town located in Yosa District, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan
 * Kaya (Mijikenda), a sacred forest site of the Mijikenda peoples in Kenya
 * Kaya, South Sudan, a town in South Sudan
 * Skiu-Kaya, adjoining villages in Ladakh, India
 * Kaya confederacy, an alternate romanization of the ancient Gaya confederacy on the Korean peninsula

Popular culture

 * Kaya (film), a 1969 Yugoslav film
 * Kaya FM, a radio station in Johannesburg, South Africa
 * Kaya (TV series), a scripted MTV drama television series
 * Kaya, a villain in the 2013 Indian film Krrish 3, played by Kangana Ranaut

Anime

 * Kaya (One Piece), a fictional character in the anime and manga One Piece
 * Kaya (Princess Mononoke), a character from the anime movie Princess Mononoke

Literature

 * Kaya Press, an independent publisher

Music

 * Kaya (album), an album by Bob Marley and the Wailers (1978)
 * Kaya Tour, a concert tour organised to support the album
 * "Kaya," the title track of the album
 * Kaya (Canadian singer) (born 1968), real name Francis Martin Lavergne
 * Kaya (Japanese musician), member of Schwarz Stein
 * Kaya (Mauritian musician) (1960–1999), singer and creator of Seggae
 * Kaya, a vocal group in the Australian version of The X Factor
 * Kaya (Bulgarian band) (1999–present)

Other uses

 * Gaya confederacy, a confederacy in southern Korea (42–562 CE)
 * Kaya Airlines, a Mozambican airline
 * Kaya F.C., a Filipino association football club
 * Kaya identity, an equation relating factors that determine the level of human impact on climate, in the form of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
 * Kaya (jam), a type of coconut egg jam popular in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia
 * Kaya-no-miya, the seventh oldest collateral branch (ōke) of the Japanese Imperial Family
 * Kaya toast, a popular snack amongst Malaysians and Singaporeans and other SE Asians
 * Kaya (tree), Torreya nucifera, or Japanese Nutmeg tree
 * JAPANESE SHIP Kaya, several ships
 * Trikaya, the Buddhist doctrine of three kayas (bodies) of Buddha

title: Kaya


text:
Rox

Rox or ROX may refer to:
 * Roseau Municipal Airport (IATA code), airport in Roseau, Minnesota
 * Rox (album), an album by California punk band Supernova
 * Rox (singer), London-based singer
 * Rox (American TV series)
 * ROX (Belgian TV series)
 * Rox, Nevada, a ghost town
 * Roxithromycin, sold under the trade name ROX
 * ROX Desktop, a Unix desktop environment based on the ROX-Filer file manager
 * Rox Jewellers (retailer), in the United Kingdom
 * Brockton Rox, a minor league baseball team in Brockton, Massachusetts
 * St. Cloud Rox (minor league baseball), a team in St. Cloud, Minnesota, that played from 1946 to 1971
 * St. Cloud Rox (collegiate summer baseball), a team in St. Cloud, Minnesota, since 1997
 * The Rox, a renamed Ellis Island in the Wild Cards book series
 * "Rox", a song by Scottish band The Aliens from the album Astronomy for Dogs
 * The Rox, a nickname for the Colorado Rockies
 * The Rox, a nickname for the Houston Rockets
 * Rox, a model of bicycle computer made by Sigma Sport
 * Rox, the currency in the children's online game Moshi Monsters
 * ROX is the ticker symbol and shorthand nomer for Castle Brands
 * Rox, a main character in the animated television series Sunny Day
 * Rox, a cosmetic outfit in Fortnite Battle Royale
 * Rox, a videogame released in 1998 for Sega Saturn and in 2003 for PlayStation
 * Roxburghshire, historic county in Scotland, Chapman code

title: Rox


text:
Robert Flint

Robert Flint LLD DD (14 March 1838 – 1910) was a Scottish theologian and philosopher who wrote also on sociology.

Life
Flint was born at Greenburn, Sibbaldbie near Applegarth in Dumfriesshire on 14 March 1838, the son of Grace Johnston (née Paterson) and Robert Flint, a farm overseer. His first school was at Evan Water then he moved to Moffat. In 1852, he entered the University of Glasgow where he distinguished himself (without graduating) in arts and divinity.

Having been employed as a lay missionary by the 'El ders' Association of Glasgow', Flint was licensed to preach as a Church of Scotland minister by the Presbytery of Glasgow in June 1858, and for a short time acted as assistant to Norman Macleod, at the Barony Church, Glasgow. He was minister of the East Church, Aberdeen from 1859 to 1862, and of Kilconquhar church in Fife from 1862 to 1864, a small country village parish, which gave him leisure for study, improved by visits to Germany.

On the death of James Frederick Ferrier in 1864, Flint was elected to succeed him in the moral philosophy chair at the University of St Andrews, among the competing candidates being Thomas Hill Green. This chair he held till 1876, when he succeeded Thomas Jackson Crawford in the divinity chair of the University of Edinburgh. On this appointment he was awarded doctorates by both the University of Glasgow (LLD) and the University of Edinburgh (DD). Thomas Chalmers had similarly migrated from the one chair to the other.

Flint was appointed to a number of foundation lectureships. He was Baird lecturer (1876–77); in 1880 he travelled to America, and delivered a course as Stone lecturer at Princeton University; in 1887–88 he was Croall lecturer. He was elected on 21 May 1883 corresponding member of the Institute of France (Académie des sciences morales et politiques), and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1880. His proposers were Sir Robert Christison, Sir Alexander Grant, Alexander Campbell Fraser and Peter Guthrie Tait. He served as Vice President to the Society for three sessions: 1886–92; 1893–99; and 1902–07.

He resigned his chair in 1903 to devote himself to literary work, a purpose hampered by failing health. His post was filled by Rev Prof William Paterson Paterson (later Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

For some time he lived at Musselburgh. He delivered the Gifford lectures in 1908–1909.

Flint died, unmarried, at his residence, 5 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh, on 25 November 1910. In 2015 the building was occupied by a restaurant and hotel.

He is buried against the eastern wall of the old south section of Liberton Cemetery in south Edinburgh.

Artistic recognition
His sketch portrait of 1884 (wearing armour), by William Brassey Hole, is held by the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

Works

 * Christ's Kingdom upon Earth (1865) sermons
 * Philosophy of History in France and Germany (1874)
 * Theism (1877) Baird Lectures 1876/7; 7th edition, revised (1889)
 * Anti-Theistic Theories (1879) Baird Lectures 1876/7
 * Vico (1884)
 * Historical Philosophy in France (1894)
 * Socialism (1894)
 * Sermons and Addresses (1899)
 * Agnosticism (1903)
 * Philosophy as scientia scientarum (1904)

title: Robert Flint


text:
Karl Knies

Karl Gustav Adolf Knies (29 March 1821 – 3 August 1898) was a German economist of the historical school of economics, best known as the author of Political Economy from the Standpoint of the Historical Method (1853). Knies taught at the University of Heidelberg for over 30 years, and was perhaps the most theoretically oriented economist of the older historical school.

Like others in the German historical school, Knies disliked the attitudes of the "classical school" (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and their followers), particularly their belief that the pursuit of individual self-interest redounded to the good of the community. In his Political Economy, p. 157, he comments that self-interest is "in the public interest, so to speak, in its weakness, and dangerous in its strength" (gemeinnützig, so zu sagen, in seine Schwäche und gefährlich in seine Stärke).

Knies is very important to early American economic thought, as some of its founders studied under him, e.g., John Bates Clark attended from 1872 to 1875 the University of Zurich and the University of Heidelberg where he studied under him; Clark supervised the thesis of Frank Knight, who in turn influenced Paul Samuelson, who was the first to win the John Bates Clark Medal for the best American economist under age forty. Richard T. Ely studied under Knies and received his Ph.D. in 1879 in Heidelberg. Knies is the central-most figure in the network of winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.

Publications

 * Statistics (1850)
 * Political Economy from the Standpoint of the Historical Method, (1st ed., 1853, Braunschweig; 2nd ed., 1883)
 * Money and Credit (1873–6, 2nd ed., 1885)

title: Karl Knies


text:
Talk:Ger (Hasidic dynasty)

Is there a specific reason why the link to a picture of a spodik (from the article on Rabbi Isaac Hutner) was removed? Should I write a short entry about what a spodik is, and then link it to the picture of Rabbi Isaac Hutner, and then link the whole spodik article to this article on Ger?

Similarly, would it be inappropriate (or too much detail) to write further about the Ger Hasidim's distinctive hat (an everyday hat, not a Spodik), as well as provide a picture of it?
 * Those sound interesting, please do add them. SF2K1

gerrer wedding videos
i have some gerrer wedding videos that i would like to post links to. the link is http://youtube.com/watch?v=owi6tzww-0Q. do you all think this would be an appropriate video to post? let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.143.32 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal
Some vandal is constantly reverting all my edits and additions on this page.Ortho 03:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Now its starting in the Yisrael Alter page as well. Some of my edits are clearly needed and this is clear vandalism. Someone please help I'm unfamiliar with the procedureOrtho 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay now he got better and erased only what was offensive to him and replaced it by the paragraph entitled "Emphasis on Purity and Holiness". I concede to that title and to some of the material therein but most of it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that "It is very hard to describe how this was done. Only the people that had the Zchus (privilege & merit) to meet with him personally can truly understand this" is no reason to hold back the extremely interesting and noteworthy information that I posted. To be sure - any article anywere, much more so in an encyclopedia, about another foreign culture will never enable the reader to truly or fully understand that culture. Nevertheless the facts should still be available. Anyone interested in some very interesting facts about Ger should just go to "history" and see my latest edit that has since been erased.Ortho 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

portions often removed by vandal
Unlike other Hassidim, Gerrer Hassidim are known to pray very quickly, so they have more time to study Talmud. In the middle of Sabbath prayers, Gerrer Hassidim take a break from praying to study.

Emphasis on Purity and Holiness
The Bais Yisroel Z"L who was the 5th Gerrer Rebbe emphasized the portions of the Torah that deals with being holy and pure. He left a great impression on all walks of life that came in contact with him and was highly respected by all chasidic circles. His idea was to elevate every person to somehow become one level higher than his present state. There are countless stories from individuals (Chasidim and NON Chasidim) who met the Rebbe, which relate how he had a tremendous spiritual impact on them and how this strong impression will never leave them. What makes this even more impressive is that many of these encounters with the Rebbe were for a very short period of time.

Ger is by far the most restrictive of all Hasidic sects regarding sexual matters, allowing marital sex only once a month and without any foreplay even a simple hug or kiss. The Beis Yisrael is responsible for reinforcing these restrictions in Ger post WWII with great effort and amidst opposition from others outside Ger such as Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky the Steipler Gaon.

Gerrer Hasidim do not walk in the street with their wives side by side rather she walks four cubits behind him. A Gerrer hasid will not utter the word "wife" rather he will say "bei mir in shtib" or "bei dir in shtib" ("in my house" or "in your house" respectively). (There are but a few sources in the Talmud that allude to such a way of speaking.)Itzik18 07:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) as well as a link to a video clipItzik18 07:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in the world are you getting this: I have some Ger relatives and frankly the above is bunch of crap - their sexual relations would be similar to most religious Jews (remember it is a Mitvah to provide sexual happiness to one's wife), and this business of once a month and holes in the sheet comes from holes in the head@Incorrect 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been told the same things by other Hasidim--not the hole in the sheet (definitely a myth), but that Ger is extremely restrictive about sexuality and that they don't talk about their wives. I've also been told, however, that things are loosening slightly now as Ger women are not willing to put up with only having sex once a month. If this is an urban legend it is one with a lot of currency within the Hasidic community. Alexisr 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/for-members-of-israel-s-ultra-orthodox-gur-sect-sex-is-a-sin-1.412153

Contradiction in article
In the section "Distribution of Gerrer Hasidim" it says "Rabbi Avraham Mordechai Alter, who managed to escape, set about the task of rebuilding the movement in the British Mandate of Palestine" and in section "The 5th Gerrer Rebbe" it says "The Beis Yisrael ... rebuilt Ger after its virtual destruction in World War II". This seems contradictory and should be decided or clarified. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ger (Hasidic dynasty). 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/20131112004708/http://pelorous.totallyplc.com/media_manager/public/76/Accompanying%20Notes%20by%20Cantor%20Moshe%20Haschel%20for%20Shabbat%20Shira%202012.pdf to http://pelorous.totallyplc.com/media_manager/public/76/Accompanying%20Notes%20by%20Cantor%20Moshe%20Haschel%20for%20Shabbat%20Shira%202012.pdf

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) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuse
This article is about a Hassidic group that has had 7 Rebbes over the generations. These allegations are against one out of those 7 Rebbe's 9 children. Furthermore, the only source of these allegations is an Haaretz article which relies on a supposedly anonymous victim. There was never a police report or an investigation to corroborate it. Considering that Haaretz has been accused of being anti-Haredi and that there is Gerrer Opposition with motive to malign and besmirch the Gerrers and their leader, these allegations certainly appear to be highly questionable. Since these allegations aren't very relevant or corroborated and have not even received notable coverage (other then Haaretz - the additional citation quotes Haaretz) then why are they given a section on this wikipedia page? Wikipedia isn't a gossip section in a tabloid.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ping: User:Smntstatus--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, it appears to be a credible article . Non-editorial/opinion articles from Haaretz are considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. The source in question relies on two anonymous victims, as well as several additional anonymous sources. It references a previous investigation into the same alleged perpetrator and also presents a response from a representative of the community, which includes the possibility of feuding within the community being a motivation for the allegations. Wikipedia's article should be able to document the conflict without taking sides. Ibadibam (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ibadibam: You addressed the credibility of Ha’aretz and that the allegations were potentially motivated by the breakaway faction. However, you didn’t address whether these allegations are notable in terms the Hasidic dynasty as a whole. Let’s assume the Ha’aretz article was written in good faith. Let’s assume the breakaway faction had nothing to do with these allegations. I still think it shouldn’t be included on THIS page (if the Rebbe’s son had his own page then of course it should be included on it) and it certainly didn’t deserve and entire section devoted to it. Let’s put it in perspective. This page is devoted to the Ger Hasidic group. The group has had 8 Rebbes and a leader of an offshoot sect. Those 9 leaders cumulatively have had many children. I have no idea how many Gerrer Rebbe’s children there have been over the generations but according to the article we know that the current Rebbe has 9 children. We are talking about allegations made against one of those 9 children. How notable are these allegations against the sect a whole? If one of the estimated 100,000 followers was accused, I think everyone would agree that it doesn’t reflect the movement and isn’t notable for this page. So where do we draw the line? One out of many children was accused of abuse, so does that reflect the movement or his father? If there was alleged knowledge of it in the hierarchy and it was covered up, then at least the cover- up would be notable  but all the Haaretz report supposedly stated was that it was known to at least one “senior figure”. A senior figure is an extremely vague term. Does that refer to a principal of one of their numerous schools? I don’t believe that knowledge of the allegations and refusal to act upon those allegations by one rouge principal in a such a large network of schools, which is estimated (albeit without a reference) at 100 institutions is particularly notable. Your thoughts?--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While it could be argued that the information in the article demonstrates the sect's approach to handling sensitive problems and is thus a representative, notable fact, you're right that the article doesn't attempt to make such a generalization. I can think of two other places for this: Yaakov Aryeh Alter, with a focus on how the Admor handled the issue; or Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community, where there has previously been consensus for removing the "Brooklyn" constraint on the article's scope. Ibadibam (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Kehilas Pnei Menachem
I added referenced info regarding the size of the breakaway group compared to the mainstream faction--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ping @Ibadibam and @Intellectual Person--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the right thing to put in numbers of families, but even of you think it is, the number of 100,000 families is for sure not accurate, as the official telephone book doesn't have more than 10,000 families which include the families of Rabbi Shaul Alter's families. I could send you in an private the telephone book.--Intellectual Person (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Intellectual Person: You can't publish original research on wikipedia. The only worldwide Gerrer phonebook, that I am aware of, was published in 2012. Unfortunately, it's outdated. While, you can probably make calculations of estimated deaths and marriages over the past 9 years and estimate the current number of families, it isn't acceptable on wikipedia. If you find an acceptable reference for your estimate, then by all means build into the article and cite your reference--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way is this an accurate way of writing in Wikipedia, 500 families versus 100,000 people? It should be 800 families versus 10,000 families, or 8,000 people versus 100,000 people.--Intellectual Person (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We use whatever figure is used in the sources. For example, the "300 families" figure comes from this passage in a Jerusalem Post source: "In a dramatic sequence of events in 2019, Rabbi Shaul Alter, first cousin of the Gur hassidic dynasty’s Grand Rabbi Yaakov Aryeh Alter, split away from the main Gur community following years of tension between the two, with some 300 families in Israel following him at the time." If there is a source that counts individuals, we'll use that figure. Ibadibam (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I added the estimate of families that it should be read and understood in the real context.--Intellectual Person (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, what's your source for the estimate? Please cite it. Ibadibam (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note, that the "Gerer Phone Book", uploaded by @intellectual person was published immediately prior to the split in 2019. It also only includes the families whom reside in Israel. Finally, it lists 11,580 families (303 pages of 38 families, 1 page of 37 familes and 1 page of 29 families), which means that (without factoring in 2 years of population growth) according to the Jerusalem Post's estimate, there should still be over 11 thousand families of hassidim in the main sect. Accordingly, I will rewrite the family estimate in a manner that properly conveys what is written in the cited source--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite shocked to see an entire phonebook uploaded as a source, making personal contact information for an entire community freely available to the public. It seems like something that should be prohibited by Wikipedia policies but I can't find anything. Ibadibam (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get into an argument about the exact number, becauese if you don't count all the people that don't pray officially in a synagogue of the Ger Dynasty, then you have around 10,500 families, and then 500 left to R' Shaul, so you have approximate 10,000 families in Israel, which we are talking about when it says 100,000 people in Israel. Intellectual Person (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. #1.) However, you can't publish original research on wikipedia and the book that you cited doesn't distinguish between families who pray in the gerrer synagogues and familes that don't . You need to accurately state the number quoted in your reference, unless, you can cite another reference that says that the book includes x amount of families that aren't actualy hasidim. #2.) I am not sure others would agree that only people who pray in the gerrer synagogues are gerrer hasidim--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated in the Telephone Book there are 11,500 families in Israel as of 2019 right before the split, 500 went to Rebbe Shaul so there are now 11,000 families. Please don't erase it without asking in the talk page. Intellectual Person (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Intellectual Person: I looked again at the phonebook on wikicommons that you cited as your reference and I just realized that you uploaded it to wikicommons and declared that the book was your "own work". I have repeteadly reminded you that you can't publish original research on wikipedia. If in fact, the book was your own creation then it cannot be used as a reference. If you incorrectly listed the book as your own creation then it needs be removed from wikicommons because of potential copyright violations. Either way, it appears that you need to find another reference to cite. ---(ping:Ibadibam)---Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I declared it was my own book because I transferred it from an excel sheet to a pdf file. It clearly looks like it bothers you that it is cited in Wikipedia, I wonder if there is no agenda to find fault in the real number of families of Ger in Israel. It looks like you want people to think falsely that there are much more families than there really are, as you keep on finding problems with this fact.Intellectual Person (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (1.) That isn't considered "my own work", you need written permission from the person that created the excel sheet to avoid potential copyright violations and the work needs to be attributed to the creator of the excel sheet. I will addreess this matter further on wikicommons. (2.) This is the last reminder that you need to stop engaging in personal attacks against me. If you do it again, I will report it to an adminstrator. (3.) I have no idea how many families there "really" are. We can only quote the numbers that a reputable source states--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the "phone book" was created by somebody else and you didn't violate any copyright protections by uploading it wikicommons, a phone book - or to be more accurate a self published microsoft excel spreadsheet which allegedly lists all of the gerrer families in Israel is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia and for good reason--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Intellectual Person: Content without a reliable source may be removed from wikipedia immediately. I'm removing any info that was based on your alleged "phone book". If you find another source then by all means you can always put it back into the article at a later date with your new source--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Steamboat2020:It is clear that there are only 11,580 families in Israel before the split in 2019, now you could say that the reference violates copyright protection, but it is clear that it is a reliable source. By all means you could still write that the telephone book states that there is 11,580 families, and you can't post it because of copyright issues, but it is verified 100%.Intellectual Person (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am adding how many families there are in Israel prior to the split with a reference to the telephone book that was published and confirmed before being deleted because of copyright issues, and there was one person that was prosecutor judge and jury that deleted it.Intellectual Person (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You said that it was created by somebody else, so I reported it on wikicommons as being a potential copyright violation but that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that a spreadsheet listing families allegedly belonging to Ger that could have been created on any home computer and is not available anywhere on the internet or in any library is not an acceptable reference. Wikipedia has rules about what is and isn't acceptable as a reference (see here) If you take a step back and think about it, could you imagine what wikipedia would look like if a document that looked like this "phone book" was an acceptable reference, anybody could create a simple spreadsheet and  claim it was an official reliable book! The bottom line is that there are rules on wikipedia and whether you like it or not, the numbers you added are not supported by an acceptable source and can be removed. FIND A BETTER SOURCE otherwise I will keep deleting it. I'm sorry but you wouldn't like it if some editor came along with a microsoft excel spreadsheet that says that Rabbi Shaul Alter has only ten families of followers. So remember that requiring good references can ultimately help your interests as well--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Steamboat2020:Listen I still think that being the prosecutor judge and jury is not a good thing, maybe let others that aren't involved in this dispute to judge, maybe they can come up with a compromise that way people will understand the context of 500 families versus 100,000 people. If I would be you, I wouldn't keep on waging a war with another person, and wait for someone else to comment and delete the telephone book.
 * @Intellectual Person: It's not my fault that the Jerusalem Post worded it that way and it's also not my fault that you can't find an acceptable source to give it context. If you want other editors to comment then you need to start a RfC -- see here.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Intellectual Person: You are moving in the right direction. Getting creative to build in the information you consider important by rewording it in a manner that is supported by a solid reference is smart editing but there are still two issues you need to correct. #1) The first part of the paragraph is a direct quote from the Jerusalem Post - so you can't just add on a sentence without distinguishing between the quote and the add on. I suggest you write something like "according to.... an average Haredi household consists of ......" #2) Your source is no good because (A) it is specifically discussing American Jewry and (B) the Author follows his estimate by saying "These numbers are, of course, difficult to pin down definitively" - which in essence means they could be wrong! You could use the 2009‐2059 Long‐Range Population Projections for Israel: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics by Ari Paltiel, Michel Sepulchre, Irene Kornilenko, Martin Maldonado which states "The number of children per woman is 7.2" (it's quoted here:) -- I seems to be a more reliable source (I can't check it because the link to the source is no longer working) -- It would increase the total number of families to 11,111 which is actually more consistent with the "phone book" you initially wanted to use.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the numbers of familes to reflect what was reported by Israel's National Economic Council, a official Israeli government report and it was issued during the same month as the Jerusalem Post's 100,000 person estimate--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Kissing-Girls-on-Shabbat/Sara-Glass/9781668031216. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ger (Hasidic dynasty)


text: User talk:24.91.67.245

title: User talk:24.91.67.245


text:
Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Dylan Thomas Sprouse and Cole Mitchell Sprouse (born August 4, 1992) are American actors. They are twins and are sometimes referred to as the Sprouse brothers or Sprouse Bros. Their first major theatrical film role was in the 1999 comedy Big Daddy, in which they co-starred with Adam Sandler. They later appeared in several television sitcoms and starred in the television film I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and straight-to-DVD Just for Kicks.

From 2005 until 2008, they starred in the Disney Channel sitcom The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. As a result of the series' success, the media has termed them "heartthrobs" and "overwhelming draws" among preteen and teen audiences. The following year, the brothers launched a franchise known as the Sprouse Bros brand, which included a clothing line, book series and magazine. The majority of the Sprouses' franchise ended in 2008, except for their clothing line. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody was retooled in 2008 as The Suite Life on Deck, in which the brothers reprised their roles as Zack and Cody. The Suite Life on Deck went on to become the most-watched children's television show in 2008 and 2009. The show ended in May 2011. They also starred in The Suite Life Movie, which aired in March of the same year. They began cultivating an adult image by starring in the independent theatrical suspense film The Kings of Appletown in 2009.

Dylan and Cole were two of the wealthiest children alive in 2007, and in 2010, the Sprouse brothers were the highest-paid Disney television child actors, earning $40,000 per episode combined. MSN reported by the end of the 2000s that the twin brothers became the richest young twins in the world. In 2010, the brothers were accepted to New York University. They deferred admission for one year, and attended the university from 2011 to 2015. Both Cole and Dylan confirmed they wish to pursue acting post-university.

As of 2018, Cole appears as Jughead Jones on the television series Riverdale, and Dylan is a co-owner and brewmaster of the All-Wise Meadery in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Early lives
The Sprouses were born at Clinica Tanganelli, a small hospital in Arezzo, Italy, to American parents Matthew Sprouse and Melanie Wright, while they were teaching at an English language school in Tuscany. Dylan was named after Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, and Cole is named after jazz singer and pianist Nat King Cole. Dylan is 15 minutes older than Cole. They have German ancestry. The boys moved back to the United States four months after their birth to their parents' native Long Beach, California. Some of the money Dylan and Cole earned by acting was used to buy a house in Calabasas, California, where their family still lived.

Acting
The brothers began acting at the age of eight months following a suggestion from their grandmother, Jonine Booth Wright, who was a drama teacher and actress. They first appeared in a commercial for diapers, switching on-screen time every few seconds. As with many twins, the two have often played the same role, due to child labor laws in California restricting the amount of time children can be filmed in a day. Casting twins in a single role thus allows more time for the character to be filmed. Beginning at eight months old, the two played a single character, Patrick Kelly, on the ABC series Grace Under Fire.

In 1999, the boys appeared in their first major feature film, Big Daddy, in which they shared the role of a five-year-old boy named Julian who is adopted by Adam Sandler's character, Sonny Koufax. Though the film received mixed reviews, the two were nominated for multiple awards for their role in the film. However, they did not win any. The same year, the boys also had a minor role in the thriller The Astronaut's Wife. The Sprouses have noted that after Big Daddy's release, they entered a slow period in their careers and were not cast in any major roles for a time. During the early 2000s, the twins appeared in episodes of The Nightmare Room and That '70s Show, as well as in Mad TV and portrayed roles in the feature films The Master of Disguise and Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. Cole began appearing in episodes of the television show Friends as Ross Geller's son Ben in 2001; this role was not shared with Dylan.

They both appeared in I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and Just for Kicks, both of which were family films that received a direct-to-video release. David Nusair of Reel Film Reviews said of their acting in Just for Kicks that the brothers "aren't the worst child actors I've ever seen,... but they certainly leave a lot to be desired." Dylan and Cole were later cast in the Disney Channel original series The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, where they portrayed identical twins Zack and Cody Martin, respectively. The series, which debuted in March 2005, became a ratings success. As part of their involvement with Disney, the brothers also became part of the 11-member group, the Disney Channel Circle of Stars, and sang the song "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" along with the members of the group, for a video that was released as bonus material in the special edition version of the Disney film Cinderella. They also participated in the Disney Channel Games. The Sprouses played one character, Jeremiah, in the independent film The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things. The film was produced in 2004 but not given a theatrical release until March 2006, when it played at three theatres in the United States, ultimately grossing $29,000 domestically. Harvey Karten praised their acting, stating that "acting is superlative all around", and Tamara Straus of the San Francisco Chronicle called them "the movie's only saving grace". In 2007, the two filmed A Modern Twain Story: The Prince and the Pauper. Carrie R. Wheadon of Common Sense Media said the film was a "slow story for Zack and Cody fans only". The Sprouse brothers both had voice roles in the animated film Holidaze: The Christmas That Almost Didn't Happen alongside Brenda Song and Emily Osment. Dylan played the voice of Shasta in Disney's "Snow Buddies". The brothers both starred in the theatrical film The Kings of Appletown, which is based on the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. The film was directed by Bobby Moresco and written by Amanda Moresco. Shot in New Braunfels, Texas, the film was originally estimated to be released in the winter of 2008. Kings of Appletown had a limited theatrical release on December 12, 2009, and was officially released at the Newport Beach Film Festival in April 2010.

They appeared on the cover of the May 2009 issue People Magazine, in an eighty-page special edition issue devoted to The Suite Life on Deck. The twin brothers began filming another Modern Twain Story film in the summer of 2009. The film was tentatively titled "Sivilized" and was a modern version of Huckleberry Finn. However, in mid-2010, Dylan stated that they would not be doing the film, in part because they "outgrew" the film. They became the new face of the children's yogurt, Danimals, in 2009; their endorsement deal was renewed in 2010. The twin brothers signed an endorsement deal with Nintendo DS in August 2010.

, Dylan and Cole were not in any acting projects and were focusing instead on college as well as art and photography, respectively. However, Dylan has stated that they would both like to continue acting while in college. Dylan and Cole are represented by William Morris Endeavor.

In February 2016, Cole was cast as Jughead Jones in The CW's drama series Riverdale, based on Archie.

Sprouse Bros brand
In 2005, the Sprouse brothers signed a licensing agreement with Dualstar Entertainment to produce Sprouse Bros branded merchandise for the preadolescent market, the Sprouse Bros brand included a clothing line, comics series and a magazine, as well as personal hygiene line and a line of sportswear. Dylan said of the brand that they wanted to "reach out to the nerd group and the cool group" and "appeal to everybody". A magazine targeting boys was launched by Dualstar and Leisure Publishing LLC in 2006 called Sprouse Bros. Code. Simon & Schuster Inc. published two volumes of a book series titled Sprouse Bros. 47 R.O.N.I.N., which was described as featuring the Sprouse twins as "young James Bonds or undercover agents"; the book series continued. In 2008, the brothers ended their association with the Olsens' Dualstar, but they continued to sell their clothing line. The items in their clothing lines were sold exclusively online, when the online store could no longer be accessed.

Personal lives
Dylan Sprouse has stated that the experience of coming to fame after the success of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody is "kind of scary, how fast everything is moving" and that a year prior "none of this was happening, it was just doing Suite Life", and that he was excited for the future. While filming The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, the both of them received on-set tutoring for three hours each day for school, and said they were getting "straight A's and honors". In their last year of high school, the brothers both took Advanced Placement classes. Dylan took AP Psychology and AP Spanish, and Cole took AP Psychology and AP Government.

The twins' family has three dogs: Bubba, which belongs to Dylan and Cole; Pinky, who is their father's; and Curry, their stepmother's. Their favorite actor and co-star is Adam Sandler. Dylan has said that Adam is "a role model in acting" and that they learned a lot about comedy from him. In mid-2010, Dylan launched a site for his art called Sprouse Arts, and in mid-2011, Cole launched a site for his photography called Cole Sprouse Photography.

In 2010, the brothers were both accepted to New York University. They had initial plans to attend the university in the fall of 2010; however, they deferred for one year. Dylan initially planned on majoring in fine/studio arts and minoring in economics while Cole planned on majoring in film and television production and minoring in drama. Instead, they both enrolled in the Gallatin School of Individualized Study, which allows students to plan their own curriculum. Cole focused his curriculum on the humanities and archaeology while Dylan focused on video game design. In 2011, Dylan was elected president of the Third Avenue North residence hall at New York University. Both brothers graduated in May 2015; they told Entertainment magazine that they had walked away with each other's diplomas at the graduation ceremony.

In 2012, Dylan and Cole were officially appointed as the International Ambassadors of the Koyamada International Foundation. They traveled to Japan with Shin Koyamada to empower the youth of Japan to better themselves and rebuild Japan as a society as well as to deepen the friendly relations and brotherhood between the youth of Japan and America in August 2013.

As of 2013, Dylan was working as a host at a New York City restaurant, which he explained was a result of his desire to try a new experience, as he said, "working somewhat below the means I'm used to, as well as a way to socialize and get out of the house." Since 2014, Dylan has commentated a few Super Smash Bros. tournaments.

In early 2017, Dylan announced that with two partners he was preparing to open All-Wise Meadery in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, New York; he is the brewmaster. He disclosed that he has been a Heathen since he was 15.

Discography

 * 2005 – "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" in Disneymania 4
 * 2008 – "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" in Princess Disneymania

title: Dylan and Cole Sprouse


text:
Mark Coyne (musician)

Mark Coyne (born November 19, 1962) is an American musician and one of the original members of the rock band the Flaming Lips. Coyne co-founded the group along with his brother Wayne in Norman, Oklahoma, in 1983. The original lineup of the Flaming Lips was Mark on lead vocals, Wayne on guitar, and Michael Ivins on bass. Mark left the band in 1985 (shortly after their self-titled debut EP was released) around the time of his wedding. Upon Mark's departure, Wayne assumed lead vocalist and songwriting duties.

Some of the 1985 demos that Mark sang on were released as a part of the Finally the Punk Rockers Are Taking Acid compilation.

title: Mark Coyne (musician)


text:
Talk:List of cities in China

Untitled
Hweiwei, did you see the words under the heading "List of Cities"?
 * Those words dosent explain anything about why those entries are not classified under "China". And stop mispelling my name.--Huaiwei 12:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not lised under the Netherlands?

About this page
The simple reason why I kept reverting the page to include Taiwan and the SARs, is because this page title refers to "China," a terminology equally claimed by the PRC and ROC. I do not see why anyone has the jurisdiction to suddenly refer to "China" as "mainland China," and remove all those subentries from this list. Unless, of coz, he is trying damn hard to have Hong Kong listed as a seperate country from China in the main page!--Huaiwei 12:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This exercise is begining to get really predictable. In this singular aim of portraying Hong Kong as independent from the PRC, I notice there is this unweldy desire to give the impression that both Hong Kong and Macau have more then one cities in their territories. Both arguments are simply not tenable. Anon, who has been trying to force this across wikipedia, still has not shown any evidence of how both entities are administered as such today.--Huaiwei 12:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think what I am doing is portraying Hong Kong and Macau as independent entities entirely from the PRC. It is not the culture of Wikipedia, and not acceptable, for one guy from a tiny little country to force all other people to conform with his own impressions and definitions of all these concepts, the concept of the term city, the concept with China, the concept with non-country entities, and many others. This guy simply refuse to read and understand these differences, and refuse to learn the relationships between Beijing and the SARs, as oppose to Aruba to the Netherlands, or Bermuda to the United Kingdom. I can't find any other words but irresponsible to comment this Wikipedia user, and it's a real pity for Wikipedia to have someone who keeps doing things destructive.
 * You do not seem to realise, that you are practically alone in this, while your edits is being disputed not by me alone. You systemetically created equally disputable pages in order to pretend that you have entities to back up your claims, but it is not difficult to check who created those pages, or who made those edits. Trying to be anonymous seems to make you even more traceable. That you are showing distaste over my supposed lone attempts in redefining things for you is simply not justified.

 * I have consistently asked you what is the relevance of comparing Hong Kong Sar with Bermuda, for example, and yet all you can tell me, is how the UK deals with their external issues like defence, but they are self-governing in internal affairs. However, you fail to tell us if Bermuda's territory is considered part of the UK, nor if Bermuda will have their status quo subsceptable for removal within a fixed time frame. You keep trying to compare specific aspects of HK autonomy with that of depencencies, and insist they are the same. Is this chain of tought verified and justified?

 * Think about it. Why should anyone reconfigure a page on cities in China into one on cities in Mainland China, and justifying that by artificially creating seperate pages with "cities in HK" and "cities in Macau" too? If I were to do a total revert of all these, I should be asking for those two listings to be deleted.--Huaiwei 13:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems you are never satisified with comparing Hong Kong and Macau with other non-country entities. I am not the only way comparing them. But you are simply rejecting all these by saying "is this chain of tought [thought] verified and justified?" without telling why do you think they are not comparable. Whether they are to be integral part of the sovereign power, or to be independent, are not for you and me to tell. The United Kingdom did consider an integration with Malta, and the same was rejected by Gibraltar. The comparisons of SARs with other non-country entities were based on the ground that only the current state can be compare, and is meaningful to compare. Who can tell anything about ten or fifty years ahead?

 * You are the only person to discuss on all these matters, and keep reverting the edits, without understanding the arguments, and keep putting hats on others, and rejecting their arguments for rejecting. Why don't you simply put on the templates and  to all these articles?
 * That Hk and Macau are listed in some economic tables in the same league as countries is not something I am making noises over, and you know it. You have been going ALL OVER wikipedia and diffrentiating HK from all aspects of China in any topic which you happen to stumble across, and that is where the issues come in. What is the problem of listing HK as part of the PRC, something which is true in every sence of the word? Having local autonomy over domestic issues is NOT the same as arguing that it is seperate from the mainland, something which you seem to be basing your ideas on. That HK is an inseperable part of the PRC is something you can never argue against, so why are you sounding as thou I and I alone am the one who is defining it as such?

 * Your comparisons with any of those entities are simply superficial to say the least. And yes, I am refering to even contemporary comparisons of the status quo. Was Malta and Gibraltar part of the UK before another power wrested power away from the British? No. In fact, should Gibraltar suddenly revert back to Spanish control, with a timespan guaranteeing status quo, then yes, finally we have an entity which is comparable to HK. Other territories which are off-shore, and not even adjacent to the controlling country, and were controlled as a legacy of colonialism, are more comparable to pre-1997 Hong Kong then after. Accepting the fact that we are in the post-1997 era, and I suppose you will have less tendencies of trying to portray greater independence for Hong Kong then anything in reality can show.

 * I am reverting entire chains of your edits across several pages, because your attempt in changing one page, when coming under fire, results in you changing multiple pages in order to lend voice to your argument. This is simply irresponsible and sneaky, to put it mildly. Therefore, dont come tell me to "discuss before moving pages." In the first place, you created the page without discussing!--Huaiwei 14:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It is because Hong Kong and Macau are differentiated from mainland China in all aspects except national defense and diplomatic relations. I have never attempted to list Hong Kong away from the PRC, as that's the status quo. But the status quo is that Beijing treat the mainland and the SARs differently, and foreign affairs and defense are the only two ministries that have power over Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Kong and Macau are inseparable parts of the PRC (well, who can tell), but not parts of mainland China, which is a jurisdiction or an entity on its own.

 * You are still trying to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao with other non-country entities by history but not by the situations at the time being. Who owns the place, and the transferring among sovereign power do not affect their current situations as entities on their own. Off-shore (well, the first time you mention, what a new concept) is also irrelevent. France has offshore DOMs. The US has two outlying states (and Hawai'i was in fact a colony, tho the Americans used the term "territory"). The United Kingdom once considered an integration with Malta, and later Gibraltar. Being off-share can be integrated, and being adjacent to can be independent. (Missoulini did claim over Malta.)

 * It was you who suggested reverting to the original state as an solution, but you do not stick with the rule sometimes. It has been an headache to talk about rules with such a guy, and to try to stick with the rules this guy suggested.

 * Who can tell whether something is controversial or not before adding or modifying. But reversion already implies that there's a disagreement, and gotta be resolved.

 * What do you mean by Hong Kong and Macau are differentiated from Mainland China in aspects unrelated to defence in diplomatic relations? Diffrentiated in terms of what? How does China giving Hong Kong the right to maintain its status quo for 50 years make it any less a part of the PRC? This is a priviledge which the PRC is not bounded to accord to the SARs, but was done for goodwill and part of a diplomatic meaneurvor in light of the Taiwan problem, and partly to appease the UK in their withdrawal. As what another member has said, the PRC has every right to withdraw this priviledge if it wants to. Your assertion sounds as thou the PRC has their hands tied over HK affairs. Hardly. If HK does have complete control over its affairs besides defence and diplomatic relations, then why is there so much debate over democracy in HK? Why is Mr Tang not elected? Why is there a concern, that the PRC may meddle either directly or indirectly in the political arena of HK, when afterall, they dont even have to offer HK a democratic environment to operate in. Afterall, if they fully adopts the status quo, shouldnt HK remain non-democratic today, since the British has never given Hongkongers any form of democracy?

 * Whatever the intentions of Deng Xiaoping was, Hong Kong and Macau are like what they are at the time being. The creation of SARs, as stated in the article 31 of PRC's constitution, is subjected to the decision of the PRC. The PRC can terminate Hong Kong and Macau as SARs, as the UK can re-evaluate the status of its crown dependencies and overseas territories. The UK did so by changing the name into "overseas territory" from "crown colony". The UK can think about integration too.

 * The pace of democratisation in Hong Kong is a politics matter, which political influence from Beijing is not within the legal framework. Taiwan is not widely-recognised country, yet its existence remain stable because of politics. The elections and the support got by various political parties are also a matter of politics. And the Basic Law did state clearly that in the first decade the legislature and the chief executive would not be popularly-elected. Afterall, being not fully democratic does not hinder an entity's status as a dependency or territory.  (Who's the Mr Tang u're talking about by the way?)

 * Cool. By comparing the fact that the UK can grap her dependencies and intergrate them into the UK and that with China, you now declare British dependencies as similar to the SARs of the PRC? It is a weak comparison as always. And goodness why you think you can compare Hong Kong's political situation with that of Taiwan even. Ask yourself...who wrote the "Basic Law"? If it was indeed inshrined and uncontestable, why is there a call for acceleration of democracy? You seem to fail to get the gist of my argument. I am not mentioning democracy as a guage of whether HK is a dependency, territory, or otherwise. I am asking you WHY is there room for influence and direct intervention by the Beijing government over HK's political development. Afterall, you did insist HK is completely independent from the PRC except in defence and diplomacy? And I was refering to Mr Tung, btw.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I got your argument, but it doesn't stand. Influence and intervention is a matter of power, but not the system itself.

 * Yes, when we refer to the idea of "Mainland China", it does not include the SARs. But you are clearly expoitative of this. Mainland China is NOT a country. How would you like us promoting the term "Greater China", which includes the both the PRC and ROC, and using the term as thou it is a country? Both terms simply are not acceptable in country listings, and their usage is increasingly questionable as time goes by. Of coz Mainland China is governed quite differently from the SARs, just as the provinces are not governed in the same way as the autonomous regions either, and neither are the municipal-level cities treated the same way as provincial ones. Does this alone accord them the right to be listed seperately?

 * Mainland China is not a country, nor do Hong Kong. But they're all these jargons everywhere, like Metropolitan France, 50-states, etc. Talk a look of List of countries by population and List of countries by area. I preferred using mainland China because it avoids all sort of confusion that whether the SARs and Taiwan are included or excluded in the information following.

 * Why should there be a "confusion" when the listing is supposed to INCLUDE Hong Kong? This is a very weak argument. Why is there a preference for using Mainland China over the PRC in country listings is what you have to try to convince, and which you have never been successful in.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and Macau should not be included in such listings. If PRC is usually used to refer to mainland China as "Metropolitan France" and "France", it would be alright.

 * I was refering to history? What an irony, for someone who keeps trying to bring up history and present them as contemporary. My arguments diffrentiating HK from other forms of dependencies are pretty simple. Hawaii was a colony, as you say, but it is recognised as a state today, and that is how we lists it. It may not be adjacent to continental USA, but because it is considered a part of the USA in every sence of the word, it is treated as such. When we talk about the UK, on the other hand, it does not directly refer to Gibralta, or any of its dependencies. If we are in the pre-1997 era, I would personally list Hong Kong as seperate from the PRC, as well as from the UK. It stands on its own, even thou it is just a colony. In fact, that is what everyone is doing. In post 1997, various economic publications in particular continue to list HK as a seperate entity, treating it as thou it is still a colony, partly thanks to respect of the status quo, and more because the systems are so different. But this does NOT in any way suggest that HK is seperate from the PRC, and hence, must be listed seperately in every listing. A listing out of convenience does not cumulate into fact. That Hawaii, being recognised as an inseperable part of the USA gets treated as such, is no different from why HK is treated as such too, simply because the term "PRC" as we know today includes HK and Macau.

 * So would you consider editing List of dependent territories? Hawaii is not listed, but Hong Kong and Macau.
 * Sure, if Hong Kong and Macau are provinces of the PRC? lol! Very dissapointing your conclusion is after all these talk.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Go ahead then. And go challenge the CIA World Factbook and all those people.

 * Yes I have suggested reverting to the "original state." So any examples whereby I have not done so, with reasonable examples please? If you are refering to the KCR issue, please note that there are two subissues there...whether KCR is a metro line, and you insistance in replacing "PRC" with "Hong Kong, China". The former requires detailed study. The later deserves not much mention.

 * So are you convinced in the "detailed study"? You simply stopped replying without indicating what you think.
 * I agreed in letting KCr return to the list until I ponder over it further when I have time to do so. And why are you practically holding us at ransom and demanding that we respond to all your queries, as thou our lack of time in this wikipedia as to mean consent, and therefore your liberty in implementing your ideas?--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So it's a convention that no reply means consent? (for your replies)

 * As I said before, sure, no one can predict a controversial edit. But is this your first day in wikipedia? Is this the first time you are facing opposition? Or are you suffering from convenient amnesia? We have specifically told you to STOP making conterversial edits with regards to the HK debacle with the PRC and so forth, but you have ignored it. You continued to create issues by demanding weak comparisons with other examples, and even editing or creating pages to back up your points, which when I revert, you have the nerve to demand that I discuss before editing. You taking us as 2 year olds who cant see through your antics here?

 * So my question remaind. Are you going to actually abide by your earlier agreement to stop those edits until a resolution is found, or are you going to engage in a revert war with me every single day from now on?--Huaiwei 18:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It was peaceful enough before some one starts chasing behind others, and keep reverting others' edits. Who are the "we", or you are the only guy?
 * It wasent peaceful since you came around. Need me to list names? Just because others like Jiang, Ran, and hlaw has given up having to clean up your acts, and you imagined its only me?--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are the only guy that I've so far encountered.
 * We shall see. Apparantly this "discussion" has reached another impasse, and before we know it, our dearest instantnood is going to go back to this revert wars again.--Huaiwei 16:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China or China
The disputes have continued. — Instantnood 12:24 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it's just you. SchmuckyTheCat 17:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DUDE, on the two versions there is a link to the "differences" between two versions. There are no differences between whatever you've setup and whatever you think the dispute is. Click that link and see. Quit mindlessly reverting. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The tag compares the differences of a different version with the "current" version. If you reverted to that different version, of course there will be nothing to compare.  — Instantnood 09:38 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_China&oldid=10554682

This is the version I preferred (see also its differences with the current version). — Instantnood 02:37 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

 * yes, not much difference, which I said the FIRST two times when I removed the twoversions tag, which you reverted without discussion. The only problem I have with the article is the semantic contortion of "mainland china", that can be changed later. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Avoid disambiguation pages if you can. I object to the move from "List of cities in China". Articles on China should obviously be PRC-centric given the PRC's sheer size and importance relative to Taiwan. I also dont see a reason for exluding the SARs from the list.--Jiang 20:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With the POV accusations around terminology for "China" dab pages seem to be least offensive, they result in the name of the actual political entry in the title. articles that get split up also benefit as there isn't all this back and forth about what country/province/whatever that is being referred to. As to the exclusion of HK and Macau, I didn't change the content here. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jiang in this case. List of cities in China can actually stay as a full list which includes both the PRC and the ROC. Afterall, the top ten listings below (which was formally in that page before the contents were moved here) includes cities from both political entities. Perhaps we can have List of cities in China listing the biggest and most important cities (more or less like what we have now), and adding a "see also" notice to this page, which can have a much more detailed listing of all official cities of the PRC. And this listing, of coz, has to include the two SARS.--Huaiwei 05:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I barely touched the content of this page, it seemed to be PRC centric - so. If someone wants to make it inclusive in a way where nobody gets offended by who is what "China", sounds great. SchmuckyTheCat 06:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax. I am not pointing the finger at anyone...just feeling this page should be removed of all references to the ROC, which is a serious POV issue with many people. Having the ROC listed in List of cities in China is technically more accurate in comparison. Shall I make then changes, and see how it goes from there?--Huaiwei 06:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. Maybe the dab page should just have a big list after the dab/disclaimer notice. Tht way the list avoids any politics at all. When I moved this, I didn't leave List of cities in China as a redirect so that it could be edited in such a way. After, any reference to the ROC or SARs on this page page can be simple see also links. SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. Is it possible to roll back to the original title and way of presentation. — Instantnood 07:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The original is full of conflict and naming convention issues by trying to lump all "China" together. This way all articles are named according to the real name of the country/territory the cities are in. This presentation avoids the politics. SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For the ROC and mainland "city" is an official designation and is part of the administrative division hierachy. Politics is unavoidable. — Instantnood 16:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU for making my argument for me that since politics is unavoidable and definitions differ between the countries, it is best that they be split rather than one article trying to be all things to all parties. SchmuckyTheCat 18:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. As the definition applies only to mainland China, would you consider changing the title to ".. in mainland China" then? — Instantnood 08:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

more instandnood whining
This article is clearly a list of cities in mainland China, which definition is based upon the official designations, namely county-level city and prefecture-level city. This definition of city only applies in mainland China. The special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao have separate lists. User:Huaiwei has attempted changed the scope of this list. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, this article includes cities in the entirety of the PRC, including that of HK and Macau.--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)
 * It is plain incorrect to do so. The definition of city, which this list is based upon, is only applicable to the mainland. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * No other country in the world is referred to by a exonym assigned them by their component parts. Neither will the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why in an official press release "mainland China" was used instead of "People's Republic of China"? Are you sure this is an exonym, and no other country has a major part that is referred to by a certain name in order to differentiate from other component parts? — Instantnood June 30, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * you've been pointing out one or two press releases like Hu Jintao suddenly told the UN to rename the country as "mainland". It's no longer worth responding to, as the answer is obvious.  SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll take this as a sign that you are not willing to resolve the problem through discussion. Thank you very much. — Instantnood July 1, 2005 05:56 (UTC)
 * I take from the above that your obstinate and stubborn nature has caused others to volunteerily end "discussions" with you, if you actually call that a "discussion".--Huaiwei 14:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If I were obstinate and stubborn, Schmucky and you are as stubborn as I were. — Instantnood 14:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Title and scope disputed
The title and the scope of this list is disputed and has not been settled. The dispute over the scope of this article was between mainland China alone (Hong Kong and Macao excluded) or the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macao included). The title is disputed, accordingly, between list of cities in mainland China and list of cities in the People's Republic of China.

The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two. You may also read the other version and the difference between the two. See also the edit history and move history. — Instantnood 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Coincidence
The house shown in the picture of Tianjin is my girlfriend's, I find this quite amazing; there must be around one million houses in Tianjin only. Someone took a pic of her house and uploaded it here, then I come to this particular article in wikipedia (amid around a million as well) and see her house. I know this is rather irrelevant but try to be in my place, you'd need to tell someone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emils9 (talk • contribs).

Shanghai's population
This article list the population of Shanghai as 9,031,200. There is a reference source, but it cannot be accessed unless an edit is carried out. The value listed conflicts with the value in List of cities in the People's Republic of China by population and in Shanghai. Someone needs to confirm which one is accurate. --Novelty 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Full names vs. partial full names
Re     - I would like to know why partial full names should be used in place of their full names or short names? Is there any official policy or guideline to back such edits? Thanks. — Instantnood 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Special Administrative Region" is in the section header. People's Republic of China is in the title of the article.  What's the point?  Same point for the Autonomous Regions. SchmuckyTheCat 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It's good to use the short name. The issue here is that some folks insisted to use partial full names in place of full names or short names. — Instantnood 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OH! That makes total sense for a revert war. Just stop it. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan city
why doe this article list Taiwan as a city of 32 million.

Information outdated
Due to the immense urbanization of China the top cities list is quite outdated. Many cities' population have doubled such as Xian or Zhengzhou and Chongqing's population is definitely more than double the number listed. And the numbers, I'm mentioning does not include migrant workers or peasant workers.

Shenzhen
Where is Shenzhen? I think it has about 14 million residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.31.7 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At least 14 million ! The problem with this list of cities here is that it uses data from 2000 and so is hopelessly out of date and practically worthless. Even the Shenzhen entry uses data from 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.61.0.162 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Google books
The cities and towns of China, a geographical dictionary by E.C. Biot, revised and tr. by G.M.H. Playfair By Édouard Constant Biot

Rajmaan (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of Cities
The article states, "As of February 2012 the PRC has a total of 658 cities: 4 municipalities, 2 SARs, 284 prefecture-level cities (including the 15 Sub-provincial cities) and 367 county-level cities (including the 15 Sub-prefectural cities) not including any cities in Taiwan Province." but the numbers don't add up right. 4+2+284+367 = 657. Either the total is wrong or one of the sub-totals is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.194.1 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, not only that, but count the cities in the "List of Cities" table, there are 662... This article is not sourced at all, where did this info come from? Totally worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.188.110 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities in China. 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://archive.is/20110707045448/http://www.ccdi.org.cn/index.asp to http://www.ccdi.org.cn/index.asp

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) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Cities_in_China.png
Prefecture-level cities should only have their districts colored in Red not counties (including counties in Chongqing). The current version is misleading as fuck.

Tier system is wrong
Chinese cities are generally grouped into four categories: Tier I cities include Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen; Tier II cities include Beihai, Changchun, Changsha, Chengdu, Chongqing, Dalian, Fuzhou, Guiyang, Haikou, Hangzhou, Harbin, Hefei, Huhhot, Jinan, Kunming, Lanzhou, Nanchang, Nanjing, Nanning, Ningbo, Qingdao, Sanya, Shenyang, Shijiazhuang, Suzhou, Taiyuan, Tianjin, Urumqi, Wenzhou, Wuhan, Wuxi, Xiamen, Xi'an, Yinchuan, and Zhengzhou; other small and medium cities are grouped into Tier III or IV cities.

not

Tier I cities include Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin, Nanjing, Chongqing, Xi'an, Changsha, Qingdao, Shenyang, Dalian, Xiamen, Suzhou, Ningbo, and Wuxi [7]; Tier II cities include Beihai, Changchun, Fuzhou, Guiyang, Haikou, Harbin, Hefei, Huhhot, Jinan, Kunming, Lanzhou, Nanchang, Nanning, Sanya, Shijiazhuang, Taiyuan, Urumqi, Wenzhou, Yinchuan, and Zhengzhou; other small and medium cities are grouped into Tier III or IV cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:31:131:130:109:199 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of cities in China


text:
Gellért

Gellért may refer to:

People

 * Christian Fürchtegott Gellert (1715–1769), German poet
 * Dina Gellert (born 1961), Danish children's book illustrator
 * Hugo Gellert (1892–1985), Hungarian-American illustrator and muralist
 * Imre Gellért (1888–1981), Hungarian gymnast
 * Jay Gellert (born 1956), American CEO
 * Lawrence Gellert (1898–1979), American music collector
 * Rayna Gellert (born 1976), American fiddler
 * Gellért Ivancsics (born 1987), Hungarian soccer player
 * Gellert Tamas (born 1963), Swedish writer
 * Saint Gellért, the name by which the Hungarian bishop Gerard Sagredo (980–1046) is commonly known

Other uses

 * Gellert Grindelwald (1882–1998), a character from the Harry Potter franchise
 * Gellért Hill, a hill in Budapest, Hungary
 * Gellért Hill Cave, a cave in Gellért Hill which contains a church
 * Gellért Hill Calvary, a Late Baroque calvary on Gellért Hill
 * Hotel Gellért, a hotel in Budapest, Hungary
 * Gellért Baths, baths at the hotel
 * Geraltov (Gellért, a village and municipality in the Prešov Region of eastern Slovakia

title: Gellért