text:
Codex Alexandrinus

The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, Royal MS 1. D. V-VIII), designated by the siglum A or 02 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), δ 4 (in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts), is a manuscript of the Greek Bible, written on parchment. Using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been dated to the fifth century. It contains the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It is one of the four Great uncial codices (these being manuscripts which originally contained the whole of both the Old and New Testaments). Along with Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible.

It derives its name from the city of Alexandria (in Egypt), where it resided for a number of years before it was brought by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lucaris from Alexandria to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul in Turkey). Then it was given to Charles I of England in the 17th century. Bishop Brian Walton assigned Alexandrinus the capital Latin letter A in the Polyglot Bible (a multi-language version of the Bible with the different languages placed in parallel columns) of 1657. This designation was maintained when the New Testament manuscript list system was standardized by Swiss theologian and textual critic J. J. Wettstein in 1751. Thus Alexandrinus held the first position in the manuscript list.

Until the later purchase of Codex Sinaiticus, biblical scholar and textual critic Frederick H. A. Scrivener described it as the best manuscript of the Greek Bible deposited in Britain. Today, it rests along with Codex Sinaiticus in one of the showcases in the Sir John Ritblat Gallery of the British Library in London, U.K. A full photographic reproduction of the New Testament volume (Royal MS 1 D. viii) is available on the British Library's website.

Description
The manuscript is a codex (the forerunner to the modern book) made from 773 thin, fine, and very beautiful vellum folios (specific name for pages in a codex: 630 in the Old Testament and 143 in the New Testament) measuring 12.6 xx, bound in quarto format (parchment leaves placed on top of each other, folded in half vertically, and then folded in half again horizontally, to make a single block, then stitched together with others to create a book) in four volumes (279 + 238 + 118 + 144 folios). Most of the folios were originally gathered into quires of eight leaves each (this being eight parchment leaves placed on top of each other, then folded as per quarto above). In modern times it was rebound into sets of six leaves each. The pages are often discoloured at the edges, which have been damaged by age and more so through the ignorance or carelessness of the modern binder, who has not always spared the text, especially at the upper inner margin. Scrivener noted that "The vellum has fallen into holes in many places, and since the ink peels off for every age whensoever a leaf is touched a little roughly, no one is allowed to handle the manuscript except for good reasons." Three volumes contain the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament, also known as the LXX), with ten leaves lost. The fourth volume contains the New Testament with 31 leaves lost. In the fourth volume, 1 and 2 Clement are also missing leaves, perhaps 3.

The text in the codex is written in two columns in uncial script, with between 49 and 51 lines per column, and 20 to 25 letters per line. The beginning lines of each book are written in red ink, and sections within the book are marked by a larger letter set into the margin. The text is written continuously, with no division of words (known as Scriptio continua), but some pauses are observed in places in which a dot should be between two words. There are no accents or breathing marks, except a few added by a later hand. The punctuation was written by the first hand. The poetical books of the Old Testament are written stichometrically (this being a new verse/phrase starting on a new line). The Old Testament quotations in the text of New Testament are marked in the margin by the sign 〉(known as a diplai).

The only decorations in the codex are tail-pieces at the end of each book (see illustration), and it also shows a tendency to increase the size of the first letter of each sentence. The larger letters at the beginning of the sections stand out in the margin as in codices Ephraemi and Basilensis. Codex Alexandrinus is the oldest manuscript to use larger letters to indicate new sections.

iotacistic errors occur in the text: αὶ is exchanged for ε, εὶ for ὶ and η for ὶ. This is, however, no more than seen in other manuscripts of the same date. The letters Ν and Μ are occasionally confused, and the cluster ΓΓ (gg) is substituted with ΝΓ (ng). This may be an argument which points to Egypt as where the codex was produced, but it is not universally accepted.

The handwriting of the text from the beginning of Luke to 1 Corinthians 10:8 differs from that of the rest parts of the manuscript. Some letters have Coptic shapes (f.e. Α (alpha), Μ (mu), Δ (delta), and Π (pi)). The letters are more widely spaced and are a little larger than elsewhere. Δ has extended base and Π has extended cross-stroke. Numerals are not expressed by letters except in Revelation 7:4; 21:17. In the past the codex had been judged to have been carelessly written, with many errors of transcription, but not so many as in Codex Sinaiticus, and no more than Codex Vaticanus.

The majuscule letters have elegant shape, but a little less simple than those in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. At the end of a line, these letters are often very small, and much of the writing is very pale and faint. Punctuation is more frequent, usually on a level with the top of the preceding letter, while a vacant space, proportionate to the break in the sense, follows the end of a paragraph. At the end of each book the colophon is ornamented by pretty volutes from the initial copyist. The Ammonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons (an early system of dividing the four Gospels into different sections, developed by early church writer Eusebius of Caesarea) stand in the margin of the Gospels. It contains divisions into larger sections (κεφάλαια (kephalaia), or chapters), the headings of these sections (τίτλοι / titloi) stand at the top of the pages. The places at which sections start are indicated throughout the Gospels, and in Luke and John their numbers are placed in the margin of each column. To all the Gospels (except Matthew, due to several pages missing at the beginning) is prefixed by a table of κεφάλαια / kephalaia (table of contents).

The various Euthalian Apparatus sections into which the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse were divided (similar to Eusebius' system for the Gospels) are not indicated in this manuscript. A cross appears occasionally as a separation in the Book of Acts. A larger letter in the margin throughout the New Testament marks the beginning of a paragraph.

The number of scribes who worked on the codex have been disputed. According to biblical and classical scholar Frederic Kenyon's opinion there were five scribes, two scribes in the Old Testament (I and II) and three in the New (III, IV, and V). Subsequently, textual critics Theodore Skeat and Milne argued there were only two or possibly three scribes. 20th-21st century scholars agreed in that case (such as biblical scholar and textual critic Bruce Metzger, biblical scholar and textual critic Kurt Aland, textual critic Juan Hernández Jr., and textual critic Dirk Jongkind).

Many corrections have been made to the manuscript, some of them by the original scribe, but the majority of them by later hands. The corrected form of the text agrees with codices D, N, X, Y, Γ, Θ, Π, Σ, Φ and the majority of minuscule manuscripts. Kenyon observed that Codex Alexandrinus had been "extensively corrected, though much more in some books than in others". In the Pentateuch, whole sentences were erased and a new text substituted. Kings was the least corrected of the books. In the Book of Revelation only 1 of its 84 singular readings was corrected, the rest remained uncorrected. This is in stark contrast with Codex Sinaiticus, in which 120 of the Apocalypse's 201 singular readings were corrected in the 7th century.

Each leaf has Arabic numeration, set in the verso of the lower margin. The first surviving leaf of Matthew has number 26. The 25 leaves now lost must have been extant when that note was written.

Contents
The codex contains a nearly complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books (those books not accepted as authoritative by some Christians, but accepted by certain Christian denominations) 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes. The Epistle to Marcellinus (attributed to Saint Athanasius) and the Eusebian summary of the Psalms are inserted before the Book of Psalms (an overview of the Psalms written by the early Christian writer Eusebius of Caesarea). It also contains all of the books of the New Testament, however the pages containing Matthew 1:1–25:5 are not extant. The codex also contains 1 Clement (lacking 57:7–63; this is a letter attributed to the early Christian writer Clement of Rome) and the homily known as 2 Clement (up to 12:5a; another letter attributed to Clement of Rome). The books of the Old Testament are thus distributed: Genesis – 2 Chronicles (first volume), Hosea – 4 Maccabees (second volume), Psalms – Sirach (third volume). The New Testament (fourth volume) books are in the order: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, General epistles, Pauline epistles (Hebrews placed between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy), Book of Revelation.

There is an appendix marked in the index, which lists the Psalms of Solomon and probably contained more apocryphal/pseudepigraphical books (books written which have been attributed to certain famous people mentioned in the Bible, but likely of unknown authorship), but it has been torn off and the pages containing these books have also been lost.

Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects:
 * Lacking: 1 Sam 12:17–14:9 (1 leaf); Ps 49:20–79:11 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves); 1 Clement 57:7-63 (1 leaf) and 2 Clement 12:5a-fin. (2 leaves);
 * Damaged: Gen 14:14–17, 15:1–5, 15:16–19, 16:6–9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost);
 * Defects due to torn leaves: Genesis 1:20–25, 1:29–2:3, Lev 8:6,7,16; Sirach 50:21f, 51:5;
 * Lacunae on the edges of almost every page of the Apocalypse.
 * The ornamented colophon of the Epistle to Philemon has been cut out.

Textual features
Textual critics have had a challenging task in classifying the text of the codex, specifically when it comes to the New Testament; the exact relationship to other text-types and manuscript families is still disputed, and as such the Greek text of the codex is considered to be of mixed text-types. The text-types are groups of different New Testament manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups. These are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. The codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels (the text-type's oldest example), and the rest of the New Testament books are of the Alexandrian text-type, with some Western readings. As the text in the codex is believed to have come from several different traditions, different parts of the codex are not of equal textual value. Aland placed it in Category III in the Gospels, and in Category I in rest of the books of the New Testament according to his manuscript text classification system. Category III manuscripts are described as having "a small but not a negligible proportion of early readings, with a considerable encroachment of [Byzantine] readings, and significant readings from other sources as yet unidentified"; Category I manuscripts are depicted as featuring "a very high proportion of the early text, presumably the original text, which has not been preserved in its purity in any one manuscript." The Byzantine text of the Gospels has a number of Alexandrian features, with some affinities to the textual Family Π. Biblical scholar and textual critic Hermann von Soden associated the text of the gospels with Family Π, though it is not a pure member of this family. According to biblical scholar and textual critic Burnett Streeter, it is the earliest Greek manuscript which gives us approximately the text of Lucian the Martyr (who is believed to have created a critical recension of both the Old and New Testaments), but a small proportion of the readings seem to be earlier. Alexandrinus follows the Alexandrian readings through the rest of the New Testament; however, the text goes from closely resembling Codex Sinaiticus in the Pauline epistles to more closely resembling the text of a number of papyri ( for Acts, for the Apocalypse). The text of Acts frequently agrees with the biblical quotations made by the 4th century Christian writer Athanasius of Alexandria. In the Pauline Epistles its text is closer to Codex Sinaiticus than to Codex Vaticanus. In the General Epistles it represents a different subtype than Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. In Revelation it agrees with Codex Ephraemi and against Codex Sinaiticus and. According to Metzger, in Revelation and in several books of the Old Testament it has the best text of all manuscripts. In the Old Testament its text often agrees with Codex Sinaiticus.
 * Text of the Gospels
 * Text of the rest of the codex

Old Testament

 * εκατον και ογδοηκοντα επτα ετη (187 years) – A
 * εκατον και εξηκοντα επτα ετη (167 years) – B

 * εν στυλω (in a pillar) – A
 * εν νεφελη (in a cloud) – B

 * ελαβεν (took) – A
 * επαταξεν (struck) – B

 * μαδων (maroon) – A
 * μαρρων (mud) – B

 * υιος Μανασση – A
 * υιου Μωυση – B

(9:22 LXX)
 * Ωκειδηλος – A
 * Ωκαιληδος – B

 * κοπον (work) – A
 * πονον (pain) – B

New Testament
Mark 16:9–20
 * incl. – A C D K W Γ Δ Θ ƒ$\overline{ιν}$ 28 33 565 700 892 1241 1424 ℓ 844 ℓ 2211 Byz
 * omit – B k sy$\overline{ις}$ arm

 * ἀνοίξας (opened) – A B L W Ξ 33 892 1195 1241 ℓ 547 $\overline{ιν}$$\overline{ις}$ sa bo
 * ἀναπτύξας (unrolled) – D$13$ K Δ Θ Π Ψ ƒ$s$ ƒ$s,$ 28 565 700 1009 1010 Byz

 * ωρα ην ως εκτη (about the sixth hour) – A
 * ωρα ην ως δεκατη (about the tenth hour) – Majority of manuscripts

 * πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐνοῦχον, ἄγγελος δέ κυρίου ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον (the Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch, and an angel of the Lord caught up Philip) – A 94 103 307 322 323 385 453 467 945 1739 1765 1891 2298 2818 p vg syr$h,$
 * πνεῦμα κυρίου (spirit of the Lord) – majority of manuscripts

 * Ἔλληνας (Greeks) – A $p$ D
 * εὐαγγελιστάς (Evangelists) – *
 * Ἑλληνιστάς (Hellenists) – Majority of manuscripts

 * γνωστῶν ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος τῷ κυρίῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ – A
 * γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος – B C Ψ 33 81 323 1175 1505 co; Eus
 * γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνός ἐστιν τῷ θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ – Majority of manuscripts

Acts 20:28
 * του κυριου (of the Lord) – A C* D E Ψ 33 36 453 945 1739 1891
 * του θεου (of God) – B 614 1175 1505 vg sy bo$c$

 * ανταποδοσεως (reward) – A (singular reading)
 * αποκαλυψεως (revelation) – Majority of manuscripts

 * Ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν – A D$1$ Ψ 81 629 2127 vg
 * Ιησου – * B D* G 1739 1881 d g sa bo eth
 * Ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα – Majority of manuscripts

 * μυστηριον (mystery) – A $13$ * C 88 436 a r sy$h$ bo
 * μαρτυριον (witness) – Majority of manuscripts

 * τη προσευχη (prayer) – A $c$ * B C  G P Ψ 33 81 104 181 630 1962 it vg sa bo arm eth
 * τη νηστεια και τη προσευχη (fasting and prayer) – Majority of manuscripts

 * χρηστοτητος – A 365 bo
 * χαριτος – Majority of manuscripts

 * του διαβολου (of the devil) – A (singular reading)
 * της πλανης (of deceit) – Majority of manuscripts

1 Timothy 3:16
 * ὃς ἐφανερώθη (who was manifested) – A* * C* G 33 365 442 2127 ℓ 599
 * θεός ἐφανερώθη (God was manifested) – A$ms$ $1$ C$(vid)$ D$p$ K L P Ψ 81 330 630 1241 1739 Byz

 * παντι εργω και λογω αγαθω (every good work and word) – A (singular reading)
 * παντι εργω αγαθω (every good work)- Majority of manuscripts

 * δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (through water and blood and spirit) – A 104 424$(vid)$ 614 1739$2$ 2412 2495 ℓ 598$e$ sy$2$ sa bo; Origen
 * δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος (through water and blood) – Majority of manuscripts
 * New Testament scholar and textual critic Ehrman identified it as Orthodox corrupt reading.

 * πρωτοτοκος (firstborn) – A (singular reading)
 * πρωτος (the first) – Majority of manuscripts

 * ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ (redeemed to God) – A eth
 * ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἡμᾶς (redeemed us to God) – All other manuscripts containing this verse -

Non-included Verses

 * omit – A B C D Ψ Lect d k sy$c$ sa bo
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts

(Christ's agony at Gethsemane)
 * omit – A * B T W 579 1071 ℓ 844 f sy$vid$ sa bo$c$
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts

 * incl. – E 323 453 945 1739 1891 2818
 * omit – A Majority of manuscripts

 * incl. – C 33 D*$c$ 323 453 614 sy$m$ sa bo$h$
 * omit – A  B E L Ψ 81 Majority of manuscripts

 * omit – A  B L P 049 81 1175 1241 p* s vg$s$ co
 * incl. – E Ψ 33 323 614 945 1505 1739 2464 gig sy$s$

 * omit – A  B E Ψ 048 33 81 1175 1739 2464 s sy$pt$ co
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts

 * omit – A   B C 81 1739 2464 b co
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts

Alexandrinus is an important witness for the absence of Pericope Adultera (John 7:53–8:11). Gregory asserted in regard to the lost two leaves (John 6:50–8:52), "For by counting the lines we can prove that it was not in the book. There was not room for it". A similar counting involving missing leaves is done with Codex Ephraemi.

Place of origin
The codex's original provenance is unknown. Cyril Lucaris was the first to suggest Alexandria as its place of origin, which has been the traditional view and is the most probable hypothesis. This popular view is based on an Arabic note on folio 1 (from the 13th or 14th century), which reads: "Bound to the Patriarchal Cell in the Fortress of Alexandria. Whoever removes it thence shall be excommunicated and cut off. Written by Athanasius the humble." "Athanasius the humble" is identified with Athanasius III, Patriarch of Alexandria from 1276 to 1316.

F. C. Burkitt questioned this popular view. According to Burkitt, the note reads: "Bound to the Patriarchal Cell in the Fortress of Alexandria. He that lets it go out shall be cursed and ruined. The humble Athanasius wrote (this)." The codex had been found on Mount Athos, and might have been taken to Egypt by Cyril in 1616, and so all the Arabic writing in the codex could have been inserted between that date and 1621, when Cyril was elected Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. On this supposition "Athanasius the humble" might have been "some person of Cyril's staff who had charge of his library". According to Burkitt's view the codex was found on Athos, but it was written in Constantinople, because it represents a Constantinopolitan text (now known as the Byzantine text). This hypothesis was supported by Kirsopp Lake.

Frederic G. Kenyon opposed Burkit's view, and argued Cyril firmly believed in the Egyptian origin of the codex. In 1938 A. S. Fulton, the Keeper of the Department of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts in the British Museum, re-examined the Athanasius note, and based on palaeographical grounds his opinion was it could be dated to the 13th or 14th century, and the 17th century was excluded. In 1945 T. D. Moschonas published a catalogue of the library of the Patriarch of Alexandria, in which he printed two Greek notes, both from 10th-century manuscripts of John Chrysostom, inserted by the Patriarch Athanasius III. The two notes must have been written between 1308 and 1316. Although the note in the Codex Alexandrinus is entirely in Arabic, and therefore no identity of hand with the Greek notes can be expected, the similarity of wording leaves no doubt that this is also the work of Athanasius III.

Burnett Hillman Streeter proposed Caesarea or Beirut for three reasons: 1) after the New Testament it contains the two Epistles of Clement; 2) it represents an eclectic text in the New Testament (Antiochian in the Gospels and Alexandrian in the Acts and Epistles), suggesting some place where the influence of Antioch and of Alexandria met; 3) the text of the Old Testament appears to be a non-Alexandrian text heavily revised by the Hexapla, as the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament portion more often agree with Alexandrinus against Vaticanus than not.

According to Skeat the note in the codex indicated the codex had not previously been in the Patriarchal Library in Alexandria. The codex was carried from Constantinople to Alexandria between 1308 and 1316, together with two manuscripts of Chrysostom. It remained in Alexandria until 1621, when Cyril removed it to Constantinople. Whether it was originally written in Constantinople or in Alexandria, is another question. Skeat did not try to give the answer on this question ("if any future scholar wishes to claim a Constantinopolitan origin for the Codex Alexandrinus, it is at least open to him to do so"). This view was supported by McKendrick, who proposes an Ephesian provenance for the codex.

A 17th-century Latin note on a flyleaf (from the binding in a royal library) states the codex was given to a patriarchate of Alexandria in 1098 (donum dedit cubicuo Patriarchali anno 814 Martyrum), although this may well be "merely an inaccurate attempt at deciphering the Arabic note by Athanasius" (possibly the patriarch Athanasius III). The authority for this statement is unknown.

Date
According to an Arabic note on the reverse of the first volume of the manuscript, the manuscript was written by the hand of Thecla, the martyr, a notable lady of Egypt, a little later than the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Tregelles made another suggestion, the New Testament volume has long been mutilated, and begins now in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, in which chapter the lesson for Thecla's Day stands. "We cannot be sure how the story arose. It may be that the manuscript was written in a monastery dedicated to Thecla." Tregelles thought that Thecla's name might have on this account been written in the margin above, which has been cut off, and that therefore the Egyptians imagined that Thecla had written it. Cyril Lucaris believed in Thecla's authorship, but the codex cannot be older than from late 4th century.

Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of Athanasius on the Psalms to Marcellinus, so it cannot be considered earlier than A.D. 373 (terminus post quem). In the Acts and Epistles we cannot find such chapter divisions, whose authorship is ascribed to Euthalius, Bishop of Sulci, come into vogue before the middle of the fifth century. It is terminus ad quem. The presence of Epistle of Clement, which was once read in Churches recalls to a period when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars not quite settled. It is certain that the writing of the manuscript appears to be somewhat more advanced than that of the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, especially in the enlargement of initial letters. It is also more decorated, though its ornamentations are already found in earlier manuscripts.

Codex Alexandrinus was written a generation after codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it may still belong to the fourth century. It cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth. It is currently dated by the INTF to the 5th century.

In Britain
The codex was brought to Constantinople in 1621 by Cyril Lucaris (a patriarch of Alexandria first, then later a patriarch of Constantinople). Lucaris was involved in a complex struggle with the Turkish government, the Catholic Church, and his own subordinates. He was supported by the English government, and presented the codex to James I in 1624, as gratitude for his help. The codex was presented through the hands of Thomas Roe (together with minuscule 49), the English ambassador at the court of the Sultan. King James I died before the codex was sent to England, and the offer was transferred to Charles I in 1627. It was saved from the fire at Ashburnham House (the Cotton library) on 23 October 1731, by the librarian, Richard Bentley. It became a part of the Royal Library at the British Museum, and since 1973 has been in the British Library.

Collations and editions
The text of the Epistles of Clement from the codex was published in 1633 by Patrick Young, the Royal Librarian. A collation was made by Alexander Huish, Prebendary of Wells, for the London Polyglot Bible (1657). The text of the codex was cited in footnotes. Richard Bentley made a collation in 1675.

The Old Testament was edited by Ernst Grabe in 1707–1720, and the New Testament by Carl Gottfried Woide in 1786, in facsimile from wooden type, line for line, without spaces between the words, exactly mimicking the original. For the text in 1 Tim 3:16, the facsimile has $, 1$ ἐφανερόθη, and Woide in his prolegomenon combats the opinion of Wettstein, who maintained that ος ἐφανερόθη was the original reading, and that the stroke, which in some lights can be seen across part of the Ο, arose from the middle-stroke part of a letter Ε being visible through the vellum. Wettstein's assertion was also disputed by F.H. Scrivener, who found that "Ε cut the Ο indeed . . . but cut it too high to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of Θ." Tregelles however agrees with Wettstein's reading of the codex, and states "as the result of repeated examinations, we can say distinctly that Woide was wrong, and Wetstein was right."

Woide's edition contained some typesetting errors, such as in the Epistle to Ephesians – ἐκλήθηθε for ἐκλήθητε (4:1) and πραόθητος for πραότητος (4:2). These errors were corrected in 1860 by B. H. Cowper, and E. H. Hansell, with three other manuscripts, in 1860. The Old Testament portion was also published in three folio volumes by Baber in 1816–1828. In 1879 and 1880, the entire codex was issued in photographic facsimile by the British Museum, under the supervision of E. M. Thompson. Frederic G. Kenyon edited a photographic facsimile of the New Testament with reduced size in 1909. The text of the Old Testament followed four parts in 1915.

Textual criticism
According to Bentley the codex is "the oldest and best in the world". Bentley assumed that by supplementing this manuscript with readings from other manuscripts and from the Latin Vulgate, he could triangulate back to the single recension which he presumed existed at the time of the First Council of Nicaea. Wettstein highly esteemed the codex in 1730, but changed his opinion in 1751 and was no longer a great admirer of it. He came to the conviction that Athos was the place of its origin, not Alexandria. Michaelis also did not esteem it highly, either on account of its internal excellence or the value of its readings. The principal charge which has been produced against the manuscript, and which had been urged by Wettstein, was it had been altered from the Latin version. Michaelis countered that the transcriber who lived in Egypt would not have altered the Greek text from a Latin version, because Egypt belonged to the Greek diocese, and Latin was not understood there. Woide, who defended the Greek manuscripts in general, and the Codex Alexandrinus in particular, from the charge of having been corrupted from the Latin, discerned two hands in the New Testament.

Griesbach agreed with Woide and expanded on Michaelis' point of view. If this manuscript has been corrupted from a version, it is more reasonable to suspect the Coptic, the version of the country in which it was written. Between this manuscript and both the Coptic and Syriac versions there is a remarkable coincidence. According to Griesbach the manuscript follows three different editions: the Byzantine in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and General epistles, and the Alexandrian in the Pauline epistles. Griesbach designated the codex by letter A.

Tregelles explained the origin of the Arabic inscription, on which Cyril's statement appears to rest, by remarking that the text of the New Testament in the manuscript begins with Matthew 25:6, this lesson (Matthew 25:1–13) being that appointed by the Greek Church for the festival of St. Thecla.

Importance
It was the first manuscript of great importance and antiquity of which any extensive use was made by textual critics, but the value of the codex was differently appreciated by different writers in the past. Wettstein created a modern system of catalogization of the New Testament manuscripts. Codex Alexandrinus received symbol A and opened the list of the NT uncial manuscripts. Wettstein announced in his Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci (1730) that Codex A is the oldest and the best manuscript of the New Testament, and should be the basis in every reconstruction of the New Testament text. Codex Alexandrinus became a basis for criticizing the Textus Receptus (Wettstein, Woide, Griesbach).

Images

 * Volume 4 (the New Testament) on the British Library's Digitised Manuscripts  website
 * Volume 4 (the New Testament) at the CSNTM (facsimile of 1880s edition)

Articles

 * Codex Alexandrinus: information, zoomable image British Library website

Full Text

 * Facsimile at Internet Archive: Four volumes in one pdf with bookmarks and high quality photos (from 1879–1883 and 1909).

title: Codex Alexandrinus


text:
Talk:Lani Guinier

First/Second Woman of Color
Lani Guinier is the SECOND woman of color appointed tenure at Harvard Law School. Straight from the Harvard newspaper: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/

"We welcome the announcement last week that noted scholar Lani Guinier '71 accepted tenure from Harvard Law School (HLS) and hope her appointment will be followed by offers to others from a diversity of backgrounds. ...Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"

Though for some reason she quietly became the first woman of color sometime later.

Not sure what the point of this section is. Is it a dig at Harvard or at Eliz Warren? We all know now (as of 2018) that Eliz Warren is a white woman who (like many white people) has a family story of Native ancestry and perhaps a few genes to indicate a distant Native biological ancestor. For reasons that she states were sincere at the time, but not accurate, she clicked an additional or wrong box on a Harvard survey, but Warren is not a woman of color. That Harvard page has been corrected. Lani Guinier was clearly the first.David Couch (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

One-Sided Rant
"Journalists, both those fed erroneous data by right wing Republicans as well as those who simply misunderstood (or failed even to read in context) her law review articles, also alleged that Guinier supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as 'race-conscious districting.'"

Unencyclopedic tone. The article is merely seething with outrage than Guinier was not appointed. It is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia absent substantial revision and insertion of balance.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a bit better now, but each section ends with statements supporting Guinier/her views.

Untitled
In 1993 President Clinton nominated HLS Prof. Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, but after a negative reaction by some conservatives got traction in the mainstream media (she was labelled her a "Quota Queen" among other things) her nomination was withdrawn, after Clinton claimed he read her law review articles and found them too liberal.

Fast forward to the Bernard Kerik dust up, and all of the sudden Lani Guinier has gotten lumped in with Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Clinton nominees for U.S. Attorney General who got derailed by "nanny problems." One might expect this from Fox News (see e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141228,00.html) and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6696925/). But Jon Stewart also got in the act, making fun of her for having a nanny problem on Comedy Central (see clip here if you scroll down to the Kerik clip on12/14: http://www.crooksandliars.com/). Even the Washington Post make this unfounded accusation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A57960-2004Dec11_2.html), although unlike Fox et. al., on December 14th the Washington Post issued a correction, the text of which was:

"Correction A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Department's civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a "nanny problem." There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier's legal writings."

On December 15th, just a day after the WaPo correction, however, the Baltimore Sun ran a whole new story alleging that Lani had a nanny problem, and countless bloggers have picked this up as "fact." One starts to wonder whether there are only a handful of reporters in this entire country, whose sloppily researched stories get picked up and republished a million times without the least bit of factchecking. And then, enter the Internet. Once a few websites published the erroneous accusation, other sites,and many blogs, linked to them for "support" on this contention. Within a short amount of time a Google search revealed so many sites that made this false claim that her fictitious "nanny problem" seems entrenched, well document and irrefutable.

I reprint below the text of Lani's letter to the Baltimore Sun about this:

 * To whom it may Concern:

 * In 1993 my nomination to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was nixed, abetted by a media spin cycle that distorted my views of democracy. Now I find your staff reporters erroneously catapulting me into the pantheon of nominees who lost out because they did not pay taxes for a domestic worker.[December 15, 2004 Wednesday, Pg. 1E, "Parents often turn a blind eye, hiring nannies illegally in U.S.; Nominees aren't the only ones ignoring immigration status," Ellen Gamerman, SUN STAFF, WASHINGTON.]

 * To set the record straight, there was never an issue during my nomination imbroglio about nonpayment of taxes for a domestic worker. President Clinton withdrew my nomination because of a controversy about my academic writings about democracy. The controversy was fueled by a media firestorm that reported my views inaccurately and out of context. To my dismay, I have somehow been swept up in another media controversy challenging my integrity in defiance of the facts. Other media outlets have since issued corrections. I trust The Baltimore Sun will do the same.

 * Those who are interested in the facts, including the ideas about democracy that were the sole source of my "dis-appointment" in 1993, might want to read two books I authored explaining those events: The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press: 1994) and Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice (Simon and Schuster: 1998).

 * Lani Guinier
 * Professor of Law
 * Harvard University
 * Cambridge, MA 02138

Please support these two statements with sources.
User:194.215.75.17 added these two statements (among others):

1. During this two week process, she was also made famous as the "object of a modern, instant witch-hunt".

''2. Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.

These do not sound WP:NPOV. I would like to see these backed up with sources. If they can't be, they need to be removed. Even with sources, I have a feeling they probably will need to be rewritten to include the perspective they originate from. Lawyer2b 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)''

Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.

Number 2 above is simple fact, not really provable because you'd be trying to prove a null hypothesis. We'd have to prove the reverse -- that there were various articles published at the time in which Clinton defended Guinier or in which Guinier corrected/engaged these critics. You won't find any. Virtually every major news source noted that Clinton failed to defend his choice, and that Guinier was not given the hearing in which she would be able to explain her writings to Congress.

She did take the unusual step of going on TV newsshows, as the Times of London later noted, but only to insist on her right to a trial, saying `Fairness requires that I be given an opportunity to present my views in the Senate,' [“Clinton faces liberal backlash as he drops civil rights radical,” The Times (London, England) (6/4/93, p14.] After the fact, Clinton himself "acknowledged that Ms. Guinier had fought until the end to be able to appear before Senate Judiciary Committee to explain her views." [NY Times, 6/4/93 p.A1]

The same news sources tended to repeat phrases like this, also from the Times: "Among other things, Ms Guinier has appeared to challenge the principles of one-man, one-vote, and majority rule, and has advocated extreme measures to increase black political power." Again, please find a reasonably accessible  news source that even tried to address these very complex legal concepts (any of Guinier's writings touch on these ideas).

In late 1993, the cover story of the Columbia Journalism Review (arguably the #1 journalism school in the country) concluded: "Opponents of Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Dept's Civil Rights Division successfully distorted select bits of her previous academic writings and sparked a media frenzy surrounding the candidate. The press was manipulated by political opponents who were quoting Guinier out of context. Media representatives are guilty of not thoroughly researching the writings in question. Instead, a caricaturized representation of Guinier and her philosophies was perpetuated by an uninformed media quick to seize the negative sound bites of her detractors, chief among whom was Clint Bolick." (abstract, Columbia Journalism Review 32:3 (Sept-Oct 1993): p36.

All of which makes Clinton look worse than Lani herself, but that's another story... [--malinchista, 5/31/06]

 * User:Malinchista, everything you just wrote is very interesting but it doesn't establish what you added to the article as a verifiable fact.  At best, it is the opinion of the Columbia Journalism Review and therefore should only be included in wikipedia if it is identified as such.  You seem to have a great source there, though, so why not just include a paraphrasing of what the abstract said along with the citation?  P.S. - Sign your edits! :-)  Lawyer2b 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. An article in the CJR is not an opinion but a scholarly conclusion based on an objective, substantive study, reviewed and approved by scholarly peers. It's very much a wiki-approved source. [malinchista, 6/2/06]

 * I agree that an article in the CJR is a scholarly conclusion but it is still an opinion and may or may not be true. See Michael A. Bellesiles for examples of "scholarly conclusions" that were highly contested opinions. Lawyer2b 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. if you put four tildes in a row like this: ~, wikipedia will sign your name and put a date stamp.

"'I was ordered by both Justice Department and White House staff not to speak to the press in advance of confirmation hearings. This was the one area in which the White House both took charge and remained unambiguous in its directives: as an executive branch nominee, I must remain silent.' (Guinier, Lift Every Voice (Simon & Schuster, 1998), 50.)" L2b, will you please quit wasting our time? That the media blasted on Lani is not controversial --conservatives are proud of the fact that they derailed a nomination, and liberals are chagrined. Big whoop. Further, I've provided citation after citation and you have provided nothing but "uh uh, I don't think so." Do some research, read another piece of Guinier's work, add something substantive instead of nitpicking at nonexistent slights. Please. Malinchista 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I'm wasting your time, however I'm sure you would agree that an article on someone as important as Ms. Guinier is worthy of making sure wikipedia policy is followed, to wit, that opinion is identified in someway as opinion.

 * Where you and I seem to differ is it appears you believe, "if it can be verified that something was described as a fact in a scholarly journal or by Ms. Guinier, then can be presented as a fact in wikipedia." I believe this is mistaken.  That something can be verified as having been written at all is necessary for it to be included in wikipedia in the first place.  Whether it is presented as the opinion of the original author or as a fact is another matter. For example, that "White House policy forbid her from speaking to the media" is a claim Guinier makes but it is not an established fact.  If actual verifiable orders from the White House could be cited then, it is no longer in the realm of her opinion but rather a fact.  P.S. - Good job on the tildes.  :-) Lawyer2b 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. To every one of your queries, I have provided sources documenting Guinier's enforced silence:
 * The London Times
 * New York Times citing Pres. Clinton himself
 * Columbia Journalism Review
 * and finally, Guinier herself in her widely circulated book stating the prohibition (which if untrue, I'm sure the WhiteHouse or some media source would have had a field day with...).
 * [And finally, my own experience living through the nomination process and wondering why no one in the White House tried to counter the media blitz, but that doesn't count...]

All of these are, according to wikipedia,verifiable sources: Verifiability, not truth. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true....

And every time, you've provided no substantive argument for a different or additional interpretation; indeed, you've done no work at all. --mali, 6/11

 * User:Malinchista: We disagree on some matters regarding the article yet I believe I have treated your edits and point of view with respect. While I don't believe I have done anything to warrant it I have noted you take a very dismissive tone with me. It may or may not be a violation of wikipedia policy (WP:CIVIL) but it has not been appreciated.  However, calling me lazy in your last edit's summary  is indeed a violation of policy, WP:NPA and I will ask you not do that kind of thing again. Lawyer2b 03:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, L2. I didn't mean to characterize you, but rather my opinion of your behavior as documented on this page. Nevertheless, I'm sorry. I tried to go back and remove the offensive term, but was unable to figure it out..can edit the discussion text, but not the summaryline. Malinchista 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)malinchista
 * Thank you for the apology. It is, of course, accepted.  Unfortunately, I don't think the "edit summary" can be changed but it's not a big deal.  I should probably be flattered because, even though you seem to have quite a bit of knowledge (and experience?) of her, you obviously thought of me as part of your "team" editing this article and expected as much me as from you.  From that perspective, I'm sorry to have disappointed you because I have to readily admit that I haven't spent any time researching her or your cites.  That being said, I haven't had time to think over your points and edits and I am not editing the article until I have. Lawyer2b 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the Communist Columbia Journalism Review article you cite and I believe you have have paraphrased the material in there well. I wish there was something that could be added about the CJR being very left-leaning but perhaps that's something for its own entry.  Lawyer2b 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Very funny, L2. I really wish there was a better way to characterize info  than 'left' or 'right.'  It's supposed to be about accuracy, y'know? Malinchista 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged, pov
Tagged as pov. Very biased and needs to reference some of the bold statements it makes. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't just randomly mark. Be substantive, make specific suggestions, per wiki policy....[] Malinchista 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

 * If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.'

 * Would you rather me have left it unmarked? My edits can stay away from the article if that's what you mean to tell me. Oh yes, I also reworded the opening sentence. Which means I did contribute to the article after (or right before) I tagged it. So I threw in my two cents. But I'm no expert on this woman nor the subject matter therein. You may want to find a scholar or someone who actually knows a thing or two about Ms. Guinier. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 09:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

She's a Harvard law prof and was a nominee for Assistant Attorney General of th U.S. for Civil Rights - I don't think it's a stretch to call her one of the leading civil rights scholars in the country. And she talks about growing up biracial, with a Jewish mom and AfrAm dad in pretty much all of her books. Malinchista 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Even so, Wikipedia should shy away from such conclusions. We give a subjective introduction then we go on to discuss facts. Not opinions, which is what that sentence was. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Plus, I've never even heard of the woman, so how can she be a leading civil rights scholar? I bet 75% of Americans haven't even heard her name before. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Much as it pains me to agree with Malinchista about anything ;-), I think she's right about this one. Also, I don't think your evidence proves anything.  Heck, 75% of Americans don't even go on to higher education let alone know names of leading scholars in various areas.   And, with all due respect, why would your not having heard of her mean anything?  Lawyer2b 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Because most of us have heard of famous academics, like Noam Chomsky, etc. To say she's "arguably one of the leading civil rights scholars..." is a bit of a stretch for me. She's relatively unknown across the country. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure who you mean by "us" (wikipedia editors or the general U.S. populace) but I don't think it makes any difference. I think a leading scholar could be relatively unknown by either group and still be a leading scholar.  That being said, a cite supporting her esteemed position is still a good idea.  I googled "leading scholar lani guinier" and "prominent lani guinier" and there are enough cites to make something good.  I'll leave that to Malinchista since I'm lazy.  ;-) 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Teehee. Thanks for the support, L2B; such a good sport! I thought adding "arguably" would make the reference a bit more ambiguous. I didn't say "most popular" or "most well known to 14-year-olds," because she's not. But to her peers, to those in the field of law and civil rights, and certainly, to a former president and attorney general for civil rights, she is clearly a leading figure. Besides, by your[Epee's] logic ("I didn't know her"), no one in atomic science or engineering is "leading" because _I_ don't know them. And if that's true, we're all in trouble.... Malinchista 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning behind making "Jewish Black American" the very first thing we learn about Lani. Certainly, it's relevant, but I think the identification of her mother and father in the third paragraph communicates the same information effectively, and more naturally, in the context of her family heritage. Why don't you move the links down to that sentence instead? Malinchista

Under Wiki standards, generally I would agreee. But the exception is where ethnicity is notable. Here I believe it is. She is, for example, listed under the Wiki list of Black Americans. So my thought would be to leave it in the first line. Tx.--Epeefleche 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked the heading categories a bit to more accurately reflect content. I don't really think the "early life" category makes much sense --I think I would move that up to the intro/overview, and delete the category--or did someone put that there as standard Wikiness? Malinchista

discussion has become moot
The whole argument above is by this late date, moot. The talk page offers all too good a history of what happened to Wikipedia. Malinchista, by late 2007 nobody would take this page as anything more than an essay by you. You think you won, but all that happened is the dream of a fair, collaborative encyclopedia has vanished. And by the way, do you really understand what a "malinchista" is? It hardly seems appropriate for you, given your politics. Profhum 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Red-diaper baby
Shouldn't the article mention that Guinier is a "red-diaper baby" (two communist parents)? Black-Jewish couple in the 1940s -- you know her parents met at a CPUSA meeting Kauffner (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV
This whole article needs more citations and to be completely rewritten by someone other than a freshman for social studies class. It lacks NPOV, is steeped in original research, and is just not up to Wiki standards. I realize it's already been talked about but clearly nothing happened. "She wanted this, she did this..." what is that? What kind of encyclopedic writing is that? And according to who? The prime contributor/writer or an actual verifiable source? If I knew how to tag this or cared enough to start editing I would but I will leave up to someone who knows more about this subject. 144.92.85.41 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? edited article to be so
I edited the article to reflect a more balanced nonPOV tone. Please remeber that wikipedia requires NPOV. Media outlets are only considered good sources for either unequivical facts (i.e. it is day outside), or good sources for the fact that a certain POV exists! Many of the arguments in the discussions above miss this crucial point. Whatever the NYT (or the Columbia Journalism Review etc.) says is certainly not considered a fact. Rather, the NYT is a good source for a certain POV. Please familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and then I am sure we can reach a solution. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed NPOV tag, I've edited it to make it more NPOV.
Whoever placed the NPOV tag was right to do so. That section of the article, on Ms. Guinier's nomination, was heavily slanted and biased against Republicans, and had a very non-neutral tone. I changed to make it very, much more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article
See Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lani Guinier. 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/20120317070146/http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/31/balancing-race-and-gender-ldf-women-pioneers/ to http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/31/balancing-race-and-gender-ldf-women-pioneers/
 * Added tag to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Guinier.1993
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904040138/http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html to http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lani Guinier. 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/20020628190009/http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020628190009/http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020305223100/http://minerscanary.org/pubs/pubs_by_lani.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/pubs/pubs_by_lani.shtml
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020923182654/http://www.minerscanary.org/ to http://www.minerscanary.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031034103/http://www.racetalks.org/indexfla.html to http://www.racetalks.org/indexfla.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead
Hello, I’m here to discuss the lead section summarizing the backlash to Guinier’s AAG nomination. I interpret the current sources cited (and others I have read) as this being led by right-wing politicians and media. However an IP editor has repeatedly changed the descriptor to “bipartisan”. Opinions? CC and  who have read through the entry recently. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like "bipartisan" is a stretch but it's complicated. Here's how the NYT frames it:
 * Ms. Guinier was a 43-year-old professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School when President Clinton nominated her for the post of assistant attorney general for civil rights. But she quickly came under fire from Republicans for her progressive views on voting rights and quotas.Her work was not without its liberal critics: Some scholars questioned whether her ideas about voting were in fact democratic, as she claimed, and several Democratic senators voiced their concerns about her nomination to President Clinton.But her Republican opponents also made clear that their campaign was a matter of opportunity. Still stinging from the Supreme Court nomination battles over Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, they were looking for payback, and saw her liberal views as an opportunity to hit the president early in his term.
 * Maybe the best way to deal with it is just to say "but withdrew the nomination" and then make clear in the body that there was a public campaign against her by Republicans and private reservations by some Democrats (as the text currently notes, referring to Ted Kennedy and Carol Moseley-Braun, among others). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply @AleatoryPonderings. That works for me for the lead. Incidentally the “opportunity” bit I think is worth working into the body given one of the people the entry quotes actually said at the time that was the intention (it’s in the obit but here’s the NYT 1993 piece); but I haven’t figured out how to add it smoothly. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Lani Guinier


text:
User:Slavy~enwiki

Hallo!

 * I am eng. Slavi Nikolov Slavov from Varna, Bulgaria.
 * I graduated in Master of Chemical technology, specialization Polimer technology, professional qualification Engineer-chemist in UCTM-Sofia, Bulgaria
 * I work for Agropolychim AD – Devnja, Bulgaria

title: User:Slavy~enwiki


text:
User talk:Slavy~enwiki

Hallo!

File copyright problem with File:Shannon Lee.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Shannon Lee.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Retropunk (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Slavy. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Slavy~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slavy~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy

If you are looking for the current RfC, it is located at Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: IVoteTurkey 15:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (DreamGuy | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

DreamGuy seems unable to enter into debate without using an aggressive, abusive, condescending and arrogant tone and engaging in ad hominem attacks. In particular his continued disparaging attitude towards a newcomer with whom he disagreed (i.e. me) broke wikipedia rules. IVoteTurkey

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}''

I have browsed through Wikipedia and made the occasional edit without bothering to register for some time now. A couple of weeks ago I was reading the Patricia Cornwell article and noticed that DreamGuy removed a whole section about her book on Jack the Ripper and Walter Sickert. I was rather suprised seeing as this information had been there for a while. On looking at the Walter Sickert page there seemed to be an awful lot of information on that page about Cornwell's book. A suprising amount given that most people believe that her theories are unworthy of being taken seriously. None of this information was biographical and indeed it was all about Cornwell and what she had done rather than about Sickert. I decided to "be bold" and reverted the Patricia Cornwell page back to include this information and I then went to the talk:Walter Sickert to discuss the matter. I had decided that rather than simply remove this information Sickert's page I would begin a debate on the subject. I questioned the validity of including several paragraphs about Cornwell's book and I suggested that there should only be a brief mention of this unlikely theory on Sickert's page as he was as likely to be the Ripper as similar unlikely or "fantastic" suspects like Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Lewis Carroll. I had assumed that the pages on these two gentlemen would in all likelyhood contain only the briefest mention of them being suspects. I was suprised to find that there were several paragraphs on both mens' pages about this subject. So I questioned the inclusion of this information on talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and talk:Lewis Carroll. I will not bore you with the minutiae of this discussion but suffice to say that DreamGuy was in favour of including this information on those pages.

Over the course of the next few days DreamGuy and I debated the issue on various talk pages and DreamGuy reverted the Patrica Cornwell page and I reverted back. I ended this little revert war by asking for the page to be protected. Right from the very first when I was treated by DreamGuy with contempt - DreamGuy has consistently responded to my comments with "ad hominem" attacks and disparaging and condescending remarks which included calling me "some newbie with no history [who] was rudely reverting with no explanation whatsoever other than biased attitudes", "snide", "a vandal", "obiously biased", "rude", "liar", "ranting", "snotty", "whiner", "ego-driven", "highly biased and inexperienced" etc.. etc.. I asked him not to make these personal attacks on numerous occasions but he persisted. He also threatened to have be banned for violating the three revert rule and for violating NPOV. I have clearly demonstrated that I did no such thing, yet DreamGuy refuses to acknowledge this or make an apology. I eventually decided to take Ortolan88's advice and attempt to "patch things up" by making an apology, but DreamGuy ignored this and later reverted to using insults.

DreamGuy has also been very rude to other users User:EliZZZa with whom there is some history and recently User:Icundell. IVoteTurkey

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * DreamGuy accuses me of behaving "little better than that of a vandal" in an edit and a "revert vandal" in an edit summary -
 * DreamGuy again accuses me of vandalism and breaking the three revert rule in an edit and of being "highly biased and inexperienced" in the edit summary -
 * DreamGuy accuss me of "whining" and of "obstinance" and threatens to have me banned -
 * Despite the fact that I had just proven that I had not broken the three revert rule DreamGuy continues to assert that I have and once more says I should be banned
 * DreamGuy says, in responding to a comment by User:Jwrosenzweig, "IVoteTurkey's bias is over the top obvious" -
 * DreamGuy makes the following false claim against me- "This anonymous unregistered user is running around trying to take all mention of anyone being a suspect (contemporary or modern day) in the Ripper case out of a number of articles and, in my opinion, vandalizing the encyclopedia to his bias as a result" -  - The only article that I had edited was the Patrica Cornwell article to revert it so the claim is completely false.
 * DreamGuy re-iterates his claim that I am "vandalizing" -
 * More disparaging language from DreamGuy - he says "[you] flaut your violations of the rules, harass me on my talk page, claim that I am lying, and then pretend to be the victim when I point out that what you are doing is wrong. " - - I had not "flaut" any rules - the so-called "harrassment" is me conversing his talk page- I was doing nothing wrong.
 * DreamGuy calls my comments "snotty" and uses disparaging language when referring to me i.e. - "rude person who doesn't even know how to properly add a comment to a user page or doesn't bother to register"
 * DreamGuy accuses me of "clear and painful bias" -
 * DreamGuy continues to use disparaging language and says "You should be grateful that you weren't banned for violating the three revert rule, stop pushing your luck"
 * Dreamguy continues to make false allegations against me i.e.
 * "you have demonstrated an obvious bias by claiming on many talk pages that anything that blackens a person's name should not be in an encyclopedia," - I never said any such thing - again I'm being misrepresented
 * "you have clearly been rude (which you yourself apparently agreed because you apologized for it" - I apologised for (non-deliberate) antagonising of DreamGuy - not for being rude (because I don't think I have been)
 * "and you were busy reverting posts with no discussion." - completely untrue
 * "That was stalled after you had to make more snide remarks and yet again suggest moving everything about every Ripper suspect to one page" - wrong on both counts - I have already agreed to the proposed changes, DreamGuy misintepreted a joke that I wish I hadn't made
 * -

Note from Icundell I became involved with this post: having investigated IVoteTurkey's user page, following a debate with him (amicably resolved). I read the exchange with some interested and simply shared my two penn'orth. I followed the discussion with mild interest and added this note: when DreamGuy stated the opinion that the Lewis Carroll page provided a model. There was a brief exhange of views: (includes intervening remark by IVoteTurkey). Dreamguy then made an entirely unwarranted accussation of bais:, (again with an intervening remark by IVoteTurky) to which I responded thus:. This is somewhat strongly worded since it was intended as (and in that debate will remain) my final word. It is my practice to walk away from disputes when I consider the other party is being either unreasonable or unwilling to show basic courtesy, in this case questioning my good faith.

However, I am prepared to vouch that in this dispute I consider IVoteTurkey's behavior to have been wholly reasonable, with the exception of an ill-judged (and to me incomprehensible) joke, noted in his evidence. DreamGuy characterisation of IVoteTurkey as "some newbie with no history" (cited above) utterly denies the possibiliy that a 'newbie' may bring fresh and perfectly valid insight. So I am quite happy to certify this RFC.

Would any admin please fel free to move any part of this post to a more appropriate section if they consider it appropriate (this process is a little daunting first (and hopefully only) time out. Icundell 23:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Please do not bite the newcomers
 * Wikiquette
 * Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Proof that I did not break the three revert rule
 * After waiting and not receiving an apology from DreamGuy for falsely accusing me of breaking the three revert rule - I make my own apology to DreamGuy for antagonising him in the hope that he might reciprocate. - no such apology was forthcoming.
 * I make another apology and ask for DreamGuy to shake hands -
 * DreamGuy rejects my offer to shake hands and re-iterates his false claims.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * IVoteTurkey
 * Icundell 23:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * I hereby witness an accurate retelling of this dispute. Vacuum c 02:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I hereby witness an accurate retelling of this dispute, having made exactly the same experience with DreamGuy in a different dispute. eliZZZa 00:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)eliZZZa
 * [[User:Eequor|‣ ᓛᖁ [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 14:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The above presentation of events almost exactly mirrors my experiences in dealing with DreamGuy at Beelzebub and Spring Heeled Jack. --Centauri 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Response
This is just another example of harassment that User:IVoteTurkey has engaged in against me since he was an unregistered user and decided reverting without comment (other than ALL CAPS insistence that it should be the other way, no reason given) a page I had worked on. The above accustions are full of half-truths and outright lies, and I contend that this is just yet another attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill because he won't let go after his opinions were reputed by myself and several other long-time editors of the pages the disputes happened on. The second user who signed the statement is someone IVoteTurkey brought in from other pages to try to have some measure of support after nobody else supported him, and this new person insisted upon arguing for an extreme position (two sentences of discussion and a link were "far" too much coverage in his mind of something others had recently covered with several long paragraphs but I had split to another page) for which consensus had already been reached on that page. The third person above I have never seen on any of the pages involved, and can only suspect that it was yet another person dragged in from elsewhere by IVoteTurkey to try to lend support for his ego-driven campaign.

Simply put, I don't have the time nor the inclination to go back and forth with this individual, because as far as I am concerned it was already settled with IVoteTurkey's original apology for harassing me. I am going to ignore this pointless attack and continue working with those people who want to actually work together to improve Wikipedia articles instead of turning everything into some long, drawn out schoolyard dispute.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) DreamGuy

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

this looks like a generic time-waster to me. Prima facie, it seems arguable that DreamGuy has violated Civility, but I have been treated much worse without making a case of it. So, while I am open to the possibility that there is some merit in this RfC, I agree with DreamGuy's 'schoolyard' characterization, and I would recommend that the two parties simply avoid each other as best they can, and in cases of direct edit conflicts try to appeal to other users rather than engaging in reversions themselves. This is obviously not a solution, and much less a verdict, but I really think it is not worth wasting any more time on.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

As a point of fact IVoteTurkey did not bring me "in from other pages to try to have some measure of support after nobody else supported him" in any way shape or form to the discussion on Talk:Patricia Cornwell. DreamGuy's claim to this effect, above, is completely untrue. I came to the discussion exactly as described above. Also, quite what relevance the fact that DreamGuy has never heard of Vacuum has to this issue is a bit puzzling, given that this is a request for comment I've never seen him/her about either. Icundell 16:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * May I ask you to clarify something? It's not clear how you personally have tried to resolve this dispute? Could you elaborate, or did you really mean to endorse rather than certify IVoteTurkey's version? jguk 19:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I tried to solve it with reason, the only effective way I know. What DreamGuy characterises (above) as an extreme position, was in fact a reasoned argument (you can follow the links above to see it). Whether it is a good reasoned argument is up to you and others to judge, but it was reasoned, based on evidence-based neutral thinking (concluding that the Carroll allegation is worth of only brief note in his bio). DreamGuy then hit me with an ad hominem accusation of bias. Had he not been hurling abuse at another user, I probably would have let it drop, but since a) he was and that user already felt the need to 'go official', and b) since I have zero-tolerance of playground bullies, I'm certifying. Icundell 19:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your clarification. I'll move it to the "approved pages - have met the two person threshold". jguk 20:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Icundell participated in Talk:Patricia Cornwell and tried to address DreamGuy's tendency to throw insults around. I feel it's sufficient to certify this RFC. Rhobite 20:20, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy


text: User:Anthony/MultiLicenseQingPL

title: User:Anthony/MultiLicenseQingPL


text:
List of contemporary Turkish poets

This list includes the notable Turkish poets.

 * Yahya Kemal Beyatlı (1884–1958)
 * Ahmet Haşim (1885–1933)
 * Faruk Nafiz Çamlıbel (1898–1973)
 * Nazım Hikmet (1902–1963)
 * Necip Fazıl Kısakürek (1904–1983)
 * Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız (1905–1975)
 * Sait Faik Abasıyanık (1906–1954)
 * Asaf Hâlet Çelebi (1907–1958)
 * Ahmet Muhip Dıranas (1908–1980)
 * Cahit Sıtkı Tarancı (1910–1956)
 * Rıfat Ilgaz (1911–1993)
 * Orhan Veli Kanık (1914–1950)
 * Oktay Rifat Horozcu (1914–1988)
 * Fazıl Hüsnü Dağlarca (1915–2008)
 * Baki Süha Ediboğlu (1915–1972)
 * Melih Cevdet Anday (1915–2002)
 * Behçet Necatigil (1916–1979)
 * Cahit Külebi (1917–1997)
 * İlhan Berk (1918–2008)
 * Özdemir Asaf (1923–1981)
 * Attila İlhan (1925–2005)
 * Ümit Yaşar Oğuzcan (1926–1984)
 * Asım Bezirci (1927–1993)
 * Ahmet Arif, (1927–1991)
 * Edip Cansever (1928–1986)
 * Ece Ayhan (1931–2002)
 * Cemal Süreya (1931–1990)
 * Sezai Karakoç (born 1933)
 * Gülten Akın (1933–2015)
 * Onat Kutlar (1936–1995)
 * Cahit Zarifoğlu (1940–1987)
 * İsmet Özel (born 1944)
 * Ahmet Emin Atasoy (born 1944)
 * Ali F. Bilir (born 1945)
 * Behçet Aysan (1949–1993)
 * Enis Batur (born 1952)
 * Lale Müldür (born 1956)
 * Haydar Ergülen (born 1956)
 * Seyhan Erözçelik (1962–2011)
 * Ahmet Yalçınkaya (born 1963)
 * Birhan Keskin (born 1963)
 * Seyhan Kurt (born 1971)
 * Kenan Yücel (born 1974)
 * Nurduran Duman (born 1974)
 * İbrahim Halil Baran (born 1981)
 * Süreyya Aylin Antmen (born 1981)

title: List of contemporary Turkish poets


text:
Metochi, Larissos

Metochi (Greek: Μετόχι) is a village and a community in the municipal unit of Larissos, western Achaea, Greece. The community consists of the villages Metochi, Vouprasio, Neo Vouprasio and Lappas. Lappas was the seat of the former municipality of Larissos. Metochi is located in the plains near the Ionian Sea coast, 5 km south of Araxos, 3 km southwest of Araxos Airport, 14 km west of Kato Achaia and 32 km west of Patras. The Prokopos lagoon, which is fed by the river Larissos, is 1 km north of Metochi. Lappas is on the Greek National Road 9 (Patras - Pyrgos) and on the railway from Patras to Pyrgos.

title: Metochi, Larissos


text:
Ibbur

Ibbur (עיבור, "pregnancy" or "impregnation" or "incubation"), is one of the transmigration forms of the soul and has similarities with Gilgul neshamot. Ibbur is always good or positive, while dybbuk, is negative. Ibbur is the most positive form of possession, and the most complicated. It happens when a righteous soul decides to occupy a living person's body for a time, and joins, or spiritually "impregnates" the existing soul. Ibbur is always temporary, and the living person may or may not know that it has taken place. Often the living person has graciously given consent for the Ibbur. The reason for Ibbur is always benevolent—the departed soul wishes to complete an important task, to fulfil a promise, or to perform a mitzvah (a religious duty) that can only be accomplished in the flesh. In Lurianic Kabbalah, ibbur occurs when an incomplete soul which cannot achieve tikun is completed by the addition of the soul of a tzadik, or spiritual master. Luria believed this to be possible even whilst the possessor was still alive.

Fictional representations

 * Richard Zimler, The Warsaw Anagrams, New York: The Overlook Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59020-088-9 (an historical novel set in the Warsaw Ghetto and narrated by an Ibbur). According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Zimler's novel, "Deserves a place among the most important works of Holocaust literature."

title: Ibbur


text:
North Jersey Imperials

The North Jersey Imperials were a soccer club based in Paramus, New Jersey. They played in the United Soccer Leagues between 1994 and 2001. The Imperials were the first pro team of US national team goalkeeper Tim Howard. Sean Kenny was the head coach.

During their inaugural season in 1994, the Imperials played their home games at Bruins Stadium, which is located within James J. Braddock-Hudson County Park, in North Bergen, New Jersey. That year, the Imperials defeated the Jersey Dragons in the USISL D3 Pro League Northeast Division semi-finals, but fell to the Long Island Rough Riders. Players of note during the inaugural season were John Diffley, who went on to play for the Tampa Bay Mutiny and Kansas City Wizards, Jeff Zaun, who went on to play for the MetroStars, and Tom Lips, who went on to play for the New England Revolution. Another original Imperials player, Pat O'Kelly, was drafted by the MetroStars in 1996, but chose not to sign with the team.

The 1995 season saw the Imperials play their home games at Veteran's Memorial Stadium, in Bayonne, New Jersey. This season saw the Imperials play their two best attended games, when over 2,500 fans turned out to see them play against the Long Island Rough Riders, who featured US national team goalkeeper Tony Meola in their starting lineup, and over 4,500 turned out to see them play an exhibition against Polish club Stal Mielec. That year, the Imperials fell to the New York Fever in the Northeast Division Final.

The 1996 season saw the Imperials play their home games at Fairleigh Dickinson University's University Stadium, located in Teaneck, New Jersey. The Imperials won the USISL D3 Northeast Division Championship that year, defeating the Central Jersey Riptide in the final and advancing to the Sizzling Six National Finals. Notable games that year were exhibitions against Danish club Viborg FF and a game featuring a team of several former New York Cosmos players. Imperials players of note that year were Rob Johnson and Petter Villegas, both of which would go on to play for the MetroStars, and Altimont Butler, who would play for the San Jose Clash.

The 1997 Season saw the Imperials continue their tenure at FDU's University Stadium. The Imperials fell in the D3 semi finals (by shoot out) to the Central Jersey Riptide. This season was notable as 18-year-old Tim Howard, from North Brunswick, was the starting goalkeeper for the Imperials. Howard went on to the join the MetroStars for the 1998 season. He was then transferred to Manchester United in 2003 and has been the starting goalkeeper at Everton from 2006 (loan in 2006, transferred in 2007). Howard has been the first-choice goalkeeper for the US national team since 2007 and was the starting goalkeeper at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Other notable Imperials players that year were MetroStars back-up goalkeeper Zach Thornton (4 games) and MetroStars midfielder Cristian da Silva (2 games). During this season, 4 Imperials players, including Tim Howard, Jerry Lucey and Kenny Santos, were called up by the MetroStars for a July 30 exhibition against the Long Island Rough Riders.

The 1998 season saw the Imperials on hiatus.

The 1999 season saw the Imperials play their home games at Sprague Field, on the Campus of Montclair State University, in Montclair, New Jersey. This was a poor campaign, and the Imperials finished in 8th place in the Northeast Division. This season also saw the return of former Imperials goalkeeper Tim Howard, for at least 1 home game, on loan from the MetroStars. A player of note during this season was goalkeeper Kevin East, who'd spent time with the Columbus Crew and the MetroStars. East was loaned to the MetroStars that year, as a backup, when Tim Howard was away with the U.S. U-20 national team.

The 2000 and 2001 seasons saw the Imperials, still playing at Montclair State University, drop a level to the Premier Development League (the 4th division of US Soccer). One notable player from this period is Alecko Eskandarian, who played for the PDL Imperials during the 2000 season. Eskandarian, a Montvale native, would go on to play in Major League Soccer for several MLS teams, and was named MLS Cup MVP for his 2-goal performance at the 2004 event. The North Jersey Imperials became defunct after the 2001 season.

title: North Jersey Imperials


text:
Gum turpentine

Gum turpentine may refer to:
 * Oleoresin of the pine tree, also known as crude turpentine
 * Oil of turpentine obtained from pine gum (oleoresin)

title: Gum turpentine