text:
Base point pricing

Base point pricing is the system of firms setting prices of their goods based on a base cost plus transportation costs to a given market. Although some consider this a form of collusion between the selling firms (it lowers the ability of buying firms to gain a competitive advantage by location or private transportation), it is common practice in the steel and automotive industries. It allows firms to collude by simply agreeing on a base price.

Overview
Base point pricing is a pricing method used in the bond market. It refers to the practice of quoting bond prices in terms of a base point value, which is equal to 1/100th of 1% or 0.01%. For example, a bond with a price of 100 base points would have a price of 1%.

Base point pricing is used as a standard unit of measurement in the bond market, as it allows for more precise and easier comparison of bond prices. It is also used to calculate the yield on a bond, which is the rate of return that an investor can expect to earn on a bond over a given period of time.

Base point pricing is not to be confused with basis point, which refers to a unit of measurement used to express the percentage change in the value or rate of a financial instrument. A basis point is equal to 1/100th of 1%, or 0.01%.

Types
A pricing approach that involves designating a particular geographic location as a basing point and then charging customers as a freight cost from that location to the location of the customer. Or a pricing method in which customers are charged freight cost from a base point; the base point may be chosen arbitrarily, but the location of one of the company's manufacturing plant is commonly used.
 * 1) Point Pricing (-5 to +5 range)
 * 2) Rebate Pricing (-5 to +5 range)
 * 3) Bond Pricing (+95 to +105 range)

title: Base point pricing


text:
Talk:The Asiatic Society of Mumbai

Untitled
Where in Milan is the other copy? Even The Divine Comedy article doesn't seem to know. 68.81.231.127 14:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article appeared in the Midday newspaper. Not much of an idea where exactly the other copy lies. Nichalp 20:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The quoted date of the first meeting, "November 26, 1830". Should this not be "November 26, 1803"? --AstroLynx 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

TODO
This article is close to B, except the missing citations. There is only one external link. Please try to add citations. GDibyendu (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be the closest Sunday before Feb 9 2005. The mid-day website does not list it. :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Official website squatted on?
The official website of the Society seems to have been squatted on. Nawabrai (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The Asiatic Society of Mumbai


text:
Eduard Schlagintweit

Eduard Schlagintweit (23 March 1831 – 10 July, 1866) was the third of the five Schlagintweit brothers of Munich.

Life
He wrote an account of the 1859–1860 Spanish-Moroccan War.

He was killed in the Austro-Prussian War, at the Battle of Kissingen on 10 July, 1866

title: Eduard Schlagintweit


text:
User talk:Daddy2yogi

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 14:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Daddy2yogi


text:
Narborough, Leicestershire

Narborough is a large village and civil parish in the Blaby district of Leicestershire, England, around 6 mi southwest of Leicester. The population of the civil parish (including Littlethorpe) was 8,498.

The name is derived from the Old English north burh, meaning "north fort or stronghold". At the 2001 Census, the parish had a population of 8,402.

Surrounding villages include Enderby, Whetstone, Littlethorpe, Cosby, and Huncote.

Location
Narborough is situated on or near several major transport corridors. The M1 motorway passes through the east of Narborough, and the Leicester to Birmingham railway line runs beside the River Soar on its way through the village. Coventry Road in the village centre runs along the course of the Fosse Way (Roman road), which then joins back onto the present course of the B4114 link from Birmingham to Leicester.

Narborough is often split into two distinct parts, the (old) village core to the South and the newer Pastures estate to the north east. These areas are separated by the B4114 which runs through the middle of the two areas.

Bus
Narborough is served by Arriva Midlands services 50 and X84 both linking the village with Rugby, Enderby, Croft, Fosse Shopping Park, and Leicester city centre.  There is also a park and ride service which stops opposite Enderby Police station which runs electric buses into Leicester City Centre.

Rail
Narborough railway station is situated in the village centre and offers an hourly service with South Wigston and Leicester to the north, and Hinckley, Nuneaton and Birmingham in the south and west.

Amenities

To the north-east of the village lies Carlton Park, a business park that included the headquarters of Alliance & Leicester (defunct 2011), who employed over 1,800 people locally. Carlton Park also has a Racquets and Health Club, David Lloyd (formerly Next Generation), which opened in the summer of 2006. Near to the village centre are the Blaby District Council offices.

As well as Greystoke Primary School in the village, The Pastures and Red Hill Field are the two other primary schools serving the locality. Pupils from these schools generally continue their education at Brockington College in Enderby.

There are two large GP practices in the old village centre; The Limes Medical Centre and Narborough Health Centre. The village also contains a variety of retail outlets, pubs, restaurants and other amenities.

Politics and government
Narborough is part of the South Leicestershire constituency and is currently represented in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by Conservative, Alberto Costa.

Religion
In addition to the Anglican Parish Church of All Saints, Narborough also has a Congregational Church situated on School Lane and a Catholic church, St. Pius X, on Leicester Road.

Narborough has been home to The Buddhist House, HQ for the Amida Trust, a Pureland Buddhist school, since 2001.

Crime
Narborough was where Colin Pitchfork raped and murdered a 15-year-old schoolgirl, Lynda Mann, in 1983. He also killed a girl of the same age, Dawn Ashworth, in nearby Enderby in 1986. Initially a 17-year-old youth was suspected, and even confessed to one of the murders, but DNA testing cleared him. Following what was the first mass DNA screening of an entire community, Pitchfork was the first person in the world to be convicted of murder using DNA profiling.

Industry
The Empire Stone Works was founded in Narborough in 1900. It specialised in producing pre-cast concrete for cladding, which could be coloured with pigments and hand-finished to match natural stone cills, copings and cornices. The factory was the largest employer in Narborough, employing over 300 people, and had its own railway sidings. The company ceased trading in 1994, soon after the completion of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross which features in many of the later James Bond films.

title: Narborough, Leicestershire


text:
Talk:Jack Dempsey (fish)

Untitled
Should we merge this in with Cichlasoma_octofasciatum (same fish)? I'm new here so I'm not familiar with the latin name vs common name thing.

 * The duplicate article has been merged. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 14:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jack Dempsey (fish)


text:
Talk:Adolf Schlagintweit

Untitled
It's completely unclear to me whether Adolf was a "von". He is often referred to that way in English-language websites (beware of WP clones), but curiously German-language sites almost never use it. I don't have any print sources to check. Curiously, the modern EB cites him in their Karakoram article as "Adolphe de Schlagintweit", which is just bizarre. Stan 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name spelling
"Adolphe" is the spelling used in all contemporary reports, as well as in the reports authored by the Schlagintweit brothers (albeit posthumously by Adolphe himself). The authors of the official reports, by the brothers themselves, are given as "Hermann, Adolphe, and Robert de Schlagintweit". I would also note that the "standard author abbreviation" is meaningless, as Adolphe never authored the name of any plant taxon. 71.163.146.238 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolf Schlagintweit. 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/20110719041657/http://www.hps-computer.de/chronic/broth/broth.htm to http://www.hps-computer.de/chronic/broth/broth.htm

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) 02:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Jules Verne, Claudius Bombarnac, ch. XVI, J. Hetzel et Cie, Paris, 1892
Il est vrai, depuis cette époque, de farouches sultans lui ont succédé, – entre autres, ce Ouali-Khan-Toulla, qui, en 1857, fit égorger Schlagintweit, l’un des plus savants et des plus audacieux explorateurs du continent asiatique. Deux plaques de bronze, présents des Sociétés de Géographie de Paris et de Saint-Pétersbourg, ornent son monument commémoratif.

It is true, since that time, that fierce sultans have succeeded him, among others, that Ouali-Khan-Toulla, who in 1857 had Schlagintweit slaughtered one of the most learned and daring explorers of the Asiatic continent. Two bronze plaques, present from the Societies of Geography of Paris and St. Petersburg, adorn his memorial. Jean11170 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

To explain in article
To explain in this article: why was it thought necessary to travel all the way from Europe to Central Asia in order to study the earth's magnetic field? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adolf Schlagintweit


text: Talk:Roof

title: Talk:Roof


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates

A number of template messages have been created to standardize and simplify the task of writing and maintaining articles related to WikiProject Trains. This article will present a list of them with any associated parameters and examples from existing articles.

Stubs
Note: There are many stub templates for articles related to rail transport. A complete list is at Category:Rail transport stubs. Please use the most appropriate stub template for new articles, deferring to Rail-transport-stub only when a more specific stub template doesn't exist.

Common references
These should generally be substituted using subst: rather than transcluded.

High-speed rail

 * High-speed rail
 * High-speed railway lines
 * Shinkansen
 * Tōkaidō Shinkansen
 * Akita Shinkansen
 * Hokkaido Shinkansen
 * Hokuriku Shinkansen
 * Joetsu Shinkansen
 * Kyūshū Shinkansen
 * Sanyo Shinkansen
 * Tohoku Shinkansen
 * Tōkaidō Shinkansen
 * Yamagata Shinkansen
 * High-speed rail in the People's Republic of China
 * XRL
 * Taiwan High Speed Rail
 * KTX Lines
 * TGV navbox
 * AVE navbox
 * NBS H-WÜ
 * NBS K-F
 * High speed trains in Russia
 * High-speed rail in the United States


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana Militia Corps

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps
Recruitment advertisement. Hyperlinked web site is blank save for a couple of quotations and links to other sites at the bottom. Notability not established. Uncle G 15:04, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is a private club of, er, uh, gun owners. The actual Indiana state militia is of course the Indiana National Guard; http://www.inarng.org/ -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As revised, their notability has been established, and the article is no longer misleading as to their status or their aims. Keep.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it completely, and the first hyperlinked website in the original wasn't blank, just the second. Keep, an armed political militia in the United States, and sadly notable. Samaritan 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The first hyperlinked website came up, and still comes up, exactly as described above for me. The first external link in your rewrite comes up as "page not found", too.  And the ADL article only refers to the Indiana Militia Corps at all as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes.  (The fearless prediction by one of the other sources that John Kerry was certain to be the next president was quite amusing, though.)  I like the rewrite, but the broken references still don't quite address the notability problem.  You've brought me to Weak Delete. Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first link (to this); my bad, and apologies. Samaritan 20:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Er ... that brings up the same blank page with two quotations at the bottom as the original hyperlink on the original article did. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Of course this is notable, now with Samaritan's re-write. The militia phenomenon and its branches definitely warrant mention in Wikipedia.Kevintoronto 18:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We aren't voting on "the militia phenomenon", whatever that may be (given that for pretty much as long as the United States has existed groups like this have been springing up calling themselves "armies", "militia", and whatnot, and then disappearing again without making much of a mark upon anything). We are voting on the Indiana Militia Corps.  And the question is whether it is encyclopaedia-worthy.  Anyone can start a "militia".  You could start the Rhode Island Superpower Secessionist Army tomorrow, if you wanted.   But anyone can start a band in their garage, too.  The question is whether this is a serious militia, or just an excuse for a handful of gun enthusiasts on weekends to prat around in military surplus battle fatigues and get drunk.  In other words: Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * The IMC is one element of the militia phenomenon. Their wesbite is fairly extensive and sophisticated, although, admittedly, it could be the work of one person. But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog as asked below? (I like dogs.) They could be a sizable group that doesn't disclose their numbers because they are, as one would suspect, a bunch of paranoid freaks. But if the ADL is monitoring them, they are probably a notable bunch of paranoid freaks. (Some of my best friends are... never mind.) I don't think that it is the role of an encyclopaedia to exclude information for fear of publicizing a distasteful group. If someone wants to find a militia in Indiana, they'll find the IMC website pretty darn quickly without Wikipedia's help. Kevintoronto 21:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the ADL is monitoring them, it's not just three guys in a toolshed whining about the government.  As long as it doesn't turn into a promotion, I'm all for this group having an article. – Beginning 19:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless the ADL "monitoring" is something above filing news clippings and press releases ("Red Dog 1, this is Red Dog 3. I have him on visual, it looks like he's heading for his mailbox."), it says nothing about how seriously the ADL takes this particular group. They're referenced by name once on the ADL website, in an article about the (mostly failed) attempts by these various "militia groups" to band together. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.  The rewrite is a distinct improvement, but VfD votes are not primarily about the content; they are supposed to be about whether the topic or subject is encyclopedic.   A bad article on a valid topic can be cleaned up.  A bad article on an invalid topic can be cleaned up by a decent editor, too, and that might be what Samaritan has done here.  The question is whether this group is notable.  At this point, even with the rewrite, there is no evidence that the Indiana Militia Corps is more than 5 lunatics and a dog out in the woods somewhere in Indiana on summer weekends.  The group is only a few years old, for one thing.  I want to see more evidence that this is more than a web site and a few demented people. While our norms compel us to have articles about the significant groups, as loathsome as they might be, we shouldn't be in any big rush to give publicity to every little self-important group. --BM 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, until verification is established on their notability. Megan1967 23:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog...? Boy howdy, have you got it backwards. Delete unless some verifiable information on notability/influence/membership is forthcoming. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; the ADL kicks off an article by mentioning them http://www.adl.org/extremism/Militia/Coordination.asp, that implies the ADL considers them notable. Kappa 03:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the very same, single, peripheral, mention, as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes, that Calton and I have already referred to above. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * The ADL uses them as the first example of a phenomenon, that's like a music journalist using a band as the first example of pokemetal or something, it shows they are at least notable enough to get some attention from people in the business. Kappa 00:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article. The Oklahoma City bombing 10 years ago shows the potential of groups like this to cause real damage. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We aren't considering that, though. We already have an Oklahoma City bombing article.  We are considering the Indiana Militia Corps. And your argument boils down to "They might be notable at some time in the future, so they deserve an article.".  We don't buy that argument for individuals (otherwise we'd be buried in articles about every single newborn baby on the planet), or for music bands, so we shouldn't buy it for other groups of people either. Are they notable now? Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * keep it and categorize it as Recruitment advertisement Faethon35 09:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is discountable. See that user's entry in clueless newbies and the further discussion that it links to. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't say that one mention on the ADL website in an article about how militia groups don't seem to be able to get their acts together constitutes evidence that ADL takes this group seriously or is "monitoring" it.  --BM 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Haven't heard anything that establishes notability. --BM 02:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Emil Schlagintweit

Emil Schlagintweit (7 July 1835 – 29 October 1904) was a German scholar noted for his work on Buddhism in Tibet.

Life
Schlagintweit was the youngest of the five Schlagintweit brothers of Munich. His father Joseph Schlagintweit was a wealthy eye-surgeon, his mother died when he was quite young, and he was tutored by Franz Joseph Lauth, later a noted Egyptologist. The brothers' interest in exploration was sparked by Alexander von Humboldt's Cosmos, the first volume of which appeared in 1845, and which led to their explorations of the Alps and in turn to Asia's mountains.

After his brother Hermann's death in 1882, he inherited Schloß Jägersburg, their large estate near Forchheim, and the brothers' collections and papers. Not an explorer himself, he sold 102 Tibetan manuscripts and block-books collected by his brothers to the Bodleian Library at Oxford University where they remain.

His work was later used by Helena Blavatsky as evidence for her interpretations of "esoteric Buddhism" (Blavatsky herself did not approve of the term "esoteric Buddhism," to which she preferred "the Secret Doctrine," Occultism, or Sacred Science).

Selected works

 * Buddhism In Tibet. With An Account Of The Buddhist Systems Preceding It In India, Leipzig, F.A. Brockhaus, 1863. Online version
 * Die Könige von Tibet: von der Entstehung koniglicher Macht in Yárlung bis zum Erlöschen in Ladák : Mitte des I. Jahrh. vor Chr. Geb. bis 1834 nach Chr. Geb., Munchen : Verlag der k. Akademie, in Commission bei G. Franz, 1866.
 * Die Gottesurtheile der Indier; Rede gehalten in der öffentlichen Sitzung der Köngl. Akademie der Wissenschaften am 28. März 1866 zur Erinnerung ihres einhundert und siebenten Stiftungstages, München, Im Verlage der Königl. Akademie, 1866.
 * Kelat, the Brahui kingdom on the southern border of Iran, Simla, Govt. Central Branch Press, 1876.
 * Indien in Wort und Bild (Leipzig, 1880–1881)

title: Emil Schlagintweit


text:
Talk:Islam in Turkey

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * EAA Sancaklar Mosque.jpg

title: Talk:Islam in Turkey


text:
Talk:Bull Island (TV series)

Old posts
I'd like to move this page to Bull Island (TV show) so I can write an article about the island in Dublin Bay. Any objections? (Spitting Image already links to Bull Island (TV show) since last September)

Demiurge 15:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Did I write this?

 * Looking at the extremely short edit history, it seems I wrote this page. I have *absolustely* no recollection of doing so. Anybody care to confirm it was moved with an edit history loss, or something? I mean, I couldn't even remember the name of the Paddy O'Gorman pisstake... Kiand 22:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Review
Could some review this edit. Djegan 18:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bull Island (TV series)


text:
Talk:Elektro

Elektro Processing
Do you reckon that Elektro had any kind of processing power? I know this was very rare at the time, seeing as the world's computers took up a whole room, but what was it that made him respond to certain electric impulses? or was it simply a combination of fuses? This is something I'd like to know.

Also, this robot looks so damn creepy. Imagine seeing that thing for the first time in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.98.168 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Almost no processing power at all. Command recognition was done by counting the number of words in the command (which had to be spoken with pauses). So "Come. Here." would make Elektro move forward. But so would "Brown. Cow." or any other two-word phrase. --ABehrens (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the expansion. I changed 1950s->fifties, etc, since that is what I see most often on WP. It doesn't matter to me.

I'm not sure what the difference here is between "Elektro" the name versus "Elektro" the nickname. Did Westinghouse give it an official name? If so, it should be mentioned. If not, "Elektro" is in fact the name.

Did Elektro tour North America? Or just the U.S. and Canada?

I put back the "Thinko" name. See for some outtakes.--192.35.35.34 15:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's premature
It's premature for the page, but the director of the museum, Scott Schaut has a forthcoming book on Elektro: The Robots of Westinghouse.--192.35.35.36 18:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

?
Does the last existing one still work?

Are there no public domain or reprintable pictures of this robot in the entire world? I know that pictures were released to the press in 1939 and 1940. The robot appeared on the covers of magazines and World Fair publications. Someone post a picture. --Drvanthorp 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)]]

 * There's high-quality color video of Elektro at the 1939 World's Fair in Westinghouse's film, The Middleton Family at the New York World's Fair (1939). The whole act, as done at the Fair, is shown. A good color still could be extracted from that, if someone reads in the MPEG2 version into something that can work with such files. It's public domain material. --John Nagle (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed

 * Tidy up
 * Update if possible
 * Copyedit
 * Reassess once work completed

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
The rediscovery link is dead and the Web Archive didn't grab a copy. Here's another Jack Weeks page the archive did grab. http://replay.web.archive.org/20070715224634/http://www.maser.org/k8rt/ Bizzybody (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sparko's fate
If I'm not mistaken, there was more than one sparko. We know what happened to one, hit by a car before the fair even started, got out the storeroom and because of its programming to chase lights, it saw the headlights, chased after them and was destroyed. However because there was multiple nothing is known about the fate of the others 220.236.0.90 (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elektro


text:
Talk:UC Berkeley College of Engineering

Untitled
An online comic at www.nukees.com had Nuclear Engineering students eluded to Cal having a reactor. Is this true, or just a joke?--Commander Keane 15:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There used to be a reactor in the space under Etcheverry and Soda, but that was dismantled a long time ago, as Berkeley is now a nuclear free zone. - mako 10:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Berkeley's status as a nuclear free zone had no direct bearing on the reactor. the ordinance has no say over UC, or the national laboratories in Berkeley. some slight influence, perhaps.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:University of California Seal.svg
The image Image:University of California Seal.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:UC Berkeley College of Engineering


text:
San Julian, Eastern Samar

San Julian, officially the Municipality of San Julian (Bungto han San Julian; Bayan ng San Julian), is a 5th class municipality in the province of Eastern Samar, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 14,800 people.

The establishment of Libas in 1781 as a village was largely the work of a Franciscan parish priest of Sulat, Fr Melchor Claver. Through his efforts, a church was constructed, and houses were gathered around it. He directed the construction of a casa tribunal, a cemetery, and a rectory (convento). On July 4, 1863, Libas was separated from Sulat politically and ecclesiastically, and as it already had enough population and revenues to support a priest, was erected into a diocesan parish on August 25, 1871

History
The Parish/Township of San Julian owes its origin to the Pre-Spanish settlement of Libas. When the Jesuits started evangelizing the inhabitants on the eastern littoral of Samar Island in the early 17th century. Libas was already a small settlement, although the term village could not be applied to it. The houses were far removed from each other and the place was without street. It was simply a group of houses dotted near the mouth of Libas river. The inhabitants, whom from time to time the Jesuits from Sulat gathered at a makeshift chapel for worship and the doctrina were engaged in farming and fishing.

The establishment of Libas in 1781 as a village was largely the work of a Franciscan parish priest of Sulat, Fr. Melchor Claver. Through his effort, a church was constructed and houses were gathered around it. He directed the construction of a casa tribunal, a cemetery, and a rectory (convento). On July 4, 1863, Libas was separated from Sulat politically and ecclesiastically, and as it already had enough population and revenues to support a priest, was erected into a diocesan parish on August 25, 1871.

The new parish included the vistas (barrios) of nonoc, the patron of which was St. Pascual Baylon, Simangan, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, and Pagbabangnan, placed under the protection of St. Francis of Assisi. The first parish priest was a diocesan, Fr. Pedro Baul, who was assigned in Guiuan from 1865 to 1866. Tradition has it that he was a pastor of Libas from 1871 to 1874. The seat of the parish was, of course, Libas, with a wooden church dedicated to Our Lady of Sorrows. In 1865, the whole parish and town had a population of 2,940, and a total of 835 tributes. It also had an escuela de premer esdenanza (roughly a primary school) located at the parish seat. Its big church bell was acquired in 1885.

When commerce in Samar Island improved in the late 19th century, the priest and the people recognized that the location of the town placed it in an economic disadvantage. In 1886, during the incumbency of Don Granizo Calim as gobernadorcillo, when the town had a total 3,645 population, and the people were already part of the inter-town commerce, Fr. Julian Diaz, the parish priest, proposed that the poblacion be transferred to the visita of Nonoc largely for economic reason.

Having been seconded by the majority of the principales (town's leading men), the proposition for the transfer of poblacion, after much deliberation, was locally approved on April 7, 1886. With the stamp of approval by the governador general in Manila, with the assistance of the Gobernador Politico-Militar Don Pelayo Echacon y Lopez, the transfer became effective on August 14, 1887.

Nonoc, the new poblacion was renamed San Julian, after the friar, Fr. Julian Diaz, the last resident priest of Libas and the first resident priest of Nonoc. Its first gobernardocillo was Don Francisco Villarazo. Since Nonoc had not a single street, one of the first projects of the parishioners was the opening of streets and in compliance with the usual requirements of poblacion, Fr. Diaz led in the construction of the parish church of stone (traditionally dated 1890), a church plaza, a casa tribunal (roughly a municipal building), a convento, a cemetery (1888), and a primary school (escuela de primer ensenanza)

Meanwhile, Libas was reverted to the status of visita, populated by those Libasnons who chose to remain in the settlement. Before the end of the Spanish regime, one more visita was added to the pueblo (township) San Julian, namely, Nena, which was already known for its agricultural products. Originally known as Bulaun, its Militar, Don Ricardo Nouvilas, who named it after his daughter Nena. (Simangan became part of Sulat)

At the same time, another barrio (probably Lunang) was made, and renamed San Antonio, after the name of a well-loved pastor of San Julian, but its existence was short-lived, not only because the area was sparsely populated, but also because many inhabitants transferred to the poblacion. In 1909, San Isidro was separated from Pagbabangnan, and became an independent visita.

The town is the most progressive in the entire Eastern Visayas region in terms of human rights upholding. It is the first and only municipality in the region to possess an ordinance which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In April 2019, San Julian was close to the epicenter of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. The town suffered 48 injured and damages 450 homes.

Barangays
San Julian is politically subdivided into 16 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.
 * Bunacan
 * Campidhan
 * Casoroy
 * Libas
 * Lunang
 * Nena (Luna)
 * Pagbabangnan
 * Barangay No. 1 Poblacion
 * Barangay No. 2 Poblacion
 * Barangay No. 3 Poblacion
 * Barangay No. 4 Poblacion
 * Barangay No. 5 Poblacion
 * Barangay No. 6 Poblacion
 * Putong
 * San Isidro
 * San Miguel

Demographics
The population of San Julian, Eastern Samar, in the 2020 census was 14,800 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

Tourism
Tourism has been a part of locals since the early 1990s as Liliputan opened its doors to visitors.

Attractions include:
 * Liliputan Rocky Beach Resort - has rock formations and a natural pool that is equivalent to a 6 Olympic-size swimming pools.
 * May Flower Festival (Mayomayohay) - Held every 1 May, the festival is an annual celebration of Nuestra Senora De Las Flores. It is said that it is the oldest dance festival celebration in all of Samar and Leyte.
 * San Julian Century Old Church - a church made of coral stones, more than a hundred years old.
 * San Julian Star - A talent competition held every July. It gathers talent for a prize which attracts locals as well as competitors from Leyte and Samar.
 * Pangpang Three Waterfalls - these waterfalls offers a unique experience as it has three falls in a single location.
 * Pangpang Rainy Waterfalls - A waterfall that only flows after rainfall.
 * Campidhan Beach - A gray sand beach with matching white sand.

title: San Julian, Eastern Samar


text: Category:Spanish cities

title: Category:Spanish cities


text: Category:English inventors

title: Category:English inventors


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigrawot

I had some more comments about this, but figured this was a better place, rather than on the voting page.

My wife is Ethiopian (though not a Tigrinya speaker). I asked her about this, and she said "Tigrawot" doesn't make any sense. Literally it means "Tigray stew" (which occurred to me when I first saw the term).

Try a Google search on Tigrawot - in all but a couple of cases, it's used (from the Eritrean POV) in highly charged commentary about Eritrean-Ethiopian relations. So we even wondered if "Tigrawot" might be a pejorative term. But if Tigrinya speakers do indeed actually use this term to refer to themselves, then it seems to be a recent invention, and if this is the case then the article (if kept) needs to include this.

On the other hand my wife could not think of another word that one would use to refer to the group of people who speak Tigrinya (we don't think it's Tigray, which is the name of a place). She thought it was "Tigre" but I pointed out that Tigre seems to refer to a different (though related) language and its speakers who are mainly in Eritrea.

- Gyrofrog 15:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Fairly close to my thinking. It would help convince me to keep this stub if someone were to add some more material to this entry. -- llywrch 19:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ladies and gentlemen, I am a novis to Wikipedia. So, I did not know where I should put the discussion. Aplogies for putting it at the Voting page.
 * Sorry, it wasn't directed toward you (or anyone in particular). I wanted to add some discussion but didn't want to clog up the Voting page (which should just be for votes) with debate. - Gyrofrog 19:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not surprised by your Ethiopian wife not hear any thing about Tigrawot Gyrofrog. How about Welita, Oromo, Gamo Gofa, Arsi? Did she hear any thing about these if she were born during Emperor Haileselassie's period? They were referred to as Wolamo, Gala, Gomugofa, Arusi respectively. The Tigrawot were referred to as Tigre. That is why your wife remembers that. The powers that were never did refer to all these nationalities by the names the nationalities use to refer to themselves. It is the same with Tigrawot.

 * Believe me, she is very aware of all of that (and, FWIW, grew up during the Derg era). But  she was completely unfamiliar with the term Tigrawot (the singular terms made sense to her, though).  Perhaps all the more reason to expand the article? - Gyrofrog 19:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As to making sense, it is the same with all languages we do not know. As I said, I am a novice. Otherwise, if it is allowed, I would like to upload a sound clip so that you may play it and hear how it is said. Or may be it would be a good idea if you can get a Tigraway or Tigraweiti to pronounce it for you.

As to what you saw on the Internet about Tigrawot, they only show about the twisted mentality of their authors. I know Wikipedia is not the proper place for airing such views. So, I have said enough on that matter and on how the Eritreans use the word Tigrawot.

Another word Tigrawot use to refer to themselves is Tegaru. I have added that to the page. I also do hope other Tigrawot would elaborate more on my intial entry. Yewqet 15:47 (GMT) 14 Feb 2005

(also posted at Talk:Tigrawot) The final decision was to keep the "Tigrawot" article, but less clear was the decision to expand or merge. A count of the votes actually suggests "Merge," so shouldn't the final decision indicate "Merge" rather than "Keep?" Perhaps it's a minor point. However, from the point of view of someone watching the edit summaries, it looks like the decision was to keep the article, but then someone abruptly redirected it anyway. Note that I am not disagreeing with the merge itself. -- Gyrofrog 07:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Irish Republic

Northern Ireland came from the Irish Free State...
...not the Irish Republic. Shouldn't Northern Ireland succeed the Irish Free State, not the Irish Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.124.72 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically yes for a couple of days they were part of the Irish Free State. It had already been set up by the Government of Ireland Act though. What is this about? Dmcq (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I presume it's about this edit, and that it's related to the attempted inclusion of NI as a successor state in the Irish Free State infobox – see this edit. But Wikipedia does not deal with legal technicalities (except in legal articles), it deals with verifiable facts. Northern Ireland succeeded the Irish Republic – or the UKGBI, depending on your point of view – after the required process had been gone through. That's what all the sources say. You won't find any reliable source that says it succeeded the Free State, for the simple reason that it existed alonside the Free State for fifteen years before the Free State changed its name and constitution. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree it definitely should not be in the infobox for this article the Irish Free State. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you agree it should be in the infobox in this article and not in the Free State article? Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes it definitely shouldn't be in the infobox of the Irish Free State article. I'm not altogether sure it should be in the infobox of this article either as the Irish Republic never had any real standing in Northern Ireland but it's not a strong objection. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Succeeded? How could Northern Ireland seceded from the UK when it-albeit for an over emphasised few days-never ceased to be part of the UK? To secede wouldn't Northern Ireland have needed to become a sovereign state or region independent from that from which it was part of? If anything Northern Ireland seceded from the "country" within the UK that was called Ireland. Legal technicalities aside you can hardly argue that Northern Ireland was truly ever a part of the Irish Free State during those few days. Mabuska (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The reality is the position was that Northern Ireland did not become part of the Irish Free State, but the technicalities of the treaty have caused the confusion. The Treaty that created the Irish Free State provided an opt-out for Northern Ireland instead of an opt-in, so it has been argued that NI was part of the Free State for two days.

 * However the Treaty did not say that Northern Ireland ceased to be part of the United Kingdom nor that it would be part of the Free State. It provided that for the one-month period the government and parliament of the Free State had no authority in Northern Ireland and instead the Government of Ireland Act continued to apply as before.  Had there been no address to the King, then NI would have become an autonomous part of the Irish Free State at the end of the month.  In the event, the opt-out was exercised within the first week and at no point did the Free State extend to Northern Ireland. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I must actually apologise, I mistook what Scolaire was saying I thought when he typed succeed I thought he meant secede due to the similarity of the spellings. My bad. However I agree with Howard Alexander, and now have to think of attempts to claim NI was actually a part of the FS even if just for a few days to be an example of historical revisionism - a revisionism I have only ever seen propagated on Wikipedia. Mabuska (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, no - the Irish Republic ended when the Irish Free State was set up in December 1922. Northern Ireland had a month, the so-called "Ulster Month" to vote to join, or not join, the Irish Free State.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedily closed per Requested moves/Closing instructions: "According to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a link to the ArbCom ruling." As this appears to fall under that ruling, please move this discussion to the other venue. Dekimasu よ! 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Irish Republic → Irish Republic (1919–1922) – No clear primary topic. See. Many sources refer to the Republic of Ireland, eg:
 * Showcasing globalisation? The political economy of the Irish Republic, Nicola Jo-Anne Smith (2005)

 * Chasing Progress in the Irish Republic: Ideology, Democracy and Dependent Development, John Kurt Jacobsen (1994)

 * "Home Rule was granted in 1922; the Irish Republic formed in 1949." The Folklore Historian, Simon Bronner (2005)

 * "This was the time when the 'Celtic Tiger' economy of the Irish Republic was in full action." The Celtic Languages in Contact, Hildegard L. C. Tristram (2007)

 * "During the last decade however, the Irish Republic has experienced an economic boom..." Comparative Spatial Deprivation in Ireland, Combat Poverty Agency (2000)

I think "Irish Republic" should direct to a disambiguation page: "Irish Republic may refer to: Republic of Ireland, Irish Republic (1919–1922), Irish Republic (1916) ". Rob984 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose. There is a clear primary topic. The Irish Republic was verifiably a revolutionary state that declared independence in 1919. It is not the name of any other entity, notwithstanding the lazy use of the term for modern Ireland by some writers. The modern state is pointed to in the hatnote. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google Books search suggests otherwise. This is an accepted method of determining the primary topic. Can you please explain how you came to your conclusion?
 * How is calling a state what it is, 'lazy' or incorrect? The state is a republic and it's Irish... so how is calling it 'the Irish Republic' wrong? Further, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, correctness isn't generally a determining factor.
 * Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is calling a state what it is, 'lazy' or incorrect? The state is a republic and it's Irish... so how is calling it 'the Irish Republic' wrong? Further, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, correctness isn't generally a determining factor.
 * Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: I have removed Irish Republic (1916) from the hatnote, because it is simply a redirect to the Easter Rising. The Irish Republic proclaimed in Easter 1916 was identical to the one that was formally established by Dáil Éireann in 1919, as is made clear in this article. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is at the primary topic. No disambiguation is required. Patient12 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google Books search suggests otherwise. This is an accepted method of determining the primary topic. Can you please explain how you came to your conclusion? Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Lead is uncomprehendible to those without some background knowledge.
I have tried to change the lead in this article so that it makes some sense to those with little knowledge of the subject by using more accepted terms and adding important background information and useful links but my changes are continually being reverted without giving good and clear reasons. If someone feels there is something wrong please explain and debate before changing.

Here is an extract of Wiki policy:

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read, and for many, it may be the only section read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Please comment. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that some information that I added to the lead about the Easter Rising was inaccurate. I removed this. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment: I do not see how it "makes sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that the Provisional Government "was set up to administer Southern Ireland" when there was an overwhelming consensus at Talk:Provisional Government of Ireland (1922) that that assertion is unverifiable and untrue. Nor does it "make sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that all Ireland became the Irish Free State when I produced abundant evidence at Talk:Partition of Ireland that that did not happen in fact or even in theory, and no evidence to the contrary was produced except subjective commentary on certain primary sources. Nor does it "make sense to those with little knowledge of the subject" to say that "the former Southern Ireland became the Irish Free State" when the above inaccuracies are taken into consideration; it makes more sense to say that the 26 counties that were not Northern Ireland became the Free State, as discussed at Talk:Republic of Ireland. I do not see that this edit "simplifies the lead so that it now makes some sense to the layman." I see only another attempt to add fringe views that are not held by anybody else – either in the Wikipedia community or the academic community – to yet another article. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

now your latest edit did actually provide information which was of value to the reader. It was an improvement on mine, which was done in a rush in an attempt to remedy the awkward "claimed Ireland" phrasing. It is always to be appreciated when somebody does actually do the work required to make the lead more informative to the reader, and it's all the more welcome in a situation where somebody else is trying to truck his fringe theories all over Wikipedia. With regard to "British armed forces" and "British security forces", I take the point that the first is usually taken to mean the army, but I dislike the second because it's an anachronism. "Security forces" is commonly used in reference to the Northern Ireland Troubles, but not the earlier Troubles. What's really needed is a succinct way of saying "the British Army and the armed police force, the RIC, which was supplemented by British recruits known as the Black and Tans and the Auxilliaries." Can you think of a way of saying that in 5–10 words? Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also the Ulster Special Constabulary. Anything that isn't ambiguous: "British state forces", "British state security forces", "the British Army and other state forces", "the British Army and other armed security forces", "the British Army and armed police", or simply "British forces". Rob984 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Provisional Government was set up to govern Southern Ireland; the Parliament and Governmental institutions for Northern Ireland were reasonably established. In contrast, the Parliament and Governmental institutions for Southern Ireland failed to function or take root. This was because of the political circumstances in Ireland at the time – with the very large majority of Irish Members of Parliament giving their allegiance to Dáil Éireann and supporting the republican effort in the Irish War of Independence.

Article 17 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty provided that: By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof [6 December 1921] and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State [This ultimately occurred on 6 December 1922] in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument [the Treaty]. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The Provisional Government had some delegates from the area of Northern Ireland as well. It was Britain that recognized it for the purposes of the treaty. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been bold, you have been reverted, we have discussed. Please do not edit-war. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am NOT edit warring. I am correcting misleading information.
 * Firstly, Ireland was not a dependant of Great Britain as implied: it was PART of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
 * Secondly, the article states that Northern Ireland opting out of the Free State led to the Partition of Ireland when the Partition of Ireland is generally understood to mean the partition that took place on 3 May 1921 (under the Government of Ireland Act 1920). The Irish Free State, came into existence when its constitution became law on 6 December 1922. This was over 19 months after the partition under the Govt of Ireland Act 1920.
 * Thirdly, the 26 counties that made up the Irish Free State after Northern Ireland opted out was known officially as Southern Ireland (see Govt of Ireland Act 1920). This important point has been ommited.
 * Fourthly, the Provisional Government of Ireland administered Southern Ireland from 16 January 1922 to 5 December 1922. Northern Ireland was still operating under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The government was set-up as a transitional administration for the period between the ratifying of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment of the Irish Free State. Although its legitimacy was disputed by the Anti-Treaty delegates to Dáil Éireann.
 * AlwynJPie (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 * You ARE edit-warring. Repeatedly restoring a contested edit is edit-warring. That you are kidding yourself that you are correcting misleading information is not an excuse for edit-warring.
 * Your third and fourth assertions are the same ones that you have been making for over a year now, without ever managing to find a reliable, published secondary source to verify them. Instead you are providing your own commentary on primary sources (e.g. the text of the Government of Ireland Act), which is against WP:No original research. See my post above for links to discussions where those assertions have been shown to be wrong. Repeatedly adding your own pet theory against consensus is disruptive, and shows you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to publish your ideas you should get a Wordpress page and do it there.
 * As regards "independence from Great Britain", there is a long and involved discussion above, but the bottom line is that "independence from Great Britain" is by far the most-used description, both in modern books and in the literature of the time, and indeed "Great Britain" was used in the Treaty itself and in British documents concerning the Treaty. The wording has been stable since September 2011, and to repeadedly change it just on a whim is disruptive, and shows you are not here to build an encyclopedia. You are of course, free to use "the United Kingdom" on your Worpress page if you start one.
 * As regards partition, I will concede that it is not altogether chronologically accurate. Although I don't think it misinforms, there is no harm in re-wording it to make the chronology clear. I will do that now.
 * Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I have not reverted your edits. Instead I am trying to understand you.
 * I read all the talk posts in Irish Republic in the Independence from Great Britain section.
 * As I have already said The Irish Republic was a revolutionary state that declared its independence from Great Britain in January 1919 sounds like Great Britain had political control over Ireland. Legally Ireland was PART of “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. Seperated politically from Great Britain would be more accurate as it was before the Constitution of 1782 that the Irish parliament was subservient to the Parliament of England (and following the union of England and Scotland, the Parliament of Great Britain).
 * Great Britain is the term used for the island which contains the bulk of England, Wales and Scotland. It is also used in another sense to mean the island plus the surrounding smaller islands that come under England, Wales and Scotland politically such as England's Isle of Wight, Wales's Anglesey and Scotland's Inner Hebrides, Outer Hebrides, Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands.
 * I understand that there are many people that use the term “Great Britain” to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) but this is not usually found in official publications where accuracy is important.
 * I am not sure if you used Great Britain as an abbreviation, if so than you should link it to the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Personally I think the United Kingdom or the UK would be more acceptable and less confusing abbreviations.
 * I also prefer the term Southern Ireland to the 26 counties.
 * AlwynJPie (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Independence from Great Britain is correct. The union would no longer be, it would cease to exist. There would be no point in saying it was independent of a union of itself and another, it would be independent of the other. Besides that and it is what sources say.
 * It would be more convenient if Southern Ireland meant something. But it has very little meaning in this context. The Irish Republic did not control all the 26 counties, crown forces were still in control in some major towns including Dublin. If the Syrian government declared there was an area called North East Syria what would be the point when it contained government forces, forces against Sadat and forces of IS plus a bits controlled by Kurds? Even if they were happy enough to talk to the government about a handover there would be no point unless they accepted the name. It might be a convenient name to use for the time but it wouldn't be the name of the area even at the time. In this case the Dáil set up a Provisional Governmentu rather than accepting having a Commons of Southern Ireland. That hardly sounds like acceptance of Southern Ireland as a name for the area they governed. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Since you read all the posts in the "Independence from Great Britain" section, you will be aware that all you are doing is recycling the arguments that were used there. While none of what people said then, and you say now, is incorrect, all of it was and is irrelevant. This article is not an article on geographical terminology, it is an article on the history of Ireland. Therefore, the only criterion for whether a sentence should stand is whether it passes WP:Verifiability. Allow me to recycle some of my arguments from that discussion:
 * A Google Books search will show that a wide range of books on Irish and world history, political science, social science, (American) national security and even international insurance use the phrase "independence from Great Britain".
 * Content is not inaccurate if it is verifiable by reference to multiple reliable secondary sources. Reputable authors say that Great Britain was a country in 1919. We can't just say they're wrong. Please have a read of I just don't like it. I'm afraid that that is what your argument comes down to, and there's nothing I can do about that.
 * I refer you to the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, signed at London, December 6, 1921 and the Commons debate on the address to King George, which says, "we are ready to confirm and ratify these Articles in order that the same may be established for ever by the mutual consent of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland". When the parliament and government of Great Britain calls Great Britain "Great Britain", it seems a bit absurd to say that there is no country called "Great Britain".
 * Bottom line, there is no policy-based reason for changing that sentence, and you have failed to achieve any consensus, or even support, for changing it, so please leave it alone. The same applies to "26 counties". Scolaire (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The country that Ireland was a part of was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland NOT Great Britain. Ireland was NOT a part of Great Britain which, as I have already explained, means the island that contains England, Wales and Scotland. If you are using Great Britain as a short form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland than you should pipe a link to the latter. Although UK would be easier.
 * Some people may argue that Ireland was, or at least many of the people of Ireland were, unofficially ruled, or controlled, by England or Great Britain. Indeed, as I already said, before the Constitution of 1782 the Irish parliament was subordinate to the Parliament of Great Britain and previous to the union of England and Scotland in 1707 it was subservient to the Parliament of England for centuries. Before the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 many MPs of the Irish Parliament were against the Union and voted to reject it in 1799. However, a concerted campaign by the British government overcame the reluctance of the Irish Parliament.
 * Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland, though the great majority of the Irish population were Roman Catholic, with many Presbyterians in Ulster. In 1793 Roman Catholics regained the right to vote if they owned or rented property worth £2 p.a. The Catholic hierarchy was strongly in favour of union, hoping for rapid emancipation – the right to sit as MPs – which was however delayed until 1829.
 * From the perspective of Great Britain, the union was required because of the uncertainty that followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the French Revolution of 1789, which inspired the rebels; if Ireland adopted Catholic Emancipation, willingly or not, a Roman Catholic parliament could break away from Britain and ally with the French, while the same measure within a united kingdom would exclude that possibility. Also the Irish and British parliaments, when creating a regency during King George III's "madness", gave the Prince Regent different powers. These considerations led Great Britain to decide to merge the two kingdoms and their parliaments.
 * The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery to get their votes.
 * So the rebels that declared independance from Great Britain in 1919 may have used the term Great Britain because they didn't recognise the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, instead they felt that Ireland and its people were under the control of Great Britain which had a much larger representation in Westminster.
 * AlwynJPie (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Did you even read what I wrote? The British negotiators used the term "Great Britain". The British House of Commons used the term "Great Britain". Was it because the British didn't recognise the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, instead they felt that Ireland and its people were under the control of Great Britain which had a much larger representation in Westminster? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think they used it because the country was popularly called Great Britain. The rest of your TL;DR history lesson has no bearing on the case whatsoever. It only shows once again that you are arguing just to get attention, not because you have any genuine interest in improving articles. I have indulged you longer than I should have. I will not respond to you again. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * If you are using the term "Great Britain" to mean the UK than please link it to UK to stop confusion. AlwynJPie (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * They declared independence from Great Britain. They couldn't declare independence from a UK including Ireland, that would mean declaring independence from themselves. What is so difficult in that? Great Britain is what is meant and is what is in the sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus please don't write essays here especially ones which have nothing to do with the point. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No it doesn't mean declaring independance from itself. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is just a name of a country and as such it does not have to be accurate geographically. The name of the country that the Irish Republic were declaring Ireland independant from was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When the Irish Free State was established in 1922, Ireland was no longer part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland continued to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland even though Ireland was no longer part of it. It was only after the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 that the formal name was changed to its current form. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * How about just following the sources? Yes of course in politics nobody has to do anything logical or sensible. What the sources say is that they declared the Irish Republic independent of Great Britain rather than saying the Irish Republic would be independent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I'm pretty sure they envisaged that the United Kingdom would have to remove the 'Ireland' part from their name and consist almost entirely of Great Britain. There are no sources backing up what you say and you have been asked to provide sources for what you say and you haven't. A citation is needed if you want to bring this up again. Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability not the ruminations of editors that really they were declaring independence from the title of the country that would require time to change rather than what they actually said and what other sources from Westminster say. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * "Great Britain" ceased to exist with the 1800 Acts of Union. The Irish Republic declared independence from the United Kingdom, not from "Great Britain" which had not existed for nearly 120 years. (LoweRobinson (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Great Britain still exists. Please provide a citation for what you are saying rather than trying to apply your own logic to politics. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great Britain ceased to exist when it became the UK in May 1800. Ireland was part of the UK, it was not part of Great Britain. (LoweRobinson (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Please stop applying your logic and follow sources as per the Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability. Whaat you are doing is called WP:Original research on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had another look at the sources and I have not found a single instance where it has said they wanted independence from or declared independence from the United Kingdom. However most of the sources say Britain or British rule rather than Great Britain. A couple say English or England. I think a wikilink to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is okay to show the state but using the name United Kingdom or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as the text is just wrong by the sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the sources are wrong, because Ireland let the UK. It doesn't matter that it was part of the UK. Many countries declared independence from the Soviet Union, not from Russia. Many countries declared independence from the British Empire, not from the UK itself. Ireland was part of the UK from 1800 to 1922, so in 1919 it was declaring its independence from the UK. "British rule" is inaccurate as Ireland was represented by MPs at Westminster throughout its time in the UK. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I put a note on his user page about WP:5 section 2 but that bit about 'Then the sources are wrong' and reverting you with 'FUCK OFF' pretty much shows they are not willing to work cooperatively within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Scolaire is a troll who should be banned. Ireland left the UK, it was never part of Great Britain (which only existed from 1707 to 1800). (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Looking at your edit comments I do not believe you are a new user and I think Scolaire may well be right. The important point here is that you seem unwilling to work within the straightforward principles in WP:5P on verifiability, original research, courtesy or cooperation to even a basic degree. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ireland declared independence from the UK. It was never part of Britain. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * citation needed. I don't know where you get the idea that Ireland needed to be part of Britain to declare independence from Britain. Dependence is a control relationship not an inclusion relationship. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no "control" at all. Ireland and Scotland were both massively overrepresented at Westminster given their tiny populations. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
 * The majority has control. It is not about how good the parliament was or democratic or whatever. Long before 1916 people in Ireland were being asked why they wanted their own government when Westminster was a good parliament and treated people well and the answer was basically that yes an Irish parliament might be much worse but it would be their own parliament. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having two parliaments was a waste of money. (LoweRobinson (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

 * With respect, I consider Ireland just as British as Great Britain. The terms are ancient. Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain and to Ireland as little Britain in his work, Almagest in 147–148 AD centuries before the union of England and Scotland. And the island of Ireland existed for thousands of years before Great Britain became an island. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * LoweRobinson been banned indefinitely now. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ashame. Why was he banned? AlwynJPie (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because he was a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter who has set up some hundreds of accounts so far in the last nine years to abuse Wikipedia. So you think it is a shame he was banned, presumably because you agreed with him - would you like it if someone you disagreed with did what he did? Do you want a trustworthy encyclopaedia based on reliable sources or one based on editors own ideas of the 'truth' and edit-warring? There are enough forums out there for internet yobs to shout their ideas in and insult each other, abusers like that would turn Wikipedia into another one if they had the chance. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think some of the points he was making in this section were good but I don't know his history. Ideally I would like Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. I realise through my personal experience that it is a good idea to check the articles history and sourses and cross-check with other sites and books. AlwynJPie (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Simplified the Lead to make it clear and concise with a neutral point of view as per guideline Manual of Style/Lead section. AlwynJPie (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 * At this point, I think the introduction is fairly neutral. You edit simply removed information and made it less neutral. For example "was the unilaterally declared independent Irish state"—is both inaccurate and POV. "The Dáil asserted that it possessed the right to declare Ireland independent"; for one, it didn't, and again it's just unnecessary. Nothing in the stated currently infers the state was legitimate. To state it was illegitimate, and infer the British occupation of Ireland was legitimate, is not a neutral point of view. Rob984 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Independence from GB instead of UK
I am still unhappy with the lead stating ".... declared its independence from Great Britain." It is confusing. It would make sense if it read "....declared Ireland independent of the United Kingdom."... which is what it was did. Although the UK government DOES use the term Great Britain. It is used to mean England and Wales and Scotland (i.e. the UK minus Northern Ireland, or the UK minus Ireland when ALL Ireland was within the UK). For example the GB driving licence is issued to those living in England and Wales or Scotland. Northern Ireland has a seperate vehicle and driver licencing authority. Historically, before the union of 1801, the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain. And before the union of England and Scotland the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament England. In 1919 all Ireland was part of the UK. Great Britain is often used wrongly to mean the UK. Sometimes it is used as an abbreviation for the UK. Whatever its meaning is supposed to be in this article it looks like an error. To those who don't know the history of Ireland they may think that Great Britain officially "ruled" Ireland. Some people feel that "England" ruled Ireland even after 1801 when the union was formed but this was not official. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Produce a reliable source saying something similar to what you want to say and then we can look at that. All the rest of what you are saying is WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is one sourse: http://alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html AlwynJPie (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything like what you want the article to say. Find something like for instance which talks about '... whose first session marked the 1919 start of the War of Independence against Britain'. Surely you can match that fairly low bar at least? Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its the way it reads that I am unhappy about. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it saying declared independent from Great Britain? Great Britain was a part of the UK just as (all) Ireland was. Ireland was not (officially) ruled by Great Britain. Could Great Britain have declared indepenence from Ireland? Am I the only one that is not happy by the way the lead is written? I have tried to edit but my edits keep getting reverted. Can others please explain to me why Great Britain needs to be included? AlwynJPie (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read this section and the section before. It has been explained to you several times why "Great Britain" is right. Please stop your disruptive editing flogging dead horses on the talk page now. Scolaire (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AlwynJPie, I agree entirely. "Great Britain" is an island adjacent to Ireland. This article is about a revolutionary state that fought for independence against the United Kingdom—a state that spanned Great Britain, Ireland, and a number of other islands. It might not be strictly wrong to refer to "Great Britain", but it certainly is unnecessary and misleading. It's also obvious POV use of terminology. "Britain" would be a fair neutral compromise, and probably my preference. There is only currently one source for "Great Britain", but I doubt it would be difficult to find reliable sources for "Britain" or "United Kingdom" since they are both equally, if not more correct. I don't really have the time right now but maybe you can have a look? Then a RFC can probably get a satisfactory consensus on the issue. Else I might have a look when I don't have a dissertation AND a software dev project to finish (although this isn't very high up on my list of crap to sort out on Wikipedia). Rob984 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There aren't sources for United Kingdom. It isn't even as if it was a minority opinion in the sources. That's the problem for what AlwynJPie keeps pushing here. I agree Britain would be better than Great Britain and is supported by the sources so I'll try that. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob. Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is used by people of all levels of knowledge so we have to be careful how we word things. I wouldn't mind so much if Great Britain was in quotes or highlighted with a link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or even if independent of Westminster or even London was used instead. But left bare with nothing but a reference to a source, it implies that Ireland was under the control of the larger island, which may well have been the case, some may argue, but this was NOT the legal status of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you stop doing changes against what the sources say and against consensus. Your 'logic' is not enough to do things differently in Wikipedia against consensus and sources. Please topic ban yourself as you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get your own opinions into articles about Ireland. You are being disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Messing with the lead
Just to note that edit of early this morning ("Simplified lead") was in fact a revert to the first paragraph of the version of August 2006. If this is AlWynJPie's idea of improving the article, then I think we need to look at WP:Competence is required and ask ourselves whether he should be editing at all. Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree, that was plain disruptive editing and not acceptable. I think they can either choose to acknowledge this as a mistake, or otherwise be reported at WP:AN/I. Rob984 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd be happy if they could just learn to WP:Drop the stick after discussing something on the talk page and finding that the consensus there is against what they want to do. There's better things to spend one's life on than arguing with other editors. It isn't as if the matters brought up are even cases of trying to right great wrongs which is the usual case for people going on like that. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 * All the edits I have done have been to improve articles. The lead in this article had become a misleading mess; the lead that I changed to was clear and concise and accurate; the way it is supposed to be. And because 24 April will mark 100 years since the start of the Easter Rebellion, this subject is currenly popular and many students' first port of call is Wikipedia when accessing online information. AlwynJPie (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 * See also Talk:Irish Free State. This guy learned everything he thinks he knows from Wikipedia articles. He can't grasp the fact that for all those years the articles he treated as gospel were wrong, and instead of accepting the correct version he wants to take us back to the incorrect one. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20071119184338/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.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) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Footnotes not displaying properly
At least on my computer, the Infobox Footnotes are not displaying properly. In other words, when my cursor hovers over superscripts a, b, or c (beside Brugha, Griffith and Cosgrave), no window appears as I would have expected, and I have to go looking for the footnotes. A quickish solution would be to replace them with ordinary footnotes which would then appear as n 1, n 2, n 3 (or nb 1, nb 2, nb 3, etc). However this may be a problem with my computer (its operating system is Windows XP, which is obsolete), or with the way the footnote_a, footnote_b, and footnote_c fields in the infobox have been implemented in this instance, or with how such footnotes are implemented everywhere. And there may be other reasons why a, b, c is preferred to n 1, n 2, n 3. So I'd like to give a little time to get some possible feedback before deciding whether or not to try the above-mentioned quickish solution. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 * The footnotes are not linked, they're just letters in superscript, with the footnotes written at the bottom of the infobox. At any rate, they are far too detailed to be in the infobox, which is only meant to be a quick summary. I'm going to zap them. Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Independence from GB instead of UK, continued
I've replaced "from Britain" (without quotation marks) by "from Great Britain" (with quotation marks) as this is per the cited source (which says "declared formal independence from Great Britain", as well as quoting the words of the oath taken in the Mansion House calling for "complete separation from Great Britain"). The actual declaration of independence (here) makes no mention of Britain, GB, UK, or 'from ...', but instead refers to "English rule", "English garrison", "foreign usurpation", and "foreign government in Ireland" (which is declared to be "an invasion of our national right"), none of which is particularly clear to the uninformed reader, nor particularly NPOV (unless used with quotation marks backed by explanatory citations, and even then probably does not belong in the lead, and probably belongs more appropriately, if anywhere, somewhere in the Irish Declaration of Independence article). There was (and is) no state called either Britain or Great Britain (so neither name is 'clear'), and it seems (according to Dmcq above at 10.05 on 30 January 2016) that there are no sources for UK. So quoting the wording of the source, and using quotation marks to indicate this, seems least unclear of the necessarily unsatisfactory options available. However for those wanting to know what "Great Britain" means in this confusing context, the least bad option seems to be to wikilink it to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as the relevant internationally recognized state at the time. So I've done that too. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Incidentally Britain, with 3 meanings (or 4 in French) is more ambiguous (and thus unclear) than Great Britain (with 2 meanings). GB is England+Wales+Scotland, and can be short for UK. Britain is England+Wales, and can also be short for GB, or for UK (and a further point, though perhaps a trivial one, is that in French Grande Bretagne is GB, but Bretagne is Brittany, so Britain on its own just might also create problems for French speakers reading the article under Google translate, though this would surprise me).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but the use of quotation marks is the worst of all options. It implies that "from Great Britain" was in the Declaration of Independence when, as you say, Great Britain wasn't mentioned at all. The point about "independence from Great Britain" (1) is not that it happens to be used in some random book, but that it is used in many, many books written as recently as this year. Now, if Bloomsbury Publishing don't think that "Great Britain" will be confusing to American readers of a biography of an American politician, why should we assume that it will be confusing to readers of Wikipedia? (2) "Great Britain" is how the British referred to their own country in 1919–21. See the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland as signed: articles 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
 * It is a fallacy that "there was (and is) no state called either Britain or Great Britain". There is a state that is frequently called Great Britain, and furthermore, everybody who hears it called that knows what state it refers to. A Google Ngram shows that "Great Britain" was the more common use until relatively recently, and far more common in the 1919–21 period. That's why "independence from Great Britain" is the more appropriate use in this article. The idea that it needs to be linked to the UKGBI article or nobody will know where we're talking about is a bit of a silly one, in my opinion. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusing wording in the lead
The article claims in the lead that the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 was somehow different to the subject of this article. This simply isn't the case. In the eyes of republicans, 1916 announced the Irish Republic and 1919 established its parliamentary and other institutions de facto. The Irish Republic was just without a government from its physical extermination by the Empire in 1916 until the sitting of the First Dáil in 1919. This isn't that usual, Belgium recently went 589 days without a government, but Belgium was still a thing. To give a modern comparison; the British public have just voted to exit the EU, Brexit has been "proclaimed" by the British government, but it has not yet fully brought about its de facto separation from the EU itself. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a very recent addition, and the only edit ever by that user. I have reverted. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Republic. 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/20110609123341/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502072425/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.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) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20110606104829/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.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) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Volunteers under the control of the Dail?
In the lede:
 * At the same time, the Irish Volunteers, who came under the control of the Dáil and became known as the Irish Republican Army, fought against British state forces in the Irish War of Independence.

The evidence is that they swore oaths and had the same aims, but the Dáil never declared war on Britain, and therefore never took responsibility for the acts of the IRA until months after the war. It's fairer to say that they were affiliated and alongside each other, but the IRA was certainly not under the control of the Dáil. The Dáil discussed declaring war twice, in January and March 1921, but never took that final step.78.18.192.136 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it's a bit simplistic all right. It's okay to say "At the same time, the Irish Volunteers, who became known as the Irish Republican Army, fought against British state forces in the Irish War of Independence." The rest is less clear-cut.
 * On 20 August 1919 the Dáil passed a motion requiring an oath of allegiance to the Irish government to be taken by all members of the Dáil and of the Volunteers (Dáil debates). The Minister for Defence (Cathal Brugha) said he believed the Volunteers should be subject to the government. Brian Murphy, in History Ireland, says that with the passing of the motion, "the IRA was now subordinate to Dáil Éireann". Stair na hÉireann says that Ernie O'Malley said that "with this oath the Irish Volunteers became the Irish Republican Army (IRA)", but that's plain wrong – the name "Irish Republican Army" was in use long before there was a Dáil.
 * In March 1921 de Valera made a statement to the effect that the Dáil took responsibility for the actions of the IRA (The Irish Story).
 * After the start of the Truce in July 1921, Brugha was still trying to bring the Volunteers/IRA under the control of the Dáil, and at least succeeded in having the Army Council suspended (IrishVolunteers.org).
 * We should decide how we want to present this in the body of the article, but the lead should only have the current sentence, minus "who came under the control of the Dáil". Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Irish Republic


text: User talk:216.20.64.85

title: User talk:216.20.64.85


text:
Intracellular pH

Intracellular pH (pHi) is the measure of the acidity or basicity (i.e., pH) of intracellular fluid. The pHi plays a critical role in membrane transport and other intracellular processes. In an environment with the improper pHi, biological cells may have compromised function. Therefore, pHi is closely regulated in order to ensure proper cellular function, controlled cell growth, and normal cellular processes. The mechanisms that regulate pHi are usually considered to be plasma membrane transporters of which two main types exist — those that are dependent and those that are independent of the concentration of bicarbonate. Physiologically normal intracellular pH is most commonly between 7.0 and 7.4, though there is variability between tissues (e.g., mammalian skeletal muscle tends to have a pHi of 6.8–7.1). There is also pH variation across different organelles, which can span from around 4.5 to 8.0. pHi can be measured in a number of different ways.

Homeostasis
Intracellular pH is typically lower than extracellular pH due to lower concentrations of HCO3−. A rise of extracellular (e.g., serum) partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) above 45 mmHg leads to formation of carbonic acid, which causes a decrease of pHi as it dissociates:

 * H2O + CO2 H2CO3  H+ + HCO3–

Since biological cells contain fluid that can act as a buffer, pHi can be maintained fairly well within a certain range. Cells adjust their pHi accordingly upon an increase in acidity or basicity, usually with the help of CO2 or HCO3– sensors present in the membrane of the cell. These sensors can permit H+ to pass through the cell membrane accordingly, allowing for pHi to be interrelated with extracellular pH in this respect.

Major intracellular buffer systems include those involving proteins or phosphates. Since the proteins have acidic and basic regions, they can serve as both proton donors or acceptors in order to maintain a relatively stable intracellular pH. In the case of a phosphate buffer, substantial quantities of weak acid and conjugate weak base (H2PO4– and HPO42–) can accept or donate protons accordingly in order to conserve intracellular pH:

 * OH– + H2PO4– H2O + HPO42–
 * H+ + HPO42– H2PO4–

In organelles
The pH within a particular organelle is tailored for its specific function.

For example, lysosomes have a relatively low pH of 4.5. Additionally, fluorescence microscopy techniques have indicated that phagosomes also have a relatively low internal pH. Since these are both degradative organelles that engulf and break down other substances, they require high internal acidity in order to successfully perform their intended function.

In contrast to the relatively low pH inside lysosomes and phagosomes, the mitochondrial matrix has an internal pH of around 8.0, which is approximately 0.9 pH units higher than that of inside intermembrane space. Since oxidative phosphorylation must occur inside the mitochondria, this pH discrepancy is necessary to create a gradient across the membrane. This membrane potential is ultimately what allows for the mitochondria to generate large quantities of ATP.

Measurement
There are several common ways in which intracellular pH (pHi) can be measured including with a microelectrode, dye that is sensitive to pH, or with nuclear magnetic resonance techniques. For measuring pH inside of organelles, a technique utilizing pH-sensitive green fluorescent proteins (GFPs) may be used.

Overall, all three methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Using dyes is perhaps the easiest and fairly precise, while NMR presents the challenge of being relatively less precise. Furthermore, using a microelectrode may be challenging in situations where the cells are too small, or the intactness of the cell membrane should remain undisturbed. GFPs are unique in that they provide a noninvasive way of determining pH inside different organelles, yet this method is not the most quantitatively precise way of determining pH.

Microelectrode
The microelectrode method for measuring pHi consists of placing a very small electrode into the cell’s cytosol by making a very small hole in the plasma membrane of the cell. Since the microelectrode has fluid with a high H+ concentration inside, relative to the outside of the electrode, there is a potential created due to the pH discrepancy between the inside and outside of the electrode. From this voltage difference, and a predetermined pH for the fluid inside the electrode, one can determine the intracellular pH (pHi) of the cell of interest.

Fluorescence spectroscopy
Another way to measure Intracellular pH (pHi) is with dyes that are sensitive to pH, and fluoresce differently at various pH values. This technique, which makes use of fluorescence spectroscopy, consists of adding this special dye to the cytosol of a cell. By exciting the dye in the cell with energy from light, and measuring the wavelength of light released by the photon as it returns to its native energy state, one can determine the type of dye present, and relate that to the intracellular pH of the given cell.

Nuclear magnetic resonance
In addition to using pH-sensitive electrodes and dyes to measure pHi, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy can also be used to quantify pHi. NMR, typically speaking, reveals information about the inside of a cell by placing the cell in an environment with a potent magnetic field. Based on the ratio between the concentrations of protonated, compared to deprotonated, forms of phosphate compounds in a given cell, the internal pH of the cell can be determined. Additionally, NMR may also be used to reveal the presence of intracellular sodium, which can also provide information about the pHi.

Using NMR Spectroscopy, it has been determined that lymphocytes maintain a constant internal pH of 7.17± 0.06, though, like all cells, the intracellular pH changes in the same direction as extracellular pH.

pH-sensitive GFPs
To determine the pH inside organelles, pH-sensitive GFPs are often used as part of a noninvasive and effective technique. By using cDNA as a template along with the appropriate primers, the GFP gene can be expressed in the cytosol, and the proteins produced can target specific regions within the cell, such as the mitochondria, golgi apparatus, cytoplasm, and endoplasmic reticulum. If certain GFP mutants that are highly sensitive to pH in intracellular environments are used in these experiments, the relative amount of resulting fluorescence can reveal the approximate surrounding pH.

title: Intracellular pH


text:
File:NormanMacCaigPoetryBook.jpg

Image Description

 * Front cover of Selected poems by Norman MacCaig.

Non-free / fair use media rationale in Norman MacCaig
Although this image is subject to copyright, it is covered by US fair use laws because:
 * 1) The image is only being used in the article about the author of this book (Norman MacCaig) for informational and educational purposes.
 * 2) Use of the book cover visually identifies the book and its author in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.
 * 3) This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
 * 4) The image is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
 * 5) The image is the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
 * 6) The image is a low resolution image of the book cover, in an inferior graphics format (JPEG).
 * 7) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 8) The use of this image will not affect the value of the original work.
 * 9) The use of this image will not limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute or make a profit from the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.

title: File:NormanMacCaigPoetryBook.jpg