text:
Black Lace

Black Lace were a British pop band, best known for novelty party records, including their biggest hit, "Agadoo". The band first came to the public eye after being selected to represent the UK in the 1979 Eurovision Song Contest, in which they finished seventh with the song "Mary Ann". The band had numerous line-up changes, with Colin Gibb being the longest serving original member, until retiring in 2024. Black Lace went on to have success with novelty party anthems such as "Superman" and "Do the Conga".

Over the years, Black Lace toured around the world. Playing party shows throughout Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Canada and the US.

Pre-Black Lace (1973–1975)
Terry Dobson and school friend Ian Howarth formed The Impact as a five-piece pop group in 1969, with Alan Barton, Steve Scholey and Nigel Scott. The group also performed under the names Penny Arcade and Love or Confusion.

Ian Howarth left the band for a short while but returned to the line-up in 1974, and Dobson also left, to be replaced briefly by Neil Hardcastle. Dobson then re-joined, and Scott left in 1975, that same year the band adopted the name Black Lace. Ian Howarth left the band for good in 1976, and was replaced by Colin Gibb (born Colin Routh, 8 December 1953).

Black Lace (1976–1981)
After turning professional at the beginning of 1976, the band toured the majority of the UK, managed by Keith Mills, commencing their first summer season at the Skegness Bier Garten. The following year their summer season would take them to Butlins in Filey, North Yorkshire and Skegness, Lincolnshire. An EP was recorded and produced by comedian Freddie 'Parrot face' Davies at his studio, which was to be sold at their shows. The group were voted Yorkshire Band of the Year by BBC Radio Leeds, and best clubland group playing at the Winter Gardens, Blackpool.

In 1979, Black Lace recorded their first single, "Mary Ann", for ATV music and a recording contract followed with EMI. As the song required a more 'throaty' vocal, Alan Barton was moved to being lead singer, with Steve Scholey on backing vocals for the band's recordings, but remaining as lead singer on live performances. The song won the BBC Television's A Song For Europe and the band went on to represent the UK at the 1979 Eurovision Song Contest held in Israel, with the band finishing seventh. Other television appearances around this time included Nationwide, Multi-Coloured Swap Shop, Top of the Pops and Juke Box Jury. "Mary Ann" reached No. 42 in the UK Singles Chart.

The band's follow-up single, "So Long Suzy Baby", failed to chart in the UK (as EMI could not decide on which track should be used, and delayed the planned release date), but achieved success in Europe. Black Lace found success with live performances and TV shows, notably the Sopot International Song Festival in Poland, the Golden Orpheus festival in Bulgaria, and on TV in East Germany, West Germany and Spain.

The band toured Denmark in 1980, supporting Suzi Quatro and working with Tommy Seebach, a Danish entertainer. Black Lace and Seebach recorded "Hey Hey Jock McRay" for the Danish singles market, but an intended 1980 tour of Poland was called off because of political unrest in the country.

Chart success (1981–1987)
In 1981, the band split. Dobson joined the Castleford rock band Stormer, who had a recording contract with Ringo Starr. Scholey departed, leaving the others to settle huge debts incurred whilst touring. The band became a duo, consisting of Gibb and Barton. It was this line-up that would give the band its biggest chart success.

The duo played the Northern club circuit using pre-recorded backing tracks, which was controversial at the time. Initially, they used the name Lace, but soon reverted to Black Lace and recruited a new manager, John Wagstaff. They recorded an instrumental single based on the "Chicken Dance", released as "Birds Dance" in 1981 (using the name Buzby instead of Black Lace). However, the record was beaten to the charts by another version of the song by The Tweets, released as "The Birdie Song". "Birds Dance" has since been retitled "The Birdie Song" and included on Black Lace albums.

Black Lace's 1983 "Superman" single was their first one under their own name on the Flair label, and a promotional video was shot at Casanova's nightclub in Wakefield. One of the hired dancers was the then unknown singer Jane McDonald. "Superman" reached No. 9 in the UK chart, but an attempt at a follow-up single, "Hey You!", failed to chart, despite being BBC Radio One's Record of the Week. Black Lace received a silver disc for sales of "Superman". They proceeded to tour Denmark with Danish stars Laban and Snapshots.

The band's biggest success came in 1984 with the single "Agadoo", selling over one million copies worldwide, and reaching No. 2 in the UK chart. "Agadoo" was a hit in Europe, South Africa and Australia. Having been presented with a gold disc for sales in the UK, radio interview presenter Richard Whiteley forgot Gibb's name and referred to him as 'Mr Agadoo' (the name Dene Michael later adopted for himself, despite having no connection to the record). The duo recorded their first album, Black Lace, at Stuck Ranch studios in Denmark. Around this time, their record distribution company Pinnacle went into receivership, leading to Black Lace and their record company losing an estimated quarter of a million pounds in unpaid royalties for "Agadoo".

The band's follow-up single, "Do The Conga", reached No. 10 in the UK chart, and the accompanying album Party Party – 16 Great Party Icebreakers sold over 650,000 copies in the first five weeks, reaching double platinum status and leading to the band doing TV shows in Germany, Luxembourg, France and Denmark.

In 1985, another single, "El Vino Collapso", was released, with the video shot in Skegness. It failed to reach the top 40, stalling at No. 42 in the UK Singles Chart due to it being 'banned' by the BBC in the wake of the Heysel Stadium disaster. As it had references to "drinking whilst abroad", it was deemed unsuitable for radio play. Further releases "I Speaka Da Lingo" and "Hokey Cokey" reached No. 49 and No. 31 respectively.

Black Lace also participated in the recording of the UK No. 1 hit "You'll Never Walk Alone" as part of the charity ensemble, The Crowd (which included members of 10cc, Thin Lizzy, Motörhead, The Hollies, Argent, The Who, The Nolans, The Searchers, Smokie, Gerry and the Pacemakers, plus many more) to raise funds for the families of the victims of the Bradford City stadium fire.

Black Lace's second album Party Party 2 was released for Christmas 1985, and television appearances included The Old Grey Whistle Test, 3-2-1, ITV Telethon, Miss Yorkshire Television, International Disco Dance Championship, Pebble Mill at One and the Top of the Pops Christmas Special. Because of such a demanding work schedule, Barton and Gibb found it necessary to charter a private aircraft to meet the deadlines, but the band's success led to a tax demand in excess of £100,000.

In 1986, Dene Michael replaced Gibb, who took time out of live work with Black Lace (remaining an official member of the band) to concentrate on other projects, including promoting pop act Party Party and participating in two tours of Germany, concentrating on a part-time photography business, setting up a food retail outlet, and a music equipment retail and installation business.

Another single, "Wig Wam Bam", (featuring Barton, Gibb and Michael) reached No. 63 in the UK chart, but "Viva La Mexico", which was released to capitalise on the 1986 FIFA World Cup football competition, flopped when England were knocked out. Black Lace (Barton and Michael) appeared as themselves in the 1987 film Rita, Sue and Bob Too performing "Gang Bang", which had been recorded by Barton and Gibb the previous year. The pair were also immortalised as caricatures in the TV show Spitting Image and the hit single "The Chicken Song". The band had a UK hit with their album Party Crazy.

Later career (1987–2024)
September 1987 saw a switch round: Gibb returned 'full-time' with the band, whilst Barton left to join Smokie. Michael became a full-time member of Black Lace, and he and Gibb released the single "Jammin' the Sixties" under the name Barracuda. The record was BBC Radio One's Record of the Week, but it failed to chart.

A summer season at the Blackpool Tower followed in 1989 and 1990, plus performances at the BBC Radio One Roadshow in the town, along with the release of the single "I Am The Music Man" which peaked at No. 52 in the UK.

In 1995, Barton died as a result of a coach crash in Germany while touring with Smokie.

Black Lace played one-off shows in 1996 at DJ conventions in Canada and Atlantic City, New Jersey, United States. They also released the Action Party and Best Of albums that year. Gibb was presented with a special Agadoo guitar to celebrate the band's 20th anniversary, but he was also made bankrupt by the Inland Revenue.

15 August 1997 was dubbed Agadoo Day. Black Lace played 20 shows in 24 hours in Manchester, London, Watford, Northampton, Sheffield, Barnsley, Wakefield and Leeds, finishing at the Frontier Club, Batley. The event raised over £25,000 for Marie Curie Cancer Care. Peugeot used "Agadoo" in a TV advertisement for the new 106 car, and Black Lace re-recorded the track, renaming it "Agadoo 106 mix", donating all their royalties to Marie Curie Cancer Care. The record spent a week in the UK chart.

In 2002, Colin Gibb took the original Black Lace show to Tenerife, playing the now internationally famous 'party shows' in hotels and restaurants on the island, occasionally visiting the UK for TV appearances.

A television advertisement for Walkers crisps was shown on British TV, featuring Michael and Robinson (under the name 'Old Lace') performing alongside Gary Lineker singing along to "Agadoo".

In 2019, Black Lace (Gibb and King) became associated with UK dressage team The Agadoo Girls, consisting of seven members, with Gibb's cousin Debbie Cox as team captain. They came top at their debut Team Quest competition at Richmond Equestrian Centre in June that year.

Colin Gibb - retirement and death
On 13 May 2024, Colin Gibb announced his retirement on Facebook. His last performance was at the San Eugenio Villa Adeje Beach Hotel in Spain, on 16 May. On 3 June 2024, the band, alongside Gibb's wife, revealed Gibb had died aged 70 the previous day.

Personnel

 * Current members
 * Craig Harper (Black Lace Conga Party)
 * Phil Temple (Black Lace Conga Party)

 * Former members
 * Alan Barton – guitar, lead and backing vocals (1973–1987; died 1995)
 * Terry Dobson – drums, backing vocals (1973–1981)
 * Colin Gibb – guitar – lead vocals (1976–2024; died 2024)
 * Ian Howarth – lead guitar, bass guitar (1973–1974)
 * Steve Scholey – lead vocals (1973–1981)
 * Dene Michael – lead vocals (1987–1991)
 * Rob Hopcraft – lead vocals (1991–2000; died 2020)

Albums

 * 1984: Black Lace
 * 1984: Party Party – 16 Great Party Icebreakers (UK No. 4)
 * 1985: Party Party 2 (UK No. 18)
 * 1986: Party Crazy (UK No. 58)
 * 1987: 16 Greatest Party Hits
 * 1989: 20 All Time Party Favourites
 * 1993: Action Party
 * 1995: Saturday Night
 * 1997: Greatest Hits
 * 1998: What a Party
 * 2000: Black Lace's Greatest Ever Party Album
 * 2006: Black Lace: Greatest Hits
 * 2010: The Blue Album – Banned in the UK [world-wide distribution]
 * 2013: The Blue Album – Banned in the UK – 're-release' [world-wide distribution]
 * 2014: Black Lace 'Live Beach Party' (limited edition)
 * 2023: The Party Album (24 All Time Party Favourites)

title: Black Lace


text:
Talk:Ipswichian interglacial

Is there no generally-agreed upon name for this interglacial, under which this and all other local designations could be found, with redirects? --Wetman 19:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Ipswichian interglacial


text:
Talk:History of Dallas

Untitled
This link was created to answer a Wikipedia call to create an article that already exists. It had been on the list of requested articles for over 1 year. MPLX/MH 19:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GA nomination failed
I don't feel this article has reached GA status as of 10/30, for these reasons: I don't think there's too far to go, because the organization, prose, images, and references in this article are all pretty good. Please renominate the article when these concerns are addressed, and leave me a message if you have any questions. Twinxor t 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead section should provide a brief (but not that brief!) summary of the article, per Lead section.
 * The sections "Mid Century (1946-1974)", "Real Estate Boom (1975-1985)", and "Recession (1986-1995)" (especially this last one) are shorter than seems advisable. Perhaps these could be expanded with broader coverage or folded to fewer articles.
 * The post-1945 sections focus mostly on the economy. While this is important, I think the article should touch more on the notable people, demographics, culture, and environment of Dallas, if it's to represent a broad survey of Dallas history.

Religious and racial/ethnic development
One reviewer evaluating the quality of this article brought up the point that it focuses on the economic history of the city. These are additional aspects of Dallas' history that probably should be treated in this article. For example, Dallas has a long Jewish tradition, has served for quite some time as headquarters of the United Methodist Church, and is home to at least one major seminary. Another area for discussion would be education, while yet another would be demographic changes in terms of the ethnic groups prevalent here. In addition to the obvious groups of whites, African Americans and Latinos, in the 1980s there began to be considerable immigration from Asia, particularly Laos, Cambodia, and South Korea, while immigration from Sudan has increased notably within the last 10 years. Within the economic realm, moreover, I didn't see much discussion of the fashion, retailing and banking industries that had been dominant here (such as N-M, Sanger's, Interfirst / Republic Bank and the like).

Incidentally, for those possessing a Dallas Public Library card, access to The Dallas Morning News archive online goes back to the late 1800s, and a number of articles on the city's history could be accessed and cited, as could materials from the NetLibrary database.Lawikitejana (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I also notice that Tandy Corp./Radio Shack isn't mentioned, which it probably should be; though I'm a little fuzzy on where it fits in, it seems likely it would be somewhere around the section on TI.Lawikitejana (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JFK Assassination
Did anyone else notice this line?

"Today the building where J.D. Tippit shot JFK, is now a historical musuem on JFK life and accomplishments."

Pending hard evidence I think that Lee Harvey Oswald should be listed as the shooter. He is currently the accepted perpetrator. Also maybe include the name of the building, the Texas School Book Depository. Antarcticgecko —Preceding comment was added at 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this topic could bear some expansion. This is arguably the most significant event in Dallas' entire history, aside maybe from Jack Kilby's invention of the integrated circuit, and its main article is gigantic, but there are only two sentences on it. Surely it wouldn't hurt to have a good-sized summary paragraph. Mattwillmarron (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Name?
I don't believe any evidence supports the theory that Dallas was named after George M. Dallas, which the article states as fact.

75.255.19.221 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles for each section provide little additional value
Why is this article broken up into a bunch of separate sections? For a couple of the sections, like the Industrial Period, it makes sense, but most of the other ones provide little value beyond what is already in the trunk article. In several cases, it just looks like the entire text of the branch article was just copy-pasted from the trunk article, with perhaps a sentence or two added. The "Recession" section is particularly bad about this. I think that for most sections in this article, simply adding sub-headers would be more appropriate than splitting off entirely new articles. Thoughts? Mattwillmarron (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge in of History of Dallas (1986–95); small enough to easily be accommodated on the main page. Klbrain (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

La Réunion
It sounds plausible that the failure of La Réunion could have played a role in the formation of Dallas' creative neighborhoods, but are there any sources that confirm this?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Dallas. 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/20060422183559/http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/dallas_history.htm to http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/dallas_history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801111634/http://www.dallaszoo.com/ to http://www.dallaszoo.com/general/general.asp?page=gi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801111634/http://www.dallaszoo.com/ to http://www.dallaszoo.com/general/general.asp?page=gi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008001013/http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/forecast.asp to http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/forecast.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092532/http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/forecast/query.asp?thefield=citycode&thevalue=DAL1 to http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/forecast/query.asp?thefield=citycode&thevalue=DAL1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422183559/http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/dallas_history.htm to http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/dallas_history.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) 03:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Dallas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.fo/20010408045149/http://www.dallaszoo.com/general/general.asp?page=gi to http://www.dallaszoo.com/general/general.asp?page=gi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827160448/http://www.dallasmarketcenter.com/dmc/v40/index.cvn?id=10011&stab=7 to http://www.dallasmarketcenter.com/dmc/v40/index.cvn?id=10011&stab=7

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) 16:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Dallas


text:
Château Sentout

Château Sentout is a castle in Tabanac, in the department of Gironde in southwestern France.

It dates from the 16th century, but has been modified in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

History
It is now converted to gîtes but its history can be traced back to at least 1650 (as documented in Bordeaux's archives) when the owner was Monsieur Jean de Sentout. In 1740, the then owner, Baron de Gasq, Minister of Parliament for Bordeaux, sold the Château to Monsieur Jean Letellier, ship-chandler to the navy, who delivered his wine and merchandise from his residence at rue du Chai des Farines in Bordeaux to the docks. With the addition of Château Sentout, Monsieur Letellier's property covered over 3 square kilometres of woodland, fields and vineyards, some of which were situated at the "Bastide", now Bordeaux's right bank. Monsieur Letellier also had dealings with the so-called triangular trade trading between Europe, Africa and America. His descendants, B and R Letellier and later, the Laville de Lacombe family, owned the Château.

During the nineteenth century then, by marriage to Aline Laville de Lacombe, Monsieur Eugène Fichot, a hydrographical engineer to the navy and member of the French Academy of Sciences, became the owner of Sentout. Monsieur Fichot, amongst other achievements, plotted the map of the Indo-Chinese coastline. Château Sentout produced wine until its last official harvest of 1972.

There are two reasons for the vineyard's decline. Firstly, the wine business as a whole was badly hit after the Second World War affecting, in particular, the production of white wine. Secondly, the Fichot family used the Château as their summer residence only, spending the rest of the year in Paris. This meant that the estate gradually fell into a state of disrepair. In particular, the roofs, which required constant attention, began to leak, causing the beams to rot and eventually many roofs caved in. There had in fact been no serious repair work undertaken since 1864. Due to various French legal problems governing inheritance, the Château was eventually sold in 1973 by court order for only FF 170,000.

The new owners, Monsieur Gugnon and his son, had the intention of building houses on the estate. However, Tabanac's mayor, Monsieur Fabre, retired glass artist and engraver, despite suffering from silicosis, continuously opposed the project in order to preserve the Château's character. After seven years, Messieurs Gugnon sold the property to the Peltier family in 1980. Since then, the Peltiers have restored the estate carefully respecting its special character.

Architecture
The Château's differing architectural styles which mark the passing years lend to its elegance and unique charm. An Italian feel is created by the Genoese storehouse and its Tuscan columns found in the courtyard. The inner courtyard's patio is Spanish in style and the windows leading from the main house to the bishop's bedroom are Moorish - "Retour d'Egypte" (1813).

The window bays of the main house were originally arched. These were bricked up long ago and replaced in the eighteenth century by larger rectangular bays. However, an example of one of the original bays can still be seen in the library, but only from the inside!

The main house, flanked on both sides by two massive square towers surmounted by balustrades, is embellished by two turrets and a large square tower, all three roofed with slate. The terrace at the front of the house is decorated with a stone balustrade offered by Château Lacaussade in settlement for a lawsuit.

The bakery, situated next to the entrance gates and in which the oven is surmounted by a slate-roofed turret, was where Madame Fichot lived from 1948 for a few years until she died aged 94 years old. The staircase was built by Monsieur Giresse, a carpenter at Langoiran and grandfather of the footballer, Alain Giresse. He re-used the wood kept since 1936 from the old wine press when it was replaced by a "modern" wine press in steel and cement.

The interior of the Chapel was originally coated with lime and daubed with ochre and red chalk. In 1864, it was heightened, columns were added and a trompe l'oeil oak panelling was painted by Monsieur Gaston Coudray.

The storehouse containing the wine barrels is a typical example of Bordeaux's eighteenth-century architectural style with its four-sided sloping slate roof and double triangular gables, which caved in during the 1970s due to lack of maintenance. The adjacent storehouses which housed the wine press and the oak casks met with the same fate in 1981. The wine press can however still be seen standing in the open air in the rose garden.

Monsieur Lieuzere, painter and glass artist, made the stained-glass windows in 1864. Badly damaged by storms and children, they were restored by Muriel Goupil, an experienced glass artist, in 1985. The floor is paved laterally with tiles from the Gironde, the centre of which is decorated with black, green and vermilion hardened plaster.

New roofs now cover the wide-arched coach house, stable and hayloft (the row of buildings closest to the swimming pool). The old crumbling roof and beams had fallen on the rusting carriages below destroying them beyond repair.

There is a statue of the Virgin Mary standing on a rock sheltered by an arbour. According to Monsieur Fichot's descendants, the arbour was designed by Le Nôtre, famous landscape architect, who created "Garden à la française" in the 17th century.

title: Château Sentout


text:
Demographics of Europe

[[File:European countries by population (2023).svg |thumb|upright=1.5| European countries by population in 2023

{{Legend|#501628|More than 100 million}} {{Legend|#78213d|Between 30 and 100 million}} {{Legend|#a42d53|Between 10 and 30 million}} {{Legend|#cc4771|Between 3 and 10 million}} {{Legend|#d87393|Between 1 and 3 million}} {{Legend|#e9afc1|Between 0.3 and 1 million}} {{Legend|#f4d7e0|Less than 0.3 million}}]]

Figures for the population of Europe vary according to the particular definition of Europe's boundaries. In 2018, Europe had a total population of over 751 million people. 448 million of that live in the European Union and 110 million live in European Russia, Russia being the most populous country in Europe.

Europe's population growth is low, and its median age high. Most of Europe is in a mode of sub-replacement fertility, which means that each new(-born) generation is less populous than the one before. Nonetheless, most West European countries still have growing populations, mainly due to immigration within Europe and from outside Europe and some due to increases in life expectancy and population momentum. Some current and past factors in European demography have included emigration, ethnic relations, economic immigration, a declining birth rate and an ageing population.

Prehistory
According to Volker Heyd, an archaeologist at the University of Helsinki, up to 7 million people lived in Europe in 3000 BC.

According to archaeologist Johannes Müller, European population was about 1 million around 6500 BCE which increased to 8 million in 2000 BCE.

Estimates for historical population sizes of Europe (including Central Asia, listed under "former USSR") based on Maddison (2007), in millions, with estimated percentage of world population:

Past populations of Europe in modern national borders, AD 1–2020

 * Note: These numbers do not include the population of European countries' colonies. Only population within Europe.

Total population

330,000,000 people lived in Europe in 1916. In 1950 there were 549,000,000. The population of Europe in 2015 was estimated to be 741 million according to the United Nations, which was slightly less than 11% of the world population. The precise figure depends on the exact definition of the geographic extent of Europe. The population of the European Union (EU) was 509 million as of 2015. Non-EU countries situated in Europe in their entirety account for another 90 million. Five transcontinental countries have a total of 247 million people, of which about half reside in Europe proper.

As it stands now, around 10% of the world's people live in Europe. If demographic trends keep their pace, its share may fall to around 7% in 2050, but still amounting to 716 million people in absolute numbers, according to the United Nations estimate. (The decline in the percentage is partly due to high fertility rates in Africa and South America.) The sub-replacement fertility and high life expectancy in most European states mean a declining and aging population. High immigration and emigration levels within and from outside the continent are taking place and quickly changing countries, specifically in Western Europe, from a single ethnic group to a multicultural society. These trends change societies' economies as well as their political and social institutions.

Population by country

According to different definitions, such as consideration of the concept of Central Europe, the following territories and regions may be subject to various other categorisations aside from geographic conventions.

* indicates link goes to article on demographics of the country (or territory), not just the country itself.

Age

Mirroring their mostly sub-replacement fertility and high life expectancy, European countries tend to have older populations overall. They had nine of the top ten highest median ages in national populations in 2005. Only Japan had an older population.

Fertility
According to Eurostat, the average birth rate in the European Union was 1.5 children per woman in 2020. The EU countries with the highest rates were France (1.83 live births per woman), Romania (1.80) and Czechia (1.71). The lowest rates were found in Malta (1.13), Spain (1.19) and Italy (1.24).

The reasons that Italian citizens give for not having children are economic costs, fear of losing their jobs, and lack of services for families.

Eurostat says that the proportion of children born to foreign mothers, including both from other EU member states and from non-EU countries, has been increasing in the EU since 2013 and stood at 21% in 2020.

Religion
Over the last several centuries, religious practice has been on the decline in a process of secularization. Several European countries have experienced a decline in church attendance as well as a decline in the number of people professing a religious belief. The 2010 Eurobarometer survey found that, on average, 51% of the citizens of the European Union that they believe there is a God, 26% believe there is some sort of spirit or life force and 20% don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force. 3% declined to answer. The Eurobarometer survey must be taken with caution, however, as there are discrepancies between it and national census results. For example, in the United Kingdom, the 2001 census revealed that over 70% of the population regarded themselves as "Christians" with only 15% professing to have no religion, though the wording of the question has been criticized as "misleading" by the British Humanist Association. The 2011 census showed a dramatic reduction to less than 60% of the population regarding themselves as "Christians".

Despite its decline, Christianity is still the largest religion in Europe. According to a survey published in 2010, 76.2% of Europeans identified themselves as Christians. Catholics were the largest Christian group in Europe, accounting for more than 48% of European Christians. The second-largest Christian group in Europe was the Orthodox, who made up 32% of European Christians. And about 19% of European Christians were part of the Protestant tradition. Europe constitutes in absolute terms the world's largest Christian population. According to Scholars, in 2017, Europe's population was 77.8% Christian (up from 74.9% 1970), these changes were largely result of the collapse of Communism and switching to Christianity in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries.

According to a 2003 study, 47% of French people declared themselves as agnostics in 2003. This situation is often called "Post-Christian Europe". A decrease in religiousness and church attendance in western Europe (especially in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden) has been noted. According to a survey published in 2012, atheists and agnostics make up about 18.2% of the European population. According to the same survey the religiously unaffiliated make up the majority of the population only in two European countries: Czech Republic (75%) and Estonia (60%).

According to another survey about Religiosity in the European Union from 2012 by Eurobarometer, Christianity was the largest religion in the Union (accounting for 72% of the total population), Catholics were with 48% the largest Christian group in the Union, Protestants made up 12%, Eastern Orthodox made up 8% and other Christians accounted for 4% of the total population. non-believers/agnostics accounted for 16%, atheists accounted for 7% and Muslims accounted for 2%.

Ethnic groups
Pan and Pfeil (2004) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities. The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people, or 14% of 770 million Europeans. (including Europeans in Siberia)

The largest ethnic groups are the Russians, with 117 million, and the Germans, with 72 million. In some countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Spain, the designation of nationality may controversially take on ethnic aspects, subsuming smaller ethnic groups such as Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, Bretons, Catalans, and Basques, making it difficult to quantify a "British" or "French" ethnicity, for example.

There are an estimated 10 million Romani people in Europe.

Language

Most of the languages of Europe belong to the Indo-European language family. This family is divided into a number of branches, including Romance, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Celtic, Armenian and Greek. The Uralic languages, which include Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Udmurt, Mordvin and Sami also have a significant presence in Europe. The Turkic family also has several European members, while the North Caucasian and Kartvelian families which include Georgian, Circassian, Chechen and Abkhaz anong others are important in the southeastern extremity of geographical Europe. The Basque language of the western Pyrenees is an isolate unrelated to any other group, while Maltese is the only Semitic language in Europe with national language status, although Arabic, Hebrew and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic/Syriac are spoken by migrant populations. The Kalmyk language, is a Mongolic language, spoken in Kalmykia, located directly north of the North Caucasus in Eastern Europe. The most spoken language of Europe is Russian, which belongs to the group of Slavic languages.

Languages that are not official state languages are protected in many European countries by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. These can include languages spoken by relatively many people, such as Catalan and Basque in Spain, Frisian in the Netherlands, as well as languages spoken by relatively few such as Cornish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic in the United Kingdom, and Romansch in Switzerland.

Genetic origins

Homo sapiens appeared in Europe roughly 40,000 years ago, with the settlement of the Cro-Magnons, followed by European hunter-gatherers and Early European Farmers (EEF). Over the prehistoric period there was continuous settlement in Europe, notably by the immediate descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans who migrated west after the advent of the Neolithic Revolution.

Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations, with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well. On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome and of autosomal diversity have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.

Autosomal DNA

According to geneticist David Reich, based on ancient human genomes that his laboratory sequenced in 2016, Europeans formed from four West-Eurasian ancestral components in varying degrees: Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG), Neolithic Levant farmers and Neolithic Iranian farmers respectively.

Population structure
A study in May 2009 that examined 19 populations from Europe using 270,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) highlighted the genetic diversity of European populations corresponding to the northwest to southeast gradient and distinguished "several distinct regions" within Europe:
 * Finland
 * the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), western Russia and Poland
 * Central and Western Europe
 * Italy, South-Eastern Europe, Southern Russia

In this study, Fst (fixation index) was found to correlate considerably with geographic distances ranging from ≤0.0010 for neighbouring populations to 0.0230 for Southern Italy and Finland. For comparisons, pair-wise Fst of non-European samples were as follows: Europeans – Yoruba (West Africans) 0.1530; Europeans – Chinese 0.1100; Yoruba (West Africans) – Chinese 0.1900.

title: Demographics of Europe


text:
Spoilage

Spoilage or spoiling may refer to:

 * Decomposition, the process by which organic substances are broken down into simpler matter.
 * Food spoilage, the process in which food deteriorates to the point in which it is not edible to humans or its quality of edibility becomes reduced
 * Spoilage of evidence, intentional destruction of evidence in a legal case
 * Spoiling of a gradient echo magnetic resonance sequence

title: Spoilage


text:
Talk:Forcing (mathematics)

Formatting Math
I'm a bit new to the guidelines for formatting math in WP, so forgive me if this isn't in line with the policies. I don't have the symbol &#x22a9. Seems like here would be a good place to use, especially since this is a critical symbol and I can't tell what it is.--Luke Gustafson 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Which browser are you using? I have edited the article to use the LaTeX symbol, but generally this is not preferred for inline symbols. Have you seen the same problem on other browsers and computers? - Gauge 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What to Add/Remove
Since this is a pretty bulky wiki, I propose to delete the stuff on finding a generic filter that's already in the Rasiowa-Sikorski lemma, namely:

''The existence of such a G is follows from the Rasiowa-Sikorski lemma. In short, because M is really countable, one can enumerate the dense subsets of P in M as D0, D1, …. (In general, M thinks the number of such dense subsets is uncountable, and hence this enumeration is not in M. This is a version of the Skolem paradox.) By assumption, there exists p0∈D0. Then by density, there exists p1≤p0 with p1∈D1. Repeating, one gets …≤p2≤p1≤p0 with pi∈Di. Then G={ q∈P : ∃i, q ≥ pi } is a generic filter. In fact, slightly more is true: given a condition p ∈ P, one can find a generic filter G such that p ∈ G. This holds because one can start with p0 ≤ p.''

Any objections? Baarslag 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it might as well go, it's redundant with Rasiowa-Sikorski lemma and sort of interrupts the flow of the article.--Luke Gustafson 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in adding a lot of basic graduate level set theory to WP. The existing articles on forcing, constructibility, large cardinals and the like strike me as terribly lame, mere conceptual stubs. On the other hand, this stuff is not trivial, and perhaps people don't want it on WP. What I've written is a first draft, perhaps too hard, perhaps too much notation, in other words, perhaps not worth it. In particular, at the moment the article is in an internally inconsistent state. It's unclear to me whether I should go forward or not.

So I'll wait for comments.

If the consensus is it's too much, I'll accept that and even do the revert myself.

But I think I can provide a good outline here, and even summarize other various famous results with decent outlines of the proofs, from Martin's axiom to the Solovay model and more--192.35.35.36 19:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

 * There is no reason why such material should not be here. I've written some stubby things on set theory, and they're stubby because my energies have been devoted to other subjects; I'd have to re-learn the subject.  (In very elementary "naive" set theory, I've contributed to Cantor's theorem, Cantor–Bernstein–Schroeder theorem, and others.) Michael Hardy 22:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * What I'm most uncertain about is if I'm walking over a general outline that serves a useful purpose that I'm incapable of seeing. My reaction is "no way", "lame", etc., here, and in related articles, and I have been noticing a proliferation of very high level stubs and red links for topics which really can't have a low level description.

 * Anyway, I'll wait a day or two and see if there is more feedback.--192.35.35.34 22:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded things, and I hope it is clearer. More to come in a few days.

In the long run, I expect it best to break this up into smaller articles. Presumably c.c.c. and the delta-system lemma (implicit in my write up) deserve their own pages, along with cardinal collapsing. In fact, every forcing poset should have its own page in the end. But for now, I think it best to keep everything on one page. (That is why I've decided to keep Boolean-valued models here for now.)--192.35.35.36 17:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notation and Names
Aleph4: the most common convention is p ≤ q, regardless of whether you are forcing up or down. So, yes, Shelah typically has later letters stronger, but I'm following the down convention.--192.35.35.35 20:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * First: I am not questioning the "down" convention.   Stronger conditions are smaller -- at least if Boolean algebras are involved, anything else would lead to madness.

 * I didn't think you were trying to change the convention. Perhaps more papers are written with the up convention, just by counting Shelah's output, but everyone else pretty much follows the down convention, for precisely the reason you mentioned. Since at some point the article is going to directly compare forcing with BAs, there's no choice at the WP-level but to follow the down convention.

 * In fact, Shelah has been known to cheat. In PAIF he was once doing something so complicated, he tells the reader just to take the appropriate "Boolean" combination of conditions, despite that fact that the algebra is upside down.

 * But in the current article (mainly written by you, it seems; great job!), in most cases the weaker condition is called p, the stronger is q or r. (Look at your definition of "generic filter", for example. This is quite natural, because -- as you undoubtedly know -- most proofs proceed along the lines of
 * "Let p be an arbitrary condition, then we can find a stronger q deciding bla. ... We can now strengthen q even further to r such that..."

 * Or, slightly more formally: take any lemma that you prove in a forcing argument, write it in prenex form. If the matrix  asserts that p is stronger than q, for two variables p and q, then almost always p will appear after q in the string of quantifiers. Which means that it is more Special:Watchlistnatural (linguistically of course) to choose the names in the opposite order.

 * For sure! In the middle of a forcing proof, you will typically go to the next letter in the alphabet when you need a stronger condition. But when it comes to first defining the forcing, it is most natural to pick p on the left, and q on the right, with the inequality in-between whichever it happens to be. This is what Jech and Kunen do.

 * I don't think there will be very many forcing arguments at the level where taking stronger conditions matters. The proofs will all be outlines, right? The generic filter will be looked at, the implications of it existing will be followed, I will try to name names of interesting objects, in short, the issue shouldn't come up.

 * Anyway, it is not a big deal... -- Aleph4 21:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Given that I've got a bunch of expansion lined up, I think convention tweaking should be saved until it's clear what's best for the upcoming article as a whole, when it's time to split it up. For an example of how I'm thinking, when it comes to the Suslin hypothesis, I will kill Suslin lines directly, using their topologies as the posets, with no mention of the trees. My write-up on measure forcing has been influenced, obviously, for the sake of the Solovay model down the road, but also for its similarity to this way of killing Suslin lines. (Please don't tell me its "original research". It's way too trivial to publish separately, and just somehow never got noticed by the textbook writers when running on historical inertia. As far as I'm concerned, it's change-of-notation.)--192.35.35.34 22:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Btw, I don't think your definition of the name of the random real is correct.  If I would write the text, I would use a name for its Dedekind cut, something like $$\{ (\check{q}, (q,\infty)):  q \in {\mathbb Q}\}$$, but apparently you want to really work in $$10^\omega$$... -- Aleph4 23:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's effectively (read, intuitively) equivalent to giving the decimal expansion of the random real. It's my experience that the constructive approach is easier to understand (not just me, but most people), and if you can't actually give the constructive approach, then mimicking it goes a long way towards comprehensibility. When it comes to actually doing the mathematics of random reals, the existing approaches in terms of what the generic filter converges to is certainly more efficient.

 * Also, this approach in terms of intervals will be very similar to the forthcoming Suslin line topology self-destruct argument. Instead of decimal based intervals, there will be maximal antichains of open intervals. The one interval which is in the generic filter gets split by a countable but non-dense subset, giving more intervals. Now iterate ω1 many times. See the similarity?--192.35.35.36 14:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Still not quite right. You mean ((n,k) ̌, [...]), I guess. Assuming that "decimal expansion" is a shorthand for "infinite sequence of decimal digits", and not "nested tower of decimal intervals".

 * Well, I consider "decimal expansion" shorthand for whatever fits the given situation. That's probably a poor attitude on my part, but it is one of those terms we all learn way before we are ready for formal definitions. As it is, I want to keep it in nested interval form, since it's the simplest. The generic filter literally contains the "decimal expansion", so to speak.
 * If you identify reals with sets (not sequences) of nested decimal intervals, the name should be { (Eˇ, E): E is of the form [k.10-n, (k+1).10-n]} -- Aleph4 10:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, duh, me. Of course. Actually, that's much better, since it looks almost identical to the canonical name G for G.--192.35.35.36 13:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Btw, my default font does not show the spacing character (u+2005) correctly, and in fact it obscures the "check" (u+030c) following it; this is much worse than having the check a little bit off-center.   (I assume that if my browser displays it incorrectly, then there is a positive measure set of other users with the same problem.)  -- Aleph4 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How does xˇ look to you? That's x followed by a non-combining hacek. I'll change them, if this is satisfactory.
 * Looks fine to me -- Aleph4 10:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I use IE 6.0, much of the Unicode is messed up. Switching the encoding doesn't seem to make a difference.--192.35.35.35 20:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Have you tried changing the math settings in your preferences? Logicnazi 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs Editing
Some things need adding:

Some points (which are maybe obvious to everyone else, but confused the hell out of me when I studied this material):

 * It needs to be clear that (mostly for useful applications) G \not \in M
 * Also M \neq M[G]
 * the notion of absoluteness needs to be metioned a bit more to give the flavor
 * be clear that c.c.c. is not absolute!

Another thing that I found very useful was seeing forcing conditons as being analogous to Cauchy sequences forcing real numbers into existence from the rationals, using e.g. the surd symbols as things to compose names with. I don't know how rigourous this analogy can be made, (and thus how appropriate it is) but it certainly helped me.

Some things need correcting:

Complete atomless Boolean algebra B is always uncountable and by this reason it can not be in countable transitive model M. But for application in forcing satisfying of sentence "B is complete" by model M suffices. This means that $$\inf(S),\sup(s)\in B$$ for any $$S\in M\cap P(B)$$. Nedeljko Stefanovic (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 * What you're missing is that, in the Boolean-valued model approach, there ordinarily just isn't any countable transitive M in the picture. One looks at sentences whose truth value in VB is 1 (the greatest element of B).  A countable transitive M is generally superfluous. --Trovatore (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true for Boolean valued forcing, but it is also true for the traditional Cohen's approach. Both approaches, traditional Cohen's and Boolean valued have both approaches - syntax and semantic. One can start with a countable transitive model M and make generic extension M[G] (semantic approach) or one can doing everything in V by calculating what formula (evaluated by names) is forced by what condition or what is Boolean value of what formula evaluated by names (syntax approach). Forcing relation between conditions and formulas evaluated by names is definable syntactical and Boolean value of formula evaluated by names. Relation between traditional and Boolean valued forcing is: The Boolean valued forcing can be considered as the special case of the traditional forcing where the complete atomless Boolean algebra (with excluded 0) is chosen as poset. The general case of traditional forcing is reducible this special case. Boolean value of formula $$f(a_1,\dots,a_n)$$ (where $$a_1,\dots,a_n$$ are names) is exactly supremum of all conditions (i.e. elements of Boolean algebra) that forces $$f(a_1,\dots,a_n)$$. Also, if we start with a transitive countable model M, generic filters are always ultrafilters and $$M[G]\models f(int(a_1,G),\dots,int(a_n,G))$$ iff Boolean value of $$f(a_1,\dots,a_n)$$ is in G.

Yes, definability of the traditional forcing relation also eliminates need for transitive model in the traditional approach. Nedeljko Stefanovic (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the Boolean-valued approach is that it is semantic, but does not need a countable model. The compromise is that you have to liberalize your semantics so that they are no longer two-valued, but take truth values in B.  But having done that, there is really no point in dragging in a countable model, or at least I have never seen a reason to do so. --Trovatore (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditional forcing relation can also be defined in V. What is essential difference between computing the Boolean value of formula and computing what is forced by what condition? No fundamental difference. Your notes are also true for the traditional forcing. Nedeljko Stefanovic (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can perhaps argue that there's no fundamental difference. I don't think it's a good use of our time to argue that point.  Whether there's a fundamental difference or not, nevertheless the Boolean-valued approach is not treated in the literature using countable transitive models.  My basic reference is Bell, Boolean-valued models and independence proofs in set theory, which does not mention countable transitive models except perhaps once in an exercise.  This make sense to me; I don't know why you would go to all the trouble to set up Boolean-valued semantics, only to pass to a transitive countable model, which then allows you to use two-valued semantics. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to Forcing_(Set Theory)
I'm about to make an edit to the introduction mentioning the use of forcing in areas other than set theory, in particular in recursion theory (hopefully sometime I can even write up that article). There has even been a bit of use of forcing in model theory even though for the most part they just define genericity directly without forcing.

However, I'm wondering if we would be better off moving all the stuff specific to set theory to it's own page and using this page as a short description of the basic concept (truth by meeting dense sets or something) and providing links to the different notions. Let me know if you object otherwise someday I might get around to doing this (though I should probably write up the recursion theory page first).Logicnazi 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Forcing is used in many areas, sure, but we can probably keep it in one article. The applications to recursion theory are more esoteric (in some sense) so they could probably be kept to a section in this article plus a mention in the lede. THe idea of coming up with a general definition of forcing is nice, but it isn't done much in the literature, and it needs to appear there before appearing here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * As things stand, forcing is split into two categories on the disambiguation page: mathematics and recursion theory. I think a single page on forcing, with perhaps links to more specifics on forcing in set theory, recursion theory, model theory, what have you, would be reasonable.  But if not, surely we ought not to have recursion theory portrayed as though it does not belong to mathematics, no?  I will change the disambiguation page to "Forcing (Set Theory)".

Reviving an old topic... I changed the disambiguation page. Anyone object to renaming this page Forcing (set theory) (i.e., having the point do the reverse of what it does now)? Recursion theory is a part of mathematics, so this seems to me just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddzhafar (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to have a page called forcing (mathematics) (or possibly forcing (mathematical logic)) that treats all flavors of forcing. The set-theoretic version will probably be the most prominent because it's the one with which the most has been done, but the others should be represented as well.  Right now forcing (recursion theory) is pretty slim and I don't know why the content couldn't be merged here.  If someone wanted to do enough with recursion-theoretic forcing to warrant a separate article, then I would treat that article as a fork, with a summary section in this article and a main pointing to the forked article. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proofs seem to gloss over a lot
Where did we get a transitive model from? The Mostowski collapsing theorem only works if the membership relation is well-founded. Is there some trick in model theory that gives us a model with a well-founded membership relation? It's easy to come up with models of ZFC that aren't well-founded using hyperproducts, but how do we find one that is well founded?

What is the point in saying: "Note that we don't actually want or need to produce a model M for all of ZFC (or ZFC + ~CH), but merely the finite portion we subsequently use in the proof; Gödel's second incompleteness theorem prevents us creating a model for the whole theory." Since our goal is to show that ZFC+~CH is equiconsistent with ZFC, I thought we assumed that ZFC is consistent (which gives us a model of ZFC by Gödel's completeness theorem).

The proof seems to skip over the fact that M[G] satisfies all the axioms of ZFC. This seems non-trivial, especially showing that the axiom of choice holds in M[G]. Incidentally, to show that M[G] satisfies all the axioms implicitly shows that ZFC is consistent, which means that we must have assumed that ZFC was consistent (since this can't be demonstrated from ZFC). So the quoted text above is really irrelevant and misleading. (unless I'm misunderstanding the structure of the proof... see below).

Back on the axiom of choice: if forcing can be used to show the independence of the axiom of choice, then it mustn't necessarily hold in M[G]. So don't we need to demonstrate that the model that satisfies ~CH also satisfies the axiom of choice? Or any of the other axioms, for that matter...

The article needs to make clearer the distinction between things that exist inside of M and things that are being done from the outside. For example, the P-names exist within M, but their valuations don't (since G isn't in M).

Also, the definition of antichain isn't the standard one given in Antichain. Those should be called "strong antichains."

The general framework of the proof seems hard to understand. The first few times I read this, I thought that we were given a model of ZFC, and creating a model of ZFC+~CH. However, it now seems like the idea behind this proof is to assume that we have a proof of CH, which necessarily uses a finite set of axioms, and then to use a Reflection principle to find some set M that satisfies enough axioms to show that M[G] satisfies the finite set of axioms, and also ~CH. This shows that any proof of CH also gives a proof of a contradiction, so that ZFC is equiconsistent with ZFC+~CH. --71.112.146.3 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * (Responding mostly to the final paragraph, but partly to the first paragraph) well, forcing is a whole technology, not a single proof structure with fill-in-the-blanks. The way that you would organize a proof of (for example) the independence of CH from ZFC, depends on what you want out of the proof.
 * So if all you want is to show that Con(ZFC)→Con(ZFC+¬CH), and if you want to show this with minimum assumptions in the metatheory, then yeah, you can arrange it as a purely syntactic proof, and you should be able to carry it out in just Peano Arithmetic as your metatheory, which means you don't officially have any models running around at all -- Peano Arithmetic just deals with natural numbers so it's pretty limited when it comes to proving things about models. But the way you would get that proof is by first understanding a proof using wellfounded models, and then painstakingly translating. I would venture to guess that no one has actually done this, just convinced themselves and others that "in principle" it could be done.
 * But if what you want at the end is a description of an actual model of ZFC in which CH fails, and you want to be able to ask other questions about the model itself (not just its first-order theory), then more likely what you want to do is start with a wellfounded model of ZFC and force over that. The existence of such a model does not follow, strictly speaking, from Con(ZFC) itself, so you need to assume more.
 * These are general remarks; I'm not really talking about the proof in the article as it stands. I haven't read it in detail, at least not recently. --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dumb Question
Am I missing something? I am not much of a mathematician, but I see a problem in the following definition:

 * Name(0) = {};
 * Name(α + 1) = the power set of (Name(α) × P);
 * Name(λ) = ∪{Name(α) : α < λ}, for λ a limit ordinal,

The second line worries me. I always thougt that A × B = {(a,b): a ∈ A \wedge b ∈ B}. It follows from this that {} × X = {} for any X, and hence, by induction, that V(P) = ∪{Name(α) : α is an ordinal} = {}.

I can only assume that something else is meant. For example, it would work if you used –  or P in the first line instead of {}. The result would be different, but not significantly: every tuple would get a {} appended to the front if you used –  rather than P.

This may seem like a pedantic quibble, but, like a lot of people (I should think), I am struggling with the concepts anyway, and throwing in logical inconsistencies doesn't help. Rdbenham (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 * It's true that the empty set cross anything is again the empty set. But the powerset of the empty set is not the empty set.  So the definition works (or at least doesn't fail for the reason you think it does).  It just takes one more iteration at the beginning to get going, than maybe you were expecting. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks for putting me straight about that. I should have looked into it more carefully. I last studied mathematics 30 years ago, and I am just now trying to get back into it. For some reason I ignored the powerset operation, maybe because it was written out in words rather than symbols.

Rdbenham (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cohen Forcing
I have a general question regarding notions of forcing that can be formulated exactly in the context of the section Cohen Forcing in this article.

I use notation as in the article. Additionally, let $$M$$ denote the universe of the model of set theory under consideration. The subset $$X$$ is not an element of $$M$$ as is shown in the article. I buy this. Equivalently, the function $$g:\omega \rightarrow \{0,1\}$$ constructed from $$G$$ is not an element of $$M$$ (my conclusion).

Now, $$X$$ is constucted using axioms of set theory. From $$G$$ we get $$g$$ using union. If $$P$$ is a notion of forcing (as defined), then $$G \subset P$$ since $$G$$ is a filter. But then we must have $$g = \bigcup G \in M$$ since $$P \subset M$$. It follows that $$X \in M$$

There is the possibility (close to a certainty) that I don't understand this. There is also the possibility that there is some fuzziness in the definition of a generic filter. If the definition of a generic filter reads G contains a filter or G behaves like a filter instead of G is a filter, then I'd be happier. I'd certainly be happier if the definition of a generic filter didn't require the subset property.

In short, I see an existing generic filter as paradoxical in this case unless the definitions are reworded. I have finally, after many years of layman interest in mathematics, acquired a real book, Set Theory by Thomas Jech. The passage in his book on this particular question (the same forcing notion is used) parallels the article more or less excatly, so that doesn't help me. YohanN7 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading the section Countable transitive models and generic filters didn't resolve matters. On the contrary, that section underlines my problems with this. When $$M$$ is a countable transitive model, then $$G$$ exists and $$G \subset P \subset M$$ and $$G \notin M$$. It is the $$G \subset P$$ part of it that I can't digest. By transitivity, we get $$G \in M$$ which hardly matches $$G \notin M$$. YohanN7 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In the proof of the Rasiowa-Sikorski lemma a set $$G \subset P$$ qualifying as a generic filter is explicitly constructed. Must I reconsider what means for something to be a subset? Does this only show that $$M$$ is never ever a set, once again pointing out Russels Paradox? It doesn't make things better to allow for $$M$$ being a class. If $$M$$ is $$V$$, the Von Neumann universe, things are the same in this respect. It appears to me that no model of set theory can be closed with respect to clever subset operations. YohanN7 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking note of the fact that transitive means that elements are subsets, there may be subsets that aren't elements in a transitive model?

I am desperate to keep subsets of subsets as subsets, so that $$G \subset M$$ if $$G \subset P$$ and $$P \subset M$$. But then $$G$$ will appear as an element in $$P(M)$$, and $$M$$ should be closed under the power set operation. YohanN7 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article about the Mostowski collapse lemma provides a clue: There exists a model M (assuming the consistency of ZF) whose domain has a subset A with no R-minimal element, but this set A is not a "set in the model" (A is not in the domain of the model, even though all of its members are).

Thus if our model $$M$$ is of the above type, then there is an escape hatch. I am still having trouble if our model is transitive to begin with. Back to the workbench. YohanN7 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think my dilemma is resolved. I applied the Power Set Axiom incorrectly (quite whimsically actually). It reads
 * $$\forall A \, \exists P \, \forall B \, [B \in P \iff \forall C \, (C \in B \Rightarrow C \in A)]$$.

If one puts the forcing poset as A, then one might naively expect the generic set G to appear as one of the B's in P above because it is a subset of the forcing poset. The point here is that the variable B doesn't ever evaluate to G because G isn't an element in our model. Hence G is not an element in the power set either, consistent with what we had to begin with. (Also, I wrote above that one could the the power set of the whole model P(M). That is of course nonsense seen from within the model wether the model is a set (in a larger model) or not.)

Maybe I shouldn't have written about this at all in this talk page in the first place, but I think that the article could perhaps elaborate a little bit more than it does on the fact that the existence of generic sets isn't paradoxical. Subsets of sets aren't necessarily sets from the point of view of the model. B t w, I checked out the definition of the term subset and it says that a set is a subset if ... . What is the standard terminology? Does e.g. the generic set count as a subset of the forcing poset (in terms of terminology) even if it isn't a set in the model? YohanN7 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Math dummie question: "incomplete" versus "inconsistent"
"By Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, one cannot prove the consistency of any sufficiently strong formal theory, such as {\displaystyle {\mathsf {ZFC}}} {\displaystyle {\mathsf {ZFC}}}, using only the axioms of the theory itself, unless the theory is inconsistent."

Should the phrase "unless the theory is inconsistent" in this sentence read "unless the theory is incomplete" instead? Based on what little understanding I have of Godel that would seem to make more sense. Plus the idea that one cannot prove the consistency of a theory unless that theory is inconsistent doesn't ring true. But I could be mistaken! — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Ron9000 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By the principle of explosion, an inconsistent theory proves "everything" (that is, everything that can be expressed in its language), including its own consistency.
 * With that explanation, do you have any suggestion for less confusing wording in the article? --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Some sentences are more confusing than helpful
This is one example:

"Intuitively, forcing consists of expanding the set theoretical universe to a larger universe. In this bigger universe, for example, one might have many new subsets of ω = {0, 1, 2, ...} that were not there in the old universe, and thereby violate the continuum hypothesis.

"While impossible when dealing with finite sets, this is just another version of Cantor's paradox about infinity. "

Oops. What? What is "just another version of Cantor's paradox about infinity" ???

But wait! What is "Cantor's paradox about infinity" ??? Is that phrase a technical term? Not a term that is common. Of course, he has a number of *theorems* (like that aleph0 < 2aleph0), and there's his famous *hypothesis* that there are no in-between infinities. But what is "Cantor's paradox" ???

Suggestion: Either make that sentence a lot clearer, or remove it.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:857F:235F:86C8:1DDD (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 * From the explanation following that sentence, I suspect the writer was thinking about Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel instead of Cantor's paradox. What really ought to be explained is the concept of models: I believe the approach the writer was really describing is to take $$V \times \{0\}$$ as a (class) model of ZFC that is isomorphic to $$V$$, and then try to expand this model with elements of $$V \times \{1\}$$.
 * However, I'm not sure that such an approach could actually work. It seems counter-intuitive to me that there could exist an object that could be interpreted as a "new" subset of ω that is not in $$V$$, and even though in fact such an object could exist (e.g. if $$V$$ itself is a countable model), I am not sure if it would be possible to describe that object within $$V$$ in any sense. This is why the "standard" approach is to take a transitive model $$M$$ that is "significantly smaller than" $$V$$, and then expand $$M$$ using an object $$G$$ that can be described in $$V$$.
 * Should we rewrite the "Intuition" section completely? Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to rewrite the section. However, now that I've studied forcing further, I've realized how much of forcing is working within $$M$$, so it might indeed make sense to call it $$V$$ instead of $$M$$, and/or talk more about what $$M[G]$$ looks like from the inside of $$M$$. I'm still under the impression that using a model in the first place is necessary for the soundness of the proof: Within $$M$$ we can prove various properties of $$M[G]$$, but only by looking at $$V$$ could we show that $$M[G]$$ actually exists. (Apparently the way to get around the requirement that a standard model exists in the first place is to use models of finite fragments of ZFC, the existence of which is guaranteed by the reflection principle.) Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Definition of $$\underline{G}$$
Shouldn't it have $$p\in \mathbb P$$ rather than $$p\in G$$? As written, $$\underline{G}$$ is not in $$M$$. Unhandyandy (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 * If it is $$p\in \mathbb P$$, then how is $$\underline{G}$$ related to $$G$$ at all? Although I am also struggling to see the meaning of $$\underline{G}$$. The underline notation is only used below once for $$\underline{X}$$, which has a definition that seems not quite the same. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The $$(\check p,p)$$ disappear in $$M[G]$$ if $$p\not\in G$$. Unhandyandy (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that $$\underline G$$ is a way of referring to $$G$$ within $$M$$. Unhandyandy (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a need to define $$\underline{G}$$ in this section (where neither $$M$$ nor $$M[G]$$ has been defined yet) at all? The entire article is quite confusing, and it may be necessary to rethink about the organization completely. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, delaying $$\underline G$$ till after $$M$$ has been introduced might help.
 * Of course, forcing is a rather confusing subject, in that one must think on at least two levels, $$M$$ and $$V$$, simultaneously. Maybe it would help if the article separated these levels more clearly throughout. Unhandyandy (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am contemplating making some structural changes to this article, but since I don't feel familiar with forcing even after consulting some more reference materials, I'm not sure if I am a suitable person to do it. One of the things I wonder is if it is necessary for forcing to use a standard transitive model, or indeed any set model at all, or if there is some clever way to prove the necessary statements by directly working on $$V$$. I'm wondering this because one of the references say that the existence of a standard model of ZFC is a stronger assumption than the consistency of ZFC. If the use of $$M$$ is necessary then I'll feel comfortable mentioning it in the first section or even in the introduction. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just found out from Boolean-valued model that syntactic forcing is a viable approach that "directly works on $$V$$". I guess it is even less intuitive than using a model though... Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I fixed the immediate problem, but my head still hurts when I think about how to restructure this article. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Good example of a forcing poset?
This article currently states that "A good example of a forcing poset is $$ (\operatorname{Bor}(I),\subseteq,I) $$, where $$ I = [0,1] $$ and $$ \operatorname{Bor}(I) $$ is the collection of Borel subsets of $$ I $$ having non-zero Lebesgue measure." However, I am unsure whether this is actually a good example: I think the forcing poset used in Cohen forcing, $$ (\operatorname{Fin}(\omega,2),\supseteq,0) $$ (or even $$ (\operatorname{Fin}(\omega \times \omega_2,2),\supseteq,0) $$), is simple enough for any reader to understand, and would be an improvement on all three of the points above. As a bonus, if we introduce this forcing poset here we won't need to introduce it later. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The concepts of Borel subsets and Lebesgue measure may not be familiar to readers who are primarily interested in logic and set theory. For that matter, since we are talking about forcing posets and not Boolean algebras, why not just open intervals in $$[0, 1]$$?
 * The concept of Borel subsets is not very absolute (only real numbers in the universe can be used as endpoints of intervals). I guess for previous revisions of this article this was not a problem because at this point the idea of using a countable model $$M$$ hadn't been introduced yet, but I think introducing $$M$$ early is a less confusing way to talk about forcing.
 * It is not immediately clear forcing with this poset gives a universe with what property (it contains a real number that is not constructible?).

 * Upon further reading, I realized that the Borel subsets example is connected to the "Random reals" section, and I guess for whatever reason open intervals do not suffice for this purpose. However that section itself is quite dense, and for now I still prefer the Cohen forcing example. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cohen partial order is easier to understand in itself, but it may be harder to understand what the generic object added is, given that more people are familiar with measure than with category. Still, I kind of agree that if we want to give one p.o. as an example, the Cohen one is the obvious thing to start with. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Isn't the generic object added just a generic subset of $$\omega$$ or $$\omega \times \omega_2$$? Where does category come into play? Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The generic object is an element of every comeager set with a Borel code in the ground model. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so in the random forcing example, the generic object is an element of every Borel subset with measure 1 (again in the ground model). This is indeed a more intuitive description. I guess this might actually be a fine example if we talk about the this desirable property first and use it to motivate the mathematical process, instead of burying it deep in a bunch of math. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to be a little careful. The generic real isn't in the ground model, so it's not in any sets in the ground model.  But if there's a conull Borel set in the extension that has a Borel code that's in the ground model, then the generic real is in that set.
 * Basically the idea is that the ground model knows enough to describe the set, and to figure out that its complement has measure zero. But it can't find the generic real in the set, because it can't "see" the generic real at all.  The extension can see the generic real, and can unpack the description to see that the generic real is in the set.
 * Whether that's reasonable to try to explain in the article I'm not sure. We probably don't want to go into full detail on Borel codes and their interpretation.  We could maybe get as far as $$F_\sigma$$, which is enough (because every conull set has a conull $$F_\sigma$$ subset).  But even that is getting a little elaborate.  It would be something like, we can code an open set by a countable sequence of pairs of rationals (because it's a countable union of intervals with rational endpoints), and then we can code a $$F_\sigma$$ by a countable sequence of those codes (take the union of the complements of the open sets thus described). --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"No mention of set or class models" in Cohen's original method?
The current "Consistency" section says: "Less commonly seen is the approach using the "internal" definition of forcing, in which no mention of set or class models is made. This was Cohen's original method, and in one elaboration, it becomes the method of Boolean-valued analysis."

When I read the references (both Cohen's paper The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis in the external links section, and Cohen's 1966 book), it seems to me that Cohen mentions models a lot. I can imagine how one can avoid mentioning models (by focusing on formal consistency); I don't see how that was Cohen's original method.

I am also unsure how such a method is notably different from just "forcing over $$V$$" (which the "Consistency" section mentions as a different approach). From my understanding, when forcing over $$V$$, it is impossible to define the class model $$V[G]$$ in the conventional sense, since the interpretations of $$\in$$ and $$=$$ depend on the specific choice of $$G$$. The best one can do is to define $$V[G]$$ as a Boolean-valued model. Or does "forcing over $$V$$" mean "I'm actually forcing over a model, but I'll call this model $$V$$, so everything I write is by default within this model"? Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "internal" is just the same as "syntactic" (you define a forcing relation inductively on formulas, then look at sentences that are forced by the empty condition). As for "Cohen's original method", I think it's a bit confusing to bring that up at this point in the text, because Cohen originally used something called "ramified forcing", which I've never learned in detail, but I gather involved somehow recapitulating the $$L\,\!$$ hierarchy while taking forcing into account.  That difference doesn't seem to be the one the text in question is talking about, which to me means the text in question could be misleading. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding of ramified forcing is: Forcing involves a lot of transfinite recursion, and whereas unramified forcing uses $$V_\alpha$$ to rigorize transfinite recursion, ramified forcing uses $$L_\alpha$$. Apparently, when proving the expanded model is a model of ZFC, these two methods encounter difficulties on different axioms. I haven't looked into the detailed proofs myself, but if my references are to be trusted, then A Cheerful Introduction to Forcing and the Continuum Hypothesis says that Foundation and Choice are the really difficult ones for unramified forcing, while Cohen (1966) says that Power Set and Replacement are the non-trivial ones for ramified forcing. This does make some sense since Power Set and Replacement already causes troubles when proving the constructible universe itself is an inner model. Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Forcing (mathematics)


text:
Griffin (disambiguation)

A griffin is a mythological creature with the body of a lion and head and wings of an eagle.

Griffin(s) or The Griffin(s) may also refer to:

Fictional characters

 * Griffin (The Invisible Man), the title character in H. G. Wells' novel
 * Griffin (comics), several comic book characters
 * Griffin, in the Australian-New Zealand film The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey
 * Griffin Callenreese, in the Japanese manga and anime series Banana Fish
 * Griffin Castillo, in the American television soap opera All My Children
 * Griffin Pierce-Taylor, in the Canadian television series Degrassi: The Next Generation
 * Griffin Turner, a character in Ninjago
 * Griffin Moss, one of the main characters of The Griffin and Sabine Saga
 * Griffin, also known as the Invisible Man, is one of the main characters in the Hotel Transylvania film series
 * Griffin emblem of Midland Bank, later used as a character in advertisements for the bank

Other uses in arts and entertainment

 * Griffin Poetry Prize, a Canadian poetry award
 * "The Griffin" (fairy tale), a German fairy tale collected by the Brothers Grimm
 * The Griffin, the undergraduate student magazine of Downing College, Cambridge, England
 * The Griffin, the annual literary journal of Gwynedd Mercy University, Pennsylvania, U.S.
 * Griffin Theatre Company, in Sydney, Australia

Education

 * Griffin College, in Seattle, Washington, U.S., 1909–1993
 * Griffin Elementary School, in Lakeland, Florida, U.S.
 * Griffin High School (Georgia), U.S.
 * Griffin School District, Washington, U.S.
 * Griffin Technical College, Griffin, Georgia, U.S.

Other businesses and organisations

 * Griffin Communications, an American media company
 * Griffin Hospital, Derby, Connecticut, U.S.

 * Griffin Investigations, an American private investigation firm
 * Griffin Music, a Canadian independent record label
 * Griffin's Foods, a New Zealand-based food company

 * The Griffins Hotel, Adelaide, South Australia

Military

 * Heinkel He 177 Greif (German, 'griffin'), a World War II German heavy bomber
 * Bell Griffin, a helicopter
 * Saab JAS 39 Gripen ('Griffin'), a Swedish fighter aircraft
 * AGM-176 Griffin, a precision-guided munition by Raytheon
 * No. 9 Squadron (Pakistan Air Force), named The Griffins
 * Griffin LGB, an Israeli laser guided bomb system
 * General Dynamics Griffin, a variant of the ASCOD armoured fighting vehicle

People

 * Griffin (given name), including a list of people with the name
 * Griffin (surname), including a list of people and fictional characters with the name
 * House of Griffin or Griffin dynasty, a dynasty ruling the Duchy of Pomerania from the 12th century until 1637

Canada

 * Rural Municipality of Griffin No. 66, Saskatchewan
 * Griffin, Saskatchewan
 * Griffin Inlet, Nunavut

United States

 * Griffin Township, Pope County, Arkansas
 * Griffin, Georgia
 * Griffin, Illinois
 * Griffin, Indiana
 * Griffin, Missouri
 * Griffin, former name of Sharps, Virginia
 * Griffin Bay State Park, Washington
 * Griffin Island, a mountain in Massachusetts
 * Fort Griffin, Texas
 * Lake Griffin State Park, Florida

Other countries

 * Griffin, Queensland, a suburb in the Moreton Bay Region, Australia
 * Griffin Cove, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
 * Griffin Nunatak, Oates Land, Antarctica
 * Mount Griffin, Victoria Land, Antarctica
 * 4995 Griffin, an asteroid

Ships

 * Griffin (ship), a 17th-century English sailing ship in British America
 * Griffin (1807 ship), a prize that made one voyage as a whaler
 * Gribshunden or Griffen ('Griffin'), a 15th-century Danish warship
 * HMS Griffin, several ships of the Royal Navy
 * Hired armed cutter Griffin, two Royal Navy vessels
 * Le Griffon ('The Griffin'), a 17th-century French ship
 * USS Griffin, a U.S. Navy submarine tender during World War II

Sports

 * Grand Rapids Griffins, an American hockey team
 * Griffin (esports), a South Korean professional esports team
 * Griffin (mascot), the College of William & Mary's official mascot
 * Griffin, the mascot of Grossmont College, California, U.S.
 * Kotka Griffins, a Finnish rugby union team

Other uses

 * Griffin beaker, a "low-form" glass beaker
 * Griffin (processor), an AMD microprocessor
 * Project Griffin, a counter-terrorism project
 * The Griffin, Monmouth, Wales, a public house

title: Griffin (disambiguation)


text:
Mandoza

Mduduzi Thembinkosi Edmund Tshabalala (17 January 1978 – 18 September 2016), also known as Mandoza, was a South African singer-songwriter and kwaito recording artist. He was known for his contributions to the kwaito genre and his numerous hit singles, including "Nkalakatha", "Uzoyithola Kanjani, Tornado", "Sgelekeqe", "Ngalabesi", "Godoba", "Tsotsi Yase Zola" and "Indoda", which topped the charts in South Africa and all over the African continent. His second album Nkalakatha, released in 2000, became the biggest selling album of his career, selling 350,000 units. .

A biopic which chronicles the life of Mandoza, titled Nkalakatha: The Life of Mandoza premiered on BET on the 16th of August 2023, in which Wiseman Mncube portrayed him.

Early life
Mandoza was born on 17 January 1978 in Zola, a township in Soweto, where he lived with his mother, his grandparents and two sisters. He never knew his father, his mother claiming that he was murdered the same year Mandoza was born. In 1994, at the age of 16, he was charged with stealing a car and received a one-and-a-half-year sentence, which he served in Diepkloof Prison.

Music career
When he was released from prison, Mandoza formed the group "Chiskop" along with three childhood friends, S'bu, Siphiwe aka General and Sizwe. His talents were discovered by Arthur Mafokate, also known as the King of Kwaito. Mandoza was first played on air by DJ Sipho Mbatha, known as Sgqemeza, of Durban Youth Radio and then of Ukhozi FM. Mandoza aimed to deliver messages of inspiration to the kwaito music scene. He used his music as a way to encourage young South Africans to achieve their goals. His song "Uzoyithola Kanjani" means: "how are you going to get it, if you don't get up and go for it." He credited much of his success to his mentor, Glenn Morris, who helped him during his drug addled early years.

The group signed its first record contract eight years after its formation and released their debut album titled, Akusheshi with the hit single Klaimer followed by their second album Relax in 1997. Although Chiskop achieved great success and was widely seen to be at kwaito's forefront, Mandoza also started a solo career. In 1999 he released the top-selling (more than 100,000 units sold) album 9II5 Zola South, for which he gained a 2000 FNB South African Music Awards Best Newcomer nomination.

In 2000, he then released his second album Nkalakatha, produced by Gabi Le Roux, to widespread acclaim, selling 350 000 copies which won multi-platinum status. The title track became a crossover hit and reached the top of the charts on both traditionally black and white radio stations. Other hit songs of the album were Virstaan & Skhathi Sewashi featuring Tokollo from the kwaito group Tkzee. This album won the Best Kwaito Music Album category and the album's title track won the Song of the Year category at the South African Music Awards in 2001. Mandoza also won in five of the ten categories at the 2001 Metro Music Awards: Best Kwaito Artist, Best Male Vocalist, Best Album, Best Styled Artist and Song Of The Year. He soon followed up with his third studio album Godoba selling 150 000 Copies with the hit singles Godoba, Jerusalema & 50/50. Also in 2001, Mandoza won the Best Artist – Southern Africa category at the Kora All Africa Music Awards.In 2003, Mandoza participated in the documentary film ''SHARP! SHARP! – the kwaito story'', directed by Aryan Kaganof and released his forth big-selling album Tornado in 2002. Mandoza was voted 77th in the Top 100 Great South Africans in 2004.

In February 2005 it was announced that Mandoza would play a major supporting role in a new South African-made rugby union-themed feature film, Number 10, which would be directed by Academy Award nominee Darrell James Roodt. It was also announced that Mandoza would be contributing to the film's soundtrack.

Mandoza sang in several of South Africa's many languages, including English, Afrikaans, Zulu, and Xhosa, giving him wide appeal with South African listeners. Mandoza's music tried to "put a more constructive message into kwaito." Originally, Mandoza did not like the kwaito style, because of its lack of a message and tendency to focus on dancing and pleasure rather than on the plethora of social problems that exist in South Africa, even after apartheid ended in 1994. Mandoza also recorded Rap/Metal collaboration with Croatian rock singer Dino Jelusic on songs "Bad to the Bone" and "In Our Blood". "In Our Blood" is a song dedicated to rhinos killed in 2015.

At the 1st ceremony of Mzansi Kwaito and House Music Awards, he was honoured with Lifetime Achievement Award.

Death
Mandoza died on 18 September 2016. According to his family, he was being treated for pharyngeal cancer prior to his death and had lost his eyesight. Mandoza waited in vain for at least three hours for an ambulance at his home, as a last resort his manager used a private vehicle to transport Mandoza to hospital but he died in the car just before arriving at the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital.

Awards

 * 2001 South African Music Awards (SAMA) Song of the Year for Nkalakatha
 * 2001 South African Music Awards (SAMA Best Kwaito Album
 * 2001 Metro Fm Music Awards Best Kwaito Artist
 * 2001 Metro Fm Music Awards Best Male Vocalist
 * 2001 Metro Fm Music Awards Best Album
 * 2001 Metro Fm Music Awards Best Styled Artist
 * 2001 Metro Fm Music Awards Song of the Year
 * 2001 Kora All Africa Music Awards Best Artist – Southern Africa
 * 2002 South African Music Awards (SAMA) Best Music Video For Godoba
 * 2002 South African Music Awards (SAMA) Song of the Year For Godoba
 * 2006 Channel O Musical Video Awards – Best Collaboration Video ("Music") (with Danny K)
 * 2012 Namibian Annual Music Awards (NAMAS) Best Music Video With Ees
 * 2012 Channel O Musical Video Awards Best Kwaito Award For Ayoba With Ees
 * 2013 Nominated For Best Kwaito Album Sgantsontso
 * 2023 South African Music Awards (SAMA) Lifetime Achievement Award

Solo albums

 * 1999 9II5 Zola South
 * 2000 Nkalakatha
 * 2000: Nkalakatha (The Boss Remixes)
 * 2001: Godoba
 * 2002: Tornado
 * 2004: Mandoza
 * 2004: Same Difference – (with Danny K)
 * 2005: Phunyuka Bamphethe
 * 2006: Ngalabesi
 * 2007: Champion
 * 2008: Ingwenya
 * 2010: Real Deal
 * 2011: So Fresh
 * 2013: Sgantsontso

title: Mandoza


text:
Talk:The happiest barrack

"Fifteen years after converting to democracy, most Hungarian paved roads are still in a miserable shape and the state highway system is very small compared to neighbouring countries." well, the second part of the sentence is not true, actually. in no way do i want to defend the regime or policies of kádár, and it's not that important anyway, but in 2002 the length of the highway system was 581 kilometres long in Hungary (at the end of 2002, now it's about 650 km, but I couldn't find any precise figures from 2003/2004), whereas in the Czech Republic 518, in Slovakia 302, in Poland 405, in Estonia 98, in Romania 113, in Bulgaria 328, in Slovenia 456 km. All the same, the general argument (infrastructural developments were underfunded and so on) is correct, and these little inaccuracies are not really about that, but i thought i might point them out.

?

 * "people had to sign up 6 to 12 years in advance at a "Merkur" outlet if they wanted to buy a car." I remember it was 4 years for Lada, Wartburg, Trabant etc. which were much more popular at that time (at least I've never heard of this "Merkur" until now.)
 * "A letter of recommendation from one's employer was necessary to request a phone line" where is this info from?
 * "especially the stage performances of the late Geza Hofi, and it was mostly tolerated." Hofi spent some time in prison, though.
 * "Official efforts to gain support for Marxist-Leninist ideology amongst the people were half-hearted and produced little more than yearly marches that ended with free food picnics." as far as I know, several people also had to attend free Marxist-Leninist courses. I asked my parents about it and they remember that they sat through some endlessly boring classes.
 * re the previous post: the highway system is definitely not good enough. Not because of the size (not 650 m but 477, according to www.autopalya.hu ) but because it is wrongly proportioned, about 70% of it is in Western Hungary, and the whole system is star-shaped, it connects cities only to the capital, not to each other. Ever tried to drive from Miskolc to Debrecen? (the 3rd and 2nd largest Hungarian cities, respectively, both in the Eastern part.) By the way, many of the countries you mentioned are smaller than Hungary.

--Alensha 15:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The happiest barrack refers to Hungary (!)
The phrase comes from 1980's pun, said in Russian 'Polsza to lutszyj barak w socjalisticznom lagiere' or Poland is the happiest barrack in socialist block. Russian word 'lagier' meant block in then common phrase 'socialisticheskij lagier' or block of communist countries. However lagier means also forced labour camp, and the word barrack points to this.

Poland was happiest/funniest because freedom of speech was slightly more respected than elsewhere in Communist countries and Poland, unlike Hungary and Czechoslovakia, had no tough rule following the unsuccesful uprising.

Phrase 'The happiest barrack' is still well known in Poland. In the 1980's this pun was widely known - unofficially - in other Communist countries.

Jurek

off topic
Besides being a weird POV rant, the article discusses the hungarian economy and military well after 1989, when there no longer was a barrack or camp to be happy (or sad) about. -- TheMightyQuill 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

unecessary watering down
...tended to provide Hungarian citizens with a bit more personal freedom than the people living in some other parts of the communist bloc.

Come on, this is unnecessary. I'm reverting. --TheMightyQuill 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you that my "watering down" of the first sentence of the "Happiest Barrack" article was unnecessary. But please be assured that my changes were definitely NOT motivated by the wish to strenghthen the already unbearable prejudicial anti-communist stance of the article but quite on the contrary ! You were perfectly right in claiming that the "Happiest Barrack" article is a "weird POV rant". I would go even further and say that it is completely dispensable. This article (especially its versions before your cleanup) smacks of the most primitive anti-communism and postulates a difference that - apart from some minor variation like in every other socialist country - did never exist. And that is the only reason why I am constantly trying to "water down" articles such as this one. So, my proposal is: either let's delete this ridiculous nonsense altogether or let me at least keep my other changes made yesterday (apart from the first sentence)that were actually quite reasonable. For example, your last sentence was simply a mistake: instead of "did involve themselves in politics" it should say "did not involve themselves in oppositional politics"... Those changes make the article at least a litle bit more "objective" (for whatever that means) - and, closing with the sentence I always use in such political discussions on Wikipedia: I don't dare beg for more !

Markus

title: Talk:The happiest barrack