text:
Talk:X.Org Server

Needs Improved Definition
After reading this article while trying to figure out what exactly the Xorg server does, I have come back even more confused. Would someone who knows this write up a definition that is intelligible to someone who doesn't understand Linux very well? -U235master explosivity is a virtue (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we tried to explain every term inline in each article we'd end up with articles hundreds of pages in length and still lacking the quality. Because of that the possibly complex terms are linked to their main articles instead. Here the main keyword is X server, you should read that article first.1exec1 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposite is needed. The original point still stands.
 * The problem is not the lack of 10 pages of explanation. The issue is that it is too long and complicated and raises too many questions instead of presenting the big-picture relationship. Before anything, a clear foundational understanding should be established in order to be able to gain an understand of what each of these terms mean in practice.
 * The problem is that there is no good representation of how X, X Server, X11, X.Org, X.Org Server, X.Org Foundation etc. relates to each other. It's a mess, which in turn makes people mix the terms. You see this all over in discussions.
 * What is the most confusing for people is to know whether they should say X11, X server, X.Org or X.Org Server. Which one is actually used today, how do they relate? What is even referred to when people use one of these terms?
 * Why not try to represent this in a visual illustration? With roles and purposes. Every article of the individual components should ideally have a big picture foundational representation.
 * These articles create the foundation people use to discuss and talk about these things. 109.247.176.218 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Update
Hello, According to distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian), Debian has switched to XOrg since Etch (Testing).

User-friendly
Should this article have a more user-friendly title? --217.159.81.198 22:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For a start, it should be "X.Org" not "XOrg". Something along the lines of "X.Org Foundation X11" or something?  Perhaps WP:RM might be worth looking into.

Indeed, it is rather unclear as to what X.org actually is. It's very confusing for people not into linux and computer slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.20.230 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
The title of this article is big, cumbersome, and difficult to locate. The title should contain "X.org" or "X.Org", and not "XOrg" or "Xorg". However, finding an appropriate new title is not easy. X.org is too ambiguous. Perhaps X.org X11 or thereabouts? Chris 02:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Instead of moving this it should probably be merged with X.Org Foundation as I don't think it warrants a separate article. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It is a crappy title. I started the article under this name as this was the name on the X.Org site. Dunno if it has an official name other than this. If this is what the software is called, this is what the software is called ... unless they've picked a less cumbersome proper name.

 * The article should not be merged with X.Org Foundation - that article is about the nonprofit corporation, this article is about some software produced under its auspices - David Gerard 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the reference to The Cathedral and the Bazaar really that necessary here? It seems gratuitous to me. --Andyluciano 18 Aug 2005, 14:41 (UTC)

 * The XFree86/Xorg split is pretty much a classic CatB example - David Gerard 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the name?
On the article two different names are used, X.Org and XOrg. Wich one is the good one? --81.39.163.85 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Common codebase?
I've removed this sentence from the history section:

When the fork was created changes were folded in from X11R6.6 creating a common codebase.

Common between who and who? Without more explanation, this sentence is just confusing. There are a few other confusing bits in this article. Can someone who knows the details do a quick sanity check on the text? --Gronky 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It's just generally stub-quality just now. I've tagged it as such. We need lots of sources, though fortunately these should be easy enough to come by. In particular, the "other" reason for the fork (that X was a cathedral and that getting anything done in it was torture) has been very well documented. Chris Cunningham 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of this article
The official website for X.Org says it "provides an open source implementation of the X Window System" and the "X" program reports a version consistent with the version of the server installed such as 1.2, 1.3 (not 7.x) like so: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.179.31 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) $ X -version

X Window System Version 1.3.0 Release Date: 19 April 2007 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.3

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename this article to just "X.org", since it is (its current version >> 7.3) a complete windowing system including (among others) a server and many libraries and utilities, and not just a server. That would also be consistent with the XFree86 article (another implementation of the X Window System, like Xorg. The current name is misleading. 66.130.179.31 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Versions mixup ?
The first paragraph of the article says "The current stable release is 1.6.2, which is part of X11R7.5,", while the data block on the right side says "Stable release: 1.6.3". And the latest version on x.org primary download site is X11R7.4 / 1.5.1 (http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/X11R7.4/src/xserver/xorg-server-1.5.1.tar.bz2). Can someone clear this up, please ? --Xerces8 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two articles mixed
There is two concepts mixed in this article. One is X.Org's X Window System software bundle, witch version is R7.7 nowadays. The bundle includes the X.Org's X server, that has a individual version number (1.14.3 to this day). The X server is part (an essential one) of the entire X Window System, but there is more software components in it, with its own version numbers. That's the root of the confusion with the name of the article or the version number. (See for more details) --JavierCantero (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * As far as I am concerned, this article refers to the "display server" doing the IPC, or what is left of it, see File:Schema of the layers of the graphical user interface.svg. The corresponding debian package is called "xserver-xorg-core": https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xserver-xorg-core
 * It is indeed hard to find and to disinguish from packages like https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xorg or https://packages.debian.org/jessie/xserver-xorg
 * This article should mention, that the xserver/x display server (versioned 1.16 at the time of writing) is part of a package called "X Window System" from X.Org (versioned R7.7 at the time of writing) :-). User:ScotXW t@lk 13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"frequently updated" parameter in the Infobox software?
Usually a new X.Org is released every 6 months. It's hard to see the need of the "frequently updated" parameter in the infobox software, and it's confusing to those of us that watch the page. Should it be disabled and use the more common method of manually updating the version field? --JavierCantero (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello! Yeah, I'd ditch the use of Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server –  based on its history, it was updated seven times in about two years.  That isn't frequent.  — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Completely agree. Likewise with the preview release. Which seems to disappear when there is none set with the current system. With the intended 6 months between releases, and only a couple release candidates, no reason this can't be handled inline. PaleAqua (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

With the new table of releases I've added, most of the references and dates in Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server's history now are preserved and accesible --JavierCantero (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Good job! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Nice! I wonder if the roll-up release numbers should be also included. 7.0 ->1.0.1, 7.1 -> 1.1.0, 7.2 -> 1.2.0, 7.3 -> 1.4, 7.4 -> 1.5.1, 7.5 => 1.7.1, 7.6 => 1.9.3, 7.7 => 1.12.2. PaleAqua (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is done. The only thing missing may be to request the deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server. What do you think? --JavierCantero (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Looks great! Sure thing, Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server should be 'ed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

System bootup & configuration
Hi, I am currently trying to figure out the steps done when my Debian 8 system boots up. Maybe this article should mention "system startup" in a section. I remember, that the configuration of an xserver used to be quite a PITA. Now much is handled by gnome-settings/xdg-stuff. GNOME Display Manager, its greeter, has a graphical surface, but is not based on xserver. It starts the xserver. User:ScotXW t@lk 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled via google over: xorg.conf. Probably that article should be merged into this one. User:ScotXW t@lk 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Developer community
It would be nice to have a better explanation of the community behind the code, but sadly there seems to be limited sources? Please provide any if you see them. When I was perusing New Developer Guide for X.org I got the sense that Alan Coopersmith was quite active, and he's the only one mentioned here. II | (t - c) 04:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Releases / Oder version, still supported
Does anyone have information about the versions still supported? I just updated this section with the current 1.19 release and couldn't find anything... ChronowerX (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
I understand if criticism section is removed from "article" but certainly DO NOT REMOVE from talk. X.org does not deserve to hide the voices they "kept shut up" during their wholistic control of changes to X that all 'nixes were using (at the time, XFree86 which distros like Debian caused to become non-compatible with their "new OS").

X11R7 should be called X12 R667, it is NOT X11 compatible, the mere name is "cover up". (Sun Micro and unix in general used major versions to indicated most all software would remain %100 compilable and working, minor versions to indicate new features that did not bother old applications).

''The new "head honchos" are doing more to bury X than support it and have written their own new rule that they are not responsible for developing X (while still using her name): recent years X.org charter reads: Research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack. This includes, but is not limited to, the following projects: DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System ... (note: note how Wayland is their mission and is non-USA controlled and licensed while they use the X name) ''

Darwin OS/X no longer supports X and took X out of their name (Apple iMac). Others followed suit. Though mostly a USA product and cost, only non-American parties are "controlling" and developing this X, and targeted for devices that are not made or controlled in the USA (ie, android use).

X.org began with forced use of XCB which had been an optional module (it forces different default for packet order for XTrans, the packet relay function - for no apparent reason) (note an option to packet order could have been added non-destructively). Later all "favorite" X apps (ie, Xmag) were hacked to require use of XCB though they had no special XTrans requests in orig. code (default use), making even triviall apps impossible to backport. Another change was fonts, the new system is 'better" however different and incompatible is not better if old applications are tricked by subtle changes (such as order fonts are listed in, or double listings), and no longer work. Compilation also changed in ways that required certain dependancies and prevented xview (accelerated multimedia video for pci video cards) from compiling (for the masses that is: with great effort it could be re-enabled, it had simply been intently disabled i proved).

The result was destruction of compatibility with any purchased software that used X11 protocol. The differences were not obvious to many at first (that the applications were all broken - many seemed to still work, but after use one would find they were functionally very broken and at times crashing where they had been rock hard stable). There were promises given that there would be "fixes", these I think were just a "cover", not genuine, just words X.org used to keep a captive audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda about anything, this is not a site for opinion pieces neither a forum —and that includes the Talk pages—. Any attempt would be deleted per Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal" and WP:TALK "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". --JavierCantero (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Community
I found in xorg-server-1.9.3 that it was IMPOSSIBLE to compile. This means (ie google android, debian, X developers) using xorg server were different source than the source they were releasing (else how would they test it?). xorg-server-1.9.3/hw/xfree86/loader/sdksyms.sh had been badly hacked and was disfunctional - preventing compilation. It had been a simple hand picked list of function names - but in 1.9.3 had become a surely broken and sure to break (in future) script.

I fixed it sdksyms.sh and posted a BUG on freedesktop bugzilla, but admins banned the post. Ii reposted it, non-sequitur comments were left by (someone?) and was "marked as solved", and it was then simply "ignored".

I found in xorg-server-1.9.3 that xview had intently been disabled for no reason (supports fluid panning and multimedia on good pci video cards, noting x.org killed off pci video card support - forced upgrade). It was disabled in several places, undoing the hacks enabled it without any impact to the rest of xorg-server. I also found (someone) had been using the same name to confuse people looking for accelerated X support to thinking it never existed (product name confusion).

I think the key here is that as a community things are clear: it is not like the xfree86 community in any way: it is controlled tightly and rudely by people with agendas who are doing "cover ups" (ie, maintaining separate sources that compile but for GPL showing sources that don't compile, switching focus to Wayland to get rid of X licensing, it's all about (asian pad) imports and de-licensing and control over consumers of what they are the admins of, etc), these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda about anything, this is not a site for opinion pieces neither a forum —and that includes the Talk pages—. Any attempt would be deleted per Talk page guidelines, or we risk for it to become a opinion battlefield. Read WP:TALK "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal" and WP:TALK "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". --JavierCantero (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The article talks about X11 without explaining what it is
This article makes multiple references to the word "X11" yet it is not explained anywhere in the article what "X11" is. As if the user should already know what it is. This is a big mistake. I would corect this If I knew, unfortunately I don't. ~ posted by Genoskill (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Added brief explanation near beginning of article that it refers to version X11 of the X Window Protocol. PaleAqua  (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks, you are a gentleman and a scholar. --- Genoskill  (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Not quite a gentleman btw :) PaleAqua  (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Acceleration architectures Merge-ins
I have completed the minimum to satisfy the result of the AfD. That also suggested additional merged and I may perform those WP:BOLDly over the next couple of days (if no one else does first). (Those merges suggested loosely at AfD). When merges are complete and possibly following peer review by Merge voters at AfD the Under construction will be removed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hesitated when I went to merge in the next accelerator ... my feeling is they would be better moved to their own article. So I have paused .... I dont currently have a specific proposal and I would need carefully to think before making a proposal.  Thankyou.   Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies as I left under construction under this and went away.  I think what happened is I probably felt the acceleration architectures should proably be best merged to their own page but I don't have the energy or enthusiiasm for toing it.  My apolgies for leaving under construction up so long.  thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:X.Org Server


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 1

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


text:
Delbhna Tír Dhá Locha

Delbhna Tír Dhá Locha ("The Delbhna of the Two Lakes") was a tuath of Gaelic Ireland, located in the west of Ireland in Connemara, County Galway.

The Delbhna Tír Dhá Locha were one branch of a much larger population group called the Delbhna.

The two lochs to which the name of the territory refers are Loch nOirbsean, and Loch Lurgain. The territory occupied nearly all the land between the two lakes and the River Corrib. It was roughly coextensive with the later barony of Moycullen, which took in the civil parishes of Moycullen, Kilcummin, Killanin, and Rahoon.

The kings of the Delbhna Tír Dhá Locha eventually took the surname Mac Con Raoi (anglicised as Conroy and King).

The Chief of the Name of Clan Mac Con Raoi directly ruled Gnó Mhór, which was later the civil parishes of Kilcummin and Killannin. Gnó Beag's king was later surnamed Ó hÉanaí (anglicised as Heaney and Heeney). Gnó Beag made up of the civil parishes of Rahoon and Moycullen. Loch Lonáin north of the village of Maigh Cuilin (Moycullen) and the Aille River between the villages of An Spidéal (Spiddal) and Indreabháin (Inverin) are the principal features which mark the divide between Gnó Mór and Gnó Beag. All four parishes were combined into the barony of Moycullen (distinct from the parish) soon after the Cambro-Norman invasion.

Both Irish clans were evicted and forced west by the Ó Flaithbertaigh family, who took over their lands. Clan Meic Con Raoi resettled at Ballymaconry (sometimes known as Kingstown Glebe) in Connemara along Streamstown Bay near Clifden, and they had another, Ballyconry in County Clare in the barony of Ballyvaghan. By the 19th century, almost all members of the family had Anglicized their name to King and Ballymaconry became Kingstown. In the early 20th century, styles changed and the family used the Anglicization "Conroy".

The Meic Con Raoi were counted among the sea-kings of Connacht, the others being the O'Malleys, the O'Dowds, and the O'Flahertys.

title: Delbhna Tír Dhá Locha


text:
Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 1

Use
I added a section stating: DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK. Evidence for this is found in  on p56, which quotes a Lewis Moonie, a UK defence minister :  Two types of DU-based munitions are available to British Forces, a 120 mm anti-tank round and 20 mm round used by some Royal Navy ships. I didn't add this to the main page's references, as I figure the issue is minor and uncontentious, and the quoted document as a whole isn't suitable source material. -- Finlay McWalter 22:55, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to France exporting depleted uranium weapons and rather references to France not being too hot on these. I'll remove this paragraph until somebody finds a reference.

France also export depleted uranium munitions, including some made to be used in the 100mm guns used on older Soviet T54 and T55 and Chinese Type 1959 and Type 1969 tanks, old Soviet SU100 tank destroyers, and old Soviet 100mm antitank guns (these old tanks and antitank guns are very common around the world, due mainly to Soviet military aid during the Cold War).David.Monniaux 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toxicity
concern about chemical toxicity of depleted uranium munitions: is this about the remains of used munition or also about handling munition? - Patrick 08:05 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Estimating harm of small amounts of radiation
Recent studies of scientific bodies outside the USA and the UK

Which studies? Where can one find them?

''Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body as bigger doses may be. While bigger doses kill cells, smaller doses only damage them. While dead cells are replaced by the body, these damaged cells are a possible source of cancer.''

As far as I know, that is nonsense. What kind of study said that? The more radiation you get (the integral), the worse it is. It is false that "big doses kill cells" while "smaller doses only damage them", both big and small doses kill and damage a certain amount of cells, but of course big do more of both, killing (some cellules) and damaging (many others).

I suggest this be removed, and the source for any other claims be verified. -- jbc May 27 10:14 UTC 2003

 * This isn't nonsense, it's the basis for chemotherapy. That's why radiation is used to treat cancer - or maybe it's not used anymore, I'm not up on this. Strong doses of radiation will kill weak (e.g. cancerous) cells and leave healthy cells still alive, hopefully. I don't find this passage that ridiculous. Graft

 * I think you mean 'radiotherapy', not 'chemotherapy'. A higher intensity of (normally local) radiation can be better than low intensity, and of course different kinds of radiation affect in different ways, but in the article it is said dose, which is just the total amount integrated. And for the same kind of radiation, the higher the dose the worse it is (you may still want a high dose to treat a cancer, but that's a very particular case, it's because it is more effective against cancer, not better for the rest of the body). By the way, I didn't say it was ridiculous! Change "nonsense" for "wrong" if you prefer a less loaded word, that's what I should have said anyway. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003

Article about the damage by radiation: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/lis/14534/1.html And something in English as well: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/19/12220. The German article above seems to refer to the English article mentioned right after it. As far as I know, that is pretty good proof, especially when remembering my VERY conditional style when adding these things to the article, so suit yourself.

--Korpo

http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14636/1.html German article about possible harm about DU ammunition, http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/puma/radio/Uran_Munition.html#_3.4_Uranverbindungen about DU aerosols, http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12222/1.html refers to a UN study about DU ammunition. --Korpo

 * Uhm, I didn't mean any personal attack or anything, sorry if it looked like that. Thanks for adding the links, I think that the article has improved much with them. About the effects of radiation, please see my reply to Graft a few lines above. And just in case you were wondering, I am as much against the use of DU as one can be. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003

I think the bullet point stating Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body than bigger doses may be should be removed. This assertion is extremely speculative, and it does seem like nonsense on the face of it. I skimmed the studies, none of which made any firm conclusions, and nowhere did I see this assertion made. The studies themselves dealt with the repair of individual chromosomes and did not make any claims on the effects of lower vs. higher doses of radiation on "the body" of a real creature, or even on an individual cell! The bullet point consists of speculation atop speculation, and damages the credibility of the rest of the article. Tempshill 23:23, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Guess now I have the facts I need to supply for my claims added into the link section. --Korpo

Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --Korpo

 * Nonsense, what kind of study said that? You may want to look into Petkau effect. Kwantus 17:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

 * Which studied a single effect in a single cell in isolation. In a total-system view, the linear dose/response curve holds true. Dan100 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

IAEA papers
I think the article comes off too much on the side of opponents of DU usage, and downplays the evidence against its danger by falsely implying that such evidence comes only from the US and UK. I'd consider the International Atomic Energy Agency one of the more reliable sources of such information, and they claim that DU has little if any health risks. They're also hardly known as a US ally, being of the principal critics of the US's handling of the Iraq thing. Their information page about DU can be found here:. In particular, see their answer to the question "Is DU a health hazard", here: (the conclusion is "no"). --Delirium 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Edited to add this information (while not removing the other information). --Delirium 22:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hrmm, having only glanced at it, that report seems to deal specifically with Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf war, not other wars where the DU exposure may be higher... Evercat 22:55 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Oops sorry I hadn't seen the second page. OK. Fair enough. Evercat 22:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Link 3 above no longer works; the IAEA site apparently has been reorganized. --Alan Nicoll 19:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Other reasons for critizism, use of Uranium in history, non-fissibility, etc.
Moved this here because it's style is non-NPOV. Besides interesting information it contains blatant lies.

“Some of us believe that this issue is a red herring, and US military use of depleted uranium is condemned for exactly the same reasons as napalm, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel flechette munitions were decades ago: a not-inconsiderable number of European intellectuals hate America and will seize upon anything whatsoever that they can imagine a way to criticize in order to create a controversy where none existed before.”

 * This is highly speculative. Also, wikipedia should not express "our" opinion.

''“Note that uranium has long been known to be less toxic than lead; uranium compounds were used commonly in glazes for pottery in Europe for more than one hundred years (if you collect antique earthenware or pottery, you may have some in your collection--look for pottery with a deep red, orange, or burnt umber glaze, dating from before 1940), because it was known to be less toxic than lead. Uranium salts were also once added to decorative glassware to give the glass an iridescent gold or green appearance; this glassware is called Annagruen or Annagelb glass in Germany, or "vaseline glass" in the US.”''

 * Information about the toxiciy is welcome, though i think the historic use of uranium salts in glasses should fits better on the page about.

''“To the extent that uranium demonstrates toxicity, it acts as a heavy metal toxin similar to lead or mercury, differing principally in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys first and begin causing damage there rather than in the central nervous system (and it is quite capable of killing you, just as mercury or lead is). Depleted uranium is not especially radioactive (it is what's left after the fissile isotopes are removed for use in nuclear power or nuclear weapons) and does not seem to present any significant radiological hazard. As a heavy metal toxin, tungsten is considerably more poisonous than uranium.”''

 * DU has about 40% the radioactivity natural Uranium. Nobody every claimed that there was a danger of nuclear fissions with DU.

Wikipedia should not try to make one side look silly by showing false or silly arguments for that side. — Hokanomono 09:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

amount of U235 still present
The artical states there is about 0.2% U235 left in the "depleted uranium". I have other sources that state 0.3% so how sure are we of this number.

Natural uranium is about 0.71% U235 so this leaves us with 0.2/0.71 = 28% approximately. 0.3% U235 yeilds 42%

The artical states 60% of the natural radioactivity is still present. Is this in fact the case?

From http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/index.cfm, "Most of the Department of Energy's (DOE) depleted uranium inventory contains between 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent uranium-235". I don't have a source handy, but I recall that DU has about half the radioactivity of natural uranium. Most of the reduced radioactivity is from the removal of U-234. Even pure U-238 is radioactive, but my understanding is that the chemical toxicity is more important than its radioactivity. pstudier 05:20, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Mods to section on ISOTOPES. This needs review!

Broken link to "Uranium Proliferation Nice Joke"

Clarification of the term "depleted"
Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

By half life we should get something like this:

Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238:

Isotope      half life     half life            relative percentage     radioactivity

Pu239           24,300       0.00054             183,868 Pu242          373,000       0.00835              11,979 Pu244       80,800,000       1.80842                  55 U232              68.9       0.0000015        64,847,605 U233           159,200       0.00356              28,065 U234           245,500       0.00549              18,200 U235       703,800,000      15.75201                   6 U236        23,420,000       0.52405                 191 U238     4,468,000,000       1.00000                   1

From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

Eg pure   100.0% U238                               = 1.000 Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035   3.5% more Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015  1.5% more

So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

Clarification of the term "depleted"
Note: THis is a repeat of the former post which si all screwed up thanks to reflowing the text.

Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

By half life we should get something like this:

Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238: From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

Eg pure   100.0% U238                               = 1.000 Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035   3.5% more Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015  1.5% more

So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

I believe it depends on the refinement process used, although I have never heard of a separation process (in the West at any rate) that has contamination of 20%-60%. TDC 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

In this context, depleted means that all the U-235 which can be economically separated from the uranium has been, and thus the depleted uranium left is waste. The term was never intended to imply that there is no radioactivity left. Typically depleted uranium is about half as radioactive as natural uranium, because it is also depleted in U-234. pstudier 02:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Major Re write Needed
After casually observing this article for a few weeks, I think I can safely say that it needs some serious revision work. All major peer reviewed studies performed on the health impacts of DU and their use in combat have all come back and said the same thing, there is no noticeable risk. This includes studies from lab settings, Kosovo, and Kuwait. After reading this article one would most certainly not get that impression.

I will rewrite sometime within the next week, and put it up for comment.

TDC 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems that traces of U236 have been found in depleted uranium used by US forces in Yugoslavia (we'd need to find the source). U236 is formed by neutron capture by a U235 atom, which can only happen in nuclear reactors. It would thus seem that, at least for some time, the USA have used nuclear waste to build these ammunitions. Nuclear waste can also contain traces of Plutonium, which is extremelly toxic (chemically, that is). This alone qualifies depleted Uranium ammunition as a dangerous and harmful thing. Rama 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have the reference handy, but I recall that nuclear fuel used to be reprocessed in the US, and the extracted uranium re-enriched, leaving DU with traces of U236 and Plutonium. These traces do not add significantly to the radioactivity of DU.  pstudier 21:02, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

 * They probably do not, but traces of plutonium can be enough to chemically comtaminate rivers, for instance. The chemical nuisance of plutonium is such that it makes its radioactivity a joke danger in comparison... Rama 21:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag?
I have just removed the NPOV tag. It was put there a few days ago by an anonymous user without it being clear why on this page. Perhaps it was related to the section on Health concerns. Did the user feel it is too biased towards supporting the adverse health concerns camp or too biased against the opposite camp. Perhaps it is for some completely different reason. Who knows.

I have therefore assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was just trolling. Apologies in advance if it was genuinely meant, but if you put it back then please make the reason clear here. Then at least we will know what to discuss to address it. --Jll 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted link
I deleted the link because it is blatant propaganda. Can anyone substantiate these pictures? pstudier 05:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * "Your Tax Dollars at Work" courtesy of  Bushflash.com

 * It was quite off topic anyway. What do you mean by "substantiate these pictures" ? Rama 06:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The video implies that DU caused these babies to be grotesquely deformed, which I doubt. pstudier 08:06, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

 * Scientifically, I would not rule this out, since Plutonium, besides being fissile and radio-active, is highly chemicaly toxic; quasi-undetectable traces could lead to this kind of effects, if they contaminate tap water and such (I will try to better document the issue of Plutonium traces in depleted Uranium originating from nuclear waste).
 * However, as far as this very link is concerned, I think the deletion what quite adequate; this site harldy qualifies for scientifically serious, its layout is poor and real information is hidden in a sea of rants; shocking and sensational picture do no good to a rigourous appreciation of reality, and to finish, I must say I am not quite keen to lining to films. A serious text from the ICRC or the UN Nuclear Agency, for instance, would be better by orders of magnitude. Rama 09:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be interesting to address most questions which can be asked. As far as I've observerd, most uninformed people (legitimately) associate Uranium with fission and radioactivity. They should be told that the most current isotope of Uranium is stable. Levels of radioactivity are indeed very low, certainly lower than what people would recieve form the natural background in the Swiss Alps or in Britany. The idea that the military make shells with these leads to the impression that there is a nuclear explostion of some kind (there is a pyrophroic explosion but it is purely chemical, of course).

However, Uranium still is a heavy metal, and as such, while not being a chemically violent poison, still is not healthy (now, is going to war a healthy thing to so ? ...). And depleted Uranium is not 100% pure; if it comes from nuclear waste, it will contain traces of Plutonium, which is a chemical poison (though not the most deadly which one can find). Usually, press releases from the military adress the issue in terms which minimise the risks of the "heavy metal" nature (quite legitimately), but also make no mention whatsoever of the potentially toxic impureties in depleted Uranium (see for instance).

However, it can be proved that some of the Uranium used for military ammunition comes from nuclear waste (notably the presence of U236 isotope makes it quite clear), and traces of Plutonium have indeed been found :
 * Press Release UNEP/86 of the UN, 16/02/2001
 * Press Release UNEP/86 of the UN, 14/03/2001

To conclude I would say that:
 * Plutonium is probably not as toxic as often populary believed
 * When evaluating toxicity of Pu, cases of death or cancer are studied, but long-term genetical impacts are (obviously) not. These are often quite subtil and could lead to surprises. The highest effects seem to manifest themselves at the third generation.
 * The UN itself, will not frentic, still does sugest caution; quote (from one of the reports above) :
 * Regarding contamination points, if a child were to ingest small amounts of soil, the corresponding radiological risk would be insignificant, but from a biochemical point of view, the possible intake might be somewhat higher than the applicable health standard. "There are still considerable scientific uncertainties, especially related to the safety of groundwater", said Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of UNEP's Depleted Uranium Assessment Team.  "Additional work has to be done to reduce these uncertainties and to monitor the quality of water."

 * Eventually, nature has a priority on theory. If we should find an unnaturally elevated rate of genetical problems in populations subject to contact with depleted Uranium ammunition, we'd have to reconsider the theory. (this sounds obvious, but reciting the basis can do no harm).

Sorry for the lengthy rant and thanks for your patience ! Rama 10:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the UN
FT2, please provide the source from the UN, (I assume you mean the IAEA) that supports your latest addition. TDC 20:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Will do, out of town today, will do when I get back. If I forget nudge me on my talk page.
 * Later: OK, here they are. They are sourced off the official UN website:

(1) 1996 sub-committee resolution deeming DU a "weapon of mass or indiscriminate destruction" and "incompatible" with international human rights and law:

Sub-Commission resolution 1996/16 The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto, Recalling General Assembly resolutions 42/99 of 7 December 1987 and 43/111 of 8 December 1988 ... Concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction both against members of the armed forces and against civilian populations, resulting in death, misery and disability ... Concerned also at repeated reports on the long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and upon the environment ... Concerned further that the physical effects on the environment, the debris from the use of such weapons, either alone or in combination, and abandoned contaminated equipment constitute a serious danger to life ... Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law ... Believing that continued efforts must be undertaken to sensitize public opinion to the inhuman and indiscriminate effects of such weapons ... Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security. 1. Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate '''effect, in particular ... weaponry containing depleted uranium;'''
 * 34th meeting, 29 August 1996, adopted by 15 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions

Notes:
 * 1) Concern is raised of the alleged use of weapons. But no qualifier is used as to their status, they are resolved "incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law".
 * 2) Depeleted uranium is singled out as one of very few of these potentially in active use, along with nuclear weapons napalm and biological weapons.

(2) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, uncontested statement that DU is prohibited and contravenes a UN resolution "the American and British, had used depleted uranium-based munitions, which were prohibited throughout the world, and contravened the United Nations Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects..." "It had been found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious impact on health: the number of cases of leukaemia had increased considerably, as had the incidence of foetal deformities. Paragraph 23 of the report submitted by the Secretary-General to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities regarding peace and international security (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27) indicated, inter alia, that weapons containing depleted uranium had destructive effects which could not be measured, which lasted long after the end of a war, which caused needless suffering, and which damaged the environment. The soil, water and atmosphere remained unusable for generations."
 * Committee on the rights of the child, 19th session, 482nd meeting, Sept 23 1998.

(3) A further report was issued on August 2002 by the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights based upon their study of the dangers of DU, which the panel had already labeled a weapon of mass destruction. The report is cited on many reputable sites, but unfortunately google doesnt index the UN's own archives, so I haven't found a link yet:

 * Update, found link:  under "Documents of charter based bodies by body, 54th session, other" E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38 Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering

"The August 2002 report by the UN Human Rights Commission-Sub 2 stated that the use of DU shells and bombs by US-UK in four countries (Iraq, Bosnia, FRY, and Afghanistan) violated the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the Nuremberg principles of 1945, the Charter of the United Nations, the Anti-Genocide Convention of 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocol I and II 1977, the Convention Against Torture, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the UN Human Rights Commission resolution of 1996."

Kinetic energy
"it is 70% denser than lead thus each round is heavier, and therefore carries more kinetic energy"

If you fire a lead round and then a depleted uranium round from the same weapon, the same amount energy is conveyed to each round, ie they carry the same amount of kinetic energy. I assume this means that they have the same impact energy. So, the only reason to use depleted uranium rounds (apart from the fact that they incinerate tank crews) is that their higher density allows a smaller, more aerodynamic shape. Is my reasoning correct? --Commander Keane 11:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * that, and the reduced friction in the air, and the fact that uranium powder spontaneously burns in the air... Rama 11:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's also important to think of the volume of armor that needs to be moved out of the way before a slug can strike something vital. While there's often a significant mass of air to move out of the way as well, denser projectiles will apply more pressure to the armor, apply their momentum to a smaller cross-section of the target, and penetrate more effectively.  I recommend rewording the quoted passage, but I'm not quite sure how. (edit) From the Sabot page: For reasons why a smaller diameter projectile is desirable, see external ballistics and terminal ballistics.--Polyparadigm 21:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up
An awful lot of irrelevant, unsubstantiated/unreferenced, PoV material had crept into this article. I researched thoroughly and cleaned up accordingly. Dan100 15:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * The vast majority of this article seems to be based on this article. I am not familiar with the paper, as I am not from the UK, but I have a feeling it isn't exactly NPOV. Anyone want to check it out? Bonus Onus 02:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * The vast majority? What on earth are you talking about?—Christiaan 11:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, maybe not the vast majority, but quite a bit of the GWS/health sections seem to be built using the content of that article as a foundation. I'm just wondering if we should be using a more NPOV source. Bonus Onus 21:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Is any of it cited? —Christiaan 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I dont think so, but from reading the article, i immediately recognized many of the points on this page. Bonus Onus 01:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Length of health concerns section
IMHO, the section about the link to gulf war syndrome is much too long, especially since the evidence seems pretty inconclusive. It should definately be mentioned that some people have suggested a link, but what's here is overkill. Bonus Onus
 * I disagree. Apart from it not being a section on "Gulf War Syndrome" (of which sickness from depleted uranium is just one apsect of) I think it needs to be expanded and far more comprehensive. I think it's pretty woeful what we have at the moment considering all the material out there, the controversial nature of the topic, and the implications.—Christiaan 10:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the first study (UNEP), I read the section on depleted uranium, and though it does say that it has gotten into the environment (air, groundwater), it makes no specific claims of health effects, only cites "potential health risks". Therefore, I don't think this is an acceptable source for information on health effects. The study does mention that the WHO was going to address DU health effects, so perhaps we should cite that study instead. Bonus Onus 23:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

MAPW
Christiaan, the reason I removed your edit was: The MAPW is an organization with clear political motives. It says it in their name: "the prevention of war". It is obvious from their website that they are a leftist organization with anti-nuclear motives, and their advice is somewhat lacking in legitimacy. It doesnt really seem that relevant that some fringe group of doctors in australia told the australian government that they should not send soldiers to iraq. Had this been an actual study, I would have left it. But it isn't. It is a fact about the opinion of a certain group on the issue, and a very minor group at that. Bonus Onus 03:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The use of depleted uranium is a political issue. None of your comments seem to bare any relation to the encyclopedic value of the passage. —Christiaan 20:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So should we include every single thing every single group says about depleted uranium, no matter how illegitimate their claims are? If a company that makes DU says it is completely safe, should we mention that without any qualifications? --Bonus Onus 02:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that you've argued to remove public comments by the MAPW but you're now wanting to include some superfluous unattributable remark by an unknown journalist. Readers will already be well aware there is no conclusive evidence in regard to sickness from depleted uranium. —Christiaan 11:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * And what remark would that be? Bonus Onus 21:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depleted_uranium&diff=11787223&oldid=11784530 —Christiaan 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I am in favor of the inclusion of that last sentence because i think it puts the MAPW's announcement in better context. However, I'd still rather have this paragraph removed altogether. It doesn't add anything to the topic, and offers no original information about the health effects of DU. Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is the entire Gulf War Section about a personal vendeta?
Christiaan, is this entire section about your little friend Ken? Most of the evidence cited is horseshit, and cannot be backed up. Even a cursory look at this so called evidence reveals it is full of holes (mustard agents, and GWI vets mortality). How much of this garbage are we going to allow in the article over a personal misplaced grudge? TDC 19:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is Ken? Bonus Onus 21:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * TDC has psycological problems I wouldn't get too cuddly with him. —Christiaan 21:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, he doesn't seem too crazy. He's just a heavy-duty republican, lol. Still don't understand the Ken thing though. Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah, like I said, he has psycological problems. Ken's a good friend of mine. —Christiaan 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me as if what we have here is section of an article grossly oversized considering the marginal nature of its “evidence” and “experts”. Your simple dismissal of my statement leads me to believe that there is more to my allegation that you will admit to. Let me guess, did your Iraqi “minders” take you and lil Ken on a tour of Iraqi hospitals to tug on your heart strings, right before you went to guard the AA sites?

This section is going to get a severe trimming. TDC 16:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you all mind stopping provoking each other like five years old ? It is really unnecessary for the discussion of the article. Rama 17:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry but I feel that personal motivations matter a great deal. TDC 17:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to figure out who this mysterious naysayer is - Dr Richard Guthrie? Also, I noted when I googled some of the words some the Gulf War Syndrome section that someone has been posting that section of the wikipedia Depleted Uranium on a number of "lefty" bulletin boards with words to the effect of "see, here's the truth about DU!" I think TDC should question the motivations of adding it, as well as weigh the possiblity that the article currently gives more emphasis to the theories of one naysayer than the clinical findings of entire health organizations.

According to the Royal Society report that he is quoted in the article from:

The Royal Society concluded that exposure to DU on the battlefield may cause a doubling of the usual risk of death from lung cancer among a small group of soldiers in extreme circumstances, for example, if they inhale large amounts after their vehicle has been struck by a DU penetrator or if they have been working for long periods of time inside and around contaminated vehicles. []

And with regards to the Threat to Civilians, the report said the following: What threat does DU pose to civilians? "The Royal Society concluded that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children for example. In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long-term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies. Localised areas of DU contamination provide a risk, particularly to young children who may for example put soil in their mouths, and areas should be cleared of visible penetrators and DU contamination should be removed from areas around known penetrator impact sites." []

Shouldn't we change the bias of the presentation of the Royal Society's report on DU? Right now it skews it to sound like there is NO recorded link between DU and Cancer. That is simply false and an eggregious misreference of the widely known and widely distributed report. Please correct this.

Quotes from the Royal Society Report
Due to the lack of experimental data, the approach taken was to estimate the typical levels of exposure on the battlefield over a wide range of scenarios, and the worst-case exposures that individuals are unlikely to exceed. These estimated values have then been used to assess the potential health risks from radiation. The report also considers epidemiological studies of occupational exposures to uranium in other situations as an independent source of information on the risks of inhaling DU particles, although it recognises that the parallels may not be precise.

Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime.

The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population.

Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable.

Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years.

This report was referenced to support this edit:

''The mainstream media, however, has consistently shed light on stories of DU related illnesses and birth defects from the children of soldiers recently returning from conflicts involving Depleted Uranium. As early as September 3, 2000, CNN reported that Dr. Asaf Durakovic was treating cases of soldiers contaminated with Depleted Uranium in the First Gulf War of 1991. Time Magazine has featured several articles about the growing concern over the dangers of Depleted Uranium, one about NATO soldiers on January 9th, 2001 More recently, The New York Daily News' Juan Gonzalez reported in a front page article about the war's littlest victim, referring to the newborn daughter of a soldier suffering from Gulf War Syndrome who was born with three fingers missing. The soldier in question tested positive for Depleted Uranium.  -		 Moreover, a comprehensive study by The Royal Society, a fellowship of over 1400 distinguished scientists, researchers and professors, found that Depleted Uranium poses serious health risks for civilians as well as soldiers. ''

DV8 2XL 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

More data
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1383/1740/1600/New%20Image.jpg

The poster presentation attached was displayed in Calicut, Kerala, at the recent 37th Annual Conference of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India. http://www.snmindia.org/snmi2005.htm

title: Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol

Undated anonymous question
is it just me or did l2tpd.org vanish?

Yes, the company hosting that domain lost interest and a domain hijacker took it. Check out the news at https://sourceforge.net/projects/l2tpd/

I just noticed that. Those hijackers are really completely sickening. :-( Anyway, I just noticed this page mentions that PPTP is a Microsoft technology, while the PPTP Wikipedia page says it's invented by Cisco and licenses by Microsoft. What's true?

L2TP/IPSec
Thought that a section on these would be useful. Unfortunately, I forgot to sign in, so it's not attributed to me. If you have questions, my username follows. If anyone has a nice picture of the full encapsulation (IP-ESP-UDP-PPP-L2TP-Private IP-TCP/UDP-Data), it would help understanding. Scorpiuss 17:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Doesn't PPP follow L2TP? Iglam 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to consider MTU when implementing L2TP. Doesn't sound too informative, kind of like "be sure to consider the steering wheel while driving a car". Should be explained, or removed.

The correct name is L2TP/IPsec, not L2TP/IPSec (see RFC).

L2TP/IP ?
Is it common to establish L2TP-tunnel over a completely insecure channel, i. e. IP without IPsec over it? I just wonder whether SOHO routers really implement IPsec when connecting to ISP in L2TP mode. At least, they don't support MPPE encryption for PPPoE and PPTP tunnels (for performance reasons, I suppose), so it's very doubtful that they will do IPsec encryption, even the most simple one, 3DES. Moreover, the throughput in L2TP mode can be in fact higher than in PPPoE / PPTP modes, which can be a direct indication of cryptographical absence. 213.234.235.82 (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Section on Windows implementation is just wrong
The section on the Windows L2TP implementation seems to be a reworked copy of the "IPsec without L2TP" section of this document here: http://www.jacco2.dds.nl/networking/vista-openswan.html. As such it is describing raw IpSec-RA or IpSec-L2L, (not "L2TP without IPsec") which has absolutely nothing to do, of course, with L2TP. (140.232.0.70 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

What is the purpose of this section anyway? I suggest we remove this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:865:A88E:A820:0:0:0:19E (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! IMHO, I agree with removal or rewrite. It seems pointless, especially as Windows Server has supported L2TP without all the shenanigans apparently required or hinted at by this article. It's just FUD. Seems like more of a diatribe over a getting a narrow L2TP server to work with Windows Vista, without all the other support structure of L2TP in the real world (IPSEC). Not sure it needs to be here, very few people would do this.

Jgwinner (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming page for better accuracy
I am planning to rename this page to "Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol", as this is the correct title. Any comments? Web-Crawling Stickler 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which OSI model layer??
I have a book that says L2TP resides in the data-link layer (layer 2) of the OSI. Than this page says its in the session (layer 5) layer. Also, on the wikipedia article on the OSI Model, it is listed in the transport layer (layer 4). I am pretty confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.225.206 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a somewhat old post and I don't see any mention of OSI in the current version of this article. Still I thought i'd address it.
 * The problem is that OSI was based on a fixed idea of how a network should look. Real networks don't fit that model but authors often see the need to force them to fit anyway. Tunneling protocols are especially difficult because from the perspective of the user of the tunnel they are a link layer protocol but from the perspective of the network carrying the tunnel they are an application or transport layer protocol (TCP/IP doesn't really have presentation or session layers). Plugwash (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Road Warrior-style?
The page reads:

The help info does say that IPsec without L2TP is not to be used for Road Warrior-style VPNs. They advise to use L2TP/IPsec or PPTP for that.

What on earth is a Road Warrior-style VPN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.218.162 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed contents copied from IBM Infocenter
This edit added contents taken from IBM's Infocenter and is therefore removed:

 * http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaiy/rzaiyl2tpsupport.htm
 * http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaiy/rzaiyvoltunnel.htm
 * http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaiy/rzaiycomptic.htm
 * http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaiy/rzaiycomptrd.htm
 * http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaiy/rzaiymultihop.htm

Fontoponto (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

USRobotics?
This article says that PPTP is from US Robotics, while PPTP says it's from Microsoft, 3Com, and others.

Which is correct? --MathsPoetry (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol. 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/20090127060833/http://cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0t/12_0t1/feature/guide/l2tpT.html to http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0t/12_0t1/feature/guide/l2tpT.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207084942/http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l2tpext-charter.html to http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l2tpext-charter.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Layer 2 tunnelling protocol provides a layer 2 tunnel through which layer 1 is passed.
So the statement in the lead paragraph that "it provides a tunnel for Layer 2" is confusing because it is wrong. Layer 3 is a tunnel for layer 2: layer 2 is a tunnel for layer 1: layer 1 is a point to point protocol. Let's think of some other ways of saying it correctly: "The protocol provides a layer 2 tunnel", "The protocol provides a tunnel through which layer 1 is passed"

Internet Protocol is not a provider for IP packets. TCP is not a provider for Transmission Control Packets. The Layer 2 protocol isn't a "provider" for layer 2: it's a 'protocol' for layer 2: it's a "provider" for layer 1 and/or layer 3.

 ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’, and that's Wikipedia editing. But for Wikipedia readers it's helpful if we stick to the common meaning of words and terms. 1.159.36.184 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol


text:
Cathubodua

Cathubodua (Katu-bodwā, "battle crow") is the name of a Gaulish battle goddess.

Etymology
Cathubodua is the name of a Gaulish goddess derived from a single inscription at Mieussy in Haute Savoie, eastern France, which actually reads ATHVBODVAE AVG SERVILIA TERENTIA S L M. The text's restitution as Cathubodua depends on the assumptions that an initial C has been lost and that the personal names ATEBODVAE, ATEBODVVS and ATEBODVI in 3 other inscriptions in modern Austria and Slovenia are unrelated.

In the Gaulish language, the name Cathubodua is believed to mean battle-crow. Etymological lexical forms reconstructed in the University of Wales' Proto-Celtic lexicon, suggest that the name is likely to be ultimately derived from the Proto-Celtic *Katu-bodwā, a word that could be interpreted as ‘battle-fighting’. Nonetheless it is this second element *bodwā which appears to be the Proto-Celtic root of the later form of the name Badhbh. The masculine form *bodwos ('fighting') developed in Gaelic into Bodb.

She appears to be similar to the Irish goddess Badb Catha; under this identification, Badb Catha would foresee the fate of warriors before the battle.

title: Cathubodua


text:
First Words

First Words was a Canadian hip hop group, consisting of Halifax beatmaker Jorun Bombay, DJ STV and emcees Above and Sean One (Sean McInerney). The group released two albums and an EP, as well as contributing tracks to several hiphop compilations, and was active from 2004 to 2008.

History
In 2004, First Words recorded the song "Down With Putting Raps Down", which was featured on the National Campus and Community Radio Association's Dig Your Roots hip hop compilation album.

Also in 2004, First Words released a 16-track self-titled album of original material, and received a positive review in Exclaim!. The album was Deadbeats Entertainment's first release, kicking off the label's focus on local music. Their pre-release peaked at #1 on the top 30 and hip hop charts of Fredericton, New Brunswick's CHSR.

In 2005, Dead-Beats Entertainment released the four-track seven-inch vinyl recording, "Jorun's Way/Sean One's Way". One of the tracks, "No Artificials", was a rap by First Words, and was also included on a compilation album of underground hiphop.

In 2008, First Words released "Anti-Mixtape Movement", available only on vinyl, which featured four tracks from their 2008 album "Cheaters". Cheaters featured guest appearances from various other hiphop artists.

Working separately, in 2007, Sean One released a compilation entitled "Full of It" which charted at #1 in Canada,. In 2005, Jorun released a compilation entitled "Jorun's Way" which featured artists Classified, Spesh, and Ghettosocks, among others. Both men continue to regularly issue new releases.

Discography

 * 2004 : First Words
 * 2008 : Anti-Mixtape Movement E.P.
 * 2008 : Cheaters

title: First Words


text:
Oliveros

Oliveros may refer to:

Places

 * Oliveros, Santa Fe, a town in Argentina

People with the surname

 * Chris Oliveros, founder of the publishing company Drawn and Quarterly
 * Déborah Oliveros, Mexican mathematician
 * Pauline Oliveros (1932–2016), American accordionist and composer

Other uses

 * Oliveros cigars, a brand manufactured by Boutique Blends Cigars since 1996

title: Oliveros


text:
Wharenui

A wharenui (literally "large house") is a communal house of the Māori people of New Zealand, generally situated as the focal point of a marae. Wharenui are usually called meeting houses in New Zealand English, or simply called whare (a more generic term simply referring to a house or building). Also called a whare rūnanga ("meeting house") or whare whakairo (literally "carved house"), the present style of wharenui originated in the early to middle nineteenth century. The houses are often carved inside and out with stylized images of the iwi's (or tribe's) ancestors, with the style used for the carvings varying from tribe to tribe. Modern meeting houses are built to regular building standards. Photographs of recent ancestors may be used as well as carvings. The houses always have names, sometimes the name of a famous ancestor or sometimes a figure from Māori mythology. Some meeting houses are built at places that are not the location of a tribe, but where many Māori gather; typically, a school or tertiary institution with many Māori students.

While a meeting house is considered sacred, it is not a church or house of worship, but religious rituals may take place in front of or inside a meeting house. On most marae, no food may be taken into the meeting house.

History
Wharenui have been built in New Zealand for hundreds of years. By the 15th century, wharenui became more elaborately carved, and large enough that one or two central pou (posts) were needed to carry the weight of the structure. In the 18th century during the voyages of James Cook, he and his crew sighted wharenui which were 10 metres in length, and entirely carved.

The introduction of steel tools by European settlers allowed the size and scale of wharenui to increase, and wharenui built from the 1840s onwards became the direct antecedents of the style and structure of modern wharenui. Taiporohenui, constructed at Manawapou (near modern day Mokoia in South Taranaki) in the 1850s, was 27.6 metres long and 9.2 metres wide. The size and scale of Taiporohenui symbolised the opposition of Māori to European settlement and colonisation of traditional lands. Te Kooti oversaw the construction of three massive wharenui during the New Zealand Wars. The first, Tanewhirinaki, which was completed in the late 1860s and located at Waioeka, was painted in black, pink and white. Construction of Te Whai-a-te-Motu at Ruatāhuna began in 1870, and was eventually completed in 1888. The third, Te Tokanganui-a-Noho, was constructed at Te Kūiti in 1873, after Te Kooti retreated behind the border of the King Country. These wharenui were used for meetings, church services and accommodation. After the construction of Te Tokanganui-a-Noho, very few wharenui were created for decades, and those which were built were simpler and uncarved.

By the 1920s, marae and wharenui had become a symbol of Māori cultural identity, especially among people who were landless. Āpirana Ngata was a proponent of reviving wharenui as a symbol of Māori identity and mana. Waikato Tainui leader Te Puea Hērangi was a large proponent of the re-development of marae in the country, leading to the construction of wharenui at Tūrangawaewae in Ngāruawāhia and Te Puea Memorial Marae, the first urban marae in Auckland.

During the 19th and early 20th century, missionaries and Christians condemned whakairo depicting genitalia, and removed penises of ancestors from the carvings on wharenui. Opposition to carvings depicting genitalia began to cease in the 1940s.

Structure

The building often symbolises an ancestor of the wharenui's tribe. Different parts of the building represent body parts of the ancestor.

 * The koruru at the point of the gable on the front of the wharenui can represent the ancestor's head.
 * The maihi (diagonal bargeboards) signify arms; the ends of the maihi are called raparapa, meaning "fingers".
 * The tāhuhu (ridge beam) represents the backbone.
 * The heke or rafters signify ribs.
 * The word poutokomanawa (for the internal central column) literally means the "post that supports the heart".

Other important components include:
 * The amo, the vertical supports that hold up the ends of the maihi
 * The poupou, upright carved panels that line the inside walls of the verandah and interior
 * The kūwaha or front door, along with the pare or door lintel
 * The paepae, the horizontal element on the ground at the front of the wharenui, which acts as the threshold of the building

The marae ātea is a very important open space directly in front of the wharenui, which is used to welcome visitors onto the marae and serves as an area on which to debate issues.

Protocols
Meeting houses are the centre of any cultural, business, or any affair which is relevant to the iwi as a whole.
 * Typically, visitors to the village would be allowed to stay in the meeting house at night.
 * Ceremonial occasions, including wedding and funeral typically take place in the meeting house or on the marae ātea in front of the house.
 * Strict rules of conduct generally govern the use of the wharenui, which is considered the domain of unity and peace. If anyone should become irate or physically violent, they would be asked to leave the house until they can control their temper.

title: Wharenui


text:
General insurance

General insurance or non-life insurance policy, including automobile and homeowners policies, provide payments depending on the loss from a particular financial event. General insurance is typically defined as any insurance that is not determined to be life insurance. It is called property and casualty insurance in the United States and Canada and non-life insurance in Continental Europe.

In the United Kingdom, insurance is broadly divided into three areas: personal lines, commercial lines and London market.

The London market insures large commercial risks such as supermarkets, football players, corporation risks, and other very specific risks. It consists of a number of insurers, reinsurers, P&I Clubs, brokers and other companies that are typically physically located in the City of London. Lloyd's of London is a big participant in this market. The London market also participates in personal lines and commercial lines, domestic and foreign, through reinsurance.

Commercial lines products are usually designed for relatively small legal entities. These would include workers' compensation (employers liability), public liability, product liability, commercial fleet and other general insurance products sold in a relatively standard fashion to many organisations. There are many companies that supply comprehensive commercial insurance packages for a wide range of different industries, including shops, restaurants and hotels.

Personal lines products are designed to be sold in large quantities. This would include autos (private car), homeowners (household), pet insurance, creditor insurance and others.

ACORD, which is the insurance industry global standards organization, has standards for personal and commercial lines and has been working with the Australian General Insurers to develop those XML standards, standard applications for insurance, and certificates of currency.

Types of general insurance
General insurance can be categorised in to following:
 * Motor Insurance: Motor Insurance can be divided into two groups, two and four wheeled vehicle insurance.
 * Health insurance: Common types of health insurance includes: individual health insurance, family floater health insurance, comprehensive health insurance and critical illness insurance.
 * Travel insurance: Travel insurance can be broadly grouped into: individual travel policy, family travel policy, student travel insurance, and senior citizen health insurance.
 * Home insurance: Home insurance protects a house and its contents.
 * Marine insurance: Marine insurance covers goods, freight, cargo, and other interests against loss or damage during transit by rail, road, sea and/or air.
 * Commercial insurance: Commercial insurance encompasses solutions for all sectors of the industry arising out of business operations.
 * Accident insurance: Accidents of different types are possible at any time, at any place and in case of any person or object. Persons and vehicles are more prone to accidents causing injuries and damages.
 * Fire insurance : In order to get the asset, stock or machines insured against fire, a proposal form is to be filled in and submitted to the insurance company. The insurance company examines the proposal with due regards to various factors and the periodical amount of premium is fixed.
 * Theft insurance
 * Property insurance
 * Aviation insurance
 * Livestock insurance
 * Crop insurance

Market trends
The United States was the largest market for non-life insurance premiums written in 2005 followed by the European Union and Japan.

title: General insurance


text: User talk:64.60.154.249

title: User talk:64.60.154.249


text:
Talk:Rolls-Royce Armoured Car

Years, please. Mikkalai 22:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've added some months and days too :o).--MWAK 1 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Operation
Where is the driver seated, for example? No qwach macken (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rolls-Royce Armoured Car


text:
Black Book

Black Book, Black book or Blackbook may refer to:

Film

 * Black Book (film), a 2006 Dutch thriller film by director Paul Verhoeven
 * Black Book (soundtrack), soundtrack of the 2006 film
 * The Black Book (serial), a 1929 American drama film serial
 * The Black Book, alternative name for the 1949 American drama film Reign of Terror, set in the French Revolution
 * The Black Book (2018 film), a 2018 Portuguese film directed by Valeria Sarmiento
 * The Black Book (2023 film), a 2023 Nigerian film starring Richard Mofe-Damijo

Non-fiction

 * The Black Book (list), the list produced in 1940 of people to be arrested by the Gestapo following a planned Nazi invasion of Britain in the Second World War
 * The Black Book (Morrison book), a 1974 book by Toni Morrison
 * The Black Book of Capitalism, a 1998 book that assigns blame for what it argues are historic repressions to capitalism
 * The Black Book of Capitalism: A Farewell to Market Economy, a 1999 book written by Robert Kurz
 * The Black Book of Colonialism, a 2003 book documenting evils that it attributes to colonialism
 * The Black Book of Communism, a 1997 book that catalogs crimes that it argues resulted from the pursuit of communism
 * The Black Book of English Canada, a 2001 book detailing evils that it attributes to English-speaking Canada
 * The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan, a 2000 dissident publication
 * The Black Book of Poland, a 1942 summary of the Nazi German atrocities in occupied Poland published by the Polish Ministry of Information
 * The Black Book of Polish Jewry, a 1943 statement of the Association of Jewish Refugees and Immigrants from Poland on the Holocaust of Polish Jews
 * The Black Book of Soviet Jewry, a 1944 compilation of documentary reports about the actions of Nazis against Jews in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust
 * Black Books (Jung), a posthumous collection of Carl Jung's private journals published in October 2020
 * Berlin Black Book owned by Prince of Albania, compiled during World War I by Germany and allegedly containing long list of British perverts, described in the 1918 article by Harold Spencer published by Noel Pemberton-Billing
 * Talaat Pasha's Black Book, or The Remaining Documents of Talaat Pasha, a 2008 book by Murat Bardakçı
 * The Black Book, a catalog of American precancel stamps
 * Black Book of Pushbacks, a 2020 book about abuse of migrants in the Balkans compiled by Border Violence Monitoring Network
 * Graphics Programming Black Book, a 1997 book by Michael Abrash

Creative writing

 * The Black Book (Durrell novel), a 1938 novel by Lawrence Durrell
 * The Black Book (Pamuk novel), a 1990 novel by Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk
 * The Black Book (Rankin novel), a 1993 novel by Scottish writer Ian Rankin
 * Black Book (novel), a 2006 novel derived from the 2006 film Black Book
 * The Black Book (Patterson novel), a 2017 novel by James Patterson and David Ellis
 * BlackBook, an arts and culture magazine

Manuscripts

 * Black Book of Carmarthen, one of the earliest surviving manuscripts written entirely in Welsh
 * Yazidi Black Book, one of the two holy books of the Yazidi religion (Kurdish language)
 * Black Book of Clanranald, on Clan history, literature and poems

Television

 * "The Black Book" (Garfield and Friends), a 1989 episode of Garfield and Friends
 * "The Black Book" (Rebus), a 2006 episode in the Inspector Rebus series
 * Black Books, a British sitcom
 * Blackbook - TV talk show focused on African Americans; created by WFIL-TV in Philadelphia between 1969-1971

Other uses

 * Black Book (National Auto Research), a vehicle appraisal service
 * Black Book (gambling), a nickname for a list of individuals blacklisted from casinos
 * Black books of hours, Flemish illuminated manuscripts, created on black dyed vellum.
 * Black Book (video game), an adventure role-playing video game
 * A traditional or Wiccan name for a grimoire, the personal guide book to ritual kept by every practicing witch, or other text instructing in magic
 * Black book, a slang term for a graffiti artist's notebook or sketchbook
 * Black books, records of Lincoln's Inn, a barristers association in London
 * The Black Book (album)

title: Black Book


text:
Ai no Uta (Strawberry Flower song)

"Ai no Uta" (愛のうた) is a song recorded by Strawberry Flower for Japanese TV commercials of the GameCube game Pikmin. It was written and produced by band member Takeshi Tomozuma. The song was later included in the "Pikmin World" soundtrack album, in three different versions. It is from the point-of-view of the Pikmin creatures.

"Ai no Uta" became one of the biggest singles in Japan in 2002, reaching #2 on the Oricon Weekly charts and managing to be one of the best-selling singles in the country that year.

Concept and creation
Ai no Uta originally came about as a result of Nintendo enlisting Gan Matsumoto, credited Takeshi Tomozuma, to make music for the upcoming Pikmin. Tomozuma first came up with Ai no Uta, enlisting singer Tomoe Watanabe to contribute vocals and forming Strawberry Flower. The song was not actually featured in the game itself, instead being used as part of the game's marketing campaign. The song is a pop ballad driven by guitar and harmonica, with soft vocals by Tomoe Watanabe. Lyrically, the song talks about the Pikmin game from the Pikmin’s point of view, describing their actions, sacrifice, and devotion to the game’s protagonist, Captain Olimar, although neither Pikmin nor Captain Olimar are mentioned by name on the song’s main version.

The music video was shot September 26, 2001.

Reception
Ai no Uta was well-received by children and adults alike. A Famitsu writer praised the lyrics and the story of the song, discussing how the story evoked sympathetic imagery of office workers.

Initial shipments of the record exceeded 200,000, with 30,000 additional being ordered by 7 December 2001. By 20 December, it had exceeded 460,000 units sold, and by June 2002 900,000.

"Ai no Uta" debuted at #2 on the Oricon Weekly Singles Chart, which is the highest the song reached.

Other versions and appearances
A cover of the song was released in France with the title "Vos Meilleurs Amis - Songs of Love". It was featured in Pikmin 2 as an Easter egg. It was included in the 2008 crossover fighting video game Super Smash Bros. Brawl. It was also used to advertise the 2013 Pikmin 3 release.

Track listing
Retrieved from Oricon:
 * 1) Ai no Uta (愛のうた)
 * 2) Namida ga Afureta (涙があふれた)
 * 3) Ai no Uta (愛のうた) (Instrumental)

title: Ai no Uta (Strawberry Flower song)


text:
User:Damionbak

Yo, what's up! I am Damionbak. That's all everyone needs to know. I am into writing information down like an encyclopedia.

My favorite shows and most contributed works are:
 * Power Rangers
 * Charmed
 * Angel
 * Strange Days At Blake Holsey High
 * Smalliville

title: User:Damionbak


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Chain

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:12, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

D-Chain
Not notable. Should be deleted, and possibly recreated if he ever becomes notable. Thue | talk 22:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete --NewAtair Δ 22:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * D-Lete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 04:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable vanity article. And, although it has no bearing on the vote, it must also be said that the kid is wack. --b. Touch 15:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Chain


text:
Swedish Net University Agency

The Swedish Net University Agency (Myndigheten för Sveriges Nätuniversitet) is a Swedish government agency coordinating IT supported higher education distance learning courses, offered by 35 different universities and university colleges in Sweden, in a project called the Swedish Net University.

The Swedish Net University Agency is not a university in itself, and thus does not offer distance courses or programmes of its own. The agency simply offers a database of courses and programmes available. Most of the courses are taught in Swedish, but there are also courses available in English. Like all publicly funded higher education in Sweden, there is no tuition fee.

The agency also supports the development of distance learning courses, and promotes the exchange of experiences in the field.

The office of the Swedish Net University Agency is located in Härnösand in northern Sweden.

title: Swedish Net University Agency


text:
User talk:Freddiekruger

JFW | T@lk  22:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Karada 23:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Freddiekruger


text:
User:George.

Hi :))

let me present myself.

I am: a Lebanese, a Christian by God's grace (Catholic ), a computer programmer, a Wikipedia fan.

End quote.

title: User:George.


text:
Synesis

In linguistics, synesis is a traditional grammatical/rhetorical term referring to agreement (the change of a word form based on words relating to it) due to meaning.

A constructio kata synesin (constructio ad sensum) is a grammatical construction in which a word takes the gender or number not of the word with which it should regularly agree, but of some other word implied in that word. It is effectively an agreement of words with the sense, instead of the morphosyntactic form, a type of form-meaning mismatch.

Examples:
 * One hundred dollars is the cost of rent.

 * If the band are popular, they will play next month.

Here, the plural pronoun they and the plural verb form are co-refer with the singular noun band. One can think of the antecedent of they as an implied plural noun such as musicians.

Such use in English grammar is often called notional agreement (or notional concord ), because the agreement is with the notion of what the noun means, rather than the strict grammatical form of the noun (the normative formal agreement). The term situational agreement is also found, since the same word may take a singular or plural verb depending on the interpretation and intended emphasis of the speaker or writer:

 * The government is united. (Implication: it is a single cohesive body, with a single agreed policy).
 * The government are divided. (Implication: it is made up of different individuals or factions, with their own different policy views).

Other examples of notional agreement for collective nouns involve some uses of the words team and none.

Although notional agreement is more commonly used in British English than in American English, some amount is natural in any variety of English. American style guides give advice, for example, on notional agreement for phrases such as a number of, a lot of, and a total of. The AMA Manual of Style says, "The number is singular and a number of is plural" (thus the number of mosquitoes is increasing but a number of brands of mosquito repellent are available) and "The same is true for the total and a total of" (thus the total was growing but a total of 28 volunteers have submitted applications [not *has submitted]). This is the same concept that is covered by Chicago style (16th ed) at "5.9 Mass noun followed by a prepositional phrase", but not all of the relevant nouns (including "number") are mass nouns.

title: Synesis


text:
Irene Dailey

Irene Dailey (September 12, 1920 – September 24, 2008) was an American stage, film, and television actress.

Biography
Dailey was born in New York City, the daughter of Helen Theresa (née Ryan) and Daniel James Dailey. Her brother was actor Dan Dailey.

Dailey received the 1966 Drama Desk Award for her work in Rooms, and played Nettie Cleary in the original Broadway production of the Tony Award-winning drama, The Subject Was Roses (1964). Other Broadway credits included Idiot's Delight, The Good Woman of Szechwan, and You Know I Can't Hear You When the Water's Running.

In 1969, Dailey joined the cast of the long-running CBS serial The Edge of Night as Pamela Stewart, the vindictive wife of Nicole Drake's ex-husband Duane who stabbed Stephanie Martin to death. In 1971 she won the Sarah Siddons Award for her work in Chicago theatre. Dailey later joined the cast of Another World in 1974 as the fourth actress to play the role of family matriarch Liz Matthews. While other members of the Matthews family were written out in the early 1980s, she remained a major character on the show until the summer of 1986, returning in November 1987 on a non-contract basis, being prominently featured in the show's 25th and 30th anniversary shows, and making her last appearance in May 1994.

Her work on Another World was recognized with a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Actress in 1979; two of her fellow nominees were her AW costars Victoria Wyndham and Beverlee McKinsey. The meddling "Aunt Liz" was first a rival with Rachel for the love of Mac Cory, and later became his secretary. As Liz mellowed, Dailey was allowed to show her flair for comedy, but as the Matthews family dwindled onscreen, she became a sounding board for various friends and family and a well-meaning busy-body. After the death of Liz's great niece Sally, Dailey was written out, but the following year was brought back due to popular demand. The Matthews family had a brief resurgence, and Liz became a confidante for her great niece Olivia. After that storyline ended, Liz continued to appear at special events, most notably at Ada Hobson's memorial and at a Cory Publishing gathering which coincided with the show's 30th anniversary. After her final appearance in 1994, she appeared on Broadway in a revival of the Strindberg play The Father, receiving excellent notices for her performance as Frank Langella's nurse who must manipulate him into a straitjacket after he goes insane. Her film credits include No Way to Treat a Lady (1968), Five Easy Pieces (1970) and The Amityville Horror (1979).

According to Dailey, she was a self-described lifelong Democrat and a practicing Catholic. She never married nor had any children with the reason being that she simply never had a desire to become those things.

Dailey died on September 24, 2008, of colon cancer at a healthcare facility in Santa Rosa, California, according to Arleen Lorrance, a longtime friend. She had been a resident of Guerneville.

Selected discography

 * 1965: Of Poetry and Power: Poems Occasioned by the Presidency and by the Death of John F. Kennedy (Folkways Records)
 * 1967: The Wick and the Tallow By Henry Gilfond (Folkways Records)

title: Irene Dailey


text:
National Family Partnership

The National Family Partnership (NFP), formerly known as the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, was created in 1980 by parents across America in response to the rising level of youth drug use. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. The Partnership also assists in forming parent groups in all 50 States by providing education to parents about the health risks of drug use. Nancy Reagan was founding and honorary Chair of the National Family Partnership.

The mission of the National Family Partnership is nurturing full potential. The National Family Partnership works to accomplish its mission through parent training, parent networking and sponsoring the National Red Ribbon Campaign. "[Ev]ery year about 90,000 schools across the country participate" in the Red Ribbon Campaign. The Red Ribbon Campaign is an opportunity to send a consistent "Anti-Drug" message to young people.

The comedian and actress, TV personality star Carol Burnett first referenced the NFP in an article about her daughter's drug use in a popular magazine ("Good Housekeeping"?), introducing thousands of parents to a nationwide effort at NFP's beginning. The first meeting in Washington, D.C. brought together concerned parents from nearly all states in the union, to educate themselves about the harmful effects of marijuana and other common drugs of use and abuse by young people, and raised awareness of the proliferation of misleading information about these drugs in the schools and health agencies. While in Washington, parents lobbied their U.S. senators and representatives for stricter legislation regarding marijuana possession in any amount and stricter penalties for drug dealers. Many gained the confidence to overcome living in the shadows with a young drug user in the family to speaking out about the new studies on the hazards of drug use upon youth in particular. Parent groups sprung up in communities across the nation to change the public perception that marijuana use was "acceptable," by educating others about the weed's effect upon the brain and reproductive organs and its long-lingering effects.

title: National Family Partnership


text:
User:LockeShocke/Four forces

Musing to myself one night at a friend's house, I recalled the theory of the four forces - that is, the four governing forces of the universe. Then I thought to myself, Why not try to relate them to my life? That is, give them a human analogue. It began as a joke, just a diversion. It's become somewhat of a philosophy ever since, or maybe just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is a work in progress. And keep in mind that it is only meant to apply to me.

Weak
The weak nuclear force is responsible for several atomic phenomenon. I related to friendship. That is, sometimes an overwhelmingly powerful force, sometimes the cause of decay. Not as strong as the strong force below.

Strong
The strong nuclear force binds the parts of atoms to themselves within the nucleus. I relate it to family: the tie that binds. Stronger than the weak force, friendship, at least for me.

Electromagnetic
Everyone's familiar with the concept of magnetism. Staying with the cliche, I compared it to love, an attraction between two people.

Gravity
Gravity is the yet-unexplained force of attraction between two objects. Or, on Earth, the tendency of objects to fall to the ground. Inspired by my love of Modest Mouse, I related gravity to a ubiquitous melancholy that haunts my life.

title: User:LockeShocke/Four forces