text:
Ikhwan

The Ikhwan (الإخوان, the Brethren), commonly known as Ikhwan man ata'a Allah (إخوان من أطاع الله, Brethren of those who obey God), was a Wahhabi religious militia made up of traditionally nomadic tribesmen which formed a significant military force of the ruler Ibn Saud and played an important role in establishing him as ruler of most of the Arabian Peninsula in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Ikhwan first appeared around 1902. They were the product of clergy who aimed to break up the Bedouin tribes and settle them around the wells and oases of the sedentary Arabian populations, mainly those of the Najd, on the grounds that nomadic life was incompatible with the strict conformity of their interpretation of Islam. The newly Islamicized Bedouin would be converted from nomad raiders to soldiers for Islam. The cleric/teachers of the Ikhwan were dedicated to their idea of the purification and the unification of Islam, and some of the newly converted Ikhwan rebelled against their emir Ibn Saud, accusing him of religious laxity. The conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 brought all of the current Saudi state under Ibn Saud's control. The monarch then found himself in conflict with elements of the Ikhwan. He crushed their power at the Battle of Sabilla in 1929, following which the militia was reorganised into the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

Background

According to scholar David Commins, around 1913, the same time that Ibn Saud regained al-Hasa, there emerged in obscure circumstances a zealous movement known as the Ikhwan (Brethren). Salafi ulama went out to domesticate nomadic tribesmen, to convert them from idolatry to Islam and to make them soldiers for Saudi expansion. The Ikhwan became zealous religious warriors united and motivated by idealism more than allegiance to Ibn Saud. The result was a rebellion by some of the Ikhwan against their creator, who crushed them and in so doing reasserted dynastic power over the religious mission.

The arid, remote region of Najd had been ruled by the House of Saud and religiously dominated by the Islamic revival movement known as Wahhabism (with some exceptions) since the mid-18th century. Wahhabism was a movement of townspeople, and traditionally thought of the beduin nomadic herders as "bearers of religious ignorance, jahiliyyah, and thus as raw material for conversion". To remedy this situation, the beduin were gathered in agricultural settlements known as hijra, where they were to be taught farming, crafts or trades and how to be "proper Muslims". There were 52 hujar (plural of hijra) by 1920 and 120 by 1929. Ikhwan were known for wearing white turbans rather than the traditional Arab Kufiya (roped headcloth), and for covering their faces when they encountered Europeans or Arabs from outside Saudi Arabia. The pacification of the tribesmen was not entirely a success, and the former nomads continued their raids, which now had religious sanction and were bloodier than before. Unlike nomadic raiders, the Ikhwan earned "notoriety for routinely killing male captives" and for sometimes putting "children and women to death". From 1914 to 1926 Ibn Saud and Wahhabi religious leadership allied with him urged the Ikhwan to not attack or harass other nomads and townspeople of the Najd. From 1926 and 1930, the conflict was more serious, and effectively a rebellion and attempt to overthrow Ibn Saud by a minority of the Ikhwan leaders. With the conquest of the Hejaz in 1925, Ibn Saud had completed his territorial expansion and negotiated border agreements with his neighbors, the British protectorates of Transjordan, Iraq and Kuwait. Some Ikhwan leaders wanted to continue the expansion of the Wahhabi realm into these states, and launched raids into them. This left Ibn Saud responsible for military attacks originating in his country and facing British military power if he did not stop them.

Differences with Ibn Saud
In general the Ikhwan wished Ibn Saud to pursue strict Wahhabi policies, while Ibn Saud sought more flexibility to adapt "policy to local circumstances" and maintain political stability, especially in newly conquered lands that had few wahhabi believers. Wahhabis supported forced conversion of Shia in al-Hasa, while Ibn Saud was willing to tolerate their practices. After conquest of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina—which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries and developed a pluralistic religious culture—Ibn Saud sought to "reassured the Muslim world that a new Saudi regime would not disrupt the pilgrimage", while the Ikhwan "pressed for strict adherence to norms" such as forbidding smoking tobacco and worshiping at shrines. In 1926 meeting of Ikhwan leaders at al-Artawiya, found Ibn Saud at fault for "not upholding the sharp separation of belief and infidelity". Among his misdeeds were allowing two of his sons to travel to "idolatrous lands" (Faisal to England and Saud to Egypt); allowing (what they believed to be) idolatrous nomads from Iraq and Transjordan to pasture their animals in "the abode of Islam"; leniency towards Shiites; the introduction of modern inventions (car, telephone and telegraph); and (what they considered) illegal taxation of nomadic tribes. Ibn Saud attempted to mollify the Ikhwan by submitting their accusations to the religious scholars ('ulama'), who agreed on the need for more strict policies towards non-Wahhabi subjects, but also affirmed that only the ruler (Ibn Saud) had the right to declare jihad.

Weaponry and combat style
The Ikhwan, being irregular tribesmen, relied mainly on traditional weapons such as lances and swords and sometimes old fashioned firearms. Usually, they attacked in the forms of raids which is a style Bedouins had always used in the deserts of Arabia. Those raiders travelled mainly on camels and some horses. Typically, every enemy male captured was killed by cutting his throat.

Raids on Transjordan
Two notable raids on Emirate of Transjordan, a British protectorate, occurred in 1922 and 1924. In August 1922, around 1,500 Ikhwan camel mounted fighters led by Eqab bin Mohaya, attacked Transjordan. According to one account they retreated before they reached their objective—the capital Amman. According to another account, they massacred the inhabitants of two small villages before being decimated by British armoured cars and planes.

In August 1924, another larger Ikhwan force, numbering around 4,500 raiders, travelled 1,600 kilometres from Najd to come within 15 kilometres of Amman before being spotted and attacked by British RAF aircraft. The Ikhwan army reportedly suffered 500 dead. Without the help of the RAF, Amman would most likely have been captured by the Ikhwan.

Revolt and defeat
By 1927, the Saudi forces had overrun nearly all of the central Arabian Peninsula. The few areas not under Saudi control had treaties with Britain. Ibn Saud was smart enough to realize that it would be folly to provoke London and forbade further raiding. This edict did not sit well with the Ikhwan, who believed that all non-Wahabbis were infidels.

In 1927 tribesmen of the Mutayr and Ajman rebelled against the ulama's judgment and the authority of Ibn Saud and engaged in cross-border raids into parts of Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The destruction of an Iraqi police post provoked an international incident by violating the Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone between Iraq and Arabia established by Great Britain and Ibn Sa'ud (1927–28). The British bombed Najd in retaliation. A congress convened by Ibn Saud in October 1928 deposed Ibn Humayd ad-Dawish, and Ibn Hithlayn, the leaders of the revolt. The Ikhwanis also raided Kuwait in January 1928.

With the Ikhwan leadership defiant, Ibn Saud took to the field to lead his army, which was now supported by four British aircraft (flown by British pilots) and a fleet of 200 military vehicles that symbolized the modernization that the Ikhwan abhorred. After suffering a major defeat at the Battle of Sabilla (30 March 1929), the main body of Ikhwan surrendered to British forces on the Saudi-Kuwaiti frontier in January 1930.Ibn Saud completed the military defeat of the Ikhwan rebels "with a deft mix of punishment and rehabilitation" to avoid antagonizing the bulk of Ikhwan who had agreed with many of the rebels' complaints but remained on the sidelines. Rebel leaders Duwish and Ibn Bujad "died in captivity in Riyadh." Their tribal followers were punished with the confiscation of "the lion's share of their camels and horses." The remnants of the irregular Ikhwanis formed units in Ibn Saud's new military institution, initially known as the White Army (from the name of their white thawb, robe), later called the National Guard.

1979 Grand Mosque seizure
Insurgents who participated in the 1979 Grand Mosque seizure in Mecca referred to themselves as the 'al-Ikhwan', thus in their eyes justifying the seizure as a means to liberate the Kingdom from what they deemed as 'Western apostasy'. They were led by Juhayman al-Otaybi, an echo of his father's charge in 1921 against the former Saudi king. The seizure and its aftermath led to the increased power and influence of conservative clerics over Saudi political, cultural and social life, putting an abrupt end to the comparatively moderate outlook (at the time) of the kingdom towards modernization and Westernization.

title: Ikhwan


text: User talk:67.182.190.2

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

title: User talk:67.182.190.2


text:
Talk:Pavlos Sidiropoulos

Untitled
article doesn't list any reasons he's notable. He seems to be a decently notable Greek rock musician (6700 Google hits), but this is not mentioned in the article. Can somebody explicate? Meelar (talk) 04:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate Biography
This article is full of inaccuracies. I just made some changes, most importantly the date of birth and the reason of why he is noted (which naturally is not the only reason). I am planning on rewriting it (and the Greek Wikipedia article) when I find the time. --DimTsi 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pavlos Sidiropoulos


text:
Kagema

Kagema (陰間) is a Japanese term for historical young male sex workers. were often passed off as apprentice kabuki actors (who often engaged in sex work themselves on the side) and catered to a mixed male and female clientele. For male clients, the preferred service was anal sex, with the client taking the penetrative role; homosexual fellatio is almost unmentioned in Edo period (1603–1867) documents.

who were not affiliated with an actual kabuki theatre could be hired through male brothels or teahouses specializing in. Such institutions were known as lit. 'teahouse' (陰間茶屋). typically charged more than female sex workers of equivalent status, and experienced healthy trade into the mid-19th century, despite increasing legal restrictions that attempted to contain sex workers (both male and female) in specified urban areas and to dissuade class-spanning relationships, which were viewed as potentially disruptive to traditional social organization.

Many such sex workers, as well as many young kabuki actors, were indentured servants sold as children to the brothel or theater, typically on a ten-year contract. could be presented as (young men),  (adolescent boys, about 10–18 years old) or as  (female impersonators).

This term also appears in modern Japanese homosexual slang.

title: Kagema


text:
Talk:The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)

reverting to past editions
simply reverting to past edition as you may not agree with some edits, note you also revert to the wiki note:" This Star Trek-related article or section describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007) "

Virtuoso
Virtuoso is an episode in which the Doctor has the focus of the story. It should be included in the list of episodes in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the point of listing every single episode that focuses on the Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So people can go through the list and watch every episode if they need to know a lot about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what I'm doing so I'm tucking this in here. Just wanted to point out that in Season 6 ep 12 "Blink of an Eye," (the episode just before this one) the Doctor mentions that he had a son while on a three year away mission (actually a much shorter time—hours or days) to a planet that existed in a sped up reality. I assume the boy was adopted, but little more was mentioned of it. I'd say this is worth putting in the main article since is talks about his relationships and eventual wife. JPhilipW (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge??
Should this be merged with Emergency Medical Hologram?--Sonjaaa 04:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Psychonaut 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging completely. Cburnett 15:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be merged, either. If there weren't enough information about EMHs in general at that article, I'd be in favor of merging, but when both topics are well-developed, a merged article would be awkward. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well we could keep both articles, but make them a bit more distinct. Moving all the "history" of the various incarnations of the program over to The Doctor (Star Trek), seeing as it's basicaly all the same "person", remove the Star Trek character stamp from this article, and just leave it a clean technical article explainingn what the Emergency Medical hologram technology is, without going into the "life history" of all the known incarnations, if you know what I mean. Likewise all the technical stuff about the EMH should be moved from The Doctor (Star Trek) to there. That would be my suggestion anyway. Make one article only about the EMH technology, and the other only about the character known as "the doctor" (and just put a "see also" link between them) who just happen to be a EMH, much like Tuvok just happens to be a Vulcan without going into detauls about what a Vulcan is in the same article, or giving the life history of all known Vulcans in the Vulcan article. Hopefully this "rant" makes enough sense to get my opinion across. --Sherool 18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sherool...more concise, remove duplicate information, wikilink the two articles. --MikeJ9919 06:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can agree with swapping content as apporiate and having two more specific articles. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with merging. Emergency Medical Hologram is the technology, but The Doctor has evolved into a unique character that, in my opinion, ought to be separate. --Kitch 16:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was about to remove the edit flag, but someome beat me to it (got a edit conflict when I clicked save). I do however think the Emergency Medical Hologram need a bit of editing to remove most of the "doctor" references (unless they serve a purpose). I'll see if I can find the time one of these days (unless someone beat me to that too :P). --Sherool 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the articles are not merged, the information about the EMH in Star Trek: First Contact does not belong in this article, and should instead be in the EMH article instead, as the Voyager Doctor, though the same in appearance, is characteristically distinct from Robert Picardo's role in First Contact.--Jeffro77 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I removed Sherool's comment on this talk page and pasted his bit from the other talk page so that discussion is happening in only one talk page. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed
The article states about "Please state the nature...":

 * "His program was later modified so that he was no longer forced to say this phrase when he was activated, though for a time he kept using it anyway because he could not think of anything better to say, and he did not like the awkward silence while he waited for people to tell him why he had been activated."

I got the impression that he was always programmed to say this, but as his higher faculties came online he was able to will the phrase to stop--as his personality developed, it became more likely he would want to do so. Which is correct? Alksub 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember an aside in either season one or season two where the Doctor is activated, and says the phrase and a crewmember (I think B'Elanna) says something like "I thought we made it so that you didn't have to say that any more". I'll rewatch seasons one and two if nobody else remembers this piece of dialogue. Furby100 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In "The Cloud" B'Elanna asks why he always says it, states that she knows a bit about holoprogramming and offers to reprogram him not to say it (around 21 minutes and 20 seconds into the episode). In "State of Flux" the Doctor is activated by Chakotay (around 38 minutes and 30 seconds into the episode) and does not say his catchphrase. When he is activated in "Projections" (right at the start of the episode) he does say it, so this could be when he decided to change it back. However, this occurs in what is essentially the Doctor's dream, so may not 'count'. In "Tattoo", the Doctor is activated by Kes (about 12 minutes and 25 seconds into the episode), says the phrase and then Kes asks him why he still says it when 'we' changed his program so that he wouldn't have to say it any more. He then says that he restored it because he became uncomfortable thinking of new ways to 'break the ice'. Since Kes refers to the Doctor's program being changed and B'Elanna talks about holoprogramming, I think the article is correct as it stands. If there are no objections, I shall remove the disputed statement template and refer to "the Cloud" and "Tattoo" in the article.Furby100 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a doctor, not a X"
It'd be fun to put together a complete list of references to "I'm a doctor, not a X", by not only The Doctor but also all of the other Trek doctors. joo-yoon 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one of those at Memory Alpha's page, "I'm a doctor, not a..." Mr. Granger 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Backup Copies of the Doctor?
I was thinking this section could be rewritten, after all there was technically only one backup copy. And it did take place 700 years in the future (or to be technical, even further then that, according to the last few minutes).

So the fact the backup copy was real was only due to a story being presented to people living far, far in the future. Can the backup copy really be considered canon at all?

I propose 'In episode Such and Such, a backup copy of the Doctor was a vital plot device but blah blah something something, potential future'.

Lots42 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think it's (another...) misunderstanding by the writers. What happened when the mobile emitter was shut off away from Sickbay? The program wasn't lost. What I think was meant was, the master file was a sole copy, & when Doc went into the emitter, it was copied; IIRC, the worries were what happened if all power was lost. And many of those worries were expressed by the Doctor: "What happens to me if the emitter is destroyed?"--i.e., am I dead? Or do I reboot from my last bookmark? (Which, BTW, would've been a really interesting story angle...)

Name "Canon"?
The article says, "In the series finale, one future is shown where he has chosen the name "Joe." The events of that episode involve changing history, however; thus this name cannot be considered canonical." Clearly, one cannot say that the Doctor's name is Joe throughout the series, but I don't see any problem with the alternate future being in canon.
 * Alternate futures are by their very nature, not canon. However...if Brannon Braga or Jeri Taylor or somebody with power says in an interview 'Yeah, such and such was always canon' then that is different. Lots42 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Backup Copies
The 'Backup Copies' section as it is seems to be original research. Or maybe I am completely misunderstanding it...it definitely needs citations of -some- sort; it's just that it's vey difficult to understand it. Limited memory? What? Lots42 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like I discussed this topic in the past and had forgotten it, but my concerns still stand. Saying 'Voyager never reproduced the doctor because of limited memory' just does not make sense. Lots42 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A Friendly Note
The Doctor on the Star Trek: Next Generation movie is not the same character as the Voyager Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to be. According to the episode where the Voyager Doctor meets his creator, all other EMH's using his appearance work in mines now. --86.87.28.191 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? But they are not the same entity. Though the same actor plays them both, Captain Kirk is not the same as his mirror-universe counterpart, both are different characters. Lots42 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

edits

 * This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (July 2008)
 * This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail which may only interest a specific audience. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones. (January 2009)
 * This Star Trek-related article describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.
 * The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007)

I understand the desire to post as much detail as possible however maybe we should try to keep this an easy read for the general public; especially considering the above notes. In depth, excessive and heavy details are better suited at memory alpha. When someone just backs up to an early edition because they do not like being edited or disagree, it returns the article to, according to wiki, an undesirablly intricate, heavily detailed and redundant piece. "Its an article not a documentary" ;-) 66.229.212.172 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposing Enemies
IIRC, there was an episode where Paris and the Doctor faced intruders. The Doc was having an ethical conondrum because he didn't want to hurt the intruders, yet wanted to save his friend. Someone came up with the idea of him simply sedating the intruders and it worked wonderfully. If I am remembering this correctly, I think this is worthy of being added in. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other EMH's?
This is the redirect target for Emergency Medical Hologram as well. I think there should be 1) References to other EMH's, like the one on the Prometheus and the one based on Dr. Bashier, etc. or 2) Break out a disambiguation page of the various EHM's, with this page referring strictly to the EHM Mark 1. Nutster (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is no need to direct all the EMH info here. As is clearly established, the Doctor's EMH is clearly his own character. Heck, he has civil rights and everything while the other EMHs do not. Lots42 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jetal
As I understood it, the problem with Ensign Jetal is that the Doctor chose a -person- to die. Not that he chose Harry because he was more of a friend. I hope I am making myself clear. Lots42 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could have watched that episode and come to the conclusion you have. It is explicitly stated several time that it is because Harry was more of a friend. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, your conclusion would be completely out of character for the Doctor. But Voyager has done bad writing (in my opinion) before. Lots42 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

“Species”
Surely the “Species” of such a character should be ‘Artificial Intelligence’, or something along the lines of a software algorithm, rather than the mere physical manifestation (holography is only the means of presentation/appearance)? One reason for retaining this distinction is to differentiate between other AI characters which are not holograms (Holly (Red Dwarf) comes to mind) — Lee Carré (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor (Star Trek) → Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) – The title 'Doctor (Star Trek)' is too ambiguous. Eladkse (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment "Doctor" is excessively ambiguous, "The Doctor" is highly ambiguous referring to Star Trek. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest instead EMH (Star Trek) or Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager), as that is much more clear, since there's only one major EMH character in Star Trek, whereas there are several Doctors, and they are frequenly called "Doctor" or "The Doctor". There is only one major character by this moniker on Voyager however... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply There have been many EMH's, and although this article also covers them, it is not about EMH in general, so it should not be called "EMH (Star Trek)". Eladkse (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * New suggestion I agree with specifying Voyager, so I now suggest "The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)". He is definitively not called just "Doctor" - that is only used when talking directly to him. When referred to in third person (even when he is part of the discussion) he is called "The Doctor". Eladkse (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "The Doctor" refers to a person, whereas "Doctor" refers to the occupation. Ng.j (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally "The" is only used when referring to works (see for instance WP:THE). There's a precedent for not including the with articles like Joker (comics), Doctor (Doctor Who), etc. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Change Have changed the request to 'Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)'. It clarifies who we are talking about, even if 'The' cannot be used. Eladkse (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as he appears 'only' in that ST series. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportThis is a difficult one to work as idealy 'The Doctor(ST:V)' would do fine as then everyone is sure who we mean but as said above we cant use "the"...which complicates matters slightly. However maybe we are just all being far too pedantic. I think the majority of people would understand it as 'Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) as it is now being proposed to be changed too.  B a i l o 26  01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support There are many "Doctors" in Star Trek (McCoy, Crusher, Bashir; each one being "the" doctor at the specific series), but only one in Voyager. Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed redirect
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who about that thing it says in the link, and to link to this Doctor in a hatnote. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Number   5  7  12:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) → The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) – Per Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who) - this character is known as "The Doctor" too. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment EMH can certainly be considered to be "the Doctor" within the context of the "lost in space", so to speak, Voyager spaceship but, I would imagine that, when the Voyager crew got in contact with another civilisation with medical facilities, he would be generally regarded as another medical doctor. He is one of many starfleet doctors al-be-it a long way from home.  The web address reads: https://www.startrek.com/database_article/the-doctor but the text reads:  "STARFLEET BIO-FILE: "Doctor""
 * GregKaye 19:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per what I have seen of script exerpts at: site:www.chakoteya.net/voyager/ doctor.  GregKaye 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Support this article is about the Voyager's EMH, not some generic doctors from the TV show, so "The" will indicate this isn't about "doctors from STV" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Is there a The Doctor in the house? The Doctor would then appear from thin air. And per Greg Kaye. Randy Kryn 4:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Doctor Who RM. SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Similar to the Doctor Who issue, this is about a particular character, not the general concept of a doctor. WP:THE says that we should include "the" when the inclusion of the term affects the meaning, and it does in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129021803/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/1245.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/1245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Voyager absences
Prime Factors Non Sequitur Resistance Day of Honor Goojrr (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC) - REPLY to Goojrr's comment: (sorry, the reply button seems not to work) I do not understand what Goojr tried to say, could someone explain?

title: Talk:The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)


text:
Futureculture

Future Culture, also known as  FUTUREC  or "FC" is a mailing list founded in 1992, that is concerned with online and internet culture. It currently resides on listserv.uark.edu.

History
The mailing list was created in 1992 on a public Unix system by Andy Hawks, then in high school. After a fallout with the rest of the group, Andy destroyed the list of members early 1993 and took the list offline. Various subscribers have since continued the Future Culture list at a different address and the list moved from nyx.cs.du.edu, ending up on the UAFSYSB mainframe (fondly remembered as "list dad") at the University of Arkansas under the care of Clark Wilson Moore (June 27, 1953 - November 3, 2018) who sent and signed his emails "Alias Datura" ("list mom"). See here for a brief overview of the early days of Future Culture.

Andy Hawk's original Future Culture Manifesto, also known as the Bubble Manifesto, can be considered to be an historical document reflecting the state of mind at the dawn of the Internet, specifically the aspect of "virtual culture". This document refers to key movements in the early 1990s that have led to – and have strongly influenced – how society thinks about and uses technology and specifically the internet.

The pre-corporate Internet was envisioned as a place of massive movement of thought; the manifesto documents this and approaches the ideas of transformation: from an economic-based world to an ideas-based world. As it turned out, this did not happen, but the idea was documented here and referred to repeatedly in a variety of different media, especially by academics working in Internet-related fields of study. (cf MIT Media Lab (mediaMOO), as well as a variety of people working under the general rubric of PostModernism.)

Although many of the Future Culture list were vehemently opposed to making the archives of their postings publicly available, a selection of the emails that were exchanged during the initial period found their way to the web. These archived messages give a good impression of the topics that were typically discussed.

An indication for the popularity of Future Culture during its hey-days, is that the group was mentioned on Billy Idol's album Cyberpunk.

A document listing a variety of influences this mailing list has had on other groups or that carry on in the same memespace is found on Marius Watz' FutureCulture page. This page also serves as a link to a memorial for Michael Current, who was among the most active members. His death was a huge shock for the Future Culture community. An in-depth coverage of the events leading up his death, a hoax suicide threat, and the painful aftermath has been written by a Future Culture's member. This sad event was also an inspiration for Mia Lipner's sound art piece Requiem Digitatem.

FutureCulture had part in 'liberating' the William Gibson work Agrippa: A Book of the Dead.

The list has been mentioned in at least two books introducing the reader to the world of cyber cultures, Victor J. Vitanza's CyberReader 2/e, "an anthology of readings on the new technologies and their impact on social and individual identities" and in Jonathan Marshall's ethnography of the mailing list Cybermind, Living on Cybermind

It is mentioned as "landmark event" by Andrew Edmond in his article "Pioneers of the Virtual Underground: A History of our Culture" in issue 1, 1997 of The Resonance Project.

Purpose
Future Culture was originally created as a forum for the discussion of the integration of fringe technology and fringe culture; a mix of the digital underground and the new countercultures such as modern primitives, rave culture and post punk technologists. The William Gibson quote "The street finds its own uses for things" was an appropriate guideline for the topics on the list.

The topic of the mailing list, as stated in the accompanying, but rarely updated, Future Culture FAQ is to be a forum for "real-time discussion of cyberculture/new-edge/technoculture" which is a deliberately vague description of its contents.

However, as time passed, the topics on the list drifted and the people on the list have, instead, formed a rather tight community discussing everything, including the stated topics, but more often personal and everyday things.

At the best of times, one could say that the Future Culture mailing list defines the future culture. At the worst of times, one can say that it's a mailing list of continuous thread drift that is often concerned with retrocomputing, film and book reviews, and idle conversation. As if stopping in at one's local pub...

Community
The FC mailing list has an overlapping memespace and membership with a few other online communities, in particular the Leri mailing list, the NEXUS-GAIA crowd, the Collective and the Cybermind mailing list.

Members of FC were also involved in the production of the first Internet opera, Honoria in Ciberspazio. The libretto was an example of collaborative writing initiated by a student at the Computer Writing and Research Lab at The University of Texas at Austin. Several of the notable members of the FC list are cast as characters in the libretto.

FC members were also active in the MIT Media Lab MediaMOO, were there were notably building bearing the FC mark.

During 1996 and 1997 some 10 members of Future Culture participated in a Web based game called Nomic.

FC'ers are continuing to be active in many other forms of cultural and technological expressions.

title: Futureculture


text:
Princess of Wales Theatre

The Princess of Wales Theatre is a 2,000-seat live theatre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is located on King Street West, in Toronto's downtown Entertainment District. The theatre's name has a triple meaning: it honours Diana, Princess of Wales, with whose consent the theatre was named; it links the building to its sister theatre, the Royal Alexandra, one block to the east, also named – with Royal assent – for a former Princess of Wales; and it recalls the Princess Theatre, Toronto's first "first-class legitimate" playhouse, that stood three blocks to the east until 1931.

History
Ed and David Mirvish built the theatre as a state-of-the-art facility to stage large-scale musicals for long runs. The family's Mirvish Productions owns Toronto's Royal Alexandra, Ed Mirvish (formerly the Canon), and CAA (formerly the Panasonic) theatres. The Mirvish family owned the former Honest Ed's discount store and the Mirvish Village retail district, which are currently being redeveloped.

Construction began on August 6, 1991. The project architect was Peter Smith, of the Toronto firm Lett-Smith. Smith was also responsible for the duMaurier Theatre Centre in Toronto and for the restoration of the Grand Theatre, in London, Ontario.

For the Princess of Wales Theatre, David Mirvish commissioned a series of murals by American abstract expressionist painter and sculptor Frank Stella. The paintings—10000 sqft—cover the auditorium ceiling dome, the proscenium arch, the walls of lounges and lobbies on all four levels of the theatre and the outside back wall of the fly tower. They are believed to comprise one of the largest mural installations of modern times. Stella also designed the decorative fronts of the boxes and balconies and the decorative end-caps of the each seating row. The theatre has seating on three levels—orchestra, dress circle and balcony—with elevator access to all levels and is configured as a traditional 19th century English proscenium theatre. Further, the entire theatre is barrier-free, enabling wheelchair access to all levels — not a common occurrence in Toronto considering the age of many of its theatres. The Princess of Wales Theatre is designed to incorporate both traditional and contemporary design elements.

The theatre opened on May 26, 1993, with a Canadian production of the megamusical Miss Saigon. Subsequent productions in the Princess of Wales have included the musicals Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Les Misérables, Hairspray, Chicago, Oliver!, Cabaret, The Phantom of the Opera, The Sound of Music, and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

A stage production of The Lord of the Rings made its world premiere in the facilities on February 8, 2006, losing money owing to terrible reviews and a lack of public interest. The original stage was gutted and replaced with a complex stage surface that includes three interlocking turntables and 17 independent elevators for this production.

The National Theatre's production of War Horse opened at the theatre on February 10, 2012.

On September 29, 2012, after operating for only 19 years, Mirvish Productions announced a plan to demolish the Princess of Wales Theatre in favour of a multi-purpose complex designed by Frank Gehry and which would include an extensive artwork collection available for public viewing, as well as museums, condominium units, and retail spaces. However, in response to criticism from city planners, Mirvish and Gehry announced a revised plan in May 2014 which would spare the structure.

Notable productions
Productions are listed by the year of their first performance.

 * 1993: Miss Saigon
 * 1995:  Beauty and the Beast
 * 1997: The Importance of Being Earnest, Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story
 * 1998: Slava's Snowshow,  Chicago
 * 1999: The Pajama Game,  Fame,  Les Misérables,  Cabaret, Oliver!
 * 2000:  The Lion King
 * 2004:  The Hollow Crown,  Hairspray
 * 2005: Da Kink in My Hair,  Evita, Les Misérables
 * 2006:  Lord of the Rings
 * 2007:  The Phantom of the Opera,  Sweeney Todd
 * 2008: Twelve Angry Men, The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, The Sound of Music
 * 2010:  Young Frankenstein,  Mamma Mia!,  Legally Blonde,  Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
 * 2011: The Lion King,  Hugh Jackman in Concert,  Chess,  Mary Poppins
 * 2012:  War Horse
 * 2013:  The Book of Mormon, Anything Goes, Les Misérables
 * 2014: The Lion King, The Book of Mormon
 * 2015:  Blithe Spirit,  Titanic, Motown: The Musical, The Phantom of the Opera
 * 2016: If/Then, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder
 * 2017: The Book of Mormon,  Strictly Ballroom,  The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, The Illusionists
 * 2018:  An American in Paris, The King and I, Ain't Too Proud,  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
 * 2019:  The Last Ship, Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, The Lion King,  Cats
 * 2021: Jesus Christ Superstar
 * 2022:  Room, & Juliet, Singin' in the Rain, Mean Girls, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
 * 2023:  Hamilton,  Jagged Little Pill, 42nd Street
 * 2024: Aladdin, Les Misérables,  Wicked

title: Princess of Wales Theatre


text:
Talk:Regular prime

Untitled
Alright, I can't follow exactly what a regular prime is, but I'm pretty sure that 2 is either regular or irregular. Thus, it should appear on one of the lists of the first few fooregular primes. LizardWizard 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * That is a little like asking for a two-sided polygon and trying to distinguish it from a straight line. --Henrygb 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 2 would be regular, FWIW. Charles Matthews 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * But it is not considered either way, in part because of the statement in the article "Historically, regular primes were considered by Kummer since he was able to prove that Fermat's last theorem holds true for regular prime exponents (and consequently for all exponents that were multiples of regular primes)." --Henrygb 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Sloppy, I think. But let's have odd primes only as regular, then. Charles Matthews 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By the definition we give 2 should be trivially regular; the field in question is gotten by adjoining -1 to the rationals (i.e., is the rationals); and its class number is 1. But odd prime is probably best. Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kummer
Isn't Kummer's proof for the first case of FLT, where p doesn't divide any of the three bases, a, b, c? Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jensen
The infinitude of irregular primes wasn't proven by Johan Jensen, but by K L Jensen; see or search Zentrallblatt for the reference, which is: K. L. Jensen, "Om talteoretiske Egenskaber ved de {\it Bernoulliske} Tal" (Danish), published in Nyt Tidsskr. for Math. 26, pages 73--83 (1915). Throwawayhack 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * About this Jensen, I found a genealogy file online with the following content (in Danish, but linkified by me): Kaj Løchte Jensen, født Hjørring 27.2.1893, døbt (Catharinæ) 7.5.; død Risskov 21.12.1932, begr. Hjørring 29.12. Student 1914, cand. phil. 1915. Syg fra 1916 til sin død. I am certain this is the correct person. It says he was ill from 1916 to his death. I speculate that this was mental illness; most likely he was a patient at Jydske Asyl most of his adult life, and died there. /80.71.142.78 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Way too hard to follow
This article is simply way too hard to follow. It would be much better if someone actually made an effort to explain the subject instead of just relying on an intense burst of jargon in the opening sentence that is utterly impossible for the layman to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.109.134 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * That is how sources define regular primes. I think it would be too complicated to try to explain the technical linked terms here, but I have moved the simpler looking Bernoulli number criterion to the first paragraph: . Is that better? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article for laymen. This is a technical article for readers who have some familiarity with algebraic number theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.99.170.188 (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"... way too hard to follow." Agreed. However, since "prime" is easily understood, are we not only one step away (on the "complexity axis", if you will) to begin to wonder about "regular primes" and "irregular primes"? Wikipedia has importance as a bridge for those who do not know, but desire to do so. For that reason alone, "...not for laymen..." seems a sad flag of surrender given the depth of other expository writing herein, cf. Graham's Number, Abelian Algebra, Fermat's Conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.183.75 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

List of irregular pairs sorted by p
These are irregular pairs with odd prime p <= 2069.

3

5

7

11

13

17

19: 11

23

29

31: 23

37: 32

41

43: 13

47: 15

53

59: 44

61: 7

67: 27, 58

71: 29

73

79: 19

83

89

97

101: 63, 68

103: 24

107

109

113

127

131: 22

137: 43

139: 129

149: 130, 147

151

157: 62, 110

163

167

173

179

181

191

193: 75

197

199

211

223: 133

227

229

233: 84

239

241: 211, 239

251: 127

257: 164

263: 100, 213

269

271: 84

277: 9

281

283: 20

293: 156

307: 88, 91, 137

311: 87, 193, 292

313

317

331

337

347: 280

349: 19, 257

353: 71, 186, 300

359: 125

367

373: 163

379: 100, 174, 317

383

389: 200

397

401: 382

409: 126

419: 159

421: 240

431

433: 215, 366

439

443

449

457

461: 196, 427

463: 130, 229

467: 94, 194

479

487

491: 292, 336, 338, 429

499

503

509: 141

521

523: 400

541: 86, 465

547: 270, 486

557: 222

563: 175, 261

569

571: 389

577: 52, 209, 427

587: 45, 90, 92

593: 22

599

601

607: 592

613: 522

617: 20, 174, 338

619: 371, 428, 543

631: 80, 226

641

643

647: 236, 242, 554

653: 48

659: 224

661

673: 408, 502

677: 529, 628

683: 32

691: 12, 200, 549

701

709: 493

719

727: 378

733

739: 495

743

751: 290, 297, 711

757: 514

761: 105, 260

769: 247

773: 499, 732

787

797: 220

809: 330, 628

811: 544, 727

821: 623, 744

823

827: 102

829

839: 66

853

857

859

863

877: 287, 868

881: 162

883

887: 418, 561

907: 319, 819

911

919

929: 520, 723, 820

937

941: 687, 805

947

953: 156

967: 13

971: 166, 825

977

983: 557

991

997

1009

1013: 411

1019: 89, 289, 501

1021

1031: 279

1033

1039: 293

1049: 343

1051: 361

1061: 474

1063

1069: 545, 613

1087

1091: 888

1093

1097

1103

1109

1117: 794

1123

1129: 348

1151: 115, 534, 784, 968

1153: 802

1163: 871

1171

1181

1187: 167, 335

1193: 262

1201: 676

1213

1217: 784, 866, 1118

1223: 365

1229: 784, 931

1231: 767

1237: 874

1249

1259

1277: 481

1279: 509, 518

1283: 510, 1029

1289

1291: 206, 675, 824

1297: 202, 220

1301: 176

1303

1307: 382, 852, 1071

1319: 304, 1187

1321

1327: 466

1361: 441

1367: 234

1373

1381: 266, 609

1399: 1115

1409: 358, 363

1423: 653

1427: 1315, 1411

1429: 627, 996

1433

1439: 574, 1193

1447: 1081

1451

1453: 323

1459

1471

1481

1483: 224

1487

1489

1493

1499: 94

1511

1523: 265, 1310

1531: 473, 849

1543

1549

1553

1559: 862, 1403

1567

1571

1579

1583: 439

1597: 842

1601: 53

1607

1609: 1356

1613: 172

1619: 560

1621: 783, 980

1627

1637: 591, 718

1657

1663: 270, 1508, 1627

1667

1669: 388, 1086

1693: 1601

1697: 607

1699

1709

1721: 30

1723: 593, 1167

1733: 483, 810, 942

1741

1747

1753: 712

1759: 1003, 1520

1777: 1192

1783

1787: 397, 963, 1606

1789: 848, 1442

1801: 869

1811: 550, 698, 1520

1823

1831: 349, 1274

1847: 954, 1016, 1558

1861

1867: 263

1871: 1794

1873: 1705

1877: 925, 1026

1879: 199, 423, 1260

1889: 242, 1613

1901: 1479, 1722

1907: 369

1913

1931: 1763

1933: 1058, 1320, 1801

1949

1951: 257, 1656

1973

1979: 148

1987: 510, 933

1993: 179, 912

1997: 772, 1731, 1888

1999

2003: 60, 600

2011: 983, 1601

2017: 1204

2027

2029

2039: 69, 853, 1300, 1699

2053: 1932

2063: 1977

2069: 505

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.215.7.19 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

List of irregular pairs sorted by n
These are irregular pairs with n <= 199.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7: 61

8

9: 277

10

11: 19, 2659

12: 691

13: 43, 967

14

15: 47, 4241723

16: 3617

17: 228135437

18: 43867

19: 79, 349, 87224971

20: 283, 617

21: 41737, 354957173

22: 131, 593

23: 31, 1567103, 1427513357

24: 103, 2294797

25: 2137, 111691689741601

26: 657931

27: 67, 61001082228255580483

28: 9349, 362903

29: 71, 30211, 2717447, 77980901

30: 1721, 1001259881

31: 15669721, 28178159218598921101

32: 37, 683, 305065927

33: 930157, 42737921, 52536026741617

34: 151628697551

35: 4153, 8429689, 2305820097576334676593

36: 26315271553053477373

37: 9257, 73026287, 25355088490684770871

38: 154210205991661

39: 23489580527043108252017828576198947741

40: 137616929, 1897170067619

41: 763601, 52778129, 359513962188687126618793

42: 1520097643918070802691

43: 137, 5563, 13599529127564174819549339030619651971

44: 59, 8089, 2947939, 1798482437

45: 587, 32027, 9728167327, 36408069989737, 238716161191111

46: 383799511, 67568238839737

47: 285528427091, 1229030085617829967076190070873124909

48: 653, 56039, 153289748932447906241

49: 5516994249383296071214195242422482492286460673697

50: 417202699, 47464429777438199

51: 5639, 1508047, 10546435076057211497, 67494515552598479622918721

52: 577, 58741, 401029177, 4534045619429

53: 1601, 2144617, 537569557577904730817, 429083282746263743638619

54: 39409, 660183281, 1120412849144121779

55: 2749, 3886651, 78383747632327, 209560784826737564385795230911608079

56: 113161, 163979, 19088082706840550550313

57: 5303, 7256152441, 52327916441, 2551319957161, 12646529075062293075738167

58: 67, 186707, 6235242049, 37349583369104129

59: 1459879476771247347961031445001033, 8645932388694028255845384768828577

60: 2003, 5549927, 109317926249509865753025015237911

61: 6821509, 14922423647156041, 190924415797997235233811858285255904935247

62: 157, 266689, 329447317, 28765594733083851481

63: 101, 6863, 418739, 1042901, 91696392173931715546458327937225591842756597414460291393

64: 1226592271, 87057315354522179184989699791727

65: 25349, 85297, 12989360531548972327803547656767339375006258039696642617507398739

66: 839, 159562251828620181390358590156239282938769

67: 105075119, 508679461, 155312172341, 155737429414728656346088798821794971221082287203779

68: 101, 123143, 1822329343, 5525473366510930028227481

69: 2039, 66041, 29487071944189, 15138431327918641, 484510273389546188488228650507868434878928667

70: 688531, 20210499584198062453, 3090850068576441179447

71: 353, 2586437056036336027701234101159, 312210239910371909857727050224078527206101218811162523

72: 3112655297839, 1872341908760688976794226499636304357567811

73: 2341, 4014623, 24259423, 30601587075439337, 482132394333433671681711454588230154366429871388577

74: 923038305114085622008920911661422572613197507651

75: 193, 34629826749613, 4207222848740394629, 22060457167870794468746201, 2084356623048603581413664959497121

76: 58231, 22284285930116236430122855560372707885169924709

77: 145007, 3460859370585503071, 581662827280863723239564386159, 2046494332840854220697501265093364699008503

78: 787388008575397, 33364652939596337, 1214698595111676682009391

79: 2740019561103910291228417123054994825316979387, 2653485331720644497330964662311698866076250195175420143

80: 631, 10589, 5009593, 141795949, 969983603247099340617362338794263364709

81: 7701306020743, 3572363603188902175396213, 38846764704262590259300934027789308313372462321468975007497723

82: 4003, 38189, 267564809427749238542649199594159701256952090203379

83: 4395659, P98

84: 233, 271, 68767, 167304204004064919523, 2786903827245650053311240128451928279

85: 4397, 739762335239015186706527735192795520726707, P62

86: 541, 21563, 1317161453956258384019814501134446230216181176462038507

87: 311, 390751, 46053168570671, P92

88: 307, 2682679, P60

89: 1019, 588528876550967927, 16292380848703930709213, P72

90: 587, 1758317910439, P57

91: 307, 1964309984670433843694580256152588601980583986713006597, P64

92: 587, 108023, P63

93: 7096363493, 7308346963823, 120476813565517, P85

94: 467, 1499, 2459153, 4217126617741589575995641, 3577922013827274976860631840900289

95: 53089, 20609829625906839913745698187, 180986288780569828566819992453, P66

96: 7823741903, 4155593423131, 10017952436526113, 96454277809515481, 6735480167773644873691271

97: 835823, 2233081, 1951860271597317997069749059, 9416370608392625586845089085196635167, 15038064837301437151577874662131773543986118119

98: 2857, 3221, 1671211, 9215789693276607167, 9778263152874996218584617307180549616435599

99: 376003429, 5160267661, 4363907262506552373343, P94

100: 263, 379, 28717943, 65677171692755556482181133, P45

101: 37425288022730945391029688959184999895624961872309545117125516009, P69

102: 827, 17833331, 86023144558386407, 299116358909830276447443337, 8417841532399822926231891659

103: 8647, 198943119321654388058500384086517043195558620394228397755851, P79

104: 776253902057299, 6644689804135385589700423, P45

105: 761, 2477, P138

106: 3967, 37217, 77272435237709, P65

107: 4858416191, 98985829942673, 1150887066548393492521971151372616707, P88

108: 656884664663, 23657486502844933, P69

109: 1462621, 8445961, 4675063901, 142310099610444540136513337624011455219491905450233709110803, P66

110: 157, 76493, 150235116317549231, 36944818874116823428357691, P44

111: 509053, 116904299, 134912677, 748079839770433, P120

112: 887569, 8065483, P86

113: 8185757, 617575481323, 1522046069820268709, 265053146030428876430329, P94

114: P97

115: 1151, 5290253211544727, 22557103319451713, 2565948669867461313318215567,, 118972684453835135392634192556273454718187595705343, P52

116: 7559, 7438099, 6795944986967, P77

117: 1098948437923935829829, 17698520871521406115634951924463689, 11661906593316353058846911847709511061777523, P69

118: P100

119: 86611938909696635972683149781, 14465489614111569999691521198240690587831, P102

120: 6495690221, 8070196213, P93

121: 3783751296217426258321287795930437607814627399445703026216549471614268601506896712447, P85

122: 1545314586433142560447, 1545923474257037240728199709913, P54

123: 6997, 5571781, 1526627072504771936814787447304051999806158513499861179250074093751, P103

124: 74747, 162263, 14066893, 8262971607841, 3498285428145163, 16743250272239551, 559028822384715164688625676524544680328026657

125: 359, 6043, 26111, 118463, 3322981, 545893110893363273374339, 340434085979481287216483227078798002216360327742620827466139, P77

126: 409, 216363744721, P102

127: 251, 8647, 2941927, 51082969901, 44305294819613, 167237174851562092201, P128

128: 35089, 5953097, 12349588663, 13349390911530343, 6996505560116602097773394576621473, P46

129: 139, 70663, 238229, 91486803609919, 33397018471037747, 38280927951817207, 1823694188853227904949904627, 252181896718842913832793991507441358249, P64

130: 149, 463, 2264267, 3581984682522167, P92

131: 7753, 1476089794776829083186088935097008657059172428532830012025534581117, P125

132: 804889, 10462099, P112

133: 223, 29851802334168169974816953851717491292941047351257691, P142

134: 42859, 338420464438865099, 6005440277888093849051345046242759, P65

135: 4463, 6255577, 321639994822891, 214074317717282326017498018953, P148

136: 10995389191, 29835096585483934621, P98

137: 307, P200

138: 2957, 9733, 1373021071, 554744941981, 756906736720877, 9959596661942153266426403135574603847379, P48

139: 1652869, 2401621, 2152717661, 12254459673349, 34356165690119899, P157

140: 17681, 6251263, 1914841969, 44124706530665069, 49919098955213994432243162077, P68

141: 509, 24379, 232439, P199

142: 4003, 111781954908479484383981, P105

143: 2978734769, 8557612247, P197

144: 6500309593, P135

145: 157823, 72378952903, 978576085558923501179, 170513218370189155958048891371, P149

146: 1377371, 22639970526343, 6726159702783854797, 37996324998547740539691528067877, 1754821172656266926966923716442469, 4036138055144761320534304068715607

147: 149, 3343, 48711863, P213

148: 1979, 30817, 172331, 4975417507662031677157, 1248863436460860523032749, P84

149: 37663, 1392851, 238661068231279, 9792965881638773573903833054687345233935055294576309732623214361308544381554891261555176895512167, P105

150: 153427, 2517869, 5810708205829, 21664796739499531040947, 2409795082015672566733218756037, P72

151: 649724429, 13621373428254587, 111381973999260228282238167431335585433059, 141000785435055584990802770623376828639701620449, 1193722701951839165150952421110134799375110059438006543, P67

152: 9743, 230165249, 3720341037827029338655181363717044961, 37835716074058426890725596550304118196498159, P52

153: 25149009833, 18051556174129735359181, 3957666449530267510589053, 438321334095183824658294709367, 1767165620447279332603545521778737, P115

154: 2213, 125929, 1569473, 384785986561, 83697900175217338619182484215561594711, P85

155: 6779, 11232821, 139668927262709710013, 18526916368663653639476639296503123344751098807, P163

156: 293, 953, 167604149935534865064907, 94884267483295622200143616179947, P101

157: 1088239, 11102051, 100153607, 130223537, 227071134239, P198

158: 5309, 10463, 42487, 50929, 10481243, 1749855366374444668341589937589990596230011702982943022995765557, P66

159: 419, 6127384099, 5519160811451003, 21846610457557327344557544721254743124424589840548059277069, P162

160: 6807624661, 40094692599177383, 12830086712891890983430059948563, 1744826505423362390046833266050403703791289, P62

161: 2543, 74567, 1397180350713344753917243720749772943, 577769769631936427594208754309870324583454884649989987999, P148

162: 881, 1356077, 22767953612964575737798380133664917, 6529339197711546201002267709627054755633, P82

163: 373, 174175655449, 9110273370757630942069196741476911790511415633167, 227268167662143428963168079206940398921235185460026379651599777158266191, P122

164: 257, 1434031, 104386532651, 2903061743891, 9898920431428993, 716563254696398958818280936436469476402929223, P72

165: 2591, 805781401, 65492318651, 63488848774356502730543060633, 35148563470374881695890678645018818080373286214180248173, P154

166: 971, 85754183, 4877261843, 311318618909, 37074748512889, 60519068332988964084651891032717, 117092287618059239620235259605532189619, P52

167: 1187, 3343, 2106833, 1793322371, 38720170561, 50150236900098278077, C214

168: 28211, 19254163575306510187, 10094494587919631151637, 1104790013606614517447652064159916593151013237167098468511, P71

169: 558587, 861433987, 86771436435012390277, 16669946091045819953746739504935989816954757, P187

170: 2504129, 751612064207, P154

171: 70727223023077, 1034326231547973051559, P239

172: 1613, P174

173: 208001, 743155422133, 2840083403239, 84005508665545362459530332377303058295981062837, P196

174: 379, 617, 8419, 264899, 6659961564676431900928667503, 93193525172231316499819296116439042677911, P96

175: 563, 1199714371, C269

176: 1301, 333026571343, 110783038328477, 124813394943812621, 161682280601750017807051565594123306297091203059258385807467, P79

177: 8629, 708473, C273

178: 9433, 129180506448277, 182363423482601296739326836920802601519, P129

179: 1993, 459293, 463761292322706383024896643864485966179727861, P235

180: 403783, 972607943, 249829228470043, 2076252436787489535833, 4241477436592626145879, P127

181: 6923483330327017, 2551820624140592595425268234790493384082614077333545481, P215

182: 73107144475261423, 311089841618633327, 3627027615648746666477, 2122174114227419648093461601, 8327616545832330042958707170640293981592673849, P59

183: 2141, 6263, 42451, C287

184: 389621, 21983088204089362967, P169

185: 2804389579706797633, C284

186: 353, 1301919607, 922966808867, 9161904079472101, 107856487459065437158480612197729025253133196481, P109

187: 241679, 36999818357, 22658461432253, 54342802734882461, 1086110887390889008410968159777, C229

188: 53377, 18974159366624817405627752670504479132613571595050983959444958694223874973021, P117

189: C310

190: 5101, 60860762760882373, 174262092707971020104538709609, 131410417049682678695361379910908937724385222976450357113181662889, P87

191: 559570609330768709, 6386014734599369410586902768943, C265

192: 40833790860803270336710504624737304862569304959957, P163

193: 311, 1469840300183, 6895766514961118059, 1269672106384218692615790692911, 3136426284780626707900456422430291796488693834153, 527970984341964329713816165139855340458712234958050634766242533991, P134

194: 467, 1649059, 95812875598016433532365219084195658008281, 2505663816946125800334764295277843127504620817, P111

195: 34110029, 28024555486506389, 2436437750204310804841, P278

196: 461, 825337, 58273617156601282072242637946609, 16936665062202361732611820380328005721, 1077894157071847644151421507667924461777695091, P91

197: 26034939865747697437451558982836040663625026070193, C274

198: 34470847, 723357738211, P201

199: 1879, 4339, 585653083, 2507798651531, 49639305210453901009432031, 105555375856176303898432906280701535874458049677, C230

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.215.7.19 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Regular prime


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Totten (Washington Metro)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 06:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Fort Totten (Washington Metro)
Not notable, while the station certainly exists this article neither establishes notibility, or is interesting in any way. I'm sure I could write a page or two about my local bus stop, however at no point would it even begin to be worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. A station that is half underground and half not is NOT notable - delete. (unsigned by 203.164.238.150)

 * Keep. There is a long tradition of making articles for every train station on a metro network. If this is deleted, the other 100 articles on the Washington Metro, not to mention the dozens of articles on the London Underground and the Hong Kong subways, would have to follow suit. --Golbez 04:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the nominator has only 4 edits, 3 of which are this VFD and the other edit is a vandalism. --Golbez 18:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Wyss 19:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, in keeping with the practice of making articles for every train station, even though I'm not sure I believe it's a good practice. It is established, nevertheless. Katefan0 20:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Anons cannot vfd, we've had this discussion already.  GRider\talk 20:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Wincoote 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. One could just as easily make this argument about an unimproved rambot article, or something of that nature. These stations are extremely notable features of their areas, and deserve coverage. Meelar (talk) 00:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All railway stations and other public transport infrastructure are notable.--Centauri 01:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Rivière des Prairies

Not St-Lawrence
The Rivière des Prairies is not a channel of the St-Lawrence River.

In 1990 I was an engineering student and had a summer job with Environment Canada helping measure streamflows in rivers around Montreal, including the Rivière des Prairies.

Hydrologically, the river is a branch of the Ottawa River, which flows into Lac des Deux-Montagnes, which is really just a widening of the Ottawa River. Below the Lac des Deux-Montagnes, the Ottawa river splits into five distinct channels. From West to East, those channels are:

1) The main channel of the Ottawa river, which flows West of Ile Perrot, separating it from the mainland; 2) The Ste-Anne channel of the Ottawa river, which flows between Ile Perrot and the Island of Montreal; 3) The main channel of the Rivière des Prairies, which flows between Ile Bizard and the Island of Montreal; 4) The Rapide Lalement branch of the Rivière des Prairies, which flows between Ile Bizard and Ile Jésus (the name of the island upon which the city of Laval is located); 5) The rivière des Milles-Iles, which flows North of Ile-Jésus, separating it from the mainland.

Both the main and St-Anne channels of the Ottawa River flow into Lac St-Louis, which is really a widening of the St-Lawrence River. The two channels of the Rivière des Prairies meet East of Ile-Bizard and from then on the river separates Ile-Jesus from the Island of Montreal. The Mille-Iles river flows into the Rivière des Prairies just before that river flows into the St-Lawrence.

Alex Plante, P. Eng.

Swimming
On Dec 11, 2008 this IP edit (with no summary) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rivi%C3%A8re_des_Prairies&diff=257358689&oldid=252194171 changed the article to indicate that Riviere des Prairies was now considered suitable for swimming. I don't know if it was vandalism that escaped notice for 3 years, or a well-intentioned mistake, but recent water testing data and media reports clearly show that parts of the river are not suitable for swimming (Bad or even Polluted). For examples see: RSMA and West Island Chronicle. I'm changing the article to say that parts of it are not suitable for swimming. If any one knows of an officialstand on swimming in the river please add it. Meters (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I discovered from an archived news paper article there used to be 29 beaches on the island of Montreal. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UBQyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3qEFAAAAIBAJ&dq=29-swimming-areas&pg=1726%2C3442309 . The places discovered today on the RSMA to have sewage may be from people who lay their own feces on the shoreline. I visit RDP 200 parc Paquin and have found human feces on the shoreline. Why is it human? Used tissue paper is along side it. There are no outhouses for people when they visit the shoreline. Guess what happens? Besides feces from dog owners who do not pick up after their dog.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RSMA https://www.rsma.qc.ca/rsmaweb/rsmaqrc.asp tests the water during the warmer times of the year and YES most places pass the feces test. The one place that has been polluted (24/7/12 months) since the year 1970 is Parc de la Rive-Boisée. I have seen people (in ignorance) swimming near Parc de la Rive-Boisée where there is a new high rise Condo and boat dock.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Back River
This is called the Back River in English, as referenced in the names of different sites like the Back River Cemetery and old maps. 24.114.85.235 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rivière des Prairies


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne hoffman

 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. jni 11:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anne hoffman
vanity. oberlin college student. Wolfman 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Boring, delete. -- Hoary 05:05, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. No article for you! Come back ten years. --MarkSweep 06:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete All I can say after reading it is "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 06:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Spinboy 08:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and... wow. Talk about non-notable. --Sn0wflake 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - she deserves a Phd in being a nonabee! Brookie 19:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete #2, user test, Oberlin has one of the best music schools in the world btw. Wyss 21:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jonathunder 05:42, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair 18:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Yuckfoo 03:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's true about Oberlin, except she hasn't done anything yet. Bratsche 04:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Portal:Mathematics/Featured article archive

This page is an archive of articles featured on the Mathematics Portal before the Article of the Week was replaced by Selected Article ("SA" in table below). The listed dates are when the article first appeared. For mathematics articles featured elsewhere on Wikipedia see Featured articles.


text:
Talk:Handicapping

This page
The reason that this page was started... So, if anyone is miffed that I destroyed their page (sorry to the Handicap (competition) contributors...all two of you) or destroyed your master plan (you crazy obscure theoretical biologists)...too bad. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 04:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Someone proposed on the Requested Moves page that Handicapping be set up as a redirect to Handicap theory.  Now, I have never heard of Handicap theory as it relates to biological evolution.  I have only heard of it as it relates to sports and gambling.  I proposed to the proposing someone that Handicapping should be set up to discuss the sports-related definition with a disclaimer leading folks to that biological mumbo-jumbo if that is what some folks sought (most likely they won't be looking for that obscure stuff, but who knows).  That proposing someone never responded, so here is the result of my initiative.  At that time I was surprised that no one had written an article on the sports-related Handicapping (or so I thought).
 * 2) I started Handicapping before I realized that Handicap (competition) already exists.  However, it was just a stub with a two event edit history and only one decent line I could plunder and add to my introduction.  So I just took it, pasted it, and reduced the Handicap (competition) article to a mere redirect to Handicapping.

Page move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

Handicapping → Handicap theory
Tried to redirect a new page I made "handicapping" to "Handicap theory" and made it FUBAR. Help. Handicapping and Handicap Theory should both redirect to "Handicap theory" THX --JPotter 00:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * NOTE: ''This requested move was inadvertantly placed beneath the February 11th request for Supercentenarian→Oldest person. Upon seeing this mistake, I took the initiative to separate it. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OPPOSE STRENUOUSLY: Judging from the history, JPotter had started the article entitled Handicapping on 11 February 2005. And while his redirect can easily be fixed, I do not think Handicapping should be a redirect to Handicap theory as the primary use of the word "handicapping" is for the practice of (and mathematics behind) giving a scoring benefit in sporting events to lesser talented participants, not as a corollary to Darwin's biological theories.  I expected this to be an article on the sports-related practice and its methods.  As a former bookmaker in my college days, Handicapping should be an article about the scoring practice and methods, with a disclaimer at the top saying "if you are looking for Handicap theory, click here." —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given above. Isn't there an article about handicapping in sport? Kappa 19:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Unforunately there isn't, much to my surprise also. —ExplorerCDT 02:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * NOTE: As the fix was simple...no Handicap Theory page really existed...I redirected that to Handicap theory. I've contacted JPotter to see if he'd agree to the use of Handicapping to discuss the sports scoring practice and its methods with a a disambiguation disclaimer at the top of the article.  In the meantime, I have started to put together some ideas for a Handicapping article and will start it when (if) JPotter responds positively to my comments regarding a compromise proposed from the above concerns on his talk page. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * As of last night, I hadn't heard from JPotter so I made Handicapping into a different article with a disclaimer at the top disambiguating it to both Handicap theory and Handicapped. This request can now be deleted, but I do request archiving on both the Handicapping and Handicap theory talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 14:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with the way ExplorerCDT has set it up (with Handicapping as an article about the sports usage, and a typical "other uses" note at the top). JamesMLane 10:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Peter Tidmarsh
I have taken the liberty of reverting the recent edits to the article by User:Peter Tidmarsh. I firmly believe that his edits from 14 March to 17 March 2005 made the article hackneyed, anecdotal, and regrettably puerile in character, and I have stated such on the user's talk page. —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that the reversion was made because you disagree with his explanation of the origins of handicapping, which is in disagreement with your own. I'd suggest that if there isn't a clear etymology or original use that both be given. Emotive terms such as hackneyed and puerile are not helpful, especially if they are there to disguise disagreement with the actual content. --Simon Lucy 16:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My disagreement is precisely with the content. Some of it was amateurishly immature (especially the Golf write-up).  The etymology is clear in the sources I've run into, and his alternative etymological origins were woefully unsubstantiated...despite my best efforts of tracking down the claims he posted in good faith before deleting them from the article.  Lastly, his style was hopelessly hackneyed and anecdotal and not up to the standard of an objective encyclopedia.  In fact, his additions to the article smacked of tongue-in-cheek smuggery.  Sure, the adjectives I used may not be helpful, and they may be pointedly hurtful, but they are amazingly accurate when describing what I feel his additions did to the tenor of the article, it's accuracy, and furthermore they in no way disguise my disagreement.  In fact, they are the crux of my disagreement rather overtly stated. —ExplorerCDT 18:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see any citations for your original etymology. --62.49.30.152 08:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record I didnt make any claims on etymological origins, which are rarely clear. I did point out that the current use of the word cast doubt on the claim made by ExplorerCDT.

However compare Chamber's Online Reference "Probably" - with our authoritative ExplorerCDT's "sources are clear".  ETYMOLOGY: 17c: probably from hand i' cap an old lottery game in which money was deposited in a cap and forfeits were drawn from it.

Not much has changed, punters agree to enter the lottery, or bet on a sporting event or "put their hand in" (the cap) beforehand, and afterwards the forfeits or winnings are drawn from the cap or bookie. ExplorerCDT's dubious claim - that the looser (or a representative of the looser !) puts the forfeit in - is backtofront which is fascinating for those interested in etymology of the word.

As it stands I will trust Chambers above Wikepedia.

For the sake of accuracy ExplorerCDT should withdraw his lit. crit. and focus on substantiating his claim and for the sake of readability he should respect the different voices of its contributors. --User:Peter Tidmarsh 10.45 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Word origin history
A full discussion of the origin of the word "handicap" is here: http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/handicap.htm

An even more detailed discussion by Ron Amundson, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Hawaii at Hilo, is here: http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HandicapDefinition.htm

It might be good to add such links to the article. -69.87.199.157 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I have created a stub article for the original trading "game" Hand-in-cap. Please help to expand it. Roger (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
The articles that were merged were talking about handicapping from different sides of the coin. This article seems to be about bookmakers, while that one was about sharps who tried to beat them. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's what encyclopedia articles are, articles that cover the scope of something. If we were going to write an article about the baseball world Series, we wouldn't write one from the perspective of one tema another from the perspective of the other.  We'd write about the whole game, the entire picture. Bookmakers and bettors both handicap a game, but at different times. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What about an article on bookmaking and oddsmaking, and a separate article on sharp betting. The sharp betting article would include things like arbitrage and middles? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * See arbitrage betting and Mathematics of bookmaking. How would sharp betting differ from advantage gambling?  Maybe you should take a look through Category:Wagering and the Category:sports betting subcategory.  Again, we don't want to content fork.  Existing articles should be expanded to include synonyms or related concepts, rather than create parallel articles that say the same thing in different words. 2005 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, sharp betting could be covered in advantage gambling. That sounds good. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sharp betting is a type of advantage gambling, so it makes sense to include it there. At the same time, if there's as much in depth information about sharp betting as there is about Card counting, for example, a separate article could also be justified. I'm familiar with Stanford Wong's book on the subject, but I think there need to be multiple reliable sources which cover the subject of sharp sports betting before it would be considered notable enough for an article of its own. (Just like card counting has multiple sources covering that subject.) Rray (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I know there was some debate about whether or not "handicapping" and "sharp betting" were synonymous before, but I'd suggest that the two terms are not synonymous. Someone can handicap a football game without actually betting on it. And someone can handicap games and bet on games without getting a mathematical advantage. (I can handicap a game and agree that the line is close enough that I'm willing to be on it even though I don't have a mathematical advantage. I'm still "handicapping", but I'm not "sharp betting".) The phrase "sharp betting" implies that the person is actually a bettor, and also that the person is good enough at finding value in the bookmakers' lines that he can gain an advantage. Those implications aren't necessarily true of someone who is just a handicapper. Rray (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The terms sharp betting and handicapping can be synonymous. The term "handicapping" is often used to describe when a skilled bettor attempts to pick winners, directly against the line (as opposed to using arbs or middles or bonuses). It can also refer to bookmaking, but it is used as a verb to describe skillful sports betting. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Can be" synonymous and "are" synonymous are two different things. Since one word has a broader meaning than the other, it doesn't make much sense to equate them as synonyms. Especially not in an encyclopedia, which is aimed at explaining things to laymen. Rray (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I think it's the primary word used to describe skilled sports bettors. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't think they are synonyms, but if they are then it is a content fork, so we have a dilemna. If User:GusChiggins21 can be persuaded to not label them synonyms, then we could move sharp betting elsewhere... however that is a problem too.  Sports betting is an article.  It's more than a little odd to have a different article that is basically "effective sports betting" or "smart sports betting".  I don't see why anything having to do with sharp betting on sports not be in the sports betting article.  Everything else works similarly.  A card counting advantange gambling blackjack player is covered in those three articles; we don't need another one saying the same thing, that a player can beat blackjack if they bet properly. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but we have an article about Poker and about Poker strategy, so articles about Sports betting and Sharp sports betting could make sense *if* we can find multiple reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Poker strategy has been covered by multiple reliable sources. I'm not convinced that sharp sports betting has been. I'm not as familiar with the subject as I am with more card game related gambling subjects. This is where GusChiggins21's input might be valuable. Rray (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, if it has plenty of sources, and if it the focus is substantially different than the sports betting articles, then a new article is called for like with poker. But just restating the sports betting article and saying making good bets is the point of sharp betting, well that says nothing so it could just be one sentence in the main article.  I don't see the need at this point, so I don't think a new article needs to be done till a large section in the xisting article exists to move out separately. 2005 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

horse "handicapping"- an equivocal term?
There is a large problem with this page- in that the process of handicapping horses (in the general sense of the word [via the method of increasing or decreasing the weight they bear]) has become confused with the American English term- "handicapping" which is something of a misnomer as it refers not to handicapping in the orthodox sense at all - but rather to the whole process of assessing racehorse performance. Handicapping (its true rather than colloquial American English meaning) is only undertaken by the official handicappers who work within the sport (i.e. those who actually allot weight to animals' saddlecloths)- not by fans or "horse players" as they are known in the U.S.

=
I agree with the above unsigned comment. I was very confused by the wiki entry Handicap (horse racing) which went the same as this article way by discussing the handicap system and then going on to discuss the betting processes in USA known as 'handicapping' and I was very confused. I now accept that 'handicapping' is a USA expression and so I suppose this article reads fine until we get to 'Outcome predction'. The article should be split into two wikis. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New article
Would anyone object to me creating a new article Handicapping (horse racing)? This current article works well on the general principle of handicaps in sport, but I think the process of handicapping is so important to horse racing it merits an article on its own that covers both the British and American English senses of the term as mentioned in the unsigned comment above. Peaky76 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Directory
Does anyone think there should be a link or reference to the largest Sports Handicapping Service Directory currently available online right now on the Wiki Handicapping page? They have listed every single sports handicapping service in existence in an easy to find directory format.

 * No per WP:NOADS.  Montanabw (talk)  05:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What was hand-in-cap?
Here's the text from the OED entry:
 * handicap, n.

 * (ˈhændɪkæp)

 * [A word of obscure history. Two examples of the n., and one of the verb, are known in 17th c.; its connexion with horse-racing appears in the 18th; its transferred general use, esp. in the verb, since 1850. It appears to have originated in the phrase ‘hand i' cap’, or ‘hand in the cap’, with reference to the drawing mentioned in sense 1.]

 * 1.1 The name of a kind of sport having an element of chance in it, in which one person challenged some article belonging to another, for which he offered something of his own in exchange. (Also fig.)

 * On the challenge being entertained, an umpire was chosen to decree the difference of value between the two articles, and all three parties deposited forfeit-money in a cap or hat. The umpire then pronounced his award as to the ‘boot’ or odds to be given with the inferior article, on hearing which the two other parties drew out full or empty hands to denote their acceptance or non-acceptance of the match in terms of the award. If the two were found to agree in holding the match either ‘on’ or ‘off’, the whole of the money deposited was taken by the umpire; but if not, by the party who was willing that the match should stand. (See Notes & Queries 23 June, 1855).

 * This sport is described under the name of Newe Faire, in Piers Plowman A. v. 171, B. v. 328, C. vii. 377, where ‘Clement þe cobelere caste of his cloke’, for which ‘Hikke þe hakeneyman’ wagered his hood, and ‘Robyn þe ropere’ was named for ‘a noumpere’, to ordain how much ‘who⁓so haueth the hood shuld haue amendes of the cloke’. For reference to a similar sport in Scandinavia and Germany (where called Freimarkt), see Germania XIX. (1847) 1, Engl. Stud. V. 150. A recent example occurs in R. S. Surtees ‘Mr. Sponge's Sporting Tour’ ch. xlv, in which the challenge is between a gold watch and a horse. In later times the result became the subject of further betting on the part of the bystanders: see The Sportsman 17 April 1897, 5/5.

This was not, "a popular 17th-century lottery game," as this article had described it. A lottery involves people, "drawing      lots for a prize," which did not happen in hand-in-cap. Nor is it from the 17th century, as it is attested in a 14-century source. It is instead, "an old English trading system for determining the relative values of two objects," as I have described it in my edit. The WP article on the game describes it a bit more clearly than the OED, but consistently with the OED. Jbening (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Fair enough as to the "lottery" concept, but clearly involves putting stuff in a cap. I'll tweak it a little, feel free to refine.  Montanabw (talk)  20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Handicapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50102189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Handicapping. 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:
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20110524184911/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50102189 on http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50102189
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101031095844/http://britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/handicapping.asp to http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/handicapping.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Handicapping


text: Category:Arcade system boards

title: Category:Arcade system boards


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hulen

 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. The votes were 5 delete, 2 keep. dbenbenn | talk 18:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hulen
Non-notable stub, basically just an advert JeremyA 04:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's indeed the oldest rock 'n roll bar, it may be notable. Then again I'm not sure what is meant by the term "rock 'n roll" bar. Radiant! 08:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I formatted it. Agreed with Radiant!, if it's the oldest "rock 'n roll" bar it's notable. Could we have a Norwegian's view? Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Easy to find lots of mentions for this place, but only one I can see mentions "oldest...etc."  Anyway, it is pretty subjective/arguable -- what was a rock 'n roll bar 30 years ago.....40 years ago....50 years ago?  HowardB 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is helpful. Wyss 21:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and I agree with HowardB. JoaoRicardo 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'd like to see information the "oldest rock 'n roll bar" claim expanded. In its current state it's barely notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 18:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 06:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and add a rule of thumb that all bars in operation for 35+ years are worthy of entry. Too bad the article lacks any color, it should be expanded by someone who knows Hulen's history.
 * Delete, subjective notability. JamesBurns 08:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hulen


text: User talk:62.101.126.228

title: User talk:62.101.126.228


text: User talk:165.118.1.50

title: User talk:165.118.1.50


text:
Talk:List of Khazar rulers

Comments
Do not move this page to copyright violations. I am the author of the Khazar list on the Regnal Chronologies website, and I authorize its use.--Briangotts 04:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

''Genetic testing has disproven that Ashkenazi Jews are primarily descended from the Khazars, but some admixture is highly probable. '' Genetic testing by whom, where and when? --Magabund 13:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

''Can we get somebody to re-write this page into English? As it is it makes virtually no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.141.28 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Akatziroi = Ak Khazar?
that means: "White Khazars" Böri (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Khazar rulers


text:
User talk:68.49.237.159

Proposed deletion of Yuga Khan

The article Yuga Khan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable fictional character"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Yuga Khan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yuga Khan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Yuga Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.49.237.159


text:
User talk:Cajames

I'm a 25-year-old man, single, and a student at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia. I'm studying to become a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

title: User talk:Cajames


text: User talk:64.63.205.154

title: User talk:64.63.205.154


text:
Abrahamites

The Abrahamites (not to be confused with the descendants of the patriarch Abraham, i.e. the Northern Arabs and Jews) were a sect of deists in Bohemia in the 18th century, who professed to be followers of the pre-circumcised Abraham. Believing in one God, but rejecting the Trinity, original sin, and the perpetuity of punishment for sin, they contented themselves with the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Declining to be classed either as Christians or Jews, they were excluded from the edict of toleration promulgated by Emperor Joseph II in 1781, and deported to various parts of the country, the men being drafted into frontier regiments. Some became Roman Catholics, and those who retained their "Abrahamite" views were not able to hand them on to the next generation.

They are not to be confused with the ninth-century Syrian group also known as the Abrahamite monks, who were exterminated by the iconoclastic emperor Theophilus.

title: Abrahamites


text:
McNeill's law

In human geography, McNeill's law is the process outlined in William H. McNeill's book Plagues and Peoples. The process described concerns the role of microbial disease in the conquering of people-groups. Particularly, it describes how diseases such as smallpox, measles, typhus, scarlet fever, and sexually-transmitted diseases have significantly reduced native populations so that they are unable to resist colonization.

Concept
According to McNeill's Law, the microbiological aspect of conquest and invasion has been the deciding principle or one of the deciding principles in both the expansion of certain empires (as during the emigration to the Americas) and the containment in others (as during the crusades). The argument is that less civilized peoples were easily subjugated due to the immunological advantages of those coming from civilized countries. An evidence presented to support the hypothesis involves the manner diseases associated with Europeans were rebuffed in their forays into disease-experienced countries such as China and Japan.

McNeill's law also maintains that parasites are not only natural but also social in the sense that these organisms are part of the social continuum and that the human social evolution is inextricably linked with genetic transformations.

Instances in history
Instances of McNeill's law occur from ancient times. The Israelites migrating out of the Nile Valley, probably the most densely populated area in the world at the time, into the relatively dry, less densely populated surrounding country were moving into territory that was safer vis-à-vis communicable disease and were carrying with them infections often unknown and quite possibly deadly to the scattered local peoples.

The first people-group fully wiped out due to European expansion (with the possible exception of the Arawaks) was the Guanches of the Canary Islands. Despite an inbred ferocity, superior knowledge of the land and even a possible tactical superiority, they were eventually wiped out through the concentrated efforts of the Spanish and Portuguese. McNeill's Law would place the deciding factor squarely on the introduction of deadly diseases and parasites from the mainland to the previously geographically isolated islanders.

This is the likely explanation, as what records still exist show numerous deaths by disease on the islands and a declining birth rate, leading eventually to the almost complete end of the Guanches as a race.

Other instances include the devastation of the Incas by smallpox.

title: McNeill's law