text:
List of library associations

Library associations connect libraries and library workers at the local, national, and international level. Library associations often provide resources to their individual and institutional members that enable cooperation, exchange of information, education, research, and development.

International

 * Asociación de Estados Iberoamericanos para el Desarrollo de las Bibliotecas Nacionales de Iberoamérica
 * Association internationale francophone des bibliothécaires et documentalistes (AIFBD)
 * Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries (ACURIL)
 * Association of Christian Librarians
 * Commonwealth Library Association
 * Information for Social Change
 * International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists (IAALD)
 * International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC)
 * International Association of Law Libraries
 * International Association of Music Libraries
 * International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres
 * International Association of School Librarianship
 * International Association of University Libraries
 * International Council on Archives
 * International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
 * Librarians for Fairness
 * Masonic Library and Museum Association
 * Polar Libraries Colloquy
 * Progressive Librarians Guild
 * Seminar on the Acquisition of Latin American Library Materials (SALALM)
 * Special Libraries Association (SLA)

Africa

 * African Library and Information Associations and Institutions (AfLIA)
 * Association for Health Information and Libraries in Africa
 * Botswana Library Association (BLA)
 * Egyptian Library Association (ELA)
 * Ghana Library Association
 * Kenya Library Association
 * Lesotho Library Association
 * Library and Information Association of South Africa (LIASA)
 * Library and Information Association of Zambia (LIAZ) (formerly Zambia Library Association (ZLA))
 * Malawi Library Association (MALA)
 * Namibian Information Workers Association
 * Nigerian Library Association (NLA)
 * Swaziland Library Association (SWALA)
 * Tanzania Library Association (TLA)
 * Uganda Library Association (ULA)
 * West Africa Library Association
 * Zimbabwe Library Association (ZimLA)

Asia

 * Academic Library Association (ALA), India
 * Andhra Pradesh Library Association
 * Anatolian University Libraries Consortium (ANKOS), Turkey
 * Association of Librarians in Public Sector (ALPS), Inc.
 * Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines
 * Bangladesh Association of Librarians, Information Scientists and Documentalists
 * Bengal Library Association
 * Central Government Library Association
 * Chhattisgarh Information and Library Association (CGILA)
 * Chhattisgarh Library Association
 * China Society for Library Science
 * East-Kazakhstan Librarians' Association
 * Hong Kong Library Association
 * Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres (IASLIC)
 * Indian Academic Library Association
 * Indian Library Association (ILA)
 * Iranian Library and Information Science Association
 * Iranian Librarians Association of America
 * Iranian Medical Library Association
 * The union of Iranian library and information science student associations (ADKA)
 * Israeli Association of Librarians and Information Professionals
 * Japan Association of Private University Libraries
 * Japan Library Association
 * Japan Medical Library Association
 * Japan School Library Association
 * Japan Special Libraries Association
 * Junior College Library Association (Japan)
 * Kerala Library Association
 * Kerala Library Professionals Organization
 * Korean Library Association (South Korea)
 * Librarians Association of Malaysia
 * Librarians Association of Metro Pampanga (LAMP)
 * Library Association of Bangladesh
 * Library Association of China (Taiwan)
 * Library Association of Singapore
 * Library Association of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
 * Library Association of the Republic of China
 * Macau Library and Information Management Association
 * Medical and Health Librarians Association of the Philippines
 * Medical Library Association of India
 * Middle East Librarians Association
 * Mongolian Library Association (MLA)
 * Nepal Library Association (NLA)
 * Network of Academic Law Libraries, Inc. (NALL)
 * Pakistan Library Association
 * Pakistan Librarians Welfare Organization
 * Pakistan Library Automation Group (PakLAG)
 * Philippine Association of Academic and Research Librarians
 * Pakistan Library Club
 * Philippine Association of School Librarians, Inc.
 * Philippine Group of Law Librarians, Inc.
 * Philippine Librarians Association, Inc.
 * Regional Federation of South Asian Library Associations
 * Thai Library Association
 * Uzbekistan Library Association
 * Turkish Librarians Association - Turkey
 * University and Research Librarians Association - Turkey
 * University of Peshawar Library & Information Science Alumni Association - Pakistan
 * Telangana library student association(TLIBSA)

Caribbean & Latin America

 * Argentinian Library Association
 * Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries (ACURIL)
 * Association of Librarians in the Jamaica Library Service (ALJAS)
 * Asociación Bibliotecológica de Guatemala
 * Asociación de Bibliotecarios Escolares de Puerto Rico
 * Asociación Mexicana de Bibliotecarios (AMBAC)
 * Asociación Paraguaya de Gestores de la Información (APGI)
 * Brazilian Federation of Associations of Librarians, Information Scientists and Institutions (FEBAB)
 * Caribbean Association of Law Libraries (CARALL)
 * Cayman Islands Information Professionals (CIIP)
 * Colegio de Bibliotecarios de Chile (Chile)
 * Colegio Nacional de Bibliotecarios, A.C. (México)
 * Colombian Library Association (ASCOLBI)
 * Comité de Cooperación entre Bibliotecas Universitarias de Guatemala
 * Honduran Association of Librarians and Documentalists
 * Librarian Association of El Salvador
 * Library and Information Association of Jamaica (LIAJA)
 * Library Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT)
 * Library Association of Barbados (LAB)
 * Library Association of Bermuda (LAB)
 * Sociedad de Bibliotecarios de Puerto Rico (SBPR)

Europe

 * Anatolian University Libraries Consortium (ANKOS), Turkey
 * Art Libraries Association
 * ASLIB (UK); formerly 'Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux (ASLIB)'
 * Association of Andalusian Librarians (Spain)
 * Association of Church Librarians in Spain
 * Association of European Research Libraries (Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche (LIBER))
 * Association of French Librarians
 * Association of Greek Librarians & Information Scientists
 * Association of Hungarian Librarians
 * Association of information and documentation professionals, ADBS, formerly the Association of specialized librarians and librarians (French)
 * Association of Libraries of Czech Universities
 * Association of Library and Information Professionals of the Czech Republic
 * Association of Valencian Librarians (ABV) (Spain)
 * Austrian Association of Librarians
 * Austrian Library Association
 * Bavarian Library Network (BVB)
 * Belarusian Library Association
 * Belgian Association for Documentation
 * British and Irish Association of Law Librarians
 * Bulgarian Library Association
 * Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), formerly the Library Association and the Institute of Information Scientists (UK)
 * Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes de Catalunya (COBDC)
 * Consortium of European Research Libraries (CERL)
 * Croatian Library Association
 * Cyprus Association of Librarians – Information Scientists (CALIS)
 * Danish Library Association
 * Danish Union of Librarians
 * Digital Library Association of Armenia
 * Dutch Association of University Libraries, the Royal Library and the Library of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science
 * Dutch National Association of Public Libraries
 * Education and Libraries Association (Spain)
 * Estonian Librarians Association
 * European Association for Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL)
 * European Association of Aquatic Sciences Libraries and Information Centres (Euraslic)
 * European Association of Libraries and Information Services on Addictions (Elisad), formerly the European Association of Libraries and Information Services on Alcohol and other Drugs
 * European Association of Sinological Librarians (EASL)
 * European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA)
 * Federation Union of German Library and Information Associations
 * Finland's Swedish Library Association
 * Finnish Library Association
 * Finnish Music Library Association
 * Finnish Research Library Association
 * Galician Library Association (ABG) (Spain)
 * Georgian Association of Information Specialists
 * Georgian Library Association
 * German Library Association
 * Icelandic Library and Information Science Association
 * Italian Library Association
 * Latvian Librarians Association
 * Library & Information Science Promotion Society (India)
 * Library Association of Ireland
 * Lithuanian Librarian's Association
 * M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries
 * Malta Library and Information Association
 * Navarrese Association of Librarians (ASNABI) (Spain)
 * Netherlands Public Library Association
 * Norwegian Association of Special Libraries
 * Norwegian Library Association
 * Norwegian Union of Librarians
 * Polish Librarians Association
 * Portuguese Association of Librarians, Archivists and Documentalists
 * Private Libraries Association (UK)
 * Professional Association of Information Specialists (APEI) (Spain)
 * Russian Library Association
 * Romanian Library Association
 * School Library Association (UK)
 * Slovenian Library Association
 * Spanish Federation of Societies of Archivist, Librarians, Documentalist and Museology (FESABID)
 * Swedish Library Association
 * Swiss Association Library & Information Management (SLI)
 * Ukrainian Library Association
 * The Czech Republic Libraries Association (SDRUK ČR)
 * Turkish University and Research Librarians' Association (UNAK)
 * Turkish Librarians' Association (TKDt)

North America
Most state library associations publish a journal.

 * American Library Association (ALA)
 * American Association of Law Libraries (AALL)
 * American Association of School Librarians (AASL)
 * American Indian Library Association (AILA)
 * American Theological Library Association (ATLA)
 * Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)
 * Asian/Pacific American Librarians Association
 * Association des bibliothèques publiques du Québec (ABPQ)
 * Association pour la promotion des services documentaires scolaires (APSDS)
 * Association of Architecture School Librarians
 * Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries
 * Association of Christian Librarians (ACL)
 * Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
 * Association of Jewish Libraries
 * Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
 * Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL)
 * Atlantic Provinces Library Association (APLA)
 * British Columbia Library Association (BCLA)
 * Border Regional Library Association (BRLA)
 * Boston Library Consortium (BLC)
 * Cache Valley Library Association (CVLA)
 * Canadian Association for School Libraries
 * Canadian Association for Information Science (CAIS-ACSI)
 * Canadian Association of Law Libraries / Association Canadienne des Bibliothèques de Droit (CALL / ACBD)
 * The Canadian Association of Professional Academic Librarians / L’Association Canadienne des Bibliothécaires en Enseignement Supérieur (CAPAL / ACBAP)
 * Canadian Association of Research Libraries / Association des Bibliothèques de Recherche du Canada (CARL / ABRC)
 * Canadian Association of Special Libraries and Information Services
 * Canadian Health Libraries Association / Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada (CHLA / ABSC)
 * Canadian Federation of Library Associations/Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques (CFLA-FCAB)
 * Catholic Library Association
 * Chinese American Librarians Association
 * Church and Synagogue Library Association
 * Corporation des bibliothécaires professionnels du Québec (CBPQ)
 * Evangelical Church Library Association
 * Fédération des milieux documentaires (FMD)
 * Florida Association for Media in Education
 * Foothills Library Association
 * Greater Edmonton Library Association
 * L'association des bibliothécaires du Québec/Quebec Library Association
 * Library Association of Alberta (LAA)
 * Library Information Technology Association (LITA)
 * Lubbock Area Library Association
 * Major Orchestra Librarians' Association
 * Manitoba Library Association (MLA)
 * Medical Library Association
 * Metrolina Library Association
 * Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO)
 * Mohave Library Alliance
 * Mountain Plains Library Association
 * Music Library Association
 * New England Library Association
 * Newfoundland and Labrador Library Association (NLLA)
 * North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG)
 * Nova Scotia Library Association (NSLA)
 * Northwest Territories Library Association (NWTLA)
 * Nunavut Library Association
 * Ontario Library Association (OLA)
 * Pacific Northwest Library Association
 * Patent and Trademark Depository Library Association
 * Polish American Librarians Association (PALA)
 * Public Library Association
 * Saskatchewan Library Association (SLA)
 * Southeastern Library Association
 * Southwestern Library Association
 * Substance Abuse Librarians & Information Specialists (SALIS)
 * Theatre Library Association
 * United States Agricultural Information Network
 * Urban Libraries Council
 * USA Toy Library Association
 * Western Association of Map Libraries
 * Yukon Library Association

Oceania

 * Australian and New Zealand Theological Library Association
 * Australian Law Librarians' Association
 * Australian Library and Information Association
 * Australian School Library Association
 * Australian School Library Association (NSW)
 * Library and Information Association of New Zealand operating as LIANZA
 * Pacific Islands Association of Libraries and Archives
 * School Library Association of New Zealand Aotearoa
 * School Library Association of South Australia (SLASA)
 * School Library Association of Victoria
 * Council of Australian University Librarians
 * Public Libraries Australia
 * Public Libraries NSW - Country (formerly Country Public Libraries Association NSW)
 * Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (NSW)

title: List of library associations


text: User talk:138.88.166.242

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

title: User talk:138.88.166.242


text:
Paragone

Paragone (paragone, meaning comparison), was a debate during the Italian Renaissance in which painting and sculpture (and to a degree, architecture) were each championed as forms of art superior and distinct to each other. While other art forms, such as architecture and poetry existed in the context of the debate, painting and sculpture were the primary focus of the debate.

The debate extended beyond the fifteenth century and even influences the discussion and interpretation of artworks that may or may not have been influenced by the debate itself.

A comparable question, generally posed less competitively, was known as ut pictura poesis (a quote from Horace), comparing the qualities of painting and poetry.

The debate
The debate began around the 15th century. Leonardo da Vinci's treatise on painting, observing the difficulty of painting and supremacy of sight, is a notable example of literature on the subject.

Bendetto Varchi further sparked the conversation between artists in 1546 by sending out letters inviting opinions. Painters and sculptors each vied for their respective side in the debate. Michelangelo was the only artist who offered support for both mediums. However, he was also found to be less invested in the discussion despite his contributions.

The essence of the debate had many facets. Comparisons of the two mediums ranged from conceptual themes to practices, underscoring the intellectual role of the artist in the era.

Each medium had multiple points in support of it. Much of the debate lacked specific examples of supporting work, though the ideas were extensively discussed. Giorgio Vasari argued that drawing is the father of all arts, and as such, the most important one. Sculpture was typically claimed to be the only method of having several different and faithful views of the same figure by those who found it to be the more superior medium. A counterpoint to this argument was made in paintings which feature reflective objects or surfaces, such as the Portrait of Gaston de la Foix by Gerolamo Savoldo, which featured mirrors surrounding the key figure. This allowed figures not only to be viewed at multiple angles, but for these to be seen at the same time, which is an ability that sculpture is incapable of providing. Many paintings with this concept are brought into the discussion of paragone, but it is unclear how many were actually made as a response to the debate itself.

A large portion of the discussion was centered on the idea of imitation of the natural world. Painting was seen to create an inferior imitation because it lacked form. This argument was later championed by the example of a blind man experiencing art. Theoretically, he could gather how a sculpture was structured through touch, but were he to touch a painting he would not be able to construct an image of the work, thus rendering painting an illusionary form of art.

Another side of the debate that arose is one of technical skill. Michelangelo did not take a clear side in the debates, but did underscore a component which he believed to be essential to both painting and sculpture, called disegno. Disegno in Renaissance times largely referred to "the conception of a work." The understanding and use of the term was also, however, influenced by the idea of drawing as the foundation of art. Vasari and with him   Benvenuto Cellini, also asserted that the ability to render an accurate contour line were technical skills that benefited both painting and sculpture.

Notable contributors
Many notable artists and other public figures during the fifteenth century and onward contributed to the discussion of paragone, such as:

 * Benvenuto Cellini
 * Leonardo da Vinci
 * Michelangelo
 * Pontormo
 * Bendetto Varchi
 * Giorgio Vasari

title: Paragone


text:
Talk:Halfrek

Untitled
Added an explanation of the dispute regarding Cecily's surname, and removed any concrete references to the surname from the article itself. Lokicarbis 03:31, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking back I found that 'Cecily Addams' is explicitly the role attributed to Kali Rocha in the end credits of 'Fool For Love', so until we hear otherwise from ME I think it's fair to say that's the correct one and 'Lies My Parents Told Me' just has an error in it. Proserpine (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the dialog from the scene in Lies My Parents Told Me, and though William's mother does ask if Cecily is the "Underwood's eldest girl," William's response ("Uh, no, uh, no. I do not presume.") could be taken that the mother had her confused with someone else. This would fit with the concept that Halfrek and Cecily are one and the same, since the Crimean War takes place prior to this time, and Halfrek claims to have witnessed it, meaning she would have been a vengeance demon at the time she was posing as Cecily and met William. Doubtful that William's mother would have been familiar with the family tree of a vengeance demon that was witnessing the Crimean War taking place some 30 years prior. Nolefan32 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Identity
Is there an actual quotable source for the "Halfrek definitely is the same being as Cecily" thing? Kinitawowi 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Kali Rocha did an interview with Buffy the Vampire Slayer magazine in which she first says they are one and the same, but then clearly means it as a joke when she says they're both "me". By the end of the interview, she recants and says even she's not really sure if they are.  What is true is that the part of Halfrek was not explicitly written for her (i.e., she'd already played Cecily, so writing Halfrek specifically for Kali could be an indicator they were intended to be one and the same); Rocha had to audition.  The one line of dialog that most like to use as "proof" that they are - Halfrek's "William?" from Older and Far Away - the writers contend it was included as an inside joke, strictly because Kali Rocha did play both parts, and considering that the line only shows that Halfrek and Spike have history but not necessarily that Halfrek is definitely Cecily, one line of joke dialog really proves nothing.  In the end, this is just one of the great unanswered Buffyverse questions. (BTW - in this article, it states that Kali Rocha and Joss Whedon have said they are the same; I can't speak for Joss, but as noted, Kali told BtVS magazine that she doesn't know for sure - meaning that the attribution to her saying they are is wrong.) Nolefan32 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...in case any poker players are searching here...
"Halfrek" is (apprently -- see http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/printthread.php?t=208114&pp=100&page=5 ) the online (Full Tilt) handle for Phillip Helm, who in spring 2008 won the 2 biggest buyins for the FTOPS series (Spring 2008) and has been mentioned (without evidence, mind you) as being fishy along the lines of POTRIPPER (Absolute Poker cheating scandal) and NIONIO (Ultimate Bet cheating scandal). There does not seem to be a Wikipedia article about the poker player, thus my little paragraph here. Not implying anything about the legitimacy of Halfrek's tournament wins (a lot of people say he is amazing at "closing" i.e. winning when he makes it to a final table, so I personally doubt he was/is cheating at all...) 96.52.130.129 (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional photo
Could someone add an additional photo of her demonic face? It would seem relevant to show her in both forms.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Halfrek


text:
Cobray Company

The Cobray Company was an American developer and manufacturer of submachine guns, automatic carbines, handguns, shotguns, and non-lethal 37 mm launchers. These were manufactured by SWD. In the 1970s and 1980s, Cobray was a counter terrorist training center in addition to being an arms maker under the leadership of Mitch WerBell.

Cobray models

 * M-10 (.45 ACP/9mm), semi and full auto (146 mm or 127 mm barrel)
 * M-11 (.380 ACP), semi and full auto (127 mm barrel)
 * M11-A1 (.380 ACP), an open bolt version of the M-11
 * M-11/9 (9mm), semi and full auto (127 mm barrel)
 * M-12 (.380 ACP), semi-auto only
 * Pocket Pal (.22 Long Rifle/.380 ACP), a dual-barrel, switch-cylinder, top-break revolver
 * Terminator (12 or 20-gauge), a slam fire, single-shot shotgun
 * Street Sweeper (12-gauge), a clone of the Armsel Striker
 * Ladies Home Companion (.410 bore or .45-70), a reduced caliber version of the Street Sweeper
 * Cobray/FMJ Ducktown (.22 Long Rifle/.45 Colt-.410 bore), an over-under derringer
 * Cobray CM-11 (9mm), a carbine version of the M-11

Legal issues
After some legal troubles, the company changed its name to Leinad (Daniel spelled backwards) and produced at least four new models which were designed to conform with the ban on assault weapons that was then in effect.

Leinad models

 * PM-11/9 (9mm)
 * PM-12 (.380 ACP)
 * DBD38357 (.357 Magnum/.38 Special)-Double Barrel (Pictured right)
 * DBD41045 (.45 Long Colt/.410 bore)-Double Barrel
 * Six shot (manual rotation) .22 LR derringer
 * Model MR-5 shot manual rotation .45 Long Colt/.410 bore Pepper-box revolver derringer

Closure of company
The owners of Leinad chose to change the company name and sell the company to Sylvia's son, Shane Arrington. The Cobray Trademark is registered to a privately owned company in the US. They continue to manufacture parts and accessories, as well as multiple firearms.

title: Cobray Company


text:
Roundabout (play)

A roundabout (British English), merry-go-round (American English), or carousel (Australian English), is a piece of playground equipment, a flat disk, frequently about 2 to 3 m in diameter, with bars on it that act as both hand-holds and something to lean against while riding. The disk can be made to spin by pushing or pulling on its handles, either by running around the outside, or by pulling and re-grabbing as it spins, from a stationary stance. If the disk is mounted at a tilt to the ground, after an initial push, the disk can be speeded up without further pushing or touching the ground. The trick is to have the rider(s) lean into the center of the disk while ascending and leaning out from the center when descending. It is the physics of angular momentum and also works for swings. Often found in school playgrounds and public parks, they offer riders (typically children) a dizzying ride when either others spin the wheel, or by spinning it themselves by running around it, and then jumping on. People may take turns between riding and spinning. One type of roundabout which differs significantly in terms of how the rotary motion is provided is a Swedish device called the HAGS Pedal Roundabout, which resembles four small exercise bikes attached to a tubular steel ring, which travel on a circular steel rail on the ground. The ring is attached to a vertical pole in the center by four spokes. There is a driving wheel hidden under the casing of each of the "exercise bikes" (the casings prevent toes being run over) and the roundabout is turned by the pedaling action of the riders.

The names roundabout, merry-go-round, and carousel are also used, in varying dialects, to refer to a distinct fair or amusement park ride.

Innovation
An inventor, Ronnie Stuiver, devised a pump powered by a turning children's roundabout, which premiered at an agricultural show in KwaZulu-Natal in 1989. This device is known as the Roundabout PlayPump. There are about 600 PlayPumps in South Africa, intended to provide clean drinking water to about one million impoverished people.

Several issues have been raised about the effectiveness of using such a pump as a power source given how consistent the need for water is, thereby turning children into a source of manual labor. Additionally, it has been noted that the problem for water infrastructure is often not the ability to pump ground water that pools close to the surface, but the limited availability of groundwater itself. UNICEF has released a comprehensive report on the current status of the PlayPump project.

Benefits
Roundabout play provides several benefits to children. This equipment can help children with autism increase vestibular stimulation, can increase development of kinaesthetic awareness and can help children develop strength, coordination, and balance. These types of movements can also be therapeutic to growing children.

title: Roundabout (play)


text:
Fifth Ward

Fifth Ward or Ward 5 may refer to one of the following places:

 * Fifth Ward, Houston, a neighborhood of Houston
 * 5th Ward of New Orleans, a ward of New Orleans
 * Fifth Ward (Atlanta), a historical ward of Atlanta
 * Fifth Ward, Louisiana, a census-designated place in Avoyelles Parish
 * Fifth Ward, Philadelphia, a ward of Philadelphia
 * Ward 5 (Mississauga), a municipal ward in Mississauga, Ontario
 * Ward 5, St. Louis City, an aldermanic ward of St. Louis
 * Ward 5, one of the neighborhoods of Washington, D.C.
 * Ward 5, the name of several wards of Zimbabwe
 * West Carleton-March Ward, Ottawa (also known as Ward 5)

In other uses, it may refer to:
 * Fifth Ward (film), a 1997 drama film
 * 5th Ward The Series, a 2018 television series based on the film
 * Fifth Ward Democrats, American football team

title: Fifth Ward


text: User talk:66.30.119.150

title: User talk:66.30.119.150


text:
Minoru Mochizuki

Minoru Mochizuki (望月 稔) was a Japanese martial artist who founded the dojo Yoseikan. He was a 10th dan in Aikido, 9th dan in Jujutsu, 8th dan in Iaido, 8th dan in Judo, 8th dan in Kobudo, 5th dan in Kendo, 5th dan in Karate, and a 5th dan in Jojutsu.

Mochizuki was one of the direct students of Judo founder Jigoro Kano, Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba and Gichin Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan Karate.

Believing that the martial arts had become distorted by specialization into separate disciplines or transformed into sports, Mochizuki achievement was to assemble back the major techniques of the Japanese martial tradition into a single structure, as it was once practised. He oversaw the development of the system from his home in Shizuoka, Japan, where his dojo, the Yoseikan, was often visited by martial arts practitioners from all over the world.

Early life
On April 7, 1907, Mochizuki was born in Shizuoka, Japan. Mochizuki, began by training in kendo at the age of five, at his grandfather's dojo in Shizuoka.

Career
In 1925, Mochizuki began judo and joined the Kodokan where he became an outstanding competitor. Under the tutelage of Jigoro Kano, the founder of judo, as well as the renowned Sanpo Toku, Mochizuki became the youngest member of the Kobudo Kenkyukai – an organization for the study, preservation and development of classical martial arts – established within the Kodokan. Here he practised among others Katori Shinto-ryu. In 1930, he was sent by Jigoro Kano to study aikijujutsu with Morihei Ueshiba. He was the uchideshi of Morihei Ueshiba at the Kobukan dojo for one year before opening his own dojo in Shizuoka City in 1931.

He was awarded two Daito-Ryu scrolls by Ueshiba in June 1932 ("Goshinyo no te" and "Hiden ogi no koto"). He spent eight years in Mongolia where he was an active educator and entrepreneur of projects to improve communications and irrigation. His idea of combating communism with the application of the principles of "mutual welfare and prosperity" and of "the best use of energy" of Jigoro Kano contributed to the development of his region. His irrigation project was completed after the Second World War by the Chinese authorities. Mochizuki was the first to teach aikido in the West when he traveled in France from 1951 to 1953 as a judo teacher. He was the 3rd Aikido Division head of the Kokusai Budoin-International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF Japan) after Ueshiba and Tomiki. He taught at the dojo of Shizuoka until nearly the end of the last millennium and spent the last years of his life in France with his son Hiroo.

Personal
On May 30, 2003, Mochizuki died in Aix-en-Provence, France at the age of 96.

title: Minoru Mochizuki


text:
Talk:United Ireland

short desc
Hey, could you explain further your comment about my short desc revision? My main goal is to shorten the number of characters to 40 or less, per WP:SHORTDESC, and I'm not sure what issue you had with the phrasing I introduced.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I imagine you are new to the subject. Why not read the article? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the article. "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" and "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" are both phrases that imply Ireland is not currently a single sovereign state, so I'm unsure how your comment "According to some it already is" only applies to the shorter, closer to 40 character version. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the problem either. Neither sentence is totally satisfactory in its precision, but that is to be expected when trying to compress it toward 40 characters. The important point here, I assume, is whether the proposed shorter version is communicating essentially the same notion as the present longer version. Each reads identically to me as a proposition for one state to comprise the island of Ireland. The only notable word lost is "sovereign", but sovereignty is implicit in being a state, so I don't see how it affects the meaning of the sentence. --Scuoise (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a fairly large body of opinion that Ireland is already "a single state", & has been since 1916/18 etc. Since the readers of this article are disproportionately likely to hold this view, I see no reason to needlessly piss them off just for the dreadful WP:SHORTDESC. "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" does not prejudge this issue, but the other does. I can't agree each "reads identically ". Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the reading of "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" as meaning Ireland already IS a single sovereign state except in the most contrived of interpretations. Regardless, the lede specifically states "At present, the island is divided politically; [...] Ireland has been partitioned since May 1921[...]" and the short description should reflect this understanding of the current situation. I believe it already does (but needs to be shortened to meet WP:SHORTDESC), but even if you don't think it already meets that understanding, it is clear the article considers that Ireland is currently NOT a single sovereign state and "United Ireland" is the concept of forming it into one. Ireland clearly does not meet the definition at Sovereign state of " a political entity represented by one centralized government", so there is no need to leave the short description ambiguous just to not bother someone with a specific political leaning. --Cerebral726 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn! Of course Ireland is not now "a single sovereign state" in reality, but quite a lot of people think it is in a notional, theoretical sort of way. What is the "ambiguity" at present? Don't you think "form" an odd choice of word?  Why should a short desc needlessly upset people with a "specific political leaning" when there is no need? Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is ambiguity, which is why I wanted to change it to the phrasing "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" which to me is unambiguously synonymous but less wordy than "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" . However, you seem to think the current form has a level of ambiguity that allows people who already believe Ireland is a "notional, theoretical" single state to be satisfied. I think that is not the case, and am looking to shorten it down to around 40 characters per WP:SHORTDESC. Do you have a suggestion that is better than "form", which does not strike me as odd. Perhaps "Proposition to merge Ireland into a single state"? --Cerebral726 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is even more POV to old-school Nationalists. The advantage of the current wording is that it takes no position on whether Ireland currently is or is not a single state, which imo in a shortdesc is different from being "ambiguous". If any reader is puzzled by this, reading the first para of the article will soon set them straight. How many characters is it currently? Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you think the shortdesc should be neutral on the issue (though I still strongly disagree it is) while the article is not? The short desc should match the judgements of the article, which clearly is about a proposition to form Ireland into a single state, a state of being which is not currently the case. The current shortdesc is 66 characters, the proposed is 47 characters. What verb do you suggest better fits than "form"? We should avoid "unify" since it is part of the title. Perhaps "join" is sufficiently neutral. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken out "sovereign" as not really needed. There is now barely any length difference. A flat 40 char limit is just silly, & frankly you should be doing something useful with your editing time, rather than WP:SHORTDESC stuff. The article is neutral - it has the space to be, and is written by people (not me) who understand the subject.  I think we have discussed this enough now. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is appropriate for you to tell me how I should spend my editing time, it really is quite poor WP:ETIQUETTE and reads to me as condescending, even if that is not the intended tone. In hopes to wrap this up, a quick summary: my understanding of your argument is that you think the short desc is neutral in its stance on whether Ireland is a single or multiple states, a position I and have disagreed with, and that this neutrality is an advantage.  My argument is that if that is true and the short desc can be read either way, than it should be edited to unambiguously take the position of the article, which is clear that Ireland is not a single state. If the short description can only be read that Ireland is not a single state, than the two proposed short descriptions are identical. I'm not sure which aspect you disagree with. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Irredentism
How exactly is Irish 'unification' not irredentism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.123.130 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Are you referring to a certain edit or revert? The page is in fact contained in the categories of "irredentism" and "Irish irredentism".
 * I assume it is contained in those categories as a case of potential irredentism. Take the following definition (from Siroky and Hale's 2017 piece) typical of political-science/IR literature on the topic: "[irredentism is] defined as a state's use of military force to advance a claim of ownership over territory in a neighboring state on the basis of coethnicity, and to create a greater congruence between the ethnic group and the state (Gellner 1983, 1, 57; 1992)." Depending on how much coercive pressure one requires a state to apply before qualifying their behaviour as irredentist, Ireland's attitude toward unification with Northern Ireland could be categorised as potential or actual irredentism. Although, it would be very difficult to argue it falls on the actual side compared to the clearest cases of irredentist action (e.g., Russia's military invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine on irredentist claims) considering the generally cooperative relations between Dublin and Westminster for decades.
 * Irrespective of my speculation there as to why the article is currently contained in irredentism categories, use of the term will ultimately be guided by whatever WP:RS say or do not say about the term. If you believe sources discussing Irish unification and irredentism are being overlooked, you're always welcome to present the material here for encyclopedic contributions.
 * Lastly, if your comment was not referring to a recent edit or a specific item in the article, then just remember WP:NOTAFORUM. Scuoise (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is, as with other forms of irredentism, it should really be included in the opening of the article, so that there's no ambiguity.
 * I don't think the lack of military action on the behalf of the Republic of Ireland really absolves the irredentist nature of Irish unification supporters, particularly considering there's been a pervasive history of terrorist origanizations and violent militant action attempting to advance those exact aims. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean your point about Ireland's lack of military action regarding this issue would absolve a lot of other types of irredentism such as the concept of a Greater Israel, Greater Albania, Greater Greece etc. etc. since the official states representing the ethnic groups from which the irredentist ideas spring haven't taken any kind of military action historically, or at least in a long time.
 * I'm not really sure what your point was regarding that, that other types of irredentism are more aggressively sought after? That other types of irredentism are taken to more extreme lengths? How does that stop Irish irredentism from being a thing that exists?
 * Again, the concept of a United Ireland is blatantly irredentist, it has been openly and officially supported by the Republic of Ireland since its inception (and the states preceding it), it has led to terrorist organizations and violent militias attempting to forcibly implement it upon a population that overwhelmingly does not want it (and that's not just the non-Irish majority population of Northern Ireland that doesn't want a United Ireland, by any stretch of the imagination as polls consistently have shown).
 * It's an irredentist concept, it doesn't stop being irredentist just because it's a fairly impotent incarnation of it. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the term as useful here, any more than relating to, say, the Spanish claim on Gibraltar. The ROI support has been for several decades subject to the process in the GFA, rather than absolute. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you not see the term as useful here, exactly? I think using it for the Spanish claim on Gibraltar is perfectly justified, but are Spanish claims on Gibraltar rooted in the idea of reuniting the 'ethnic Spanish' population of Gibraltar with the Spanish state? I thought it was more about trade and taxation, but I'm not particularly well versed in the situation.
 * If there is some heavy ethnic motivation and emphasis behind Spanish claims on Gibraltar then by all means I'm happy to hear it.
 * Calls for a United Ireland are, and always have been, absolutely rooted in ethnic irredentism, however. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The ROI support has been for several decades subject to the process in the GFA, rather than absolute."
 * The State of Israel also has unequivocally denounced the idea of a Greater Israel, even going so far as to claim the idea of a Greater Israel is 'dead' (in the words of a former recent Israeli PM).
 * In fact as far as I know the idea of a Greater Israel has never experienced ANY endorsement from the Israeli state and has NEVER been pushed for or condoned or supported by any Israeli government.
 * And yet, oddly enough, the Wikipedia article on Greater Israel mentions its irredentist nature in the opening SENTENCE, I believe.
 * Weird, it's almost like some editors perhaps think Irish irredentism isn't irredentism and shouldn't be called it... because you feel it's different, like maybe you support the idea and thus don't really want a term like irredentism to be slapped on it, because that makes it look kind of ugly, doesn't it? It doesn't make the political idea of a United Ireland look all that justified.
 * But I'm sure that's not the case now, is it... 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the article on the Status of Gibraltar literally features the word irredentist in the opening sentence too, regarding Spain's claim to it:
 * "Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, located at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula, is the subject of an irredentist territorial claim by Spain."
 * What a shocker. So that leaves Irish irredentism as the ONLY form of irredentism on Wikipedia which, for some bizarre reason, is still not explicitly stated to actually BE a form of irredentism in the opening sentence. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and simply edited the opening sentence to include the fact that Irish unification is, in fact, a form of irredentism, since it quite clearly is under any traditional meaning of the word. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not Irredentism
Or at least not necessarily so. Irredentism is, according to Merriam-Webster (cited in the irredentism wikipedia article) defines irredentism as "a political principle or policy directed toward the incorporation of irredentas within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related political unit".<> An irredenta is "a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another".<> A key term here is "political unit;" it presupposes that irredentists hope to annex the irredenta to an existing political unit. This may be true for some advocates of a United Ireland, but certainly not all. Some concepts of a UI, such as Ó Brádaigh's Éire Nua, do not involve the annexation by the current Irish state but instead involve abolishing all current political entities on the island, including the Republic. This is a revolutionary goal as opposed to an irredentist one, and although Ó Brádaigh is no longer a leading republican the presence of such ideas in the movement past and present mean that it is dishonest to classify the very idea of a United Ireland as "Irredentist." 173.15.152.245 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * By the way, if you would categorize such concepts as mentioned above as irredentist simply because they involve transferring territory from one state to another not-yet-existent polity then you would have to accept that Kurdish nationalism is irredentism (and, by the logic of the recent editors of this page, mention so in the first line) as a Kurdish state would necessarily have to absorb territory from at least one of four non-Kurdish existing states. 173.15.152.245 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional proposals and "Ireland's future"
I'm going to add a heading/sub-heading on constitutional discussion including references to Ireland's future aince there is no real mentions of potential contituional arrangements and/or discssion. Is this agreeable? ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:United Ireland


text:
Talk:David Douglass (physicist)

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/David Douglass -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Douglass (physicist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901091908/http://spider.pas.rochester.edu/mainFrame/people/pages/Douglass_David_H.html to http://spider.pas.rochester.edu/mainFrame/people/pages/Douglass_David_H.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Douglass (physicist)


text:
Talk:Hvar

History
Hvar is not an appropriate name for the history section. The croats are invaders and this is a fact. The original name is Pharos/Pharia and more appropriate for history and legibility.Meroitte (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 * "That is a fact" - wikipedia isn't a product of assertions. Please provide a source, and a rationale for not using its current, common name. The history section cites the former name Pharos (the greeks, also invaders), Illyrians, and the unnamed neolithic peoples before that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hvar


text:
BMT Nassau Street Line

The BMT Nassau Street Line is a rapid transit line of the B Division of the New York City Subway system in Manhattan. At its northern end, the line is a westward continuation of the BMT Jamaica Line in Brooklyn after the Jamaica Line crosses the Williamsburg Bridge into Manhattan. The Nassau Street Line continues south to a junction with the BMT Broadway Line just before the Montague Street Tunnel, after which the line reenters Brooklyn. Although the tracks merge into the Broadway Line south of Broad Street, there has been no regular service south of the Broad Street station since June 25, 2010. While the line is officially recognized as the Nassau Street Line, it only serves one station on Nassau Street: Fulton Street.

The line is served at all times by the J train. The Z provides supplemental rush hour service, operating in the peak direction. The M service has historically served the Nassau Street Line, but since 2010, the M has been rerouted via the Chrystie Street Connection to run on the IND Sixth Avenue Line, as a replacement for the V, which was discontinued due to financial shortfalls. The M continues to serve one Nassau Street Line station: the Essex Street station.

Service
The following services use part or all of the BMT Nassau Street Line. The trunk line's bullets are colored :

Planning, construction, and first section
After the original lines of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT) opened, the city began planning new lines. Two of these were extensions of that system, to Downtown Brooklyn and Van Cortlandt Park, but the other two – the Centre Street Loop subway (or Brooklyn Loop subway) and Fourth Avenue subway (in Brooklyn) – were separate lines for which construction had not progressed as far. The Centre Street Loop, approved on January 25, 1907 as a four-track line (earlier proposed as two tracks), was to connect the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, and Williamsburg Bridge via Centre Street, Canal Street, and Delancey Street. An extension south from the Brooklyn Bridge under William Street to Wall Street was also part of the plan, as were several loops towards the Hudson River and a loop connecting the bridges through Brooklyn. Trains coming from Brooklyn via the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges would be able to head back to that borough via the Brooklyn Bridge as well as the Montague Street Tunnel at the south end of the Centre Street Loop, and vice versa. All trains would pass through a large central station with four tracks and five platforms at Chambers Street, just north of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Construction contracts for the main line in Manhattan were awarded in early 1907, though the city had not yet selected an operator for the line. The work was divided into five sections: two under Centre Street and three under other streets or buildings. The city began receiving bids for the sections under Centre Street in March 1907. The city received bids for the sections between Centre Street and Bowery (under Kenmare Street), between Bowery and Norfolk Street (under Delancey Street), and between Pearl Street and Park Row (under the Manhattan Municipal Building) that June. The line was assigned to a proposed Tri-borough system in early 1908 and to the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company (BRT) in the Dual Contracts, adopted on March 4, 1913. Unlike previous subway contracts that the city government had issued, the BRT was responsible only for constructing the Centre Street Loop and installing equipment, not for operating the loop. As a result, although the loop was almost completed by late 1908, there was no operator for the route at the time. Furthermore, the BRT did not originally want to operate the loop.

The BRT began operating through a short piece of subway, coming off the Williamsburg Bridge under Delancey Street to Essex Street, on September 16, 1908. The BRT tunnel under Centre Street was completed by 1910, except for the section under the Municipal Building, which contained the incomplete Chambers Street station. The tunnel remained unused for several years. In March 1913, the Public Service Commission authorized the BRT to lay tracks, install signals, and operate the loop. The Centre Street Loop was opened to Chambers Street on August 4, 1913, with temporary operation at first on the two west tracks. The south tracks on the Manhattan Bridge, also running into Chambers Street, were placed in service on June 22, 1915.

Construction
Under Contract 4 of the Dual Contracts, the BRT (later reorganized as the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation or BMT) was to operate the Nassau Street Line. The southern portion of the line remained incomplete for several years, and the BRT brought a $30 million suit against the city for not building the line before January 1, 1917. Most of the BMT's Dual Contracts lines were completed by 1924, except for the Nassau Street Line. BMT chairman Gerhard Dahl was persistent at requesting that the city build the line, saying in 1923 that the BMT was willing to operate the line as soon as the city completed it. At the time, the BMT was planning to construct two stations on the Nassau Street Line: one at Fulton Street, where the BMT planned to place the northbound platform above the southbound platform due to the street's narrowness, and the other at the intersection at Broad and Wall Streets, where both platforms would be on the same level. However, mayor John Hylan refused to act during his final two years in office. BOT chairman John H. Delaney believed that the line was unnecessary because both of its planned stations would be extremely close to existing subway stations. Meanwhile, the BMT claimed that the city's failure to complete the line was overburdening other BMT lines. By January 1925, the BMT was asking its passengers to pressure Hylan into approving the remainder of the Nassau Street Line. Work did not commence until after James Walker succeeded Hylan as mayor at the end of 1925.

The city government agreed to build the Nassau Street Line in May 1927, after the BMT sued the city for $30 million. At the time, the city wanted to take over the BMT's lines but could not do so until all Dual Contracts lines were completed. The BOT received bids for the construction of the line that July, but it rejected every bid the next month because of concerns over the lowest bidder's ability to complete the work. That September, contractors again submitted bids to the BOT; some bidders offered to build the entire line, while others only offered to construct the segments of the line to the north or south of Liberty Street. The BOT awarded construction contracts for the line's construction two months later. The Marcus Contracting Company was hired to build the portion north of Liberty Street, including the Fulton Street station, for $4.7 million, while Moranti and Raymond were hired to build the portion to the south for $5.7 million. The New York City Board of Estimate approved the contracts in January 1928, allowing the builders to construct the line using the cut-and-cover method, despite merchants' requests that the line be constructed using tunnelling shields.

The line was constructed 20 feet below the active IRT Lexington Avenue Line, next to buildings along the narrow Nassau Street, and the project encountered difficulties such as quicksand. When the construction contracts were awarded, work had been projected to be completed in 39 months. By early 1929, sixty percent of the work had been finished. Nassau Street is only 34 ft wide, and the subway floor was only 20 ft below building foundations. As a result, 89 buildings had to be underpinned to ensure that they would stay on their foundations. Construction had to be done 20 feet below the active IRT Lexington Avenue Line. An area filled with quicksand with water, which used to belong to a spring, was found between John Street and Broad Street. Construction was done at night so as to not disturb workers in the Financial District. The project was 80 percent complete by April 1930, and Charles Meads & Co. was awarded a $252,000 contract to install the Fulton Street station's finishes the next month. The plans for that station had been changed so that the southbound platform was above the northbound platform. The total construction cost was $10.072 million for 0.9 mi of new tunnels, or 2,068 $/ft, which was three times the normal cost of construction at the time.

Opening of loop
The Nassau Street Loop opened at 3 p.m. on May 29, 1931, when Mayor Jimmy Walker took the controls of a train of D-type Triplex cars from Chambers Street to Broad Street. This completed what was known as the Nassau Street Loop. The loop ran from the line's previous terminus at Chambers Street, running through the Fulton Street and Broad Street stations before merging with the Montague Street Tunnel to Brooklyn. The completion of the line relieved congestion on several BMT lines to southern Brooklyn, which previously had to operate to Midtown Manhattan using the Broadway Line. When the line was completed, Culver Line trains began operating on the loop; previously, elevated Culver Line trains from Coney Island ran only as far as Ninth Avenue, where transfers were made to West End subway trains. The new line provided an additional ten percent capacity compared with existing service through DeKalb Avenue. Service on the Jamaica Line was extended to operate to this station. The station at Wall Street was named "Broad Street" to distinguish it from the already-open Wall Street stations on the Lexington Avenue Line and Seventh Avenue Line.

Plans for the Chambers Street area changed several times during construction, always including a never-completed connection to the Brooklyn Bridge tracks. By 1910, only the west two tracks were to rise onto the bridge, and the east two were to continue south to the Montague Street Tunnel. As actually built for the 1931 opening south of Chambers Street, the two outer tracks ran south to the tunnel, while the two inner tracks continued several blocks in a lower level stub tunnel to allow trains to reverse direction.

Service changes and modifications
A major change to the Nassau Street Line occurred on November 27, 1967, when the extensive Chrystie Street reroutes resulted in the discontinuation of service over the south tracks of the Manhattan Bridge into Chambers Street, as those tracks were now directly connected to the upper level (Broadway) Canal Street station. This ended all "loop" service, which had most recently seen rush hour "specials" on both the Brighton and 4th Avenue lines operating via both the Manhattan Bridge and Montague Street tunnel in single directions.

As part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2000–2004 Capital Program, the reconfiguration of the Nassau Street Line between Canal Street and Essex Street took place. As part of the plan, northbound trains were rerouted via the second track from the west, and the former northbound platforms at Canal Street and Bowery were closed. The second track from the east was removed. Work on the project started in 2001. This change took effect on September 20, 2004. The reconfiguration provided additional operational flexibility by providing a third through track (previously the center two tracks stub-ended at Canal Street), which was equipped with reverse signaling. The consolidation of the Bowery and Canal Street stations was intended to enhance customer security while consolidating passengers onto what used to be the southbound platforms. The project was completed in May 2005, seven months behind its scheduled completion. The project cost $36 million.

On June 14, 2015, weekend J service was extended back to Broad Street; this was proposed in July 2014 to improve weekend service between Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. Between 1990 and 2015, when weekend service terminated at Canal, between September 30, 1990 and January 1994, or Chambers Streets, from January 1994 to June 2015, Broad Street and the J/Z platforms at Fulton Street were two of the four New York City Subway stations that lacked full-time service (the remaining two being the platforms for the IRT 42nd Street Shuttle).

title: BMT Nassau Street Line


text:
Fundamental theorems of welfare economics

There are two fundamental theorems of welfare economics. The first states that in economic equilibrium, a set of complete markets, with complete information, and in perfect competition, will be Pareto optimal (in the sense that no further exchange would make one person better off without making another worse off). The requirements for perfect competition are these:
 * 1) There are no externalities and each actor has perfect information.
 * 2) Firms and consumers take prices as given (no economic actor or group of actors has market power).

The theorem is sometimes seen as an analytical confirmation of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" principle, namely that competitive markets ensure an efficient allocation of resources. However, there is no guarantee that the Pareto optimal market outcome is equitative, as there are many possible Pareto efficient allocations of resources differing in their desirability (e.g. one person may own everything and everyone else nothing).

The second theorem states that any Pareto optimum can be supported as a competitive equilibrium for some initial set of endowments. The implication is that any desired Pareto optimal outcome can be supported; Pareto efficiency can be achieved with any redistribution of initial wealth. However, attempts to correct the distribution may introduce distortions, and so full optimality may not be attainable with redistribution.

The theorems can be visualized graphically for a simple pure exchange economy by means of the Edgeworth box diagram.

Adam Smith (1776)
In a discussion of import tariffs Adam Smith wrote that: "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can... He is in this, as in many other ways, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."Note that Smith's ideas were not directed towards welfare economics specifically, as this field of economics had not been created at the time. However, his arguments have been credited towards the creation of the branch as well as the fundamental theories of welfare economics.

Léon Walras (1870)
Walras wrote that 'exchange under free competition is an operation by which all parties obtain the maximum satisfaction subject to buying and selling at a uniform price'.

F. Y. Edgeworth (1881)
Edgeworth took a step towards the first fundamental theorem in his 'Mathematical Psychics', looking at a pure exchange economy with no production. He included imperfect competition in his analysis. His definition of equilibrium is almost the same as Pareto's later definition of optimality: it is a point such that... "in whatever direction we take an infinitely small step, P and Π [the utilities of buyer and seller] do not increase together, but that, while one increases, the other decreases." Instead of concluding that equilibrium was Pareto optimal, Edgeworth concluded that the equilibrium maximizes the sum of utilities of the parties, which is a special case of Pareto efficiency: "It seems to follow on general dynamical principles applied to this special case that equilibrium is attained when the total pleasure-energy of the contractors is a maximum relative, or subject, to conditions..."

Vilfredo Pareto (1906/9)
Pareto stated the first fundamental theorem in his Manuale (1906) and with more rigour in its French revision (Manuel, 1909). He was the first to claim optimality under his own criterion or to support the claim by convincing arguments.

He defines equilibrium more abstractly than Edgeworth as a state which would maintain itself indefinitely in the absence of external pressures and shows that in an exchange economy it is the point at which a common tangent to the parties' indifference curves passes through the endowment.

His definition of optimality is given in Chap. VI: "We will say that the members of a collectivity enjoy a maximum of ophelimity [i.e. of utility] at a certain position when it is impossible to move a small step away such that the ophelimity enjoyed by each individual in the collectivity increases, or such that it diminishes. [He has previously defined an increase in individual ophelimity as a move onto a higher indifference curve.] That is to say that any small step is bound to increase the ophelimity of some individuals while diminishing that of others."

The following paragraph gives us a theorem: "For phenomena of type I [i.e. perfect competition], when equilibrium takes place at a point of tangency of indifference curves, the members of the collectivity enjoy a maximum of ophelimity." He adds that 'a rigorous proof cannot be given without the help of mathematics' and refers to his Appendix.

Wicksell, referring to his definition of optimality, commented: "With such a definition it is almost self-evident that this so-called maximum obtains under free competition, because if, after an exchange is effected, it were possible by means of a further series of direct or indirect exchanges to produce an additional satisfaction of needs for the participators, then to that extent such a continued exchange would doubtless have taken place, and the original position could not be one of final equilibrium."

Pareto didn't find it so straightforward. He gives a diagrammatic argument in his text, applying solely to exchange, and a 32-page mathematical argument in the Appendix which Samuelson found 'not easy to follow'. Pareto was hampered by not having a concept of the production–possibility frontier, whose development was due partly to his collaborator Enrico Barone. His own 'indifference curves for obstacles' seem to have been a false path.

Shortly after stating the first fundamental theorem, Pareto asks a question about distribution: "Consider a collectivist society which seeks to maximise the ophelimity of its members. The problem divides into two parts. Firstly we have a problem of distribution: how should the goods within a society be shared between its members? And secondly, how should production be organised so that, when goods are so distributed, the members of society obtain the maximum ophelimity?" His answer is an informal precursor of the second theorem: "Having distributed goods according to the answer to the first problem, the state should allow the members of the collectivity to operate a second distribution, or operate it itself, in either case making sure that it is performed in conformity with the workings of free competition."

Enrico Barone (1908)
Barone, an associate of Pareto, proved an optimality property of perfect competition, namely that – assuming exogenous prices – it maximises the monetary value of the return from productive activity, this being the sum of the values of leisure, savings, and goods for consumption, all taken in the desired proportions. He makes no argument that the prices chosen by the market are themselves optimal.

His paper wasn't translated into English until 1935. It received an approving summary from Samuelson but seems not to have influenced the development of the welfare theorems as they now stand.

Abba Lerner (1934)
In 1934 Lerner restated Edgeworth's condition for exchange that indifference curves should meet as tangents, presenting it as an optimality property. He stated a similar condition for production, namely that the production–possibility frontier (PPF, to which he gave the alternative name of 'productive indifference curve') should be tangential with an indifference curve for the community. He was one of the originators of the PPF, having used it in a paper on international trade in 1932. He shows that the two arguments can be presented in the same terms, since the PPF plays the same role as the mirror-image indifference curve in an Edgeworth box. He also mentions that there's no need for the curves to be differentiable, since the same result obtains if they touch at pointed corners.

His definition of optimality was equivalent to Pareto's: "If... it is possible to move one individual into a preferred position without moving another individual into a worse position... we may say that the relative optimum is not reached..." The optimality condition for production is equivalent to the pair of requirements that (i) price should equal marginal cost and (ii) output should be maximised subject to (i). Lerner thus reduces optimality to tangency for both production and exchange, but does not say why the implied point on the PPF should be the equilibrium condition for a free market. Perhaps he considered it already sufficiently well established.

Lerner ascribes to his LSE colleague Victor Edelberg the credit for suggesting the use of indifference curves. Samuelson surmised that Lerner obtained his results independently of Pareto's work.

Harold Hotelling (1938)
Hotelling put forward a new argument to show that 'sales at marginal costs are a condition of maximum general welfare' (under Pareto's definition). He accepted that this condition was satisfied by perfect competition, but argued in consequence that perfect competition could not be optimal since some beneficial projects would be unable to recoup their fixed costs by charging at this rate (for example, in a natural monopoly).

Oscar Lange (1942)
Lange's paper 'The Foundations of Welfare Economics' is the source of the now-traditional pairing of two theorems, one governing markets, the other distribution. He justified the Pareto definition of optimality for the first theorem by reference to Lionel Robbins's rejection of interpersonal utility comparisons, and suggested various ways to reintroduce interpersonal comparisons for the second theorem such as the adjudications of a democratically elected Congress. Lange believed that such a congress could act in a similar way to a capitalist: through setting price vectors, it could achieve any optimal production plan to have achieve efficiency and social equality.

His reasoning is a mathematical translation (into Lagrange multipliers) of Lerner's graphical argument. The second theorem does not take its familiar form in his hands; rather he simply shows that the optimisation conditions for a genuine social utility function are similar to those for Pareto optimality.

Abram Bergson and Paul Samuelson (1947)
Samuelson (crediting Abram Bergson for the substance of his ideas) brought Lange's second welfare theorem to approximately its modern form. He follows Lange in deriving a set of equations which are necessary for Pareto optimality, and then considers what additional constraints arise if the economy is required to satisfy a genuine social welfare function, finding a further set of equations from which it follows 'that all of the action necessary to achieve a given ethical desideratum may take the form of lump sum taxes or bounties'.

Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu (separately, 1951)
Arrow's and Debreu's two papers (written independently and published almost simultaneously) sought to improve on the rigour of Lange's first theorem. Their accounts refer to (short-run) production as well as exchange, expressing the conditions for both through linear functions.

Equilibrium for production is expressed by the constraint that the value of a manufacturer's net output, i.e. the dot product of the production vector with the price vector, should be maximised over the manufacturer's production set. This is interpreted as profit maximisation.

Equilibrium for exchange is interpreted as meaning that the individual's utility should be maximised over the positions obtainable from the endowment through exchange, these being the positions whose value is no greater than the value of his or her endowment, where the value of an allocation is its dot product with the price vector.

Arrow motivated his paper by reference to the need to extend proofs to cover equilibria at the edge of the space, and Debreu by the possibility of indifference curves being non-differentiable. Modern texts follow their style of proof.

Greenwald–Stiglitz theorem
In their 1986 paper, "Externalities in Economies with Imperfect Information and Incomplete Markets", Bruce Greenwald and Joseph Stiglitz showed that the fundamental welfare theorems do not hold if there are incomplete markets or imperfect information. The paper establishes that a competitive equilibrium of an economy with asymmetric information is generically not even constrained Pareto efficient. A government facing the same information constraints as the private individuals in the economy can nevertheless find Pareto-improving policy interventions.

Greenwald and Stiglitz noted several relevant situations, including how moral hazard may render a situation inefficient (e.g. an alcohol tax may be pareto improving as it reduces automobile accidents).

Assumptions for the fundamental theorems
In principle, there are two commonly found versions of the fundamental theorems, one relating to an exchange economy in which endowments are exogenously given, and one relating to an economy in which production occurs. The production economy is more general and entails additional assumptions. The assumptions are all based on the standard graduate microeconomics textbook.

The fundamental theorems do not generally ensure existence, nor uniqueness of the equilibria.

First Fundamental Theorem

 * The preference relation $$\geq_i$$ is locally non-satiated for each consumer i.
 * Agents (consumers and, in a production economy, firms) take prices as given.
 * Markets are complete.
 * Perfect information.
 * Agents behave rationally.
 * No externalities.

Second Fundamental Theorem
The second fundamental theorem has more demanding conditions.

 * All assumptions of the first theorem; in addition:
 * The preference relation $$\geq_i$$ is locally non-satiated and convex for each consumer i
 * The production set $$Y_j$$ is convex for each firm j.
 * For the step from price quasi-equilibrium to price equilibrium with transfers: The initial endowment of each agents is strictly positive.

Common failures of the assumptions
The following provides a non-exhaustive list of common failures of the assumptions underlying the fundamental theorems.
 * Price-taking behaviour: In game theoretic interactions, e.g. when firms have monopoly power, the resulting equilibrium is not pareto-efficient
 * Externalities: In many instances, prominently pollution & climate action, this assumption is violated. In certain instances, a Pigouvian tax can restore the pareto-efficient allocation.
 * Non-satiation: While non-satiation is a very weak assumption, there exist two primary cases in which it fails to hold. Firstly, if preferences have a satiation point (e.g. Central Banks who target inflation have a satiation point at the inflation rate that they target). Secondly, if goods can only be purchased in discrete chunks, this assumption might be violated.
 * Rationality: The field of Behavioral economics documents many violations of economic rationality.
 * Convexity: In the presence of increasing returns to scale, convexity fails. Note that this assumption is not necessary for the first fundamental theorem.

Another instance in which the welfare theorems fail to hold is in the canonical Overlapping generations model (OLG). A further assumption that is implicit in the statement of the theorem is that the value of total endowments in the economy (some of which might be transformed into other goods via production) is finite. In the OLG model, the finiteness of endowments fails, giving rise to similar problems as described by Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

Whether the assumptions underlying the fundamental theorems are an adequate description of markets is at least partially an empirical question and may differ case by case.

Proof of the first fundamental theorem
The first fundamental theorem holds under general conditions. A formal statement is as follows: If preferences are locally nonsatiated, and if $$(\mathbf{X^*},\mathbf{Y^*}, \mathbf{p})$$ is a price equilibrium with transfers, then the allocation $$(\mathbf{X^*},\mathbf{Y^*})$$is Pareto optimal. An equilibrium in this sense either relates to an exchange economy only or presupposes that firms are allocatively and productively efficient, which can be shown to follow from perfectly competitive factor and production markets.

Given a set $$G$$ of types of goods we work in the real vector space over $$G$$, $$\mathbb{R}^{G}$$ and use boldface for vector valued variables. For instance, if $$G=\lbrace \text{butter}, \text{cookies}, \text{milk} \rbrace$$ then $$\mathbb{R}^{G}$$ would be a three dimensional vector space and the vector $$\langle 1, 2, 3 \rangle$$ would represent the bundle of goods containing 1 unit of butter, 2 units of cookies and 3 units of milk.

Suppose that consumer i has wealth $$w_i$$ such that $$\Sigma_i w_i = \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{e} + \Sigma _j \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{y^*_j}$$ where $$ \mathbf{e} $$ is the aggregate endowment of goods (i.e. the sum of all consumer and producer endowments) and $$\mathbf{y^*_j}$$ is the production of firm j.

Preference maximization (from the definition of price equilibrium with transfers) implies (using $$ >_i$$ to denote the preference relation for consumer i):

 * if $$\mathbf{x_i} >_i \mathbf{x^*_i}$$ then $$\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} > \mathbf{w_i}$$

In other words, if a bundle of goods is strictly preferred to $$\mathbf{x^*_i}$$ it must be unaffordable at price $$\mathbf{p}$$. Local nonsatiation additionally implies:

 * if $$\mathbf{x_i} \geq _i \mathbf{x^*_i}$$ then $$\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} \geq \mathbf{w_i}$$

To see why, imagine that $$\mathbf{x_i} \geq _i \mathbf{x^*_i}$$ but $$\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} < w_i$$. Then by local nonsatiation we could find $$\mathbf{x'_i}$$ arbitrarily close to $$\mathbf{x_i}$$ (and so still affordable) but which is strictly preferred to $$\mathbf{x^*_i}$$. But $$\mathbf{x^*_i}$$ is the result of preference maximization, so this is a contradiction.

An allocation is a pair $$(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$$ where $$\mathbf{X} \in \Pi_{i \in I} \mathbb{R}^{G} $$ and $$\mathbf{Y} \in \Pi_{j \in J} \mathbb{R}^{G} $$, i.e. $$\mathbf{X}$$ is the 'matrix' (allowing potentially infinite rows/columns) whose ith column is the bundle of goods allocated to consumer i and $$\mathbf{Y}$$ is the 'matrix' whose jth column is the production of firm j. We restrict our attention to feasible allocations which are those allocations in which no consumer sells or producer consumes goods which they lack, i.e.,for every good and every consumer that consumers initial endowment plus their net demand must be positive similarly for producers.

Now consider an allocation $$(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$$ that Pareto dominates $$(\mathbf{X^*}, Y^*)$$. This means that $$\mathbf{x_i} \geq _i \mathbf{x^*_i}$$ for all i and $$\mathbf{x_i} >_i \mathbf{x^*_i}$$ for some i. By the above, we know $$\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} \geq w_i$$ for all i and $$\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} > w_i$$ for some i. Summing, we find:

 * $$\Sigma _i \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} > \Sigma _i w_i = \Sigma _j \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{y^*_j}$$.

Because $$ \mathbf{Y^*}$$ is profit maximizing, we know $$ \Sigma _j \mathbf{p} \cdot y^*_j \geq \Sigma _j p \cdot y_j $$, so $$\Sigma _i \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x_i} > \Sigma _j \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{y_j}$$. But goods must be conserved so $$\Sigma _i \mathbf{x_i} > \Sigma _j \mathbf{y_j}$$. Hence, $$(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$$ is not feasible. Since all Pareto-dominating allocations are not feasible, $$(\mathbf{X^*},\mathbf{Y^*})$$ must itself be Pareto optimal.

Note that while the fact that $$ \mathbf{Y^*}$$ is profit maximizing is simply assumed in the statement of the theorem the result is only useful/interesting to the extent such a profit maximizing allocation of production is possible. Fortunately, for any restriction of the production allocation $$ \mathbf{Y^*}$$ and price to a closed subset on which the marginal price is bounded away from 0, e.g., any reasonable choice of continuous functions to parameterize possible productions, such a maximum exists. This follows from the fact that the minimal marginal price and finite wealth limits the maximum feasible production (0 limits the minimum) and Tychonoff's theorem ensures the product of these compacts spaces is compact ensuring us a maximum of whatever continuous function we desire exists.

Proof of the second fundamental theorem
The second theorem formally states that, under the assumptions that every production set $$Y_j$$ is convex and every preference relation $$\geq _i$$ is convex and locally nonsatiated, any desired Pareto-efficient allocation can be supported as a price quasi-equilibrium with transfers. Further assumptions are needed to prove this statement for price equilibria with transfers.

The proof proceeds in two steps: first, we prove that any Pareto-efficient allocation can be supported as a price quasi-equilibrium with transfers; then, we give conditions under which a price quasi-equilibrium is also a price equilibrium.

Let us define a price quasi-equilibrium with transfers as an allocation $$(x^*,y^*)$$, a price vector p, and a vector of wealth levels w (achieved by lump-sum transfers) with $$\Sigma _i w_i = p \cdot \omega + \Sigma _j p \cdot y^*_j$$ (where $$ \omega $$ is the aggregate endowment of goods and $$y^*_j$$ is the production of firm j) such that:

 * i. $$p \cdot y_j \leq p \cdot y_j^*$$ for all $$y_j \in Y_j$$ (firms maximize profit by producing $$y_j^*$$)
 * ii. For all i, if $$x_i >_i x_i^*$$ then $$p \cdot x_i \geq w_i$$ (if $$x_i$$ is strictly preferred to $$x_i^*$$ then it cannot cost less than $$x_i^*$$)
 * iii. $$\Sigma_i x_i^* = \omega + \Sigma _j y_j^*$$ (budget constraint satisfied)

The only difference between this definition and the standard definition of a price equilibrium with transfers is in statement (ii). The inequality is weak here ($$p \cdot x_i \geq w_i$$) making it a price quasi-equilibrium. Later we will strengthen this to make a price equilibrium. Define $$V_i$$ to be the set of all consumption bundles strictly preferred to $$x_i^*$$ by consumer i, and let V be the sum of all $$V_i$$. $$V_i$$ is convex due to the convexity of the preference relation $$\geq _i$$. V is convex because every $$V_i$$ is convex. Similarly $$Y + \{\omega\}$$, the union of all production sets $$Y_i$$ plus the aggregate endowment, is convex because every $$Y_i$$ is convex. We also know that the intersection of V and $$Y + \{\omega\}$$ must be empty, because if it were not it would imply there existed a bundle that is strictly preferred to $$(x^*,y^*)$$ by everyone and is also affordable. This is ruled out by the Pareto-optimality of $$(x^*,y^*)$$.

These two convex, non-intersecting sets allow us to apply the separating hyperplane theorem. This theorem states that there exists a price vector $$p \neq 0$$ and a number r such that $$p \cdot z \geq r$$ for every $$z \in V$$ and $$p \cdot z \leq r$$ for every $$z \in Y + \{\omega\}$$. In other words, there exists a price vector that defines a hyperplane that perfectly separates the two convex sets.

Next we argue that if $$x_i \geq _i x_i^*$$ for all i then $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i) \geq r$$. This is due to local nonsatiation: there must be a bundle $$x'_i$$ arbitrarily close to $$x_i$$ that is strictly preferred to $$x_i^*$$ and hence part of $$V_i$$, so $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x'_i) \geq r$$. Taking the limit as $$x'_i \rightarrow x_i$$ does not change the weak inequality, so $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i) \geq r$$ as well. In other words, $$x_i$$ is in the closure of V.

Using this relation we see that for $$x_i^*$$ itself $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i^*) \geq r$$. We also know that $$\Sigma _i x_i^* \in Y + \{\omega\}$$, so $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i^*) \leq r$$ as well. Combining these we find that $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i^*) = r$$. We can use this equation to show that $$(x^*,y^*,p)$$ fits the definition of a price quasi-equilibrium with transfers.

Because $$p \cdot (\Sigma _i x_i^*) = r$$ and $$\Sigma _i x_i^* = \omega + \Sigma _j y_j^*$$ we know that for any firm j:

 * $$p \cdot (\omega + y_j + \Sigma_h y_h^*) \leq r = p \cdot (\omega + y_j^* + \Sigma_h y_h^*)$$ for $$h \neq j$$

which implies $$p \cdot y_j \leq p \cdot y_j^*$$. Similarly we know:

 * $$p \cdot (x_i + \Sigma_k x_k^*) \geq r = p \cdot (x_i^* + \Sigma_k x_k^*)$$ for $$k \neq i$$

which implies $$p \cdot x_i \geq p \cdot x_i^*$$. These two statements, along with the feasibility of the allocation at the Pareto optimum, satisfy the three conditions for a price quasi-equilibrium with transfers supported by wealth levels $$w_i = p \cdot x_i^*$$ for all i.

We now turn to conditions under which a price quasi-equilibrium is also a price equilibrium, in other words, conditions under which the statement "if $$x_i >_i x_i^*$$ then $$p \cdot x_i \geq w_i$$" imples "if $$x_i >_i x_i^*$$ then $$p \cdot x_i > w_i$$". For this to be true we need now to assume that the consumption set $$X_i$$ is convex and the preference relation $$\geq _i$$ is continuous. Then, if there exists a consumption vector $$x'_i$$ such that $$x'_i \in X_i$$ and $$p \cdot x'_i < w_i$$, a price quasi-equilibrium is a price equilibrium.

To see why, assume to the contrary $$x_i >_i x_i^*$$ and $$p \cdot x_i = w_i$$, and $$x_i$$ exists. Then by the convexity of $$X_i$$ we have a bundle $$x_i = \alpha x_i + (1 - \alpha)x'_i \in X_i$$ with $$p \cdot x_i < w_i$$. By the continuity of $$\geq _i$$ for $$\alpha$$ close to 1 we have $$\alpha x_i + (1 - \alpha)x'_i >_i x_i^*$$. This is a contradiction, because this bundle is preferred to $$x_i^*$$ and costs less than $$w_i$$.

Hence, for price quasi-equilibria to be price equilibria it is sufficient that the consumption set be convex, the preference relation to be continuous, and for there always to exist a "cheaper" consumption bundle $$x'_i$$. One way to ensure the existence of such a bundle is to require wealth levels $$w_i$$ to be strictly positive for all consumers i.


text:
Mount Sugarloaf (New South Wales)

Mount Sugarloaf, also known as Great Sugar Loaf, is a mountain in the lower Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia, standing at 412 metres (1,352 feet), it looks over the cities of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock and Maitland. The summit of the mountain is in the Lake Macquarie suburb of West Wallsend and access to the summit is gained via this suburb. However, the mountain itself is also part of the city of Cessnock suburbs Mulbring and Richmond Vale. It is home to television transmitters that broadcast to the lower Hunter region. On 18 and 19 July 1965, the mountain received 10 cm of snow. It also snowed on the summit in the winter of 1975.

Television transmitters
The mountain has two broadcast transmission towers. Since the 1960s their main function has been to transmit analogue television on VHF. In the 1990s two UHF analogue stations began to transmit from there. Since 2003, they have also been transmitting digital television in the UHF band (all digital television in the lower Hunter is on UHF). The analogue television transmitters (VHF and UHF) were switched off in November 2012. One tower, built to transmit the original VHF analogue television services of NBN Television on VHF Channel 3, transmits NBN and two government digital TV services. It is commonly referred to as the "NBN Tower". The second tower is transmitting the other two commercial digital (UHF) TV stations. The second tower is controlled by Broadcast Australia, being formerly run by the National Transmission Authority. There are many other radio antennae on these towers, including 105.3 NEWFM (Newcastle's original commercial FM broadcaster – launching in 1989) and those belonging to Amateur Radio repeater and beacon stations.

Smaller tower
There is a third smaller tower that has  many directional antennae, mainly used for telecommunications, but also for two way radio for emergency services and other similar purposes. It has Telstra markings on much of the equipment and sheds.

Aboriginal history
The Awabakal people called the mountain Warrawelong and it is a significant site for the Awabakal. It provides a vantage point to view all Awabakal lands and is an important teaching place. Sacred ceremonies are known to have taken place there. The shape of the mountain is said to look like a wedge-tailed eagle and is the setting for a cautionary tale concerning the fate of two children at the hands of a monster called Puttikin.

title: Mount Sugarloaf (New South Wales)


text:
Pega

Pega (c. 673 – c. 719) is a Christian saint who was an anchoress in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia, and the sister of St Guthlac.

Life
The earliest source of information about Pega is in Felix's 8th-century Latin Life of Guthlac, where she is referred to as 'the holy virgin of Christ Pega'. As the sister of Guthlac, Pega would have been the daughter of Penwalh of Mercia and thus belonged to one of Mercia's great noble families.

She lived as an anchoress at what is now Peakirk ("Pega's church") near Peterborough, not far from Guthlac's hermitage at Crowland. When Guthlac realised that his end was near in 714, he summoned Pega, who travelled by boat to her brother's oratory to bury him. One year later, she presided over the translation of his remains into a new sepulchre, when his body was found to be incorrupt. At this time, Pega also used a piece of glutinous salt, which had been previously consecrated by Guthlac, to cure the eyesight of a blind man who had travelled to Crowland from Wisbech.

Henry of Avranches, in his 13th-century poetic life of Guthlac, adds the detail that Guthlac banished Pega from Crowland after the devil assumed her appearance and tempted him to break his fast.

In the 15th-century Croyland Chronicle, Pseudo-Ingulf claims that Pega inherited Guthlac's psalter and scourge, both of which she later gave to Kenulph, the first abbot of Crowland Abbey.

Death, miracles and legacy
Pega went on pilgrimage to Rome after Guthlac's death and died there on 8 January 719, according to a 12th-century account by Orderic Vitalis. Orderic claims that her remains were kept at a church built in Rome in her honour, and that miracles took place there.

The precise location of Pega's hermitage is not known, but it is possible that it was on the site of the 13th-century chapel at St Pega's Hermitage in Peakirk, which is now a private residence.

Peakirk's Church of England parish church is uniquely dedicated to Pega. There is a local legend that Pega's heart was returned to Peakirk and was kept as a relic in the church contained in a heart stone. Its broken remains can still be seen in the south aisle window.

St Pega's Hermitage
St Pega's Hermitage is a chapel, now a private home, on what is considered likely to have been the site of St Pega's cell. A chancel was expanded with a 15th-century nave. It was rebuilt and restored over various centuries, with an order of Anglican nuns housed in accommodation built in the 1850s and extended in 1937 for the Community of the Holy Family.

The nuns, after 1980 from the Society of the Precious Blood, left in 2001, after which the property was deconsecrated by the Bishop of Peterborough, Ian Cundy, and sold. It has been converted into a private residence with an atrium linking the chapel, which retains the altar and other historic features, with the convent buildings. The Hermitage is Grade II listed.

title: Pega


text: User talk:69.250.43.111

title: User talk:69.250.43.111


text:
Talk:Alcmene

Comments
Alcmene, or Alkmênê ("might of the moon") was, in ancient Greek mythology, the daughter of Electryon, king of Mycenae, and wife of Amphitryon

Amphitryon, or Amphitrion, in Greek mythology, was a son of Alcaeus, king of Tiryns in Argolis.

Wife is a son ?

There are alot of inconsistencies in the whole Hercules birth on the front page Aurora236 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

God in Delphi
"However, the god in Delphi gave the Heracleidae an oracle that it was better to bury Alcmene in Megara." Who is the god here?

ICE77 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

add a link?
maybe there should be link so that if someone searches for Alkmene (as I did) they would have a redirect to this article? DavidRBarker (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alcmene


text:
User talk:EndlessRayofLight

Hi. Remember to put at the top of Minh Thi Nguyen when it is no longer needed. Thanks. Gazpacho 03:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahem... don't forget. I might nominate the article for deletion in a few days unless you give a good reason on my talk page not to. Gazpacho 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:EndlessRayofLight


text:
Talk:The Banana Song

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/The Banana Song -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Banana Song


text:
Talk:Capital Centre (Landover, Maryland)

Washington/Maryland Commandos
Does anyone know if the Washington/Maryland Commandos of the Arena Football League played at this arena? JetsLuvver 03:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did.   --Idont Havaname 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to US Airways Arena. No periods. RingMaruf 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, for consistency with US Airways. G Clark 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move
This article should be moved to Capital Centre. That was the name of the building both when it opened and when it closed, and for the vast majority of its history. Plus, this way we can avoid confusion with US Airways Center in Phoenix. BoojiBoy 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Stadiums should always be known by their current name. If the stadium is gone, then by its last name. With the arguments BoojiBoy made above, there is no doubt. -newkai | talk | contribs 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - The stadium opened and closed as the Capital Centre. It spent more time being known as the Capital Centre. --Jonquière 07:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Vegaswikian 08:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

LED ZEPPELIN   FIVE NIGHTS IN 1977..... THE BEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.33.202.50 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Landover or Largo?
Many internet references mention a Capital Center in Largo, Maryland, which hosted a number of famous rock concerts. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for the venue in Largo. This article is for Capital Centre in Landover, Maryland. Could anyone please clarify why there were two venues of the same name in the same state? Does some of the information in this article actually relate to the venue in Largo? Edelmand (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Landover is a larger area, whereas Largo is a smaller community within Landover.--Funhistory (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But the center is not in what is now greater Landover. Instead it was in what is now the Mitchellville CDP. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to current residents for clarification since I haven't visited there for over 2 decades, but when the Cap Centre existed, it was definitely in Largo within Landover.--Funhistory (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that ... I just looked at Largo & Mitchellville on Google Maps. I had never even heard of Mitchellville back in the 70s & 80s.  The Cap Centre was just to the east of the point named Largo surrounded by streets named Largo, whereas Mitchellville is a bit northeast.--Funhistory (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The shopping center built on the site uses Largo as its address, and the Largo Town Center Metro station has also been built on the site. It seems pretty obvious that it's Largo. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Parking Sections
I attended many events at the Cap Centre in the 70s & 80s, & I recall the parking lot being divided into 4 sections with patriotic-symbol names. I'm fairly sure one was the Liberty Bell section, but for the life of me, I can't remember the other 3 right now. Can anyone else remember them?--Funhistory (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I just did a little research to answer my own question, & will add them to the article momentarily.--Funhistory (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous Musicians
It seems ridiculous to list a paragraph of performers. Just about every major act from the 1970s & 1980s performed there! I can understand listing events released officially on video such as the 2 by Kiss (which I attended, by the way), but I'd like to suggest deleting the other list of names.--Funhistory (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree..the Capitol Center was a somewhat prestigious venue as only successful bands could fill a place that big..more relevant concert venues like Carnegie Hall and the Met do the same thing in order to establish the quality of the entertainment showcased there...The list of major acts that didn`t play there would be much longer than that did including the Rolling Stones..Paul McCartney..Ringo Starr..Bob Dylan and The Band did but I didn`t see it in the artice...2600:1702:2340:9470:555C:1F:ACFE:795B (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions Judas Priest with special guests Dokken, When in fact the special guest was Iron Maiden. I Was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph241 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of closing correction
The article states that the venue closed in 1997. Although the Washington DC professional sports teams started playing at the MCI Center once it opened in 1997, The Capital Centre remained open for concerts and other events past that date. Not sure of the exact cloing date, but it was open for Grease on Ice in December 1998.

http://www.figure-skating.com/skaters/Kerrigan/Tours/Grease.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebp0529 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, than you, that is exactly right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.19.146 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Aerosmith played there in January 1998, I was there at the show.

http://www.classic-rock-concerts.com/venues/54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Explorations (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


text:
Îles Sous le Vent

Îles Sous-le-Vent may refer to
 * Leeward Islands, in the Caribbean
 * Leeward Islands (Society Islands), in the southern Pacific Ocean

title: Îles Sous le Vent