text:
S45 (Berlin)

S45 is a line on the Berlin S-Bahn. It operates from Flughafen BER beneath Berlin Brandenburg Airport to Südkreuz via:
 * a very short section of the Outer ring, opened in 1951 and electrified in 1983,
 * a short section of the former Outer freight ring opened in the early 1940s and electrified in 1983,
 * the Görlitz line, opened in 1866 and electrified in 1929,
 * the Baumschulenweg–Neukölln link line, opened on 8 June 1896 and electrified in 1928 and
 * the Ring line, completed in 1877 and electrified in 1926.

History
A southern extension from the former terminus at the Schönefeld Airport station has been constructed prior to the opening of the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport. The rail extension includes include two new stops: Waßmannsdorf and Berlin Brandenburg Airport. Due to the opening of the new airport, Schönefeld Airport station has been renamed to "Flughafen BER - Terminal 5 station". When Terminal 5 was closed, the station has been renamed to Schönefeld (bei Berlin) station.

title: S45 (Berlin)


text:
M source

M source, which is sometimes referred to as M document, or simply M, comes from the M in "Matthean material". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew. M Source is defined as that 'special material' of the Gospel of Matthew that is neither Q source nor Mark.

History
Nineteenth century New Testament scholars who rejected the traditional perspective of the priority of Matthew in favor of Marcan priority speculated that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from that Gospel. Matthew and Luke, however, also share large sections of text which are not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed the Q.

This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q. For most scholars, the Q collection accounts for what Matthew and Luke share – sometimes in exactly the same words – but are not found in Mark. Examples of such material are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and many individual sayings.

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. This four-source hypothesis posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by violet in the above chart.)

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aram. M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.

Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.

Synoptic Gospels and the Nature of M
The relationship among the three synoptic gospels goes beyond mere similarity in viewpoint. The gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same order, sometimes using the same words. Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidence. If the four-source hypothesis is correct, then M would probably have been a written document and contained the following:

Primary Gospels
The primary gospels are those original gospels upon which all others are based. Those who support the four-document hypothesis believe these to be the Gospel of Mark, Q and M.

The Gospel of Mark (40–70)
Eusebius, in his catalog of ancient church writings, puts the Gospel of Mark in his Homologoumena or "accepted" category. Both modern and ancient Biblical scholars agree that it was the earliest Canonical account of the life of Jesus Christ. It is a primitive, primary source, incorporated into both the Canonical Matthean Gospel as well as Luke-Acts.

A majority of scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was not written by any of the Apostles, but by an otherwise unimportant figure in the early church. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, it was probably included in the Canon because the Early Church Fathers believed it was a reliable account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

In his Church History, Eusebius records that the writer of this gospel was a man named Mark who was Peter's interpreter. It was believed that his accounts of Jesus were historically accurate, but that there was some chronological distortion. It is further agreed that this gospel was originally composed in Koine Greek, near Rome.

Q source (40–70)
Q source is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is defined as the common material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus. Scholars believe that an unknown redactor composed Greek-language proto-Gospel. The name Q, coined by the German theologian and biblical scholar Johannes Weiss, stands for "Quelle" (German for "source").

M source (30–50)
The third primary source is M. Although most scholars accept the four-document hypothesis, many are not entirely happy with it. The difficulty tends to center around M. The Four Document Hypothesis explains the triple tradition by postulating the existence of a lost "Matthean" document known as M. It is this, rather than Marcan priority, which forms the distinctive feature of the Four Document Hypothesis as against rival theories.

While the four-document hypothesis remains a popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels, some question how a major and respected source, used in a canonical gospel, could totally disappear. These individuals question why M was never mentioned in any of the Church catalogs. Also not one scholar from the time of Christ to Jerome has ever mentioned it. Due to these questions, M will remain in doubt by some, although it continues to be a widely accepted theory among biblical scholars.

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

title: M source


text:
Inventio

Inventio, one of the five canons of rhetoric, is the method used for the discovery of arguments in Western rhetoric and comes from the Latin word, meaning "invention" or "discovery". Inventio is the central, indispensable canon of rhetoric, and traditionally means a systematic search for arguments.

Speakers use inventio when they begin the thought process of forming and developing an effective argument. Often, the invention phase can be seen as the first step in an attempt to generate ideas or create an argument that is convincing and compelling. The other four canons of classical rhetoric (namely dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronuntiatio) rely on their interrelationship with invention.

Purpose
According to Crowley and Hawhee, invention is the division of rhetoric that investigates the possible means by which proofs can be discovered. It supplies the speaker and writers with sets of instructions or ideas that help them to find and compose arguments that are appropriate for a given rhetorical situation.

For personal and lyric essays, narratives, and descriptive writing, invention techniques help writers draw from their memory and observation for the kinds of details that will add depth to their essays.

The first direction of invention aims toward deriving heuristic procedures or systematic strategies that will aid students in discovering and generating ideas about which they might write; the second direction of invention is characterized by how writers establish "voice" in writing and realize individual selves in discourse.

One of the oldest criticisms of rhetoric is that as an art it has no proper subject matter. In other words, an orator might speak on any topic, with his success being measured purely on the brilliance of his rhetorical skills. This aspect of rhetoric is one reason why Plato attacked what he saw as empty rhetoric on the part of sophist philosophers such as Gorgias.

Aristotle, in his works on rhetoric, answered Plato's charges by arguing that reason and rhetoric are intertwined ("Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic" is the first sentence of his Rhetoric). In Aristotle's view, dialectical reasoning is the mechanism for discovering universal truths; rhetoric is the method for clarifying and communicating these principles to others. And in order to communicate effectively, an orator must be able to assemble proper arguments that support a thesis.

Inventio, therefore, is the systematic discovery of rhetorical practices. In the Greek and Roman traditions, rhetorical practices are often but not always arguments. Aristotle, as well as later writers on rhetoric, such as Cicero and Quintilian, devoted considerable attention to developing and formalizing the discipline of rhetorical invention. Two important concepts within invention were topoi and stasis. Other rhetorical cultures seem to have additional means of locating "available means". Historian of Celtic poetics Robert Graves credited analepsis as a method of inventing his historical arguments in The White Goddess, and the Mazatec medicine woman Maria Sabina credited the hallucinogenic psilocybe mushroom with the flow of her discourse. The philosopher Jacques Derrida described inventio as the "invention of the other."

Janice Lauer proposes that invention should be: (1) applicable to a wide variety of writing situations so that they will transcend a particular topic and can be internalized by the student; (2) flexible in direction allowing a thinker to return to a previous step or skip to an inviting one as the evolving idea suggests; and (3) highly generative by involving the writer in various operations—such as visualizing, classifying, defining, rearranging, and dividing—that are known to stimulate insights.

Topoi
In classical rhetoric, arguments are obtained from various sources of information, or topoi (Greek 'places'; i.e. "places to find something"), also called by the Latin name loci (cf. Literary topoi). Topoi are categories that help delineate the relationships among ideas; Aristotle divided these into "common" and "special" groups.

In the common group could be found such categories as laws, witnesses, contracts, oaths, comparisons of similarity, difference, or degree, definitions of things, division of things (whole or parts, for instance), cause and effect, and other items that could be analyzed, researched, or documented.

Modern writers and students use these topics, as well, when discovering arguments, although today more emphasis is placed on scientific facts, statistics, and other "hard" evidence. Classical rhetoricians saw many areas of inquiry that today's writer might view as being purely in the province of "logic", developing syllogisms, finding contradictions, as being of equal or greater importance. Barbara Warnick has compared the 28 topics of Aristotle's Rhetoric and topical schemes of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric to illustrate major differences of rhetoric throughout these time periods. For example, two of Aristotle's topics "Opponent's Utterance" and "Response to Slander" were more relevant to ancient debates in the practice of Athenian law, in which every citizen was his or her own lawyer. On the other hand, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tytecha's schemes were meant to be comprehensive rather than outlining every single detail of speaking. While Aristotle's Rhetoric focused mainly on oral endeavors, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric dealt with written arguments. According to Warnick, another difference between the two systems is that Aristotle developed Rhetoric as a way of spreading the practice of rhetoric so it could be performed and taught correctly. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tytecha's The New Rhetoric emphasized the study of rhetoric, focusing more on the understanding of the topic rather than the practice of it.

Special topoi included such concepts as justice or injustice, virtue, good, and worthiness. Again, these are areas of inquiry seen by many today as belonging to other arts, but from Greek times through the Renaissance, these were considered integral to the study and practice of rhetoric.

Topics (or topoi) can be used to invent arguments and also to conceptualize and formulate the single-sentence declarative thesis. Edward P.J. Corbett, Robert Connors, Richard P. Hughes, and P. Albert Duhamel define topics as "ways of probing one's subject in order to find the means to develop that subject". They issued four common topics that are most useful to students: definition, analogy, consequence, and testimony. Definition involves the creation of a thesis by taking a fact or an idea and explaining it by precisely identifying its nature; it always asks the question "What is/was it?" Analogy is concerned with discovering resemblances or differences between two or more things proceeding from known to unknown; it is a useful tool for investigating comparisons and contrasts because it always asks the question "What is it like or unlike?" Consequence investigates phenomena costs to effect-to-cause pattern, best established through probabilities from patterns that have previously occurred. It always answers the question "What caused/causes/will cause it?" Testimony relies on appeals to an authority (such as an expert opinion, statistics, or the law), and it always answers the question "What does an authority say about it?" "Ultimately a thesis or an argument must say something about the real world. Teaching the topics requires using examples and good examples are to be had by applying each topic to a definite subject and coming up with several thesis statements".

Modes of persuasion
Aristotle described three "modes of persuasion," or "appeals." The first dealt with the matter of the case (logos), the second dealt with the character of the speaker (ethos), and the third dealt with the emotions of the audience (pathos). Each mode of persuasion can be inventional, helping an orator create an effective argument.

As Aristotle explains, logos, often referred to as the "logical" appeal, uses the arguments present in the case itself to appeal to the audience's reason. Aristotle writes that logos depends on "the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself." Logos appeals work "when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question." Inventio is linked with logos such that it deals with what an author would say as opposed to how it might be said.

Aristotle defined ethos as an appeal based on a speaker's character within a persuasive act. Later, the Roman rhetorician Cicero expanded this definition to contain elements of character outside a particular rhetorical act. Most rhetoric scholars today combine the two definitions, understanding ethos to mean character both inside and outside a rhetorical circumstance. Speakers use the mode of ethos when they create an argument based on their own character. When relying on ethos, a speaker uses personal "trustworthiness or credibility" to persuade the audience to believe their specific argument on a particular topic (Ramage 81). For example, if a presidential candidate has a long history of philanthropy, he or she will invent an argument that demonstrates personal good character in order to convince the audience that he or she is the best candidate for office.

Pathos represents an appeal to the audience's emotions. This appeal can be achieved by the use of metaphors, storytelling, or general passion. In order to appeal to an audience's emotions during the speech's delivery, the speaker must first take the audience's emotion into account during the early invention phase. For example, if a presidential candidate grew up poor and managed to succeed in life through hard work and education, then the candidate would have to apply that story to the speech-inventing process in order to appeal to the audience's emotions. This storytelling draws upon the common "bootstraps" narrative of American culture, one that often appeals to the emotions of the U.S. electorate.

Stasis
According to rhetorical scholar Thomas O. Sloane, Cicero described rhetoric as the devising of true or seemingly true arguments for the sake of making one's case appear probable. Therefore, a speaker must debate both sides of an argument to invent an effective argument. Sloane goes on to say it is important for a speaker to critique every aspect of his or her argument. Ciceronian invention is simply an analytical process of argument. However, as a theorist of law, Cicero put forward a specific procedure commonly referred to as stasis theory.

Stasis is a procedure by which a speaker poses questions in order to clarify the main issues and persuasive points of a speech or debate. This procedure allows the speaker to critically question each point, assessing the relative worth of each point as appropriate to the substance of the case and to its capacity to persuade an audience.

Using stasis theory gives the speaker numerous advantages that will help them excel in persuading. According to Crowley and Hawhee, the following advantages may accrue in the use of stasis theory.

 * Allows the speaker to clarify his or her thinking about the point in dispute.
 * Allows the speaker to consider the assumption and values an audience holds.
 * Establishes certain areas in which more research and effort needs to be spent.
 * Distinguishes which points are crucial to an effective argument.
 * Guides the speaker towards building an effective arrangement for their argument or speech.

There are four types of stasis: conjectural (question of fact: Is/was it?), definitional (question of definition: What is/what is its meaning?), qualitative (question of quality: How good or bad is/was it), and translative (question of place or procedure: Is/was this appropriate process or place to handle the matter?). For instance, a lawyer defending someone accused of damaging property might pose the following questions:

 * Question of fact: did the person damage the item? (conjectural)
 * Question of definition: was the damage minor or major? (definitional)
 * Question of quality: was he justified in damaging the item? (qualitative)
 * Question of jurisdiction: should this be a civil or criminal trial? (translative)

The question of fact is key as the first step in formulating any argument is separating the true from the false. If the terms of the argument at hand cannot be agreed on, the discussion will not move in any positive direction. Going back and forth attacking sources of information is not conducive to making any real progress, so an emphasis on using only solid information and evidence-based anecdotes is at the crucial to achieving stasis

The question of definition means to define what, exactly, the issue of concern is, and what, if any, biases or preconceptions our arguments hold. Then, categorizing the problem is the next focus, agreeing on the class of the event and therefore the attitude with which it should be approached. A political disagreement should be investigated with a different lens than a criminal case, for example, as they are concerns of a different nature.

The question of quality means identifying the magnitude of the event, the wider impacts, as well as what would happen if no action were to be taken. Identifying if this problem is important as part of a bigger picture is key to preparing a sound argument, as well as figuring out whether or not it is a cause worth pursuing. The quality aspect of stasis comes down to deciding if this particular problem requires attention, and at what cost will a resolution come about.

The question of jurisdiction means formulating a plan of action. Just as we calculate whether the particular problem is worth the energy in the quality category, here we make the decision to take action. A plan of action includes determining what kind of people should be involved in solving this problem, and what strategy these people will use.

In the rhetorical tradition
Invention also entails the adaptation of ideas and stylistic devices to unfamiliar audiences. Rhetorical scholar John M. Murphy argues that rhetorical traditions consist of common patterns of language use and organized "social knowledge" of communities that make resources available for the invention of effective arguments. Invention allows these rhetorical traditions to be adapted across cultural differences or situations. Murphy provides an example in which an orator would blend several rhetorical traditions: one by which the orator might primarily identify and another by which the audience might identify, thus merging speaker and audience through a display of interconnected rhetorical traditions.

To Cicero, traditional rhetoric was a "mode of thought" and to attain this rhetoric it is required to make the "true nature of rhetorical inventio" apparent. Thomas O. Sloane, a rhetorical scholar, discusses that inventio in the rhetorical tradition specifically refers to addressing the pros and cons of an argumentation. Sloane argues that it is required when using inventio as a tool that one must not only consider the discourse at hand but the discourses that accompany the positives and negatives attached. In further explanation, one must debate all sides of an argument "or one's inventio will remain not fully invented." In modern revivals of rhetoric, Sloane argues along with Reed Way Dasenbrock that these pros and cons of inventio do not have as much emphasis as they did in Cicero. This lack of attention to different sides of an argument is why Dasenbrock believes that the revival of rhetoric "is relevant; [but] it isn't complete."

Amplification and invention
Amplification is a term in rhetoric defined as the enrichment of words to increase rhetorical effect. It is closely related to invention such that it deals with the development and progression of notions, drawing from the topics of invention. Topics of invention can also be seen as topics of amplification, especially those of division, definition, and comparison.

title: Inventio


text:
Senior Road Tower

The Senior Road Tower is a guyed mast for FM and TV broadcasting, measuring 1971 ft tall, located in unincorporated northeastern Fort Bend County near Missouri City, Texas, United States.

The present mast was built in 1983. It replaced a previous tower that collapsed in a construction accident in December 1982, killing five workers. While historically also used for television, its primary purpose was and is to transmit FM radio stations.

First tower
While a number of Houston FM radio stations broadcast from One Shell Plaza and other sites in downtown Houston, the late 1970s saw the construction of several new, taller buildings in the downtown area that created issues for regional coverage, particularly the Texas Commerce Tower and Allied Bank Plaza. In 1980, ten Houston radio stations, later reduced to nine—KFMK, KIKK, KILT, KLEF, KLOL, KODA, KRBE, KSRR, and KYND—began to scout out a site for a new facility in an area that was becoming a cluster of transmission towers. Television stations KTRK-TV and KRIV were also building tall towers near this site. The original plan was to build the mast on Senior Road, and the consortium of stations became known as the Senior Road Tower Group. However, plans changed, and the eventual site was not on Senior Road. The radio stations were joined in the venture by KTXH, a new Houston television station.

Tower work began in 1982 but came to a brief halt due to a dispute over mineral rights to the tower site. In an apparent oversight, the title company failed to notice that Lew D. French Jr. had leased the mineral rights, planning to drill for oil on the property. He drove by and asked what was going on, starting a legal action that led to a temporary stay on construction. Construction resumed after an out-of-court settlement. Tower erection began in October, with the antenna for KTXH television being raised first. That station began broadcasting on November 7. It was anticipated that the FM stations would begin using the mast on February 1, 1983.

Construction accident
Nearly a month after KTXH began broadcasting, work reached a fever pitch on the FM transmission facility. On December 6, workers hoisted the first half of the antenna structure onto the tower, and it was anticipated that the final 75 ft structure would be hoisted onto the tower the next day, December 7. A KIKK employee was videotaping the event. While the item was being hoisted into place, the antenna fell from the cable pulling it up. It fell on one of the guy wires, which caused the tower to collapse. Five men strapped to the antenna died; the five employees, all out-of-state workers from World Wide Tower Service of New Jersey, were Gene Crosby, David Stewart, Don Owens, Johnny Wilson, and Johnny Bratten. Bodies were dismembered by the failing guy wires. World Wide Tower was subcontracted by Stainless Inc., the firm that manufactured the tower. Three men, employed by a Houston roofing firm working on the roof of the transmitter building, were injured. KTXH suffered a $1.5 million loss in equipment, including the transmitter, on which the falling mast collapsed. A man in the transmitter building saw the tower collapse and fled.

In the wake of the accident, the Senior Road Tower Group assigned blame to a clamping device that fastened the antenna to the cable. The construction company had to jury-rig a lifting device of their own design, as the antenna lifting points were not designed for the final lift. The cable from the gin pole would intersect the dish of the antenna and damage it. The design analysis of the construction company was flawed, leading them to underestimate the load on the bolts by a factor of seven. In addition, the U-bolts they used were defective; the manufacturer rated them for twice the load they were good for. One of the U-bolts failed, causing the antenna to fall and snap two of the guy wires holding the tower upright.

For KTXH, the loss of the Senior Road Tower left the station off the air for two months; the station immediately ordered a new transmitter. The station filed a $42 million lawsuit, alleging negligent construction and claiming a $7 million loss in equipment and advertising for the 61 days it was out of service. Even while broadcasting from a temporary facility atop the Allied Bank Plaza, KTXH continued to post competitive numbers against KRIV.

In addition to the lawsuit filed by KTXH, the family of one of the victims sued for $2 million, as did several of the injured. As a result of the then-pending litigation, investigations by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and by insurers were not publicly released. After a 10-day trial, in February 1985, a federal jury awarded nearly $19 million to the families of the victims, with Stainless to pay 100 percent of the damages; this came after a settlement agreement for $21 million was partially withdrawn. The $19 million award was reduced to $14 million by a federal judge who ruled the jury had improperly awarded punitive damages and replaced by a $6.4 million award in a new settlement. Combined with $11 million in payments from Harris and World Wide Tower, the total received by the families was $17.4 million.

Second tower
The Senior Road Tower Group met a week later and opted to continue the project. Jay Jones, the vice president of KLOL, told Billboard, "We've been delayed significantly, but FM stations in Houston have a real problem with their signal, and we've got to do something about it." The foundation and guy anchors remained in usable condition, and the $4 million loss was insured.

After further delays caused by rain and Hurricane Alicia, work was completed in October 1983 on the new mast, which was identical to the one that collapsed. Of the nine FM stations, all still at the site, six migrated from One Shell Plaza and three from other facilities. KTXH began migrating off the mast when it built its digital transmission facility at a new, purpose-built tower in 1999.

Tower users
The Senior Road Tower is used by the following radio stations:

 * KKBQ (92.9 FM)
 * KTBZ-FM 94.5
 * KKHH (95.7 FM)
 * KHMX (96.5 FM)
 * KBXX (97.9 FM)
 * KODA (99.1 FM)
 * KILT-FM 100.3
 * KLOL (101.1 FM)
 * KRBE (104.1 FM)

The tower has wrap-around outside platforms at 900, 1,100, and 1,400 feet on the tower. The platforms support antennas and equipment cabinets used by various two way radio systems and remote pickup unit (RPU) receivers for radio broadcasters.

Heights:
 * Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: 24.1 m
 * Overall Height Above Ground (AGL): 600.7 m
 * Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 624.5 m
 * Overall Height Above Ground w/o Appurtenances: 569.8 m

title: Senior Road Tower


text:
Talk:Kentish Town station

Changes to the article
Prior to my changes, this article implied:

 * Only the London Underground portion was in Zone 2

 * The whole station is decorated in Edwardian Red tiles.

I know the former is incorrect (the whole station is in Zone 2) so I have corrected this. I suspect that only the LUL bit is decorated in red tiles, but without a site visit I cannot be sure, so I've left that intact.

Can anybody definitively say whether the Thameslink part of the station has Edwardian red tiling?. -- Chris j wood 11:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesnt have any tiling, it doesnt have anything except platforms, as it shares the LUL ticket office, so its slightly misleading. I would add a picture but it is being refurbished. Justinc 18:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Layout
The layout is incorrect. The station does not have an island platform, it has two tunnels, one for each direction with separate platforms. I think the only underground northern line station with an island platform is Clapham Common. I'm not sure this sort of basic diagram adds anything to the article. Grim23 ★ 11:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kentish Town station. 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/20090419152425/http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf to http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf

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) 14:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kentish Town station. 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/20081109090627/http://thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/faqs/faqs_categories/public_index to http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/faqs/faqs_categories/public_index

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) 11:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong train length
The article implies that only the 8 car trains can serve National Rail part of the station - this is incorrect. Longer (12 car) trains use SDO (selective door opening) to open only the doors in first 8 cars - and still serve this station.

Futurix (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kentish Town station


text:
Polish–Lithuanian War

The Polish–Lithuanian War was an undeclared war fought in the aftermath of World War I between newly independent Lithuania and Poland, with fighting mainly in the Vilnius and Suwałki regions. According to Lithuanian historians, it was part of the Lithuanian Wars of Independence and lasted from May 1919 to 29 November 1920. Polish historians deem the Polish–Lithuanian war as occurring only in September–October 1920. Since the spring of 1920, the conflict became part of the wider Polish–Soviet War and was largely shaped by its progress. It was subject to international mediation at the Conference of Ambassadors and the League of Nations.

In the aftermath of World War I, the military and political situation in the region was chaotic, as multiple countries, notably Lithuania, Poland, and Soviet Russia, vied with each other over control of these areas. The Polish–Lithuanian conflict was centered on Vilnius, which the Lithuanian Council (Taryba) declared the capital of the restored Lithuanian state. Control of Vilnius was transferred from Germans to Poles on January 2, 1919, but the Polish Army lost the city to the Bolsheviks on The Polish Army seized Vilnius again on April 19, 1919 and came in contact with the Lithuanian Army fighting in the Lithuanian–Soviet War. Despite the antagonism over Vilnius, the Lithuanian and Polish armies sometimes cooperated when fighting against a common enemy, the Bolsheviks. As Lithuanian–Polish relations worsened, the Entente drew two demarcation lines in hopes to stall further hostilities. The lines did not please either side and were ignored. The first open clashes between Polish and Lithuanian forces were the Sejny uprising of August 1919. With the Polish coup against the Lithuanian government failing in August 1919, the front stabilized until the summer of 1920.

In July 1920, Polish forces retreated due to reverses in the Polish–Soviet War and the Lithuanians followed the retreating troops to secure their lands as delineated in the Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty. However, the Red Army was the first to enter Vilnius. In August 1920, Poland won the Battle of Warsaw and forced the Soviets to retreat. The Polish Army encountered Lithuanian opposition, defending their new borders, which the Polish government considered illegitimate. Thus, the Polish invaded Lithuanian-controlled territory during the Battle of the Niemen River. Under pressure from the League of Nations, Poland signed the Suwałki Agreement on October 7, 1920. The agreement left the Suwałki region on the Polish side and drew a new incomplete demarcation line, which left Vilnius vulnerable to a flanking maneuver.

On October 8, 1920, Polish general Lucjan Żeligowski staged a mutiny, secretly planned and authorized by the Polish chief of state Józef Piłsudski. Żeligowski's forces marched on Vilnius and captured it one day before the Suwałki Agreement was to formally come into effect, but their further offensive was halted by the Lithuanians. Żeligowski proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Central Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius. On November 29, 1920, a ceasefire was signed. Overall, from early 1919 to late 1920, Vilnius would switch rule as many as seven times between Lithuanians, Poles and the Bolsheviks. The Republic of Central Lithuania was incorporated into Poland as the Wilno Voivodeship in 1922. The prolonged mediation by the League of Nations did not change the situation and the status quo was accepted in 1923. In March 1923, the Conference of Ambassadors recognized the armistice line as a de jure Polish–Lithuanian border, awarding Vilnius to Poland. Lithuania did not recognize these developments, continued to claim Vilnius as its constitutional capital and broke all diplomatic relations with Poland which were not restored until the March 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Vilnius was regained by Lithuania only after twenty years, on 1939, following the Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty. However, Lithuania as a whole lost its independence less than a year later following the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.

Demographic situation
According to the 1897 Russian census, the disputed city of Vilnius had a linguistic breakdown of 40% Jews, and 2% Lithuanian speaking;  however the percentage of Lithuanian speakers in the surrounding countryside was a few times higher than that of Polish speakers – the population was 35% Lithuanian and 12% Polish speaking in Vilnius uyezd (if excluding its centre - Vilnius city), while Trakai uyezd had 59% Lithuanian and 11% Polish speaking population. According to the 1916 German census, Poles were the most numerous among all local nationalities and constituted 53% or 53.67% of the city's population, 50% in the entire Vilnius census region and the vast majority in the Vilnius census district.

Military developments
World War I ended on November 11, 1918, when Germany signed the Compiègne Armistice. On November 13, Soviet Russia renounced the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and began the Soviet westward offensive of 1918–1919. The Bolsheviks followed retreating German troops and attacked Lithuania and Poland from the east trying to prevent their independence. They attempted to spread the global proletarian revolution, establish Soviet republics in the region, and join the German and the Hungarian Revolutions. The Soviet offensive sparked a series of local wars, including the Polish–Soviet War and the Lithuanian–Soviet War.

At the end of 1918, four groups of authorities existed in Vilnius: the occupational German government of Ober Ost, which was preparing to leave the city; the Lithuanian government under Augustinas Voldemaras; the Polish Committee and the Polish Temporary National Council for Lithuania supported by armed units of the Self-Defence of Lithuania and Belarus; and Vilna Soviet of Workers Deputies waiting for the Red Army. The Germans refused to provide weapons to Polish paramilitary units which intended to fight the approaching Red Army. The Ober Ost command also denied the Polish request to grant the Polish Land Forces free passage to Vilnius. The Polish Self-Defence was disbanded at the end of December, with all its former members formally absorbed into the Polish Army. On 2 January 1919, Poles took over Vilnius from the retreating Imperial German Army and the fighting with the city's Bolshevik Worker's Soviet (capturing around 1,000 weapons). Nonetheless, the last German soldiers left the city only on January 4. The Lithuanian government failed to organize a defense of Vilnius. Both the Polish and Lithuanian political leadership realized their inability to resist the invading Bolshevik forces. So, on, the Council of Lithuania evacuated from Vilnius to Kaunas. After some fighting, the local Polish forces lost Vilnius to the Bolsheviks on January 5. Lithuanians relied on the aid of German troops to stop the Red Army offensive before it reached Kaunas.

At first, the Soviets were successful but this came to a halt in February 1919. On February 5, Poland signed an agreement with Germany regulating the withdrawal of the German army from western Belarus and giving the Polish army the opportunity to march eastward. On February 14, 1919, Polish troops came into contact with the Bolshevik army near Vawkavysk. On April 16, 1919, the Polish Army launched a wide-ranging offensive against the Bolsheviks from Lida to Vilnius. On April 19, 1919, the Polish cavalry under Władysław Belina-Prażmowski captured Vilnius. On April 22, 1919, Józef Piłsudski issued the Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in which he announced that the region's fate would be decided democratically. He also established the Civil Administration of the Eastern Lands, headed by Jerzy Osmołowski. An important strategic success for the Polish side was the capture of Grodno on April 28, 1919, from which the Germans withdrew.

After that Polish troops advanced further west and northwest. The situation was utilized by the Lithuanian army, which entered Ukmergė on May 3, and started an offensive further south and southwest. Polish–Lithuanian relations at the time were not immediately hostile, both armies met in several points (Merkinė, Vievis and Širvintos), and even cooperated against the Bolsheviks in Giedraičiai area on May 11, 1919.

At first, both Poles and Lithuanians cooperated against the Soviets, but soon the cooperation gave way to increasing hostility. Lithuania claimed neutrality in the Polish–Soviet War. As the Polish Army forced its way further into Lithuania, the first clashes between Polish and Lithuanian soldiers occurred on April 26 and May 8, 1919, near Vievis. Though there was no formal state of war and few casualties, by July newspapers reported increasing clashes between Poles and Lithuanians, primarily around the towns of Merkinė and Širvintos. Direct negotiations in Kaunas between May 28 and, 1919, collapsed as neither side agreed to compromise. Lithuania tried to avoid direct military conflict and submitted its case for mediation to the Conference of Ambassadors.

In the Suwałki region, Lithuanian troops, supported by German troops, were advancing in a southerly direction. The entire region was under the control of the German army, which allowed in the southern part to organize Polish administrations and to hold elections to the Polish Sejm in the counties of Augustów, Suwałki and Sejny. However, at the same time, they allowed the formation of Lithuanian administrations in the northern part. Lithuanians controlled Sejny from mid-1918, and entered Suwałki on May 8, 1919.

Diplomatic developments
While still at war, under German tutelage, the two sides established diplomatic ties, signing an agreement in Berlin on 30 June 1918. Lithuania was represented by Augustinas Voldemaras and Konstantinas Olšauskas, while Poland was represented by Adam Ronikier. Both sides recognized each other's statehood. In the treaty, Lithuania guaranteed the rights of the Polish minority, while Poland promised to refrain from anti-Lithuanian propaganda. Voldemaras later maintained that Ronikier renounced Polish claims to Vilnius. However, Alfred E. Senn wrote that the issue of the border and the belonging of Vilnius was not addressed in the treaty, while according to Pranas Čepėnas and the signed agreement mentioned nothing regarding territorial questions. The treaty (published in full by ) was of interim nature and stated only that: "With regard to the frontier, a principle of a common frontier is accepted, which will be determined by a joint agreement based on ethnic, historic and economic principles". After the Germans had withdrawn, the Lithuanian side pressed for Poland's recognition of an independent Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius, which the Polish leadership consistently rejected.

Polish leader Józef Piłsudski hoped to revive the old Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (see the Międzymorze federation) and campaigned for some kind of Polish–Lithuanian union in the Paris Peace Conference. Oppositional Endecja desired Lithuania's annexation to Poland, with granting Lithuanians territorial autonomy within ethnic boundaries. Poland also did not intend to make any territorial concessions and justified its actions not only as part of a military campaign against the Soviets but also as the right of self-determination of local Poles. Due to Polish–Lithuanian tensions, the Allied Powers withheld diplomatic recognition of Lithuania until 1922.

The Lithuanians claimed Vilnius as their historical capital and refused any federation with Poland, desiring an independent Lithuanian state. They regarded Polish federalism as a recreation of Polish cultural and political dominance. The Lithuanian government in Kaunas, designated as the temporary capital, saw the Polish presence in Vilnius as occupation. In addition to the Vilnius Region, the Suwałki Region was also disputed. It had a mixed Polish and Lithuanian population.

At the time the international situations of newly independent Poland and Lithuania were unequal. Poland, much larger in territory and population, was dedicated point #13 in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points. It was recognized by all nations of the Entente, officially invited to the Paris Peace Conference, and became one of the founding members of the League of Nations. Poland also enjoyed a close alliance with France.

Lithuania did not receive international recognition (it was first recognized de jure in July 1920 by Soviet Russia) as the Entente hoped to revive the Russian Empire within its former territory, which included Lithuania. Lithuania was looking for a support in Germany and Russia. In Paris, Voldemaras made contact with Russian delegates to the Paris Conference, who resented an independent Poland and were also interested in limiting its influence in the east and blocking a Polish-Lithuanian agreement. However, they had no real power in Russia, besides that they themselves considered Lithuania part of Russia, so no agreement was reached. Contacts with the Germans were much more fruitful. Germany realized that France was interested in a strong Polish ally east of Germany. So, for their part, they supported the building of Lithuania, which would be unfriendly to Poland. Threatened from both sides, the Lithuanian government turned to Germany for military and financial assistance. German troops remained in Kaunas in early 1919, and the government was supported by German loans. The military presence in Lithuania also gave Germany cover for East Prussia and the ability to control the situation in Russia.

The Lithuanian delegation was also present at the Paris Peace Conference, where its leader Augustinas Voldemaras focused on receiving recognition of independent Lithuania and its borders. Voldemaras demanded 125,000 square kilometers for Lithuania, not only with Vilnius but also Suwałki and Białystok. He also accused Poland of being partitionist, and portrayed Poland as an anti-Semitic state that was a threat to Lithuanian Jews. On the other hand, Voldemaras battled negative propaganda that the Council of Lithuania was a German puppet, that Lithuanians harboured pro-Bolshevik attitudes, or that Lithuania was too small and weak to survive without a union with Poland. Under article 87 of the Versailles Treaty, the Principal Allied Powers reserved to themselves the right to determine Poland's eastern frontier.

The war situation and the unstable political situation in both countries did not facilitate contacts between the two governments. Lithuanians protested the presence of Polish troops on Lithuanian territory in early January 1919, but the information reached Warsaw when Vilinius was already in Bolshevik hands. The Poles responded on February 12 by rejecting Lithuanian demands for lands they considered their own, but offered to open direct diplomatic talks. The Lithuanian delegation reached Warsaw on April 18, a day before the entrance of Polish troops to Vilnius.

Meanwhile, Michal Römer, a Lithuanian patriot and veteran of Polish Legions under Piłsudski, went to Kaunas on a mission, and was expected to convince Lithuanian politicians of federation. However, he only found understanding among Lithuanians of Polish culture. On April 17, Lithuanian politicians categorically rejected the federation's proposals.

The Lithuanian delegation, led by Jurgis Šaulys, held talks with Polish Prime Minister Ignacy Jan Paderewski on May 13 and 23, and with Polish Head of State Józef Piłsudski on May 21. The Polish side, strengthened by its possession of Vilnius, insisted on the establishment of a federation, with a common foreign policy, army command, railroad, treasury and post office, promising to establish borders favorable to Lithuania. The Lithuanian side, on the other hand, demanded recognition of an independent Lithuania with Vilnius as its capital. The talks failed, with the only result being the establishment of a Lithuanian consulate in Warsaw, headed by Antanas Kasakaitis.

Demarcation lines
The Conference of Ambassadors drew the first demarcation line on June 18, 1919. The line, drawn about 5 km west of the Grodno – Vilnius – Dyneburg Railway, was based on the military situation on the ground rather than ethnic composition. Neither Poles nor Lithuanians were content with the line. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the line as it would require the Polish forces to retreat up to 35 km. The line also left the entire Suwałki region, with exception of Augustów, on the Lithuanian side. The Lithuanians protested leaving Vilnius and Grodno under Polish control. As German volunteers were departing from Lithuania and Lithuanian forces were preoccupied with battles against the Soviets in northern Lithuania, Poland ignored the demacration line and moved its forces on a 100 km wide front 20 – deeper eastward.

On July 18, Ferdinand Foch proposed the second demarcation line, known as the Foch Line. It was approved by the Entente on July 26. The Lithuanians were informed about the new line only on August 3. Two major modifications favorable to the Poles were made: the Suwałki Region was assigned to Poland and the entire line was moved about 7 km west. Again, both Poles and Lithuanians protested the line as it would require them to withdraw their armies from the Vilnius and Suwałki Regions respectively. The German administration, which had not yet retreated from the Suwałki Region, also opposed the Foch Line. The new line did not immediately halt the hostilities. After a couple of Polish attacks on July 29 and August 2, the front stabilized.

Sejny Uprising
The Lithuanians retreated from Suwałki on August 7, 1919. However, they stopped in ethnically mixed Sejny and formed a line on the Czarna Hańcza River – Wigry Lake. They showed their intention to stay there permanently, which caused concern among the local Poles. On August 12, they organized a rally in Suwałki demanding incorporation into Poland. Lithuanians also held a rally in Kaunas on August 17 protesting the Foch line, and a similar rally was later held in Sejny, where Prime Minister Mykolas Sleževičius arrived.

The Sejny branch of Polish Military Organisation (PMO) began preparing for an uprising, scheduled for the night of August 22 to 23, 1919, right after German troops left the city. Between 900 and 1,200 partisans joined PMO forces. On August 23, the Poles captured Sejny and attacked Lazdijai and Kapčiamiestis, towns on the Lithuanian side of the Foch Line. The insurgents planned to march as far as Simnas. Lithuanians recaptured Sejny on August 25 for a few hours. On August 26, Polish regular forces – the 41st Infantry Regiment (Poland) – joined the PMO volunteers. On September 5, the Lithuanians agreed to withdraw behind the Foch Line by September 7. Poland secured Sejny and repressed Lithuanian cultural life: the Sejny Priest Seminary was expelled, Lithuanian schools and cultural organizations closed. After the uprising, the mistrust of Poles prompted Lithuanian intelligence to intensify its investigations of Polish activities in Lithuania. This helped to detect and prevent a planned coup d'état in Kaunas to overthrow the government of Lithuania.

Polish coup attempt
Sometime in mid-July 1919, PMO forces in Vilnius began planning a coup to replace the Lithuanian government with a pro-Polish cabinet, which would agree to a union with Poland (the proposed Międzymorze federation). Polish leader Józef Piłsudski believed there were enough Polish sympathizers in Lithuania to carry out the coup. On August 3, a Polish diplomatic mission, led by Leon Wasilewski and Tadeusz Kasprzycki, in Kaunas had a double purpose: propose a plebiscite in the contested territories and assess preparedness for the coup. On August 6, the Lithuanian government rejected the plebiscite proposal, stating that the disputed territories constitute ethnographic Lithuania. According to Lithuanian historian Kazys Ališauskas, PMO planned to capture and hold Kaunas for a few hours until the arrival of the regular Polish troops, situated only some 40 – east from the city. Piłsudski and his entourage were sincerely convinced that Taryba, who ruled Lithuania, had no real popular support and was merely a German creation. They were bolstered in this conviction by intra-Lithuanian quarrels, primarily between Lithuanian émigré leader Juozas Gabrys and newly elected President Smetona, who lacked democratic legitimacy. This conviction was reinforced by the constant presence of the German army in Lithuania. The Germans' departure from Kaunas on July 11, 1919, created the conditions for military action. Polish newspapers ran a propaganda campaign claiming that the Council of Lithuania was simply a German puppet.

It managed to win the support of some Lithuanian politicians, most notably the aforementioned Gabrys, Defense Ministry employee Jurgis Aukštuolaitis, and even Lithuanian army commander Silvestras Žukauskas. However, it was not much, greater success was achieved in gaining the support of Kaunas Poles. The coup was initially scheduled for the night of August 27 to 28 but was postponed to September 1. The outbreak of the Sejny uprising, which reinforced resentment against Poles in Lithuania, further hindered the success of the coup.

The postponement of the start of the coup turned out to be a fatal mistake, as some PMO units did not receive information about it and began operations on the original date, disrupting telegraph connections between Kaunas and the rest of the country. Lithuanian intelligence discovered the coup, but did not have a list of PMO members. Lithuanian authorities began mass arrests of some 200 Polish activists, including 23 officers of the Lithuanian Army. Kaunas was declared in a state of siege. Polish press saw mass arrests of Polish activists "to whom no charge can be ascribed other than being Poles" as proof of systematic anti-Polish policies of the German-ridden Lithuanian government. Another wave of arrests took place on September 9 in Kaišiadorys, an important railroad junction, where about 100 people were arrested. The PMO was little affected by the arrests and scheduled another coup attempt for the end of September. However, the Lithuanians obtained a full list of PMO members, including 369 names of members and 122 names of Lithuanians sympathetic to the PMO, and liquidated the organization in Lithuania. The wave of arrests, included names outside the list, Lithuanian police used this as a pretext to arrest Polish activists, there were even murders.

Military developments
After the failure of the coup in Kaunas, there were numerous small border incidents. On September 17 and 18, Lithuanian troops attacked and occupied Musninkai and Širvintos, and were soon driven from them. On September 19, 1919, Polish troops attacked Gelvonai and encroached towards Ukmergė. On several occasions fights broke out regarding a strategically important bridge over the Šventoji River near Vepriai. In October, when main Lithuanian forces were deployed against the Bermontians in northwestern Lithuania, the attacks intensified. Poles captured Salakas on October 5 and attacked Kapčiamiestis on October 12. When Polish troops were engaged in combat with Soviet forces German troops attacked Alanta on 1920, and Stakliškės on January 14. The front stabilized, but harassment of border guards and local villagers continued throughout early 1920.

In March 1920, fights erupted along the railroad stations in Kalkūni and Turmantas. The situation was investigated by British and French observers and reported to the Entente. The situation somewhat improved only in late spring 1920, when most Polish troops were deployed in Ukraine during the

At the time Lithuania faced a severe budget crisis – in 1919 its revenue was 72 million while expenses reached 190 million German marks. While the government was struggling to obtain financial assistance and loans, deep cuts affected the army. Instead of increasing its armed forces to 40,000 men, Lithuania was forced to cut them to about 25,000.

Diplomatic developments
After the failed coup, Leon Wasilewski left Kaunas and settled in Vilnius. There he met twice, on September 15 and 24, with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Augustian Voldemaras. The talks concerned bilateral relations, the possibility of a plebiscite, and ended without any concrete agreements. Wasilewski then began propaganda work involving Lithuanian activists Józef Albin Herbaczewski, priest Antanas Viskantas or Jurgis Aukštuolaitis, who had been released from prison, and published bilingual or Lithuanian-language press for this purpose.

Meanwhile, British influence was increasing in the Baltic States, interested primarily in limiting German, but also French influence. A British military mission was established in Kaunas, headed by Richard Barrington Ward. On September 19, 1919, along with 21 other British officers, General Frank Percy Crozier joined the newly established Lithuanian Army as an advisor to the General Staff. On September 25, 1919, the UK recognized the Lithuanian state de facto. The British also provided military equipment.

Latvia fought against the German-Russian forces of Pavel Bermondt-Avalov. Latvia enjoyed the support of Poland. The fighting spread to Lithuania in October 1919. Poland offered to help, but the Lithuanians refused to allow passage through their territory. Fearing a Polish attack, Lithuania reached an agreement with the Bermontians and signed a truce on October 30, establishing the Tauragė-Šiauliai demacration line. After the Latvian army breached the front, the Lithuanian army joined the counteroffensive. Later clashes were stopped by the intervention of an Entente representative, in order to not interrupt withdrawal of German troops. By December 15, all German forces were completely removed from Lithuania. At the same time, the plenipotentiary of the German government Ludwig Zimmerle was forced to leave Kaunas. On December 30, a Polish-Latvian alliance was signed, resulting in a joint fight for the liberation of Daugavpils, which was successful on January 5, 1920. Lithuanian troops attempted an early entry into the city, but without success.

In April 1920, Lithuania held its first parliamentary elections, among the constituencies established were cities outside the Lithuanian administration: Vilnius, Lida, Grodno and Białystok. The Polish minority had limited opportunities for election campaigning, the only Polish newspaper was closed down, and as a result Poles received only 3 parliamentary seats. Kazys Grinius became the new prime minister. On May 11, 1920, France recognized Lithuania de facto. And on May 7, 1920, Lithuania began peace talks with Soviet Russia.

Diplomatic developments
On 25 April 1920, the Polish army and the remnants of Ukrainian People's Army under Petliura launched the large-scale Kiev offensive following the treaty of alliance. Initially successful, the Polish Army started retreating after Russian counterattacks in early June 1920. Soon the Soviet forces began to threaten Poland's independence as they reached and crossed the Polish borders. On July 9, Polish Prime Minister Władysław Grabski asked the Allied Powers in the Spa Conference for military assistance in the war with the Soviets. The conference proposed that the Polish forces would withdraw behind the Curzon Line, the Soviet forces would stop 50 km to the east of the line, the Lithuanian forces would take control of Vilnius, and all other disputes would be settled via negotiations in London. Grabski opposed the transfer of Vilnius, but under the pressure of British Prime Minister Lloyd George, agreed to the resolution on July 10.

At the same time, the Soviets and Lithuanians negotiated the Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty, which was signed on July 12, 1920. Russia recognized Lithuanian independence and withdrew any territorial claims. The treaty drew the eastern border of Lithuania, which the Lithuanians continued to claim as their de jure state border until World War II. Vilnius Region, including Braslaw (Breslauja), Hrodna (Gardinas), Lida (Lyda), and Vilnius, was recognized to Lithuania. On August 6, after long and heated negotiations, Lithuania and Soviet Russia signed a convention regarding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the recognized Lithuanian territory. However, the troops began to retreat only after the Red Army suffered a heavy defeat in Poland.

Territorial changes
The Bolshevik forces reached Lithuanian territory on July 7, 1920, and continued to push the Polish troops. The Lithuanian Army moved to secure territories abandoned by the retreating Polish forces, reaching Turmantas on July 7, Tauragnai and Alanta on July 9, Širvintos and Musninkai on July 10, Kernavė, Molėtai, and Giedraičiai on July 11, Maišiagala and Pabradė on July 13. On July 13, the Polish command decided to transfer Vilnius to the Lithuanians following the Spa conference's resolution. Lithuanians moved in, but their trains were stopped by Polish soldiers near Kazimieriškės. Polish soldiers didn't receive orders to let Lithuanian troops go through. This delay meant that the Bolsheviks were the first to enter Vilnius on July 14. By the time the first Lithuanian troops entered the city on July 15, it was already secured by the Soviets. Poland sought to have Russians in the city as it would create much fewer complications when the Polish Army counterattacked. Despite the Peace Treaty, the Soviets did not intend to transfer the city to the Lithuanians. Indeed, there were indications that the Soviets planned a coup against the Lithuanian government in hopes to re-establish the Lithuanian SSR.

Despite the setback in Vilnius, the Lithuanians continued to secure territories in the Suwałki Region. They took Druskininkai on July 17, Vištytis, Punsk, Giby, and Sejny on July 19, Suwałki on July 29, Augustów on August 8. The Polish units, afraid of being surrounded and cut off from the main Polish forces, retreated towards Łomża. The Lithuanian authorities started to organize themselves in the regained areas.

Lithuanian neutrality
Poland claimed that Lithuania violated its claim to neutrality in the Polish–Soviet War and in effect became a Soviet ally. A secret clause of the Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty allowed Soviet forces unrestricted movement within the Soviet-recognized Lithuanian territory for the duration of Soviet hostilities with Poland. This clause was of a practical matter: Soviet troops already occupied much of the assigned territory and could not withdraw while hostilities with Poland continued. Lithuanians were also simply unable to resist Soviet troops. For example, when Lithuanians refused permission to use a road, the Soviets ignored Lithuanian protests and transported their troops and equipment regardless. At the same time Polish soldiers were disarmed and interned. The largest group, a brigade under colonel Pasławski, was interned on July 18, 1920, near Kruonis. On August 10, Lithuanians held 103 Polish officers and 3,520 private soldiers. Poland also claimed that the Lithuanian troops actively participated in the Red Army's military operations. This charge, based on memoirs of Soviet officials, lacks evidence. Further military clashes between Polish and Lithuanian troops in the Suwałki Region were interpreted by Poland to show that "the Lithuanian government has become an instrument of the Soviet government." Lithuania responded that it was defending its borders.

Polish advance and Soviet retreat
The Russians suffered a great defeat in the Battle of Warsaw in mid-August 1920 and started withdrawing. They handed over Vilnius to the Lithuanians on August 26. The Lithuanians hastily made preparations to secure the border, as determined by the Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty. The soldiers were ordered to maintain neutrality: avoid hostilities and intern any Soviet or Polish troops that would cross the border. On August 26, a Polish delegation, led by Colonel Mieczysław Mackiewicz, arrived in Kaunas to negotiate the situation. The Poles, lacking authority to discuss political issues, were concerned with military aspects. They sought permission to transport Polish troops through the territory of Lithuania, wanted access to a portion of the Saint Petersburg–Warsaw railway, and demanded that the Lithuanian troops would withdraw from the Suwałki Region behind the Curzon Line. The Lithuanians refused to discuss military matters without a clear political Polish–Lithuanian border, that would be respected after the war. Due to these fundamental disagreements and Polish attacks, the negotiations broke down on August 30.

The Suwałki Region had strategic importance in the Polish–Soviet War. Following orders of Edward Rydz-Śmigły, Polish forces took Augustów from Lithuanians in a surprise attack on August 28. Confused and disoriented, Lithuanians retreated from Suwałki and Sejny on August 30 and 31. The Lithuanians reorganized, gathered their forces (11 battalions with 7,000 soldiers), and organized a counterattack to retake lost territory on September 2. The goal was to take and secure the Augustów–Lipsk–Grabowo–Grodno line. The Lithuanians succeeded in re-taking Sejny and Lipsk and by September 4 reached the outskirts of Augustów. On September 5, the Poles counterattacked and forced the Lithuanians to retreat. On September 9, the Polish forces recaptured Sejny,< but the Lithuanians pushed back and regained Sejny and Giby on September 13 and 14. Pending direct negotiations, hostilities were ceased on both sides.

Direct negotiations and League of Nations
On September 6, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Juozas Purickis proposed direct negotiations in Marijampolė. On September 8, during a planning meeting of the Battle of the Niemen River, the Poles decided to manoeuvre through the Lithuanian-held territory to the rear of the Soviet Army, stationed in Grodno. In an attempt to conceal the planned attack, Polish diplomats accepted the proposal to negotiate. The negotiations started on September 16 in Kalvarija, but collapsed just two days later.

On September 5, 1920, Polish Foreign Minister Eustachy Sapieha delivered a diplomatic note to the League of Nations alleging that Lithuania violated its neutrality and asked to intervene in the Polish–Lithuanian War. The League agreed to mediate and began its session on September 16. The resolution, adopted on September 20, urged both states to cease hostilities and adhere to the Curzon Line. Poland was asked to respect Lithuanian neutrality if Soviet Russia agreed to do the same. Also, a special Control Commission was to be dispatched to the conflict zone to oversee the implementation of the resolution. It was clear that the League had only a narrow goal to prevent armed hostilities and not to resolve the underlying territorial dispute. The Lithuanian government accepted the resolution, but Poland reserved full freedom of action in preparation for the attack on the Soviets.

Battle of the Niemen River
On September 22, 1920, Poland attacked Lithuanian units in the Suwałki Region on a wide front. Overwhelmed by 4–5 times larger Polish forces, some 1,700–2,000 Lithuanian troops surrendered and were taken prisoner.

Polish forces then marched, as planned on September 8, across the Neman River near Druskininkai and Merkinė to the rear of the Soviet forces near Grodno and Lida. The Red Army hastily retreated. The Lithuanians had had limited intelligence warning that such an attack might occur, but chose an inadequate defensive strategy and spread their forces too thinly along the entire Polish–Lithuanian front without sufficient forces to protect the bridges across the Neman. This attack, just two days after the resolution by the League of Nations to cease hostilities, put more pressure on Poland to settle the dispute peacefully.

On September 26, the Poles captured Grodno and the Polish foreign minister proposed new negotiations in Suwałki. The Battle of the Niemen River drastically altered the balance of power: Vilnius, in Lithuanian hands since August 26, was now exposed to a Polish attack. Indeed, the Poles had already decided to capture the city and used the negotiations in Suwałki to stall and buy the time necessary to make preparations. The Lithuanian side was ready to give up the Suwałki Region in exchange for Poland's recognition of the Lithuanian claims to Vilnius.

Suwałki Agreement
The negotiations between Poles, led by colonel Mieczysław Mackiewicz, and Lithuanians, led by general Maksimas Katche, began on the evening of September 29, 1920. Both sides agreed to an armistice but only to the west of the Neman River (the Suwałki Region). Fighting to the east of the river continued around Marcinkonys, Zervynos, Perloja, Eišiškės. The major point of contention, both diplomatic and military, was the train station in Varėna (Orany) on the Saint Petersburg–Warsaw railway. Major Lithuanian forces were still concentrated in the Suwałki Region and moving them to protect Vilnius without the railway would be extremely difficult. Fighting east of the Neman River ceased only on October 6, when Polish troops had already captured the train station in Varėna.

Negotiations regarding the demarcation line were difficult. In essence, the Lithuanians wanted a longer demarcation line to provide better protection for Vilnius. The Poles agreed only to a short line to provide the planned attack on Vilnius with space for operation. The Polish delegation was also stalling to buy time for necessary preparations for an attack on Vilnius. While Vilnius was not a topic of debate, it was on everybody's mind. On October 4, the Control Commission, sent by the League according to its resolution of September 20, arrived to Suwałki. The commission, led by French colonel Pierre Chardigny, re-energized the negotiations. On October 7, at midnight, the final agreement was signed. The treaty made not a single reference to Vilnius or the Vilnius Region. The ceasefire was effective only along the demarcation line, which ran through the Suwałki Region to the train station in Bastuny Thus the line was incomplete, did not protect the Vilnius Region, but indicated it would be left on the Lithuanian side.

Żeligowski's Mutiny
Polish chief of state Józef Piłsudski ordered his subordinate, General Lucjan Żeligowski, to stage a mutiny with his 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division (16 battalions with 14,000 soldiers) in Lida and capture Vilnius in fait accompli. The rebellion had two main goals: capture Vilnius and preserve Poland's international reputation. The League of Nations was mediating other Polish disputes, notably over the Free City of Danzig and Upper Silesia, and direct aggression against Lithuania could have hampered Polish bargaining positions. While the Polish side officially held Żeligowski to be a deserter and did not support him, Poland provided logistic support, including munitions and food rations, to his units. Żeligowski also received reinforcements, when, according to the official version, the mutiny spread further among the Polish troops. His initial attack was secured on both sides by two Polish Armies.

Żeligowski's Mutiny, in planning since mid-September, began in the early morning of October 8, 1920, just a few hours after the signing of the Suwałki Agreement. A provisional agreement was made in the Polish–Soviet War, which freed up Polish units for the attack on Lithuania. As part of the ruse, Żeligowski wrote a note to the Polish command announcing his mutiny and expressing his disappointment with the Suwałki Agreement. He claimed that his troops marched to defend the right of self-determination of the local Polish population.

Capture of Vilnius and other military attacks
The Lithuanians were not prepared for the assault. They had only two battalions, stationed near Jašiūnai and Rūdninkai along the Merkys River, shielding the city from Poland. Their main forces were still in the Suwałki Region and to the west from Druskininkai and Varėna. Without the railway, Lithuanian units could not be easily redeployed to protect Vilnius. After it became clear that Żeligowski would not stop in Vilnius, Commander of the Lithuanian Army Silvestras Žukauskas, who had recently taken the position on October 6, ordered the city evacuated in the afternoon on October 8. They left the city's administration to Entente official Constantin Reboul. The first Polish units entered the city around 2:15 PM on October 9, Żeligowski entered Vilnius in the evening the same day. He did not recognize Reboul's authority and Entente officials left the city in protest. On October 12, Żeligowski proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Central Lithuania, with Vilnius as its capital. The name aligned with Piłsudski's vision of historical Lithuania, divided into three cantons: Lithuanian-inhabited Western Lithuania with its capital in Kaunas, Polish-inhabited Central Lithuania with its capital in Vilnius, and Belarusian-inhabited Eastern Lithuania with its capital in Minsk. Further developments of other cantons were prevented by Polish National Democracy, a party opposed to Piłsudski's federalist ideas.

Żeligowski's units continued to advance: territories east of the city were taken without resistance while Lithuanians defended in the west. Żeligowski took Švenčionys and Rūdiškės on October 10, Nemenčinė on October 11, Lentvaris on October 13, Rykantai on October 15. The front somewhat stabilized on the southern (left) side of the Neris River, but fighting continued on the northern (right) side of Neris. On October 18, the Lithuanian army began a failed counteroffensive trying to retake Vilnius. When Polish cavalry manoeuvred towards Riešė, it learned from the local population the location of the command of the 1st Riflemen Division. On October 21, the cavalry raided the village and took the entire command (including Stasys Nastopka) prisoner. Left without their commanders, the Lithuanians retreated and Poles took Maišiagala and Paberžė. Żeligowski at this point offered peace negotiations but was refused by the Lithuanian command. On October 26, another cavalry raid captured Dubingiai, Giedraičiai and Želva and threatened Ukmergė. However, Lithuanians counterattacked and took back Želva on October 30 and Giedraičiai on November 1. For a while, the front stabilized.

On November 17, the mutineers began a major attack. They planned to capture Kaunas, thus threatening Lithuanian independence, by encircling the city from the north through Širvintos–Ukmergė–Jonava and Giedraičiai–Kavarskas–Kėdainiai. Żeligowski's forces were about three times larger: 15 Polish battalions against 5 Lithuanian battalions. One cavalry brigade managed to break through the Lithuanian defence lines near Dubingiai, reached Kavarskas, and continued towards Kėdainiai. However, Lithuanians successfully stopped an attack on Ukmergė near Širvintos on November 19. About 200 Lithuanians manoeuvred through swamps to the rear of three Polish battalions. Attacked from the front and rear, some 200 Poles were taken prisoner while others retreated. The Lithuanians continued to attack and captured Giedraičiai on November 21. On the same day, a ceasefire was signed under pressure from the League of Nations. The Polish cavalry brigade, pushed from Kėdainiai and cut off from its main forces, retreated through Ramygala–Troškūnai–Andrioniškis–Leliūnai and rejoined Żeligowski's other units only on November 24.

Mediation and diplomatic measures
On October 11, 1920, the Lithuanian envoy in Paris Oscar Milosz asked the League of Nations to intervene in the renewed conflict with Poland. On October 14, the Chairman of the League Léon Bourgeois issued a note condemning the aggression and asking Polish units to retreat. Politicians in London even considered expelling Poland from the League. When the League heard both arguments on October 26–28, Polish envoy Szymon Askenazy claimed that there was no conflict between Poland and Lithuania to mediate. He maintained that the old conflict ended with signing ceasefires with Lithuania on October 7 and with Soviet Russia on October 12 and the new conflict was caused by Żeligowski, who acted without approval from the Polish command, but with the moral support of the entire Polish nation. Lithuanian envoy Augustinas Voldemaras argued that Poland orchestrated the mutiny and demanded strict sanctions against Poland. The League refused to validate Żeligowski's action. It suggested to hold a plebiscite in the contested areas. On November 6 and 7, both sides agreed and Lithuanians began preparatory work.

On November 19, Żeligowski proposed to the Control Commission, led by Chardigny, to cease hostilities. Lithuanians agreed and a ceasefire was signed on November 21. Later this episode was criticized by Lithuanian commentators as at the time the Lithuanian Army had the initiative in the front and had a chance of marching on Vilnius. However, the Lithuanians trusted the League of Nations would resolve the dispute in their favour and were afraid that in case of an attack on Vilnius regular Polish forces would arrive to reinforce Żeligowski's units.

Negotiations for a more permanent armistice, under the mediation of the Control Commission, began on November 27 in Kaunas. Lithuania did not agree to negotiate directly with Żeligowski and thus legitimizing his actions. Therefore, Poland stepped in as a mediator. Lithuania agreed as it hoped to put the talks back into the context of the Suwałki Agreement. Poles rejected any withdrawal of Żeligowski's forces. No agreement could be reached regarding a demarcation line. On November 29, 1920, it was agreed only to cease hostilities on November 30, to entrust the Control Commission with the establishment of a 6 km wide neutral zone and to exchange prisoners. The neutral zone existed until February 1923.

Aftermath
In March 1921, the plans for a plebiscite were abandoned. Neither Lithuania, which was afraid of a negative result nor Poland, which saw no reason to change status quo, wanted the plebiscite. The parties could not agree on which territory to carry out the vote and how Żeligowski's forces should be replaced by League's forces. The League of Nations then moved on from trying to solve the narrow territorial dispute in the Vilnius Region to shaping the fundamental relationship between Poland and Lithuania. In 1921, Belgian Paul Hymans suggested several Polish–Lithuanian federation models, all rejected by both sides. In January 1922, parliamentary election to the Wilno Diet (Sejm wileński) resulted in a landslide Polish victory. In its first session on February 20, 1922, the Diet voted for incorporation into Poland as the Wilno Voivodeship. Polish Sejm accepted the resolution of the Diet. The League of Nations ended its efforts to mediate the dispute. After Lithuanians seized the Klaipėda Region in January 1923, the League saw recognition of Lithuanian interest in Klaipėda as adequate compensation for the loss of Vilnius. The League accepted the status quo in February 1923 by dividing the neutral zone and setting a demarcation line, which was recognised in March 1923 as the official Polish–Lithuanian border. Lithuania did not recognize this border.

Some historians have asserted that if Poland had not prevailed in the Polish–Soviet War, Lithuania would have been invaded by the Soviets and would never have experienced two decades of independence. Despite the Soviet–Lithuanian Treaty of 1920, Lithuania was very close to being invaded by the Soviets in the summer of 1920 and being forcibly incorporated into that state, and only the Polish victory derailed that plan.

The dispute over Vilnius remained one of the biggest foreign policy issues in Lithuania and Poland. Lithuania broke off all diplomatic relations with Poland and refused any actions that would recognize Poland's control of Vilnius even de facto. For example, Lithuania broke off diplomatic relations with the Holy See after the Concordat of 1925 established an ecclesiastical province in Wilno and thereby acknowledged Poland's claims to the city. Poland refused to formally recognize the existence of any dispute regarding the region since that would have lent legitimacy to the Lithuanian claims. Railroad traffic and telegraph lines could not cross the border, and mail service was complicated. For example, a letter from Poland to Lithuania needed to be sent to a neutral country and repackaged in a new envelope to remove any Polish signs and only then could be delivered to Lithuania. Despite several attempts to normalize the relations, the situation of "no war, no peace", lasted until Poland demanded to re-establish diplomatic relations by issuing the ultimatum of 1938. These tensions were one of the reasons that Józef Piłsudski's Międzymorze federation was never formed. The Soviets gave Vilnius to Lithuania after the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland in September 1939.

title: Polish–Lithuanian War


text:
User talk:Mactopia

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Aphaea *  11:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Mactopia


text:
Meitetsu Nagoya Station

Meitetsu Nagoya Station (名鉄名古屋駅) is the principal station of the Nagoya Railroad (Meitetsu) system in Nagoya, Japan. Most trains of Meitetsu's major lines operate through this station. The station is also a gateway to the Chūbu Centrair International Airport, which is connected with the station by the Rapid Express service started on January 29, 2005.

This station is built under the Meitetsu Department Store, therefore the station area is very narrow for the large number of passengers, but it is technically difficult to enlarge the station due to the limited and complicated underground area. Therefore, at this station, passengers' waiting spots are separated by destination. Passengers are required to wait at their spot to go.

The station is adjacent to JR Central's Nagoya Station, the city's central station, and Kintetsu Nagoya Station, the terminal of the Kintetsu Nagoya Line.

Ticket Gates
There are 7 ticket gates at Meitetsu Nagoya Station, including the Central Ticket Gate, West Ticket Gate, South Ticket Gate, North Ticket Gate, East Ticket Gate, New South Ticket Gate and Kintetsu Connection Ticket Gate.

The Central Ticket Gate, West Ticket Gate, and South Ticket Gate are located in the Meitetsu station building, and the North Ticket Gate can be accessed from the Gatewalk Underground Shopping Mall.

The East Ticket Gate and New South Ticket Gate are only for entrance to Platform 4. The East Ticket Gate is near the underground lottery sales kiosk, and the New South Ticket Gate is at the back of the Meitetsu department store underground food section.

The Kintetsu connection ticket gate connects Platform 1 to the Kintetsu Nagoya Station platforms.

Riding spots
At Meitetsu Nagoya Station, passengers' riding spots are separated by their destinations. Additionally, Meitetsu has two-door trains and three-door trains, therefore passengers are required to wait at the spot with light on.

Track No.1 (for Ichinomiya, Gifu, Iwakura, Inuyama, Shin Kani, Kakamigahara, Tsushima and Saya)
 * There are only very few local trains for Gifu, so passengers should use local trains for Tsushima or transfer at Sukaguchi.

Track No.2 (for Ichinomiya, Gifu, Inuyama, Shin Unuma, Shin Kani and Saya)

Track No.3 (for Toyohashi, Nishio, Tokoname, Central Japan International Airport, Kōwa and Utsumi)
 * These tracks are used only for passengers with seat reservation for a □ μSky Limited Express, □ Rapid Limited Express and ■ Limited Express and for arrival.

Track No.4 (for Higashi Okazaki, Toyohashi, Toyokawa-inari, Nishio, Tokoname, Central Japan International Airport, Kōwa and Utsumi)

Transfer

 * At Nagoya Station:
 * Central Japan Railway Company
 * Tōkaidō Shinkansen (for Shin-Yokohama, Tokyo, Kyoto and Shin-Osaka)
 * Tōkaidō Line (for Gifu, Ogaki, Obu, Kariya, Gamagori, Toyohashi and Hamamatsu)
 * Chūō Line (for Kozoji (transfer to EXPO SITE), Tajimi and Nakatsugawa)
 * Kansai Line (for Yokkaichi, Tsu and Kameyama)
 * Takayama Line (Limited Express only, for Gero and Takayama)
 * Nagoya Seaside Rapid Railway
 * Aonami Line (for Kinjō-Futō) – Station number: AN01
 * Nagoya Municipal Subway
 * Higashiyama Line – Station number: H08
 * Sakura-dōri Line – Station number: S02
 * At Kintetsu Nagoya Station:
 * Kintetsu Railway
 * Nagoya Line (for Yokkaichi, Tsu, Ise-Nakagawa, Matsusaka, Iseshi, Toba, Kashikojima and Osaka)

History
The station opened on August 12, 1941 and was known as Shin Nagoya Station (新名古屋駅) until it was renamed in early 2005.

A station refurbishment project including the construction of two new platforms in order to increase the station capacity will be completed by 2027, the year that the maglev Shinkansen is expected to be put into operation.

title: Meitetsu Nagoya Station


text:
FOK!

FOK! is a Dutch website and virtual community, containing active content like news, reviews, columns and polls. It was founded by Danny Roodbol, and is one of the largest internet communities of the Netherlands. The forum's user group is diverse, though much of its content is targeted towards a younger audience. Currently over 499.000 accounts have been created and the forums post count is over 203 million.

At its inception, the website gained recognition by being associated with Big Brother. FOK! offered many scoops about the television program and soon visitors of the official Big Brother site were sent to FOK!forum to discuss the show.

Frontpage
The news covered by fok.nl typically consists of important events. It also has room for some lighter and funnier news.

Apart from the general news, FOK! has special sections for news and reviews about videogames, films and sports.

title: FOK!


text:
History of neurology and neurosurgery

The study of neurology and neurosurgery dates back to prehistoric times, but the academic disciplines did not begin until the 16th century. The formal organization of the medical specialties of neurology and neurosurgery are relatively recent, taking place in the place in Europe and the United States only in the 20th century with the establishment of professional societies distinct from internal medicine, psychiatry and general surgery. From an observational science they developed a systematic way of approaching the nervous system and possible interventions in neurological disease.

Ancient

Trepanation, similar to some techniques used today, is the oldest surgical procedure known and was practised in the Stone Age in many parts of the world, and in some areas may have been quite widespread. The main pieces of archaeological evidence are in the forms of cave paintings and human remains. One third of 120 skulls found at a site in France dating to 6500 BCE had undergone trepanning. It was also practised widely in the pre-Columbian Andes. These procedures were mostly performed on combatants, with evidence from skeletal remains revealing that the earliest methods usually resulted in death. However, by the 1400s, Incas proved to be "skilled surgeons", as survival rates rose to about 90%, infection rates following the procedure were low and evidence was found showing that some individuals survived the surgery on multiple occasions. Incan surgeons learned to avoid areas of the head that would cause injury, using a scraping method on the skull that would cause less trauma. They also likely used medicinal herbs of the time, such as coca and alcohol for pain while balsam and saponin would be employed for antibiotic purposes.

An ancient Egyptian treatise concerning trauma surgery, the Edwin Smith papyrus, contains descriptions and suggests treatments for various injuries, including some of neurological nature. Specifically, there are descriptions of the meninges, the external surface of the brain, the cerebrospinal fluid and the intracranial pulsations. Not only are these neurological features mentioned, but it is also noticed that some bodily functions can be impaired by brain injuries or injuries to the cervical spine. There are many other examples of observations of neurological phenomena throughout history. The Sumerians illustrated paraplegia caused by physical trauma in a bas relief of a lion with an arrow in its back. Neurological disorders not caused by physical disorder were also investigated. Buddha's physician, Jīvaka Komārabhacca, performed surgery to remove two parasites from a patient's brain in the 5th century BCE.

Slightly later, the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates was convinced that epilepsy has a natural cause, not a sacred one. The ancient Greeks also dissected the nervous system. For example, Aristotle (although he misunderstood the function of the brain) describes the meninges and also distinguishes between the cerebrum and the cerebellum. Slightly later, in Rome, Galen performed many dissections of the nervous system in a variety of species, including the ape. One particular discovery he made was of the importance of the recurrent laryngeal nerves. Originally, he cut through them accidentally while performing an experiment on the nerves that control breathing by vivisection of a strapped-down, squealing pig. The pig immediately stopped squealing, but continued struggling. Galen then performed the same experiment on a variety of animals, including dogs, goats, bears, lions, cows and monkeys, finding similar results each time. Finally, to publicise this new result, Galen demonstrated the experiment on a pair of pigs to a large audience in Rome, telling them: "there is a hairlike pair [of nerves] in the muscles of the larynx on both left and right, which if ligated or cut render the animal speechless without damaging either its life or functional activity".

With surgery, Hua Tuo was an ancient Chinese physician and surgical pioneer who is said to have performed neurosurgical procedures. In Al-Andalus from 936 to 1013 AD, Al-Zahrawi evaluated patients and performed surgical treatments of head injuries, skull fractures, spinal injuries, hydrocephalus, subdural effusions and headache. Concurrently in Persia, Avicenna also presented detailed knowledge about skull fractures and their surgical treatments.

Anatomy and physiology
In 1549, Jason Pratensis published De Cerebri Morbis, a volume devoted to neurological diseases, in which he discussed symptoms, as well as ideas from Galen and other Greek, Roman, and Arabic authors. Thomas Willis in 1664 published his Anatomy of the Brain, followed by Cerebral Pathology in 1667. He removed the brain from the cranium and was able to describe it more clearly, setting forth the circle of Willis, the circle of vessels that enables arterial supply of the brain. He had some notions as to brain function, including a vague idea as to localization and reflexes, and described epilepsy, apoplexy, and paralysis. He was among the first few authors to use the word "neurology," after anatomist Jean Riolan the Younger in 1610.
 * Along with most other sciences, the first real advances in neurology and neurosurgery after the Greeks occur in the Renaissance. The invention of the printing press allowed the publication of anatomical textbooks, pages, allowing the dissemination of knowledge. An early example is Johann Peyligk's Compendium philosophiae naturalis, published in Leipzig, Germany in 1499. This work contained 11 woodcuts, depicting the dura mater and pia mater as well as the ventricles.
 * A revolution took place in both neurology in particular and in anatomy in general when Andreas Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica in 1543. It includes detailed images depicting the ventricles, cranial nerves, pituitary gland, meninges, structures of the eye, the vascular supply to the brain and spinal cord, and an image of the peripheral nerves. Vesalius, unlike many of his contemporaries, did not subscribe to the then common belief that the ventricles were responsible for brain function, arguing that many animals have similar systems of ventricles to those of humans but no true intelligence. It appears that he rarely removed the brain from the skull before cutting it, most of his diagrams showing the brain sitting inside a severed head.

A beginning of the understanding of disease came with the first morbid anatomists, morbid anatomical illustration, and the development of effective colour printing. Matthew Baillie (1761–1823) and Jean Cruveilhier (1791–1874) illustrated the lesions of stroke in 1799 and 1829, respectively.

Bioelectricity and Microscopy
The famous philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) speculated that every activity of an animal was a necessary reaction to some external stimulus; the connection between the stimulus and the response was made through a definite nervous path. In 1718, Isaac Newton opined in his book Opticks that the brain was sending signals to the muscles through the path of nerves.

Luigi Galvani (1737–1798) demonstrated that electrical stimulation of nerve produced muscle contraction, and the competing work of Charles Bell (1774–1842) and François Magendie (1783–1855) led to the view that the ventral horns of the spinal cord were motor and the dorsal horns sensory. Only when cells were identified microscopically was it possible to progress beyond the crudest anatomical notion. J.E. Purkinje (1787–1869) in 1837 gave the first description of neurones, indeed a very early description of cells of any kind. By 1850, Helmholtz was able to measure the signal conductance speed on a frog's sciatic nerve (about 27 m/s at 20-21°C). Later Golgi and Cajal stained the ramifying branches of nerve cells; these could only touch, or synapse. The brain now had demonstrated form, without localised function. A hemiplegic patient who could not speak led Paul Broca (1824–1880) to the view that functions in the cerebral cortex were anatomically localised. Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) realised as his dogs dribbled that a simple reflex could be modified by higher brain functions. These neurological ideas were coordinated and integrated by the neurophysiologist Charles Scott Sherrington (1857–1952).

Diagnostics
The first physicians to devote entirely to neurology were Moritz Heinrich Romberg, William A. Hammond, Duchenne de Boulogne, Jean-Martin Charcot and John Hughlings Jackson. Physicians could use the ideas of neurology in practice only if they developed proper tools and procedures for clinical investigation. This happened step by step in the 19th century – tendon hammer, ophthalmoscope, pin and tuning fork, syringe and lumbar puncture. X rays, the electro-encephalography, angiography, myelography and CAT scans were to follow. The clinical neurologists correlated their findings after death with those of the neuropathologist. The best known was W.R. Gowers (1845–1915) who owned a major text in two volumes, of a cerebrospinal tract. By the end of the nineteenth century, the connection was established between stroke and hemiplegia, between trauma and paraplegia, between the spirochaete and the paralysed demency people who filled the mental hospitals. The first chemotherapeutic cure of a serious infection was salvarsan for syphilis, followed by the induction of fever in neurosyphilis. The treatment of neurosyphilis became highly effective when antibiotics were introduced.

Modern
There was not much advancement in neurosurgery until late 19th early 20th century, when electrodes were placed on the brain and superficial tumors were removed.

Neurosurgery, or the premeditated incision into the head for pain relief, has been around for thousands of years, but notable advancements in neurosurgery have only come within the last hundred years.

History of electrodes in the brain: In 1878 Richard Caton discovered that electrical signals transmitted through an animal's brain. In 1950 Dr. Jose Delgado invented the first electrode that was implanted in an animal's brain, using it to make it run and change direction. In 1972 the cochlear implant, a neurological prosthetic that allowed deaf people to hear was marketed for commercial use. In 1998 researcher Philip Kennedy implanted the first brain–computer interface (BCI) into a human subject.

History of tumor removal: In 1879 after locating it via neurological signs alone, Scottish surgeon William Macewen (1848-1924) performed the first successful brain tumor removal. On 25 November 1884 after English physician Alexander Hughes Bennett (1848-1901) used Macewen's technique to locate it, English surgeon Rickman Godlee (1849-1925) performed the first primary brain tumor removal, which differs from Macewen's operation in that Bennett operated on the exposed brain, whereas Macewen operated outside of the "brain proper" via trepanation. Three years later, Victor Horsley (1857–1916) was the first physician to remove a spinal tumour. On 16 March 1907 Austrian surgeon Hermann Schloffer became the first to successfully remove a pituitary tumor. American surgeon Harvey Cushing (1869–1939) successfully removed a pituitary adenoma from an acromegalic in 1909. Treating endocrine hyperfunction by neurosurgery was a major neurological landmark.

Egas Moniz (1874–1955) in Portugal developed a procedure of leucotomy (now mostly known as lobotomy) to treat severe psychiatric disorders. Though it is often said that the development of lobotomy was inspired by the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad worker who had an iron bar driven through his left frontal lobe in 1848, the evidence is against this.

Modern surgical instruments
The main advancements in neurosurgery came about as a result of highly crafted tools. Modern neurosurgical tools, or instruments, include chisels, curettes, dissectors, distractors, elevators, forceps, hooks, impactors, probes, suction tubes, power tools, and robots. Most of these modern tools, like chisels, elevators, forceps, hooks, impactors, and probes, have been in medical practice for a relatively long time. The main difference of these tools, pre and post advancement in neurosurgery, were the precision in which they were crafted. These tools are crafted with edges that are within a millimeter of desired accuracy. Other tools such as hand held power saws and robots have only recently been commonly used inside of a neurological operating room.

title: History of neurology and neurosurgery