text:
Talk:Cushitic languages

Real numbers
Afars also live in Djibouti as well as Eritrea and Ethiopia, so their number should be slightly larger than 1.5 million, but do not know by how much. Also Somalis reside in the Northeastern part of Kenya, which should make their number slightly larger than 15 million if not more than 20 million.

It's good to know that others have suggested these five branches, but... which others? - Mustafaa 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was wondering also. Who could it be? Wedekind? Andrezjewski? I'm going to look into it, but if I don't find anything soon I'm going to move the statement to talk pending verification. — mark ✎ 13:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Hayward's rather agnostic position in Heine & Nurse. Wasn't claiming that these were necessarily independent branches, just that they were all that could be assumed with present knowledge, and that any claims for relationships between them (or for the validity of Cushitic itself) need to consider them separately. kwami 04:58, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

 * Ditto. Greenberg isn't reliable, and a lot of work has been done since Fleming. kwami (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Cushitic language?
Has anyone here heard of a Proto-Cushitic language? I've come across vague references on the internet. Gringo300 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Within historical linguistics, a "Proto-" language is the reconstructed ancestor of a group of languages. Thus, we have Proto-Indo-European, the reconstructed ancestor of the Indo-European languages.  Proto-Cushitic is the reconstructed ancestor of the Cushitic languages.  (Taivo (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

 * Could it go back to the first Homo sapiens, before they migrated out of Africa? 2A00:23C1:C11A:D500:E0A5:9324:40CF:A2B4 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 * What Taivo said above is a good explanation of a proto-language. Christopher Ehret attempted a reconstruction of Proto-Cushitic in 1987, with a 1995 update.

Pathawi (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant Material
To the anonymous IP who added some questionable material: This article is about Cushitic, not about whatever POV you are pushing with that last addition. I will assume good faith, but you must demonstrate how that information you added is relevant to the topic at hand. Rewrite it or discuss it here first or I will continue to remove it as irrelevant. It is so far-fetched from the topic, I don't even know where to begin to rewrite it. Make it relevant or leave it out. Perhaps it is more relevant at Afar language. (Taivo (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Continuing to add irrelevant and unsourced material to this article is not proper practice. What is the relevance of the material you are insisting on adding?  It is not at all clear why it is here.  Please elaborate before you go adding it back in.  As far as I can tell, it might be relevant on the Afar language page, but without a paragraph describing its relevance, it doesn't appear to belong here.  Stop your personal attacks.  (Taivo (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Etymology
Adding all that material about Nilo-Saharan languages in ancient Cush is immaterial to this article. The name "Cushitic" is from the ancient region of "Cush" and that's all that need be said. The article does not claim that all the languages of the ancient region of Cush were Cushitic or even Afro-Asiatic. It just says that's the source of the name. Entering all that irrelevant information about Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in Cush as well borders on POV pushing. --Taivo (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs linguistic description
This article so far is all about classification but seems to be lacking in linguistic description or analysis such as chracteristic phonology, syntax and so on. Alas I am not qualified to fill the gap but it is surely missing essential information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arberryday (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Subdivisions
The article fails to give a good outline of the subdivisions of the Cushitic language family. The Cushitic languages can be divided into North(Beja), South, Central(Agaw) and East(further divided into Lowland and Highland). Rather then giving the sub-branch of the subdivisions, like the East Lowland and Dahalo. Runehelmet (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, they can be. But they're generally not, not in the better sources, because East Cushitic has not been demonstrated. As with Afroasiatic as a whole, we could include a table of various scholars' conceptions of Cushitic. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * So it looks like this table happened! I've been trying to update it to reflect what I see cited in other scholarly literature. I've removed Ethnologue in keeping with what WikiProject Languages has to say about the source, and the fact that it just reflected another source already in the table. It seems to me that there are two different kinds of categorisations we could be looking at, and that this table kind of muddles them: 1) the position of Cushitic within Afroasiatic (or Afrasian, or whatever term you like); 2) the internal structure of Cushitic. Hetzron gives us all the latter, none of the former; Militarev and Diakonoff, all the former, none of the latter. As it stands, this table was reproduced from Afroasiatic languages, from which it now diverges because of earlier changes I made. Perhaps it would make sense to differentiate: This page handles internal structure, with a link to that page for position within Afroasiatic. There may well be some reduplication between the tables, which is fine, but each table as a whole would focus on a specific question. For the present table, that would mean removing Fleming, Diakonoff, & Militarev. It would be ideal if somebody had a copy of Moreno's 1940 paper on Afaa Sidaamu! Thoughts?

Pathawi (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I bumped this section to the end because I was worried that my proposal hadn't been seen, & I didn't want to start removing material without giving others who care about this article a chance to discuss/object, etc. Does anyone have a reasoned attachment for the current version, or a different vision for what this table should be? I'll get started on this in a couple days if there aren't any objections.

Pathawi (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Working on Cushitic articles recently, I notice and perhaps some others have been culling mentions of East Cushitic from languages' infoboxes. However, while there's debate on the extent of the group, it seems that almost everyone still continues to identify a group that would be called "East Cushitic" and includes at minimum Afar-Saho, Somali (Somaloid), Oromo (Oromoid) and Highland East. This also seems frankly more stable and better-defined than "Lowland East Cushitic", which looks to me like a wastebasket of any putatively-East languages outside of any groups seen as "divergent" — I have for instance so far not found any proposed Proto-Lowland-East innovations from literature anywhere, while for East Cushitic we have in principle at least Ehret (1987) proposing innovations defining the group. And it is really nearly impossible to find any sources specifically treating Lowland East at all — maybe save for the early reconstruction work of Black (1974) who admits that he only works within said group for the purpose of lacking sufficient data on many other languages. Hence I do not see grounds here to treat the two nodes differently: either we treat both as widely recognized, or neither. Personally I think the 'neither' option might be safer; but pushing this too far out might be risky, since it's also the case that basically everyone thinks there is some kind of a node here and e.g. Somali and Oromo are not in two entirely different branches of Cushitic. We might also include both by default for languages for whose position there's not major dispute, and e.g. give the position of Dullay as C > EC > ? LEC; or that of Dahalo as C > ? EC > ?? LEC. Thoughts? -- Trɔpʏliʊm  • blah 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ehret is not a RS. His work is atrocious. He comes up with all sorts of classifications that no linguist accepts, and are regularly dismissed as unsubstantiated even when he claims to have shared innovations.
 * I can't evaluate Tosco's work, but at least he's a linguist, and AFAICT reasonable well respected. Glottolog at least finds his Cushitic classification authoritative. The lack of shared innovations is of course a red flag, but unfortunately few of the world's putative language families are based on shared innovations. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ehret's Cushitic work has controversial reception on many details but should not be dismissed as entirely fringe. (It seems to me his primary problem is bad etymology / comparison, and where he has work by others to rely on, his phonological reconstruction stays in normal scholarly bounds — e.g. Bender's surface comparison passed off as PCush. or ECush. "reconstruction" in his 2020 book is clearly worse.) We should be also able to already dig out reviews of his works, if we e.g. wanted to see what can be usefully cited about Proto-Cushitic reconstruction.
 * I'm not sure what point about Tosco you want to make, since he's after all one of the people who recognizes also classic East Cushitic. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Tangentially; yes, you're of course right that a lack of proposed common innovations is a red flag; seems to me that on Wikipedia we have rarely taken this seriously though and have in general way too many language subgroup articles based only on tertiary sources, which could be easily merged into a discussion under the article for a better-established group. But probably I should take this up at WP:LING instead. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC))
 * I disagree with Ehret's conclusions & methods. I don't think that most Cushiticists (all six of 'em) follow his conclusions, but they do, in fact, cite his work. I think it meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Venturing into evaluating family attributions based on discipline-internal criteria seems to me probably beyond our purview as Wikipedia editors & ventures into original research. Some of us may conduct research on Cushitic languages in our professional lives, but as Wikipedia editors our task is to report (sensibly) the content of reliable sources. Pathawi (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with @Pathawi. No matter what we personnally think about a particular researcher and his/her methods, when they have made a sufficient splash in the academic community to the point that everybody cites them, and be it only to shoot them down, we need to report this in the relevant article. Whether Ehret is a trained linguist is neither here nor there. Marvin Bender for example was a trained mathematician before he dabbled in linguistics, and we don't hold that against him, do we? LandLing 08:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with both previous commenters. It's not ours to evaluate on our own the evidential basis for East Cushitic. Yes, I haven't really seen innovation-based arguments yet (which isn't to hard to understand when considering the state of the reconstruction Proto-Cushitic at the highest level), and maybe one or all of those individual proposals which consider the remaining branches of Cushitic each to be nested within one of the subbranches of East Cushitic might turn out to be correct (in which case East Cushitic increasingly becomes coterminous to Cushitic). But we reflect, and when good sources like e.g. Tosco's chapter in Vossen & Dimmendahl's Handbook still present East Cushitic as a valid subgroup, we should do so too. –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that he's not a trained linguist, but the consent of the historical linguists I know who say his work is garbage. And these are people who welcome the contributions of amateurs. But that's for Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan, not Cushitic. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish his work were otherwise, as I said above, but I just did a quick survey of work in Cushitic historical linguistics that I think well of, and the first three things I looked at all cited him. (David Appleyard's comparative dictionary for Agaw, Maura Tosco's overview in Frajzyngier & Shay's Afroasiatic volume, & Kießling & Mous's SWRC reconstruction. Of these, only the last is purely critical, but the critique seems to be pretty collegial.) Pathawi (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't pre-vet sources by some general "consensus" about their authors. Adventurous academics like Ehret quite often can have good expertise and contributions on some topic while churning out nonsense on another one, and Cushitic is specifically where he has also done his hands-on work. If some of it is still bad (and FWIW also my personal opinion as a historical linguist is that, yes, some of it is), we will require explicit statements to that effect. E.g. Kießling & Mous' critique provides good reasons to not treat his South Cushitic reconstruction as authoritative; but it does not invalidate his basic comparative work on Kw'adza, Aasax, Ma'a and Dahalo.
 * We are sidetracking from the original question though: it should be obviously clear that Ehret is not so contagiously toxic that "he supports East Cushitic" would count as any argument against it at all. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Talking about the spurious idea of 'devalidation through support by the "wrong" scholars', I feel the urge to mention that it was Greenberg who popularized Moreno's concept of "East Cushitic". But seriously, unless we have multiple and good sources that have trashed the concept of East Cushitic, we have to reflect that it is generally accepted in a wide range of promary and secondary sources. In Tropylium's and my own respective fields (Uralic and Austronesian), there has been a healthy skepticism towards historical subgroups that were introduced either without any evidence based on exclusively shared innovations, or only with weak evidence. This skepticism is reflected in multiple reliable sources and consequently, constructs like "Finno-Volgaic" or "Western Malayo-Polynesian" are labelled as obsolete in Wikipedia and don't appear in infoboxes. However, the current omission of the "East Cushitic" in most (or all?) Cushitic-related infoboxes is not supported by any reliable source and goes against what most good sources say about the internal classification of Cushitic. –Austronesier (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. I am skeptical of the EC branch, but I think it does appear as part of what we should probably take to be the standard account within the field. Pathawi (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Official Status
Here are explanations of my most recent revision, concerning official statuses of Cushitic languages: Pathawi (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Only Somali is listed as a national language in the Somali constitution. Arabic is also given an official status. It is correct that Somali is the national language of Somalia, & that's the info that's pertinent to this paragraph.
 * 2) I re-checked the Eritrean Constitution, & I can't find any citation of languages by name at all. Where in the Constitution areBeja, Afar, Blin, and Saho recognised? I see 'The equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed.'
 * 3) In Djibouti, the Constitution only recognises French and Arabic. I don't know that an e-government portal should be considered a better source. It's clear that the Djiboutian government is involved in active work to promote Somali, such as participation in and hosting of the Regional Somali Language Academy, but this is not a legislative enshrinement of the language's status. English "national language" and French "langue nationale" are not equivalent in the post-colonial African context. When someone writes in French that such-&-such is a "langue nationale" of an African country, it doesn't necessarily follow that that language is official: In fact, it's likely not to be. This is one of the ways "national language" is used in English, but that's clearly not the context of the paragraph. I've tried to clarify this by saying that Somali is the only Cushitic language constitutionally accorded national language status, which should eliminate the need to say anything at all about Djibouti.
 * 4) After undoing Soupforone's revisions, I went back to their most recent revision, copied the population info, & pasted it back into a new revision.

The constitution of Eritrea indicates that "the equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed". By this, it means the native languages of its officially recognized ethnic groups. Perhaps this is a bit nebuluous, though, so I've rephrased it to Beja, Afar, Bilen and Saho are the Cushitic languages spoken in Eritrea, where all natively spoken languages are equally recognized within the constitution (by the way, we should stick to linguistic sources and/or government sources for the legal status). As to the constitution of Somalia, it indicates that Somali is one of two official languages, alongside Arabic. That is why its Article 5 is pluralized official languages. Also, I am well aware that langue nationale in French does not necessarily denote an official language. That is why I wrote that Somali has official language status at the country level in Somalia rather than that it is simply a national language. This way, the language's status there (official language) is less likely to be confused with its status in Djibouti (national language) and Ethiopia (regional working language). Anyway, I've pointed this to Djibouti Law #96 and arranged the languages by speaker size. Soupforone (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue of langue nationale doesn't related to Somali, but to Djibouti—I was referencing your source for the claim of Djibouti's being a national language. (I don't think you had a French-language source for Soamlia.) Your current source doesn't do better for Somali and Afar, as best I can tell: It says that instruction in schools should occur in Somali and Afar, which makes the situation in Djibouti for Cushitic languages equivalent to that of Eritrea. It seems to me that the following kinds of status are meaningfully different: The last of these seems to me to be beside the point for the present location: Whatever claim is being made impressionistically, there, is better made thru the population numbers.
 * national language, as constitutionally defined (Somali in Somalia)
 * regional language, as legislatively recognised (Oromo, Somali, Afar in Ethiopia)
 * language with some degree of national protection (Afar, Saho, Beja, Blin in Eritrea)
 * language without legislative recognition, but with government support thru services and education (Afar, Saho, Beja, Blin in Eritrea & Afar & Somali in Djibouti)
 * langue nationale in the unofficial sense

Somali is explicitly, legislatively the national language of Somalia. Arabic is accorded explicitly second language status. The distinction is legislatively—constitutionally—marked. Here, it makes sense to say that Somali is the national language, because it's a meaningful claim & it's true.

That all Eritrean languages' equality is guaranteed doesn't actually say much, especially when those languages aren't named—tho you & I know what they are. I don't know how we can say that the constitution recognises them when the constitution doesn't name them. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education pays people to teach in particular languages & produces materials in these languages. (I was stumped, by the way, for a moment by your comment that we should use government & linguistic sources; I didn't know what you were referring to. The best I can tell, you would like to exclude a UNICEF report on Eritrean language policy. Is that what you're referring to? As this doesn't conflict other sources, & I don't know of any reason that UNICEF should be considered unreliable—unlike, say, Ethnologue—no, I disagree. It's a relevant source.) Pathawi (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Djibouti Law #96 indicates -- "Article 5 : L’Education et la Formation sont dispensées dans les langues officielles et dans les langues nationales. Un Décret pris en Conseil des Ministres fixe les modalités de l’enseignement en français, en arabe, en Afar et en Somali." -- "Article 5: Education and training shall be provided in the official languages and in the national languages. A decree issued by the Council of Ministers sets the terms for instruction in French, Arabic, Afar and Somali." Given the Djibouti constitution (which indicates that French and Arabic are the official languages ), this legal clause establishes three things-- (1) That official languages and national languages are distinct in Djibouti; (2) Afar and Somali are the national languages; and (3) Both the official and national languages serve as languages of instruction. This is not the same as in Eritrea, where all the languages are constitutionally equal (i.e., there's no official/national dichotomy). Also, the constitution of Somalia indicates -- "Article 5. Official Languages[...] The official language of the Federal Republic of Somalia is Somali (Maay and Maxaa-tiri), and Arabic is the second language." This means that both languages are official therein, as also established in an earlier government charter ("The official languages of the Somali Republic shall be Somali (Maay and Maxaatiri) and Arabic" ). As to UNICEF, it is not a linguistic/expert source nor a governmental source. I've therefore pointed the language of instruction stuff that it indicates for Eritrea to the original paper it cites by the linguists Sava and Tosco. I also arranged the paragraph by language since this is a linguistic subject. Soupforone (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, as you've agreed above, langue nationale and national language do not have the same implications—as is made very, very clear by the distinction in the Djiboutian law you cite. To translate directly without further comment is to mislead. And, again, Somali's status is constitutionally different from Arabic by the language you cited. (It in fact specifies that Somali is official, and then gives Arabic a status different from that.) I think the Tosco-Sava switch is extraneous & trivial, & I don't think your justification has merit (UNICEF is an educational institution, & I don't think it's academically considered to lack credibility on factual matters such as this), but I don't object to the source in itself, and the information is the same, so I haven't changed it. Pathawi (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two official languages (plural) per the Somalia constitution, Somali and Arabic. Also, the national languages in Djibouti are Afar and Somali per the Djibouti Chamber of Commerce. It is national languages≠official languages in the latter country. Soupforone (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Somali Constitution does not declare two official languages. In both English and the original Somali, the phrase "official language" ("afka rasmiga") is used in the singular, while in the same section Arabic is identified as the "second language" ("luqadda labaad"). It is false to say that Arabic is a co-official language with Somali: It is the second language. A correct statement might be that Somali and Arabic both have constitutional recognition for Somali. In an article on Cushitic languages, the unusual status that only one Cushitic language has—that of official language for a country—seems more pertinent than a less specific status which it shares with Arabic. إنت بتركّز على اللغة العربية كده ليه؟ بتقصد تعمل إيه بالظبط؟

Also, la Chambre de la Commerce de Djibouti is a private sector entity. (I thought you said we should stick to governments & linguists!) Its saying something doesn't make it official. Nonetheless, it doesn't say anything meaningfully different. I don't think facts are in dispute on this one: Djibouti's official languages are French and Arabic. It is possible to find sources that describe Afar and Somali as langues nationales, but this doesn't mean that they have any official status, as "national language" would imply to many English-language readers. I'm sure you can find a government source describing Afar and Somali as langues nationales, but I'm not going to support using the corresponding phrasing in English unless it makes it clear up front that this is in contrast to an official language. Pathawi (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Article 5 of the constitution of Somalia is actually labeled Official languages (plural), and Somali and Arabic are the indicated languages therein. These are the official languages in the original constitution and the later governmental charter as well. This is why the CIA describes the official languages as "Somali (official, according to the 2012 Transitional Federal Charter), Arabic (official, according to the 2012 Transitional Federal Charter)". What there isn't is a law that indicates that Somali is the sole official language of Somalia (an Arab League member state) because it simply is not. As to the Djibouti Chamber of Commerce, it is a government agency. Soupforone (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the Djiboutian Chamber of Commerce: link. But I don't think facts are in dispute on this one: Djibouti's official languages are French and Arabic. It is possible to find sources that describe Afar and Somali as langues nationales, but this doesn't mean that they have any official status, as "national language" would imply to many English-language readers. I'm sure you can find a government source describing Afar and Somali as langues nationales, but I'm not going to support using the corresponding phrasing in English unless it makes it clear up front that this is in contrast to an official language.

The CIA World Factbook is sometimes useful, but neither it nor prior constitutions supersede the present constitution. In fact, the shift from an older constitution in which English & Italian were second languages while Somali & Arabic were official to one in which English & Italian are out, & Arabic is demoted to second, is significant. The current wording—the wording I used before—mentions Arabic & provides its specific status, as well as Somali's. A correct statement might be that Somali and Arabic both have constitutional recognition for Somali. In an article on Cushitic languages, the unusual status that only one Cushitic language has—that of official language for a country—seems more pertinent than a less specific status which it shares with Arabic. إنت بتركّز على اللغة العربية كده ليه؟ بتقصد تعمل إيه بالظبط؟

At this point, we should either have an explicit conversation about the purpose of the paragraph & the meanings of the terms national language & official language, or we should seek mediation. Pathawi (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I never wrote that Afar and Somali were official languages in Djibouti, but instead that "national languages≠official languages in the latter country". This is exactly what both the Djibouti Law #96 and the Djibouti Chamber of Commerce establish. That interpretation that Arabic in Somalia was demoted to non-official status in the constitution of Somalia is not indicated by the constitution nor by any other relevant legislation. It obviously was not since a prerequisite of membership in the Arab League is having Arabic as an official language. Anyway, it appears that this discussion has gone stale, so I've asked for a Third Opinion. Soupforone (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland
In the past couple weeks, an individual without an account has removed Somaliland from the list of regions where Cushitic languages are spoken multiple times. Each removal has introduced other problems, so I've undone them and requested that if the individual remove Somaliland again they try to be neater and explain the reason for the removal. Again, Somaliland was removed today and again there was a syntax error in the removal, but the individual did include their reasoning: Namely, that Somaliland is not internationally recognised as a state. Mathglot undid that edit, stating in the comment: 'country or not it specifies an area where Cushitic languages are spoken'. I am in favour of retaining Somaliland, but I wonder if there's any policy or MOS guideline that would suggest one course of action or the other. It is not clear to me that there is. Without any specific guideline, it seems like there's no grounds for removal. (In lieu of a policy: Armenian language lists Artsakh as a place where it's an official language; Russian language lists Transnistria. Retaining Somaliland is at least consistent.) Pathawi (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state who's claimed overlord (Somalia) has no jurisdiction over. Therefore including it makes sense.

However Puntland and other regions don't claim independence from Somalia but rather are part of its federal system. Your inclusion of Puntland for example is unwarranted as Puntland is by default already mentioned through Somalia and Puntland considers itself to be an autonomous region within Somalia and a model for a Somali central government Dabaqabad (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 * It's not my inclusion of Puntland: It looks like Puntland was added on 12 March by a one-edit user named Isaaqsilibtu in the (continuing) period of Somaliland edit-warring. I have been restoring the info because deleting editors have until today not engaged Talk. I buy your reasoning on Puntland, & won't push for its restoration. It remains unclear to me what the criterion should be for inclusion or removal of a region, & it seems to me that we're inventing a policy on the fly for one article. Pathawi (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dabaqabad on this. Puntland is an autonomous region of Somalia. Because of the de facto status of Somaliland, it may not be clear to everyone if Somaliland is not included in the list. It is also a sensitive issue which can cause offence to some if Somaliland is not mentioned seperately. Amirah   talk  02:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 * The listing of countries in the lede of this article solely serves the purpose to give readers an adequate picture of the geographical extent where Cushitic languages are spoken. It is not a WP:battleground, nor the place for WP:righting great wrongs. The lede should be concise, but without major omissions. I think that leaving out Puntland is hardly a major omission for the reasons discussed above. As for Somaliland, I checked various sources that provide overviews for the languages discussed here. Not geopolitical sources, but specialized and non-specialized sources about Cushitic languages, and languages in general. I haven't found one that mentions Somaliland. So apparently, most authors do not expect readers to interpret Somalia as "Somalia minus Somaliland". I don't feel strongly about it (nobody should edit a page when feeling strongly about it, unless taking a deep, deep breath and trying as hard as possible to emotionally detach oneself from it), but I consider the addtion of Somaliland not very informative. The example of Russian and Armenian would apply to Somali language (we also mention sub-national legal status of individual languages, so disputed territories are fine in that context), but not for this larger entity which is a scholarly construct.
 * Sum up: I oppose the inclusion of Puntland. And I disprefer the inclusion of Somaliland; however, I won't be in the way for a consensus about the latter, which AFAICS overall might swing towards inclusion. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I added neither Somaliland nor Puntland, but have been preventing their removal for the reasons stated above: first, poor editing; then, an attempt to bring an end to a series of undos & reversions thru the Talk page. I don't think there's a clear proposal on the table as to how we should handle this. I'm not clearer on a principle for how we list territories than I was before. However, if we solely wanted to give readers a clear idea of where Cushitic languages were spoken, we could simply say: 'From southern Egypt through the Horn of Africa as far south as Kenya.' or: 'Throughout the Horn of Africa, as well as in parts of Egypt, the Sudan, Tanzania, and Kenya.' As Cushitic languages are spoken in all Horn countries, there's no need to list the countries in the first place if all we want to do is give a sense of location. (Meanwhile, using 'Nile Valley' to characterise Egypt & the Sudan is somewhat misleading, as Beja is spoken along the Red Sea Coast, & nowhere near the Nile aside from minority outposts in Aswan & Daraw.) For comparison, note that Nilo-Saharan languages, Atlantic-Congo languages†, and Khoe–Kwadi languages don't list countries in the lead ¶s. An earlier version of this ¶ included a discussion about where Cushitic languages had official status, which made the inclusion of specific states much more relevant. In this regard, there's actually very good reason to include Somaliland†. I think we're at an intermediate point: The material on official status of languages got moved to a new section a couple years ago, but the names of the countries remained in the lead. Maybe it's time for a little more re-writing: We make this paragraph a more purely geographical description (not a catalogue of states), & expand Cushitic languages as relevant. My pitch for this ¶ is to replace They are spoken primarily in the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Somaliland) as well as the Nile Valley (Sudan and Egypt), and parts of the African Great Lakes region (Tanzania and Kenya). with: They are spoken primarily in the Horn of Africa, with minorities speaking Cushitic languages to the north and south in Egypt, the Sudan, Kenya, and Tanzania.
 * †I opted for Atlantic-Congo languages over Niger-Congo languages because the latter was just so many countries that I thought people might think I was comparing apples & oranges. The latter page also does not list the countries in which these languages are spoken in the lead ¶.
 * Yes, that's a good idea! In a section, there is more room for explicit details. "Major and official languages" could be renamed "Languages" to expand on the geographical distribution of the whole family. –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this, too. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this too. Amirah   talk  18:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Status of Beja
I'm a graduate student who works on Beja. I haven't published anything, and I have not incorporated my divergent views into this article or Beja language. The section on the classification of Beja strikes me as really unnecessarily large. Robert Hetzron argued in 1980 that Beja was not Cushitic. Hetzron was a legitimate, influential linguist, & his viewpoint matters, but I think that the identification of Beja as a Cushitic language is basically accepted by all living linguists working on Cushitic languages. Every other linguist mentioned in this section identifies/d Beja as a Cushitic language. This isn't a matter of active dispute. I think this section may have undue prominence from its length. I propose eliminating the second ¶ entirely until the final two sentences, which I'd rewrite as:

Didier Morin (2001) assigned Beja to Lowland Cushitic on the grounds that the language shared lexical and phonological features with the Afar and Saho idioms, and also because the languages were historically spoken in adjacent speech areas. However, among linguists specializing in the Cushitic languages, the standard classification of Beja as North Cushitic is accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathawi (talk • contribs) 08:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, this definitely needs to be trimmed. Much of the text leans heavily on Vanhove's overview in the Oxford Handbook of African Languages, bordering on WP:close paraphrasing; maybe you can build in a citation to that chapter for those interested in more detail. –Austronesier (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree. But a lot hinges on that Güldemann quote in the first paragraph, where the rejection of Hetzron's hypothesis is summarized, and that reference is currently reported as broken. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, all the best for your studies on Beja! Good to hear that someone is looking into that. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I broke everything. I'll fix it. Pathawi (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Pathawi (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Singulative/plural: better example needed
In the current version of this article, in section 3.2.1 (Typological characteristics/Phonology/Nouns), we read:
 * Most nouns are by default unmarked for number, but can be explicitly marked for singular ("singulative") and plural number. E.g.in Bilin, dəmmu "cat(s)" is number-neutral, from which singular dəmmura "a single cat" and plural dəmmura "several cats" can be formed.

Unless I'm missing something, this example seems particularly ill-chosen, with the singulative and plural forms identical. Maybe it's a mistake, but even if not, can we get a more appropriate example? --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have checked the source: it's a just typo (I have written the typology section, so my dumb)! Fixed now. –Austronesier (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for fixing that. --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit for Cushitic languages
That wasn't me who added that information that was @105.163.2.211 so I don't know why your mentioning me. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am worried that you have serious comprehension problems (not for the first time, see my talk page). I restored the last good version, which happens to be the version after your last edit. Upon reverting, the author of the restored version is automatically mentioned in the edit summary. –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You mentioned my username when you reverted back the edit on the cushitic languages section and I don't have any comprehension issues.Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Tone
I'd like to remove the Britannica reference on Cushitic languages being tonal. The Appleyard & Mouss sources describe Cushitic languages as having pitch accent, which can be meaningfully different from tone in some theoretical approaches. Under those approaches, it would be inaccurate to describe any Cushitic language as tonal. I think Britannica, as a tertiary source, doesn't strengthen what's already supported by two secondary sources (WP:RSPRIMARY), & the added term could be confusing. Are you okay with removing this? Pathawi (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I already removed it. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pathawi Can you archieve it than? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. Achieve what? Pathawi (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry: I misread that! I don't think it needs to be archived yet: It's the most recent conversation on the Talk page. We can just mark it done. In general, we don't blank Talk pages, & they usually get archived in temporal order. Pathawi (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Cushitic language
Just a heads-up for watchers of this page: there is a newly created Proto-Cushitic language. A challenging, but certainly interesting project, but it has been started in an extremely problematic fashion with almost zero information about the proto-language and unsourced claims about the Proto-Cushitic homeland based on an obvious mix up with the question of the homeland of the entire AA family. (Not to talk about apparent (IP-)socking issues). Austronesier (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably good to have for more development. I have been doing substantial literature review on the just slightly narrower Proto-East Cushitic in recent times (not particularly for Wikipedia purposes but helps for that too) and have been wondering if that too should be its own page or perhaps should be just discussed under that general rubric — given that it's not actually consensus if an East Cushitic distinct from Agaw and Southern even exists. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that reconstructions of Proto-East Cushitic (and even other branches and subbranches) can well discussed in the general article, for the very reason that you mention. It'll be great to have substantial information about comparitive Cushitic linguistics in WP. –Austronesier (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cushitic languages


text:
User talk:Eirikr/Ideas

For Talk:Vowel_harmony:
In response to Zippie's and then Marnen Laibow-Koser's comment:

In Korean, minus the diphthongs, there are only 6 vowels. I believe that is the closest one could get to finding a language with few vowels and having vowel harmony. -Zippie
 * I know that ㅐ and ㅔ are written as diphthongs, and I'd assume they're diphthongs in origin, but it seems to me that in the modern language, they function as single vowels (am I right?), bringing the total to 8 vowels. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 05:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...
 * They sure sound like single vowels, and it also seems like ㅐ and ㅔ are pronounced pretty much the same, at least as far as Seoul speech among thirty-somethings is concerned. I'm guessing there are likely other dialects that make some distinction between these two, but in my (admittedly limited) experience it looks they are becoming more of an orthographical relic, a bit like the lingering letter clusters in certain English word pairs like "knight" and "night", or "ate" and "eight". --- Eiríkr Útlendi 06:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was also a good question at the top of this section that would be worth following up on:

 * Apparently there are traces of vowel harmony in Korean and vowel harmony was known to exist in Old Japanese - does modern Japanese contain any traces at all? In any case, it would be very interesting to read about what happened to the vowel harmony in these languages, how much there used to be, and what is still discernable today. — Hippietrail 13:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not know about vowel harmony in Japanese, but vowel harmony in Korean is still prevalent; though most speakers do not recognise it. Vowel harmony is still followed heavily in certain regional dialects, mostly notably the Gyeongsang Dialect. -- Bezant 17:00, 1 April 2005 (ETC)

For Talk:Korean_language:
In response to Zippie's comment:

Comparing modern Korean and Japanese can be misleading. For example, the particle "yo" in Korean comes from "-io" and "-shio." Furthermore, the particle "e" does not mark direction in Korean; rather, it marks location. The particle "ro," however, does mark direction, and is used simultaneously for the instrumental noun case. As for the semantic shifts of these particles: in the three kingdoms time period, the locative particles were "a" and "ae," depending on the vowel class of the noun; and in Middle Korean, the directional particle was "rae." Also, the difference in Korean and Japanese phonology is unaccountable for, such as the lack of consonant endings in Japanese. If these languages were related genetically, they would at least have some cognates such as numbers and body parts; but they do not. Arguing that these languages are genetically related through grammar structure alone is too misleading. One could make an argument that Korean is related to Farsi, Hindi, and Dravidian languages through grammar and structure alone. Some already have: British scholar Homer B. Hulbert tried to relate Korean to Dravidian through the similar syntax in both languages. -- Zippie

''Grant the ieyo bit; worth looking into as well.  But e as location? Perhaps he means historically? Likewise, ro as location doesn't sound right from what I remember -- check books. I thought this was rǒ, as in tame, c.f. ppang sa-rǒ shinae e ga yo? Oof, forgetting too much. :S''

the difference in Korean and Japanese phonology is unaccountable for -- ''phooey. Zippie's own Baekje example is exactly what I should use to refute this, as Baekje had no final consonants either (as far as we can tell). H(is|er) links also show phonologically similar cognates -- what is s/he getting at? Is s/he simply logically incompetent? I can't figure this one out.  Also give some of the other cognates from Shibatani, and explain what I can of Japanese sound changes -- pal / ashi (foot),

Arguing that these languages are genetically related through grammar structure alone -- ''Zippie confuses grammar with syntax. Talk some more about deixis.'' ''Farsi, Hindi -- both *very* Indo-European, and by that I mean specifically that person and number are built into the verb inflections. Neither Japanese nor Korean inflects for person, but rather for social deixis, tense, and aspect.  Dravidian -- discuss Shibatani's mention, geographical distribution of Dravidian tongues (i.e. apparently they came from the north (maybe even northeast?) and moved south, possibly originating somewhere closer to Altaic roots). Also go into apparent cognates between Tamil and Japanese.

''Also, discuss geography and archaeology some more. Describe how Indo-European started more around the Caucasus (check), whereas Altaic seems to have started around Mongolia / Manchuria. Re-emphasize the likely origins of the Yayoi culture -- if they weren't speaking some relative of Korean, what the heck was it?''

''Ask Zippie what they mean by convergence. How, and when, does Zippie propose this convergence came about? The trading relations theory is too full of holes to be worth much, c.f. Chinese. But if Zippie actually has a real point, and a real defensible argument, then great! But can they communicate that?''

For Talk:Japanese language - Austronesian connections
There is evidence of at least some borrowing from Austronesian languages. Though anyone familiar with Austronesian and Japanese grammars would find the idea of Japanese as part of the Austronesian family a laughable proposition, there are enough Austronesian cognates that crop up in Japanese, and enough archaeological circumstantial evidence, to suggest that these cognates are genuine and not just the product of accident. Some examples are included below.

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

title: User talk:Eirikr/Ideas


text: Category:200 births

title: Category:200 births


text:
Talk:British Army Training Unit Suffield

Remoteness
Removed the words "remote" and "uninhabited" that were used in describing the base. While the base is certainly large, I am from the area and it is far from being "remote" and the surrounding prairie is certainly inhabited. The previous version gave the impression that the base is some isolated outpost in the depths of the Canadian wilderness, which is far from the truth. It is located adjacent to the most heavily travelled highway in Canada, just north of Medicine Hat and about a 2 hour drive from Calgary a city of ~a million people. Also changed around the first sentence to make it clear that the BATU is a British Unit located at CFB Suffield, the previous version made it sound as though BATU was a British owned base. mhunter 06:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I suspect BATUS seems remote and uninhabited from the point of view of a British soldier used to London or Liverpool! PeteVerdon 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll give you that one :) mhunter 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Remote yes, but not "uninhabited". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.212.165 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
Overall, acceptable, C-Class. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. X mark.svg Fails Not enough secondary sources, and there's only 2 anyway so that can be improved.
 * B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Yes check.svg Passes Does not seem to omit anything crucial
 * B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. Yes check.svg Passes
 * B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. Yes check.svg Passes
 * B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Yes check.svg Passes


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Nuti

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was CDC   (talk)  22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William Nuti
Oh lordy, where do I begin? Probably a speedy - the entire text is "An ex Cisco man." No info, ambiguous (Cisco points to a dab page) - the archetypical useless substub. Grutness|hello? 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: His bio says that he was "senior vice president" of Cisco. Sietse 07:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't look really useful...--Jetru 08:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, zero useful content. Should've been speedied under criterion A1. —Korath (Talk) 13:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I'm not sure it's even worth the discussion. --MikeJ9919 23:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone adds content why he should be kept. - Marcika 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Category:Pirate films

Pirate films are films principally concerning or containing a large subplot involving pirates.

title: Category:Pirate films


text:
Woolwich Common

Woolwich Common is a common in Woolwich in southeast London, England. It is partly used as military land (less than 40%) and partly as an urban park. Woolwich Common is a conservation area. It is part of the South East London Green Chain. It is also the name of a street on the east side of the common, as well as an electoral ward of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The population of the ward at the 2011 Census was 17,499.

Location
Woolwich Common lies on the northern slope of Shooter's Hill, a 132 metres high hill in the Royal Borough of Greenwich, only a few hundred metres southwest of Woolwich town centre. It is bounded to the south side by the A207 Shooters Hill Road, although the open space continues south of this road in Oxleas Wood and Eltham Common. Academy Road (part of the A205 South Circular road) and the former Royal Military Academy form the eastern borders of the common. Repository Road and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital make up the western border. On the north side, Ha-ha Road separates the military section around the Royal Artillery Barracks from the public section. Pockets of green spaces that were once part of Woolwich Common but are now separated from the main body, remain at Green Hill and Repository Woods in the west, around Mulgrave Pond in the north and in Eaglesfield Park in the east.

History
Until the mid-18th century, Woolwich Common formed part of an open space that was much bigger than it is now. It covered a large part of the north slope of Shooter's Hill, stretching west as far as Charlton (Charlton cemetery was laid out in 1855) and continuing east in what is now Shrewsbury Park, Plumstead Common and Winn's Common. The actual common was only about 80 acres and was used for grazing cattle and sheep, as well as digging peat and gathering wood and gorse for fuel. At this time it was contiguous with Charlton Common, a long hedge marking the boundary between the two (later the two merged and the name 'Woolwich Common' covered both areas). Until 1812, ownership of the common rested with the Crown (as it was deemed to be an appurtenance of the royal the manor of Eltham; when Eltham Palace was leased to Sir John Shaw, Bt in 1663, the common was included in the estate). Unlike most of Woolwich, it never became part of the Bowater estate.

Encroachments and enclosure
Because of the rapid growth of both Woolwich Dockyard and the Royal Arsenal, local people were increasingly concerned about losing their ancient rights on the common. When parts of the common were privatized in the 18th century to build houses on, the Woolwich Vestry vigorously defended their customary rights against enclosure, and following the building of two houses on the eastern edge of the common around 1760, they succeeded in preventing the fourth Sir John Shaw from granting any further building leases.

By the 1720s the Board of Ordnance was using the Common as a testing ground for mortars, and fifty years later a firing range was set up for artillery practice. At the same time, it was still being used for the grazing of livestock; areas were cultivated for crops and other parts were quarried for gravel, to be used in road building.

In 1774-6 the character of the area changed significantly and lastingly with construction of the Royal Artillery Barracks to the north of the common. It was built by the Board of Ordnance on private land owned by the Bowater family, but a section of the common was also added to the construction site as a future parade ground and what is now Barrack Field. The site was largely unbuilt on; the only building was the Jolly Shipwrights inn near the current location of the Second Boer War Memorial. In 1777 Grand Depot Road was formed to give better access to the barracks. A ha-ha was built between Barrack Field and the common in 1778 (it was extended westwards in 1802 and then shifted southwards in 1806–08, bringing more of the common into Barrack Field).

By the end of the eighteenth century the common was being used for large military parades, manoeuvres and displays. Between 1796 and 1805 the Royal Military Academy (which had until then been located within the Arsenal) was rebuilt on a new site on the south-eastern edge of Woolwich Common, where it gradually expanded over the course of the next century; this was the first major building development by the Board of Ordnance on the common itself. In September 1801 additional land, to the west of Barrack Field, was leased by the Board of Ordnance from the Bowater family, largely to be used as military training ground (Green Hill and Repository Woods). Six months later the Board took outright possession of this (and all the land they had leased from the Bowater family) by virtue of an Act of Parliament.

Then, in 1803, the Board purchased the lease of Woolwich Common from Sir John Shaw (they would go on to acquire the freehold from the Crown, in 1812); In 1804 a local Commission, empowered by Act of Parliament to adjudicate in the matter, awarded £3,000 to the Parish in compensation for loss of rights to extract gravel (albeit without reference to parishioners' longstanding use of the common for herbage, estovers and turbary). That same year, the Board also purchased Charlton Common from Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson of Charlton House. Thenceforward all the land began to be cleared for military use; (as late as 1810 much of the western part of the common still consisted of cultivated fields, but in 1816 these were levelled and sowed to grass). Relations between the local inhabitants and the military remained acrimonious for more than a century afterwards, with the former continuing to claim rights of access based on custom while the latter asserted complete powers of ownership.

Artillery practice
In 1803 the Board built a mortar battery on Green Hill, just west of the barracks, for artillery training. It was orientated to fire southwards, the target being a flagstaff positioned (between 850 yards and 1,250 yards away) on the far southern edge of the common; this necessitated the removal of a large part of the boundary hedge between Woolwich Common and Charlton Common. In 1847, mortar and howitzer practice took place at the battery 'every Monday, Wednesday and Friday [from] as early as half past nine in the morning'. Behind the battery was a drill yard, and a pedimented building (dating from 1830) which provided storage and office space and accommodation for a sergeant. Positions for six guns were also provided; these were used as a saluting battery. Use of the common for mortar practice came to an end in around 1873, when artillery training moved to Shoeburyness; but the saluting battery remained in operation in the 20th century.

Horses and the Army Veterinary Corps
From early on the common was used to train and exercise military horses, including those of the Royal Horse Artillery (which was based in the Artillery Barracks). By 1804 a 'Veterinary Establishment' had been built on the western edge of the Common; it later expanded to become the Royal Horse Infirmary. The Royal Horse Infirmary became the headquarters of the Army Veterinary Department from its inception in 1859, and the Principal Veterinary Surgeon (PVS) was quartered here (until moving to the War Office in 1876).

Immediately to the north of the Royal Horse Infirmary, a 'permanent Camp of Huts' was erected in the 1850s, which remained occupied by Artillery and other troops through the second half of the century; further to the south were several sets of stables. In 1896 Shrapnel Barracks was built alongside, which provided accommodation for two field-batteries of Artillery. During the First World War the barracks served as No 1 (Eastern) Cavalry Depot, before reverting after the war once more to house a field brigade of Artillery. During and after the Second World War it continued to house Artillery units, and later provided accommodation for the Women's Royal Army Corps; Shrapnel Barracks was demolished in the late 1960s (Queen Elizabeth Hospital now stands on the site).

Immediately to the north of the barracks a Remount Depot was built in 1887, the year the Army Remount Service was established (previously, individual cavalry regiments had been responsible for purchasing and training their own horses). Earlier, a smaller 'Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers Remount Establishment' had been set up nearby to cover the needs of those units; the new depot continued to focus on providing horses for the Artillery and Engineers, while also providing remounts for the Army Service Corps, which had its main Horse Transport Depot (successor to the Military Train) at Woolwich, in Connaught Barracks on the other side of the common.

After serious failings in the Second Boer War, the army sought to improve (among other things) its veterinary services. In 1903 a committee of inquiry recommended the establishment of two new Station Veterinary Hospitals (one at Woolwich, the other at Aldershot), with Woolwich designated as the Corps depot of a new Army Veterinary Corps. The new veterinary hospital was set up in what had been the Remount Depot; the Remount Depot meanwhile moved into the old Horse Infirmary. Woolwich was also the main designated location for army veterinary stores, to which end a large mobilization and reserve store was constructed (just south of the Rotunda) in 1907. The RAVC depot remained at Woolwich until 1939.

Housing and hospitals
In the 1730s only twenty modest houses stood along the east side of the common (in 1763 there were about thirty, of which seven stood empty); but from the 1780s on, large houses for military officers began to replace these cottages. One of the largest, Cube House, was built by Charles Hutton, professor of mathematics at the Royal Military Academy, in 1792; he had bought a parcel of land at the southern end as a speculative venture, and went on to build a number of large houses on the site. In 1804–5, the new Royal Military Academy having been built just across the road, the Crown purchased Hutton's land; Cube House was converted into a hospital for the cadets (it was later rebuilt to house the Governor of the RMA), and several other houses were adapted for use by other senior officers of the Academy. Other grand developments on this side of the common included the villas Belmont Place (1840), Clarence Place (rebuilt after a fire in 1840), Adelaide Place and Belle Vue, as well as Queen's Terrace (1830) and Kempt Terrace (1832/1850). General Gordon was born at Kempt Terrace, 29 Woolwich Common, in 1833. Between 1972 and 1975 all of this was demolished after a long and bitter conservation battle to make room for social housing (Woolwich Common Estate).

Housing of a rather different sort was to be found on the western side of the common, where in the early 19th century long rows of 'mud huts' had been built by married soldiers for their families; these were interfering with the artillery exercises, so in 1812 the Board replaced them with new married quarters south of the road to Charlton: they were single rooms, built back-to-back in fifty pairs. Later named the Duke of York's Cottages (but still referred to disparagingly by contemporaries as 'the Huts'), they were demolished in the late 1870s after an outbreak of diphtheria. The Remount Depot was built on the site.

In the 19th and 20th centuries a series of military and civilian hospitals and related institutions were built on the south side of the common, on either side of Shooters Hill Road, including the groundbreaking Royal Herbert Hospital in 1865, Brook Fever Hospital in 1896, Victoria House (providing facilities for the Royal Army Medical Corps) in 1909, and the Woolwich and District War Memorial Hospital in 1927. In 1977 the Royal Herbert Hospital was replaced by the Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital (which was built on the southwest side of the common where the Shrapnel Barracks had previously stood); it closed in 1995, but was then reopened as a civilian hospital (following the closure of Brook General) in 2006.

Large-scale events
Plenty of space was available for large-scale military events. As early as 1788 a parade took place on the common at the request of King George III. King William IV inspected the gathered forces of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers on the common in 1830, and returned again five years later when 3,000 troops were assembled for a review (involving manoeuvres undertaken by "large bodies of horse, foot and artillery") watched by "an immense assemblage of spectators". Several other royal reviews took place through the nineteenth century, and on into the twentieth, and military displays took place for the benefit of foreign dignitaries and others. In 1919 an open-air service took place on the common to celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Versailles; and a memorial service on the common the following year attracted a crowd of 50,000 people. Later, Royal Artillery "At Home" events took place on the common for members of the public, but in the 1970s these were discontinued because of the IRA terrorist threat.

Later developments
At the start of the First World War, the common was used as a temporary camp for volunteer units preparing to travel to the front, and as an assembly space for artillery trains.

In 1916 the Signals Experimental Establishment moved on to the common (setting itself up in a collection of huts just south of Ha-ha Road) where they worked on early developments in field telephony and inter-aircraft communication; over the next quarter-century the facility was expanded and rebuilt, until the SEE moved to Dorset in 1943. Six years later the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment took over the site, which became a laboratory to develop, test and manufacture components for Britain's first nuclear weapons. In the early 1950s the on-site workforce quickly grew from 155 to 487; the facility was closed in 1964 (its surviving buildings were removed in 2011 to allow the King's Troop RHA to ride out on to the common from their new barracks across the road).

In World War II the area was heavily bombed because of the military presence and the existence of an anti-aircraft battery on the common. After the war, up till the late 20th century, the common was still used for horse training, shooting exercises and other military activities; however the size of Woolwich Garrison was drastically reduced over this period. In the 1960s, consolidation of the military estate saw much demolition, but also building (e.g. of new married quarters on the southern and eastern edges of the common).

By the early 21st century it was only occasionally still possible to see soldiers from the Royal Artillery Barracks training on the common; but in 2012 the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery moved to a new headquarters (King George VI Lines) on the Napier Lines site, since when horse artillery training on the common has resumed.

In 2016 the Ministry of Defence announced its intention to withdraw all military personnel from Woolwich by 2028; however in 2020 these plans were revised with a view to retaining Napier Lines as the long-term home of The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery.

Nature and leisure
Since the early 18th century Woolwich Common, more specifically Barrack Field, has been used as a cricket field, initially by Woolwich Cricket Club, since the early 19th century by the Royal Artillery Cricket Club, which until the mid-20th century only admitted officers. Also in the 19th century, horseraces were held on Woolwich Common. The common was also used for football and other sports. From 1920 until around 1960 a stadium existed on the common.

During the 2012 Summer Olympics shooting took place at Barrack Field. The London Marathon passes over Woolwich Common.

These days, except for Barrack Field which is still used for sports, the common is mainly used for jogging and dog walking. In September, the Woolwich Common Funfair takes possession of a section of the common.

A ha-ha still separates Barrack Field, the military section owned by the Ministry of Defence, from the remainder of the common, which is now overseen by Greenwich London Borough Council.

Heritage buildings, north end
The Neoclassical façade of the Royal Artillery Barracks (James Wyatt, 1776–1802) is the longest façade in London, stretching along the north end of the common. Across the road, Government House (1781) was the quarters of the Garrison Commandant from 1855 to 1995 and is the only remaining grand house overlooking the common. Of the nearby Garrison Church of St George only the shell remains after it was bombed in 1944. Its Neo-Romanesque architecture and remnants of mosaics are still impressive. Situated on the northwest side of the common are Napier Lines Barracks (not listed), Green Hill Barracks and Military School, and the Rotunda. John Nash's round brick building with a leaded tent roof began life as a display space in St. James's Park during the peace celebrations in 1814 and was re-erected in Woolwich between 1819 and 1822 "to be appropriated to the conservation of the trophies obtained in the last war, the artillery models, and other military curiosities". Until 2001 it housed the Royal Artillery Museum and now serves as a boxing ring for the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery in nearby George VI Lines Barracks.

Heritage buildings, south end
The Royal Military Academy at the south end of Woolwich Common almost mirrors the Royal Artillery Barracks at the north end. It has an almost equally long façade in Mock Tudor style and the oldest parts of the building were also designed by James Wyatt. Other military buildings that survived on this side of the common are the Royal Herbert Hospital and Victoria House, both on Shooters Hill. All three buildings have been, or currently are being converted for residential use.

Monuments
Situated on the south end of the parade ground of the Royal Artillery Barracks is the Crimean War Memorial by John Bell (1861). The bronze statue of a woman ("Honour") distributing laurel wreaths was entirely cast from Russian cannons captured at Sebastopol. On the east side of the common, along Woolwich New Road, two memorials in the shape of obelisks draw attention. The Major Little Memorial, originally a drinking fountain, dates from 1863. It is accompanied by a 19th-century drinking fountain for horses. The Second Boer War Memorial dates from around 1902. Along Repository Road several historic cannons are on display, although others were removed when the Royal Artillery left Woolwich in 2007.

title: Woolwich Common


text:
Shlomo Ben-Yosef

Shlomo Ben-Yosef (שלמה בן-יוסף; May 7, 1913 – June 29, 1938) was a member of the Revisionist Zionist underground group Irgun. He is most noted for his participation in an April 21, 1938, attack on a bus carrying Arab civilians, intended as a retaliation for an earlier attack by Arabs against Jews, and emblematic as a rejection of the establishment policy of Havlagah, or restraint. For this reason, and especially for having been the first Jew executed by the British authorities during the mandate period, Ben-Yosef became a martyr for the Revisionist cause and is commemorated by the State of Israel as one of 12 Olei Hagardom.

Early life
Shlomo Ben-Yosef was born Szalom Tabacznik in Lutsk, in the Volhynian Governorate of the Russian Empire (now in Ukraine) to a religious Polish-speaking Jewish family. He joined the Revisionist Zionist youth movement Betar in 1928, and two years later, he became the family breadwinner after the death of his father.

In 1937, Ben-Yosef decided to emigrate to Mandatory Palestine. After his application for an immigration certificate was rejected, he illegally immigrated to Palestine, arriving on September 20, 1937. There, he joined the Betar labor company at Rosh Pinna - upon arrival there, he burned his Polish passport and changed his name to Shlomo Ben-Yosef. Shortly after arriving at Rosh Pinna, Ben-Yosef was accepted into the Irgun. He found a job at the port of Haifa.

1938 revenge attack
On March 28, 1938, a car containing 10 Jews was ambushed by Arabs on the Acre-Safad road and six of them were killed. In revenge, Shlomo Ben-Yosef (24), Avraham Shein (17) and Yehoshua "Shalom" Zurabin (19), all of whom were Betar members from Rosh Pina, began planning a revenge attack.

On April 21, 1938, armed with a hand grenade and two guns, Ben-Yosef, Shein, and Zurabin ambushed an Arab bus staged on the Tiberias–Rosh Pina road, a mountain road near Safed. Their plan was to destroy the engine with a hand-grenade; as the bus approached, they shot at it and Ben-Yosef tossed the grenade, which failed to detonate it. The bus drove away.

The incident occurred at the crest of the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt, and during a high point in tensions between British authorities and the Revisionist Zionist movement. The three perpetrators were soon discovered hiding in a nearby cowshed in the possession of pistols and home-made bombs.

Trial and execution
Ben-Yosef, Shein, and Zurabin were put on trial in the Haifa Military Court, charged with offenses under the Emergency (Defence) Regulations. They pleaded not guilty. Shein and Ben-Yosef were found guilty of discharging a firearm and carrying firearms, bombs and ammunition, but not guilty of a third charge of throwing bombs with intention to cause death or injury. Zurabin was found not guilty of all charges on grounds of insanity, and "ordered to be kept in custody as a criminal lunatic until further notice". Shein and Ben-Yosef were sentenced to death by hanging. According to Shlaim, as the verdict was announced, Shein and Zurabin stood up and shouted at the top of their voices: "Long live the Kingdom of Israel on both banks of the Jordan!" Shein's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment when his birth certificate fetched from Poland proved he was under 18 years old. He was released from prison in 1946. General Robert Haining, the commander of British forces in Palestine, confirmed Ben-Yosef's death sentence, and an attempt by Ben-Yosef's counsel to secure a stay of execution was unsuccessful.

According to J. Bowyer Bell, there was hope that because the attack had not killed anyone, and that because Ben-Yosef was of good character and without any previous record, his death sentence would be commuted, as a similar case involving an Arab youth from Gaza who was found to be of good character had ended with a reprieve. However, the British authorities, who had executed convicted Arabs over the course of the Arab Revolt, wanted to hang Ben-Yosef as a demonstration of their even-handedness, and General Haining was pressured to confirm Ben-Yosef's death sentence by senior figures in the Palestine Mandate administration.

The British authorities received many appeals for clemency from the Yishuv, from both Jewish organizations and individuals, as well as from the Jewish diaspora, which took great interest in the case. According to Bell, "it was so patent that the sentence related not to Ben-Yosef's crime but to the furtherance of British policy that outrage spread far beyond the Yishuv." Robert Briscoe, an Irish-Jewish politician, unsuccessfully sought a legal loophole to stay the execution. Due to his Polish citizenship, the Polish government also lodged a request for clemency in the name of Shalom Tabachnik. All requests for clemency were refused. David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the Zionist Executive, even though he strongly opposed the Irgun and especially Ben-Yosef's attack, met with the British High Commissioner and begged him to pardon Ben Yosef. Ben-Yosef objected to the amnesty requests and rejected an Irgun plan to release him from prison. "Lehi" says Lexicon that he did so "in order to determine the image of a fearless Hebrew warrior who sacrifices his life for the sake of his people and his homeland." Before his death, Ben Yosef wrote: "I am going to die, and I am not at all sorry, because I am going to die for our country!" The night before his execution, a group of journalists visited Ben-Yosef in his cell in Acre Prison, where he refused consolation, declared that he was proud to be the first Jew to go to the gallows, and said "in dying I shall do my people a greater service than in life. Let the world see that Jews are not afraid to face death." On the wall of his death cell, he etched out "to die or to conquer the height" and "death compared with one's country is nothing."

Ben-Yosef was executed in Acre Prison on June 29, 1938. Due to his execution date falling on Rosh Chodesh, no rabbi was available to give him consolation. While being escorted to the gallows, he sang the Betar anthem. Seconds before he was hanged, he called out "long live the Jewish state! Long live Jabotinsky!" Following his execution, his body was turned over to six Betar members waiting at the prison gates.

Aftermath
Ben-Yosef's execution provoked outrage and mourning across the Yishuv. In Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, shops were closed and black flags were displayed from windows, and a demonstration against the execution in Tel Aviv was broken up by police. The British authorities imposed curfews in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. A police guard was present at Ben-Yosef's funeral in Rosh Pina.

There were demonstrations of mourning across Jewish communities in Europe, particularly in Poland, where synagogues throughout the country were jammed with mourners, and tens of thousands of Jews fasted in mourning accordance with a plea by the rabbinate. In Kaunas, all Jewish theaters were closed as memorial services were held, and in Amsterdam, a stone wrapped in a note protesting "the murder of Ben Joseph" was thrown by Dutch Zionists through a window of the British consulate. Ben-Yosef's mother received cables of condolence from around the world, and Betar promised her a lifetime pension and to secure her immigration to Palestine.

The British policeman who served as Ben-Yosef's hangman, Inspector E.T. Turton, was fatally wounded in a Lehi bombing in 1942. His legs had to be amputated, and he died a week later.

Ben-Yosef became a martyr for the Revisionist cause. Today, he is commemorated by some in Israel as one of the Olei Hagardom. Streets in Israel have been named for him, and he is commemorated on Olei Hagardom memorials throughout the country.

Yehiel Dresner, then 15, would be radicalized by Ben-Yosef's execution, instilling in him an urge for vengeance against the British. He would be involved in numerous Irgun activities, for which he would be executed himself, along with three other men, on April 16, 1947. All four men would each be commemorated as one of the Olei Hagardom.

title: Shlomo Ben-Yosef


text: Category:200 deaths

title: Category:200 deaths


text: Category:175 births

title: Category:175 births


text:
Talk:List of members of Opus Dei

Hanssen
Does anyone know if Robert Hanssen is no longer a member? Just cause he's in prison for life, why should that effect his stance on religion?67.118.116.95 06:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added two more relevant members: José Ibáñez Martín (Minister of National Education under Franco) and José María Albareda (close friend of Escrivá and one of the oldest Opus Dei members). --Uncertain 18:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Allen in an interview stated that one of his corrections on his book is the status of Hanssen. The fellow did not pursue membership after he was caught. Lafem 09:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Even if so, that doesn't mean he wasn't a member. If you want the page to be about notable members of OD throughout history, he stays-- it's disingenuous to remove only those past members that reflect poorly on the organization.  The alternative is to rename the page "prominent current members" and remove all past members.  Either option is fine with me. --Alecmconroy 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I strongly agree with you. I added José Maria Ruiz Mateos (who seems to have been kicked out of Opus for misbehaviour/being embarrassing, depending on which side of the Opus fence you're on) for this reason.Jaimehy (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move

 * Strongly recommend this page be moved to List of members of Opus Dei or similar. All articles and lists are inherently assumed to only include entries that are "prominent" or "famous", and only information that is "noteworthy" or "significant". Mention "prominent" at the very beginning of the article, as you do currently, but don't mention it in the very title of the article: it's an unnecessary complication, and quite decidedly nonstandard. -Silence 20:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Might have a problem with Privacy there.Ansolin 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This "problem" of privacy sounds to me like a red herring. Nobody admits to being a member of Opus Dei unless they want to (or at least Opus would claim so).  Opus claims to have a policy of not revealing the membership details of anyone without their permission.  "Allegations" that certain people are members depend entirely on their acceptance or denial of such claims.

 * I think the list should be limited to people whose present or past membership of Opus is a matter of public record. However, I strongly believe that the list should be headed with a health warning, describing the possibilities for abuse that such a policy might leave open(describing both sides of the argument,of course). Jaimehy (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following entry from section Academia because the attached external link does in no way show or prove that Wolfe belongs to Opus Dei. Otherwise it would also "prove" that Ratzinger is of Opus Dei.

--Túrelio 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Christopher Wolfe - Professor of Political Science at the Marquette University, Milwaukee.

Open questions
Does anybody know what's meant by this "reference" on the article page:
 * Preston 623-3, 663 and 671

Could it be this: The Politics of Revenge by Paul Preston, though Amazon says it has only 240 pages? --Túrelio 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been suggestions that Justices Antonin Scalia and/or Clarence Thomas are members of Opus Dei. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.71.24 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 December 2006

Moved from article to here, as statement in given source seems to vague as a basis for a membership claim: --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Álvaro Uribe (b. 1952), President of Colombia (2002-now).

Sam Brownback
I'm certain that this Republican senator from Kansas is from Opus Dei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.218.216 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * @68.34.218.216, nice that you are certain. Nevertheless, the Washington Post thinks (at least in 2006) otherwise, see ref 10 in Sam Brownback. -- Túrelio 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Government - Poland
Marek Jurek (former speaker), Roman Giertych (former deputy primeminister) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.165.229 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement of values removed - Health warning added
I have removed the following line: "Opus Dei emphasizes the Roman Catholic belief that ordinary life is a path to sanctity, and that any work done with a spirit of excellence and a right intention is a service to society and becomes a fitting offering to God.", as it has no place in a simple list of some of the members of Opus Dei. It appears to simply be an advertisement for the values of Opus Dei which, while may have a place in the Opus Dei main article is inappropriate here.

I have also added a health warning, to draw attention to the fact that the list should not be considered not exhaustive due to Opus Dei's commitment to confidentiality with respect to its membership and explaining the controversial background to this confidentiality policy. Jaimehy (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I reckon that the picture of Escrivá is also inappropriate here, as it has no relevance to the list. The photo should appear opposite the entry for Escrivá on the list, and not at the head of the page. I have moved it accordingly. Jaimehy (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Living people
It seems to me that anyone who is still living should only be included on this list if there are verifiable reports as per WP:BLP. In fact, it suggests that the removal of un-sourced material should be done immediately. See here. Any thoughts on this? --Bwwm (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, I'll start looking for references and remove the people for whom verifiable citations cannot be found. --Bwwm (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on List of members of Opus Dei. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://horatio.uap.edu.ph/opusdei/opusdei_chapter2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930163305/http://www.hablarcondios.com/en/biography.asp to http://www.hablarcondios.com/en/biography.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006111724/http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/013004/013004s.php to http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/013004/013004s.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109041018/http://archives.tcm.ie:80/businesspost/2002/09/29/story52558528.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/09/29/story52558528.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117041526/http://ncrcafe.org/node/1533 to http://ncrcafe.org/node/1533
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930174930/http://www.gandramartins.adv.br/noticias_detail.asp?ID=322 to http://www.gandramartins.adv.br/noticias_detail.asp?ID=322
 * Added tag to http://horatio.uap.edu.ph/frdetorre_publications/biography.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616033451/http://fs-morente.filos.ucm.es/filosofiarealista/Biografia%20millan-puelles.pdf to http://fs-morente.filos.ucm.es/filosofiarealista/Biografia%20millan-puelles.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529054900/http://www.limmat.org:80/EN/index/index.php to http://www.limmat.org/EN/index/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823042520/http://www.limmat.org:80/EN/index/index.php?hmenu=wws&menu=wws4&faq=13 to http://www.limmat.org/EN/index/index.php?hmenu=wws&menu=wws4&faq=13
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927211240/http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?xs=r&g=1&ppg=2&kw=toro%09company&productid=1097834&view=sta to http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?xs=r&g=1&ppg=2&kw=toro%09company&productid=1097834&view=sta
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221233240/http://www.speroforum.com:80/blog/index.asp?b=25 to http://www.speroforum.com/blog/index.asp?b=25

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of members of Opus Dei. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.limmat.org/EN/index/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221233240/http://www.speroforum.com/blog/index.asp?b=25 to http://www.speroforum.com/blog/index.asp?b=25
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702030856/http://www.katoliku.ee/docs/History_of_the_Catholic_Church.pdf to http://www.katoliku.ee/docs/History_of_the_Catholic_Church.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) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of members of Opus Dei. 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/20070221233240/http://www.speroforum.com/blog/index.asp?b=25 to http://www.speroforum.com/blog/index.asp?b=25
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702030856/http://www.katoliku.ee/docs/History_of_the_Catholic_Church.pdf to http://www.katoliku.ee/docs/History_of_the_Catholic_Church.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817235101/http://www.mappagoweb.com/nuovoicu.it/chi/english.asp to http://www.mappagoweb.com/nuovoicu.it/chi/english.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of members of Opus Dei. 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 tag to http://www.unav.es/thistorica/curriculum/casas/fontan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608070308/http://www.unizar.es/eueez/cahe/buesapires1.pdf to http://www.unizar.es/eueez/cahe/buesapires1.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) 11:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of members of Opus Dei. 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/20071122064710/http://www.tribune.ie/2006/05/14/75270.html to http://www.tribune.ie/2006/05/14/75270.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928174658/http://iniciativas-opus-dei.evangelizando.org/noticias/noticia20070702.htm to http://iniciativas-opus-dei.evangelizando.org/noticias/noticia20070702.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of members of Opus Dei


text:
Košice International Airport

Košice International Airport (Medzinárodné letisko Košice) is an international airport serving Košice, Slovakia. It is the second largest international airport in Slovakia. It is located 6 km to the south of St Elisabeth Cathedral, 230 m above sea level, covering an area of 3.50 km2. It serves both scheduled and charter, domestic and international flights. Airport capacity is 800,000 passengers a year as of 2012.

Košice Airport operates 6 direct flights to the following destinations - Prague (Ryanair), Warsaw - Fryderyk Chopin Airport (LOT Polish Airlines), Vienna (Austrian Airlines), London - to London Luton Airport (Wizz Air) and London-Stansted Airport (Ryanair), Liverpool (Ryanair). More than 300 destinations are available with a maximum of one change.

On September 13, 2023, the airport announced the arrival of the new airline Swiss International Air Lines, which will operate a direct route from Košice to Zurich starting from June 2024.

During the summer flight schedule of 2024, the Irish low-cost airline Ryanair will fly from Košice to the Croatian city of Zadar twice a week. Additionally, a direct route to Dublin will also be resumed from the summer flight schedule of 2024.

History
Construction of the airport began in 1950s near the suburb of Barca. In 1954, construction began on the first part of the new passenger terminal, hangar and new control tower. In 1955, direct flights began between Košice and Prague. The power supply was enhanced by more powerful transformers in 1962. Increasing traffic required a larger passenger terminal by the mid 1960s. The foundation of the SNP Air Force Academy in 1973 strengthened aviation in the then republic of Czechoslovakia. Between 1974 and 1977, the runway was increased by 1100 m, the power supply rebuilt and a lighting system installed to meet CAT II ICAO specifications. Military aviation at the airport stopped in 2004.

Another extensive reconstruction of the runways and equipment area took place in 1992-1993. In 2001, the construction of a new terminal began, which was opened in 2004 and in 2005 was awarded the title Construction of the Year 2005. In 2004, the business company Letisko Košice - Airport Kosice, a.s. was established, in which a strategic partner joined in 2006. In 2007, the handling area was expanded, which increased the number of stands.

After the completion of the new terminal, the airport was privatized; currently the largest share (66%) of business in the airport is KSC Holding, a. s., whose majority shareholder is Vienna-Schwechat Airport, and the remaining share (34%) is owned by the Slovak Republic.

Airport charges
Košice Airport has charges comparable to nearby airports in Vienna, Prague and Budapest. The airport is trying to attract new carriers and fly out new routes from Košice. Carriers who want to introduce new lines are designated Growth Incentive Scheme, which reduces their fees.

Terminals
The total area of Terminal 1 is 4456 m2, of which more than 3500 m2 is designed for the travelling public. Facilities include international and domestic departure and domestic gates, aviation and travel agencies, a nursery, a quiet room, and comfortable business lounge. There are also restaurants, car rental booths and small shops.

Airlines and destinations
The following airlines operate scheduled services to and from Košice Airport:

Statistics
Routes to and from Košice Airport (2023)

Ground Transport
Košice Airport can easily be accessed by car, taxi or bus as it is located 6 km from the city centre.

Bus
Bus 23 is operated by the local public transport company. It connects the airport and the station square, where you can find a bus and train station. The bus route passes through the city center and it takes about 20 minutes.

Car
The airport lies directly adjacent to the highway which leads to the ring road. Passengers driving their own cars can park at the airport parking lots. You have a choice of 3 parking lots: short-term parking P1, long-term parking P2, long-term parking P3 for parking during longer journeys, the minimum parking time there is 8 hours. Your car will be monitored by a camera system throughout the parking period. Car rental facilities are also available at the airport.

title: Košice International Airport


text: Category:191 deaths

title: Category:191 deaths


text:
RAF North Witham

Royal Air Force North Witham or more simply RAF North Witham is a former Royal Air Force station located in Twyford Wood, off the A1 between Stamford and Grantham, Lincolnshire, England about 104 mi north-northwest of London.

The site opened in 1943 during the Second World War and used both the Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Forces, initially as transport airfield then for miscellaneous uses, before closing in 1956. Today the remains of the airfield are mostly woodland maintained by the Forestry Commission with the old concrete runways still accessible.

USAAF use
North Witham was known as USAAF Station AAF-479 for security reasons by the USAAF during the war, and by which it was referred to instead of location. Its USAAF Station Code was "NW".

1st Tactical Air Depot
North Witham was allocated to the USAAF Troop Carrier Command in August 1943. Its immediate task was to distribute transport aircraft and the means of maintaining them to operational groups of the USAAF. USAAF Douglas C-47 Skytrain maintenance repair activities continued at North Witham until May 1945, albeit on a reducing scale.

RAF Maintenance Command use
On 1 June 1945 the station was handed over to No. 40 Group, RAF Maintenance Command.

Current use
The site was originally partially wooded and some of this remained to the northeast of the runways throughout the military period, but after closure the Forestry Commission planted most of the airfield with oak (Quercus robur) and conifers. Part of it is now a reserve for butterflies and the concrete is slowly being broken up and removed. Ghostly outlines of large numbers of loop dispersal hardstands can be seen in aerial photography, with the perimeter track being reduced to a single lane road. The runway pattern can clearly be seen, some still remaining at full width, other parts being now at half width or less. All of the remaining runway sections are in a very deteriorated condition.

However, the southern end of the airfield is now something of an industrial estate. In 1957 Conder Seeds Limited (a subsidiary of Twyford Seeds Limited, the Adderbury-based seed specialists) was located on the site and after the closure of Conder Seeds Limited in 1969, Humber Warehousing/Humber Mc Veigh occupied the Conder Seeds Site. The industrial estate has developed considerably with large numbers of grain silos, belonging to Openfield Agriculture Ltd, and highway trailers being parked. In addition, on the part of the site formerly occupied by Conder Seeds Limited/Humber Warehousing/Humber McVeigh there appears to be a very large graveyard of ex Ministry of Defence (MoD) equipment (now operated by Witham Specialist Vehicles Limited who dispose of surplus UK MoD equipment), where C-47s and Waco CG-4 Gliders once were parked prior to the invasion of Continental Europe.

The airfield's proximity to a junction of the A1 road means that development is pressing against the wood from the north-west. Nonetheless, the derelict control tower remains and on a warm summer's day, on the runway, in the quiet of the trees, it is a very atmospheric place.

title: RAF North Witham


text:
Talk:Cognitive closure (philosophy)

Misleading
This article is incredibly misleading. Cognitive closure is an issue relating to the cognitive balance theories of Heider and Festinger's cognitive dissonance. The article here is complete bluffing. I'm only a first year psychology student myself, so I don't feel qualified to edit this article, but I'd like to suggest that the article be removed if it isn't rewritten so as not to mislead people.

 * The term "cognitive closure" may have several meanings, but it has been used in philosophy exactly as the article says. Colin McGinn is one such philosopher who argues that the human mind is cognitively closed to explaining consciousness.  Whoever you are, please consider the fact that terms may used in multiple ways before ignorantly calling for the deletion of an article.  I agree that a disambiguation page and other revisions may be needed, but cognitive closure in philosophy is just as important a concept as cognitive closure in psychology.  Both deserve a page. Postmodern Beatnik 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted to WikiProject_Philosophy

Cognitive closure x 2 !
Please could someone have a look at Cognitive closure.

This is a disambiguation page for Cognitive closure (psychology) and Cognitive closure (philosophy). The former is a one-line quote/definition, while the latter is just one paragraph long !

Thanks. thisisace (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for multiple pages is discussed directly above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kant section poorly written and deeply misleading
The Kant section is poorly written and there are some crucial mistakes made in what is written:

First off, the post claims that things in themselves are unthinkable. This is wrong. They are unknowable. The critical difference lies in the fact that, because we can think things in themselves, we make certain kinds of mistakes when trying to derive knowledge a priori about certain specific domains (psychology, cosmology, theology).

Secondly, even if Kant does think that things in themselves are unknowable, I am not sure this makes consciousness cognitively closed to finite rational beings. Kant's anthropology and understanding of biology, though still pre-Darwinian has at least some starting points around concepts of epigenesis and organismic interaction for how one would formulate a program for naturalizing great deals of what contemporary naturalists want to explain.

I think the Kant section should just be struck from the article since it doesn't have anything to bear on current debates on consciousness and naturalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianO1989 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cognitive closure (philosophy)