text:
Thomas J. Bata

Tomáš Jan Baťa, (anglicised to Thomas J. Bata; September 17, 1914 – September 1, 2008), also known as Thomas Bata Jr. and Tomáš Baťa ml., was a Czech-Canadian businessman and philanthropist. He ran the Bata Shoe Company from the 1940s until the 80s.

Life and career
Baťa was born in the city of Prague, in what is now the Czech Republic, the son of Czech industrialist Tomáš Baťa. As a boy he apprenticed under his father, who began the T. & A. Bata Shoe Company in 1894 in Zlín (now in the Czech Republic). Baťa's father, however, was killed in a plane crash in 1932, when young Baťa was only 17.

One of the reasons for Tomáš Baťa's success was his vision to introduce new technologies to his company, taking production to massive levels worldwide. Another factor was World War I, which ended the market that the company had under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. So between the 1920s and 1940s, Bata built factories in Asia, South America and Africa (which he foresaw as a virgin market), thus becoming the largest shoemaker in the world. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Bata white canvas sneaker/running shoe was iconic in the third world, representing between 60% and 80% of the shoe production in the countries where it operated. In Asia and South America, the company focused on everyday affordable shoe production, leaving for Europe the high-quality, high-price shoes.

In the mid-1930s, in the throes of the Great Depression, the Bata shoe company was faced with a serious dilemma: Mussolini needed boots for his army. Czechoslovaks were faced with ubiquitous layoffs and catastrophic unemployment. Baťa decided to be pragmatic to protect his livelihood and that of his employees. He rationalized that if he did not provide the army boots, some other company would, and his employees would suffer. He successfully pursued the contract, which directly assisted fascism but also saved the company.

Tomáš Baťa was the equivalent of Henry Ford in breakthrough technology for his time. The company's warehouse in the then Czechoslovakia was the first automated installation in Europe (designed by Peter Behrens, architect). In the company headquarters in Zlín, the central shaft of the building was an elevator with a personal office that could move from one floor to another. Like Ford, he established a repetitive mechanical system of production, which he called "work factor". Tomáš Baťa had a social concern for his employees, paying fair wages and contributing to their welfare with social programs and sports facilities sponsored and financially supported by the company.

Baťa attended school in Czechoslovakia, England and Switzerland. Anticipating the Second World War, he, together with over 100 families from Czechoslovakia, moved to Canada in 1939 to develop the Bata Shoe Company of Canada, including a shoe factory and engineering plant, centred in a town that still bears his name, Batawa, Ontario. Another legacy is Batanagar in Kolkata, India, which originally housed the shoe factory and the clerical employees, and today is a booming condominium development maintaining the name.

Baťa successfully established and ran the new Canadian operations and during the war years, he sought to maintain the necessary coordination with as many of the overseas Bata operations as was possible. During this period, the Canadian engineering plant manufactured strategic components for the Allies, and Baťa worked together with the government in exile of President Beneš and other democratic powers. With the end of the war, the Bata company in Czechoslovak territory was nationalized and the communists began to take control and to eliminate anything even remotely reminding people of Baťa's system.

In 1945, it was clear that Zlín was lost and could no longer act as headquarters. Baťa held a meeting in East Tilbury near London, and the decision was taken that Bata Development Limited in England would become the service headquarters of the Bata Shoe Organization. In 1946, Bata operated 38 factories and 2,168 company shops; they produced 34 million pairs of shoes and employed 34,000 people. In 1948, however, Czechoslovakia was fully seized by the communist powers, and Bata enterprises in Poland, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were lost.

The Bata Shoe Organization then expanded around the world. Between 1946 and 1960, 25 new factories were built and 1,700 company shops opened. In 1962, the Organization had production and sales activities in 79 countries – there were 66 factories and 4,100 company shops. Yearly output was 175 million pairs of shoes and the organization employed 80,000 people. Bata moved the headquarters of the organization to Toronto in 1964, and in 1965 an ultramodern building, the Bata International Centre, was opened. By 1975, the organization included 98 operating companies in 89 countries, employing 90,000 people; in the 90 factories, 250 million pairs of shoes were produced annually and the company operated over 5,000 shops. The Bata Shoe Organization, whose guiding principle was "Our customer – Our Master" was the largest of its kind in the world. Baťa led the organization until 1984, when his son Thomas George Bata became the CEO.

In December 1989, after the communist government fell in Czechoslovakia, Baťa made a triumphant return to his hometown. Václav Havel, the Czech dissident leader and playwright turned president, asked Baťa to return. Baťa and his wife Sonja were greeted warmly in the main square in Zlín by thousands of cheering people. Baťa immediately initiated plans for the return of the organization to the place where it all started. By 2008, Bata's Czech subsidiary operated 93 shops in the Czech Republic, 25 in Slovakia and 43 in Poland.

By 2000, the Bata company was struggling in Canada. In 2000, the original Batawa factory was closed. In 2001, the Bata stores in Canada were closed and the Bata Organization relocated its headquarters to Switzerland. Baťa remained in Toronto with his wife, Sonja. Despite his age, Baťa continued to take an active role in the business. He continued to travel extensively and to visit many of the Bata operations around the world. He also maintained his extensive contacts with world political and business leaders.

Baťa died on September 1, 2008, at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. A cause of death was not announced. He was survived by his wife Sonja (née Wettstein), whom he had married in 1946, their son and three daughters.

Legacy
Baťa was invested in 1972 as a Companion of the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian award, and he received the Order of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk in the Czech Republic. He was particularly proud of his association with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment. He joined the regiment during the Second World War, and he served as a captain in the Canadian Reserve Army and as honorary colonel from 1999 to 2007. He was frequently seen in the field visiting with its troops. In 2007, he received the FIRST Award for Responsible Capitalism, the lifetime Achievement Medal.

Baťa worked with numerous charitable organizations. He was chairman of the Bata Shoe Foundation. His dedication to Junior Achievement International, Trent University and York University in Canada and the Tomáš Baťa University in the Czech Republic reflected his interest in the education of young people.

Baťa participated in several leading business organizations. In Canada, he had been a director of Canadian Pacific Airlines and IBM Canada. He was a founding member of the Young Presidents Organization, chairman of the Commission on Multinational Enterprises of the International Chamber of Commerce, chairman of the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD and founding member of the Canada India Business Council.

In 1969 the Bata Library was officially opened and after some reconstructions it was re-opened in 2018.

Awards

 * 1972 – Invested as a Companion of the Order of Canada
 * 1991 – Awarded the Czech Republic's top decoration, the Order of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk
 * 2003 – Awarded the Retail Council of Canada's Lifetime Achievement Award

title: Thomas J. Bata


text:
Deborah Meier

Deborah Meier (born April 6, 1931) is an American educator often considered the founder of the modern small schools movement. After spending several years as a kindergarten teacher in Chicago, Philadelphia and then New York City, in 1974, Meier became the founder and director of the alternative Central Park East school, which embraced progressive ideals in the tradition of John Dewey in an effort to provide better education for children in East Harlem, within the New York City public school system.

Meier then worked to open two other small public elementary schools, Central Park East II (where she also served as principal) and River East, both in East Harlem. In 1984, with the assistance and support of Ted Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools, Meier founded the Central Park East Secondary School. The success of these schools has been documented in David Bensman's Central Park East and its Graduates: Learning by Heart (2000), and in Frederick Wiseman's documentary film, "High School II" (1994), among many other publications. During this time, and after, Meier helped to establish a network of small schools in New York City based on progressive principles. In 1996 Meier moved to Boston where she became the founding principal of a small K-8 pilot school, Mission Hill School, within the Boston Public Schools system. She has been on the faculty of New York University's Steinhardt School of Education, as senior scholar and adjunct professor, as well as board member and Director of New Ventures at Mission Hill, director and advisor to Forum for Democracy and Education, and on the Executive Board of The Coalition of Essential Schools.

Meier wrote about Central Park East Secondary School in The Power of their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (1995). Her other books include, Will Standards Save Public Education? (2000); In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning in an Era of Testing and Standardization (2002); co-authored with Ted and Nancy Sizer, Keeping School: Letters to Families from Principals of Two Small Schools (2004); co-edited with George Wood, Many Children Left Behind (2004), and co-authored with Emily Gasoi, These Schools Belong to You and Me: Why We Can't Afford to Abandon our Public Schools (2017); all published by Beacon Press. With Teachers College Press she co-authored with Beth Taylor and Brenda Engel, Playing for Keeps: Life and Learning on a Public School Playground (2010); co-edited with Matthew Knoester and Katherine Clunis D'Andrea, Teaching in Themes: An Approach to Schoolwide Learning, Creating Community, and Differentiated Instruction (2015); and co-authored with Matthew Knoester, Beyond Testing: 7 Assessments of Students and Schools More Effective than Standardized Tests (2017).

Among the many boards on which she has served was the founding board of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and she is an elected member of the National Academy of Education. In 1987 Meier received a MacArthur Fellowship, the first teacher or principal so honored. She serves on the editorial boards of The Nation, Educational Policy, Harvard Education Letter, and Dissent magazine, to which she has contributed many articles, including her essay in the 50th anniversary issue of Dissent, "On Unions and Education", in which she emphasizes the importance of union collaboration to her success in leading public schools in New York and Boston. Meier regularly speaks and writes on the connections between small schools, democratic education, education for democracy, progressive education, and public schooling.

Meier received her master's degree from the University of Chicago. She has received honorary degrees from a large number of universities, including Bank Street College of Education, Brown University, Clark University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Lesley University, Teachers College, Yale University, and York University.

She participated in a "blog debate" with Steinhardt School colleague Diane Ravitch, among others, on the website of Education Week from 2007-2017.

In 2009, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, or FairTest, named an annual award after Meier, entitled the "Deborah W. Meier Hero in Education Award." Recipients include Diane Ravitch, Jonathan Kozol, Michelle Fine, Karen Lewis (labor leader), Leon Botstein, Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Lani Guinier, John H. Jackson, and Barbara Madeloni.

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

title: Deborah Meier


text:
Talk:Chuckle Brothers

Death
The BBC source, used to support Barry's death, says: "Barry passed away peacefully at his home surrounded by his wife Ann and all his family". So how does "Barry died peacefully at his home surrounded by his family... " contravene WP:NPOV and how does it also contravene MOS:EUP? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Er... it doesn't at all, as far as I can see?! If the supposed problem is with "peacefully" then just put it in quotes as per the statement from their manager, Phil Dale, which the BBC report mentions. JezGrove (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But it's been reverted twice. So I'm loathe to change it until the editor concerned expresses a view. What is currently there seems unnecessarily terse. Just about the shortest possible entry, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018
46.31.84.203 (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

discussion

 * IP92.236.253.249. This is not what Talk pages are typically used for. You are welcome to continue to construct the section on the live article page, or ideally, if you created an account for yourself, in your on Sandbox area. Thanks. 86.188.121.77 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 * This is actually a perfectly valid removal of unsourced content. The talk page might not be the ideal place, but if the 92... IP doesn't want a sandbox (I can create one if need be); then this is the next best thing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Masterchef 2022
Please add Masterchef 2022 appearance. Percy2345 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chuckle Brothers


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Egbert B. Gebstadter/archive1

Egbert B. Gebstadter
I don't have copies of Douglas R. Hofstadter's books The Mind's I, Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies and Le Ton Beau de Marot handy, so I can't copy the bibliography entries for the Gebstadter counterparts into Egbert B. Gebstadter. Anyone who does have them, please do so.
 * Original peer review request submitted 14:15, Apr 11, 2005 by Johnwcowan --Allen3 talk 14:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Dragonology

Dragonology is a series of books for children and young adults about dragons, written in a non-fictional style. The series contains information on dragons, including about how to befriend and protect them as well as an alphabet of the dragon language, ancient runes, and replica samples of dragon scales. The series later expanded to include figures, plush toys, models, a strategic board game, a card game, and a video game for the Nintendo DS. Books in the series are credited to fictional authors such as Dr. Ernest Drake, a member of the Secret and Ancient Society of Dragonologists, and the author of the series' first book, Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons (2003).

The Dragonology books launched the Ologies book series in 2003. The publishers would eventually publish books with similar formats and themes on both real and fictional topics such as Egyptology, wizardry, pirates, Greek mythology, monsters, and several others. As of 2024, there are 15 main books in the Ologies series.

In 2012 Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman announced that they intended to produce a film adaptation of the Dragonology books. In 2018 Paramount Pictures announced plans to adapt the Ologies book series into interconnected films under producers Akiva Goldsman and Greg Lessans.

Products
The books are published in the United States and Canada by Candlewick Press and in the United Kingdom by Templar Publishing. The games and toys were produced by Sababa Toys.

The releases in the Dragonology series include:

Books

 * Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons (2003) by Dr. Ernest Drake, editor Dugald Steer, illustrators Helen Ward, Wayne Anderson, Nghiem Ta, Chris Forsey, A. J. Wood, and Douglas Carrel, ISBN 1-84011-503-3
 * The Dragonology Handbook: A Practical Course in Dragons by Dr. Ernest Drake, editor Dugald Steer, ISBN 1-84011-523-8
 * Working with Dragons: A Course in Dragonology
 * Bringing Up Baby Dragons: A Guide for Beginners
 * Dragonology The Coloring Book
 * Dragonology The Colouring Companion
 * Dragonology Chronicles:
 * The Dragon’s Eye
 * The Dragon Diary
 * The Dragon’s Apprentice
 * The Dragon Prophecy
 * Dragonology Pocket Adventures Collection:
 * The Iceland Wyrm
 * The Dragon Star
 * The Dragon Dance
 * The Winged Serpent

Book-sets

 * Obscure Spells and Charms of Dragon Origin: A Dragonology Kit
 * Tracking and Taming Dragons Volume 1: European Dragon
 * Tracking and Taming Dragons Volume 2: Frost Dragon
 * Dragonology: Field Guide to Dragons
 * A Dragonology Code Writing Kit
 * Drake's Comprehensive Compendium of Dragonology (2009) by Dr. Ernest Drake, editor Dugald Steer, illustrators Nghiem Ta, J.P. Lambert, A. J. Wood, Douglas Carrel, Tomislav Tomic, Nick Harris, Wayne Anderson, and Helen Ward

Games and Toys

 * Dragonology: The Game (board game)
 * Hatch: The Dragonology Card Game (cards)
 * Dragon figures - Series 1 (four figures) and Series 2 (five figures)
 * Dragon mini-figures (seven figures)
 * Dragon plush toys (five)
 * Wooden construction 'build your own' dragon model sets (four)
 * 100 piece jigsaw puzzle "Dragons of the World"
 * Dragonology video game (Nintendo DS, 2009)

title: Dragonology


text:
St. John the Baptist Cathedral

 * This list is for St. John the Baptist Cathedrals. For St. John's Cathedrals, see St. John's Cathedral (disambiguation)

St. John the Baptist Cathedral, or variants thereof may refer to:

Argentina

 * Anglican Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Buenos Aires

Canada

 * Basilica of St. John the Baptist, St. John's, Newfoundland (Roman Catholic)
 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (St. John's), Newfoundland (Anglican)

France

 * Aire Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste d'Aire)
 * Alès Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste d'Alès)
 * Bazas Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Bazas)
 * Belley Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Belley)
 * Calvi Cathedral (Pro-cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Calvi)
 * Lyon Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Lyon)
 * Perpignan Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Perpignan)

Germany

 * Basilica of St. John the Baptist, Berlin

Ireland

 * St John's Cathedral (Limerick) (Roman Catholic)
 * St John the Baptist Cathedral, Sligo (Church of Ireland)

Italy

 * Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist (Turin)
 * Ragusa Cathedral of St John the Baptist

Malta

 * Saint John's Co-Cathedral, Valletta

Poland

 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Przemyśl (Greek Catholic)
 * St. John's Archcathedral, Warsaw (Roman Catholic)
 * Wrocław Cathedral, also called Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Roman Catholic)

Slovakia

 * Temple of St. John the Baptist (Prešov), also called Greek Catholic St. John the Baptist Cathedral (Byzantine Catholic)
 * St. John the Baptist Cathedral (Trnava) (Roman Catholic)

Ukraine

 * Synaxis of John the Baptist church, Yakymiv

United Kingdom

 * St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich (Roman Catholic)
 * St John the Baptist's Church, Chester, also called the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Baptist (Anglican)

United States

 * Cathedral of St. John in the Wilderness, Denver, Colorado (Episcopal)
 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Washington, D.C.) (Russian Orthodox)
 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Savannah, Georgia) (Roman Catholic)
 * St. John's Parish (Quincy, Illinois), cathedral of the Diocese of Quincy (Anglican)
 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Parma, Ohio) (Byzantine Catholic)
 * Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Paterson, New Jersey)
 * St. John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Cathedral (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania
 * Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist (Charleston, South Carolina) (Roman Catholic)

title: St. John the Baptist Cathedral


text:
Talk:Arrested Development

Season 5 News?
There have been reports from Netflix execs about a potential season 5. Is this wiki-worthy?

Season Three Typo/Misspelling
The synopsis for season 3 incorrectly identifies Gob's yacht as "The C Word". The Boat's name is pictured in the episode and is called "The Seaward", which intentionally sounds like "The C Word" as innuendo in the following line delivered by Lucile Bluth who believes that the name is reffering to her. Rowan101010 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I checked and I was wrong.
 * The boat is called the Seaward until Gob renames it in the same episode. Rowan101010 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * okay so there are two boats. (Seaward Season 2, C-word season 3) This topic suggestion can be deleted.  Apologies if i can do that myself I cannot see how. Rowan101010 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Arrested Development (TV series" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrested_Development_(TV_series&redirect=no Arrested Development (TV series] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm my own Gramma??
FYI, I've never seen any of this seires. But as the Article currently sits:

And just before that

So MC's Twin sister just happens to also be the sister of his (implied their) mother. Not even broken time travel will fix that!

I assume there a missing "she's not really his twin or sister" that isn't currently in the article. 38.68.84.4 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen the finale, but it does sound as though this text may need to be revised to indicate that Lindsay is only believed to be Michael's twin sister. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arrested Development


text:
Batawa

Batawa is a small community in southeastern Ontario, Canada, in the city of Quinte West. It was set up by the Bata Shoe company as a planned community around a shoe factory, which opened in 1939 and closed in 2000.

History

Conditions in Europe prior to World War II led Thomas J. Bata to search for a location in Canada to transfer operations. Batawa's location was chosen for its proximity to a lake, a railway, a highway, an airport and cheap land. A factory town was built and opened in 1939. The Bata company owned the town, providing accommodations at a reasonable rate to its workers. The company controlled virtually all aspects of the village. There was a Bata grocery store, Bata recreation hall, Bata clubs, Bata teams and a Bata shoe store. Many of the residents were immigrants from Bata's homeland, Czechoslovakia, who immigrated at the time of the factory's construction. One prominent group of Bata's European refugees to resettle in Canada were the employees of the Bata Shoe Company from Zlín, Moravia, in 1939. Tomáš J. Baťa and 82 workers re-assembled the business in Batawa. The company would go on to produce military equipment for the Allied War effort.

The town was initially the headquarters of Bata Shoe operations in Canada; the headquarters moved to Toronto in 1964.

During the latter half of the 20th century, tariff barriers on shoe imports into Canada were reduced, allowing more and more low-cost shoes into Canada. Eventually, Bata determined the factory could not continue as a viable business operation and closed the factory in March 2000. As part of a strategy to cut costs, Bata consolidated production in lower-wage countries overseas. Bata Shoes would close its retail shoe stores in Canada one year later in 2001.

Dalton Company converted the old Batawa shoe plant into a high end residential condo complex in 2018

Geography
Batawa is situated on the west bank of the Trent River, and nearby is Lock 4 of the Trent-Severn Waterway, a major water transportation system.

Services

 * Quinte West Fire Department Station 5
 * Sacred Heart Catholic School
 * Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church
 * Batawa Community Centre

Batawa is represented by three councillors on Quinte West City Council for the Ward of Sidney.

title: Batawa


text:
Molecular term symbol

In molecular physics, the molecular term symbol is a shorthand expression of the group representation and angular momenta that characterize the state of a molecule, i.e. its electronic quantum state which is an eigenstate of the electronic molecular Hamiltonian. It is the equivalent of the term symbol for the atomic case. However, the following presentation is restricted to the case of homonuclear diatomic molecules, or other symmetric molecules with an inversion centre. For heteronuclear diatomic molecules, the u/g symbol does not correspond to any exact symmetry of the electronic molecular Hamiltonian. In the case of less symmetric molecules the molecular term symbol contains the symbol of the group representation to which the molecular electronic state belongs.

It has the general form: $$ where
 * $$S$$ is the total spin quantum number
 * $$\Lambda$$ (Lambda) is the projection of the orbital angular momentum along the internuclear axis
 * $$\Omega$$ (Omega) is the projection of the total angular momentum along the internuclear axis
 * $$g/u$$ indicates the symmetry or parity with respect to inversion ($$\hat{i}$$) through a centre of symmetry
 * $$+/-$$ is the reflection symmetry along an arbitrary plane containing the internuclear axis

Λ quantum number
For atoms, we use S, L, J and MJ to characterize a given state. In linear molecules, however, the lack of spherical symmetry destroys the relationship $$[\hat{\mathbf L}^2, \hat H]=0$$, so L ceases to be a good quantum number. A new set of operators have to be used instead: $$\{\hat{\mathbf S}^2, \hat{\mathbf{S}}_z, \hat{\mathbf{L}}_z, \hat{\mathbf{J}}_z=\hat{\mathbf{S}}_z + \hat{\mathbf{L}}_z\}$$, where the z-axis is defined along the internuclear axis of the molecule. Since these operators commute with each other and with the Hamiltonian on the limit of negligible spin-orbit coupling, their eigenvalues may be used to describe a molecule state through the quantum numbers S, MS, ML and MJ.

The cylindrical symmetry of a linear molecule ensures that positive and negative values of a given $m_\ell$ for an electron in a molecular orbital will be degenerate in the absence of spin-orbit coupling. Different molecular orbitals are classified with a new quantum number, λ, defined as
 * $$\lambda = |m_\ell|$$

Following the spectroscopic notation pattern, molecular orbitals are designated by a lower case Greek letter: for λ = 0, 1, 2, 3,... orbitals are called σ, π, δ, φ... respectively, analogous to the Latin letters s, p, d, f used for atomic orbitals.

Now, the total z-projection of L can be defined as
 * $$M_L=\sum_i {m_\ell}_i.$$

As states with positive and negative values of ML are degenerate, we define
 * Λ = |ML|,

and a capital Greek letter is used to refer to each value: Λ = 0, 1, 2, 3... are coded as Σ, Π, Δ, Φ... respectively (analogous to S, P, D, F for atomic states). The molecular term symbol is then defined as
 * 2S+1Λ

and the number of electron degenerate states (under the absence of spin-orbit coupling) corresponding to this term symbol is given by:
 * (2S+1)×2 if Λ is not 0
 * (2S+1) if Λ is 0.

Ω and spin–orbit coupling
Spin–orbit coupling lifts the degeneracy of the electronic states. This is because the z-component of spin interacts with the z-component of the orbital angular momentum, generating a total electronic angular momentum along the molecule axis Jz. This is characterized by the MJ quantum number, where
 * MJ = MS + ML.

Again, positive and negative values of MJ are degenerate, so the pairs (ML, MS) and (−ML, −MS) are degenerate: {(1, 1/2), (−1, −1/2)}, and {(1, −1/2), (−1, 1/2)} represent two different degenerate states. These pairs are grouped together with the quantum number Ω, which is defined as the sum of the pair of values (ML, MS) for which ML is positive. Sometimes the equation
 * Ω = Λ + MS

is used (often Σ is used instead of MS). Note that although this gives correct values for Ω it could be misleading, as obtained values do not correspond to states indicated by a given pair of values (ML, MS). For example, a state with (−1, −1/2) would give an Ω value of Ω = |−1| + (−1/2) = 1/2, which is wrong. Choosing the pair of values with ML positive will give a Ω = 3/2 for that state.

With this, a level is given by
 * $${}^{2S+1}\Lambda_{\Omega}$$

Note that Ω can have negative values and subscripts r and i represent regular (normal) and inverted multiplets, respectively. For a 4Π term there are four degenerate (ML, MS) pairs: {(1, 3/2), (−1, −3/2)}, {(1, 1/2), (−1, −1/2)}, {(1, −1/2), (−1, 1/2)}, {(1, −3/2), (−1, 3/2)}. These correspond to Ω values of 5/2, 3/2, 1/2 and −1/2, respectively. Approximating the spin–orbit Hamiltonian to first order perturbation theory, the energy level is given by
 * E = A ML MS

where A is the spin–orbit constant. For 4Π the Ω values 5/2, 3/2, 1/2 and −1/2 correspond to energies of 3A/2, A/2, −A/2 and −3A/2. Despite having the same magnitude of Ω, the levels Ω = ±1/2 have different energies and so are not degenerate. States with different energies are assigned different Ω values. For states with positive values of A (which are said to be regular), increasing values of Ω correspond to increasing values of energies; on the other hand, with A negative (said to be inverted) the energy order is reversed. Including higher-order effects can lead to a spin-orbital levels or energy that do not even follow the increasing value of Ω.

When Λ = 0 there is no spin–orbit splitting to first order in perturbation theory, as the associated energy is zero. So for a given S, all of its MS values are degenerate. This degeneracy is lifted when spin–orbit interaction is treated to higher order in perturbation theory, but still states with same |MS| are degenerate in a non-rotating molecule. We can speak of a 5Σ2 substate, a 5Σ1 substate or a 5Σ0 substate. Except for the case Ω = 0, these substates have a degeneracy of 2.

Reflection through a plane containing the internuclear axis
There are an infinite number of planes containing the internuclear axis and hence there are an infinite number of possible reflections. For any of these planes, molecular terms with Λ > 0 always have a state which is symmetric with respect to this reflection and one state that is antisymmetric. Rather than labelling those situations as, e.g., 2Π±, the ± is omitted.

For the Σ states, however, this two-fold degeneracy disappears, and all Σ states are either symmetric under any plane containing the internuclear axis, or antisymmetric. These two situations are labeled as Σ+ or Σ−.

Reflection through an inversion center: u and g symmetry
Taking the molecular center of mass as origin of coordinates, consider the change of all electrons' position from (xi, yi, zi) to (−xi, −yi, −zi). If the resulting wave function is unchanged, it is said to be gerade (German for even) or have even parity; if the wave function changes sign then it is said to be ungerade (odd) or have odd parity. For a molecule with a center of inversion, all orbitals will be symmetric or antisymmetric. The resulting wavefunction for the whole multielectron system will be gerade if an even number of electrons are in ungerade orbitals, and ungerade if there are an odd number of electrons in ungerade orbitals, regardless of the number of electrons in gerade orbitals.

An alternative method for determining the symmetry of an MO is to rotate the orbital about the axis joining the two nuclei and then rotate the orbital about a line perpendicular to the axis. If the sign of the lobes remains the same, the orbital is gerade, and if the sign changes, the orbital is ungerade.

Wigner-Witmer correlation rules
In 1928 Eugene Wigner and E.E. Witmer proposed rules to determine the possible term symbols for diatomic molecular states formed by the combination of a pair of atomic states with given atomic term symbols. For example, two like atoms in identical 3S states can form a diatomic molecule in 1Σg+, 3Σu+, or 5Σg+ states. For one like atom in a 1Sg state and one in a 1Pu state, the possible diatomic states are 1Σg+, 1Σu+, 1Πg and 1Πu. The parity of an atomic term is g if the sum of the individual angular momentum is even, and u if the sum is odd.

Alternative empirical notation
Electronic states are also often identified by an empirical single-letter label. The ground state is labelled X, excited states of the same multiplicity (i.e., having the same spin quantum number) are labelled in ascending order of energy with capital letters A, B, C...; excited states having different multiplicity than the ground state are labelled with lower-case letters a, b, c... In polyatomic molecules (but not in diatomic) it is customary to add a tilde (e.g. $$\tilde X$$, $$\tilde a$$) to these empirical labels to prevent possible confusion with symmetry labels based on group representations.

title: Molecular term symbol


text:
Julius Frank

Johann Julius Gottfried Ludwig Frank (8 December 1808 – 19 June 1841), Julius Frank in short, was a professor of history, geography and philosophy from Gotha, Germany. He taught at the Largo de São Francisco's Law School in São Paulo (today's Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo), Brazil. He was an advocator of a liberal philosophy and founded the Students League in Brazil (Burschenschaft).

Frank was a member of the secret association "Burschenschaft Paulista", also known as the Bucha, founded in 1831 and intended to help the disadvantaged through a network of students and former students from Largo de São Francisco's Law School.

Because Frank was a Protestant, he could not be buried in Catholic ground, which was a problem because São Paulo only had Catholic graveyards by the time of his death. São Francisco's students then buried him inside the Law School, and his grave is still there nowadays, although his bones were removed a couple of decades ago.

Work

 * Resumo de História Universal (1839)

title: Julius Frank


text:
NUTS statistical regions of Ireland

Ireland uses the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) geocode standard for referencing country subdivisions for statistical purposes. The standard is developed and regulated by the European Union. The NUTS standard is instrumental in delivering European Structural and Investment Funds. The NUTS code for Ireland is IE and a hierarchy of three levels is established by Eurostat. A further level of geographic organisation, the local administrative unit (LAU), in Ireland is the local electoral area.

NUTS levels 1, 2 and 3
The most recent revision of NUTS regions was made in 2016 and took effect in 2018. The eligibility of regions for funding under the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund Plus was revised in 2021. NUTS 2 Regions may be classified as less developed regions, transition regions, or more developed regions.

Local administrative units
The local administrative units in Ireland are the local electoral areas. These are subdivisions of local government areas used for local elections. In counties outside Dublin and in the cities and counties, they also form the basis of municipal districts within local authorities.

Regional Assemblies
Each of the three NUTS 2 regions has a Regional Assembly. These are divided into strategic planning areas, which correspond to the NUTS 3 regions. Prior to 2014, the eight NUTS 3 regions had Regional Authorities. The 2014 act abolished these and transferred their functions to the Regional Assemblies. Assembly members are nominated by constituent local authorities from among their elected councillors.

title: NUTS statistical regions of Ireland


text:
Calcutta (disambiguation)

Calcutta is the former anglicised name of the city of Kolkata in the state of West Bengal in India.

Calcutta may also refer to:

Places

 * Kolkata district, an administrative district in West Bengal, India
 * Calcutta, Indiana, U.S.
 * Calcutta, Ohio, United States
 * Calcutta, West Virginia, United States
 * Calcutta, Suriname
 * Calcutta, Belize
 * Black Hole of Calcutta, an 18th-century dungeon in Fort William, Calcutta

Film

 * Calcutta (1947 film), a film noir starring Alan Ladd
 * Calcutta (1969 film), a documentary film by Louis Malle
 * Calcutta 71 (1971 film), a film by Mrinal Sen
 * Calcutta trilogy (disambiguation)
 * Calcutta, a Tamil film dubbed from Telugu film Choodalani Vundi

Schools

 * University of Calcutta
 * Calcutta Boys' School
 * Calcutta Girls' High School
 * Calcutta Institute of Engineering and Management
 * Calcutta International School
 * Calcutta National Medical College
 * Calcutta Public School
 * Calcutta School of Music
 * Calcutta Technical School

Music

 * Calcutta (band), American alternative rock band
 * "Calcutta" (song)", 1961 instrumental by Lawrence Welk
 * "Calcutta (Taxi Taxi Taxi)", 1998 song by Dr. Bombay (Jonny Jakobsen)
 * Calcutta, Italian singer-songwriter, born Edoardo D'Erme

Military topics

 * HMS Calcutta, five ships of the Royal Navy
 * Siege of Calcutta, battle between the armies Britain and the Nawab of Bengal in the 18th century

Other uses

 * Calcutta Club
 * Calcutta auction, a method of allocating gambling bets by auction
 * The Calcutta Cup, an annual rugby match between England and Scotland
 * Short S.8 Calcutta, flying boat

title: Calcutta (disambiguation)


text:
Vestments controversy

The vestments controversy or vestarian controversy arose in the English Reformation, ostensibly concerning vestments or clerical dress. Initiated by John Hooper's rejection of clerical vestments in the Church of England under Edward VI as described by the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and 1550 ordinal, it was later revived under Elizabeth I. It revealed concerns within the Church of England over ecclesiastical identity, doctrine and church practices.

Formulations
The vestments controversy is also known as the vestiarian crisis or, especially in its Elizabethan manifestation, the edification crisis. The latter term arose from the debate over whether or not vestments, if they are deemed a "thing indifferent" (adiaphoron), should be tolerated if they are "edifying"—that is, beneficial. Their indifference and beneficial status were key points of disagreement. The term edification comes from 1 Corinthians 14:26, which reads in the 1535 Coverdale Bible: "How is it then brethren? Whan ye come together, euery one hath a psalme, hath doctryne, hath a tunge, hath a reuelacion, hath an interpretacion. Let all be done to edifyenge."

As Norman Jones writes:

"Edification became one of the chief duties of the supreme head or governor of the church of England [i.e. the monarch] and was enshrined in the laws which enforced Protestantism in the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. Combined with the belief that most of the externals of worship were adiaphora, the concept of edification justified and circumscribed the monarch's right to intervene in the church's affairs."

In section 13 of the Act of Uniformity 1559, if acting on the advice of her commissioners for ecclesiastical causes or the metropolitan, the monarch had the authority "to ordeyne and publishe suche further Ceremonies or rites as maye bee most meet for the advancement of Goddes Glorye, the edifieing of his church and the due Reverance of Christes holye mistries and Sacramentes. [sic]"

During the reign of Edward VI
John Hooper, having been exiled during King Henry's reign, returned to England in 1548 from the churches in Zürich that had been reformed by Zwingli and Bullinger in a highly iconoclastic fashion. Hooper became a leading Protestant reformer in England under the patronage of Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset and subsequently John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. Hooper's fortunes were unchanged when power shifted from Somerset to Northumberland, since Northumberland also favoured Hooper's reformist agenda.

When Hooper was invited to give a series of Lenten sermons before the king in February 1550, he spoke against the 1549 ordinal whose oath mentioned "all saints" and required newly elected bishops and those attending the ordination ceremony to wear a cope and surplice. In Hooper's view, these requirements were vestiges of Judaism and Roman Catholicism, which had no biblical warrant for authentic Christians since they were not used in the early Christian church.

Summoned to answer to the Privy Council and archbishop—who were primarily concerned with Hooper's willingness to accept the royal supremacy, which was also part of the oath for newly ordained clergy—Hooper evidently made sufficient reassurances, as he was soon appointed to the bishopric of Gloucester. Hooper declined the office, however, because of the required vestments and oath by the saints. This action violated the 1549 Act of Uniformity, which made declining the appointment without good cause, a crime against the king and state, so Hooper was called to answer to the king. The king accepted Hooper's position, but the Privy Council did not. Called before them on 15 May 1550, a compromise was reached. Vestments were to be considered a matter of adiaphora, or Res Indifferentes ("things indifferent", as opposed to an article of faith), and Hooper could be ordained without them at his discretion, but he must allow others wear them.

Hooper passed confirmation of the new office again before the king and council on 20 July 1550, when the issue was raised again, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was instructed that Hooper was not to be charged "with an oath burdensome to his conscience". Cranmer, however, assigned Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London, to perform the consecration, and Ridley refused to do anything but follow the form of the ordinal as it had been prescribed by the Parliament of England.

A reformist himself, and not always a strict follower of the ordinal, Ridley, it seems likely, had some particular objection to Hooper. It has been suggested that Henrician exiles like Hooper, who had experienced some of the more radically reformed churches on the continent, were at odds with English clergy who had accepted and never left the established church. John Henry Primus also notes that on July 24, 1550, the day after receiving instructions for Hooper's unique consecration, the church of the Austin Friars in London had been granted for use as a Stranger church with the freedom to employ their own rites and ceremonies. This development—the use of a London church virtually outside Ridley's jurisdiction—was one that Hooper had had a hand in.

The Privy Council reiterated its position, and Ridley responded in person, agreeing that vestments are indifferent but making a compelling argument that the monarch may require indifferent things without exception. The council became divided in opinion, and the issue dragged on for months without resolution. Hooper now insisted that vestments were not indifferent, since they obscured the priesthood of Christ by encouraging hypocrisy and superstition. Warwick disagreed, emphasising that the king must be obeyed in things indifferent, and he pointed to St Paul's concessions to Jewish traditions in the early church. Finally, an acrimonious debate with Ridley went against Hooper. Ridley's position centred on maintaining order and authority; not the vestments themselves, Hooper's primary concern.

Biblical texts cited in this and subsequent debates—and the ways in which they were interpreted—came to be defining features of conservative and puritan Protestant discourse. They were echoed elsewhere, such as the famous glosses of the Geneva Bible.

Hooper–Ridley debate
In a Latin letter dated October 3, 1550, Hooper laid out his argument contra usum vestium. He argued that vestments should not be used as they are not indifferent, nor is their use supported by scripture. He contends that church practices must either have express biblical support or be things indifferent, approval for which is implied by scripture. He then all but excludes the possibility of anything being indifferent in the four conditions he sets:

"1) An indifferent thing has either an express justification in scripture or is implied by it, finding its origin and foundation in scripture."

Hooper cites Romans 14:23b (whatsoever is not of faith is sin), Romans 10:17 (faith cometh from hearing, and hearing by the word of God), and Matthew 15:13 (every plant not planted by God will be rooted up) to argue that indifferent things must be done in faith, and since what cannot be proved from scripture is not of faith, indifferent things must be proved from scripture, which is both necessary and sufficient authority, as opposed to tradition. He maintains that priestly garb distinguishing clergy from laity is not indicated by scripture; there is no mention of it in the New Testament as being in use in the early church, and the use of priestly clothing in the Old Testament is a Hebrew practice, a type or foreshadowing that finds its antitype in Christ, who abolishes the old order and recognises the spiritual equality, or priesthood, of all Christians. The historicity of these claims is supported by reference to Polydore Vergil's De Inventoribus Rerum.

In response, Ridley rejected Hooper's insistence on biblical origins and countered Hooper's interpretations of his chosen biblical texts. He pointed out that many non-controversial practices are not mentioned or implied in scripture. Ridley denied that early church practices are normative for the present situation, and he linked such arguments with the Anabaptists. Ridley joked that Hooper's reference to Christ's nakedness on the cross is as insignificant as the clothing King Herod put Christ in and "a jolly argument" for the Adamites.

Ridley did not dispute Hooper's main typological argument, but neither did he accept that vestments are necessarily or exclusively identified with Israel and the Roman Catholic Church. On Hooper's point about the priesthood of all believers, Ridley said it does not follow from this doctrine that all Christians must wear the same clothes.

"2) An indifferent thing must be left to individual discretion; if required, it is no longer indifferent."

For Ridley, on matters of indifference, one must defer conscience to the authorities of the church, or else "thou showest thyself a disordered person, disobedient, as [a] contemner of lawful authority, and a wounder of thy weak brother his conscience." For him, the debate was finally about legitimate authority, not the merits and demerits of vestments themselves. He contended that it is only accidental that the compulsory ceases to be indifferent; the degeneration of a practice into non-indifference can be corrected without throwing out the practice. Things are not, "because they have been abused, to be taken away, but to be reformed and amended, and so kept still."

"3) An indifferent thing's usefulness must be demonstrated and not introduced arbitrarily."

For this point, Hooper cites 1 Corinthians 14 and 2 Corinthians 13. As it contradicts the first point above, Primus contends that Hooper must now refer to indifferent things in the church and earlier meant indifferent things in general, in the abstract. The apparent contradiction was seized by Ridley and undoubtedly hurt Hooper's case with the council.

"4) Indifferent things must be introduced into the church with apostolic and evangelical lenity, not violent tyranny."

Ridley warned Hooper of the implications of an attack on English ecclesiastical and civil authority and of the consequences of radical individual liberties, while also reminding him that it was Parliament that established the "Book of Common Prayer in the church of England".

Outcome of the Edwardian controversy
Hooper accepted neither Ridley's rejoinder, nor the offer of a compromise. Heinrich Bullinger, Pietro Martire Vermigli, and Martin Bucer, while agreeing with Hooper's views, ceased to support him; only John a Lasco remained an ally.

Some time in mid-December 1550, Hooper was put under house arrest, during which time he wrote and published A godly Confession and protestacion of the Christian faith, an effort at self-vindication in the form of 21 articles in a general confession of faith. In it, Hooper denounced Anabaptism and emphasised obedience to civil authorities. Because of this publication, his persistent nonconformism, and violations of the terms of his house arrest, Hooper was placed in Thomas Cranmer's custody at Lambeth Palace for two weeks by the Privy Council on January 13, 1551. During this time, Peter Martyr visited Hooper three times in attempts to persuade him to conform but attributed his failure to another visitor, probably John a Lasco, who encouraged the opposite.

Hooper was then sent to Fleet Prison by the council, who made that decision on January 27. John Calvin and Bullinger both wrote to him at this time; Calvin counselled Hooper that the issue was not worth such resistance. On February 15, Hooper submitted to consecration in vestments in a letter to Cranmer, was consecrated Bishop of Gloucester on March 8, 1551, and shortly thereafter, preached before the king in vestments. The 1552 revised Prayer Book omitted the vestments rubrics that had been the occasion for the controversy.

Vestments among the Marian exiles
In controversy among the Marian exiles, principally those in Frankfurt, church order and liturgy were the main issues of contention, though vestments were related and debated in their own right. At several points, opponents of the English prayerbook in John Knox's group maligned it by reference to John Hooper's persecution under the Edwardian prayer book and vestments regulations. On the other side, that of Richard Cox, the martyrdom of Hooper and others was blamed on Knox's polemic against Mary I, Philip II and the emperor, Charles V.

By 1558, even the supporters of the prayer book had abandoned the Edwardian regulations on clerical dress. All the Marian exiles—even the leading promoters of the English prayer book such as Cox–had given up the use of vestments by the time of their return to England under Elizabeth I, according to John Strype's Annals of the Reformation. This seeming unity did not last.

During the troubles in the English exile congregation in Frankfurt, some people shifted sides that would shift again upon their return to England, and certainly, there was no direct correlation between one's views on church order and one's views on clerical dress. Nevertheless, there is a general pattern wherein the members of the "prayer book party" were favoured for high appointments in the church under Elizabeth I that required conformity on vestments, as opposed to the exiles who departed from the order of the English national church in favour of the more international, continental, reformed order. Occupying many lower positions in the Elizabethan church, this latter group grew during the exile period and produced many of the leaders of the Elizabethan anti-vestments faction. As deans, prebends, and parish priests, they were freer to disobey openly, en masse, the requirements for clerical dress.

Notably, some of the leaders of the Elizabethan anti-vestments campaign spent time in Calvin's Geneva, many of them following the successful takeover of the Frankfurt congregation and ouster of John Knox by the pro-prayerbook group. In Geneva, these men were immersed in a reformed community that had no place for vestments at all, whereas the exiles who became Elizabethan bishops (and thus had to accept the use of vestments) never visited Geneva except for James Pilkington, Thomas Bentham and John Scory. Yet these three, or at least Pilkington for certain, were hostile toward vestments and sympathetic to nonconformists under Elizabeth I, though Cox and Grindal also showed such sympathies.

During the reign of Elizabeth I
Elizabeth I sought unity with her first parliament in 1559 and did not encourage nonconformity. Under her Act of Uniformity 1559, backed by the Act of Supremacy, the 1552 Prayer Book was to be the model for ecclesiastical use, but with a stance on vestments that went back to the second year of Edward VI's reign. The alb, cope and chasuble were all to be brought back into use, where some exiles had even abandoned the surplice. The queen assumed direct control over these rules and all ceremonies or rites.

Anticipating further problems with vestments, Thomas Sampson corresponded with Peter Martyr Vermigli on the matter. Martyr's advice, along with Bullinger's, was to accept vestments but also to preach against them. However, Sampson, Lever, and others were unsatisfied with the lack of such protest from Elizabeth's bishops, such as Cox, Edmund Grindal, Pilkington, Sandys, Jewel, and Parkhurst, even though some, like Sandys and Grindal, were reluctant conformists with nonconformist sympathies. Archbishop Parker, consecrated by the anti-vestiarian Miles Coverdale, was also a major source of discontent.

The Convocation of 1563 saw the victory of a conservative position over some proposed anti-vestiarian revisions to the Prayer Book. Thirty-four delegates to the convocation, including many Marian exiles, brought up seven articles altering the Prayer Book. The articles were subsequently reshaped and reduced to six; they failed to be sent to the Upper House by just one vote, with abstention of some of the sponsors of the original draft. The queen backed Parker over uniformity along the lines of the 1559 Prayer Book.

On March 20, 1563, an appeal was made to the ecclesiastical commissioners by twenty petitioners to exempt them from the use of vestments. These included a number of prominent clergy, mainly in the diocese of London, whose bishop, Grindal, had packed his see with former exiles and activists for reform. The petition was approved by all the commissioners except Parker and Guest, who rejected it.

Sampson and Humphrey were then the first nonconformist leaders to be targeted by Parker. Sampson's quick deprivation in 1565 came because he was directly under the queen's authority. Humphrey, under the jurisdiction of Robert Horne, the Bishop of Winchester, was able to return to his position as president of Magdalen College, Oxford, and was later offered by Horne a benefice in Sarum, though with Sarum's bishop, Jewel, opposing this. At this time, Bullinger was counselling Horne with a position more tolerant of vestments, while nonconformist agitation was taking place among students at St John's College, Cambridge.

March 1566 brought the peak of enforcement against nonconformity, with the Diocese of London targeted as an example, despite Parker's expectation that it would leave many churches "destitute for service this Easter, and that many [clergy] will forsake their livings, and live at printing, teaching their children, or otherwise as they can." The London clergy were assembled at Lambeth Palace. Parker had requested but failed to gain the attendance of William Cecil, Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon, and the Lord Marquess of Northampton, so it was left to Parker himself, bishop Grindal, the dean of Westminster, and some canonists. One former nonconformist, Robert Cole, was stood before the assembly in full canonical habit. There was no discussion. The ultimatum was issued that the clergy would appear as Cole—in a square cap, gown, tippet, and surplice. They would "inviolably observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen majesty's injunctions: and the Book of Convocation." The clergy were ordered to commit themselves on the spot, in writing, with only the words volo or nolo. Sixty-one subscribed; thirty-seven did not and were immediately suspended with their livings sequestered. A three-month grace period was given for these clergy to change their minds before they would be fully deprived.

The deprivations were to be carried out under the authority of Parker's Advertisements, which he had just published as a revised form of the original articles defining ecclesiastical conformity. Parker had not obtained the crown's authorisation for this mandate, however, though he increasingly relied on the authority of the state. The nonconformist reaction was a vociferous assertion of their persecuted status, with some displays of disobedience. John Stow records in his Memoranda that in most parishes, the sextons did not change the service if they had conducted it without vestments previously: "The clergy themselves did service in the forbidden gowns and cloaks, and preached violently against the order taken by the Queen in Council, not forbearing to censure the bishops for yielding their consent to it."The term "Puritan" was first recorded at this time as term of abuse for such nonconformists.

Reactions of protest in 1566
One of those who signed nolo and a former Marian exile, Robert Crowley, vicar of St Giles-without-Cripplegate, instigated the first open protest. Though he was suspended on March 28 for his nonconformity, he was among many who ignored their suspension. On April 23, Crowley confronted six laymen (some sources say choristers) of St Giles who had come to the church in surplices for a funeral. According to John Stow's Memoranda, Crowley stopped the funeral party at the door. Stow says Crowley declared "the church was his, and the queen had given it him during his life and made him vicar thereof, wherefore he would rule that place and would not suffer any such superstitious rags of Rome there to enter." By another account, Crowley was backed by his Curate and one Sayer who was Deputy of the Ward. In this version, Crowley ordered the men in surplices "to take off these porter's coats", with the Deputy threatening to knock them flat if they broke the peace. Either way, it seems Crowley succeeded in driving off the men in vestments.

Stow records two other incidents on April 7, Palm Sunday. At Little All Hallows on Thames Street, a nonconforming Scot precipitated a fight with his preaching. (Stow notes that the Scot typically preached twice a day at St Magnus-the-Martyr, where Coverdale was rector. Coverdale was also ministering to a secret congregation at this time.) The sermon was directed against vestments with "bitter and vehement words" for the queen and conforming clergy. The minister of the church had conformed to preserve his vocation, but he was seen smiling at the preacher's "vehement talk". Noticing this, a dyer and a fishmonger questioned the minister, which led to an argument and a fight between pro- and anti-vestment parishioners. Stow mentions that by June 3, this Scot had changed his tune and was preaching in a surplice. For this, he was attacked by women who threw stones at him, pulled him out of the pulpit, tore his surplice, and scratched his face. Similar disturbances over vestments from 1566 to 1567 are described in Stow's Memoranda.

At St Mary Magdalen, where the minister had apparently been suspended, Stow says the parish succeeded in getting a minister appointed to serve communion on Palm Sunday, but when the conforming minister came away from the altar to read the gospel and epistle, a member of the congregation had his servant steal the cup and bread. This and Crowley's actions were related to Cecil in letters by Parker, who reported that the latter disturbance was instigated "because the bread was not common"—i.e. it was not an ordinary loaf of bread but a wafer that was used for the eucharist. Parker also reported that "divers churchwardens to make a trouble and a difficulty, will provide neither surplice nor bread" (Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, 278). Stow indicates there were many other such disturbances throughout the city on Palm Sunday and Easter.

At about this time, Bishop Grindal found that one Bartlett, divinity lecturer at St Giles, had been suspended but was still carrying out that office without a licence. "Three-score women of the same parish" appealed to Grindal on Bartlett's behalf but were rebuffed in preference for "a half-dozen of their husbands", as Grindal reported to Cecil (Grindal's Remains, 288–89). Crowley himself assumed this lectureship before the end of the year after being deprived and placed under house arrest, which indicates the cat-and-mouse game being played at the parish level to frustrate the campaign for conformity.

Crowley's actions at St Giles led to a complaint from the Lord Mayor to Archbishop Parker, and Parker summoned Crowley and Sayer, the Deputy of the Ward. Crowley expressed his willingness to go to prison, insisting he would not allow surplices and would not cease his duties unless he was discharged. Parker told him he was indeed discharged, and Crowley then declared he would only accept discharge from a law court, a clear shot at the weakness of Parker's authority. Crowley was put under house arrest in the custody of the bishop of Ely from June to October. Sayer, the Deputy, was bound over for £100 and was required to appear again before Parker if there was more trouble. Crowley stuck to his principles and was fully deprived after Parker's three-month grace period had elapsed, whereupon he was sent to Cox, the Bishop of Ely. On October 28, an order was issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to settle Crowley's case (Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, 275f.). By 1568–69, Crowley had resigned or had been stripped of all his preferments. He returned to the printing trade, although that had been his immediate reaction in 1566 when he led the nonconformists in a bout of literary warfare. (See below.) In the face of such strong opposition from his subordinates and the laity, Parker feared for his life and continued to appeal to Cecil for backing from the government.

Literary warfare
While under arrest, Crowley published three editions (including one in Emden) of A Briefe Discourse Against the Outwarde Apparel of the Popishe Church (1566). Patrick Collinson has called this "the earliest puritan manifesto". The title page quotes from Psalm 31; intriguingly, it is closest to the English of the Bishops' Bible (1568): "I have hated all those that holde of superstitious vanities". (See image at right.) Stow claims this work was a collaborative project, with all the nonconforming clergy giving their advice in writing to Crowley. At the same time, many other anti-vestiarian tracts were circulating in the streets and churches. By May, Henry Denham, the printer of A briefe Discourse, had been jailed, but the writers escaped punishment because, according to Stow, "they had friends enough to have set the whole realm together by the ears."

As his title suggests, Crowley inveighed relentlessly against the evil of vestments and stressed the direct responsibility of preachers to God rather than to men. Moreover, he stressed God's inevitable vengeance against the use of vestments and the responsibility of rulers for tolerance of such "vain toys". Arguing for the importance of edification based on 1 Corinthians 13:10, Ephesians 2:19–21 and Ephesians 4:11–17, Crowley states that unprofitable ceremonies and rites must be rejected, including vestments, until it is proved they will edify the church. Taking up the argument that vestments are indifferent, Crowley is clearer than Hooper as he focuses not on indifference in general but indifferent things in the church. Though the tenor of his writing and that of his compatriots is that vestments are inherently evil, Crowley grants that in themselves, they may be things indifferent, but crucially, when their use is harmful, they are no longer indifferent, and Crowley is certain they are harmful in their present use. They are a hindrance to the simple who regard vestments and the office of the priest superstitiously because their use encourages and confirms the papists. Crowley's circumventing of higher ecclesiastical and state authority is the most radical part of the text and defines a doctrine of passive resistance. However, in this, Crowley is close to the "moderate" view espoused by Calvin and Bullinger, as opposed to the more radical, active resistance arguments of John Knox and John Ponet. Nevertheless, Crowley's position was radical enough for his antagonists when he asserted that no human authority may contradict divine disapproval for that which is an abuse, even if the abuse arises from a thing that is indifferent. Crowley presents many other arguments from scripture, and he cites Bucer, Martyr, Ridley and Jewel as anti-vestment supporters. In the end, Crowley attacks his opponents as "bloudy persecuters" whose "purpose is ... to deface the glorious Gospell of Christ Jesus, which thing they shall never be able to bring to passe." A concluding prayer calls to God for the abolition of "al dregs of Poperie and superstition that presently trouble the state of thy Church."

A response to Crowley that is thought to have been commissioned by and/or written by Parker, also in 1566, notes how Crowley's argument challenges the royal supremacy and was tantamount to rebellion. (The full title is A Brief Examination for the Tyme of a Certaine Declaration Lately Put in Print in the name and defence of certaine ministers in London, refusyng to weare the apparell prescribed by the lawes and orders of the Realme.) Following an opening that expresses a reluctance to respond to folly, error, ignorance, and arrogance on its own terms, A Brief Examination engages in a point-by-point refutation of Crowley, wherein Bucer, Martyr and Ridley are marshalled for support. A new development emerges as a rebuttal of Crowley's elaboration of the argument that vestments are wholly negative. Now they are presented as positive goods, bringing more reverence and honor to the sacraments. The evil of disobedience to legitimate authority is a primary theme and is used to respond to the contention that vestments confuse the simple. Rather, it is argued that disobedience to authority is more likely to lead the simple astray. Further, as items conducive to order and decency, vestments are part of the church's general task as defined by Saint Paul, though they are not expressly mandated. Appended to the main argument are five translated letters exchanged under Edward VI between Bucer and Cranmer (one has a paragraph omitted that expresses reservations about vestments causing superstition) and between Hooper, a Lasco, Bucer and Martyr.

Following this retort came another nonconformist pamphlet, which J. W. Martin speculatively attributes to Crowley: An answere for the Tyme, to the examination put in print, without the author's name, pretending to mayntayne the apparrell prescribed against the declaration of the mynisters of London (1566). Nothing new is said, but vestments are now emphatically described as idolatrous abuses with reference to radically iconoclastic Old Testament texts. By this point, the idea that vestments are inherently indifferent had been virtually abandoned and seems to be contradicted at one point in the text. The contradiction is resolved, tenuously, with the point that vestments do possess a theoretical indifference apart from all practical considerations, but their past usage (i.e. their abuse) thoroughly determines their present and future evil and non-indifference. The author declares that vestments are monuments "of a thing that is left or set up for a remembraunce, which is Idolatry, and not onely remembraunce, but some aestimacion: therefore they are monumentes of idolatry." The argument in A Brief Examination for the church's prerogative in establishing practices not expressly mandated in scripture is gleefully attacked as an open door to papistry and paganism: the mass, the pope, purgatory, and even the worship of Neptune are not expressly forbidden, but that does not make them permissible. It becomes clear in the development of this point that the nonconformist faction believed that the Bible always had at least a general relevance to every possible question and activity: "the scripture hath left nothing free or indifferent to mens lawes, but it must agree with those generalle condicions before rehearsed, and such like." On the issue of authority and obedience, the author grants that one should often obey even when evil is commanded by legitimate authorities, but such authority is said not to extend beyond temporal (as opposed to ecclesiastical) matters—a point in which we may see a clear origin of English anti-prelatical/anti-episcopal sentiment and separatism. The author regards it as more dangerous for the monarch to exercise his authority beyond what scripture allows than for subjects to restrain this authority. Every minister must be able to judge the laws to see if they are in line "wyth gods word or no". Moreover, even the lowest in the ecclesiastical hierarchy are ascribed as great an authority regarding "the ministration of the word and sacraments" as any bishop.

Also in 1566, a letter on vestments from Bullinger to Humphrey and Sampson dated May 1 of that year (in response to questions they had posed to him) was published. It was taken as a decisive defence of conformity since it matched the position of the Marian exiles who had accepted bishoprics while hoping for future reforms. Bullinger was incensed by the publication and effect of his letter. It elicited a further nonconformist response in The judgement of the Reverend Father Master Henry Bullinger, Pastor of the church of Zurick, in certeyne matters of religion, beinge in controversy in many countreys, even where as the Gospel is taught. Based on Bullinger's Decades, this tract tried to muster support for nonconformity on vestments from five points not directly related to but underlying that issue: 1) the corrupt nature of traditions and the primacy of scripture, 2) the equality of clergy, 3) the non-exclusive power of the bishops to ordain ministers, 4) the limited scope of the authority of civil magistrates, and 5) the sole headship of Christ in the church—a re-emphasis of the second point.

Two other nonconformist tracts appeared, both deploying established authorities such as St Ambrose, Theophilactus of Bulgaria, Erasmus, Bucer, Martyr, John Epinus of Hamburg, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Philipp Melanchthon, a Lasco, Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus of Bern, and Rodolph Gualter. These were ''The mynd and exposition of that excellente learned man Martyn Bucer, upon these wordes of S. Matthew: woo be to the wordle bycause of offences. Matth. xviii (1566) and The Fortress of Fathers, ernestlie defending the puritie of Religion and Ceremonies, by the trew exposition of certaine places of Scripture: against such as wold bring an Abuse of Idol stouff, and of thinges indifferent, and do appoinct th' authority of Princes and Prelates larger than the truth is'' (1566). New developments in these pamphlets are the use of arguments against English prelates that were originally aimed at the Roman church, the labelling of the conformist opposition as Antichrist, and advocacy for separation from such evil. Such sharp material militates in favour of taking 1566 as beginning of English Presbyterianism, at least in a theoretical sense.

A conformist response answered in the affirmative the question posed in its title, Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes, which be the commaundementes of civill Magistrates (1566). This text also drew on Melanchthon, Bullinger, Gualter, Bucer, and Martyr. Eight letters between ecclesiastics from the reign of Edward VI to Elizabeth were included, and a no longer extant tract thought to have been written by Cox or Jewel is discussed at some length. Following suit, a non-conformist collection of letters (To my lovynge brethren that is troublyd about the popishe aparrell, two short and comfortable Epistels) by Anthony Gilby and James Pilkington was published in Emden by E. Van der Erve. The collection begins with an undated, unaddressed letter, but it appears in another tract attributed to Gilby (A pleasaunt Dialogue, betweene a Souldior of Barwicke and an English Chaplaine), where it is dated May 10, 1566, and is addressed to Miles Coverdale, William Turner, Whittingham, Sampson, Humphrey, Lever, Crowley, "and others that labour to roote out the weedes of Poperie." The date of the letter is not certain however, since it also appears under Gilby's name, with the date 1570 in a collection called A parte of a register..., which was printed in Edinburgh by Robert Waldegrave in 1593 but was then suppressed.

Regarding Gilby's dialogue, the full title reads: ''A pleasaunt Dialogue, betweene a Souldior of Barwicke and an English Chaplaine; wherein are largely handled and laide open, such reasons as are brought in for maintenaunce of Popishe Traditions in our English Church, &c. Togither with a letter of the same Author, placed before this booke in way of a Preface. 1581.'' (This is the only extant version of this tract, barring a later 1642 edition, but it was probably printed earlier as well.) A second title inside the book reads: "A pleasaunt Dialogue, conteining a large discourse betweene a Souldier of Barwick and an English Chaplain, who of a late Souldier was made a Parson, and had gotten a pluralitie of Benefices, and yet had but one eye, and no learning: but he was priestly apparailed in al points, and stoutly maintained his Popish attire, by the authoritie of a booke lately written against London Ministers." In the dialogue, a soldier, Miles Monopodios, is set against Sir Bernarde Blynkarde, who is a corrupt pluralist minister, a former soldier and friend of Monopodios, and a wearer of vestments. In the process of correcting Blynkarde, Monopodios lists 100 vestiges of popery in the English church, including 24 unbiblical "offices".

Emergence of separatism and Presbyterianism
In the summer and autumn of 1566, conformists and nonconformists exchanged letters with continental reformers. The nonconformists looked to Geneva for support, but no real opportunity for change was coming, and the anti-vestments faction of the emerging Puritan element split into separatist and anti-separatist wings. Public debate turned into more and less furtive acts of direct disobedience, with the exception of a brief recurrence of the original issue in communications between Horne and Bullinger, and between Jerome Zanchi and the Queen, though the latter correspondence, held by Grindal, was never delivered.

Despite the appearance of a victory for Parker, Brett Usher has argued that national uniformity was an impossible goal due to Parker's political and jurisdictional limitations. In Usher's view, the anti-vestments faction did not perceive a defeat in 1566, and it was not until the Presbyterian movements of the next two decades (which Parker's crackdown helped to provoke) that relations really changed between the state and high-ranking clergy who still sought further changes in the church.

After 1566, the most radical figures, the separatists, went underground to organise and lead illegal, secret congregations. One of the first official discoveries of a separatist congregation came on June 19, 1567, in Plumber's Hall in London. Similar discoveries followed, with the separatists usually claiming they were not separatists but the body of the true church. Anti-vestiarians like Humphrey and Sampson who rejected this movement were called "semi-papists" by the new radical vanguard.

Others opposed to vestments elected to try to change the shape of the church and its authority along presbyterian lines in the early 1570s, and in this, they had continental support. Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, had written in implicit support of the presbyterian system in 1566 in a letter to Grindal. This letter was acquired by pro-presbyterian Puritans and was published in 1572 with Thomas Wilcox and John Field's Admonition to Parliament, the foundational manifesto and first public manifestation of English Presbyterianism. (The ensuing controversy is sometimes referred to as the Admonition Controversy.) Also included in the Admonition was another 1566 letter from Gualter to Bishop Parkhurst that was seen as lending support to the nonconformists. By some accounts, Gilby, Sampson, and Lever were indirectly involved in this publication, but the ensuing controversy centred on another public literary exchange between Archbishop John Whitgift and Thomas Cartwright, wherein Whitgift conceded the non-indifference of vestments but insisted on the authority of the church to require them. The issue became deadlocked and explicitly focused on the nature, authority, and legitimacy of the church polity. A primarily liturgical matter had developed into a wholly governmental one. The Separatist Puritans, led by Cartwright, persisted in their rejection of vestments, but the larger political issues had effectively eclipsed it.

In 1574–75, A Brieff discours off the troubles begonne at Franckford ... A.D. 1554 was published. This was a pro-presbyterian historical narrative of the disputes among the Marian exiles in Frankfurt twenty years earlier "about the Booke off common prayer and Ceremonies ... in the which ... the gentle reader shall see the very originall and beginninge off all the contention that hathe byn and what was the cause off the same." This introductory advertisement on the title page is followed by Mark 4:22–23: "For there is nothinge hid that shall not be opened neither is there a secreat that it shall come to light yff anie man have eares to heare let him heare."

Primary
Digital facsimiles of many of the primary sources listed in this entry can be accessed through Early English Books Online (EEBO).

 * John Hooper, "Ex libro D. Hoperi, Reg. Consiliarijs ab ipso. exhibiti. 3. October. 1550. contra vsum vestium quibis in sacro Ministerio vitur Ecclesia Anglicana. quem librum sic orditur". Text printed in C. Hopf, "Bishop Hooper's 'Notes' to the King's Council", Journal of Theological Studies 44 (January–April, 1943): 194–99.
 * Nicholas Ridley, "Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper on the Vestment Controversy, 1550", in John Bradford, Writings, ed. A. Townsend for the Parker Society (Cambridge, 1848, 1853): 2.373–95.
 * John Stow, Historical Memoranda (Camden Society, 1880; rpt. Royal Historical Society, 1965)
 * John Stow, Historical Memoranda (Camden Society, 1880; rpt. Royal Historical Society, 1965)

title: Vestments controversy


text:
File:DiosgyorCastle.jpg

Castle of Diósgyőr (Hungary), from Polish wikipedia pl:Grafika:Diosgyor.jpg

title: File:DiosgyorCastle.jpg


text:
User:Woutersmet

Errm... hi, I am Wouter from Belgium. I have discovered wikipedia like a few months ago (say, September 2004). I think wikipedia is the best thing that ever happened on the internet, and a proof that we can safely keep finding internet a great thing even though there's lots of bad stuff on it. I keep pushing people around me to visit wikipedia, however with little succes, and most find my repeating wikipropaganda quite annoying by now :-)

Also a great way to practice both my writing and reading skills of the English language!

So, look at that, now I even got my own User page! Ain't that neat, I almost feel like a real "wikipedian" now. Cheers.

title: User:Woutersmet


text:
User talk:Woutersmet

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Jommeke
Meelar (talk) 19:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In the article on Jommeke, what do you mean about Annemieke and Rosemieke being distinguishable by their bare feet? How is that the case, and when does that play a role in the story?

Jef Nys
Halo Wouter, If you're still around: Can you check the Jef Nys page: I removed all his bio content (after moving it from Jommeke) because of a copyright violation. Can you check it (and see Talk:Jommeke) ? Thanks Lvr 12:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Liam Gallagher
reverted your edit to liam gallagher page. Noel Gallagher is not Liams younger brother. He is older than Liam.--Crestville 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pisa, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Pisa was changed by Woutersmet (u) (t) deleting 24941 characters on 2008-06-13T18:24:57+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Woutersmet! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stef Bos -

Proposed deletion of Engagor

The article Engagor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Apparently promotional article about an acquired company. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other guideline. A WP:BEFORE on 'Engagor' or 'Clarabridge Engage' turns up only press releases and churnalism; no sign of WP:CORPDEPTH."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Woutersmet


text:
The Afternoon Show

The Afternoon Show is Raidió Teilifís Éireann's former live flagship daytime show. It ran from 2004 until May 2010. The programme was dropped by RTÉ as part of its new season of television in 2010, to be replaced by two afternoon programmes Four Live presented by Maura Derrane and The Daily Show hosted by Dáithí Ó Sé and Claire Byrne.

The television show, the last season of which was presented by Sheana Keane and Maura Derrane, was a mix of lifestyle, information and fun items. The show included cookery, fashion, health, fitness, parenting, life-coaching and celebrity gossip. Viewers also had the opportunity to text, phone and e-mail in interjections, views, experiences and opinions, and they were given a chance to win prizes in a daily quiz.

The Afternoon Show had met with a mixed reaction since it first appeared on screens in 2004, presented by Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh and Anna Nolan. This was partly because it replaced the hugely popular show Open House. There was speculation that the show has not proved as successful as its predecessor and that it would not return for a second season. However, a second series began in 2005, although one of the former presenters, Sheana Keane, did not return.

In 2006, the show returned for a third season. This time Anna Nolan left the show and was replaced by Sheana Keane, who returned after taking a year off to focus on her first child.

There was speculation that the show was possibly going to end. When the last series ended, Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh said the programme would continue in 2009. It was confirmed though, in August 2009 that the programme would return "later and longer". The programme returned on 7 September 2009 beginning at 16:00 until 17:45.

Síle Seoige was to temporarily replace Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh in September 2009. Later in the month, Ní Chofaigh revealed she would not be returning to the programme.

All series aired on RTÉ Player to celebrate 60 Years Of Television at Christmas 2021.

Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh
Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh presented the show from the launch in 2004. She presented the show five times a week taking various breaks throughout the season. In January 2009, she became a judge to the East on The All Ireland Talent Show but she continued to present The Afternoon Show. During May 2009, she was taken ill during rehearsals. This was not the first time she was unwell during the show as in 2008 she took a month off to recover from an operation. She has recently been involved in much media attention with her co-host Sheana Keane, leading to speculation that they were not on good terms. As a result of health issues, she left the programme in 2009.

Sheana Keane
Sheana Keane began presenting the show since the launch. After the first season, Sheana did not return for the second as she wanted to concentrate on her family. Sheana though did return for the third season from 2006-07 when Anna Nolan left the show. On her return Sheana presented the show from Monday to Thursday while Trevor Keegan steps in on Fridays with Bláthnaid. Sheana has taken many breaks throughout the four seasons she has presented but the most notable has been in March 2009 when she took a break for personal reasons, saying she was suffering from 'vertigo' and has not returned for the rest of the season. It has been announced that Sheana will return to the show presenting the sixth season from 2009–10.

Anna Nolan
Anna Nolan began presenting the show since the launch of 2004 with Sheana and Bláthnaid. From the beginning the media wrote about a frostiness between the presenters. Anna returned to present the second season with Bláthnaid and left the show after that to pursue other projects.

Trevor Keegan
Trevor Keegan had been with The Afternoon Show since the launch as the showbiz correspondent and filled in presenting throughout the first season and second season. When Sheana returned for the third season 2006-07 Trevor began presenting every Friday with Blathnaid as well as featuring during the rest of the week with showbiz gossip but since the fifth season 2008-09 as just presented every Friday only. In March 2009, when Sheana left for personal reasons, he has presented the show from Monday-Friday.

Trevor Keegan had been a presenter for a number of years on radio before the Afternoon Show as a breakfast presenter for Ireland's first ever regional station, Beat 102103 and before that, as a weekend breakfast presenter on Dublin's Country.

Trevor's first media job was as a presenter on RTÉ Radio 1 and RTÉ 2FM on AA Roadwatch traffic news. He was a regular contributor to The Gerry Ryan Show on 2FM over a number of years and also became a contributor to Ryan Tubridy's 'The Full Irish'.

During his stint on The Afternoon Show he was also working as a researcher and celebrity booker on The Podge and Rodge Show. He went on, after the daytime show, to be a Celebrity Producer on Wagons Den and The Big Fat Breakfast Show on RTÉ 2.

Trevor was an AP on Reality Bites 'From Boom To Maternity' and then series producer of the reality show, Six In The City. He was responsible for casting the series as well. After that he continued work with Waka TV for RTÉ as producer of the highest rated programme in the Reality Bites series, Vogue Does Home and Away, in which Vogue McFadden looked at the unprecedented success of the series in Ireland over the last 25 years.

Trevor had been a producer on another RTÉ 2 pilot programme, Away With A Stranger. He was also a continuity presenter for the live links on RTÉ 1 and 2.

Trevor made his TV presenting return to RTÉ after five years behind the camera as a regular News Review Presenter on Morning Edition.

Pamela Flood and Kathryn Thomas
Various presenters filled in for the main presenters if they were away or ill those being Síle Seoige, Gráinne Seoige, Kathryn Thomas and Caroline Morahan but Pamela Flood had filled in throughout the past five seasons for various reasons.

Síle Seoige
In August 2009, RTÉ confirmed that Síle Seoige would be presenting the beginning of the sixth season of the Afternoon Show originally it was believed that Síle would be presenting the show with Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh, but in September it was revealed that Síle would be presenting the show with presenter Sheana Keane who has not been on-screen since March 2009. RTÉ have insisted that Síle will only be filling in for Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh only for a couple of weeks as Bláthnaid recovered from a minor operation. Sile presented the show for four weeks with Sheana Keane and departed with Maura Derrane taking over the role which became permanent after a positive reaction to her performance on the show.

Maura Derrane
Maura Derrane presented her first show on 5 October 2009 after Sile, who presented the show with Sheana for the month of September, had finished her 4 weeks with the show. Maura became a permanent host with Sheana from Christmas onwards until the show was axed that May.

Dr Mark Hamilton
From 2009 Dr Mark Hamilton presented Friday's show with rotation between Sheana and Maura. He is from Dublin.

title: The Afternoon Show