text:
User:Yuber/Template:Syria

{| style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border: 3px solid #333333;" align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 !style="background:#008B8B; font-size: 100%; border-top: 2px solid #333333; border-bottom: 2px solid #333333; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Early Semitic Kadesh · Dar Meseq · Halab
 * style="background:#008B8B; padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px; text-align:center"; |Historical sites in Syria
 * style="background:#008B8B; padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px; text-align:center"; |Historical sites in Syria
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" | Ebla · Mari · Ugarit
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" | Ebla · Mari · Ugarit

Homs · Arpad · Tartous !style="background:#008B8B; font-size: 100%; border-top: 2px solid #333333; border-bottom: 2px solid #333333; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Greco-Roman Abilene · Bosra · Canatha
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" | Apamea · Dura Europos · Latakia
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" | Apamea · Dura Europos · Latakia

Ma`loula · Philippopolis · Palmyra !style="background:#008B8B; font-size: 100%; border-top: 2px solid #333333; border-bottom: 2px solid #333333; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Crusades
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" |Safita · Krak des Chevaliers · Margat ·
 * style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #008B8B; text-align:center;" |Safita · Krak des Chevaliers · Margat ·

title: User:Yuber/Template:Syria


text:
Talk:Molly Malone

Untitled
What is the story behind this song? Who was Molly Malone? Why did she die? Why is she remembered?

Irish Historical Mysteries: Molly Malone

by Sean Murphy

''... In conclusion, it may be asked just what exactly is the Mystery of Molly Malone? In the writer's opinion, it lies in how so many supposedly intelligent people could accept uncritically the farrago of invention and misconception encapsulated in the Grafton Street statue, and to this conundrum he confesses he can offer no solution.'' http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/molly.htm (COPYRIGHT!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.14.221 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

Molly Malone
Thank you for the source reference, and I have expanded the account of the song and added my link. -Sean Murphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.63.35 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

In the May sixth, 1966, Green Acres
episode, Oliver Wendell Douglas, sings "Ballad of Molly Turgiss", which is also the ep. title, comparing Molly Turgiss to Molly Malone.

Hopiakuta 23:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic
I have moved this to talk, as it was added without any explanation of its source. Whose translation is this? The song is not in gaelic, so we need some information about this version. Paul B 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

''I mBaile Athá Cliath, Ní fhaca mé riamh, ''Aon chailín níos sciamhaí ná Mol Ní Mhaoileoin, ''Ag stiúradh a barra, ''gach áit ins a chathair, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo! ''curfá:

''Is iad go breá beo, is iad go breá beo, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo.

''Ba mhangaire éisc í, an cheird di ab éasca, ''Ós amhlaidh dá muintir ó chianta fadó, ''Ag stiúradh a mbarra, ''gach áit ins a chathair, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo!

''Is iad go breá beo, is iad go breá beo, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo.

''Ach mo chreach is mo dhiacair, fuair Mol bocht an fiabhras, ''Agus b'in i an chríoch bhí le Mol Ní Mhaoiloin, ''Ach tá taibhse sa chathair, ''ag stiúradh a barra, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo!

''Is iad go breá beo, is iad go breá beo, ''Le ruacain is sliogáin, is iad go breá beo.

Lyrics
I suggest using or alive alive oh, or alive-a-live-oh or alive-alive-oh. But to only use one. Further I think it should be "For so were her father and mother before" and not vice versa. I've edited this Band B (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would change the comma "... crying, "Cockles ..." to be either in every verse and the chorus or in no verse. The same is with "wheeled her wheel-barrow" and "wheel'd their barrow" in the first two verses. Some consistency would be good. I'm not confident enough to make the edit, since English is not my native language. --Birk Ner (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious source for Jeanne Rynhart
After the mention of Jeanne Rynhart in connection with the sculpture, the citation [1] leads to a web page which, although named http://www.jeannerynhart.com/, has no observable connection with any sculptor and cannot therefore be considered a source for this article. It seems to be a shopping web site with one completely spurious mention of Molly Malone. Googling for "Jeanne Rynhart" shows up some more relevant sites, but I don't know enough about her to decide which one is most appropriate. The web site http://www.irishshop.com/ryncol.html **is** relevant to the sculptor but is also a shopping site. If no-one else makes the change in a few days and no-one objects, I will see if I can choose a better source. JRGp (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Sure, find a better cite, but since this information isn't controversial it would be inappropriate to delete undoubted facts. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The only thing I am proposing replacing is the link to the web page http://www.jeannerynhart.com/ - I cannot see any mention of the sculptor Jeanne Rynhart on that web page and so would assert that it is an inappropriate source for her. As a possible alternative, I mentioned http://www.irishshop.com/ryncol.html which I discovered by Googling for the sculptor, but mentioned its existence as a shopping site in case anyone thought it inappropriate for Wikipedia.  I hope this clarifies what I meant. JRGp (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution?
This claim seems a bit far-fetched, since the song claims both her father and mother were fishmongers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.186.4 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that the offspring of fishmongers always live virtuous lives? However the fact that this is part of the myth is supported by the sources As it happens, "fishwives" were traditionally notorious for their sexual uninhibitedness and crudeness, so it's perfectly possible that that her parenthood is intended as a hint. Paul B (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly explain suddenly dying by fever... —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Song about Molly Malone in movie Clockwork Orange
Drunk old guy in the movie is singing this song before Alex and his friends have beat him up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWLByMshYIU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.121.36 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New material available
There's an interesting article in today's Guardian shedding new light on this lady. Roger Davies talk 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Molly Malone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719115810/http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=618 to http://www.folkinfo.org/songs/displaysong.php?songid=618

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Location of statue
Granted, the statue is located in the vicinity of the tourist information in Suffolk Street. However, judging from Google Maps (and Street View), it's next to St. Andrew's Church facing St. Andrew's Street (albeit near its intersection with Suffolk Street). It would be good to have the location confirmed by somebody local who's actually been there recently. Vinguru (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The text is correct. In 2014 (and until 2016) the (former) St. Andrew's Church was the tourist office building. The tourist office has since closed/moved. But that doesn't invalidate the text as written. (Either in the intro ["In July 2014, the statue was relocated to Suffolk Street, in front of the Tourist Information Office"]. Or the body ["In July 2014, it was placed outside the Dublin Tourist Office [..] on Suffolk Street"]). As neither statement suffers from WP:RELTIME issues (describing a time-specific past rather than a vague or non-specific present) I'm not sure that there is a problem here that needs solving. But if you are proposing a change, then please do. Guliolopez (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"The Tart with the Cart"
Another nickname is "The Dish with the Fish." Kostaki mou (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Molly Malone


text:
Son of a Preacher Man

"Son of a Preacher Man" is a song written and composed by American songwriters John Hurley and Ronnie Wilkins and recorded by British singer Dusty Springfield in September 1968 for the album Dusty in Memphis.

Springfield's version was produced by Jerry Wexler, Tom Dowd, and Arif Mardin for her first album for the Atlantic Records label. The single, released in late 1968 and credited as "Son-of-a Preacher Man" on UK, US and other releases, became an international hit, reaching no. 9 in the UK singles chart and no. 10 on Billboard's Hot 100 in January 1969. The album Dusty in Memphis was released in stereo, though its singles were remixed and released in mono.

"Son of a Preacher Man" was Springfield's last Top 30 hit until 1987, when her collaboration with UK synthpop duo the Pet Shop Boys yielded the huge hit "What Have I Done to Deserve This?". "Son of a Preacher Man" found a new audience when it was included on the soundtrack of Quentin Tarantino's 1994 film Pulp Fiction; a re-release of the single reached number one in Iceland in 1995.

Origins
In 1968, songwriters John Hurley and Ronnie Wilkins (who had recently had a hit with "Love of the Common People") wrote the song with Aretha Franklin in mind, according to a 2009 interview with Wilkins. Atlantic Records producer and co-owner Jerry Wexler, who was recording Dusty Springfield's first Atlantic album in Memphis at the time, liked the song and suggested it to Springfield for the Dusty in Memphis album.

Following Springfield's top-10 single release, the song was recorded in 1969 by Franklin for her This Girl's in Love with You album. Franklin's version also appeared as the B-side of her hit single "Call Me". Franklin's older sister Erma Franklin also recorded the song and included it on her 1969 Brunswick album Soul Sister.

Reception and legacy
Cash Box said that Springfield "shows a new soul" and that the song is "brim-full of the special southern-combo sound and a vocal strongly influenced by Aretha [Franklin]."

The writers of Rolling Stone magazine placed Dusty Springfield's recording at number 77 among "The 100 Best Singles of the Last 25 Years" in 1987. The record was placed at number 43 among the "Greatest Singles of All Time" by the writers of New Musical Express in 2002, and in 2004, the song was on the Rolling Stone list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time".

In 1994, the song was featured in a scene of the film Pulp Fiction. "Son of a Preacher Man" helped to sell more than two million units of the film's soundtrack and to help it reach number six on the charts, according to SoundScan. Quentin Tarantino has been quoted, on the "Collectors Edition" DVD of Pulp Fiction, as saying that he probably would not have filmed the scene in which the song is featured had he not been able to use it.

In 2001, Emma Wilkinson's UK television performance of "Son of a Preacher Man" won the Grand Final of the talent show Stars in Their Eyes garnering the most votes from 15 million television viewers.

Samples from "Son of a Preacher Man" were used on Cypress Hill's "Hits from the Bong" on their album Black Sunday. The song is also featured in the 2016 video game Mafia III.

title: Son of a Preacher Man


text:
Second Division

In sport, the Second Division, also called Division 2 or Division II is usually the second highest division of a league, and will often have promotion and relegation with divisions above and below. Following the rise of Premier League style competitions, many leagues known as the Second Division have fallen to a lower tier in countries' football league system.

This list of Second Divisions in association football, divided by authority, includes country and actual level.

AFC

 * K League Challenge, South Korea (second tier)
 * J. League Division 2, Japan (second tier)
 * I League 2, India (second tier)

UEFA

 * Albanian Second Division, Albania (third tier)
 * Segona Divisió, Andorra (second tier)
 * Belarusian Second League, Belarus (third tier)
 * Belgian Second Division, Belgium (second tier)
 * Second League of the Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina (third tier)
 * Czech 2. Liga, Czech Republic (second tier)
 * Cypriot Second Division, Cyprus (second tier)
 * Druga HNL, Croatia (second tier)
 * Danish 2nd Division, Denmark (third tier)
 * England
 * Football League Second Division (1892–1992; second tier, re-branded as Football League First Division after creation of top-level FA Premier League)
 * EFL Championship, (second tier)
 * Isthmian League Second Division, (ninth tier)
 * Second League of Estonia (third tier)
 * 2. deild, Faroe Islands (third tier)
 * Kakkonen, Finland (third tier)
 * Ligue 2, France (second tier)
 * Second Macedonian Football League (Macedonian Vtora Liga), Republic of Macedonia (second tier)
 * Meore Liga, Georgia (third tier)
 * 2. Fußball-Bundesliga, Germany (second tier)
 * Football League (Greece) (formerly Beta Ethniki, Greece (second tier)
 * Nemzeti Bajnokság II (Hungarian National Championship II), Hungary (second tier)
 * 2. deild karla, Iceland (third tier)
 * Italy
 * Serie B, (second tier)
 * Lega Pro Seconda Divisione (fourth tier)
 * Maltese Second Division, Malta (third tier)
 * Montenegrin Second League, Montenegro (second tier)
 * Norwegian Second Division (2. divisjon), Norway (third tier)
 * II liga (Poland) (Polish Second League), Poland (third tier)
 * Portugal
 * Liga de Honra, formerly "Segunda Divisão de Honra", (second tier)
 * Segunda Divisão (Portuguese Second Division), (third tier)
 * Liga II, Romania
 * Russian Second Division, Russia (third tier)
 * Scottish Football League Second Division, Scotland (third tier)
 * 2. Liga (Slovakia) (Slovak Second League), Slovakia (second tier)
 * Slovenian Second League, Slovenia (second tier)
 * Segunda División de La Liga, Spain
 * Swedish football Division 2, Sweden (fourth tier)
 * TFF Second League, Turkey (third tier)
 * Ukrainian Second League, Ukraine (third tier)
 * V.League 3, Vietname (third tier)
 * Welsh Football League Division Two, Wales (second tier)

CONCACAF

 * Aruban Division Uno, Aruba (second tier)
 * Barbados Division One, Barbados (second tier)
 * Segunda División de Costa Rica, Costa Rica (second tier)
 * Segunda División de El Salvador, El Salvador (second tier)
 * GFA First Division, Grenada (second tier)
 * Primera División de Ascenso, Guatemala (second tier)
 * Honduran Liga Nacional de Ascenso, Honduras (second tier)
 * Jamaica
 * Eastern Confederation Super League (second tier)
 * KSAFA Super League (second tier)
 * South Central Confederation Super League (second tier)
 * Western Confederation Super League (second tier)
 * Mexico
 * Ascenso MX (second tier)
 * Segunda División de México (formerly Segunda División Profesional) (third tier)
 * Segunda División de Nicaragua, Nicaragua (second tier)
 * Liga Nacional de Ascenso, Panama (second tier)
 * SKNFA Division 1, Saint Kitts and Nevis (second tier)
 * SLFA Second Division, St. Lucia (second tier)
 * SVB Hoofdklasse, Suriname (second tier)
 * National Super League, Trinidad and Tobago (second tier)
 * United States
 * United Soccer League (second tier)
 * North American Soccer League (second tier)

CONMEBOL

 * Primera B Nacional, Argentina (second tier)
 * Campeonato Brasileiro Série B, Brazil (second tier)
 * Ecuadorian Serie B, Ecuador (second tier)
 * Paraguayan Segunda División, Paraguay (second tier)
 * Peruvian Segunda División, Peru (second tier)
 * Uruguayan Segunda División, Uruguay (second tier)
 * Venezuelan Segunda División, Venezuela (second tier)

title: Second Division


text:
Talk:AD 3

Number
I would like to suggest this article default to the number 3. I would think most people who search for '3' would be looking for the number rather than the year.12.26.68.146 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would like to suggest that you take a look at Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and reconsider. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to place Jesus's birth on year 1 but not also put it on year 3 (the other option) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.178.145 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried searching for ":3" and got here! This should not happen. Colons should be included in SEARCHES. Yes, I hit the SEARCH button, and it took me to a page. :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.233.213 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Policy you cited is incorrect. It is commonly accepted that all dates in the common era less than 1000 has to have the suffix "AD" attached. This is to prevent confusion between 360 (degree of arc) and 360 A.D..

 * Wikipedia policies are all fine and well, but we must keep in mind that those policies are made by fallible creatures, so we must always tend towards common sense.
 * So let's use common sense. If I wanted to find out, for instance, how we got the etymology of three, I would call up Wikipedia and type "3" in the search engine. On the other hand, if I wanted to know what happened when Jesus was about 8 years old, I would instead type "3 AD" in the search engine. That is common sense.LutherVinci (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Even if were the convention that this article should normally  be referred to as 3 AD (which it isn't, although there is some support in the last week), it doesn't mean the article name shouldn't be 3.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some articles have multiple names. Ancestry of Jesus and Genealogy of Jesus, for instance. Or Carthage and Carthaginians. You would not expect the article to read "Carthaginians" when it is really about Carthage. So why call this article "3" when it is really about "In the third year of our Lord"? LutherVinci (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read our policy on redirects. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that on Wikipedia the ultimate comeback is simply, "Just read the relevant policy yourself." Well, I did read the policy and it clearly states that links should be redirected to more RELEVANT articles, that focuses on the PRIMARY TOPIC. "3" is not relevant, "3 AD" is.LutherVinci (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an established convention, noted in places such as WP:MOSDATE, that years should be the undisambiguated article, rather than numbers. If you want to reverse that, please try to get consensus at WP:NUMBERS, WP:YEARS, and WikiProject Numbers, at the very least.  You would then need to modify all links in Wikipedia which lead to an unadorned year number to point to yyyy AD.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you even read the policies you cite? They clearly states, "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" Period. If you would like to reverse the policy, then you would require a condenses at WP:MOSDATE (all your other links redirect there) at the very least. As for the fact that every article about years AD are all numbered the same way, I am not scared off by thinking I'll have to correct them myself, I am sure that when the wake up and read the pollicy the articles will fix themselves. But just in case I will speak to the WikiProject you cited. So far you've cited a new policy each time, are there any more you want attempt? LutherVinci (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Nothing you've said in previous paragraphs is consistent with the policy you've now correctly quoted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I quote again, "do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" If, for instance, the article was about the year 1968, titling it 1968 without AD would be okay because there is no ambiguity; everyone assumes that 1968 refers to the year because that is the way the number is most commonly used. On the other hand, this article about the year 3 cannot be titled 3 because the year would be ambiguous without AD. Hence the quoted policy.
 * That was for the second policy you cited. The first, and only other one, states that all redirections must funnel towards the primary topic. In this case, the primary topic on 3 is 3 (number). You must understand that the very policies you cite, without properly quoting them or referencing them, agree that the naming system for this article is incorrect.LutherVinci (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:AD 3


text:
Muwenda Mutebi II of Buganda

Kabaka Ronald Edward Frederick Kimera Muwenda Mutebi II (born 13 April 1955) is King of the Kingdom of Buganda. He is the 36th Kabaka of Buganda.

He was appointed as UNAIDS Goodwill Ambassador for Ending AIDS among men in the Eastern and Southern Africa with a special focus on Buganda Kingdom in Uganda.

Early Years and Reign
He was born at Mulago Hospital. He is the son of Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Muteesa II, Kabaka of Buganda, who reigned between 1939 and 1969 and first President of the Independent Uganda 1962-1966. His mother was Omuzaana Kabejja Sarah Nalule of the

He was educated at Budo Junior School, King's Mead School in Sussex and Bradfield College, a public school in West Berkshire. He then entered Magdalene College, Cambridge. At the age of 11, he was appointed as Heir Apparent by his father on 6 August 1966. While in exile he worked as Associate Editor of the magazine African Concord and a member of the Executive Committee of the African National Congress (ANC) in London. On 21 November 1969, upon the death of his father, he succeeded as the Head of the Royal House of Buganda.

He returned to Uganda in 1988, following the removal of the Milton Obote regime and the military junta that briefly replaced Obote. He was proclaimed at Buddo in a coronation ceremony at Naggalabi on On 31 July 1993 upon the constitutional restoration of Kingdoms in Uganda that had been abolished by Milton Obote. He has been on the royal throne since then with his seat at Bulange building in Mengo Kampala Uganda.

Personal life
Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II is married to Sylvia Nagginda, whom he wed on 27 August 1999 at Saint Paul's Cathedral Namirembe, in Kampala. Her official title is the Nnabagereka. The children of Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II include the following:
 * Prince (Kiweewa) Savio Muwenda or Juunju Suuna. He was born in 1986 in London, United Kingdom to his mother, Vénantie Sebudandi a former diplomat from the Republic of Rwanda (now deceased). He attended King's College, Budo, before moving to England for further studies.
 * Princess (Omumbejja) Joan Nassolo.
 * Princess (Omumbejja) Victoria Nkinzi.
 * Princess (Omumbejja) Sarah Katrina Mirembe Ssangalyambogo Nachwa. She was born in 2001 in London, UK.
 * Prince (Omulangira) Richard Ssemakookiro. He was born in 2011. On 17 January 2012 the former Katikkiro of Buganda, John Baptist Walusimbi, confirmed that his mother was from the Enseenene (Grasshopper) clan and was later revealed to be Rose Nansikombi from Luweero District.

Mutebi II underwent a several months long psychotherapeutical treatment in Namibia in early 2024.

Other responsibilities
On 15 April 2011, he was installed as the first chancellor of Muteesa I Royal University. The university was founded in 2007 and named in memory of Muteesa I of Buganda, in recognition of his foresight in promoting education in Buganda and Uganda and of his superior diplomatic skills in juggling the influences of the British, the French, and the Arabs in the late 1800s. Muteesa I authored a letter to the queen of England inviting missionaries and educationalist in Uganda and is therefore considered the father of education in Uganda.

As the head of the Buganda kingdom, he owns Nkuluze Trust, which runs the following kingdom properties:
 * Buganda Land Board, which is responsible for kingdom land and other land matters
 * K2 Telecom - a telecommunication company
 * BBS Television - Kingdom TV
 * CBS FM
 * Majestic Brands - selling royal products
 * Ngule Beer (in collaboration with Uganda Breweries)
 * Muganzirwazza Plaza - a commercial building in Katwe
 * Masengere Building - (which also houses Kingdom Television).

Patronages

 * Patron and Chief of the Trustee Buganda Cultural and Development Foundation [BUCADEF] (since 1996).
 * Patron of the Kabaka Foundation.
 * Patron of the Buganda Development Agency (BDA).
 * Patron of the Monkton Foundation.

National honours

 * Sovereign of the Order of the Shield and Spears.

Cultural honours
The peaceful lion, The Ssabalongo (head of twin parents), magulu nyondo, Ssaabasajja

title: Muwenda Mutebi II of Buganda


text:
South Pacific Area

The South Pacific Area (SOPAC) was a multinational U.S.-led military command active during World War II. It was a part of the U.S. Pacific Ocean Areas under Admiral Chester Nimitz.

The delineation and establishment of the Pacific Ocean Areas was negotiated by the Allied governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands in March–April 1942 in response to the Japanese attacks in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The South Pacific Area was bounded on the west by the Southwest Pacific Area, on the north by the Central Pacific Area, and on the east by the Southeast Pacific Area. It originally encompassed the Ellice, Phoenix, Marquesas, Tuamotu, Samoa, Fiji, and New Hebrides island groups plus New Caledonia and New Zealand. Its western boundary was shifted to just west of Guadalcanal on 1 August 1942 to facilitate operations against that island.

Background
The assignment orders for Major General Millard Harmon as the Commanding General, Army Forces, South Pacific, dated 7 July 1942, said:

"The establishment of the Pacific Ocean Area as an area of United States strategical responsibility under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, became effective on May 8, 1942. The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, has been designated the "Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Ocean Area". Under the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Ocean Area, a U.S. Naval officer has been designated as "Commander, South Pacific Area". The South Pacific Force under COMSOPAC include the following: In July 1942 the South Pacific Area, under Admiral Robert L. Ghormley, superseded by Admiral William Halsey Jr. from 16 October, comprised four commands: Amphibious Forces, South Pacific (AmphibForSoPac), under Admiral Richmond K. Turner, South Pacific Naval Forces under Admiral Ghormley, U.S. Army Forces South Pacific under Major General Millard Harmon, and South Pacific Air Forces under Admiral John S. McCain, Sr. At a later stage Transport Group, South Pacific (TransGrpSoPac) was added to the organisation.
 * 1. All base and local defense forces (ground, naval and air) now assigned or to be assigned to forces in the South Pacific Area. The New Zealand Chiefs of Staff are responsible for the land defense of New Zealand, subject to such strategic decisions affecting this responsibility as may be made by the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, for the conduct of naval operations in the Pacific Ocean Areas.
 * 2. Assigned New Zealand, Free French, Dutch and other United Nations Naval forces.
 * 3. Such fleet types and aircraft as may be assigned by the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet."

The organisation's first major battle was the Battle of Guadalcanal. Admiral Ghormley's Operations Order 1-42 established two task forces, Task Force 61 and Task Force 63, to carry out the operation.

On September 20, 1942, six weeks after the first American amphibious operation of the war got underway at Guadalcanal, Vice Admiral Aubrey Fitch assumed command of Aircraft, South Pacific Force (AirSoPac). Not a desk-bound admiral, he carried out numerous, hazardous flights into the combat zones, inspecting air activities and bases for projected operations. For these, he received a Distinguished Flying Cross. AirSoPac ultimately encompassing U.S. Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Royal New Zealand Air Force air units. It saw great success aiding the Allied campaign in the area.

Commander, Aircraft, Solomons (ComAirSols), directed the combat operations of all land-based air forces in the Solomons during Operation Cartwheel, under the direction of AirSoPac. Rear Admiral Charles P. Mason was the first officer to hold the title ComAirSols; he assumed command on 15 February 1943 at Guadalcanal. Actually, Mason took over a going concern, as he relieved Brigadier General Francis P. Mulcahy, who had controlled all aircraft stationed at the island during the final phase of its defense. Mulcahy, who became Mason's chief of staff, was also Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing. The fact that a general headed the staff of an admiral is perhaps the best indication of the multiservice nature of AirSols operations.

Vice Admiral Finch retained two areas of flight operations under his direct control; sea search by long range Navy patrol planes and Army bombers, and transport operations by South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command (SCAT). Throughout its long and useful life (November 1942-February 1945), SCAT's complement of Marine and Army transports was headed by Marine Aircraft Group 25's commanding officer. SCAT's operations area moved northward with the fighting during 1943, and by August's end, all regularly scheduled flights in SoPac's rear areas were being handled by the Naval Air Transport Service (NATS).

Commanders, South Pacific Area

 * Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley (17 May–18 October 1942)
 * Vice Adm./Adm. William Halsey, Jr. (18 October 1942 – 15 June 1944)
 * Vice Adm. John H. Newton (15 June 1944 – 13 March 1945)
 * Vice Admiral William L. Calhoun (13 March–2 September 1945)

title: South Pacific Area


text: Template:Presidents of Israel

title: Template:Presidents of Israel


text:
Talk:Gene-centered view of evolution

"partially as a consequence of the influence of ideas from the study of complex systems, this view has become less dominant"
For an example, see from the complex systems literature and  from the biology literature. --Erauch 20:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Subtitles
'A Defence'? 'Conclusion'? Is there a more Wiki-appropriate title for these? Ziggurat 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
This has a slightly nutbar flavour to it. It refers to ligitimate issues (some/most biologists would call it a tempest in a tea cup, others would call it a controversy) but the article really doesn't do justice to the issues and has a detectable POV creationist/ID slant. eg the following sentences are really indefensible characterizations: The article really doesn't even attempt to address the whole "bean-bag genetics" / "levels of selection" topic, but seems to aim to use the vague outline of the topic to launch into half-baked musings on other topics. Pete.Hurd 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) "Adaptation refers to those phenotypic traits of living systems characterized by their improbable functional organization"
 * 2) "The human hand, the veins' valves, the vertebrate eye, the hemoglobin molecule, the pony fish's glow, parental investment and kin altruism are notorious examples of adaptation"

Gene-centric view
Is there any reason why this entry is somewhat incorrectly called gene-centered while the text (correctly) talks about the gene-centric view? - Samsara 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, how about calling the entry simply gene-centric view? The title is somewhat unwieldy, and you're unlikely to find a gene-centric view in any other discipline! - Samsara 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Tis rather clumsy either way I'd say... if I can prove it is in print do you think we should go back to Williams revolution? (see Talk:Richard_Dawkins Mikkerpikker 19:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, no problem at all. In fact, the changes have all been reverted already. - Samsara 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gene by environment interaction
Yes, gene-environment interaction is a desperately needed article, perhaps this and a fix-up of heritability (also desperately needed) would be the same task, an exposition on shared vs. unique environmental variance etc. Such a fix would make a nice hammer to pound down the sticking-up nail that is the Nature versus nurture page. Pete.Hurd 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It turns out that such an article does exist, but it is unexpectedly capitalised: Gene-Environment Interaction. - Samsara 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unit of selection
Please see my comments on Talk:Unit of selection regarding a potential merger with/split of that page. Safay 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

POV remains

 * 1) Firstly, the selfish gene theory, properly understood, is most obviously not in opposition to "group selection" it in fact presents mechanisms for it (i.e. the proliferation of groups that SIGNIFICANTLY, as in not prone to chance, share adaptive allels which themselves only proliferate via group survival and hence selection).  Portions of this article are clearly in misunderstanding of what Dawkins was getting at.
 * 2) Secoundly, de facto probablities illuminate little and statements that the functional organization of lifeforms on this earth is improbabl are by and large meaningless. It might, however, be appropriate in an article devoted to life on other planets, but even in this context, improbable status should only be laid upon UNKNOWNS it has little use when you ask the question for knowns.  Example, the probability of a person winning a lottery is a figure of improbability, though you can still exact it, whereas when Jane Doe wins the lottery there is a probability of exactly 1, because we know this is what happened.  The probability of life on any particular other planet is low, but here on earth it is 1.  As this article attempts to illucidate a theory on the state of nature it must agree in tense and in application of appropriate maths.

There are more ornate and complicated ways of arguing against the term Improbable and I urge you to seek them out if you are in disagreement with the logic presented above.

I am changing the two parts of this article for there is abundant scientific evidence which affirms, for the time being, doing so.

68.76.216.234 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This theory is much more than kin selection, it refers to all levels of organisation. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Understood, my point still stands, dawkins wasn't the only person involved in the development of this theory, and so his ideas alone do not signify it. Group-Selectionists (pardon the neologism) quickly adaptapted group selectional theory to the fundaments of Selfish gene, which for the time being works and explains group selection phenomenon, see for example herd selection on scholar.google a clear adaptation of selfish gene grew out of such things.  I would argue that group-selectionists of the more scientifically valid point of view have further adapted to taking each species as an individual case, and no longer assert that all species are subject to group selection (if in fact they ever did), for there are clear examples of this where except for mating all conspecifics are in direct competition with one another.  In one last little observation I would like to add that media mainstream and scientific mainstream are two completely seperate things and this article needs to decide which it is, thus far it has adhered to media-mainstream formats in its oversimplifications and misidealizations of the theory in discussion.  Additionally, I am removing the term improbable and will take steps to try to lock this page until further discussion proves more useful so far there has been no reasonable argument for the term "improbable" or the statement that "selfish gene" is at odds with "group selection".

 * 68.22.243.113 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oddly ahistorical
The narrative is strangely ahistorical. It characterizes some early discoveries as being related to "genes" when the term and concept did not yet then exist, mixes up the order of things (i.e. Crick appears before Fisher), somewhat misattributes things (Mendel's fame is not the idea of particulate heredity—Galton and others had proposed this previously—but in describing the dominant/recessive behavior and the various laws), and is very vague at certain parts (i.e. saying that discoveries in inheritance happened "a few decades" after Darwin's Origin—in fact it was many decades later that most of that got worked out, after Darwin's death). It would be nice if someone could go over this and made the order more clear; as it is it would be very misleading if you tried to use this as an actual guide to the history of this concept. --Fastfission 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stripping out sections!
I think the first 3 sections (Improbable functional organization, Evolution by natural selection, Discoveries in heredity) should be removed as they are essentially off topic. Does anyone else agree? — Axel147 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ideally they would be replaced with a short section of historical context. Laurence Boyce 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

POV
The article's first section bore no real relevence to the focus of the rest of the article, and had a non-neutral point of view. In fact, it looked like someone just took some of the cliché, "it seems like X might be true, therefore X is true, and we shouldn't apply the scientific method to attempt to prove or disprove X," pro-ID arguments, peppered them with out-of-context attributions to Dawkins, and stuck them at the top of the article so unsuspecting visitors would be misled. That's lame. The "this is off-topic" tag serves no real purpose, so I simply deleted the section. It couldn't be cleaned up, because the section should never have been in the article in the first place.</rant> Sean Parmelee 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance
Without a section describing the criticisms of this view, this article will never be complete. [Sorry - I have no userID to leave!] 82.9.246.216 08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unconfusing and modernising this article
I've just come across the article and I think it needs a lot of work. My main concerns are:
 * 1) The science reads like a time-warp from the 1970s.  It turns out that things are a great deal more complicated than that, and almost every scientific statement made is an approximation with very important exceptions. (To give an extreme example, viruses work completely differently) The articles it references are much more up to date.  In particular the notion that there is a simple relation between a gene and "its" phenotypical effect turns out to be gravely mistaken.  Phenotypical effects come from complex networks of genes in many combinations, acting on many other complex networks.
 * 2) There are essentially two versions of "selfish gene" theory.  The weak version is that "it is often useful to think about evolution from a 'selfish gene' perspective."  Most people would agree with this, although as the complexities of genes and genetic networks become more evident the value of this approach becomes less clear - and real Evolutionary Dynamics is done at the level of types in populations, not genes.  The strong version, that "the only valid way of thinking about evolution is from a 'selfish gene' perspective" is scientifically false (lots of good evolutionary science is done from other perspectives) and probably not held by any leading working biologists.
 * 3) The statement of the theory in the article is confused and not too well sourced. I have tried to straighten some of this out, but becasue I don't really support the theory It'd be better if someone else did. NBeale 21:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * NBeale, are you trying to say that inheritance of acquired characters is an evolution factor?  Can you cite a source to back up that claim?  Regarding the remainder - there's no statement that the centra dogma is universally true, adding a statement saying such adds nothing to the article. "Subsequent research shows...", well, of course.  Again, what does that add to the article?  *Spark*  20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When did Lamarckism come back as 'a' factor in evolution? Please revise your most recent changes to be more in line with currnet scientific understanding. Fred Hsu 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So I read the article on Lamarckism after I wrote my comment above. And it cites recent researches to show Lamarckism in action.  Now, I'll have to re-learn my evolution ;) Fred Hsu 15:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NBeale, just FYI, I have some concerns with your recent edits, don't have to time now to go through it properly, but I can see much of what you've added being removed or significantly reworded. *Spark* 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More Restructuring
Yes *Spark* is right I deleted large sections so should take it to talk. My view is that the article is cumbersome as it is. It has to assume the reader has basic understanding of natural selection, genes, heredity etc. I suggest the first two sections are removed (and maybe condensed into a historic background sections later in the article) — Axel147 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
How much popularity does this view hold among evolutionary scientists as compared to other models? The article should make clear if it is the strongest hypothesis right now or if another model is favored instead.--Urthogie 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All we can do is offer educated guesses (which offers little value). From my reading, the "gene centered view," in the moderated form—as understood today by Maynard Smith, Dawkins, and to some measure by G. C. Williams—is a strong minority. It all really depends on who you read, what journals, what books, and what sub-disciplines, and so forth. There's a lot of sample bias going on when people assert that their particular side has won the majority. Very few people have a good feel for the entire literature. In fact, one might say nobody really does. Each field must speak for itself on this issue. There has, however, been a somewhat limited consensuses on the definitions being used, and our basic understanding of the problem (genes replicate, organisms are targeted, populations evolve, etc., but even here there is much room for debate. And when multiple levels of selection interact, there is a great difficulty in determining how they interrelate, and to what degree. Williams divides the problem into two separate spheres: that of information and that of the physical medium. Mayr, Gould, and others, argue for hierarchal levels—but widely disagree on its typology and agency. What needs to be done—in my passionate opinion—is scientific polling of the scientific community. There is potentially so much value to be gained from this, not only for public policy issues, but for its obvious utility for the history of science (or science of history, as Michael Shermer calls it). I do not understand why this is not done with any rigor or frequency. And I wish some capable historian would take up the challenge. Best, Miguel Chavez 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Few evolutionary biologists think the gene is the unit of selection. I think it should be noted that it is certainly a minority view and is as unpopular as ever. Most think it is on the level of organism.

From the NAS:

"The Gene.

The proposal by Williams (7) to adopt the gene as the object of selection not only conformed to the prevailing reductionist spirit of the time but also fitted into the thinking of many geneticists who in the mathematical analyses of population genetics had adopted the gene as the principal entity of evolutionary change. Williams’s proposal was strongly endorsed by Dawkins (9). This idea of the gene as the target of selection was at first widely accepted, for instance by Lewontin (10). But eventually it was severely criticized (11, 12), and even its original supporters have now moderated their claims. The critics pointed out that “naked genes,” “not being independent objects” (9), are not “visible” to selection and therefore can never serve as the target. Furthermore, the same gene, for instance the human sickle cell gene, may be beneficial in heterozygous condition (in Plasmodium falciparum areas) but deleterious and often lethal in the homozygous state. Many genes have different fitness values when placed into different genotypes. Genic selectionism is also invalidated by the pleiotropy of many genes and the interaction of genes controlling polygenic components of the phenotype. On one occasion Dawkins (ref. 13, point 7) himself admits that the gene is not an object of selection: “. . . genetic replicators are selected not directly, but by proxy. . . [by] their phenotypic effects.” Precisely! Nor are combinations of genes, as for instance chromosomes, independent objects of selection; only their carriers are.

"The Individual Organism.

From Darwin to the present day most evolutionists (1) have considered the individual organism to be the principal object of selection. Actually, it is the phenotype which is the part of the individual that is “visible” to selection (14).

Savagedjeff (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 * From Darwin to a few decades ago, most people did not know how genetics worked. All they could observe were phenotypes. Now we know better. We know how each gene affects dozens if not hundreds of phenotypes. Ultimately it is the gene that is selected, because that is what is immortally cloned. Phenotypes are cloned; they are created by complex interactions between genes. Evolution selects genes that are selfish and cooperative at the same time, because genes need to be selfish in order to propagate at the expense of its rivals (actually alleles), but it also needs to be cooperative with other genes in the same organism in order that it be selected via phenotypes created by cooperation. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of the modern synthesis was done more than a few decades ago because of genetics. Genetics has been helping the TOE for almost a century or so. It is what originally made people think the gene was the unit of selection. Which is kind of an outdated idea. The phenotype is not just genetics, it is environment too. The modern synthesis says "The object of selection is the phenotype." How can the gene be the unit of selection then? The phenotype cannot be reduced simply to a gene. It is the entire organism, including its interaction with the environment. It is the organism which brings it all together. And the idea that genes are "selfish" is ridiculous anyway. That's like saying electromagnetism is selfish.

From Mayr:

"An individual either survives or doesn't, an individual either reproduces or doesn't, an individual either reproduces very successfully or it doesn't. The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30's and 40's, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years."

Savagedjeff (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
I gave it a B class, though it needs a longer lead and inline citations. Richard001 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat
I looked in the section concerning challenges to the selfish gene theory for reference to this issue, but the challenges section seemed to focus primarily on the statements of individuals. Is anyone here familiar with tit-for-tat theory, and could that be included in the challenges section (or as separate challenges, perhaps differentiating between positions of authority and scientific claims)? I'm not sure how valid the theory is, but the implications would cast into doubt the universal nature of the selfish gene, no? -EarthRise33 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

origin of the replicators
This section is based on tenuous science. There is no good evidence for a 'primordial soup' in the fossil record. Likewise, it has never been proven that life originated on earth. --76.175.199.3 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These considerations are primarily a theoretical exploration of the primordial soup model. The primordial soup, while, yes, it is not present in the fossil record, is a supposed precursor to life, the mechanistic explanation to biogenesis, which is necessary as a scientific construct to pursue abiogenesis hypotheses. And, yes, while it has not been 'proven,' it has similarly not been 'proven' that extraterrestrial seeding was the cause of life generation. This passage could use some enforcement of its questionable nature, but to delete it in its entirety is an injustice to abiogenesis pursuits, which play an important role in comprehending biology. -EarthRise33 (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with EarthRise33. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * While I don't entirely buy 76.175.199.3's concerns, the "beginning of the replicators" section is rather weak. It's in the wrong place for starters, it doesn't cite any sources (bar a popular science book), and it also articulates biogenesis which isn't entirely relevant here.  It's not yet clear how far removed DNA and genes are from the earliest "organisms" (whatever they happened to be), so I reckon this section shouldn't be in the article.  IT would be better off in, say, abiogenesis or something.  Anyway, I've removed it to here for now.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Beginning of the replicators
 * The gene-centered theory begins with the idea that life on earth contains DNA. DNA can be thought of as the modern equivalent of the first replicators which were formed from the primeval soup present in ancient seas. The primeval soup was a large group of individual substances which over time, due to evolution, formed replicators. These replicators had a chemical structure which allowed them to somehow use the individual substances of the 'soup' to replicate their chemical structure and form large chains of replicators. This could be achieved by positive-positive or positive negative replication, thus producing a large amount of these replicators, and causing the number of individual building blocks of the replicators to fall. Many different structures of these replicator chains were originally formed and due to natural selection or mutations in the replicator's structure, some replicator structures had an advantage over the others. Some may have had the ability to break up the structure of other replicators to aid the survival of these "carnivore replicators" by forming more building blocks from which to replicate themselves, much in the same way humans need amino acids from proteins to replicate DNA. Those replicators which survived and continued to replicate must have protected themselves by forming protein coats around themselves thus forming the first, what in modern biology we would call "vehicles" for replicators. Over billions of years of evolution these led to more complex vehicles and replicators becoming DNA. These more complex vehicles have led to the complex species we see on earth. This theory is explained in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

 * I understand the concerns and see the relevancy, but I still think it is a relevant section, though still, albeit, in the utmost hypothetical. Certainly the gene-centric view is an important process in current biology, since it provides mechanisms for the evolution of certain traits or behaviors. However, I think, for two primary reasons, that the replicator origin is relevant: 1) it does seem to be a part of the selfish gene theory, as explained by Dawkins, who make the notion popular (as I understand it), and 2) the replicator origin scenario similarly portrays the rise of gene-centric organisms. It's not as much the gene-centric view as it is the hypothetical origin of the process itself. I think the distance is irrelevant, though, since the establishment of gene-centric replicators would give rise (eventually, however long eventually is) to the gene-centric organisms. Agreed, this might be relevant in abiogenesis if a mention of the selfish gene theory is made at the same time, but I think a reference should be retained here as well.
 * Might it be helpful to trim it down some to make a less wordy introductory paragraph? -EarthRise33 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi EarthRise33. Although Dawkins helped to make the selfish gene concept popular, and used something like the deleted replicator text in his The Selfish Gene book, the two are not strongly connected.  In fact, Dawkins made a point of using a completely different model of abiogenesis (the clay theory of Cairns-Smith) in a later book, The Blind Watchmaker, to illustrate that the manner of the origin of life was not especially important to the gene-centered view.  Since the article is about the gene-centric view of evolution, it seems the wrong place to prominently introduce hypothetical entities for which we have little evidence, and which have no obvious strong relevance for the entities that currently dominate biological evolution, genes.  IMHO, the article should focus on the gene-centric view as applied to "modern" organisms (where "modern" means DNA-/RNA-based organisms that have genetic structures identifiable as genes).  Otherwise, we risk tying this view to a particular unvalidated hypothesis.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Point taken. I still feel, though, that the origin should be included, even if is the hypothetical expansion of gene-centric theory back to its basic roots. Would there be justification for putting this suggestion later in the article, under a heading like "Hypothetical origin of replicators," with a statement of its tenuous possibility? -EarthRise33 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi again EarthRise33. Obviously I disagree that the origin needs including here.  The article essentially deals with the present day situation, so concrete subjects such as organisms and genes.  I think it would be a mistake to get speculative in this article when we simply don't need to.  Anyone interested in the origin of genes can look in more appropriate places like abiogenesis.  Even the article on genes skips over any description of their evolution from hypothetical replicators.  I think we should do the same here, although it'd be good to hear views from other editors too.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Plumbago (talk). But perhaps a URL to another more appropiate page explaining replicator theory could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.94.51 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of the redirection
As I read it now there is no mention left about 'replicators' in the main article (except for a source reference to Dawkins, R. (1982) that is of no use for the current article). Since there is obviously no article about 'replicators' (neither the keyword nor the relevant concept are even present in Evolution or Evolution of sexual reproduction), I suggest to remove the redirection "Replicator (evolution unit)" and leave it undefined (red). Or better yet, somebody take a moment to write a complement about these structures (possibly using said deleted material as starting point) into Evolution or Evolution of sexual reproduction, or even a new article. Please - Thanks !(try as exemplary material : Researchers move one step further towards understanding how life evolved last's month article that led me here !)Zigomar7 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-free image fair use rationale
The image of Richard Dawkins book fails to meet Non-free use content criteria #8.

It does not promote significant understanding of the topic at hand. (How does a image of a book cover - especially one that looks like a child's drawing - give understanding on evolutionary theory?) Neither would its removal be any detriment to understanding this topic.

Yes the book is important to this theory, but an image of its cover is not. Please consider removing this cover to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free content.

Plenty of non-free images could be created and used to assist in illustration of this article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg
The image Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Four causes article: is modern science teleological or does it at least attempt the opposite?
There is discussion at Four causes relevant to this article. It is being claimed that "Most modern theories of evolution are unabashedly teleological", and it is being argued that the article should remove references to modern science not being teleological and say the opposite. Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement begins with weasel words, and contains no arguments, just an unfounded assertion. Thus, I don't see any reason to take it seriously. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of the Price Equation?
At present, the section on the Price Equation doesn't state if the equation takes a side in the gene-centered vs organism-centered debate. So it probably has no place in this article. Thoughts? David.hillshafer (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lamarckism = non-transmission??
this says in the lead:"The gene-centered view of evolution is a synthesis of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the particulate inheritance theory, and the Lamarckism (the non-transmission of acquired characters).[citation needed]". while wikiarticle fir Lamarckism clearlysays opposie: L. is a theory of transmissionability of acquired caracters. so this needs deconflicting. i ve read the selfish gene quite long ago, so i might not be able to recall all the nuances of its reasoning, therefore i dont want to just delete the seemingly misplaced "non" from "the non-transmission", but the quoted sentence doesnt seem to be clear enough. i wish an editor with some grip on the topic could see to it, or else i 'd have to correct it in a few days.80.98.114.70 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I found when this edit was made, last August, here is the change. As you can see it used to be that the wikilink to Lamarckism had the display text of "non transmission of acquired characters", he split it up so that the wikilink was separate from the latter phrase, but it ended up with the current awkward - and incorrect - wording. I'm putting it back. --Krelnik (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene-centered view of evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903045742/http://www.life.umd.edu:80/emeritus/reveal/pbio/darwin/darwindex.html to http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/darwin/darwindex.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Suicide?
Has any writer in this field tackled the topic of suicide and other self-destructive behaviors? Ritualistic murder/suicide, that kind of thing?50.194.115.156 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 * This isn't a discussion forum. However, this paper might get you started ... The Causal Role of Consciousness: A Conceptual Addendum to Human Evolutionary Psychology (you should be able to at least see the abstract and the author contact details). Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Gould and Mayr
The section on criticisms of the Selfish gene theory does jump around from talking about Ernst Mayr to talking about Steven Jay Gould a bit. Vorbee (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I just re-read it, and it's pretty good, given that it's reporting a (furious) and long-running argument, at summarizing the key points on both sides. They were, after all, each trying to rebut the other side's arguments. Much worse is that other chunks of the article are uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Optimon (Selecton), Cistron, muton and recon
At the opening of his 5th chapter "The Active Germ-line Replicator" (p.81), R. Dawkins cites Benzer (1957) and himself (1978) explaining that there are 'genes' refer to 4 different concepts or that it can be split in 4 different units: 1. Muton: unit of mutational change 2. Recon: unit of recombination (crossing over) 3. Cistron: unit of polypeptide chain production (functional unit) 4. Optimon or selecton: unit of natural selection (selecton was apparently coined by E. Mayr, as quoted in Dawkins 1982 )

This seems appropriate to discuss and include some of the terms here.

Beausoleilmo (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Beausoleilmo (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gene-centered view of evolution


text:
Diam's

Mélanie Georgiades (born 25 July 1980, in Nicosia), better known by her stage name Diam's, is a retired French rapper of Greek-speaking Cypriot origin.

Biography
Mélanie Marie Georgiades was born on 25 July 1980, in Nicosia, capital of Cyprus. Her mother is French and her father is Greek-speaking Cypriot. After her parents separated, she arrived in France with her mother at the age of three. She spent her childhood in Paris, then in the department of Essonne, in Brunoy, until the age of thirteen.

She studied for a while in Igny, in the private Saint-Nicolas college. Later, she moved to Massy then to Orsay in the suburban district of Mondetour, where she spent most of her adolescence. She discovered rap through the album The Chronic (1992) by Dr. Dre and the first song by the group NTM, Je rap (1990) (published on Rapattitude, the first French rap compilation). She chose Diam's as her pseudonym in 1995, a choice she explains as "I came across the definition of the word diamond and I learned that a diamond can only be broken by another diamond and that it is only made of natural elements".

Beginnings (1994–2002)
In 1995, at the age of fifteen, she attempted suicide. In 2003, she rapped about her past and how, aged 17, she was beaten by her partner in a song called Ma souffrance (My suffering).

She formed a group called Mafia Tres. In 1997, the group released a four title EP with Diam's on two tracks. Diam's became better known, thanks to her appearance in 1997 on Mafia Trece's first album, called Cosa Nostra, and thanks to an appearance on Phonograph with the rap group ATK.

After her separation from Mafia Tres, Diam's released her first album, Premier Mandat in 1999, but it was not a success, selling just 9,000 copies.

In 2001 the song Suzy broadcast on the compilation Original Bombattack on radio Générations 88.2. The song is picked up on the Internet. Suzy came to the attention of Jamel Debbouze who became her friend and mentor. She then made many appearances, and participations on radio shows. She finally prepares her second album, entitled Brut de femme and the record company EMI offers her a contract in April 2002. The project is abandoned following a restructuring of EMI while the two titles Pogo and 1980 are broadcast by a journalist on the Internet before their official release.

Success (2003–2009)
She signs on the Hostile label after long negotiations. The tracks are reworked and finally integrated into his second album, Brut de femme. Brut de femme quickly went gold and the single DJ was certified platinum. Diam's won a Victoire de la Musique for the best rap album of the year 2004.

She took a stand against Marine Le Pen and her National Rally party (formerly the National Front), especially in the song "Marine", which was released on her DVD Ma Vie/Mon Live in 2004. She also stands against Nicolas Sarkozy, whom she called a demagogue and a fascist in La Boulette and Ma France à moi.

In 2005, she cemented her importance as a songwriter with "Ma philosophie"—a huge number one hit for Pop Idol star Amel Bent.

In 2006 she returned with the album Dans ma bulle, debuting at number one on the French album chart selling 50,000 copies in its first week. Diam's first single from Dans Ma Bulle, La Boulette gained immense popularity and airtime. It stayed at number one on the French music charts for 6 consecutive weeks. Her second single Jeune Demoiselle debuted at No. 4. Ma France à moi and Confessions nocturnes with Vitaa also proved to popular. Dans Ma Bulle went on to be the biggest-selling French album in France in 2006.

Diam's won three awards at the NRJ Music Award in 2007 (Francophone female artist of the year, Francophone album for Dans ma bulle and Francophone song for La boulette). Le Figaro newspaper estimated that Diam's achieved revenues of 2.66 million euros for her album.

After a year away from the media, Diamis returns in 2009 with her fourth and final album, SOS, which ranked first in album sales in France when it was released on 16 November 2009, achieving sales of more than 300,000 copies in France. The first single Enfants du désert from his new album, whose clip takes a scene from the film Forrest Gump where the hero runs across the United States. The disc marks the metamorphosis of the artist.

Retirement (2012-Now)
In July 2012, she published her book Diam's Autobiographie. On 30 September 2012, she announced on the show Sept à huit on TF1 the end of her career as a rapper.

In 2022, she made the documentary on her career, "Salam", which the former rapper will be presenting at the Cannes Film Festival. In a rare message posted to Instagram, Diam's, who had previously retired from social media, explained her motivation, and why she agreed to entrust her story to directors Houda Benyamina (Divine) and Anne Cissé, after refusing dozens of requests for years:

"I had the feeling that I was being asked to give the keys to my life so that others could make a film of it. A show. My depression, my suffering, my quest, my recognition: a film? An entertainment? I was touched that people were interested in my career, but it was impossible for me to let strangers speak for me… So I took up the pen again. The one thing I have always loved delivered me."

Personal life
In 2007, she suffered from depression due to personal problems, which she returned to in the song Si c'était le dernier. Diagnosed as bipolar, she alternated between stays in a psychiatric hospital and her career as an artist. When she left the hospital, she decided to stop taking the medication, and she attempted suicide by swallowing sleeping pills.

In December 2008, she converted to Islam, she said that religion liberated her and helped her through these difficult ordeals. In September 2009, she married her companion Aziz. On 8 October 2009, Paris Match magazine published pictures of her leaving a mosque in Gennevilliers with her husband, wearing an Islamic veil. In the midst of a debate on the banning of the full veil in public places, these stolen photos caused a scandal.

In 2010, Diam's won her complaint against Le Nouvel Observateur magazine for violating her image rights and privacy after publishing a picture of Diam's wearing a headscarf without permission. The picture was placed in an article about French Muslims.

In the spring of 2012, Mélanie gave birth to a daughter named Maryam. In 2015, she married again, and gives birth to a boy named Abraham.

Singles
1 Digital Downloads

title: Diam's


text:
Ala (Roman allied military unit)

An ala (Latin for "wing"; alae) was the term used during the middle of the Roman Republic (338–88 BC) to denote a military formation composed of conscripts from the socii, Rome's Italian military allies. A normal consular army during the period consisted of two legions, composed of only Roman citizens, and two allied alae.

The alae were somewhat larger than normal legions, 5,400 or 5,100 men against the legion's 4,500 men, and it contained a greater quantity of cavalry, usually 900 horsemen against the 300 supplied by the Romans.

From the time of the first Roman emperor, Augustus (ruled 27 BC – AD 14), the term ala was used in the professional imperial army to denote a much smaller (c. 500), purely cavalry unit of the non-citizen auxilia corps: see ala (Roman cavalry unit).

History
When the Roman armies started being composed partly of Roman citizens and partly of socii (allies from the rest of the Italian mainland), either Latini or Italici, it became the practice to marshal the Roman troops in the centre of the battle line and the socii upon the wings. Consular armies of the mid-Republic would consist of two legions of Roman citizens and two legions of "ala", with the ala supplying thirty turmae of cavalry per legion, whereas the Roman provided only ten turmae. Hence ala and alarii denoted the contingent furnished by the allies, both horse and foot, and the two divisions were distinguished as dextera ala (right wing) and sinistra ala (left wing).

As late as Polybius' times, contingents of allies forming the alae were recruited by their own leaders in their homelands, which were expected to levy an equivalent number to the Roman troops; the specifications of those agreements were covered in the formula togatorum. They were managed by six Roman officers called praefecti sociorum, equivalent to the legion's six military tribunes, who were chosen from the equestrian order by the consul at charge However, Rome would also trust on their allied commander themselves, with outstanding examples like the Frentani Oblacus Volsinius or the Campanian Decius Vibellius during the Pyrrhic War.

Socii were expected to fight in the same manner and equipment as the Roman troops and provide their own basic rations, and were in turn would receive a percentage of any loot gained, although at a lower rate than their Roman equivalents.

title: Ala (Roman allied military unit)


text:
Ala (odinala)

Ala (also known as Ani, Ana, Ale, and Ali in varying Igbo dialects) is the female Alusi (deity) of the earth, morality, fertility, and creativity in Odinani. In Odinani, Ala rules over the underworld and holds the deceased ancestors in her womb. Her name literally translates to "ground" in the Igbo language, denoting her powers over the earth and her status as the ground itself. Ala is considered the highest Alusi in the Igbo pantheon. Ala's husband is Amadioha, the sky deity.

As the goddess of morality, Ala is involved in judging human actions and is in charge of Igbo law and customs known as omenala. Taboos and crimes among Igbo communities that are against the standard of Ala are called nsọ Ala. All ground is considered holy land as it is Ala herself. With human fertility, Ala is credited for the productivity of the land. Ala's messenger and living agent on earth is the python (Igbo: éké), which is especially revered in many Igbo communities. In art, Ala is often represented as a regal figure seated on a throne, surrounded by her family. In the past, such figures took the form of life-size mud sculptures in special festive shrines dedicated to the deity and known as mbari.

Power
It is said that if a person commits a taboo in a community, that they have also desecrated or insulted Ala as the abomination (called ajo njo or Aru Ala, Alu Ani) was committed on her earth. Ala is also responsible for many aspects of Igbo society and guardianship of women and children in general. She is often depicted with a small child in her arms and her symbol is the crescent moon. It is believed that the souls of the dead reside in her sacred womb. All in the community have to respect Ala as everybody lives on ala, the earth. It was sometimes believed that Ala could swallow people up into the underground.

Ala is still worshiped by the Igbo of Nigeria and is annually paid homage to during the yam festival.

title: Ala (odinala)


text:
USS Randolph (1776)

The first USS Randolph was a 32-gun frigate in the Continental Navy named for Founding Father Peyton Randolph, the president of the First Continental Congress. Attaining only moderate success in her career, Randolph was destroyed by an explosion of her gunpowder stores during a naval action on 8 March 1778.

Construction
Construction of the first Randolph was authorized by the Continental Congress on 13 December 1775. The frigate, designed by Joshua Humphreys, was launched on 10 July 1776, by Wharton and Humphreys at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Patriot Nicholas Biddle, with his extensive naval experience, was appointed captain of the Randolph on 11 July; he formally assumed command of the frigate in mid-October.

Maiden voyage
Seamen were scarce and recruiting was slow, delaying the ship's maiden voyage. In desperation, captured British seamen were pressed into service at Philadelphia; the resulting riot forced the soldiers assigned to escort the sailors to fire into the prison windows. Finally manned, Randolph sailed down the Delaware River on 3 February 1777, and three days later rounded Cape Henlopen, on her first assignment escorting a large group of American merchantmen to sea to obtain supplies and funds for the American cause. On the 15th, the convoy separated, with some of Randolph's charges heading for France and the rest setting course for the West Indies.

The frigate herself turned northward with plans to intercept HMS Milford, a British frigate responsible for the loss of several New England vessels involved in blockade running. A ship matching the Milford's description was captured; after Biddle identified it as a French man-o'-war, he set it free. Then, as she continued the search, Randolph sprung her foremast. While the crew labored to jury-rig a replacement, the ship's mainmast broke and toppled into the sea.

Continuing the hunt was out of the question as the ship had lost much of her maneuverability and speed. Now seeking to avoid the Royal Navy's warships, Biddle ordered the ship south towards the Carolina coast. An epidemic of fever broke out as the Randolph limped along, and many members of the crew died and were hastily buried at sea. Biddle also had to deal with a failed uprising by the British captives on his ship before reaching Charleston, South Carolina, on the afternoon of 11 March.

Second voyage
Twice, after her repairs had been completed and as she was about to get underway, the frigate was kept in port by lightning-splintered mainmasts. Meanwhile, more and more crewmen were lost to sickness, desertion, and the lure of higher pay on merchant vessels.

Recruiting was stimulated by the issuing of bounties, and Randolph was finally readied for sea - this time with her masts protected by lightning rods. She departed Charleston on 16 August and was positioned by Biddle at the mouth of the harbor awaiting favorable winds to put to sea. Two days later, a party from the frigate boarded a departing merchantman, Fair American, and took back into its service a pair of deserters among the ship's crew.

Inshore winds kept Randolph trapped until the breeze shifted on 1 September, wafting the frigate across Charleston Bar. At dusk, on the 3rd, a lookout spotted five vessels: two merchant ships, two brigs, and a sloop. After a nightlong chase, she caught up with her quarry the next morning and took four prizes. The first, a 20-gun privateer, True Briton, was laden with rum for the British troops at New York; Severn, the second prize, had been recaptured by True Briton from a North Carolina privateer while sailing from Jamaica to London with a cargo of sugar, rum, ginger, and logwood. The two brigs, Charming Peggy, a French privateer on escort duty, and L’Assomption, laden with salt, had also been captured by True Briton while plying their way from Martinique to Charleston.

Randolph and her prizes reached Charleston on the morning of 6 September. While the frigate was in port having her hull scraped, the president of South Carolina's General Assembly, John Rutledge, suggested to Biddle that Randolph should join forces with the State Navy and break the British naval blockade of Charleston. Biddle accepted temporary command of the fleet, which, besides Randolph, included General Moultrie, Notre Dame, the converted Fair American, and Polly.

The American ships sailed on 14 February 1778, but encountered no British warships. Biddle then ordered his captains to proceed to the West Indies, hoping to intercept British merchantmen. After two days, they captured (and were subsequently forced to burn) a dismasted and unsalvageable New England merchantman which had been captured by a British privateer while headed for St. Augustine, Florida. Thereafter, game was scarce. They encountered only neutral ships until Polly took a small schooner on 4 March bound from New York to Grenada. Biddle had the ship repurposed as a tender.

Loss
On the afternoon of 7 March, Randolph's lookouts spotted sail on the horizon. At 21:00 that evening, an unidentified ship, now flying British colors, came up on the Randolph as the largest ship in the convoy, and demanded they hoist their colors. The Randolph then hoisted American colors and fired a broadside into the British ship after Biddle and his officers gambled that they were challenging an inferior sloop-of-war. The stranger turned out to be the HMS Yarmouth (1748).

As a 64-gun, two-deck ship of the line, Yarmouth had double the number of guns as Randolph. Yarmouth's guns were also significantly heavier as she mounted 32-pound cannons on her main deck, 18-pounder guns on her upper deck, and 9-pounder guns on her quarterdeck and forecastle, giving her almost five times the weight of shot that Randolph could fire. The Randolph and General Moultrie engaged Yarmouth until the Randolph's magazine exploded with a blinding flash. Burning debris up to six feet long struck Yarmouth, which significantly damaged her sails and rigging and caused several casualties.

The damage caused to Yarmouth's sails and rigging prevented her from pursuing the remaining South Carolina ships as they slipped away in the darkness.

The loss of the Randolph resulted in 311 deaths, including Biddle's. Yarmouth picked up four survivors off of wreckage on 12 March. Casualties aboard Yarmouth amounted to five men killed and 12 wounded.

title: USS Randolph (1776)


text:
User talk:Sarkarabhishek

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Natalinasmpf 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add links to specific blogs on weblog. If we linked to every blog on the net, well.. you can imagine what the page would look like. Thanks. Rhobite 20:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. -- Natalinasmpf 20:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sarkarabhishek


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pootron bomb

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 09:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pootron bomb
Has only four hits on a google search, therefore unable to establish notability. I'm sure I've heard of such a weapon somewhere before, but never heard it referred to as the "Pootron". Oliver Keenan 20:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, very likely hoax or joke. The "inventor"'s name "A. Johnson" is most likely intentionally chosen to frustrate any Google searching. If it existed at all, the article would need to be created under its real name, because Google hits show that it is not known at all under the current title. -- Curps 21:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's further evidence of a hoax, since... well, see Things called Johnson.

 * Delete, probably hoax or joke. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Megan1967 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense. Oliver, you're probably thinking of brown note. Gazpacho 11:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Penitential psalm

The Penitential Psalms or Psalms of Confession, so named in Cassiodorus's commentary of the 6th century AD, are the Psalms 6, 31, 37, 50, 101, 129, and 142 (6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143 in the Hebrew numbering). These psalms are expressive of sorrow for sin. Four were known as 'penitential psalms' by St. Augustine of Hippo in the early 5th century. The fiftieth Psalm (Miserere) was recited at the close of daily morning service in the early Church. Translations of the penitential psalms were undertaken by some of the greatest poets in Renaissance England, including Sir Thomas Wyatt, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and Sir Philip Sidney. Before the suppression of the minor orders and tonsure in 1972 by Paul VI, the seven penitential psalms were assigned to new clerics after having been tonsured.
 * Psalm 6 – Domine, ne in furore tuo arguas me. (Pro octava). (O Lord, rebuke me not in thy indignation. (For the octave.))
 * Psalm 31 (32) – Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates. (Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.)
 * Psalm 37 (38) – Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me. (in rememorationem de sabbato). (O Lord, rebuke me not in thy indignation. (For a remembrance of the Sabbath.))
 * Psalm 50 (51) – Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. (Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy.)
 * Psalm 101 (102) – Domine, exaudi orationem meam, et clamor meus ad te veniat. (O Lord, hear my prayer, and let my cry come unto thee.)
 * Psalm 129 (130) – De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine. (Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord.)
 * Psalm 142 (143) – Domine, exaudi orationem meam: auribus percipe obsecrationem meam in veritate tua. (Hear, O Lord, my prayer: give ear to my supplication in thy truth.)

Indulgence
With the bull Supremi omnipotentis Dei of 11 March 1572, Pope Saint Pius V granted an indulgence of 50 days for those who recite the penitential psalms.

The 2004 Enchiridion Indulgentiarum granted a partial indulgence to those who pray the penitential psalms in preparation for the Sacrament of Penance.

Musical settings
Perhaps the most famous musical setting of all seven is by Orlande de Lassus, with his Psalmi Davidis poenitentiales of 1584. There are also settings by Andrea Gabrieli and by Giovanni Croce. The Croce pieces are unique in being settings of Italian sonnet-form translations of the Psalms by Francesco Bembo. These were widely distributed; they were translated into English and published in London as Musica Sacra; and were even translated (back) into Latin and published in Nürnberg as Septem Psalmi poenitentiales. William Byrd set all seven Psalms in English versions for three voices in his Songs of Sundrie Natures (1589). Settings of individual penitential psalms have been written by many composers. Well-known settings of the Miserere (Psalm 50/51) include those by Gregorio Allegri and Josquin des Prez; yet another is by Bach. Settings of the De profundis (Psalm 129/130) include two in the Renaissance by Josquin.

title: Penitential psalm


text:
Talk:List of historical capitals of Hungary

Esztergom and Székesfehérvár period questioned
This source says (in Hungarian):

 * Esztergom 972-től (Székesfehérvár után) Magyarország fővárosa volt a tatárjárásig.

that is,

 * Esztergom was the capital of Hungary from 972 (after Székesfehérvár) until the Tartar Invasion.

(The Tartar Invasion took place in Hungary in 1242-1244.)

This information is obviously not in accordance with what is stated in the article.

Adam78 20:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I think the article states that the function of a capital was not that clear than it is now. So the source is right, as it does not lie :) but I think Székesfehérvár had also served as a capital until Buda was built. Anyways:
 * "A MAI HIVATALOS történetírás úgy tartja, hogy a honfoglalást követően, már a X. század végén Esztergomban volt az udvar állandó tartózkodási helye."
 * is not true, afaik, because the court did not even have a permanent residence. The article is about Esztergom, and that can also be a reason why it states Esztergom was the capital. And yet more: consider the name Székesfehérvár, where székes means the court stays there (its German name is also Stuhlweissenburg).
 * another source says :
 * "[Szfvár] A mai város elődjét a honfoglaló magyarok alapították. Géza nagyfejedelem idején, 972 után kisméretű kővárat építtettek, benne nagyfejedelmi palotával és a templommal. Első királyunkat itt koronázták meg 1000 karácsonyán.
 * "Az 1083-ban szentté avatott király ide jelölte ki királyságának székhelyét, kiépült a korai város, benne István király hatalmas bazilikájáva (1003-1038). Ebben őrizték az ország kincstárát, levéltárát és a koronázási jelvényeket.
 * "Évente két alkalommal itt tartották meg az országgyűlést. A középkorban a királyi bazilikában koronázták meg 43 királyunkat, közülük 15 királyt ide is temettek el." (forgive me not translating this, it states Székesfehérvár had many capital-like functions)
 * but Esztergom doesn't agree
 * "[Egom] 1000-ben Istvánt itt koronázták királlyá. István király uralkodásától a XIII. század elejéig itt mûködik az ország egyetlen pénzverdéje. Ekkor épül ki az esztergomi vár, amely 1241-ig (a tatárjárásig) királyainak székhelye, de nemcsak a magyar állam, hanem az egyház, és egyúttal Esztergom vármegye központja is."
 * so I think the article is correct, not taking sides. --Sicboy 00:52, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The "Roman time" part removed, to be inserted into Pannonia or another article
The capital of the province of Pannonia was: Later there was a fourfold division, with capitals within today's Hungary: There were also two capitals outside of today's Hungary but on territories that were part of the Kingdom of Hungary in history:
 * Aquincum (today Óbuda)
 * Savaria (Szombathely)
 * Sopianae (Pécs)
 * Siscia (Sisak/Sziszek)
 * Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica)

Lippa
Before somebody wants to delete Lippa, according to this source (kislexikon):"...... Izabella, fiával, a koronával és kincseivel egy darabig itt talált menedéket s 1514 aug. 29. Szulejmán szultán ezt rendelvén székhelyéül, itt maradt 1542 májusági, midőn Gyulafehérvár lett a főváros. 1554. ismét ezt akarta Erdély fővárosává tenni a török"

Isabella had to go to Lippa, because the sultan wanted the town to be the new seat. Later in 1554 the sultan wanted Lippa to be the capital again. The source of kislexikon is the Pallas Lexicon. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * "1540. aug. 29. Szulejmán szultán Lippát rendelte János király özvegyének Izabellának s fiának, János-Zsigmondnak székvárosává, hogy onnan uralkodjék a tiszai részeken s Erdélyen. És «az keserves asszony az urakkal be is szállá az nömös Lippában (Az János király fiáról való szép cronica. Századok, 1871., 39.), hová Budáról szept. 5. indult el s onnan csak 1542. májusában tette át székhelyét Gyulafejérvárra (Szilágyi, Erdély országgy. eml. I. 94.)."

 * Suleiman wanted Lippa to be the new seat before the Ottoman occupation of Buda ( the date of enactment is 29 of August, 1540). Buda fell to the Turks on the 29th of August, 1541. John II and Isabella had to go to Lippa (on the 5th of September, 1541) and they stayed there until May, 1542. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1536 or 1541? Buda or Pozsony?
I think we need to count Buda as a capital until 1541 (until the Ottoman occupation) because the Queen, Martinuzzi and their entourage moved out in 1541. I understand that Pozsony had been the capital of Royal Hungary since 1536, however because of the two kings the capitals were "duplicated". What is your opinion?Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. There is no coincidence that Ferdinand repeatedly tried to obtain the capital of John's realm unsuccessfully. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Pufacz

(Sorry, I guess nobody has given you the formal welcome greeting, so here it is...)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zzyzx11 for warm welcome, I really enjoy to be wikipedian :-) I mainly contribute to [http:\\pl.wikipedia.org Polish Wikipedia] however try to add value about Poland/Polish into  [http:\\en.wikipedia.org English language wikipedia]

Pufacz 20:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stubs
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! Ksbrown 12:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kassern
Hi, I see you added an interwiki for Tadeusz Kassern; could you possibly add a some of that info from the Polish article to the English one? Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, are you sure "Uczył się w konserwatorium Polskiego Towarzystwa Muzycznego" means he studied at the "Polish Music Society"? What about "konserwatorium"? Doesn't that mean that it was a music conservatory? Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pufacz


text:
List of Turkish weightlifters

This is a list of notable, active and retired, international weightlifter of the Republic of Turkey.

48 kg

 * Nurdan Karagöz
 * Şaziye Okur
 * Sibel Özkan
 * Nurcan Taylan

53 kg

 * Ayşegül Çoban

58 kg

 * Aylin Daşdelen

69 kg

 * Sibel Şimşek

75 kg

 * Şule Şahbaz

+75 kg

 * Ümmühan Uçar

56 kg

 * Sedat Artuç
 * Gökhan Kılıç
 * Halil Mutlu

62 kg

 * Hurşit Atak
 * Erol Bilgin
 * Bünyamin Sezer

69 kg

 * Mete Binay
 * Daniyar Ismayilov

77 kg

 * Reyhan Arabacıoğlu
 * Taner Sağır
 * Semih Yağcı

85 kg

 * İzzet İnce

94 kg

 * Hakan Yılmaz

105 kg

 * Bünyamin Sudaş

60 kg

 * Cemal Erçman
 * Naim Süleymanoğlu

title: List of Turkish weightlifters