text:
Talk:Women for Israel's Tomorrow

On use of the phrase "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories"
I thought we should transfer our discussion to Talk rather then conducting it via means of invisible comments within the article. The last exchange was:

 * Returned "Palestinian territories" and "Israeli-occupied" making political hay is trying to obscure what is overwhelmingly classified in the world as an occupation; we must not make assumptions about what readers "must know" when it comes to such an important distinction which was my comment (AladdinSE).

to which Jayjg replied:

 * As opposed to the Bulgarian-occupied Mongolian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? They may generally be considered occupied, but the question is, what does the phrase add to this article? Is it some sort of disambiguation? Clearly not, since it only serves to make political claims, and actually makes identifying the exact territories discussed more difficult.

You can make light of it, but for countless readers, the territories might as well be the Bulgarian-occupied Mongolian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all they know. There is just no justification for deleting this phrase, especially since we are describing the notion of Population transfer, which requires the context explanation that this is quite feasible because Israel conducts a military occupation of those territories. --AladdinSE 09:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * As I've said before, these are some of the most famous territories in the world, and their status is well-known. Anyone who comes to the obscure Wikipeida article on "Women for Israel's Tomorrow" will without doubt know exactly what we are talking about.  As for the discussion of the notion of population transfer, again, the reader is not going to assume that Israel was planning to fly its troops to some far-off land and then try to transfer Arabs out of that land; rather, the reader knows that it involves transfer out of lands controlled by Israel.  In an article that is discussing the legal status of the territories, of course a discussion of occupation is entirely relevant.  The name of the territory isn't "Occupied West Bank", it is simply "West Bank"; plopping in the words "Occupied" before every mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is, depending on your viewpoint, either a waste of words or an attempt to enforce a political viewpoint.  Even worse, it adds confusion; by "Occupied West Bank" are you distinguishing this from the "Unoccupied West Bank" (e.g. Jericho, and other areas controlled by the P.A.)?  But surely those advocating "population transfer" intend it to be from P.A. controlled areas as well.  The use of the words "Palestinian territories" causes the exact same problem; they also do not add any information in terms of defining exactly which territories are meant, but merely serve to re-inforce the claim of one side in a political debate whose outcome is not yet clear. Wikipedia should not be taking sides in political conflicts, but should be attempting to provide clarity and concision to the reader.  Your version is a political statement that is both less clear and less concise. Jayjg (talk)  15:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * How about "Israeli-held West Bank and Gaza Strip" or "Israeli-controlled ..." or something of the sort? I don't think the PA-controlled territories make a lot of difference. The PA is far from being sovereign, their territory is relatively small, and it is often encroached by the IDF, so I can't imagine anyone wondering whether this includes or excludes PA territory (and the same can be said for East Jerusalem, which may or may not fall under "Israel", the former no man's land, Shebaa Farms, and all the other pieces of land that don't need special attention). I think the phrases I suggest above are concise, factual and informative - while many people around the world have heard of the Israeli-Arab conflict, you'd be surprised how few actually know what is the status of each territory involved. Even among Israelis there's much ignorance regarding the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I find it quite conceivable that someone that doesn't know exactly who controls the West Bank may stumble across an innocent-looking group called Women for Israel's Tomorrow and want to know more.--Doron 10:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The PA territories will soon include the entire Gaza Strip, which is significant. I still think it's completely unnecessary, but in the interestes of compromise either one is fine with me; both handle AladdinSE's concerns without falling afoul of the obvious issues with his wording. Jayjg (talk)  16:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That Israel occupies these various territories is a fact so overwhelmingly, so internationally recognized, that these "held" and "controlled" compromises are simply unacceptable because they are a pro-Israeli POV that attempt to "euphemize" facts. Now you know I can I can provide a plethora of sources for this classification if you insist on removing it. The only country in the world which tries to de-emphasize or redefine the occupation, is the occupier. The notion that the status is of the territories is so well known that no elaboration is necessary has been well rebutted by myself and Doron. Finally, there are no "PA-controlled areas." The entire West Bank and Gaza strip are under the control of Israel. Partial civilian administration, withdrawn and returned at the whim of the Israeli government, is not control. It's not like the PA is a rebel movement which has military and civil control over swaths of territory, like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or the FARC rebels in Colombia. The designation of "occupied" is both factual and crucial in the con text of Population transfer. Now, the only compromise I can think of which does not try to obscure what is internationally classified as an occupation, is to insert a caveat that Israel objects to that term, which is similar to the consensus worked out in the Golan Heights article. If you can insert it gracefully into the concerned paragraph, I will not object to it. --AladdinSE 00:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Aladdin, I think the West Bank and Gaza Strip should stand alone without the big-long preceding adjective describing its status. It's the most common and neutral way to describe it.  Even the Arab news media refers to it simply as "Gaza Strip" or "West Bank".  Here are some random examples  -- M P er el ( talk 01:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * The additional phrase is an off-topic editorial, as in the other articles. In an article which actually discusses the status of the territories it would be appropriate; here, it is irrelevant.  What's more, common usage militates against it. Jayjg (talk)  03:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MPerel: "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories" is hardly big-long. I don't know if you watch much Arab news on TV, but I do whenever I can, and unless my Arabic is very off, I can't recall one instance where their journalists didn't end their reports with "Occupied Jerusalem" or "Occupied Ramallah" etc etc at the end. Even one of the sources you cited specifically uses the wording "The Palestinian cabinet has declared a state of emergency in the Palestinian territories as a massive offensive by Israeli occupation forces continues to claim tens of lives in the Gaza Strip." . The last source you cited says: "Also on Saturday, Israeli occupation forces fired tear gas and rubber bullets ..." Here are some more random sources from around the world: Al-jazeera.net Al Ahram China Daily TIME Kirkby Times News orb6 BBC CNN UN ABC News Online CBS MSNBC Reuters PBS Amnesty International Sydney Morning Herald The New Zealand Herald Human Rights Watch NPR Encyclopaedia Britannica which clearly and routinely use the occupied label. This edit is not an off-topic editorial, rather it is an essential designation which is internationally recognized as neutral fact whose omission would be illogical in the context of explaining Population transfer, where military occupation of the areas to be depopulated is central. Seriously now, around the world, what termionology is considered more common and neutral? --AladdinSE 14:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably the best solution in these cases where there is conflicting POV about what constitutes neutral language is to directly quote the source. Is there a direct quote on the population transfer issue you can use that describes the WiG view? -- M P er el ( talk 16:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Good idea. The material is commented out, pending direct quotations. Jayjg (talk)  16:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I provided the source clearly in the form of the WiG article "Transfer of Arabs Is The Only Sound Solution For Peace!" dated September 30, 2003, it appears in the next paragraph (the paragraph was broken up by another editor). It's in their "what we say" section of their website. In it they say:

 * Most Arabs came into the Holy Land from surrounding Arab lands within the last 100 years. Transfer could be made to Jordan where the majority of the population is made up of so-called Palestinian Arabs. Or they can be sent back to many of the Arab lands from which these Arabs originally emigrated to Israel. Fair payment can be made to those Arabs who agree to leave the Holy Land.  Arabs who wish to remain, can do so, provided they agree to be a citizen of a Jewish State.

There's more of course. They are extreme right-wing activists, they claim all of the occupied territories as part of the Land of Israel, naturally they do not use the word "occupied." I have provided a plethora of sources showing clearly the overwhelming international view that these territories are viewed and labeled as occupied. The article is pretty rambling, if you want to condense a quotation about the Transfer issue, go ahead. I don't think it's needed, after all when we write encyclopedia articles we don't quote for every single fact. However if it helps resolve this issue about the occupied description, I won't object to its inclusion as long as it is not overlong. I have removed the invisible comment markers in the interim. --AladdinSE 21:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. It's one editorial out of hundreds on the site, so its interesting you would focus on that specific one.  Anyway, since you wanted to draw attention to it, I've accurately represented its content and import, mostly by quoting it directly.  A number of things are unclear in that editorial, and I don't think your assumptions about their meanings are accurate; regardless it's best not to guess. Jayjg (talk)  03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister about "focusing" on that one editorial. It deals with a a central policy goal of WiG. If you think other important policy aims discussed in other WiG sdources have been overlooked, by all means point them out for us. I've reverted to the descriptive narrative, because the article, as I mentioned earlier, is too rambling to quote gracefully. Nevertheless I kept the reference to the "fair payment" info, which is important and was overlooked until you mentioned it. --AladdinSE 04:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think that's a "central policy goal of WiG" you'll have to provide some reference explaining why that is so. As for the quotations, since your parphrases were not an accurate representation of WiG's goals, their own words must be used insteadin accordance with the WP:NPOV policy.  And if you're looking to remove rambling stuff, you could start with that rambling essay you added at the end of the Israeli settlements article. Jayjg (talk)  20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, the current version, using WiG's own words to describe their views is more fair and representative than a straw man paraphrase of their views from their opponent's perspective. -- M P er el ( talk 21:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Simple question
A simple, perhaps silly, question: why is the word "custom" within quote marks? (As in, ...due to its followers' "custom" of wearing green hats, as a deliberate contrast to ...) --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Characterization of Editorials contained in the WiG official website
Jayjg and I have been engaged in a disagreement over the characterization of editorials contained in the WiG official website, specifically dealing with the issue of a proposed WiG policy of an involountary "Population Transfer" of the Arabs living in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories to neighboring Arab states. I am of the opinion that the views detailed in any policy article on the group's official website is a totally legitimate source for describing the group's views and policies in a straight forward and undisguised manner. I am concerned that the narrative portrayal, favored by Jayjg (see difference in our versions ), that this particular policy of "Population Transfer" is not an official policy at all but merely an idea proposed by one author in an isolated editorial, is a white-wash of what is generally viewed a very unpopular and extreme idea around the world, akin to ethnic cleansing. This is a policy the WiG have been notorious for for some time, and is one of the main reasons they are classified in the far right of the Israeli political spectrum. All the editorials and articles contained in the official WiG website are listed under the WHAT WE SAY heading, a clear indication that this is a collection of their POLICY PAPERS. Accusations that citing them as actual policy is original research, is utterly groundless. If anyone can introduce any other verifiable official WiG source that contradicts this stated Population Transfer policy, then I would be very happy to reevaluate my position on the nature of these policy papers, essays, and editorials listed on the website. All interested parties please contribute to the discussion. --AladdinSE 02:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * At the very least, this editorial shows that the group is not adverse to the idea. The fact that it is not countered by an opposite editorial is sufficient proof that it is official policy or close enough to policy to be described as that if the link is given.  --Zero 04:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between being "not adverse" to an idea, and it being an official policy. In addition, as pointed out months ago (above), AladdinSE's original paraphrases of the views presented in the article were negatively slanted; at least he has finally conceded that quoting them instead is far more neutral. Also, the version which has been in for months is completely factually accurate; AladdinSE's version makes assumptions. Finally, as AladdinSE points out, the group has dozens of position papers; singling this particular idea out for prominence in the article smacks of POV pushing. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * My two cents. I think there's a lot of presumption in AladdinSE's wording.  For example, it may very well be true that WiG customarily wears green hats "as a deliberate contrast" to the Women in Black; however, we don't really know, do we?  We can only presume it unless WiG explicitly states they deliberately do it for this reason.  And presuming a group's motives (especially ones we disagree with and feel compelled to paint negatively) is not very encyclopedic.

 * As far as attributing one individual's editorial as speaking for the entire group, well this is more complicated in this case I think. The editorials are listed under the website's main tag, "What We Say", and there doesn't seem to be any disclaimer that the editorial views given are not necessarily the views of the organization.  However, does one person's editorial realistically represent the views of the whole group?  I think it would be more accurate to say, "A member of WiG" or "Some members of WiG" and not "WiG" since these views are not stated explicitly as WiG policy.  Perhaps Jayjg's version distances the view too far from belonging to WiG, but AladdinSE's version attributes it too officially to WiG.  I think something inbetween might portray a more realistic representation of the group's views.  Also, is this view even a prominent one typically held by WiG members? -- M P er el ( talk 22:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Another suggestion, couch it this way: "One of the more controversial views held by at least some members of WiG is ... as expressed in an editorial on the official website." -- M P er el ( talk 22:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not concede that my narratives were negatively slanted. WiG is extremely hawkish, and they need little help from me in that regard. What you see as a negative slant is simply the unpopular truth from an extremely right-wing organization. Notice that I did not insert loaded adjectives like "outrageous," "racist," or even "hawkish" to describe their population transfer views. I simply described what they themselves propose is the "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is their official policy, and as mentioned by MPerel, there is no disclaimer in any article or in the "What We Say" section of the website that indicates these position papers and essays are mere independent editorials coincidentally contributed by WiG members. I never saw so clear a presentation of a group's official policies and views. What's more, if this "Population Transfer" were really just an editorial that one would hesitate to attribute to the organization as a whole, then we ought to find contradictory statements from the same source. And the challenge remains unanswered, show us one official WiG citation that contradicts this published "Transfer" policy and I will concede the inconclusive nature of the published articles, and accept the compromise suggested by MPerel. Also, the suggestion that "singling this particular idea out for prominence in the article smacks of POV pushing" is simply not true. Of course this policy article is given prominence, it encapsulates, in a nutshell, WiG's "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! Do you propose it be given equal verbiage with every other idea proposed in their "What We Say" section? This is an encyclopedia, naturally the most central views, points, and controversies (such as the Judenrat letter incident) will be summarized. This is not to say that no further policies or information will be included; we are all free to add to it based on our research and citations.

As regards the matter of the color of the hats, this contribution was not mine, but I kept it because it it's an important piece of information about the origins of the group, that they formed partly as a reaction to a left wing organization espousing opposite views. The term "deliberate contrast" is not in the least pejorative, but if anyone finds it so, I see no harm in changing it as long as the Women in Black link is mentioned. --AladdinSE 18:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * You're now using the argument "if they don't deny it, it's an official policy"? That is particularly weak, and reverses the buirden of proof. You say it is a policy, so prove it.  If this is an important policy of theirs, surely you'll find other material backing it up, statements from their leaders etc. As for it being prominent because it encapsulates the WiG "solution", more assumptions and original research.  Again, if it's true, you should surely find some supporting material with ease; some editorial about them, article describing them, article by them, etc? Jayjg (talk)  19:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[it]

This version of the editorial reveals the authors are the cochairwomen of WiG. Let's attribute the views directly to them. Also note Matar's comment in the last line of this article. -- M P er el ( talk 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent work, MPerel. See, a little work turns original research into proper research. Thanks! Jayjg (talk)  19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that's satisfactory to everyone. Also to AladdinSE, the change you made to the hat wording is better, thanks. -- M P er el ( talk 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to add my warm approbation. I found Jayjg's version to be a disconcerting whitewash that ascribed this central, widely known WiG theme to some anonymous causal editorial writer with no authority to speak for the organization. This method of quotation clearly establishes authority and substance and mentions the authorship of the co-chairs. Great research, MPerel. Jayjg, I really wish you'd stop beating this OR dead horse, especially in light of the fact that you leave so much self-defined OR in place among dozens of articles you routinely edit. In this case, you have not put forward one remotely valid argument that classifies the previous wording as OR. In fact, if we were to apply your reasoning, MPerell's wording would be just as unacceptable, as it relies on the same September 20003 article. It is a published official WiG article, and always has been. In fact on the website is it organized under "Media Releases - September 2003." There is no essential difference between saying WiG believes so-and-so based on an article published on their website, and saying The Co-Chairs argue so-and-so in a an article published on their website. The Co-chairs lead the organization in an official capacity and are empowered to speak on it's behalf. They released the statement as an official Media Release. They made no disclaimer that they were not speaking on behalf of the organization, and in fact as MPerel proved, signed their names in their official capacity. I prefer the co-chair wording myself, as it leaves no room for misinterpretation. I have only one change I plan to make, as "articulate" sounds slanted in their favor, as if they made their point well. I'm changing it to "argue". I think "Claim" is too much in the opposite direction. Anyway, great work all round.--AladdinSE 07:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yay... I like when things get resolved.  You two shouldn't be so hard on each other, you each keep the other on his toes, which makes for a better article in the end.  Nice work to all.  And I agree "argue" is better than "articulate". -- M P er el ( talk 07:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Women in Green"
Is there a way to have that phrase disambiguate to this page? I had no idea what the "actual name" of the group was/is, so I typed in "women in green", and Wikipedia said there was no such page.FlaviaR 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel template
Is the State of Israel infobox really necessary in this article? -- Nudve (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Matar family's move into Gaza being labeled illegal
For goodness' sakes, The article says "The government has called them infiltrators for illegally making their way into Gush Katif, the main cluster of 15 settlements." It also says "The members of the Matar family have moved into a house in the Shirat Hayam settlement along the beach to show their opposition to the Gaza withdrawal and are encouraging others to do so as well." Shirat Hayam is in the Gush Katif cluster. Case closed.--AladdinSE (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say the Matar family has illegally moved there, and for good reason. At best you're gilding the lily, at worst violating WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's even worse than I thought. I've looked carefully through the source used for the following, and have found nothing in it about Women for Israel's Tomorrow:
 * "Sometime in the summer of 2005, members of the Matar family moved into a house in the coastal Shirat Hayam settlement in Gaza, a closed military zone, to show their opposition to the withdrawal and encouraged others to do the same. 'We are here because after this it could be the whole of Yesha and we are here to stop it at the source,' said Yehuda Matar, the 16-year-old son of Nadia Matar, using an acronym that refers to all West Bank and Gaza Strip."
 * Perhaps I've missed something, but the topic of this article is Women for Israel's Tomorrow. Where does that article mention Women for Israel's Tomorrow? Please review WP:NOR again! Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You really, really must get the better of your habit of relentlessly urging the re-reading of WP policy pages. For the last time (I can only hope), just because another editor disagrees with you regarding the interpretation of policy, does not mean they have not read the policy. It is condescending in the extreme for you to continually ask me to read this or that policy again and again. A simple statement that you think said policy is being contravened would suffice. Now, an illustration of the right-wing speech and activism of the co-chairs of the organization, for which the organization itself is known, is highly relevant here. The article specifically says, "Nadia Matar, a longtime right-wing activist in Israel". Would you remove all mention of Walt Disney from an article about Disneyland? As for the original issue, the Matars move into Gaza being illegal, you are just wrong, and what you cite as policy violations do not apply. I cannot put it more plainly then I did in the edit summary: Mr A has entered Place B. Place B is part of Place C. Entering Place C is illegal, ergo Mr C's entry is illegal. Your assertion that the article does not support the material is just flabbergasting. --AladdinSE (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about Women for Israel's Tomorrow. The article you are citing makes no mention of it. Please ensure, per WP:NOR, that all material you insert directly refers to the topic of this article. The other material may be appropriate for the Matar article. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Right wing activities of the co-chair of this organization for which the organization is famous is relevant. --AladdinSE (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom, AladdinSE? Rather than your using your own original research to decide this, why don't you leave it up to reliable sources to make that determination? Use only sources that discuss Women for Israel's Tomorrow. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For OR to apply, I have to be putting forth suppositions, conclusions, information and other such material of my own, not supported by a verifiable and reliable source. What you are arguing here is relevancy, and as to that, I stand upon what I said above.--AladdinSE (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR
 * "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article"
 * This article is about Women for Israel's Tomorrow, not where the Matar family moved in 2005. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is absurd. We are not talking about a vacation move here, it was a political protest exactly in keeping with the organization's positions. This is information directly related to the topic. --AladdinSE (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "it was a political protest exactly in keeping with the organization's positions. This is information directly related to the topic." Odd, then, that the news story chose not to mention Women for Israel's Tomorrow, the topic of this article. Did they do so as representatives of the group? Do you have any evidence for such a contention? Please do not return this material until you find reliable sources directly connecting the material to Women for Israel's Tomorrow. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I made no statements as to any such contention. The relevancy is as described above.--AladdinSE (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I also added a reference in which WiG is specifically involved.--AladdinSE (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What, you're now saying Arutz Sheva is a reliable source? Now I've seen everything. Anyway, we'll go with the source that directly references Women in Green. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, I wonder that you did not remove the reference. As for my reasoning, I judged the Israel National News to be a reliable source because members of WiG themselves were editorializing and publishing information there as to their activities, and it was their own words, added by themselves to that site, being used as the actual source, not the reporting or commentaries of anyone else. Was I wrong? I also returned the NYT article a s a reference because it mentions that the area was a closed military zone and civilian infiltrations are illegal. The quotation of Yehuda Matar is also relevant.--AladdinSE (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the NYT article still doesn't mention Women for Israel's Tomorrow, which is the topic of this article. So, natch, I'm removing it as original research. Please find sources that discuss the topic of this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Women for Israel's Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TheTruthAboutIsrael/conversations/topics/12681 to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4186.htm

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Advert tag
Much of the article is pure promotion. Unattributed text like "unified in their love for, dedication and faithfulness to the Land of Israel" doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Zerotalk 12:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That text is a direct copy from the citation note for that sentence. I have put it in quotes and reworded to make it clear that this is the group's self-description. Asa Zernik (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Women for Israel's Tomorrow. 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/20090605163739/http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4186.htm to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4186.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605163739/http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4186.htm to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4186.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Women for Israel's Tomorrow


text: Category:Prefecture-level divisions of Jiangsu

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


text: User talk:203.199.182.55

title: User talk:203.199.182.55


text:
Boundary Bay

Boundary Bay is a shallow bay situated on the Pacific coast of North America on the Canada–United States border between the Canadian province of British Columbia and the U.S. state of Washington.

Geography
Boundary Bay is bounded to the east by the city of Blaine in Washington and the cities White Rock and Surrey in British Columbia. It is also bounded to the east by the reserves of the Semiahmoo First Nation in British Columbia. To the north, it is bounded by the City of Delta. To the west, it is bounded by the Tsawwassen Peninsula, which contains the communities of Tsawwassen (a suburb of Delta) and Point Roberts, Washington (a pene-exclave of the United States). To the south, it is bounded by the Strait of Georgia, the northern arm of the larger Salish Sea.

The eastern section of Boundary Bay straddling the US/Canada border and adjacent to the cities of White Rock and Blaine is known as Semiahmoo Bay; Blaine's Drayton Harbor opens into it. The northern tip of Boundary Bay is known as Mud Bay.

Inflows
The main rivers flowing into the bay are the Nicomekl and Serpentine Rivers falling into Mud Bay, the Campbell River falling into Semiahmoo Bay, and California Creek and Dakota Creek falling into Drayton Harbor.

Ecology
It is an important stop for birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway, particularly for western sandpiper and dunlin, and has been designated a Hemisphere Reserve by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network and a Canadian Important Bird Area. The mudflats, extensive eel grass beds and salt marshes support a rich population of marine invertebrates which are an important source of energy for migrating shorebirds. During migration times the bird count in the bay may exceed 100,000. Pollution and industrial activity in the area pose potential threats to wildlife.

Conservation
On June 21, 1995, the entire Canadian portion of Boundary Bay was protected within the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area.

Activities
The area is also used for recreational boating and includes park area and beaches. The Boundary Bay Airport, on its north flank, is used by small aircraft and has been the setting for various film shoots.

title: Boundary Bay


text:
Gmod

Gmod or GMOD may refer to:

 * Generic Model Organism Database (GMOD), a software project for model organism databases
 * .GMOD, file extension for Golgotha 3D models; See List of filename extensions (F–L)
 * Gamma-ray MODule (GMOD), an instrument on the satellite EIRSAT-1
 * G-module (G-Mod), in mathematics
 * Garry's Mod (GMod), a sandbox game based on a modification of the first-person shooter video game Half-Life 2

title: Gmod


text:
John de Mol Jr.

Johannes Hendrikus Hubert "John" de Mol Jr. is a Dutch media tycoon. De Mol is one of the men behind production companies Endemol and Talpa. He created the reality television formats Big Brother, Star Academy and The Voice, and the game shows Fear Factor and Deal or No Deal.

Forbes estimated him to be worth about US$1.8 billion in 2023.

Endemol
De Mol acquired his fortune producing television programmes. From 1997 to 1999 he developed the popular reality television series Big Brother with his production company, John de Mol Produkties. In 1994 his company merged with Joop van den Ende TV-Producties into Endemol, but it still functioned on its own. He produced Fear Factor, Love Letters, 1 vs. 100 and Deal or No Deal (Miljoenenjacht) for Endemol. De Mol sold his share of Endemol in 2000 to Telefónica but continued to serve as creative director until 2004. In 2005, he was listed on the Forbes Magazine list of the 500 richest people in the world.

Utopia
In January 2014 Endemol launched a new reality TV program called Utopia, featuring 15 people given the aim of building up a new community living on a rural property.

Talpa Media Holding
De Mol founded his own television station. The proposed name, Tien (Dutch for 10), was disputed by competitor SBS Broadcasting, owner of the TV10 brand. The channel had to launch under the Talpa brand, Latin for mole which translates to mol in Dutch. Later the name dispute was ended, which resulted in the rebranding of Talpa to Tien.

The station scored bad ratings, despite scooping the rights of the Eredivisie football league. In 2007 De Mol decided to close down Tien and sold the channel to RTL Nederland, retaining a share in that company. De Mol also sold Radio 538 to RTL Nederland, which he acquired in 2005. Talpa remained the name of the holding company managing De Mol's assets and the production company which continued to produce several programmes for the RTL network, including the highly successful Ik Hou van Holland.

Buying SBS
In 2011 Talpa worked together with Finnish media conglomerate Sanoma to buy the Dutch activities of SBS Broadcasting from German broadcaster ProSiebenSat.1 Media. As part of that deal, De Mol sold his shares in RTL Nederland to the RTL Group, retaining the ownership of Radio 538 and its sister stations Radio 10 Gold and SLAM!FM.

The Voice
In 2010, a new reality competition series, The Voice of Holland, was launched by De Mol. It was a large success in the Netherlands and the formula was sold to several other countries around the globe. The Voice (of America) launched on NBC on 27 April 2011 with De Mol and Mark Burnett as executive producers. In The Voice, the singing auditions are 'blind': the jury is turned with their back to the competitors. Once having 'selected' by pushing a button, the juror turns towards the competitor. This concept, the creation of De Mol and Dutch singer Roel van Velzen, makes it "all about the voice." After these blind auditions, the coaches train their competitors through knock-out battles and public voting rounds until there is one competitor left, who will be named as 'The Voice'.

Personal life

De Mol was formerly married to singer and actress Willeke Alberti. The actor Johnny de Mol is their son. From 1980 to 1984, Luv' singer Marga Scheide was his partner. Outside of television, De Mol controls a large private equity fund which, at one time, owned significant shares of car manufacturer Spyker Cars and telecommunications company Versatel. John's sister, broadcaster and actress Linda de Mol, presents or appears in, some of Endemol's programmes, including the original Dutch version of Deal or No Deal, Miljoenenjacht (Hunt for Millions).

title: John de Mol Jr.


text:
Talk:Polygonia c-album

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catejiang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"and by 1920 there were only two sightings"
Seems a little ambiguous...I presume it means in 1920 there were only two sightings?
 * I've gone ahead and removed this meaningless statement, seeing as it's been on this page for eight years and noö ne 's figured out what it means. — TORTOISE  WRATH  03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Polygonia c-album qtl2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Polygonia c-album qtl2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"[A]dults are of two forms"
"The form that overwinters before reproducing" and "The form that develops directly to sexual maturity". This really does not make sense. I suppose that developing "directly to sexual maturity" does not mean that the butterfly adult hatches from the egg without a larval stage, but rather that this form lays eggs in the fall and spends the winter in in egg or larval form, but the life history needs to be explained better. 72.177.123.145 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Eric

c-hyphen-album
The unusual hyphen in the specific name c-album is worth a brief remark. How does it come about?--Wetman (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hutchinsoni variation seen in Pembrokeshire
I have seen (and photographed) this butterfly in Pembrokeshire last year and today, but I don't want to edit the Welsh distribution in the article without formal evidence, so just noting here for reference.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  11:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing
Hi, I am currently editing the P. c-album page for my Behavioral Ecology class. I have added several sections including Taxonomy and phylogeny, Food resources, Parental care, Life history, Protective coloration and behavior, Mating, Physiology, and Interaction with humans. Catejiang (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral ecology peer editing
In the parent-offspring conflict section, it should be made clearer that you are talking about your butterfly specifically. I added some clarifying language to that section in the article. In addition, I think the female mate choice and nuptial gifts sections can be merged into one. I went ahead and merged the two sections on the page, because they are so closely related and it is easier to see nuptial gifts as a factor for female mate choice, since it is mentioned under that header anyway. Other than these brief suggestions, this article was very exhaustive and thorough! Good job! S.srivatsa

Peer edit
Overall the article looks really good! Lots of info in accessible language. I made a few minor edits to wording and added some small descriptions of some terms I thought were unclear. Mllutz (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Mllutz

This article is very well written and well researched! I think a lot of the sections had really good information in them and were quite thorough. I mostly changed grammar and syntax and added some internal Wiki links. I also fleshed out some concepts briefly that were slightly confusing or unclear. One question I was left wondering in the habitat section was why is this habitat so conducive to the inhabitance by this butterfly? Otherwise, well done! ClaudiaEE (talk) 04:09, 01 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Polygonia c-album


text:
AEC Armoured Car

AEC Armoured Car is the name of a series of British heavy armoured cars built by the Associated Equipment Company (AEC) during the Second World War.

The AEC came about following British experience in the Western Desert against Italian armoured cars. British armoured cars were only armed with light and heavy machine guns and the army was fitting captured Italian and German 20mm or larger autocannon to have enough firepower when meeting enemy reconnaissance vehicles.

The Daimler Armoured Car was under development with a 40mm 2-pounder gun as used on British tanks but no armoured cars were envisaged with the armour as well as the armament of a tank. AEC undertook development privately of a vehicle based on one of the lorry designs (an artillery tractor) that would have armour equivalent to a contemporary cruiser tank.

Design and development
AEC of Southall, England was a manufacturer of truck and bus chassis and its Matador artillery tractor was used for towing medium field and heavy anti-aircraft guns. The armoured car based on the Matador artillery chassis was developed initially as a private venture and a mock-up was shown to officials in 1941 at Horse Guards Parade in London, where it made a favourable impression on Winston Churchill and following an initial contract for 120, 629 vehicles were produced from 1942–1943.

AEC tried to build an armoured car with fire power and protection comparable to those of contemporary British cruiser tanks. The first version used the turret of a Valentine Mk II infantry tank complete with the 2 pounder gun. Subsequent versions received a 6 pounder or a 75 mm gun in a custom-built turret. The vehicle also carried a single Besa machine gun, a 2-inch (51 mm) bomb thrower (smoke grenade discharger) and a No. 19 radio set. Mark I vehicles had a Bren light machine gun for defence against aircraft, later vehicles received a "PLM" mounting one or two Vickers K machine guns. The turret was electrically driven with a manual traverse option.

The driver was provided with two periscopes for vision when closed up; otherwise he could raise his seat to see over the glacis.

The engine was mounted at a downwards angle reducing the angle on the transfer shafts and height over the rear hull deck. In normal on road use only the front wheels were driven.

Service history
The Mk I was first used in combat in the North African Campaign late in 1942, where a few vehicles were reportedly fitted with a Crusader tank turret mounting a 6 pounder gun. The Mk II and Mk III took part in the fighting in Europe with British and British Indian Army units, often together with the American-supplied Staghound armoured car.

The AEC armoured car with 75mm gun replaced US half-track 75 mm self-propelled guns in the four fighting squadrons of some armoured car regiments.

The vehicle remained in service after the end of the war until replaced by the Alvis Saladin. The Lebanese Army used the car at least until 1976. Additionally for Lebanon, from 1956 some AEC turrets were added to Staghound armoured cars.

Variants

 * Mk I
 * original version with turret from a Valentine tank, 129 built. Some in Middle East had 6-pounder gun fitted

 * Mk II
 * larger turret for three man crew with a 6 pounder gun, redesigned front hull, 158 hp diesel engine.

 * Mk III
 * "Close Support Armoured Car", a Mk II with 6 pounder replaced by the QF 75 mm gun which had the same mountings.

 * AA prototype
 * Turret similar to Crusader AA tank turret with twin Oerlikon 20 mm cannon capable of high elevation to engage enemy aircraft. Prototype built in 1944 but did not enter production due to Allied air superiority in Northern Europe.

title: AEC Armoured Car


text:
Talk:John de Mol Jr.

Controversy
Should there be a remark on Controversy after the recent Boos documentary? 2A02:A210:527:9800:49C2:D543:25AF:A006 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Rafael Leriano TV
@rafaellerianotv_oficial 177.69.3.154 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:John de Mol Jr.


text:
Talk:Orders of magnitude (speed)

Human sprinter speed on table
Your listed speed for the maximum a human sprinter would go (11.80 m/s) corresponds to running an ~8.47s 100m race, this is more than a second faster than the world record (Set today, btw at 9.72 5/30/08) Do you mean that the racers "peak" at this speed during the race? or do you mean that this is supposed to be the fastest humans can run 100m? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.223.81.19 (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly false: "90 Speed of a Horse." Yann

 * As a peak speed, I don't think it's that far off: this page claims that the fastest runners can maintain an avererage speed of 72km/h over a mile, with standing start. AxelBoldt 19:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that the distance a snail could cover in an hour is closer to 20 cm than 2 cm so I think you're out by at least an order of magnitude, but probably more. Other web resources put the speed of a garden snail at around 0.0085 kph, which would mean they could cover about 8.5 m in an hour.

 * I fixed that using this as a source. --Vedranf 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the following is wrong (or at least misleading): 70,220	252,792	Speed of the Helios 2 solar probe - Fastest man-made object. I have the 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records and it states that the fastest man-made 'solid visible object' was a plastic disc shot in 1980 by US naval research laboratory in Washington which reached a velocity of 150 km/s. It's not self-propelling, but it sure is faster than 70 km/s. - G3, 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't a 1224 km/h speed of sound correspond to 340 m/s, not the 295 listed in the table?128.42.167.229 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about miles/hr equivalents?
What do people think about adding a column with MPH equivalents? Lots of other articles have all the figures in both metric and imperial units, so it seems particularly relavent to an article where the sole purpose is to provide comparisons. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree 100% I have absolutely no idea how fast 130 km/h is, and I'd be willing to bet that a large protion of users viewing this page don't either. Johaen 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.249.34 (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Too many people to ignore, much as we wish we could. The juvenility of the ostrich approach may be illustrated by the following:
 * –OMG, a rabid dog! RUN!
 * –Who cares? Dogs are stupid anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

m·s−1 and km·h−1
I suggest changing the representation of the units to m/s and km/h instead of using −1 for the time. This is an equally precise, and I think more natural, representation. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I entirely agree, it took me a several minutes to work out that m·s−1 is the same as m/s. It wouldn't take away anything from the accuracy of the table to have m/s and km/h, and it would be Much easier to understand.--Hibernian 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypervelocity
Would it be appropriate to link to Hypervelocity from one of the entries? Somewhere around StarDust? Shenme 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

snail
I noticed this: 0.0468 (m/s) 	0.013 (km/h)	Speed of a Garden snail [1].

Now the conversion is obviously wrong; it looks backwards. I don't know which is correct, but perhaps somebody who knows could edit it? Alex Klotz 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Speed of garden snail now uses correct ratio of m/s to hm/h. Also, reference for speed is given. Az7997 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The snail article gives 1mm/s (with a reference), not 1cm/s as here. Anyone explain this? Robinh (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a dubious tag to the claim that a garden snail's speed is 0.013 metres per second. That is 1.3 centimetres per second. Or one metre in just over a minute. Such an extraordinary claim needs better sourcing than hypertextbook's quoting of an almanac. I added this text to the reason field: "speed five times faster than the world record accepted by Guinness? hypertextbook is an aggregator of other sources, and the one used here may not be reliable or be quoting a simple typo; wikipedia needs better than this; also context needed as to duration of this speed" -84user (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Combine tables
It seems a bit daft to me to have a m/s + km/h table, a m/s table, a mph table, then a km/h table, many sharing information. I'll combine these the next time I have a spare moment if there is no discord. Atropos235 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully support this. As the parent message 4+ years ago, would anyone object? cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 23:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The speed of light is mistakenly expressed
The speed of light is 299,792,458 (m/s) and not 299,792.458 (m/s). It's about 300 000 km/s and not 300 km/s. Other values are wrong as someone used again a "." where there should be a ",". Guelao 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or...
does this not make sense.

200,000,000 	720,000,000 	Speed of a signal in a cable.

2,000 	       7,200 	        Estimated speed of a thermal neutron

200,000 	700,000 	Orbital speed of the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy.

My suggestion is "Orbital speed of the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy." in km/h to be changed to 720,000

Anything faster than light?
(Special?) Relativity only states that no INFORMATION may travel faster than light. It is I think possible for, e.g, the distance between two objects, for example our own galaxy and a sufficiently distant one, to be increasing at a rate faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of the universe. This means that light emitted 'now' from the distant galaxy can never reach us. I think. It's been a while since I studied relativity. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Relativity states no such thing.

Technically what relativity states is that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light. And thus it's OK to say its impossible for something to "get to" the speed of light. But if you're already there then relativity says that thats OK. Some would argue that the symmetry in the equations would mean that things would just get faster accelerating and accelerating past c. But this is ust one model. But the point remains: Relativity does not specifically state that no INFORMATION (even though in Einstein's equation "m" is for mass not information - at least for special relativity) may travel faster than light.

Source: Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality which is written by John Gribbin 81.105.252.20 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fastest submarine?
Shouldn't it be there as an example? There is one that can reach 'bout 41 knots, dunno know if any other submarine is fasterUndead Herle King (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

X-43 incorrectly listed
The speed of the X-43 quoted in the entry:

7,111	25,599.6	Speed of the X-43 rocket/scramjet plane.

...is wrong. Correct speed given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.138.57 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hair growth
According to the table, the average speed of the (human?) hair growth is 1.7×10-8 m/s, but that means, from Google Calculator (http://www.google.ro/search?q=1.7*10^-8%20m/s%20in%20cm/year), about 53.6467742 cm/year, which is near impossible (or it is the maximum growth, or it is for an animal, or it is wrong), because at the article Human hair growth, it says: 'The rate or speed of hair growth is about 1.25 centimeters or 0.5 inches per month, or about 15 centimeters or 6 inches per year.' So, please resolve the problem! Or it is true? 78.97.152.14 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to check out the talk page but forgot about it ... I've already fixed that and added a caveat since it varies so much. Actually, it would probably be more honest to write something like in the case of continental drift: 1 to 1 m/s (etc.), as this seems to cover the typical range of growth rates found in the population. That doesn't mean that considerably more slowly or quickly growing hair doesn't exist; judging from what I've heard personal acquaintances report, I have reason to suspect it does very definitely – but those cases are most likely rare. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Column for speed relative to c, the speed of light
I think it would be nice to see a column showing the speed relative to the speed of light, since it is the natural maximum speed limit of the universe.

It would look something like this for an item:

Factor	| Value (m/s)	| Value (km/h)	| Value (mph)	| Value (c)	| Item

10^4 	| 29,800	| 107,280	| 66,700	| 9.9402X10^-5	| Speed of the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
 * Do you have any rationale for its usefulness? I think it might be only for items a significant fraction (1+%?) of the speed of light — otherwise, very small numbers e.g. 1 just take up space. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Beta Particles in Water?
I don't know if it is true or not. It is said that Beta particles can exceed c (Speed of light in vacuum) when in water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.65.82 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Layman column
I suggest and additional column using the most usual unit for each entry, expressed in layman number writing : Because few people can "get" things like 4.0×10−4 m/s. --Musaran (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * m/day for glacier
 * m/s and km/h for winds
 * km/h for most ground vehicles
 * km/h and knots for ships
 * mach for fast airplanes
 * % of c for relativistic speeds

Speed of the tip of an hour hand?
The circumferences of clocks vary very widely, from the wristwatch to the Big Ben of London. So, I suggest that the speed of the tip of an hour hand be taken down from here. It already has a place in the table for magnitude of angular velocities. Daimler Ben (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Noted it's for a 7 cm hand as v = r ω = 0.07 m · $2\pi⁄60 s/min · 60 min/hr · 12 hr$ . The linear speed is useful as comparison with other slow objects. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Speed of Sun in the Milky Way
828,000 km/h. I am not smart enough to add myself, as my attempts cause more destruction than improvment.
 * Already listed as "Orbital speed of the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy." Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Speed of rocket ship, way too high?
This can't be right, can it? Nothing on the rocket ship wiki page, and google searching the MPH value shows the speed of solar wind. No rocket ship has gotten close to a tenth of c... Going to remove in a couple days, or switch to solar wind.

Gdryke (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't update to solar wind as there was already an entry below it, just removed it.

Gdryke (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Speed of the 7 TeV protons in the Large Hadron Collider at full power
A reader contacted Wikimedia to note that the entry for the

Speed of the 7 TeV protons in the Large Hadron Collider at full power

In miles per hour, shown as

670,615,282

is incorrect and should be 670,616,623.9 mph

Can someone double check the values?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Average speed of car
Where did the average speed of a car come from? 80 MPH seems a bit high. EdHayes3 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orders of magnitude (speed)


text:
Poverty penalty

The poverty penalty describes the phenomenon that poor people tend to pay more to eat, buy, and borrow than the rich. The term became widely known through a 2005 book by C. K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

An earlier exploration of this was a 1960s sociology study published as The Poor Pay More which examined the ways in which retail patterns and a lack of consumer options allowed marginal retailers such as door-to-door salesmen, "easy credit" storefronts and the sale of installment credit agreements to extract profits from low-income buyers, with fewer options and less sophisticated consumer habits.

The impact of the poverty penalty phenomenon has been observed across a range of products and services, including energy and insurance.

title: Poverty penalty


text: User talk:217.180.41.17

title: User talk:217.180.41.17


text:
Jovan Rašković

Jovan Rašković (Јован Рашковић, ; 5 July 1929 – 28 July 1992) was a Croatian Serb psychiatrist, academic and politician.

Early life
Rašković was born in Knin in 1929. During World War II in Yugoslavia, after an Ustasha pogrom which resulted in the deaths of his relatives, he was exiled to Kistanje in Italian-occupied Dalmatia.

Witnessing, in 1941, the psychological effect of genocide on a bereaved man from Kistanje who had lost his family left a strong impact on his worldview.

He passed his secondary school exams in Šibenik, and graduated in Zagreb. He then studied electrical engineering and medicine at the University of Zagreb, where he obtained his diploma and a PhD from the university's medical school.

Before the wars
In the 1960s, he served as director of Šibenik city hospital and later director of the medical center. He was one of the founders of the Medical Research Institute of Neurophysiology in Ljubljana. Rašković was a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Academy of Medical Sciences of Croatia and a number of psychiatry associations in the United States, Czechoslovakia and Italy. He was a university professor in Zagreb and Ljubljana and a visiting professor at the Universities of Pavia, Rome, Houston and London. Rašković split his time between his house in Primošten and his apartment in Šibenik. While working at Šibenik, he reportedly had a reputation of "taking pleasure in" administering electroshock therapy to Croats, and Croatian women in particular.

Although he was not a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts at the time of its drafting, at least one source claimed that he was extensively consulted from his home in Croatia by Serbian nationalist intellectual Dobrica Ćosić when the controversial 1986 SANU Memorandum was being developed. Moreover, later in 1990, Rašković was formally inducted into the organisation.

Sometime in 1990, Rašković published a book entitled Luda zemlja (A Mad Country), in which he fused Freudian psychoanalysis with a Serbian supremacist worldview: "The Croats, feminized by the Catholic religion, suffer from a castration complex. That makes them totally incapable of exercising authority over others. They compensate their humiliation by their great culture. As to the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina and neighboring regions, they are the victims, as Freud might have said, of anal frustrations, which incite them to amass wealth and to seek refuge in fanatic attitudes. Finally, the Serbs, the Orthodox, an Oedipal people, tend to liberate themselves from the authority of the father. From this spirit of resistance, they draw the courage of the warriors, who are the only ones capable of exerting real authority over the other peoples of Yugoslavia. It is no wonder that the situation of complete hatred and paranoia develops in this country."

In this book, he also argued that the lack of collective guilt on the part of Croats for the genocides during World War II, which had left Serbs traumatised, had brought about "asymmetrical memories of recent history," which would bring conflict between the two ethnic groups.

In February 1990, Rašković went into politics and founded and led the Serb Democratic Party (SDS), which took part in the first Croatian democratic elections. He noticed that there was no equivalent party in Bosnia and Herzegovina so he contacted Radovan Karadžić, a colleague, to suggest for him to establish one. The two, both psychiatrists by profession, gave lectures in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the period of 1990–1991, in which they tried to incite "hatred and militancy" among the local Serbs there, working them into a "state of frenzy and paranoia."

Onset of violence
In August 1990, the "first act of organized violence" to erupt among Croatian Serbs occurred under the leadership of Rašković, when local Serbs confiscated weapons from a Knin police station and murdered the Croatian police stationed there. After consultation with Yugoslav and Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, who promised to supply arms for the Croatian Serbs, the local Serbs militias set up blockades in the Krajina region, signalling the outset of the so-called Log Revolution.

Although the SDS won relatively few seats in the 1990 elections, it quickly began to increase its power, and Rašković was soon perceived as a leader of Serbs by Franjo Tuđman and his new government. That led to direct negotiations between the two about the future of Serbs in Croatia. During one meeting, Rašković remarked, "Serbs were crazy people" who would not listen to him. Tuđman's chief political advisor, Slaven Letica, had the words secretly taped and leaked the transcript to Croatian media to discredit Rašković among his people and then replace him with someone more acceptable to the Croatian government. That backfired, as, instead of rejecting Rašković, many Serbs lost any trust in Croatian government and embraced extremism and then armed conflict.

Later in 1990, Rašković, who was seen as a "moderate" that recognised Croatian sovereignty, but wanted to negotiate in favour of autonomy and national rights for the Serb minority, was removed from power by "more radical, hard-line Serb nationalists" such as Milan Babić, who advocated armed autonomy and went on to create the Republic of Serbian Krajina. For his part, Tuđman, an ardent Croatian nationalist, rejected Rašković's more moderate demands, thus legitimising the rise of more radical Serbian nationalist resistance forces. The most important of these demands was the continued recognition of Serbs as a constituent people of Croatia, which Tuđman's government rejected; in December 1990, a new Croatian constitution was passed which, although it granted cultural autonomy to Serbs, said that Croatia was legally the "national state of the Croats" only.

To make matters worse, Rašković was also receiving pressure from Belgrade, which political scientist Nina Caspersen argued was more instrumental in increasing tensions than Tuđman's hardline stances. To begin, the Serbian government pressured Rašković to reject Tudman's offer of a position in his government. Moreover, Rašković, an anti-communist nationalist, publicly opposed Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, whom he referred to as "a big Bolshevik, a communist, and a tyrant to the tips of his toes." He also tried competing electorally in Serbia against Milošević, whereas the more militant Milan Babić showed unreserved support for Milošević and, in turn, received support from him. To back this up, Caspersen made note of a poll from December 1990 indicating that 86% of Serbs held positive views of Rašković, whereas it was only 54% for Babić. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of SDS's main board still supported Rašković over Babić by February 1991. Taken all together, Caspersen argued that this outside support from Belgrade provided the necessary means of shifting the orientation of Croatian Serbdom from "democratic to non-democratic resources." Soon after Babić founded the more radical SDS Krajina party, Rašković said that "for the first time, I warned that this radical group, which wanted to take over the SDS, is a danger for us, and that war will definitely result if they exacerbate things."

Rašković retired from politics in 1991, after the Plitvice Lakes incident.

Rašković later expressed fear about the collective state of mind of Serbs, saying that "Serb myths have entered the Serb spirit, but with a dose of poison, spite, vengeance, [and] regression," which he believed needed to be "controlled in order to make less poisonous." In early 1992, Rašković gave an apologetic statement on Belgrade television:

"I feel responsible because I made the preparations for this war, even if not the military preparations. If I hadn't created this emotional strain in the Serbian people, nothing would have happened. My party and I lit the fuse of Serbian nationalism not only in Croatia, but everywhere else in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's impossible to imagine an SDP (Serbian Democratic Party) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or a Mr. Karadžić in power, without our influence. We have driven this people, and we have given it an identity. I have repeated again and again to this people that it comes from heaven, not earth."

Death and legacy
Rašković died in Belgrade from a heart attack on 28 July 1992 at the age of 63. Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić, who was a friend and colleague, considered Rašković to be "his main role model and inspiration."

He is interred in the Alley of Distinguished Citizens in the Belgrade New Cemetery. In addition, there are streets in Trebinje, Prijedor, Banja Luka and Novi Banovci named in his honor as well.

title: Jovan Rašković


text:
GCap Media

GCap Media was a British commercial radio company formed from the merger of the Capital Radio Group and GWR Group. The merger was completed on 9 May 2005. It was listed on the London Stock Exchange and was a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index. On 31 March 2008 the company agreed a takeover by Global Radio for £375 million. This was completed on 6 June 2008, and the company became a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Radio.

On 1 November 2008, Global Radio discontinued using the name GCap Media.

Capital Radio Group
Capital Radio Group was, until May 2005, a London-based British radio group. The company was originally set up to operate a General Entertainment Independent Local Radio service in October 1973. Capital Radio was the second legal commercial radio station to launch in the UK, a few days after London news station LBC. In the 1980s the station was allowed to operate separate services on AM and FM.

Changes to media ownership laws meant that Capital Radio Group was able to acquire other stations throughout the UK, becoming a powerful player in the UK's commercial radio industry; before the merger with GWR. In 1993, Capital bought BRMB, and in 1994 the Southern Radio Group which owned Southern FM, Invicta FM, Power FM and Ocean FM, Fox FM in Oxfordshire and Red Dragon FM in Wales were also purchased in the 90s. Capital also acquired the Century FM stations in 2000 as well as Border Television to acquire its radio stations (subsequently selling the station to Granada plc a year later). All in all, Capital Radio Group controlled 22 analogue and 59 digital radio licences. In July 1998 Capital Radio Group bought the financially troubled "alternative" radio station, Xfm.

In the early 21st century, Capital Radio Group expanded its range of FM stations, and also started broadcasting digital-only stations such as Capital Disney and Capital Life.

GWR Group
GWR Group was a British radio company with major assets including the nationwide station Classic FM and an extensive network of independent local radio stations in the UK. The letters "GWR" were chosen because its launch coincided with the reopening of the Great Western Railway in Bristol in 1985.

Between 1996 and 1999 GWR was a major shareholder in London News Radio, which owned and operated London's LBC and News Direct radio stations. These stations were sold to Chrysalis Radio in 2002.

GWR was owned by Daily Mail and General Trust plc (majority share), various asset management firms, Sir Peter Michael and other small shareholders. Until the merger, the group was chaired by Ralph Bernard and its head office was in Passage Street, Bristol.

During its existence, GWR acquired the Marcher Radio Group, Mid Anglia Radio Group, Chiltern Radio Group and East Anglian Radio Group to name but a few.

Key dates

 * 1981: Wiltshire Radio is founded.
 * 1982: Wiltshire Radio begins broadcasting.
 * 1985: Wiltshire Radio merges with Radio West to form GWR.
 * 1987: GWR Group goes public.
 * 1988: GWR joins Classic FM partnership.
 * 1992: Classic FM begins broadcasting.
 * 1996: GWR acquires full control of Classic FM.
 * 1998: GWR wins Digital One license.
 * 1999: Digital One begins broadcasting; launches Internet radio broadcasts.
 * 2000: GWR acquires DMG Radio.

Programming
GWR attempted to revolutionise local radio with its policy of branding its stations with similar phrases, initially "today's better music mix", later "today's best mix" and "the best mix of the 80s, 90s and today"  after a landmark ruling in July 1995 by The Radio Authority gave GWR permission to begin programme networking across many of its FM stations.

By 2008 it had four main syndicated programmes: a weekday mid-morning programme which started in 2008 hosted by Phillippa Collins (this show was only carried on a few stations, when taken over by Global radio the show was rolled out to all stations), a weeknightly music and showbiz based programme (formerly called 'Core Control' and then 'Music Control') (weekdays 7 pm to 10 pm) presented by Kam and Sally, Kam was replaced by Kevin Hughes, 'Late Night Love' (Sunday to Thursday 10pm to 1am) presented by Graham Torrington (later the show was replaced by 'the wind down' presented by Cat James) and Music On Demand (1am till Breakfast, 7 days a week) presented by Tony Wright (Now Celador Radio), then James Clayton and latterly Dan Wood (now Gem) and at weekends Andy Henly. On Friday and Saturday evenings the network splits, with most stations taking Non-Stop Party (Friday 10pm to 1am) and Party Anthems (Saturday 7pm to 10pm) while the other stations take School Daze (Friday 10 pm to 1 am) and Hairbrush Divas (Saturday 7 pm to 10 pm). All stations then take a Non-Stop Party show (Saturday 10 pm to 1 am).

GCap – The merged company
The two groups officially "tied the knot" on 9 May 2005, with GCap employees being given branded 'GCap' digital radios to commemorate the launch. For the first five months the group was run by Ralph Bernard (ex-GWR) as Executive chairman, and David Mansfield (ex-Capital Radio Group) as CEO. David Mansfield stepped down on the afternoon of 19 September 2005 with Ralph Bernard taking over both roles. Within weeks of the merger rumours had abounded about disagreements between Bernard and Mansfield about the future direction of the company and this was compounded by a £184m loss in the market capitalisation of the two combined entities by the time merger was sealed. Many market commentators felt that the savings brought about by cost cutting and elimination of duplicated departments across the company were far outweighed by large drops in audience and advertising revenue across the newly formed group. Over the following months, amid rumours of a GWR putsch and continuing dissatisfaction from the City, a stream of executives from the former Capital Radio Group side of the business left the company, including David Mansfield himself.

Restructure and the 'failed sale'
In October 2005 GCap Media announced around 100 job losses and the sale of nine non-core radio stations as part of a restructuring initiative. By this time, over £300m had been wiped off the market capitalisation of GCap Media and the group was frequently touted as a take over target by City commentators. The nine stations, which included the Marcher Group stations in North Wales and Orchard FM in the West Country, came with a price tag of £75m. Eventually, after bids as low as £25m were placed and interest waned, GCap Media called off the sale.

Classic Gold acquisition
In April 2007 GCap Media announced that it was acquiring 18 AM and DAB 'Classic Gold' radio stations from Unique Broadcasting Company Media Group. Many of these licences had formerly been operated by GWR Group before being sold to Unique. It was announced that the stations would be merged with existing Capital Gold AM licences to form a new station Gold, which launched on 3 August 2007.

Ralph Bernard leaves
In November 2007 it was announced that Ralph Bernard was leaving as CEO of the company. This was unusual as neither he nor the company named a successor, but announced that they would start to look for one. This uncertainty caused a massive drop in the share price of the company and it never recovered from that, leaving the new CEO with a difficult task to rebuild share value for the shareholders.

Withdrawal from DAB and disposal of "non-core" stations
In late December 2007 Fru Hazlitt was appointed CEO. Under pressure from a £313m share offer to the board from Global Radio (made possible by the low value of the shares), Hazlitt laid out her plans for the company's recovery to financial health on 11 February 2008. Cost-cutting lay at the heart of Hazlitt's statement, including divesting GCap of its costly involvement in DAB – directly turning her back on the 'digital future' policy of her predecessor. It was announced that GCap had sold its interest in Digital One to Arqiva and that "non-core" DAB stations Planet Rock and theJazz would be closing by the end of March 2008. theJazz ceased broadcasting as announced, but Planet Rock remained on air while negotiations took place with potential buyers, which were successfully concluded in June 2008. In addition, the non-London XFM stations would also be closed if they could not be sold, as the stations were forecast to make a combined loss of £800,000 in 2008. An improved offer from Global was finally accepted by GCap shareholders, resulting in the departure of the group's senior management. Fru Hazlitt resigned in May 2008.

Takeover by Global Radio
The Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation into the takeover of GCap by Global and cleared it in August 2008, on the condition that BRMB, Beacon Radio, Mercia FM, Wyvern FM and Heart East Midlands were sold to satisfy competition concerns.

On 23 September 2008, it was announced that Fun Radio had been sold to Folder Media, leaving Chill as GCap's only digital station.

National radio stations

 * Classic FM

XFM stations

 * Xfm London
 * Xfm Manchester
 * Xfm Scotland – previously Beat 106

The One Network
This was a network of local radio stations in various towns and cities around the UK. It comprised the local stations previously part of GWR's Mix Network and Capital Radio Groups local stations.

 * 2CR FM (Bournemouth)
 * 2-Ten FM (Reading)
 * Beacon Radio (Wolverhampton)
 * Beat 106
 * BRMB (Birmingham)
 * Radio Broadland (Norwich)
 * Buzz 97.1 (Wrexham)
 * 95.8 Capital FM (London)
 * Champion 103
 * 96.9 Chiltern FM (Bedford)
 * 97.6 Chiltern FM (Dunstable)
 * Coast 96.3 (Bangor)
 * Essex FM (Chelmsford)
 * Fox FM (Cowley)
 * Gemini FM (Exeter)
 * GWR FM Bath
 * GWR FM Bristol
 * GWR FM Wiltshire (Swindon)
 * Hereward FM (Peterborough)
 * Horizon Radio (Milton Keynes)
 * Invicta FM (Whitstable)
 * Lantern FM (Barnstaple)
 * Leicester Sound
 * Marcher Sound (Wrexham)
 * Mercia FM (Coventry)
 * Mercury FM (Crawley)
 * Northants 96 (Northampton)
 * Ocean FM (Fareham)
 * Orchard FM (Yeovil)
 * Plymouth Sound
 * Power FM (Fareham)
 * Q103 (Cambridge)
 * RAM FM (Derby)
 * Red Dragon FM (Cardiff)
 * Severn Sound (Gloucester)
 * SGR Colchester
 * SGR Ipswich
 * South Hams Radio (Kingsbridge)
 * Southern FM (Portslade)
 * Ten 17 (Harlow, Essex)
 * Trent FM (Nottingham)
 * Wyvern FM (Worcester)

AM local radio stations

 * Gold – quasi-national network, broadcasting in the following areas:

Birmingham (AM & DAB), Black Country (AM & DAB), Bournemouth (AM & DAB), Bristol & Bath (AM & DAB), Cambridge (DAB), Cardiff & Newport (AM & DAB), Coventry (AM & DAB), Derby (AM), Essex (AM & DAB), Exeter & Torbay (DAB), Gloucester & Cheltenham (AM), Greater London (AM & DAB), Humberside (DAB), Kent (AM & DAB), Lancashire (DAB), Leeds (DAB), Luton & Bedford (AM), Manchester (AM & DAB), Norfolk & North Suffolk (AM & DAB), Northamptonshire (AM), Nottingham (AM & DAB), Peterborough (AM & DAB), Plymouth (AM & DAB), Reading (AM & DAB), Reigate & Crawley (AM), Shropshire (AM), South Hampshire (AM & DAB), South Yorkshire (DAB), Suffolk (AM), Sussex (AM & DAB), Swindon & Wiltshire (AM), Teesside (DAB), Tyne & Wear (DAB), Wrexham & Chester (AM).

Digital-only stations

 * Chill – National Digital Station also on Sky and Virgin Media.

Internet television stations

 * Classic FM TV

Former stations

 * KMFM Medway – sold to the KM Group in 2002
 * KMFM West Kent – sold to the KM Group in 2002
 * The Storm – closed 20 January 2006
 * Capital Disney – closed 29 June 2007
 * Core – closed 11 January 2008
 * Capital Life – closed 31 March 2008
 * theJazz – closed 31 March 2008
 * Xfm South Wales – sold to Town and Country Broadcasting on 31 May 2008
 * Planet Rock - sold to Malcolm Bluemel's 'Rock Show' consortium
 * Fun Radio (with HIT Entertainment)

title: GCap Media


text:
Hulunbuir

Hulunbuir or Hulun Buir is a region that is governed as a prefecture-level city in northeastern Inner Mongolia, China. Its administrative center is located at Hailar District, its largest urban area. Major scenic features are the high steppes of the Hulun Buir grasslands, the Hulun and Buir lakes (the latter partially in Mongolia), and the Khingan range. Hulun Buir borders Russia to the north and west, Mongolia to the south and west, Heilongjiang province to the east and Hinggan League to the direct south. Hulunbuir is a linguistically diverse area: next to Mandarin Chinese, Mongolian dialects such as Khorchin and Buryat, the Mongolic language Daur, and some Tungusic languages, including Oroqen and Solon, are spoken there.

History
During the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912), Hulunbuir was part of Heilongjiang province. The 1858 Treaty of Aigun established today's approximate Sino-Russian border, at a great loss to Heilongjiang's territory. In 1901, the Chinese Eastern Railway linked Hulunbuir to the rest of northeast China and to Russian Far East. From 1912 to 1949, during the Republic of China (ROC) period, Hulunbuir was part of Xing'an and Heilongjiang provinces. In winter 1912, the Barga Mongol people of Hulunbuir expelled the Chinese troops and administration and proclaimed the independence of Barga (Hulunbuir); afterwards they declared allegiance to the Bogdo Khan of Mongolia; an agreement between the Russian Empire and the ROC on November 6/October 24, 1915 designated Hulunbuir a "special" region under direct subordination to the Central Government of China, but in practice Russia had partial control over day-to-day administration and economy. In 1929, the Soviet Union broke this agreement and invaded Hulunbuir. After the Japanese invasion of China, Hulunbuir became part of the Japanese puppet state Manchukuo, which was not recognized by the Chinese. In the Chinese Civil War, the Chinese Communist Party gained the support of Inner Mongol leaders like Ulanhu by promising the irredentist expansion of Inner Mongolia into areas that had majorities of Han and Manchu peoples.

After the Chinese Communist Revolution, Hulunbuir was annexed into Inner Mongolia, but the region kept economic ties to the rest of the northeast via the Chinese Eastern Railway. During the Cultural Revolution, the parts of historical Manchuria inside Inner Mongolia were briefly restored to their original provinces; Hulunbuir was given back to Heilongjiang from 1969 to 1979. Until October 10, 2001, Hulunbuir was administered as a League. The area is 263953 km² and had a population of 2.710 million in 2004, while the gross domestic product was RMB 21.326 billion. The jurisdiction area of the city is larger than all but 8 Chinese province-level divisions (and 42 U.S. states), although the actual urban agglomeration is just a very small part of the region, and the average population density of the area is very low.

Names
The city was once a league (盟) of Inner Mongolia, until 10 October 2001. During the Qing Dynasty, it was known in Mandarin as Hūlúnbùyǔ'ěr.

Administrative subdivisions
Hulunbuir is divided into 13 different county-level jurisdictions: one district, five county-level cities, four banners and three autonomous banners.

Geography and climate
Hulunbuir itself (Hailar) has an extreme humid continental climate (Köppen Dwb). Winters are long, very dry and severe, due to the semi−permanent Siberian High, while summers are short, though very warm, and rather wet, due to the East Asian monsoon. At Hailar, the monthly 24-hour average temperature ranges from −25.1 °C in January to 20.0 °C in July, while the annual mean is −0.96 °C. With at least 55% of possible sunshine in all months and an annual total greater than 2,700 hours, sunny weather dominates year-round. Approximately 70% of the annual rainfall occurs during the three summer months.

Transport
Airports include:
 * Hulunbuir Hailar Airport - Hailar
 * Zhalantun Chengjisihan Airport - Zhalantun
 * Xinbarag Youqi Baogede Airport - New Barag Right Banner

title: Hulunbuir


text:
History of genetics

The history of genetics dates from the classical era with contributions by Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, and others. Modern genetics began with the work of the Augustinian friar Gregor Johann Mendel. His works on pea plants, published in 1866, provided the initial evidence that, on its rediscovery in 1900's, helped to establish the theory of Mendelian inheritance.

In ancient Greece, Hippocrates suggested that all organs of the body of a parent gave off invisible “seeds,” miniaturised components, that were transmitted during sexual intercourse and combined in the mother's womb to form a baby. In the Early Modern times, William Harvey's book On Animal Generation contradicted Aristotle's theories of genetics and embryology.

The 1900 rediscovery of Mendel's work by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak led to rapid advances in genetics. By 1915 the basic principles of Mendelian genetics had been studied in a wide variety of organisms — most notably the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Led by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his fellow "drosophilists", geneticists developed the Mendelian model, which was widely accepted by 1925. Alongside experimental work, mathematicians developed the statistical framework of population genetics, bringing genetic explanations into the study of evolution.

With the basic patterns of genetic inheritance established, many biologists turned to investigations of the physical nature of the gene. In the 1940s and early 1950s, experiments pointed to DNA as the portion of chromosomes (and perhaps other nucleoproteins) that held genes. A focus on new model organisms such as viruses and bacteria, along with the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953, marked the transition to the era of molecular genetics.

In the following years, chemists developed techniques for sequencing both nucleic acids and proteins, while many others worked out the relationship between these two forms of biological molecules and discovered the genetic code. The regulation of gene expression became a central issue in the 1960s; by the 1970s gene expression could be controlled and manipulated through genetic engineering. In the last decades of the 20th century, many biologists focused on large-scale genetics projects, such as sequencing entire genomes.

Ancient theories

The most influential early theories of heredity were that of Hippocrates and Aristotle. Hippocrates' theory (possibly based on the teachings of Anaxagoras) was similar to Darwin's later ideas on pangenesis, involving heredity material that collects from throughout the body. Aristotle suggested instead that the (nonphysical) form-giving principle of an organism was transmitted through semen (which he considered to be a purified form of blood) and the mother's menstrual blood, which interacted in the womb to direct an organism's early development. For both Hippocrates and Aristotle—and nearly all Western scholars through to the late 19th century—the inheritance of acquired characters was a supposedly well-established fact that any adequate theory of heredity had to explain. At the same time, individual species were taken to have a fixed essence; such inherited changes were merely superficial. The Athenian philosopher Epicurus observed families and proposed the contribution of both males and females of hereditary characters ("sperm atoms"), noticed dominant and recessive types of inheritance and described segregation and independent assortment of "sperm atoms".

In 1000 CE, the Arab physician, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (known as Albucasis in the West) was the first physician to describe clearly the hereditary nature of haemophilia in his Al-Tasrif. In 1140 CE, Judah HaLevi described dominant and recessive genetic traits in The Kuzari.

Preformation theory

The preformation theory is a developmental biological theory, which was represented in antiquity by the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras. It reappeared in modern times in the 17th century and then prevailed until the 19th century. Another common term at that time was the theory of evolution, although "evolution" (in the sense of development as a pure growth process) had a completely different meaning than today. The preformists assumed that the entire organism was preformed in the sperm (animalkulism) or in the egg (ovism or ovulism) and only had to unfold and grow. This was contrasted by the theory of epigenesis, according to which the structures and organs of an organism only develop in the course of individual development (Ontogeny). Epigenesis had been the dominant opinion since antiquity and into the 17th century, but was then replaced by preformist ideas. Since the 19th century epigenesis was again able to establish itself as a view valid to this day.

Plant systematics and hybridisation
In the 18th century, with increased knowledge of plant and animal diversity and the accompanying increased focus on taxonomy, new ideas about heredity began to appear. Linnaeus and others (among them Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter, Carl Friedrich von Gärtner, and Charles Naudin) conducted extensive experiments with hybridisation, especially hybrids between species. Species hybridisers described a wide variety of inheritance phenomena, include hybrid sterility and the high variability of back-crosses.

Plant breeders were also developing an array of stable varieties in many important plant species. In the early 19th century, Augustin Sageret established the concept of dominance, recognising that when some plant varieties are crossed, certain characteristics (present in one parent) usually appear in the offspring; he also found that some ancestral characteristics found in neither parent may appear in offspring. However, plant breeders made little attempt to establish a theoretical foundation for their work or to share their knowledge with current work of physiology, although Gartons Agricultural Plant Breeders in England explained their system.

Mendel
Between 1856 and 1865, Gregor Mendel conducted breeding experiments using the pea plant Pisum sativum and traced the inheritance patterns of certain traits. Through these experiments, Mendel saw that the genotypes and phenotypes of the progeny were predictable and that some traits were dominant over others. These patterns of Mendelian inheritance demonstrated the usefulness of applying statistics to inheritance. They also contradicted 19th-century theories of blending inheritance, showing, rather, that genes remain discrete through multiple generations of hybridisation.

From his statistical analysis, Mendel defined a concept that he described as a character (which in his mind holds also for "determinant of that character"). In only one sentence of his historical paper, he used the term "factors" to designate the "material creating" the character: " So far as experience goes, we find it in every case confirmed that constant progeny can only be formed when the egg cells and the fertilising pollen are off like the character so that both are provided with the material for creating quite similar individuals, as is the case with the normal fertilisation of pure species. We must, therefore, regard it as certain that exactly similar factors must be at work also in the production of the constant forms in the hybrid plants."(Mendel, 1866). Mendel's work was published in 1866 as "Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden" (Experiments on Plant Hybridisation) in the Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereins zu Brünn (Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn), following two lectures he gave on the work in early 1865.

Pangenesis

Mendel's work was published in a relatively obscure scientific journal, and it was not given any attention in the scientific community. Instead, discussions about modes of heredity were galvanised by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, in which mechanisms of non-Lamarckian heredity seemed to be required. Darwin's own theory of heredity, pangenesis, did not meet with any large degree of acceptance. A more mathematical version of pangenesis, one which dropped much of Darwin's Lamarckian holdovers, was developed as the "biometrical" school of heredity by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.

Germ plasm

In 1883 August Weismann conducted experiments involving breeding mice whose tails had been surgically removed. His results — that surgically removing a mouse's tail had no effect on the tail of its offspring — challenged the theories of pangenesis and Lamarckism, which held that changes to an organism during its lifetime could be inherited by its descendants. Weismann proposed the germ plasm theory of inheritance, which held that hereditary information was carried only in sperm and egg cells.

Rediscovery of Mendel
Hugo de Vries wondered what the nature of germ plasm might be, and in particular he wondered whether or not germ plasm was mixed like paint or whether the information was carried in discrete packets that remained unbroken. In the 1890s he was conducting breeding experiments with a variety of plant species and in 1897 he published a paper on his results that stated that each inherited trait was governed by two discrete particles of information, one from each parent, and that these particles were passed along intact to the next generation. In 1900 he was preparing another paper on his further results when he was shown a copy of Mendel's 1866 paper by a friend who thought it might be relevant to de Vries's work. He went ahead and published his 1900 paper without mentioning Mendel's priority. Later that same year another botanist, Carl Correns, who had been conducting hybridisation experiments with maize and peas, was searching the literature for related experiments prior to publishing his own results when he came across Mendel's paper, which had results similar to his own. Correns accused de Vries of appropriating terminology from Mendel's paper without crediting him or recognising his priority. At the same time another botanist, Erich von Tschermak was experimenting with pea breeding and producing results like Mendel's. He too discovered Mendel's paper while searching the literature for relevant work. In a subsequent paper de Vries praised Mendel and acknowledged that he had only extended his earlier work.

Emergence of molecular genetics
After the rediscovery of Mendel's work there was a feud between William Bateson and Pearson over the hereditary mechanism, solved by Ronald Fisher in his work "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance".

In 1910, Thomas Hunt Morgan showed that genes reside on specific chromosomes. He later showed that genes occupy specific locations on the chromosome. With this knowledge, Alfred Sturtevant, a member of Morgan's famous fly room, using Drosophila melanogaster, provided the first chromosomal map of any biological organism. In 1928, Frederick Griffith showed that genes could be transferred. In what is now known as Griffith's experiment, injections into a mouse of a deadly strain of bacteria that had been heat-killed transferred genetic information to a safe strain of the same bacteria, killing the mouse.

A series of subsequent discoveries (e.g. ) led to the realization decades later that the genetic material is made of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and not, as was widely believed until then, of proteins. In 1941, George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum showed that mutations in genes caused errors in specific steps of metabolic pathways. This showed that specific genes code for specific proteins, leading to the "one gene, one enzyme" hypothesis. Oswald Avery, Colin Munro MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty showed in 1944 that DNA holds the gene's information. In 1952, Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling produced a strikingly clear x-ray diffraction pattern indicating a helical form. Using these x-rays and information already known about the chemistry of DNA, James D. Watson and Francis Crick demonstrated the molecular structure of DNA in 1953. Together, these discoveries established the central dogma of molecular biology, which states that proteins are translated from RNA which is transcribed by DNA. This dogma has since been shown to have exceptions, such as reverse transcription in retroviruses.

In 1947, Salvador Luria discovered the reactivation of irradiated phage leading to many further studies on the fundamental processes of repair of DNA damage (for review of early studies, see ). In 1958, Meselson and Stahl demonstrated that DNA replicates semiconservatively, leading to the understanding that each of the individual strands in double-stranded DNA serves as a template for new strand synthesis. In 1960, Jacob and collaborators discovered the operon which consists of a sequence of genes whose expression is coordinated by operator DNA. In the period 1961 – 1967, through work in several different labs, the nature of the genetic code was determined (e.g. ).

In 1972, Walter Fiers and his team at the University of Ghent were the first to determine the sequence of a gene: the gene for bacteriophage MS2 coat protein. Richard J. Roberts and Phillip Sharp discovered in 1977 that genes can be split into segments. This led to the idea that one gene can make several proteins. The successful sequencing of many organisms' genomes has complicated the molecular definition of the gene. In particular, genes do not always sit side by side on DNA like discrete beads. Instead, regions of the DNA producing distinct proteins may overlap, so that the idea emerges that "genes are one long continuum". It was first hypothesised in 1986 by Walter Gilbert that neither DNA nor protein would be required in such a primitive system as that of a very early stage of the earth if RNA could serve both as a catalyst and as genetic information storage processor.

The modern study of genetics at the level of DNA is known as molecular genetics, and the synthesis of molecular genetics with traditional Darwinian evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

title: History of genetics


text: Template:I, Robot

title: Template:I, Robot


text:
Talk:Edward Pease (railway pioneer)

Untitled
Edward Pease was NOT a member of Parliament, as this article used to say. It was his son Joseph who became an MP in 1832. I just found it out. The mistake appears to have been based on this ambiguous website:   http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RApease.htm. Logophile 09:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, that was his son Joseph Pease (1799-1872). — Dunc|☺ 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * spartacus is fairly unreliable. Also I think Edward Pease had more than three sons.  Some sources mention Isaac Pease who died the day before the opening of the new railway so Edward Pease and his family did not actually attend the opening ceremonies.  --Erp 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The sons of Edward Pease, including Henry (currently Redlinked) are dealt with in Edward Pease's article in ODNB.  ---Vernon White 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Pease (railway pioneer). 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/20121006134712/http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/railway/stockton/3165797/ to http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/railway/stockton/3165797
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209121421/http://www.railcentre.co.uk/stockton/stocktonmenu.htm to http://www.railcentre.co.uk/stockton/stocktonmenu.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edward Pease (railway pioneer)


text: Category:Prefecture-level divisions of Liaoning