text:
Logical security

Logical security consists of software safeguards for an organization's systems, including user identification and password access, authenticating, access rights and authority levels. These measures are to ensure that only authorized users are able to perform actions or access information in a network or a workstation. It is a subset of computer security.

Elements
Elements of logical security are:

 * User IDs, also known as logins, user names, logons or accounts, are unique personal identifiers for agents of a computer program or network that is accessible by more than one agent. These identifiers are based on short strings of alphanumeric characters, and are either assigned or chosen by the users.
 * Authentication is the process used by a computer program, computer, or network to attempt to confirm the identity of a user. Blind credentials (anonymous users) have no identity, but are allowed to enter the system.  The confirmation of identities is essential to the concept of access control, which gives access to the authorized and excludes the unauthorized.
 * Biometrics authentication is the measuring of a user’s physiological or behavioral features to attempt to confirm his/her identity. Physiological aspects that are used include fingerprints, eye retinas and irises, voice patterns, facial patterns, and hand measurements.  Behavioral aspects that are used include signature recognition, gait recognition, speaker recognition and typing pattern recognition.  When a user registers with the system which he/she will attempt to access later, one or more of his/her physiological characteristics are obtained and processed by a numerical algorithm.  This number is then entered into a database, and the features of the user attempting to match the stored features must match up to a certain error rate.

Token authentication
Token authentication are small devices that authorized users of computer systems or networks carry to assist in identifying that who is logging into a computer or network system is actually authorized. They can also store cryptographic keys and biometric data. The most popular type of security token (RSA SecurID) displays a number which changes every minute. Users are authenticated by entering a personal identification number and the number on the token. The token contains a time of day clock and a unique seed value, and the number displayed is a cryptographic hash of the seed value and the time of day. The computer which is being accessed also contains the same algorithm and is able to match the number by matching the user’s seed and time of day. Clock error is taken into account, and values a few minutes off are sometimes accepted. Another similar type of token (Cryptogram) can produce a value each time a button is pressed. Other security tokens can connect directly to the computer through USB, Smart card or Bluetooth ports, or through special purpose interfaces. Cell phones and PDA's can also be used as security tokens with proper programming.

Password authentication
Password authentication uses secret data to control access to a particular resource. Usually, the user attempting to access the network, computer or computer program is queried on whether they know the password or not, and is granted or denied access accordingly. Passwords are either created by the user or assigned, similar to usernames. However, once assigned a password, the user usually is given the option to change the password to something of his/her choice. Depending on the restrictions of the system or network, the user may change his/her password to any alphanumeric sequence. Usually, limitations to password creation include length restrictions, a requirement of a number, uppercase letter or special character, or not being able to use the past four or five changed passwords associated with the username. In addition, the system may force a user to change his/her password after a given amount of time.

Two-way authentication
Two-way authentication involves both the user and system or network convincing each other that they know the shared password without transmitting this password over any communication channel. This is done by using the password as the encryption key to transmit a randomly generated piece of information, or “the challenge.” The other side must then return a similarly encrypted value which is some predetermined function of the originally offered information, his/her "response", which proves that he/she was able to decrypt the challenge. Kerberos (a computer network authentication protocol) is a good example of this, as it sends an encrypted integer N, and the response must be the encrypted integer N + 1.

Common setup and access rights
Access rights and authority levels are the rights or power granted to users to create, change, delete or view data and files within a system or network. These rights vary from user to user, and can range from anonymous login (guest) privileges to superuser (root) privileges. Guest and superuser accounts are the two extremes, as individual access rights can be denied or granted to each user. Usually, only the system administrator (a.k.a. the superuser) has the ability to grant or deny these rights.

Guest accounts, or anonymous logins, are set up so that multiple users can log into the account at the same time without a password. Users are sometimes asked to type a username. This account has very limited access, and is often only allowed to access special public files. Usually, anonymous accounts have read access rights only for security purposes.

The superuser is an authority level assigned to system administrators on most computer operating systems. In Unix and related operating systems, this level is also called root and has all access rights in the system, including changing ownership of files. In pre-Windows XP and NT systems (such as DOS and Windows 9x), all users are effectively superusers, and all users have all access rights. In Windows NT and related systems (such as Windows 2000 and XP), a superuser is known as the administrator account. However, this administrator account may or may not exist depending on whether separation up.

title: Logical security


text:
Sarah Parker Remond

Sarah Parker Remond (June 6, 1826 – December 13, 1894) was an American lecturer, activist and abolitionist campaigner.

Born a free woman in the state of Massachusetts, she became an international activist for human rights and women's suffrage. Remond made her first public speech against the institution of slavery when she was 16 years old, and delivered abolitionist speeches throughout the northeastern United States. One of her brothers, Charles Lenox Remond, became known as an orator and they occasionally toured together for their abolitionist lectures.

Eventually becoming an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, in 1858 Remond chose to travel to Britain to gather support for the growing abolitionist cause in the United States. While in London, Remond also studied at Bedford College, lecturing during term breaks. During the American Civil War, she appealed for support among the British public for the Union and their blockade of the Confederacy. After the conclusion of the war in favor of the Union, she appealed for funds to support the millions of the newly emancipated freedmen in the American South.

From England, Remond went to Italy in 1867 to pursue medical training in Florence, where she became a physician. She practiced medicine for nearly 20 years in Italy and never returned to the United States, dying in Rome at the age of 68.

Early years
Born in Salem, Massachusetts, Remond was one of the between eight and 11 children of John Remond and Nancy (née Lenox) Remond. Nancy was born in Newton, daughter of Cornelius Lenox, a Revolutionary War veteran who had fought in the Continental Army, and Susanna Perry. John Remond was a free person of color who immigrated to Massachusetts from the Dutch colony of Curaçao as a 10-year-old child in 1798. John and Nancy married in October 1807, in the African Baptist Church in Boston. In Salem, they built a successful catering, provisioning, and hairdressing business, becoming well-established businesspeople and activists.

The Remonds tried to place their children in a private school, but they were rejected because of their race. When Sarah Remond and her sisters were accepted to a local high school for girls which was not segregated, they were expelled, as the school committee was planning to found a separate school for African-American children. Remond later described the incident as engraved in her heart "like the scarlet letter of Hester." In 1835, the Remond family moved to Newport, Rhode Island, where they hoped to find a less racist environment in which to educate their children. However, the schools refused to accept black students. Instead, some influential African Americans established a private school, where Remond was educated.

In 1841, the Remond family returned to Salem. Sarah Remond continued her education on her own, attending concerts and lectures, and reading widely in books, pamphlets and newspapers borrowed from friends, or purchased from the anti-slavery society of her community, which sold many inexpensive titles. The Remond family also took in as boarders students who were attending the local girls' academy, including Charlotte Forten (later Grimké).

Three of Remond's sisters built a business together: Cecilia (married to James Babcock), Maritchie Juan, and Caroline (married to Joseph Putnam), "owned the fashionable Ladies Hair Work Salon" in Salem, as well as the biggest wig factory in the state. Their oldest sister Nancy married James Shearman, an oyster dealer. The Remond brothers were Charles Remond, who became an abolitionist and orator; and John Remond, who married Ruth Rice, one of two women elected to the finance committee of the 1859 New England Colored Citizens' Convention.

Anti-slavery activism and lecturing
Salem in the 1840s was a center of anti-slavery activity, and the whole family was committed to the rising abolitionist movement in the United States. The Remonds' home was a haven for black and white abolitionists, and they hosted many of the movement's leaders, including William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips, and more than one fugitive slave fleeing north to freedom. John Remond was a life member of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. Sarah Remond's older brother Charles Lenox Remond was the first black lecturer of the American Anti-Slavery Society's and considered a leading black abolitionist. Nancy Remond was one of the founders of the Salem Female Anti-Slavery Society. Nancy not only taught her daughters the household skills of cooking and sewing but also to seek liberty lawfully; she wanted them to take part in society. With her mother and sisters, Sarah Remond was an active member of the state and county female anti-slavery societies, including the Salem Female Anti-Slavery Society, the New England Anti-Slavery Society, and the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. She also regularly attended antislavery lectures in Salem and Boston.

With the support and financial backing of her family, Sarah Remond became an anti-slavery lecturer, delivering her first lecture against slavery at the age of 16, with her brother Charles in Groton, Massachusetts, in July 1842. Remond rose to prominence among abolitionists in 1853, when she refused to sit in a segregated theater section. She had bought tickets by post for herself and a group of friends, including historian William C. Nell, to the popular opera, Don Pasquale, at the Howard Athenaeum in Boston. When they arrived at the theatre, Remond was shown to segregated seating. After refusing to accept it, she was forced to leave the theatre and pushed down some stairs. Remond sued for damages and won her case. She was awarded $500, and an admission by theatre management that she was wronged; the court ordered the theater to integrate all seating.

In 1856, the American Anti-Slavery Society hired a team of lecturers, including Remond; Charles, already well known in the U.S. and Britain; and Susan B. Anthony, to tour New York State addressing anti-slavery issues. Over the next two years, she, her brother, and others also spoke in New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She and other African Americans were often given poor accommodation due to racial discrimination. Although inexperienced, Remond rapidly became an effective speaker. William Lloyd Garrison praised her "calm, dignified manner, her winning personal appearance and her earnest appeals to the conscience and the heart." Sarah Clay wrote that Remond's every word "waked up dormant aspirations which would vibrate through the ages." Over time, she became one of the society's most persuasive and powerful lecturers.

Abby Kelley Foster, a noted abolitionist in Massachusetts, encouraged Remond when they toured together in 1857. On December 28, 1858, Remond wrote in a letter to Foster:

"I feel almost sure I never should have made the attempt but for the words of encouragement I received from you. Although my heart was in the work, I felt that I was in need of a good English education ... When I consider that the only reason why I did not obtain what I so much desired was because I was the possessor of an unpopular complexion, it adds to my discomfort."

Anti-slavery lecturing in Great Britain
As a good speaker and fundraiser, Remond was invited to take the cause of the American abolitionists to Britain, as her brother Charles had done 10 years earlier. Accompanied by the Reverend Samuel May Jr., she sailed from Boston for Liverpool on December 28, 1858, on the steamer Arahia. They arrived in Liverpool on January 12, 1859, after a discomforting trip in the winter. The ship had become covered with ice and snow, and rolled and tossed so much that many of the passengers became ill, including Remond. At Tuckerman Institute on January 21, 1859, Remond gave her first antislavery lecture in England. Her second lecture, "Slave Life in America," took place just a few days later on January 24. During these speeches, she spoke eloquently of the inhumane treatment of slaves in the United States, her stories shocking many of her listeners. She also described the discrimination endured by free blacks throughout the United States.

For the next three years, Remond lectured to crowds in several other towns and cities throughout the British Isles (including Warrington, Manchester, London, and Leeds), raising large sums of money for the anti-slavery cause. Between 1859 and 1861, she gave more than 45 lectures in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Remond also appeared at times with Frederick Douglass. In 1860, at the invitation of the Edinburgh Ladies' Emancipation Society, she gave a lecture in Edinburgh that was "crowded to the door by a most respectable audience, number upwards of 2000", whose consciences she awakened to a deepened "abhorrence of the sin of Slavery". Although before she sailed to the UK, Remond expected to confront prejudice similar as what she encountered in the United States – writing to Abby Kelly Foster that she feared not "the wind nor the waves, but I know that no matter how I go, the spirit of prejudice will meet me" – she met with a greater acceptance in Britain. "I have been received here as a sister by white women for the first time in my life," she wrote; "I have received a sympathy I never was offered before."

Remond was praised for her speeches, in which she spoke out against slavery and racial discrimination, stressing the sexual exploitation of black women under slavery. Remond called on common themes found in sentimental fiction, such as family, womanhood, and marriage, to evoke an emotional response in her audience. In her short autobiography, written in 1861, she observed that "prejudice against colour has always been the one thing, above all others, which has cast its gigantic shadow over my whole life." During her speaking tours of the British Isles, Remond and her fellow U.S. abolitionists drew comparisons between American slavery and the plight of the British working class during the Industrial Revolution, leading to abolitionists in Britain to note that their lectures were "packed almost entirely by [the] working class".

Once the American Civil War (1861–1865) began, Remond worked to build support in Britain for the Union blockade of the Confederacy and the Union cause. Because British textile factories relied heavily on American cotton from the Southern United States, Remond focused on this in her lectures. In an 1862 speech, she implored her London audience to "Let no diplomacy of statesmen, no intimidation of slaveholders, no scarcity of cotton, no fear of slave insurrections, prevent the people of Great Britain from maintaining their position as the friend of the oppressed negro." After the conclusion of the Civil War, Remond changed her focus to lecture on behalf of the millions of freedmen in the United States, soliciting funds and clothing for them. She was an active member of the London Emancipation Society and the Freedman's Aid Association in London. Her lecture "The Freeman or the Emancipated Negro of the Southern States of the United States," delivered in London, was published in The Freedman (London) in 1867. In the mid-1860s, Remond published a letter from London in the Daily News protesting that racial prejudice had worsened thanks to the efforts of planters in the West Indies and the American South.

Education and later years
From October 1859 to June 1861, Remond undertook studies at Bedford College (later part of the University of London and now merged with Royal Holloway College). She studied classical academic subjects: French, Latin, English literature, music, history and elocution, continuing to give her own lectures during college vacations. During this period, she also traveled to Rome and Florence in Italy.

Remond continued to be involved in the abolitionist and feminist causes in Britain. She was a member first of the London Emancipation Committee, and then helped found and served on the executive committee of the Ladies' London Emancipation Society, which was organized in 1863. Remond is thought to be the only black woman who was among the 1500 signatories to a women-only 1866 petition requesting the right of women to vote. Returning briefly to the U.S., Remond joined with the American Equal Rights Association working for equal suffrage for women and African Americans.

Remond continued her studies at London University College, graduating as a nurse. In 1866, she left England and, after visiting Switzerland, in 1867, at the age of 42, she moved permanently to Florence. She entered the Santa Maria Nuova Hospital school as a medical student. At the time, the school was one of the most prestigious medical schools in Europe. Remond graduated in August 1868. After completing her studies and becoming a doctor, she remained in Florence for many years, then resided in Rome. Remond practiced medicine for more than 20 years, never returning to the United States. Her sister Caroline and Maritcha joined her from the United States. Frederick Douglass met the three women while visiting Rome in 1886.

In Italy, on April 25, 1877, Remond married Lazzaro Pintor (1833–1913), an Italian office worker originally from Sardinia. By the 1880s, Remond Pintor had moved to Rome. Remond died on December 13, 1894, in Rome. She is interred at the Protestant Cemetery in Rome.

Tribute
In 1999 the Massachusetts State House honored six outstanding women of the state by installing a series of six tall marble panels with a bronze bust in each; the busts are of Remond, Dorothea Dix, Florence Luscomb, Mary Kenney O'Sullivan, Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, and Lucy Stone. Two quotations from each of these women are etched on their own marble panel. The wall behind the panels has wallpaper made of six government documents repeated over and over, with each document being related to a cause of one or more of the women.

In 2016, Royal Holloway Students' Union introduced the "Sarah Parker Remond Inclusion and Accessibility Award" in their Society Awards for a society that has demonstrated "outstanding effort to ensure that their activities are as accessible as possible and made a significant effort to promote an inclusive attitude within their membership and in the wider campus community."

The 2019 anthology New Daughters of Africa, edited by Margaret Busby, includes two pieces by Sarah Parker Remond: "Why Slavery is Still Rampant" and "The Negro Race in America" (a letter to the editor of The Daily News, London, in 1866). Additionally, her legacy informs Delia Jarrett-Macauley's contribution to the anthology, "The Bedford Women", which recounts Remond's story.

In 2020, the University College London renamed its Centre for the Study of Racism & Racialisation the "UCL Sarah Parker Remond Centre", with Professor Paul Gilroy as its Founding Director.

The best-selling novel, La linea del colori: Il Grand Tour di Lafanu Brown, by Somalian writer Igiaba Scego (Florence: Giunti, 2020), in Italian, combines the characters of African-American sculptor Edmonia Lewis and Sarah Parker Remond and is dedicated to Rome and to these two figures.

In 2021, the University of Chester detailed plans to relocate the majority of its teaching provision to Warrington town center, housed in a property newly renamed the Sarah Parker Remond Building. In April 2023, the relocation was celebrated with the unveiling of a blue heritage plaque in honor of Remond.

In September 2021, Remond was honored in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, where she spoke on her 1859–1860 tour of England and Ireland campaigning on the evils of enslavement, having been invited by Elizabeth Dawson of the Wakefield Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society. After Remond delivered her lecture, the mixed-gender Wakefield Anti-Slavery Association was established on January 12, 1860, at the Corn Exchange.

In 2022, the unveiling in London of a Nubian Jak Community Trust commemorative blue plaque in her honour was announced, taking place on March 25.

In 2023 The Guardian commissioned a portrait of Remond by Claudette Johnson as part of its Cotton Capital project.

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

title: Sarah Parker Remond


text:
Robert Kane (chemist)

Sir Robert John Kane  MRIA  (24 September 1809 – 16 February 1890) was an Irish chemist and educator.

Early life
Kane was born at 48 Henry Street, Dublin on 24 September 1809 to John and Eleanor Kean (née Troy). His father was involved in the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and fled for a time to France where he studied chemistry. Back in Dublin, Kean (now Kane) founded the Kane Company and manufactured sulphuric acid.

The young Kane studied chemistry at his father's factory, and attended lectures at the Royal Dublin Society as a teenager. He published his first paper in 1828, Observations on the existence of chlorine in the native peroxide of manganese, in the London Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and Art. The following year, his description of the natural arsenide of manganese resulted in the compound being named Kaneite in his honour. He studied medicine at Trinity College, Dublin, graduating in 1834 whilst working in the Meath Hospital. He was appointed Professor of Chemistry at the Apothecaries' Hall, Dublin in 1831, which earned him the moniker of the "boy professor". In the following year he participated in the founding of the Dublin Journal of Medical Science.

Chemistry
On the strength of his book Elements of Practical Pharmacy he was elected to the Royal Irish Academy in 1832. He studied acids, showed that hydrogen was electropositive, and proposed the existence of the ethyl radical. In 1836 he travelled to Gießen in Germany to study organic chemistry with Justus von Liebig. In 1843 he was awarded the Royal Irish Academy's Cunningham Medal for his work on the nature and constitution of compounds of Ammonia.

He published a three-volume Elements of Chemistry in 1841–1844, and a detailed report on the Industrial Resources of Ireland. This included the first assessment of the water power potential of the River Shannon, which was not realised until the 1920s at Ardnacrusha.

Great Famine of Ireland
He became a political adviser on scientific and industrial matters. He served on several commissions to enquire into the Great Famine of Ireland along with Professors Lindley and Taylor, all more or less ineffective. His political and administrative work meant that his contribution to chemistry ceased after about 1844.

Educational work
His work on Irish industry led to his being appointed director of the Museum of Irish Industry in Dublin in 1845. The Museum was a successor to the Museum of Economic Geology, and was housed at 51 St Stephen's Green.

Also in 1845 he became the first President of Queen's College, Cork (now University College Cork). He did not spend a lot of time in Cork as he had work in Dublin, and his wife lived there. The science building on the campus of this college (now University College Cork) is named in honour of Kane. He was knighted in 1846. In 1873, Kane took up the post of National Commissioner for Education. He was elected president of the Royal Irish Academy in 1877, holding the role until 1882. In 1880 he was appointed the first chancellor of the newly created Royal University of Ireland. After a motion to admit women to the University, put forward by Prof. Samuel Haughton at Academic Council in Trinity College Dublin, 10 March 1880, Kane was appointed to a committee of 10 men to look into the matter. He was opposed to the admission of women, and nothing was reported from the committee in the Council minutes for the next 10 years (Parkes, 2004).

Family
Kane married Katherine Sophia Baily on 23 August 1838, with whom he had seven surviving children. Kane's eldest son Robert Romney Kane was known as a barrister. The second son, Henry Coey Kane, became an admiral in the Royal Navy.

title: Robert Kane (chemist)


text:
Talk:Eucharistic theologies summarised

Clarifications
This page needs some work, clarification, and development. I've tried to get it started. KHM03 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Is this notice still necessary? If no response is posted, I'll remove it. Carolynparrishfan 13:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

ready for tag removal?
The attention tag was added by KHM03 on June 6, 2005. This person has done a lot of work to bring this page to where it needs to be. KHM03's superior knowledge of the subject has caused him/her to view this page in a lower respect than it deserves as compared with the standards of other pages on wikipedia. I agree with Carolynparrishfan; I feel it has reached the point where it no longer requires this tag.

The Methodist section needs to have a concise explanation under "Eucharistic theology:", rather than a long quote.

This article could also benefit from a section under each tradition that states whether that tradition supports open or closed communion and the frequency of observance.

--Victoria h 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm nost sure I have viewed this page "...in a lower respect than it deserves as compared with the standards of other pages on wikipedia." But, at any rate, you can remove the tag if you wish.   KHM03 13:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I added some notes about frequency and open/closed communion that I think are at least mostly accurate. I also don't think it needs the attention tag any more, so I'm removing it. If anyone disagrees, that's fine, just let us know what exactly requires attention. Wesley 20:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision of the Lutheran section
There were a few inaccuracies here, which I took the liberty to modify. I am willing to discuss them. This is a helpful article. drboisclair 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican section is biased and should be revised
This betrays an Anglo-Catholic (tractarian) bias and does not reflect the theology of the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP (which are binding in most Anglican churches throughout the communion). Belief in the Real Presence is not "Anglican" theology but "Anglo-Catholic" ("Tractarian") theology. That is the theology of but one party of Anglicanism and does not reflect the historic doctrinal statements of Anglicanism embodied in the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles. Instead of making such partisan comments as "insistence on belief in the Real Presence", to conform with neutrality the article should at the very least reflect the divergence of opinion within Anglicanism on this matter (noting the contrasting views of the major parties within the church: Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and Liberal). Better yet there is a very good case for stating that official Anglican doctrinal statements clearly reject belief in the real presence, but despite this some (many?) Anglicans (typically those of the Anglo-Catholic party or other highchurchmen) still believe in the real presence. The majority of Anglicans throughout history have rejected belief in the Real Presence; Cranmer (the composer/compiler of the traditional Anglican liturgy) certainly didn't and was burned at the stake for his troubles. To make a blanket statement that Anglicanism "insists on" belief in the Real Presence is not only misleading but highly offensive to the millions of Anglicans throughout the world and down through the ages who -- like Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer before them and who were burned alive for their beliefs -- hold to the historic Reformed faith expressed in the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles.

Despite Anglo-Catholic protestations, the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles strongly deny the Real Presence. Article XXVIII oppposes transubstantiation on the grounds that it "cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." This article not only rejects transubstantiation, but also all other views of the "real presence". The same article insists that "the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner". You couldn't get a clearer denial of belief in the Real Presence than the words "ONLY after an HEAVENLY and SPIRITUAL manner". There is no room for dissemblance here. Christ is not present in the elements; he is risen and sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the Father Almighty. The Anglican order for Holy Communion also refers to receiving the sacrament as "SPIRITUALLY eat[ing] his flesh of Christ, and drink[ing] his blood". Moreover, the words of administration which the minister says to communicants before receiving the bread ("The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and FEED ON HIM IN THY HEART BY FAITH with thanksgiving") deny the Real Presence and affirm an essentially Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper which denies the Real Presence but affirms a spiritual presence of Christ during the Lord's Supper. It is in their "hearts by faith" and not phyisically in the elements that Anglicans feed on Christ's body. The rubrics also deny the Real Presence. First, according to the rubrics Holy Communion can only be celebrated with a quorum of people in the parish; except in exceptional circumstances, Private Communion is unknown to Anglicanism. This marks a move away from a belief in the real presence to a memorial meal celebrated by the congregation. Secondly, "to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition" regular bread (note, NOT the special wafers wherein Jesus is said to inhabit by proponents of the Real Presence) "shall suffice". Finally, and this is the real clincher, "it is hereby declared, That ... no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, OR UNTO ANY CORPORAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S NATURAL FLESH AND BLOOD. FOR THE SACRAMENTAL BREAD AND WINE REMAIN STILL IN THEIR VERY NATURAL SUBSTANCES, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ ARE IN HEAVEN AND NOT HERE; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." [emphasis added].

Apodeictic 01:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * What would you suggest? KHM03 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What would I suggest? This is tricky because there is a divergence of belief within Anglicanism and I do have strong opinions myself (coming from the Low Church/ Evangelical Reformed wing of the Church) which I happen to think correct :-) I can't speak for liberals and anglo-ccatholics as well as I can for evangelicals. I can do my best, but it would be nice of some liberals and anglo-catholics could explain and defend their views. But I think a reference to the divergence of opinion within Anglicanism is essential. The pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence#Anglicans_-_broad_range_of_opinions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Anglicans.2FEpiscopalians:_Real_Presence_with_Opinion (while not without their problems) are a good start. But I think the differences of opinion could be done more systematically and in depth. The question is where they belong on Wikipedia. Does an outline of the differences in Anglican eucharistic theology belong here (Eucharistic Theologies Contrasted) or does it belong elsewhere?

In any event, I would suggest something along the following lines:

Within Anglicanism there is a wide divergence of opinion on eucharistic theology. Arguably this reflects the wider divergence of theological opinion present in the Anglican Communion (eg the differences of theology and practice between Evangelicals, Liberals and Anglo-Catholics who coexist "under one roof"). Any statement of "Anglican" eucharistic theology, therefore, is fraught with danger and is likely to betray the churchmanship of the one making of the statement. Indeed the very use of terminolgy to name this sacrament is not without controversy within Anglicanism. The only terms used in the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer 1662 are "the Lord's Supper" (or its variant "the Supper of the Lord") and the "Holy Communion" which, in the eyes of the Low Church or Evangelical wing of the Church mark a distinct move towards a Reformed understanding of the sacrament. Despite (or perhaps because of) being found nowhere in the 1662 Prayer Book or the Anglican Articles of Religion, those with Higher Churchmanship, on the other hand, often prefer the term "Eucharist". Some Anglo-Catholics even prefer the term "Mass" despite (or perhaps again because of) Article XXXI's description of "the sacrifice of Masses" as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits". In line with the terminology employed elsewhere in this article, the terms "eucharistic" and "Eucharist" will therefore be employed, without implying any position as to the propriety of the use of this term within Anglican theology.

The divide of opinion on eucharistic theology within the Western Church poses a number of questions. First can be considered the question "Where is Christ during the Eucharist?". There are (with some minor variations) essentially four basic positions on eucharistic theology:
 * 1. Transubstantiation (a change in the elements into the actual body and blood of Christ so that Christ is physically "in" the elements)
 * 2. Real (physical) Presence short of transubstantiation (typically a joining of Christ's actual body and blood with the elements so that Christ is physically "in and with" the elements; sometimes referred to as "consubstantiation")
 * 3. Spiritual Presence (a belief that Christ is specially present spiritually either in the elements or with his people as they partake of the Sacrament)
 * 4. "Mere" memorialism (where Christ is said to be no more present -- either physically or spiritually -- during the Sacrament than at any other time and the sacrament is a memorial meal for Christ's followers on earth).

The use of the terminolgy "Real Presence" is therefore ambiguous. In most cases it probably refers to position number 2 where Christ is physically present "in and with" the elements, but in some senses positions 1 and 3 can also be referred to as a "real" presence.

Each of thes four eucharistic theologies is held by various Anglicans. Which position is the most authentically "Anglican" is a matter for debate. A second question concerns who may preside over the Eucharist. Must it be a bishop (episcopas) or priest (presbyteros)? Or can a deacon (diakonas) or even a lay person preside over the Eucharist? Undoubtedly the attitude of both the nature of the Eucharist (eg whether it a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice as in the Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass or a memorial meal as Calvinists and Zwinglians insist) and Christian ordination will have a bearing on the question of who may officiate at the Eucharist. The second question is currently on the agenda within Anglicanism as some (but by no means all) Evangelicals in the Diocese of Sydney and elsewhere are pressing for "lay and diaconal presidency of the Lord's Supper".

On the First Question:
 * Article XXVIII of the 39 Articles explicitly rejects belief in transubstantiation and states that reservation, carrying about, lifting up or the worship of the Sacrament is not by Christ's ordinance. The rubric to the Order of Holy Communion, moreover, forbids private communion (a minimum of three communicants together with the priest is required).
 * A minority of Anglo-Catholics, however, nevertheless adhere to belief in transubstantiation, reservation etc of the Sacrament and even perdorm "private masses", presumably on the basis that the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles represent a departure from authentic "catholic" doctrine and are therefore not binding.
 * Some other Anglicans take the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer only to reject transubstantiation as such (that is a change in substance of the elements from bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ when correctly presided over by a priest) and believe in the Real (physical) Presence while being content to let the mystery of the metousiosis remain a mystery. Moreover on this view, while the Article states that reservation etc are not of Christ's ordinance, the article does not explicitly prohibit these practices. This would reflect the opinion of the majority of Anglo-Catholics and other High Churchmen within the Anglican Communion.
 * Many other Anglicans take the Prayer Book and Articles to explicitly rule out any belief in the bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well as reservation, adoration etc of the sacrament. This essentially reflects position of the Evangelical or Low Church wing of the church. They point not only to the change at the Reformation to a more Protestant name for the sacrament, but also the Articles, the Order for Holy Communion and the rubrics in justifying this view. There are many strands to this argument, but the strongest is arguably from the rubric which states that "it is hereby declared, That ... no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."
 * Opinion among Low Church Anglicans is typically divided between a Calvinistic and a more Zwinglian understanding of the Lord's Supper. Both emphasise the aspect of this sacrament being a "memorial meal" whereby the notion of the sacrifice of the mass is rejected, instead the Lord's supper being a re-institution in the New Covenant of the Old Covenant passover meal whereby Christians are to remember Christ's death on the cross and all it has achieved for them. However, the Calvinistic interpretation stresses that Christ is spiritually present during the Lord's Supper when the sacrament is received by faith (and in the eyes of the Calvinists the words of administration "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving" indicate that Anglican Eucharistic theology is at heart Calvinist), whereas the Zwinglian understanding suggests that Christ is no more present with his people at this time than at any other.

As mentioned above, all four positions are present within modern Anglicanism. Which is the more "authentically" Anglican position is difficult to answer without being partisan. Anglo-Catholics tend to stress the "catholicity" of the Anglican Church and its continuity with ancient church doctrines and practices. The Church of England was (and arguably still is despite the presence of Roman Catholic churches in that country) considered to be *the* historic Catholic Church in England. Anglo-Catholics tend not to place much emphasis on the the doctrinal statements arising out of the Reformation. More moderate Anglo-Catholics see the Reformation as but one of many events shaping Anglican belief and practice where some good things (eg the liturgy in English) took place and some bad things (eg the adoption of distinctly "un-Catholic" [i.e. Protestant] doctrines and practices) took place. More extreme Anglo-Catholics would see the Reformation as an essentially wholly pernicious influence needing to be undone. On this view (whether more moderate or more extreme) the Reformation marked a departure from catholic Christianity. Anglo-Catholics, therefore, will tend to argue therefore that belief in the real presence is "historical" and "catholic", despite any ambiguity or disapproval in the Anglican Reformation Formularies.

Evangelicals on the other hand, while also in principle accepting the catholicity and continuity of the Anglican Church, see the Reformation and the Reformation formularies (the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles) as foundational to Anglican belief and practice. They see truly "catholic" Christianity as having been lost in a mass of unscriptural Roman superstition prior to the Reformation. On this view the Reformation marked not a departure from but a *return to* catholic Christianity. The Reformation "solas" (sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, sola scriptura, sola gloria Deo) are not only "catholic" doctrines on this view but Evangelicals firmly believe that the Anglican Reformation Formularies which embody these principles commit the Anglican Church to historic Biblical Reformation Christianity. Evangelicals, therefore, will tend to argue that belief in the Real (physical) Presence is contrary to both Scripture and the Anglican Reformation Formularies which are still binding on the Church today.

Before the Oxford Movement, the Low Church understanding, that is a rejection of belief in the Real (physical) Presence in favour of either Calvinistic or Zwinglian Memorialism was arguably the position held by the majority of Anglicans, including Thomas Cranmer. However, over time Anglo-Catholicism has gained ground to the extent that many within Anglicanism today, perhaps even a majority within some dioceses and provinces, believe not only in the Real (physical) Presence of Christ during the Eucharist, but that this is *the* Anglican position on eucharistic theology.

On the Second Question: Many evangelicals argue that there is no biblical warrant for restricting administration (or presidency) of the Lord's Supper to ordained priests (and bishops). They argue (among other things) that in a Reformed denomination the administration of the sacrament is no more important than the proclaiming of the word. In fact, the Calvinistic understanding of the two sacraments is that they are the word of God enacted for us: the written Word *tells* us what Christ has done for us and the Sacraments (as the enacted or visible Word) *show* us what Christ has done for us. In appropriate circumstance we already allow deacons and lay people to preach; therefore we should allow such people (in appropriate circumstances) to preside over the Lord's Supper (and arguably baptism as well). To restrict adminsistration of the sacrament to priests (and by extension bishops) sends out the wrong message about (a) the nature of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (which is not above but on a par with proclaiming the written Word of God) and (b) the nature of Christian ordination (which in the New Testament is not sacerdotal but one of a teaching-elder). Anglo-Catholics primarily respond that a move to lay and diaconal presidency would mark a move from historic ("catholic") Christianity (since it hasn't been done in the past it isn't "catholic") and would break Communion within the Anglican Communion and the wider Christian world. Additionally most Anglo-Catholics probably have a radically different understanding of both the nature of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and Christian priesthood but tend not to make these explicit in debates with Evangelicals on lay presidency of the Lord's Supper.

Apodeictic 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep in mind that this article is a brief overview, comparing one view to others. How would you state your position concisely, as the others are stated?  KHM03 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the following?

 * There is a divergence of opinion within Anglicanism. Transubstantiation, Real (Bodily) Presence, (Calvinistic) Spiritual Presence and (Zwinglian) Dynamic Memorialism are all represented within Anglicanism. Which of these four views represents "authentic" Anglican eucharistic theology depends on wider theological and ecclessiological understandings of Anglicanism, in particular the role of pre-Reformation "catholic" doctrine and practices vis-à-vis Reformational theology in interpresting the the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles (the Reformation formularies).
 * In theory the Reformation formularies are authoritative statements of Anglican doctrine. In practice, however, interpretations of these vary between different groupings within Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholics tend to give them less emphasis, interpreting them more in line with pre-Reformation "catholic" theology and practice, while Evangelicals tend to give them more emphasis, interpreting them more in line with Reformation theology.
 * Article 28 of the 39 Articles rejects transubstantiation and states that the body of the Lord is taken "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner".
 * Article 28 also states that reservation, carrying about, lifting up or the worship of the Sacrament is "not by Christ's ordinance".
 * Article 29 says that the wicked and those that lack a "lively faith" although physically consuming the elements are "in no wise" "partakers of Christ".
 * Article 30 says that the laity are to receive both the bread and the wine (and not the bread only as is commonly the case within Roman Catholicism).
 * Article 31 describes "the sacrifice of Masses" as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits".
 * The rubrics to the Order of Holy Communion forbid private communion. (There is a minimum of three communicants and a priest).
 * The rubrics also say that Anglicans are to communicate at least three times a year, one of those being Easter.
 * Furthermore, the rubrics lay down that Communion is to be received kneeling and that no adoration of the elements or of "any Corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood" is "thereby" intended or ought to be done and that the elements "remain in their very natural substances" and that "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

 * High Church Anglicans tend to believe in the Real (Bodily) Presence. A minority of Anglo-Catholics believe in transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass (despite Articles 28 and 31); the majority of High Church Anglicans do not believe in transubstantiation as taught by the Church of Rome and are content simply to let the mystery of the metousiosis remain a mystery. In practice, High Church parishes tend to celebrate the Eucharist weekly (or more frequently) and prefer the term "Eucharist" or even "Mass" (incidentally, both terms not used by the Anglican Reformation formularies). Reservation and adoration of the sacrament, while perhaps not being "by Christ's ordinance", are not (on this view) explicitly forbidden and are common practice among many High Anglicans.
 * Low Church Anglicans tend to reject belief in the Real (Bodily) Presence as well as reservation and adoration of the sacrament and adopt a Calvinistic (Memorialism with Spiritual Presence) or Zwinglian (Dynamic Memorialism) view of the Eucharist, viewing not only the 39 Articles and the rubrics but also the wording and structure of the actual Order for Holy Communion in line with Reformational theology. Low Church parishes tend to celebrate the Eucharist less frequently (eg monthly) and prefer the terms "Holy Communion" or "Lord's Supper" (incidentally the only two terms used by the Reformation Formularies).
 * Between the High Church and the Low Church views lies the position that Anglicanism (as a Broad Church) allows for a range of theological views each of which (with the possible exception of the Roman Catholic understanding of transubtantiation) is an equally welcome expression of eucharistic theology within the Anglican context.

Apodeictic 22:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Can you cut it by about 2/3rds? KHM03 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cutting it would I think require removing the outline of what the BCP and 39 Articles say and simply stating what views people with low/high church sympathies hold in practice. Perhaps a link could be made to this information elsewhere for those who are interested in what the Anglican church officially teaches, rather than what individual Anglicans actually believe.

Apodeictic 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a divergence of opinion within Anglicanism. Transubstantiation, Real (Bodily) Presence, (Calvinistic) Spiritual Presence and (Zwinglian) Dynamic Memorialism are all represented. Which of these four views represents "authentic" Anglican eucharistic theology depends on wider theological and ecclessiological understandings of Anglicanism, in particular the role of pre-Reformation "catholic" doctrine and practices vis-à-vis Reformational theology in interpresting the the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles (the Reformation formularies).
 * In theory the Reformation formularies are authoritative statements of Anglican doctrine. In practice, however, interpretations of these vary between different groupings within Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholics tend to give them less emphasis, interpreting them more in line with pre-Reformation "catholic" theology and practice, while Evangelicals tend to give them more emphasis, interpreting them more in line with Reformation theology.
 * High Church Anglicans, therefore, tend to believe in the Real (Bodily) Presence. A minority of Anglo-Catholics adhere to transubstantiation (despite Article 28); the majority of High Church Anglicans do not and are content simply to let the mystery of the metousiosis remain a mystery. In practice, High Church parishes tend to celebrate the Eucharist weekly (or more frequently) and prefer the term "Eucharist" or even "Mass". Reservation and adoration of the sacrament are common practice among many High Anglicans.
 * Low Church Anglicans, on the other hand tend, to reject belief in the Real (Bodily) Presence as well as reservation and adoration of the sacrament and adopt a Calvinistic (Spiritual Presence) or Zwinglian (Dynamic Memorialism) view. Low Church parishes tend to celebrate the Eucharist less frequently (eg monthly, but this varies from place to place) and prefer the terms "Holy Communion" or "Lord's Supper". A current issue under consideration by some (but by no means all) Evangelical Anglicans is lay and diaconal presidency (administration) of the Lord's Supper. This is particularly the case in the Diocese of Sydney and for like-minded Anglicans elsewhere who look to Sydney.
 * Between these High and Low Church views lies the position that Anglicanism (as a Broad Church) permits a range of theological views each of which (with the possible exception of the Roman Catholic notion of transubtantiation) is an equally welcome expression of eucharistic theology within the Anglican context.

 * I've updated it now. So hopefully it's no longer POV. I think it fairly summarises the contending views without taking a side on any one of them as the previous entry did. Sorry if I've taken up too much space on "talk" incoming to this result. This was was my first attempt at a Wiki edit and I was a bit reluctant to go ahead and do it without seeing what others thought first. Apodeictic

 * I notice the sections on the debate over lay presidency and the communal theology of the Eucharist have been snipped. I'm happy to defer to wiser heads on the necessity for mentioning this here. I put it in since it was actually mentioned on the previous version of the page.
 * But one thing that arguably should go in is something on open versus closed communion -- since most of the summaries of other denominations have mention of this. As far as I know all Anglican churches practise OPEN Communion. But I'm not 100% sure though. I know that all the Anglican churches I have attended practise Open Communion. But I don't know what the theology of the Anglo-Catholics and Liberals would say on this point, so I'm a bit reluctant to speak for "Anglicanism" here. Are there any Anglo-Catholics or Liberal Anglicans that could give an answer to this? Apodeictic 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Planned closed communion in Anglican churches (even the most extreme Anglo-Catholic churches) must be extraordinarily rare, if it occurs at all. My only doubt would be whether an advertised/scheduled Eucharist (Mass etc) would go ahead if no congregation turned up (e.g. for a mid-week celebration): my suspicion is that it might in some cases. CW 5 August 2007

Presentation
Is there a reason behind the bullet point style and presentation? It seems to me that although an encyclopedia should adopt the most appropriate style for the content in question, there needs to be a clear need and a consensus to vary from the typical style of a Wikipedia article. However, I ask the question idly, as I am not volunteering to rework it - I would just like to know! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity
To my amusement, although my edit summary was that I had "expanded the section", a glance at my watchlist showed that I had removed nearly 900 bytes. However, that is mostly due to the giant quoted paragraph which was a little redundant and could easily be broken down into basic terminology, as the Real Presence (I added the paragraph's source as a reference here. I improved the grammar, removed the half-hearted attempt of equipping each bullet with a specific theme, i.e. "Frequency:" or "Eucharistic Theology:". Maybe that should be re-added later, in bold, but as for now the other sections don't seem to follow this system well... besides, it may be better to keep the bullets general... the reader can easily discern the theme within the first few words. I also understand that more citations are needed, and hopefully I'll find some soon enough. Hopefully, the section is clearer, more to the point, and all-around better than before.--C.Logan 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I await the promised explanation of the grounds on which C.Logan bases his suggestion that the Catholic Church goes into details of how "the bread and wine are believed to become the genuine Body and Blood of the Christ Jesus". Until he does, I must revert to avoid a contradiction with the first statement given under the heading "Roman Catholic Church": Transubstantiation as a statement of what is changed when the bread and wine are consecrated, not an explanation of the means or mode by which the Real Presence is effected, since "[t]he signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ. Lima 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay... Lets clarify things a bit, because you seem to be rather aggressive in your editing. The first issue I would like to point out is that the passage in question is actually a slightly modified copy which was basically copied and pasted directly from the Communion section of the Eastern Orthodox Church page (Note: I changed the language a bit so as to not post a direct copy)... I didn't think this would cause any conflict, as the statement is relatively benign. Basically, I feel that the problem may be that you don't exactly understand what it says; to your credit, the wording is ambiguous.

Here is your edit summary: (I'll be more explicit: to suggest that the Catholic Church says *anything* about *how* the change is brought about is false: see CCC1333 quoted here)

Alright. I thought to myself immediately upon reading this that I had not placed a claim like that into the article. Of course, no denominations (mainline, anyway) believe they actually know how this occurs.

So, lets look at the offending statement: The Eastern Orthodox Church has never described exactly how this occurs, nor has it gone into the detail that the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have in the West; rather, it is satisfied in accepting that the change is a mystery beyond human understanding.

Okay, so the Church has never described how this occurs. Simple statement. The second statement is referring to the fact that, while Catholicism, Lutheranism and other Denominations have further elaborated on certain beliefs regarding the Eucharist (as well as other theological ideas), the Orthodox Church remains primitive in this aspect; that is, they merely term it a mystery of God, and seek not to explain the specifics of it. I have added a source for this, Kallistos (Timothy) Ware's book "The Orthodox Church", which is a book I own, just so you know that I'm not someone who would just look on Google for a source so that I might argue with you about something. The sourced pages also reference the Synod in Jerusalem, and about the Orthodox view of the real presence. Although I am far less skilled with words, I think this is an accurate representation, stating the simple ideas of the Eucharistic theology without bogging them down with too much history. So... I don't understand why we are contending about this particular point. I'm not saying Catholicism knows how it happens, nor Lutheranism, but I am saying that the Orthodox Church is far more loyal to the idea of mystery than the Western Churches are to it, as they have sought to define certain specifics within the liturgy itself in regards to the Eucharist, while the Orthodox Church is more general about it all. I hope you don't think I'm implying who is correct and who is incorrect.

On another note, please, stop changing the Bible Verse link... It seems, first of all, that the link you are changing it to is not a valid one. Additionally, I'm using the same exact Bible verse link format found on the Transubstantiation page, amongst many other pages, so whats the problem?

Finally, I'm curious about your frequent change of "in accepting" to "to accept". Both are grammatically correct... is this merely a preference thing?

Once again, I never stated that Catholics and Protestants new how the change occurs, I stated that the Orthodox Church is less eager to define specifics about the idea/process/what have you.

Maybe I'm losing my marbles. Is the statement that ambiguous?--C.Logan 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'd like to clarify that this is basically what I'm trying to say in that particular sentence, even though that sentence was copied directly from the Eastern Orthodox Church, so here is a similar statement from the Transubstantiation page, which also speaks of Eastern rite Catholics:

 * The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they do speak clearly of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) or "metousiosis" (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine.

 * Is this a harsh idea? I figured the sentence I used had explained the gist of it...--C.Logan 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor things first. First, an admission of guilt on my part: I should have enclosed "bibleverse" with, not .... Please excuse me. lets you chose what version(s) of the Bible text you prefer (and even consult the Greek), instead of directing you, as what is now in the text does, to the King James Version in English only.

I thought "to accept" was, in the context, better English. If you prefer the other, I don't object (though I still think the one I prefer is the better!).

Now to the essential. (But first a minor observation: If the Eastern Orthodox Church page has the same statement, then it should be corrected. I ceased more than two years ago to follow that page; but I remember that on one occasion two editors commented there that it was a disgrace that, unlike the page on the Roman Catholic Church, some parts of that page presented Orthodox teaching not as what it is, but as what it is not, as if it existed only as a protesting negation of another teaching - and, I may add, mostly a misunderstanding of that teaching.)

My difficulty is your positing a contrast with the Catholic Church immediately after saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church has never described exactly how the change in the Eucharist occurs. You thus suggest that the Catholic Church has attempted to describe exactly how the change occurs. But it hasn't.

Here on the Talk page you perhaps say that the contrast with the Catholic Church is not about "exactly how the change occurs"; you speak instead of "certain beliefs regarding the Eucharist (as well as other theological ideas)". There is no such distinction in your version of the article, and even "certain beliefs" is too vague and may even be meant to include "exactly how the change occurs".

Furthermore, you know Wikipedia's NPOV rules. You may not present a disputed statement such as you made as what Wikipedia says, even if you give a reference to some Orthodox theologians in a footnote. You can only say something like: "Timothy Ward wrote that: '...'" If he did write what you say he did, no objection can be raised. But presenting an opinion as fact is not allowed.

On Wikipedia one would also expect references to made, by preference, not to printed books, but to good sources, if there are any, that can be easily checked on the Internet.

So thank you for pointing out my error with the "bibleverse" system, and please accept my apologies for not noticing it myself. I trust you will give thoughtful consideration to my observations on what I see as a POV problem and, hopefully, revise your text accordingly. Lima 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't really think that's the case. I do agree that the wording would make it seem as if it were, however. For instance, what would you think if this version:

 * The Eastern Orthodox Church has never described exactly how this occurs, nor has it attempted to assign specific terminology to the philosophical aspects of this process, as the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have in the West; rather, it is satisfied in accepting that the change is a mystery beyond human understanding.

 * This is essentially what I meant for the original to say (or rather, that's how I read the original text which I copied and pasted).
 * Basically, the first half of the offending sentence refers to the simple and obvious fact that the Orthodox are in the dark as to how it happens. The second half, which is (apparently) ambiguously phrased so that it can either refer to the preceding sentence or, as "neither(and/or)nor" can allow for a connection to be like this, phrased in another way (which has a POV tone, for sake of example:

 * Not only does the Orthodox Church lack the understanding of the doctrine... they don't even make any attempt to define it as the Western Christians do!

 * I understand this is a flawed rephrasing, but look at it with the emphasis here. That's the underlying point contained in the statement... while it isn't supposed to make either side right or wrong (especially since you and I are apparently of the opposing faiths contrasted here), it is simply moving from a simple statement to a more extreme one. In the article, where the tone is kept neutral (well, hopefully), this is less apparent. Perhaps it could be that you are so actively looking for errors that you are essentially mentally seeking out small discrepancies so that statements which may -at a glance- be benign, you are ready to see them as much clearer errors than they are. I see the ambiguity of the text, now. But as I read it earlier, and I had read it in the article several times in the past couple of months, the meaning which I extracted from it is the same as the amplified version I have quoted above.

 * So... I hope that aspect is at least a bit clarified. I think the statement is a simple way to explain the Orthodox Church's primitive view on the matter, and it doesn't really violate the truth, does it? I mean, this is a page about contrast, so it would be important to mention the Orthodox Church's aversion to the designation of names, and descriptions of those names (take, for example, the Lutheran idea of his presence above, below, etc...).

 * Furthermore, regarding Ware, I have found the source online. It's a little lengthy, so... I'll post it on your talk page if you don't mind. There's no need to clog up this page with it. The book is mostly an explanation of history and doctrine, and is usually the one I've seen recommended to people inquiring about the faith. Indeed, while he does admit his own opinions from time to time, his view of history and doctrine seems fairly objective. So, in this sense, Ware expresses his personality, while remaining in the majority POV (as he should be, considering that he is a Bishop of the UK Patriarchate, and that he taught Eastern Orthodox studies at Oxford for 35 years). I understand his credentials are not really important in this discussion, but this is essentially one of the "101" things I had learned about Orthodoxy... that the Western Churches have clarified their doctrine with new terminology, as the term "transubstantiation", which came into use after the Schism... not that that is a bad thing, whereas the Orthodox have preferred not to use the terminology, and when they do, they clarify their stance on it's usage.

 * I suppose I'm being redundant, as you should just read the text, at your page.

 * Also, good note about the Bible link. I chose the specific one originally because it used the concrete terms of flesh and such, as opposed to someone who would read a version which was altered in form or amplified in such a way that the wording became more extract... and considering that this reading is one which is intended to lend support to the theology of it all, it would make more sense if the literal translation was used, as the Church takes that literal translation into account when formulating and defending these doctrines. The words are utterly important to the belief of this particular denomination (and others) in this specific theological doctrine.
 * Still, I'm sure the general meaning can be discerned, so I welcome the change (Even though at the site I used, you can also switch translations after the fact).

 * Anyway, forgive me if I've been making less sense as this progresses, as I'm reaching the breaking point in my mission to remain awake and persist in conscious thought all night... it feels like the engine has been running without the oil for too long.

 * I suppose I'll sleep. But mind that the excerpt is on your talk page, with a link to the actual page itself. Keep in mind that I'm just trying to clarify the relation of the O. Churches view to that of the Roman Catholic Church, and to that of early Protestants, which both assign more terminology and theology to it than is present in the Orthodox view. I just have to figure out we might agree it could be presented fairly.--C.Logan 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose we both leave it until tomorrow. Then you can tell me what it is that you see in what Timothy Ware wrote that seems to you to posit divergences between Orthodox and Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. (As for terminology, don't forget that there are very authoritative Orthodox documents that use, in Greek and Russian, the same terms that the Latin Church uses.) Lima 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it appears that Timothy Ware only speaks positively of Orthodox faith, without saying negative things about Catholic faith, I am now trimming the Orthodox section so that it only speaks of Orthodox teaching. Lima 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.--C.Logan 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Communion in the hand
I dislike simply removing the work of other editors, but I have found no other way to deal with the anonymous addition of "Traditionally, Communion should not be taken in hand, should be kneeled at, and veils are repectfully worn." This addition is, in any case, probably out of place in an article on Eucharistic theologies; but more important, it is simply inaccurate. Historical documents suggest that receiving the host directly into the mouth was not the earliest form of receiving communion under the form of bread, so calling it "traditional" is questionable. If veils are worn (by all communicants, male and female?), they should of course be worn respectfully. If the anonymous editor from Willingboro really wants the addition, and if it can be shown to be relevant to an article on Eucharistic theologies (rather than just Eucharistic practices), perhaps we can together work out an acceptable way of expressing it. See Who Can Receive Communion? and it better to receive Holy Communion on the hand or on the tongue. Lima 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
I am concerned that this article is a content fork parallel to other articles such as Eucharist, Eucharistic theology and Real Presence. I suggest that the material here be merged into these other articles. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I was about to suggest the merge of the Different understandings section of the Real Presence article with this page. I think there's enough meat, so to speak (for current lack in my brain for a better metaphor), in the subjects of each article that separate articles are warranted, with the Eucharist & Eucharistic theology articles being a possible exception. Of course, we need to be careful about how we structure the related articles to minimize overlap down to just enough information to segue into the link.

 * As you may have run into before with me, due to the severity of my chronic illnesses I may not be able to do more than point this out, so I appreciate the hard work of anyone who can take this up. To encourage that, I've posted a link back to this discussion at the Real_Presence talk page.

 * Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm going to go ahead and tag this page and Eucharistic theology. If you would like to discuss this merge, please do so at talk:Eucharistic theology -JFHutson (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eucharistic theologies summarised


text:
Taylor, British Columbia

The District of Taylor is a district municipality in northeastern British Columbia, Canada, located at mile 36 of the Alaska Highway. Taylor, a member municipality of the Peace River Regional District, covers an area of about 17 km2 with 1,317 residents as of 2021.

The town sits on a terrace 60 m above the north bank of the Peace River. The first settler on the flat was a trapper named Herbert Taylor in 1911. The town incorporated in 1958 with industrial business beginning to locate there. Since then, Taylor has remained a small town, even though it has developed a large industrial base. It has become home to the annual World's Invitational Class 'A' Gold Panning Championships and was featured on the CBC Television program Village on a Diet.

History
The town, and the Taylor Flats upon which the town is located, are named after Donald Herbert Taylor (1868-1955), a fur-trader with the Hudson's Bay Company who regularly met his Aboriginal trading counterparts on this river flat. In 1912 Taylor left his employers and took up residence on the flats with a few other squatters. That year the federal government opened the area to homesteading and Taylor was granted the land upon which he had settled. These early settlers were trappers with the first farm established by Henry Philip, from Glasgow, who inherited buildings, equipment and land from his survey team when they left the area. In 1915, there were 20 settlers. (Fort George Herald, 9 Oct 1915) In 1919, with the help of Taylor's nine children, along with those from a few American families who settled there, the provincial government opened the Taylor Flats School.

These early settlers all came to the area through the Peace River Country, through Grande Prairie and Pouce Coupe, and across the Peace River. Some decided to settle on the steep-sloped south side of the Peace River, an area that would become known as South Taylor. To cross the river a cable ferry, which would prove to be accident-prone, was built in the 1920s but was soon replaced with a motor-driven ferry. This ferry was used until 1942 when the U.S. Army came through the area building the Alaska Highway and constructed the 2130 ft long Peace River Suspension Bridge. The highway connected the town to a rail station in Dawson Creek reducing the dependence on shipping along the river. The bridge suddenly collapsed on October 16, 1957, with no injuries or fatalities. A new rail trestle, from the rail extension from Chetwynd to Fort St. John, was used while constructing the replacement Peace River Bridge. Major industrial development began in 1957, when Westcoast Energy (later Duke Energy) built the province's first gas processing plant, as well as a refinery and pipeline to Kamloops. The community that formed around this industrial development was incorporated as a village on August 23, 1958, and soon after Canfor opened a planer mill. Meanwhile, 120 km upstream, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam was completed in 1966 and the Peace Canyon Dam in 1980, which controlled the level and flow of the Peace River, making navigation and flood control much easier. The 1961 Canadian census, the first to recognize Taylor as a census subdivision, counted 438 people. During the subsequent five years the population rose 36% to 595 people but rose only a further 2% to 605 people by 1971.

Following the construction of a natural gas processing plant by Westcoast Energy in 1985, Fibreco Pulp opened its sawmill in 1988, and the Village was re-incorporated into the District of Taylor in 1989. Despite the closure of the Petro-Canada refinery in 1991, economic growth continued throughout the decade as Westcoast Energy's McMahon Gas Plant expanded in 1991 and added a cogeneration plant in 1993. Fibreco Pulp doubled its capacity in 1996, the Younger Natural Gas Liquids Extraction Plant (to extract water and sulphur from natural gas) was expanded in 1996, and the Taylor Straddle plant (to extract ethane from natural gas) was built in 1997. Since 1993, the town of 1,373 residents have built a new hockey arena, leisure skating arena, curling rink, and an 18-hole golf course. Strong community pride also developed as demonstrated by the town placing first at the provincial level, in its small category, in the parks and gardens-oriented Communities in Bloom Competition in 1997 and second in the national competition in 1998. Other local projects have included building a memorial garden and cenotaph in 2000 dedicated to the 341st Engineers of the U.S. Army corps of Engineers who were stationed on the Taylor Flats in 1942 during the construction of the Alaska Highway and the Peace River Suspension Bridge.

Demographics

In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Taylor had a population of 1,317 living in 542 of its 610 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 1,469. With a land area of 16.92 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

According to the 2011 Canadian Census, a little over the provincial average 68.5% are married while 31.5% are single. With 2.5% of Taylor residents being foreign-born, and 96.4% with an English-only mother tongue, the town has few visible minorities. While not counted as visible minorities during the census, 180 people considered themselves to have an Aboriginal identity, just over twice the provincial average of 5.4%. Housing is mostly owned with 21.5% of the stock being rented, with the provincial average being 29.8%.

Geography and climate

The Taylor Flats, upon which the town is situated, was formed by a pre-glacial bend in the Peace River that now flows eastwards, originating in Hudson's Hope and emptying into the Arctic Ocean. The terrace is approximately 60 m above the north bank of the Peace River. Escarpments encircle the terrace and rise another 100 m to the upland Peace River Prairie. The soil of the Taylor Flats has few limitations, and is rated as prime in some areas. The soils are Rego black loam and clay loam that contain few stones or gravel and are well drained, yet hold adequate moisture for crops. There are several hundred acres of Agricultural Land Reserve within the municipal boundaries on both the east and west sides of the town site. Most of the original vegetation and tree stands have been cleared but black spruce and aspen trees, and an understory of Labrador tea, bog cranberry and mosses are present.

The town has a northern, semiarid continental climate with cool, short summers and long, cold winters. However, the Taylor Flats’ microclimate, created by the south-facing terrace and the Peace River, produces more frost-free days than most of the Peace River Country. Being in a rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains the town receives a suppressed amount of precipitation, and especially snowfall. Like the rest of the region, the town has long daylight hours in the summer, short winter daylight hours and uses Mountain Standard Time year-round.

Transportation and infrastructure
Taylor's transportation network is dominated by the two-lane Alaska Highway (Highway 97) which runs north–south through the middle of community and provides the main entrance and exit to the town. Cherry Avenue East is a rural road transportation route that travels through Baldonnel to Fort St. John. Intersections along the highway give access to frontage roads lined with businesses and civic buildings oriented to the highway. The frontage roads also provide access to housing behind the businesses. A wide right-of-way provides a large building setback distance from the highway and helps mitigate noise and other negative impacts of heavy traffic. In total, Taylor maintains 23 km of paved and 14 km of unpaved roads. Taylor has limited rail, bus, boating and air service for regional and provincial transportation needs. A BC Rail line runs northeast from Chetwynd to Fort St. John and branches off eastwards to Taylor. The rail line's terminus is in the industrial sector in the southeast corner on the town. The train, which does not offer passenger service, must turn around in the industrial area in order to travel back to the trunk line. Greyhound Bus Lines maintain a stop in Taylor along its Alaska Highway route from Dawson Creek, 56.5 km south of Taylor to Fort St. John (14 km north of Taylor). Since the Peace River is controlled by two dams upstream, it is navigable for recreational boats, however, due to the coulee between industry and the river, the shipping industries in the town did not develop. The closest commercial airport is Fort St. John Airport, 13.8 km north of Taylor, with two paved runways.

The town uses the Peace River which flows eastward as a source of drinking water and as outlet for industrial waste. The drinking water supply comes from an intake pipe southwest of town. The water is mechanically and chemically filtered then pumped to a reservoir on a ridge north of town. A gravity pump moves the water to the town from the reservoir using 18 km of watermains. Sewage is collected by 13 km of sanitary sewers and processed by a two-cell lagoon system before being absorbed into the ground.

Taylor's only school, Taylor Elementary School, is administered by School District 60 Peace River North, which in 2005 had an enrollment of 147 students. Any students grades 7 and up are transported to Fort St. John for secondary school education. Taylor funds a volunteer fire department, which covers the town plus several kilometers into the rural areas. The closest hospital for Taylor residents is the Fort St. John General Hospital but residents can access medical resources through the Taylor Medical Clinic.

Economy
For a town of 1,373 people, Taylor has a very large industrial base and calls itself "Where Peace and Prosperity Meet." Industrial plants include the Westcoast Energy's McMahon plant for natural gas processing with sulfur recovery and cogeneration, two straddle plants which extract ethane and other impurities from liquid natural gas, Canfor Pulp's chemi-thermomechanical pulp mill, and several smaller sawmills. Being involved in primary resource industries, the town is vulnerable to global trade, as demonstrated by the town's Canfor planer mill closing in 2004 during U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute. In response to the decline of the forest industry, the town has expanded its tourism industry. After the Canfor mill closure, the District established a plan to develop Peace Island Park for tourist operations. The federal Ministry of Western Economic Diversification, contributed $310,952 to the project. According to the 2011 Canadian census, only 2.7% of Taylor's population graduated from a university, much less than the 22.1% provincial average and, likewise, 34.3% did not graduate from secondary school, twice the provincial average. Of Taylor's 775 person labour force, 32.3%, or 250 people (220 males and 25 females), are employed as tradesmen, transport and equipment operators and in related occupations. With Fort St. John only 14 km north of Taylor it is within commuting distance for employees and shoppers. Taylor itself has little commercial retail stores, including no grocery store, but residents commute to Fort St. John for their retail needs.

Culture and recreation
Despite its small population base and its proximity to a much larger urban centre Taylor has an ice arena, a curling rink, indoor swimming pool, irrigated baseball diamonds, a motocross track, and an 18-hole championship golf course. The District Ice Centre opened in 1993 and consists of an ice hockey rink and leisure skating rink, both of which are used for roller hockey, trade shows and conventions in the summer. The four sheet curling rink is used as a swimming pool in the summer. The District's newest facility, built in 2001, is a CND $1.2 million multi-purpose community hall and gymnasium, which now features a rehabilitation studio. The 320 acre, 18-hole Lone Wolf Golf Course opened in 1995 at a cost of $3.5 million and is managed by the District. Meandering around the course, by agricultural fields, and a community forest, is the 4.2 km ParticipACTION Trail. In the winter the golf course and its trails are used for cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and other winter activities.

The District has operated Peace Island Park with its boat launch, campsites, and facilities for recreational outdoor events. Peace Island Park is the home of the Invitational Class 'A' Gold Panning Championships in the summer.

The gold panning competition is a three-day event that has been held in Taylor annually since 1972 and includes advanced and amateur competitions. Also, to preserve its heritage, several pioneer log houses, such as the Information Centre, where a replica of Alexander Mackenzie's birch bark canoe is displayed, and Peace Island Park meeting hall, have been restored and are used today. In 2010/11 the town was featured on the CBC documentary series Village on a Diet.

Government and politics
The District of Taylor has a Mayor and Council form of municipal government. At-large elections are held every four years to elect four municipal councillors, a mayor who also represents Taylor at the Peace River Regional District Board of Directors, and one school board trustee (to the school district). The November 2014 municipal election was the first election in 28 years that the District of Taylor elected a new mayor. Mayor Rob Fraser was elected after Former Mayor Fred Jarvis retired after 35 years in the public service sector.

Taylor is situated in the Peace River North provincial electoral district and is represented by Pat Pimm in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Prior to 2009, the town was located within the Peace River South electoral district and was represented by Blair Lekstrom who was first elected as its Member of the Legislative Assembly in the 2001 provincial election taking 78% of votes cast at the Taylor polls and re-elected in 2005 with 73% support. For the 1996 election, and those previous, Taylor was part of the Peace River North provincial electoral district which elected Richard Neufeld of the BC Reform Party.

Federally, Taylor is located in the Prince George—Peace River riding, which is represented in the House of Commons of Canada by Conservative Party Member of Parliament Bob Zimmer. Prior to Zimmer the town was represented by long-time MLA Jay Hill, first elected in 1993 and re-elected in 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006 with 82%, 83%, 79% and 80% support from Taylor polls, respectively. Before Hill the town was represented, from 1972 to 1993, by Frank Oberle of the Progressive Conservative Party who served as Minister of State for Science and Technology from 1985 to 1989 and Minister of Forestry from 1990 to 1993.

 * style="width: 85px" | Bob Zimmer
 * align="right"|367
 * align="right"|77%
 * align="right"|62%

 * Lois Boone
 * align="right"|62
 * align="right"|13%
 * align="right"|26%

 * Hilary Crowley
 * align="right"|26
 * align="right"|5.4%
 * align="right"|6.0%

 * Ben Levine
 * align="right"|15
 * align="right"|3.1%
 * align="right"|5.2%

 * Jeremy Cote
 * align="right"|8
 * align="right"|1.7%
 * align="right"|1.1%

title: Taylor, British Columbia


text:
Talk:Councilman body

Difference between Councilman body and a Mallory body
This page should address the difference between a Councilman body and a Mallory body 69.242.192.43 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Stub class
Why wouldn't this be a proper stub? Babajobu 22:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Councilman body


text: User talk:24.93.170.246

title: User talk:24.93.170.246


text:
User talk:Kbk

Hi Kbk, Welcome to wikipedia! Monkeyman 23:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NSA authorization and previous administration
Unless you'd like to cite authority to suggest previous administrations have done the same thing, I'm going to again revert this assertion. It appears to be the creation of a talking point by those in defense of the administration, and appears to be patently wrong. Carter and Clinton, via executive order, permitted the Attorney General to exercise their authority under sub(a) subject to the procedural guarantees. and. There's nothing inconsistent with FISA. mmm beer T / C / ? 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

HF, re your message to Smokefoot
This is a healthy discussion, and I am glad you raised the points. Here's my response: If WE attempted to provide advice on potential chemical mishaps by the likes of carwash attendants, we might as well give up now because there is no hope. I also think that it is unfair to imply that the current article on hydrofluoric acid is merely a collection of links. Yes, the safety bits usually are a collection of links because the editors appreciate (i) we are to avoid offering advice (notice that the chemistry discussion is explanatory, offers ZERO advice and NO opinions) and (ii) it is impossible to foresee all the ill-advised activities possible with every chemical.

Experience shows that virtually every chemical can be insidious, especially in the hands of someone unprepared, stupid, or uninformed (which often, unfortunately includes the low-paid workers, like your carwash attendents). But Wikipedia is not the Whole Earth Catalogue of do-gooderness (I realize that I am being sarcastic slightly here).

About your .com link that I objected to, you might have a point. But since we are trading stories, I have worked with lots of HF and never ever heard of cardiac anything. I guess if you breath the stuff all day, you might have a problem, but doesn't common sense dictate that one breaths air and only air? Go ahead and reintroduce the parts that you feel are relevant. And accept my apologies.

By the way, I am really glad that you are editing because we have relatively few techie editors in this space.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Curtiss
You added the words "The air-cooled L-head engine was intended for use in aircraft." to this article. Why do you believe this is true? Do you have a source for this?GroveGuy (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I spoke before I looked. Indeed, it says this in House. I will add a reference. GroveGuy (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My reference was motorcycle.com. The article has some nice images. It also says that it's an F-head. I changed that to L-head because I didn't see any sign of an overhead valve mechanism. But on re-reading more closely, it appears that the inlet is a poppet valve and may in fact open downwards. Feel free to make the change! I've got to get a look at the reproduction in the Hammondsport museum!Kbk (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful with references. There are several errors in that 2004 article. He absolutely had no connection with the Wright brothers. He never claimed inventing the handlebar throttle control. Some feel this is wrongly attributed to him. While the original airplane construction occurred in Hammondsport, he quickly built factories in Buffalo as soon as big orders arrived. Hammondsport was a small town with few workers. Anyway, glad to see someone else with an interest in Curtiss. GroveGuy (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That article is a mess, that's why I didn't reference it :-). I also reviewed info at the museum website. But the pictures didn't lie, and I now have a good reference to F-head at the Smithsonian (in the "more information" at that link).  Note that the throttles are just levers on the carbs that he could reach down and flick off at the end of the run.  Check out the amazing high-res image!Kbk (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kbk


text:
Colectivo 60

The Colectivo 60 (the number 60 bus route) commenced operations in 1931 and runs from Constitución station, in the centre of the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina to the Tigre Club in the partido of Tigre. The service is operated by Transportes Larrazabal C.I.S.A, DOTA and MOTSA and the identifying colour of the buses is white and red with black details.

Known locally as El Sesenta ("The Sixty"), the service is sometimes dubbed El Internacional (The International) because it passes through (or close to) many landmarks of the city and of the northern suburbs, including:

 * Boca Juniors Stadium
 * Constitución railway station
 * Avenida de Mayo
 * Liceo Theater
 * Argentine National Congress
 * Confitería El Molino tea room and the Savoy hotel and ballroom
 * Callao y Corrientes commercial district
 * Palace of Justice ("Tribunales")
 * Obras Sanitarias building, Córdoba y Ayacucho
 * University of Buenos Aires complex:
 * Faculty of Medicine
 * Faculty of Dentistry
 * Faculty of Economic Sciences
 * Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry
 * Faculty of Social Sciences (Marcelo T. de Alvear branch)
 * Faculty of Engineering (Las Heras branch)
 * Hospital de Clínicas "José de San Martín"

 * Embassy of Uruguay
 * La Recoleta Cemetery
 * Recoleta entertainment district
 * Automóvil Club Argentino
 * Plaza Las Heras
 * Rivadavia Hospital
 * Fernández Hospital
 * Buenos Aires Zoo in Palermo
 * Buenos Aires Botanical Garden in Palermo
 * SRA exhibition grounds
 * Plaza Italia
 * United States embassy
 * Pacífico train station
 * Hipódromo Argentino
 * Military hospital
 * Barrancas de Belgrano park and transportation hub
 * Barrio Chino
 * River Plate Stadium
 * Cabildo y Juramento (Belgrano high street)
 * Cabildo y Congreso (terminal of the subte D line)
 * Saavedra bridge
 * Olivos city centre
 * C.A. Platense Stadium
 * San Isidro hospital (San Isidro Partido)
 * San Isidro racetrack
 * San Isidro cathedral (San Isidro cathedral)
 * Tigre stadium (Tigre Partido)
 * Tigre fruit market
 * Tigre tourism centre (gateway to the Paraná Delta).

One branch of the service reaches Tigre via the Pan-American Highway.

title: Colectivo 60


text:
Gulf of Guayaquil

The Gulf of Guayaquil is a large body of water of the Pacific Ocean in western South America. Its northern limit is the city of Santa Elena, in Ecuador, and its southern limit is Cabo Blanco, in Peru.

The gulf takes its name from the city of Guayaquil. Rivers of both Ecuador and Peru empty in the Gulf of Guayaquil, like the Guayas River, the Jubones River, the Zarumilla River and the Tumbes River.

A series of geological faults underlay the gulf. Various of these faults continue across mainland Ecuador. The main faults of the gulf are NNE-SSW oriented and are of mixed strike-slip and reverse type with dextral movement. These faults may generate dangerous earthquakes.

title: Gulf of Guayaquil