text:
Wisteria frutescens

Wisteria frutescens, commonly known as American wisteria, is a woody, deciduous, perennial climbing vine, one of various wisterias of the family Fabaceae. It is native to the wet forests and stream banks of the southeastern United States, with a range stretching from the states of Virginia to Texas (Northeast Texas Piney Woods) and extending southeast through Florida, also north to Iowa, Michigan, and New York.

Taxonomy
Carl Linnaeus described Wisteria frutescens.

Kentucky wisteria, Wisteria frutescens var. macrostachya is a distinctive variety found in the southeastern United States, including its namesake state of Kentucky. It has been classified as a separate species, Wisteria macrostachya (Torr. & A. Gray) Nutt. ex B. L. Rob. & Fernald.

Description
American wisteria can grow up to 15 m long over many supports via powerful counterclockwise-twining stems. It produces dense clusters of blue-purple, two-lipped, flowers 2 cm wide on racemes 5–15 cm long in late spring to early summer. These are the smallest racemes produced by any Wisteria. Though it has never been favored in many gardens for this characteristic, many bonsai artists employ American wisteria for its manageably-sized flowers, and it is charming as a woodland flowering vine.

The foliage consists of shiny, dark-green, pinnately compound leaves 10–30 cm in length. The leaves bear 9–15 oblong leaflets that are each 2–6 cm long. It also bears numerous poisonous, bean-like seed pods 5–10 cm long that mature in summer and persist until winter; the pods are fuzzy and greenish-tan when young, but shiny brown and smooth when dry. The seeds are large and brown (see image). American wisteria prefers moist soils. It is considered shade tolerant, but will flower only when exposed to partial or full sun. It grows best in USDA plant hardiness zones 5–9. In the wild, they can be found in woods, thickets, and streambanks.

Kentucky wisteria bears slightly scented bluish-purple to white flowers in racemes 15–30 cm long, a generally average length for the Wisteria family.

Several characteristics distinguish American wisteria from its Asian counterparts. It grows only two-thirds as tall, its racemes are half as long (the shortest of the wisteria family), and its bloom time is sometimes shorter than many Asian varieties. Its flowers are scented, and its seed pods are smooth rather than velvety when mature.

Ecology
The butterflies long-tailed skipper, silver-spotted skipper, marine blue, zarucco duskywing and the moth Cuphodes wisteriae use Wisteria frutescens as a larval host.

Pests and diseases
Wisteria frutescens, in general, is subject to few pests or diseases. It is, however, subject to damage by typical pests like aphids, leaf miners, Japanese beetles, scale insects, and mealybugs. Pests of particular concern are longhorn beetles, such as Synaphaeta guexi, and the Asian long-horned beetle. These beetles will bore into the woody stems of young or unhealthy wisteria, causing disruption of water and nutrient flow. This also allows for the potential to introduce disease, like rot, and both of these have the potential to cause death of the plant.

A fungus, Aplosporella wistariae Ellis & Barthol. , has been found on some cultivars of wisteria in Louisville, Kansas. Its stromata are elliptical or orbicular, are 1–2 mm in diameter, and are sunk into the bark, which causes raised pustules, some of which are ruptured. Its perithecia are 120–150 μm and are white inside; sporules are oblong, measuring 12–16 by 6–7 μm.

Partly dead leaves of Wisteria frutescens have been found to host Phomatospora wistariae Ellis & Everh. This fungus is perithecial, meaning its fruiting body is flask-shaped with an ostiole through which its ascospores are released. It is mostly epiphytic, and it grows in relatively flat gray spots that are approximately 2–4 mm. in diameter. These spots are bounded by narrow dark lines, and frequently merge. Phomatospora wistariae is hyaline in appearance and resembles a membrane, it is sessile, it does not have paraphyses, its asci are oblong, and its sporidia are biseriate and have an oblong-elliptical shape. Its perithecia mesaure to about 110–120 μm, its asci 35–45 by 10–12 μm, and its sporidia 12 by 6 μm.

Rhizobium radiobacter, previously known as Agrobacterium tumefaciens and commonly as crown gall, is a soil-borne bacterium that occasionally infects wisteria, causing abnormal growths or swellings on the roots or stems. It infects the plant through its Ti plasmid, and then A. tumefaciens integrates a part of its DNA into the chromosome of the host plant's cells. The K-48 strain of the bacterium can be effectively used to prevent infection by the pathogenic strain of crown gall.

Root-knot nematodes are parasites known to affect most species of plants, wisteria not being an exception, but wisteria is susceptible to Texas root rot caused by the fungus Phymatotrichum omnivorum. Texas root rot damages the roots and prevents their absorption of water, resulting in wilting then death.

Pantoea agglomerans has been shown to induce galls on Wisteria.

Wisteria brachybotrys, Wisteria floribunda, Wisteria sinensis and Wisteria venusta, have been shown to carry Erysiphe cichoracearum, Botryosphaeria, and Phomopsis canker and die-back pathogens, Phyllosticta wisteriae, and Septoria wisteriae. Wisteria vein mosaic virus (a variant of the tobacco mosaic virus) and subterranean clover stunt virus are the only two known viruses to infect genus Wisteria, and the potential for Wisteria frutescens to contract any of the previously mentioned diseases is undetermined.

Toxicity
All species of Wisteria contain a saponin known as Wisterin in the bark, branches, pods, roots, and seeds. There is debate over whether the flowers are toxic. An unknown and toxic resin is present as well. Poisoning from the plant can occur from ingestion of 1 to 2 seed pods and results in mild to severe gastroenteritis, nausea, frequent vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. This can result in dehydration and collapse in serious cases; recovery generally occurs within 24 hours. The concentration of toxins varies in all segments of the plant and varies during different seasons. Wisterin's structure has been shown to be similar in structure and in effects to the alkaloid cytisine, but less potent. It has a bittersweet taste. As with the cytisine-containing Laburnum, its leaves are sometimes taken as a tobacco substitute.

Canavanine is a common α-amino-acid constituent found in the seeds of all species of Wisteria. It serves as a defense compound against herbivores and provides a vital source of nitrogen for the growing plant embryo. The toxicity of canavanine is due to its extreme structural similarity to L-arginine, which may result in an organism's incorporation of it into proteins in place of L-arginine. This results in the production of aberrant proteins that may not function properly in the body.

title: Wisteria frutescens


text:
Talk:G8 (disambiguation)

Untitled
It was suggested on Requested moves to rename this article G8. The vote is shown below:

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as the G8 group of industrialised nations is easily the most well-known use of the abbreviation, so primary topic disambiguation is suitable in this case. I would also support moving Group of Eight back to G8, where it was until yesterday. It's hardly ever known by that title - use common names. sjorford →•← 08:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sjorford on both counts. Rd232 16:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would also be a minor improvement to have the group of eight first on the list in here. --194.219.30.207 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Philips G8 TV
should be added 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:D587:7C36:2D26:5A86 (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:G8 (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Limejuice~enwiki

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 17:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Hi, Welcome to Wiki! RU a socket Puppet? [[User:fabartus | FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

 * I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
 * Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
 * More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
 * In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing  The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
 * If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
 * I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
 * I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
 * Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE.  [[User:fabartus | FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Limejuice. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Limejuice~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Limejuice~enwiki


text:
Field & Stream

Field & Stream (F&S for short) is an American magazine focusing on sport hunting, recreational fishing and other outdoor activities. It was a print publication between 1895 and 2015, and became an online-only publication in 2020. After the magazine's purchase in 2024 by country musicians Morgan Wallen and Eric Church, it was announced that the magazine will return to printed form.

History and profile
Founded in 1895 by John P. Burkhard and Henry Wellington Wack, Field & Stream at one time had more than one million print subscribers, with a significant online following as well. Depending on the season and the availability of information, the magazine may offer advices on catching bass, trout, birds, deer and hunting equipments such as rifles and shotguns. The magazine also offers tricks, survival tips, random facts and wild game recipes. In addition to those departments, each issue contains longform featured articles, for which it is renowned.

Warren H. Miller was its managing editor from 1910 to 1918. The magazine absorbed its chief competitor, Forest and Stream, in 1930. Henry Holt and Company purchased the magazine in 1951. The company published the magazine on a monthly basis in New York City. Holt eventually ended up being owned by CBS, which sold their magazines in a leveraged buyout, led by division head Peter Diamandis, to the Times-Mirror Company, which in turn sold their magazines to Time Inc. in 2001. Sid Evans was brought in to replace Slaton White, who remained on staff, as editor.

Field & Stream was one of 18 magazines sold to Bonnier Group in February 2007. That year, after a five-year tenure that had an editorial revival of the publication, Evans left to helm Garden & Gun magazine, in Charleston, South Carolina, along with then editor of Saltwater Sportsman and former F&S features editor David DiBenedetto.

Anthony Licata was then appointed editor, and under Licata, the magazine won two coveted National Magazine Awards for General Excellence, in 2009 and 2014.

The magazine's current contributors include C. J. Chivers, Jonathan Miles, Bill Heavey, T. Edward Nickens, Phil Bourjaily, Rick Bass, J.R. Sullivan, Keith McCafferty, and David E. Petzal. Notable past contributors include Robert Ruark, Ted Trueblood, Ed Zern, Nick Lyons, Tom Kelly, Thomas McGuane, Gene Hill, and Jim Harrison.

The magazine is currently edited by Colin Kearns, who was promoted from senior deputy editor in the end of 2016.

In January 2017, owing to financial difficulties at Bonnier Corporation, the magazine's publishing frequency was scaled back from nine issues a year to six, and several longtime members of the editorial staff were let go, in a "blood bath" of cuts, according to the New York Post. In October 2021, Bonnier Corp. sold Field & Stream, along with its sister title, Outdoor Life, to North Equity, a venture equity firm that alleges to scale "transformative digital media brands". The magazine's commemorative 125th-anniversary issue was its last print edition until 2024.

In January 2024, it was announced that country musicians Eric Church and Morgan Wallen purchased Field & Stream and will relaunch the print magazine with an apparel line and live music festival.

Trademark
While Field & Stream magazine now belongs to Bonnier, the right to use the Field & Stream name on goods and services belongs to a private investment group unrelated to Bonnier or the magazine, while Dick's Sporting Goods owns the rights to the name for the retail stores Field & Stream.

title: Field & Stream


text:
Talk:Treaty of Paris (1815)

2005-2006
I havent found any areas annexed by France 1790-1792. Which exactly areas were subject of change?

Cautious 17:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is this considered a Swedish Peace Treaty? They aren't even mentioned in the article? Swedish Petrograd 19:46, 15 Nov 2006 (CET)

Most Holy and Undivided Trinity
I have removed:
 * The treaty is promulgated "In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,"(ref name=BFO-280) a foretaste of the return of the exiled Jesuits and the renewed role of religion, especially of Roman Catholicism, in the reaction to the Napoleonic Era.

Because it is true that "The treaty is promulgated "In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity," but the analysis needs a source.

See page 191 of A collection of treaties between Great Britain and other powers; (1790). It shows the start of the "The Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his Majesty the King of Great Britain, and their High Mightiness the States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. ... In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So be it. ... Done at Paris the 20th of May, 1784" (Peace of Paris (1783)). If the wording indicated a "foretaste of the return of the exiled ..." then why would two Protestant states use such wording? --PBS (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, the Church of England is not a unitarian church.Eregli bob (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Second treaty of Paris
I am moving the wording into a footnote, because some American sources use the name "second treaty of Paris" to refer to the Treaty of Paris (1783). --PBS (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Epoch event

 * "and is widely regarded as an Epoch event separating the period of history known as Early Modern Europe from the Modern Era. There was no doubt in the mind of any competent statesman that the events of the prior 65-75 years had cast the European world into untraveled territory."

This recently added text expresses a POV and need a source. So I am removing it until such a source is provided. --PBS (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed this opinion piece which was recently added for the same reason:
 * "his short-lived resurgence was the death knell signal for Monarchism and Authoritarianism for the average people no longer felt they needed to maintain their station; though the process would take the larger part of two centuries to complete.

--PBS (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The table of content
I have reverted this edit for the second time because the TOC I put in place is a copy of that used by the British Foreign office when it published the treaty. As such the TOC is both a useful navigation tool and simultaneously a quote of what one party to the treaty considered to be the pertain points. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That Table of Contents was a table of contents for the Treaty, not for the actual Wikipedia article. As a TOC for the article, this form would seem to be contrary to other WP articles.  I have instituted more of a MOS-TOC, moved the BFO version to a standalone section (preserving the pertinent clauses as published by them in 1815) and welcome any further discussion on this matter.  Also, a reference is needed for the statement that this information(headers+clauses) is what the BFO published at the time. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I have reverted the change you asked for a citation so let me set that concern to rest. The first is is you look at the Wikisource link you will find the same layout, the second is that if you were follow the link at the end of the "These were listed by the British Foreign office as:" you could check for yourself -- here it is for convenience:
 * British and Foreign State Papers, p. 280
 * you write "As a TOC for the article, this form would seem to be contrary to other WP articles". while that may be true as the MOS points out: "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole". -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to be two issues under consideration for this article...there is a Content box for the actual Treaty - that is what is presently at the article. Then there is a Table of Contents as understood for Wikipedia articles.  If a reader looks at the present "Contents", the reader will see no navigational headers for the following sections of the article: See also, Notes, and References.  I think that changing Contents to Treaty Contents or Contents of Treaty should at least be considered.  Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem
backwardscopy

This edit on 9 September 2004, introduced this sentence:
 * "Although some of the Allies, notably Prussia, initially demanded that France cede major territory in the east, rivalry among the powers and the general desire to secure the Bourbon restoration made the peace settlement less onerous than it might have been."

among others. At such an early date no explicit source was given but an external link was provided: "Treaty of Paris,: e-text"

The link is no longer current and the WaybackMachine is down at the moment S so I can not check if this wording appeared in that napoleonseries.org article.

The 2004 text for this sentence is still in this Wikipedia the article. But it also appears in However an examination of the copyright status at the start of the book "First published 2011. Text © Ian Bickerton 2011" So the text that appears on the Wikipedia page is not a copy of the text from The Illusion of Victory. Whether it is a copy from another copyrighted source is not yet clear. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The www.napoleonseries.org is now the www.napoleon-series.org and it has a file on it which prohibits WaybackMachine searches however AFAICT the original "Treaty of Paris,: e-text" is now under Treaty of Paris 1815 and is a partial quote of the full treaty with no analysis. So the sentence in question was probably not copied from the napoleonseries.org website. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dab hatnote
see Disambiguation: "There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris"."

--PBS (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * There are dozens of treaties of Paris and evidently (based on article feedback) the year only is not sufficient to clearly distinguish the specific treaties. While it might be sufficient to produce a unique article title, unless you already know the year of the treaty you are looking for, the year alone is not very helpful to distinguish them. OTOH, I don't feel all that strongly about the hatnotes, but there is little reason to remove the hatnote from one Treaty of Paris article and leave them on the others. User:Shearonink began adding the hatnotes, I standardized the format. I've left a note for asking for input. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "unless you already know the year of the treaty you are looking for, the year alone is not very helpful to distinguish them" in which case the dab page Treaty of Paris would be the first call, one will not arrive at this page by accident. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except when you are misdirected by incorrect links (yes, shocking, but it does happen in Wikipedia articles) or through external search engines or even "guessing" wrong when picking one from the options presented from the progressive listing in Wikipedia's internal search box. It's quite easy to arrive at the page by accident. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The guidance is clear and if that happens then the link needs fixing, (a sticking plaster in the form of a hatnote is not the solution). I wait with interest for User:Shearonink to provide a link to the conversation User:Shearonink mentions when adding a hatnote to this and other treaty of Paris articles, as presumably the guidance was discussed during that conversation and it was decided that the confusion was so great in this specific case that this guidance should be ignored under IAR. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, here I am being all interesting... I was going off of some Article Feedback from a reader, one of our "customers" you know? They had ended up at the wrong individual Treaty of Paris article, posted something kind of along the lines of "the year is wrong Wikipedia!".  There was nothing at the individual article itself to let them know that there are many different 'Treaty of Paris' articles in Wikipedia.  It seemed like a nice thing to do to me, to give them a signpost to point the way.  Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we need to check the links to that article so which article was it? -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular AF I was going off of is located at the AF for Treaty of Paris (1898). However it happened, this user/reader/customer somehow did end up at the wrong article, looks like they had no idea that there were so many different agreements known as a "Treaty of Paris".  From my reading of their response, I don't think it was the internal WP linkage so much as probably this reader seeing & clicking on a 'Treaty of Paris' from an outside search engine such as Google and then ending up at the wrong one from that outside referral.  I figure if there was one person who took the time to post AF, then there are probably others who didn't post AF who also ended up at the wrong article for their purposes & maybe just went away quietly or gave up.  This hatnote to the dab page is a matter of accessibility to me, making as much of the information as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * If you think it is a legitimate concern, then the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation because it if affects this particular set of articles then what about all the others where this problem may occur? Until such time as the guidance is changed, I do not think it appropriate to place hat-notes on these treaty articles because of one observation by one person. Apart from anything else this change will be repeatedly reverted by editors such as my self, explaining that the revert is based on the guidance on the dab page. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation.  My original intent in all this is just trying to help readers who seem to need additional guidance.  I admit to being puzzled about your initial reference above to Solaris (1972 film), since that article actually does have a hatnote with linkage to Solaris (which is a disambiguation page). Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you are (were?) confused. I would have though that before you went change dozens of articles in quick succession you would have been aware of the guidance on the issue and I would have thought that the sentence I quoted made it perfectly clear what that guidance is. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Fully agree with PBS. If hatnotes linking to "X" are wanted for every "X (Y)" that should be a central decision. And WRT "the year is wrong Wikipedia!" - what will Shearonink do next if that pops up again? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am only here in this matter because I wanted to help a reader find their way to the Wikipedia article that they wanted to read.
 * I also suggest all of us, per 'Wikipedia talk page guidelines', stick to discussing edits, not other editors. The recommendation further upthread to open a thread about this specific issue was followed and the pertinent discussion can be found on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation at Treaty of Paris. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please wait until discussion concludes before deciding you are correct and unilaterally implementing your decision. First there are legitimate concerns about the supposed policy and 2) if the policy is to be enforced, there needs to be consistency -- all of the treaty of paris articles currently have hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not deciding I am correct, I was just implementing the current guideline, and I did so like PBS before, considering these two things, to call it unilateral is way off, isn't it? And maybe you could stop reverting to an anti-guideline version? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As evidenced by the discussion, your interpretation of the guideline is not the only interpretation. Please do not make WP:POINTy edits. older ≠ wiser 01:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From the history "(1) this is being discussed, wait for the conclusion 2) there are hatnotes on all of these articles and no reason for this to be inconsistent" It is only on all of these articles because because Shearonink added them (all?) in quick succession between 02:22, 26 January 2013 and 02:44, 26 January 2013. OW Your logic of "this is being discussed, wait for the conclusion" is against BRD as a bold edit was made, it was reverted by me now we are discussing it so no further revert after mine should have been made. "and no reason for this to be inconsistent" can be turned on its head, there are 1,000 of articles without such hatnotes leaving them here is against guidance and inconsistent. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That presumes your interpretation of the policy is correct. I don't agree. And yes, depending on the outcome of the discussion, this might affect other articles, but consistency within these several articles is of a different sort than extending the practice to other articles. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where have I presumed anything about policy in my statement last statement? -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The purportedly bold edit you reverted was only reverted by you based on your interpretation of policy. Your edit made this one Treaty of Paris article inconsistent with the dozens of other Treaty of Paris articles. Rather than leave one odd man out, it seemed more sensible to leave the set consistent while the discussion was ongoing. At this point there is no reason to extend this beyond this set of articles (although the outcome of the discussion at WT:DAB and WT:HATNOTE may have ab impact on other articles). older ≠ wiser 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth...
Does "a like ram of 100 millions" mean? It's been in the article since the article took its present form and so obviously is not vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess they mean "a like sum" (the same as the sum awarded to the four nations just above) Noyster  (talk),  16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's no definition of "ram" I know of that is a synonym for "sum". Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Parsecboy well spotted. It was an OCR error I missed when extracting the text from the copyright expired article. It should have been sum (as can be seen in the original article). The wording of articles like this are not fixed in stone and even if it had been a archaic technical term, there no harm done in updating such language. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Treaty of Paris (1815)


text:
Talk:Hanlon's razor

Grey's corollary
I haven't found the origin (probably Usenet), but several places mention a Grey's corollary to Clarke's third law (vel sim.): "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence (or stupidity) is indistinguishable from malice."

I just realised that we actually mention this one as "Grey's law" here, and there's even a ref! Nice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the official definition
@Altenmann finds my explanation of this change inadequate. Let me try again: the article quotes Hanlon's formulation of the adage as if it were some kind of official definition. It's not. It's just a good way to state the adage. We should say, "it can be stated this way," like we do with Murphy's Law. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article quotes the original author, which is as official as can be, not some ""it can be stated this way". - Altenmann >talk 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an adage. It doesn't have an "original author". As the article says, the adage existed in some form long before Hanlon's formulation became popular Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a WP:RS that indicates that something named "Hanlon's Razor" predates the 1980 publication or stop making vague, unsourced claims that "Hanlon's Razor" predates 1980. This page is specifically named "Hanlon's Razor".  Those similar adages are covered on this page but don't override the stated subject of this page.--Noren (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDICT. The article is not about the term "Hanlon's Razor." It's about an adage that is conventionally labelled "Hanlon's razor". Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hah, so you are a fan of Haddock's Eyes, aren't you? Your colleague was talking not about the term either: he was talking about 'something named "Hanlon's Razor"'. Dictionary or not, we identify things by their names, not Ding an sich. Anyway, as our colleague pointed out, you have to find a credible source for your claim to be added into a wikipedia article. - Altenmann >talk 16:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to personal attacks. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you going to respond to requests about WP:RS? - Altenmann >talk 02:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is guaranteed to go nowhere as long as either of you is participating. Jesus, you're both incredible at saying exactly the wrong things to each other.  City o f  Silver  03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The subject of the article is the exact phrase "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", commonly known as "Hanlon's razor", and it doesn't matter one bit whether Hanlon is the originator. If Robert J. Hanlon had absolutely nothing to do with it, the only difference in the article would be to state that it's misattributed to him. It's meaningless to speak of an "official definition" here. According to how you've applied the notion of a definition to this subject, a definition of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is "The phrase 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity' is a phrase composed of the following words in the following sequence: 'Never', 'attribute', 'to', 'malice', 'that', 'which', 'is', 'adequately', 'explained', 'by', and 'stupidity'". We can also speak of a formulation: "The formulation of 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity' goes as follows: 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity'".—Alalch E. 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Official Definition
Starting over the previous discussion with (hopefully) more participants.

I'll restate the issue: currently the page begins this way:

"Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states: This formulation of the adage is a direct quote from a book by Robert Bloch, not Robert Hanlon, though it's widely accepted that Bloch used the adage with Hanlon's permission.
 * 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'"

My problem with this is that it treats Bloch's book as the official version of an adage that had already been around for a while. It didn't even get called "Hanlon's Razor" until it appeared in the Jargon File. Now, it's a good way to formulate the adage, but we shouldn't treat it as the formulation. So I want to make a minor change:

"Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that, in a typical formulation, states: 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'"

As you can see from the previous section, a couple of other editors disagree. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I have canceled the RfC. As mentioned above, please discuss the issue first, with reliable sources. There can't be an RfC for every disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedily close You cannot add unreferenced statements into Wikipedia article and start a huge discussion about this. Please provide a source that says "a typical formulation" or something to this end. If this editor bothered to provide a reference instead of playing insulted for unknown reason, there would not be this (and above) discussion in the first place. By the way, please do not restore removed unreferenced test. This is against wikipedia rules, e.g., WP:BURDEN. - Altenmann >talk 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding anything at all. I'm referencing statements that are already in the article.
 * Also, can we please turn down the volume? I'm simply using the RFC process to bring more people into the discussion. This is the wrong context to be saying things like speedily close: It amounts to yelling a certain expletive and is a pretty serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The discussion had not been open for even a day before this was escalated to RFC, nowhere near enough time to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties.  No WP:RS has been provided for the claim that Hanlon's Razor had 'already been around a while', nor is any source provided for any other 'formulation' of Hanlon's Razor. --Noren (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't even get called "Hanlon's Razor" until it appeared in the Jargon File. Really? It's called Hanlon's razor in Bloch's book; this article says that it was first included in the Jargon File in 1990 (and indeed it doesn't seem to have been included in the 1983 version published as The Hacker's Dictionary), which is ten years after Bloch called it Hanlon's razor. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/30/not-malice/ Levivich (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

formatting the lede
Why not set off the adage, so it's more obvious?

This article and the adage are short, and burying the adage inside a paragraph makes it harder to find, at least for me. If it's set off as it was before your edit of 2023-12-14T12:57:13 I think it's much easier to find. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia, but I'm reverting this change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"date to at latest"
User changed text
 * "Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century"

to
 * "Attributions of the idea date to at latest the 18th century"

This text seemed weird to me and I edit it to "There are attributions of the idea dated by the 18th century and later" AlsoWukai reverted me with edit summary "sorry you don't understand English well". I don't think this edit summary explains anything. Assuming I indeed dont understand English, please explain the meaning "date to at latest the 18th century" in different words. In my stupid brain "at latest the 18th century" means that the 18th century is the latest date and there are no more later attributions. - Altenmann >talk 05:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I've just changed it to "some of the oldest attributions of the idea date to the 18th century" because the source doesn't actually explain this "at least" stuff. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is fine but none of you explained to stupid me what the heck "date to at latest the 18th century" means. And if one wants nitpicking, the phrase "some of the oldest attributions" is not supported by the source cited either. - Altenmann >talk 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It means "originate in the 18th century or earlier". —Panamitsu (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

bonhoeffer
"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless"

From Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "After Ten Years" (As far as I am aware, though it may have been a different essay of his).

Is this a valid addition to the section on similar concepts? It was after Goethe and possibly even Churchill but still predates Hanlon. 2601:249:1880:3AE0:ED6B:4F5C:1CDE:F709 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This refers only to the effects of stupidity versus evil, but doesn't address at all the Razor part of Hanlon's Razor - where Occam's Razor counsels the preference to the simpler among alternative explanations of events, Hanlon's Razor counsels one to prefer an explanation of stupidity over evil. A core point of Hanlon's Razor is advice to counter the common irrational tendency to over-perceive malice, the above quote doesn't address the evaluation and decision making process. --Noren (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A good point and in fact it applies to another other quote in our article "misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong.." So I gess we must delete it, because, as you said it expresses a different idea. - Altenmann >talk 16:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this could be a reasonable addition, if one can find secondary sources which connect bonhoeffer with hanlon. As I see it is numerously quoted in books. - Altenmann >talk 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So let me summarize: Goethe, Bonhoeffer  and Hanlon compare the two causes (malice an stupidity), but all three authors consider different apects. Goethe talks about comparative effects in producing adverse events of the two. Hanlon talks about reasonable explanations of the adverse events. Bonhoeffer compare possibility of defense against the two. All three are clearly different philosophical issues. And we can put them in one page only if there is a philosophical source which puts the thee ideas together in some general discussion of malice vs. stupidity. But that would be a subject of a different article Malice and stupidity, i.e., of intentional and unintentional evildoing. - Altenmann >talk 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. Connecting malice and stupidity is addressed in many other catch phrases, such as useful idiot, The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. - Altenmann >talk 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hanlon's razor


text:
Talk:Laurie Dhue

Laurie attractive (?)
is it good etiquette for an attractive person to publicly mention that she is attractive. User:Chifumbe 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not especially, but I think that was a followup to O'Reilly's saying the same thing. Looks are a matter of personal opinion anyway. Laurie doesn't "Dhue" much for me. I've got the hots for Patti Ann Browne. :b Wahkeenah 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And on a more serious note, someone keeps reverting the connection to the Paula Zahn situation, i.e. the general issue of a colleague publicly commenting on her looks. It was clear that Laurie Dhue wasn't altogether pleased with O'Reilly making that somewhat condescending comment, so the connection is part of the pattern which Dhue and other presumably attractive newswomen have had to fight. Just wait until the press starts talking about CBS and its new "cute and perky" news anchor, Katie Couric! Wahkeenah 08:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not normally considered good etiquette, but she was responding to Bill O'Reilly who had commented on it and while she acknoweledged she is attractive (or at least that many have said she is, i.e., acknowledging that it's a common belief), her statement was more directed at how it was her talent and not her looks that got her where she is.

Hear, here! She has the talent and is still going strong as an anchor of TheBlaze TV. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Laurie's Height
Someone editing her entry has claimed that she is indeed 6'3". However, I have ample proof that this is not true. For starters, the poster claims that NationMaster has this info, but this happens to be a Wikipedia mirror, as noted at the bottom of the site. In other words, NationMaster has copied the info from Wikipedia. He also claims that imdb has the info, but I know for a fact that the imdb is not always accurate. Meanwhile, according to these posts at a Laurie Dhue Yahoo club, those who have also questioned her height have confirmed that she is around 6". ErikNY 17:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it says Laurie is six inches tall. That's definitely wrong! I don't think many people care how tall she is--well, that's not the point. The point is it's not professional to put stuff like that in a wikipedia article. This isn't a celebrity fan site.
 * I agree. I have erased this information before, but someone keeps putting it back in, so I had to show an explanation as to why he is wrong. I wouldn't be suprised if the user does it again soon, though. ErikNY 12:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Laurie definitely appears taller than the average woman. In the picture which appears on the Geraldo at Large website, she appears to be taller than Geraldo Rivera, who is roughly 5'10" according to http://www.celebheights.com. However, to know Laurie's exact height, you'd have to either ask her or measure her yourself.  Good luck with that.

There is new data as to the question of Laurie's height. On October 4, 2006, Fox News Channel threw a party in celebration of its 10th anniversary. I attempted to use the 10th Anniversary Fox News red carpet to try to come up with some sort of approximate measurement.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=EventImagesSearchState%7c0%7c1%7c0%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c72077171%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=3&tag=2

http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=GLS====215490&str=&styp=&sfld=&nbc1=1&sortval=3a&PageNum=2

It is clear from the photos that Laurie towers over Giants RB Tiki Barber, who is listed at 5'10". Laurie is in heels, but they probably add only about 2-3 inches at the most. Laurie in heels is taller than the bottom edge of the 4th row of FNC 10th logos from the ground. Without the heels, she is probably as tall as the bottom edge of the 4th row of logos.

Now look at Tiki. He is roughly as tall as the top edge of the 3rd row of logos. Remember, men's dress shoes have a bit of a heel to them as well, although not as much as Laurie's shoes do.

So, the distance between the logos is roughly how much taller Laurie is from 5'10". They look like they could be in the ballpark of 6 inches or so. Keep in mind the fact that most NFL media guides like to round up or add an inch to their players' heights (in the case of Tiki, more like 2-3 inches), and that 6'3" claim for Laurie doesn't seem so far fetched anymore. I would put her anywhere from 6'1" to 6'3".

So, when you see someone claim that Laurie is 6'3", don't scoff. They may be closer than you think.

In her "Five Minutes" bit on the Fox News website, she gives her height. I don't recall it exactly, and I can't watch videos on the server I'm currently on, but I think I recall her saying she was about 6'1". She and Rebecca Gomez are also apparently part of the same circle of friends, and Rebecca's about a foot shorter than that, which makes for an interesting visual I suspect when the two of them are out and about. Nolefan32 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What seems clear is that some feel driven to make an issue of her height -- though, clearly, no reliable information is available. Perhaps we can agree to move on to more relevant matters? ChulaOne (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? The height and other body measurements are often mentioned in the articles of other actor/actress types, of which she basically is.  Just because she is really tall does reflect badly upon her.

Who cares? Just watched her on TV and she was sitting as anchor behind a desk. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I came across this woman on a site claiming she's 6'3. If you google "Laurie Dhue height" you'll get a ton of results claiming she's this height. However, on her official Instagram she says @dshwk3 I am 5'11". when someone ponders why she appears much shorter than Charles Barkley. I know it's trivial, but the point of wikipedia is to give people the facts they're looking for, and if most sites are falsely stating she's 6'3 when she says she's not, I think it's worth mentioning.HerbertMacuse (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Where has Laurie Dhue been?
I have not seen Laurie Dhue on Fox News since before Christmas. Is she still with Fox News? If so, when and in what time slot does she report.4.162.105.192 19:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * She's been on Geraldo Rivera's syndicated news program Geraldo at Large. I'll put that down right now. ErikNY 20:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is where is she now? 17 April 2008?  [anon]

 * See three topics down. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Laurie willing to do more provactive segments?
I notice that she is willing to do things out of the norm for her Geraldo segments. In particular, she did a report on sexy Halloween costumes...and posed in SEXY Halloween outfits in the same segment to show viewers. After the segment, Geraldo and her acknowledged that the outfits were very sexy and that she knew this putting them on for the camera. Usually, hard news reporters wouldn't be willing to be seen in such a sexy manner? Is this just a coincidence because of Halloween or can we expect more of these type of segment reports from her?
 * Please sign your posts. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅ -- She's moved on. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Salary?
Wheres the proof she makes $1.3 million and why is it relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.237.61 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * There is no proof. It was uncited so it is gone now.
 * Salary of talent is relevant, just like the salary of people in your workplace is relevant. what are u, a n00b?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.91.220 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is Laurie Now?
This morning (August 29 2011)a new coanchor was introduced on PIX11 news. What happened to Laurie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.64.55 (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New news: '''⇒ Laurie Dhue premieres as a news anchor for TheBlaze TV! ⇐''' http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/09/09/laurie-dhue-premieres-as-news-anchor-for-theblaze-tv-tonight/ — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

personal life deleted?
why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 November 2011
 * Don't see. When? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the entire section about Laurie on the JetBlue germane to any explanation of her? 108.47.12.2 (talk)krejaton —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

A portait-picture would be nice
Pictures always enhance an article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 2015 and still no picture? Is a good picture hard to find? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurie Dhue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130911134756/http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=28390443 to http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=28390443

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Laurie Dhue


text:
Read–eval–print loop

A read–eval–print loop (REPL), also termed an interactive toplevel or language shell, is a simple interactive computer programming environment that takes single user inputs, executes them, and returns the result to the user; a program written in a REPL environment is executed piecewise. The term usually refers to programming interfaces similar to the classic Lisp machine interactive environment. Common examples include command-line shells and similar environments for programming languages, and the technique is very characteristic of scripting languages.

History
In 1964, the expression READ-EVAL-PRINT cycle is used by L. Peter Deutsch and Edmund Berkeley for an implementation of Lisp on the PDP-1.

The 1974 Maclisp reference manual by David A. Moon attests "Read-eval-print loop" on page 89, but does not use the acronym REPL.

Since at least the 1980s, the abbreviations REP Loop and REPL are attested in the context of Scheme.

Overview
In a REPL, the user enters one or more expressions (rather than an entire compilation unit) and the REPL evaluates them and displays the results. The name read–eval–print loop comes from the names of the Lisp primitive functions which implement this functionality:

 * The read function accepts an expression from the user, and parses it into a data structure in memory. For instance, the user may enter the s-expression, which is parsed into a linked list containing four data elements.
 * The eval function takes this internal data structure and evaluates it. In Lisp, evaluating an s-expression beginning with the name of a function means calling that function on the arguments that make up the rest of the expression. So the function  is called on the arguments , yielding the result.
 * The print function takes the result yielded by eval, and prints it out to the user. If it is a complex expression, it may be pretty-printed to make it easier to understand.

The development environment then returns to the read state, creating a loop, which terminates when the program is closed.

REPLs facilitate exploratory programming and debugging because the programmer can inspect the printed result before deciding what expression to provide for the next read. The read–eval–print loop involves the programmer more frequently than the classic edit–compile–run–debug cycle.

Because the print function outputs in the same textual format that the read function uses for input, most results are printed in a form that could be copied and pasted back into the REPL. However, it is sometimes necessary to print representations of elements that cannot sensibly be read back in, such as a socket handle or a complex class instance. In these cases, there must exist a syntax for unreadable objects. In Python, it is the  notation, and in Common Lisp, the   form. The REPL of CLIM, SLIME, and the Symbolics Lisp Machine can also read back unreadable objects. They record for each output which object was printed. Later when the code is read back, the object will be retrieved from the printed output.

REPLs can be created to support any text-based language. REPL support for compiled languages is usually achieved by implementing an interpreter on top of a virtual machine which provides an interface to the compiler. For example, starting with JDK 9, Java included JShell as a command-line interface to the language. Various other languages have third-party tools available for download that provide similar shell interaction with the language.

Uses
As a shell, a REPL environment allows users to access relevant features of an operating system in addition to providing access to programming capabilities. The most common use for REPLs outside of operating system shells is for interactive prototyping. Other uses include mathematical calculation, creating documents that integrate scientific analysis (e.g. IPython), interactive software maintenance, benchmarking, and algorithm exploration.

Implementation
A minimal definition is:

where  represents initial  -uation environment. It is also assumed that  can be destructively updated by.

Functionality
Typical functionality provided by a Lisp REPL includes:

 * History of inputs and outputs.
 * Variables are set for the input expressions and results. These variables are also available in the REPL. For example in Common Lisp  refers to the last result,   and   to the results before that.
 * Levels of REPLs. In many Lisp systems if an error occurs during the reading, evaluation or printing of an expression, the system is not thrown back to the top level with an error message. Instead a new REPL, one level deeper, is started in the error context. The user can then inspect the problem, fix it and continue – if possible. If an error occurs in such a debug REPL, another REPL, again a level deeper, is started. Often the REPL offers special debug commands.
 * Error handling. The REPL provides restarts. These restarts can be used, when an error occurs, to go back to a certain REPL level.
 * Mouse sensitive input and output of data objects.
 * Input editing and context specific completion over symbols, pathnames, class names and other objects.
 * Help and documentation for commands.
 * Variables to control the reader. For example, the variable *read-base* controls in which base numbers are read by default.
 * Variables to control the printer. Example: maximum length or maximum depth of expressions to print.
 * Additional command syntax. Some REPLs have commands that follow not the s-expression syntax, but often work with Lisp data as arguments.
 * Graphical REPLs. Some Lisp REPLs (the CLIM Listener is an example) accept also graphical input and output.

title: Read–eval–print loop


text:
Prithviraj Chauhan

Prithviraja III (IAST: Pṛthvī-rāja; reign. c. 1177 – 1192), popularly known as Prithviraj Chauhan or Rai Pithora, was a king from the Chauhan (Chahamana) dynasty who ruled the territory of Sapadalaksha, with his capital at Ajmer in present-day Rajasthan in north-western India. Ascending the throne as a minor in 1177 CE, Prithviraj inherited a kingdom which stretched from Thanesar in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south, which he aimed to expand by military actions against neighbouring kingdoms, most notably defeating the Chandelas.

Prithviraj led a coalition of several Rajput kings and defeated the Ghurid army led by Muhammad of Ghor near Taraori in 1191 However, in 1192, Muhammad returned with an army of Turkish mounted archers and defeated the Rajput army on the same battlefield. Prithviraj was captured and summarliy executed, although his minor son Govindaraja was reinstated by Muhammad as his puppet ruler in Ajmer. His defeat at Tarain is seen as a landmark event in the Islamic conquest of India, and has been described in several semi-legendary accounts, most notably the Prithviraj Raso.

Sources of information
The extant inscriptions from Prithviraj's reign are few in number and were not issued by the king himself. Much of the information about him comes from the medieval legendary chronicles. Besides the Muslim accounts of Battles of Tarain, he has been mentioned in several medieval kavyas (epic poems) by Hindu and Jain authors. These include Prithviraja Vijaya, Hammira Mahakavya and Prithviraj Raso. These texts contain eulogistic descriptions, and are, therefore, not entirely reliable. Prithviraja Vijaya is the only surviving literary text from the reign of Prithviraj. Prithviraj Raso, which popularized Prithviraj as a great king, is purported to be written by his court poet Chand Bardai. However, it contains many exaggerated accounts, much of which is not useful for the purposes of history.

Other chronicles and texts that mention Prithviraj include Prabandha-Chintamani, Prabandha Kosha and Prithviraja Prabandha. These were composed centuries after his death, and contain exaggerations and anachronistic anecdotes. Prithviraj has also been mentioned in Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali, a Sanskrit text containing biographies of the Kharatara Jain monks. While the work was completed in 1336 CE, the part that mentions Prithviraj was written around 1250 CE. The Alha-Khanda (or Alha Raso) of the Chandela poet Jaganika also provides an exaggerated account of Prithviraj's war against the Chandelas.

Some other Indian texts also mention Prithviraj but do not provide much information of historical value. For example, the Sanskrit poem anthology Sharngadhara-paddhati (1363) contains a verse praising him, and the Kanhadade Prabandha (1455) mentions him as an earlier incarnation of the Jalore Chahamana king Viramade.

Early life
Prithviraj was born to the Chahamana king Someshvara and queen Karpuradevi (a Kalachuri princess). Both Prithviraj and his younger brother Hariraja were born in Gujarat, where their father Someshvara was brought up at the Chaulukya court by his maternal relatives. According to Prithviraja Vijaya, Prithviraj was born on the 12th day of the Jyeshtha month. The text does not mention the year of his birth, but provides some of the astrological planetary positions at the time of his birth, calling them auspicious. Based on these positions and assuming certain other planetary positions, Dasharatha Sharma calculated the year of Prithviraj's birth as 1166 CE (1223 VS).

The medieval biographies of Prithviraj suggest that he was educated well. The Prithviraja Vijaya states that he mastered 6 languages; the Prithviraj Raso claims that he learned 14 languages, which appears to be an exaggeration. The Raso goes on to claim that he became well-versed in a number of subjects, including history, mathematics, medicine, military, painting, philosophy (mimamsa), and theology. Both the texts state that he was particularly proficient in archery.

Early reign
Prithviraj moved from Gujarat to Ajmer, when his father Someshvara was crowned the Chahamana king after the death of Prithviraja II. Someshvara died in 1177 CE (1234 VS), when Prithviraj was around 11 years old. The last inscription from Someshvara's reign and the first inscription from Prithviraj's reign are both dated to this year. Prithviraj, who was a minor at the time, ascended the throne with his mother as the regent. The Hammira Mahakavya claims that Someshvara himself installed Prithviraj on the throne, and then retired to the forest. However, this is doubtful.

During his early years as the king, Prithviraj's mother managed the administration, assisted by a regency council.

Kadambavasa served as the chief minister of the kingdom during this period. He is also known as Kaimasa, Kaimash or Kaimbasa in the folk legends, which describe him as an able administrator and soldier devoted to the young king. Prithviraja Vijaya states that he was responsible for all the military victories during the early years of Prithviraj's reign. According to two different legends, Kadambavasa was later killed by Prithviraj. The Prithviraja-Raso claims that Prithviraj killed the minister after finding him in the apartment of the king's favourite concubine Karnati. Prithviraja-Prabandha claims that a man named Pratapa-Simha conspired against the minister, and convinced Prithviraj that the minister was responsible for the repeated Muslim invasions. Both these claims appear to be historically inaccurate, as the much more historically reliable Prithviraja Vijaya does not mention any such incident.

Bhuvanaikamalla, the paternal uncle of Prithviraj's mother, was another important minister during this time. According to Prithviraja Vijaya, he was a valiant general who served Prithviraj as Garuda serves Vishnu. The text also states that he was "proficient in the art of subduing nāgas". According to the 15th-century historian Jonaraja, "naga" here refers to elephants. However, Har Bilas Sarda interpreted Naga as the name of a tribe, and theorized that Bhuvanaikamalla defeated this tribe.

According to historian Dasharatha Sharma, Prithviraj assumed actual control of the administration in 1180 CE (1237 VS).

Conflict with Nagarjuna and Bhadanakas
The first military achievement of Prithviraj was his suppression of a revolt by his cousin Nagarjuna, and recapture of Gudapura (IAST: Guḍapura; possibly modern Gurgaon). Nagarjuna was a son of Prithviraj's uncle Vigraharaja IV, and the struggle for the Chahamana throne had led to a rivalry between the two branches of the family.

According to Prithviraja Vijaya, Nagarjuna rebelled against Prithviraj's authority and occupied the fort of Gudapura. Prithviraj besieged Gudapura with a large army comprising infantry, camels, elephants and horses. Nagarjuna fled the fort, but Devabhata (possibly his general) continued to offer resistance. Ultimately, Prithviraj's army emerged victorious, and captured the wife, mother, and followers of Nagarjuna. According to Prithviraja Vijaya, a garland made of the defeated soldiers' heads was hung across the Ajmer fort gate.

Two verses of Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali mention the victory of Prithviraj over the Bhadanakas, while describing a debate between two Jain monks. This victory can be dated to sometime before 1182 CE, when the said debate took place. According to Cynthia Talbot, the Bhadanakas were an obscure dynasty who controlled the area around Bayana. According to Dasharatha Sharma, the Bhadanaka territory comprised the area around present-day Bhiwani, Rewari and Alwar.

War against Chandelas
The 1182–83 CE (1239 VS) Madanpur inscriptions from Prithviraj's reign claim that he "laid to waste" Jejakabhukti (present-day Bundelkhand), which was ruled by the Chandela king Paramardi. Prithviraj's invasion of the Chandela territory is also described in the later folk legends, such as Prithviraj Raso, Paramal Raso, and Alha-Raso. Other texts such as Sarangadhara Paddhati and Prabandha Chintamani also mention Prithviraj's attack on Paramardi. The Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali mentions that Prithviraj had embarked upon a digvijaya (conquest of all the regions). This appears to be a reference to the start of Prithviraj's march to Jejakabhukti.

The legendary account of Prithviraj's campaign against the Chandelas goes like this: Prithviraj was returning to Delhi after marrying the daughter of Padamsen, when his contingent was attacked by the "Turkic" forces (Ghurids). His army repulsed the attacks but suffered serious casualties in the process. Amid this chaos, the Chahamana soldiers lost their way and unknowingly encamped in the Chandela capital Mahoba. They killed the Chandela royal gardener for objecting to their presence, which led to a skirmish between the two sides. The Chandela king Paramardi asked his general Udal to attack Prithviraj's camp, but Udal advised against this move. Paramardi's brother-in-law Mahil Parihar ruled modern-day Orai; he harboured ill-will against Paramardi and instigated the king to go ahead with the attack. Prithviraj defeated Udal's contingent and then left for Delhi. Subsequently, unhappy with Mahil's scheming, Udal and his brother Alha left the Chandela court. They started serving Jaichand, the Gahadavala ruler of Kannauj. Mahil then secretly informed Prithviraj that Chandela kingdom had become weak in absence of its strongest generals. Prithviraj invaded the Chandela kingdom and besieged Sirsagarh, which was held by Udal's cousin Malkhan. After failing to win over Malkhan through peaceful methods and losing eight generals, Prithviraj captured the fort. The Chandelas then appealed for a truce, and used this time to recall Alha and Udal from Kannauj. In support of the Chandelas, Jaichand dispatched an army led by his best generals, including two of his own sons. The combined Chandela-Gahadavala army attacked Prithviraj's camp, but was defeated. After his victory, Prithviraj sacked Mahoba. He then dispatched his general Chavand Rai to Kalinjar Fort to capture Paramardi. According to the various legends, Paramardi either died or retired shortly after the attack. Prithviraj returned to Delhi after appointing Pajjun Rai as the governor of Mahoba. Later, Paramardi's son recaptured Mahoba.

The exact historicity of this legendary narrative is debatable. The Madanpur inscriptions establish that Prithviraj sacked Mahoba, but historical evidence suggests that his occupation of Chandela territory is either a fabrication by the bards, or did not last long. It is known that Paramardi did not die or retire immediately after the Chauhan victory; in fact, he continued ruling as a sovereign nearly a decade after Prithviraj's death. Cynthia Talbot asserts that Prithviraj only raided Jejakabhukti, and Paramardi regained control of his kingdom soon after his departure from Mahoba. Talbot continues that Prithviraj was not able to annex the Chandela territory to his kingdom. Conversely, according to R.B. Singh, it is probable that some part of Chandela territory was annexed by Chahmanas albeit for a short time.

Wars in Gujarat
The Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali mentions a peace treaty between Prithviraj, and Bhima II, the Chaulukya (Solanki) king of Gujarat. This implies that the two kings were previously at war. This war can be dated to sometime before 1187 CE (1244 VS). The Veraval inscription states that Bhima's prime minister Jagaddeva Pratihara was "the moon to the lotus-like queens of Prithviraja" (a reference to the belief that the moon-rise causes a day-blooming lotus to close its petals). Since Bhima was a minor at the time, it appears that Jagaddeva led the campaign on the Chaulukya side.

The historically unreliable Prithviraj Raso provides some details about the Chahamana-Chaulukya struggle. According to it, both Prithviraj and Bhima wanted to marry Ichchhini, the Paramara princess of Abu. Prithviraj's marriage to her led to a rivalry between the two kings. Historian G. H. Ojha dismisses this legend as fiction, because it states that Ichchhini was a daughter of Salakha, while Dharavarsha was the Paramara ruler of Abu at the time. Historian R. B. Singh, on the other hand, believes that Salakha was the head of another Paramara branch at Abu. The Raso also mentions that Prithviraj's uncle Kanhadeva had killed seven sons of Bhima's uncle Sarangadeva. To avenge these murders, Bhima invaded the Chahamana kingdom and killed Prithviraj's father Someshvara, capturing Nagor in the process. Prithviraj re-captured Nagor, and defeated and killed Bhima. This is known to be historically false, as the reign of Bhima II lasted nearly half a century after Prithviraj's death. Similarly, historical evidence suggests Bhima II was a child at the time of Someshvara's death, and therefore, could not have killed him.

Despite these discrepancies, there is some evidence of a battle between the Chahamanas and the Chaulukyas at Nagor. Two inscriptions found at Charlu village near Bikaner commemorate the death of Mohil soldiers at the battle of Nagor in 1184 CE (1241 VS). The Mohils are a branch of the Chauhans (the Chahamanas), and it is possible the inscriptions refer to the battle described in Prithviraj Raso.

Sometime before 1187 CE, Jagaddeva Pratihara signed a peace treaty with Prithviraj. According to Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali, a chief named Abhayada once sought Jagaddeva's permission to attack and rob the wealthy visitors from Sapadalaksha country (the Chahamana territory). In response, Jagaddeva told Abhayada that he had concluded a treaty with Prithviraj with much difficulty. Jaggadeva then threatened to have Abhayada sewn in a donkey's belly if he harassed the people of Sapadalaksha. Historian Dasharatha Sharma theorizes that the Chahamana-Chaulukya conflict ended with some advantage for Prithviraj, as Jagaddeva appears to have been very anxious to preserve the treaty. According to historian R.C. Majumdar and Satish Chandra his long drawn out struggle against Gujarat was unsuccessful and he suffered a reverse against Bhima. Thus, Prithviraj concluded a treaty by 1187 CE.

Paramaras
The area around Mount Abu was ruled by the Chandravati Paramara ruler Dharavarsha, who was a Chaulukya feudatory. Partha-Parakrama-Vyayoga, a text written by his younger brother Prahaladana, describes Prithviraj's night attack on Abu. This attack, according to the text, was a failure for the Chahamanas. It probably happened during the Gujarat campaign of Prithviraj.

Gahadavala conflict
The Gahadavala kingdom, centered around Kannauj and headed by another powerful king Jayachandra, was located to the east of the Chahamana kingdom. According to a legend mentioned in Prithviraj Raso, Prithviraj eloped with Jayachandra's daughter Samyogita, leading to a rivalry between the two kings.

The legend goes like this: King Jaichand (Jayachandra) of Kannauj decided to conduct a Rajasuya ceremony to proclaim his supremacy. Prithviraj refused to participate in this ceremony, and thus, refused to acknowledge Jaichand as the supreme king. Jaichand's daughter Samyogita fell in love with Prithviraj after hearing about his heroic exploits, and declared that she would marry only him. Jaichand arranged a swayamvara (husband-selection) ceremony for his daughter, but did not invite Prithviraj. Nevertheless, Prithviraj marched to Kannauj with a hundred warriors and eloped with Samyogita. Two-thirds of his warriors sacrificed their life in fight against the Gahadavala army, allowing him to escape to Delhi with Samyogita. In Delhi, Prithviraj became infatuated with his new wife, and started spending most of his time with her. He started ignoring the state affairs, which ultimately led to his defeat against Muhammad of Ghor.

This legend is also mentioned in Abu'l-Fazl's Ain-i-Akbari and Chandrashekhara's Surjana-Charita (which names the Gahadavala princess as "Kantimati"). Prithviraja Vijaya mentions that Prithviraj fell in love with the incarnation of an apsara Tilottama, although he had never seen this woman and was already married to other women. According to historian Dasharatha Sharma, this is probably a reference to Samyogita. However, this legend is not mentioned in other historical sources such as Prithviraja-Prabandha, Prabandha-Chintamani, Prabandha-Kosha and Hammira-Mahakavya. The Gahadavala records are also silent about this event, including the supposed Rajasuya performance by Jayachandra.

According to Dasharatha Sharma and R. B. Singh, there might be some historical truth in this legend, as it is mentioned in three different sources. All three sources place the event sometime before Prithviraj's final confrontation with Muhammad of Ghor in 1192 CE.

Other rulers
The Prithviraj Raso mentions that Prithviraj defeated Nahar Rai of Mandovara and the Mughal chief Mudgala Rai, but these stories appear to be pure fiction. No historical records suggest existence of these persons.

The construction of the now-ruined Qila Rai Pithora fort in Delhi is attributed to Prithviraj. According to Prithviraj Raso, Delhi's ruler Anangpal Tomar gave the city to his son-in-law Prithviraj, and was defeated when he wanted it back. This is historically inaccurate, as Delhi was annexed to the Chahamana territory by Prithviraj's uncle Vigraharaja IV. In addition, historical evidence suggests that Anangpal Tomar died before the birth of Prithviraj. The claim about his daughter's marriage to Prithviraj appears to have been concocted at a later date.

War with the Ghurids
Prithviraj's predecessors had faced multiple raids from the Muslim dynasties that had captured the north-western areas of the Indian subcontinent by the 12th century. By the late 12th century, the Ghazna-based Ghurid dynasty controlled the territory to the west of the Chahamana kingdom. While Prithviraj was still a child, in 1175 CE, the Ghurid ruler Muhammad of Ghor crossed the Indus River and captured Multan. In 1178 CE, he invaded Gujarat, which was ruled by the Chaulukyas (Solankis). During its march to Gujarat, the Ghurid army appears to have passed through the western frontier of the Chahamana kingdom, as evident by the destruction of several temples and sacking of the Bhati-ruled Lodhruva. The Prithviraja Vijaya mentions that the activities of the Ghurid army were like Rahu to the Chahamana kingdom (in Hindu mythology, Rahu swallows the Sun, causing a solar eclipse). However, it does not mention any military engagement between the two kingdoms. On its way to Gujarat, the Ghurid army besieged the Naddula (Nadol) fort, which was controlled by the Chahamanas of Naddula. Prithviraj's chief minister Kadambavasa advised him not to offer any assistance to the rivals of the Ghurids, and to stay away from this conflict. The Chahamanas did not immediately face a Ghurid invasion, because the Chaulukyas of Gujarat defeated Muhammad at the Battle of Kasahrada in 1178 CE, forcing the Ghurids to retreat.

Over the next few years, Muhammad of Ghor consolidated his power in the territory to the west of the Chahamanas, conquering Peshawar, Sindh, and Punjab. He shifted his base from Ghazna to Punjab, and made attempts to expand his empire eastwards, which brought him into conflict with Prithviraj.

Prithviraja Vijaya mentions that Muhammad of Ghor sent an ambassador to Prithviraj, but does not provide any details. Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir (13th century CE) states that Muhammad sent his chief judge Qiwam-ul Mulk Ruknud Din Hamza to Prithviraj's court. The envoy tried to convince Prithviraj to "abandon belligerence and pursue the path of rectitude", but was unsuccessful. As a result, Muhammad decided to wage a war against Prithviraj.

The medieval Muslim writers mention only one or two battles between the two rulers. The Tabaqat-i Nasiri and Tarikh-i-Firishta mention the two Battles of Tarain. Jami-ul-Hikaya and Taj-ul-Maasir mention only the second battle of Tarain, in which Prithviraj was defeated. However, the Hindu and Jain writers state that Prithviraj defeated Muhammad multiple times before being killed:
 * The Hammira Mahakavya claims that after defeating Muhammad for the first time, Prithviraj forced him to apologize to the princes whose territories he had ransacked, before letting him go. Muhammad invaded the Chahamana kingdom seven more times, but was defeated each time. However, his ninth invasion succeeded.
 * The Prithviraja Prabandha states that the two kings fought 8 battles; Prithviraj defeated and captured the Ghurid king in the first seven of these, but released him unharmed each time.
 * The Prabandha Kosha claims that Prithviraj captured Muhammad 20 times, but was himself imprisoned during the 21st battle. The Surjana Charita and Prithviraj Raso also enumerate 21 battles.
 * The Prabandha Chintamani gives the number of battles between Muhammad and Prithviraj as 22. It also states that Prithviraj's army defeated the preceding enemy king in a previous battle, in which a subordinate of Prithviraj heroically sacrificed himself.

While these accounts seem to exaggerate the number, it is possible that more than two engagements took place between the Ghurids and the Chahamanas during Prithviraj's reign. The early victories mentioned by the Hindu and Jain writers probably refer to Prithviraj's successful repulsion of raids by Ghurid generals.

First battle of Tarain
During 1190–1191 CE, Muhammad of Ghor invaded the Chahamana territory, and captured Tabarhindah or Tabar-e-Hind (identified with Bathinda). He placed it under the charge of Zia-ud-din, the Qazi of Tulak, supported by 1200 horsemen. When Prithviraj learned about this, marched towards Tabarhindah with his feudatories, including Govindaraja of Delhi. According to the 16th-century Muslim historian Firishta, his force comprised 200,000 horses and 3,000 elephants.

Muhammad's original plan was to return to his base after conquering Tabarhindah, but when he heard about Prithviraj's march, he decided to put up a fight. He set out with an army, and encountered Prithviraj's forces at Tarain. In the ensuing battle, Prithviraj's army decisively defeated the Ghurids. Muhammad of Ghor was injured and forced to retreat.

Prithviraj did not pursue the retreating Ghurid army, not wanting to invade hostile territory or misjudge Ghori's ambition. He only besieged the Ghurid garrison at Tabarhindah, which surrendered after 13 months of siege.

Second battle of Tarain
Prithviraj seems to have treated the first battle of Tarain as merely a frontier fight. This view is strengthened by the fact that he made little preparations for any future clash with Muhammad of Ghor. According to Prithviraj Raso, during the period preceding his final confrontation with the Ghurids, he neglected the affairs of the state and spent time in merry-making.

Meanwhile, Muhammad of Ghor returned to Ghazna, and made preparations to avenge his defeat. According to Tabaqat-i Nasiri, he gathered a well-equipped army of 120,000 select Afghan, Tajik and Turkic horsemen over the next few months. He then marched towards the Chahamana kingdom via Multan and Lahore, aided by Vijayaraja of Jammu.

Prithviraj had been left without any allies as a result of his wars against the neighbouring Hindu kings. Nevertheless, he managed to gather a large army to counter the Ghurids. Prithviraj successfully marshaled a sizeable army composed of over 100 Rajput rulers, mainly War elephants, cavalrymen and foot soldiers. The 16th century Muslim historian Firishta estimated the strength of Prithviraj's army as 300,000 horses and 3,000 elephants, in addition to a large infantry. This is most likely a gross exaggeration, aimed at emphasizing the scale of the Ghurid victory. Prithviraj wrote a letter to Muhammad of Ghor, promising him no harm if he decided to return to his own country. Muhammad insisted that he needed time to confer his brother Ghiyath al-Din who was ruling from his capital at Firozkoh. According to Firishta, he agreed to a truce until he received an answer from his brother. However, he planned an attack against the Chahamanas.

According to Jawami ul-Hikayat, Muhammad assigned a few men to keep the fires in his camp burning at night, while he marched off in another direction with the rest of his army. This gave the Chahamanas an impression that the Ghurid army was still encamped, observing the truce. After reaching several miles away, Muhammad formed four divisions, with 10,000 archers each. He kept the rest of his army in reserve. He ordered the four divisions to launch an attack on the Chahamana camp, and then pretend a retreat.

At dawn, the four divisions of the Ghurid army attacked the Chahamana camp, while Prithviraj was still asleep. After a brief fight, the Ghurid divisions pretended to retreat in accordance with Muhammad's strategy. Prithviraj was thus lured into chasing them, and by the afternoon, the Chahamana army was exhausted as a result of this pursuit. At this point, Muhammad led his reserve force of 10,000 mounted archers and attacked the Chahamanas, decisively defeating them. Chronicler Juzjani attributed the success of the Ghurid army to the 10,000 mounted archers which eventually overthrow the "infidel host". However, scholars like Dashratha Sharma and R.B. Singh argue that Ghoris' triumph was more a result of deceitful and treacherous strategies rather than the inherent strength of his forces. According to Taj-ul-Maasir, Prithviraj's camp lost 100,000 men (including Govindaraja of Delhi) in this debacle. Prithviraj himself tried to escape on a horse, but was pursued and caught near the Sarasvati fort (possibly modern Sirsa). Subsequently, Muhammad of Ghor captured Ajmer after killing several thousand defenders, enslaved many more, and destroyed the city's temples.

Jain accounts of Prithviraj's downfall
Prabandha Chintamani by the 14th-century Jain scholar Merutunga states that Prithviraj cut off the ears of one of his ministers, who guided the Ghurid invaders to his camp as revenge. Prithviraj was in deep sleep after a day of religious fasting, and therefore, was easily captured.

Hammira Mahakavya by the 15th-century Jain scholar Nayachandra Suri states that after his initial defeat, the Ghurid king raised a fresh army with the support of a neighboring king, and marched to Delhi. Before the battle, he bribed Prithviraj's master of horses and musicians with gold coins. The master of horses had trained Prithviraj's horse to prance to drumbeats. The Ghurids attacked the Chahamana camp just before dawn, when Prithviraj was sleeping. Prithviraj tried to escape on his horse, but his musicians sounded the drums. The horse started prancing, and the invaders easily captured Prithviraj.

According to another Jain text, Prithviraja Prabandha, Prithviraj's minister Kaimbasa and his spear-bearer Pratapasimha were not on good terms. Kaimbasa once complained to king against Pratapasimha, who convinced the king that Kaimbasa was aiding the Ghurids. An angry Prithviraj attempted to kill Kaimbasa with an arrow one night, but ended up killing another man. When his bard Chand Baliddika admonished him, the king dismissed both the bard and the minister. At the time of Ghurid invasion of Delhi, Prithviraj had been sleeping for ten days. When the Ghurids came close, his sister woke him up: Prithviraj tried to flee on a horse, but Kaimbasa helped the Ghurids capture him by telling them about a certain sound that caused his horse to prance.

Death and succession

Most medieval sources state that Prithviraj was taken to the Chahamana capital Ajmer, where Muhammad planned to reinstate him as a Ghurid vassal. Sometime later, Prithviraj rebelled against Muhammad, and was killed for treason. This is corroborated by numismatic evidence: some 'horse-and-bullman'-style coins bearing names of both Prithviraj and "Muhammad bin Sam" were issued from the Delhi mint, although another possibility is that the Ghurids initially used Chahamana-style coinage to ensure greater acceptance of their own coinage in the former Chahamana territory. After Prithviraj's death, Muhammad installed the Chahamana prince Govindaraja on the throne of Ajmer, which further supports this theory.

The various sources differ on the exact circumstances:

 * The contemporary Muslim historian Hasan Nizami states that Prithviraj was caught conspiring against Muhammad, prompting the Ghurid king to order his beheading. Nizami does not describe the nature of this conspiracy.
 * According to Prabandha Chintamani (c. 1304), Muhammad took him to Ajmer, intending to let him rule as a vassal. However, in Ajmer, he saw paintings depicting Muslims being killed by pigs in the Chahamana gallery. Enraged, he beheaded Prithviraj with an axe.
 * Hammira Mahakavya states that Prithviraj refused to eat food after being captured. The noblemen of the Ghurid king suggested that he release Prithviraj, but Muhammad ignored their advice, and Prithviraj died in captivity.
 * Prithviraja-Prabandha (dated 15th century or earlier) states the Ghurids placed Prithviraj in gold chains and brought him to Delhi. Prithviraj reproached the Ghurid king for not following his example of releasing the captured enemy. Some days later, while imprisoned in Ajmer, Prithviraj asked his ex-minister Kaimbasa for his bow-and-arrows to kill Muhammad in the court, which was held in front of the house where he was imprisoned. The treacherous minister supplied him the bow-and-arrows, but secretly informed Muhammad of his plan. As a result, Muhammad did not sit at his usual place, and instead kept a metal statue there. Prithviraj fired an arrow at the statue, breaking it into two. As a punishment, Muhammad had him cast into a pit and stoned to death.

The 13th-century Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj states that Prithviraj was "sent to hell" after being captured. The 16th-century historian Firishta also supports this account. According to historian Satish Chandra, Minhaj's account suggests that Prithviraj was executed immediately after his defeat, but R. B. Singh believes that no such conclusion can be drawn from Minhaj's writings. Viruddha-Vidhi Vidhvansa by the Hindu writer Lakshmidhara is the only source that claims that Prithviraj was killed on the battlefield.

The Prithviraj Raso claims that Prithviraj was taken to Ghazna as a prisoner, and blinded. On hearing this, the poet Chand Bardai traveled to Ghazna and tricked Muhammad of Ghor into watching an archery performance by the blind Prithviraj. During this performance, Prithviraj shot the arrow in the direction of Muhammad's voice and killed him. Shortly after, Prithviraj and Chand Bardai killed each other. This is a fictional narrative, not supported by historical evidence: Muhammad of Ghor continued to rule for more than a decade after Prithviraj's death.

After Prithviraj's death, the Ghurids appointed his son Govindaraja on the throne of Ajmer as their vassal. In 1192 CE, Prithviraj's younger brother Hariraja dethroned Govindaraja, and recaptured a part of his ancestral kingdom. Govindaraja moved to Ranastambhapura (modern Ranthambore), where he established a new Chahamana branch of vassal rulers. Hariraja was later defeated by the Ghurid general Qutb al-Din Aibak.

Cultural activities
Prithviraj had a dedicated ministry for pandits (scholars) and poets, which was under the charge of Padmanabha. His court had a number of poets and scholars, including:
 * Jayanaka, a poet-historian who wrote Prithviraja Vijaya
 * Vidyapati Gauda
 * Vagisvara Janardana
 * Vishvarupa, a poet
 * Prithvibhata, a royal bard (identified as Chand Bardai by some scholars)

Kharatara-Gachchha-Pattavali mentions a debate that took place between the Jain monks Jinapati Suri and Padmaprabha at Naranayana (modern Narena near Ajmer). Prithviraj had encamped there at the time. Jinapati was later invited to Ajmer by a rich Jain merchant. There, Prithviraj issued him a jaya-patra (certificate of victory).

Inscriptions
 {	"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [ {			"type": "Feature", "properties": { "marker-symbol": "star", "title": "Ajmer", "description": "Ajayameru (modern Ajmer) was the capital of Prithviraj. No inscriptions from his reign have been found here." },			"geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [74.6399, 26.4499] } },		{			"type": "Feature", "properties": { "marker-symbol": "monument", "title": "Barla" }, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [72.84, 26.62] } },		{			"type": "Feature", "properties": { "marker-symbol": "monument", "title": "Phalodi" }, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [72.36, 27.13] } },		{			"type": "Feature", "properties": { "marker-symbol": "monument", "title": "Madanpur" }, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [78.69, 24.25] } },		{			"type": "Feature", "properties": { "marker-symbol": "monument", "title": "Bisaldeo temple, Bisalpur" }, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [75.46, 25.93] } }	] }

According to historian R. B. Singh, at its height, Prithviraj's empire extended from Sutlej river in the west to the Betwa river in the east, and from the Himalayan foothills in the north to the foot of Mount Abu in the south. Thus, it included parts of present-day Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, southern Punjab, northern Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and western Uttar Pradesh.

However, according to archeologist Rima Hooja and historian R.C. Majumdar, Prithviraj inherited a kingdom that only stretched till modern day Hissar and Sirhind (Bathinda) on north west, and till Delhi in North. His territories were bounded on southern frontier by Guhilas of Mewar along with Chauhans of Nadol, on the eastern border by kingdoms of Bayana, Kachchhapaghatas of Gwalior and Gahadavalas of Varnasi and on north-west frontier by empire of the Ghaznavids. Majumdar further asserts that the military campaigns of Prithviraj on his neighbours do not resulted in any annexation of territory.

Only seven inscriptions dated to Prithviraj's reign are available; none of these were issued by the king himself:
 * Barla or Badla inscription, 1177 CE (1234 VS)
 * Phalodi inscription, 1179 CE (1236 VS): records the grants made by Prithviraj's vassal Ranaka Katiya.
 * Madanpur inscriptions of 1182 CE (1239 VS)
 * Inscription 1: Mentions that Prithviraj invaded the territory of the Chandela ruler Paramardi
 * Inscription 2: Names Prithviraj's father (Someshvara) and grandfather (Arnoraja), and states that he plundered Jejakabhukti (the Chandela territory)
 * Inscription 3: Contains names of Shiva (Tryambaka, Chandrashekhara, and Tripuranta).
 * Udaipur Victoria Hall Museum inscription, 1187 CE (1244 VS)
 * Visalpur (Bisalpur near Tonk) inscription, 1187 CE (1244 VS)

Characterization

The late medieval (14th and 15th centuries) Sanskrit stories about Prithviraj present him as an unsuccessful king who was memorable only for his defeat against a foreign king. Prabandha-Chintamani and Prithviraja-Prabandha, written by Jain authors, portray him as an inept and unworthy king who was responsible for his own downfall, and whose mistreatment of his devout subordinates turned them into traitors. In contrast, the Hammira Mahakavya, also written by a Jain author, presents him as a brave man whose subordinates turned against him out of pure greed. The Hammira Mahakavya, which was probably intended to please a Chauhan lord, retains the elements of the Jain tradition that occur in the two Prabandha texts, but also attempts to glorify Prithviraj who was an ancestor of the text's hero Hammira.

Prithviraj Raso, a legendary text patronized largely by the Rajput courts, portrays Prithviraj as a great hero. Over time, Prithviraj came to be portrayed as a patriotic Hindu warrior who fought against Muslim enemies. He is remembered as a king whose reign separated the two major epochs of Indian history. The convention of portraying Prithviraj as a Hindu king defeated as part of the Islamic conquest of India appears to have started with Hasan Nizami's Tajul-Ma'asir (early 13th century). Nizami presents his narrative as a description of "war with enemies of the faith" and of how "the Islamic way of life was established in the land of the Hindus." Tajul-Ma'asir as well as the later text Tabaqat-i Nasiri (c. 1260) present the Ghurid victory over Prithviraj as an important milestone leading to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate.

The 16th century legends describe him as the ruler of India's political centre Delhi (rather than Ajmer, which was his actual capital). For example, Abul Fazl's Ain-i-Akbari does not associate the Chahamana dynasty with Ajmer at all. Prithviraj's association with Delhi in these legends further strengthened his status as a symbol of pre-Islamic Indian power.

Prithviraj has been described as "the last Hindu emperor" in eulogies. This designation is inaccurate, as several stronger Hindu rulers flourished in South India after him, and even some contemporary Hindu rulers in northern India were at least as powerful as him. Nevertheless, the 19th-century British officer James Tod repeatedly used this term to describe Prithviraj in his Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han. Tod was influenced by the medieval Persian language Muslim accounts, which present Prithviraj as a major ruler and portray his defeat as a major milestone in the Islamic conquest of India. After Tod, several narratives continued to describe Prithviraj as "the last Hindu emperor". For example, the inscriptions at the Ajmer memorial (smarak) to Prithviraj also honour him as "the last Hindu emperor".

In popular culture
Memorials dedicated to Prithviraj have been constructed in Ajmer and Delhi. A number of Indian films and television series have been made on his life. These include: Prithviraj Chouhan (1924), Prithviraj Sanyogita (1929) by Narayanrao D. Sarpotdar, Prithviraj (1931) by R. N. Vaidya, Prithviraj Sanyogita (1933), Prithivirajan (1942) by B. Sampathkumar, Prithviraj Samyogita (1946) by Najam Naqvi, Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan (1959) by Harsukh Jagneshwar Bhatt, Rani Samyuktha (1962) by D. Yoganand, Samrat Prithviraj (2022) by Chandraprakash Dwivedi; and the Hindi television serials Main Dilli Hoon (1998–1999) and Dharti Ka Veer Yodha Prithviraj Chauhan (2006–2009).

The Indian animated film Veer Yodha Prithviraj Chauhan (2008) was released by Rakesh Prasad. Prithviraj was also one of the first historical figures to be covered in Amar Chitra Katha (No. 25). Many of these modern retellings depict Prithviraj as a flawless hero, and emphasize a message of Hindu national unity.

The video game Age of Empires II HD: The Forgotten contains a five-chapter campaign titled "Prithviraj".

title: Prithviraj Chauhan


text:
User talk:Schnoid

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 17:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Schnoid