text:
Talk:Revolutionary Communist Group (UK)

Untitled
Is this a mainly Jewish organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.46.244 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous question, it is a political communist organisation. Albertobolognetti (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Are these the publishers of Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism ?
Is this the same RCG that publishes a paper, "fight racism! fight imperialism!"? If so I'd like to say that they're not bad (though supporting Castro gives them a black mark) -- well, not as bad as the RCP: before the general elections FRFI said, basically, "don't vote! get organised", which is a better message than you'd get from the Trots who don't pay much attention to direct action. Its hard to tell with all these factions, though. I am reminded of the Judean People's Front in Monty Python's Life of Brian: lots of different groups with the same goal who hate each other more than they hate the Romans! -- james
 * Yes they publish Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!. The article could probably do with some NPOVing. Warofdreams 09:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the NPOVing comment ('Yaffe's followers'???!). To make this page a fairly true representation I would suggest some immediate points for development:

1. The reason for the RCG's expulsion from IS, which the current entry doesn't even mention. This centred on disagreements over whether imperialism still existed, and the RCG's analysis of the 'labour aristocracy', which lies behind the fact that it has always called for no vote for the Labour Party (not just in the 2005 election). Obviously both of these points have continuing relevance today.

2. Ireland. The RCG's involvement in campaigning on Ireland in the late 1970s and early 1980s lay the foundations for many of its later positions, and its relation to the rest of the British left. This needs to be at least mentioned.

3. The split by those members who went on to form Fightback! Although the allegations mentioned were certainly made, more important were differences which emerged over the bombings in the US on 11 September 2001. Full details of both sides of that disagreement have been published online by Communist Forum.

4. The boycott of Marks and Spencer. This is more a point of bringing the entry up to date, by mentioning the RCG's involvement in the national boycott of Marks and Spencer stores, beginning with the start of the 2nd Intifada in Palestine, in which the group has worked together with a huge range of people and groups, particularly muslim groups (such as Green Ribbon who were central in the early days, and later MPAC) and 'anarchists'. Weekly pickets have continued for a number of years at a time in some cities.

5. What is said about the group's involvement in the South Africa Anti-Apartheid Movement isn't really representative - City Group wasn't just 'effectively disowned' by the leadership of the AAM, it was forcibly expelled! Again, what was this disagreement over? - centrally, over the RCG's insistence that solidarity against apartheid South Africa had to be linked to the fight against racism within Britain.

I'll come back later when I have time and make some more considered amendments and see what people think. -- tom

 * You clearly have a considerable amount of knowledge on the group, from which the article would benefit. Please be bold and make these changes! Warofdreams talk 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is much more clear and more readable than when I first came across it last year. I'm still not clear on whether the RCG is a trotskyist group. The RCP(Furedi), which split from it, was trotskyist (according to the wikipedia article) and the RCG was in the IS which was also. But since the article mentions the group becoming more orthodox (the book from the 80s that you can read on their website urges solidarity with the "socialist" countries, refering to what trotskyists would have called state capitalist or degenerated workers' states) I assume this means orthodox in supporting "official communism" of the USSR. -- james

In response to james: As much as labels mean anything, the RCG does not consider itself Trotskyist. It is Marxist, and it is Leninist. -- tom

City of London Anti-Apartheid Group
The following section, while technically true, is misleading in some ways:

"During the 1980s their most notable activity was mounting a non-stop picket of the South African embassy in London calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. This was nominally carried out by the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group, which they controlled, and was effectively disowned by the national leadership of the Anti-Apartheid Movement."

It has long been the position of the "official" communist party in Britain (the old CPGB, the Morning Star CPB and various tanky factions) that the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group was just the RCG operating in the disguise of a popular movement. This does a disservice to thousands of people who participated in City AA at all levels through the 1980s and to immense sacrifice of the Kitson family.

Although the actions and views of City of London Anti-Apartheid Group may, most of the time, have been indistinguishable from those of the RCG, it would be wrong to view it as merely an RCG front akin to the SWP's second incarnation of the Anti Nazi League. Indeed there were times when the RCG was bitterly criticised for attempting to withdraw some of its resources from City AA to support campaigns such as the Viraj Mendes asylum campaign - which was almost entirely an RCG effort.

City AA, as it was known, was run by a democratically elected committee, which at various times included members of other organisations such as WRP and the Humanist Party. There were even members of SWP who participated in the picket itself, against the instructions of their organisation.

The Non-Stop Picket of the South African Embassy, which City AA began in April 1986 followed an 86-day picket of the Embassy that had been organized by City AA's founder, Norma Kitson to draw attention to the cause of her husband David Kitson who was an SACP activist serving a 26-year sentence in South Africa for his role in the leadership of the ANC's armed wing.

On David Kitson's release, he credited the 86-day picket with saving his life. Further details are to be found in Norma Kitson's book "Where Sixpence Lives." Later the Justice for Kitson Campaign highlighted some of the shabby treatment that Kitson received from the British trade union movement and the "officials" when he refused to publically denounce City AA.

In a similar vein, Nelson Mandela, after his release, stood on a balcony of the South African Embassy and told the crowd that filled Trafalgar Square that the protests of the picket in front of the London Embassy was the most vociferous of all the anti-apartheid protests anywhere in the world. The ironic thing was that he was flanked on that balcony by officials of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement who had taken every possible action to prevent those protests from taking place.

The ideological heirs of Ken Gill would like to dismiss City AA as an RCG front and airbrush it from history. I believe it would be helpful to develop a wiki article that more fully tells the story of City AA and the non-RCG figures such as myself who served in its leadership.

Chris adds: I was involved in the City AA group as well, and while it's true that only a minority of members were in the RCG, the RCG and Norma Kitson effectively controlled it. For example the decision to stop the David Kitson picket after 86 days was clearly made by the RCG outside of the decision-making structure of City AA and pretty much presented as a fait accompli and pushed through against opposition. I don't recall there being any WRP or Humanist Party members in the group, although they did show up on the picket now and again. Those of us who weren't in the RCG or independent tended to be in the Labour Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, I always regarded the RGC as stalinist. They were violenntly opposed to Solidarnosc, they described the USSR as socialist without qualification and there was no discernible difference politically between them and Norma Kitson, who was an old-style tankie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a democratic meeting held every week in City AA and decisions were made as a result of discussion and votes were taken. Chris simply objects to the Revolutionary Communist Group putting its views to the meetings and having those views accepted after a democratic decision by all members present at the meeting. He admits that only a minority of members were in the RCG but seems to be arguing that it was unfair that their arguments were accepted by the majority. Yet Chris is/was a member of a totally undemocratic racist, imperialist party - the Labour Party. His view is typical of the sectarianism of the undemocratic left.

The RCG is not a Stalinist organisation. This name calling is typical of those who cannot really construct a reasonable argument against the RCG's political standpoint. The RCG opposed Solidarnosc because Solidarnosc wanted to introduce a neo liberal market economy into Poland - something it eventually did when it became part of the government. See the article Poland: Solidarity and counter-revolution, ''Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism''! 15 January 1982, reprinted in The Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution Larkin Publications 1992 (still available). The RCG describes the USSR as socialist. To say this is 'without qualification' is meaningless jargon. To call Norma Kitson names such as 'old-style tankie' is a bankrupt and a dismissive insult against a women who was an activist and above all a brilliant organiser against apartheid and for the democratic rights of all South Africans (David). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.241 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to Lebanese group
In Lebanon there is a political group with the same name, who has an article on Wikipedia Revolutionary Communist Group (Lebanon). I find it obvious that as long as the Revolutionary Communist Group not is a disamb page it must have a link on the top of the article. However, some anon user removes this link. Is there any valid reasoning behind this? Bertilvidet 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In short, no, there is no valid reason for this. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be a disamb page, though. There is also the GCR from Colombia. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Trotskyist"
Warofdreams insists on calling the RCG Trotskyist. Some groups with a similar name are clearly Trotskyist but the RCG broke with Trotskyism some time in the mid to late 1970s. I know this because I was a founder member of the RCG and still am a member. It is therefore important to be accurate on this matter and not put the Revolutionary Communist Group (UK) in the category Trotskyist Organisations.
 * Please read what I write - the group was originally Trotskyist, hence the category. It no longer is - there is no dispute here! Warofdreams talk 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The RCG has been in existence since March 1974, that is, for over 32 years. It broke with any vestiges of Trotskyism a few years after its founding conference. So for nearly 30 years the RCG has not had any practical or theoretical links with Trotskyism. Putting the RCG in the category Trotskyist organisations is therefore perverse.
 * If there was a category for former Trotskyist groups, this article would be in it. There isn't, so it is in the only suitable category to include its original ideology.  The change is quite clearly explained in the article.  I really don't understand why you disagree with this. Warofdreams talk 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The categorisation 'Trotskyist' leads today to clearly defined positions on crucial issues such as state capitalism, permanent revolution and the character of opportunism. We hold to the classical Marxist and Leninist positions on all these issues and differ from all Trotskyist groups in the UK on these issues. We belong to a definite political trend and this is important for understanding our politics. After we were expelled from the SWP our politics were clearly undefined and underdeveloped but very quickly we moved in a revolutionary direction, re our position on Ireland,  totally opposed to the position of all the main Trotskyist groups. The SWP, after all, supported British troops going into Ireland in 1969. So really there are no reasons to put us in the Trotskyist's organisation category unless you are being stubborn and perverse.

 * There are a lot of irrelevant arguments here. There seems to be one key one - are you, or are you not claiming that the RCG was never Trotskyist?  If it never were (and you seem to be in two minds on whether you are claiming this), then the category would be inappropriate (and the article would need to be changed).  If it was initially, then the category is entirely appropriate.  As I keep saying, your endless statements of the group's more recent politics are still irrelevant. Warofdreams talk 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Warofdreams logic is absurd. The RCG is not a Trotskyist organisation. It cannot be put in the category Trotskyist organisation because it is not one. That Warofdreams wishes to put us in that category because the RCG took a few years to clarify its political standpoint having emerged from an organisation which claimed to be Trotskyist makes no sense. There is no category 'former' Trotskyist organisations because such a category would be of no real practical use. Why do we insist on not being in the category Trotskyist organisation? The answer is simple because for most political activists it is a political categorisation which does not apply to the RCG. So Warofdreams should give everyone a break and cease insisting that the RCG be put in a category where it does not belong.

 * It seems that you misunderstand the idea of categories. They do not just include things which currently meet a particular description, but also historical examples.  For example, Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom includes every Prime Minister, even though almost all of them ceased to be Prime Minister before their death.  The article on the Revolutionary Socialist Party (UK) is in both the Trotskyist category, and the De Leonist category, because the party changed its ideology.  The same applies here.

 * In addition, do not use edit summaries such as "Warofdreams is now beyond rationality as explained on discussion page. Clearly if you continue the category will just be deleated by someone from the RCG." Personal attacks are not permitted, and threats to engage in disruptive behaviour will get you banned.  I have given you many chances to engage in constructive discussion.  Please do so. Warofdreams talk 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We have engaged in constructive discussion. Please do not patronise me because of your superior situation in relation to Wikipedia. The RCG exists and those reading anything about us would make assumptions about our present politics if we are included in Trotskist organisations. If the Revolutionary Socialist Party UK is prepared to see itself in two categories that is fine. The RCG rejects totally the categorisation Trotskyist. Why is Warofdreams insisting that the RCG is in a category which it totally rejects and after it has clearly justified this rejection? The issue of Prime Ministers is a red herring. What matters is the party they belong to. The RCG is active in UK politics and how it is seen by others involved in politics in the UK is important. Warofdreams intervention can only be regarded as sectarian. Does Wikipedia allow sectarian interventions and who decides whether interventions are disruptive or sectarian? Finally I want to make it clear that the origins of an organisation, its initial period of developing its politics does not determine its existing politcal categorisation. This seems a reasonable standpoint. If Wikipedia rejects this then it ought to reconsider its position.

 * The article is clear on your present politics. As I have said repeatedly, this article does not and should not claim that the RCG is currently Trotskyist.  The reason for the category is clear from the article.  Organisations do not control their Wikipedia articles, so what the RCG (or any surviving member of the RSP) would like to see included is not crucial.  I will leave aside the curious assertion that categorising this article, as I see it correctly, can only be seen as sectarian or that by attempting to explain my reasoning when you have stated that you cannot follow it that I am being patronising. Warofdreams talk 02:16, 12 November 2006

(UTC)

I do not accept your reasoning and neither would any person attempting to create a reasonably objective page. Is it possible to get some adjudication on this matter that involves neither myself nor you? Until this happens I can only remove the categorisation.

WikiProject Political Parties Assessment
Someone keeps reverting this. To explain: the article is clearly start class rather than stub or C class. And it is low importance because the party receives less than 5% support in general elections. If the mystery reverter has a different view, then I suggest they try and make their case here, rather than simply being an anonymous vandal. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The RCG thinks elections are fraudulent (see FRFI 214/215). To say the RCG has less than 5% of the vote in such elections makes no sense as a criteria for assessing the discussion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.179.140 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to article
This is, sadly, a very weak article. It relies almost entirely on self-published sources. Recent changes by Haldraper at least make it more readable, in addition to removing a few completely unsourced statements, and note that some opinions are those of the group, and remove a little trivia (e.g. the twenty-fifth anniversary of the newspaper). Unfortunately, an anon user has applied blanket reversions. I hope that the anon editor is not connected with the party; if they are, they should read Conflict of interest. Either way, any serious objections to the improvements need to be made on this talk page, with no further reversions. Warofdreams talk 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Warofdreams is in no position to edit the RCG Wikipedia page as he has already showed his colours in the past. See above re the categorisation of the RCG as Trotskyist, which he insisted on for a long period despite this being counter-factual. Get someone else from the administation team of Wikipedia to sort this out. That Warofdreams thinks that it is trivia to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of a anti-imperialist, communist newspaper in the oldest imperialist country illustrates his lack of fitness to be an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.240 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why warofdreams sees fit to continually strip the article of important points so that it adheres to his own view of the RCG - I believe constant edits which damage an article are considered vandalism! This isn't just vandalism, but distorts the positions and arguments of the group the article is about - in an online encyclopedia, this is exactly the opposite of what should be being achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.148.161 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this. Please refrain from personal attacks.  You will notice that the recent improvements are not my work, and I don't have any particular view of the group; I just want to see a neutral, more readable and better-referenced article.  Which specific points are being distorted?  Do you have references for these?  If so, that's great, and can be part of improving the article. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I do not agree with user Warofdreams that you 'do not have an particular view of the group'. You do not live in a vacuum in society. Obviously far from that, according to your blog which you link to from your wikipedia user page you refer to the British SWP as a 'far left group'. Also on this blog you have written about 'capitalism' and 'the BNP'. This shows you obviously have personal interests and 'views'. Wikipedia is presented as neutral by some but we all know that history is in fact an interpretation of events by the historian. Yours and others' consistent editing of this article shows obvious discontent with the group and some attempt to vandalise the page despite your 'prestigious' position as a wikipedia administrator, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. We have been working hard to improve this article and would thoroughly appreciate it if you and others ceased from attempts to distort, remove and edit factual information being in-putted about this organisation and presented to the general public. --Albertobolognetti (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pitching in. I'm not sure who this "we" are, who have apparently been working on the article, but you'll note that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and not limited to a small group of contributors.  Given your edits, I wonder if you may be connected with this group - if so, see Conflict of interest.  It would also be useful to look at the information on vandalism, to see the difference between that, and the kind of contributions which other editors have made to this article.  Either way, please desist from personal attacks, and engage in some discussion about any specific problems you have with the improved version of the article. Warofdreams talk 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "we" refers to people who are against the barrage of politically motivated changes and censorship that have been made by a number of uses which "you" (plural) seem to be defending. I'm sure you can understand this is clearly not about personal attacks. I do not take onto the internet or public forums to 'attack' people. I know what a 'troll' is and this is not my role. I have looked at the documents you have offered me to read. Firstly, you can call these 'rules' but I do not for one minute believe that wikipedia has been constructed according to these 'rules'. However, secondly, I am not violating any of these 'rules' either. Thirdly, if you think there is such thing as a 'neutral' user who does not have some form of 'conflict of interest' with what is termed as being in the greater interest of the 'general public' you are seriously mislead. You obviously are using these 'rules' to try and strangulate attempts to put build a good quality public domain article page of this political group. I believe you are including too much personal and political interest in your censorship and that which you are defending. This will not be acceptable. I will attempt to create a new sub heading here to satisfy your thirst to moderate this page where we can clearly and openly discuss the facts which are believed to have been censored from this page. I hope we can resolve this issue in the interests of the general public, and the movement as a whole. Albertobolognetti (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * re: Vandalism, and I quote from the link you offered- "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Clearly, in the understanding which I have explained, your unexplainable attempts to make constant reversions and changes to other users' input surely compromises the integrity of this article. You are doing so without proper explanation but clearly abusing your authority and known 'reputation'. Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

[moved last comment to new section] Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of recent changes and revisions to article
(moved to this section --Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

Warofdreams is playing games again. He was given two examples of changes that were incorrect and distorted the content. Haldraper also chose to take out the fact that Fightback has ceased to exist, that make three. Then there is the 'little trivia' (Warofdreeams)re 25 years of the publication of Fight Racism Fight Imperialism - a very objective remark (what is the source for this?). These could easily be corrected but Haldraper makes so many significant changes that they can only be reversed. Maybe Haldraper could make his changes a little more gradually and give reasons for them, instead of incorporating all his changes under the guise of 'cut some unreferenced/POV bits'. I didn't notice administrator Warofdreams questioning his rather vague all-encompassing reasoning for the changes made. Finally can Warofdreams cease bullying me with some 'last warning'- do Wikipedia authorities allow such behaviour from their administrators?

discussion of removal of specific section in Talk page (awaiting clarification)
Thank you. Your removal of my comments is helpful for my research. I see that your last "discussion" was from six years ago. As you may have gathered, I am black, a woman and working class - there are quite a few of us who are well educated. Censorship is a powerful tool against the "enemy". If you are not representing or representative of people like me then what is your motivation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.176.194 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Your contribution was removed because it does not relate to any objective position put forward by the RCG or its newspaper Fight Racism!Fight Imperialism! It is not clear what position/argument you are referring to. Where does the RCG claim to represent 'people like you' and why are you raising this question? What political standpoint are you putting forward? Until you make your argument clear it simply appears as a gratuitous insult. 84.92.92.77 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to a new section on this talk page. I cant see what it is refering to but i believe it to be of some reference to a discussion surrounding the ethnic diversity of the organisation which i believed was removed as it appeared to be either unclear, or some kind of joke. This might have been a mistake but the original poster must clarify urgently. please also use some kind of wiki markup to make page breaks (b in triangle brackets), paragraphs (p in triangle brackets) etc Albertobolognetti (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Three Paragraphs of this article serve to confuse and ill inform the general public on the Revolutionary Communist Group
The first three paragraphs of this article on the Revolutionary Communist Group serve to confuse and misinform the general public. They are also unfair to the Revolutionary Communist Group itself. It is absolutely pointless elaborating on the origins of the group prior to 1979. From 1979 onward its politics had been fully formed. This information on the Revolutionary Communist Group may be appropriate as a footnote or aside but it does not help the reader understand the present day RCG. Second, there is one point which is quite dishonest and misleading. Yes, the RCG does not participate in elections, but only because it is quite a small organisation. The RCG follows Leninist tactics to utilise bourgeois democracy to further its political goals.

Marxist-Leninist?
I don't know if it is accurate to describe this organisation as Marxist-Leninist, it is an organisation with dodgy Trotskyist origins. True, other Brit Trot groups yelp and howl "Stalinism" because the RCG does not usually attack every single actually existing socialist government as fervently as they do, but that doesn't mean this group itself espouses Marxist-Leninism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While it does have Trotskyist origins it seems odd to suggest they haven't broken with that. Their views and analysis are in general closer to Marxist-Leninist groups (especially those that reject the United Front/Popular Front theories), and they very strongly defend Cuba for instance, without the usual Trotskyist crap about it being a "deformed workers' state". They were also one of the few groups on the left to oppose the destruction of Eastern European socialism and probably the only one to oppose Solidarnosc, which not even the CPGB could bring itself to do. Their view of imperialism is also more in line with Lenin than Trotsky, or Trotsky's followers. 77.96.105.241 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The group no where identifies as 'marxist leninist' either online or in it's paper FRFI. It describes itself as marxist and leninist, which is far more accurate.Albertobolognetti (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RCG logo.jpg

title: Talk:Revolutionary Communist Group (UK)


text:
Colle di Val d'Elsa

Colle di Val d'Elsa or Colle Val d'Elsa is a town and comune in the province of Siena, Tuscany. It has a population of c. 21,600. Its name means "Hill of Elsa Valley", where Elsa is the name of the river which crosses it and Valdelsa the name of the valley. In the 21st century, Colle di Val d'Elsa is internationally renowned for the production of crystal glassware and art (15% of world production), largely produced in the industrial lower town.

History
The area was settled by man from at least the 4th millennium BC; the first mentions of the city are from the 9th century AD. In 1269, it was the seat of a famous battle during the wars of Guelphs and Ghibellines and in 1479 it was besieged by Neapolitan troops. From the 14th century it was a possession of Florence and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany until the unification of Italy in 1860.

In the 20th century, it became an important industrial center. During World War II it was bombed by Allied aircraft. The oldest part of the town is the "colle alta", the higher part, with a well-preserved medieval center. The town developed along the river from the 11th century onwards, building an artificial canal to power various industrial activities, such as wheat mills and paper factories. The city is also famous as the birthplace of sculptor and architect Arnolfo di Cambio. The Giottesque painter Cennino Cennini and the poet Isabella Cervoni were also born here.

Main sights
The village is entered through the ancient and monumental Porta Nova and winds its long and narrow way in a sequence of fine 16th- and 17th-century noble houses (notable are Palazzo Usimbardi, Palazzo Buoninsegni and the Town Hall) to the Palazzo Campana, which marks the entry to the Castle, the oldest part of Colle. Here, the village is characterized by narrow paved lanes, 15th- and 16th-century noble houses (such as Palazzo Luci, Palazzo Morozzi, Palazzo Giusti, Palazzo Dini) and tower-houses, including the one where Arnolfo di Cambio was born.

Frazioni
The municipality is formed by the city of Colle di Val d'Elsa and the towns and villages (frazioni) of Bibbiano, Borgatello, Campiglia dei Foci, Castel San Gimignano, Collalto, Gracciano dell'Elsa, Le Grazie, Mensanello and Quartaia. Other notable villages within the comune include Boscona, Buliciano, Coneo, Lano, Montegabbro, Onci, Partena, Paurano, Sant'Andrea and Scarna.

Twin towns

 * 🇲🇦 Bir Gandus, Western Sahara

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

title: Colle di Val d'Elsa


text:
R-15 (missile)

The R-15 (Р-15) was a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) design from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The R-15 was a project to develop an SLBM for the D-3 missile system with the capability to be launched while submerged. The development was authorized for OKB-586 in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, on 20 March 1958 and cancelled before testing in December 1958.

Development
The Soviet Union's nuclear submarine project began the middle of the 1950s and focused on attaching nuclear warheads to a variety of delivery systems. The Soviet military required the Navy to use nuclear weapons to enhance the effectiveness of naval operation against large ships, naval bases, groups of ships, or other strategic targets. The decree also gave OKB-586, a Russian design office, the task to create the R-15 missile for the D-3 on March 20, 1958. The R-15 missile was planned to have a range of 1,000 kilometers and the design required improvements from the D-1 and D-2 systems. The missile was planned to launch directly from the launch tube unlike the D-1 and D-2, which had to be raised.

The R-15 missile was designed for a nuclear submarine in 1958. The Special Design Bureau No. 143(SKB-143) began to design the Project 639 submarine that would use three R-15 missiles. While another design bureau in 1958, Central Design Bureau No. 16, worked on Project V-629 that would use the R-15. Project V-629 designed a diesel submarine that would keep a single R-15 missile on board. Most of the design projects would be halted because the missile's size and weight would not meet performance specifications. The work on the D-3 missile system and the accompanying submarines designs were canceled during December 1958.

title: R-15 (missile)


text:
Talk:Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia

Darwin Swivel Gun
I have reverted the edit by an anon user re recent find of an object alleged to be a Portuguese swivel gun. Until it is professionally verified, it may be anything and is thus, entirely speculative and unencyclopedic.(It might be Portuguese, Spanish, Indonesian... even English) Nickm57 (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. At the moment all we have is the opinion of some kid. Hesperian 10:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree, it's totally speculative at the moment. Could be a gun from any country and any era. We should wait for proof of both its origin and its provenance.--Dmol (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So here is the sober analysis.. As this is not the first time a SE Asian cannon find has been incorrectly attributed to a Portuguese presence, its probably noteworthy. I may try to build it into the page in the next few days. Nickm57 (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if the swivel gun turns up to be of European origin and not made in Indonesia, the point to remember is that after the Dutch arrival in Indonesia around 1600,they swapped guns for trade in timber and spice with the Indonesians. Also see "Java la Grande" by Pat Zalewski, 2012, issue 23, Journal of Northern Territory History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Zalewski (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for your contribution. You need to alert yourself to Wikipedia's rules about citations, conflict of interest etc. I will put a list of links on your talk page. Nickm57 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Who owns this article?
A user called Nick57 seems to think he/she is the exclusive owner of this article. He/she has repeatedly reverted a number of edits which add clarity to the article, for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * What is regretable is your attitude, acting as if the article were yours. Your contributions don't make you the owner of the article. Language correction is fine. Name-calling is not. Nor is assuming bad faith or bias, or ignorance in other editors. If you want to put forth your own exclusive views, write a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Nick57 that the reverted edits read as partison in places. Clarity is important, but not at the expense of neutrality. Hesperian 00:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that having worked on Wikipedia articles over the last five years, I have every intention of continuing to do so, including here. The edit log shows that on 18 and 19 June I requested you bring your suggestions for improvements to the talk page. Apart from the personal attacks on me as above, you still haven't brought any suggestions for improvements here - which is the point of this page. Also, when and where have I called you names? Please provide examples so I know what you are referring to. I will very happily apologise if so. Nickm57 (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Name-calling? Yes, you probably forgot that you described previous edits as "partisan". Ironic you should say that when in fact it is the whole article that is "partisan" and biased. The tone of skepticism is so blatant it is ridiculous. It's propaganda disguised as some encyclopedia article. And every attempt to bring some neutrality to the text is being countered by your clicking the "undo" button on the View History page. Change that belligerent attitude for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No one owns this article
Thanks for following my advice and coming to the talk page. This is the place to get consensus (agreement) for proposed changes, particularly those which significantly change the tone of an article, as your edits over the last few days propose. I am as entitled to write here as anyone else. Regretably, the changes you have proposed are either ungrammatical or highly partisan. The sentence "specially the Mahogany Ship, a shipwreck of an alleged vessel of Portuguese sea captain Cristóvão de Mendonça, which arrived in Australia in 1522" is such an example. "Specially" is not the right word in this context, you mean "Especially". The rest of the sentence is ungrammatical. You probably mean "an alleged Portuguese shipwreck, known as the Mahogany ship." (It is not "a shipwreck of an alleged vessel..." is it?) The second issue is that your edits on this page, and European exploration of Australia, suggest it is a fact a Portuguese mariners arrived in Australia. This is simply not the case. It is a highly contentious theory even if it appeals to you personally. May I suggest you read on the topic before making any further changes? For example, your inclusion in one edit, of Nick Thieberger's 2006 article "Language is like a carpet," as support of Carl Georg von Brandenstein's fringe theory, shows that you had not actually read it. Nickm57 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of this talk page is not to indulge in personal abuse, however much you like/dislike the edits of others. I have repeatedly invited you to bring your suggestions for improvements here - but you either can't or won't discuss what you write. You can expect to be reverted by other editors if you make significant changes you don't explain, especially if they dont follow WP policies or change the tone of the article. You state that you think the page is fundamentally biased. I suggest if you really do feel that way you take the matter to Arbitration or an Admin at least.Nickm57 (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper accounts of the Mahogany Ship
Re the use of Baker, M. "Quest of the Mahogany Ship" The Age, 6 January 1975; O'Neill, G. "Signals point to Mahogany ship" The Age, 27 March 1992; Adams, D. "Buried in the dunes..." The Age, 10 March 2000. In what way do any of these newspaper articles on (unsuccessful) searches for the Mahogany ship provide any supporting evidence of the theory? I added them to the Mahogany Ship page several years ago, (I have hard copies of them) because they illustrate popular Australian interest in the wreck. Is Graham O’Neill’s (The Age’s Science Journalist at the time) speculation that one detected signal may be a buried tree, (it was), noteworthy at the start of this article? Of course not. Have you read them?

Andrea Corsali's letter of 1515 and the Pre-Magellanic view of the world
This page is about theory that exists that a Portuguese expedition arrived in Australia between 1521 and 1524. Collingridge did believe the Portuguese and Spanish first sighted Australia and is the first popular writer on this topic, as this article notes. You have misunderstood the context of Collingridge’s comments. Collingidge uses Corsali to explain the way maps (available in the hard copy of his book but not the online version you refer to) evolved before Magellan’s circumnavigation.
 * You write - Collingridge, George. (1895) The Discovery of Australia, Sydney, Hayes Brothers. [5] Collingridge mentions Andrea Corsali's letter several times in his work as evidence of the knowledge of the existence of a large southern continent by the Portuguese: (Chapter 18): "Andrea Corsali, speaking of a continental land to the south-east of the Spice Islands, that is, in the vicinity of New Guinea, says...[Italian quote]".

In his account, Collingridge continues with a translation;
 * “And navigating towards the east, they say there lies the land of Piccinacoli,** and many believe that this land is connected towards the east in the south with the coast of Bresil or Verzino,*** because, on account of the size of this land of Verzino, it is not as yet on all sides discovered.

 * (**Footnote. Piccinacoli is the name given to New Guinea in G. Mercator's map of 1569.)

 * (***Footnote. Verzino is the Italian for Brazil-wood.)

 * As New Guinea was supposed to be connected with Australia, it follows that we have in the above statement of Andrea Corsali the reason, at least, for the presence on subsequent maps of the Shonerean term Brasielie Regio, as applied to the Austral Continent.”
 * (Page 92, Golden Press Fascimile Copy)
 * You write - Also in Chapter 23: "The Austral continent, supposed by Andrea Corsali and others to extend from the region of New Guinea (Terra de Piccinnacoli) to the land of Sanctae Crucis..."

The full paragraph in Collingridge continues:
 * "the land of Sanctae Crucis then known as the coast of Bresil or Verzino, was also known as the Papagalli terra--i.e., land of parrots. The origin of this denomination has been supposed to have been given first to Brazil, because either Gaspar de Lemos in 1500, or Pedralvarez Cabral in 1501, it is not known which, or when, brought some parrots to Europe from Brazil."

The longest paragraph dealing with Corsali in Collingridge you have not referred to and it makes his use of Corsali very clear. This is in Chapter 34 where he is referring to Mercator’s mappamundi of 1569. He explains why Mercator "disregards previous cartographical representations of Australia and lays down a more or less fictitious continent instead."

Collingridge then continues regarding New Guinea:

 * "New Guinea forms an important feature in this famous mappamundi. It isseparated from the Australian continent by a narrow strait, although thecartographer expresses his doubts as to its being thus separated...simodo insula est, nam sitne insula an pars continentis Australis ignotu adhuc est.

 * The inscription on New Guinea which contains the above remark reads thus:Noua Guinea que ab Andrea Corsali Florentino videtur dici Terra de piccinacoli. Forte Labadij insula est Ptolomeo, si modo insula est, nam sitne insula an pars continentis australis ignoti adhuc est

 * The information contained in that inscription is very faulty. Andrea Corsali never saw New Guinea himself, but described it from hearsay. Writing from Cochin China
 * [Nickm57: Actually Cochin in southern India]
 * to the Duke of Medici on the 6th of January 1515 he says: [Italian deleted] “And navigating towards the east, they say there lies the land of Piccinacoli, and many believe that this land is connected towards the east in the south with the coast of Bresil, or Verzino, because, on account of the size of this land of Verzino, it is not as yet on all sides discovered."
 * (Page 92, Golden Press Fascimile Copy P198-199)

As his footnote makes clear, Piccancoli means New Guinea, Bresil or Verzino are Brazil.

None of the contemporary writers on this theory mentioned here – for or against the theory, McIntyre, McKiggan, Fitzgerald, Richardson, Trickett or Pearson interprets Corsali’s significance the way you have suggested. In fact, I can only find Robert J. King mentioning Corsali briefly, and that is in the context of the pre-Magellanic view of the world. His article is here Nickm57 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * First you erase an edit that has taken considerable time to research an produce, and then you ask that it is discussed in the talk page. Interesting that it should not be the other way around. First, I doubt any of the editors here are reputed historians or researchers that can engage in a discussion on Andrea Corsali, the Discovery of Australia, or any complex historical issue for that matter. Presumably this is why Wikipedia does not accept primary research. Second, without wishing to engage in a discussion on the interpretation of Corsali's letter, let me point out that the reference to Verzino or Brazil is simply because it was believed to be connected with the "Austral Continent", ie. Australia. This can be seen in Collingridge's translation of Corsali's words: "... And navigating towards the east, they say there lies the land of Piccinacoli, and many believe that this land is connected towards the east in the south with the coast of Bresil or Verzino, because, on account of the size of this land of Verzino, it is not as yet on all sides discovered." The fact that Brazil and Australia were believed to be connected can be clearly seen in this interesting 1543 Dieppe Map . The point however, is not this. The point is that Collingridge takes Corsali's letter as evidence that the Portuguese knew about an "Austral Continent" beyond the Spice Islands and in the vicinity of New Guinea. And so does the interpretation of Corsali's manuscript published by Hordan House (1989) . I provided the quote in the edit which you erased: "Corsali's Lettera also has a SPECIAL PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF AUSTRALIA [capital letters by author]". Therefore, there at least two sources that interpret Andrea Corsali's letter as proof that the Portuguese knew about the existence of a Southern or Austral continent. This should be enough to mention Andrea Corsali's letter in the article, though I am sure there are other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.51.34 (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Well your research is not all wrong here. You are correct in that it reveals the same pre-Magellan view of the world that King is commenting on in his explanation of the Dieppe maps. However Collingridge is not actually using the letter in the way you claim as a reading of his book shows. The 1989 introduction by someone at Hordan House, the antiquarian bookseller, about the special place of the letter is correct in a general sense of seeking knowledge of the Australian region and certainly in its early description of the Southern Cross. However, its really not a source. Doesnt it strike you as strange that not one of the writers on this topic, for or against the theory, see this letter as having the significance you claim? Everyone who has gone into print on this topic has read Collingridge. By the way, you havent read my edit summary correctly. I wrote "see talk page for extensive details on reverted text." By the way, I think everyone is hoping you will create a logon for yourself, or at least sign your edits. Nickm57 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Look, I did read your summary edit and that still does not justify that you revert my text which is well constructed and sourced. I am not going to engage in a discussion on Corsali which is well beyond our reach no matter how much reading you and I have done on the subject. I will repeat however, that Collingridge mentions Corsali as proof of the knowledge by Portuguese sailors of an Australian continent (whether he makes this point literally or not). In his work, the letter is just one pillar of the building that forms the evidence of that fact (according to the author). As for the English interpretation of the manuscript (published in Australia by Hordan House) I cannot accept your comment that this "is really not a source". It is just as good as any other source. The fact that it says that the Corsali manuscript has "a special place in the history of the Discovery of Australia" is self-explanatory. As for other writers "not seeing this letter as having the significance you claim", that is your opinion. Neither of us can answer that question beyond doubt. Even if you and I were experienced historians, our opinions would be of limited value here, as Wikipedia allows for secondary sources only. However, as I anticipated, there are other authors which cite Corsali's manuscript as proof of a prior discovery. One is Giulia Grazi (2007) in her book Il Battista della Croce (del Sud): Omaggio a Andrea Corsali (The Baptizer of the Southern Cross: Homage to Andrea Corsali)  in which the author says: ...gli Australiani lo ritengono lo "scopritore ideale" e il più antico testimone della loro terra, l’iniziatore insomma della loro storia (English: "Australians consider him [Corsali] the "ideal discoverer" and the oldest witness to their land, in short, the initiator of their history") . As for a Wikipedia account, I am more than happy to create one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.51.34 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - Obviously I disagree. I certainly think its undue weight in that section because its not a key tenet of the theory. I have to go offline for several weeks - and can't comment more right now, so it's back to you and over to other editors.Nickm57 (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply put; Either Chinese navigators lacked the ambition or motivation to see what's down south or the Portuguese navigators in the pay of Portugal's Crown or any other client states, decided after zigzagging all over the planet's oceans, to go as far as Timor, Papua New Guinea or Hebrides, trace a line in the water and decide, this is it! Here and no further... Leave the rest of the World to be discovered/rediscovered or whatever by someone else. We have had enough, let's go home. P.S. What a pity Chinese records are incomplete and the Lisbon earthquake destroyed so many important documents and maps. CharlieCares (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
I suspect that the two IPs that have been making contentions edits on this article, 83.61.20.30 and 213.98.51.34, are sockpuppets for a user who has been banned for abusive and unreasonable behavior similar to the behavior of those two IPs, If you would like to comment on the sockpuppet investigation, please go here: Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * As a sock, any of the IP's edits can be freely reverted. See Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?
I meant to change the quote as it should say "any contact language". I was wrong in thinking the IP had done this. However, why has some of the quote been removed again as 'commentary'? It's from the source and if we didn't allow commentary from sources we'd have very little in the way of historical articles. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead
As it stands it does not conform to WP:LEAD and as almost all of the lead is about the hypothesis it violates NPOV. I suggest it read something like "This is based on interpretations of the Dieppe maps, Portuguese colonies in southeast Asia dating to the early 16th century and Australian artefacts interpreted as Portuguese by adherents of this hypothesis. These arguments have been rejected by mainstream historians and other writers."

You'll note I use the word hypothesis, not theory. It's the correct word and used by at least one of our sources, Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific and in a book by a Professor of Hispanic Studies at Lancaster University,Producing the Pacific: Maps and Narratives of Spanish Exploration, 1567-1606 . We have Pole shift hypothesis because of the same argument, it's not a theory. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks like a very sound idea to me. Hypothesis is more suitable in the lead. NB Have also replaced the quotation by Mühlhäusler and McGregor - this is clearly their opinion as any reading of the full article would illustrate. Nickm57 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence in the quote by Mühlhäusler and McGregor is used out of context. The "unconvincing evidence" and "speculative data" refers to the "secret colony" proposed by Von Brandenstein, not the Portuguese words in Pilbara languages. The lack of "linguistic evidence in his claims" refers to the place names that would support the claim about the colony. Again, not to the words in Pilbara languages. Read text here (p. 101):

Theory vs. Hypothesis
A theory is an explanation about a phenomenon which has been widely researched and proven. A hypothesis ("hypo" meaning "less than" plus "thesis") is simply a proposition or supposition which requires research or scientific testing. In history, anthropology and social sciences, phenomena cannot be tested or proven fully and beyond doubt because they are not quantifiable (unlike physics or mathematics which are exact sciences). Thus, theories arise from extensive research and acceptance by the academic community. Sometimes theories are not accepted by all members of the community, and new theories are produced to counter the old ones. But the old ones remain theories whether consensus is achieved or not. The thesis of Portuguese discovery of Australia is clearly a "theory" and not a "hypothesis" because it has been extensively researched and there are experts who support it. Many other experts might not agree, some of which have put forward counter-theories about the historical evidence used by its supporters (namely the Dieppe Maps), but that does not strip it of its condition of theory. It certainly does not make it a "hypothesis". There is more than sufficient research and adherents to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.194.52 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you are the same editor who was editing here last July? I suggested then that you create an account for yourself. Please do this. If you are not and are new to Wikipedia, do it anyway. Other editors are much more likely to engage with you if you do this. Re your edit; in English, generally, we don't write that an inanimate object, such as a theory, "states" something. It's not a hard and fast rule but its grammatically awkward. Also please read up on WP:LEAD as Doug Weller has suggested. CheersNickm57 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I did not edit this page in July. I do have an account, but sometimes do not bother to login. Thanks for your comments. I am pretty sure you can say that "a theory states that" something or other. See this Wikipedia article (2nd line): "The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition...", or this BBC science article : "The theory states that originally all the matter in the universe was concentrated..." . In any case, go ahead and change the wording if you are not confortable with it. The point is a theory is a theory, not a hypothesis. (It would be contradiction to use both terms to describe the same thing). And this is certainly a theory, as explained above. Not all scientists agree with the Big Bang Theory, and it's still a theory. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to meet a real person, so to speak! I think the log on option is vastly preferable! CheersNickm57 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, same here. Look forward to interesting discussions. BTW I have erased "hypothesis" and written that the theory "establishes" whatever it establishes. Feel free to change the wording if you have a better suggestion.Fortis est Veritas (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chunk on Peter Trickett
From time to time, anonymous editors add well-meant but superficial or misleading sections to this page, usually based on a single source. In the most recent case, which I've deleted, a piece based on a not very accurate 2007 news item about Peter Trickett's book has been tacked on the end, without any awareness of the rest of the article. The news item seems to have been based on a press release from Trickett's publisher. Here are a few undeniable facts Always happy to discuss edits but this was too ill-considered. Nickm57 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Trickett did not find the Vallard Map. It's well known and has been in the collection of the Huntington Library for many years. There are also copies in other libraries and copies have been available on line for some time. For evidence of this and citations showing that it is not different to the Dieppe Maps, see the page Dieppe Map.
 * Trickett's book does not prove "that Portuguese adventurers, not British or Dutch, were the first Europeans to discover Australia." The ambiguous nature of this claim is the point of this article and the sections above.
 * This article already acknowledges Trickett's theory and there is an page entirely devoted to his book Beyond Capricorn.

 * Thanks. Some of the language was also unacceptable, eg "leads us to acccept". Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Nick. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dubious, Eurocentric claim about perceptions of the Earth's age
The article currently includes this phrase: "The error by La Trobe is quite understandable according to geologists Edmund Gill and Peter F. B. Alsop, given that in 1847 most people thought the world was only 6000 years old." Now, unfortunately I don't have access to the source attached to it (and article by Gill), but the notion of the Earth being 6000 years old is predicated on a Christian worldview. I highly doubt most Chinese, or Indians, or Zulus, would have subscribed to this system of dating, but that's what's implied by the phrase "most people". Even if Gill and Alsop are the one's making this claim (and we have a source for it), that doesn't make it any less absurd on its surface. Just because we have a source for something that satisfies the WP guidelines doesn't mean we suspend critical judgment of it. I would suggest either a re-examination of the source for this phrase, or the introduction of a qualifying phrase to acknowledge how misleading and Eurocentric it is. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Easier to change it to "most Europeans" given that the source doesn't seem to be online. Doug Weller  talk 16:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable solution. I will carry it out (unless someone objects, which they're welcome to do). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have access to it and it does make that claim - I think I included it originally. It is eurocentric, so your solution also has my support. There is a broader issue here though - that is, numerous claims in this debate need to be considered in the context of eurocentrism. Nickm57 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Cowie's book
has added this to 4 articles today. Turns out that it is correct that the " online government encyclopedia Te Ara added to its bibliography a book that proposes the possibility of pre-Tasman Spanish and Portuguese visitors. That book – Conquistador Puzzle Trail by Winston Cowie – argues that both Iberian nations visited New Zealand in the 16th century." But that's not the whole story. "Paul Moon – one of New Zealand’s leading historians – who argues that it is thin-end-of-the-wedge stuff, “another step towards the conspiracy theorists gaining wider legitimacy in some people’s eyes”." : “Politically, the motive behind such views appears to be to deny Maori their indigenous status and perversely claim that Europeans are effectively the indigenous people of New Zealand.” Atkinson agrees, calling claims of supposed pre-Polynesian settlement “politically motivated by a desire to undermine tangata whenua status and therefore cast doubt on the Treaty-settlement process”. (same source) See also. I've removed it for the moment, and it was clearly written in a pov fashion. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - support your edit and comments. This topic attracts quite a lot of self published theories and sometimes edits are done apparently only to publicise these. Also, the comments by Paul Moon and Atkinson, what might be called the "white man's dreaming" idea, I have read once before - I can't recall where (Richardson?) but its worth being woven in here somehow.Nickm57 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look - there are some cheerful reviews of Winston Cowie's book, all published by booksellers selling his book, and an enthusiastic reception from both Spanish and Portuguese embassies. But there is also some controversy in NZ - as per the following:
 * Te Waha Nui (AUT newsroom), undated 2016, Daniel Walker; “Historians clash over European settlement of NZ”
 * Otago Daily Times, 10 May 2016, “Historian rubbishes new NZ discovery claims”
 * New Zealand Listener, 24 June 2016, Matthew Wright “Did the Spanish or Chinese visit New Zealand before Polynesians?” . Nickm57 (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bittangabee Bay
Having visited Bittangabee Bay after reading Menzies book I agree with the local explanation that the structures were built by the Imlay brothers however I believe an error may have crept in to this section. The statement - "Pearson identified the Bittangabee Bay ruins as having been built as a store house by the Imlay brothers, early European inhabitants" is not accurate. The storehouse still exists intact on the shoreline of the Bay where a jetty would have once stood. The ruins, image of which is in this article, are located on a low ridge about 100m up a path from the store. Their location would be the most obvious place for a homestead which was never completed due to the death of one of the brothers. 124.170.22.89 (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you have a source that could be cited so this could be corrected? Nickm57 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I can verify the above comment. They built the storehouse and started the homestead. I believe National Parks have a sign at the location saying this.

HMAS Sydney's search for a Dutch wreck in Sept-Oct 1937
There are several newspaper articles on the National Library of Australia's Trove on this matter. But at a quick glance I can only see one newspaper - The Sydney Morning Herald on Fri 8 Oct 1937, that claims two cannons were found in 1917, one with markings of "Lisbon 1521", that are "now objects of interest at Garden Island". There were indeed two cannons found that went to Garden Island, but these were found in 1916 by HMAS Encounter, as this page already documents. There is no other reliable source stating that 4 cannons ended up in Garden Island, all found within a year of each other and all from North Western Australia. In addition, all the other newspapers on Trove, reporting this search by the brand new HMAS Sydney on its spring tour, state the search was for a Dutch wreck and don't mention the cannon with Lisbon 1521 on it.

Until a reliable source is found I think this one newspaper article merely serves to confuse the casual reader, so have deleted it. Its quite possibly a confused account of the Encounter's find. Nickm57 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Discovery" is a controversial word
With Aboriginal people having been in Australia for 70,000 years, suggesting anyone else discovered the continent in the past 500 years is clearly wrong. The first sentence qualifies the claim a little by writing of "the first Europeans to sight Australia". However, the article is peppered with dozens more uses of the doubtful word. Some are in the titles of other articles and books, so are valid uses. I have just removed a few instances from early parts of the article, but there are still too many. I would encourage others to do their best to remove these as they see fit, and to avoid using the word here in future. (The fact that it's in the title is also a bit worrying.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks for doing that - I think these changes are an improvement.Nickm57 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 * A place like Australia can have many discoverers. The Dutch discovery was in 1606. The British under Dampier in 1699. The French later. Even the Aborigines came here from somewhere else, and they certainly can't be described as "Australian Aborigines" at that time (or those times, since there would have been multiple waves of arrivals, in different places at different times probably spread over thousands of years, and coming from multiple sources involving multiple ethnicities). So just exactly who were the very first humans to set foot on and settle the continent? We'll never know. The best we can say is various ancestors of modern-day Aborigines, but not Aboriginal people themselves.

 * That aside, I struggle how to reword this article in a way that doesn't leave it open to purporting the Portuguese were the first humans to arrive on the continent. "Theory that the first non-indigenous people to find Australia were Portuguese"? I don't think so. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 * We also have Portuguese discoveries, which is about all their journeyings world-wide, and includes a section on Cape York. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese discovery of Australia
I recently added a paragraph to the Portuguese Discivery of Australia page but it was deleted.

I am aware there are protocols covering what can be included but because I really have something new to say about the Dauphin map (you have a reference to my writings in the Dieppe maps page) I am puzzled about what the fine line is which allows extensive reference to other writers but not to me. You have previously drawn my attention to the conflict of interest protocol which I find hard to understand.

Could you explain please just what that fine line is as I think I have something worthwhile to add to the debate. Can you suggest how I might construct my edit so that it complies with guidelines.

Ray Blackwood Shutehaven (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the COI policy (that you were advised of on 14 Feb) or that you think there is some sort of "fine line" which allows you to keep on editing WP as though the COI policy doesn’t exist.

The policy states at the outset
 * "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted…"
 * And
 * "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content."
 * And
 * "you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the request edit template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed..."

You haven’t done any of these things, even after the policy was pointed out.

In addition, your account appears to be for the sole purpose of publicising your own views.Nickm57 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok Nick, but it seems to me that most of the content of the Portuguese page is of people giving their views with a view to broadening the debate which is my intent. Shutehaven (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


text:
Jason Michaels

Jason Drew Michaels (born May 4, 1976), nicknamed "J-Mike", is an American retired Major League Baseball outfielder. He played for the Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Houston Astros.

High school and college
Born in Tampa, Florida, Michaels graduated in 1994 from Jesuit High School in Tampa, a school which also produced major leaguers Lou Piniella, Dave Magadan and Brad Radke. He batted over .400 in each of three years for Jesuit, and was selected in the 49th round of the 1994 Major League Baseball draft by the San Diego Padres. He chose not to sign and instead attended Okaloosa-Walton College, a community college in Niceville, Florida. At Okaloosa-Walton, Michaels hit .421 with 9 home runs and 45 runs batted in, and was named Panhandle Conference Player of the Year in 1996. He graduated from Okaloosa-Walton in 1996, and that year played collegiate summer baseball for the Orleans Cardinals of the Cape Cod Baseball League.

He was selected in the 44th round of the 1996 draft by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but he again opted not to sign and instead entered the University of Miami. He lettered in baseball for the Hurricanes in both 1997 and 1998, and was a teammate of future major-leaguers Pat Burrell and Aubrey Huff. In two seasons at Miami, he batted .396 with 34 home runs and 154 runs batted in. In 1997, he set Hurricane single-season records for hits (106), doubles (32) and total bases (189).

The St. Louis Cardinals selected Michaels in the 15th round of the 1997 amateur draft, but once again he opted not to sign, returning to Miami for his final year of eligibility. In 1998, Michaels was drafted for the fourth time when the Philadelphia Phillies selected him in the 4th round of that year's draft. He signed his first professional contract on June 19, 1998.

In 2010, Jason was inducted into the University of Miami Sports Hall of Fame.

Philadelphia Phillies
In the Phillies farm system from 1998 through 2001, Michaels played for the Batavia Muckdogs of the short-season, single-A New York–Penn League (1998), the Clearwater Phillies (now Clearwater Threshers) of the advanced single-A Florida State League (1999), the Reading Phillies of the double-A Eastern League (2000) and the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons of the triple-A International League (2001). In 424 minor league games with the Phillies, he hit .282 with 52 home runs and 264 RBI.

Although he spent most of the season with Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Michaels made his major league debut with Philadelphia on April 6, 2001. He was on the Phillies' 25-man roster from 2002 through 2005 as a reserve outfielder and pinch hitter, compiling a .291 batting average with 21 home runs and 100 RBI in 383 games and 808 at bats. He was used primarily as a pinch hitter and defensive replacement in 2002 and 2003. In 2004, he was the team's fourth outfielder behind fellow University of Miami alumnus Pat Burrell, Marlon Byrd, and Bobby Abreu. In 2005, he platooned in center field with left-handed hitting Kenny Lofton.

Cleveland Indians
On January 27, 2006, the Phillies traded Michaels to the Cleveland Indians for left-handed relief pitcher Arthur Rhodes. This trade precipitated a second deal in which the Indians sent outfielder Coco Crisp, relief pitcher David Riske and catcher Josh Bard to the Boston Red Sox in exchange for reliever Guillermo Mota, third baseman Andy Marte, catcher Kelly Shoppach, Randy Newsom and cash. Michaels replaced Crisp in left field for the Indians in 2006, hitting primarily in the second spot in the batting order behind Grady Sizemore. For the season, he hit .267 with nine home runs and a career-best 55 RBI. He missed 16 games after crashing into the outfield wall at Yankee Stadium on June 15.

Michaels's struggles against right-handed pitching in 2006 (.252, 4 HR, 28 RBI in 338 plate appearances compared to .291, 5 HR, 27 RBI in 210 plate appearances against left-handers) prompted the Indians to sign left-handed hitting, free agent outfielder David Dellucci after the 2006 season. Dellucci and Michaels were expected to platoon in left field in, with Michaels seeing most of his playing time against left-handed pitching.

Roberto Clemente Award Nominee
On September 6, 2006, the Indians announced that Michaels was their nominee for the prestigious Roberto Clemente Award, given annually to the major league player who best exemplifies a commitment to community service. Michaels donated the $2,500 award to the Cleveland chapter of Gang Resistance Education and Training.

Pittsburgh Pirates
On May 8, 2008, Michaels was traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates after being designated for assignment.

Houston Astros
On December 15, 2008, Michaels was signed to a one-year, $750K contract by the Astros.

Michaels re-signed with the Astros the following year.

On October 4, 2010, the Astros exercised a $900,000 club option for 2011. Michaels had batted .253 with 26 RBI and appeared in 106 games.

Washington Nationals
The Washington Nationals signed Michaels to a minor league contract on December 16, 2011.

Personal life
Michaels's grandfather, John Michaels, pitched for the Boston Red Sox and also played in the Cincinnati Reds organization. His father, Earl Michaels, played quarterback for the West Virginia Tech football team. His cousin, Jacob Watters, was chosen in the 2022 MLB draft.

Jason now runs a baseball clinic in Tampa Florida called The Big League Approach as described in a recent interview with William Slover of Pain Resource

title: Jason Michaels


text:
Talk:Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children

Big questions in 2005
To those who know and care:

The biggest questions I am left with on coming across this are "What body/organisation arranged this protocol"; "Who are the states who ratified this"; and "What enforcement measures were proposed as a result of this protocol (or is it just a waffle group)".

- Interesdom 21:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer: This was adopted at the United Nations Palermo Convention in 2000.

-Bob [user: N/A]15:29, 25 May 2006

realy #care 'bout that dominant!

Two or three Palermo Protocols?
This article says that there are two Palermo Protocols, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_protocols says there are three! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.234.98 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: "especially"
Somehow the use of this word seems inappropriate since "especially" is based on "special" which generally is perceived as good. Maybe a change can be made to "particularly".GinAndChronically (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You might find the justification in the "Travaux Préparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto". This Travaux is basically the old-school-talk-page of content and wording in the convention and its three protocols. Let me add the link to the page too. 46.126.109.40 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410140453/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/protocoltraffic.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/protocoltraffic.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved with self-closure as a speedy typo fix, as suggested. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children → Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children – or use sentence case. The lowercase "especially" really sticks out as strange here and seems contrary to MOS:CT. The cited UN page has "Especially" with an initial capital letter. The certified true copy of the treaty itself seems to use all-caps. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, and this should have just been listed at WP:RM/TR has a speedy typo fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have submitted a request at WP:RM/TR and I plan to self-close the discussion per the comment above, once the request is carried out. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Go ahead. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


text:
Talk:Bieber, California

Comment
here you can get a lot of informations about villages called Bieber (in german). but here is the homepage of Bieber in california. there exists alsough a town called New-Bieber near Bieber. greatings from Bieber in Germany.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bieber, California. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bieber, California


text:
User:84.154.103.206

Poultry Expert (specializing on turkey species TABIB IBNEVICH HUSSEYNOV BAKUNENSIS AZERII who, with his droppings, vexis eminent Russian editor ROVOAM, a resident of California and a friend of Irish scientist Sean Kennedy)

This user is a sockpuppet, identifiable with edits from
 * User:72.25.94.45
 * User:84.154.114.30
 * User:Olesssi (n.b. not the same as User:Olessi)
 * User:84.154.80.185

title: User:84.154.103.206


text:
SixDegrees.com

SixDegrees.com was a social network service web site that initially lasted from 1998 to 2000 and was based on the Web of Contacts model of social networking. It was named after the concept of six degrees of separation and allowed users to list friends, family members and acquaintances whether registered on the site or not. External contacts were invited to join. People who confirmed a relationship with an existing user but did not go on to register with the site continued to receive occasional email updates and solicitations. Users could send messages and post bulletin board items to people in their first, second, and third degrees, and see their connection to any other user on the site.

SixDegrees was one of the first social networking sites that later became highly popular. It was followed by more successful sites based on the "social-circles network model" such as Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, XING, and Facebook.

MacroView (later renamed to SixDegrees Inc.), the company that developed the site, was founded by CEO Andrew Weinreich in May 1996 and was based in New York City. At its height, SixDegrees had around 100 employees, and the site had around 3,500,000 fully registered members. The site was bought by YouthStream Media Networks in December 1999 for $125 million. SixDegrees shut down one year later on December 30, 2000, then brought back up a few years later.

title: SixDegrees.com


text:
John George Bourinot (younger)

Sir John George Bourinot, (October 24, 1836 – October 13, 1902) was a Canadian journalist, historian, and civil servant, sole author of the first Canadian effort in 1884 to document Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, and remembered as an expert in parliamentary procedure and constitutional law.

Life
Born in Sydney, Nova Scotia, he was the oldest son of John Bourinot. He was educated at Sydney before enrolling at Trinity College, Toronto, in 1854. Although he was a good student, he left the university two years later and worked as a parliamentary reporter for a Toronto newspaper. In 1860, he was in Halifax, where he founded, together with Joseph C. Crosskill, his own newspaper, the Evening Reporter. In May 1867, Bourinot left this newspaper and worked as a freelance writer for some time, until he secured a job as a clerk at the Senate of Canada in May 1869. In the following years, he steadily advanced through various grades until he was appointed chief clerk of the House of Commons of Canada in December 1880. a post he would occupy until his death 22 years later.

A founding member of the Royal Society of Canada, he also acted as its honorary secretary, and in 1892 served as president of the society. He wrote many books political history, some of which were considered references for decades to come. His Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in Canada (Montréal, 1884) is considered a standard work. How Canada is governed (Toronto, 1895) was a widely used textbook, and Canada under British rule, 1760 – 1900 (Cambridge, England, 1900) was also popular. He also wrote books about the history of Nova Scotia, and several more on constitutional law. He also created the work that was posthumously to be called Bourinot's Rules of Order.

Bourinot was an advocate of Imperial Federation and a proponent of both a national university and library of Canada. He also was in favour of the right of women to higher education. In his later life, Bourinot received honorary degrees from many Canadian universities and was created CMG in 1890 and KCMG in 1898. He died in Ottawa, Ontario and was buried in Beechwood Cemetery there.

Honours
Bourinot was elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1893.

Works
Source:
 * The Intellectual Development In The Canadian People, (1881)
 * French Canada, (1887)
 * Our Intellectual Strength And Weakness, (1893)
 * Sea, Forest, And Prairie..., (1893)
 * Canada, (1897)
 * Builders Of Nova Scotia, (1900)
 * Canada Under British Rule 1760-1900, (1900)
 * Constitutional History, (1901)
 * Lord Elgin, (1903)
 * Canada [2nd edition with William H INGRAM], (1922)
 * How Canada Is Governed, (?)
 * Catalogue Of The Library Of The Late Sir John Bourinot, (1906)
 * Parliamentary Procedure And Government In Canada, (?/?)
 * Cape Breton And Its Memorials Of The French Régime, (?)

title: John George Bourinot (younger)


text:
Talk:China–European Union relations

Untitled
I think there really needs to be an article on this. I'll try to get round to editing it in time. I think it's good to place some links to this page first so it will get some eyeballs. There is a site that has a lot of information that will be useful. Jacoplane 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.china-ceec.org/eng/

Name
This article should be at "European Union arms embargo on China" I think. I'm not sure if it's neccessary to distinguish between the ROC and the PRC. -- Joolz 12:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the name with which it is almost always referred to in the media. I think the article makes it abundently clear that the embargo is against the PRC. Jacoplane 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I see what you mean, arms embargo shouldn't be in capitals. Yes I agree with you, we should make a redirect soon I guess. Jacoplane 11:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

COTW
This article is COTW, but I doubt it will actually be selected. I placed it on the list mainly to get some publicity. If it is not selected, I will start updating the article anyway. Jacoplane 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

human rights
funny how human rights is the reason why the embargo should continue. yet some how. the usa sells weapons to israel. possibly the biggest human rights violator in the world. the usa practically gives the weapons to israel for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F3289H89H (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The real reason way the arms embargo is still in place is because the US treatens to stop all military develepment coorperation with Europe if they lifted the arms embargo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

EU-PRC-ROC threefold relations
This article formerly dealt with the EU relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC). I don't find the new idea of having a "trifid", "triangular" or "threefold" article (also including the Republic of China) to be a particularly enticing prospect, current article title and/or the possibility for the existence of a standalone article for the [informal?] EU-ROC relations notwithstanding. In any case, for the time being, this article is, from an ontological standpoint, different from the articles in the language versions of Wikipedia previously inter-linked, so I just removed this mess from the correspondent Wikidata cluster. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know when that change occurred? Its been a weird tripartite thing for as long as I’ve been here. Also just a technical note, all EU relations are “informal” in the diplomatic sense as the EU is not a state. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The last time I edited this article in October 2019 it was a purely PRC-EU article . The most recent switch dates back to November 2019. In any case, I stand by the rest of points stated above.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets separate them out then, I cant think of any other article where two countries are lumped together like that even if the PRC/ROC thing is a bit complicated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve created Taiwan–European Union relations as a redirect here for the time being. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Going forward, the only "troubling" issue for some editors might possibly be the title, I suppose?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just created a wikidata item for the Taiwan-EU relations (Q94778317) and consequently I linked it to the redirection you've just created.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t follow, what would be the issue with the title? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people may take offence in the China–European Union relations title being appropiated by the PRC. I personally don't give a flying one.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Luckily we have a consensus on that one... If there is ever a conflict China means People’s Republic of China and Taiwan means Republic of China, that one was settled long before I started editing. If consensus makes a few IPs unhappy I’m with you on this one, I don’t give a flying one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just overwritten the redirect with some content extracted from this article.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, glad we got that sorted. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Illustration with train route bypassing Russia
@Thereisnous posted a map of a freight train route between China and Europe, bypassing Russia (diff). The footer claims that this is the current route, and no citation is provided. The related image on Commons links to an article that is beyond a paywall. I have casually checked online, and to me it looks like that is a plan more than a reality today. There seem to be several trains connecting China and Europe every week, but they seem to be crossing Russia as they did before. I suggest removing the map until this point is clarified. QuimGil (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's an actual train rote. Here is another source without a paywall. As I understand, it's currently only for freight, not for passengers. Thereisnous (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thereisnous ok, thank you. I see: https://middlecorridor.com/en/route. In any case, would you agree to say that nowadays the main freight train routes between Chinese and European connections still cross Russia, and that this Middle Corridor is an alternative route? Right now, the footer gives the impression that the route bypassing Russia is the default, if not the only one. A clearer footer would be helpful, in my opinion. QuimGil (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Please modify it as you see fit. Thereisnous (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! QuimGil (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:China–European Union relations


text:
Alismatidae

Alismatidae is a botanical name at the rank of subclass. Circumscription of the subclass will vary with the taxonomic system being used (there are many such systems); the only requirement being that it includes the family Alismataceae. It is a relatively new name: earlier systems, such as the Engler and Wettstein systems, used the name Helobiae for a comparable unit.

Alismatidae in the Takhtajan system
The Takhtajan system treats this as one of six subclasses within the class Liliopsida (=monocotyledons). It consists of:

 * subclass Alismatidae
 * superorder Alismatanae
 * order Butomales
 * order Hydrocharitales
 * order Najadales
 * order Alismatales
 * order Aponogetonales
 * order Juncaginales
 * order Potamogetonales
 * order Posidoniales
 * order Cymodoceales
 * order Zosterales

Alismatidae in the Cronquist system
The Cronquist system treats this as one of four subclasses within the class Liliopsida (=monocotyledons). It consists of (1981):

 * subclass Alismatidae
 * order Alismatales
 * order Hydrocharitales
 * order Najadales
 * order Triuridales

This subclass comprises less than five hundred species total: many of these are aquatic or semiaquatic plants (see Alismatidae info).

APG II system
The APG II system does not use formal botanical names above the rank of order; it assigns most of the plants involved to the (expanded) order Alismatales, in the clade 'monocots', although the plants in Cronquist's order Triuridales are assigned to quite different placements.

title: Alismatidae


text: File:Gambit in Exiles.jpg

title: File:Gambit in Exiles.jpg


text:
Lowi

Lowi may refer to:

 * Theodore J. Lowi (1931–2017), American political scientist
 * Innsbruck Airport, Austria (ICAO code: LOWI)

title: Lowi


text:
HOW TO Channel

HOW TO Channel was an Australian cable and satellite television channel. It was carried on the Foxtel Digital, Optus TV featuring Foxtel Digital and Austar Digital platforms. It was owned by Premier Media Group, a 50/50 joint venture of Publishing and Broadcasting Limited and News Corporation.

The channel mainly featured a range of DIY style programs. Technology programming sourced from TechTV and G4 from the United States, such as The Lab with Leo Laporte, Attack of the Show, and Call for Help also was carried on the network.

In December 2010, Foxtel announced that the How To Channel will cease on 1 March 2011, and will be replaced with LifeStyle HOME, a brand new channel completely dedicated to home and property. It will include programming from the current main Lifestyle Channel in addition to some existing programs from the How To Channel. This will be the third subsidiary channel for LifeStyle. Lifestyle HOME will broadcast on Foxtel/Austar digital channel 119 on both cable and satellite. Upon that, How To Channel was ceased airing overnight on 1 March 2011 around 4:00 am, to make room for Lifestyle HOME.

title: HOW TO Channel


text:
Minister for Integration (Denmark)

Minister for Immigration and Integration (Udlændinge- og Integrationsminister) is a Danish ministerial office. The office was created by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen on 27 November 2001 when he formed the Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen I after the 2001 Danish parliamentary election, in which refugees, immigration, and integration of people from non-western countries had been important issues.

One of the stated goals of the Anders Fogh cabinet, and especially the supporting Danish People's Party which secured the government's majority, was to "stem the flow" of refugees to Denmark, and new tougher rules did drastically reduce the number of refugees being granted asylum. Another initiative was the 24 year rule, which stated that spouses must be 24 or older before they could immigrate to Denmark through family reunification (there had been many cases of arranged marriages of young people being used to get around immigration restrictions).

It was abolished by the Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt after Rasmussen's right-wing alliance lost the 2011 election.

title: Minister for Integration (Denmark)


text:
User:Kost~enwiki

Vlatko Košturjak (engl. Vlatko Kosturjak) - Kost

Homepage: http://kost.com.hr/ Blog: http://kost.com.hr/blog/

title: User:Kost~enwiki


text:
Quake II engine

The Quake II engine is a game engine developed by id Software for use in their 1997 first-person shooter Quake II. It is the successor to the Quake engine. Since its release, the Quake II engine has been licensed for use in several other games.

One of the engine's most notable features was out-of-the-box support for hardware-accelerated graphics, specifically OpenGL, along with the traditional software renderer. Another interesting feature was the subdivision of some of the components into dynamic-link libraries. This allowed both software and OpenGL renderers, which were selected by loading and unloading separate libraries. Libraries were also used for the game logic, with consequences including:
 * Since they were compiled for specific platforms, instead of an interpreter, they could run faster than Quake's solution, which was to run the game logic (QuakeC) in a limited interpreter.
 * id could release the source code to allow modifications while keeping the remainder of the engine proprietary.

The level format, as with previous id Software engines, used binary space partitioning. The level environments were lit using lightmaps, a method in which light data for each surface is precalculated (this time, via a radiosity method) and stored as an image, which is then used to determine the lighting intensity each 3D model should receive, but not its direction.

id Software released the source code on December 22, 2001, under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2.0 or later.

Ports

 * Jake2 - a Java port of the Quake II engine's GPL release. It has since been used by Sun as an example of Java Web Start capabilities for games distribution over the Internet. In 2006, it was used to experiment playing 3D games with eye tracking. The performance of Jake2 is on par with the original C version.
 * Quake2Forge - one of the earliest community produced source ports.
 * Quake2xp - a port of Quake II to modern operating systems.
 * KMQuake2 - an upgraded engine for Quake II.
 * Quake2maX - OpenGL focused source port.
 * Quake 2 Evolved - early graphically enhanced game engine.
 * Quetoo (formerly Quake2World) - multiplayer focused port derived from Quake2Forge.
 * Berserker@Quake2 - graphically enhanced Quake II port.
 * Yamagi Quake II - a port of Quake II to modern systems which aims to preserve the original gameplay.
 * vkQuake2 the original Quake II engine with additional Vulkan renderer created by Krzysztof Kondrak, a programmer from Poland. It was originally released in December 2018 under the GPLv2.
 * CRX Engine - custom version for CodeRED: Alien Arena.
 * Qfusion - a modification of the GPL version of the engine. The engine was used in the 2012 game Warsow.
 * Q2Pro - a mutliplayer oriented port, which was also used as the basis for Quake II RTX.
 * R1Q2 - another multiplayer focused port.
 * DirectQII - DirectX oriented source port.
 * Fruitz of Dojo - a source port aimed at Mac OS X.
 * Q2DOS - a backport of the game to MS-DOS.

title: Quake II engine


text:
Denis Richards

Denis Richards OBE (10 September 1910 – 25 November 2004) was a British historian. He is famous for his work on the history of the Royal Air Force, including the three-volume official history of the service during World War II, which was co-written with Hilary St. George Saunders.

Richards came from London and was educated at Owen's School and Trinity Hall, Cambridge. In 1931 he graduated from Cambridge University with a double first in history. For the next eight years he was a master at Manchester Grammar School, teaching both history and English. From 1939 to 1941 he taught the same subjects at Bradfield College, near Reading, as a senior tutor.

War service then called him and he joined the RAF. Within a very short time he was ordered to report to the historical section of the Air Ministry. His staff eventually came to number 40, and he held the position of senior narrator from 1943 to 1947. He began to write the official history of the RAF during World War II when he was the senior narrator. It was eventually published in three volumes in 1953 and 1954. In 1947 he was promoted within the Air Ministry to a principal, a post in which he remained until 1950. Richards published in his lifetime more than a dozen books, half on RAF history.

After his time in the RAF, and whilst completing the official history, he became involved with Morley College in south London. He worked strenuously to raise funds for the rebuilding of the institution. The college benefitted from paintings he commissioned, and many young musicians later to find fame, took part in concerts he staged.

He had a number of hobbies, including snooker and golf. He was heavily involved with Hampstead Golf Club after joining it in 1951. He also engaged in voluntary work, chairing the Women's League for Health and Beauty for 22 years between 1966 and 1988 and also acting as a vice president of the Purcell School of Young Musicians from 1984 until his death. He continued to publish works into his old age, and he was awarded the OBE in 1990.

title: Denis Richards