text:
Astronomia nova

Astronomia nova (English: New Astronomy, full title in original Latin: Astronomia Nova ΑΙΤΙΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΣ seu physica coelestis, tradita commentariis de motibus stellae Martis ex observationibus G.V. Tychonis Brahe) is a book, published in 1609, that contains the results of the astronomer Johannes Kepler's ten-year-long investigation of the motion of Mars.

One of the most significant books in the history of astronomy, the Astronomia nova provided strong arguments for heliocentrism and contributed valuable insight into the movement of the planets. This included the first mention of the planets' elliptical paths and the change of their movement to the movement of free floating bodies as opposed to objects on rotating spheres. It is recognized as one of the most important works of the Scientific Revolution.

Background
Prior to Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus proposed in 1543 that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun. The Copernican model of the Solar System was regarded as a device to explain the observed positions of the planets rather than a physical description.

Kepler sought for and proposed physical causes for planetary motion. His work is primarily based on the research of his mentor, Tycho Brahe. The two, though close in their work, had a tumultuous relationship. Regardless, in 1601 on his deathbed, Brahe asked Kepler to make sure that he did not "die in vain," and to continue the development of his model of the Solar System. Kepler would instead write the Astronomia nova, in which he rejects the Tychonic system, as well as the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system. Some scholars have speculated that Kepler's dislike for Brahe may have had a hand in his rejection of the Tychonic system and formation of a new one.

By 1602, Kepler set to work on determining the orbit pattern of Mars, keeping David Fabricius informed of his progress. He suggested the possibility of an oval orbit to Fabricius by early 1604, though was not believed. Later in the year, Kepler wrote back with his discovery of Mars's elliptical orbit. The manuscript for Astronomia nova was completed by September 1607, and was in print by August 1609.

Structure and summary

In English, the full title of his work is the New Astronomy, Based upon Causes, or Celestial Physics, Treated by Means of Commentaries on the Motions of the Star Mars, from the Observations of Tycho Brahe, Gent. For over 650 pages (in the English translation), Kepler walks his readers, step by step, through his process of discovery.

The discussion of scripture in the Astronomia nova's introduction was the most widely distributed of Kepler's works in the seventeenth century. The introduction outlines the four steps Kepler took during his research.

 * The first step is his claim that the Sun itself and not any imaginary point near the Sun (as in the Copernican system) is the point where all the planes of the eccentrics of the planets intersect, or the center of the orbits of the planets.
 * The second step consists of Kepler placing the Sun as the center and mover of the other planets. This step also contains Kepler's reply to objections against placing the Sun at the center of the universe, including objections based on scripture. In reply to scripture, he argues that it is not meant to claim physical dogma, and the content should be taken spiritually.
 * In the third step, he posits that the Sun is the source of the motion of all planets, using Brahe’s proof based on comets that planets do not rotate on orbs.
 * The fourth step consists of describing the path of planets as not a circle, but an oval.

As the Astronomia nova proper starts, Kepler demonstrates that the Tychonic, Ptolemaic, and Copernican systems are indistinguishable on the basis of observations alone. The three models predict the same positions for the planets in the near term, although they diverge from historical observations, and fail in their ability to predict future planetary positions by a small, though absolutely measurable amount. Kepler here introduces his famous diagram of the movement of Mars in relation to Earth if Earth remained unmoving at the center of its orbit. The diagram shows that Mars's orbit would be completely imperfect and never follow along the same path.

Kepler discusses all his work at great length throughout the book. He addresses this length in the sixteenth chapter: "If thou art bored with this wearisome method of calculation, take pity on me, who had to go through with at least seventy repetitions of it, at a very great loss of time."

Kepler, in a very important step, also questions the assumption that the planets move around the center of their orbit at a uniform rate. He finds that computing critical measurements based upon the Sun's actual position in the sky, instead of the Sun's "mean" position injects a significant degree of uncertainty into the models, opening the path for further investigations. The idea that the planets do not move at a uniform rate, but at a speed that varies as their distance from the Sun, was completely revolutionary and would become his second law (discovered before his first). Kepler, in his calculations leading to his second law, made multiple mathematical errors, which luckily cancelled each other out “as if by miracle.”

Given this second law, he puts forth in Chapter 33 that the Sun is the engine that moves the planets. To describe the motion of the planets, he claims the Sun emits a physical species, analogous to the light it also emits, which pushes the planets along. He also suggests a second force within every planet itself that pulls it towards the Sun to keep it from spiraling off into space.

Kepler then attempts to find the true shape of planetary orbits, which he determines is elliptical. His initial attempt to define the orbit of Mars as a circle was off by only eight minutes of arc, but this was enough for him to dedicate six years to resolve the discrepancy. The data seemed to produce a symmetrical oviform curve inside of his predicted circle. He first tested an egg shape, then engineered a theory of an orbit which oscillates in diameter, and returned to the egg. Finally, in early 1605, he geometrically tested an ellipse, which he had previously assumed to be too simple a solution for earlier astronomers to have overlooked. Ironically, he had already derived this solution trigonometrically many months earlier. As he says, "I laid [the original equation] aside, and fell back on ellipses, believing that this was quite a different hypothesis, whereas the two, as I shall prove in the next chapter, are one in [sic] the same... Ah, what a foolish bird I have been!"

Kepler's laws
The Astronomia nova records the discovery of the first two of the three principles known today as Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which are: In 1621, Kepler restated his second law for any planet: Johannes Kepler, Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae [Summary of Copernican Astronomy] (Linz ("Lentiis ad Danubium"), (Austria):  Johann Planck, 1622), book 5, page 668. From page 668: "Dictum quidem est in superioribus, divisa orbita in particulas minutissimas æquales:  accrescete iis moras planetæ per eas, in proportione intervallorum inter eas & Solem."  (It has been said above that, if the orbit of the planet is divided into the smallest equal parts, the times of the planet in them increase in the ratio of the distances between them and the sun.)  That is, a planet's speed along its orbit is inversely proportional to its distance from the Sun. (The remainder of the paragraph makes clear that Kepler was referring to what is now called angular velocity.)
 * 1) That the planets move in elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus.
 * 2) That the speed of the planet changes at each moment such that the time between two positions is always proportional to the area swept out on the orbit between these positions. In his Astronomia nova … (1609), Kepler did not present his second law in its modern form. He did that only in his Epitome of 1621.  Furthermore, in 1609, he presented his second law in two different forms, which scholars call the "distance law" and the "area law".
 * His "distance law" is presented in: "Caput XXXII.  Virtutem quam Planetam movet in circulum attenuari cum discessu a fonte." (Chapter 32.  The force that moves a planet circularly weakens with distance from the source.)  See:  Johannes Kepler, Astronomia nova … (1609), pp. 165-167.  On page 167, Kepler states:  " …, quanto longior est αδ quam αε, tanto diutius moratur Planeta in certo aliquo arcui excentrici apud δ, quam in æquali arcu excentrici apud ε." ( … , as αδ is longer than αε, so much longer will a planet remain on a certain arc of the eccentric near δ than on an equal arc of the eccentric near ε.)  That is, the farther a planet is from the Sun (at the point α), the slower it moves along its orbit, so a radius from the Sun to a planet passes through equal areas in equal times.  However, as Kepler presented it, his argument is accurate only for circles, not ellipses.
 * His "area law" is presented in: "Caput LIX.  Demonstratio, quod orbita Martis, …, fiat perfecta ellipsis: … " (Chapter 59.  Proof that Mars' orbit, … , is a perfect ellipse: … ), Protheorema XIV and XV, pp. 291-295.  On the top p. 294, it reads:   "Arcum ellipseos, cujus moras metitur area AKN, debere terminari in LK, ut sit AM."  (The arc of the ellipse, of which the duration is delimited [i.e., measured] by the area AKM, should be terminated in LK, so that it [i.e., the arc] is AM.)  In other words, the time that Mars requires to move along an arc AM of its elliptical orbit is measured by the area of the segment AMN of the ellipse (where N is the position of the Sun), which in turn is proportional to the section AKN of the circle that encircles the ellipse and that is tangent to it.  Therefore, the area AMN that is swept out by a radius from the Sun to Mars as Mars moves along an arc AM of its elliptical orbit is proportional to the time that Mars requires to move along that arc.  Thus, a radius from the Sun to Mars sweeps out equal areas in equal times.

Kepler discovered the "second law" before the first. He presented his second law in two different forms: In Chapter 32 he states that the speed of the planet varies inversely based upon its distance from the Sun, and therefore he could measure changes in position of the planet by adding up all the distance measures, or looking at the area along an orbital arc. This is his so-called "distance law". In Chapter 59, he states that a radius from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This is his so-called "area law".

However, Kepler's "area-time principle" did not facilitate easy calculation of planetary positions. Kepler could divide up the orbit into an arbitrary number of parts, compute the planet's position for each one of these, and then refer all questions to a table, but he could not determine the position of the planet at each and every individual moment because the speed of the planet was always changing. This paradox, referred to as the "Kepler problem," prompted the development of calculus.

A decade after the publication of the Astronomia nova, Kepler discovered his "third law", published in his 1619 Harmonices Mundi (Harmonies of the world). He found that the ratio of the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of each planet's orbit, to the square of time of its orbital period, is the same for all planets.

Kepler's knowledge of gravity
In his introductory discussion of a moving earth, Kepler addressed the question of how the Earth could hold its parts together if it moved away from the center of the universe which, according to Aristotelian physics, was the place toward which all heavy bodies naturally moved. Kepler proposed an attractive force similar to magnetism, which may have been known by Newton.

"Gravity is a mutual corporeal disposition among kindred bodies to unite or join together; thus the earth attracts a stone much more than the stone seeks the earth. (The magnetic faculty is another example of this sort).... If two stones were set near one another in some place in the world outside the sphere of influence of a third kindred body, these stones, like two magnetic bodies, would come together in an intermediate place, each approaching the other by a space proportional to the bulk [moles] of the other.... For it follows that if the earth's power of attraction will be much more likely to extend to the moon and far beyond, and accordingly, that nothing that consists to any extent whatever of terrestrial material, carried up on high, ever escapes the grasp of this mighty power of attraction."

Kepler discusses the Moon's gravitational effect upon the tides as follows: The sphere of the attractive virtue which is in the moon extends as far as the earth, and entices up the waters; but as the moon flies rapidly across the zenith, and the waters cannot follow so quickly, a flow of the ocean is occasioned in the torrid zone towards the westward. If the attractive virtue of the moon extends as far as the earth, it follows with greater reason that the attractive virtue of the earth extends as far as the moon and much farther; and, in short, nothing which consists of earthly substance anyhow constituted although thrown up to any height, can ever escape the powerful operation of this attractive virtue.

Kepler also clarifies the concept of lightness in terms of relative density, in opposition to the Aristotelian concept of the absolute nature or quality of lightness as follows. His argument could easily be applied today to something like the flight of a hot air balloon.

Nothing which consists of corporeal matter is absolutely light, but that is comparatively lighter which is rarer, either by its own nature, or by accidental heat. And it is not to be thought that light bodies are escaping to the surface of the universe while they are carried upwards, or that they are not attracted by the earth. They are attracted, but in a less degree, and so are driven outwards by the heavy bodies; which being done, they stop, and are kept by the earth in their own place.

In reference to Kepler's discussion relating to gravitation, Walter William Bryant makes the following statement in his book Kepler (1920).

...the Introduction to Kepler's "Commentaries on the Motion of Mars," always regarded as his most valuable work, must have been known to Newton, so that no such incident as the fall of an apple was required to provide a necessary and sufficient explanation of the genesis of his Theory of Universal Gravitation. Kepler's glimpse at such a theory could have been no more than a glimpse, for he went no further with it. This seems a pity, as it is far less fanciful than many of his ideas, though not free from the "virtues" and "animal faculties," that correspond to Gilbert's "spirits and humours".

Kepler considered that this attraction was mutual and was proportional to the bulk of the bodies, but he considered it to have a limited range and he did not consider whether or how this force may have varied with distance. Furthermore, this attraction only acted between "kindred bodies"—bodies of a similar nature, a nature which he did not clearly define. Kepler's idea differed significantly from Newton's later concept of gravitation and it can be "better thought of as an episode in the struggle for heliocentrism than as a step toward Universal gravitation."

Kepler sent Galileo the book while the latter was working on his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (published in 1632, two years after Kepler's death). Galileo had been trying to determine the path of an object falling from rest towards the center of the Earth, but used a semicircular orbit in his calculation.

Commemoration
The 2009 International Year of Astronomy commemorated the 400th anniversary of the publication of this work.

title: Astronomia nova


text: User talk:83.99.76.72

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

title: User talk:83.99.76.72


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Green users

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians/Green users
Similar pages are on review on VfD now (see arguments made in favor of deletion of Wikipedian citizens of the world and Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state), so in the interests of consistency, this one should be up for review too.

 * Keep Per reasons on Wikipedian citizens of the world and Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 10:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Cognition Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? No. Notable? No. Deletable? Yes. Dave63 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Delete james gibbon  14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Freedom of assembly. Surely anything beginning with the "Wikipedia:" prefix doesn't need to meet encyclopedic criteria for notability in any case, because they're not articles, they're internal housekeeping. (Anyway, why shouldn't people be allowed to affinitize openly? They'll do it anyway.) Quartier Latin   1968  14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right. I was wrong. keep  --Dave63 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't people be allowed to murder? They'll do it anyway.
 * Ah, but this is a different scenario – people associating with one another on the basis of shared affinities does not, in itself, constitute any infringement on anybody else's rights (unlike murder). Given that, the process might as well be open, because secret arrangements are more likely to develop a nefarious character. Quartier Latin   1968  17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. These lists are generally harmless, but it wouldn't really matter if they were deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless an explanatory paragraph is created to explain what is meant by Green instead of relegating that to the Talk page. Of course, that might make the page POV, which might prompt a different response. --Habap 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this not obvious to you from the comments on the page? And this is in the Wikipedia: namespace, it's not an encyclopedia article, so there no reason for it to comply with NPOV. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it asking that much to have someone put it on the page instead of having to read the Talk page discussion to infer what is meant? --Habap 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. Not the talk page, the page itself. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't articles normally start with an explanatory paragraph? I am unwilling to read each users comments to learn what Green means to them. Of course, you don't have to satisfy me, since most people seem in favor of keeping. If it gets an introductory paragraph explaining what Green means, I'll change my vote. And yes, I am this dim and stubborn. --Habap 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an article. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I'm worried about how Wikipedia seems to be made up of different cliques, and I don't think this helps. --Scimitar 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Wikipedians interested in environmental topics, open up to those with all POVs. David | Talk 21:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Wikipedians/Yellow users Keep/rename as above. Radiant_ >|< 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and wouldn't object to rename since "green" could mean enironmentally friendly or a member of the Green Party. Cburnett 00:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I fear the day that Wikipedia develops a "Neo-Fascist Wikipedian" group, because my internal ACLU Devil's advocate would insist on having all real groups or no groups. I agree with Scimitar that to delete this now only causes friction.  Xoloz 03:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Wikipedians interested in environmental topics 24.60.163.16 05:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - does not meet the deletion criteria as far as I can tell. Guettarda 05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all other attempts at political organizing in Wikipedia namespace. -- Visviva 12:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename; when I first saw the name I thought it meant "green" as in "new;" Wikipedians can catagorize themselves. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder if Trilobite was correct when he said Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. --Habap 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to a better title. Wikipedians interested in environmental topics sounds good to me. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:15:33 Z
 * keep: and add an intro... Ombudsman 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forming communities of users is part of keeping a site like Wikipedia going.  Almafeta 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
William of Chartres (Templar)

William of Chartres(Guillaume de Chartres; c. 1178 – 1218) was the Grand Master of the Knights Templar from 1210 until 26 August 1218.

Biography
He was the son of Milo IV, the Count of Bar-sur-Seine.

In 1210, William assisted at the coronation of Jean de Brienne as King of Jerusalem. In 1211, he arbitrated between Leo I of Armenia and the Templars, regarding the castle of Bagras. During the Reconquista, he sent needed supplies and reinforcements to the Christian armies. He sent Templars to fight in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and in the 1217 Siege of Alcázar, leading to the order flourishing in Spain, achieving its zenith of influence in the area. He had contact with the Mongols under Genghis Khan and was accused of treason as a result.

When the Fifth Crusade started in 1217, William led his men in battle, beginning with the Crusaders launching a siege of the Egyptian city of Damietta. The siege lasted eighteen months, with multiple failed assaults on the city and in fighting among crusader leadership spelling disaster for their goals. Muslim reinforcementsmade their way to Damiette, but William led the Templars in successfully repelling them. Although the Crusaders were eventually successful in taking the city, William died in 1218 of pestilence, (possibly endemic typhus), as a consequence of being wounded.

title: William of Chartres (Templar)


text:
Gordon Zubrod

Charles Gordon Zubrod (January 22, 1914 – January 19, 1999) was an American oncologist who played a prominent role in the introduction of chemotherapy for cancer. He was one of the recipients of the 1972 Albert Lasker Awards in recognition of his contributions to the field, amongst many other doctorates and awards.

Life and work
Zubrod, an alumnus of the Georgetown Preparatory School (class of 1932), the College of the Holy Cross (class of 1936), and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (1940 class), served in the U.S. army medical corps during World War II, where he worked on a replacement for quinine in the treatment of malaria. The unit eventually discovered chloroquine.

In 1946 he commenced work at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, and was appointed assistant professor of medicine and director of research at Saint Louis University in 1953. This position lasted briefly: he became clinical director of the National Institutes of Health in 1954 and became head of the Division of Cancer Treatment of the National Cancer Institute in 1956 and scientific director in 1961. Here, he put an emphasis on the development of new chemotherapy agents and their use in clinical trials. He is credited with the introduction of the platinum-containing compounds (e.g. cisplatin). Several other new classes of chemotherapeutics were identified under Zubrod's leadership.

Zubrod's name is also connected to a widely used assessment scale for performance of cancer patients, the Performance Status of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) for Patients with Cancer (Zubrod scale).

Zubrod left the NCI in 1974, and became a professor and chair of the department of oncology at the University of Miami School of Medicine (now the Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine) and served at the director of the Florida Comprehensive Cancer Center. He retired from this position in 1990.

Biography

 * Frei III E. In Memoriam C. Gordon Zubrod MD. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1331-3.
 * A tribute to Dr. Charles Gordon Zubrod: January 22, 1914 - January 19, 1999. Miami, Fla.: University of Miami, 1999.

Books

 * Sugarbaker, Everett V; Ketcham, Alfred S; Zubrod, C Gordon. Interdisciplinary cancer therapy : adjuvant therapy. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1977.
 * Zubrod, C Gordon. Perspectives in cancer. In: Clinical Cancer Seminar (1975: Miami, Fla.). Hormones and Cancer. New York: Stratton Intercontinental Medical Book Corp., 1976.

Review papers

 * Zubrod, CG.Historic milestones in curative chemotherapy. Semin Oncol. 1979 Dec;6(4):490-505.
 * Zubrod CG, Selawry O. The treatment of lung cancer. Adv Intern Med. 1978;23:451-67.
 * Zubrod CG. Present status of cancer chemotherapy. Life Sci. 1974 Mar 1;14(5):809-18.
 * Zubrod CG. Trends in chemotherapy research. Proc Can Cancer Conf. 1969;8:31-9.
 * Zubrod CG. The skin and antitumor drugs. Arch Dermatol. 1967 Nov;96(5):560-4.

title: Gordon Zubrod


text:
Ahi Evran

Sheikh Pir Nasiruddin Abul Hakayik Pir Mahmud bin Ahmed Ahi Evran bin Abbas Veli al-Khoyi (1169–1261), commonly known as Ahi Evran or Pir Ahi Evren-ı Veli, was a Turkic Alevi Sufi saint, preacher, philosopher, poet who wrote 20 books. He is mostly remembered as the founder and leader of the Ahi Brotherhood.

Life
Born in Khoy, Iranian Azerbaijan in 1169, he moved to Kayseri, Turkey and established the Ahi guild there. He was skilled in the leatherworking trade and he organized guilds from 32 different professions. He led and organized the Ahis into a force capable of fighting the invading Mongols.

He was a Bektashi preacher who had gone to Trabzon during the Empire of Trebizond to spread Islam. As a scholar, he was taught by teachers in Baghdad and Khorasan.

He was killed by Mongols in Kırşehir on 1 April 1261. His grave site is in debate, but thought to be in Boztepe. The site is near Trabzon. It is considered as sacred and has been visited by many people. This grave, however, may instead be that of a clan leader or a Greek metropolitan who had accepted Islam. According to Şakir Şevket, in 1863, Muslim preacher Sheykh Haji Hakki Efendi was inspired to build a place near Ahi Evren's grave. So when Sheykh Haji Hakki Efendi died in 1890, he was buried there. The government then built a tomb and mosque at the site.

Legacy

A new insect species discovered in Turkey by assistant professor Mahmut Erbey at Ahi Evran University was named Evrani to honor the university and the saint. An annual festival is held in Kırşehir, where its organized by the local chambers of commerce.

title: Ahi Evran


text:
Talk:Gordon Zubrod

Untitled
I lack a reliable timeline on this fellow, e.g. when he joined the Army medical corps and when he began and finished the teaching stints mentioned in the Columbia obituary. JFW | T@lk  10:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This published obituary may help when I pull the fulltext from the library. JFW | T@lk  11:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to help you... I'm one of GZ's great nieces.. I could probably get some of the information you looking for - given some time - I'd have to asked someone in the family for the accurate information. KPS

 * Thank you. The problem really is that publishing your recollections of Uncle Gordon may qualify as original research, something Wikipedia tries to avoid for difficulty with verification. Your help would, however, greatly be appreciated in verifying the factual content of our present article. Are you familiar with Emil Frei's obituary? JFW | T@lk  12:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am Gordon's grandson and, having reviewed his autobiography (p. 66) note that, "On 23 March 1943, I reported for duty at Goldwater, first as a civilian but soon as a first lieutenant in the Army Medical Corps."

title: Talk:Gordon Zubrod


text: User talk:24.243.36.194

title: User talk:24.243.36.194


text:
Talk:St John Ambulance

International
Lots of work needed to include information on all the varrious international areas, etc. I put a link to a page on ranks and insignia. Glenlarson 05:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a common problem with an article which can mean different things to different people. When I first wrote the article for wikipedia, it was to replace a stub which said very little. Since then, the article has grown a lot, and different people have put their own spins on it. The danger is that it will grow too broad, and end up saying a little about everything rather than being concise. Already people have started putting links to randon division homepages which serve little to benefit the article as a whole. Generally people searching for information on St. John Ambulance will be those who have had contact through meeting members in various guises. IMHO the various quirks of the Orders and priories around the world will be of less importance. With the wikipedia article we need to make sure it doesn't get too bogged down in details that are uniquely specific to a particular priory, group or unit. petemorris.

 * As I understand things, the discussion page is important to articles, to ensure information is in agreement with varrious contributors. Other than the note from the aussie member, mine was the first on the discussion or talk page.

 * St John is international in its nature, and the article needs to be edited to reflect this, including the use of the term brigade, which seams to be used in many other countries. Many articles are written from the perspective of a major country, but over time, hopefully this will be corrected through more international editing.

 * Currently, I am simply adding content, thus the page and link to rank insignia.

 * There is still a strong paramilitary affiliation in the international St John Ambulance.

 * Further editing is needed as the article is currently specific to a particular priory.Glenlarson 06:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've re-structured the article somewhat to prepare it for a more international feel. Unfortunately this means that most priories other than England are now pretty lacking, but I don't see any other way of allowing for such a variety of international differences.

 * Hopefully people from each respective priory will start filling out their sections.

I think the Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe (German equivalent) should be mentioned in some way, although not affiliated, because it was instead founded from the German descendant order to the Knights Hospitaller, but of course is their St John Ambulance. Perhaps a second colour could be used on the map for equivalent organisations of shared ancestory? 81.155.80.19 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential split
The article has now grown to a level where it is potentially too long to be a single article anymore. The obvious solution for this would be to split it into priories/countries, so leave sections 1,2, 11-13 in place, and remove 3-10 into seperate articles linked to from this main article.

If anyone has any objections or thoughts on this then discuss it here.
 * No one has yet objected to this comment, and so I will assume that people agree it would be good to split the single article into more specific articles for each country. If anyone does have any major objections, please say so now. 2006-08-11
 * I've now split the article as suggested. This should allow different countries to develop their own articles specific to each country, as the number of quirk differences was getting too big. Please only add to this article material which is internation in nature. petemorris 2006-08-29

What do they do?
There is nothing in the article saying what this group does, exept for "teaching and practice of medical first aid". From the picture, I guess they run ambulances, but I'm not sure. --Apoc2400 07:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There's far too much about the Order of St John, which the article admits has very little to do with St John Ambulance - the article really needs splitting, or the historical stuff toning down. I'll take a look at it later - what the organisation does in the UK is provide first-aiders (including ambulances) at public events, and train first-aiders.  --ajn (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * We should split up all the stuff about the order and put it into that article. SJA from a worldwide sense is mostly about First Aid; teaching courses is the one common element everywhere; the brigade is the other.  everything else is limited to only specific countries, so we must be careful to mention that.  We should keep this article short and limit it to the worldwide commonalities; everything else should be on the country-specific pages.  Joezasada 05:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * At least in the UK St John Ambulance does just that, first aid training, first aid at public events, and providing patient transport / emergency transport (Acting as an emergency ambulance in incidents where there are not enough NHS ambulances available) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.51.45 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true, there are a number of care homes around the UK which are run by St John Ambulance. Fees are charged and staff are certainly not volunteers. Richard Avery (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as? Thecaketin (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also worth remembering that SJA's own market research reported that only 1% of the population recognised them as a charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.200.210 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A Dot ? ... or Not ?
We need to come to an understanding, something we can all agree to live with. There is continuous addition/removal of a simple little dot that is becoming a distraction to actual editing.

As I see it, we have several options:
 * 1) St. with a dot, like the Article title
 * 2) St without a dot, like British corporate image
 * 3) St. and a preamble explaining the naming situation
 * 4) St and a preamble explaining the naming situation

What is your opinion and reasoning? Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I was formerly in favour of retaining the dot in this article, as this was how the Order of St John's website, which as far as I'm aware is the nearest thing to a central SJA website, rendered the name (example here). The Order's website seems to have recently been revamped and now uses the dotless version throughout - for example, see here - as well as the dotless logo now shown in the infobox, which is now used by several national associations. (Note that the Order's website and its corporate branding are distinct from those of SJA England.) However, doing a quick survey of the 16 national websites listed on the latter page, seven use the dot and nine don't. Given this lack of unanimity I think that deferring to the Order's usage is probably the most neutral compromise for the article title, but we should certainly mention that many national associations use the dot. --Kwekubo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * In formal British English, where the Order of St John is based, St is the abbreviated form of Saint, whilst St. is the abbreviation of Street. This is due to the former consisting of the first and last letter of Saint, whilst the latter uses the first two letters of Street. I would favor the fourth suggestion of St and a preamble explaining the naming situation Cwd24 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Let me revive this discussion: Wikipedia style (and common understanding) is to use the official form. That would have been St. John in the past and is St John now. Unfortunately a simple move is not possible, because the targetname is already a redirection with history. I will see, how this is done. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture
The latest incarnation of Doctor Who's TARDIS bares a St. John's Ambulance seal on the entry door. Citation needed.

Lex0nyc (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So did the original (http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/tardis-police-box.html) it disappeared for a while PoisonedPigeon (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

move discussion at Talk:St._John_Ambulance_in_Hong_Kong
FYI. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance → St John Ambulance — The official name now omits the full stop, per discussion above. Kwekubo (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * It was me (Tomdo08 (talk)) who stated that the official name is St John Ambulance. I thought to be smart to circumvent the problems of:
 * references opposed to own name
 * names opposed to brandings
 * titles of websites
 * writings in unusual font
 * flashy text
 * different names in subgroupings
 * different name in different places
 * But it appears I was not smart enough (or too sleepy). I am not sure where I looked up the official name yesterday. Generally on websites I go for the imprint, for a self description in long text, also for addresses of official bodies. Another good source are official registries or trustworthy secondary sources.
 * Today I read the online self description:
 * St John Ambulance is a Foundation of the Order of St John and is a leading first aid, transport and care charity. It has a global membership of approximately 250,000 in 39* countries and has diversified to meet local community needs around the world. In addition to first aid activities, it has developed ophthalmic and dental care, primary health care, youth programmes, relief work, disaster planning and HIV/AIDS services.
 * St. John Ambulance also provides the statutory ambulance service in some of its territories.
 * To learn more about their work, click on the links below.
 * St John Ambulance in ...
 * Originally I sought for the naming of the order. That gives similar results. I am weeping. And I am looking for further sources. Maybe writing an email is a good idea.
 * Also it might be the case that the official name of the order comprises Saint John and all derivations and abbreviations are completely unofficial. Then we have to look for another rule; that should be the British rule for abbreviation of "saint", I would say.
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * However the outcome might be, the text in the article should follow the naming of the page and it should carry a short note like "sometimes called ...". This note should be in addition to noting differences in international naming and suborganisation naming. Sub- and sister-organisations should have their own writing even if it is different. Of course those writings might be disputable, too... -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. When written, the name almost always includes the fullstop. I don't know why this convention has come to be, but the organisation is unique and the usage rules which apply to it don't necessarily apply to other uses of the St/St./Saint prefix in English usage... compare for example to Saint Peter or Saint Andrew, but it would be wrong to write this title as Saint John Ambulance. The discussion above is mostly irrelevant in terms of WP:NC, see official names for any essay exploring and attempting to clarify this much-misunderstood aspect of the policy. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment:
 * "...the name almost always includes the fullstop", that is the thing in question. It appears to possibly not being true.
 * Also the discussion is not about exclusively using the official name: After all other considerations being inconclusive, it would have been an easy decision maker. And, as I said, I wood prefer either "St John Ambulance" or "St. John Ambulance", even if the (unused) official name would be "Saint John Ambulance".
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment doesn't Wikipedia already have something about the difference between UK English and rest of the world re omission of periods in abbreviated names? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment:
 * This, at first, is not about abbreviating a name, but about the abbreviation already being part of the name.
 * It might be the case that there is no such dedicated name. Then indeed language rules might be applied. However, there are still other considerations like for example "most common use" or "use in longest part of history".
 * English is not divided in UK English and rest of the world, there are several variants of English. Also UK English is not lower-ranking. In this case it would even have highest priority, since the organisation in question is UK-based and UK-originating. However, there would be the question which UK English to prioritise: Modern one or some older variant.
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose it most certainly does include a period. And the UK is not the totality of the locations that this organization exists in. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment:
 * "most certainly" is wrong. Please refer to the material above.
 * Nobody here is UK-biased and nobody here wants to write about the UK-part of the organisation. Also, initially, this is not about language preferences at all. However, since there appear to be differences in writing internationally and the organisation is based in and originates from UK, UK English spelling should be first choice, if general language spelling rules come into consideration.
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * oppose - looking in their current Canadian training manuals publication info ... it includes the dot ( I took the course last week :P ) ISBN 1-894070-56-9 Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment:
 * St. John Ambulance Canada, indeed, seems to prefer St. John Ambulance (if not Ambulance Saint-Jean). But this is the Canadian branch, not the head organisation.
 * I looked for the book: Interestingly libraries seem to prefer Saint John Ambulance. And I foolishly rejected this wording at first.
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment: There is only one thing certain here: There is nothing certain. And if nobody provides real facts, this discussion will end in vain. This be said, I would like to stress some crucial points:
 * The subject of discussion is not the name of any St/St./Saint John ambulance, but the name of the international head organisation based in UK.
 * There might be no such organisation. The head might be simply the Venerable Order of Saint John.
 * The organisation itself seems to now prefer "St John Ambulance".
 * There is no neutral point for Wikipedia here: Wikipedia is read by a lot of people, and any naming decision here will either comply or resist.
 * This is not about UK English.
 * This is not about exclusively using some official name.
 * -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logo
This appears to me to be the logo of the order, not of St John Ambulance. See, for example, their facebook page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017

 * 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: moved. (non-admin closure) Sky  Warrior  19:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance → St John Ambulance – This is the style used by the organization on its logo and website. The name with a period should be a redirect, not the other way. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we should have a MOS and follow it. We shouldn't be chasing the styles of other websites. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have. MOS says "in standard British and Australian usage, no stop is used if the abbreviation ends in the last letter of the unabbreviated form". Formed in the UK, International Office in the UK.  Does not use the stop in its website or any literature I have seen as a member. Also note that the national and regional sites mostly do not use the stop, and make links to this site without the stop and therefore have to be redirected Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Support: The organization has presences primarily in countries that use Commonwealth English spelling and punctuation norms, was founded in the UK, and is clearly intentionally not using the "." So, this qualifies to not use it on WP, per MOS:TIES, just like all the St Whatever British placename articles. Even if their US affiliate used the "." the I would argue against it in our article (except for explicit mention of that affiliate by name), since it remains primarily a Commonwealth/British institution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think I need to go research whether other sources use or omit the full stop. The official logo omits the full stop. If the sources are divided, per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, use the less surprising title, i.e. the one that omits the punctuations. It's easier to type than the present one. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Correct and standard Commonwealth English. Nothing in the MOS says we need to follow American English for non-American articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2017 (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.

title: Talk:St John Ambulance


text:
Talk:List of towns in New York

Untitled
Does it means something to list 932 towns on one page ? I think we should transform this page in a : List of towns in New York by county. --Revas 10:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That should be a part of every individual county article. I don't know if that's the case, but I made sure Westchester County, New York contains that data. Nelson Ricardo 16:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this list still contains poor or bad links. Stepp-Wulf 05:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

Checked
I checked out every single county and town in New York. I found that eight of them in this list were not in template pages for the counties named here for those towns. I fixed six of them. I am not clear about two others: Clermont and Dansville. hello (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Added
I added Lyonsdale (in Lewis County), Pitcairn (in St. Lawrence County), and Tuscarora (in Steuben County) to the template pages for those counties, because this page says they are towns, the pages themselves say they are towns, and they seem that they may be distinct towns. I cannot be sure of this. hello (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed
From this page, I removed Eagle Bay, as it is a hamlet, not a town, in Herkimer County. From this page, I removed Glen Cove, as it is a city, not a town, in Nassau County. From this page, I removed Honeoye Falls, as it is a village, not a town, in Monroe County. hello (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recounted
There were 935 towns in the list, though the top of this page said there were 932. I removed three from this page. I did a simple cut of the entire page, pasted into Notepad, cutting out all but the items, then replaced each asterisk (*) with a line counting code. I verified this was correct. Then, cut this from Notepad and pasted it back into the page, finished the numbering codes, and previewed it (no save). There definitely are 932 towns in the list now. Exactly. I did the same with the pages for all villages and all cities and found no extra or missing entries and no counting errors. hello (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of towns in New York. 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 tag to http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/county_sub_list_36.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519062322/http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/counties_list_36.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/counties_list_36.txt

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) 21:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This article should be merged with List of villages in New York and List of cities in New York, to be consistent with other states. Dylanvt (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree, this is an odd one to not have been standardized by now. Mattximus (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Support per previous.2601:241:300:B610:ACCB:842D:41B1:D966 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Partial Support. Villages and cities should definitely be merged. Not sure about towns, since those are a different level of government: villages are within towns. What do we do in other states where townships or similar exist? -Apocheir (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Disagree. Villages and cities can maybe be merged (even though there are several differences between both). But towns are a completely different level of government than the other two. No matter what, I strongly advise for the retention of a standalone article on towns. AITFFan1 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree Whatever the pros and cons of having separate articles may be, for those of use looking for statistics, it is very awkward to have to refer to three different articles to get simple population comparisons. If some feel that having all populations in one list would be like comparing apples to oranges, two or three lists could still be incorporated into a single article. Krispar (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Support p  b  p  13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Support Per nom. 2001:8003:9008:1301:2492:B8B3:D1:47D4 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 * The list of municipalities in Pennsylvania puts them all together. In states where township-equivalents have no municipal functions we are currently inconsistent: e.g. for South Dakota they are listed separately, while for Michigan townships are included. However, I'm pretty sure that in New York, towns do, like cities and villages, serve some municipal function, unlike in South Dakota and Michigan. Dylanvt (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I think a table like is fine. Maybe add an extra column saying which town a village is in. Changing to Support.-Apocheir (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose It is actually better to have separate articles so we could link them to the infobox and intro of each city, town or village article. I reckon other states should have separate articles for the lists of their cities, towns and villages too. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger
Hello, I'm currently on the process of creating an article for "List of municipalities in New York", which can be seen here. Obviously it's a WIP, but I'm planning to finish it eventually and have both cities, villages and towns, with a separate section for towns. LibertarianTed (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for taking the initiative to do this! The table looks great so far. Hopefully we can get every state looking like this pretty soon. Dylanvt (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * glad you like this! I've been taking a long break from Wikipedia due to a lack of free time, but I promise I'll try to speed it up if I ever have the time. my only experience so far doing those tables are a few CDP lists that didn't exist before. LibertarianTed (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I jump in there and help you a bit? Monkeylol (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * hello, sorry for the extremely late reply! like i said, I barely check this wikipedia account. if you wanna take what I have and fill it up yourself, you're free to do so LibertarianTed (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this work. I would also recommend you make a separate category in your table for the coterminous town-village.  This link lists five conterminous town-villages, plus two pairs of towns and villages that come close. Inkan1969 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should make an article of the largest cities and towns in New York.
These to separate articles make look New York look fully unincorporated when all of the state is in fact incorporated. AndrewSan12 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of towns in New York


text:
Mittersill

Mittersill (Mittasü) is a city in the federal state of Salzburg, Austria, in the Pinzgau region of the Alps. It is located on the Salzach River. It has a population of 5,408 as of 2011.

Geography
Mittersill lies approximately 25 km to the west of Zell am See, 30 km to the south of Kitzbühel and 27 km east of the start of the Salzach Valley in Krimml.

Mittersill straddles the Salzach River and one of its tributaries; the Felber. The town is bordered to the south by the Hohe Tauern mountain range, and to the north by the Kitzbühel Alps.

It has traffic links running east to west and north to south. The Felbertauern road tunnel runs south through the Hohe Tauern at an elevation of about 1630 m, providing a connection with Lienz in East Tyrol. To the north lies the Thurn Pass at an elevation of 1274 m, providing a connection with Kitzbühel and Tyrol.

History
There is evidence of a settlement in the Mittersill area during the Bronze Age in around 2200 BC. Mittersill itself was first founded in the 11th century as a part of Bavaria. Its castle was built in the middle of the next century.

Mittersill fell under the control of the Archbishopric of Salzburg in the 13th century and the castle became the seat of the archbishops in Upper Pinzgau. By 1357 Mittersill had a market town charter conferred upon it by the Salzburg Archbishop Ortolf, which boosted the town's profile considerably. By the 14th century it was acting as an important trade crossroads with salt, ice, and copper being taken south over the Felbertauern Pass (2481m) to Southern Tyrol and Friuli in northeastern Italy. Goods such as wine, fruits, velvet, and silks came north over the pass to be taken into present-day Austria and Germany.

In the 1525 German Peasants' War (Bauernkriege), Mittersill castle was burned down and subsequently rebuilt, giving it the appearance that can be seen today. In 1635 and 1746 the town itself was struck by fire and most of the medieval marketplace was destroyed as a result.

Mittersill became linked to Zell am See in 1898 and Krimml along the Salzach Valley with the opening of the Pinzgauer Lokalbahn train service, which still operates today.

A military school for an aerial tramway was founded in Mittersill in 1939. A subcamp of the Mauthausen concentration camp was located here during World War II. Construction work for a goods cable car across the mountain range started in 1943. Part of this cable car included two supports, each 280 m high; one was built of steel, the other was constructed of wood (the tallest ever in this material). As a result of the war, this aerial cable car could not be completed and both pillars were demolished in the 1950s.

On August 8, 2008, Mittersill received city rights.

Industry
Mittersill is home to two large industries, the Blizzard Sport factory, and Fahnen Gärtner flag factory, which provide jobs for the local people. It also has a fair amount of tourist business, attracting mainly skiers and snowboarders during the winter season and hikers in summer. Farming also remains significant with the emphasis mainly on cattle and dairy farming. A large tungsten mine is located south of Mittersill. The ore consists mainly of Scheelite.

Tourism
In winter Mittersill is a popular destination for sports such as skiing, snowboarding, and sledding. Mittersill has a connection with the Kitzbühel ski area through the newly built Panoramabahn cable car. It allows access to the Resterhöhe ski area, which in turn is connected to the ski areas of Kirch and the Hahnenkamm at Kitzbühel by the 3S Aerial Tramway; a structure with the largest span of its type in the world. Mittersill is also close to other well-known ski resorts such as Zell am See, Kaprun, and the Zillertal Arena.

Mittersill is also located near the municipality of Bramberg am Wildkogel which boasts what is estimated to be (at 14 km), the longest completely lit toboggan run in the world.

In summer Mittersill has an 18-hole golf course and acts as a gateway to the Hohe Tauern National Park with its newly built visitor centre. Popular summer activities include hiking, mountain biking, and paragliding.

Sights
Mittersill Castle stands about 140 m above the town, The castle's story began in the 12th century, when the Counts of Lechsgemünd (subsequently: Mittersill) decided to establish their family seat. The current building dates from the 1525 German Peasant's War when the original structure burnt down. Thereafter the building was used as a regional court and centre for witch hunts in the Pinzgau region. The castle has been in private hands since 1888, hosting notable guests such as: Queen Juliana of the Netherlands and Prince Bernhard, the Shah of Iran, Clark Gable, Henry Ford, Bob Hope, and Aristotle Onassis.

The 900-year-old Felber Tower hosts a museum about the local area and its heritage, covering topics such as local history, geology, and mountaineering.

The parish church of St. Leonard originally dates from the 13th century, but has later additions, such as a 1420 stone sculpture of St. Leonard, a Baroque facade and onion dome, and an 18th-century high altar in rococo style.

The smaller church of St. Anna dates from the 18th century and is fashioned in the style of the Tyrolean rococo. Though originally a Roman Catholic church, it is used today for Protestant worship in Mittersill.

St. Nicholas church, located next to the Felber Tower, was built in the 15th century in the late Gothic style. The interior decor is 17th-century Baroque, with the exception of the side altar, which is rococo.

The Hohe Tauern National Park Center opened in Mittersill in 2007. It functions as a museum and centre for the Hohe Tauern National Park, with information about the geology, landscape, flora, and fauna found in the alpine region.

title: Mittersill


text: User talk:82.43.220.61

title: User talk:82.43.220.61


text:
De motu corporum in gyrum

De motu corporum in gyrum (from Latin: "On the motion of bodies in an orbit"; abbreviated De Motu) is the presumed title of a manuscript by Isaac Newton sent to Edmond Halley in November 1684. The manuscript was prompted by a visit from Halley earlier that year when he had questioned Newton about problems then occupying the minds of Halley and his scientific circle in London, including Sir Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke.

This manuscript gave important mathematical derivations relating to the three relations now known as "Kepler's laws of planetary motion" (before Newton's work, these had not been generally regarded as scientific laws). Halley reported the communication from Newton to the Royal Society on 10 December 1684 (Old Style). After further encouragement from Halley, Newton went on to develop and write his book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (commonly known as the Principia) from a nucleus that can be seen in De Motu – of which nearly all of the content also reappears in the Principia.

Contents
One of the surviving copies of De Motu was made by being entered in the Royal Society's register book, and its (Latin) text is available online.

For ease of cross-reference to the contents of De Motu that appeared again in the Principia, there are online sources for the Principia in English translation, as well as in Latin.

De motu corporum in gyrum is short enough to set out here the contents of its different sections. It contains 11 propositions, labelled as 'theorems' and 'problems', some with corollaries. Before reaching this core subject-matter, Newton begins with some preliminaries:

 * 3 Definitions:
 * 1: 'Centripetal force' (Newton originated this term, and its first occurrence is in this document) impels or attracts a body to some point regarded as a center. (This reappears in Definition 5 of the Principia.)
 * 2: 'Inherent force' of a body is defined in a way that prepares for the idea of inertia and of Newton's first law (in the absence of external force, a body continues in its state of motion either at rest or in uniform motion along a straight line). (Definition 3 of the Principia is to similar effect.)
 * 3: 'Resistance': the property of a medium that regularly impedes motion.

 * 4 Hypotheses:
 * 1: Newton indicates that in the first 9 propositions below, resistance is assumed nil, then for the remaining (2) propositions, resistance is assumed proportional both to the speed of the body and to the density of the medium.
 * 2: By its intrinsic force (alone) every body would progress uniformly in a straight line to infinity unless something external hinders that.

(Newton's later first law of motion is to similar effect, Law 1 in the Principia.)
 * 3: Forces combine by a parallelogram rule. Newton treats them in effect as we now treat vectors. This point reappears in Corollaries 1 and 2 to the third law of motion, Law 3 in the Principia.
 * 4: In the initial moments of effect of a centripetal force, the distance is proportional to the square of the time. (The context indicates that Newton was dealing here with infinitesimals or their limiting ratios.) This reappears in Book 1, Lemma 10 in the Principia.

Then follow two more preliminary points:

 * 2 Lemmas:
 * 1: Newton briefly sets out continued products of proportions involving differences:
 * if A/(A–B) = B/(B–C) = C/(C–D) etc., then A/B = B/C = C/D etc.
 * 2: All parallelograms touching a given ellipse (to be understood: at the endpoints of conjugate diameters) are equal in area.

Then follows Newton's main subject-matter, labelled as theorems, problems, corollaries and scholia:

Theorem 1
Theorem 1 demonstrates that where an orbiting body is subject only to a centripetal force, it follows that a radius vector, drawn from the body to the attracting center, sweeps out equal areas in equal times (no matter how the centripetal force varies with distance). (Newton uses for this derivation – as he does in later proofs in this De Motu, as well as in many parts of the later Principia – a limit argument of infinitesimal calculus in geometric form, in which the area swept out by the radius vector is divided into triangle-sectors. They are of small and decreasing size considered to tend towards zero individually, while their number increases without limit.) This theorem appears again, with expanded explanation, as Proposition 1, Theorem 1, of the Principia.

Theorem 2
Theorem 2 considers a body moving uniformly in a circular orbit, and shows that for any given time-segment, the centripetal force (directed towards the center of the circle, treated here as a center of attraction) is proportional to the square of the arc-length traversed, and inversely proportional to the radius. (This subject reappears as Proposition 4, Theorem 4 in the Principia, and the corollaries here reappear also.)

Corollary 1 then points out that the centripetal force is proportional to V2/R, where V is the orbital speed and R the circular radius.

Corollary 2 shows that, putting this in another way, the centripetal force is proportional to (1/P2) * R where P is the orbital period.

Corollary 3 shows that if P2 is proportional to R, then the centripetal force would be independent of R.

Corollary 4 shows that if P2 is proportional to R2, then the centripetal force would be proportional to 1/R.

Corollary 5 shows that if P2 is proportional to R3, then the centripetal force would be proportional to 1/(R2).

A scholium then points out that the Corollary 5 relation (square of orbital period proportional to cube of orbital size) is observed to apply to the planets in their orbits around the Sun, and to the Galilean satellites orbiting Jupiter.

Theorem 3
Theorem 3 now evaluates the centripetal force in a non-circular orbit, using another geometrical limit argument, involving ratios of vanishingly small line-segments. The demonstration comes down to evaluating the curvature of the orbit as if it were made of infinitesimal arcs, and the centripetal force at any point is evaluated from the speed and the curvature of the local infinitesimal arc. This subject reappears in the Principia as Proposition 6 of Book 1.

A corollary then points out how it is possible in this way to determine the centripetal force for any given shape of orbit and center.

Problem 1 then explores the case of a circular orbit, assuming the center of attraction is on the circumference of the circle. A scholium points out that if the orbiting body were to reach such a center, it would then depart along the tangent. (Proposition 7 in the Principia.)

Problem 2 explores the case of an ellipse, where the center of attraction is at its center, and finds that the centripetal force to produce motion in that configuration would be directly proportional to the radius vector. (This material becomes Proposition 10, Problem 5 in the Principia.)

Problem 3 again explores the ellipse, but now treats the further case where the center of attraction is at one of its foci. "A body orbits in an ellipse: there is required the law of centripetal force tending to a focus of the ellipse." Here Newton finds the centripetal force to produce motion in this configuration would be inversely proportional to the square of the radius vector. (Translation: 'Therefore, the centripetal force is reciprocally as L X SP², that is, (reciprocally) in the doubled ratio [i.e., square] of the distance ... .') This becomes Proposition 11 in the Principia.

A scholium then points out that this Problem 3 proves that the planetary orbits are ellipses with the Sun at one focus. (Translation: 'The major planets orbit, therefore, in ellipses having a focus at the center of the Sun, and with their radii (vectores) drawn to the Sun describe areas proportional to the times, altogether (Latin: 'omnino') as Kepler supposed.') (This conclusion is reached after taking as initial fact the observed proportionality between square of orbital period and cube of orbital size, considered in corollary 5 to Theorem 1.) (A controversy over the cogency of the conclusion is described below.) The subject of Problem 3 becomes Proposition 11, Problem 6, in the Principia.

Theorem 4
Theorem 4 shows that with a centripetal force inversely proportional to the square of the radius vector, the time of revolution of a body in an elliptical orbit with a given major axis is the same as it would be for the body in a circular orbit with the same diameter as that major axis. (Proposition 15 in the Principia.)

A scholium points out how this enables determining the planetary ellipses and the locations of their foci by indirect measurements.

Problem 4 then explores, for the case of an inverse-square law of centripetal force, how to determine the orbital ellipse for a given starting position, speed, and direction of the orbiting body. Newton points out here, that if the speed is high enough, the orbit is no longer an ellipse, but is instead a parabola or hyperbola. He also identifies a geometrical criterion for distinguishing between the elliptical case and the others, based on the calculated size of the latus rectum, as a proportion to the distance the orbiting body at closest approach to the center. (Proposition 17 in the Principia.)

A scholium then remarks that a bonus of this demonstration is that it allows definition of the orbits of comets and enables an estimation of their periods and returns where the orbits are elliptical. Some practical difficulties of implementing this are also discussed.

Finally in the series of propositions based on zero resistance from any medium, Problem 5 discusses the case of a degenerate elliptical orbit, amounting to a straight-line fall towards or ejection from the attracting center. (Proposition 32 in the Principia.)

A scholium points out how problems 4 and 5 would apply to projectiles in the atmosphere and to the fall of heavy bodies, if the atmospheric resistance could be assumed nil.

Lastly, Newton attempts to extend the results to the case where there is atmospheric resistance, considering first (Problem 6) the effects of resistance on inertial motion in a straight line, and then (Problem 7) the combined effects of resistance and a uniform centripetal force on motion towards/away from the center in a homogeneous medium. Both problems are addressed geometrically using hyperbolic constructions. These last two 'Problems' reappear in Book 2 of the Principia as Propositions 2 and 3.

Then a final scholium points out how problems 6 and 7 apply to the horizontal and vertical components of the motion of projectiles in the atmosphere (in this case neglecting earth curvature).

Commentaries on the contents
At some points in 'De Motu', Newton depends on matters proved being used in practice as a basis for regarding their converses as also proved. This has been seen as especially so in regard to 'Problem 3'. Newton's style of demonstration in all his writings was rather brief in places; he appeared to assume that certain steps would be found self-evident or obvious. In 'De Motu', as in the first edition of the Principia, Newton did not specifically state a basis for extending the proofs to the converse. The proof of the converse here depends on its being apparent that there is a unique relation, i.e., that in any given setup, only one orbit corresponds to one given and specified set of force/velocity/starting position. Newton added a mention of this kind into the second edition of the Principia, as a Corollary to Propositions 11–13, in response to criticism of this sort made during his lifetime.

A significant scholarly controversy has existed over the question whether and how far these extensions to the converse, and the associated uniqueness statements, are self-evident and obvious or not. (There is no suggestion that the converses are not true, or that they were not stated by Newton, the argument has been over whether Newton's proofs were satisfactory or not.)

Halley's question
The details of Edmund Halley's visit to Newton in 1684 are known to us only from reminiscences of thirty to forty years later. According to one of these reminiscences, Halley asked Newton, "what he thought the Curve would be that would be described by the Planets supposing the force of attraction towards the Sun to be reciprocal to the square of their distance from it."

Another version of the question was given by Newton himself, but also about thirty years after the event: he wrote that Halley, asking him "if I knew what figure the Planets described in their Orbs about the Sun was very desirous to have my Demonstration" In light of these differing reports, both produced from old memories, it is hard to know exactly what words Halley used.

Role of Robert Hooke
Newton acknowledged in 1686 that an initial stimulus on him in 1679/80 to extend his investigations of the movements of heavenly bodies had arisen from correspondence with Robert Hooke in 1679/80.

Hooke had started an exchange of correspondence in November 1679 by writing to Newton, to tell Newton that Hooke had been appointed to manage the Royal Society's correspondence. Hooke therefore wanted to hear from members about their researches, or their views about the researches of others; and as if to whet Newton's interest, he asked what Newton thought about various matters, and then gave a whole list, mentioning "compounding the celestial motions of the planetts of a direct motion by the tangent and an attractive motion towards the central body", and "my hypothesis of the lawes or causes of springinesse", and then a new hypothesis from Paris about planetary motions (which Hooke described at length), and then efforts to carry out or improve national surveys, the difference of latitude between London and Cambridge, and other items. Newton replied with "a fansy of my own" about determining the Earth's motion, using a falling body. Hooke disagreed with Newton's idea of how the falling body would move, and a short correspondence developed.

Later, in 1686, when Newton's Principia had been presented to the Royal Society, Hooke claimed from this correspondence the credit for some of Newton's content in the Principia, and said Newton owed the idea of an inverse-square law of attraction to him – although at the same time, Hooke disclaimed any credit for the curves and trajectories that Newton had demonstrated on the basis of the inverse square law.

Newton, who heard of this from Halley, rebutted Hooke's claim in letters to Halley, acknowledging only an occasion of reawakened interest. Newton did acknowledge some prior work of others, including Ismaël Bullialdus, who suggested (but without demonstration) that there was an attractive force from the Sun in the inverse square proportion to the distance, and Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, who suggested (again without demonstration) that there was a tendency towards the Sun like gravity or magnetism that would make the planets move in ellipses; but that the elements Hooke claimed were due either to Newton himself, or to other predecessors of them both such as Bullialdus and Borelli, but not Hooke. Wren and Halley were both skeptical of Hooke's claims, recalling an occasion when Hooke had claimed to have a derivation of planetary motions under an inverse square law, but had failed to produce it even under the incentive of a prize.

There has been scholarly controversy over exactly what if anything Newton really gained from Hooke, apart from the stimulus that Newton acknowledged.

About thirty years after Newton's death in 1727, Alexis Clairaut, one of Newton's early and eminent successors in the field of gravitational studies, wrote after reviewing Hooke's work that it showed "what a distance there is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated".

title: De motu corporum in gyrum


text:
User:John Z/drafts/Sabra and Shatila Massacre

Sabra and Shatila: Inquiry Into a Massacre by Amnon Kapeliouk

Eyewitness: Lebanon Edited and compiled by Claud Morris http://www.littleredbutton.com/lebanon use wayback machine

e.g. try urls like

http://web.archive.org/web/20030420024841/www.littleredbutton.com/lebanon/page12.jpg

did 4-12 ______

 * Prof. Ahmad al-Tal, apparently a former dean at Zarqa Private University in Jordan, quotes Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Monde Diplomatique as asserting that the International Committee of the Red Cross ultimately counted 2,750 victims, and that the actual figure may have been 3,000 to 3,500.

The massacre provoked outrage around the world. On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.

prior

 * According to several sources, including an Al Jazeera report and Prof. Ahmad Tall, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ultimately counted 2,750 victims: 1,500 at the time, a further 900 by September 22, and an extra 350 on September 23 as more bodies were uncovered.
 * Many Palestinians claim between 3,000 and 3,500.

+


text:
Talk:Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic

Sources for the early period
Exclusively for Renata3 (-P): sources for the quote "Initially the Lithuanian SSR was proclaimed much earlier, on December 16 1918, after the 1st Congress of the Lithuanian Communist Party had been held on October 1 1918. On February 27 1918 it was combined with the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic to form the Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (LBSSR, or "Litbel"), which existed until August 25 1919." are for example http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Lithuania.htm (chronology) http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/c/o.htm#lithuanian-communist-party

See also Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Rulzeng 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Now much better, clearer, and specific. See, all you need to do - check some sources :P Renata 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

POV concerns
I attached the tag to the article because I saw it overstressing the former country aspect and understressing the puppet regime aspect, thus resembling the state of Estonian SSR before WikiProject Estonia managed to neutralise it. I was then caught in a few other things regarding the template which delayed my explanation of this issue, and apologise for that.

Accordingly, I will add once more the tag. No disrespect for Renata3 is intended, and if she'll revert again, I will this time consider her to have read my concern, and not readd. Digwuren 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Please provide reputable sources that deny it is a former country with a puppet regime before reapplying POV tag. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any border change?
Were there any border changes to Lithuanian territory after the Soviet invasion and creation of the LSSR? In other words, was the territory of LSSR different from the territory of pre-1940 independent Lithuania? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox changes
, your change has been reverted so therefore please discuss your proposed change on talk per WP:BRD. The template style guide is clear, "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period", the State continuity of the Baltic states is well established, the Estonian government-in-exile is not relevant to that continuity as discussed in the sources, and in fact Latvia and Lituania had no "government-in-exile". --Nug (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

predecessor and successor flags.
Without the previous and successor flags, anyone reading the article can not see/navigate the previous and successor, the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic's predecessor was the Republic of Lithuania  (the Republic before 1940) then the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic was under the German occupation. Then the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic was succeeded the German occupation, and the present day Republic of Lithuania is the successor to the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is confusing to have Lithuanian SSR being the predecessor and successor of both Republic of Lithuania and Reichskommissariat Ostland, that is why the infobox guide says not to have them if the predecessor and successor are identical. I'll added a history of Lithuania template to help navigation. --Nug (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It should have shown up as 1940-1941 1941-1991 instead of 1940–1991, unfortunately I did not notice it until I viewed the history of the articleElevatorrailfan (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Hi,

Why is Coat of Arms linked to Coat of arms of Lithuania instead of Emblem of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic? I wanted to change it, but couldn't find the parameter which should be edited in order to have a correct link. Other USSR nations need to have links corrected too. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing history
Why is there no account of the 45 years between the end of WWII and Lithuania's declaration of independence in 1990? Very strange. Sca (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Army crimes in LSSR section
This discussion is started because of a section named "Red Army crimes in LSSR", which I added to this article with valid sources. Content of my added section looks like this:

"Upon entering Lithuania's territory, the Red Army immediately began committing atrocious war crimes. The situation in the state was so frightening that even the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Lithuania Antanas Sniečkus on July 23, 1944 complained to Lavrentiy Beria (who later handed over his words to Joseph Stalin) that "If such robbery and violence will continue in Kaunas, this will burst our last sympathy for the Red Army.".

''Klaipėda region was one of the primary war crimes centers. For example, Head of the Klaipėda NKGB Operational Group Kuzmin in his special report about situation in the Klaipėda region wrote that "A beautiful city Šilutė, left by the Germans without a battle, currently looks repulsive: there is not one remaining store, almost no flats that are suitable for living. (...) Metal scrap collection teams are blowing up working agricultural machinery, engines of various kinds, stealing valuable equipment from the companies. There is no electricity in Šilutė because an internal combustion engine was blown up.". In the same report, Kuzmin also wrote that in Klaipėda and Šilutė regions mass raping of women entrenched, regardless of their nationality, physical condition and age: "Seventy year old women and fourteen year old girls are being raped, even in the presence of parents. For example, in November 1944, eleven soldiers raped a Priekulė County resident in the presence of her husband. In Šilutė district, two soldiers, covering her head with a bag, at the doorway raped a seventy year old woman. On December 10, two soldiers shot a passing by elderly woman.". After occupying the Klaipėda region, the Red Army began arresting 17-48 year old men and moving forefront inhabitants. Red Army soldiers did not gave enough time for them to prepare and moved them by only wearing a single shirt. In this way, inhabitants of the Curonian Spit were left without cattle and bread. A number of cases have been identified that cattle and other property was sent to the depth of Lithuania and later traded for a home made vodka. In December 1944, Chief of the Priekulė KGB Kazakov wrote to the LSSR Minister of the Interior Josifas Bertašiūnas that due to the soldiers violence most of the houses in Priekulė are unsuitable for living: windows are knocked out, fireplaces are disassembled, furniture and agricultural inventory are broken and exported as scrap. Most of the soldiers are engaged in robbery, women raping and even killing. Inhabitants, after seeing soldiers during the night time, are running from their homes and hiding. ''

{{quote box|width=24em|align=right|quote="On the night of October 20, aviation unit senior M. Kapylov, by taking revenge that a 14 year old Marija Drulaitė refused to have a sexual intercourse, killed her, her mother, uncle Juozas and severely injured a 12 year old teenager." |source=— G. Svečnikov, Chief of the Kaunas' NKVD.

''However, other regions of the LSSR also suffered heavily from the Red Army brutality. For example, on December 26, 1944, Kaunas' NKGB representative Rodionov wrote to the USSR and LSSR Ministers of the Interior that due to the counterintelligence units SMERSH violence in Kaunas and mass arrests, many Kaunas' inhabitants moves to a illegal situation. Eleven raging SMERSH subdivisions do not obey any local authority orders, even the NKGB requirements. In August 1944, Chief of the Vilnius Garrison P. Vetrov in his order described recent discipline violations in the garrison territory: on August 18 a soldier arbitrarily went to explode fishes in the Neris river, on August 19 without any reason a fifteen minutes firefight took place between the garrison soldiers and prison guards, on August 22 completely drunk officers of the garrison shooted at each other and so on. On October 1, 1944, Chief of the Kaunas' NKVD G. Svečnikov in his report wrote that on the night of October 19 two aviation unit soldiers of Garliava executed Vytautas Mavraušaitis family: him, his mother Ona and sister Marija due to the burglary purposes. On January 17, 1945, Chairman of the Alytus Executive Committee requested the LSSR People's Commissars Council to stop the border guards unit, which was sent to fight with the Lithuanian partisans, because it not only burns the enemies homesteads, but also the innocent people homesteads. They are also robbing local inhabitants, takes away their cattle and other property. ''"

''References: {{reflist}}''

{{ping|Sabbatino}} removed this section completely by motivating that it violates NPOV and OR. His other argument was that the .pdf files can't be translated through Google Translate. Here are my contrarguments: 1) NPOV. I see no issues about the NPOV here because all these sentences are based on completely authentic documents by simply translating their details. These documents were created by communists themselves to inform other communists about inner issues in the state, so there are absolutely no doubt if they are reliable because these are not some public propaganda texts, but secret documents which were only available to the high-ranking communist officials. All these documents were uploaded by a state organization Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, so there are no risks that any fake edits were made to the original documents. 2) OR. Same as above. How authentic documents translations can be an original research? These are FACTS provided by a state organization, not any kind of research. 3) Translation issue because the original documents are written in Russian. These pdf files will be translated in the near future (kgbveikla.lt is currently searching for a Russian speaking volunteers who would like to help), so I decided to include the primary source of the information. However, this whole section was based on the 15min article and is easily accessible in Lithuanian language. {{ping|Ke an}} and {{ping|Renata3}} you are well known current editors of the Lithuanian topics, so I think that your opinion here would be very useful, because a two-sides discussions often takes long and are ineffective. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {{reply|Pofka}} Well there is NPOV issue since it portrays all of the occupant soldiers as savages when not all of them where like that. In addition, basing all section on one article on the internet is OR. More sources are needed for claims. The other problem is that you tend to add too much detail, which makes it excessive. The same information can be written in less words. There are also two pages (Soviet war crimes and Occupation of the Baltic states) where this information would be better presented. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * {{replyto|Sabbatino}} As I previously mentioned in my long post, this information was based on primary sources originally written in Russian and I already explained their translation situation, so it is not based on one article - it just simply provides these documents translated version. LSSR page has sections about deportations and armed resistance, so I believe war crimes of the Red Army does fit here as well (because it greatly explains why the armed resistance began together with the deporations section). And for argument that the Red Army soldiers were not savages you aren't right. Anyone who crosses other country border to kill/rob/rape their citizens are savages. War crimes doctrine notes that the war crime is committed despite the fact that it was an order from the higher rank soldier, so it is not an excuse. Red Army committed dozens of war crimes all across Europe where it went. Read about the German women situation during WW2 and you will understand what percentage of these soldiers were savages rapists/robbers. Their brutality is equal to Nazis. These examples illustrates crimes from different largest Lithuanian cities/regions, so I don't think that it is too detailed because it illustrates all these cities/regions situation. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, you said that this whole section was based on the article from 15min. Then which is it? Is it the article, is it the documents or both? Secondly, your statement "{{tq|And for argument that the Red Army soldiers were not savages you aren't right. Anyone who crosses other country border to kill/rob/rape their citizens are savages.}}" is not true and you completely misunderstood what I meant. Not all soldiers of the occupying forces were savages. Some of those soldiers just did their job and did not join their colleagues in killing, robbing or raping Lithuanian citizens. And this is coming from a personal experience of my family, because my great-grandparents, grandparents and parents suffered very much from the Soviets, but per their memories a very small number of Soviet soldiers were in fact friendly, polite and/or helpful, and did not really want to be here, but the higher ranking officers sent them to Lithuania. Moving back to your statement, if we go by your logic then the Lithuanian soldiers who served in NATO missions in Afghanistan and Iraq (or anywhere else) are also savages, because per your thought they crossed the border of other country to kill, rob or rape other country's citizens (I am not going to discuss anything related to Afghanistan or Iraq wars and this is just an example based on your statement). Or what about the Lithuanians (this also applies to every other Soviet soldier) who fought in the Soviet–Afghan War? Does their participation make them savages? No, because most of them did not want to be there and many of them could not avoid that war since the Soviets tried to take every possible person to their army even if they were against it (the options to not go there were going to jail or faking a health problem). The armed resistance in Lithuania did not start because of low morality of the majority of the Red Army's soldiers. It started because the majority of Lithuanian citizens did not want to be part of other country and there were other factors involved (deportations, collectivization, etc), while the low morality of some soldiers was just a sign that the occupying forces' officers could not control every soldier that was transferred to Lithuania. I understand that you want to improve pages regarding Lithuania, but do not get carried away and mark every person from the Red Army as savage. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * {{replyto|Sabbatino}} Well, you just confirmed that most of the Red Army soldiers were savages by writing "per their memories a very small number of Soviet soldiers were in fact friendly, polite and/or helpful". Your other examples were completely not related. You compare WW2 to war with terrorists? I am not very familiar with the Soviet-Afghan War, however if Lithuanians being part of the army committed war crimes - yes, they are war criminals. What if they were told to kill innocent people by their commanders? They are same type war criminals. I don't think there is a need to go to off-topic because such topics wastes time, so lets stick to the Red Army soldiers in LSSR. You said that they did not wanted to be there and so on. Well, read a bit about Nazis arguments why they were not guilty during the Nuremberg trials. Most of them said that it was higher ranking commanders orders and that they only executed these orders (including, that they were affraid of their or their families lives if they refused to do these orders). What the court said? Well, they simply hanged these Nazis without any mercy and they were right, because if you are doing a war crime - you can always stand back (or die trying, because every human has an equal right to live). Why Red Army soldier and his family lives are more important than other countries citizens lives/families? I will repeat important sentence from my previous post: commander order to execute a war crime is not an excuse in a court and the executer will be punished anyway. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Grammar
I've changed the Grammar in all of the article feel free to change back --Etholod (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Flag
However, more to the point: United States had many flag designs in the history, but the article lists only one; even USSR had a few and so did the RSFR (notice the 1991 one; in fact many SSRs went through such transition). Yet all articles list one flag. Why do you think this article should be an exception? --Mindaur (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you made couple reverts concerning the flag. To be fair, I don't see how the current representation is consistent. LSSR had another flag before 1953: why is that one unlisted?

Mistake in ref
In the Svechnikov testimony the ref in question on that site does not show anything about this event. There must be a mistake. However the head of the Kaunas NKVD was effectively called Svechnikov and I've found his full name on memo.ru. Synotia (moan) 17:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Found it and fixed it. All good now. Synotia (moan) 17:13, 29 January 2023 (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) 16:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Lithuanian SSR 1940.jpg

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) 04:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Soviet statue on the Green Bridge in Vilnius (7932316654).jpg

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


text:
Butt Bridge

The Butt Bridge is a road bridge in Dublin, Ireland which spans the River Liffey and joins Georges Quay to Beresford Place and the north quays at Liberty Hall.

The original bridge on this site was a structural steel swing bridge, designed by Bindon Blood Stoney, opened in 1879 and named after Isaac Butt (who died that year), leader of the Home Rule movement.

The swing section, made of wrought iron and weighing 200 tons, ran on a series of cast-spoke wheels and was powered by a steam engine, which was housed on a timber pier on the downstream side of the bridge. The swing action allowed boats to pass and berth in the river as far upstream as Carlisle Bridge (now O'Connell Bridge).

In 1932, the swing bridge was replaced with a three span fixed structure of reinforced concrete, but retained its original English name. The Irish name of the bridge however, Droichead na Comhdhála or "Congress Bridge", derives from the Eucharistic Congress of 1932 which was held in Dublin that year.

The central span of the current bridge is formed by two cantilevered sections, with the two approach spans acting as counterweights. This model represented the first use in reinforced concrete of a cantilevered and counterweight construction in either Britain or Ireland.

title: Butt Bridge