text:
Portal:Schools/Did you know

Instructions
These "Did you know..." subpages are randomly displayed using Random portal component.
 * 1) DYKs at this list must have successfully already appeared at Template:Did you know.
 * 2) Add a new DYK to the next available subpage.
 * 3) Update the "Random subpage" start and end values above to include the new DYK and evenly distribute the number of items across all three display templates. (Only include completed sets of 3.)

Layout for DYK subpages:

 * ... that

 * ... that

 * ... that

Source

 * 1) Recent additions NUMBER, Numbered archive of Main Page appearance.
 * 2) Recent additions NUMBER, Numbered archive of Main Page appearance.
 * 3) Recent additions NUMBER, Numbered archive of Main Page appearance.

Nominations

 * Any School-related WP:DYKs that have previously appeared at Template:DYK may be added to the next available subpage, above.
 * All hooks must first have appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know section.
 * Note: -- Each hook and selected fact should have a link cited at its respective subpage to the time it appeared on the Main Page in Template:Did you know, or the associated WP:DYK archive at Recent additions.

title: Portal:Schools/Did you know


text:
Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/No other categories/1/Bro-Bry

Broa-Bron

 * Troy Broadbridge (1980-2004)
 * Pierre de la Broce (died 1278)
 * Barthold Heinrich Brockes (1680-1747)
 * Lawrence Brockett (1725-1768)
 * Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus (1772-1823), 1911_Britannica,
 * Beth Broderick (born 1959)
 * John Romeyn Brodhead (1814-1873), 1911_Britannica,
 * Richard H. Brodhead (born 1947)
 * Steve Brodie (1863-1901), American_people_stubs,
 * Steve Broidy (1905-1991)
 * Arthur Broke (died 1563), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Ignatia Broker (1919-1987), People_stubs, Writer_stubs,
 * Josh Brolin (born 1968)
 * Alexander Brome (1620-1666), British_people_stubs, Writer_stubs,
 * Richard Brome (died 1652), 1911_Britannica, A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Jonas Bronck (1600-1643), People_stubs,
 * E. H. Bronner (1908-1997)

Broo-Brou

 * Charles Anthoni Johnson Brooke (1829-1917)
 * James Brooke (1803-1868)
 * Stopford Augustus Brooke (1832-1916), 1911_Britannica,
 * Dolores "LaLa" Brooks (born 1947), People_stubs,
 * Hadda Brooks (1916-2002)
 * Preston Brooks (1819-1857)
 * Robert Broom (1866-1951)
 * John Broome (1738-1810), People_stubs,
 * Brigid Brophy (1929-1995)
 * Paul Brophy (died 1986)
 * Ian Broudie (born 1958)

Brow

 * Amy Brown (born 1972), Artist_stubs,
 * Arthur Brown Jr (1874-1957)
 * Benjamin Brown (developer) (1885-1939), People_stubs,
 * Benjamin Brown (Congressman) (1756-1831), American_politician_stubs,
 * Blair Brown (born 1946)
 * Chelsea Brown (born 1946)
 * Christy Brown (1932-1981)
 * Curtis Brown (hockey) (born 1976), Sportspeople_stubs,
 * Dustin Brown (born 1984), Ice_hockey_player_stubs,
 * Joe Brown (judge) (born 1947), People_stubs,
 * John Brown (servant) (1826-1883)
 * John Brown (vicar) (died 1845)
 * John Brown (theologian) (1722-1787)
 * John Brown (doctor) (1735-1788)
 * John Brown (clergyman) (1784-1858), 1911_Britannica,
 * John Crawford Brown (1805-1867)
 * John W. Brown (1867-1941)
 * Johnny Brown (born 1937), American_actor_stubs,
 * Jon Brown (born 1971), People_stubs,
 * Larry Brown (author) (1951-2004)
 * Lew Brown (1893-1958)
 * Lewis H. Brown (1894-1951)
 * Marshall Brown (1920-1983)
 * Milton Brown (1903-1936), Musician_stubs,
 * Panama Al Brown (1902-1951)
 * Ruth Brown (born 1928)
 * Theo Wade Brown (1950-2002)
 * Tom Brown (hero) (1705-1746), People_stubs,
 * William Laurence Brown (1755-1830), 1911_Britannica,
 * Georg Stanford Brown (born 1943)
 * Ginny Brown-Waite (born 1943)
 * Cole & Chase Browndorf (born 1995), People_stubs,
 * Charles Farrar Browne (1834-1867), 1911_Britannica,
 * Ricou Browning (born 1930)

Broz

 * Steve Brozak (born 1961), American_politician_stubs,

Bru

 * Matthew Bruccoli (born 1931), American_people_stubs,
 * Bruce Shanks (1908-1980), People_stubs,
 * Alexander Balmain Bruce (1831-1899), 1911_Britannica,
 * Amy Bruckner (born 1991)
 * Jean Bruller (1902-1991), People_stubs,
 * Richard François Philippe Brunck (1729-1803)
 * Eugenio Brunetta d'Usseaux (1857-1919)
 * Hans Brunhart (born 1945), Politician_stubs,
 * Carla Bruni (born 1968), People_stubs,
 * Bruno Dumont (born 1958), People_stubs,
 * Mary Brunton (1778-1818), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Paul Brunton (1898-1981), British_people_stubs,
 * Jan Harold Brunvand (born 1933)
 * Werner Bruschke (1898-1995), People_stubs,
 * Katharine Brush (1902-1952), American_people_stubs, Writer_stubs,

Bry

 * Alfred Bryan (1871-1958), Composers_stubs,
 * Charles Faulkner Bryan (1911-1955), Composers_stubs,
 * Vincent P. Bryan (1878-1937), People_stubs,
 * Jacob Bryant (1715-1804), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Jimmy Bryant (1925-1980)
 * Lane Bryant (1879-1951)
 * Vanessa Bryant (born 1982), People_stubs,

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


text:
Michael Hogan

Michael Hogan may refer to:

The arts

 * Michael Hogan (Canadian actor) (born 1949), main work includes Battlestar Galactica
 * Michael Hogan (poet) (1828–1899), Irish poet
 * Michael Hogan (screenwriter) (1893–1977), British actor and screenwriter, films include The Iron Stair and King Solomon's Mines
 * Michael Hogan (writer) (born 1943), American writer and poet
 * Michael Hogan, American actor and assistant director, known for The Resident and The Kill Point

Jurists

 * Sir Michael Joseph Hogan (1908–1986), chief justice of Hong Kong and president of the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas
 * Michael Robert Hogan (born 1946), American judge

Politicians

 * Michael Hogan (Irish politician) (1853–1935), member of parliament for North Tipperary (1906–1910)
 * Michael Hogan (Canadian politician) (1872–1943), Canadian politician
 * Michael J. Hogan (1871–1940), American politician

Sportspeople

 * Michael Hogan (cricketer) (born 1981), Australian cricketer
 * Michael Hogan (Gaelic footballer) (1896–1920), footballer shot dead on Bloody Sunday

Other

 * Michael Hogan (academic) (born 1943), American scholar; former president of the University of Illinois
 * Michael Hogan (shipowner) (1766–1833), involved in early settlement of Australia

Fictional

 * Michael Hogan, a lead character on the American sitcom The Hogan Family, played by actor Josh Taylor
 * Michael Hogan (fictional character), a fictional British intelligence officer in the Sharpe series of novels by Bernard Cornwell

title: Michael Hogan


text:
Salem Weekly

Salem Weekly (formerly Salem Monthly) was an alternative newspaper publication in Salem, Oregon, United States. The semi-weekly paper was established as a monthly in April 2003 and closed in November 2018. It was owned and published by Andrew Paul "A.P." Walther.

History
The Salem Monthly traces its origins to a coffee house in downtown Salem, Oregon known as the Coffee House Cafe. Dating back to the mid-1990s, the Coffee House Cafe served as a popular meeting place and hangout for Salem's youth culture. In its later years of operation, the cafe began publishing a newsletter to engage customers in Salem's community and cultural affairs. Inspired by the reaction to the cafe's newsletter, cafe owner A.P. Walther decided to start up a publishing operation for an alternative newspaper in Salem, Oregon.

Salem Weekly celebrated 10 years of operation in April 2013.

On November 28, 2018, the Statesman Journal reported the closure of Salem Weekly, which the Weekly announced in a letter relayed to the Statesman via local blogger Brian Hines. The last issue of the paper was published on October 25.

Topics
Topics covered in past issues include: the stigma of living on welfare; the dangers of pollution and whether recycling helps; Chemeketa Community College's financial struggles; local gay citizens' reactions to the nullification of gay marriages that took place in Multnomah County; local residents' experiences of racism; internment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans during World War II; the Native American perspective on Thanksgiving; Bush's abuses of power; Noam Chomsky and the Iraq War.

Mission
Publisher A.P. Walther says Salem Monthly was created to give Salem "exposure to local news, thought, and culture in the greater Salem area."

title: Salem Weekly


text:
Dorothy Bussy

Dorothy Bussy ( Strachey; 24 July 1865 – 1 May 1960) was an English novelist and translator, close to the Bloomsbury Group.

Family background and childhood

Dorothy Bussy was a member of the Strachey family, one of ten children of Jane Strachey and the British Empire soldier and administrator Lt-Gen Sir Richard Strachey. Writer and critic Lytton Strachey and the first English translator of Freud, James Strachey, were her brothers. She was educated at the Marie Souvestre girls' school at Les Ruches, Fontainebleau, France and later in England when Souvestre removed the school to Allenswood there. She was later a teacher with Souvestre, and one of her pupils was Eleanor Roosevelt.

Personal life

In 1903, Dorothy (37) married the French painter Simon Bussy (1870–1954), who knew Matisse, and was on the fringes of the Bloomsbury circle. He was five years younger, and the son of a shoemaker from the Jura town of Dole. Lady Strachey’s liberalism faltered at the sight of him actually cleaning up his plate with pieces of bread. The family drama "shook the regime of Lancaster Gate to its foundations" (Holroyd), and, despite the silent disapprobation of the older Stracheys, Dorothy remained determined to marry him with what her brother Lytton later called "extraordinary courage".

Dorothy was bisexual and was involved in an affair with Lady Ottoline Morrell. She became friends with Charles Mauron, the lover of E.M. Forster.

Writing
Bussy anonymously published one novel, Olivia, in 1949, printed by the Hogarth Press, the publishing house founded by Leonard and Virginia Woolf, in which lesbian loves get entangled in the emotional and sexually charged atmosphere of erotic pedagogy in a girls' school. As well as drawing on her own experiences in the schools of Marie Souvestre, the novel's theme probably owes much to Bussy's viewing of the 1931 German film Mädchen in Uniform, that had been distributed in England before the Second World War. It may also owe something to Colette's novel Claudine at School (1900). Bussy's novel was translated into French and appeared in France with an introduction by Rosamond Lehmann. In 1951, the novel was filmed as Olivia, with the lesbian elements toned down, in France by Jacqueline Audry. A BBC radio dramatisation was broadcast in the 1990s. In 1999, her novel appeared at number 35 on Publishing Triangle's '100 best lesbian and gay novels' list.

Bussy was also a close friend of the French author André Gide, whom she met by chance in the summer of 1918 when she was 52, and with whom she struck up a lively correspondence. She adored him and translated his works into English. Their long-distance friendship lasted for over 30 years. Their letters are published in Richard Tedeschi's Selected Letters of André Gide and Dorothy Bussy, and there is also a three-volume French edition. The originals are preserved in the British Library.

Her daughter was the painter Jane Simone Bussy (1906–1960).

Legacy
Olivia Records was a collective founded in 1973 to record and market women's music, named after the heroine of the 1949 novel Olivia by Bussy (the heroine and the novel both being named Olivia.)

title: Dorothy Bussy


text:
Thorngumbald

Thorngumbald is a village and civil parish in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England, in an area known as Holderness, 8 mi east of Hull on the A1033. The civil parish is formed by the village and the hamlets of Camerton and Ryehill. At the 2011 census, it had a population of 3,392, an increase on the 2001 UK census figure of 3,106.

History
Thorngumbald was once a Viking settlement – the official emblem of Thorngumbald is a Viking helmet with wings. The name was first recorded in the Domesday Book as "Torn", an Old English word meaning 'thorn bush'. The name was still in use in 1228, but by 1260 it had become "Thorne". In the lay subsidy rolls of Edward 1, 1297, it is given as Thorengumbald. A Baron Gumbaud had settled in the area, adding his name to the original and giving the village its present name. The Gumbaud name was associated with the local Lord of the manor in the 13th century. By the 17th century the village had had different spellings, including Thorgumbaud, Thorngumbold, Thorneygumbald and Gumberthorn. The current name has been in use since then. The Gumbaud family still live in the village.

Community
The parish church of St Mary is a Grade II listed building. The village also had a Methodist church, built 1904. However the stones of the church were relaid in 1984.

The village shopping centre has five shops: a small Boots chemist, a newsagents, a deli / sandwich shop, and a fish and chip shop. A newly refurbished mini supermarket was opened in 2021. Elsewhere in the village there are three hairdressing salons, a Chinese takeaway, the Royal Mail public house (demolished early 2017), The New Royal Mail Public house, a restaurant, a Royal Mail post office.

Thorngumbald Primary School hosts meetings for local organisations, such as the Brownies and St John Ambulance which provide weekly activities for children and teenagers.

The local parish offers courses, such as ICT, for people within the village at the local Village Hall on the main road (A1033).

Bowls is also played at the Village Hall along with table tennis. There are also line dancing classes at the Village Institute. The Village Hall and the Parish Councillors organise an annual Scarecrow Trail that takes place throughout the village every summer. People of all ages are involved, with the prize usually a trophy.

The village is home to England rugby league international Jon Wilkin and former Hull City player Chris Chilton.

Education
Thorngumbald Primary School is a local Primary School catering for children aged between 4 and 11. The school is a September 2007 amalgamation of Thorngumbald Infant and Junior Schools, now on a newly built site on Plumtree Road, originally the site used by Thorngumbald Infant School.

South Holderness Technology College in the village of Preston is the nearest secondary school. It caters for students from ages 11 to 16, with a Sixth Form College for those from 16 to 18. Thorngumbald is within the school's catchment area and buses provided by the school transport students of all age groups to and from the village in the morning and afternoon.

In September 2013, the village briefly gained local attention due to bus pass prices to and from South Holderness School. BBC Look North (East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire) were present throughout the village interviewing students and their parents. The prices currently stand at £540 per bus pass for one academic year to travel to and from the school, provided you live three miles or less away from the school. Since this event, there have been a few minor protests including petitions and some of the students who have to pay for the school bus pass, getting on the public bus service as it is much cheaper.

There is a nursery on Grange Road.

Transport
The village was once served by a railway linking Withernsea and Hull at Ryehill and Burstwick station. It closed in 1964 following the Beeching cuts. Thorngumbald is now served by EYMS daily bus routes linking the village to Withernsea and Hull.

Sport
The village has its own football club which competes in the Hull & District Youth Football League And Cup, Thorngumbald Barrons who play their home matches on the playing fields on Plumtree Road.

title: Thorngumbald


text:
Arab–Byzantine wars

The Arab–Byzantine wars were a series of wars between a number of Muslim Arab dynasties and the Byzantine Empire from the 7th to the 11th century. Conflict started during the initial Muslim conquests, under the expansionist Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs, in the 7th century and continued by their successors until the mid-11th century.

The emergence of Muslim Arabs from Arabia in the 630s resulted in the rapid loss of Byzantium's southern provinces (Syria and Egypt) to the Arab Caliphate. Over the next fifty years, under the Umayyad caliphs, the Arabs would launch repeated raids into still-Byzantine Asia Minor, twice besiege the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and conquer the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. The situation did not stabilize until after the failure of the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in 718, when the Taurus Mountains on the eastern rim of Asia Minor became established as the mutual, heavily fortified and largely depopulated frontier. Under the Abbasid Empire, relations became more normal, with embassies exchanged and even periods of truce, but conflict remained the norm, with almost annual raids and counter-raids, sponsored either by the Abbasid government or by local rulers, well into the 10th century.

During the first centuries, the Byzantines were usually on the defensive, and avoided open field battles, preferring to retreat to their fortified strongholds. Only after 740 did they begin to launch raids in an attempt to combat the Arabs and take back the lands they had lost, but the Abbasid Empire was able to retaliate with often massive and destructive invasions of Asia Minor. The Arabs also took to the sea, and from the 650s on, the entire Mediterranean Sea became a battleground, with raids and counter-raids being launched against islands and the coastal settlements. Arab raids reached a peak in the 9th and early 10th centuries, after the conquests of Crete, Malta and Sicily, with their fleets reaching the coasts of France, Dalmatia, and Constantinople.

With the decline and fragmentation of the Abbasid state after 861 and the concurrent strengthening of the Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty, the tide gradually turned. Over a period of fifty years from c. 920 to 976, the Byzantines finally broke through the Arab defences and restored their control over northern Syria and Greater Armenia. The last century of the Arab–Byzantine wars was dominated by frontier conflicts with the Fatimids in Syria, but the border remained stable until the appearance of a new people, the Seljuk Turks, after 1060.

Background
The prolonged and escalating Byzantine–Sasanian wars of the 6th and 7th centuries and the recurring outbreaks of bubonic plague (Plague of Justinian) left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Arabs. The last of the wars between the Roman and Persian empires ended with victory for the Byzantines: Emperor Heraclius regained all lost territories, and restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629.

Nevertheless, neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they found themselves in conflict with the Arabs (newly united by Islam), which, according to Howard-Johnston, "can only be likened to a human tsunami". According to George Liska, the "unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam".

In the late 620s, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad had already managed to unify much of Arabia under Muslim rule via conquest as well as making alliances with neighboring tribes, and it was under his leadership that the first Muslim–Byzantine skirmishes took place. Just a few months after Emperor Heraclius and the Persian general Shahrbaraz agreed on terms for the withdrawal of Persian troops from occupied Byzantine eastern provinces in 629, Arab and Byzantine troops confronted each other at the Battle of Mu'tah in response to the murder of Muhammad's ambassador at the hands of the Ghassanids, a Byzantine vassal kingdom. Muhammad died in 632 and was succeeded by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph with undisputed control of the entire Arabian Peninsula after the successful Ridda wars, which resulted in the consolidation of a powerful Muslim state throughout the peninsula.

Muslim conquests, 629–718

According to Muslim biographies, Muhammed, having received intelligence that Byzantine forces were concentrating in northern Arabia with intentions of invading Arabia, led a Muslim army north to Tabuk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of pre-emptively engaging the Byzantine army, however, the Byzantine army had retreated beforehand. Though it was not a battle in the typical sense, nevertheless the event represented the first Arab encounter against the Byzantines. It did not, however, lead immediately to a military confrontation.

There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the Tabuk expedition, and many of the details come from much later Muslim sources. It has been argued that there is in one Byzantine source possibly referencing the Battle of Mu´tah traditionally dated 629, but this is not certain. The first engagements may have started as conflicts with the Arab client states of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires: the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids of Al-Hirah. In any case, Muslim Arabs after 634 certainly pursued a full-blown offensive against both empires, resulting in the conquest of the Levant, Egypt and Persia for Islam. The most successful Arab generals were Khalid ibn al-Walid and 'Amr ibn al-'As.

Arab conquest of Roman Syria: 634–638
In the Levant, the invading Rashidun army were engaged by a Byzantine army composed of imperial troops as well as local levies. According to Islamic historians, Monophysites and Jews throughout Syria welcomed the Arabs as liberators, as they were discontented with the rule of the Byzantines.

The Roman Emperor Heraclius had fallen ill and was unable to personally lead his armies to resist the Arab conquests of Syria and Roman Paelestina in 634. In a battle fought near Ajnadayn in the summer of 634, the Rashidun Caliphate army achieved a decisive victory. After their victory at the Fahl, Muslim forces conquered Damascus in 634 under the command of Khalid ibn al-Walid. The Byzantine response involved the collection and dispatch of the maximum number of available troops under major commanders, including Theodore Trithyrius and the Armenian general Vahan, to eject the Muslims from their newly won territories.

At the Battle of Yarmouk in 636, however, the Muslims, having studied the ground in detail, lured the Byzantines into pitched battle, which the Byzantines usually avoided, and into a series of costly assaults, before turning the deep valleys and cliffs into a catastrophic death-trap. Heraclius' farewell exclamation (according to the 9th-century historian Al-Baladhuri) while departing Antioch for Constantinople, is expressive of his disappointment: "Peace unto thee, O Syria, and what an excellent country this is for the enemy!" The impact of Syria's loss on the Byzantines is illustrated by Joannes Zonaras' words: "[...] since then [after the fall of Syria] the race of the Ishmaelites did not cease from invading and plundering the entire territory of the Romans".

In April 637 the Arabs, after a long siege, captured Jerusalem, which was surrendered by Patriarch Sophronius. In the summer of 637, the Muslims conquered Gaza, and, during the same period, the Byzantine authorities in Egypt and Mesopotamia purchased an expensive truce, which lasted three years for Egypt and one year for Mesopotamia. Antioch fell to the Muslim armies in late 637, and by then the Muslims occupied the whole of northern Syria, except for upper Mesopotamia, which they granted a one-year truce.

At the expiration of this truce in 638–639, the Arabs overran Byzantine Mesopotamia and Byzantine Armenia, and terminated the conquest of Palestine by storming Caesarea Maritima and effecting their final capture of Ascalon. In December 639, the Muslims departed from Palestine to invade Egypt in early 640.

Conquest of Egypt and Cyrenaica
By the time Heraclius died, much of Egypt had been lost, and by 637–638 the whole of Syria was in the hands of the armies of Islam. With 3,500–4,000 troops under his command, 'Amr ibn al-A'as first crossed into Egypt from Palestine at the end of 639 or the beginning of 640. He was progressively joined by further reinforcements, notably 12,000 soldiers by Zubayr ibn al-Awwam. 'Amr first besieged and conquered Babylon Fortress, and then attacked Alexandria. The Byzantines, divided and shocked by the sudden loss of so much territory, agreed to give up the city by September 642. The fall of Alexandria extinguished Byzantine rule in Egypt, and allowed the Muslims to continue their military expansion into North Africa; between 643 and 644 'Amr completed the conquest of Cyrenaica. Uthman succeeded Caliph Umar after his death.

According to Arab historians, the local Christian Copts welcomed the Arabs just as the Monophysites did in Jerusalem. The loss of this lucrative province deprived the Byzantines of their valuable wheat supply, thereby causing food shortages throughout the Byzantine Empire and weakening its armies in the following decades.

The Byzantine navy briefly won back Alexandria in 645, but lost it again in 646 shortly after the Battle of Nikiou. The Islamic forces raided Sicily in 652, while Cyprus and Crete were captured in 653.

Conquest of the Exarchate of Africa
In 647, a Rashidun-Arab army led by Abdallah ibn al-Sa’ad invaded the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. Tripolitania was conquered, followed by Sufetula, 150 mi south of Carthage, and the governor and self-proclaimed Emperor of Africa Gregory was killed. Abdallah's booty-laden force returned to Egypt in 648 after Gregory's successor, Gennadius, promised them an annual tribute of some 300,000 nomismata.

Following a civil war in the Arab Empire the Umayyads came to power under Muawiyah I. Under the Umayyads the conquest of the remaining Byzantine and northern Berber territories in North Africa was completed and the Arabs were able to move across large parts of the Berber world, invading Visigothic Spain through the Strait of Gibraltar, under the command of the allegedly Berber general Tariq ibn-Ziyad. But this happened only after they developed a naval power of their own, and they conquered and destroyed the Byzantine stronghold of Carthage between 695 and 698. The loss of Africa meant that soon, Byzantine control of the Western Mediterranean was challenged by a new and expanding Arab fleet, operating from Tunisia.

Muawiyah began consolidating the Arab territory from the Aral Sea to the western border of Egypt. He put a governor in place in Egypt at al-Fustat, and launched raids into Anatolia in 663. Then from 665 to 689 a new North African campaign was launched to protect Egypt "from flank attack by Byzantine Cyrene". An Arab army of 40,000 took Barca, defeating 30,000 Byzantines.

A vanguard of 10,000 Arabs under Uqba ibn Nafi followed from Damascus. In 670, Kairouan (modern Tunisia) was established as a base for further invasions; Kairouan would become the capital of the Islamic province of Ifriqiya, and one of the main Arabo-Islamic religious centers in the Middle Ages. Then ibn Nafi "plunged into the heart of the country, traversed the wilderness in which his successors erected the splendid capitals of Fes and Morocco, and at length penetrated to the verge of the Atlantic and the great desert".

In his conquest of the Maghreb, Uqba Ibn Nafi took the coastal cities of Bejaia and Tangier, overwhelming what had once been the Roman province of Mauretania where he was finally halted. As the historian Luis Garcia de Valdeavellano explains:

"In their struggle against the Byzantines and the Berbers, the Arab chieftains had greatly extended their African dominions, and as early as the year 682 Uqba had reached the shores of the Atlantic, but he was unable to occupy Tangier, for he was forced to turn back toward the Atlas Mountains by a man who became known to history and legend as Count Julian."

- Luis Garcia de Valdeavellano

Arab attacks on Anatolia and sieges of Constantinople
As the first tide of the Muslim conquests in the Near East ebbed off, and a semi-permanent border between the two powers was established, a wide zone, unclaimed by either Byzantines or Arabs and virtually deserted (known in Arabic as al-Ḍawāḥī, "the outer lands" and in Greek as τὰ ἄκρα, ta akra, "the extremities") emerged in Cilicia, along the southern approaches of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountain ranges, leaving Syria in Muslim and the Anatolian plateau in Byzantine hands. Both Emperor Heraclius and the Caliph 'Umar (r. 634–644) pursued a strategy of destruction within this zone, trying to transform it into an effective barrier between the two realms.

Nevertheless, the Umayyads still considered the complete subjugation of Byzantium as their ultimate objective. Their thinking was dominated by Islamic teaching, which placed the infidel Byzantines in the Dār al-Ḥarb, the "House of War", which, in the words of Islamic scholar Hugh N. Kennedy, "the Muslims should attack whenever possible; rather than peace interrupted by occasional conflict, the normal pattern was seen to be conflict interrupted by occasional, temporary truce (hudna). True peace (ṣulḥ) could only come when the enemy accepted Islam or tributary status."

Both as governor of Syria and later as caliph, Muawiyah I (r. 661–680) was the driving force of the Muslim effort against Byzantium, especially by his creation of a fleet, which challenged the Byzantine navy and raided the Byzantine islands and coasts. To stop the Byzantine harassment from the sea during the Arab-Byzantine Wars, in 649 Muawiyah set up a navy, manned by Monophysitise Christian, Copt and Jacobite Syrian Christian sailors and Muslim troops. This resulted in the defeat of the Byzantine navy at the Battle of the Masts in 655, opening up the Mediterranean. The shocking defeat of the imperial fleet by the young Muslim navy at the Battle of the Masts in 655 was of critical importance: it opened up the Mediterranean, hitherto a "Roman lake", to Arab expansion, and began a centuries-long series of naval conflicts over the control of the Mediterranean waterways. 500 Byzantine ships were destroyed in the battle, and Emperor Constans II was almost killed. Under the instructions of the caliph Uthman ibn Affan, Muawiyah then prepared for the siege of Constantinople.

Trade between the Muslim eastern and southern shores and the Christian northern shores almost ceased during this period, isolating Western Europe from developments in the Muslim world: "In antiquity, and again in the high Middle Ages, the voyage from Italy to Alexandria was commonplace; in early Islamic times the two countries were so remote that even the most basic information was unknown" (Kennedy). Muawiyah also initiated the first large-scale raids into Anatolia from 641 on. These expeditions, aiming both at plunder and at weakening and keeping the Byzantines at bay, as well as the corresponding retaliatory Byzantine raids, eventually became established as a fixture of Byzantine–Arab warfare for the next three centuries.

The outbreak of the Muslim Civil War in 656 bought a precious breathing pause for Byzantium, which Emperor Constans II (r. 641–668) used to shore up his defences, extend and consolidate his control over Armenia and most importantly, initiate a major army reform with lasting effect: the establishment of the themata, the large territorial commands into which Anatolia, the major contiguous territory remaining to the Empire, was divided. The remains of the old field armies were settled in each of them, and soldiers were allocated land there in payment of their service. The themata would form the backbone of the Byzantine defensive system for centuries to come.

Attacks against Byzantine holdings in Africa, Sicily and the East
After his victory in the civil war, Muawiyah launched a series of attacks against Byzantine holdings in Africa, Sicily and the East. By 670, the Muslim fleet had penetrated into the Sea of Marmara and stayed at Cyzicus during the winter. Four years later, a massive Muslim fleet reappeared in the Marmara and re-established a base at Cyzicus, from there they raided the Byzantine coasts almost at will. Finally in 676, Muawiyah sent an army to invest Constantinople from land as well, beginning the First Arab Siege of the city. Constantine IV (r. 661–685) however used a devastating new weapon that came to be known as "Greek fire", invented by a Christian refugee from Syria named Kallinikos of Heliopolis, to decisively defeat the attacking Umayyad navy in the Sea of Marmara, resulting in the lifting of the siege in 678. The returning Muslim fleet suffered further losses due to storms, while the army lost many men to the thematic armies who attacked them on their route back. Among those killed in the siege was Eyup, the standard bearer of Muhammed and the last of his companions; to Muslims today, his tomb is considered one of the holiest sites in Istanbul.

The setback at Constantinople was followed by further reverses across the vast Muslim empire. As Gibbon writes, "this Mahometan Alexander, who sighed for new worlds, was unable to preserve his recent conquests. By the universal defection of the Greeks and Africans he was recalled from the shores of the Atlantic." His forces were directed at putting down rebellions, and in one such battle he was surrounded by insurgents and killed. Then, the third governor of Africa, Zuheir, was overthrown by a powerful army, sent from Constantinople by Constantine IV for the relief of Carthage. Meanwhile, a second Arab civil war was raging in Arabia and Syria resulting in a series of four caliphs between the death of Muawiyah in 680 and the ascension of Abd al-Malik in 685, and was ongoing until 692 with the death of the rebel leader.

The Saracen Wars of Justinian II (r. 685–695 and 705–711), last emperor of the Heraclian Dynasty, "reflected the general chaos of the age". After a successful campaign he made a truce with the Arabs, agreeing on joint possession of Armenia, Iberia and Cyprus; however, by removing 12,000 Christian Mardaites from their native Lebanon, he removed a major obstacle for the Arabs in Syria, and in 692, after the disastrous Battle of Sebastopolis, the Muslims invaded and conquered all of Armenia. Deposed in 695, with Carthage lost in 698, Justinian returned to power from 705 to 711. His second reign was marked by Arab victories in Asia Minor and civil unrest. Reportedly, he ordered his guards to execute the only unit that had not deserted him after one battle, to prevent their desertion in the next.

Justinian's first and second depositions were followed by internal disorder, with successive revolts and emperors lacking legitimacy or support. In this climate, the Umayyads consolidated their control of Armenia and Cilicia, and began preparing a renewed offensive against Constantinople. In Byzantium, the general Leo the Isaurian (r. 717–741) had just seized the throne in March 717, when the massive Muslim army under the famed Umayyad prince and general Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik began moving towards the imperial capital. The Caliphate's army and navy, led by Maslama, numbered some 120,000 men and 1,800 ships according to the sources. Whatever the real number, it was a huge force, far larger than the imperial army. Thankfully for Leo and the Empire, the capital's sea walls had recently been repaired and strengthened. In addition, the emperor concluded an alliance with the Bulgar khan Tervel, who agreed to harass the invaders' rear.

From July 717 to August 718, the city was besieged by land and sea by the Muslims, who built an extensive double line of circumvallation and contravallation on the landward side, isolating the capital. Their attempt to complete the blockade by sea however failed when the Byzantine navy employed Greek fire against them; the Arab fleet kept well off the city walls, leaving Constantinople's supply routes open. Forced to extend the siege into winter, the besieging army suffered horrendous casualties from the cold and the lack of provisions.

In spring, new reinforcements were sent by the new caliph, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (r. 717–720), by sea from Africa and Egypt and over land through Asia Minor. The crews of the new fleets were composed mostly of Christians, who began defecting in large numbers, while the land forces were ambushed and defeated in Bithynia. As famine and an epidemic continued to plague the Arab camp, the siege was abandoned on 15 August 718. On its return, the Arab fleet suffered further casualties to storms and an eruption of the volcano of Thera.

Stabilization of the frontier, 718–863
The first wave of the Muslim conquests ended with the siege of Constantinople in 718, and the border between the two empires became stabilized along the mountains of eastern Anatolia. Raids and counter-raids continued on both sides and became almost ritualized, but the prospect of outright conquest of Byzantium by the Caliphate receded. This led to far more regular, and often friendly, diplomatic contacts, as well as a reciprocal recognition of the two empires.

In response to the Muslim threat, which reached its peak in the first half of the 8th century, the Isaurian emperors adopted the policy of Iconoclasm, which was abandoned in 786 only to be readopted in the 820s and finally abandoned in 843. Under the Macedonian dynasty, exploiting the decline and fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Byzantines gradually went on the offensive, and recovered much territory in the 10th century, which was lost however after 1071 to the Seljuk Turks.

Raids under the last Umayyads and the rise of Iconoclasm
Following the failure to capture Constantinople in 717–718, the Umayyads for a time diverted their attention elsewhere, allowing the Byzantines to take to the offensive, making some gains in Armenia. From 720/721 however the Arab armies resumed their expeditions against Byzantine Anatolia, although now they were no longer aimed at conquest, but rather large-scale raids, plundering and devastating the countryside and only occasionally attacking forts or major settlements.

Under the late Umayyad and early Abbasid caliphs, the frontier between Byzantium and the Caliphate became stabilized along the line of the Taurus-Antitaurus mountain ranges. On the Arab side, Cilicia was permanently occupied and its deserted cities, such as Adana, Mopsuestia (al-Massisa) and, most importantly, Tarsus, were refortified and resettled under the early Abbasids. Likewise, in Upper Mesopotamia, places like Germanikeia (Mar'ash), Hadath and Melitene (Malatya) became major military centers. These two regions came to form the two-halves of a new fortified frontier zone, the thughur.

Both the Umayyads and later the Abbasids continued to regard the annual expeditions against the Caliphate's "traditional enemy" as an integral part of the continuing jihad, and they quickly became organized in a regular fashion: one to two summer expeditions (pl. ṣawā'if, sing. ṣā'ifa) sometimes accompanied by a naval attack and/or followed by winter expeditions (shawātī). The summer expeditions were usually two separate attacks, the "expedition of the left" (al-ṣā'ifa al-yusrā/al-ṣughrā) launched from the Cilician thughur and consisting mostly of Syrian troops, and the usually larger "expedition of the right" (al-ṣā'ifa al-yumnā/al-kubrā) launched from Malatya and composed of Mesopotamian troops. The raids were also largely confined to the borderlands and the central Anatolian plateau, and only rarely reached the peripheral coastlands, which the Byzantines fortified heavily.

Under the more aggressive Caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (r. 723–743), the Arab expeditions intensified for a time, and were led by some of the Caliphate's most capable generals, including princes of the Umayyad dynasty like Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik and al-Abbas ibn al-Walid or Hisham's own sons Mu'awiyah, Maslama and Sulayman. This was still a time when Byzantium was fighting for survival, and "the frontier provinces, devastated by war, were a land of ruined cities and deserted villages where a scattered population looked to rocky castles or impenetrable mountains rather than the armies of the empire to provide a minimum of security" (Kennedy).

In response to the renewal of Arab invasions, and to a sequence of natural disasters such as the eruptions of the volcanic island of Thera, the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian concluded that the Empire had lost divine favour. Already in 722 he had tried to force the conversion of the Empire's Jews, but soon he began to turn his attention to the veneration of icons, which some bishops had come to regard as idolatrous. In 726, Leo published an edict condemning their use and showed himself increasingly critical of the iconophiles. He formally banned depictions of religious figures in a court council in 730.

This decision provoked major opposition both from the people and the church, especially the Bishop of Rome, which Leo did not take into account. In the words of Warren Treadgold: "He saw no need to consult the church, and he appears to have been surprised by the depth of the popular opposition he encountered". The controversy weakened the Byzantine Empire, and was a key factor in the schism between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome.

The Umayyad Caliphate however was increasingly distracted by conflicts elsewhere, especially its confrontation with the Khazars, with whom Leo III had concluded an alliance, marrying his son and heir, Constantine V (r. 741–775) to the Khazar princess Tzitzak. Only in the late 730s did the Muslim raids again become a threat, but the great Byzantine victory at Akroinon and the turmoil of the Abbasid Revolution led to a pause in Arab attacks against the Empire. It also opened up the way for a more aggressive stance by Constantine V (r. 741–775), who in 741 attacked the major Arab base of Melitene, and continued scoring further victories. These successes were also interpreted by Leo III and his son Constantine as evidence of God's renewed favour, and strengthened the position of Iconoclasm within the Empire.

Early Abbasids
Unlike their Umayyad predecessors, the Abbasid caliphs did not pursue active expansion: in general terms, they were content with the territorial limits achieved, and whatever external campaigns they waged were retaliatory or preemptive, meant to preserve their frontier and impress Abbasid might upon their neighbours. At the same time, the campaigns against Byzantium in particular remained important for domestic consumption. The annual raids, which had almost lapsed in the turmoil following the Abbasid Revolution, were undertaken with renewed vigour from ca. 780 on, and were the only expeditions where the Caliph or his sons participated in person.

As a symbol of the Caliph's ritual role as the leader of the Muslim community, they were closely paralleled in official propaganda by the leadership by Abbasid family members of the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca. In addition, the constant warfare on the Syrian marches was useful to the Abbasids as it provided employment for the Syrian and Iraqi military elites and the various volunteers (muṭṭawi‘a) who flocked to participate in the jihad.

Wishing to emphasize his piety and role as the leader of the Muslim community, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) in particular was the most energetic of the early Abbasid rulers in his pursuit of warfare against Byzantium: he established his seat at Raqqa close to the frontier, he complemented the thughur in 786 by forming a second defensive line along northern Syria, the al-'Awasim, and was reputed to be spending alternating years leading the Hajj and leading a campaign into Anatolia, including the largest expedition assembled under the Abbasids, in 806.

Continuing a trend started by his immediate predecessors, his reign also saw the development of far more regular contacts between the Abbasid court and Byzantium, with the exchange of embassies and letters being far more common than under the Umayyad rulers. Despite Harun's hostility, "the existence of embassies is a sign that the Abbasids accepted that the Byzantine empire was a power with which they had to deal on equal terms" (Kennedy).

Civil war occurred in the Byzantine Empire, often with Arab support. With the support of Caliph Al-Ma'mun, Arabs under the leadership of Thomas the Slav invaded, so that within a matter of months, only two themata in Asia Minor remained loyal to Emperor Michael II. When the Arabs captured Thessalonica, the Empire's second largest city, it was quickly re-captured by the Byzantines. Thomas's 821 siege of Constantinople did not get past the city walls, and he was forced to retreat.

The Arabs did not relinquish their designs on Asia Minor and in 838 began another invasion, sacking the city of Amorion.

Sicily, Italy and Crete
While a relative equilibrium reigned in the East, the situation in the western Mediterranean was irretrievably altered when the Aghlabids began their slow conquest of Sicily in the 820s. Using Tunisia as their launching pad, the Arabs started by conquering Palermo in 831, Messina in 842, Enna in 859, culminating in the capture of Syracuse in 878. Separately, in around 827, a band of Andalusians expelled from Alexandria by the Abbasids arrived in Crete. The Andalusians established their main city and fortress at Chandax, which later became their capital once they had subdued the Byzantine territory, establishing the Emirate of Crete.

Byzantine resurgence, 863–11th century
In 863 during the reign of Michael III, the Byzantine general Petronas defeated and routed an Arab invasion force under the command of Umar al-Aqta at the Battle of Lalakaon inflicting heavy casualties and removing the Emirate of Melitene as a serious military threat. Umar died in battle and the remnants of his army was annihilated in subsequent clashes, allowing the Byzantines to celebrate the victory as revenge for the earlier Arab sacking of Amorion, while news of the defeats sparked riots in Baghdad and Samarra. In the following months the Byzantines successfully invaded Armenia killing the Muslim governor in Armenia Emir Ali ibn Yahya as well as the Paulician leader Karbeas. These Byzantines victories marked a turning point which ushered in a century long Byzantine offensive eastward into Muslim territory.

Religious peace came with the emergence of the Macedonian dynasty in 867, as well as a strong and unified Byzantine leadership; while the Abbasid empire had splintered into many factions after 861. Basil I revived the Byzantine Empire into a regional power, during a period of territorial expansion, making the Empire the strongest power in Europe, with an ecclesiastical policy marked by good relations with Rome. Basil allied with the Holy Roman Emperor Louis II against the Arabs, and his fleet cleared the Adriatic Sea of their raids.

With Byzantine help, Louis II captured Bari from the Arabs in 871. The city became Byzantine territory in 876. The Byzantine position on Sicily deteriorated, and Syracuse fell to the Emirate of Sicily in 878. Catania was lost in 900, and finally the fortress of Taormina in 902. Michael of Zahumlje apparently on 10 July 926 sacked Siponto (Sipontum), which was a Byzantine town in Apulia. Sicily would remain under Arab control until the Norman invasion in 1071.

Although Sicily was lost, the general Nikephoros Phokas the Elder succeeded in taking Taranto and much of Calabria in 880, forming the nucleus for the later Catepanate of Italy. The successes in the Italian Peninsula opened a new period of Byzantine domination there. Above all, the Byzantines were beginning to establish a strong presence in the Mediterranean Sea, and especially the Adriatic.

Under John Kourkouas, the Byzantines conquered the emirate of Melitene, along with Theodosiopolis the strongest of the Muslim border emirates, and advanced into Armenia in the 930s; the next three decades were dominated by the struggle of the Phokas clan and their dependants against the Hamdanid emir of Aleppo, Sayf al-Dawla. Al-Dawla was finally defeated by Nikephoros II Phokas, who conquered Cilicia and northern Syria, including the sack of Aleppo, and recovered Crete. His nephew and successor, John I Tzimiskes, pushed even further south, almost reaching Jerusalem, but his death in 976 ended Byzantine expansion towards Palestine.

After putting an end to the internal strife, Basil II launched a counter-campaign against the Arabs in 995. The Byzantine civil wars had weakened the Empire's position in the east, and the gains of Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes came close to being lost, with Aleppo besieged and Antioch under threat. Basil won several battles in Syria, relieving Aleppo, taking over the Orontes valley, and raiding further south. Although he did not have the force to drive into Palestine and reclaim Jerusalem, his victories did restore much of Syria to the empire – including the larger city of Antioch which was the seat of its eponymous Patriarch.

No Byzantine emperor since Heraclius had been able to hold these lands for any length of time, and the Empire would retain them for the next 110 years until 1078. Piers Paul Read writes that by 1025, Byzantine land "stretched from the Straits of Messina and the northern Adriatic in the west to the River Danube and Crimea in the north, and to the cities of Melitene and Edessa beyond the Euphrates in the east."

Under Basil II, the Byzantines established a swath of new themata, stretching northeast from Aleppo (a Byzantine protectorate) to Manzikert. Under the Theme system of military and administrative government, the Byzantines could raise a force at least 200,000 strong, though in practice these were strategically placed throughout the Empire. With Basil's rule, the Byzantine Empire reached its greatest height in nearly five centuries, and indeed for the next four centuries.

Conclusion
The wars drew near to a closure when the Turks and various Mongol invaders replaced the threat of either power. From the 11th and 12th centuries onwards, the Byzantine conflicts shifted into the Byzantine-Seljuk wars with the continuing Islamic invasion of Anatolia being taken over by the Seljuk Turks.

After the defeat at the Battle of Manzikert by the Turks in 1071, the Byzantine Empire, with the help of Western Crusaders, re-established its position in the Middle East as a major power. Meanwhile, the major Arab conflicts were in the Crusades, and later against Mongolian invasions, especially that of the Ilkhanate and Timur.

Effects

As with any war of such length, the drawn-out Byzantine–Arab Wars had long-lasting effects for both the Byzantine Empire and the Arab world. The Byzantines experienced extensive territorial loss. However, while the invading Arabs gained strong control in the Middle East and Africa, further conquests in Western Asia were halted. The focus of the Byzantine Empire shifted from the western reconquests of Justinian to a primarily defensive position, against the Islamic armies on its eastern borders. Without Byzantine interference in the emerging Christian states of western Europe, the situation gave a huge stimulus to feudalism and economic self-sufficiency.

The view of modern historians is that one of the most important effects was the strain it put on the relationship between Rome and Byzantium. While fighting for survival against the Islamic armies, the Empire was no longer able to provide the protection it had once offered to the Papacy; worse still, according to Thomas Woods, the Emperors "routinely intervened in the life of the Church in areas lying clearly beyond the state's competence". The Iconoclast controversy of the 8th and 9th centuries can be taken as a key factor "which drove the Latin Church into the arms of the Franks." Thus it has been argued that Charlemagne was an indirect product of Muhammad:
 * "The Frankish Empire would probably never have existed without Islam, and Charlemagne without Mahomet would be inconceivable."

The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne's successors would later come to the aid of the Byzantines under Louis II and during the Crusades, but relations between the two empires would be strained; based on the Salerno Chronicle, we know the Emperor Basil had sent an angry letter to his western counterpart, reprimanding him for usurping the title of emperor.

Historiography and other sources
Walter Emil Kaegi states that extant Arabic sources have been given much scholarly attention for issues of obscurities and contradictions. However, he points out that Byzantine sources are also problematic, such as the chronicles of Theophanes and Nicephorus and those written in Syriac, which are short and terse while the important question of their sources and their use of sources remains unresolved. Kaegi concludes that scholars must also subject the Byzantine tradition to critical scrutiny, as it "contains bias and cannot serve as an objective standard against which all Muslim sources may be confidently checked".

Among the few Latin sources of interest are the 7th-century history of Fredegarius, and two 8th-century Spanish chronicles, all of which draw on some Byzantine and oriental historical traditions. As far as Byzantine military action against the initial Muslim invasions, Kaegi asserts that "Byzantine traditions ... attempt to deflect criticism of the Byzantine debacle from Heraclius to other persons, groups, and things".

The range of non-historical Byzantine sources is vast: they range from papyri to sermons (most notable those of Sophronius and Anastasius Sinaita), poetry (especially that of Sophronius and George of Pisidia) including the Acritic songs, correspondence often of a patristic provenance, apologetical treatises, apocalypses, hagiography, military manuals (in particular the Strategikon of Maurice from the beginning of the 7th century), and other non-literary sources, such as epigraphy, archeology, and numismatics. None of these sources contains a coherent account of any of the campaigns and conquests of the Muslim armies, but some do contain invaluable details that survive nowhere else.

title: Arab–Byzantine wars


text:
Talk:La Monte Young

How do you pronounce "La Monte Young" in english ?
--193.50.91.109 (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:La Monte Young


text:
Innocenzo Bonelli

Innocenzo Bonelli was Captain Regent of San Marino in 1857 (with Domenico Fattori), 1862 (with Gaetano Simoncini), 1866 (with Michele Vita), 1870 (with Ortollero Grazia), and 1877 (with Andrea Barbieri).

title: Innocenzo Bonelli


text:
HSwMS Ehrensköld (11)

HSwMS Ehrensköld (11), was the lead ship of her class of destroyer in the Swedish Navy during World War II. Together with the sister ship HSWMS Nordenskjöld (12), she constituted the Ehrensköld class, which, with its size and speed, was a major step in the Swedish destroyer fleet. Initially, Ehrensköld had pennant number 11, which was later changed to 1. In 1951-1952, the ship was converted to frigate, and then received the pennant number 71. She was decommissioned in 1963 and was sold for scrapping in 1973.

Design
Ehrensköld was 91.4 meters long and had a maximum displacement of 1,000 tons. The hull was made of nitrated steel with a precipitating stem and so called "cruiser stern", which meant it was rounded. On the front of the deck was a three-story superstructure that included the bridge, wheelhouse, the medical department and the galley.

The machinery consisted of three oil-fired boilers that delivered steam to two steam turbines, which each propelled its propeller. The machine generated 24,000 horsepower, giving a speed of 35 knots.

Ehrensköld's main armament was made up of three 12 cm guns, placed on the front deck, between the funnels and on the aft deck. In the stern there was an anti-aircraft bridge with two 40 mm anti-aircraft automatic guns. Furthermore, there were torpedo tubes, depth charge thrower and rack-deployed depth charges. Mines could also be deployed.

History
Ehrensköld was built by Kockums in Malmö and was launched on 25 September 1926. The ship was named after the admiral Nils Ehrenschiöld. Initially the ship had the whole name but the first name was removed the year after the christening.

In the summer of 1929, Ehrensköld escorted together with the sister ship Nordenskjöld the coastal defence ship HSWMS Sverige during a trip to Estonia and Latvia. On board the coastal defence ship was King Gustaf V, and the trip was first to Tallinn and then Riga before the ships returned to Sweden. The following year, the sister ships participated in another international trip. This time, together with the HSWMS Gustav V and HSWMS Drottning Victoria to the then German city of Swinemünde. The purpose of the trip was to collect the dust from Queen Victoria, who had recently died in Rome.

In 1934 Ehrensköld ran aground during a move from Karlskrona to Stockholm, where a large hole was torn up in the bottom of the forebody. By flooding parts of the afterbody and making a powerful reverse maneuver, the ship made it off the shoal and made its way to Stockholm's naval shipyards for repairs.

World War II
In September 1938, when Germany claimed Czechoslovak territories, Ehrensköld, together with HSWMS Klas Horn (3), were the only mobilized destroyers in the Swedish Navy. In April 1940, when Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, she was demobilized in Karlskrona and the staff shortage in the navy made it difficult to man the ship. Only after many exercises with new crew could the ship be put into service on 2 September.

At the beginning of the World War II, Ehrensköld  was part of the Karlskrona Squadron, which was part of the South Coast Naval District. In 1942 she was part of the Coastal Fleet, which was the largest and most powerful unit of the Swedish Navy, and then moved back to Karlskrona Squadron.

After the war
From 1951 to 1952 Ehrensköld was converted to frigate, with the torpedo armament and the aft gun removed and replaced by four 40 mm automatic guns m/36. Furthermore, she was equipped with equipment such as hydrophone and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare. Command center was set up and radar was installed.

Fate
Ehrensköld was decommissioned on 1 April 1963, after which she was as a target ship. In 1973 the ship was sold and scrapped in Ystad.

title: HSwMS Ehrensköld (11)


text:
Gary Pittman

Gary Pittman is a prison guard and former United States Marine Corps reservist who was received a reduction in rank from Sergeant to Private and 60 days hard labor, for his role in the death in custody of Nagem Hatab, an Iraqi he believed was involved in capturing Jessica Lynch.

Following his conviction the Federal Bureau of Prisons fired Pittman.

title: Gary Pittman


text:
Talk:Burzynski Clinic

Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan
A 2015 study from Ogata et al. titled " Randomized Phase II Study of 5-Fluorouracil Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as an Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer " (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120064) records that in an open label, non-blinded but randomized phase II study cancer specific survival rate (CSS) was significantly higher in the antineoplaston arm vs. the control (i.e. non-antineoplaston) arm. This study had 65 patients enrolled, with 33 of those in the control group not receiving antineoplaston therapy, and 32 receiving the treatment. Median survival in the antineoplaston group, was, in fact, 67 months vs. 39 months, with a CSS of 60% and 32%, respectively. Furthermore, there were no incidental serious toxicities or apparent liver or kidney damage. Now, I demand an answer on moral grounds: Why is this study not mentioned in this article? I hold a biochemistry degree and a master's degree in medical science and would like to know why this isn't mentioned in the article.

Additionally, Ushijima et al. in the journal Oncology Reports published an article called " Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells " (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868501/) which clearly reports epigenetic changes in colon cancer cells, changes which are very likely to suppress cancer development and progression using the body's natural tumor suppression system. This work from these researchers is highly suggestive, just as Dr. Burzynski has stated in on-the-record interviews, that epigenetic modulations in response to the presence of antineoplastons are, in whole or in part, how they fight cancer.

While this is not absolute proof of antineoplaston therapy's efficacy, it is extremely favorable evidence and analysis, and I would just like to know how anybody could look at these studies and act as if the whole antineoplaston therapy question should just be dismissed as quackery.

Wikipedia - in fact, anybody - I ask you: why is none of this mentioned in the article on the topic? In fact, why are the staff at Wikipedia not seriously disturbed at the lack of research into this topic? How could anybody look at these studies and not demand further investigation? 2600:1700:407B:2810:153:D9CA:A5FC:2ECC (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. We wait until there are favorable secondary sources that collect primary ones. That is also how competent scientists judge those things. Accepting primary studies at face value is naive and amateurish. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply.
 * 1. Who said anybody should "just accept" this or that study "at face value"? - nobody, that's who. The point I made is that this is an example of a professional, independent, peer-reviewed clinical trial which produced results that unambiguously suggest that antineoplastons have clinical efficacy. Yes - duh, obviously - it could be a fluke - it's just that, without evidence to the contrary it is unlikely to be a fluke. Does such evidence exist, or not? No clinician in their right mind would say that "this single study means we need to start giving patients antineoplastons right away!" ...but no objective clinician could possibly look at that study and honestly say that this doesn't warrant interest. Given the history of the field any physician or researcher would be PERFECTLY within their rights to look at that study and say "meh, I'll bet it's a fluke - happens all the time," but that sort of reply is not science. Only follow-up studies that demonstrate no replication of effect WOULD be evidence. A study like that warrants follow up, and that's a plain fact. To ignore it wholesale in an article which is designed precisely to deal with the very controversy of the efficacy of the drugs is NOT objective or neutral.
 * 2. Wikipedia's own policy (the one you linked me to) on Primary Sources (from "Reliable sources") states:
 * "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
 * And here [from "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"]:
 * Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors
 * Mentioning the results of the aforementioned 2015 Ogata et al. study clearly would not violate the explicit, stated policy, and in fact would do wonders for the objectivity of the article.
 * 3. This article currently says verbatim that "there is no clinical evidence of the efficacy of these [Burzynski's] methods." The authors throughout the Wiki article were very careful to be objective and only report the opinions of institutes and bodies that stated that antineoplastons were not effective, instead of making categorical statements of fact or categorically characterizing the entire extent field of evidence as one way or the other. That is objectivity. However, in the aforementioned statement, this standard was dropped and the article makes a categorical statement which is, in fact, false, because the 2015 Ogata et al. study is an exact contradiction to the statement.
 * 4. I have no serious academic interest, economic incentive or personal conflict on this matter at all. I just care about objectivity and have an interest in healthcare. Surely you're a clinician or scientist of some kind (I would hope) - what exactly IS your view on the 2015 Ogata et al. study? Do you think it was a fluke?
 * I apologize for the length of my reply. 2600:1700:407B:2810:6015:D9D0:4A7D:D0AE (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have an idea of Hobs opinion, but instead I'm going to give you mine. For us encyclopedia editors, Ogata et al is entirely unimportant, because of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. - Roxy the dog 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uncannily accurate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me explain. When summarising the 2015 Japanese study, you quoted raw survival data. This means that you've disregarded the existence of confounders and, essentially, the entire statistical model. However, the study conclusion reads: "Overall survival was not statistically improved (p=0.105) in the AN arm (n=32). RFS was not significant (p=0.343)." As you may know, the p-value indicates, in lay terms, to what extent the observed outcome can be credited to the studied intervention. Commonly, statistical models require p not to exceed 0.05 for the results to be considered statistically significant.
 * Here in this study, p was significantly higher, which essentially means that the observed outcome (e.g., difference in survival) has not been solely due to the intervention (antineoplaston therapy), since other factors have influenced it more strongly.
 * To but it bluntly, the study offers some evidence that antineoplastons are not effective in the studied dose for this type of cancer (although, being an open-label study, its evidence value is anyway low).
 * If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is excellent, and we should definitely not include it for those reasons. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * JzG, did you read the article before proclaiming Kashmirir's analysis excellent? RudolfoMD (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. My personal view: Primary sources with "antineoplastons" as an adjuvant therapy for liver cancer were, and remain, irrelevant to the inflated and entirely unsupportable claims by Burzynski for use of his quackery as a magical primary therapy (in the words of his stans, a cure) for incurable brain cancers, based on nearly half a century of utterly underwhelming results and large numbers of (well documented) dead patients bilked out of vast sums of money.
 * My Wikipedia policy view: Wikipedia is not here to blaze the trail in promoting commercial claims where the consensus in the relavant professional community is that tsaid claims are at best nonsense, and at worst entirely fraudulent.
 * When all the reliable secondary sources show he's a mendacious quack, so do we. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a simple yes/no question - the 2015 Japanese study - did you read it before proclaiming Kashmirir's analysis excellent or not. Yes, you say.  I believe you know what a primary endpoint is, and you know that the study that you read met its primary endpoint. And yet you insist an analysis is excellent that misrepresented that primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant.  That is not excellent analysis.  It seems to me your preconceptions are clouding your judgement.  That's the most charitable interpretation of the facts in front of me I can come up with.  How do you explain it?  I expected the science and data to show Burzynski's work to be without much merit.  But what I'm finding so far is multiple extremely flawed criticisms based on falsehoods.  One of which has already been acknowledged and fixed. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm sorry but did you not read the rest of the findings section you quoted from??! It's not even five or six sentences long! And the very next sentence directly after the one you quoted states:
 * Nevertheless, the CSS rate was significantly higher in the AN [antineoplaston] arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.
 * At the risk of being redundant, I will point out that the P-value is below the threshold of 0.05 you selected! Not that p = 0.05 is some "special" threshold - it's just a convention. Many researchers value a p of 0.1, some 0.05, some 0.01 - those are all not uncommon p values. Either way it doesn't matter since you chose the p of 0.05, which you must not have realized the study conclusion did in fact satisfy. Did you not read the paltry few sentences of the article summary? Or are you seriously purposefully distorting the information? (See #3 below)
 * 2. The Wikipedia policy states: "Any text that relies on primary sources should...only describe conclusions made by the source ... Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors
 * Now, your suggested "summary" is a complete reversal of the conclusion the study authors reach, which is described in the single sentence - not difficult to read or see - in the "Interpretations" paragraph of the study: Antineoplastons (A10 Injection and AS2-1) might be useful as adjunctive therapy in addition to HAI after hepatectomy in colorectal metastases to the liver. To include YOUR summary of the article would be a direct violation of the Wikipedia guideline you originally invoked!
 * 3. Perhaps most telling of all, you either didn't read the paltry few sentences of the article summary, or had more insidious designs. I'm really just quite perplexed.
 * (A) Your "explanation" - which this person "Guy" bizarrely praised as "excellent" - suggested that a summary of the article could be included as In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.
 * Excuse me, but what...the hell? The study was not testing 5-fluorouracil! It was not the adjuvant! You obviously didn't understand the simple trial! The article was testing addition of antineoplastons TO a therapeutic HAI (Hepatic Arterial Infusion) of 5-fluorouracil - the 5-fluorouracil is not an antineoplaston and is a known chemotherapeutic for this adminstration route - which is WHY they were using it in the first place! The antineoplastons were being added as adjuvants to be tested - BOTH groups got 5-fluoruracil, ONE got the antineoplastons.
 * (B) You obviously didn't understand the study despite it being incredibly simple. You didn't understand what was being tested, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil was not an antineoplaston, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil via HAI was a known chemotherapeutic, and thought that the data suggested 5-fluorouracil was ineffective, when in fact it is KNOWN to be effective, and the data in fact suggested that the antineoplaston WAS effective. I mean, this is just a ridiculous misinterpretation (or something) on your part - I'm sorry.
 * 4. While your characterization of a study on basic research as "utterly useless" regarding clinical applications is an absurd exaggeration, it's perfectly legitimate to suggest it doesn't belong in a subsection, perhaps, about clinical results of a trial of the drug. But to call such basic research "utterly useless" is mind-numbingly obtuse - you can't GET to clinical trials without some plausible mechanism or evidence buttressed by basic research. I have no problem not mentioning the known epigenetic activity of antineoplastons in a summary of clinical trials - but to say it just shouldn't be included anywhere in an article about Burzynski and his therapy on antineoplastons is asinine. It's a known effect of the drug in cancerous cell lines and you have huge portions of an article dedicated to - supposedly - objectively analyzing the efficacy, plausibility and suitability of Burzynski's therapy for cancer treatments! To dismiss it as "utterly useless" is absurd!
 * 5. I apologize for any overtly rude-sounding aggression but I was just left gobsmacked and dumbfounded by your response. I thought the people who would be editing a Wikipedia article about a supposed quack cancer treatment would be highly qualified experts in a closely related field, if not in the field itself. Instead it seems as if you weren't even familiar with a common chemotherapeutic agent, didn't know what kind of medication it was, and were unable to understand a simple article.
 * 6. Let me be clear: I have no intention to continuously revisit these posts over and over again, though perhaps I might if I must. I feel I have said enough that needs to be said and the record will show it here. As I said before I have NO serious dog in this fight or conflict of interest, and I even am SUSPICIOUS of Burzynski's therapy myself! 40+ years of antineoplaston existence - you would think - WOULD render something more substantial by now if the therapy is legitimate. In addition, I'm fully aware that Burzynski has registered numerous trials - even many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of - and in the long run you're bound to get flukes. This study could have been a fluke - BUT THE EVIDENCE does NOT suggest that! To fail to mention this study in the kind of article you've written is simply NOT objective analysis and below the kind of objectivity I would expect from Wikipedia, which I have donated to more than once in the past and find an invaluable source of information. The fact is sharing these kinds of controlled trial results CANNOT damage humanity - it will all be part of a record that people are entitled to know about, and to FAIL to mention it is just as bad as promoting false information.
 * Again I'm sorry if this sounded rude but direct confrontation of distortion and confusion can often sound rude when its sole purpose is to get closer to accurate representation of the truth. I really hope you consider this further regardless of whatever decision you make and appreciate your time. I'm sorry again for the length of my writing here but I know of no other way to be thorough and as I said before I hope I do not find myself coming back to this repeatedly since I believe the analysis is self-evident and virtually all that I needed to say has been said here, though it be lengthy. 2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See the second sentence of this reply to you. - Roxy the dog 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Check these recent edits of mine. Burzynski has published a lot more results than the article lets on.  Bon courage insisted on stonewalling when I tried to work with them to correct the false/outdated claim in the article that "that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results".  (Though just before finishing this comment, I saw some further edits have been made - hope they are a pleasant surprise.) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re. the Ogata study, it's all basic research – utterly useless for an article about clinical applications. We don't even need to go into the primary vs secondary debate. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You grossly misrepresented the findings, ignoring the primary endpoint.That's a deceptive summary. You misrepresented the primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was. You don't want to walk it back, fine.  But I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon.  RudolfoMD (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As other editors have observed, 25790229 is an poor/unreliable source, and simply not usable here. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Check these recent edits of mine. Burzynski has published a lot more results than the article lets on.  Bon courage insisted on stonewalling when I tried to work with them to correct the false/outdated claim in the article that "that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results".  (Though just before finishing this comment, I saw some further edits have been made - hope they are a pleasant surprise.) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re. the Ogata study, it's all basic research – utterly useless for an article about clinical applications. We don't even need to go into the primary vs secondary debate. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You grossly misrepresented the findings, ignoring the primary endpoint.That's a deceptive summary. You misrepresented the primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was. You don't want to walk it back, fine.  But I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon.  RudolfoMD (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As other editors have observed, 25790229 is an poor/unreliable source, and simply not usable here. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 * The Findings section contained
 * "Overall survival"- not significant
 * "RFS" - not significant
 * "CSS rate" - barely significant at 3.7%
 * "Cancer recurred" - no statement about significance.
 * So, we have the Multiple comparisons problem - there are four outcomes, one of which is barely significant. Because of multiple comparisons, the significances need to be adapted, making the third one not significant either. But the most relevant finding is obviously the first one, overall survival. (Hint: If the treatment tends to kill the patient as well as the cancer, that is not helpful.) That is the one Kashmiri talked about, and there is nothing wrong with that. Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article? I can't stop doing what I haven't started.  Back off with the personal attack, eh? The problem is I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon.  Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problem? Perhaps it should.  But, does V?  No.  When it comes to BLP violations, wp:V is what matters.  That makes it usable here, even though it's a single study.  I notice no one is pushing back on this central point.   But more importantly, true or false:  Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpoint,  and it DOUBLED.  True.   Kind of blows apart your whole argument. Kashmiri grossly misrepresented the sole, primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was.  Y'all are defending that. And then K called it basic research - huh?  Clinical studies are basic research now? Regarding 3: From the article:  so why do you say 3.7%?  "3.7" doesn't even appear in the paper! FR! BTW, the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources.   If I was keen to make neoplastons look better, I could cut most of the negative info out of the article based on MEDRS.  How 'bout we compromise, leave all that in, and take out the false info I'm objecting to?  RudolfoMD (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article? Aren't you trying to put what you call "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" into the article? It is one primary study out of many, so it is cherry-picking. Even if we regard only this study, you are cherry-picking the one significant result out of four.
 * Back off with the personal attack, eh? A "personal attack" is something that refers to the person instead of what the person is saying or doing. I referred to what you were saying or doing. That is not a personal attack.
 * Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problem MEDRS does not explicitly mention it, but considering it is part of good practice. If you avoid primary studies like this one, that is a good start avoiding the multiple comparisons problem.
 * Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpoint Was the "PRE-selected, primary endpoint" published before the result was? I cannot find it.
 * why do you say 3.7%? 3.7% = 0.037.
 * the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources WP:PARITY say, In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't even find a diff showing I called anything "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan," Hob.  Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So...Your  Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article? when I had done nothing of the sort = false and disparaging but OK, a "not personal" attack, so you're sort of right. RudolfoMD (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" is the title of this thread. You are writing contributions to it, and I got the impression that you are supporting the IP that started the thread and trying to get that study cited by the article.
 * So you are not trying to get the Ogata study into the article? Then what are you trying to achieve here by talking about the study? This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't even find a diff showing [...] Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So... - diff. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP violation
Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step. RudolfoMD (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Classic WP:CRYBLP. Questions of experimental replication are not biographical; you just need a reliable source saying whether the replication has happened (or not). Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oddly, I can't find an NIH publication.
A footnote in a journal article on the Phase III trial that the wipedia article uses as a source: is "§ See M. R. Hammer, Burzynski antineoplaston case study: conflict issues and recommendations. Office of Alternative Medicine report, National Institutes of Health, 1996; M. Hammer, The management of dispute and judgment process in controversial complementary and alternative medicine research. Office of Alternative Medicine Report, National Institutes of Health, 1996." Has anyone found a copy of it anywhere online? I can't with google.

The article is by Hammer and he is citing his own work ... which I can't find. Curious. Also, he doesn't put it in the References section endnote like all his other sources, but rather in a footnote. Also curious. The resulting procedures - methods of social management of research in controversial areas to allow them to proceed anyway that the reference documents haven't been employed in a subsequent second attempt. Curious as well. RudolfoMD (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 * WWayne Jonas should not be cited, he's a quackery apologist (e.g. author of a number of papers promoting the entirely refuted nonsense that is homeopathy). Guy (help! - typo?) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am not looking for or seeking to cite "WWayne Jonas" work in the encyclopedia.  And given your recent dubious evaluation of what is "excellent", I'm less interested in what you are sharing, un-prompted and citation-free.   I'm looking for M. R. Hammer's 1996 NIH publication,  not Hammer and Jonas' 2004 ICT publication, which is obviously readily available at the linked source I provided - .  Do you have anything helpful to offer about what I'm actually expressing curiosity? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You kind've are. Wayne Jonas was director of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the time. The OAM (now the NCCIH) is independent from the rest of the NIH, so you probably won't find their reports in the same places as the rest of the NIH's output. It wouldn't be usable on Wikipedia anyway. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Why wouldn't it be usable with subject matter where MEDRS doesn't apply? RudolfoMD (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RudolfoMD, you wrote: "I am not looking for or citing "WWayne Jonas" work." Actually you are. Jonas is one of the authors of "Managing Social Conflict in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research: The Case of Antineoplastons". Mitchell R. Hammer, PhD, and Wayne B. Jonas, MD
 * So Jonas is one of the authors, and, as noted above by Guy, he also happens to be a promotor of quack medicine. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be amazed if you got consensus that a report from the OAM is RS even in non medical contexts, let alone for Burzynski-related stuff. The OAM was set up in the first place because Sen. Tom Harkin was a believer (specifically in antineoplastons and bee pollen therapy) and he set the office up and kept it funded to promote those treatments. The whole thing is a political exercise that has very little to do with science. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - O'Brien RudolfoMD (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Questionable WP:ABOUTSELF source
The source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3527634/ should really not be used for anything like a factual claim, as it's ABOUTSELF material - Burzynski's own self-serving statement, with no objective review, and including contentious and likely tendentious claims like "The treatment was free from significant side-effects and resulted in objective response in a number of advanced cancer cases". After half a century, there should be an independent source for this, and almost certainly would be, if it were objectively true. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Claim of copyright violation
The wording is a bit close, but it is a paraphrase. Rather than deleting it, suggest a reword. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * False. It's not a paraphrase.   It's bloody verbatim copying by JzG contrary to a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. WP:C / COPYRIGHT. RudolfoMD (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's called plagiarism. Putting it in quotes and attributing it solved the problem. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now it's more messed up.  a cancer expert and an FDA official told Reuters and Reuters said aren't the same. RudolfoMD (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you should have left well alone, then, since your clumsy attempt to fix the “problem” of reality rejecting Burzynski’s piss therapy seems to be the root cause of all this drama. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism.
Beware Talk page vandalism removing active discussion. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now a third time. I was archiving old and inactive content and didn't notice you had left comments in some of them. Now you have restored the whole thing. I'll be more careful with the next try. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To avoid this in the future, don't comment on such old threads. Start a new thread. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Such helpful advice.  SO kind of you. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice
BLP noticeboard RudolfoMD (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024
The article is slanderous. Reliable source : Burzynski documentary. Cancer cure cover up. It’s big business. He’s not a quack. Big $ has all the power to run smeer campaigns on anyone they like. The fda & Texas medical board were so despicable & unashamedly bold in taking him down because of his non invasive EFFECTIVE treatment of cancer. There are so many testimonials court appearances protests & news reports in this 2 part documentary it’s mind blowing. Deedssky (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ That documentary is not a reliable source. Far from it. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burzynski Clinic


text:
Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/No other categories/1/Bu

Bub-Buc

 * Siegfried Buback (1920-1977), German_people_stubs,
 * Ignatz Bubis (1927-1999)
 * Ronald Paul Bucca (died 2001)
 * Peter Buchan (1790-1854), 1911_Britannica,
 * Wattie Buchan (born 1960), Musician_stubs,
 * George Buchanan (humanist) (1506-1582), 1911_Britannica,
 * George Buchanan (diplomat) (1854-1924)
 * Manley Augustus Buchanan (born 1949)
 * Robert Buchanan (1813-1866), People_stubs,
 * Shomari Buchanan (born 1977), People_stubs,
 * Lloyd M. Bucher (1927-2004)
 * Matthew Buchinger (1674-1740), People_stubs,
 * Frank N. D. Buchman (1878-1961), People_stubs,
 * Carrie Buck (1906-1983), People_stubs,
 * Leffert L. Buck (1837-1909)
 * Robert Buck (1958-2000)
 * James Silk Buckingham (1786-1855), 1911_Britannica,
 * Francis Trevelyan Buckland (1826-1880), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Lord Buckley (1906-1960)
 * William Francis Buckley (1928-1985), Military_biographical_stubs,
 * Barry Bucknell (1912-2003), Television_biographical_stubs,

Bud-Bun

 * Eustace Budgell (1686-1737), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Guillaume Budé (1467-1540), 1911_Britannica,
 * Frederick Buechner (born 1926)
 * Karl Albert Buehr (1866-1952), Artist_stubs,
 * Gordon Buehrig (1904-1990), American_people_stubs,
 * Louis Buffet (1818-1898), 1911_Britannica,
 * Howard Buffett (1903-1964)
 * John Buford (1826-1863)
 * Paul Buissonneau (born 1926)
 * George Bull (1634-1710), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * John Bull (congressman) (1803-1863), American_politician_stubs,
 * Charles Buller (1806-1848)
 * Clarence Joseph Bulliet (1883-1952), American_people_stubs,
 * E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913)
 * Angela Bulloch (born 1966), Artist_stubs, British_people_stubs,
 * Carlos Bulosan (1913-1956), People_stubs,
 * Cornelius Bumpus (1946-2004), Musician_stubs,
 * Gonchigiyn Bumtsend (1881-1953), People_stubs,
 * Christian Charles Josias Bunsen (1791-1860)
 * Ned Buntline (1823-1886)
 * Philippe Buonarroti (1761-1837)
 * Karel Bonaventura Buquoy (1571-1621), People_stubs,

Bura-Burg

 * Zahava Burack (born 1932), People_stubs,
 * Richard Burbage (1567-1619), Theatre_stubs,
 * George 'Professor' Burchett (1872-1953)
 * Josiah Burchett (1666-1746)
 * Wilfred Burchett (1911-1983)
 * Max Burckhard (1854-1912)
 * Francis Burdett (1770-1844), 1911_Britannica,
 * Angela Georgina Burdett-Coutts (1814-1906)
 * Hannah Van Buren (1783-1819), American_people_stubs,
 * Anton Burg (1904-2003)
 * Francis Burgersdyk (1590-1629)
 * George Burges (1786-1864), 1911_Britannica,
 * Thomas Burgess (1756-1837), 1911_Britannica,
 * Victor Burgin (born 1941)
 * John William Burgon (1813-1888), 1911_Britannica,
 * Juan Bautista Vicini Burgos (died 1924), American_politician_stubs,
 * Anne of Burgundy (died 1432)
 * Beatrice of Burgundy (1257-1310), European_nobility_stubs,
 * Constance of Burgundy (1046-1093)
 * Eudes of Burgundy (1230-1266), People_stubs,
 * Gisela of Burgundy (died 1006), People_stubs,

Burk-Burl

 * Augustus Nicholas Burke (1838-1891), Artist_stubs,
 * Delta Burke (born 1956)
 * Ernest Burke (1924-2004)
 * Frankie Burke (born 1921)
 * James Burke (boxer) (1809-1845)
 * Johnny Burke (1851-1930), Musician_stubs,
 * Johnny Burke (lyricist) (1908-1964)
 * Sir Theobald Hubert Burke, 13th Baronet (1833-1909), People_stubs,
 * Thomas Henry Burke (Irish Politician) (1829-1882), Politician_stubs,
 * William Burke (1792-1829)
 * Gedeon Burkhard (born 1969), People_stubs,
 * Walter A. Burleigh (1820-1896)
 * Anson Burlingame (1820-1870)

Burn-Bury

 * Andrew Burnaby (died 1812)
 * Alexander Burnes (1805-1841)
 * Thomas Burnet (1635-1715), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Justin Burnett (born 1973), Composers_stubs,
 * Kevin Burnett (born 1982)
 * Mark Burnett (born 1960), People_stubs,
 * Sandy Burnett (born 1964)
 * Tom Burnett (1953-2001)
 * James Burnham (1905-1987)
 * Ken Burns (born 1953)
 * Steve Burns (born 1973), Musician_stubs,
 * Jeremiah Burrell (born 1815)
 * Paul Burrell (born 1958), British_people_stubs,
 * Philip A. Burrows (born 1956), People_stubs,
 * George Burt (Britain) (1816-1894), People_stubs,
 * Amanda Burton (born 1957)
 * John Hill Burton (1809-1881), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Ben Burtt (born 1948)
 * Charlotte Bury (1775-1861), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature, Literature_stubs,
 * Richard De Bury (1281-1345), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,

Bus-But

 * Adam Busby (born 1948)
 * John Busby (1765-1857), Australia_biography_stubs,
 * Leo Buscaglia (1924-1998)
 * John Bush (born 1963), Musician_stubs,
 * Johnny Bush (born 1935)
 * Jose Luis Bustamente (1894-1989), Politician_stubs,
 * Paolo Busti (1749-1824)
 * Martin van Butchell (1735-1812)
 * Andrew Butler (1796-1857), American_politician_stubs,
 * Ellis Parker Butler (1869-1937)
 * Francis Butler (1810-1874), Writer_stubs,
 * Josephine Butler (1828-1906), People_stubs,
 * Pierce M. Butler (1798-1847), American_politician_stubs,
 * W. E. Butler (1898-1978)
 * William Archer Butler (1814-1848), 1911_Britannica,
 * William Morgan Butler (1861-1937), American_politician_stubs,
 * Yancy Butler (born 1970)
 * Michel Butor (born 1926)
 * John Butterfield, Baron Butterfield (1920-2000), British_people_stubs,
 * William Butterfield (1814-1900)
 * William Walton Butterworth (1903-1975), People_stubs,
 * Anton Buttigieg (1912-1983)
 * Colby & Grayson Button (born 2002)

Bux-Buz

 * Kuda Bux (1906-1981)
 * Albert of Buxhoeveden (1165-1229)
 * Nigel Buxton (born 1924)
 * Steve Buzinski (born 1917), People_stubs,
 * Aldo Buzzi (born 1910)


text: Category:People from Miyagi Prefecture

title: Category:People from Miyagi Prefecture


text:
User talk:Tsunamikid

File source problem with File:THENotoriousBIG.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:THENotoriousBIG.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tsunamikid