text:
Francis Holland School

Francis Holland School is the name of two separate private day schools for girls in central London, England, governed by the Francis Holland (Church of England) Schools Trust. The schools are located at Clarence Gate (near Regent's Park NW1) and at Graham Terrace (near Sloane Square SW1).

History
The schools were founded in the 1870s by Canon Francis James Holland for the education of girls in London. He was born in London on 20 January 1828 and educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge. The Regent's Park School is the older of the two schools but no longer has a Junior Department. Both schools have developed their facilities over the last few years.

The Sloane Square School was opened with 13 pupils on 1 March 1881 at 80 Coleshill Street, Belgravia, later renamed as 28 Eaton Terrace. Within a year, the school expanded into a further property opposite but as this arrangement proved awkward, Canon Holland purchased a site on the corner of Graham Street, now Graham Terrace where a new school building was constructed ready for occupation in October 1884. Francis Holland, Regent's Park, used to accept boys as primary school pupils but they would leave as soon as the girls moved on to secondary education.

Francis Holland, Regent's Park
There are about 500 pupils at the school, and about 120 sixth-formers. Most of their sports take place in Regent's Park and Paddington Recreational Grounds.

Francis Holland, Sloane Square
There are over 760 pupils on roll, 175 of whom are in the Junior School aged between 4 and 11 years, and 100 sixth-formers. Most of the school's sports take place in Battersea Park.

Notable alumnae

 * Amber Agar, actress
 * Camilla Arfwedson, actress
 * Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, member of the royal family
 * Amanda Donohoe, actress
 * Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Judge Lahore High Court
 * Eleanor Burbidge, astronomer
 * Jackie Collins OBE, novelist
 * Dame Joan Collins, actress and writer
 * Lady Mary Charteris, singer and model
 * Cara Delevingne, model
 * Petra Ecclestone, fashion designer
 * Tamara Ecclestone, TV presenter
 * Emilia Fox, actress
 * Louisa Garrett Anderson, medical pioneer
 * Ione Gedye, archaeological conservator and founder of the repair dept at the Institute of Archaeology
 * Joyce Grenfell, comedian and singer-songwriter
 * Helen Grimshaw, engineer
 * Hermione Hammond, artist
 * Evelyn Jamison, historian and vice principal of Lady Margaret Hall 1921 to 1937
 * Elizabeth Jane Howard, novelist
 * Gemma Jones, actress
 * Jemima Khan (Jemima Goldsmith), journalist
 * Eleni Kyriacou, fashion designer
 * Susan Lawrence, Labour politician
 * Sue Lloyd-Roberts, Special Correspondent for the BBC (formerly at ITN)
 * Sienna Miller, actress
 * Nancy Mitford, novelist and biographer
 * Vanessa-Mae, violinist
 * Farah Nabulsi, filmmaker
 * Elizabeth Pakenham, Countess of Longford, biographer
 * Tilly Ramsay, Gordon Ramsay's daughter
 * Patricia Roc, actress
 * Christina Scott, former Governor of Anguilla
 * Rose Tremain, novelist
 * Theresa Villiers, politician (formerly Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)
 * Jennifer von Mayrhauser, costume designer
 * Veronica Wadley, former editor of the Evening Standard
 * Daisy Waterstone, actress

title: Francis Holland School


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bass Rock (3 in Massachusetts)

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts, Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts), Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts)
This VFD applies to these three articles as a group. They're all descriptions of exceptionally minor rocks located off the coast of Massachusetts, USA; see them on nautical charts: , ,  These aren't true islands; one never breaks the surface of the water, one is underwater at high tide, and one is so minor it isn't named on some detailed charts. The fact that they have a name does not make them notable; mariners give names to endless numbers of rocks and other minor features; these names serve as communication and navigation aids for boats operating in the local area, but aren't otherwise notable. Some rocks are notable, of course; Fastnet Rock is one; but most aren't. Finally, these articles are short stubs; I suspect that there is little more encyclopedic information that can be added about them. CDC  (talk)  18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving this uncompleted nomination here. No vote for now. Denni ☯ 18:45, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
 * I type slowly... CDC   (talk)  18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - The islands are federally recognized and designated as islands in the state of Massachusetts, you can reference this information on the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS.) There's a link directed to the GNIS on any one of the Bass Rock articles. Also, Bass Rock in Norfolk County is marked with a buoy as an isolated danger, it's nicknamed or otherwise called "The Spindle", and on or around that particular Bass Rock lies a diversed marine ecosystem. At first, I might think of such islands as these as insignificant, too insignificant enough to be mentioned on Wiki. Although, if a geospatial satellite photogenically and geographically records and make measurements of such islands as these using tax-payer money, the man hours it took to record these into government datatbases, such islands as these with their designated names appearing on nautical maps and perhaps various other maps, people giving it another name and/or nickname to it, visually marking the presence of this particular island with a buoy as it seems to pose a significant isolated danger to passing vessels in nearby busy marine traffic areas, an important marine ecosystem existing on and/or around it, & etc. then such federally-designated islands as these must be of some significance, because the federal government, various government agencies, and various peoples and organizations sure do think so. Another point I would like to make is that islands of any "significance" evidently plays an important role in maritime claims, boundaries, and/or disputes for political entities. An example would be that the Pacific island Kingdom of Tonga was able to expand its jurisdiction, laws, and its national boundary by many nautical square miles into the Pacific Ocean from the point of the Minerva Reefs in 1972, a small and "insignificant" reef island that is barely above water during low tides. In addition, the Minerva Reefs was almost a widely controversial issue of interest in 1972, before the Kingdom of Tonga laid claim to the reefs, an American businessman seriously tried to convert and claim the island into an independent island country, called the Republic of Minerva. This reminds me of a common quote that I've heard many times before, is that "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Also, There's an arctic island and/or "rock" off the coast of Greenland that is an issue of a long international dispute between Canada and Denmark. The tiny uninhabitable island and/or "rock" is called Hans Island. Both countries has claimed Hans Island as their own, claiming that it's part of their country's soil and boundary. The dispute has become ever more significant, with both countries sending official government spokesmen and military personnal to and/or on the island, erecting their country's flag into this seasonally-unfrozen barren island and/or "rock." The international dispute still remains officially unsolved. UniReb 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Minerva Reefs and Hans Island are included because of the territorial disputes associated with them. But those three rocks are just rocks, they have nothing to speak for it. It is up to the article to assert its justification to be included. If that can't be done, be well rid of it. Wah! Pilatus 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There isn't a need to be rudely grotesque such as your "Wah!" outburst, it's not personal, just trying to make a defense for the subject as best as I can. Please try to act in a professional manner. Also, if these articles gets deleted then it surely will perpeturally make most island lists on Wiki incomplete. UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that you are passionate about islands. However, equally passionately I question the wisdom of splitting the information in Wikipedia into atomic stubs that will never grow beyond their present size. Case in point: Anuxanon Island southeast of Cedar Pond in the village of Lakeville, Massachusetts. Why not put them all into the Lakeville entry and leave redirects? Then at least people can have a more detailed idea of the area without clicking back and forth. Pilatus 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, unless some kind of notability can be established. Sdedeo 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. My parcel of land in Queens is recognized by the City of New York; can I post an article about it?  No.  Can we post it because "it exists"?  No.  Because it has a name?  My cat has a name, and NYC recognizes it in its existance by its vaccination record; can I post "Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody"?  No.  Reign in this Wikithink that everything mentioned in any book any where is notable.  Proof of notability is the burden of the author, not the voters.   Paul Klenk 21:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely rude and grotesque comment, which is most definitely uncalled for. As I said before, it's not personal, please refrain from pure sarcasm, this discussion and all Wiki discussions should be held in at least close to a professional manner. I know how everyone has the right to act in any manner they desire, but it doesn't necessarily give them moral and ethical right to act so ignorantly amongst other individuals. Please act in a close to professional manner as best you can, it will surely help with your diplomacy skills which might proof valuable one day. Thank you! UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge all into one article, Bass Rock. -- BD2412 talk 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Bass Rock already has an article, about a somewhat more notable island in the UK. Shimgray 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, then merge into Bass Rock (Massachusetts), per Sean Curtin below. -- BD2412 talk 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; or merge as above, they were significant enough for people to go and survey them. Incidentally there is no policy on notability.  Kappa 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC has a minimum standard for bands. Pilatus 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete They're freaking rocks! They have been surveryed, photographed, and buoyed not because there is something intrinsically exciting or wonderful about them, but so that people won't run into them in the dark. Those who need to know about these rocks won't be consulting Wikipedia for the information, and who else gives a beaver's backside? Denni ☯ 22:58, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
 * delete all . Notability not established. There are thousands of millions of small rocks jutting out of the world's oceans, most of which are listed and recorded as they are potential shipping and boating hazards. But they are not notable just by being. If they were important sites of wrecks, or seabird colonies, or notable for some reason, I'd suggest keep. Sabine's Sunbird 23:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. No vote yet, but I want to point out that we have articles on thousands of "freaking rocks" called asteroids (see Category:Lists_of_asteroids).  I find it hard to see how a rock that is hundreds of millions of miles from earth is more deserving of an article in an encyclopedia than a named geographic feature jutting out of a local navigable waterway. Most of those articles are no more detailed than these three articles.  -- DS1953 00:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * We do not have articles on "thousands" of asteroids. We have articles on a small handful of notable ones: the closest, the largest, the earliest known, and so on. The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list. I have no difficulty with articles on notable rocks such as Alcatraz Island or Percé Rock, but some anonymous outcropping that is merely a hazard to navigation and of interest only to navigators who have better information on their charts than they can get here does not, in my mind, rate an article. Denni ☯ 02:14, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was very careful to state that we have "articles on thousands of asteroids" (which is clearly a fact) rather than "thousands of articles on asteroids" (which may not be true yet, but I don't feel like counting). We have articles on the first 450 and a smaller percentage of the other 90,000 identified asteroids.  Even apart from that, we have 200 lists of asteroids. The lists appear to be very complete and I question the statement that "The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list."  They all appear to be very lucky, indeed, then.  -- DS1953 16:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - "articles on thousands of asteroids". Now how would =most= people interpret that statement? And I consider 450 out of 90 000 a handful. Nor are there 200 lists of asteroids, there are somewhat over a hundred. Many of the articles are on people associated with asteroid discovery or research. There are several lists on asteroids because one single 90 000 item list is beyond the best browser's capability. Finally, bringing up asteroids as an excuse for keeping these rocks is a red herring. I am of the opinion that 450 Brigitta does not need an article either - the information it contains is so limited that it could easily be handled by an annotated list. Denni ☯ 19:03, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:Sabine's Sunbird. Failing that, merge somewhere suitable, maybe the county that they are located in. Pilatus 01:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until such time as the Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody article is a featured article. Nandesuka 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rock the casbah. Gamaliel 05:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect These are real rocks, that someone might concievably look up. Since we have the information, we can easily afford to merge these into one article, possibly with some others, and keep the information. I'd like to ask for a moratorium on this one to have a chance to merge the rock articles into one worthwhile article. Trollderella 09:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge and redirect to create Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -Sean Curtin 01:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -- DS1953 16:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * But these are three distinct islands, are they not? Wouldn't that just be like having "List of islands in Massachusetts named Bass Rock"? -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all back into Islands of Massachusetts, unless content can be expanded beyond a mapdef. -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep content, but merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
Chasm (disambiguation)

A rift is a linear zone where the lithosphere is being pulled apart.

Chasm or The Chasm may also refer to:

Games

 * Chasm (video game), a 2018 video game released by Bit Kid, Inc.
 * Chasm: The Rift, a 1997 computer game released by GT Interactive

Music

 * Chasm (Delta-S album), 2005
 * Chasm (Ryuichi Sakamoto album), 2004
 * "Chasm" (song), a 2010 song by Flyleaf
 * The Chasm (band), a death metal band originally from Mexico City, Mexico

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * The Chasm (novel), a 1947 novel by Victor Canning
 * Chasm City, a 2001 science fiction novel
 * "The Chasm" (Sliders), a television episode

Places

 * Chasm, British Columbia
 * Chasm Provincial Park, adjacent to Chasm, British Columbia
 * The Chasm, a feature of Sandymount, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand

Other uses

 * Abyss (religion)
 * Canyon or gorge
 * Chaos (cosmogony)
 * Chaos (cosmogony)

title: Chasm (disambiguation)


text:
Emile Wauters

Emile Wauters (19 November 1846 – 11 December 1933) was a Belgian painter. He was born in Brussels. Successively the pupil of Portaels and Jean-Léon Gérôme, he produced in 1868 The Battle of Hastings: the Finding of the body of Harold by Edith.

Biography
Wauters made a journey to Italy, but that the study of the old masters in no way affected his individuality was proved by The Great Nave of St. Marks (purchased by Leopold II of Belgium). As his youth disqualified him for the medal of the Brussels Salon, which otherwise would have been his, he was sent, by way of compensation, by the minister of fine arts, as artist-delegate to Suez for the opening of the canal, a visit that was fruitful later on.

In 1870, when he was yet only twenty-two years of age, Wauters exhibited his great historical picture of Mary of Burgundy entreating the Sheriffs of Ghent to pardon the Councillors Hugonet and Humbercourt (Liege Museum) which created a veritable furore, an impression which was confirmed the following year at the London International Exhibition. It was eclipsed by the celebrated Madness of Hugo van der Goes (1872, Brussels Museum), a picture which led to the commission for the two large works decorating the Lions staircase of the Hotel de Ville Mary of Burgundy swearing to respect the Communal Rights of Brussels, 1477 and The Armed Citizens of Brussels demanding the Charta from Duke John IV, Duke of Brabant. His other large compositions comprise Sobieski and his Staff before Besieged Vienna (Brussels Museum) and the Harvest of a journey to Spain and Tangiers, The Great Mosque, and Serpent Charmers of Sokko, and a souvenir of his Egyptian travel, Cairo, from the Bridge of Kasr-el-Nil (Antwerp Museum).

His vast panorama probably the noblest and most artistic work of this class ever produced Cairo and the Banks of the Nile (1881), 380 ft. by 49 ft., executed in six months, was exhibited with extraordinary success in Brussels, Munich, and The Hague.

Oeuvre
Wauters is equally eminent as a portraitist, in his earliest period exhibiting, as in his pictures, sober qualities and subtle grip, but later on developing into the whole range of a brilliant, forceful palette, and then into brighter and more delicate colors, encouraged thereto, in his more recent work, by his adoption of pastel as a medium even for life-size portraits, mainly of ladies.

His portraits, numbering over two hundred, include many of the greatest names in Belgium, France, and America (Wauters having for some years made Paris his chief home). Among these may be named the Baron Goffinet, the Baroness Goffinet, Madame Somze (standing at a piano), Master Somze (on horseback by the sea-shore), the Princess Clementine of Belgium (Brussels Museum), Lady Edward Sassoon, Baron de Bleichroder, Princess de Ligne, Miss Lorillard, a likeness of the artist in the Dresden Museum, and M. Schollaert (president of the Chamber of Deputies) the last named an amazing example of portraiture, instinct with character and vitality. The vigour of his male, and the grace and elegance of his female, portraits are unsurpassable, the resemblance perfect and the technical execution such as to place the artist in the front rank.

Prizes
Between 1889 and 1900 the painter contributed to the Royal Academy of London. Few artists have received such a succession of noteworthy distinctions and recognitions. His Hugo van der Goes, the work of a youth of twenty-four, secured the Grand Medal of the Salon. He has been awarded no fewer than six medals of honor at Paris in 1878 and 1889; Munich, 1879; Antwerp, 1885; Vienna, 1888; and Berlin, 1883.

Honours
He was an honorary member of the Vienna, Berlin, and Munich academies, and corresponding member of the Institut de France and of that of Madrid.
 * 1887: Commander in the Order of Leopold
 * 1924: Grand Cross in the Order of the Crown
 * Commander in the Order of Saint Michael
 * Officer in the Legion of Honour
 * Order of Merit of Prussia
 * Knight in the Order of Franz Joseph
 * Member of the Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium

title: Emile Wauters


text: User talk:81.156.66.134

title: User talk:81.156.66.134


text:
Heinz Christian Pander

Heinz Christian Pander, also Christian Heinrich Pander (Russian: Христиан Иванович Пандер; 24 July 1794 – 22 September 1865) was a Russian biologist and embryologist of Baltic German origin.

Biography
In 1817 he received his doctorate from the University of Würzburg, and spent several years (1827–1842), performing scientific research from his estate in Carnikava (Zarnikau) on the banks of the Gauja River near Riga. In 1820 he took part in a scientific expedition to Bokhara as a naturalist. In 1826 he became a member of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

Research
Pander studied the chick embryo and discovered the germ layers (i.e., three distinct regions of the embryo that give rise to the specific organ system). Because of these findings, he is considered by many to be the "founder of embryology". His work in embryology was continued by Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876), who expanded Pander's concept of germ layers to include all vertebrates.

Pander performed important studies in the field of paleontology, being known for his extensive research on fossils found in the Devonian and Silurian geological strata of the Baltic regions. His study of trilobites from this age led to the adjective 'Panderian', first used by the Canadian palaeontologist, Elkanah Billings. Pander is credited as the first scientist to describe primitive creatures known as conodonts.

Today the Pander Society is an international association of palaeontologists and stratigraphers with a common interest in the study of conodonts.

He died in Saint Petersburg.

Eponyms
Pander's eponyms are:
 * Pander's islands or blood islands

Selected writings

 * Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Hühnchens im Eye, (Contributions to the embryology involving the chick egg), (1817).
 * Beiträge zur Naturkunde aus den Ostseeprovinzen Rußlands, (Contributions on the natural history of the Baltic regions) Dorpat, (1820).
 * Vergleichende Osteologie (Comparative osteology) seven volumes, with Eduard Joseph d'Alton, Bonn: Weber, (1821–1828).
 * Beiträge zur geognosie des russischen reiches, (Contributions to the geology of the Russian Empire), 1830.
 * Monographie der Fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements (Monograph of fossil fish from the Silurian stratum of the Baltic regions), St. Petersburg, (1856).
 * Ueber die Placodermen des devonischen Systems, (On placoderms of the Devonian system), 1857.
 * Über die ctenodopterinen des devonischen systems, 1858
 * Über die saurodipterinen, dendrodonten, glyptolepiden und cheirolepiden des devonischen systems, 1860.

title: Heinz Christian Pander


text:
Billy Cook (actor)

William Cook (October 13, 1928 – June 19, 1981) was an American actor best known for his work as a child.

Cook was born in Menlo Park, New Jersey. His early acting experience came in plays directed by his mother. In films, he played the young version of characters acted by Ray Milland in Men with Wings (1938) and Beau Geste (1939). He died in Kennebunkport, Maine at age 52.

title: Billy Cook (actor)


text:
User talk:Jerseyshawn

Speedy deletion nomination of Willis bininger
A tag has been placed on Willis bininger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

title: User talk:Jerseyshawn


text:
User talk:Bandit of Bandits

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

--Madchester 18:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. One more revert of the Wayne Rooney article and you will be blocked under the three revert rule. Thank you. --Madchester 18:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --Madchester 19:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bandit of Bandits


text:
John Eadie

John Eadie (9 May 1810 – 3 June 1876) was a Scottish theologian and biblical critic.

Life
He was born at Alva in Stirlingshire (now in Clackmannanshire). Having studied the arts curriculum at the University of Glasgow, he studied for the ministry at the Divinity Hall of the United Secession Church, a dissenting body which, on its union a few years later with the Relief Church, adopted the title the United Presbyterian Church.

In 1843 Eadie was appointed professor of biblical literature and hermeneutics in the Divinity Hall of the United Presbyterian body. He held this appointment along with his ministerial charge for the rest of his life.

He received the honorary degree of LLD from Glasgow University in 1844, and that of DD from the University of St Andrews in 1850. He died at 6 Thornville Terrace in Hillhead, Glasgow on 3 June 1876. He is buried in the Glasgow Necropolis not far from the John Knox monument.

His book collection was bought and presented to the United Presbyterian College.

Ministry
In 1835 Eadie became minister of the Cambridge Street Secession church in Glasgow, and for many years he was generally regarded as the leading representative of his denomination in Glasgow. As a preacher, though he was not eloquent, he was distinguished by good sense, earnestness and breadth of sympathy. In 1863 he removed with a portion of his congregation to the new Lansdowne United Presbyterian Church, which became a notable landmark at Kelvinbridge. Cambridge Street was in one of the poorer parts of Glasgow, in stark contrast to the Lansdowne area. This gave rise to the following verse, well known in Glasgow church circles:

''This Church is not built for the poor and needy, But for the rich and Dr. Eadie. The rich may come in and take their seat, But the poor must go to Cambridge Street. ''

He served as Moderator of the General Assembly for the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland for the year 1857/8.

Works
His publications were connected with biblical criticism and interpretation, some of them being for popular use and others more strictly academic. To the former class belong the Biblical Cyclopaedia, his edition of Alexander Cruden's Concordance, his Early Oriental History, and his discourses on the Divine Love and on Paul the Preacher; to the latter his commentaries on the Greek text of St Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Galatians, published at intervals in four volumes.

His last work was the History of the English Bible (2 vols, 1876). He rendered service as one of the revisers of the authorized version.

Memorials
In his home town of Alva the Eadie Church is named in his memory and a drinking fountain with his portrait in low relief stands in the local park.

Family
He married Allison Pringle Palfrey of Edinburgh. They had five children. She died suddenly in 1855.

In 1862 he married Mary Home of Berwick-upon-Tweed.

title: John Eadie


text:
Talk:Murder of Hatun Sürücü

Translate
If someone could translate the rather more extensive article on the German Wikipedia to replace this stub, it would be much appreciated.

Revert of article name vs. consensus policy
User: Kevin McE reverted User:Plot Spoiler changes of the name this article to "honor killing." Rather than try to find a WP:consensus through WP:Bold Revert Discuss, User:Plat Spoiler just reverted them back. Plot spoiler also did this at four other articles. Elsewhere User:Plot Spoiler's excuse has been "no one had edited the articles in a while." We all can find semi-abandoned articles and make controversial changes to their names. But once someone objects and reverts, we have to discuss. That's what WP:Consensus is all about. I think it is a violation of WP:Consensus for Plot Spoiler not to revert these until consensus to change them is reached.

This discussion has been going on at Talk:Honor_killing_of_Sadia_Sheikh but since all six articles are different, it is not clear that all would have the same resultant name change. CarolMooreDC 17:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * No, he didn't. As I've already explained to you at the dispute resolution noticeboard and Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, Plot Spoiler changed from one title to another; Kevin McE changed to a third. Hatun Sürücü was changed to Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü. Kevin McE did not revert him; he moved the article to Killing of Hatun Sürücü: an entirely new title. All of this is in the history. It's important not to accuse people of violating policies when they have not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * In that case, User:Plot Spoiler still should have reverted to the original name since User:Kevin McE had a problem with his change to "honor killing." This is a good example of why when people start changing titles, it should revert to the original while discussions are going on. Especially when they do five or six at a time. The onus remains on User:Plot Spoiler to do the right thing. CarolMooreDC 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Turkish-Kurdish girl
Hatun was both Turkish and Kurdish, since she was of Turkish nationality and she came from a Sunni Kurdish family from Erzurum in Eastern Turkey. Obviously, when one source only mentions her nationality, that doesn't change the fact that she is also from a Kurdish Sunni family.

Some sources among many: http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/weltgeschehen/article13504056/So-brachte-Ayhan-Sueruecue-seine-Schwester-Hatun-um.html http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/geschwistermord-die-verlorene-ehre-der-familie-sueruecue-a-777021.html http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/berlin/familie-von-hatun-sueruecue-kein-wort-der-reue-3026382 http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/einsbissechs/2005_Hatun_Sueruecue.php http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article137217722/Gedenken-an-Hatun-Sueruecue-Frauen-leiden-noch-immer.html http://www.domradio.de/themen/islam-und-kirche/2016-02-07/berlin-gedenkt-hatun-sueruecue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.193.57 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207214949/http://honorenforced.com/ to http://www.honorenforced.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Murder of Hatun Sürücü


text: User talk:Elpinchebolieo

title: User talk:Elpinchebolieo


text:
Land's End, Bandra

Lands End is the southernmost tip of Bandra in Mumbai. The area is notable for being the residence of several Bollywood actors. It is an upmarket area in Mumbai and the properties in this area is one of the most expensive properties in the world. Notable residents include Shahrukh Khan.

Location
Lands End is a peninsular strip of land that juts into the Arabian Sea, with a fort at its tip and a hill that comes below the fort's vista.

History
In 1640, the Portuguese built a fort known as Castella de Aguada (Portuguese: Fort of the Waterpoint, also known as the Bandra Fort). It was built to serve as a watchtower overlooking Mahim Bay, the Arabian Sea and the southern island of Mahim, and as a stopping point for loading water, supplies and provisions for small ships that travelled on the Goa-Daman route.

In 1850, a Parsi businessman and philanthropist, Sir Byramjee Jeejeebhoy bought the entire area of Lands End. Byramjee spent his personal fortune to develop the area. He built a road connecting Lands End with the rest of Bandra. This road is known as Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Road. He also built a promenade and sea-facing wall on the western side of Lands End. In 1865 Byramjee built his residence on top of the hill at Lands End. He lived in this house along with his son, Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy (who founded Nana Chowk).

title: Land's End, Bandra


text:
Poing

Poing may refer to:

 * "Poing" (song), a gabber style song
 * Poing, Bavaria, a municipality in the district of Ebersberg, Bavaria, Germany

title: Poing


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology

{{MolBioHeader/Taskforce

 * about =

Scope
This project aims to improve and organise articles related to molecular and cell biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to help, feel free to add yourself to the list of participants, drop by our discussion page or just look over the How you can help section below.

Goals
Collect and organize the wealth of information in databases and academic journals on genomes, proteomes and biological functions to ensure that it is accessible to both researchers and laypeople Improve articles to featured article status, especially vital articles, with a particular focus on subjects that are discussed at the primary and secondary school level Create a standard system for presenting the information about the proteins and cells that are discussed in Wikipedia articles

Resources Statistics Wikidata project Historical pages }}
 * links=

How the project can help you

Our discussion page is a great hub for asking advice, bringing up ideas, suggesting articles for creation, and requesting reviews

We keep a collection of advice & resources pages on the challenges of writing science and molecular biology Wikipedia articles

Automatically updated lists of articles and significant updates can help you keep on top of important events and find stubs to expand

How you can help the project
Improve our articles
 * Add Infoboxes  – Help to standardise the data presented on protein articles
 * Add images     – Diagrams and figures are particularly important to science articles so you can look at our diagram guide for standardising protein and cell figures, or ask for help in creating and updating pictures on the Talk page
 * Add references – Reliable citations are needed articles to be a verifiable source of information

Collaboration                        – Contribute to a team effort by participating in the collaborations that come up on our talk page to improve relevant articles to featured article status Label articles of interest – Add pages to the project by putting the following template on the talk pages of all articles of interest to molecular and cell biology:

Adopt a stub   – There are many, many stubby MCB articles that have potential, see Category:Molecular and cellular biology stubs or Category:Stub-Class MCB articles. Categorisation                                  – Add protein articles to the list of types of proteins and place them in the proteins category or one of its subcategories. Recruitment                                     – Assist in public relations and outreach by recruiting editors interested in molecular and cell to contribute to Wikipedia. Clean up articles – There is a list of articles requiring clean up at

Create new articles
 * New gene stubs for WP:notable genes can be created using a tool:
 * Look up the "Gene ID" number on NCBI Gene for a missing gene entry in Homo sapiens
 * Append that number to  (e.g., TAAR9: 134860 – http://genewiki.sulab.org/wiki/article/create/134860/)
 * Navigate to that url, click "Toggle Stub Code", and copy/paste the output into a new Wikipedia article about the gene

Participants
There are two lists of project members
 * You may add yourself and your interests to this manually-updated members list in alphabetical order.
 * There is also an automatically-updated list of currently active participants.

You're also welcome to add the userbox  to your userpage.


text:
Talk:Gerry Hutch

Untitled
A rewrite is needed to remove POV, opinions, and a subjective tone. Paul Klenk 18:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) If that is the case, then the entire reportage on modern day irish criminality needs a new approach. The esence of CAB is that it operates in a gray zone. The tensions between the failure of the criminal courts system, public opinion or oprobium and even in some cases open admiration for people like Hutch ensure that his life and works will only ever be played out in the shadows. This is as good as it gets, sad to say. Paddy Hegarty.

I would object to the use of inverted commas around "works" in 'and "works" for a living as a limo driver'. This is hardly the kind of thing you'd see in an encyclopedia.83.70.254.134 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Posting unsigned comments isn't the kind of thing people do in an encyclopedia, either. Your IP address tells me that you live in Dublin, so forgive me if I have some reason for suspecting that your comments may well have POV issues. Lexo (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added citations etc and some extra facts from newscuttings and generally tried to Wikify the article. I have left in the existing references to "His gang was said to have amassed an estimated IR£40 million from a series of bank robberies, jewellery heists, and fraud scams spanning almost 8 years." although I couldn't immediately find any source for this statement. --User:Thejohnfleming 00:06 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal from Google Search
See - This page is, for vertain search terms, removed from the google search results in Europe ... Sicherlich  Post 10:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * ... and this fact is getting noted in news coverage now - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw a BBC news article on this, and subsequently searched on Google for the WP:en articles apparently removed from Google searches: "Tom Carstairs" (related to an image on Commons) and "Gerry Hutch". Both the Commons image (which isn't used on any article) and this article on Gerry Hutch still show up in Google UK searches, so they don't seem to have actually been removed, at least not yet.--86.132.36.33 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, still showing up on google.co.uk for me. Also, Streisand effect looks relevant here. Wonder how many people had heard of Gerry Hutch before this happened?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pages are not actually removed from Google's index, only from particular results pages. Of the people mentioned by name in this article, the only one who triggers Google's censorship warning is Felix McKenna.2.103.236.122 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The information about Felix McKenna is correct and it throws a whole new light on this affair. It would be ironic if the removal was nothing to do with Hutch himself, but a former Garda mentioned in the article. People have been warned against assuming that it was the subject of the article who made the "right to be forgotten" request. In the light of this, Felix McKenna's name could be removed from the article on WP:BLPNAME grounds. It would, however, have been much easier for him to request this through the normal channels.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 20:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't particularly object to removal of the name, given that it doesn't really matter to our readers whether he is called Felix McKenna or Archibald Hammerthrower. But, as a matter of principle, I don't think a public statement by a senior police officer falls under BLPNAME. It's just regular attribution, and it was part of his job to be quotable. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an article about McKenna. He was the former chief of the Criminal Assets Bureau until 2006, and in 2013 he joined a private security firm. None of this is super secret, so it is a mystery why his name is producing a block in Google Search.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the complainant may well not be McKenna in any case. It seems that the notice on Google search results comes up for just about every other name you type in (my hypothesis is that it generates the notice whenever it recognises that the search string is the name of a non-public figure living in Europe). Formerip (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but see User_talk:Wnt. The mystery remains: Why, with over 4 million English language Wikipedia articles to choose from, has this one led to a block in Google Search?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like you discovered it: Global Risk Solutions. It would make sense Google would honor requests from organizations involved in anti-terrorism and security type stuff. -- Green  C  14:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to mention 'Right to be Forgotten' in article?
I added a relevance template as it's unclear if this is relevant to mention in the article. We have the Press mention on the talk page above, so it's not unnoticed. But not sure if a whole sub-section in the article is navel gazing, an attempt at creating a Streisand effect, plausibly deniable punishment for censorship, or actually notable for inclusion. -- Green  C  15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To aid in figuring this out, and I think it's a good question, I'm going to start adding other Press links above, in fact, I've added three more. Is there a way to put multiple such links into a single template?   --j⚛e deckertalk 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I boldly added a small paragraph.-- cyclopia speak! 17:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I see no relevancy of that paragraph to Gerry Hutch. It's about his Wikipedia article, not about him, and there is no evidence that Hutch himself made the request. See WP:SUBJECT. Thus I'll remove the paragraph. Huon (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, indeed, WP:SUBJECT implies that the incident shouldn't be covered in this article. Thanks, I didn't know that guideline. -- cyclopia speak! 17:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, yes. The last sentence of WP:SUBJECT is suggestive of where a line might be drawn, and this is not yet a notable event in Hutch's life.  I can see how it might (or might not) become one, but I don't see it was being there yet.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Those who don't live in the US tend not to see the profound value and importance of freedom of all information; to recognize what's relevant and newsworthy. That's the sort of thing that happens when one grows-up in a country where it's okay for the government to censor something; and it was against the backdrop of that misguided mindset which allowed the Right to be Forgotten law to be passed in the first place. It was a huge mistake which I believe Europeans will live to profoundly regret.

 * It's NEVER okay for the government to censor in the US. Never. In the US, it's all relevant; it all matters. And nothing could be more relevant to Gerry Hutch story on Wikipedia than that his article, here, is one of the first to be blocked under the thoroughly wrong and repugnant Right to be Forgotten law. Hutch's article needs to be here; and that he wanted it removed from search engines needs to be here; and the consequences of that -- specifically the Streisand effect -- is none of either this article's or Wikipedia's concern; that's the part that's irrelevant!

 * Also (and this one's really got my dander up), another user wrote that "[w]e have the Press mention on the talk page." So what? The "talk" page is not the article. The vast majority of Wikipedia users never read the "talk" pages, nor should they for purposes of learning anything about the subject. The "talk" pages are not part of the articles; they're where we hash things out; they're "behind the scenes," from the article's perspective. It matters not what's mentioned on the "talk" page. Saying that some mention of something on the "talk" page is good enough is analogous to a newspaper deciding not to print a relevant part of a story simply because all the editors talked about it in the newsroom. I'm sorry, but that one really chaps my youknowwhat. Shame on anyone, here, for thinking like that!

 * That Hutch's article was removed from EU search engines because of the godawful Right to be Forgotten law is as relevant as any other factor about Hutch. It's not punishment for censorship; it's news. I propose that the relevance template be removed immediately; and that this kind of classically-European thinking about press freedom, and information disclosure, cease, here. It's all relevant. It all matters. It's all fair game.

 * Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I am European, and yet I "see the profound value and importance of freedom of all information". Curiously enough I mostly meet censorship attempts and justifications from the American editors. However while I first added a paragraph on the incident here, the guideline above is clear enough. The incident should be on WP, but not in this page. I've moved the sentence to the right to be forgotten article.-- cyclopia speak! 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia: You might also consider a note at Censorship of Wikipedia as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I believe, Deselms, that you've misread GreenC's point entirely. I believe that that editor was simply calling attention to a source, which was and is listed here, as evidence that the Google redaction had received press attention, which is one factor in determining whether including information about the censorship is appropriate under our own policies within this biography, which is the limited nature and scope of the discussion in this section. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * As to whether all news is relevant on Wikipedia, please read WP:NOTNEWS, which is called "NOT NEWS" for a reason. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The tricky part about the relevance here is that we don't necessarily know that the censorship of a Wikipedia article about Gerry Hutch on Google actually has anything to do with Gerry Hutch. Indeed, the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales presently seems to be leaning against it.  We should be careful about confusing what is important to us here with what is important to the person reading about the subject of the article, and it may be that this is an issue only for an article about Wikipedia or a subtopic thereof. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I reverted the removal of Felix McKenna's name, which was just done right after he was mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page as possibly the subject actually being concealed on Google, because McKenna was high ranking in the police and worth, for example, a newspaper article when he joined Global Risk Solutions.  We cite his book in the article on Criminal Assets Bureau.  An encyclopedia article may exclude totally irrelevant material, but in this case we see that this was a very serious cop coming to make this case, and the diligent reader may try to figure out how the two crossed paths with some success.  And as for NOTNEWS, do follow that link and read it, because it says that news is treated no differently.  (Except for "routine announcements", which this is not) Wnt (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the ping. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Clonshaugh and Marino Mart
Re this edit: Hutch was never convicted in a court of law over the Clonshaugh or Marino Mart heists, so sources stating or implying this are wrong. WP:BLPCRIME applies here, as does WP:LIBEL. Part of the problem with the article is that the Garda Síochána has claimed that Hutch is a big time criminal, but has never been able to prove it in a court of law.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The Penguin Books source by Paul Williams (Irish journalist) didn't contend that he was convicted in a court of law, rather Williams says that he did it, two different things. The source is not "wrong" it just holds a POV, and so long as things are framed correctly we can provide (multiple) POV's. I guess OJ Simpson would be a model to follow since he also was not convicted but we certainly can discuss the case in his biography. If it comes down to that we can have sections on the crime as it happened, the criminal case, post trial events. -- Green  C  19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Hutch is a living person, we have to be careful here. Hutch has taken legal action against his critics in the past, and it would be inadvisable to use the word of an author to state or imply that Hutch was guilty of two very serious armed robberies. Paul Williams' views on this issue are not suitable for inclusion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct wording, then, would be "According to journalist Paul Williams , (list purported events)."   Geoffrey.landis (talk)
 * Attribution is an excellent suggestion. Between publication by reputable magazines (nevermind the disreputable ones) and Penguin. My sense from these sources is that Williams appears be a well-known enough source that his views should be included rather than removed. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when did a single "citation needed" cause an article to be considered for deletion?
This article is currently being considered for deletion.

The only complaint I see is, "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources."

At the current time the only citation needed in the article is this one:
 * The episode which aired March 2008 was solely devoted to the assets and finances seized by the CAB of both Hutch and his suspected criminal and family associates.[citation needed]

Lots of Wikipedia articles have single "citation needed" annotations and many have several.

So why is this article being considered for deletion?

50.71.210.133 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I removed the template saying "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification", because as you point out, there is now only one "citation needed" in the article. Former versions of the article were poorly sourced, but thanks to the media coverage, experienced eyes have looked over the article and filled in the sourcing. The reference to Dirty Money: The Story of the Criminal Assets Bureau is probably correct, but the two links in the article about it are now dead. Time for a look on the Wayback Machine. This page with the DVD of the series is the only one that I can find at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

metainquiry: can RTBF exercise be notable?
I am wondering whether the fact that this article has been removed from Google's indices (and presumably those of other search engines) in Europe warrants mention in this article. That it was is getting media attention from reliable sources (e.g. ), but I'm hesitant to boldly add it because of concerns about WP:BLP, WP:META, and the general uncertainty surrounding the RTBF. Thoughts? betafive 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Thinking the same thing (although as of this morning, when I used Google in Europe, the article came first in the search results, so not sure of the current siuation). For those interested here is the take down notice (from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines) Testbed (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * WP:SUBJECT also applies here. At the moment, we have no idea who submitted the "right to be forgotten" request, and the article in The Irish Independent has fallen into the trap of assuming that it was Hutch himself, when there is no evidence for this and the Wikipedia article about him is still showing up in European Google Search results. It is ridiculously unclear why this article was on the list of blocked articles sent to the Foundation. I don't think that this is notable enough to mention in the article at the moment, per WP:SUBJECT.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that the RTBF is a personal right, and, as such, only Gerry Hutch or his representative could have made the request. Regardless, we don't get to second guess reliable sources. W/r/t WP:SUBJECT, I'm not sure it's applicable. What's notable isn't the article, it's the demand that Google de-list it from search results. betafive 07:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The "reliable source" of the Irish Independent is wrong here. Google is not at liberty to reveal the name of the person who made the request, the Wikimedia Foundation does not know who did, and none of the publicly available material points the finger at Hutch. It doesn't have to be Hutch, whose Wikipedia article is still being returned as the top result in a European Google search. It is ironic that the Irish Independent has done Hutch no favours by stating that he made the request, when other media outlets were more careful and saw that this was not to be inferred from the available information.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The reliable source in question is the Irish Independent. You're trying to debunk an article published by a reliable source here, but that's immaterial OR. The question is whether information from that article should be included in Gerry Hutch, not whether the article is correct. betafive 07:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, I am refuting what a reliable source said. Some reliable sources said that Wikipedia claimed that the monkey owned the copyright on its selfie, much to Jimbo's annoyance, because Wikipedia said no such thing. Reliable sources are not infallible. The wording in the Irish Independent about Gerry Hutch is slightly unclear. If they are implying that he made the claim, it is a mistake because the workings of these requests do not allow the name of the person who made it to be released.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The article does make the claim that Gerry Hutch requested the removal ("GERRY Hutch... has had information removed from Google under the 'right to be forgotten.') Can you cite a reliable source refuting that assertion? betafive 08:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also gonna drop a link to WP:TRUTH here. betafive 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that the Irish Independent article is now number two in the Google search results on Gerry Hutch's name. On Wednesday 6 August 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation posted its first removal requests about the right to be forgotten. Gerry Hutch was the only English language article affected. Neither Google nor the WMF gave the media any information about who was responsible for the requests. Other media sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph and British Independent got it right, and did not attempt to state who had made the requests on the basis of this information. Whoever it was must have filled in this webform. Theoretically, it must have been a living European person mentioned by name in the article at the time. Since the Wikipedia article mentioned in the block notice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Hutch, is still number one in a Google European search on his name, it is a contradiction to assume that it is Hutch who made the request if this is the case. However, the whole thing is so Kafkaesque that it is unclear who made the request. What is clear is that the Irish Independent overstepped the mark by stating or implying that Hutch made the request.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not at all clear. A bunch of sources state that they do not know who made the request. The Irish Independent states that it was made by Gerry Hutch. That's not even contradictory. I reiterate my request for citations to reliable sources (as opposed to original research) that contradict the II article. Failing that, I think the claim meets WP:V and is thus appropriate for inclusion. betafive 09:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only information that Google and WMF released to the media about Gerry Hutch on 6 August 2014 is here. In the real world of newsrooms, with deadlines to meet, and often staffed by interns, mistakes are made. Let's not fall into the same trap by assuming that everything in the mainstream media is checked thoroughly before publication. The Irish Independent was given the same press release material as everyone else, and misinterpreted it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of words you wrote about things you assumed, but no sources for any of it. Please let me know if you find one. 11:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betafive (talk • contribs)

Comments from other editors needed here. The Irish Independent has gone out on a limb and should not be cherry picked to prove something that other reliable sources managed to avoid saying. Unless the Irish Independent was given different information from everyone else on 6 August 2014, nobody knows who made the takedown request. This is important because it is a WMF issue, and we should not be copying errors from the mainstream media into the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still assuming that the article is in error, yet it hasn't been retracted nor is it contradicted by any other sources I can find. I once again ask you to cite your claims. betafive 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am assuming that the article is in error, for the good reasons given above. Mainstream media articles are not handed down on stone tablets. Anyway, why not ask the Irish Independent if this is correct, or the WMF?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As you've repeatedly pointed out, the WMF doesn't know who made the request. If the Irish Independent didn't believe their article was true, they would issue a retraction. Did you read WP:TRUTH? betafive 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the Irish Independent could possibly have known who made the request. Let me point to WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". The available evidence makes it vastly more likely that the Independent erred than that they got a confirmation by either the person who would like to be forgotten or one of the few people at Google in a position to know, who are probably all bound by confidentiality. We do have the editorial discretion to ignore obvious errors by an otherwise reliable source. Huon (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're now going round in circles on this. The Irish Independent would issue a retraction only if someone pointed out the error. Maybe The Times of India will get round to issuing a retraction for telling its readers that a monkey owned the copyright on its selfie.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to have a source to show that another source is wrong. If we have reason to believe that the source is making an unfounded claim here (which we do - it's a clear case of putting 2 and 2 together wrongly), then not only can we ignore it, but we should, particularly where BLP is relevant. It's not OR to ignore dodgy information, it's only OR to add information to an article which is not directly verifiable from a source. Formerip (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're writing off an otherwise considered reliable source as "dodgy" based on your assumptions, but we're not in the business of fact-checking the news. The claim "Gerry Hutch had information removed from Google's search indices in Europe" is verified by the source given way above. The "verification" policy requires is that claims in WP articles are supported by the source, not that the source itself is "correct." Again, please consider WP:NOTTRUTH. betafive 12:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't even read NOTTRUTH, but it's a user essay. The relevant Wikipedia policy is here: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Formerip (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different argument. Is the article facially incorrect (and if so, where are the reliable sources contradicting it?) or is the claim made by the article simply inappropriate for inclusion given WP:UNDUE? These things: they cannot both be true. betafive 17:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia policies are intended to be interpreted with a degree of common sense. Some "reliable" sources took the WMF's press release material and said that a monkey owned the copyright on its selfie (it didn't, the image is listed as public domain). From the available information, it looks like the Irish Independent has made an honest mistake. The real loser in all of this is Gerry Hutch, because a) a large amount of media attention has been drawn to a Wikipedia article that was averaging 25 views a day in July 2014, and b) at least one "reliable" source has given the impression that he made the removal request himself, when none of the publicly available information supports this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree The Independent claim should be left out until there is better evidence per BLP. There's legitimate concern The Independent might be wrong, and contrary to Betafive we are in the business of thinking for ourselves and making editorial decisions for this article. -- Green  C  14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said we weren't; please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that we're not in the business of fact checking the news, which is absolutely correct. betafive 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True you didn't use those words but that is what is implied by "we're not in the business of fact checking the news". We fact check when there is reason to suspect there is a problem with the source. It would be correct to say we don't second guess sources without reason, just based on "I don't like it", but if there is a rationale reason to second guess the source, in particular for BLPs, we can do so. It comes down to consensus on what to do as each case is unique. -- Green  C  18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Right, I understand why some suspect the source isn't correct, but should we be privileging our suspicions over the claims made by reliable sources? Is it appropriate to second-guess sources like this in the absence of any contradictory evidence at all? For all we know, the II article may be based on information they have other than WMF and Google's press statements. betafive 18:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before adding the controversy here, please think carefully about whether the story is actually relevant to Gerry Hutch, the person, rather than  Gerry Hutch , the Wikipedia article. There are cases that can rise to this, for example the mention of Wikipedia in John Siegenthaler - but that was a case where the subject's reputation could have been directly affected, the news media interviewed the subject and got his reaction to the story which could be quoted at length. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying: the fact that the article is removed from some searches isn't relevant to this article. However, the claim that Gerry Hutch had this article removed from Google searches-- as the II report claims-- is. In other words, "this article is removed from some Google searches" is outside the scope and fails WP:META. On the other hand, "Gerry Hutch caused the article about him at Wikipedia to be removed from some search engines" would be, as this article properly and appropriately can discuss the actions taken by its subject. betafive 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. The caveat is that most of the articles, notably excepting the one linked at the top of this section, do not claim that Hutch removed the link, but only cover that Wikipedia is squawking after receiving a notice from Google about the page.  Others point out that this page still comes up in searches from Ireland.  Given the general situation with BLP on Wikipedia I think we need to be a little skeptical of this one article, in that it seems a little strange that they say Hutch removed the link without saying that they interviewed him, which you'd think they'd crow about in the article if they'd actually done so. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But there's no one saying this article isn't true, other than skeptical Wikipedia editors. It's a pretty serious charge. Maybe the Irish Independent has an independent source for the information that they're trying to protect. betafive 23:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Again, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Claiming to know who issued that request is an extraordinary claim which would require either confirmation from the subject which doesn't want to be talked about (highly unlikely), or a leak within Google (also highly unlikely). Such an extraordinary claim would require multiple reliable sources to back it up. Huon (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually, I wouldn't call it "extraordinary". Unfortunately, these requests are not extraordinary and can now be made rather routinely.  If there's a story in a newspaper like the one cited that simply says, "a spokesman for Hutch's law firm said that...", or any other degree of detail that would give the impression it was genuinely sourced, I'd accept it.  It's just that when I see no such detail, I think it's plausible that the paper looked at the exact same story as all the others, sourced to Google via WMF, but somebody simply forgot to consider the notion that the request could have been filed by someone else mentioned in this article. Wnt (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Which is what happened with Stanley O'Neal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Except, with every other source out there going to great lengths to parrot the WMF's disclaimer about not knowing who submitted the request, how could they have possibly screwed that up? betafive 11:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Such touching faith in the infallibility of the mainstream media. They managed to screw up on the monkey selfie quite well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * You keep bringing up the monkey thing, but it's still beside the point. Are you claiming that the Irish Independent is not a reliable source? I'm happy to ask WP:RSN to weigh in if that's the case. betafive 12:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Betafive, in all honesty, I'm struggling to understand how you are managing to miss the point. Just because something is verifiable and/or published in what might normally considered a "reliable" source, it does not mean we are obliged to include it in the article. It seems to me really obvious and simple. And, in this case, we have information that it appears no editor believes is factually correct, which is obviously a very good reason not to include it. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not "missing the point," nor am I claiming that we're obliged to include it in the article. I also neither believe nor disbelieve the article. I'm questioning whether it's appropriate to dispute the "factual correctness" of reliable sources based on editors' assumptions. betafive 12:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, so long as it's rational, it's appropriate.
 * The source isn't even clear in the first place. "GERRY Hutch ... has had information removed from Google..." - that could plausibly mean that he asked for the removal, but compare "GERRY Hutch ... has had his car stolen." Formerip (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With this (^), I agree. It's the only real reason I haven't boldly added the II's claim to the article proper. betafive 13:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a reliable source ≠ being infallible. If Gerry Hutch did not make the removal request himself, then it is a pity that the Irish Independent source is prominent for the news stories about him in a Google search on his name. Time to give the horse a decent burial.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. Suppose another source makes the same claim. Is it still in error, or would it then meet your standard for inclusion? betafive 13:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I for one am missing the point. What is your point? Do you actually have a point about improving the article, or do you just enjoy debating hypotheticals for argument's sake? While I too enjoy a good debate, I'd say the article talk page is the wrong venue for mere hypotheticals. Huon (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Irish Independent's claim is undisputed by reliable sources. Discussion as to if and when a consensus might exist to add it to the article is obviously appropriate for this venue. betafive 22:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors may want to consider adding a link to this file if the RTBF issue is included in the article. -  t u coxn \talk 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is relevant to Hutch. The given source doesn't say he did it, and the latest rumor I heard actually said the opposite. See also WP:SUBJECT: The article should discuss Hutch, not itself. Quote: "even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself". The fact that an unknown party asked Google to remove the article from its search results (apparently only for specific search terms which do not include the name "Gerry Hutch") is irrelevant to Hutch. If "The effect of it does affect him", as Andy Dingley claimed on my talk page, please provide a reliable source explaining how it does so. Huon (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article hasn't been removed in a search on "Gerry Hutch" on google.ie or google.co.uk. It still shows up as the first result, so it seems unlikely that Hutch made the request himself. Which leaves the theory that someone else mentioned in the article made the request, and a mystery that remains unsolved. I believe that there is a WP:SUBJECT issue in mentioning this without clear evidence that Hutch was the person who made the takedown request since a) we don't know that he did, and b) the evidence suggests that he didn't. Also, per WP:TOPIC, the information would fit in better in an article about the right to be forgotten.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

September 2015 shooting
Gary Hutch, who is a nephew of Gerry Hutch, has been shot dead.. Looks like reports of Gerry's death are an exaggeration.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: reports of Gerry Hutch's death are still an exaggeration. This time, it was Eddie Hutch who was killed in an apparent gangland feud. Eddie Hutch is Gerry Hutch's brother.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Check dates
Though born in 1963, the article states that Hutch 'received many convictions between 1970 and 1983 intermittently spending time in prison.' That'd mean he started receiving conviction and/or entering prison when he was 7 ? Are we serious here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvb (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact what the source says. He received his first conviction at age 8. Not particularly hard to believe. -- Green  C  22:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugsy Malone Gang
Re this edit: the film Bugsy Malone was not released until 1976, so Hutch cannot have joined the "Bugsy Malone Gang" in 1973. It is cited here and one possibility is that the name of the gang was coined later on by the media. Rather than inserting snarky comments into the article, it would be better to do some more research into this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree need more sourcing to clarify. The source doesn't actually say he joined the gang in 1973, though it's somewhat implied, the dates don't make sense. Seems fair to say his life of crime started at age 10 and he joined the gang sometime in the 70s. --  Green  C  13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
User:GreenC, your recent reversion is in violation of MOS:NICKNAME. This MOS states "Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way, sometimes also with a diminutive suffix added, and which is derived from a name frequently used in English-speaking countries". Gerard is a commonly used name in Ireland, an English-speaking country, and Gerry is a direct hypocorism like this, so to add the nickname as you did is against the MOS. This is why Gerry Adams, Gerry Ryan and various other Gerries do not have this nickname included. I urge you to self-revert. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Alright it seems to be common enough convention on Wikipedia to do it that way. -- Green  C  16:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gerry Hutch


text:
Harbor Freight Tools

Harbor Freight Tools, commonly referred to as Harbor Freight, is an American privately held tool and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California. It operates a chain of retail stores, as well as an e-commerce business. The company employs over 26,000 people in the United States, and has over 1,500 locations in 48 states.

History
In 1977, Eric Smidt and his father, Allan Smidt, started Harbor Freight and Salvage in a small building in North Hollywood, California. The company began as a mail order tool business that dealt with liquidated and returned merchandise. As the business grew, its name was changed to Harbor Freight Tools. In 1985, Eric Smidt was named president of the company at age 25; he served under that title until 1999, when he became chief executive officer. From the mid-1980s to 2010 Harbor Freight was headquartered in nearby Camarillo, California.

Retail stores
In 1982, Harbor Freight Tools opened its first retail store in Lexington, Kentucky, to sell returned merchandise from its mail order business. The original location was at 1387 East New Circle Road. It later moved to 1301 Winchester Road, Suite 213. The venture proved successful, and Harbor Freight Tools began to open stores across the United States. As of 2024, Harbor Freight Tools operates over 1,500 retail stores in 48 states.

Exclusive brands
Harbor Freight sells many tools, accessories, and numerous other types of product under in-house brands, sourced directly from manufacturers. These include:

 * Apache
 * Armstrong
 * Avanti
 * Badland
 * Bauer
 * Braun
 * Daytona
 * Doyle
 * Fortress
 * Gordon
 * Hardy
 * Haul-Master
 * Hercules
 * ICON
 * Maddox
 * Pittsburgh
 * Predator
 * Portland
 * Quinn
 * Titanium
 * U.S. General
 * Vulcan
 * Warrior
 * Yukon

Website
Harbor Freight's website went online in 1997. It had a modest catalog of products, a brief "About Us" section and an order form for the printed catalog. There were also links to a customer service page with delivery times and return policies. In all, the original site had 10 landing pages. The Harbor Freight website has over 79,000 indexed pages. The Harbor Freight website had over 31 million monthly visits as of 2023, mostly within the United States, according to Similarweb.

Corporate affairs

Harbor Freight Tools is headquartered in Calabasas, California. Harbor Freight has distribution space in Camarillo, California; Moreno Valley, California; Dillon, South Carolina; and Joliet, Illinois. It closed a distribution facility in Oxnard, California, in early 2013.

On April 4, 2013, Harbor Freight Tools announced a $75 million expansion project for the Dillon distribution center, which opened on November 22, 2015, adding 1 million square feet to the facility and 200 new jobs.

In 2022, Harbor Freight Tools opened a distribution center in Joliet, Illinois, spanning 1.6 million square feet in size and creating 800 new jobs.

In 2023, Harbor Freight Tools was certified as a Great Place to Work. According to the Great Place to Work Institute, 90% of employees at Harbor Freight Tools say it is a great place to work compared to 57% of employees at a typical U.S.-based company.

Investor relations
In 2012, Harbor Freight, through Credit Suisse, secured a $750 million loan to refinance existing debt and fund a dividend for the company's private shareholders.

Philanthropy
Harbor Freight Tools states "one of our core values is giving back to the great communities where we live, work and serve. With respect and humility, we strive to support and strengthen communities, big and small, across the United States." The company supports K-12 education, veterans, and police and fire organizations with donations and gifts of tools and equipment.

On January 9, 2013, CEO Eric Smidt, through Harbor Freight Tools, donated $1.4 million of tools and equipment to the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) Career Technical Education.

In 2016, Eric Smidt formed The Smidt Foundation to house Harbor Freight Tools for Schools and support other education, health, safety, and community needs. The Harbor Freight Tools for Schools Prize for Teaching Excellence awards more than $1.5 million annually to skilled trades teachers and their schools.

In February 2018, Cedars-Sinai announced a $50 million gift from Eric and Susan Smidt and The Smidt Foundation to create the Smidt Heart Institute.

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Harbor Freight Tools committed to donate its entire supply of N95 masks, face shields, and nitrile gloves to U.S. hospitals which had a 24-hour emergency room.

Criticism and legal action
Harbor Freight Tools was sued by a group of its store employees in 2012, who alleged that they were misclassified as "exempt" from overtime payments as "managers" under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Harbor Freight Tools won a declassification of the class action; that is, the court found that all the individual situations were not similar enough to be judged as a single class, and that their claims would require an individual-by-individual inquiry, so the case could not be handled on a class basis.

In 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company by customers, claiming that the tool company falsely advertised "normal" prices for products that were higher than an advertised "sale" price, when the item had never been offered at the original, higher price. Consumers claimed that this practice misled them into thinking that the item was on sale and they were getting a deal. The company settled, paying consumers up to $33,000,000.

title: Harbor Freight Tools


text:
Spontaneous magnetization

Spontaneous magnetization is the appearance of an ordered spin state (magnetization) at zero applied magnetic field in a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic material below a critical point called the Curie temperature or $T_{C}$.

Overview
Heated to temperatures above $T_{C}$, ferromagnetic materials become paramagnetic and their magnetic behavior is dominated by spin waves or magnons, which are boson collective excitations with energies in the meV range. The magnetization that occurs below $T_{C}$ is an example of the "spontaneous" breaking of a global symmetry, a phenomenon that is described by Goldstone's theorem. The term "symmetry breaking" refers to the choice of a magnetization direction by the spins, which have spherical symmetry above $T_{C}$, but a preferred axis (the magnetization direction) below $T_{C}$.

Temperature dependence
To a first order approximation, the temperature dependence of spontaneous magnetization at low temperatures is given by the Bloch T3/2 law:
 * $$M(T) = M(0)\left(1-(T/T_c\right)^{3/2}),$$

where $M(0)$ is the spontaneous magnetization at absolute zero. The decrease in spontaneous magnetization at higher temperatures is caused by the increasing excitation of spin waves. In a particle description, the spin waves correspond to magnons, which are the massless Goldstone bosons corresponding to the broken symmetry. This is exactly true for an isotropic magnet.

Magnetic anisotropy, that is the existence of an easy direction along which the moments align spontaneously in the crystal, corresponds however to "massive" magnons. This is a way of saying that they cost a minimum amount of energy to excite, hence they are very unlikely to be excited as $$T\rightarrow 0$$. Hence the magnetization of an anisotropic magnet is harder to destroy at low temperature and the temperature dependence of the magnetization deviates accordingly from the Bloch T3/2 law. All real magnets are anisotropic to some extent.

Near the Curie temperature,
 * $$M(T) \propto \left(T_c-T\right)^\beta,$$

where $β$ is a critical exponent that depends on the universality class of the magnetic interaction. Experimentally the exponent is 0.34 for iron and 0.51 for nickel.

An empirical interpolation of the two regimes is given by

 * $$ \frac {M(T)}{M(0)} = \left (1-(T/T_c\right)^{\alpha})^{\beta},$$

it is easy to check two limits of this interpolation that follow laws similar to the Bloch law, for $$ T \rightarrow 0$$, and the critical behavior, for $$ T \rightarrow T_C $$, respectively.

title: Spontaneous magnetization


text:
San Miguelito

San Miguelito could be any of the following geographical locations:

Honduras
 * San Miguelito, Francisco Morazán
 * San Miguelito, Intibucá

Mexico
 * San Miguelito, Nayarit (in the state of Nayarit)
 * San Miguelito, Querétaro (in the state of Querétaro)
 * San Miguelito, Sonora (in the state of Sonora)

Nicaragua
 * San Miguelito, Río San Juan

Panama
 * San Miguelito District
 * San Miguelito metro station

United States
 * San Miguelito Oil Field

title: San Miguelito


text: File:Masterrace.jpg

title: File:Masterrace.jpg


text:
Chambéry Savoie Mont-Blanc Handball

Chambéry Savoie Mont-Blanc Handball is a French handball team based in Chambéry in Savoie. The team plays in the French Handball Championship and it was founded in 1990.

Current squad

 * Squad for the 2023–24 season

Transfers

 * Transfers for the 2024–25 season

 * Joining
 * 🇫🇷 Adrien Vergely (LP) (from 🇫🇷 Pays d'Aix UC)
 * 🇫🇷 Valentin Kieffer (GK) (from 🇫🇷 Dunkerque HGL)
 * 🇫🇷 Hugo Pimenta (RB) (from 🇫🇷 Sélestat Alsace Handball)
 * 🇨🇿 Adam Tomášek (RB) (from 🇨🇿 TJ Sokol Nové Veselí)

 * Leaving
 * 🇫🇷 Hugo Brouzet (LP) (to 🇫🇷 Pays d'Aix UC)
 * 🇫🇷 Antoine Tissot (RW) (to 🇫🇷 Pays d'Aix UC)
 * 🇫🇷 Alexandre Tritta (RB) (to 🇫🇷 Pays d'Aix UC)
 * Filip Ivic (GK) (to 🇲🇰 RK Eurofarm Pelister)

Honours

 * France Handball League: 1
 * Champion : 2001.
 * Runner Up : 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012.

 * Coupe de la Ligue: 1
 * Winner : 2002
 * Runner Up : 2011

 * Trophée des Champions: 1
 * Winner : 2013
 * Runner Up : 2010, 2011, 2012

 * Coupe de France: 1
 * Winner : 2019
 * Runner Up : 2002, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2014

 * EHF Cup:
 * Semi-finalist : 2016

Notable former players

 * 🇫🇷 Xavier Barachet (2006–2012)
 * 🇫🇷 Hugo Brouzet (2019–2024)
 * 🇫🇷 Laurent Busselier (2000–2013)
 * 🇫🇷 Grégoire Detrez (2008–2017)
 * 🇫🇷 Cyril Dumoulin (2000–2014)
 * 🇫🇷 Yann Genty (2014–2020)
 * 🇫🇷 Benjamin Gille (2000–2018)
 * 🇫🇷 Bertrand Gille (1996–2002, 2012–2015)
 * 🇫🇷 Guillaume Gille (1996–2002, 2012–2014)
 * 🇫🇷 Guillaume Joli (2004–2010)
 * 🇫🇷 Johannes Marescot (2011–2014, 2015–2020)
 * 🇫🇷 Olivier Marroux (2011–2014)
 * 🇫🇷 Julien Meyer (2016–2021)
 * 🇫🇷 Quentin Minel (2006–2009)
 * 🇫🇷 Laurent Munier (1999–2002)
 * 🇫🇷 Thimothey N'Guessan (2011–2016)
 * 🇫🇷 Daniel Narcisse (1998–2004, 2007–2009)
 * 🇫🇷 Alix Nyokas (2012–2014)
 * 🇫🇷 Émeric Paillasson (1997–2005)
 * 🇫🇷 Pierre Paturel (2005–)
 * 🇫🇷 Cédric Paty (2006–2016)
 * 🇫🇷 Jackson Richardson (2005–2008)
 * 🇫🇷 Melvyn Richardson (2005–2017)
 * 🇫🇷 Mickaël Robin (2008–2010)
 * 🇫🇷🇶🇦 Bertrand Roiné (2006–2012)
 * 🇫🇷🇲🇦 Seufyann Sayad (2002–2004)
 * 🇫🇷 Guillaume Saurina (2010–2011)
 * 🇫🇷 Stéphane Stoecklin (1985–1988, 2003–2005)
 * 🇫🇷 Queido Traoré (2012–)
 * 🇫🇷 Alexandre Tritta (2011–2024)
 * 🇫🇷 Marc Wiltberger (2001–2004)
 * El Hadi Biloum (2005–2006)
 * 🇧🇦 Edin Bašić (2017–2018)
 * 🇧🇦 Marko Panić (2012–2017)
 * 🇧🇷 João Pedro Silva (2015–2017)
 * Damir Bičanić (2010–2017)
 * Igor Kos (2000–2002)
 * Jerko Matulić (2014–2016)
 * Vlado Šola (2002–2004)
 * 🇨🇿 Karel Nocar (2003–2013)
 * 🇪🇸 Alejandro Costoya (2018–)
 * 🇪🇸 Iosu Goñi Leoz (2020–)
 * 🇪🇸 Niko Mindegia (2017–2019)
 * 🇪🇸 Iñaki Peciña (2022–)
 * 🇩🇪 Volker Michel (2002–2003)
 * 🇭🇺 Attila Borsos (1994–2000)
 * 🇭🇺 Gábor Császár (2009–2010)
 * Gerdas Babarskas (2018–2022)
 * 🇲🇪 Fahrudin Melić (2016–2020)
 * 🇲🇪🇷🇸 Radivoje Ristanović (2016)
 * 🇷🇴 Demis Grigoraș (2019–2021)
 * 🇷🇺 Edouard Moskalenko (2001–2007)
 * Jure Natek (2007–2009)
 * Sebastian Skube (2021–)
 * 🇷🇸 Zoran Đorđić (1995–1997)
 * 🇷🇸 Nebojša Stojinović (2004–2008)
 * 🇷🇸 Nenad Vučković (2004–2007)
 * Nikola Portner (2020–2022)

title: Chambéry Savoie Mont-Blanc Handball


text:
Talk:∑

…or the Greek letter Sigma. Archola

∑ = series
The reason I reverted it to point to Series is because the ∑ symbol used in the title is represented by 2211 in Unicode, which points to the series symbol. The Unicode character for sigma is at 03A3 and looks like Σ, which is slightly different.--  Max  Talk [ (add)] 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * True enough, but for most people what matters is visual appearance. I belive that even if the Unicode Sigma is used for sum, it is still Sigma in a different font, and as such, it should redirect to Sigma and not to Series (mathematics). Now the latter article has a note that ∑ redirects there, and that's just plain confusing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * How is it anymore confusing than the note of the top of ß saying: This article is about the letter ß found in the German alphabet; for the Greek letter β, see Beta (letter)?
 * That's different. ß and β look very different and they are indeed different letters. The math one, ∑, is just the Greek sigma with a different font. As such, it should redirect to Sigma not to the series article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What about I, l, and 1? In certain fonts, they look nearly identical, but they are very different characters:--  Max   Talk [ (add)] 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's beside the point. ∑ and Σ are the same character. They should redirect to the same article, that being the letter. The article Sigma does mention that it is used to denote series and other sums. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In a serif font, the two look quite a bit different. However, I believe one keep them seperate for semantic reasons, even though they look similar.  An example is the and  tags.  Even though they appear nearly the same, for semantic reasons they are kept separate.  Also note that the ∏ and ∆ symbols redirect to n-ary code and triangle respectively, even though they look like the Greek letters Π and Δ, respectively.--  Max   Talk [ (add)] 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Those redirects are just as unhelpful and confusing. But that's not what matters much, ultimately we are talking about very obscure redirects, which nobody ever would type by hand. What I am really unhappy with, however, is the note

 * ∆ redirects here. For the Greek letter Δ, see Delta (letter)

at triangle. That is distracting. If you really think people will look for Δ at the redirect ∆, then one must redirect to Δ to start with. It is highly highly improbable somebody will look for the triangle by typing in ∆.

All in all, I see your point about semantics. But please keep in mind that this is all Unicode tricks and stuff. Most people are not aware of this stuff, and it is not a good idea to expose these intricate technicalities more than necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I would challenge you to write two short articles on ∆ and ∑, explaining what you said above, that they are unicode characters, that their code in the table is such and such, that they are used to denote such and such math operation, and that they are similar/related to such and such charaters. That may solve the problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Your wearing me down. I don't actually care that strongly where it points to, and I am starting to see the logic behind your point.  You can change it to sigma if you want.--  Max   Talk [ (add)] 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. :) Formally you are right, but insisting on the distinction between Σ and ∑ is just confusing. I don't mind if the redirect stays, I don't care much about it. But I removed the disambiguation at series (mathematics) which says that ∑ redirects to it.

If somebdy puts that note back at series (mathematics), I will redirect ∑ to Sigma. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:∑


text: User talk:70.153.134.70

title: User talk:70.153.134.70