text:
Bolt Arena

The Bolt Arena (named Telia 5G -areena until January 2020, named Sonera Stadium until April 2017, and Finnair Stadium until August 2010; also known as Töölön jalkapallostadion, "Töölö football stadium") is a football stadium in Helsinki, Finland. It is named after the labour hire company Bolt.Works, and is the home stadium of Veikkausliiga club HJK Helsinki.

History
The stadium was inaugurated in 2000. It has a capacity of 10,770 spectators. Originally the ground had a natural grass pitch, but it was soon replaced with an artificial one because the grass couldn't get enough sun light. Since then the stadium has seen numerous artificial playing surfaces that have been gradually replaced. The most recent artificial pitch was installed in April 2015.

The ground is located next to the Helsinki Olympic Stadium.

It is the home stadium of HJK. It hosted the 2003 FIFA U-17 World Championship as Töölö Stadium.

The stadium was named as one of the stadiums that host the 2009 UEFA Women's Championship. For that tournament, the artificial turf covering the field was temporarily replaced with grass.

In the 2016 domestic league season, tenants HJK Helsinki drew the highest average home attendance (5,101).

On 15 November 2019, Finland national football team managed to qualify to the first major tournament, UEFA Euro 2020, in their history after defeating Liechtenstein 3–0 at this stadium.

The specifications of the stadium

 * Field size: 105 × 68 metres (UEFA recommendation)
 * Floodlights: 1500 lux
 * Capacity of 10,770 spectators, all stands are covered
 * A warming system under the pitch
 * discussion about expanding to 25,000 seats

title: Bolt Arena


text:
Talk:Five economic tests

Untitled
Some cynics suggest that the five tests are really:

 * Can the goverment win a referendum?
 * Can the goverment win a referendum?
 * Can the goverment win a referendum?
 * Can the goverment win a referendum?
 * Can the goverment win a referendum?

JS.Farrar 20:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, but that counts as speculation, so is out of order. Unless someone really notable said it,like Mervyn King.  --Red King 21:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps we might comment that it is a commonly held belief both among politicians and the public that the tests are met or fail to be met principally on whether Gordon Brown wants that to be met. That is to say the tests have sufficient leeway that they can be met or failed largely by selective use of the same data. Alci12 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Porvided that you add it under a heading such as "Press Comment", then yes. Wiki shouldn't speculate itself, but it can certainly report such speculation provided that it wasn't just some bloke down the pub!  In this case, I suspect that it wouldn't be hard to find a source to cite if anyone wanted to challenge. --Red King 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * How about this []Alci12 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Explaination
What is meant by the Treasury's answer to question 4; "The City would benefit from Eurozone membership." - what City is being refered to here? Is it London, and if so, wouldnt that mean that a potential decision would act in the interest of a specific regional group (ie, the city of London), potentially at the detriment of the UK as a whole? Or should "City" be merely read as "Nation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.210.43 (talk • contribs)
 * "City" refers to the London Stock Exchange in this context, I believe; it was either that, or the inner city's vendors and businesses. — Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

According to The City
 * "..."The City" is not just a common name for the City of London, but is also sometimes used as a for the financial entities based there, similar to the way "Wall Street" and "Bay Street" sometimes refer to U.S. and Canadian financial markets."

also see City of London --Skoorb 12:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've linked this in the article. Tip for the day: "A question on the Talk: page is often an indication of room for improvement in the article." jnestorius(talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Structural differences
One of the main underlying issues that stand in the way of monetary union is the large structural difference between the UK housing market and those of continental Europe. Historically, because of the British tradition of home ownership, as opposed to home rental, and the scarcity of fixed-rate mortgages to finance home purchases (itself a legacy of past monetary instability), the average Briton carries a substantial volume of variable-rate debt. This makes British consumer spending far more sensitive to prevailing interest rates than is the case in the rest of Europe, thus making the British economy extremely vulnerable to sub-optimal interest rates. Critics have argued that until this structural difference is resolved, joining the Euro would be disastrous for the UK.

This argument doesn't make sense. There are no "large structural difference between the UK housing market and those of the continental Europe". In Spain, the tradition is also home ownership, and variable rate mortgages. However since Spain has adopted the Euro, it has experienced an unprecedented growth.--193.62.17.24 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Slovenia have higher levels of home ownership and far from being a "tradition" The UK's high level is a fairly recent phenomenon. 86.45.223.115 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read - MacLennan, D., Muellbauer, J. and Stephens, M. (1998), ‘Asymmetries in housing and financial market institutions and EMU’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14/3, pp. 54–80. This dicuses the issue in detail and concludes in favour of the opinion stated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.1.4 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are no "large structural difference between the UK housing market and those of the continental Europe". Spain, Norway, The Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Austria and Hungary all have significantly higher levels of home ownership than the UK. We are approximately at the AVERAGE level of home ownership in Europe. Data from "Importance of government policies for home ownership rates", available here: http://www.infra.kth.se/BYFA/publikationer/engelskaUppsatserOchRapporter/54.pdf. I suggest that the last paragraph of the article is opinionated and should be removed. --138.37.81.69 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that what matters to the UK is the situation in the eurozone. Other areas are irrelevant, since they have little effect on the euro currency. So 3 of the 7 countries are irrelevant for the moment, since they currently use other currencies. I do agree that a comment on this needs to be added, but if non-eurozone countries are mentioned, it ought to be pointed out specifically that they are outside the eurozone at least for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain (69%) is in the middle of the field when it comes to home ownership. Germany and Sweden are the lowest at 42% while Hungary (92%) and Spain (85%) are the highest. Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that supports the argument that the text is POV and should be deleted. I'll do so if not already done. --Red King (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Five economic tests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081220022110/http://www.euro.gov.uk:80/home.asp to http://www.euro.gov.uk/home.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five economic tests. 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/20091209021819/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/euro_assess03_repexecsum.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/euro_assess03_repexecsum.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Five economic tests


text:
Edward Naylor

Edward Woodall Naylor (9 February 1867 – 7 May 1934) was an English organist and composer.

Naylor was born in Scarborough in 1867. His father, John Naylor, was organist of York Minster. He won a choral scholarship to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he gained a BA in 1887. From 1888 to 1892 he studied at the Royal College of Music. After spending eight years as organist of London churches St. Michael's Church, Chester Square (1889) and St. Mary's Church, Kilburn (1896), Naylor returned to Cambridge in 1898, where he became an assistant master at The Leys School and organist of Emmanuel College. Naylor lived in Cambridge until his death in 1934.

His most important compositions were for voices; his composition The Angelus, won the Ricordi prize for an English opera. His church music blends elements of 16th to 20th century music. Naylor was considered an authority on Shakespeare and music, and was an early exponent of greater musical authenticity.

His son, Bernard James Naylor (1907–1986) was the first composer (1948) living in Canada to employ post-tonal writing in choral music, and was one of the pioneers of a truly contemporary (post-tonal) English (Anglican) cathedral music in the mid-twentieth century.

Chamber music

 * Quintet
 * Piano Trio in D Minor.

Chorus and Orchestra

 * Merlin and the Glen – A scena, performed at the Royal College of Music when he was a student.
 * Requiem, Pax Dei, influenced by Giuseppe Verdi and Charles Villiers Stanford, performed in Cambridge in 1913.
 * Arthur the King – a cantata aired at Harrogate in 1902.

Opera

 * The Angelus – "A romantic opera in a Prologue and four Acts", performed at Covent Garden in 1909, revived by the Carl Rosa Opera Company in 1921. Libretto by Wilfrid Thornely. Received a £500 prize "offered by Messrs. Ricordi & Co. for an original opera from the pen of a British-born composer".

Church music

 * A Hymn In Praise Of The Faith
 * Eastern Monarchs – motet.
 * I Will Cause The Shower – anthem for choir and organ.
 * Jubilate Deo in A – for choir and organ.
 * Jubilate Deo in A-flat – for male voices (TTBB) and organ.
 * Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis – for double choir, written in 1903.
 * Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis – for male voices (TTBB).
 * Postlude in E-flat Major – for organ.
 * Hear my prayer, O God (Psalm 55) – for choir and organ.
 * God Of Our Fathers, Known Of Old – recessional hymn, setting the text of Rudyard Kipling.
 * O Jerusalem, Look About Thee – anthem for choir and organ.
 * O Lord God to whom vengeance belongeth (Psalm 94) – for choir and organ.
 * Te Deum in A – for choir and organ.
 * Te Deum in E-flat – for unison voices and organ.
 * This Is The Month Tonic
 * Vox Dicentis – motet written in 1911.
 * We Have Heard With Our Ears – for choir and organ.
 * Final Responses – for festival and normal time.

Songs and part songs

 * The Merry Bells of Yule
 * The Charge of the Light Brigade

Orchestral

 * Variations in B Flat
 * Tokugawa – Overture

Other publications

 * Shakespeare and Music: With Illustrations from the Music of the 16th and 17th Centuries by Naylor, Edward W., New York: AMS Press, 1965.
 * The Poets and Music 1928.
 * An Elizabethan Virginal Book 1905.

title: Edward Naylor


text: User talk:71.193.3.242

title: User talk:71.193.3.242


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (dracula)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — this is a minor character, and, according to WP:FICT, should be merged into the relevent article. This character has a paragraph in Tomb of Dracula. Making this a redirect to that article. --Gareth Hughes 19:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Nimrod (dracula)
useless comiccruff, (minor charactor in one comic) already merged down once with a redirect, then rexpanded, but no one will ever search for this. CastAStone 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable to fans of Marvel comics. Kappa 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? He appeared twice, and the second appearance was a retelling of the first appearance.  He's a footnote in the history of a more important character, and that's it.  His listing in the entry for Tomb of Dracula is all that the character needs.   Redirect to Tomb of Dracula to prevent recreation as a separate article.  -Sean Curtin 06:53, 16 October 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:86.10.110.40

title: User talk:86.10.110.40


text:
The Girlie Show (Madonna)

The Girlie Show was the fourth concert tour by American singer and songwriter Madonna, in support of her fifth studio album, Erotica (1992). It began on September 25, 1993, at the Wembley Stadium in London, England, and ended on December 19 of the same year at the Tokyo Dome in Tokyo, Japan.

In October 1992, Madonna simultaneously released Erotica and the coffee table book Sex. The former ended up being Madonna's lowest selling album at the time, while the latter received extensive media attention, and backlash from fans and critics; nonetheless, it was commercially successful. After the critical and commercial failure of the erotic thriller Body of Evidence starring Madonna, the tour was announced in July 1993. The 39-date tour marked the first time the singer visited places such as Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Brazil and Australia. According to some critics, it was the singer's way to "revive" her music career following the negative reaction to the thriller. The tour took its name after an Edward Hopper painting titled "Girlie Show". Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, was appointed tour director.

Like her previous Blond Ambition World Tour (1990), the concert was divided into different thematic sections: Dominatrix, Studio 54, Weimar Cabaret, and an encore. Madonna opened the show dressed as a dominatrix surrounded by topless dancers, while lighter moments included her descending from the ceiling on a giant disco ball wearing an Afro wig for "Express Yourself" (1989), as well as singing "Like a Virgin" (1984) in the guise of actress Marlene Dietrich. The Girlie Show received generally positive reviews from critics, who agreed that despite the controversy surrounding the singer, she could still please her audience. Upon completion, it was reported to have grossed US$70 million.

Several organizations in different countries protested to force the cancellation of the concerts, due to their explicit sexual nature. In Puerto Rico, Madonna passed the island's flag between her legs on stage, resulting in outrage among Puerto Rican society. A number of concerts were recorded and broadcast, with the show on November 19, 1993, in Sydney, Australia being aired as a special on HBO; the following year, it was released on video under the title The Girlie Show: Live Down Under. The concerts in Fukuoka, Japan were also filmed, but broadcast exclusively on Japanese television.

Background
In October 1992, Madonna released simultaneously her fifth studio album Erotica, and her coffee table book Sex. Consisting of sexually provocative and explicit images, photographed by Steven Meisel, the book was met with a strongly negative reaction from the media and the general public, but was commercially successful. The widespread backlash overshadowed Erotica which, despite positive reviews, ended up as the singer's lowest selling album at the time; Madonna continued her provocative imagery in the 1993 erotic thriller Body of Evidence, a film which contains scenes of sadomasochism and bondage but it was critically panned and a commercial failure. On July 9, 1993, The Philadelphia Inquirer announced that Madonna would embark on the Girlie Show, a new concert tour. Some critics suggested that the tour was as an attempt by the singer to "revive" her musical career after Body of Evidence. Madonna's inspiration for the tour was a painting by Edward Hopper of the same name, depicting a burlesque dancer.

The tour was set to kick off at London's Wembley Stadium on September 25, 1993. Madonna then said she was "not interested in preaching to the converted", hence why she decided to begin The Girlie Show in London; "I am going to the places where I have the most enemies", she explained. It was initially planned not to visit the United States, instead focusing on regions the singer had never toured before, such as Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Brazil and Australia. However, due to demand, some shows were booked in certain US cities. A concert in Beijing's Workers' Stadium was also planned; the official China News Agency reported that she would be allowed to perform as long as there wasn't include any "indecent exposure" in the show. Madonna allegedly agreed, since she was interested in visiting the country. However, said concert never happened. A promotional extended play, titled The Girlie Show, containing all six singles from Erotica, was released in Brazil to commemorate the singer's visit. Similarly, limited editions of Erotica and The Immaculate Collection (1990) were released exclusively in Australia. The tour was then chronicled in a photo book of the same name, released in November 1994. This release included a CD with three live tracks: "Like a Virgin", "In This Life", and "Why's It So Hard". Madonna wrote in the book: "When I finished the Blond Ambition tour, I swore on my life that I would never even think of going on tour again as long as I lived. I was spent. I was exhausted. I was sick of traveling. I wanted stability. So, I threw myself into making movies, recording a new album, and I also put out a book called Sex. So much for stability.

Needless to say, as rewarding as all these creative endeavors were to me, they could not take the place of performing live. Theater is my life--or is my life theater? I'm not sure and it really doesn't matter. Being on stage is where I feel most alive, and it's where I'm able to pull all of my creative energies into one outlet. It's the only place where I can combine all of my influences and all of my inspirations into one living, breathing animal. The stage is the only environment where cubist painting, burlesque, flamenco dancing and the circus can live together under one cozy roof. Taking the adventure one step further is to play in front of a different audience every night. dealing with different cultures, different expectations, different ways of expressing pleasure and bewilderment--this to me is the ultimate thrill. The ultimate risk. And I love taking risks. You may have heard that about me. There's no way this book could truly recapture the excitement of the 'Girlie Show', but it comes pretty damn close.

By the way, if you ever hear me say, "I'm never going on tour again", don't believe me."

Development
In early 1993, Madonna contacted her brother Christopher Ciccone, who had worked with her on Blond Ambition, and appointed him tour director; besides directing, Ciccone was also in charge of supervising the crew, designing the stage set, and handling all the dancers. Auditions for dancers took place in Los Angeles; an ad was displayed for "androgynous boyish girls with very short hair". The singer said about the hiring process: "First I had choreographed stuff I had them do. Then I asked them to dance and improvise, whatever the music moved them to do. Then I called back all the people who looked good and could really dance and I asked each of them to tell a joke or an amusing story. If they were really embarrassed and couldn't do it I didn't pick them. Then the ones that were left, I asked them if they would shave their heads. Not that I was going to shave their heads. I just wanted to see how far they were willing to go for me".

Madonna and Ciccone decided to work with five different choreographers, one of them being American actor Gene Kelly, whom the singer wanted to choreograph the performance of single "Rain". However, tension soon arose as Kelly was uncomfortable with the dancers; he believed they had been selected based on personality rather than for their abilities as dancers. He also wasn't too fond of the show's "heavy sexual overtones", according to Ciccone. Feeling Kelly's position wasn't working out, Ciccone convinced the singer to fire him; eventually, Madonna, "shamefaced at having single-handedly conceived of such a terrible fate for this venerable American icon", agreed with her brother and dismissed Kelly. Alex Magno was then appointed one of the Girlie Show's main choreographers. For the show's main theme, Madonna and her brother agreed on a "burlesque circus" and, for inspiration, would watch Bollywood films, Thai dance numbers, Carol Reed's Trapeze (1956), as well as the work of Marlene Dietrich, Louise Brooks, Erté, and Zizi Jeanmaire. Like Blond Ambition, The Girlie Show was divided into four different thematic acts: Dominatrix, Studio 54, Weimar Cabaret, and an encore.

The wardrobe was in charge of fashion designer duo Dolce & Gabbana; Madonna gave them instructions to watch a number of films, including My Fair Lady (1964) and Cabaret (1972), to bring to life the "striptease, Vegas type of show" she envisioned. 1,500 costumes were created for the tour's troupe, that ranged from dominatrix boots, a sequined bra, and a Victorian-inspired dress to a simple white tank-top and cut-off denim shorts. Domenico Dolce recalled that, "both Madonna and I share a Fellinian version of the circus, but we also like those glamorous costumes that you can see in the movies from the '50s"; the duo agreed on "perfection" being the biggest challenge they encountered while working with the singer. The designers would "redo" the stuff that would rip or come apart during the tour; "We followed the tour this way. From time, shorts and other things were missing. We followed the tour and assisted Madonna, despite being always in Milan", they explained.

The show had a more complex stage than those from Madonna's previous tours; it included a catwalk that extended from the main stage and led out towards the audience, and two hydraulic risers that rose from beneath the stage to elevated platforms and several smaller balconies. A large illuminated sign reading "Girlie Show" was hung above the stage. Two huge drawings, portraying the face of Madonna hidden behind a black mask, were placed on the sides. Two aircraft were needed to ferry the tour around Europe, including the largest Soviet transport plane ever made; it took four full days and 100 employees to assemble the stage, with one additional day for the setting up of production. During MTV Australia's special Girlie Talk, Madonna commented about having her hair cut before the tour: "my hair was hot pink. I went through this Pippi Longstocking phase where I just had to have, like, pink red hair and braids [...] and when I dyed my hair of all these crazy colors [...] I tried to make it blond again, [but it] started to break off everywhere so I kind of gave myself a haircut whatever I like it or not. For the tour I wanted something clean and after I cut all the dancers' hairs I was trying to decide what I wanted to do with my hair and I thought of having it dark like in my 'Rain' video, but then I didn't want to have the same color hairs of all the dancers, so I shortened and kept this color."

Concert synopsis
The concert was divided into four different thematic sections: Dominatrix, Studio 54, Weimar Cabaret, and an encore. It began with a calliope fanfare as a pierrot – who made several cameos later – appeared on stage. This was followed by a topless dancer sliding down a 20-foot pole high above the stage. Then, Madonna emerged as a short-haired dominatrix, wearing a black sequined ensemble consisting of jacket, bra, hot pants, elbow-length gloves, knee-high boots, and domino mask while brandishing a crop to perform "Erotica"; her dancers posing suggestively in the background. The next number was "Fever", which Madonna performed alongside half-naked male dancers. Towards the end, the singer and the two men disappeared in a flamed circle on the stage. The third song, "Vogue", featured Madonna wearing an elaborate Asian beaded headdress and engaging in a Thai-inspired choreography. For "Rain", Madonna and back-up singers and dancers Niki Haris and Donna De Lory wore long see-through black robes and sat on stools in the center of the stage. An instrumental interlude closed the act: the pierrot, along with several dancers dressed in black and twirling umbrellas, did a choreography reminiscent of the 1952 musical film Singin' in the Rain.

The Studio 54 act began with "Express Yourself"; a distorted voice from off-stage claimed "I'm gonna take you to a place you've never been before". Then, Madonna descended from the ceiling on a giant disco ball, wearing a blond afro wig, 1970's style halters and royal blue Bell-bottom pants. She was joined by Haris and De Lory in similar outfits. The end of the performance was connected to the next song, "Deeper and Deeper", which featured a male member from the audience jumping onstage, seemingly trying to dance with a startled Madonna, ripping off his tearaway pants and revealing himself as one of the dancers from the show. "Why's It So Hard" saw Madonna simulating an orgy with all the dancers, while "In This Life", the act's final song, saw her singing alone on the stage as the pierrot watched from afar. The show's second interlude, "The Beast Within", featured two men doing an apocalyptic dance with sexual overtones as Madonna, from off-stage, recited the lyrics.

"Like a Virgin" opened the Weimar Cabaret segment: Madonna wore top hat and a tailcoat while singing in the guise of actress Marlene Dietrich, pronouncing the word "virgin" as "wirgin". "Bye Bye Baby" saw Madonna, Haris, and De Lory performing with three scantily clad women in a choreographed, highly sexual routine. "I'm Going Bananas" was then sung in "Judy Holliday/Betty Boop/Cyndi Lauper-ish vocals." For the next number, "La Isla Bonita", Madonna removed the tailcoat, and performed in a blue and white striped shirt. She sang on top of a rising platform while one of the musicians walked around bare-chested playing the acoustic guitar. The final song before the encore was "Holiday"; it featured Madonna and the dancers wearing long trenchcoats and doing a military parade while an American flag was hung in the background. The final numbers were "Justify My Love" and a mashup of Sly and the Family Stone's "Everybody Is a Star" (1969) and Madonna's own "Everybody": the former had the singer and dancers wearing Victorian costumes and her holding a lorgnette, and the latter saw them change into white tops and denim shorts. Afterwards, as a red curtain fell and carnival music played, the pierrot emerged yet again, only to reveal its identity as Madonna herself. The singer closed the show by singing the phrase "Everybody is a Star" as the curtain fell once again.

Critical response
The Girlie Show was generally well received by critics. In his book Madonna: An Intimate Biography, J. Randy Taraborrelli wrote: "While still sexy, it was still more of an innocent burlesque rather than a blatant attempt to shock [...] this concert had the feeling of a racy Barnum and Baileys circus", and praised it for revealing a "softer" side of the singer. On a similar note, Gar Graff from the Detroit Free Press noted the tour revealed a more personal side to Madonna than her previous tours; he called it a "stylish, theatrical [...] sophisticated, tightly scripted, two hour cabaret." Thom Duffy from Billboard said the tour "transcended its own playfully erotic hype and earned kudos as pure entertainment", also noticing a "sense of humor and burlesque" that Blond Ambition lacked. Duffy concluded that, despite the controversy surrounding Madonna at the time, she could still "confound and excite her audience." Similarly, Richard Corliss, writing for Time, expressed that, "Madonna, once the Harlow harlot and now a perky harlequin, is the greatest show-off on earth", and deemed the tour "at once a movie retrospective, a Ziegfeld revue, a living video, an R-rated take off on Cirque du Soleil."

Paul Taylor from The Independent was positive on his review of the show's opening night at London; "her performance-which featured spanking, four-letter outbursts and suggestive references to oral sex and the size of one dancer's manhood clearly delighted most of her fans." Also of the opening night, Entertainment Weekly's Tyler Brule commented that, "Madonna may have lost some of her glitter lately. But as she demonstrated in the kickoff of her Girlie Show tour at London's Wembley Stadium, she hasn't forgotten the twin pillars of her success—how to put on a show, and how to make a buck." Frances Hubbard from the Daily Express opined that the singer is "at her worst when she turns moody and pretentious", and that, "if Madonna is on her way down, it's a gentle descent. The world's best-marketed pop goddess will be around for a while yet." In his review at the show at New York's Madison Square Garden, Jon Pareles from The New York Times noted thatm "after the proudly uningratiating 'Blond Ambition' tour in 1990 [...] 'The Girlie Show' tweaks fewer taboos." Pareles pointed out that the singer "sings just enough solo parts to prove she's not lip-synching", concluding that with Blond Ambition she was "pop's least flirtatious sex symbol", but was "likeable again" on the Girlie Show. The Los Angeles Times's Jeff Kaye wrote that, "despite the scanty costumes adorning the star and her troupe of singers and dancers, and the liberal doses of group groping and gender-bending, there wasn't anything that could be called shocking [...] there was a sense that this adoring crowd had seen and heard all this stuff before."

However, not all reviews were positive. The British press took what Kaye called a "mean-spirited stance" against the singer and the tour; after she arrived in London, a British magazine proclaimed itself a "Madonna-Free Zone", refusing to publish or show any pictures of the concerts. Bruce Elder from The Sydney Morning Herald gave a mixed review; "the best that could be said [...] was that it was an event, an occasion, a place to be seen at, but as pure dance, pop or rock entertainment, it was nothing special." He also wondered if the singer was "really committed to celebrating sexual liberation or [did she] simply hijacked sadomasochism and homosexuality in the name of good old American capitalism." Elder further noticed a "kind of coldness and distance" in the performances and pointed out "too many flat spots [...] to make this a truly memorable concert." More negative was The Washington Post's Tom Shales, who wrote that, "her attempts now to shock and titillate have become belabored self-parodies [...] Madonna's 'Girlie Show' is silly, not shocking." On their rankings of Madonna's tours, The Advocate's Gina Vivinetto and VH1's Christopher Rosa placed the Girlie Show in the fourth and fifth position, respectively. The Odyssey's Rocco Papa considered it Madonna's best concert tour: "Not only did [the Girlie Show] feature some of the best staging of Madonna's career, it was also impeccable musically [...] She also displayed a happiness and warmth to the audience that made this show stand out".

Commercial reception
The Girlie Show proved to be commercially successful. In London, 15,000 tickets were sold within two hours, while the opening night was attended by 72,000 people. Madonna's very first concert in Israel attracted an audience of 50,000 people. The three shows at New York City's Madison Square Garden grossed US$2,020,475 million, while the three Mexican concerts grossed $8,927,703 million; prices ranged from $28.13 to $125. The first show at Argentina's River Plate Stadium saw the singer playing to an audience of 50,000. In Brazil, she broke attendance records: 86,000 and 120,000 people attended the concerts in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, respectively. It remains the second largest crowd ever on Rio's Maracanã Stadium for a concert by a female artist, behind Tina Turner's 1988 Break Every Rule World Tour (attended by 188,000 people). The average ticket price for the shows was $15.

In Australia, Madonna set the record for the biggest ticket sales with over 360,000 tickets sold; the first date sold 52,000 tickets in an hour and 20 minutes, with prices ranging from $45 to $142. The single concert at the Adelaide Oval attracted over 40,000 people, standing as one of the most attended concerts in the venue's history. The dates in Melbourne and Sydney sold 147,241 and 135,000 tickets, respectively. In Sydney, over 90,000 tickets were sold in an hour. Billboard then reported that the eight Australian concerts had grossed over US$18.5 million. Upon completion, the tour was reported to have grossed a total of $70 million from 39 concerts.

Controversies
Like previous Madonna tours, the Girlie Show was subject to controversy. One planned concert in Frankfurt was condemned by a German politician who declared it "exceeded the bounds of decency" and should be banned to those under 16. Norbert Geis, parliamentary spokesman for Chancellor Helmut Kohl's party, had previously warned: "Either Madonna drops these obscenities... or she will not be allowed to appear". The concert ended up being cancelled, with the organizers citing "technical difficulties" as the reason. Trouble in Israel occurred when Orthodox Jews staged protests to force the cancellation of the singer's first show in the country; Avraham Ravitz, from the Torah Judaism Party, expressed that "this is a holy land [...] people from all over the world did not move here in order to see this human garbage". However, rallies were unsuccessful as the sold-out show went on as scheduled.

In Puerto Rico, certain groups feared Madonna's influence over teenagers and demanded the concert's cancellation. During the show, Madonna held a small Puerto Rican flag to her bosom and then slipped it slowly through her legs. This was met with backlash: the leader of the Independence Party called the act "an infamy without parallel in the history of our country"; Governor Pedro Rosselló described it as "an unfortunate incident", and urged the people from the country to repudiate the singer. Senator Enrique Rodríguez Negrón filed a censure resolution, which was rejected by President of the legislature Roberto Rexach Benítez. Representative David Noriega called Madonna "vulgar and insensitive", and accused her of abusing the country's hospitality. Luis de Rosa, president of the Puerto Rican Chamber of Commerce of South Florida, said Madonna "has no right to go to someone's homeland and pass their flag through her private parts". The chamber and other Puerto Rican groups urged Hispanic citizens to gather outside the singer's Miami home to wave Puerto Rican flags and destroy her records; about 30 people showed up. Madonna's supporters claimed she meant no harm, and had simply put the flag there because she couldn't find her pocket.

More controversy arose in Argentina; cardinal Antonio Quarracino, archbishop of Buenos Aires, called the singer "blasphemous and pornographic" and asked then-president Carlos Menem not to receive her. Additionally, Bishop Osvaldo Musto called for a cancellation and recommended confession for any practicing Catholic who attended the concerts elsewise. Jorge María Storni, president of the organization Tradición, Familia y Propiedad, supported the cancellation of the concerts, since according to his words, Madonna's main goal was to "undermine the foundations of social order". Alexander Molinas ―consultant of Menores e Incapaces de la Cámara Civil― went as far as to ask civil judge Marcela Perez Pardo to ban the shows because they threatened "intimacy and religious conscience"; the request was dismissed but the judge did order that anyone under 13 be accompanied by an adult.

In Mexico, an anti-abortion organization urged Interior Ministry officials to deny the singer's entry to the country. A spokesman dismissed this request and explained that there was no reason to deny her a visa. Pro Life President Jorge Serrano Limón said Madonna was mocking the Catholic people, and that those attending the concerts did not have "the right to publicly mock the moral and religious values of Catholics or the patriotic values of Mexicans". Additionally, social communicologist Nino Canún presented a television special called ¿Y usted qué opina? (English: So what's your opinion?), where the audience, among them a priest, presented their arguments as to why "this morally clueless singer shouldn't be allowed to perform in the country". A ministry official dismissed the controversy by saying that "whoever likes it can go [to the concert] and whoever doesn't, well don't go". Later, during the concert, Madonna wore a sombrero and simulated an orgy as response.

Upon Madonna's arrival in Australia, controversy aroused when she was given by Michael Gudinski, one of the promoters of the tour's Australian leg, a didgeridoo, a traditional instrument among the Aboriginals which is allowed to be played only by men; "the fact [Madonna] is a Westerner and the didgeridoo as a gift does not change the fact she should not be carrying it around", said Badangthun Munmunyarrun, an Aboriginal elder. Gudinski later explained that he was working with Yothu Yindi at the time, and presented Madonna with the didgeridoo Yindi had given him, but planned to get the instrument back from her and replace it with a new one. In 2015, Madonna confirmed she still had the didgeridoo.

Broadcasts and recordings
Cashbox magazine reported on November 6, 1993, that one of the shows at the Sydney Cricket Ground stadium would be broadcast through HBO on November 20; this marked the second time Madonna worked with the network following the Blond Ambition broadcast three years earlier. Initially, Madonna intended to film the tour in Argentina or Mexico, but she ultimately chose Australia instead, as she liked the event being billed as "Madonna Down Under". On November 13, 1993, Billboard reported Westwood One would do a simultaneous broadcast of the special; it officially aired on HBO as Madonna Live Down Under: The Girlie Show. HBO started its broadcast from Club USA in New York City, leading to the concert itself. With a 17.0 rating and 27 share overall, it became the network's second most-watched original program of the year, following the George Foreman vs. Tommy Morrison fight.

On April 26, 1994, the special was released on LaserDisc and VHS under the title The Girlie Show: Live Down Under. It earned Madonna a nomination for Best Long Form Music Video at the 37th Annual Grammy Awards and peaked at number 31 and 32 on Billboard's Year-end Top Music Videos and Top Video Sales charts, respectively. In addition to the official release, British radio station BBC Radio 1 broadcast the London show on December 26, 1993. The concerts in Fukuoka, Japan were filmed and aired exclusively on Japanese television.

Set list
Set list and samples adapted per Madonna's official website and the liner notes of The Girlie Show: Live Down Under.

Act 1: Dominatrix Act 2: Studio 54 Act 3: Weimar Cabaret Act 4: Encore
 * 1) "The Girlie Show Theme" (Fanfare Introduction)
 * 2) "Erotica"
 * 3) "Fever"
 * 4) "Vogue"
 * 5) "Rain" (Contains excerpts from "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" along with elements of "Singin' in the Rain")
 * 1) "Express Yourself"
 * 2) "Deeper and Deeper"
 * 3) "Why's It So Hard"
 * 4) "In This Life"
 * 5) "The Beast Within" (Dancers' Interlude)
 * 1) "Like a Virgin" (Contains excerpts from "Falling in Love Again (Can't Help It)")
 * 2) "Bye Bye Baby"
 * 3) "I'm Going Bananas"
 * 4) "La Isla Bonita"
 * 5) "Holiday" (Contains excerpts from "Holiday for Calliope")
 * 1) "Justify My Love"
 * 2) "Everybody Is a Star" / "Everybody" (Contains elements of "Dance to the Music" and "After the Dance")

Notes
 * Madonna sang "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" on the first Buenos Aires concert, and "The Girl From Ipanema" on Rio de Janeiro.

Personnel
Adapted from The Girlie Show program.

Band

 * Madonna – creator, vocals
 * Niki Haris - vocals
 * Donna De Lory - vocals
 * Jai Winding - keyboards
 * Michael Bearden - keyboards
 * Paul Pesco - guitar
 * Victor Bailey - bass
 * Omar Hakim - drums
 * Luis Conte - percussion
 * Mike McKnight - additional keyboards

Dancers

 * Ungela Brockman - dancer
 * Christopher Childers - dancer
 * Michael Gregory - dancer
 * Carrie Ann Inaba - dancer
 * Jill Nicklaus - dancer
 * Ruthy Inchaustegui - dancer
 * Luca Tommassini - dancer
 * Carlton Wilborn - dancer

Choreographers

 * Alex Magno - choreographer
 * Keith Young - choreographer
 * Michelle Johnston - choreographer
 * Niki Haris - choreographer

Wardrobe and crew

 * Dolce & Gabbana - designers
 * Rob Saduski - designer
 * Christopher Ciccone - production designer
 * Jai Winding - musical director
 * Jeffrey Hornaday - stage director
 * Peter Morse - lighting director

title: The Girlie Show (Madonna)


text:
Kingsland, London

Kingsland was a small road-side settlement centred on Kingsland High Street on the Old North Road (the present A10), around the junction with Dalston Lane. It is no longer discernable as a separate settlement, though the historic street pattern remains. Since the opening of Dalston Junction station in 1865, the area has become known as Dalston, which was originally a separate hamlet further east. Historically part of the county of Middlesex, the area is within the London Borough of Hackney.

Origins
Kingsland derives its name from being the hunting grounds of a Tudor royal residence at Newington Green – hence King's Lands. At the time, the area was still heavily forested – as part of a forest stretching from Shoreditch to Enfield Chase – and roamed by wild bulls, stags and wild boars. Deforestation occurred quickly as the demands of the nearby City took wood for building and firewood, and the cleared land was quarried for brick clay. There were many wells and springs in the district. The (now lost) Pigwell Brook had its source on Kingsland Green and followed the line of the modern Graham Road, before joining Hackney Brook in the region of Church Street (now the Narroway). Another chalybeate spring beyond Dalston was tapped and its water piped to Aldgate in 1535.

The small villages of Kingsland, Dalston, Newington and Shacklewell were all situated within the Parish of Hackney and were grouped together for assessment purposes. Together they had only as many houses as the village of Hackney. In 1672, Kingsland had 28 householders assessed for hearth tax, but expanded rapidly in the 18th century, along the line of Kingsland Road, north of the junction, and by 1724 had five inns, compared to Dalston's two. The road was heavily trafficked, including goods wagons pulled by six or more horses, and this caused the road surface to deteriorate. The local parishes appealed to Parliament in 1713 for the right to set up a Turnpike Trust, to pay for the necessary maintenance. Gates were installed at Kingsland and Stamford Hill to collect the tolls. The village was still very rural, with market gardens established around the village. Large scale development began in 1807, again by the main road, and a new estate was created on Lamb farm, to the south and west of the junction. By 1831, building began along Dalston Lane, linking the two villages.

In his youth, Samuel Pepys lodged in the village, for a while with his brother Tom and his nurse, Goody Lawrence. Also, it is recorded that Pepys "used to shoot with bow and arrows" here in the 17th century.

Kingsland had a six-penny bath and a leper hospital, south of the green, also known as the 'Lock Hospital'. This was founded in 1280 by the City of London, as one of ten located on the main roads from the city. This continued until 1559 and the last case of leprosy in London. From 1549, the hospital was administered by St Bartholomew's Hospital, and treated other infectious diseases. After the Great Fire, St Bartholomew's no longer had the funds to support the Lock hospital, but patients were accepted if they could fund their own care – this continued until 1680, when again the main hospital was able to resume funding. By 1669, there were six wards, by then for women only – male patients were sent to Southwark. The hospital was rebuilt in 1720, but closed in 1760. The hospital had a chapel, dedicated to St Bartholomew. This was used, informally, as a chapel of ease, saving residents the walk to church at the parish church in Hackney. At the closure of the hospital, local people petitioned to keep the chapel open; it was never repaired and was in poor condition in the 1820s, being demolished in 1846.

Disappearing district
The main part of the village was located near Dalston junction where the road to Hackney left the main road, and today this is only commemorated by the name of Kingsland Shopping centre. However, the name of Kingsland is still seen in street and station names, and on some modern maps, but the district no longer appears on road signs as a destination. The various parts of the original district have now been absorbed into surrounding areas, for instance, the area of Kingsland to the east of Kingsland Road is now the ward of Queensbridge within the Borough of Hackney.

Before the arrival of the railways, in about 1850, Kingsland was the dominant village, which is why the section of the A10 road that is modern Dalston's main shopping centre is Kingsland High Street, and why Kingsland Road, not Dalston Road, extends south from the junction. Dalston was previously the name for a less important settlement situated further east, at the junction of Dalston Lane and Cecilia Road.

The North London Railway was opened in 1865, and adopted Dalston Junction as the name of the junction and new station – one of the most important on the line, since it connected directly with the City. Over time, the area round the junction became known by the name of the station – a common phenomenon in London.

Transport and locale

Opened in June 2010, the nearest London Overground stations are Dalston Junction and Dalston Kingsland

title: Kingsland, London


text:
User talk:Doubledee

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Doubledee


text:
Undulose extinction

Undulose extinction or undulatory extinction is a geological term referring to the type of extinction that occurs in certain minerals when examined in thin section under cross polarized light. As the microscope stage is rotated, individual mineral grains appear black when the polarization due to the mineral prevents any light from passing through. If a mineral is deformed plastically by dislocation processes without recovery, strain builds up within the crystal lattice causing it to warp. This means that different parts of a crystal reach extinction at slightly different angles, giving the crystal an irregular, mottled look.

Undulose extinction is very common in quartz, so much so that it is often used as a diagnostic feature of that mineral, and feldspar of various sorts, but is possible in almost any mineral.

The presence of undulose extinction may help to infer that a crystal grew before a deformation event. However, some minerals acquire undulose extinction easily and even under the effect of minor or local deformations.

title: Undulose extinction


text:
User talk:Dustdevil46

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Dustdevil46


text:
Chalkware

Chalkware is an American term for popular figurines either made of moulded plaster of Paris (usually) or sculpted gypsum, and painted, typically with oils or watercolors. They were primarily created during one of three periods: from the late 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century, during the Great Depression, and during the 'mid-century modern' era as decorative lamps, figurines and wall decor from the 1940s-1960s. Those created during the earlier period were intended as a more serious decorative art, often imitating the more expensive imported English Staffordshire potteries figurines such as Staffordshire dog figurines; those during the second period, by contrast, were more typically somewhat jocular. Early chalkware was often hollow and is difficult to find unblemished.

Heavy, and easy to break or chip, chalkware eventually lost favor to ceramic and plastic alternatives in the 1970s. Remaining pieces of MCM (and earlier) chalkware can be easily found today with more exotic or rare examples fetching hundreds or thousands of dollars by collectors on auction sites and other dealers.

Carnival chalk
"Carnival chalk" refers to chalkware figures given out as carnival game prizes during the first half of the 20th century, especially during World War II. They were later replaced by stuffed animals.

Mid-century modern (MCM) era
Chalkware flourished during the mid-century modern era (1945-1965) as an inexpensive and expressive medium for the home, serving many types of taste and types of decorative need with table lamps, figurines, wall decor and tourist memorabilia. Attracting fine, mundane and comic artists, chalkware reached a broad audience during the MCM era providing everything from representations of European sculpture, to kitsch images of exotic travel, cartoonish characters and potty humor.

Figurines
Early figurines made in the United Kingdom around 1955 were eggcups, for holding matches or as ashtrays. The earliest designers being Paoli Brothers and Hermann Lohnberg. Fashions changed into 1956 with a move to animals. By 1957, figurines and statues of african-style ladies and gentlemen were very dominant. A view of all the examples found at the National Archives records can be seen on the Chalkware Gallery site

Lamps
MCM chalkware lamps were often romantic and exotic with a focus on the idealized beauty of historic, natural, and abstract designs. Common motifs were dancers (often sold as a male and female pair), innocent or sensual figures, trees, flowers, animals, zig-zags, waves and modern abstract sculpture typical of the period. One of the most popular motifs were of romanticized, stereotyped Asian, African, Native American, Hawaiian people in exotic (at times inaccurate) settings or costume. Low lighting was sometimes included in the lamp design with small nightlight bulbs. TV lamps, based upon popular chalkware radio lamp designs, quickly became replaced by ceramic.

An attempt to thwart competitors from copying their highly successful male/female paired chalkware lamps and statuettes was taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by Benjamin and Rena Stein of Reglor of California in 1953. They won a technical victory that did not ultimately stop copying.

Wall decor
Wall decor chalkware included bath motifs like fish or mermaids, kitchen motifs like fruit, and 'wall pockets' that often were faces with small areas in the back suitable for air plants or plastic flowers.

In the United Kingdom, during the 1950s and 1960s, wall plaques were made of ladies faces by a number of designers, including Salvatore Melani, the Lohnberg brothers (under the Duron brand name), Paoli Brothers and Bacci & Bacci

Memorabilia
Tourist memorabilia included ashtrays, figures, bobble-heads and destination-specific representations.

Advertising
Companies such as the Universal Statuary Corp of Chicago made point-of-sale chalkware figures as well.

Production houses
Popular American MCM chalkware companies whose work can be found traded today include Continental Art Company (Chicago), Alexander Baker Company or 'ABCO' (New York), Fine Arts In Plastics or F.A.I.P (Brooklyn), Jo Wallis Lamp Company, Miller Studios, Reglor (Montebello, California) Universal Statuary Corp. (Chicago), and Vaillancourt Folk Art (Massachusetts).

Several chalkware companies also existed in the United Kingdom, where they registered their designs at the National Archives in Kew, London, England. The Board of Trade records are set out in two main sections: The Board of Trade Records of the Patent Office Design Registers (records starting BT 53 ) and the Non-Textile Designs Representations (records starting BT 52 ).

Designs in Great Britain in the 1950s and 1960s were registered under the Registered Designs Act, 1949 (still current law as at November 2021). Each registered design is recorded in a lever arch folder with consecutive registration numbers and can be accessed at the National Archives in Kew, London. Each entry contains a registered design number, the date when the design was registered, the date the certificate was issued, brief article description (typically "a mantel ornament") and the name & address of the proprietor. Some designers also included a separate service address. Copyright typically expired on these pieces after 5 years, with some records showing an extension to 10 years.

A number of designers chose to include the registration number on the figurine, typically at the back, with a small number of designers also including an internal product number. The registration number can therefore be looked up in the Board of Trade BT 53 records and use the BT 52 design representation images to confirm the correct figurine has been identified.

With this knowledge it is possible to compile the following main list of designers;

 * Felice and Alfredo Bacci - 73, Camp Street, Salford 7, Lancashire
 * Bruno Besagni - Holborn, England
 * Elia and Milo Brunicardi (with Lino Maini) - 158 Copenhagen Street, Islington, London N1
 * Egisto Carli - Pancras area, London
 * Marcella Jackson, Renato Migliorini, Daniele Magi and Vasco Licci, trading as M. Jackson &amp Co - 66, Rigby Street, Salford, 7, Lancaster
 * Max (born 1880 - died 1958 ) and Herbert Hermann Louis Lohnberg - 2, Ronalds Road, Holloway Road, London N5
 * Lorenzo and Leo Menesini - 21 Pickering Street, London N1
 * Diomede and Nicolao Nieri trading as D. N. Art Products - 26 and 28 Trafford Street, Hulme, Manchester 15, Lancashire
 * Leo Pagliai - Great Sutton Street, London
 * Alfredo and Giovanni Paoli - 125-127 East Road, London N1
 * Guido Quattromini, Umberto Berti and Gino Berti trading as F. and B. Sales - 127 Caledonian Road, London N1
 * Gino Manca - Italian designer who moved to Sweden

title: Chalkware


text:
User:JosephCCampana

I'm new here and learning. This is a pretty cool concept. -- Joseph C. Campana

ResearchID.org
I loved the concept of a wiki so much, I started my own! http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org -- JosephCCampana 17:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User:JosephCCampana


text:
User talk:Fuzzyami~enwiki

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  20:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fuzzyami~enwiki


text:
Talk:Frank Messervy

Untitled
Not many people know this but, Gen Messervy was born in the island of Trinidad in the British West Indies! he is also the first cousin to Dr Eric Williams the first Prime Minister of an Independent Trinidad and Tobago, he (Messervy) is of French stock, settlers who came to the island before British rule began in 1791.
 * "Messervy" as a surname appears to be exclusive to the Isle of Jersey. His ancestry is more likely Norman than French (though it is not impossible that a Jerseyman may have moved to France at some poimt).  The Jade Knight 01:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As a cousin of Frank Messervy and a genealogist, I can tell you that the Messervy lineage went back to Normandy. Jim Pleiades Hawkins 16:31, 14 December 2018 (ACDT)

Messervy's mother was Myra De Boissiere. The De Boissiere family was of French origin and owned the Champs Elysees Estate in Trinidad. His ancestor Jean Valleton de Boissière was born in Bergerac in France in 1733. Jean Valleton's son Jean emigrated to Trinidad in the 1790s with his wife Claire. Messervy was the second cousin to Dr Eric Williams whose mother was Eliza Boissiere, descended from Henri Boissiere, son of Jean, and a colored mistress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.4.199 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gen Sir Frank Messervy.jpg

Seconded?
do you have any source for this claim that "Messervy was seconded to the Pakistan Army, not a member of it"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is already supported by a number of references in the article. The London Gazette, for example, refers to Messervy's appointment "to command the land forces of Pakistan". This was authorised under the India Office, since Messervy was an officer of the British Indian Army. Similarly, when Messervy retired at the end of his appointment in Pakistan, the London Gazette notice records him as being on the "Special List" of the British Army as an "Ex-Indian Army" officer. The retirement notice does not mention the Pakistan Army because Messervy was not a commissioned officer of it; he was appointed to its command in his capacity as a British Indian Army officer. This was consistent with British practice elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Senior military appointments, for instance, were filled by British officers following Confederation in Canada, Federation in Australia and Malaysia, and independence in India. In each of these cases, the officer remained a member of the British forces and was seconded for the local appointment. Messervy being a British officer in Pakistan—and not an officer of the Pakistan Army itself—is further supported by the following sources:, and . Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frank Messervy


text:
Talk:Super-Poincaré algebra

other way around?
"In a supersymmetric world, every boson would have a partner fermion of equal rest mass. To explore the consequences of this assertion—and to attempt to explain why the present-day world does not appear supersymmetric—physicists and mathematicians have developed an algebraic method for describing the symmetries involved."

Isn't it the other way around? The SUSY algebra came first and it predicts equal masses for the superpartners if it's unbroken. Phys 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Freund claims that the described way is possible and tells than Pauli suggested to look for fermions and bosons in equal number and mass in order to cancel corrections to vacuum energy. But no reference is given Arivero 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * PGO Freund? He's a lot younger than Pauli, was he one of his students? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

clearer description of bracket
I'd really appreciate a clearer description of the bracket operation for the odd part of the algebra.169.237.31.111 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I added a few words, but the full answer requires a discussion of the representation theory of the Lorentz group viz representation of a Lie algebra, which is out of place, here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Super-Poincaré algebra


text:
Talk:Classical electron radius

Link
Please note http://atdotde.blogspot.com/2005/09/natural-scales.html --Pjacobi 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Good article
This is a smashing good little article. Clear, consice and to the point. Good work all! Kevmitch 04:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Exact energy of charged sphere
Isn't the formula given the energy required to assemble a charged sphere with all the charge on the surface? If it's constant charge density, I believe a prefixed factor of 3/5 is needed.

Actually the correction factor of 3/5's is for a charged sphere with all the charge uniformly distributed over the volume, not over the surface.

So for a uniform volume distribution you should get

U = 3 / 20 * whatever

and for a surface charge distribution you get (if I remember correctly):

U = 1 / 8 * whatever.

-- Eugene Y.

 * Thats where "approximately" comes in. For the energy E of a sphere of radius R containing a constant charge density I get:
 * $$E=\frac{3}{5}\,\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 R}$$

 * and for the energy of a sphere of radius R containing a constant surface density I get:
 * $$E=\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 R}$$

 * I have changed the text to be more exact. PAR 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

electron radius
if the electron travels fast enough to affect its mass, would the radius of the electron be smaller or larger???

Counter-intuitively, it gets smaller. See Discussion section in Article.

question about derivation
By request, I replaced the original derivation with one based on energy-conservation. Both approaches yield the same answer, but the derivation based on energy-conservation seems easier to follow, and answers many of the questions raised. The discussion below relates to the original derivation. PBWilson, 10-3-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.190.165 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the article, but I was wondering how you derived the constants in front of the expressions (1/2 or 3/5)? I have tried integrating 1/2*[epsilon]*[E field]^2 dr three times, and get the basic term but not the constant. Nor can I find this on any other website (they all seem to ignore the constant). Please could you add the derivation to the article? I'd really appreciate it - thanks for your help! P.S. why does everyone, even this article, ignore the constants when quoting the radius? Thinkingabout physics (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know where your expression 1/2*[epsilon]*[E field]^2 dr came from, but the way I did it was to realize that bringing in an infinitesimal charge dq from infinity to the surface of a ball of radius r having constant charge density ρ requires the same amount of energy as bringing dq from infinity to a distance r from a point charge q where
 * $$ q=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3\rho$$

 * The energy needed to do that is
 * $$dU = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0 \ r} q dq$$

 * So, to build a shell of thickness dr with the same density on that ball requires bringing a charge $$ dq=4\pi r^2\rho\,dr$$ from infinity. (This assumes that the charge on the shell is so small that interactions between charges on the shell add negligible energy). That needs energy
 * $$dU = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\,\,\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3\rho\right)\left(4\pi r^2\rho\,dr\right)$$

 * To build a ball from scratch, you integrate from 0 to R, the radius of the ball, remembering that ρ is constant, you get
 * $$U=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \frac{(4\pi\rho)^2 R^5}{15}$$

 * replacing ρ with the charge divided by the volume ($$4\pi R^3/3$$) gives
 * $$U=\frac{3}{5}\,\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \frac{q^2}{R}$$

The reason people ignore the constants is because the classical derivation is not valid at the scale of the electron, its just a hand-waving argument, but it does yield a constant with dimensions of length which is relevant in quantum mechanics as well. The constant multiplier loses significance when going to quantum mechanics, but the function of fundamental constants does not. PLEASE NOTE - the above derivation needs to be checked! Yes, I know, its inconceivable that I would make a mistake, but it has been known to happen on rare occasions. PAR (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did the dimensional analysis and you must have made a mistake. Two, in fact, which happened to compensate each other. First you forgot to do the integral in the expression for dU (= W_shell) and then you mistook the power of r before integration. 82.139.87.95 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is an error in expression for $$dU$$ from dimensional point of view. It should be $$r$$ in devisor. Otherwise the integration and the result is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexKritov (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Density
Given a (classical) sphere with a radius of 2.818×10−15 m, this yields a spherical volume of 9.378×10−44 m3. Combined with a mass of 9.109×10−31 kg, this gives a matter density of 9.718×109 g/cm3. This is about 30 times greater than the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3×108 g/cm3. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The mass of the electron in the theory of classical radius is all in the field on the outside of the sphere. The total mass inside the sphere must be zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:8BDE:3BF8:4AE3:6DDC:2CE9:A3A4 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarity
I would estimate that the average non-math-savvy user will arrive at this page due to a search for the radius/diameter of an electron, and expect to --somewhere on the page-- see the answer in plain english. I would suggest providing it. SentientSystem (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Plain English. No one actually knows, because no one is sure if the electron has internal structure or not, as is the case with all elementary particles. Frankly I find it quite odd that a proton has internal structure which is the cause of it's permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment and charge, while we consider an electron not to have internal structure, yet still posses a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment and charge. When both electric and magnetic dipole moments are quite impossible without a system of charges moving internally in relation to one another. "In physics, the electric dipole moment is a measure of the separation of positive and negative electrical charges in a system of electric charges, that is, a measure of the charge system's overall polarity." See Electric_dipole_moment. "The electron is a charged particle of charge (−1e), where e is the unit of elementary charge. Its angular momentum comes from two types of rotation: spin and orbital motion. From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity." See Electron_magnetic_dipole_moment

So, if it has a uniform electric charge, then the rotation of that uniform charge cannot create two oppositely charged poles. Magnetic monopoles do not exist. It takes a minimum of two charges to create a magnetic dipole, two opposite charges or in reality two charges of differing potential. It's the only known laboratory tested way. "The sources of magnetic moments in materials can be represented by poles in analogy to electrostatics. Consider a bar magnet which has magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. Each pole is the source of magnetic force which weakens with distance. Since magnetic poles always come in pairs, their forces partially cancel each other because while one pole pulls, the other repels. This cancellation is greatest when the poles are close to each other i.e. when the bar magnet is short. The magnetic force produced by a bar magnet, at a given point in space, therefore depends on two factors: the strength p of its poles (the magnetic pole strength), and the vector ℓ separating them." See Magnetic_moment

In other words it must have internal structure composed of both negative and positive charges, or more accurately, charges of higher and lower potential.84.226.185.221 (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Planck's Constant Conflict
The very final point in this article states "$$\hbar$$ is Planck's Constant", isn't $$\hbar$$ the reduced plancks constant (i.e h/2pi)? Anonymous capybara (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if there is chance of confusion. It is only because people like to use wavelength instead of wavenumber that we have this problem. In any case, it is more usual to ignore the reduced part when using words, as long as the equations are right. Gah4 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if there is chance of confusion. It is only because people like to use wavelength instead of wavenumber that we have this problem. In any case, it is more usual to ignore the reduced part when using words, as long as the equations are right. Gah4 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Classical radius of proton
The article Thompson scattering says that a quantity called classical radius of a charged particle is convenient to be defined. Can also proton have a classical radius defined for for it?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. The classical electron radius assumes that all the mass is due to the energy in the electric field. Protons have actual mass in addition to any electric field mass. It gets more interesting for the neutron. Note that a neutron also has a magnetic moment, and even has a charge distribution. Gah4 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. The classical electron radius assumes that all the mass is due to the energy in the electric field. Protons have actual mass in addition to any electric field mass. It gets more interesting for the neutron. Note that a neutron also has a magnetic moment, and even has a charge distribution. Gah4 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This should be made much more simple...
Introducing the classical electron radius in terms of the interaction of positrons and electrons is needlessly obscure and historically inaccurate. The standard, straightforward discussion of where it comes from is in terms of the electrostatic self-energy of a charged sphere. No need to mention the virial theorem, radiative energy loss, and other complexities. Keep it as simple as reasonably possible.

Electron (rest) mass
, I am curious. In your edit comment, it takes me time to figure out that you appear to think that every reader will understand that the rest mass and not the relativistic mass is meant. A particle's rest mass is Lorentz-invariant. Its relativistic mass is a component of the energy–momentum 4-vector. Particle physicists sometimes define the term "mass" to always mean "rest mass", but to others, this is silly. I'm afraid your inappropriate use of the term "obsolescent" does not help. Do you mean "obsolete" (which has a different meaning)? Do you claim that "rest mass" is an obsolete term (particularly in the broader context beyond particle physics, such that most readers will understand what is meant)? —Quondum 16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello .  In my comment I used the word "obsolescent" to mean something that is on its way to being obsolete, but may not be there yet.  You are mistaken to say that the relativistic mass is a component of the energy-momentum 4-vector.   The energy-momentnum 4-vector is (E, p$x$c, p$y$c, p$z$c), where E is the total energy and the pc's are the 3 components of the relativistic momentum.    The invariant mass comes from the Einstein relation:  mc$2$ = sqrt( E$2$ - ((p$x$c)$2$ + (p$y$c)$2$ + (p$z$c)$2$)).   If you know 4 of those 5 quantities you can get the 5th.   The Lorentz gamma factor then arises in several ways, including gamma = E / mc$2$.  This is spelled out in some detail in the article on electron rest mass and more so in the article on mass in special relativity.

 * In a Wikipedia article like this it is entirely appropriate to explain, up front, the different usages of terms that may be ambiguous.  That is why I added an explanatory paragraph in electron rest mass but am not in favor of removing the term "rest" there.   And do not worry about "most readers" understanding this.  "Most readers", starting with beginning learners of SR, will understand the distinction.  The classical electron radius article does not need to add to the confusion, hence we should leave the "rest" out there.
 * Qwerty123uiop (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Rewriting history with your version of Einstein's relation?  I need no lessons from you on special relativity.  And for a factor c$2$ (which is at times by convention ignored), you call me mistaken.  Anyhow, my curiosity is satisfied.  —Quondum 02:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported claim
, you have made the unorthodox claim
 * "If they got closer to each other than the classical electron radius the kinetic energy that they would have acquired would surpass their rest mass. But we do know that when an electron and a positron merge they annihilate producing two photons with the exact energy equivalent of the electron rest mass (511 KeV). We must therefore deduce that the annihilation took place not closer than the classical electron radius (more specifically, it took place exactly at the distance of 1 r$e$ in this specific case)."

You added three references, two of which do not support this claim (they use the classical electron radius in the formula for annihilation probability) and the third of which I do not have access to. You may chose to quote a passage from the third, but in my view you are adding original research that is furthermore non-accepted theory. —Quondum 23:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is unsupported? The sentence “the annihilation took place not closer than the classical electron radius”? Make them annihilate further apart and they will emit two photons less energetic than the two 511 KeV photons we get, make them annihilate closer and the two photons will have more energy than the original mass of the two electrons. That is because the classical electron radius is derived by definition as the point where the electromagnetic self-energy completely accounts for the mass. It doesn't mean that the electron has such radius, it can happily be a point-like particle, but it does mean that an electron and a positron cannot approach each other closer than the classical electron radius, or they will acquire too much kinetic energy (by definition of what the classical electron radius is). You can calculate yourself the energy released by an electron and a positron hypothetically merging at a distance $$ d $$ equal to $$ \frac{r_\text{e}}{10} $$ (i.e., one tenth of the classical electron radius) – electron charge and mass are all you need. --Grufo (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello : what you are saying is not correct, sorry.   The thought experiment of having two particles start at infinity is not relevant.   If you let an electron annihilate with a positron at finite kinetic energy, the photons in the final state will have more energy than the mass energy of the incoming particles.... by exactly the amount of the excess kinetic energy.   In your thought experiment the particles already have their mass energy at infinite distance.  The extra (kinetic) energy they acquire via Coulomb attraction does not vanish after they annihilate - it simply gets added to the 0.511 MeV of energy that the final state photon leave with. There is no connection here to the classical electron radius.  Qwerty123uiop (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically this is not correct. Imagine to give both the electron and the positron an energy of 1 MeV (1 MeV to each of them). They will merge releasing two photons of 1.511 MeV each. Now the question is simply: at which distance do a 1 MeV electron and a 1 MeV positron have to merge for releasing 1.511 MeV of energy each? And again the answer is: at a distance equal to $$r_\text{e}$$. Make them merge further apart and they will release less than 1.511 MeV each, make them merge closer and they will release more than 1.511 MeV each. This is because $$r_\text{e}$$ is the exact point where the $$\Delta E$$ of energy accumulated by the electrostatic attraction during the collision equals 511 KeV (i.e. the electron rest mass). Any energy surplus that you have given to the two particles gets only added to the final result, without changing the fact that they have to approach $$r_\text{e}$$ for accumulating the 511 KeV of kinetic energy that contributes to the final photons' energy. I repeat with different words what I have already said to Quondum: the classical electron radius is not a physical sphere and the electron can happily be a point-like particle, but the significance of the classical electron radius is inherently related to the amount of mass that an electron possesses. --Grufo (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hang on, both of you. Correctness/truth is not relevant in editing WP.  Insertion of claims unsupported by references is not permitted.  Grufo made a claim about distance apart of annihilation ("... the annihilation took place not closer than …"), which is WP:OR without being mentioned in any of the references.  Any logic you choose to apply, correct or not, without a direct confirmation from the source, is simply irrelevant.  —Quondum 01:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general rule, although with equations there is not much to quote. The formula for calculating the kinetic energy acquired by one of the two components of the pair (let's say the electron) in function of the distance where the merge happens is
 * $$E = k_\text{e} \frac{e^2}{d}$$
 * where
 * $$E$$ is the final energy released
 * $$k_\text{e}$$ is the Coulomb constant (8.9875517923×109 kg⋅m3⋅s−4⋅A−2)
 * $$e$$ is the electron charge (1.602176634×10−19 C)
 * $$d$$ is the distance chosen by you as the radius where you would like the merge to happen
 * And indeed by replacing d with the classical electron radius re we obtain that each of the photons released has an energy of 8.187105644 × 10−14 J (equivalent to the electron's rest mass).
 * What would happen if instead of re we imagined the merge happening at different distances? Let's see…
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Distance chosen (d) ! d / re ! Energy released (E)
 * + Arbitrary merge distances and energies released
 * 2.8179403227 × 10−16 m
 * 1/10
 * 8.187105644 × 10−13 J/c2
 * 1.408970161 × 10−15 m'''
 * 1/2
 * 1.637421129 × 10−13 J/c2
 * 2.8179403227 × 10−15 m
 * 1
 * 8.187105644 × 10−14 J/c2 (electron rest mass)
 * 5.635880645 × 10−15 m'''
 * 2
 * 4.093552822 × 10−14 J/c2
 * 2.8179403227 × 10−14 m
 * 10
 * 8.187105644 × 10−15 J/c2
 * }
 * All this is obvious, because the classical electron radius was created with the precise purpose of fitting in that equation and give the electron rest mass as a result (because that was what they could see in the experiments: photons of 511 KeV). This does not say anything about what really happens during the annihilation. It might be that the electron and the positron keep approaching further until they touch the Planck length and transform in a polar bear and a dinosaur. That said, the equation above does tell us though that our understanding stops at re. And whatever happens afterwards is a fairy tale, because we don't have any math for it – and the truth is that the math that we have tells us that we would obtain more mass than the electron mass if the two approached further. --Grufo (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (I quote from ) “The extensive beating about the bush while refusing to acknowledge this simply being obstructive” I see the attitude here… However I have limited myself and I have restored only the part with obvious and incontestable references. Working on the rest. --Grufo (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The electron's mass-to-charge ratio was measured in the 1890s, and after Millikan's oil-drop experiment, the mass could be calculated; so, the electron mass was known by 1909, long before the discovery of positrons in 1932. The earliest calculations of a "classical electron radius" of which I am aware were based not on electron-positron annihilation or trying to account for 511-KeV photons, but on trying to explain the electron's mass as electromagnetic self-interaction. (See, for example, Lorentz (1904), which gives an expression for the electromagnetic mass in terms of the radius, not calling it the "classical electron radius" yet of course.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The only thing I would add is that if it is true that one century after that much more has been added to our understanding of elementary particles, not much has been added to our understanding of an electric field's energy. That means that if the math of one century ago was telling us that if a positron and an electron kept attracting each other closer than a classical electron radius (from the center of the system, i.e. two electron radii from each other) they would release more energy than the 511 KeV we get – plus any additional energy that you have given to the particles – that math has not changed since. We can come out tomorrow discovering that an electron is a point-like opera singer, but as long as it has an electric charge either we change the math for electric charges or 511 KeV is the energy equivalent of a collision happening at the classical electron radius. --Grufo (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you agreeing with? I just said that your portrayal of the history was fundamentally incorrect. And besides that, the material that has been removed and which you say you are "working on" is WP:OR and unsuitable for this project. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * “What are you agreeing with? I just said that your portrayal of the history was fundamentally incorrect.”
 * I have tried to give you a hand, but you seem blind. The equation for calculating a radius of a mass entirely due to the electrostatic self-energy (the one you are talking about) is:
 * $$r_\text{e} = k_\text{e} \frac{e^2}{c^2 m_\text{e}}$$     (1)
 * which is the inversion of:
 * $$m_\text{e} = k_\text{e} \frac{e^2}{r_\text{e} c^2}$$     (2)
 * The equation of calculating half the energy released by two opposite charges that collide at a radius $$r$$, measured in kilograms instead of joules (the one I am talking about) is:
 * $$M = k_\text{e} \frac{q^2}{r c^2}$$     (3)
 * Do (2) and (3) seem different to you? So, the two sentences “the classical electron radius was created with the precise purpose of fitting in that equation and give the electron rest mass as a result” (mine) and “The earliest calculations of a "classical electron radius" of which I am aware were based ... on trying to explain the electron's mass as electromagnetic self-interactionon” (yours) express exactly the same thing: one single identical equation. I had referenced Dirac in “the material that has been removed”, which according to you would be “unsuitable for this project.”: Dirac in 1928 talks about positrons and their relationship with the classical electron radius. Before that date positrons were unknown. Dirac uses the classical electron radius in the equation of a cross section, being any quantum interaction inherently probabilistic. But in a classical interpretation, where no probability is involved, a positron and an electron release their energy at exactly $$r_\text{e}$$. In the electron-positron annihilation according to QED instead, where quanta of known momentum have unknown position, both operators act at the same place. Both QED and classical are models, interpretations. Whatever you adopt, you must be coherent with its math. --Grufo (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to give you a hand, but you seem blind. The equation for calculating a radius of a mass entirely due to the electrostatic self-energy (the one you are talking about) is:
 * $$r_\text{e} = k_\text{e} \frac{e^2}{c^2 m_\text{e}}$$     (1)
 * which is the inversion of:
 * $$m_\text{e} = k_\text{e} \frac{e^2}{r_\text{e} c^2}$$     (2)
 * The equation of calculating half the energy released by two opposite charges that collide at a radius $$r$$, measured in kilograms instead of joules (the one I am talking about) is:
 * $$M = k_\text{e} \frac{q^2}{r c^2}$$     (3)
 * Do (2) and (3) seem different to you? So, the two sentences “the classical electron radius was created with the precise purpose of fitting in that equation and give the electron rest mass as a result” (mine) and “The earliest calculations of a "classical electron radius" of which I am aware were based ... on trying to explain the electron's mass as electromagnetic self-interactionon” (yours) express exactly the same thing: one single identical equation. I had referenced Dirac in “the material that has been removed”, which according to you would be “unsuitable for this project.”: Dirac in 1928 talks about positrons and their relationship with the classical electron radius. Before that date positrons were unknown. Dirac uses the classical electron radius in the equation of a cross section, being any quantum interaction inherently probabilistic. But in a classical interpretation, where no probability is involved, a positron and an electron release their energy at exactly $$r_\text{e}$$. In the electron-positron annihilation according to QED instead, where quanta of known momentum have unknown position, both operators act at the same place. Both QED and classical are models, interpretations. Whatever you adopt, you must be coherent with its math. --Grufo (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to be polite, but this is getting ridiculous. You wrote, All this is obvious, because the classical electron radius was created with the precise purpose of fitting in that equation and give the electron rest mass as a result (because that was what they could see in the experiments: photons of 511 KeV). I pointed out that this is historically inaccurate. Electron-positron annihilation and 511-KeV photons had nothing to do with it; the formula predates even the concept of a photon. You seem to be barreling down a tangent of OR based on a thin thread of dimensional analysis. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * “I tried to be polite”
 * Let me show you… “The earliest calculations of a "classical electron radius" of which I am aware were based not on electron-positron annihilation or trying to account for 511-KeV photons, but on trying to explain the electron's mass as electromagnetic self-interaction.” -> Me: “I agree” (that's being polite) -> You: “What are you agreeing with? I just said that your portrayal of the history was fundamentally incorrect.”
 * So no, you didn't even want to. Your being impolite though is completely irrelevant. I will repeat myself: I agree with you, the classical electron radius was created in order to make the electrostatic self-energy entirely accountable for the electron mass. How you get the value of the mass, whether from the drop experiment or from the energy of a photon in a beta decay has never been a point in this discussion. The point is that the value of the mass is obtained experimentally, while the classical electron radius is derived from it (now please feel free to answer again “What are you agreeing with?”).
 * To derive the classical electron radius it is necessary to satisfy an old equation, much older than the discovery of the electron itself (at least in its original pure-energy form without the mass-energy equivalence). That equation says that the electrostatic self-energy that equals the electron mass, which is 511 KeV, corresponds to a charge contained within a radius $$r_\text{e}$$. That equation also says that the electrostatic free fall of an electron and a positron against each other (from rest) produces 511 KeV of energy (whether via photons or dancing clowns) in a collision happening exactly at $$r_\text{e}$$. And finally that same equation also says also that the merge would produce higher energies if the collision happened at a smaller radius: it is just a consequence of the fact that the charges would acquire more kinetic energy if they approached further.
 * “You seem to be barreling down a tangent of OR based on a thin thread of dimensional analysis.”
 * Do you know what dimensional analysis is? How has that anything to do with this?
 * “this is getting ridiculous”
 * Again, I agree with you. So I will try to synthesize what I have said so far in order to avoid further misunderstandings:
 * • An old equation that predates the electron itself allows to calculate the "classical electron radius"
 * • The same equation says that the electrostatic free fall of an electron and a positron against each other (from rest) produces 511 KeV of energy exactly at $$r_\text{e}$$
 * • That very same equation also says also that the merge would produce higher energies if the collision happened at a smaller radius
 * Please refer to my previous answer for further considerations concerning positron discovery and quantum mechanics. --Grufo (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring what I said, in order to twist it into an agreement with your claim, is not polite. You seem intent upon bringing in ahistorical irrelevancies that do not belong in this or any other Wikipedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with you is not ignoring you (and I didn't agree just in part or with a twist, I agreed, full stop). I would rather say that you are constantly failing to acknowledge that. I also think that you keep project on me what you do (“me” not being polite, “me” ignoring you…). That said, what I am agreeing you with is completely offtopic here, this is not a discussion about what experimental method for measuring the electron mass was historically used first, so I should have ignored you rather than agree with you. But fortunately it is not too late for that. --Grufo (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about whether material you wish to add to this article is, in fact, suitable. You made a historical claim ("because that was what they could see in the experiments: photons of 511 KeV"). I interpreted this as an argument you were making in favor of including your material, and I pointed out that it was historically incorrect. If I failed to be clear about this, I apologize. Nothing you have said since has made a case that the disputed text belongs in the article. In addition to the style issues, we need to know: Who has employed that thought-experiment before? Who has argued for its significance? Why is it any more meaningful or helpful or illuminating than the dozens of other situations that one could cook up where the relevant constants are the speed of light and the electron mass and charge, so the relevant length scale will be the classical electron radius up to a 2 or or a π? XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about whether material you wish to add to this article is, in fact, suitable. You made a historical claim ("because that was what they could see in the experiments: photons of 511 KeV"). I interpreted this as an argument you were making in favor of including your material, and I pointed out that it was historically incorrect. If I failed to be clear about this, I apologize. Nothing you have said since has made a case that the disputed text belongs in the article. In addition to the style issues, we need to know: Who has employed that thought-experiment before? Who has argued for its significance? Why is it any more meaningful or helpful or illuminating than the dozens of other situations that one could cook up where the relevant constants are the speed of light and the electron mass and charge, so the relevant length scale will be the classical electron radius up to a 2 or or a π? XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Electrostatic self-energy of the object
I do not understand where does the quotient 3/5 come from.

We know that V = kQ/r and dq = rho 4πr^2 dr

We also know that dU = Vdq.

Integrating this last equation, we calculate U. So if we put the values of V and dq in U, we obtain

U = integral(kQ rho 4πr dr) = kq rho 2π r^2

Now, we know rho = q/((4πr^3)/3) = 3q/(4πr^3). Putting this in U, we finally obtain

U = k (3/2) q^2/r

So I obtain the same equation as in the article, but instead of the quotient 3/5, I obtain the 3/2 one. Where I'm doing maths wrong (assuming the equation of U appearing in the article is correct)? 47.60.54.205 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Your first expression for U is incorrect.  Do the algebra more carefully. Qwerty123uiop (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They are well explained by Feynman here. The constant depends on the charge distribution assumed. Gah4 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They are well explained by Feynman here. The constant depends on the charge distribution assumed. Gah4 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

protons
OK, after accidentally putting this in the article, thinking it was in the talk page ...
 * I suppose, but the classical electron radius is most interesting as it is bigger than the actual electron. Classical proton radius is smaller than the proton.  This is related to using wave explanation when the wavelength is larger than the size, and particle explanation when it isn't.  Gah4 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but the classical electron radius is most interesting as it is bigger than the actual electron. Classical proton radius is smaller than the proton.  This is related to using wave explanation when the wavelength is larger than the size, and particle explanation when it isn't.  Gah4 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Classical electron radius