text:
NER Class P3

The North Eastern Railway (NER) Class P3, classified J27 by the LNER, is a class of 0-6-0 steam locomotive. The P3 Class was designed by Wilson Worsdell and was a relatively minor modification of the existing North Eastern Railway Class P2 (LNER Class J26). The most significant change was a deeper firebox with shallower sloping fire grate. This was achieved by raising the boiler slightly, and by reducing the clearance between the firebox and the rear axle. The P3 Class were a freight engine by nature and used for hauling long trains of freight.

Construction
Initially eighty J27s were built between 1906 and 1909 in five batches, distributed amongst the NER's Darlington Works, North British Locomotive Company, Beyer, Peacock and Company, and Robert Stephenson and Company. Twelve years later, a batch of twenty five J27s were built at Darlington with Schmidt superheaters and piston valves. These were delivered in 1921-2 and were followed by a final order of ten placed in December 1922 and built by the LNER at Darlington Works in 1923. The superheated J27s could be identified by their extended smokeboxes.

Post-war
After World War II, the J27s stopped hauling goods trains but they continued to haul heavy mineral trains. Withdrawals began in March 1959, but in June 1966 thirty-six were still putting in hard work hauling coal in County Durham and South Northumberland. The final J27s were withdrawn from the Blyth area where they operated the short trip workings between the nearby coalfield and shipping staithes. The last J27 was withdrawn in September 1967. The last four in active service were No. 65811, No. 65879, No. 65882, and No. 65884.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 4 November 1959, Locomotive No. 65847 had difficulty stopping a freight train, coming to rest foul of the line at West Sleekburn, Northumberland. Locomotive No. 65824 was hauling a freight train which was in a head-on collision. Both of its crew were killed.
 * On 8 June 1960, locomotive No. 65892 was in a side-long collision with a National Coal Board locomotive at Hilton, County Durham. Both locomotives were derailed.

Restoration
One, BR 65894, has survived to preservation and was purchased directly from BR by the North Eastern Locomotive Preservation Group on 1 December 1966. There then followed restoration to full working order, initially at Tyne Dock where the locomotive was stored after withdrawal, then professionally at the then still functioning National Coal Board workshops at Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear, and then at Thornaby Depot. Final restoration, including the fitting of vacuum brake and steam heating apparatus for working passenger trains, was by the group's volunteers at ICI Billingham.

Appearances
The locomotive, fully restored as NER class P3 No. 2392, was delivered to the embryonic North Yorkshire Moors Railway in October 1971. The locomotive provided the mainstay of services in the period leading up to full re-opening of the line, when it piloted Lambton Collieries Tank No. 29 on the Royal Re-opening Special of 1 May 1973. Following its appearance as an exhibit at the Stockton and Darlington 150 celebrations and cavalcade, it was withdrawn for boiler repairs. From 1977 until early 1982 it was on display in the National Railway Museum at York. After a further overhaul, 2392 returned to traffic on the N.Y.M.R. in the autumn of 1984. The engine then received another overhaul during the 1990s, resteaming in 1996 in BR Black livery as 65894, before reverting to NER livery in Autumn 2003. During these periods in operation, the loco saw use on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway, the Llangollen Railway, the North Norfolk Railway, the Embsay and Bolton Abbey Steam Railway, the East Lancashire Railway, and the Weardale Railway alongside occasional use at the NYMR. The engine was again withdrawn for overhaul in May 2006 at the Darlington Railway Museum, where it initially went on display for two years before work on a further overhaul started.

Current status
The engine is still owned by the North Eastern Locomotive Preservation Group, and is currently at the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) having been transferred from the NELPG's Hopetown (Darlington) works for the final stages of its most recent overhaul, partly funded by a Heritage Lottery Fund grant. The loco's overhaul was recently completed and 65894, in BR black livery, re-entered service on the NYMR in May 2018, following a lengthy 12 year restoration period. It visited The Wensleydale Railway in 2018 & 2019.

title: NER Class P3


text:
User talk:BrunoJunqueira

Your work on Prostitution in the Netherlands
is terrific. S. Miyano 15:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC) No, the history-part is too sketchy and not all the nuances are included. But thanks anyway.Bruno Junqueira 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:BrunoJunqueira


text: File:Comic bc.JPG

title: File:Comic bc.JPG


text:
Hugh Bourne

Hugh Bourne (3 April 1772 – 11 October 1852) along with William Clowes was the joint founder of Primitive Methodism, the largest offshoot of Wesleyan Methodism and, in the mid-19th century, an influential Protestant Christian movement in its own right.

Early life
Hugh Bourne was born on 3 April 1772 at Ford Hayes Farm, Ford Hayes Lane, Bucknall, within the present-day boundaries of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire.

Hugh was the son of Joseph and Ellen Bourne. In 1788, after basic training as a carpenter, Hugh moved to the nearby mining village of Bemersley (in the north-eastern fringe of the present-day Stoke-on-Trent) and was apprenticed to his uncle as a wheelwright. After 'serving his time' learning the trade, Bourne specialised principally in making and repairing windmill and watermill wheels.

Bourne was brought up in a religious family and from the age of seven was increasingly troubled by existential and religious questions. He lived with a rather morbid fear of being condemned to Hell and spent, as he phrased it, "twenty sorrowful years" in pursuit of salvation. Naturally, the shy young Bourne read the Bible, but it was only when his mother brought him an anthology of Christian writings in 1799 that the Christian message of salvation really began to resonate. Bourne wrote, "I believed in my heart, grace descended and Jesus Christ manifested himself unto me, my sins were taken away in an instant, and I was filled with all joy and peace in believing."

Bourne's conversion at the age of 27 led him to join the local Wesleyan society at Burslem, one of the historical six towns of the City of Stoke-on-Trent. He continued as a wheelwright but, after a period of group bible study, soon became a Methodist lay-preacher.

By 1800, Bourne had moved a short distance to Harriseahead, a mining village near Biddulph close to the Staffordshire–Cheshire border. Bourne was appalled at the moral state of his new surroundings, saying, "There was not in England a neighbourhood that was more ungodly and profane. A stranger could hardly go over Harriseahead without insult and sometimes not without injury."

Bourne was "constitutionally shy, somewhat dour, yet – strange union of opposites – courageous and doggedly persistent". He soon earned a reputation as a zealous preacher but the Wesleyan leadership were uncomfortable with his radicalism. Initially, he conducted a recognisably Wesleyan form of service but, later, he rejected this as being boring and out of date; in short, the traditional service was 'not fit for purpose'. To engage with people, Bourne developed a style of open-air preaching, combined with public confession of sin, group prayer, and hymn singing. This was clearly distinctive from the Wesleyan norm and provided the template for the later Camp Meetings. A chapel was established at Harriseahead and, by 1804, the religious 'revival' Bourne began in his new village had spread to the northern Potteries towns of Burslem and Tunstall and into south Cheshire. One notable achievement of this revival was the religious conversion of Burslem-born William Clowes (1780–1851), the other joint founder of Primitive Methodism.

Often overlooked is the change following what may be called "Hugh Bourne's Pentecost". In 1804, some "revivalists" from Stockport led the Michaelmas Love Feast at Congleton where they spoke of John Wesley's teaching of "entire sanctification". Jesse Ashworth, who knew some of these revivalists, records the change in Hugh Bourne and his companions. Their preaching, and the Church, found a new freedom and blessing from God. They held a Christmas Love Feast at Harriseahead, with many standing on or between the pews for lack of space. This began the time of revival when some key Primitive Methodist leaders, most importantly William Clowes, were converted.

Camp meetings, Bourne's expulsion and the origins of Primitive Methodism
Bourne and Clowes' Primitive Methodism germinated in the Camp Meetings from 1807 onwards and its separate organisational form came about as a direct result of the Wesleyan circuit authorities' reaction to these Meetings. Camp Meetings were all day, open-air gatherings for Christian preaching and group prayer, usually followed by a Love Feast. They were based on evangelical revival meetings in America. The first such meeting in England was held on Sunday 31 May 1807, between 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., in a field at School Farm, Mow Cop, about a quarter of a mile south west of Mow Cop Folly (a mock castle ruins built in 1754). Mow Cop, on the Staffordshire–Cheshire border, was a bleak spot lying as it does on a limestone ridge rising to 1,091 feet above sea level. Nevertheless, during the afternoon, the Camp still managed to draw a crowd of up to 4,000 people.

Although Mow Cop was supposed to be a one-off, the number of conversions confirmed Bourne in his belief in the relevance and effectiveness of Camp Meetings and others soon followed. There was a second Mow Camp Meeting (19 July) and a third at Norton-in-the-Moors (now a north-eastern neighbourhood in Stoke-on-Trent) on 23 August 1807. Others included Ramsor (Staffordshire) (two miles north of Alton Towers).

"Men naturally turn to Mow Cop rather than to Norton, for there is more to engage and impress the imagination in the former; but to those who judge of events by their significance and results, Norton overtops Mow. It is not always the first step that is the most difficult: sometimes it is harder to go on than to begin... [The Norton Camp Meeting] is, historically, the most important; for, before it was held, the Liverpool Conference of 1807 had given its judgement, and the judgement was adverse. Naturally, the ministers of the Burslem Circuit, the storm-centre of the movement, lost no time on their return in endeavouring to preserve their societies from complicity with what the Conference had pronounced to be 'highly improper and likely to be of considerable mischief'".

After the Wesleyan authorities' reaction to the first three Camp Meetings, it was no surprise that, ten months after the Norton-in-the-Moors Camp, Bourne was expelled from the Wesleyan Methodists by the Burslem Quarterly Meeting. The reason given was non-attendance at Bible class but the real reason was explained by the Wesleyan superintendent who told Bourne that it was "because you have a tendency to set up other than the ordinary worship". (Ironically, this was the reason the Anglican Church of England gave for refusing to endorse John Wesley's mission in the mid-18th century.)

Unlike Rev. Joseph Cooke of east Lancashire, who had been expelled by the Conference of 1806, Bourne and his supporters had no doctrinal dispute with the Wesleyans. Thus, for the next couple of years, the societies sympathetic to Bourne (known as 'Camp Meeting Methodists') continued to remain part of the parent body but things changed in 1811. After the Ramsor Camp on 3 June 1810 when Mary Dunnell was one of the speakers, William Clowes was excluded from the Wesleyan Methodists and, in 1811, Bourne and his brother founded the first Chapel since his expulsion in Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Bourne visited Derbyshire where Mary Dunnell was making good progress around Darley Moor, Osmanton, and Rodsley. Dunnell told him that she had a vision that William Allcock and William Clowes had lost their faith and Boutnes set off to see them. It is speculated that Dunnell invented the vision to leave herself in charge if what became known as "Mrs Dunnell's people". The Derbyshire followers were annoyed when Bourne revealled that Dunnell was a bigamist and she left, afterwards Bourne had to avoid the area.

Clowes, and his followers ('Clowesites'), issued an invitation to Bourne, and his supporters, to form a new organisation. In February 1812 the new body adopted the name 'Society of the Primitive Methodists', which is believed to refer to John Wesley's assertion that the early Methodists manifested the "Primitive" Christianity of the 1st century. The fledgling movement spread rapidly, first along the valley of the Trent. In 1819 the inaugural Primitive Methodist Conference was held at Nottingham (the site of a large Camp Meeting on Whit Sunday 1816 which had been attended by 12,000) and the second at Hull in 1820.

Bourne's organisational ability and the growth of Primitive Methodism
Missions, often accompanied by Camp Meetings, were disproportionately successful in working-class mining and agricultural communities. Each circuit planned and carried out its own missionary work separately until 1825, when the Conference appointed the General Missionary Committee to centralise guidance. By 1842 membership had increased to almost 80,000 with 500 travelling preachers and more than 1,200 chapels.

Beginning in 1803, Bourne kept a personal journal. Themes found in the extant volumes of his journal include preaching activities, remarks in support of teetotalism, Sunday schools, and Methodist politics.

Bourne travelled and preached widely in England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the USA until his death in 1852. He was a man of exceptional energy and organisational abilities. Bourne also wrote the History of the Primitive Methodists (1823), a variety of theological tracts on subjects from baptism to salvation, edited the Primitive Methodist hymn book, and was editor of the denominational magazine for two decades.

Whilst there were no essential doctrinal differences with the Wesleyans, Primitive Methodism was shaped by the experience of vilification shared by Bourne, Clowes, and others. Thus, whereas the Wesleyans concentrated a great deal of authority in the hands of their Ministers, the Primitive Methodists chose instead to trust the role of lay people.

Another difference of emphasis between Hugh Bourne and some of the Wesleyans of his time was his desire to follow closely the teaching of John Wesley in the mid-18th century. Weary with persecution, many Wesleyans, though true to the same doctrines, had toned down their preaching in an effort to court respectability. This was one of the factors behind the 1807 Methodist Conference's condemnation of Camp Meetings. The Minutes (widely quoted in Holliday Bickerstaffe Kendall and most histories of Primitive Methodism) say, "It is our judgment, that even supposing such meetings to be allowable in America, they are highly improper in England, and likely to be productive of considerable mischief; and we disclaim all connection with them."

Primitive Methodism was also shaped by Bourne's joint concern for the spiritual salvation and social welfare of ordinary working people. For example, just like Keir Hardie in the early 20th century, Bourne understood that drunkenness was a major factor which kept working-class people down in base conditions. Also, In the face of establishment opposition, Bourne promoted working class education, including instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, in addition to religious teaching, at the Primitive Methodist Sunday Schools. Many early trade union pioneers were drawn from the ranks of Primitive Methodist Preachers, and a basic 'welfare state' used to operate among chapel-goers, their neighbours and families. In common with some other non-conformists, Bourne accepted women as of equal status with men by (amongst other things) appointing women Preachers.

By the time of his death (11 October 1852), Bourne was regarded as a father figure for the movement and his funeral procession was attended by more than 16,000 people. He is buried at Englesea Brook chapel in Weston, near Crewe, south Cheshire, not far from his home in Bemersley, near Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent, north Staffordshire.

By 1860 the international movement he helped to found and organise had 650 Ministers, 11,304 local preachers and over 100,000 members. It had extended beyond the British Isles, Canada and the USA to Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and South Africa.

title: Hugh Bourne


text:
Edward A. Pollard

Edward Alfred Pollard (February 27, 1832 – December 17, 1872) was an American author, journalist, and Confederate sympathizer during the American Civil War who wrote several books on the causes and events of the war, notably The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates(1866) and The Lost Cause Regained(1868), wherein Pollard originated the long-standing pseudo-historical ideology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

Written after the war, these works advocated white supremacy, supported the relegation of blacks to second-class status, and accused the Union and federal government of alleged excesses committed both during and after the war. The books gave two different descriptions of the causes of the war and the nature of Southern society: The Lost Cause claimed the main reason for the war was the two opposing ways (largely slavery) of organizing society, and viewed slavery as key to the nobility of the South, while The Lost Cause Regained argued that the primary reason for secession was not slavery, but the preservation of state sovereignty. The latter viewpoint reflects much of Pollard's post-1867 attempts to reconcile former pro-Confederacy ideas with new realities, patriotism, and free-labor unionism.

Early life and education
Edward Alfred Pollard was born on February 27, 1832, on the Oak Ridge Plantation in Nelson County, Virginia, which his grandfather Robert Rives, had built and made his primary residence until his death when Edward was a boy. His mother, Paulina Cabell Rives Pollard, descended from the region's powerful (and slaveholding) Cabell family, one of the First Families of Virginia and had married Richard Pollard. Edward was the youngest of their children; his eldest brother James Rives Pollard would die in 1862. Four of his maternal uncles served in the Virginia General Assembly, and William Cabell Rives (1793–1868), who inherited Oak Ridge upon his father's death, represented Virginia in both houses of Congress as well as served as a U.S. Ambassador to France.

Edward Pollard received a private education suitable for his class, then attended the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia (which his grandfather had helped found), graduating in 1849. Although his uncle Alexander Rives was a prominent local lawyer (and would later become a judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and the U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia), Edward studied law formally, first in Williamsburg at the College of William and Mary as well as in Baltimore, where he was admitted to the bar.

Career
Pollard did not establish a legal practice, but rather traveled to California where he worked for a newspaper until 1855. Pollard would later write that his experiences during the aftermath of the California Gold Rush convinced him that free-labor societies were a competitive war of all against all, which he used in his justifications of slavery. From 1857 to 1861, Pollard was clerk for the United States House Committee on the Judiciary.

During the American Civil War, Pollard was one of the principal editors of the Richmond Examiner (along with Robert William Hughes). The newspaper supported the Confederate States of America, but was hostile to President Jefferson Davis. In 1864, Pollard attempted to sail for England, but the blockade runner on which he traveled was captured, and Pollard was confined in Fort Warren in Boston Harbor from 29 May until August 12, when he was paroled. In December of that year, an order of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton assigned the again-captured Pollard in close confinement at Fort Monroe. However, he was soon again paroled by General B. F. Butler, whom Pollard had met in Washington, D.C., before the war. In January, Pollard was sent toward Richmond, Virginia, in a planned exchange for Albert D. Richardson (1833–1869), a well-known correspondent of the New York Tribune, but Richardson had escaped before Pollard's arrival.

Pollard wrote several books. In 1859, he advocated reopening the slave trade in Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes of the South. He also rejected ideas that slavery improved the slaves and that slavery should gradually fade away. Unlike his most prominent uncles, William C. and Alexander Rives, Pollard strongly favored secession and during the civil war continued to write about slave society and Union depredations. After Union forces occupied Richmond in 1865, Pollard was arrested for continuing to publish pro-Confederate and pro-slavery writings, and he decried emancipation as the North's ultimate war crime.

In 1866, Pollard published his most famous work, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. This book portrayed the war as a contest between "two nations of opposite civilizations" that had been different since colonial times. Unlike the Puritan North, the Cavalier South had developed a "feudal" society based on slave labor, which "established in the South a peculiar and noble type of civilization." Pollard argued that slavery "inculcated notions of chivalry," "polished the manners" of slaveholders, and relieved the “demands of physical labor,” thus affording the "opportunity for extraordinary culture.” Pollard also worried that the wartime defeat might cause the South to "lose its moral and intellectual distinctiveness as a people, and cease to assert its well-known superiority in civilization." He also wrote that "the South wants and insists upon perpetrating" a "war of ideas".

In 1867 Pollard wrote that the rebellion would re-open and be successful, but the realities of Congressional Reconstruction forced him to reconsider. Also, Republican political gains in late 1867 and the makeup of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1867–1868 after many ex-Confederates either could not vote or boycotted, led Pollard to believe that southern Democrats should not stand aside from politics in the upcoming 1868 election. He began to think of the Civil War as a constitutional contest rather than an ideological contest of opposing social systems, and began to support President Andrew Johnson as a defender of constitutional liberty. In similar tones, Pollard began speaking of pre-war states-rights advocates such as John C. Calhoun as Unionists who sought only their constitutional rights and not secession.

In 1868, Pollard advocated white supremacy (calling it both the "true cause of the war" and the "true hope of the South") during Reconstruction in The Lost Cause Regained, which was written as a Democratic campaign document. He otherwise wrote that Johnson's programs were right, and that secession was not a legal act. In this book, Pollard no longer supported former President Jefferson Davis, instead attacking him for being ineffective and ignorant, and a year later he wrote a scathing biography of Davis entitled The Life of Jefferson Davis. In that book he also criticized many other political and military leaders of the Confederacy. Pollard wrote that the southern way of life had contributed largely to the defeat. Biographer Jack Maddex Jr. believes that Pollard found it hard to navigate inconsistencies between his new-found pro-Union white supremacist position and a pro-Confederate position he also attempted to hold; after Pollard published his biography of Davis, the Confederacy ceased as a main topic in his writings.

Meanwhile, he also edited a weekly paper in Richmond, Virginia, from 1867 to 1869. Moreover, he conducted the Political Pamphlet there during the presidential campaign of 1868.

Pollard's opinions continued to change. By the early 1870s, Pollard wrote in favor of northern capitalism and thrift, limited civil rights legislation, and black suffrage. He supported segregation, but opposed the Ku Klux Klan, and shortly before his death wrote that by 1860, slavery had "completed its historic mission and its continuance would have been an inexcusable oppression."

Death
Pollard died on December 17, 1872, in Lynchburg, Virginia, at 40. He was buried in the Rives family cemetery on the Oakridge Plantation, notwithstanding its postwar sale to wealthy investor Oliver Beirne, who let it be used as a residence for his daughter and her husband, the former fire-eater U.S. and Confederate Congressman William Porcher Miles. General Robert E. Lee having urged Southerners to move on after the wartime defeat, but having died in 1870, the Lost Cause movement would then be fostered by "unrepentant Confederate" Gen. Jubal Early (who had moved to Lynchburg), and by well-connected Lynchburg lawyer and future U.S. Senator John Warwick Daniel, as well as by former Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

title: Edward A. Pollard


text:
User talk:Rizman720

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following: Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Place   on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
 * 2) Make your case on the article's .

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles that you have created yourself. If you continue to remove them, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vehicular Manslaughter (band)
This article has been nominated for deletion (or has already been deleted). Don't be discouraged! Many of us have had articles deleted, especially early in our wikicareers. Deletion is not a reflection on your editing but simply the application of our standard rules, particularly WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:BIO for persons, WP:WEB for websites, WP:CORP for companies, WP:MUSIC for bands, and so forth.) Looking forward to your future contributions, Herostratus 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pofony
A tag has been placed on Pofony requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chris (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rizman720


text:
Österreicher (surname)

Österreicher or Oestreicher or is a German language surname with the literal meaning  "One from Austria", "the Austrian" (German Österreich means "Austria"). 'Oe' is a common rendering of "Ö" whenever the diacritics are not available.

Österreicher

 * Karl Österreicher (1923–1995), Austrian conductor
 * Johann Friedrich Oesterreicher (1771–1835), a Bishop of Eichstätt
 * John M. Oesterreicher (1904–1993), an Austrian Roman Catholic theologian
 * József Manes Österreicher (1756–1831), a Jewish Hungarian physician
 * Richard Oesterreicher (1932–2023), Austrian musician
 * Rudolf Österreicher (1881–1966), Austrian writer

Oestreicher

 * John Oestreicher (1936–2011), American politician and lawyer
 * Rachel Oestreicher Bernheim (born 1943), a Jewish American human rights activist
 * Robert T. Oestreicher (1894–1955), American businessman and 45th mayor of Columbus, Ohio

title: Österreicher (surname)


text:
Mount Thor

Mount Thor, officially gazetted as Thor Peak (ᙯᕐᓱᐊᓗᒃ Qaisualuk "huge bedrock" or Kigutinnguaq "tooth-like" ), is a mountain with an elevation of 1675 m located in Auyuittuq National Park, on Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada. The mountain is located 46 km northeast of Pangnirtung and features Earth's greatest vertical drop of 4100 ft, with the cliff overhanging at an average angle of 105 degrees (15 degrees from vertical). Despite its remoteness, this feature makes the mountain a popular rock climbing site. Camping is allowed, with several designated campsites located throughout the length of Akshayuk Pass. For climbers looking to scale Mount Thor, there is an established campsite a few kilometres north of its base, complete with windbreaks and emergency shelters.

The English naming of the mountain originates from Thor, the Norse thunder god.

Geography
Mount Thor is part of the Baffin Mountains which in turn form part of the Arctic Cordillera mountain range.

Geology
This mountain consists of solid granite. The rock making up this formation have been metamorphosed multiple times through earth's history, causing this granitic layer to be pushed through other layers. The age of the rock ranges from 570 million years to 3.5 billion years (Precambrian), making it some of the oldest rock on earth.

The peak and vertical drop itself are a product of glacial erosion, carved over millennia by seasonal glacial activity through the Akshayuk Pass, on the rim of which this mountain sits. Like other glacial channels, this pass has the characteristic U-shape which gives the mountain its vertical drop

Ascents
Donald Morton and Lyman Spitzer made the first recorded ascent of Mount Thor in 1965 during the Alpine Club of Canada expedition led by Pat Baird. Pat Baird also led the 1953 geophysical expedition during which Hans Weber, J. Rothlisberger and F. Schwarzenbach climbed the North Tower of Mount Asgard for the first time.

The first ascent of the west face was achieved by Earl Redfern, John Bagley, Eric Brand and Tom Bepler in 1985. The first solo ascent of the West Face was completed by Jason 'Singer' Smith in 1998. The first free climb of the Southwest Buttress was made in 2012 by Bill Borger and John Furneaux.

title: Mount Thor


text:
Talk:Constituent (linguistics)

Initial post
I cleaned up the headings above the first paragraph, but I think it needs more work. I'll look at it again later. Dalbury 21:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some relatively minor changes and removed the "wikify" tag, as I believe the article now substantially conforms to standards. - Dalbury 16:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ad coordination test: how does non-constituent coordination fit into the picture? --Jirka6 02:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction needs more work. The second paragraph should make its example clearer, should probably state explicitly that "what he said" is a constituent. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

consitituent tests
Just thought I'd point at this page Talk:Polysynthetic_language - the "who kicked the carrot" examples on that page cleared things up very nicely for me, so I wondered whether they might be a good import for this page (if all the aspects those examples describe are not already covered in this article) EdwardLane (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Phrase structure, dependency structure
Before an edit war breaks out, let's have some discussion here. I think the latest edit, at least in the last paragraph of the section, is pushing a POV. Moreover, the section is poorly sourced. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to simply remove the whole section. So, suggestions for improvements, please. -- Donald Albury 10:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You beat me here. I agree this section is unwarranted, for the following reasons:
 * Like Donald pointed out, it's pushing for the author's preferred linguistic theory (see User:Tjo3ya), which is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual information, not to make arguments in an unfolding debate. It's one thing to summarize other people's widely documented arguments (done in articles like, e.g., Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters and Plate tectonics), but it's entirely another to tell readers "here's evidence that the theory I subscribe to is right, let me walk you through it".
 * The section is not even about the topic of constituency; rather, it's using the topic of constituency to make an argument about whether phrase-structure grammar or dependency grammar is "right". Ignoring for now the logical issue (i.e., the author's conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the data he presents in this section--but that's not relevant to the editorial issue here so it would be a waste of time to discuss it here), this argument is just not relevant to the topic at hand.
 * To retain what little information is relevant and do so in an NPOV way, the whole section could be replaced (and possibly moved to elsewhere in the article) with a single sentence along the lines of " in dependency grammar, head (linguistics)s are not constituents ". (I assume this is a slight oversimplification, but this appears to be the general idea: in dependency grammar, nodes dominating other nodes cannot be constituents, and for the most part those nodes correspond to the heads in a traditional tree structure.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Rjanag, you write "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual information, not to make arguments in an unfolding debate". I think the section presents factual information, and I think by doing so, this information will help the debate unfold. If there is anything inaccurate about the claims in the section, I encourage you (or anyone else) to please point them out. I am certainly not interested in misrepresenting the facts. Quite to the contrary, I want the facts to be known and for a debate to be unleashed.

 * I encourage you and Donald to examine the issue closely. Take an example sentence and apply the constituency tests to each and every phrase structure constituent in that sentence in a neutral fashion. You will find that most (coordination is the one major exception here!) of the constituency tests fail to identify a majority (I repeat, a majority) of phrase structure constituents as constituents. At the same time, they succeed at identifying a majority (but not all!) of the dependency grammar constituents as constituents.

 * Wikipedia is widely used by novice learners. The novice learner is going to be frustrated by the fact that widely employed constituency tests do not deliver results that match the constituency-based structures that they are learning. In this regard, there needs to be general awareness that there is a major alternative to the phrase structure grammar understanding of sentence structure. Without the key section that draws attention to the alternative, the debate cannot unfold and we are all poorer as a result.

 * Concerning sourcing the section, I can add more citations to peer-reviewed publications. The difficulty, however, is that the sources that address the issue directly are those of me and my co-authors.

 * Finally, I would like to avoid an editing war. I am not comfortable, however, with omitting the section entirely or to reducing it to a single sentence. I can rewrite it in such a manner that seems more neutral, but in the scheme of things, the facts are difficult to interpret in a manner that leads one to a neutral conclusion.

 * I encourage you guys to comment further. - Tjo3ya.

The reason that Rjanag deleted this section is apparently that it says that one kind of structure claims that single words are constituents whereas the other kind of structure does not make this claim. This section does not say that one kind of structure is right and the other is wrong. But perhaps Rjanag believes that this section encourages this inference.

To settle this issue, there would have to be discussion in places other than Wikipedia as to the correctness of this claim. Are single words constituents or are they not? Dnmaxwell (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Constituent" is not a term unique to PSGs. D[ependency]G[rammar]s can acknowledge constituents, too. Clearly, the theories dubbed "main-stream" in this discussion don't have the prerogative over the term. Rather the term is open to all approaches in syntax. Hence I see no compelling argument why "constituent" shouldn't be discussed also from the DG angle. The argument from "main-stream" also seems dubious. I didn't know it was Wikipedia policy to feature issues as seen solely from the "main-stream". If so, further clarification is required what qualifies as "main-stream". One should also be aware that some of the issues raised by Tjo3ya feature in several publications in grade A journals (Syntax, The Linguistic Review, Cognitive Linguistics). Rikaido88 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Debate is necessary
Rjanag, I have revised and restored the section. I have tried to use as neutral wording as possible, but again, it is difficult to arrive at a neutral conclusion when one examines the facts. You write that the section should not be restored until consensus has been reached. I think the opposite holds. The section should not be removed until there is a consensus to that effect. No consensus will be reached, however, if the section does not appear, for there will be no debate at all. Please do not delete the section, since this debate is really necessary. -- Tjo3ya.

Edit warring
Despite my request to avoid an edit war and instead discuss changes here on the talk page, both of you are edit warring. Neither of you are helping your case by doing so. I'm not going to get involved in the technical details, as my linguistics is way too rusty (more than 35 years since I left the field). Cool it, talk here, seek third party opinions, but stop reverting each other. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid Tjo3ya is not familiar with WP:BRD, which says that once his addition is removed he should refrain from re-adding it until consensus is reached; he also seems to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing, given that he appears to have canvassed his colleagues off-wiki to come support him in this discussion.
 * Regarding the content issues, my main points above have not really been responded to. Even in the most recent version, this section is still not about the topic of constituents, it's still framed as an argument about which type of tree better represents constituency (and, even though Tjo3ya and his colleagues are denying it, it clearly presents a slanted version of the argument that comes out in favor of his preferred framework). If Tjo3ya can't manage to write a section that is actually about the topic of this article, then there is no reason to include it. If he wants to include a section like this, it should be a section that is actually about some argument over whether single words are constituents (citing sources that indicate there is a debate over this), and that can be done without even mentioning PSGs and DGs.
 * I'm not a theoretical syntactician and it's been a long time since I've read an intro syntax book or any syntax articles, but I am somewhat doubtful that "can single words be constituents" even is a major debate. As I hinted at above (but wanted to avoid getting into), Tjo3ya's argument is a bit shaky. First of all, as he himself acknowledges in this section, one of the words in question does pass at least one common constituency test (it also passes a replacement test, which Tjo3ya failed to mention), and the reason it fails topicalization and clefting/pseudoclefting tests is because English word order is not as free with regard to verbs as it is for some other things. Secondly, it is widely known that constituency tests are merely an aid and they don't necessarily dictate what is and is not a constituent; they are to be used judiciously, and the results taken with a grain of salt.
 * Long story short: this section is written in such a way that it's not relevant to the article's topic, it's POV even though the author doesn't seem to see it, and its claims are logically shaky. It needs to be removed until such time as Tjo3ya can draft an acceptable replacement (preferably in his own userspace, for instance in User:Tjo3ya/Sandbox, where it can be reviewed by other editors before being moved to the article). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, I do not agree with your interpretation of BRD. You acted, Tjo3ya reverted. At that point, you both should have stopped editing the section and discussed it here. Your reversion of Tjo3ya was a step down the slope to an edit war. -- Donald Albury 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Since I am one of the contributors of the revised page, I need not be canvassed. Note that Rjanag seems to see the argument from canvassing as an excuse not to address the content of what I wrote. PSGs as well as DGs make use of the term “constituent”. What qualifies as a constituent is different, though. This difference needs to be shown and explained on the respective page. If there is a difference, then the question arises which approach is the more adequate one. A comparison of PSG candidates and DG candidates for constituency will show that DG candidates pass constituency tests, while many PSG candidates do not. The caveat on constituency tests exists for exactly the reason that many PSG units, many of them again central to the system, fail to conform to these tests. The discussion of these issues can surely appear in different sections on the page, but stating the fact that PSGs do worse in constituency test than DGs is not really “pushing a POV”.Rikaido88 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rikaido88, who are you? You claim to be a contributor to the page, but your only edits are to this talk page. -- Donald Albury 14:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Donald, I created picture files of the tree structures Tjo3ya uploaded. In this sense, I am a "silent" contributor, and an interested party. My professional field is theoretical linguistics.Rikaido88 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
Rjanag,

Edit warring is bad for both of us. We clearly profoundly disagree about the core issue. I want to reach a compromise. Here's what I can do:

1. I could email to you the exact pages from A-level peer-reviewed articles where the issue is addressed directly. I could also cite these articles directly in the section (although doing so would fill the literature list with my name, which I want to avoid).

2. I could expand the section, including more data to further illustrate the point. The drawback here, though, is that the general point would become stronger and would therefore likely be perceived as an even greater challenge to phrase structure grammar.

3. I could produce a much lengthier illustration and discussion of the issues here on this discussion page. This approach might be beneficial since it would provide more background information to help others add their views. Be aware, however, that for me to do this, the original section needs to remain more or less intact on the main page. If it is relegated to my Userpage or appears only on this discussion page, the issue will die because nobody will see it. The debate will not occur. That result is unacceptable for me.

4. I could rewrite the section in a manner that directly addresses suggestions from you. To do this however, I need concrete constructive suggestions. I need to see more clearly how I can revise the section in a manner that can take your views into account.

5. I could produce a separate article that addresses the controversy in depth. I am quite open to this possibility. But to do this, the section needs to remain more or less intact where it is. I would link to the additional article. If the section does not remain more or less intact where it is, no one would proceed to the additional article and the message would be lost; the debate would again be silenced.

In sum, what can I do to ease your concerns?

--Tjo3ya (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You still have not responded to the issues I raised: the section is irrelevant to the topic of the article and is pushing a POV. Also, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for spreading awareness to the masses. Arguments like "the issue will die if it's relegated to my userpage" and "the debate will be silenced" are not appropriate or helpful; if your goal is to 'inform the masses', you may wish to consider a related project such as Wikinfo. (Also, if you read my message you will see that I never said the content should be relegated to your userpage; I said you should write a draft there and allow it to be reviewed by editors before posting it in the article.) But I am tired of repeating myself so I have asked some uninvolved editors to comment. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag,

If I write a draft on my user page, how do I get editors to read it and who are these editors? How do I get people to look at the page if it is not a main page? You, for instance, would likely not visit my user page to provide feedback on the draft of a section for the main page of this article. In fact my guess is that I am now debating this issue with you precisely because you originally read the section on the main page here and disagreed with it.

Your stance that the section does not belong in the article is mistaken, in my view. Many aspiring or established linguists who are examining constituent structure and considering constituency tests (something which most syntax and linguistic textbooks do) is going to question why a majority (I repeat, a majority) of the units that are posited as constituents (in a phrase structure grammar) are not identified as constituents by most of the standard constituency tests. Let's take another example and examine the point. Consider the word "wrote" in the following sentence with respect to the eight constituency tests enumerated in the main article (note that most of the constituency tests were already in the article before I revised it):

(1) Fred wrote a draft.
 * *Wrote Fred a draft. - Topicalization
 * *It was wrote that Fred (did) a draft. -Clefting
 * *What Fred did a draft was wrote. - Pseudoclefting
 * What did Fred do about a draft? *Wrote. - Answer fragment
 * ?Fred did a draft. - Pro-form substitution.
 * A draft was written by Fred. - Passivization (test inconclusive, since "wrote" does not appear in the passivized sentence)
 * *Fred a draft. - Ommission
 * Fred [pondered] and [wrote] a draft. - Coordination

Given the standard definition of the "constituent", phrase structure grammars unanimously view "wrote" as a constituent, whereas dependency grammars unanimously view it as a non-constituent. Of the eight tests, five agree that "wrote" is not a constituent. One of them (coordination) disagrees, and two of them are inconclusive. Passivization is inconclusive because the test word "wrote" no longer appears in the passivized sentence, and pro-form substitution is inconclusive because it is not clear that we can view "did" as a pro-form standing in for "wrote" -- it may have full lexical content (especially in view of the requirement that it occur with an agent subject and can therefore not stand in for non-agentive verbs, e.g. "contain, happen, take place, etc.").

The aspiring or established linguist who ponders data like these might be led to the conclusion that constituency tests are really not very useful at all, since they (with the exception of coordination) suggest that a unit that all phrase structure grammars take to be a constituent is not really a constituent. At this point, awareness of the dependency grammar alternative needs to come into play. The aspiring and established linguist needs to be made aware of the fact that there is another way of understanding constituent structure that may be more compatible with the results of the constituency tests. The article on constituents is the primary place where this alternative needs to appear.

Let me state again that I am very willing to work with you, Rjanag. How can the issue just presented be developed in as neutral a manner as possible? I could change the wording significantly. I could draw attention to the fact that phrase structure grammars reach to the distinction between minimal, intermediate, and maximal projections to address the discrepancy. Perhaps that might ease your concerns. Let me know.

--Tjo3ya (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Tjo3ya, what are your sources for your argument? Please provide citations to reliable sources for all of your claims. I hope that you are not presenting your own original research here. -- Donald Albury 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 * @Tjo3ya: I waited until I got home from vacation to respond to your message, so I could look at what some popular introductory syntax textbooks say about constituency (since you seem to be concerned about students who might be reading this). I noticed that both Adger (2003) and Carnie (2002) [the former is a Minimalist perspective and the latter is GBT] define a constituent as a group of words (Adger 2003:63; Carnie 2002:31), which makes your concern about verbs and content words moot. I have nothing more to say about the theoretical issue because, as I have said repeatedly above, I am not interested in getting into a theoretical debate with you—the issue here is not which theory is better, the issue is an editorial issue of how you are editing the article. I will repeat (for the last time) the issues that I have already pointed out and you have failed to address:
 * The section is POV, with you cherry-picking examples to try and show that your theoretical standpoint is the right now.
 * The section is poorly framed, such that what you write doesn't even come across as being about the topic of constituency, but rather about what theoretical model is a better way of representing it, which is not really relevant here.
 * But I am tired of repeating myself so I have asked some uninvolved editors to comment. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitions
Rjanag,

Please dig a little more. For definitions of the "constituent", see the following sources: Napoli 1993:167; Jacobson 1996:55; Haegeman and Guéron 1999:51; Carnie 2008:37.

Carnie, A., 2008. Constituent Structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Haegeman, L., Guéron, J., 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Jacobson, P., 1996. Constituent structure. In: A Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theory. Pergamon, Cambridge.

Napoli, D., 1993. Syntax: Theory and Problems. Oxford University Press, New York.

By attempting to argue that phrase structure grammars do not necessarily view individual words as constituents, you are weakening your credibility in this debate and increasing my willingness to resist at all costs. You need to concede the issue. Phrase structure grammars do necessarily view each individual word as a constituent (and in this regard, the results of the constituency tests do not support the phrase structure grammar approach to syntactic structure; the tests deliver results that are much more (but not entirely!) congruent with the dependency grammar understanding of sentence structure).

Take a simple verb phrase as an example, e.g.

(1) acknowledge fact

You are attempting to argue that this verb phrase is a constituent (in the greater sentence that contains it), but that it cannot be broken down into the smaller constituents acknowledge and fact. In other words, acknowledge and fact cannot be viewed as the constituent parts of acknowledge fact. I challenge you to find any established phrase structure grammarian who would accept that claim. Let me know who they are (so I can contact them).

Where you and Taivo below are correct concerns the majority vs. minority approach. Phrase structure grammars are dominant in Anglo-American linguistics. What you have backing your point of view is therefore the argumentum ad populum, i.e. the phrase structure grammar approach must be right because it is the dominant view. The argumentum ad populum is, however, considered a fallacious argument in rhetoric.

Observe that Taivo below seems to be willing to compromise in allowing a reduced and revised version of the section to appear. Hopefully you too will compromise and allow the revised section to survive. --Tjo3ya (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Another View
I have reverted the whole "dependency theory" material because it represents a minority view. Wikipedia should presents alternate points of view, however, the section that was written suffered from two major flaws. One, it was too long relative to its importance in the field. A single paragraph or less is quite sufficient based on the length of the article and the relative obscurity of the theory. Two, it was written in an argumentative style to attempt to prove its adequacy over standard theory. That is an unacceptable writing style in Wikipedia. This article is about what linguistics has to say about what constitutes a "constituent", not a debate about whether a constituent is X or Y. In referencing about a dozen introductory textbooks and several dictionaries and encyclopedias of linguistics, there is not a single one that defines "constituent" as a single word. All of them define "constituent" as "a word or group of words" and include the fact that individual constituents can be combined into larger units that are themselves constituents of higher level units, etc. This is a virtually universal definition of "constituent" in linguistics. While the minority viewpoint of dependency grammar should be mentioned, it should only be described briefly and not argued for. --Taivo (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Taivo,

Who are you? You know who I am from my Userpage. I'd like to know who you are. I'd like to get a sense of who I am dealing with here. Note that you can send me an email (my email address is on my Userpage). I will not divulge your identity here.

The constituent is typically defined as follows:

 * Constituent
 * A node/word plus all the nodes/words that that node/word dominates.

This definition identifies any complete tree or subtree of a tree as a constituent. It is neutral with respect to the constituency vs. dependency distinction. Hence in a phrase structure grammar (e.g. GB, MP, HPSG, LFG, etc.), every individual word qualifies as a constituent by definition (contrary to what you claim) as well as as any group of words (=phrase) that constitutes a complete subtree. In a dependency grammar (e.g. Word Grammar, Meaning-Text Theory, Lexicase, Functional Generative Description) in contrast, only those individual words qualify as constituents that do not dominate other words (the trees in the section you cut illustrate this point). Consider the following example:

 * Fred has been trying to say something.

In a phrase structure grammar, every individual word is a constituent (Fred, has, been, trying, to, say, something) and every phrasal group of words is a constituent (say something, to say something, trying to say something, been trying to say something, and has been trying to say something). In a dependency grammar in contrast, only those individual words are constituents that do not dominate other words (Fred and something), and the following groups of words are also constituents (say something, to say something, trying to say something, and been trying to say something).

Examining what the constituency tests tell us about sentence structure, they by and large (again, coordination is the one major exception here) support the DG stance. The tests fail to identify has, been, trying, to, and say as constituents. I encourage you (and anyone else reading about this debate) to probe these claims. Perform the constituency tests on each of the phrase structure constituents.

You acknowledge that the minority stance should be accommodated. I appreciate that. It is important to me in this regard that the dependency vs. constituency distinction be illustrated with the trees. I request further input from you in this regard. I can envisage a way to shorten the section a bit. The actual test sentences (topicalization, clefting, and pseudoclefting) can be cut. But again, it is important to me that the minority stance be accommodated with the appearance of the trees.

Finally, you characterize the DG understanding of syntax and grammar with the word "unimportance". You of course realize that you have just insulted a significant tradition in the study of syntax and grammar. Google Richard Hudson and Igor Mel'cuk in this regard. Once you have acquired a sense of the work of these linguists, maybe you will not be so quick discount the DG tradition. The unfortunate choice of words reveals a lack of breadth in the field of theoretical syntax.

--Tjo3ya (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (Timothy John Osborne, tjo3ya@yahoo.com, Email me!)
 * First, it doesn't matter who I am. I am an informed Wikipedia editor.  This enterprise is not about measuring how large my testicles are compared to yours.  It's entirely about reliable sources and relative weight.  Second, I have edited my comment above because "unimportance" was a typo and should have been "importance".  Dependency grammar is of much less relative importance to the field than phrase-structure or universal grammar.  Third, it's very important that you compose a neutrally-worded sentence or two about the role of constituents in dependency grammar and clearly (and simply) state how they do or do not differ from the more mainstream view of what a constituent is.  It's not the place for arguing your point, but the place for a very simple distinction.  Remember that this article's intended audience is not professional linguists or even linguistics students (I don't allow my students to cite Wikipedia, for example), but a place for more generalized readers to understand the broad strokes of a topic.  It's not the place for theoretical argumentation and persuasion, but a place for a neutral overview with proper references if the reader desires to investigate the issue further.  Since this has proven to be controversial, my suggestion to you is to compose the paragraph you would like to see included and present it here on the Talk Page first.  I assure you that if it's of appropriate length, neutrally worded, and not overly technical or filled with jargon, we can probably come to a consensus on it or tweak it only slightly.  --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Taivo,

I have revised and shortened the section as follows. I hope the draft is closer to what you could approve.

--Tjo3ya (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Competing theories
Alternate theoretical approaches to syntax make different assumptions regarding what is considered a constituent. In mainstream phrase structure grammar (and its derivatives), individual words are constituents in of themselves as well as being parts of other constituents, whereas in dependency grammar certain core words in each phrase are not a constituent by themselves, but only members of a phrasal constituent. The following trees show the same sentence in two different theoretical representations, with a phrase structure representation on the left and a dependency grammar representation on the right. In both trees, a constituent is understood to be the entire tree or any complete labelled subtree (a node plus all the nodes dominated by that node)—note that words like killed and with form subtrees (and are considered constituents) in the phrase structure grammar representation but not in the dependency structure representation.
 * Theykilledthemanwithagun-1b.jpg

Comments on revised section
This sounds way too much like a discussion in a textbook and not an encyclopedic entry. Don't start a section with "Examine the following two trees". All the text below the diagrams should be above them and replace what is there. The last sentence is also kind of "squishy". It would be better: "Constituency tests will yield different constituent results on the two trees." "More accurate" is a subjective and unencyclopedic judgement call on two competing theories. The two trees should be labeled "Phrase-Structure Grammar" and "Dependency Grammar". The current labels aren't really meaningful except in a Dependency Grammar context. It needs an introductory statement like, "Dependency Grammar treats constituency differently than in Phrase Structure Grammar. The following tree on the left is..." The way it reads now makes it sound like this is part of mainstream theory (and it's not). --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Taivo,

 * I have revised the section in accordance with the your suggestions. To relabel the trees, however, I need to use the special software that produces pictures for Wikipedia. I do not have this software with me at this time (but I can have a helper get it done if necessary). But is that really necessary? I've added the clarification "(= constituency grammar)", which should prevent misunderstanding. I think it is beneficial for the reader to know that phrase structure grammars are constituency grammars. Please let me know if you can accept this version. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove the statement "(perhaps outdated)". That's a judgment call and not neutral.  We need to see what Rjanag thinks about this as well.  It's better than it was, but I need to spend a bit more time with it than I have today.  But we definitely need Rjanag's input as well.  --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Taivo says that Dependency Grammar is of much less relative importance to the field than Phrase-Structure Grammar. Whether that is true or not depends on your interpretation. PSG is certainly much more widely taught at universities and is much better represented in journals. On the other hand, DG is dominant within computational linguistics. The organizer of DepLing, the first international conference on DG, said at the beginning that 24 of the 25 parsers he was able to find out about are using DG.  I think we all hope that work on linguistics has applications to the real world.  The most widely developed kinds of applications are coming from computational linguistics. And DG is way ahead of PSG in this area. This gives evidence of a big gap between theory and practice in linguistics as in other areas. Dnmaxwell (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Taivo,

 * My helper has provided the tree that you requested, which I've inserted it into the draft above. If Rjanag remains silent concerning the draft, I plan to go ahead and post it to the page tomorrow. I hope you are OK with that. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I find it disturbing that 1) you continue to try to "out" editors and 2) you still try to throw around credentials here. I have edited your comment above to remove the personal identification.  Please respect the Wikipedia process--anonymity and equality.  We edit here based on reliable sources you bring to the table, not on the degrees you have framed on the wall or who signs your paycheck.  --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Taivo,

 * Hmmm. If I click on your signature, I am one second away from the following information:
 * Warning: This editor is a specialist in a scientific field, so he often runs afoul of the "Randy in Boise" trap.
 * I am an associate professor of Linguistics at a major U.S. university. I have taught Linguistics in the U.S. and English Linguistics in the Ukraine.
 * Now who is touting whose qualifications? Please refrain from editing my comments, and if you were honest about this process, you would not have removed your characterization of the DG tradition using the word "unimportance".--Tjo3ya (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I told you already that "unimportance" was a typo, so get over it. If you look at my comments here, you'll notice that I am not using my academic position as an arguing point for this discussion. Stating in broad terms on my user page who I am is not the same as using my qualifications as an arguing point on this page.  You'll notice that the basis for my points is looking at the introductory texts and linguistics dictionaries and encyclopedias--reliable sources, not my qualifications.  You will notice that I don't have a list of publications or even my specializations on my user page, just a general comment about what I work on.  But my comment wasn't about you or spreading your qualifications out for all to see, it was about you "outing" another editor with his/her personal information and using their position as "full professor" as some sort of endorsement for the issue.  I don't care if you shout your own name from the rafters, just as long as you know it doesn't matter here, but it is inappropriate to ask for identification from other editors and especially to "out" other editors.  You are obviously sensitive about who you are and your qualifications (and apparently the qualifications of other editors), but you need to understand Wikipedia's position concerning them and work within that framework or find another outlet for your linguistic endeavors.  This is all I'm going to say on the matter.  You're a new editor to Wikipedia, so I was trying to offer you some collegial advice on how best to work here, but you seem to be uncomfortable with it.  I'm not going to say anything else on the issue and will let you flounder on your own if that is your desire. --Taivo (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so it's not lost, your new paragraph looks much better than the original one. I'd still like to hear from Rjanag to see whether or not it meets his concerns before you post it.  Give it a couple of days--sometimes real life gets in the way of responding on Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And concerning the editing of your comment, you don't have the right to post any personal or identifying information about another editor or "assistant". Period.  This is not subject to debate and any other editor or administrator would have done exactly the same.  Read WP:OUTING.  --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The version I'm looking at is so vague as to be useless to just about any reader. If I weren't reading it without the background I have (by which I mean awareness of this very discussion), I wouldn't understand information the section is trying to convey. As I already explained above, an appropriate way of framing this section would be to explain that some alternative theories of grammar have different views about what constitutes a constituent. Going into detail about which tests various words fail and pass is unhelpful (both because that level of detail is unnecessary for a summary and would just look like argumentation, and because, as I said above, they are inconclusive anyway--some tests are passed and some are failed, you appear to have cherry-picked which tests to present, and in many cases traditional grammar has alternative explanations [such as island phenomena] for why some words might fail certain movement-based constituency tests... which is the whole reason for the caveat that consituency tests need to be taken with a grain of salt). As I explained above, little more needs to be said other than one sentence pointing out that there are disagreements about what counts as a constituent, and providing references for further reading. Your original version of this section was inappropriately written as an argument supporting one particular view (without even making the main disagreement clear), and the latest version doesn't even get the point about constituency across. I have already explained (here and in earlier messages) what would be an appropriate and encyclopedic way to write this, but my suggestions have been repeatedly ignored because you seem to be interested only in plugging your preferred grammar rather than actually improving the article. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I thought that the section was clear and easy to understand. Of the two citations, "Osborne 2008" clearly meant: "Major constituents: And two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination".  I have no idea what "Agel et al. (eds.) 2003/2006"  refers to.  Please can this be made clear.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agel et al. is a massive two volume collection of essays on dependency and valence grammar. The complete citation is as follows: Ágel, V., Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Heringer, and Hennig Lobin (eds.) 2003/6. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
 * Like I said in my last message: what the section says is clear, but it says almost nothing. In particular, it doesn't express the one idea that is important, the idea that different theories supposedly make different predictions about what qualifies as a constituent (the reader has to try to figure that out based on the sentence "In both trees, a constituent is understood to be the entire tree or any complete subtree within the tree" and the fact that the trees have different subtrees). It is also confusing: the sentence "Constituency tests will yield different constituent results on the two trees" is both confusing and inaccurate (because constituency tests are performed on sentences, not trees, and the same sentence is shown twice so the same constituency test results will be obtained each time; I assume what Tjo3ya wants to be saying is that one tree better reflects the constituency tests than the other, although as we have explained ad nauseum above that would be POV argumentation).
 * That whole section actually says less (at least, less that is apropos to this article) than my single-sentence suggestion above. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A full illustration
Rjanag,

Since you continue to dispute the original message of the section with your "cherrypicking" accusation, I will try to illustrate the issue now more fully here with another example:

 * (1) Sam has been trying to understand the distinction.

PSGs assume 15 distinct constituents for this sentence: Sam, has, been, trying, to, understand, the, distinction, the distinction, understand the distinction, to understand the distinction, trying to understand the distinction, been trying to understand the distinction, has been trying to understand the distinction, and Sam has been trying to understand the distinction.

DGs, in contrast, assume just 8 constituents: Sam, the, the distinction, understand the distinction, to understand the distinction, trying to understand the distinction, been trying to understand the distinction, and Sam has been trying to understand the distinction.

The main difference lies with the individual words, although DGs also reject the existence of a finite VP constituent. Concerning the individual words, the majority of the eight constituency tests enumerated in the article will identify only Sam as a constituent. Coordination is the one major exception; I discuss it below. Since the determiner the is a constituent in both PSGs and DGs, its failure to pass the constituency tests sheds no light on the constituency vs. dependency debate. The reason it fails is in part Ross' (1967) Left Branch Condition, i.e. extraction cannot occur from a left branch under a noun (phrase). Your point about islands is correct in this regard. Since the DG analysis sees the majority of individual words as non-constituents, it is much more accurate.

Consider next the finite VP string has been trying to understand the distinction. Modern PSGs unanimously assume a finite VP constituent, whereas DGs unanimously reject the status of finite VP as a constituent (DGs do, however, readily acknowledge the status of non-finite VPs as constituents). The constituency tests again strongly support the DG stance:

 * *Has been trying to understand the distinction, Sam. -Topicalization
 * *It is has been trying to understand the distinction, that Sam (has done). -Clefting
 * *What Sam has done is has been trying to understand the distinction. -Pseudoclefting
 * *What has Sam been doing? ??Has been trying to understand the distinction.  -Answer fragment
 * *Sam did so. (did so = has been trying to understand the distinction)  -Pro-form substitution
 * ??? -Passivization (Inapplicable)
 * *Sam. -Omission

Based on these results, we have no reason to view has been trying to understand the distinction as a constituent.

While I picked an example that would illustrate well the issue under debate, I have considered all the constituents in the example sentence. The DG view of sentence structure is again much more congruent with the results of the constituency tests. I examine coordination and the "cherrypicking" accusation in some detail in the next section.

 * Like I said several times, I'm not interested in having an extended discussion about the merits of the different theories; the editorial issues can be settled without getting into all this. You are welcome to write as much as you want here but I won't be responding to these details; I would prefer if you spent your effort responding to 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC) and 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) messages in the above section (specifically, discussing the Wikipedia-related editorial issues rather than the linguistic theory issues). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjanag in this regard. This article is not a journal article to put forward your favorite theory and argue for it.  It is simply a descriptive encyclopedia, so the only things that we concern ourselves with are descriptions not persuasion.  I do agree with Rjanag's specific comment that this needs to be presented as two competing theories.  He doesn't think that's been emphasized enough, that the prevailing theory is PSG and that DG is only a minority view.  The first sentence still sounds too much like a textbook.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot at rewriting the paragraph to 1) clarify that these are competing theories and 2) spell out what the difference between the theories is as far as constituency goes. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taivo, I fully support your draft; it's better than what I produced. How about it, Rjanag? --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made revisions . I didn't like "There are two competing theories on what constitutes a constituent"—both because there are more approaches to syntax than just phrase structure (whether it be GBT, Minimalist, or what have you) and dependency grammars, and because I would venture to guess these are not 'competing theories about what constituency is' but rather competing frameworks with more fundamental differences, and the different accounts of constituency fall out of those more fundamental differences. So most of my changes involved reframing that. The other change was removing the sentence "constituency tests will have different results". As I explained a few comments above, the sentence as it was worded was already incorrect, and anyway I don't feel that it's necessary to mention. If you guys feel it's necessary to say something about constituency tests (other than just flat-out saying "constituency tests are more consistent with the DG notion of constituency than the PSG notion"), we will have to discuss it more. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good changes. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm good with this. Whew! Can I post it now? --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Extensive revision and expansion
I am preparing an extensive revision and expansion of this article based on research that is being published very soon (tomorrow). I am working in my sandbox at my user page (User:Tjo3ya). I will periodically transfer my work to the main article. Comments are of course very welcome.--Tjo3ya (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Constituent test: proform substitution (replacement)
From the article: ''Proform substitution, or replacement, involves replacing the test string with the appropriate proform (e.g. pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adjective, etc.).... If such a change yields a grammatical sentence where the general structure has not been altered, then the test string is likely a constituent''

This seems incomplete. Doesn't this test also require that the change preserve the basic meaning/essence of the original sentence? If such a change yields a grammatical sentence where the general structure and the general sense [or: the basic meaning/essence] has not been altered, then the test string is likely a constituent

Omc (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Clause element" and does not deserve "B"
Is "constituent" the same as "clause element"? In any case, the article should reveal how "constituent" relates to "clause element". I disagree with the "B" ratig. The article is long but lacks a comprehensible introduction. It is only about "testing" and predominantly about EN. IMHO it needs substantial work. Article "Clause element" redirects to "English clause element". This is not great either. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article is good for what it is, but it is not a general introduction to constituents; it's an article about how to test for them in English. I'll downgrade it to C class on the grounds that it fails 2. of the B requirements.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... better info about "constituent" vs "clause element" is needed. Taylor 49 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Class project?
Hello fellow editors: User:Dalbury, User:Jirka6, User:Rjanag, User:Thomas Tvileren, User:EdwardLane, User:Rikaido88, User:Tjo3ya, User:Taivo, User:Toddy1, User:Dnmaxwell! I am one of three editors (along with User:Syntactitian2 and User:Syntactician1) that will be working on this page for a final project for the next month. Our plans for editing will be posted soon. Syntactician3 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm also one of the editors that will be working on this page for a final group project! We are planning on reorganizing the order in which the constituency tests are listed, according to the three main categories: substitution, displacement, and deletion. If time allows, we would like to add trees to support each of the tests. Syntactician2 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am one of the other editors of this page for the next little while. Syntactician1 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 * To the three Syntactiicians, is this part of a class project? If so, please ask your instructor to look at Wikipedia:Education program/Educators for instructions on how to coordinate class projects with Wikipedia. If this is some other project, could you please explain further what kind of project it is. - Donald Albury 23:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi User:Dalbury. Yes, this is a final class project in our upper level Syntax course. Syntactician1 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 * It would be helpful for all involved if your instructor would set a course page, as described in Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. - Donald Albury 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback, our instructor is following up on this now. Syntactician3 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Planned edits
I am opposed to most of the planned edits for this article. From what I can see, the proposed additions are going to be associated narrowly with one particular approach to syntax. And the article will become too long and opaque. I have spent many hours polishing the organization and content of the article. I strongly suggest that the students working on this page abandon their project and return the content to what it was before they started. They should choose a topic that is better suited to their backgrounds. I will likely be stepping in soon myself to undo the initiated edits.--Tjo3ya (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 * There are again signs of a desire to expand this article. I am opposed to a new large section presenting the tests again according to a different organization, since that would be redundant. A single brief section that simply lists and groups the tests according to the criteria mentioned (e.g. permutation, proform substitution, focusing) might be a helpful addition. I also think expanding the article to consider tests for constituents in other languages can be good. In any case, I would appreciate some discussion here first about the intended changes before they are made. If my request is ignored, I will remove the additions.--Tjo3ya (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Our current plans are to develop the new section of the page that lists the tests by how they test for constituency. We plan on providing a brief description of each test, as well as a novel example to show how they apply. We are not aiming to be redundant with this list, but rather we would like to demonstrate how the tests can be classified into groups. We would appreciate your patience during this editing process. Syntactician3 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I will remove any redundancy concerning the discussion and illustration of the tests. I think the students should not continue with their planned additions. They are not in a position to contribute in an insightful and helpful way. They are parroting what they read in their textbook and hear from their instructor. --Tjo3ya (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war beginning
There are a number of problems with the planned additions. I have removed these additions, yet they were immediately reinserted. To avoid an edit war, please respond here to my concerns. My main concern is that the planned editions will contain much redundant information. For instance, examples of the *do-so* test are already present above. More such examples are not needed. There are also lesser problems that demonstrate a lack of sophistication by the new editors, for instances, incorrect use of italics and the inclusion of statements about thematic roles, which belong in the article on thematic roles. If there is no response to my concerns here, I will again remove the additions. We will be in a full blown edit war. --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Our goal is not to create conflict. We do not want an edit war and are not interested in disparaging your work. As our original edits were opposed, we now ask for your respect as we reorganize, develop, and edit the new section to this page. If there are indeed "lesser problems" of your concern (such as an improper use of italics), then please, by all means, let us know and we will fix these issues. As editors, we want to work together to improve the overall accessibility and quality of the page. Regarding thematic roles, a brief mention on this page should not be an issue. Providing readers with this information is necessary to ensure thoroughness in our explanations. Perhaps a link to Thematic relation would be beneficial. We will soon return to further develop this page and finish with the planned additions. If at that time you still believe the quality of this page has been degraded, you can go ahead and edit as you please. We just ask that you wait until our project is completed, until early May. Syntactician3 (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for responding here. The main problem with your work is that you are repeating what is further above in the article. Such redundancy reduces the quality of the article, since it becomes too long and the organization is confused. Please do not attempt to re-add redundant information. I will remove it. I am in favor, though, of expanding the article in the direction of other languages. Some discussion, reflection, and illustrations of the value of the tests for other languages would be a helpful addition. Just a brief section that merely lists the tests in groups as to whether they are permutation, proform substitution, or ellipsis diagnostics would also be a positive addition.

 * What you are doing in general is problematic, though, so regardless of your efforts, I am going to be highly skeptical of the value or your work. You are students of linguistics, perhaps with only a few months, or perhaps just a year or two, of linguistics studies under your belt. You are anonymous; you are not self-identifying by establishing user pages, but rather you use aliases (i.e. Syntactician1, Syntactician2, etc.). Your edits therefore are easy to discount. The biggest problem, though, is that you are under pressure because your grade depends on your work in Wikipedia. The result of that pressure is poor quality. I have some empathy for your position insofar as the main problem here lies with your instructor. That person should not be assigning/allowing Wikipedia work for a grade! Please pass this message on to him or her. --Tjo3ya (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I have a follow-up suggestion. Perhaps you could request of your instructor that you be allowed to write a term paper on the constituent unit instead of this Wikipedia effort. You could then freely produce the narrow account of constituency that is likely to please your instructor. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

another aspect
Could we not argue that the phrase could also potentially mean "Drunks [rather than, say, 'bums']..." ? Stjohn1970 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Constituent (linguistics)


text:
User talk:Scanerryo

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 21:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Debrii.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Debrii.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Gloria832771165.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gloria832771165.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scanerryo


text:
Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council elections

Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council is elected every four years.

Council elections

 * 1964 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1968 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1971 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1974 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1978 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election (boundary changes reduced the number of seats by ten)
 * 1982 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1986 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1990 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1994 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 1998 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election (boundary changes took place but the number of seats remained the same)
 * 2002 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election (boundary changes reduced the number of seats by two)
 * 2006 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 2010 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 2014 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 2018 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election
 * 2022 Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council election (boundary changes took place but the number of seats remained the same)

1964-1968
There were no by-elections.

1974-1978
Joseph Wrigglesworth replaced R. St. J. Stephens who resigned due to being a Council employee.

1990-1994
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Christopher A. Nicholson.

1994-1998
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Adrian J. Clare.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Jonathan E. M. Stratford.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Mary Watts.

1998-2002
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Ian Manders.

2002-2006
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Roger M. Hayes.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Anthony B. Blurton.

2006-2010
There were no by-elections.

2010-2014
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Umesh Parekh.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllrs. Robert-John Tasker and James C. White.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. David M. Edwards.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Marc L. Woodall.

The by-election was called following the death of Cllr. Ms. Frances M. Moseley.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Derek R. Osbourne.

2014-2018
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Stephen Brister.

The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Vicki Harris.

The by-election was called following the death of Cllr. Chrissie Hitchcock.

2018-2022
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Patricia Bamford.

2022-2026
The by-election was called following the resignation of Cllr. Tim Cobbett.


text:
Zhou Man

Zhou Man, was a 15th-century Chinese admiral and explorer. He was born into a wealthy merchant family in the year 1378. When he was six years old, his father died on an overseas voyage to Korea. Mourning his father's death, he left his mother and his four younger siblings behind. He worked his way into the emperor's staff by the age of 22. At 32, he was assigned "Grand Leader of All Vessels Commanded by the Emperor's Swift Hand".

Zhou, with the help of three other commanders, explored wide reaches of the Indian Ocean. A stone inscription, dated 1431, at the Palace of the Celestial Spouse in Liujiagang, Jiangsu is translated as:

 * We, Zheng He and his companions [including Admirals Hong Bao, Zhou Man, Zhou Wen, and Yang Qing], at the beginning of Zhu Di's reign received the Imperial Commission as envoys to the barbarians. Up until now seven voyages have taken place and, each time, we have commanded several tens of thousands of government soldiers and more than a hundred oceangoing vessels. We have...reached countries of the Eastern Regions, more than thirty countries in all. We have...beheld in the ocean huge waves like mountains rising sky-high, and we have set eyes on barbarian regions far away, hidden in a blue transparency of light vapors, whilst our sails, loftily unfurled like clouds, day and night continued their course, rapid like that of a star, traversing those savage waves.

In fiction
Thomas Seinbeck's In the Shade of the Cypress (published 2010) is a historical novel whose main character is Zhou Man.

In his book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, amateur historian Gavin Menzies argues that Zhou Man built a fortress at Bittangabee Bay Australia and that his fleet approached and mapped the Pacific coast of North America and may have been wiped out by a megatsunami resulting from a comet impact creating Mahuika crater. The Australian geographer Professor Victor Prescott states that the structure at Bittangabee is considered by local archaeologists to be early 19th century and that Menzies misinterpreted the Waldseemüller map which he used as evidence for a visit by Zhou Man to the Americas.

title: Zhou Man


text:
List of New Zealand species extinct in the Holocene

This is a list of New Zealand species extinct in the Holocene that covers extinctions from the Holocene epoch, a geologic epoch that began about 11,650 years Before Present (about 9700 BCE) and continues to the present day. This epoch equates with the latter third of the Haweran Stage of the Wanganui epoch in the New Zealand geologic time scale.

The North Island and South Island are the two largest islands of New Zealand. Stewart Island is the largest of the smaller islands. New Zealand proper also includes outlying islands such as the Chatham Islands, Kermadec Islands, and New Zealand Subantarctic Islands. Only New Zealand proper is represented on this list, not the Realm of New Zealand. For extinctions in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, see the List of Oceanian animals extinct in the Holocene.

The islands of East Polynesia (including New Zealand, Hawaii, and Easter Island) were among the last habitable places on Earth colonised by humans. The first settlers of New Zealand migrated from Polynesia and became the Māori people. According to archeological and genetic research, the ancestors of the Māori arrived in New Zealand no earlier than about 1280 CE, with at least the main settlement period between about 1320 and 1350, consistent with evidence based on whakapapa (genealogical traditions). No credible evidence exists of pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand. In 1642, the Dutch navigator Abel Tasman became the first European explorer known to visit New Zealand. In 1769, British explorer James Cook became the first European to map New Zealand and communicate with the Māori. From the late 18th century, the country was regularly visited by explorers and other sailors, missionaries, traders and adventurers. In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi annexed New Zealand into the British Empire. As a result of the influx of settlers, the population of Pākehā (European New Zealanders) grew explosively from fewer than 1,000 in 1831 to 500,000 by 1881.

Numerous species have disappeared from New Zealand as part of the ongoing Holocene extinction, driven by human activity. Human contact, first by Polynesians and later by Europeans, had a significant impact on the environment. The arrival of the Māori resulted in animal extinctions due to deforestation and hunting. The Māori also brought two species of land mammals, Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) and kurī, a breed of domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). In pre-human times, bats were the only land mammals found in New Zealand. Polynesian rats definitely contributed to extinctions, and kurī might have contributed as well. Like the Māori settlers centuries earlier, the European settlers hunted native animals and engaged in habitat destruction. They also introduced numerous invasive species. A few examples are black rats (Rattus rattus) and brown rats (Rattus norvegicus), domestic cats (Felis catus), stoats (Mustela erminea), and common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula).

This list of extinct species only includes the indigenous biota of New Zealand, not domestic animals like the kurī.

Reptiles (class Reptilia)
=== Squamates (order Squamata) ===