text:
Talk:Eruv

Theological basis for Eruv
Would like to see more about the theological basis for (a) the prohibition and (b) the Eruvs. It's rather out of context at the moment. I understand the prohibition is against "work"? and are quite interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate. Morwen - Talk 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The term "mal'acha" employed by the Torah is commonly translated as "work", but this is too narrow. The Mishnah enumerates 39 actions that are considered work on Shabbat (they are listed there), and carrying objects outside one's personal domain is one of these. This is why Orthodox Jews hook their house keys into their belts - to make them part of a chain and to avoid carrying them in their pockets.

 * In fact, there are four domains: (1) personal, (2) public, (3) common and (4) an exempt place. A "public domain" (reshut harabbim) is rarely found, but carrying here is always forbidden. Most public places full under the definition of a "common" (carmelith). An eruv legally redefines this area by marking its entrances and exits, and enables people in this area to carry.

 * I'll revise the article at some point. I am not an expert in this area at all. The above is basically all I really know. JFW | T@lk  21:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a section in this article dedicated to "activities permitted inside an eruv." Assuming you hold by the eruv, everything is permitted to be carried, with regards to the prohibition of carrying. The following section that lists things that are still prohibited inside an eruv refers to totally different prohibitions that are not at all relevant to the subject of eiruvin (e.g. muktzeh, boneh, etc). I'm going to basically delete that paragraph if no one has a good justification for this. DLand 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep the wording. People often assume that an eruv allows the carrying of any and all objects. The first item relates to muktseh. The umbrella issue relates to boneh, etc. The text should be modified to explain why these items are excluded from the general permissive characteristic of the eruv. Alansohn 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I changed it (though I still have my doubts about writing to people's misconceptions vs. writing a factual and encyclopedic article). What do you think? DLand 16:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

plurality
The page uses three different plurals: eruvim, eruvin, and eruvs. Can we agree on one? I vote for eruvin; it matches the masechta, and seems to be the most common.Bensandler 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree - lets go for eruvin. eruvs is an obvious englishication of th word, and eruvim is just plain wrong. --Bachrach44 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I updated it to eruvin.Bensandler 18:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

fiat boundaries
An external link was recently added regarding "fiat boundaries". My first reaction was to delete it as irrelevant, but upon reading that reference, I see some ideas about creating politically-demarcated areas... or something like that, perhaps. Anyway, my point is that before adding such a link, there ought to be something in article about how Eruv uses those concepts. If someone can add such text to the article, then the link is good and should stay. If not, I will delete that link. --Keeves 03:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytikkun (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)== the Eruv itself ==

Though the article referred to "the bread itself," it never referred to the bread as an antecedent. I have added a little bit on what "the bread" is and its significance. I also cleaned up some grammar/specificity issues.--Mattcarl 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mytikkun 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)== Statistical Claims ==

The section entitled "Disagreements between Orthodox groups" uses the words "many" and "most" without any statistics to back it up. It states, "most later rabbinic authorities ... dispute that [an eruv] is possible anywhere in New York City," and, "the [Flatbush] eruv's supporters have been ostracized and the majority of Orthodox Jews in Flatbush do not use the eruv." Considering that a) there are several eruvin in Manhattan endorsed by a wide spectrum of rabbis (YU eruv endorsed by many roshei yeshiva; Manhattan eruv supported by all major synagogues, etc), and b) that the Flatbush eruv hechsher states that it is kosher according to "all halachic authorities," this claim would at best seem to skew to one point of view. Certainly a claim that the majority of Orthodox Jews do not use the eruv needs to be backed up with cited statistics; similarly, the claim regarding "most later rabbinic authorities" needs to cite more than one (R' Moshe), who is known to have a "daat yachid" - a singular opinion - on eruvin.

Please comment on any objections to removing such claims and neutralizing the description of disputes within the Orthodox communities in New York regarding eruvin.

PS. "One of the oldest disputes in the United States revolves around the issue of an eruv in Manhattan"? How about the Civil War? Aren't we getting a little carried away here? -- Bensandler 04:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I made those changes; thanks. And I'll add a note for future editors: Please do not change back, even if you bring statistics to back up your claims, showing that "these 20 authorities say A, and only 5 say B", because the other side will respond showing that 10 of those A authorities are not generally accepted, while you missed 10 B authorities. Let's just leave it with words like "some" and "others", and skip the "many" and "most", okay? This is an encylopedia, not a halacha handbook. --Keeves 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would remove these words from under the heading Disagreements between Orthodox groups, “because Flatbush and Boro Park are criss-crossed by some extremely busy streets such as Ocean Parkway that most rabbis deem to be a reshut harabim ("public domain") thus making any eruv built across it invalid in their view.” This is erroneous since according to those who maintain that the shishim ribo has to traverse the street itself, Ocean Parkway does not come close to meeting this requirement. According to Rav Moshe the issue is regarding an area over twelve mil by twelve mil and not a single road. If Ocean Parkway is classified as a sratya, even Rav Moshe would require the shishim ribo to traverse the Parkway itself, and there is nowhere near that number.Mytikkun 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate Ocean Parkway does not figure in the matter at all. It does not have shishim ribo traversing it.Mytikkun 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three views regarding the criterion of shishim ribo: 1) It is conditional of the street. 2) It is conditional of a city. 3) It is conditional of a twelve mil by twelve mil area (Rav Moshe Feinstein). Only according to view number one could Ocean Parkway be an issue. Since the Parkway has nowhere near shishim ribo, it is not an issue at all.Mytikkun 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some Poskim (such as the Baal HaTanya) that hold that a Reshus HaRabbim does not have to have Shishim Ribuy, it only needs to be 16 amos long. According to these opinions, It would be nearly impossible to construct an eruv in Flatbush, Manhattan or Boro Park for that that matter without bona fide delasos. leviklehYou’re simply incorrect. There are numerous other issues that have to be met in order to classify an area as a reshus harabbim. Besides for which, the Tanya does upholds the criterion of shishim ribo. Mytikkun (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is the Manhattan Eruv was established in 1962.Mytikkun (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Establishing an Eruv
It would be useful to indicate that establishing an eruv requires a certificate signed by a government official, and that the certificate transfers a sense of ownership of public land to the eruv participants (http://www.bostoneruv.org/faq.htm). Most readers are not aware of this. Perhaps this should be placed above the list of contents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.120.205 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006

 * This is a property of only one of the three kinds of eruv the article discusses, so I don't believe it belongs in the intro, which needs to introduce all three. It's already in the "controversies" section (as the issue of this permission has sometimes been controversial), and I added some additional content on it to the discussion of the appropriate kind of eruv, Eruv Chatzerot. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * When I saw yesterday's changes, I had some feelings that I wanted to discuss here. I'm glad that Unsigned and Shirahadasha have already started the ball rolling. I agree with both of you, that the article should talk about the ownership issues, and that it should not be in the intro. But the recent changes are not entirely accurate, and that's what I want to discuss. I presume that Unsigned's reference to the Boston Eruv FAQ was for this paragraph: You need to get permission from every organization or entity whose property you use as part of the border of your Eruv. Now, if a fence is located along the rear of a building or along a parkway and you are not modifying it in any way and the land is part of the city or state, we subsume the permission needed to "use" the fencing for the Eruv under the permission or "reshut" that is required to be obtained from the city, state, province, etc. and for this one too: After all legal contracts with all the utilities, agencies, organization and all are completed, the "reshut" (permission) to lease the land located within the Eruv for a pretty long time (we used 99 years) must be secured. We created a certificate-sized document attesting to the fact that for the transfer of 1 silver dollar between the Greater Boston Eruv Corporation and each of the entities with whom we needed to create the lease, that the area within the Eruv would belong to the GBEC for only the purpose of carrying on Shabbat and Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat and Yom Kippur. The problem is that these "entities" are not only the "public property" which yesterday's edits named (roads, parks, city hall, etc.) but it also refers to private property -- the stores, factories, and homes of all the residents. ALL of this property gets leased to the Eruv Committee for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat. This is a required preliminary, which creates a sort of legal unified ownership, prior to the "Eruv Chatzerot" which is more of a social unified owndership. My problem is that I'm not sure of the best way to incorporate this into the article. Now that the issue has been raised I do not want to shy away from it. But at the same time, I want the article to be very clear that this leasing is explicitly for no purpose other than for the religious convenience of the Jewish community. If the wrong words are used, it could be misinterpreted to refer to some sort of insidious plot to take over entire cities, which is certainly not true. --Keeves 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Caution well taken. Perhaps WP:BOLD should be amended to advise caution in some areas where angels fear to tread. Feel free to remove the added material and await expert opinion and consensus before making a change in this area, with due regard to how certain choices of language might be perceived. . Best, --Shirahadasha 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * But it not true that a certificate is required. Verbal agreement is sufficient.  AFAIK all Brooklyn eruvin are based upon a once-upon-a-time grant of permission by former Borough President Howard Golden to establish eruvin in the borough, which is assumed to include the necessary transfer of reshut, not only for eruvin established at that time by the people at that meeting, but by any Jew, at any time.  Zsero 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Zsero is correct. Verbal agreement is sufficient.Mytikkun 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that Rabbi Feinstein was considered by many the greatest posek in America it is not universal. Mytikkun (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a handbill promoting the Manhattan eruv that was removed from this article. Without the handbill promoting the eruv this article does not represent a balanced view of the controversy. I am therefore removing the handbill prohibiting the Manhattan eruv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytikkun (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * When was it ever in the article, and who removed it? As near as I can tell, it has never been here.  It probably does belong, so why don't you add it, instead of removing the other one?  חכמים המה להרע ולהיטיב לא ידעו  (See Eruvin 26a).  -- Zsero (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * PS: I added it for you. Is that what you had in mind? -- Zsero (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is what I had in mind. Thank you. A while ago I put it up and they kept on removing it. Lets see if they let it stay put.Mytikkun (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Malibu Eruv
The controversy surrouding the expansion of the Malibu eruv resulted in signifiant national media attention in October-November 2006 and seems to merit mention here. I have added a short section.

Splitting articles
I am going to split this article into several articles to represent the different types of Eruvin. This article will discuss the Eruv used to carry on Shabbat because that is the most common usage of the word "Eruv" in the English-speaking world. Eruv (disambiguation) will link to Eruv tavshilin and Eruv techumin.

Some of the interwiki links will need to be updated. The current Hebrew interwiki is to "Eruv techumin." I wasn't able to find an article on Eruv chatzerot in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Shalom Hello 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

confusing
As someone unfamiliar with this notion, I am finding this article very hard to understand. It almost feels like a legal brief or one of those bits of a math book where they formally define something that we already intuitively understand. I think it would be very helpful for someone to contribute an opening paragraph that gives a better sense of what is going on here; it can be rough and possibly inaccurate in places -- just mark those places and refer people to later in the article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed from the intro some text which refers to an earlier version of the article. Does this help? --Redaktor 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Still very confusing for me! Here's the text:

 * Eruv (Hebrew: עירוב, also spelt Eiruv or Erub, plural: Eruvin) is a Hebrew word meaning "mixture", and refers normally to eruv for carrying (Hebrew: עירוב חצרות, eruv chatzerot).
 * The validity of an eruv requires a fence — either real or symbolic — that surrounds an area containing anything from a single private home and its yard, to an entire Jewish neighborhood, permitting carrying within its boundaries. In contemporary Jewish discourse, "an eruv" frequently refers to this symbolic "fence," (actually "doorframe/s") rather than the eruv itself

OK, so eruv means "mixture" (like a soup?) Then I am told it refers to "mixture for carrying" (i.e., a soup that I can carry around?) Then I am told there needs to be a fence! (I'm being a bit joking, because after reading the whole article I think I understand things a little better -- but this is pretty much how I encountered it before.) But OK just to show my ignorance, basically when people use the word "eruv" they mean "a fenced-in place defined so that certain activities, proscribed by Jewish law in other spaces, may be performed within"? That's not the prettiest sentence of course! Sdedeo (tips) 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: this is a problem when I edit General Relativity, e.g., it's hard to know what people in ignorance will make of things. Happy to serve as your ignoramus if you want to work together on the intro. Sdedeo (tips) 01:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Malarkey, or effective way?
''The Rabbinic prohibition of muktza, against carrying objects whose use is prohibited. For example, since writing and lighting fires are prohibited on Shabbat, writing utensils and matches cannot be carried by the prohibition.''

''The Biblical prohibition of building. This prohibition finds a common application in the use of umbrellas. Opening an umbrella is considered by some to be analogous to erecting a tent, a kind of building activity. Since umbrellas cannot be used, they are considered muktzah and cannot be carried.''

These prohibitions would seem to require there to be a clearly defined "purpose" for all objects, even if it is possible to use them in ways other than that purpose. Is the prohibition against carrying matches or against lighting them? Against carrying umbrellae or opening them? The pen, or the ink, or the usage of the ink to make intelligible orthographic marks on a surface? This is a non-trivial distinction, and only one of the two alternatives seems to be logically consistent. Would an expert please address this?

Yes, I understand the futility of what I'm asking. --76.224.86.43 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 * There is a chain of inference here. The muktza prohibition is against touching things whose primary use is prohibited on shabbat. Why the primary use is a prohibited activity will vary from object to object, see 39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat for a list of prohibitted activity categories. Not being able to carry things is simply a logical consequence of not be able to touch them. The reasons for the prohibition on the primary use will vary with the prohibited activity involved. Lighting a fire is prohibited on shabbat. Since the primary use of matches is to light a fire, the muktza prohibition prohibits touching matches. This is why they cannot be carried. Similarly, building is prohibited on shabbat. Opening an umbrella has been ruled to be analagous to erecting a tent, a prohibitted building activity. For this reason, its use is prohibited, so touching it (and hence carrying it) is also prohibited. The halakhic method of legal reasoning indeed frequently assumes that objects have a distinct primary use which is assumed to be clearly definable, and it does not matter that the object might be usable for something else. The primary use of objects in questionable cases is decided, as other aspects of Jewish law, by rabbinic ruling (See Posek. The primary-purpose assumption sometimes results in interpretive difficulties in contemporary rabbinic decision-making, but things like matches and umbrellas have been considered fairly straightforward. The harder cases lie elsewhere. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh??
This article is ridiculously impossible to understand. And I'm not exaggerating, i can't see how anyone can understand what this article is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiianchief (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fault may be in the reader, not in the article. Any particular section you found difficult, and any suggestions on how it might be made clearer?  -- Zsero (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the reader be at fault? this is an encyclopedia, which by nature is meant to inform someone on any given subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet there are many people who would find any given WP article incomprehensible. Starting with those who don't understand English, and going on from there.  Every article assumes a certain base of knowledge on the reader's part.  A complaint that an article is incomprehensible is meaningless without any indication of what the reader found hard to understand, and why.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Who is realistically the target audience of this article? It will definitely not be an Orthodox Jew, because an Orthodox Jew would never look for eruv information on Wikipedia.  The only expectation would be the list of sources, so they can go directly to the source.  So that means that Reform, Conservative, secular, and non-Jews are the target audience.  What previous knowledge can one honestly expect from that target audience?  About eruv, nothing.  About Shabbat, above the very basics (commanded by Hashem and it comes from the Torah), not much.  Too many "experts" on a topic write their articles for other experts, when in reality, a true expert on a topic is not going to use Wikipedia. Zzmonty (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a counter-example: I am not Jewish, but did know the basic idea of what an eruv is. I know much more than most about Shabbat laws (having served as a Shabbas goy on several occasions ;-) but am nothing like an expert. I found the article very informative, hardly written for an expert audience, but simply an educated audience interested in learning about a specific subject; i.e. exactly what an encyclopedia is expected to do. Robert Ullmann (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of inspection
User:Bachrach44 removed the claim that eruvin must be inspected weekly, because "differetn eruvin are checked at different times. Don't make blanket statements."

Are there in fact eruvin that don't need to be inspected weekly? Why would that be? That their entire circumference is sturdy enough that they're unlikely to fail, and/or that they have a long and reliable history of not failing from week to week? Can anyone supply an example of such an eruv? -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I certainly could, however it would be OR. Many eruvin are checked weekly, many are checked more or less often. Part of it simply depends on the border of your eruv - if one border is, say, a river wall, then that piece probably doesn't get checked as often. It all depends on who your rabbinic authority is for your particular eruv. When I get home I can check rav. Bechofer's book (The Contemporary Urban Eruv) to see exactly what he says about it if you'd like a more direct quote. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually I'll be busy tonight (I probably won't have a chance to get online again before shabbat), but I can get back to you on this some time on Sunday. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I checked Bechofer's book. The book is almost entirely about building an eruv, not maintaining one. He makes a one-line reference to checking, and then sites a footnote. Unfortunately, my copy is missing one page, and that footnote happens to be on the missing page (grrrrr). I also checked Mishnah Torah and the Mishnah Brurah and came up with nothing - neither one mentions checking eruvin at all. I found this curious so I asked a rabbi who builds a lot of eruvin, and he told me that the subject has really only come up in the last 20-50 years, which is why the issue isn't mentioned in any of the classic sources, and advised me to turn to more modern ones. I did some internet digging and found Chaim Jachter's halacha files which has advice for building and maintaining eruvin. Although he clearly seems to recommend checking on Friday, and cites a source I've never heard of before, he does say that it's up to the local rav and the eruv's posek. (I've seen it done both ways). --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the classic eruv in Europe was a rope across each entrance to one street, and it didn't need much checking.  Anyone passing by could glance up, and if it was down he could alert people.  The issues of big urban eruvin didn't come up until the 19th century.
 * Now I can see that if one has an eruv that's completely solid wall, with no fragile bits at all, then it might not require checking all that often. But where do such eruvin actually exist?  I'm not saying that all of an eruv needs weekly checking, but I doubt that there's an eruv of any significant size that requires no weekly checking. Do you know of any counterexamples?
 * The procedure for checking my local eruv involves careful inspection of the more fragile bits, but also a quick drive past the solid bits just to make sure they haven't been knocked down, as sometimes happens. The only bit that doesn't get at least a cursory check every week is one short stretch that's made up of people's back yards overlooking a highway, and if that collapsed we'd hear of it on the news.  (About 20 years ago the Melbourne eruv actually was affected by a cliff collapsing onto the road below it.)  -- Zsero (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the relevant fn (#181):
 * It is customary to inspect municipal eruvin weekly. See Yesodei Yeshurun, ibid., pp. 331-332 for a discussion of the sources upon which the custom is based. I am indebted to Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky for the information that there are some communities that are very stringent when it comes to this inspection, to the extent that when Yom Tov falls on a Friday and precludes an effective inspection, these communities will not rely on an inspection conducted on Wednesday or Thursday before Yom Tov, and will assume the eruv to be invalid for the following Shabbos. Thus, the parameters of inspections are very subjective, and it is not necessarily possible to extrapolate from the guidelines of a community with an eruv that is subject to frequent manipulation by utility companies, etc., to a community with an eruv that is rarely disturbed, and vice versa.

The text to which it is attached is:
 * It is unclear how often the slope must be surveyed. Riverbanks and hillsides are obviously susceptible to natural erosion and artificial alteration. Professional surveys are extended and expensive projects. It is thus impractical to survey slopes weekly. The parameters of various eruvin are liable to differ significantly. The hillsides and riverbanks in some eruvin may tend to remain stable over long periods of time, while in other eruvin they may be subject to frequent natural and artificial forces that are liable to diminish their gradients. It seems that the Rav Ha'Machshir (certifying rabbinic authority) of an eruv must set specific guidelines for every eruv differently, based on the specific situation in that place at that time.

rabmny (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)talk

 * Thank you, rabmny (who is the author of the book in question). -- Zsero (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Erev
Question: I did a search for the term "Erev," which means evening, or something thereabout. Why does Erev redirect to Eruv, which is about boundaries and the artificial enclosure for Shabbos? 24.63.24.231 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
I took out the bit about the St Ives rabbi using "words to the effect of". In the context of a controversy, quotations should be of exact words. And in any case a citation is needed. See further AJN Watch 12 July 2010. --Rofish (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"limited transfer of domain" and "leasing"
The current article has a citation needed tag about the statement that establishing an eruv requires limited transfer of domain from someone to someone else. According to this web site, at least one eruv involved leasing land to an eruv organisation. It seems to me that these topics need fleshing out. Does anyone have any good references describing what actually happens? Olorinish (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 * According to, an eruv is a "means to render" public territory as "a private domain." According to , an eruv reclassifies "a lot of public space as private." This is an important point, and should probably be in the introduction. Does anyone object to me placing it there? Olorinish (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 * As noted in the main article, "public domain" and "private domain" here refer to concepts specific to Jewish law that have nothing to do with who has property rights over an area according to secular law. I'll attempt to clarify the language used in that section and find a source. A reader who sees that making an eruv involves a "transfer of [government] domain" might conclude that property rights are being affected, in reality it is simply a symbolic grant of permission that has no power with respect to secular law. This is source of endless misunderstanding about eruvin, with people thinking that actual land is being given to a religious group by the government. Ayid7891 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I am not sure the phrase "unrelated to legal ownership" in the introduction is accurate. If an eruv group requests a lease from a local government, and it is refused because the government does not approve of the "transfer" concept, wouldn't that make the eruv ineffective? Maybe phrasing such as "a classification which does not limit the area's use by others" would be better. Olorinish (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I wrote "unrelated to legal ownership" in a description of the concept of "public domain" and "private domain". I think this is accurate, the "domain" of an area in Jewish law is based on enclosedness, and thus orthogonal to legal ownership based on title. You can have a "public domain" that is privately owned and a "private domain" that is owned by the government.

 * But I see what you mean, the establishment of an eruv might involve the property owner giving permission, so might have something to do with legal ownership even if it doesn't affect it. So maybe "a classification that has no effect on legal ownership"?

 * I think trying to break it down further (e.g. "does not limit use by others") will result in something impercise. It is possible to legally grant ownership without limiting use by others (think a shared easement). Ayid7891 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Creating an eruv might not have an effect on legal ownership, but it might include leasing of land by a government agency to a private group. The article should state that clearly. You seem to be stating that the definitions of "public domain" and "private domain" are different in Jewish law than for speakers of standard English. Can you point to a link which discusses this? If that is true, then maybe the introduction should include something like "According to Jewish law, the distinction between public and private domains is determined by enclosedness rather than legal access." Olorinish (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Eruvin in Conservative and Reform Judaism
About: Although Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards enacted an exception to the general rules of Sabbath observance to permit driving to attend a synagogue, it otherwise formally requires the same rules of Shabbat observance as  Orthodox Judaism with respect to carrying a burden. Therefore, Conservative Judaism's rabbinate requires the use of an eruv for ordinary carrying outside of this exception.

This talk section currently contains only a context-less quote from the main article. It previously had a discussion about the quote as well (which seems to have been a joke), but that discussion was removed long ago leaving just the quote. Should this section be removed? Ayid7891 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

the case of the undefined pronoun
One section begins with this sentence:
 * It is referred to as "transferring between domains" in English.

The most natural referent of "It" would normally be the subject of the article, but that seems unlikely, so what is "It"? The forbidden act? Something else? —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitefield, Greater Manchester
The text on the proposed eruv was copied to this article on 21 Aug. 2016. There is now a similar proposal for an eruv in Hale and Hale Barns which featured in BBC Radio 4's programme Sunday broadcast 21 Aug. 2016.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eruv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922173856/http://mtsinaishul.com:80/maps/eruv.cfm to http://www.mtsinaishul.com/maps/eruv.cfm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Need for added lechi
I am not an expert, but my understanding is that to be part of a valid doorframe, the wire must be at the top of the pole. Plastic pipes and the like are attached to utility poles in situations were the wire does not cross the pole at the very top, but further down. In those cases the added pipe goes from the ground to the level of one of the wires, and the pipe become the lechi, not the pole. Since adding the pipes seems to be a source of controversy in some areas, I think this detail, assuming I have it right, should be added.--agr (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. Ar2332 (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Public vs. semi-public
In this edit [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eruv&type=revision&diff=956016476&oldid=955580447 ], the word "public" was changed to "semi-public." However, a typical eruv includes streets and sidewalks, which are public properties. Would anyone object if I changed it back? Olorinsh20 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually correct. If you read the prior few paragraphs, it's referring to a carmalit, which is a semi-public domain. An eruv can't be made in a fully public domain under biblical law. Under rabbinical law you can't carry in a carmalit eithery, except with an eruv. Once you build an eruv, then you can carry in a carmalit, or semi-public domain. All these domains, are under Jewish law, not what is public/private in terms of secular law such as streets/roads, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In technical halachic language, streets are "semi-public". In common language, they are "public". It is a challenge to use these incompatible terminologies in the article and still remain comprehensible. Possibly there is a better way to do it than how we do now. In this case, the sentence is about halacha so "semi-public" is the correct term. Ar2332 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could someone point to a good online definition of "carmalit" regions? What determines whether a region is considered carmalit-compatible? Olorinsh20 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Start here maybe? Ar2332 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What happens if eruv is broken?
Suppose it is broken and you don't realise this. Thinking there is an eruv, you go around carrying your items. Later you learn the eruv was not "valid". Why does it matter? Does God promise a punishment for such violations? The article somehow avoids this whole topic of why it matters. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In general in Judaism, unintentional sins get either less punishment (compared to intentional sins), or no punishment. Whether there is less punishment or no punishment depends on the sin and the circumstances. Ar2332 (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero concerns over this at all?
I am a little curious why absolutely nobody is concerned that an ancient blood-cult is marking entire hectares of public space for their own private blood-cult reasons. If scientologists were found to be secretly marking capital cities as their own territory, there'd be an uproar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.38.226 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Hey friend, I'm starting a cult and declaring your house sacred ground. Are you terrorized yet? —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean yeah, if a cult owns a major city like New York, that's insane! 125.253.50.18 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If a pizzeria publishes a map saying “We deliver in this area”, does it claim ownership over that area? —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If a pizzeria was placing wires or string over entire cities, as part of an ancient blood cult, yes we should be concerned and yes they are likely claiming ownership of that area. Especially when the pizzeria has a weird obscure derogatory word for non-pizzeria restaurants. 125.253.50.26 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eruv


text:
Category:United States senators from Texas

People who have represented Texas in the United States Senate. See the List of United States senators from Texas for a chronological list.

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


text:
Sounds Like Sunset

Sounds Like Sunset are a band based in Sydney. The group formed in 1997 and as of 2019 have released 3 albums, Saturdays in 2001, Invisible in 2005 and We Could Leave Tonight in 2014 as well as various other releases on cassettes, 7-inch and compilations. We Could Leave Tonight was released on vinyl 22 July 2014 through Tym Records, and on CD and digitally on 22 August 2014 through Simon Tahiti Records.

Early days
The band formed initially as a side-project with David Challinor (guitar), David Hobson (bass) and Rohan Geddes (drums) in a recently vacated room in Challinor's moldy and more or less condemned share house in Pennant Hills in Sydney's north west in August 1997. Challinor had been mostly busy playing guitar in the Sydney indie band Sal Paradise (Tooth & Nail Records) since early 1996, and Hobson had been playing bass in Sydney punk/hardcore act Ceasefire since around 1994. Early Sounds Like Sunset tape recordings and gigs showed the band in similar sonic territory as inspiring home-recording-band influences Flying Saucer Attack and other drone/noise/post-rock instrumental bands of the time - however this was something the band quickly distanced themselves from in the hope of melding all the noise & feedback into more concise, hummable melodic pop arrangements.

Music
The band are often filed under shoegazer and noise-pop music. The group's influences and inspiration range from the Beatles, Beach Boys, The Kinks, Velvet Underground and Love, through to more recent artists You Am I, Dinosaur Jr, Sebadoh, Spacemen3, Stereolab, Bailter Space, Flying Saucer Attack, Sonic Youth, The Cure, My Bloody Valentine and the Jesus and Mary Chain.

The members' teenage/formative years share a collective love of punk & Death metal - which occasionally resurfaces, some might say at odds with the delicate melodic nature of the band's current output. Live shows are generally loud, densely layered and orchestrated guitar assaults.

PRL
Until recently the band regularly fielded a team aptly named "The Söunds Like Sunset Singletönes" in the PRL (Pretend Rugby League) competition, formed during the early 2000s by Chief Robert F Cranny of numerous celebrated indie bands including Sarah Blasko, Gersey and 78 Saab. The PRL was formed from a number of the community of Sydney indie bands who rehearsed at the beloved and now defunct Troy Horse Studios in Alexandria. The team's PRL career began in 2003 during an alcohol-fuelled player auction event at the Zetland Hotel where the mostly ambivalent Challinor/Hobson auction representatives quickly exceeded the $100 salary cap and were outrageously docked competition points before a ball had even been kicked.

Its career highlight was coming Div 1 runners-up in the 2006 season, followed by a Div1 3rd place in the 2007 season with a team selected entirely by Travis Baird of cult Sydney indie instrumental band Founder. Baird was recruited to select a squad when everyone in Sounds Like Sunset once again forgot to attend the player auction.

In 2008 the band shocked the PRL community by again failing to attend the 2008 PRL player auction, a move that did not go unnoticed by the PRL hierarchy and the band were forced to relinquish their coveted spot in Div1 of the PRL altogether.

The band hope to be eligible to re-register with PRL in 2020 (after again forgetting to attend the 2019 player auction) and aim to start climbing their way back through the lower leagues until again finding PRL glory in Div1. As Phil Gould can often be quoted saying (though perhaps not in direct reference to the Singletönes) "dismiss them at your peril".

Recent activity
Phil Usher (drums) joined the band in late 2018. Phil has an extensive background in music performance and composition, and currently teaches percussion full time in his hometown of Brisbane. Phil also writes, sings and plays guitar in Brisbane psych act Sacred Shrines, and played the same role in his previous band Grand Atlantic. Phil is also the current drummer for the legendary Brisbane act Screamfeeder. Phil has toured the US extensively in various bands since the mid-90s, and was even at one time called upon to play drums for Barry Manilow for a live stadium performance. Phil has been a dear friend of and enthusiastic advocate of Sounds Like Sunset for many years since watching the band's first ever live performance in 1997, and has arranged numerous Brisbane shows for the band as well as regularly providing booze, smokes, general good vibes and a floor for the routinely intoxicated and/or hungover band to sleep on.

Tobey Doctor (drums) has played in various jazz, punk and defiantly "unlistenable" DIY sludge bands since the late 80s and early 90s. Tobey initially befriended the band when booking SLS for shows at The Phoenix Club, a small underground venue in Darlinghurst before joining Sounds Like Sunset after Vig kind of went missing after a while in the early 2000s. Tobey is arguably the most well known drummer of Sounds Like Sunset, and appeared on the band's second album Invisible and third album We Could Leave Tonight. Tobey provided the loose, wild, energetic Keith-Moon-like wildcard element both on and off the field for what was probably the most cohesive and well-known SLS lineup of Challinor/Hobson/Fevre/Doctor, and continues to be a dear friend and collaborator even years after his departure. Originally from Manly, Tobey made a sudden decision to move from Bondi Beach to the Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg in late 2016, and after spending a short time away from music and adjusting to life in a new city, he has recently been jamming with a number of Melbourne indie bands including the prolific artist/indie music mover & shaker JMS Harrison.

Joseph Dews (drums) has played in a number of Sydney indie acts over the years including Founder, MachineMachine and The Woods Themselves, as well as his own ongoing solo projects. He currently plays guitar and sings in the band Peter Fonda, which also features current SLS member Travis Baird.

Andrew Fevre (guitar; 1997–2008) left Sydney and spent a year traveling Europe before returning to Sydney and moving in with Tobey Doctor in Bondi Beach. Despite living with Tobey, he only rejoined SLS for a very short time before mostly abandoning music altogether and becoming a chef within the empire of celebrity chef Bill Granger. Andrew remains a dear friend of SLS. He is one of the first childhood friends of David Hobson, and taught Hobson his first ever swear words. During Fevre's European absence the band played on with various friends dropping into the lineup for a number of shows, including:
 * Scott Meikle (guitar) of Ben Aylward's post-Swirl band Beautiful World
 * Pete Farley (guitar) of the bands Gelbison and Toni Collette & The Finish, and
 * Travis Baird (guitar, keys) of the bands Founder, Melodie Nelson, El Mopa and The Woods Themselves, as well his ongoing solo project AFXJM which includes Patrick Matthews of Community Radio, Youth Group and (ex of) The Vines.

Current band members now live in an area spread as far afield as Tempe, Collaroy Plateau, Concord (Sydney), Paddington (Brisbane) and the NSW Central Coast suburb of Wyoming.

Vocalist and guitarist Dave Challinor died on 28 January 2023.

Band members
Current lineup (current as of March 2019)

 * David Challinor - vocals, guitar (died 28 January 2023)
 * David Hobson - bass
 * Ben White - guitar
 * Travis Baird - guitar
 * Phil Usher - drums

Past Members

 * Joe Dews - drums
 * Tobey Doctor - drums (Invisible, We Could Leave Tonight)
 * Pete Farley - guitar
 * Scott Meikle - guitar
 * Andrew Fevre - guitar
 * Matt Bonson - drums (Saturdays)
 * David "Vig" Virgilio - drums
 * Josh Thompson - guitar
 * Rohan Geddes - drums

Recording & Mixing Engineers
 * Wayne Connolly (Saturdays, We Could Leave Tonight)
 * Anthony The (Invisible)
 * Jon Gardner a.k.a. Jonboyrock (Invisible)
 * Chris Townend (Saturdays)

Sound Engineers
 * Toby Baldwin (early/mid 2000s-present)
 * Al Cousins (early-mid 2000s-present)
 * Anthony The (early-mid 2000s)
 * Jon Gardner a.k.a. Jonboyrock (late 1990s-mid 2000s)
 * Clay Segelov (early-mid 2000s)
 * Dave Springer (early 2000s)
 * Pete Kelly (late 1990s)
 * Jorden Brebach (late 1990s)

It can also be a curious fact that as of March 2019 none of the 7 Sounds Like Sunset drummers past or present have any biological children between them.

Discography

 * We Could Leave Tonight LP 2014 Tym records
 * Invisible LP 2005 Architecture Label
 * Saturdays LP 2001 (Modular Recordings)
 * Before it Blows/Promise Ring split 7-inch 2000 (Quietly Suburban Recordings) - a split release with Los Angeles indie band The Lassie Foundation

title: Sounds Like Sunset


text:
Kazan Gymnasium

Kazan Gymnasium was a gymnasium of Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. It is notable for its alumnus, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, who graduated from the school in 1807. Other notable alumni include Ivan Shishkin, a Russian landscape artist, and Gavrila Derzhavin, a poet. The school was established during the reign of Elizabeth of Russia.

title: Kazan Gymnasium


text:
Aragami (film)

Aragami (荒神) is a 2003 Japanese action film directed by Ryuhei Kitamura. It was Kitamura's contribution to the Duel Project, a challenge issued by producer Shinya Kawai to him and fellow director Yukihiko Tsutsumi to film a feature-length movie with only two actors, battling in one setting, in only the time frame of one week.

Plot
Two seriously wounded samurai find refuge from a storm at an isolated temple, the home of a swordsman and a mysterious young woman.

One samurai awakes to find that not only has his comrade died, but that his wounds have miraculously healed. He discovers that he has been given the power of immortality by the swordsman, a man once known as the legendary Miyamoto Musashi, who now lives an endless existence as Aragami, a "god of battle".

Production
The film was shot between May 29, 2002 and June 7, 2002.

title: Aragami (film)


text: Category:Midi-Pyrénées

title: Category:Midi-Pyrénées


text: Template:Conlang-stub

title: Template:Conlang-stub


text: User talk:85.165.157.2

title: User talk:85.165.157.2


text: Category:Tarn-et-Garonne

title: Category:Tarn-et-Garonne


text: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 8, 2005


text: Category:United States senators from Utah


text:
Talk:TACACS

[untitled]
from http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/research/computer-center/tc/html/RFC1492.html

There used to be a network called ARPANET. This network consisted of  end nodes (hosts), routing nodes (IMPs) and links. There were (at  least) two types of IMPs: those that connected dedicated lines only and those that could accept dial up lines. The latter were called "TIPs."

TIP is a old terminology, maybe definition in main page should be updated.

Merging in TACACS+, other somewhat related protocols
I'm going to start merging in these other related protocols and expand this article appropriately. If you have any thoughts or concerns that these protocols are too different then let me know. → ⚙量 (talk·contribs) 16:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup External links
The list of external links is a little overwhelming and will only get more so when I merge in the external links from the TACACS+ page. Not sure what to keep and what to drop, so hopefully someone more discerning or expert in the subject can help out. → 量 (talk·contribs) 19:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:TACACS


text: Template:Pidgincreole-lang-stub

title: Template:Pidgincreole-lang-stub


text: Wikipedia:POTD/October 8, 2005

title: Wikipedia:POTD/October 8, 2005


text: Category:Hautes-Pyrénées

title: Category:Hautes-Pyrénées


text:
Magenta-throated woodstar

The magenta-throated woodstar (Philodice bryantae) is a species of hummingbird in tribe Mellisugini of subfamily Trochilinae, the "bee hummingbirds". It is found in Costa Rica and Panama.

Taxonomy and systematics
The magenta-throated woodstar has in the past been included in genera Nesophlox and Calliphlox. The International Ornithological Committee (IOC) and the Clements taxonomy have moved it to genus Philodice which it shares with the purple-throated woodstar (P. mitchellii). However, the North American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society and BirdLife International's Handbook of the Birds of the World retain both of them in Calliphlox.

The magenta-throated woodstar is monotypic.

Description
The male magenta-throated woodstar is about 9.0 cm long and weighs about 3.3 g. Females are about 7.5 cm and weigh about 3.5 g. Both sexes have a short, straight, black bill and a small white spot behind the eye. Both have bronzy green upperparts with some rufous spangles and a white band across the upper chest, though the male's is broader and brighter. Adult males have a metallic purple gorget, a green breast and flanks, and a rufous belly with a white or buffy patch on either side of the rump. Females have a buffy throat and a green breast and flanks with some rufous mixed in. The male's central tail feathers are short with black tips. Each pair outward from them are progressively longer; they are black with cinnamon-rufous inner webs. The adult female's central and outermost pairs of tail feathers are shorter than the intermediate ones, giving a "double rounded" look. The feathers are rufous with a black band near the end and buffy cinnamon tips. Immature birds are like the adult female, but paler below and with buff fringes on the upperparts plumage.

Distribution and habitat
The magenta-throated woodstar is found from northern Coast Rica into western Panama as far as Veraguas Province. It mostly occurs on the Pacific slope. It inhabits semi-open to open landscapes in the Talamancan montane ecoregion; examples include forest edges and clearings, thinned woodland, secondary forest, and shrubby pastures. In elevation it ranges between 700 and 1850 m in Costa Rica and in Panama occurs between 1100 and 1750 m.

Movement
The magenta-throated woodstar apparently makes local movements because at some sites it is present only part of the year. The details, however, are lacking.

Feeding
The magenta-throated woodstar feeds on nectar from a variety of flowering plants, shrubs, and trees. Both sexes may attempt to defend feeding territories, leading to chasing and other agonistic behavior. The male usually holds his long tail cocked and closed while feeding but opens it wide when displaying aggressively. In addition to feeding on nectar the species captures small arthropods by hawking from a perch or gleaning from foliage.

Breeding
The magenta-throated woodstar's breeding season in Costa Rica spans from November to March or April but has not been defined in Panama. Males give a diving display flight alone or in loose groups (possibly at leks). The species' nest has not been described and the incubation period and time to fledging are unknown.

Vocalization
The magenta-throated woodstar's song is "a low-pitched, rapid medley of sputtering and gurgling notes." Their calls include "a low-pitched dry rolling 'drr'", "a dry 'cht'", and "a low-pitched, whistled 'tew'." The last is given during chases.

Status
The IUCN originally assessed the magenta-throated woodstar as Near Threatened but since 2004 has rated it as being of Least Concern. It has a restricted range. Its population is estimated at between 20,000 and 50,000 mature individuals but is believed to be decreasing. It is considered locally common, at least seasonally, and appears able to tolerate some forest clearance.

title: Magenta-throated woodstar


text: Category:Haute-Garonne

title: Category:Haute-Garonne


text: Category:United States senators from Vermont


text: Category:Pidgin and creole language stubs


text: User talk:202.22.168.122

title: User talk:202.22.168.122


text: Category:Gers

title: Category:Gers


text:
Treehouse (The Grapes of Wrath album)

Treehouse is the second album by the Canadian band the Grapes of Wrath, released in 1987 on Nettwerk.

"Peace of Mind" was the band's first single to reach the RPM singles charts in Canada, peaking at No. 56. "Backward Town" and "O Lucky Man" were also released as singles.

Production
The album was produced by Tom Cochrane. However, he departed the project slightly before it was finished, after conflicting with engineer Ric Arboit over "Peace of Mind"; Cochrane disliked the song and wanted to stop working on it before Arboit or the band thought it was finished. Arboit and Dave Ogilvie finished the final mixes. Cochrane encouraged the band to use pedal steel and keyboards.

Critical reception
The Los Angeles Times wrote that the album "represents a nifty balancing act between harder-edged rock 'n' roll (courtesy of the Hooper brothers on bass and drums) and a more reflective and breezy folksiness." The Kingston Whig-Standard noted that "the instrumental introduction to 'So Many Times' ends up taking up most of the song, but it's a wonderful blend of piano, organ and drums." The Windsor Star called the album "peppy pop music reminiscent of the Mamas and the Papas and other late-'60s bands that blended folk and rock." The Vancouver Sun deemed "Peace of Mind" "one of the cleanest, freshest songs of the year."

Track listing

 * 1) "O Lucky Man" (3:26)
 * 2) "Backward Town" (4:06)
 * 3) "How Long" (3:04)
 * 4) "Very Special Day" (4:00)
 * 5) "Try" (3:30)
 * 6) "At Your Soul" (3:39)
 * 7) "Peace of Mind" (3:41)
 * 8) "Amused" (0:30)
 * 9) "Amused" (4:44)
 * 10) "So Many Times" (4:13)
 * 11) "Jewel in the Hand" (3:13)
 * 12) "Completely Lost" (4:33)
 * 13) "Run You Down" (2:41)
 * 14) "Seems Like Fate" (4:36)

title: Treehouse (The Grapes of Wrath album)


text:
User talk:Romankoala

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Academic Challenger 07:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Romankoala


text: Category:Aveyron

title: Category:Aveyron


text:
Marcel Rouff

Marcel Rouff (May 4,1877 in Carouge (Geneva) – February 3, 1936 in Paris) was a Swiss novelist, playwright, poet, journalist, historian, and gastronomic writer. With Curnonsky (Maurice Edmond Sailland) he wrote the multi-volume work La France gastronomique, guide des merveilles culinaires et des bonnes auberges françaises (Gastronomic France: Guide to the culinary marvels and the good inns of France). He may be best known today for his novel about the fictional gourmet Dodin-Bouffant, La vie et la passion de Dodin-Bouffant, Gourmet (The Life and Passion of Dodin-Bouffant, Gourmet also translated as The Passionate Epicure), which was first published in 1924 and dedicated to his friend Curnonsky and the great nineteenth-century French gastronome Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Rouff's novel was adapted for French television in 1973 by Jean Ferniot and in a 2023 feature-length movie by Trần Anh Hùng, The Taste of Things.

Rouff had socialist leanings, which were apparent in his writings on social history. He was influenced by Jean Jaurès, and he contributed to Jaures's Histoire socialiste, which his father, Jules, published.

Biography
Marcel Gabriel Rouff was born in Carouge, a suburb of Geneva, Switzerland on May 4, 1877. His father, Jules Rouff, was a well-known publisher; his mother was Camille Veil. The family moved to Paris when Marcel was just an infant. He attended the Lycée Carnot, on Boulevard Malesherbes in Paris and the Sorbonne, where he earned a Docteur-ès-lettres (effectively a PhD). In 1911, he married a French woman, Juliette Bloch-Tréfousse; they had two children, Nicole (1913) and Jean-Jacques (1916). Rouff retained his Swiss citizenship and also became a naturalized French citizen in 1930. He was a heavy pipe smoker and died of throat cancer on February 3, 1936 at the relatively young age of 57.

Rouff wrote novels, plays, and poetry, as well as non-fiction, including biography, history and journalism. He may be best known today for his gastronomic writing. He and his friend Curnonsky (Maurice Edmond Sailland) together wrote the 28-volume La France gastronomique: Guide des merveilles culinaires et des bonnes auberges françaises (Gastronomic France: Guide to the culinary marvels and the good inns of France) between 1921 and 1928. The series was an inventory of regional French specialties and restaurant recommendations, and included more than 5,000 different recipes. The historian Julia Csergo writes that Curnonsky and Rouff "invented the 'gastronomic guide' with the publication of their Tour of Gastronomic France." Jean-Robert Pitte writes: "Of all the tourist guides appearing since the nineteenth century, this was the first to be expressly devoted to good regional dishes, good wines, and good restaurants. The influence of this work was immense. Henceforth, right beside Parisian haute cuisine, there would be a place of honor for the ultimate in regional cooking. Foreigners and the French never forgot it and would make eating well one of the driving forces of tourism in France."

Some consider Rouff's gastronomic novel, La vie et la passion de Dodin-Bouffant, gourmet (The Life and the Passion of Dodin-Bouffant, Gourmet), written before the First World War and published in 1924, to be his master work. French newspapers described the book variously as a "charming gastronomic fantasy" and "a small masterpiece." More recently literary scholar Lawrence R. Schehr called it "a hybrid work that sits somewhere between fiction and cookbooks, menus, and Food TV." The enduring popularity of Dodin-Bouffant' is clear, as it went through 50 French editions between 1924 and 2010. It was translated into English by "Claude" and was published in London in 1961 and the following year in New York. The English translation then went out of print until 2002.

Rouff was a founding member, with Curnonsky, of the Académie des gastronomes in 1928. Comoedia called Curnonsky and Rouff "twin brothers in literature in general and in gastronomy in particulier." Throughout 1924, Curnonsky and Rouff wrote and edited a special one-page section of Comoedia entitled "Le Beau Voyage et la Bonne Auberge," which appeared every Saturday and featured articles on gastronomy, regional cuisines, and tourism.

Rouff was made a Knight of the Legion of Honor (Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur), France's highest civilian honor, in 1921. Upon his death, Le Petit Journal praised him as "one of the princes of gastronomy."

Select bibliography
Rouff also wrote for newspapers, including Tribune de Genève, Comoedia, Paris-Midi, Excelsior, Mercure de France, and La Revue du Touring-Club de France.
 * Les hautaines (1896)
 * Les Moulins à vent (1919)
 * La Vie et la passion de Dodin-Bouffant, gourmet (1924)
 * The Passionate Epicure: La Vie et la Passion de Dodin-Bouffant, Gourmet (2002), translated by Claude, with a preface by Lawrence Durrell and introduction by Jeffrey Steingarten.
 * La France gastronomique, guide des merveilles culinaires et des bonnes auberges françaises, with Curnonsky (Maurice Edmond Sailland), 28 vols. (1921-1928)
 * Les Mines de charbon en France au XVIIIe siècle, 1744-1791 (1922)
 * Voyage au monde à l'envers (1923)
 * Journey To The Inverted World (2011) (Voyage au Monde à l'Envers by Marcel Rouff (1923)) translated by Brian Stableford ISBN 978-1-61227-039-5
 * Guinoiseau, ou le Moyen de ne pas parvenir (1926)
 * Les Temps révolus. Sur le quai Wilson (1926)
 * Brillat-Savarin (1926)
 * Anaïs ou l'heure des élites (1928)
 * La Vie de Chateaubriand (1929)
 * L'homme de cinquante ans (1929)
 * La vie de fête sous le second Empire (1930)
 * La confession du Pacifique (1933)
 * L'Eloge de Honoré de Balzac (1939)

title: Marcel Rouff


text: Category:Ariège (department)

title: Category:Ariège (department)


text:
Guillaume Costeley

Guillaume Costeley [pronounced Cotelay] (1530, possibly 1531 – 28 January 1606) was a French composer of the Renaissance. He was the court organist to Charles IX of France and famous for his numerous chansons, which were representative of the late development of the form; his work in this regard was part of the early development of the style known as musique mesurée. He was also one of very few 16th century French composers of music for keyboard. In addition, he was a founding member of the Académie de Poésie et de Musique along with poet Jean-Antoine de Baïf, and he was one of the earliest composers to experiment with microtonal composition.

Life
Costeley was born in Fontanges-en-Auvergne, coincidentally the same town as contemporary composer Antoine de Bertrand. Nothing is known of him prior to his arrival in Paris in or before 1554, at which time he met, and became acquainted with the music of, such diverse figures as Jean Maillard, Jacques Arcadelt, and Sandrin. It was through Sandrin, who had recently worked in Italy, that Costeley probably became interested in the latest trends in Italian scholarship, particularly the theories of Nicola Vicentino, some of which involved composition using microtones. Costeley's only microtonal composition, Seigneur Dieu ta pitié, was apparently written at exactly the time that Sandrin was in Paris.

During the late 1550s Costeley rose in prominence in Parisian musical life, being published by Le Roy and Ballard in 1559. Since Le Roy was closely connected to the royal court through the family of Catherine de Clermont, who was to become the Countess of Retz, it is probable that his influence was significant in Costeley's rise. By 1560 Costeley had been appointed to the royal court, as organist, music teacher to the ten-year-old monarch, and composer of chansons for the royal chamber.

In 1570 he published Musique de Guillaume Costeley, which contains almost all of his surviving works. In November of this same year King Henry III granted a charter for the formation of the Académie de poésie et de musique, of which Costeley was a founding member; there is, however, no evidence of any musical composition by Costeley between 1570 and his death in 1606. He was lauded by the group and took part in its activities (the king himself was probably a member, and attended some of their meetings, as did his successor Charles IX after 1574). Baïf himself, the founder of the Académie, wrote several poems in Costeley's honor.

However Costeley was no longer resident full-time at Paris. He had purchased a house in Évreux in Normandy, and married; the King only required him to be at court for the first three months of the year. Records of his property purchases indicate that he had become wealthy in service of the king. In 1581 he was made tax assessor at Évreux, and in 1592 his wife died and he married again. In 1597 he was named as an advisor to the king ("Conseiller du Roy"), and he seems to have remained in Évreux in semi-retirement until his death.

Music and influence
Costeley's surviving music amounts to about 100 chansons, as well as three motets and a fantasy for organ. Everything that he wrote can be dated to the period between 1554 and 1569.

His motets, his only known sacred works, are for four and five voices and show the influence of Jean Maillard. A connection between the two is assumed since they both set the same unusual text (Domine salvum fac regem desiderium cordis ejus), and their settings contain apparently deliberate similarities.

Costeley's chansons were by far the most famous part of his output, and they are in the Parisian chanson style of the time, with vivid word painting, along with a tendency to think harmonically rather than polyphonically – as the age of purely polyphonic writing was coming to an end over most of Europe. The subject matter of the chansons is widely varied, as was true for most composers in the genre; some of the chansons are love songs, some are imitations of war or victory odes, and some are humorous or scatological.

A peculiarity of Costeley's style – and his notation – is that he specified the accidentals he wanted applied to his music with great care and precision, something which was unusual prior to the middle of the 16th century, but which began to occur thereafter. He was fond of unusual melodic intervals, such as the diminished third, and probably wanted to make sure they were performed correctly. Some of his chansons, for example the earthy Grosse garce noire et tendre, use this interval prominently: in this work he uses it in an imitative passage. In other pieces he uses augmented intervals, including seconds, fourths, fifths, and sixths. Even more unusual than his use of previously prohibited intervals, however, is his pioneering use of microtones. The chanson Seigneur Dieu ta pitié of 1558 made use of justly tuned enharmonic intervals which, if played on a keyboard instrument, would require nineteen keys per octave; Costeley specifies that tuning such an instrument in equal "thirds of a tone" would be necessary to perform his chanson. This amounts to a specification of 19 equal temperament for a keyboard version of this chanson.

While he was a member of Jean-Antoine de Baïf's Academie de musique et de poésie, few of his works show the influence of, or intent to contribute to, the newly developed genre of musique mesurée. Only two compositions in the collection entitled Musique, published in 1570, show the metrical freedom which characterizes the style.

One instrumental composition by Costeley has survived, and that only in a reconstructed version from a manuscript prepared by a non-musician. It is a short fantasie for organ (Fantasie [pour] orgue ou espinette faicte par monsieur Coteley [musicien] de la Chappelle du Roy), and is considered significant because it is one of the only surviving bits of keyboard music from late 16th-century France, other than pieces transcribed from vocal originals. The repertory of French keyboard players from the time seems to not have been written down, and certainly remained unpublished.

Selected recordings

 * Airs et chansons au temps du roy Henry. A Sei Voci 1987, digital re-release 2010
 * Guillaume Costeley Musicque A Sei Voci Erato Records 1999
 * Guillaume Costeley Mignonne Allons Voir Si La Rose : Chansons Spirituelles Et Amoureuses Ludus Modalis, Bruno Boterf Ramée 2013

title: Guillaume Costeley


text:
Category:United States senators from Virginia

People who have represented Virginia in the United States Senate.


text:
Talk:Brewster's angle

Last sentence
The last sentence: "The refractive index for a given medium changes depending on the wavelength of light, but typically does not vary much. The difference in the refractive index between ultra violet (≈100nm) and infra red (≈1000nm) in glass, for example, is ≈0.01." is only true for dielectric materials, glas, diamond ect. In semiconductors, which have bandgaps (critical points) in the visible or infrared region, the refractive indices can vary quite dramatically and hence the brewster angle.

 * I've removed most of that statement for a more general one. In fact, it was wrong anyway - most glasses have a bigger variation than 0.01 between the UV and NIR. --Bob Mellish 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

ise vs ize
I have converted all occurrences of polarisation with polarization, with apologies to British users. I felt it was confusing that the page used both spellings, somewhat inconsistently. I chose the spelling with z because the page on polarization spells it that way. --Srleffler 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The image spells it 'polarisation' so for consistency I feel one or the other should be changed. It is easier to change the text than the image, and also Brewster himself was Scottish, so I feel it should be consistently 'polarisation' not 'polarization' but either way would be better than it is. Opinions? 62.31.207.26 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * It's the image that should really change. The normal rule on Wikipedia is that usage should be consistent within an article, and unless the article's topic has strong national ties the article should stick with the national variety of English used by the first significant contributor. The first version of this article was imported from the American Federal Standard 1037C, and used -ize.

 * Beyond that, the -ize ending is probably a better choice. According to American and British English spelling differences the -ize spelling is not exclusively American, being recommended by many British authorities including the OED. It also prevails worldwide in scientific writing and is used by many international organizations.--Srleffler (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Can someone check this edit: and see if it's vandalism. The user is a persistent vandal but I don't know enough about Brewster's angle to know if the change was legit or not. Powers 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I looked at the edit and can confirm that it´s clearly vandalism. The former formulae are correct! waifar 84.178.106.15 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mechanism of the polarisation of light when incident at the Brewster Angle
It is said in the article that the light reflected from the boundary between the media is polarised because the dipoles that are excited in medium 2 can't emit radiation along the axis of their oscillation.

This explanation at first sight seems logical, however, there is a contradiction. If the experiment is performed with medium 2 as a vacuum, polarised light is still observed. Obviously, if medium 2 is a vacuum there are no dipoles in medium 2 that can oscillate. At the moment I don't have a better explanation for this phenomenon, however I think you should revise the article. Also, the diagram is very misleading, again just image medium 2 as a vacuum.

Hope that helps,

Robert

 * The refraction and reflection are both caused by the interaction of the light with the material, at its surface. Either way, the dipoles are in the material. The explanation, as written, assumes the light is incident on a medium from outside. The principle is the same the other way, though. If light goes from a medium into a vacuum, the refracted light in the vacuum has to be generated by dipoles at the surface of the medium. Since they can't be in the vacuum, they must be in the medium. At Brewster's angle, the reflected light is parallel to the direction of oscillation that would be required for dipole radiators to generate the p-polarized refracted beam, so p-polarized light cannot be reflected by this surface.

 * In the end, it's all a crude approximation. Light isn't really produced by "dipoles". The dipole approximation does give a good feel for what is going on, though, and gives the correct results if correctly applied.

 * Thanks for pointing this out. This paragraph in the article probably needs to be clarified.--Srleffler 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I took a stab at changing the article. It now avoids saying where the dipoles are, other than that they are "at the interface". This is all that is required for a physical description here. It doesn't really matter which medium the dipoles are in, since this is an interface effect. No interface, no Brewster effect.

Typo??
There's a missspelling in the first paragraph: "The polarization that cannot be reflected at this angle is the one for which the electric field of the light waves lies in the same plane as the incident ray and the surface normal." Should be "AS this angle", not "AT this angle, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.2.74.148 (talk • contribs) 07:58, October 5, 2006.
 * No, it is correct as written. I'm not sure how you are interpreting it, but you are clearly not interpreting what is written there correctly. If you explain what you think it says, perhaps we can make the wording clearer. --Srleffler 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned may be understanding the phrase "the one for which" to mean "the angle for which," I suspect it is intended to mean "the polarization for which." Replacing the word "one" with an explicit noun may be stylistically awkward, but would clear up the ambiguity. 138.162.0.44 13:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)dgmartin

Revise first paragraph
In the first paragraph, combined with the picture it is very difficult to understand what is reflected and what is refracted, would someone please consider revising this, so that it is easier to comprehend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew Rollings (talk • contribs).

Examples for the layman?
Would someone be willing to provide a simple example or two of this phenomenon?

Done. See article. It would be nice to add some example images here. J S Lundeen

External link suggestion
I would like to suggest to add an external link to BrewstersAngle.INFO. This is an easy-to-use Brewster's angle calculator which uses refractive index values of real materials. Wikipedia's policy does not allow me to add the link myself as I am the author of this site. Please, add a link if you find this site appropriate. Thanks! Mpolyanskiy (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

p vs. s
The use of p and s does not seem very clear. Contrast "Light with this polarization is said to be p-polarized, because it is parallel to the plane" with "by definition, the s-polarization is parallel to the interface". After reading three or four times (and having prior knowledge of the physics) it made sense, but it really should be clearer. Saying that s is parallel to the interface when defining it would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.208.99 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Derivation needs a rewrite
The derivation is extremely confusing. The \theta_in + \theta_out=90 is not clear, because brewster's angle only exists for one polarization and not the other. I might get angry and do a rewrite. One really angry guy (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 * As the text tries to explain, reflection goes to zero when the electric field direction of light inside the material is parallel to the propagation direction of reflected light outside the material. That occurs when $$\theta_{in} + \theta_{out}=90^\circ$$, and only happens for p-polarization. For s-polarization, the electric field inside the material is never parallel to the propagation direction of the light outside the material. If you think you can describe it better, go ahead and rewrite the derivation. No need to get angry.--Srleffler (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The derivation can be readily achieved without understanding and evoking the dipole analogy, eg via Fresnel's Equation. Such an article would have an architecture: I do feel that such a derivation would be a lot more intuitive. Okay, I admit currently the Fresnel's Equation page also looks frightening, but with a bit of revamping, the derivation of Fresnel should be pretty obvious as well.One really angry guy (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * reflected percentage is given by this equation (Fresnel).
 * Solve for reflected percentage equals zero. Get Brewster's angle.
 * What's the physical interpretation? Bam, oscillation of dipoles.
 * Alternate derivation via physical interpretation.

 * Explaining Brewster's angle in terms of the Fresnel equations would be better, but this should not include a full derivation. By policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Long derivations are generally out of our scope. In physics articles, even short derivations are really only appropriate when they serve to explain the physics. Where possible, we write for a lay audience, not for physicists. The derivation that is in the article now is not very good, but it does show how the condition described above leads to Brewster's angle.--Srleffler (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw your rewrite. Nice work. I had a few commitments pop up and you beat me to it. I did some minor english edits to make the text more obvious. Other than that, I think it is good - it avoids the long derivation but since it points to Fresnel it is very easy for the reader to see how a mathematical derivation might be made. One really angry guy (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 * "That is, if the oscillating dipoles are aligned along the supposed direction of the reflection, no light is reflected at all." I could not follow this sentence. Are we assuming that the dipoles know the angle of incidence and line up with it, or are we assuming that they occur in every direction but deducing that these particular ones are the only ones that can be involved in absorbing and retransmitting light? If so, perhaps the reasoning could be spelled out more completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.237.33 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The derivation is poorly written and needs a rewrite, but I can't attempt that tonight. The dipoles are excited by the incident light, and have their moments parallel to the electric field of the light in the medium (i.e. the refracted light). It happens that the dipoles can't emit light along their moment axis, so if the dipoles happen to be lined up with the direction in which the reflected light has to go, that light can't be produced.--Srleffler (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that I wrote a clearer explanation in 2010 but somebody overwrote it.--Srleffler (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I replaced the bad explanation with the old one. As it was, the explanation was flat out wrong on several points.--Srleffler (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The definition is ambiguous as well
n1 and n2 are not defined, and since the argument of arctan can be either greater or less than 1 we cannot deduce which medium has refractive inded n1 and which n2. This renders the definition meaningless.

Andrew Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.177 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Fixed. The answer was common sense, though: n1 is the index of the first medium through which the light propagates.--Srleffler (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs general EM formulation for parallel and perpendicular polarization
This page is appropriate for optics, but brewsters angle applies to all EM waves, including radio, microwave, etc. It needs its EM formulation, and a description of what happens to parallel and perpendicular e-field vectors. 166.19.102.20 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to write something about it and add it to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence
Where it reads "Brewster's angle ... at which [light] with a particular [Polarization] is perfectly transmitted through a transparent [dielectric] surface, with no [Reflection]"

shouldn't it read;

''Brewster's angle ... at which [light] with a particular [Polarization] is perfectly reflected from a transparent [dielectric] surface, with no [Transmission] throgh it"?

... isn't the whole point that it is the reflected light that ends up perfectly polarised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.7.250 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You achieve perfect polarization of the reflected light by perfectly transmitting the other polarization. The polarization that is reflected is not perfectly reflected: some of that polarization is transmitted as well.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read this sentence several times, and I cannot see the logic that justifies the use of 'therefore':- "Brewster's angle (also known as the polarization angle) is an angle of incidence at which light with a particular polarization is perfectly transmitted through a transparent dielectric surface, with no reflection. When unpolarized light is incident at this angle, the light that is reflected from the surface is therefore perfectly polarized. "  I propose the following definition: "Brewster's Angle is that angle of incidence of unpolarised light on a dielectric surface at which the reflected light is perfectly polarised.  The polarisation of the reflected light is such that its E-field is parallel to the reflecting surface". g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4oep (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "therefore" is justified. Breaking it down:
 * One polarization is completely transmitted through the surface,
 * therefore there is no reflection of that polarization,
 * therefore all of the light that is reflected has the opposite polarization,
 * therefore the reflected light is perfectly polarized.

 * The definition in the article is better than yours because it describes both of the important functions of a Brewster surface, and how they are related. The fact that one polarization has precisely zero reflectance is at least as important technologically as the fact that the surface can produce a perfectly polarized reflection. While understanding that these two properties are in fact the same thing may take a bit of thought, it is necessary to appreciate both to fully understand Brewster's angle.--Srleffler (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

year of discovery
Is there any publication before 1813? The one I found predates the one used in the article by two years. --Stone (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not on subject
I meant to write in the edit summary (but must have hit the wrong key and it got published before I could finish!) that the section on polarizing sunglasses and camera filters doesn't really have to do with the Brewster angle, but is about reflections at large incidence angles, period. So I didn't think it belongs in this page, but didn't want to argue about it and just improved what was there. If someone wants to remove it for that reason (and perhaps incorporate any of it in a more relevant page), please go ahead.Interferometrist (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Dead link in page; found one site with respective document
https://sites.esm.psu.edu/~axl4/lakhtakia/Documents/No170(Optik).pdf 2607:FEA8:5420:680:F3C0:9271:A531:9CA2 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks,--Srleffler (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brewster's angle


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai, Death of Dreams

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Kai, Death of Dreams
NN Machinima production that has been in development for years, with very little to show. DooM Drat 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - DooM Drat 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Inclined to keep due to the quality of the article, and hope that the opera arrives in time; anyway, if it has been around that long, it might be notable in the correct circles as Duke Nukem Forever is notable in gamers' circles. Grobertson 22:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per User:Grobertson Justin Bacon 03:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Sudhana

Sudhanakumāra, mainly known as Sudhana and Shancai or Shancai Tongzi in Chinese, and translated as Child of Wealth, along with Longnü "Dragon Girl" are considered acolytes of the bodhisattva Guanyin (Avalokiteśvara) in Chinese Buddhism. He and Longnü being depicted with Guanyin was most likely influenced by Yunü (Jade Maiden) and Jintong (Golden Youth) who both appear in the iconography of the Jade Emperor.

A fictionalised account of Sudhana is detailed in the classical novel Journey to the West, where Sudhana is portrayed as a villain, Red Boy, who is eventually subdued by Guanyin and becomes the bodhisattva's attendant.

Gandavyuha Sutra
Sudhana was a youth from India who was seeking bodhi (enlightenment). At the behest of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, Sudhana takes a pilgrimage on his quest for enlightenment and studies under 53 "good friends", those who direct one towards the Way to Enlightenment. The 53 Stations of the Tōkaidō are a metaphor for Sudhana's journey. Avalokiteśvara is the 28th spiritual master Sudhana visits at Mount Potalaka. Sudhana's quest reaches it climax at when he meets Maitreya, the Future Buddha, who snaps his fingers, thereby opening the doors to his marvelous tower. Within the tower, Sudhana experiences all the dharmadhatus (dimensions or worlds) in a fantastic succession of visions. The final master he visits is Samantabhadra, who teaches Sudhana that wisdom only exists for the sake of putting it into practice.

The pilgrimage of Sudhana mirrors that of Gautama Buddha and the Gandavyuha sutra becomes very popular in China during the Song dynasty when it was adapted and circulated in small amply illustrated booklets, each page dedicated to one of Sudhana's spiritual teachers.

Tale of the Southern Seas
Chapter 18 of the Complete Tale of Guanyin and the Southern Seas, a 16th-century Ming dynasty novel, is the first text that established a connection between Shancai and Guanyin. In the tale, Shancai was a disabled boy from India who was very interested in studying the Buddha's teachings. At that time, Guanyin had just achieved enlightenment and had retired to Mount Putuo, an island in the South China Sea. When Shancai heard that there was a bodhisattva on Mount Putuo, he quickly journeyed there to learn from her despite his disability. Guanyin, after having a discussion with Shancai, decided to test his resolve to fully study the Buddhist Dharma. She transformed the trees and plants into sword-wielding pirates, who ran up the hill to attack them. Guanyin took off and dashed to the edge of a cliff and jumped off, with the pirates still in pursuit. Shancai, in his desperation to save Guanyin, jumped off after her.

Shancai and Guanyin managed to reascend the cliff, and at this point, Guanyin asked Shancai to look down. Shancai saw his mortal remains at the foot of the cliff. Guanyin then asked him to walk and Shancai found that he could walk normally and that he was no longer crippled. When he looked into a pool of water, he also discovered that he now had a handsome face. From that day onwards, Guanyin taught Shancai the entire Buddhist dharma. Guanyin and Shancai later encountered the third daughter of the Dragon King, and in the process, Guanyin earned Longnü as a new acolyte.

Precious Scrolls of Shancai and Longnü

The Precious Scroll of Shancai and Longnü, an 18th or 19th century scroll comprising 29 folios, provides a different account on how Shancai and Longnü became the acolytes of Guanyin. This tale seems to have a Taoist origin. The story is set in the Qianfu era of the reign of Emperor Xizong of Tang.

A virtuous minister Chen Bao and his wife Lady Han are still childless when they are getting older. When Chen rejects his wife's recommendation to take a concubine, she suggested that they pray to the bodhisattva Guanyin for help. Guanyin saw that the couple was destined to not have any children, so she ordered a Boy Who Brings Wealth to be born into the family. Lady Han soon gave birth to a boy, who was named Chen Lian. She died when his son was only five years old.

As a child, Chen Lian was not interested in civil or military pursuits, but rather, in religious enlightenment, much to his father's disapproval. At the age of seven, his father finally gave in to his pleas and allowed him to study under the tutelage of the Yellow Dragon Immortal. Chen Lian was renamed to Shancai and became a dutiful apprentice of the immortal. However, he ignored all of his father's requests to visit home during his apprenticeship.

When his father's 60th birthday approached, Shancai was once again asked to go home for a visit. As his master was away, Shancai decided to return home since it was a special occasion. On his way down a mountain path, he heard a voice crying out for help. Upon investigation, he saw that it was a snake trapped in a bottle for the last 18 years. The snake begged Shancai to release her, and after Shancai did so, she revealed her true form as a giant serpent and wanted to eat him. When Shancai protested at the snake's behaviour, she argued that ēn (恩, an act of kindness) should be repaid with a feud, as is the way of nature. However, the snake agreed to bring the case before three judges.

The first judge was the Golden Water Buffalo Star in human form. He agreed with the snake that given her past experiences with humans, she was right to repay Shancai's kindness by devouring him. The Buffalo related how he was forced out of Heaven by the bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha into the human world to help humans plough the fields. Kṣitigarbha vowed that if the humans did not repay one's kindness by showing kindness in return, his eyes would fall out. As the Buffalo landed face first on Earth, he lost all his upper front teeth. He later suffered greatly, and after years of toiling for his human master, he was butchered and eaten. Because of this, Kṣitigarbha's eyes fell out and landed on Earth and transformed into snails, which buffaloes trample on when they plough the fields.

The second judge was the Taoist master Zhuang Zhou, who also sided with the snake. He cited an incident where he resurrected a dead man, who repaid his kindness by bringing him to court and accusing him of stealing his money.

The third judge was a young girl. The girl told the snake that she could eat her as well if the snake could show them how it was able to fit into the bottle she was released from. As soon as the snake wormed itself back into the bottle, it was trapped. The girl then revealed herself as Guanyin. When the snake begged for mercy, Guanyin told her that if she wanted to be saved she must engage in religious exercises in the Grotto of the Sounds of the Flood (present-day Fayu Temple) on Mount Putuo. Around this time, Guanyin also gained a new disciple, the Filial Parrot.

Three years later, when Guanyin returned to Mount Putuo, she appeared to Shancai in the middle of the ocean. Shancai joined her in walking across the sea and became her acolyte. With the confirmation of his faith, Shancai's parents were reborn in Heaven. As for the snake, she committed herself to seven years of austerity and eventually cleansed herself of venom and produced a pearl. She transformed into Longnü and joined Shancai as an acolyte of Guanyin.

As Red Boy
Sudhana is the Buddhist name of Red Boy, also known as Honghai'er, an antagonist in the classical novel Journey to the West. Red Boy was the son of Princess Iron Fan and Bull Demon King. As an exchange for punishment after kidnapping Tang Sanzang and Zhu Bajie, as well as irreverently usurping Guanyin's lotus seat, Red Boy surrendered to Guanyin and became her attendant.

title: Sudhana


text:
Talk:Greedy best-first search

Shouldn't this article be merged with Best-first_search? Or maybe just deleted.

i am also thinking the same.

I also agree, and added a mergeto tag. MagiMaster 10:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greedy best-first search


text:
Talk:PUA

The following reference was removed: Strauss, Neill, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2005), ISBN 0060554738

I have no interest in promoting the book. Most of the reviews of the book are highly critical. Check the other references, you'll see. DutchSeduction 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the following references were removed:

***
 * 1) ""'The Game': Come Here Often?"", Alexandra Jacobs, New York Times, 11 September 2005
 * 2) ""'He Aims! He Shoots! Yes!!"", Neill Strauss, New York Times, 25 January 2004
 * 3) ""Every Maverick Needs a Goose, but Should You Pay for One?"", Anna David, Razor, July/August 2005
 * 4) ""What It Feels Like . . . To Pick Up Britney Spears"", Neill Strauss, Esquire, 1 August 2005
 * 5) ""Operation PickUp"", Hugo Rifkind, The Times, 3 September 2005
 * 6) ""All the Right Moves", Emma Forrest, The Observer, 11 September 2005
 * 7) ""Girls, If You See This Man, Run a Mile", Rafael Behr, The Observer, 25 September 2005
 * 8) ""Single-Minded", Jane Ganahl, San Francisco Chronicle, 25 September 2005
 * 9) ""Meet Professor Seduction ", Chuck Terhark, Utne Magazine, November 2004
 * 10) ""The Secret Society." ABC Prime Time. ABC, U.S.A. 30 September 2005
 * 11) ""Lady killers"", Lianne George, Macleans magazine, 02 September 2005
 * 12) ""Sexual politics: The Game by Neil Strauss"", Christopher Hart, The Sunday Times (UK), 02 October 2005
 * 13) ""Seduction for Dummies,"" Kristian Gravenor, Montreal Mirror, 14 July 2005

Where do they belong in case someone wants to check on the usage and validity of the term? DutchSeduction

 * They belong nowhere, as they do not refer to any article in existence. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the references were only intended to prevent people from eliminating the term "pickup artist" due to a personal bias -- It seems as if User:Fvw was guilty of that. DutchSeduction 07:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Already happened, some idiot removed the disambiguation page. Dessydes
 * true true, surprised to see that! oh well, better revert it. Seems people kept on removing pick up artist even after dutch seduction had shown it is indeed very notable. Which is even sillier when you realise the addition of pick up artist is the very next edit made to this page after it's creation! Mathmo 22:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove link to seduction
I removed the link "pickup artist" to seduction, but it was reverted by user:Mathmo. The use of "PUA" as an abbreviation for "pickup artist" is not notable. We don't have an article pickup artist anyway. --Apoc2400 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PUA for Potentially Unwanted Application.
The shorthand PUA for "Potentially Unwanted Application" is often shown in anti-malware software detections, like "Alert: Not-a-Virus:PUA.detection_name.variant_code was found in file ABC.XYZ" 94.21.154.68 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:PUA


text:
Talk:Elizabeth Vargas

Divide Article Into Categories?
This article seems to jump around from career, to personal, to other information. Other biographies are divided into Categories like Career, Education, Early Life that organize the information. If any interest, I'll take a try at it. Misstory 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Missouri
Also, apparently Elizabeth Vargas was a student at the University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC) the same time that Sheryl Crow and Brad Pitt were. Does anyone know if these future celebrities actually knew each other while they were students at UMC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.218.97 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"De facto solo anchor"
Vargas can be considered the first de facto solo woman evening news anchor, given that she anchored many broadcasts alone after Bob Woodruff's injury in Iraq in January 2006. I understand the point that's being made here, but I think this is WP:OR or WP:POV. What's the definition of "de facto solo"? JTRH (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"...born... to... a former colonel in the U.S. Army..."
I just watched World News Tonight (January 24) and it aired a piece about Elizabeth Vargas to mark her return to ABC News (on 20/20) later tonight. In the piece (which included excerpts from an interview with her), David Muir said her father was deployed to Vietnam when she was 6. To call him a former colonel in the sentence about her birth gives the incorrect impression that he wasn't in the Army when she was born unless he actually wasn't and he rejoined the Army sometime later. --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ You are absolutely right. I fixed the sentence. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo?
This article does not yet have a photo. This is quite surprising as she is a public figure. Surely there must exist a pic that meets Wikipedia's stringent requirements governing such. User:SeaBeeDee(talk) 16:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elizabeth Vargas