text:
Botany/Microbes

<< Contents Page | << Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 >>|

Chapter 8. Microbiology

Microbes
Microbes are extremely small organisms or quasi-living particles traditionally studied by botanists, but now treated within the more specialized field of Microbiology. As a specialized field, Microbiology has its own methodologies and terminologies often very different from those used by botanists. Nonetheless, there is value for beginning botany students to learn something of these organisms—to gain understanding of their presumably more primitive nature and significance as the causes of plant diseases.

Overview
A bacterium (plural: bacteria) is a single celled organism belonging to the Domain Bacteria, in the three domain scheme. It can also be a type of organism belonging to one of the three major branches of life. They belong to the kingdom monerans. Traditionally classified as one of the five kingdoms, bacteria are microscopic and relatively simple cells, called prokaryotes. These cells lack the nucleus and organelles of the more complex cells called eukaryotes that plants are constructed of. However, like the cells of plants, most bacteria possess a carbohydrate-based cell wall. In common speech, "bacteria" still refers also to archaeabacteria, although the latter recently have been classified as an independent branch or "domain" of life.

They occur in various shapes which include:
 * Cocci (tetra, micro, diplo, staphylo, strepto and sarcinea cocci)
 * Bacilus (diplo and strepto bacilus)
 * Vibro
 * Spiral
 * Flagellation (amphitrichous, lophotrichous, petritrichous, and monotrichous)

True bacteria are the oldest organisms on Earth, with the possible exception of the Archaea, and they are also the most abundant. Bacteria exist in soil, water, and as parasites of other organisms. Species and strains of bacteria cause many if not most non-hereditary diseases. They are the target of the drugs known as antibiotics.

 * Read Bacterium ( Links need not be pursued at this time )

Overview
A virus is an obligate cellular parasite that is completely dependent on the host cell for its replication. The genome of the virus may consist of single stranded or double stranded DNA or RNA. The size of viral genomes varies widely and may encode between one and 250 genes. Of most interest within the study of Botany are viruses that are plant pathogens. The majority of plant viruses have single-stranded, messenger-sense RNA genomes (Class IV) and encode only between one and 12 proteins. These proteins function in virus transmission, in replication, cell-to-cell and systemic movement, in the structure of the virus, and in the suppression of plant host defense mechanisms. In many cases, virus replication takes place in distinct virus-induced regions of the cell, the so-called viroplasms, and induces the synthesis of a pool of virus components followed by assembly of many virus particles from this pool.

Viruses can usually be horizontally transmitted between hosts. In many cases the transmission is dependent on insects, nematodes, fungi or other vectors. However, some other viruses, for example Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), are transmitted mechanically by physical contact between plant tissue and virus-contaminated surfaces. Once the virus is transmitted and has successfully entered into the plant cell, it moves locally from cell to cell until it enters the phloem, which allows the virus to enter distant tissue to cause a systemic infection.

Even smaller than viruses are viroids. Viroids are infectious agents that consist of single-stranded RNA, which does not encode any proteins.

 * Read ( Links need not be pursued at this time ):
 * Virus
 * Viral classifications
 * Pathogen
 * Viroid

History
The first virus to be identified was TMV. A. E. Mayer was a professor at the Agricultural College in Wageningen, the Netherlands that was established in 1876. Soon after he was asked by farmers to investigate a highly contagious disorder in tobacco, which he called mosaic disease. In 1898, M. W. Beijerinck in the Netherlands concluded that the tobacco mosaic disease-causing agent was neither a bacterium nor any corpuscular body, but rather a contagium vivum fluidum, an infectious fluid. The next big step was made in 1935, when TMV was chemically purified by Nobel prizewinner Wendell M. Stanley in the United States. This was followed soon after in 1939 by the first visual observation of the rod shaped TMV particles by electron microscopy by Kausche, Pfankuch and Ruska in Germany. For a long time electron microscopy remained a main tool in virology, and many viruses were isolated and visualized. The study of the mechanisms of viral infection cycles became more important after molecular biology tools became available.

 * Read ( Links need not be pursued at this time ):
 * Electron microscope
 * Molecular Biology

Links to external portals / webpages

 * All the Virology on the WWW - Plant viruses
 * Plant Viruses Online

title: Botany/Microbes


text:
Cryptography/Playfair cipher

The Playfair Cipher is one of several methods used to foil a simple frequency analysis. Instead of every letter having a substitute, every digraph has a substitute. This tends to level the frequency distribution somewhat.

The classic Playfair tableau consists of four alphabets, usually in a square arrangement, two plaintext and two ciphertext. In this example, keywords have been used to disorder the ciphertext alphabets. In use, two letters of the plaintext are located in the plaintext alphabets. Then reading across from the first letter to the column of the second letter, the first ciphertext character is found. Next, reading down from the first letter to the row of the second letter, the second ciphertext letter is found.

As an example, using tableau above, the digraph "TE" is enciphered as "uw", whereas the digraph "LE" is enciphered as "mk". This makes a frequency analysis difficult.

A second version of the Playfair cipher uses a single alphabet.

SECRT - Your secret keyword, share among you and your receiver KYWDP LAFIZ BXCQG HUMOK

If the letters of a digraph lie at the corners of a rectangle, then they are rotated clockwise round the rectangle, SW to CK, AT to EZ.

If they lie in the same column or row they are moved one down or across, EA to YX, RS to TE.

The square is treated as though it wraps round in both directions, ST to ES, DO to IR

Both versions of the Playfair cipher are of comparable strength.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Cryptography/Playfair cipher


text:
Heat transfer

Types of heat transfer
There are 2 primary mechanisms by which heat is transferred from a hotter material to a cooler material:

Conduction
This occurs when two solid objects are touching, within fluids, or between touching fluids and solids. Some materials conduct heat much better than others. For example, metals generally conduct heat better than wood. Good thermal conductors, at room temperature, often feel cool to the touch, as they conduct body heat away from the hand of the warmer person.

Example
A brick house absorbs heat from solar radiation during the day, on the surface of the bricks. This heat slowly conducts through the bricks and heats the house only after it reaches the inside edge. This may take several hours. Thus, houses can actually be hottest after the Sun has set.

Convection
This type of heat transfer requires a fluid, which may be either a gas or liquid, and a force acting on the fluid, such as gravity. Convection occurs due to density changes in fluids when the temperature of those fluids change. In general, fluids become less dense when heated, but there are exceptions. In the case of a fluid which does become less dense when heated, the hotter portion of the fluid rises and the cooler portion sinks. Just the reverse would happen if the fluid became more dense when heated. If the fluid does not change density when heated, then no convection will occur, although much slower conduction within the fluid will still occur.

Example
Within the mantle of the Earth, hot magma rises to the crust, releases it's heat by conduction or by volcanism, then sinks back down to the hotter core and repeats the process. This sets up convection cells, where this process repeats in a stable flow pattern for millions or even billion of years. One result is that the location where hot magma rises produces a "hot spot" which creates a series of volcanoes as it punctures the crust as the continental and oceanic plates drift across. The Hawaiian Islands were created by just such a hot spot.

Chemical phase changes
Heat may cause solids to melt to become liquids, or liquids to boil to become gases. Some heat is absorbed by the phase change itself, and some may then be carried away by the fluid via convection. The combination of phase changes and convection cools an object quicker than convection alone.

Example
Blacksmiths often drop red-hot or white-hot metals into water in order to "quench" them. This causes the water to boil and carry the heat away as steam.

Radiation
Radiation occurs from all objects above absolute zero to every other object in its line of sight. This occurs when molecular vibrations cause particles to be emitted from the surface of an object. Many different particles may be emitted, depending on the temperature of the object. Different frequencies are thus emitted; including infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, gamma rays, etc. Radiation is unique in that it is the only type of heat transfer which can occur across a vacuum. Radiation is an extremely quick mechanism for transferring heat (it occurs at the speed of light), provided the hotter object is very hot (thousands of degrees). Cooler objects don't radiate much energy. The radiation received by an object will be inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the radiating object.

Example
Radiation from stars, such as our Sun, is the method by which light and heat is given off to the planets.

Reaching equilibrium
Heat transfer within a material or between two materials occurs in both directions, but more heat is transferred from the hotter material to the cooler than from the cooler to the hotter. This process continues until the temperatures approach the same value within the material or between the two materials. At this point an equal amount of heat transfer will occur in both directions, and the system will remain at thermal equilibrium until some change is made to the system.

Lessons

 * Wikibooks: Heat Transfer
 * Cooling Towers: Design and Operation Considerations
 * Wikibooks: Automotive Air Conditioner: Material and Energy Balances (nothing yet available)
 * LearnChemE screencasts on Heat Transfer
 * Process Engineering Fundamentals - Heat transfer (Youtube)

title: Heat transfer


text:
Talk:辚

辚辚
辚辚 is used as a word as well (meaning "rumble" or "rumbling"), correct? <IP_ADDRESS> 08:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * correct. -- A-cai 12:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This compound should be added to the article.

 * done. -- A-cai 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:辚


text:
lääts

Etymology
From. Under the influence of German, it has also taken the meaning of "lens" in the optical sense. (cf. 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) lentil
 * 2) lens

title: lääts


text:
Manolis Mitsias

Manolis Mitsias (Greek: Μανώλης Μητσιάς, ; born 26 February 1946) is a Greek singer. He has been a significant artistic presence in the laïko, light laïko and entekhno genres of modern Greek music.

Early life
Mitsias was born in the village of Doumpia, close to the town of Polygyros. From an early age, he was interested in Byzantine and folk music and was a cantor for a time period. Later, studying in Thessaloniki, he joined the 'Arts and Letters Club of Northern Greece' while at the same time founded a nightclub (boîte) where he began his career as a solo singer.

His first record came in 1969, with the song 'Στην Ελευσίνα μια φορά' ('In Elefsina Once'), written by Dimos Moutsis.

Collaborations
In his five and a half decade career, Mitsias has worked with almost all of Greece (and Cyprus's) most well-known contemporary composers, such as the aforementioned Dimos Moutsis, Mikis Theodorakis, Loukianos Kilaidonis, Manos Hatzidakis, Stavros Xarchakos, Vassilis Tsitsanis, Marios Tokas, Giorgos Hatzinasios, Thanos Mikroutsikos, Yannis Markopoulos, Giannis Spanos and Stamatis Kraounakis, to name but a few. He has sung lyrics by many Greek poets and lyricists and even Spanish writer Federico García Lorca.

In terms of fellow singers, he has worked with Maria Farantouri, Dimitra Galani, Vicky Moscholiou, Babis Stokas, Sotiria Bellou and others.

He has appeared in concert around Greece and Cyprus and for Greek audiences abroad (London, New York and other cities). During the summer of 2009, he celebrated forty years of his career.

title: Manolis Mitsias


text:
GCSE Science/Electricity multiple choice practice question 8 answer 4

Sorry this is the wrong answer.It is quite possible to answe this question from the information given.

From Ohm's Law

 * R=V/I

But V/I is also the slope (or gradient) of the line on the graph. So with a constant slope, we must have a constant resistance.

Go back and try again>>


text:
Talk:Autonomist Democrats

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Autonomist Democrats. 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/20110714194351/http://www.normanno.com/articolo.php?id=DM2008-03-17-2710 to http://www.normanno.com/articolo.php?id=DM2008-03-17-2710

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Autonomist Democrats


text:
Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 5

Misleading "Misleading video about NPR"
The Daily Caller broke a story that was later proven to be wrong, if I understand it correctly? That's not out of the ordinary.

ABC and NPR themselves both reported on the same information on the same day. Unless I'm not getting something, I don't see how this is noteworthy. Somewordswrittendown (talk) 23:25, February 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is New Page Review. I think you want WT:NPR which is about National Public Radio. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Whoops. This appeared right next to a NPP related update on my watchlist and I got them mixed up. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49: No, Somewordswrittendown is in the right place. This is the talk page about The Daily Caller, which has a section Misleading video about NPR, with text that User:Snooganssnoogans added in September 2018. Somewordswrittendown is also right to complain, although I doubt that the words can be easily removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, the source gives it a paragraph; it's worth a sentence here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's supported by a reliable source. That makes it a question of editorial judgment. So it's acceptable to challenge that judgment, but not "right" to complain that it's "misleading" because it isn't. Guy (help!) 15:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Article has too many minor details in negative sections, let's fix it
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I see an issue with this article, and I have ideas on how to fix it. This article contains way to much intricate detail of minor disputes and situations among its 10+ sections dedicated to negative content. We should summarize that content better and put it into a dedicated section, like most Wikipedia articles do.

I understand that some people oppose this organization, its methods and what it's trying to accomplish. I also understand that some will neither oppose it, and of course there will be those who support it.

That being said...

The issue:
 * This article looks like a negative hit job on this organization. Regardless of politics, if you simply skim down the article, it's almost all negative. There are over 10 *sections* dedicated to negative content.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge. I cannot imagine any credible encyclopedia containing much of the content found in those sections of the article.

How to fix:

Here are my two ideas. I would strongly recommend each:

1. Build a strong-enough "Controversies" section: Summarize the main overall points of the negative content sections, and compose those into a new Controversies section. Make sure the section is long enough to be in line with the gravity, weight, and frequency of the negative angles, but avoid hashing out every minor detail of each dispute or situation.

2. Re-arrange the order of the article: Make it similar to other articles about U.S. political-leaning magazines. The categories can serve as a guide, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_conservative_magazines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alternative_magazines

There does not seem to be uniformity on the American political magazine articles yet, but we can borrow ideas.

Input? What do people think? Jeremydavis255 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections are strongly discouraged, so the present method of placing such content in the relevant sections is perfectly proper. Also, avoid anything that can be seen as whitewashing. That is not allowed here. Many editors, especially newbies, assume that NPOV means "no point of view". No, "neutral" refers primarily to "editorial" neutrality, not source or content neutrality. We are supposed to use all RS, including biased sources, and editors must remain neutral by not censoring or neutralizing the opinions from those sources.
 * We must document any biases accurately, and headings should accurately describe the contents of a section, including the use of words that accurately describe the content. That will mean the heading may appear biased because it described biased content. Whitewashing is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to what said, this article was fairly recently reorganized to eliminate a "Controversies" section. Its organization is patterned on the article for the UK tabloid The Sun. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it. Thank you for your help. Jeremydavis255 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read WP:BIASED. You're right about the biased sources, sorry I was unaware prior. I do like how WP:BIASED says it's fine to clarify who said it ("as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."" etc.). Thanks. Jeremydavis255 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

2012 interrupting Obama section
It is embarrassing that this section suggests that interrupting a President once during a press briefing is a controversial and disrespectful act. Current press briefings each seem to contain multiple incidents of reporters arguing with the President. Some context should be added to this section now that interrupting the President to argue with him has become such a frequent and celebrated act. There are tens of articles on Yamiche Alcindor alone. Anyone reading this section as it stands, without independent knowledge of current events, would be left very misled.

Obviously, there aren’t going to be new articles describing this incident. Nor are we likely to find Articles recontextualizing this incident. That speaks to how minor it is. It’s inclusion implies that it is important to the story of the Daily Caller, which it isn’t given modern context. If this section can’t be given context, delete it for being an irrelevant, tiny, inconsequential, and forgotten controversy over an act that is no longer uncommon, controversial, or noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo
There is a typo in "The video clip was set to a cover of Ludacris' "Move Bitch." and set to a cover of Ludacris' "Move Bitch."[36]". I think the bold part should be deleted. The Deadly Algorithm (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

CARES Act funding
Some of the material added here and removed here looks include-able to me (though perhaps, being about funding, it would better go in "Staff, contributors and organization"). A variety of secondary sources reported on it, so a sentence or two here seems fair. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Seems like basic finances stuff that would uncontroversially go into the article of any organization. Getting rescue loans from the government is notable, as borne out by the RS coverage. If 5 different sources covered a large loan by an organization or individual to the Daily Caller, we'd add that too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * The fifth source mentioned above says that over 4.9 million organizations received something, and The Hill has a less selective list which shows that a great heap of media companies, including some with rather different politics, received similar or greater sums. I'm not saying they all should have sections about their grants (and my random sampling indicates that apparently most don't). I'm saying that shows how trivial this is when one considers that it applies to a great heap, and how the words "seems fair" don't apply when there is special treatment. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with adding a mention of CARES Act funding to the article on any organization for which the funding was reported by multiple WP:RS. A whole section would be overkill (and I think the addition to this article was longer than needed). "Who funds whom?" is generally the kind of information that a good encyclopedia article should provide, regardless of the political alignment of the recipient (i.e., this goes for Media Matters as much as TDC or Newsmax ). XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not that it's a big scandal that TDC took the money, but it is notable, and in this case it's certainly gathered more headlines than necessary to justify it. I've added it to left-leaning orgs, churches, pizza shops and tech orgs. So, I appreciate the feedback on this topic and on the larger topic. Note that while there are almost 5mm recipients, there are only 660k larger than $150k, and it follows a curve as they get larger. My feeling is a sentence is warranted on all orgs that are notable enough to have an article. tedder (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tedder, I asked "Is it deemed necessary to add stuff for every person or organization who received anything via CARES? If not, what is the criterion?" and I think you are being clear about that -- a sentence i.e. one sentence for every organization that has a Wikipedia article. You don't say "person", you don't say "every media organization", you don't say "which received more than $150k", and you don't say what the sentence is. Will you make it clear that you want to make all these edits? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see passing mention of the Daily Caller as one of many groups that received funding to establish significance. In order for that to happen we would expect multiple articles specifically about the Daily Caller receiving the money. TFD (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view, succinct statements in half a dozen different sources are enough to merit a mention here. There's not much more to say than what they said about it, but they all chose to say it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That applies to 4.9 million organizations that received funding. Are you going to post this information to all of them? I only add information if sources find them important in relation to the subject, not if they are mentioned in passing. TFD (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How many of those 4.9 million organizations have Wikipedia articles? And out of those, for how many was their receipt of CARES Act funding described by Politico, CNBC, the Washington Post, and the Columbia Journalism Review, among others? At that point, I think a sentence would be warranted on any such article. TDC isn't the headliner, but I don't think it has to be. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Those articles are not about the Daily Caller, they are about CARES loans, which is where this should be mentioned. It's like stories about Studio 54 will mention famous celebrities who visited, which may be important to the article about the club but not to the articles about each person who visited. I suspect the interest in the Daily Caller's loan is that it can be seen as hypocrisy for a publisher that rails against government handouts and it may be an indication of weak finances. If these observations gain attention in reliable sources, we will be able to present the information in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some overstatement about WP:N being needed for every sentence in an article. I don't think companies are BLP, so WP:PSTS is a fairly good guide. It talks about using primary sources without applying analysis (e.g., keeping it very factual). To me, this applies to ProPublica as a source, as they are simply formatting the data, not analyzing it in any way. A secondary source would be Politico, CNBC, CJR, etc., but that isn't necessary for inclusion. tedder (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:N is about whether articles should exist, not what is in them. And it's quite central to policy that Wikipedia should not be the original source of criticism of subjects and that readers should not expect to find analysis here that has not been published elsewhere. TFD (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Arrest of Shelby Talbot
Hello,

I'm not experienced at editing Wikipedia, but I thought the recent arrests of Daily Caller reporters who were covering protests in Louisville might be worth including in this article's page (since I came here looking for information about the Daily Caller in the wake of reading about the arrests). In case it's helpful I'm using this talk page to suggest it and link to the recent story about the arrest. Apologies if I went about this wrong or if this isn't important enough to include! https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/28/exclusive-louisville-arrest-daily-caller-reporters-kettling-black-lives-matter-protest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:67AB:880:4577:4B37:CCCB:9ABB (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the link. When we add information to this article it should be referenced to reliable sources. Since the Daily Caller is specifically listed as an unreliable source, then the story would have to be sourced from another publication. So far, the only reliable sources that I could find that covered the story were Fox News and a few other sources, but otherwise has been ignored by mainstream media. So I don't think it is important unless the Daily Caller was singled out. From the reports it appears everyone present was arrested. The fact this included a Daily Caller reporter isn't significant. TFD (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I could argue that WP:ABOUTSELF applies here, but won't unless multiple other editors think it's worth mentioning. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced and POV Characterizations in the Lede
I made this edit to remove unsourced and clearly POV characterizations from the lede.

It was reverted, without explanation, other than that I should discuss it here.

While we could argue about the basic accuracy of the characterizations, they are unsourced allegations and clearly are not the defining characteristics of the subject, except perhaps in the POV of some editors.

It is not encyclopedic or helpful to the reader to comment "The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories" - especially when the body of the article doesn't support that broad assertion.

Certainly, the specific allegations, once properly sourced, would be appropriate fodder for the body of the article.

If there are sufficient examples to suggest false stories are published with any frequency, the reader can figure that out for himself. John2510 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Last year there was a proposal to make changes in this area which would have included changing to: "and some stories have been proven false". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of any media news source, of course. Blatantly POV statements like that discredit Wikipedia more than they discredit the subject. John2510 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Frequently" might be debatable — I'm not convinced it's obligatory, and I'm doubtful that it's misleading — but the rest of the lede looks like a solid summary of the body text, which is what it's supposed to be doing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of stories cited in the article where the accusation is that they were "false" certainly don't add up to "frequently." John2510 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Certainly" is a higher level of certainty than I can attain on this point. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jorm: You're the reverter. What's your objection? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You were bold, changing a line that had a hard fought consensus. I reverted you. Now you discuss. There was much discussion about this. You ignored or did not read the discussion. That's it. That's the reason.--Jorm (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jorm's accusation is false, I did not change the line. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry. Not you; John2510. Jorm (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you claim the material is "unsourced"? It's not. Everything in that paragraph is supported by the body. It is not required to cite material in the lede, though it is not prohibited either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * We can use terms such as frequently and sometimes only when there are sources that make that determination. Otherwise it is a violation of no original research and weasel-wording. I appreciate that some editors rightly or wrongly see the Daily Caller as a right-wing propaganda organ that routinely publishes false or misleading stories in order to discredit Democrats. However we cannot say or imply that unless we can should that is the consensus opinion in reliable sources. I cannot find many sources for this article and suggest that it's best presented as a stub: it's a news source, this is who publishes it, this is its political orientation, this is its circulation or reach, the end. It's not up to us to make up for the lack of sources with our own analysis. TFD (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Negative tone
This is the second article on a conservative organization that I've surfed into recently and found only limited negative information on its activities. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, which should maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone. There should be more on the organization of the firm, about its association with the Daily Caller News Foundation and other financial and political ties. This currently looks like a hit piece, contains very little background info, and needs further development to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Pkeets (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I read this only after my discussion on the lede below. What you've said is quite true. The article is nothing more than a smear. Articles written in this fashion discredit Wikipedia and suggest that POV is going unchecked. Perhaps that's for the best after all. Let the reader understand the level of bias in the opening. John2510 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Pkeets, John2510 I agree, this article is a disgrace. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
there is no proof or facts to support a majority of claims on this definition of Daily Caller. You have an obligation to your readers to only provide factual information about any and all subjects on your website. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please suggest changes in the form "change X to Y", with reliable sources to support the suggested modifications. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
The lede asserts that

 * The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories.

The rest of the statement is sufficiently supported by the body of the article, but "frequently" needs a proper source, or else to be changed to something less strong, like "on multiple occasions" (or simply removed). Searching for the word in this talk page shows that this point has been raised and generally endorsed previously, but the actual change was never made, it seems.

- 2A02:560:4260:8900:8C14:426D:399:1F20 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I've changed "The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories." to "The Daily Caller has published false stories on multiple occasions." in Special:Diff/1005207099. Thanks for suggesting this. —  Newslinger  talk   14:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

POV
As other editors have pointed out, the current article is a POV mess. With a lede that only chooses to summarize the most negative aspects of the article and essentially characterizes the subject as racist fake news, to use of words like "bogus" and "legitimate news outlets" in the main body, this article is basically a hit job. Like TFD said: "some editors rightly or wrongly see the Daily Caller as a right-wing propaganda organ that routinely publishes false or misleading stories in order to discredit Democrats. However we cannot say or imply that unless we can should that is the consensus opinion in reliable sources". Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is something of a mess, but not for POV reasons. Most of the WP:RS coverage (what there is of it) has a negative tone, and so that naturally translates over here, regardless of the supposed partisanship of the editors who have worked on it. When they hired a lawyer a while back to come here and suggest ways to change the article, we looked for sources documenting that the Caller had broken significant stories or generally done things taken seriously. There wasn't much (I recall the lawyer suggested stories they'd done on the Sackler pharmaceutical family, but nobody could turn up WP:SECONDARY coverage on that — I'd have no objection to incorporating it if such sources did turn up, of course). A more fundamental issue, I'd say, is that the article is rather long and overstuffed. Condensing down excessive details of years-past incidents might be a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well then there is the option of doing what the aforementioned editor also suggested, which is to have it "presented as a stub: it's a news source, this is who publishes it, this is its political orientation, this is its circulation or reach, the end". I would prefer not to do that since I'm generally an inclusionist, but it would solve both problems. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds to me like it would omit too much. My own guess is that there's a happy medium to be found somewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I suggest a three-section structure (1) History, which covers all organisational and staff topics; (2) Political stance, with reliable sources on the political leanings of the site; and (3) Controversies; which covers all notable incidents that the website has been criticized for, with a focus on more recent cases. The lede should then give equal coverage to all three. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was deliberately rewritten in 2019 to avoid a "Controversies" section, per fairly standard practice. The model in mind was the article on the UK tabloid The Sun. XOR'easter (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Okay, then we can put it under History and keep the Staff & Organisation where they are. I don't see how having a general controversies section is POV, but having two sections devoted to specific controversies is not. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most media coverage of the media, celebrities and some other subjects are mostly negative. That's because reporting is generally happens when they fail. No one's going to write a story for example about how CNN accurately reported the news last night. I think in this case we should look to tertiary sources as a template for determining the weight of different aspects. There is an article by Aaron Moore, who is an associate professor of journalism, in the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (SAGE Publishing 2013), p. 345, which could help establish the weight to provide different aspects of this topic. Of course it would be better to get something more recent. TFD (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for that resource! They seem to focus on characterizing general aspects of the site (with a focus on social media due to the nature of the publication), so this should probably be the main direction here, as well. Using other news sources as the main reference for content seems problematic because of (1) the nature of newsworthy topics, which you alluded to, as well as (2) the fact that they are literally competitors, and hence have little incentive to be fair. I think media watchdogs and other sources without a dog in the fight should be the priority. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2013 was ... a long time ago in American politics. I'm not sure that particular source is very helpful, though WP:TERTIARY would in general be the way to go. Also, I don't quite follow the "competitors" bit; it seems to me equally reasonable to say that watchdogs have, well, a "dog in the fight" because they need to criticize in order to be profitable. XOR'easter (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I guess there are some dogs that are more looking for fights than others, but in any case, I think we should determine the appropriate structure of the article before getting into appropriate sources. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * It should be possible to find more recent comparable sources, although they probably aren't readily accessible on Google books. Although 7 years is a long time in politics, I don't imagine that the general view of the DC would have changed. A lot of the negative information in this article is from 2011-2013, so would have been known by Moore.
 * As for the competitors bit, my point was that using media stories to establish weight may not be right, because news media are more likely to focus on negative stories. That's not because they are competitors but because it is more newsworthy. It's Man bites dog: "an aphorism in journalism that describes how an unusual, infrequent event (such as a man biting a dog) is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence with similar consequences, such as a dog biting a man.
 * Keepcalmandchill, we can't determine the structure of the article before getting into sources, since sources should determine the structure of the article per weight. How else could we determine the structure of the article?
 * TFD (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, I suggested above having a three-section approach: History, Staff & organisation, and Political leaning. The current content could be organised under those labels, and then slowly replaced with sources that are most appropriate. This would provide some immediate relief to the current issues of the article, while allowing a more thorough rewriting to take place over a longer period of time. It seems to me the alternative is to rewrite everything from scratch, which would be a very intensive process if done within a reasonable timeframe. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A three-section approach like that sounds fairly similar to how the article is organized now, apart from some details (e.g., "Environmental issues" might as well be a subsection or two of "Political stances"). Sorry if I'm not following — it's often tricky to discuss such things without an actual draft in hand. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, it's not too different from now, making for an easy first step. I mainly object to having separate sections for the two controversies for reasons I laid out above. Some of the content under "overview" in History could go under the Staff/organisation section, as well, but that's not a POV problem. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * We stick to RS coverage of this organization, as well as what the body of the article says. A substantial part of the body focuses on this organization's promotion of false stories, as well as the white supremacists behind the website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Giving separate sections to climate denialism and white supremacist connections is already WP:UNDUE. They should be covered by the existing sections, maybe Political leanings for environmental issues, and Staff & contributors for the white supremacists. The POV language that I highlighted is not justified by the sources even as they are. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I also wonder which of the sources says they publish "false" stories "frequently"? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no source for "frequently." That's a judgment of Wikipedia editors and violates no original research and WP:WEASEL. We can of course say they "frequently" publish such stories if reliable sources say that. Technically, all news sources "frequently" publish publish false information, which is why the NYT publishes a corrections section every day. An expert however would only use the term if the degree of inaccuracy was relatively high, particularly if retractions were not published. So lets leave that to experts to determine. TFD (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * , there is a distinction between reliable sourcing, which you brought up, and weight, which is what we were discussing. Weight is the degree of attention that we provide for each aspect of the publication. I have suggested we use a tertiary source, per WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." A suitable tertiary source would be similar to the one I presented - an encyclopedia published by an academic publisher, rather than say its entry in Correct the Record. The problem with the source I found is age, it's from 2013. But other editors with better access to more recent sources could be helpful in finding recent tertiary sources. TFD (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Since I don't see this discussion as having resolved itself, I'm reinstating the template. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the template's own guidelines, This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. The template was removed because the discussion went dormant - it does not matter whether or not it was "resolved." To avoid the discussion becoming dormant, I suggest that you propose a specific, actionable change to the article, which can then be specifically discussed and consensus reached on it one way or the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As has failed to propose actionable changes and the discussion is clearly dormant, I have removed the tag. Further attempts to replace the tag without the meaningful discussion and actionable proposals required by policy ought to be considered tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mention in article of deprecation
This was removed; I think I see the concern, but ultimately it seems fair:
 * In late 2019, The Daily Caller was deprecated by the English Wikipedia community for publishing "falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories".

It's referenced to an adequate secondary source, which is what we need before we can write about Wikipedia and its community goings-on. I'd change the quotation to a paraphrase, on general principles, and I'd bring it more in line with the source by mentioning the other deprecated outlets that the Haaretz story includes. They don't single out TDC, and neither should we. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 * It was added in a bold edit today by Isi96, which I partially reverted explaining "... A quote of some Wikipedia editors, without attributing it to some Wikipedia editors, is against WP:RS/QUOTE. ..." The words are inside quote marks in the Haaretz article, the complete sentence is: "Among the sources newly named as unreliable for Wikipedia were a number of pro-Trump outlets – for example, One America News, The Daily Caller and The Gateway Pundit – which were banned due to their coverage of American politics and for disseminating “falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories”. It's not from this RfC but is the exact wording used by an essay-class Wikipedia page for One America News. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the exact phrasing used in the WP:RSP entry for One America News, and describing the consensus recorded at WP:RSP as the view of "the English Wikipedia community" is adequate, I'd say. On the whole, I tend to prefer paraphrasing bits like this (they're not exactly deathless prose that needs to be preserved), but apart from tweaks of that sort, the statement seems fine for inclusion here, particularly if we make clear that TDC wasn't the only publication affected. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a better way of saying it?
 * The Daily Caller, along with One America News Network and The Gateway Pundit, were deprecated in late 2019 by the English Wikipedia community, with the consensus for One America News Network being that it publishes "falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories". Isi96 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not bad. I might shorten it to ...community, for publishing misinformation about American politics (summarizing that paragraph and the next in the Haaretz article). XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not really a fan of self-referential material like that. Better to use the references in the deprecation discussion to document its unreliability, and leave it at that, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like self-referential material, but in this particular case, I think there's enough of an intermediary that it's acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this phrasing. I also support the original phrasing in Special:Diff/1016975615, with no preference between the two. Either phrasing paraphrases the content in Haaretz, a reliable secondary source. —  Newslinger  talk   13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added these edits: Special:Diff/1017933778, Special:Diff/1017934670 Isi96 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Isi96, thanks for clearly suggesting an alternative. Though it's possible that Mr Benjakob was looking at something other than the essay-class page that I mentioned, we can't find it, so it seems we agree that the quote is about One America News. If so, it is not about The Daily Caller. Therefore the only words in the sentence that definitely refer to The Daily Caller are "pro-Trump" and "banned due to their coverage of American politics". And it wasn't "late 2019" if a February 2019 RfC is meant, and "Wikipedia community" is hurrah wording, and putting Wikipedia inside double brackets is overlinking. So a validly-sourced sentence would be: "In 2019 The Daily Caller was banned from Wikipedia for political reasons." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Political reasons" is awfully vague; the Haaretz source is clear that the reason was not some nebulous notion of political unacceptability, but factual unreliability on political matters. Omitting the direct quote avoids the tricky point that it's specifically about OAN instead of TDC. (The WP:RSP entry for the former mentions falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories; for the latter, it says false or fabricated information.) Describing the result of an RfC as a "community" decision seems neutral enough. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, I don't have any problem with the way it's represented, I just feel uncomfortable with it generally (see above). Guy (help! - typo?) 19:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support this phrasing, which is written vaguely enough to carry a negative connotation against Wikipedia, whereas the source article is describing Wikipedia positively, saying that Wikipedia is more effective at fighting fake news than Facebook and Twitter. —  Newslinger  talk   13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Isi96 has now added "In 2019, The Daily Caller, along with One America News Network and The Gateway Pundit, were deprecated by the Wikipedia community for publishing false information." It's neither correct nor sourced but I won't advocate reverting unless other editors do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Politifact cite
To support the article's statement that the Daily Caller "has published false stories" Isi96 added a cite of the Politifact item Conservative website wrongly ties Clinton Foundation to bad HIV/AIDS drugs. This concerns me. First, compare Politifact's claim about what Daily Caller said In a story headlined as an exclusive, a Daily Caller reporter wrote "Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed ‘watered-down’ HIV/AIDS drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa." to the Daily Caller sentence which has no period after "Africa", the sentence goes on for a while and actually ends with ... according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. Second, a later source appeared saying, much like what the report said, that a company did send bad HIV/AIDS drugs to Africa and there was an association with the Clinton Foundation: read the transcript of an interview with a journalist covering the pharmaceutical industry (Katherine Eban). I did not revert Isi96's bold edit, I am checking first whether anyone else would agree with me that it's bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TDC removed the "likely" qualifier from their own source (Marsha Blackburn's draft said the "Clinton Foundation likely facilitated the distribution of watered-down HIV/AIDS medications"). The transcript seems to cover events that wrapped up in 2013, and has less detail about the HIV/AIDS drugs than the PolitiFact item originally did. And, as PolitiFact noted, TDC didn't cover the Clinton Foundation's response to "the cloud around Ranbaxy" (no longer buying Ranbaxy themselves, except for "two specialized compounds"; warning others not to buy from them and to step up their testing if they did). PolitiFact putting a period where they did is probably house style for an American publication punctuating a quotation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Grinberg
Isi96: You added cites for "scientific studies", starting with Grinberg et al Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I have seen a high-level statement about the conclusion: The team began by creating a formal definition of fake news outlets as sources that “lack the news media’s editorial norms and processes for ensuring the accuracy and credibility of information,” defining “fakeness” as an attribute of a publisher rather than an individual story. But how did they determine this? Please share an excerpt of the section where they explain why Daily Caller lacks those things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi @Peter Gulutzan, the additional PDF included with the study (link) mentions The Daily Caller as an example of an "orange" fake news website on pages 18 and 21, and the study's methods for identifying fake news sites are outlined in pages 15-19. Hope that clears things up. Isi96 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks, it does. So they took stories from snopes.com (and categories from Buzzfeed, FactCheck and Politifact) and passed to "independent annotators". I couldn't find out what an annotator is -- sometimes they say "we" but more often it's nameless third persons -- and the only clear mention of how they assigned was about the tweets rather than the sources, i.e. "All tweets we selected for hand-labeling were annotated by at least two workers on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk". Maybe rather than "scientific studies" one could have speculatively said "some anonymous Amazon Mechanical Turk workers using Snopes", eh? However, Science accepted it, so unless someone else thinks it's undue etc. I'll say no more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Greer details in lede
If Greer wrote articles that were not published in The Daily Caller at all, then that should at most be in the body rather than the lede. As far as I am aware, we generally do not delve into extracurricular activities of media part-owners in the lede of the article on that media. BD2412 T 03:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no comment on this, I am going to move this item out of the lede shortly. Cheers! BD2412  T 18:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. GenQuest  "scribble" 13:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Threatened lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police Department"
As discussed to some degree in previous sections, I am concerned with how this is being presented in the article. To recap, two Daily Caller reporters were arrested by Louisville police while reporting on the shooting of Breonna Taylor by officers of the Louisville police department. It is undisputed that the reporters were exercising the constitutional freedom of the press in doing so. The Daily Caller asked that they be released, and the police refused. The Daily Caller threatened to sue, which is entirely within their right, and in fact is morally commendable. Nevertheless, this is portrayed as a controversy for the Daily Caller as opposed to a controversy for the police who blatantly violated the freedom of the press. This should be presented in a way that does not appear to take the side of saying that police departments should be able to arbitrarily arrest and detain journalists reporting on wrongdoing by those departments, and that it is controversial for an outlet to threaten to sue them for this. BD2412 T 21:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the text to be flatter. Andre🚐 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for it to flatter, just to reflect the reality of the situation. BD2412  T 22:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit is fine. I meant flatter as in more flat. Andre🚐 22:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with calling this objection resolved. I am off for family night and will likely review additional content for suggested changes in the next few days. BD2412  T 22:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 5


text:
1904 Országos Bajnokság I (men's water polo)

1904 Országos Bajnokság I (men's water polo) was the first water polo championship hold in Hungary. It was organised by the swimming division of the Hungarian Athletes' Association. There were four participating teams in the championship. There was only one round. All the matches were held in Császárfüddő during the first three weekends of September.

Best team of the previous years, MUE did not take part in the championship, because some swimmers were not satisfied with the leadership in connection with the Olympics held in St. Louis.

Final list
 * M: Matches W: Win D: Drawn L: Lost G+: Goals earned G−: Goals got P: Point


text:
Cookbook:Cooking Techniques

Cooking techniques or culinary techniques, the ways in which food and beverages are prepared, combined, heated, cooled, stored, and presented, are numerous and reflect the long historical development cooking has had alongside the growth of human culture and society.

Below offers an overview of these techniques. As each culture and society influences the ways in which we prepare our food, it is important to recognise that this is not a complete list and is also heavily Western-influenced. As well as this, cooking itself is on a spectrum between being an art as well as a science. This creates some techniques that are more guidelines or advice, whilst others must be followed carefully if the desired outcome is to be achieved.

Preparing
The first steps in cooking are usually preparatory, and this stage involves a range of techniques. Basic prep often requires measuring, cutting, mixing, and seasoning. Sometimes combined ingredients must sit for a period of time, as in marinating, macerating, brining, steeping, degorging, and proofing. Coatings may be applied to pieces of food through brushing, basting, and dredging.

Heating
Heating is an important part of many types of cooking. It is what breaks down starches, fibers, and connective tissues, coagulates proteins, gelatinizes starches, and contributes flavor and color through browning and caramelization. It also kills many pathogens that cause food-borne illness.

A variety of methods are used to heat and cook foods. These can generally be divided into two types, with some exceptions: moist heat methods and dry heat methods. Moist heat cooking relies on liquid water or steam to cook the food, and it includes boiling, simmering, scalding, poaching, stewing, and blanching. Instead of moisture, dry heat cooking uses hot air or fat to cook the food; it includes baking, roasting, grilling, broiling, barbecuing, searing, toasting, smoking, and frying. Other methods that rely on a combination or neither of these two methods include braising, microwaving, thermal cooking, and sous-vide cooking.

In some cases, very gentle application of heat is desired. This can be achieved by using a bain-marie or double boiler, or by tempering a mixture.

Preserving
Food is inherently highly perishable. As such, cooks have developed methods to delay this process and extend the shelf-life of foods. Storage in a cold environment, for example, can significantly delay growth of pathogens, and freezing and refrigeration have become widespread in many kitchens. At the other extreme, canning uses heat to sterilize foods before sealing them away from the external environment to prevent spoilage. Many preservation techniques have the added benefit of altering the flavor and/or texture of the food, such as in fermenting, curing, pickling, smoking, and drying.

Index
For a complete list of techniques in the cookbook, see Category:Cooking techniques or browse below:

Artes culinarias/Técnicas básicas Livre de cuisine/Techniques ספר מתכונים/שיטות בישול

title: Cookbook:Cooking Techniques


text:
HMS Matilda (1805)

HMS Matilda was the French privateer Matilde, which HMS Cambrian (1797) captured in 1805. The British Royal Navy used her briefly that year. She is last listed in 1805.

Capture
Cambrian captured the French privateer schooner Mathilde on 3 July 1805, after a chase of 22 hours. Mathilde, of 200 tons, was armed with twenty 9-pounder guns and had a crew of 95 men. She surrendered in shoal water and if not for the efforts of Lieutenant Pigot in one of Cambrians boats, Mathildes entire crew might have been lost.

Mathilde had earlier captured the letter of marque Clyde, which had been on her way to Liverpool. Prior to her capture by Cambrian, Mathilde had evaded capture by Heron.

Action of 7 July
Captain Beresford of Cambrian appointed Lieutenant Pigot commander of Matilda, and used her as a tender.

On 7 July Lieutenant Pigot again distinguished himself. He arrived off the harbour of St. Marys, Georgia the day before and took Matilda twelve miles up the St Marys River to attack three vessels reported to be there. All long the way militia and riflemen fired on Matilda. Eventually the British reached the vessels, which were lashed in a line cross the river. They consisted of a Spanish privateer schooner and her two prizes, the ship Golden Grove and the British brig Ceres, which the Spanish privateer had captured some two months earlier. The Spaniards had armed Golden Grove with eight 6-pounder guns and six swivels, and given her a crew of 50 men. The brig too they had armed with swivels and small arms. The Spanish schooner carried six guns and a crew of 70 men.

Pigot engaged the vessels for an hour, and after Matilda had grounded, took his crew in her boats and captured Golden Grove. The British then captured the other two vessels. Lastly, Pigot fired on a group of 100 militia and a field gun, dispersing them. The British had two men killed, and 14 wounded, including Pigot, who had received two bullet wounds to his head and one to a leg. Spanish casualties were reportedly 25 men killed (including five Americans) and 22 men wounded. A crowd of Americans on the Georgia side of the river watched the entire battle. Pigot was unable to extricate himself and his prizes from the river until 21 July, but during the entire period he remained in command except when he was getting his wounds dressed. For his efforts Pigot received a promotion to commander, and the Lloyd's Patriotic Fund awarded him a medal and a plate worth £50.

Fate
Matilda is no longer listed after 1805.

title: HMS Matilda (1805)


text:
Talk:GenOn Energy

Untitled
FYI, Reliant did not have a monopoly on Texas energy as stated in the article. ("In 2002, the state of Texas deregulated Reliant's monopoly on electricity...") I am changing the wording to reflect that the monopoly was held by TXU. - An Interested Texan

I removed this marketing garbage:

Today, Reliant Energy is committed to delivering the benefits of competition to its customers by providing innovative products, programs and services to meet customer needs. Reliant strives to care for the communities in which it provides business and also deliver on its promises to 1.9 million customers every day. The company is continually evaluating new opportunities offered by the evolution of competitive markets in the U.S. and is actively investing and participating in helping new markets to develop.

Straight out of a press release, or at least that's how it reads to me. Anyway, definitely non-encyclopedic. --MUSpud2 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The logo needs to be changed. Reliant Energy and RRI Energy don't have anything to do with each other any more. RRI Energy sold its retail division and had to change its name.

Info related to merger with NorAm (when it was Houston Industries)
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Map: http://web.archive.org/web/19961105231231/http://www.hlp.com/what%27s_new.NorAm_map.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6OpTzAR41
 * Noram Website: http://web.archive.org/web/19961222114246/http://www.noram.com/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on GenOn Energy. 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/20110807124030/http://www.genon.com/docs/GenOn%20Energy%20Day%20One%20PR_final.pdf to http://www.genon.com/docs/GenOn%20Energy%20Day%20One%20PR_final.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hlp.com/what's_new.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GenOn Energy. 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/20111001071549/http://www.peri.umass.edu/Toxic-100-Table.265.0.html to http://www.peri.umass.edu/Toxic-100-Table.265.0.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GenOn Energy. 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://archive.is/20120908012539/http://www.reliant.com/en_US/Page/Generic/Public/contact_us_overview_corp_gen.jsp to http://www.reliant.com/en_US/Page/Generic/Public/contact_us_overview_corp_gen.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204457/http://www.rtknet.org/new/tox100/toxic100.php?company1=20119&chemfac=chem&advbasic=bas to http://www.rtknet.org/new/tox100/toxic100.php?company1=20119&chemfac=chem&advbasic=bas

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:GenOn Energy


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/kickass2.nz

Links

 * kickass2.nz resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * COIBot domainredlist search for link kickass2.nz gives:
 * kickass2.nz (Automonitor: reported to Talk:Spam blacklist (diff))
 * kickass2.nz (Automonitor: reported to en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (diff))
 * kickass2.nz (Automonitor: reported to Talk:Spam blacklist (diff))
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link would be caught by rule \bkickass2\.nz\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to Spam blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link is globally blacklisted by \bkickass2\.nz\b
 * Link is globally blacklisted by \bkickass2\.nz\b
 * Link is globally blacklisted by \bkickass2\.nz\b
 * Link is globally blacklisted by \bkickass2\.nz\b

Additions

 * Displayed all 15 additions.


text:
Top-rated United States television programs of 1959–60

This table displays the top-rated primetime television series of the 1959–60 season as measured by Nielsen Media Research.


text:
Charles Abbott Miner

Charles Abbott Miner (August 30, 1830 – July 25, 1903) was an American industrialist and politician. He was affiliated with the Republican Party and served three terms (1875–1880) in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as a state legislator from Wilkes-Barre.

Biography
Charles Abbott Miner was born in Plains Township, Pennsylvania on August 30, 1830.

He married Eliza Ross Atherton on January 19, 1853, and they had six children.

He died at his home in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania on July 25, 1903.

title: Charles Abbott Miner


text:
Talk:Pyote, Texas

Pyote
How to pronounce 2600:100C:B022:B25B:C5B1:1566:CE4E:CC5A (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pyote, Texas


text:
Airport surveillance radar

An airport surveillance radar (ASR) is a radar system used at airports to detect and display the presence and position of aircraft in the terminal area, the airspace around airports. It is the main air traffic control system for the airspace around airports. At large airports it typically controls traffic within a radius of 60 miles (96 km) of the airport below an elevation of 25,000 feet. The sophisticated systems at large airports consist of two different radar systems, the primary and secondary surveillance radar. The primary radar typically consists of a large rotating parabolic antenna dish that sweeps a vertical fan-shaped beam of microwaves around the airspace surrounding the airport. It detects the position and range of aircraft by microwaves reflected back to the antenna from the aircraft's surface. The secondary surveillance radar consists of a second rotating antenna, often mounted on the primary antenna, which interrogates the transponders of aircraft, which transmits a radio signal back containing the aircraft's identification, barometric altitude, and an emergency status code, which is displayed on the radar screen next to the return from the primary radar.

The positions of the aircraft are displayed on a screen; at large airports on multiple screens in an operations room at the airport called in the US the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), monitored by air traffic controllers who direct the traffic by communicating with the aircraft pilots by radio. They are responsible for maintaining a safe and orderly flow of traffic and adequate aircraft separation to prevent midair collisions.

Primary radar
Radar was developed during World War II as a military air defense system. The primary surveillance radar (PSR) consists of a large parabolic "dish" antenna mounted on a tower so it can scan the entire airspace unobstructed. It transmits pulses of microwave radio waves in a narrow vertical fan-shaped beam about a degree wide. In the US the primary radar operates at a frequency of 2.7 - 2.9 GHz in the S band with a peak radiated power of 25 kW and an average power of 2.1 kW. The dish is rotated at a constant rate about a vertical axis so the beam scans the entire surrounding airspace about every 5 seconds. When the microwave beam strikes an airborne object, the microwaves are reflected and some of the energy (sometimes called the "echo") returns to the dish and is detected by the radar receiver. Since the microwaves travel at a constant speed very close to the speed of light, by timing the brief interval between the transmitted pulse and the returning "echo" the radar can calculate the range from the antenna to the object. The location of the object is displayed as an icon on a map display called a "radar screen". The screen may be located in the control tower, or at large airports on multiple screens in an operations room at the airport called in the US the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). The primary radar's main function is to determine the location, the bearing and range to the aircraft. Air traffic controllers continuously monitor the positions of all the aircraft on the radar screen, and give directions to the pilots by radio to maintain a safe and orderly flow of air traffic in the airspace.

Secondary radar
The need for a secondary radar system developed from the limitations of primary radar and need for more information by air traffic controllers due to the increasing postwar volume of air traffic. The primary radar displays a "return" indiscriminately from any object in its field of view, and cannot distinguish between aircraft, drones, weather balloons, birds, and some elevated features of the terrain (called "ground clutter"). Primary radar also cannot identify an aircraft; before secondary radar aircraft were identified by the controller asking the aircraft by radio to turn onto a specified heading. Another limitation is that primary radar cannot determine the altitude of the aircraft.

Secondary surveillance radar (SSR), also called the air traffic control radar beacon system (ATCRBS) had its origin in Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems used by military aircraft during World War II. All aircraft are required to carry an automated microwave transceiver called a transponder. The secondary radar is a rotating flat antenna, often mounted on top of the primary radar dish, which transmits a narrow vertical fan-shaped microwave beam on a frequency of 1030 MHz in the L band with peak power of 160 - 1500 W. When it is interrogated by this signal, the aircraft's transponder beacon transmits a coded identifying microwave signal at a frequency of 1090 MHz back to the secondary radar antenna. This coded signal includes a 4 digit number called the "transponder code" which identifies the aircraft, and the aircraft's pressure altitude from the pilot's altimeter. This information is displayed on the radar screen beside the aircraft's icon for use by the air traffic controller. The transponder code is assigned to the aircraft by the air traffic controller before takeoff. Controllers use the term "squawk" when they are assigning a transponder code, e.g., "Squawk 7421".

Transponders can respond with one of several different "modes" determined by the interrogation pulse from the radar. Various modes exist from Mode 1 to 5 for military use, to Mode A, B, C and D, and Mode S for civilian use. Only Mode C transponders report altitude. Busy airports usually require all aircraft entering their airspace to have a mode C transponder which can report altitude, due to their strict requirements for aircraft altitude spacing; this is called a "Mode C veil".

Types
Due to its crucial safety purpose, extreme uptime requirements, and need to be compatible with all the different types of aircraft and avionics systems, the design of airport surveillance radar is strictly controlled by government agencies. In the US the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for developing airport surveillance radar. All ASRs have the common requirements of detecting aircraft out to a range of 60 miles and an elevation of 25,000 feet. Upgrades are released in "generations" after careful testing:

ASR-7
This is an obsolete system that is completely out of service.

ASR-8
ASR 8 is the analog precursor to the ASR 9. The military nomenclature for the radar is AN/GPN-20. It is an aging radar system that is obsolete, not logistically supported, does not provide digital inputs to new terminal automation systems, and does not provide a calibrated precipitation intensity product nor any storm motion information. It is a relocatable, solid-state, all-weather radar with dual-channel, frequency diversity, remote operator controls, and a dual beam tower mounted antenna. The radar provides controllers with range azimuth of aircraft within a 60 nautical mile radius. ASR 8 used a klystron as transmitters power amplifier stage with a load of 79 kV and 40A. The two operational frequencies have a minimum separation of 60 MHz.

The US Army/Navy designator AN/GPN-20 refers to a modified version of the ASR 8 used by the USAF containing a magnetron tube as transmitter. To improve the magnetron's frequency stability the magnetron tuning is driven by the AFC.

ASR-9
The current generation of radar is the ASR-9, which was developed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and first installed in 1989, with installation completing in 1995. The military nomenclature for the radar is AN/GPN-27. Currently it is operating at 135 locations and is scheduled to continue in use until at least 2025. The ASR-9 was the first airport surveillance radar to detect weather and aircraft with the same beam and be able to display them on the same screen. It has a digital Moving Target Detection (MTD) processor which uses doppler radar and a clutter map giving advanced ability to eliminate ground and weather clutter and track targets. It is theoretically capable of tracking a maximum of 700 aircraft simultaneously.

The klystron tube transmitter operates in the S-band between 2.5 and 2.9 GHz in circular polarization with a peak power of 1.3 MW and a pulse duration of 1 μs and pulse repetition frequency between 325 and 1200 pps. It can be switched to a second reserve frequency if interference is encountered on the primary frequency. The receiver has the sensitivity to detect a radar cross-section of 1 meter2 at 111 km, and a range resolution of 450 feet. The antenna covers an elevation of 40° from the horizon with two feedhorns which create two stacked overlapping vertical lobes 4° apart; the lower beam transmits the outgoing pulse and is used to detect distant targets near the horizon, while the upper receive-only beam detects closer higher elevation aircraft with less ground clutter. The antenna has a gain of 34 dB, beamwidth of 5° in elevation and 1.4° in azimuth. It rotates at a rate of 12.5 RPM so the airspace is scanned every 4.8 seconds.

The electronics is dual-channel and fault tolerant. It has a remote monitoring and maintenance subsystem; if a fault occurs a built-in test detects and isolates the problem. Like all airport surveillance radars it has a backup diesel generator to continue operating during power outages.

ASR-11 or Digital Airport Surveillance Radar (DASR)
The Digital Airport Surveillance Radar (DASR) is the new generation of fully digital radar that is being developed to replace the current analog systems. The US Air Force Electronics Systems Center, the US Federal Aviation Administration, US Army and the US Navy procured DASR systems to upgrade existing radar facilities for US Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian airfields. The DASR system detects aircraft position and weather conditions in the vicinity of civilian and military airfields. The civilian nomenclature for this radar is ASR-11. The ASR-11 will replace most ASR-7 and some ASR-8. The military nomenclature for the radar is AN/GPN-30. The older radars, some up to 20 years old, are being replaced to improve reliability, provide additional weather data, reduce maintenance cost, improve performance, and provide digital data to new digital automation systems for presentation on air traffic control displays. The Iraqi Air Force has received the DASR system.

Display systems
ASR data is displayed on Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) display consoles in control towers and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) rooms, usually located at airports.

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) is a joint Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) program that has replaced Automated Radar Terminal Systems (ARTS) and other capacity-constrained, older technology systems at 172 FAA and up to 199 DoD terminal radar approach control facilities and associated towers.

STARS is used by controllers, at all terminal radar facilities in the US to provide air traffic control (ATC) services to aircraft in the terminal areas. Typical terminal area ATC services are defined as the area around airports where departing and arriving traffic are served. Functions include aircraft separation, weather advisories, and lower level control of air traffic. The system is designed to accommodate air traffic growth and the introduction of new automation functions which will improve the safety and efficiency of the US National Airspace System (NAS).

Airport Surveillance Radar is beginning to be supplemented by ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast in the US and other parts of the world. As of Spring 2011, ADS-B is currently operational at most ATC facilities in the US. ADS-B is a GPS based technology that allows aircraft to transmit their GPS determined position to display systems as often as once per second, as opposed to once every 5–6 seconds for a short range radar, or once every 12–13 seconds for a slower rotating long range radar. The FAA is mandating that ADS-B be fully operational and available to the NAS by the year 2020. This will make possible the decommissioning of older radars in order to increase safety and cut costs. As of 2011, there is no definitive list of radars that will be decommissioned as a result of ADS-B implementation.

title: Airport surveillance radar


text:
Help:Formula

MediaWiki and TeX
MediaWiki uses a subset of TeX markup (including some extensions from LaTeX and AMSLaTeX) for mathematical formulae. It generates either PNG images or simple HTML markup, depending on user preferences and the complexity of the expression. In the future, as more browsers are smarter, it will be able to generate enhanced HTML or even MathML in many cases.

More precisely, MediaWiki filters the markup through Texvc, which in turn passes the commands to TeX for the actual rendering. Thus, only a limited part of the full TeX language is supported; see below for details.

Syntax
Math markup goes inside. The edit toolbar has a button for this.

Similarly to HTML, in TeX extra spaces and newlines are ignored.

MediaWiki templates, variables and parameters cannot be used within math tags, see m:Template talk:Demo of attempt to use parameters within TeX.

Rendering
The PNG images are black on white (not transparent). These colors, as well as font sizes and types, are independent of browser settings or CSS. Font sizes and types will often deviate from what HTML renders. Vertical alignment with the surrounding text can also be a problem. The css selector of the images is img.tex.

It should be pointed out that most of these shortcomings have been addressed by Maynard Handley, but have not been released yet.

The  attribute of the PNG images (the text that is displayed if your browser can't display images; Internet Explorer shows it up in the hover box) is the wikitext that produced them, excluding the   and.

Apart from function and operator names, as is customary in mathematics for variables, letters are in italics; digits are not. For other text, (like variable labels) to avoid being rendered in italics like variables, use  or. For example,   gives $$\mbox{abc}$$.

TeX vs HTML
Before introducing TeX markup for producing special characters, it should be noted that, as this comparison table shows, sometimes similar results can be achieved in HTML (see Help:Special characters).

The use of HTML instead of TeX is still under discussion. The arguments either way can be summarised as follows.

Pros of HTML

 * 1) In-line HTML formulae always align properly with the rest of the HTML text.
 * 2) The formula's background, font size and face match the rest of HTML contents and the appearence respects CSS and browser settings.

Pros of TeX

 * 1) TeX is semantically superior to HTML. In TeX, " " means "mathematical variable $$x$$", whereas in HTML " " could mean anything. Information has irremediably been lost.
 * 2) TeX has been specifically designed for typesetting formulae, so input is easier and more natural, and output is more aesthetically pleasing. Also anybody who has written mathematics at a professional level is already familiar with TeX.
 * 3) One consequence of point 1 is that TeX can be transformed in HTML, but not vice-versa. This means that on the server side we can always transform a formula, based on its complexity and location within the text, user preferences, type of browser, etc. Therefore, where possible, all the benefits of HTML can be retained, together with the benefits of TeX. It's true that the current situation is not ideal, but that's not a good reason to drop information/contents. It's more a reason to help improve the situation.
 * 4) When writing in TeX, editors need not worry about whether this or that version of this or that browser supports this or that HTML entity. The burden of these decisions is put on the server. This doesn't hold for HTML formulae, which can easily end up being rendered wrongly or differently from the editor's intentions on a different browser.

Parenthesizing big expressions, brackets, bars
You can use various delimiters with \left and \right:

Spacing
Note that TeX handles most spacing automatically, but you may sometimes want manual control.

Align with normal text flow
Due to the default css

img.tex { vertical-align: middle; }

an inline expression like $$\int_{-N}^{N} e^x\, dx$$ should look good.

If you need to align it otherwise, use $$...$$ > and play with the vertical-align argument until you get it right; however, how it looks may depend on the browser and the browser settings.

Also note that if you rely on this workaround, if/when the rendering on the server gets fixed in future releases, as a result of this extra manual offset your formulae will suddenly be aligned incorrectly. So use it sparingly, if at all.

Forced PNG rendering
To force the formula to render as PNG, add \, (small space) at the end of the formula (where it is not rendered). This will force PNG if the user is in "HTML if simple" mode, but not for "HTML if possible" mode (math rendering settings in preferences).

You can also use \,\! (small space and negative space, which cancel out) anywhere inside the math tags. This does force PNG even in "HTML if possible" mode, unlike \,.

This could be useful to keep the rendering of formulae in a proof consistent, for example, or to fix formulae that render incorrectly in HTML (at one time, a^{2+2} rendered with an extra underscore), or to demonstrate how something is rendered when it would normally show up as HTML (as in the examples above).

For instance:

This has been tested with most of the formulae on this page, and seems to work perfectly.

You might want to include a comment in the HTML so people don't "correct" the formula by removing it:

Quadratic Polynomial
$$ax^2 + bx + c = 0$$ $$ax^2 + bx + c = 0$$

Quadratic Polynomial (Force PNG Rendering)
$$ax^2 + bx + c = 0\,$$ $$ax^2 + bx + c = 0\,$$

Quadratic Formula
$$x_{1,2}=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}$$ $$x_{1,2}=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}$$

Tall Parentheses and Fractions
$$2 = \left( \frac{\left(3-x\right) \times 2}{3-x} \right)$$ $$2 = \left( \frac{\left(3-x\right) \times 2}{3-x} \right)$$

Integrals
$$\int_a^x \int_a^s f(y)\,dy\,ds = \int_a^x f(y)(x-y)\,dy$$ $$\int_a^x \int_a^s f(y)\,dy\,ds = \int_a^x f(y)(x-y)\,dy$$

Summation
$$\sum_{m=1}^\infty\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{m^2\,n}{3^m\left(m\,3^n+n\,3^m\right)}$$ $$\sum_{m=1}^\infty\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{m^2\,n} {3^m\left(m\,3^n+n\,3^m\right)}$$

Differential Equation
$$u'' + p(x)u' + q(x)u=f(x),\quad x>a$$ $$u'' + p(x)u' + q(x)u=f(x),\quad x>a$$

Complex numbers
$$|\bar{z}| = |z|, |(\bar{z})^n| = |z|^n, \arg(z^n) = n \arg(z)\,$$ $$|\bar{z}| = |z|, |(\bar{z})^n| = |z|^n, \arg(z^n) = n \arg(z)\,$$

Limits
$$\lim_{z\rightarrow z_0} f(z)=f(z_0)\,$$ $$\lim_{z\rightarrow z_0} f(z)=f(z_0)\,$$

Integral Equation
$$\phi_n(\kappa) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2\kappa^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{\sin(\kappa R)}{\kappa R} \frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[R^2\frac{\partial D_n(R)}{\partial R}\right]\,dR$$ $$\phi_n(\kappa) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2\kappa^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{\sin(\kappa R)}{\kappa R} \frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[R^2\frac{\partial D_n(R)}{\partial R}\right]\,dR$$

Example
$$\phi_n(\kappa) = 0.033C_n^2\kappa^{-11/3},\quad \frac{1}{L_0}\ll\kappa\ll\frac{1}{l_0}\,$$ $$\phi_n(\kappa) = 0.033C_n^2\kappa^{-11/3},\quad \frac{1}{L_0}\ll\kappa\ll\frac{1}{l_0}\,$$

Continuation and cases
$$f(x) = \begin{cases}1 & -1 \le x < 0\\ \frac{1}{2} & x = 0\\x&0<x\le 1\end{cases}$$ $$f(x) = \begin{cases}1 & -1 \le x < 0\\ \frac{1}{2} & x = 0\\x&0<x\le 1\end{cases}$$

Prefixed subscript
$${}_pF_q(a_1,...,a_p;c_1,...,c_q;z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(a_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(a_p)_n}{(c_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(c_q)_n}\frac{z^n}{n!}\,$$ $${}_pF_q(a_1,...,a_p;c_1,...,c_q;z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(a_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(a_p)_n}{(c_1)_n\cdot\cdot\cdot(c_q)_n}\frac{z^n}{n!}\,$$

Bug reports
Discussions, bug reports and feature requests should go to the Wikitech-l mailing list. These can also be filed on Mediazilla under MediaWiki extensions.

title: Help:Formula


text:
Chief Secretary of Ceylon

The chief secretary of Ceylon, was the chairman and one of three officers of state of the Board of Ministers of the State Council of Ceylon from 1932 to 1947. The post succeeded that of Colonial Secretary which was one of six offices that held a seat in the Executive Council of Ceylon until 1932.

The established under in 1932 by the Order in Council, following the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission, vested the subjects of external affairs, defence and the public services of the Crown Colony of Ceylon under the chief secretary, who served as the officer administering the government in the abases of the governor. As such, the chief secretary was third in the order of precedence after the governor of Ceylon and the chief justice.

The chief secretary was assisted by a deputy chief secretary and two assistant chief secretaries. Appointments were made from senior officers of the Colonial Service. The post ceased to exist in 1947 with the formation of the Dominion of Ceylon. the chief secretary's office was located in the Secretariat and the Temple Trees was the official residence of the chief secretary. The post was replaced by the post of prime minister in 1947 under the recommendations of the Soulbury Commission under the Ceylon Independence Act, 1947 and The Ceylon (Constitution and Independence) Orders in Council 1947.

Departments
Departments under the chief secretary's office:

 * Secretariat
 * Ceylon Civil Service
 * Ceylon Clerical Service
 * Ceylon Defence Force
 * Ceylon Naval Volunteer Force
 * Coasts Lights
 * Censor's Department
 * Information Officer's Department

List of secretaries
Data based on:
 * John Ferguson, Ceylon in the "jubilee Year"., J. Haddon and Co.,1887
 * Ceylon: Its History, People, Commerce, Industries and Resources, Plâté limited, 1924

title: Chief Secretary of Ceylon


text:
Category:Wikipedians interested in historical European martial arts

This user category contains the user page links of Wikipedians who are interested in or fans of historical European martial arts.
 * For Wikipedians who practice historical European martial arts, see Category:Wikipedian historical European martial artists.

To add your user page to this user category, place the following Wikitext on your user page.


text:
Talk:Nathan Hecht

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathan Hecht. 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://archive.is/20140305180619/https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176 to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nathan Hecht


text:
Trumpet

The trumpet is a cylindrical-bore brass instrument that is played by the action of wind upon the lips as it passes from your lungs into the instrument. Pitch is changed both through the action of the lips as well as a system of valves that dynamically changes the length of the instrument as described below. All modern trumpets have at least three valves, and depending on the type of instrument, may have more. The vast majority of the valves found on modern trumpets are piston valves, but rotary-valve horns are still in active use by professional orchestras in America and around the world, and are still made and produced today by manufacturers such as Scherzer Trumpets and Schagerl Trumpets.

Method of Playing
The playing method is rather simple. Wind is blown through the lips (formed into what is called an embouchure) into the instrument through a mouthpiece. The natural vibration of the lips causes a standing wave to be set up inside the horn, which creates the sound according to the harmonic series (see the corresponding article on Wikipedia for more information on this concept in physics). For a trumpet tuned in Bb, the overtone series(in actual pitch, not written) would be Bb2 (the fundamental), Bb3, F4, Bb4, D5, F5, Ab5, Bb5, C6, D6, F6, and so on.

The harmonic series derives from the physics of standing waves in a open tube. The actual pitches that are available are entirely dependent on the length of the tubing. However, for a given tube length, the harmonic series would follow the same pattern. All military bugle calls are achieved with this same series of notes. Modern chromatic trumpets play other notes by use of valves which allow the player to dynamically adjust the tube-length of the trumpet, enabling the use of the full chromatic scale.

The Valve Pattern
Most modern trumpets use three valves. Each valve, alone and in combination, modifies a given overtone note according to the following pattern. The first valve, played by the right hand index finger, modifies notes by lowering them two half steps (or a whole). The second valve, played by the right hand middle finger, lowers notes by a single half step. The third valve, played by the right hand ring finger, lowers notes by three half steps. Combinations of these valves simply add their respective modifications. For example, the first valve plus the second valve will lower the note by three half steps. The second valve plus the third will lower the overtone note by four half steps.

In this manner, the trumpet is capable of producing every note of the chromatic scale.

The following lists the valve fingering combination for the descending C chromatic scale starting on middle C.

Note that there can be overlap from any given transposition from an overtone series note. These are called "alternate fingerings" and can be played for various musical effects. However, alternate fingerings (and even some standard fingerings) have intonation issues that need to be addressed.

title: Trumpet


text:
Category:Self-declared messiahs

Self-declared messiahs are people who have proclaimed themselves as a figure of divine salvation. Some have collected a following, while others have remained largely alone.

ar:تصنيف:مدعو النبوة he:קטגוריה:תנועות משיחיות

title: Category:Self-declared messiahs


text:
Elizabeth A. Thompson

Elizabeth Alison Thompson (born May 22, 1949) is a British-born American statistician at the University of Washington. Her research concerns the use of genetic data to infer relationships between individuals and populations. She is the 2017–2018 president of the International Biometric Society.

Education and career
Thompson studied at Newnham College, Cambridge, earning first-class honours in the mathematical tripos in 1970 and completing a diploma in mathematical statistics in 1971. She continued at Cambridge for graduate studies, earning a Ph.D. in statistics in 1974 under the supervision of A. W. F. Edwards.

After postdoctoral studies at Stanford University she returned to Cambridge as a lecturer in mathematics and mathematical statistics and fellow of King's College, Cambridge. She became a fellow of Newnham in 1981. She moved to the Department of Statistics at the University of Washington in 1985, and added a joint appointment to the Department of Biostatistics in 1988. She became a U.S. citizen in 1997.

Awards and honors
Thompson received an honorary doctorate from Cambridge in 1988, and became an honorary fellow of Newnham in 2013.

She became a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1998. In 2008 she joined the National Academy of Sciences. She was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2023.

She is the Carnegie Centenary Professor for 2017 at the University of St Andrews.

title: Elizabeth A. Thompson


text:
Talk:David Solway

Untitled
I removed the bit that described Solway's attendance at Layton's funeral simply because I feel it is more pertinent to a discussion about Layton. It is mentioned in the article about Irving Layton anyhow. This article is so short that the detail seemed out of place to me. --Susiebowers 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Solway on climate change
Who Are the Real Climate Deniers? by David Solway, 2013. Subtitle: "Both style and substance bespeak the weakness of climate-warmist arguments."

An interesting essay, which we might consider adding to the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Solway


text:
John P. Coburn

John P. Coburn (1811–1873) was a 19th-century African-American abolitionist, civil rights activist, tailor and clothier from Boston, Massachusetts. For most of his life, he resided at 2 Phillips Street in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood. Coburn was one of the wealthiest African Americans in Boston of his time. His property on the North Slope of Beacon Hill had the third highest real property value in an 1850 census. Coburn was heavily involved in abolition-related work within his community, specifically work related to the New England Freedom Association and the Massasoit Guards.

Entrepreneurial career
Coburn worked as a building contractor, tailor, and clothier. He managed two clothing stores, one at 20 Brattle Street and another at 59 Cornhill Street. His business focused on tailoring clothes and selling clothes which were advertised to be the current trend. Coburn sold cashmere clothing, doeskins, tweeds and vestings. He also sold men's garments, and cleaned and repaired clothes. In the mid 1860s, Coburn changed the name of his clothing store to W.T. Coburn Clothing Store, after his son Wendell T. Coburn. Coburn also co-owned a profitable gaming house, named the Coburn Gaming House, with his brother-in-law Ira Gray. The Coburn Gaming House doubled as a safe house on the Underground Railroad. The main clientele of the gaming house was aristocratic African-Americans. This business brought Coburn even more wealth and allowed him to finance many rescue operations for fugitive slaves like that of Shadrach Minkins.

Contributions to abolitionism
Coburn was the treasurer of the New England Freedom Association, an association that focused on helping fugitive slaves. He patronized The Liberator, a local abolitionist newspaper, by publishing advertisements for his stores and acknowledgments to the people who had donated to the New England Freedom Association. In addition, he would also put out announcements offering lodging to those in need.

In 1854, Coburn founded the Massasoit Guards, a black military company, to police Beacon Hill and protect residents from slave catchers. He served as the company's captain. The Massasoit Guards were never officially recognized by the state, despite repeated petitions by attorney Robert Morris. The group was named after a Wampanoag chief who had been friendly to Massachusetts colonists. Coburn also recruited volunteers for the militant abolitionist John Brown.

Family and legacy
Coburn was married to Emeline Coburn and had one adopted son named Wendell Coburn. Between 1843 and 1844, he commissioned architect Asher Benjamin to design a house for him at the corner of Phillips and Irving Streets. Coburn died in 1873 and left most of his belongings to his son Wendell Coburn. His house, located on Beacon Hill, is now a site on Boston's Black Heritage Trail.

title: John P. Coburn