text:
George Cukor

George Dewey Cukor (July 7, 1899 – January 24, 1983) was an American film director and producer. He mainly concentrated on comedies and literary adaptations. His career flourished at RKO when David O. Selznick, the studio's Head of Production, assigned Cukor to direct several of RKO's major films, including What Price Hollywood? (1932), A Bill of Divorcement (1932), Our Betters (1933), and Little Women (1933). When Selznick moved to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1933, Cukor followed and directed Dinner at Eight (1933) and David Copperfield (1935) for Selznick, and Romeo and Juliet (1936) and Camille (1936) for Irving Thalberg.

He was replaced as one of the directors of Gone with the Wind (1939), but he went on to direct The Philadelphia Story (1940), Gaslight (1944), Adam's Rib (1949), Born Yesterday (1950), A Star Is Born (1954), Bhowani Junction (1956), and won the Academy Award for Best Director for My Fair Lady (1964), which was his fifth time nominated. He continued to work into the early 1980s.

Early life
Cukor was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the younger child and only son of Hungarian-Jewish immigrants Viktor, an assistant district attorney, and Helén Ilona Gross. His parents selected his (first and) middle name in honor of Spanish–American War hero George Dewey. The family was not particularly religious (pork was a staple on the dinner table), and when he started attending temple as a boy, Cukor learned Hebrew phonetically, with no real understanding of the meaning of the words or what they represented. As a result, he was ambivalent about his faith and dismissive of old world traditions from childhood, and as an adult he embraced Anglophilia to remove himself even further from his roots.

As a child, Cukor appeared in several amateur plays and took dance lessons, and at the age of seven he performed in a recital with David O. Selznick, who in later years became a mentor and friend. As a teenager, Cukor frequently was taken to the New York Hippodrome by his uncle. Infatuated with theatre, he often cut classes at DeWitt Clinton High School to attend afternoon matinees. During his senior year, he worked as a supernumerary with the Metropolitan Opera, earning 50¢ per appearance, and $1 if he was required to perform in blackface.

Following his graduation in 1917, Cukor was expected to follow in his father's footsteps and pursue a career in law. He halfheartedly enrolled in the City College of New York, where he entered the Students Army Training Corps in October 1918. His military experience was limited; Germany surrendered in early November, and Cukor's duty ended after only two months. He left school shortly afterwards.

Early stage career
Cukor obtained a job as an assistant stage manager and bit player with a touring production of The Better 'Ole, a popular British musical based on Old Bill, a cartoon character created by Bruce Bairnsfather. In 1920, he became the stage manager for the Knickerbocker Players, a troupe that shuttled between Syracuse, New York and Rochester, New York, and the following year he was hired as general manager of the newly formed Lyceum Players, an upstate summer stock company. In 1925, he formed the C.F. and Z. Production Company with Walter Folmer and John Zwicki, which gave him his first opportunity to direct. Following their first season, he made his Broadway directorial debut with Antonia by Hungarian playwright Melchior Lengyel, then returned to Rochester, where C.F. and Z. evolved into the Cukor-Kondolf Stock Company, a troupe that included Louis Calhern, Ilka Chase, Phyllis Povah, Frank Morgan, Reginald Owen, Elizabeth Patterson and Douglass Montgomery, all of whom worked with Cukor in later years in Hollywood. Lasting only one season with the company was Bette Davis. Cukor later recalled: "Her talent was apparent, but she did buck at direction. She had her own ideas, and though she only did bits and ingenue roles, she didn't hesitate to express them." For the next several decades, Davis claimed she was fired, and although Cukor never understood why she placed so much importance on an incident he considered so minor, he never worked with her again.

For the next few years, Cukor alternated between Rochester in the summer months and Broadway in the winter. His direction of a 1926 stage adaptation of The Great Gatsby by Owen Davis brought him to the attention of the New York critics. Writing in the Brooklyn Eagle, drama critic Arthur Pollock called it "an unusual piece of work by a director not nearly so well known as he should be." Cukor directed six more Broadway productions, then departed for Hollywood in 1929.

Early Hollywood career
When Hollywood began to recruit New York theater talent for sound films, Cukor immediately answered the call. In December 1928, Paramount Pictures signed him to a contract that reimbursed him for his train fare and initially paid him $600 per week with no screen credit during a six-month apprenticeship. He arrived in Hollywood in February 1929, and his first assignment was to coach the cast of River of Romance to speak with an acceptable Southern accent. In October, the studio lent him to Universal Pictures to conduct the screen tests and work as a dialogue director for All Quiet on the Western Front, released in 1930. That year, he co-directed three films at Paramount, and his weekly salary was increased to $1,500. He made his solo directorial debut with Tarnished Lady (1931) starring Tallulah Bankhead.

Cukor was then assigned to One Hour with You (1932), an operetta with Maurice Chevalier and Jeanette MacDonald, when original director Ernst Lubitsch opted to concentrate on producing the film instead. At first the two men worked well together, but two weeks into filming Lubitsch began arriving on the set on a regular basis, and he soon began directing scenes with Cukor's consent. Upon the film's completion, Lubitsch approached Paramount general manager B.P. Schulberg and threatened to leave the studio if Cukor's name wasn't removed from the credits. When Schulberg asked him to cooperate, Cukor filed suit. He eventually settled for being billed as assistant director and then left Paramount to work with David O. Selznick at RKO Studios. Cukor quickly earned a reputation as a director who could coax great performances from actresses and he became known as a "woman's director", a title he resented. Despite this reputation, during his career, he oversaw more performances honored with the Academy Award for Best Actor than any other director: James Stewart in The Philadelphia Story (1940), Ronald Colman in A Double Life (1947), and Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady (1964). One of Cukor's earlier ingenues was actress Katharine Hepburn, who debuted in A Bill of Divorcement (1932) and whose looks and personality left RKO officials at a loss as to how to use her. Cukor directed her in several films, both successful, such as Little Women (1933) and Holiday (1938), and disastrous, such as Sylvia Scarlett (1935). Cukor and Hepburn became close friends off the set.

Cukor was hired to direct Gone with the Wind by Selznick in 1936, even before the book was published. He spent the next two years involved with pre-production, including supervision of the numerous screen tests of actresses anxious to portray Scarlett O'Hara. Cukor favored Hepburn for the role, but Selznick, concerned about her reputation as "box office poison", would not consider her without a screen test, and the actress refused to film one. Of those who did, Cukor preferred Paulette Goddard, but her supposedly illicit relationship with Charlie Chaplin (they were, in fact, secretly married) concerned Selznick.

Between his Wind chores, the director assisted with other projects. He filmed the cave scene for The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1938), and, following the firing of its original director Richard Thorpe, Cukor spent a week on the set of The Wizard of Oz (1939). Although he filmed no footage, he made crucial changes to the look of Dorothy by eliminating Judy Garland's blonde wig and adjusting her makeup and costume, encouraging her to act in a more natural manner. Additionally, Cukor softened the Scarecrow's makeup and gave Margaret Hamilton a different hairstyle for the Wicked Witch of the West, as well as altering her makeup and other facial features. Cukor also suggested that the studio cast Jack Haley, on loan from 20th Century Fox, as the Tin Man.

Cukor spent many hours coaching Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Havilland before the start of filming Wind, but Clark Gable resisted his efforts to get him to master a Southern accent. However, despite rumors about Gable being uncomfortable with Cukor on the set, nothing in the internal memos of David O. Selznick indicates or suggests that Clark Gable had anything to do with Cukor's dismissal from the film. Rather, they show Selznick's mounting dissatisfaction with Cukor's slow pace and quality of work. From a private letter from journalist Susan Myrick to Margaret Mitchell in February 1939: "George [Cukor] finally told me all about it. He hated [leaving the production] very much he said but he could not do otherwise. In effect he said he is an honest craftsman and he cannot do a job unless he knows it is a good job and he feels the present job is not right. For days, he told me he has looked at the rushes and felt he was failing...the things did not click as it should. Gradually he became convinced that the script was the trouble...So George just told David he would not work any longer if the script was not better and he wanted the [Sidney] Howard script back...he would not let his name go out over a lousy picture...and bull-headed David said 'OK get out!'"

Selznick had already been unhappy with Cukor ("a very expensive luxury") for not being more receptive to directing other Selznick assignments, even though Cukor had remained on salary since early 1937; and in a confidential memo written in September 1938, four months before principal photography began, Selznick flirted with the idea of replacing him with Victor Fleming. "I think the biggest black mark against our management to date is the Cukor situation and we can no longer be sentimental about it...We are a business concern and not patrons of the arts." Cukor was relieved of his duties, but he continued to work with Leigh and Olivia de Havilland off the set. Various rumors about the reasons behind his dismissal circulated throughout Hollywood. Selznick's friendship with Cukor had crumbled slightly when the director refused other assignments, including A Star Is Born (1937) and Intermezzo (1939). Given that Gable and Cukor had worked together before (on Manhattan Melodrama, 1934) and Gable had no objection to working with him then, and given Selznick's desperation to get Gable for Rhett Butler, if Gable had any objections to Cukor, certainly they would have been expressed before he signed his contract for the film. Yet, writer Gore Vidal, in his autobiography Point to Point Navigation, recounted that Gable demanded that Cukor be fired off Wind because, according to Vidal, the young Gable had been a male hustler and Cukor had been one of his johns. This has been confirmed by Hollywood biographer E.J. Fleming, who has recounted that, during a particularly difficult scene, Gable erupted publicly, screaming: "I can't go on with this picture. I won't be directed by a fairy. I have to work with a real man."

Cukor's dismissal from Wind freed him to direct The Women (1939), which has an all-female cast, followed by The Philadelphia Story (1940). He also directed Greta Garbo, another of his favorite actresses, in Two-Faced Woman (1941), her last film before she retired from the screen.

In 1942, at the age of 43, Cukor enlisted in the Signal Corps. Following basic training at Fort Monmouth, he was assigned to the old Paramount studios in Astoria, Queens (where he had directed three films in the early 1930s), although he was permitted to lodge at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan. Working with Irwin Shaw, John Cheever and William Saroyan, among others, Cukor produced training and instructional films for army personnel. Because he lacked an officer's commission, he found it difficult to give orders and directions to his superiors. Despite his efforts to rise above the rank of private—he even called upon Frank Capra to intercede on his behalf—he never achieved officer's status or any commendations during his six months of service. In later years, Cukor suspected his homosexuality impeded him from receiving any advances or honors, although rumors to that effect could not be confirmed.

The remainder of the decade was a series of hits and misses for Cukor. Both Two-Faced Woman and Her Cardboard Lover (1942) were commercial failures. More successful were A Woman's Face (1941) with Joan Crawford and Gaslight (1944) about a woman suffering from suspicion with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer. During this era, Cukor forged an alliance with screenwriters Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, who had met in Cukor's home in 1939 and married three years later. Over the course of seven years, the trio collaborated on seven films, including A Double Life (1947) starring Ronald Colman, Adam's Rib (1949), Born Yesterday (1950), The Marrying Kind (1952), and It Should Happen to You (1954), all featuring Judy Holliday, another Cukor favorite, who won the Academy Award for Best Actress for Born Yesterday.

Later Hollywood career
In December 1952, Cukor was approached by Sid Luft, who proposed the director helm a musical remake of A Star Is Born (1937) with his then-wife Judy Garland in the lead role. Cukor had declined to direct the earlier film because it was too similar to his own What Price Hollywood? (1932), but the opportunity to direct his first Technicolor film and work with screenwriter Moss Hart and especially Garland appealed to him, and he accepted. Getting the updated A Star Is Born (1954) to the screen proved to be a challenge. Cukor wanted Cary Grant for the male lead and went so far as to read the entire script with him, but Grant, while agreeing it was the role of a lifetime, steadfastly refused to do it, and Cukor never forgave him. The director then suggested either Humphrey Bogart or Frank Sinatra tackle the part, but Jack L. Warner rejected both. Stewart Granger was the front runner for a period of time, but he backed out when he was unable to adjust to Cukor's habit of acting out scenes as a form of direction. James Mason eventually was contracted, and filming began on October 12, 1953. As the months passed, Cukor was forced to deal not only with constant script changes but a very unstable Garland, who was plagued by chemical and alcohol dependencies, extreme weight fluctuations, and real and imagined illnesses. In March 1954, a rough cut still missing several musical numbers was assembled, and Cukor had mixed feelings about it. When the last scene finally was filmed in the early morning hours of July 28, 1954, Cukor already had departed the production and was unwinding in Europe. The first preview the following month ran 210 minutes and, despite ecstatic feedback from the audience, Cukor and editor Folmar Blangsted trimmed it to 182 minutes for its New York premiere in October. The reviews were the best of Cukor's career, but Warner executives, concerned the running time would limit the number of daily showings, made drastic cuts without Cukor, who had departed for Pakistan to scout locations for the epic Bhowani Junction in 1954-1955. At its final running time of 154 minutes, the film had lost musical numbers and crucial dramatic scenes, and Cukor called it "very painful." He was not included in the film's six Oscar nominations.

Over the next 10 years, Cukor directed a handful of films with varying success. Les Girls (1957) won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, and Wild Is the Wind (also 1957) earned Oscar nominations for Anna Magnani and Anthony Quinn, but neither Heller in Pink Tights nor Let's Make Love (both 1960) were box-office hits. Another project during this period was the ill-fated Something's Got to Give, an updated remake of the comedy My Favorite Wife (1940). Cukor liked leading lady Marilyn Monroe but found it difficult to deal with her erratic work habits, frequent absences from the set, and the constant presence of Monroe's acting coach Paula Strasberg. It was reported at the time that after 32 days of shooting, the director had only 7½ minutes of usable film. Footage would be discovered in the 1990's that showed at least 37 minutes of total footage had survived. Then Monroe travelled to New York to appear at a birthday celebration for President John F. Kennedy at Madison Square Garden, where she serenaded Kennedy. Studio documents released after Monroe's death confirmed that her appearance at the political fundraising event was approved by Fox executives. The production came to a halt when Cukor had filmed every scene not involving Monroe and the actress remained unavailable. 20th Century Fox executive Peter Levathes fired her and hired Lee Remick to replace her, prompting co-star Dean Martin to quit because his contract guaranteed he would be playing opposite Monroe. It was also reported at the time, that with the production already $2 million over budget and everyone back at the starting gate, the studio pulled the plug on the project. However, Monroe successfully renegotiated her contract from $100,000 to $500,000 with a bonus should the film be completed on time. Cukor was to be replaced by Jean Negulesco. There was limited press at the time about the project restarting and even less on Cukor being replaced. When Monroe was found dead in her home in the beginning of August, Cukor would give a high profile interview discussing Monroe's many reported problems.

Two years later, Cukor achieved one of his greatest successes with My Fair Lady (1964). Throughout filming, there were mounting tensions between the director and designer Cecil Beaton; Cukor was thrilled with leading lady Audrey Hepburn, but the crew was less enchanted with her diva-like demands. Although several reviews were critical of the film – Pauline Kael said it "staggers along" and Stanley Kauffmann thought Cukor's direction was like "a rich gravy poured over everything, not remotely as delicately rich as in the Asquith-Howard 1937 [sic] Pygmalion" — the film was a box-office hit which won him the Academy Award for Best Director, the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, and the Directors Guild of America Award after having been nominated for each several times.

Following My Fair Lady, Cukor became less active. He directed Maggie Smith in Travels with My Aunt (1972) and helmed the critical and commercial flop The Blue Bird (1976), the first joint Soviet-American production. He reunited twice with Katharine Hepburn for the television movies Love Among the Ruins (1975) and The Corn Is Green (1979). At the age of 82, Cukor directed his final film, Rich and Famous for MGM in 1981, starring Jacqueline Bisset and Candice Bergen.

In 1970, he received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.

In 1976, Cukor was awarded the George Eastman Award, given by George Eastman House for distinguished contribution to the art of film.

Personal life
It was an open secret in Hollywood that Cukor was gay, at a time when society was against it, although he was discreet about his sexual orientation and "never carried it as a pin on his lapel," as producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz put it. He was a celebrated bon vivant whose luxurious home was the site of weekly Sunday afternoon parties attended by closeted celebrities and the attractive young men they met in bars and gyms and brought with them. At least once, in the midst of his reign at MGM, he was arrested on vice charges, but studio executives managed to get the charges dropped and all records of it expunged, and the incident was never publicized by the press. In the late 1950s, Cukor became involved with a considerably younger man named George Towers. He financed his education at the Los Angeles State College of Applied Arts and Sciences and the University of Southern California, from which Towers graduated with a law degree in 1967. That fall Towers married a woman, and his relationship with Cukor evolved into one of father and son, and for the remainder of Cukor's life the two remained very close.

By the mid-1930s, Cukor was not only established as a prominent director, but also socially as an unofficial head of Hollywood's gay subculture. His home, redecorated in 1935 by gay actor-turned-interior designer William Haines with gardens designed by Florence Yoch and Lucile Council, was the scene of many gatherings for the industry's homosexuals. The close-knit group reputedly included Haines and his partner Jimmie Shields, writer W. Somerset Maugham, director James Vincent, screenwriter Rowland Leigh, costume designers Orry-Kelly and Robert Le Maire, and actors John Darrow, Anderson Lawler, Grady Sutton, Robert Seiter, and Tom Douglas. Frank Horn, secretary to Cary Grant, was also a frequent guest.

Cukor's friends were of paramount importance to him and he kept his home filled with their photographs. Regular attendees at his soirées included Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, Joan Crawford and Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart, Claudette Colbert, Marlene Dietrich, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh, actor Richard Cromwell, Stanley Holloway, Judy Garland, Gene Tierney, Noël Coward, Cole Porter, director James Whale, costume designer Edith Head, and Norma Shearer, especially after the death of her first husband Irving Thalberg. He often entertained literary figures like Sinclair Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, Hugh Walpole, Aldous Huxley and Ferenc Molnár.

Frances Goldwyn, second wife and widow of studio mogul Sam Goldwyn, long considered Cukor to be the love of her life, but their relationship remained platonic. According to biographer A. Scott Berg, Frances even arranged for Cukor's burial to be adjacent to her own plot at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery.

The PBS series American Masters produced a comprehensive documentary about his life and work titled On Cukor directed by Robert Trachtenberg in 2000.

Death and legacy
Cukor died of a heart attack on January 24, 1983, and was interred in Grave D, Little Garden of Constancy, Garden of Memory (private), Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale), California. Records in probate court indicated his net worth at the time of his death was $2,377,720.

In 1983, the 1954 version of A Star Is Born, considered by many to be his greatest picture, was restored to its original runtime of 181 minutes. The film was initially released at 181 minutes and received enormous critical and box office success. Finding that the length restricted the number of daily showings, the studio cut the movie to 154 minutes. Cukor believed this re-release "butchered" the gradual development of the Garland-Mason relationship.

In 2013, The Film Society of Lincoln Center presented a comprehensive weeks-long retrospective of his work titled "The Discreet Charm of George Cukor."

In 2019, Cukor's film Gaslight was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

title: George Cukor


text:
Talk:GNU Free Documentation License

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on GNU Free Documentation License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130530230813/http://www.informationweek.com/verizon-settles-open-source-software-law/206904096 to http://www.informationweek.com/verizon-settles-open-source-software-law/206904096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * فف 105.40.179.43 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GFDL (English).ogg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GFDL (English).ogg

References for Conditions
The licence conditions are listed in the text. Can we add references to the GFDL text where the conditions can be found? Example:  All previous authors of the work must be attributed  --D-Kuru (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 - minor grammatical edit
In the section: == List of projects that use the GFDL ==

For the Last.fm bullet item: * Last.fm – artists descriptions are under GFDL

Instead of "artists descriptions", it should be one of the below: - artist descriptions - artists' descriptions - descriptions of artists

I would lean towards the first: artist descriptions. Thanks. BackspaceSomethingElse (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I replaced it with your first suggestion, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:GNU Free Documentation License


text:
Talk:Greater London/Archive 1

What's so "Great" about "Great Britain"?
''The Britons sure know how to name things. What is so great about Great Britain, anyway?''

 * "Greater" as in geographical area outside the "City of London" and outside the Kingdom of England respectively.

 * The term "Great Britain" is a historic term to differentiate Britain from the French region now known as Brittany.

Legal Abolition of greater London
Someone should add an explanation of why did Margaret Thatcher abolish the authority, and why did Tony Blair reinstate it? -- SJK

 * She abolished all the Metropolitan County Councils as well as the GLC at about the same time, mainly because people wouldn't elect Conservatives to them. While this is true, perhaps it isn't NPOV! :-) Arwel

 * The London County Council was abolished for much the same reason. Inner London was Labour dominated and it was hoped that by including the Conservative leaning suburbs of Outer London the balance would change. Again this is not NPOV. MRSC 14:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on date formatting
Why do most of the "historical population" estimates in the article cite two days as a date rather than one? (example: 1891, April 5/6 5,572,012)

 * Because this refers to the date of the Census of Population, and this normally requires the householder to give details of people present (or usually resident)at the address on Census night. Hence the reference to two days. Nowadays it is conventional to refer simply to Census day (e.g. the night of 29 April 2001).

Two-tiers of local government != Unitary authority
The article says:

It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities,

How can they be unitary authorities if there are two-tiers of local government. Surely this is a contradiction in terms?. G-Man 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable assertions made by User:TheUnforgiven
based upon the Norman Conquest's capital of England having moved from Winchester in Hampshire.

This seems factually innacurate to me. How is Greater London based on anything from Norman times? MRSC 18:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Normans made London an exclave of Normandy, in jurisdiction of England. This is where the Normans had the heart of their control over a largely different populace found in other Regions of England.  This is a train of thought I have had to put meaning on each region, if you look at the headings of each region article.  It is perhaps important that the City Walls and Tower of London, are all within this Norman stronghold.  TheUnforgiven 18:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This has nothing to do with Greater London which occupies an area far larger than the City of London which is what you are talking about. The notion of Greater London with roughly the same scale as today didn't even exist until Victorian times. MRSC

 * Perhaps not exactly, but the outer spread of Norman settlements and their cultural influence on the region, is the absolute focus of the issue. If you'd like to have it the way you put this article, then you might as well refute my position on every other region of England.  TheUnforgiven 19:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I know very little about such matters, but it might behoove those of you know do, to check this out, as this is not the only article where TheUnforgiven has been messing around introducing his uh... "truly unique" views of history. Tomer TALK  22:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Inner and Middle Temples
The Inner and Middle Temples are in the City of London, but are not governed by the Corporation of London. However, they are part of that City and Ceremonial county. Therefore please do not fill up this article with nonsense like "..the City of London, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, the City of Westminster and the 31 other London Boroughs...". Please. Thank you. Dpaajones (David).

 * If you look up one section, you'd see I already mentioned this. It was TheUnforgiven (talk · contribs) who added that crap, and he added some other interesting "detail" to other articles as well, which I have little doubt still needs cleaning out as well.  Tomer TALK  15:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * The temples are not part of the city. They are geographically located in the city, but constitute totally seperate local authorities. Saying that Greater London only consist of the city and the boroughs is simply incorrect. 80.255 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you are wrong. The Temples are part of the City, they are just not run by the Corporation. Think of it this way - the City of London, unlike every other district in the United Kingdom, has 3 local authorities - the Corporation (governing most of the City), the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. However, the City is still a single entity. Dpaajones.

Capital of the UK
In what way is the capital of the UK legally defined to be London? Is the entirety of Greater London the capital, or the extent of the former London County? Is there any difference in the limits of the former Greater London Council and the current Greater London Authority? — Instantnood 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It isn't. There isn't any legislation that says London is the capital of anywhere but that is not unusual as our constitution is mostly unwritten. London is the de facto capital and that’s all that matters.

 * As nowhere is 'legally' the capital it’s pointless to try and decide if the City of London, Inner London or Greater London is the capital. The real question is What is London?.

 * There have been several Statutory Instruments from 1986 to 2000 which made minor adjustments to the Greater London boundary. Such as The Greater London and Kent (County Boundaries) Order 1992, The Greater London and Hertfordshire (County Boundaries) Order 1992  and The Essex and Greater London (County Boundaries) Order 1993. These, and others, mostly did things like aligning the Greater London boundary to the M25 or other small changes. So the territory of the GLA does differ slightly from that of the GLC. MRSC 20:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The status of London as capital is covered quite nicely by the main London article, under "Defining London". DJR (Talk) 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Is there any map showing the slight differences between the limit of the GLC and the GLA? Under which definitions of London is London normally considered to be the de facto capital? — Instantnood 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has created a map with all the differences in one place but the SIs contain low detail maps:

 * Hertfordshire 010493
 * Surrey, Kent 010494
 * Surrey 010494
 * Essex 010494
 * Essex 010495
 * Surrey 010495

You can find more by searching here: but it only goes back to about 1990. The SIs list in detail the areas transferred so you could construct the map yourself from that. Alternatively you could compare a (good quality) map from 1985 with one from 2006.

As far as I am concerned the whole of Greater London is the capital. Others will suggest it is only the City of London but while I can see this was historically true it is false nostalgia to think of it as the capital now. MRSC 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I now have some idea about how slight the changes were. Definitely the capital is not only the City of London, but is the capital the entirety of Greater London? Was London County the capital before the creation of the GLC? — Instantnood 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Its difficult to see how the County of London could have been the capital as it totally excluded the City of London. The two places functioned independently of each other until 1965.

 * You could look at it this way: Ken Livingstone is Mayor of London (the capital city) and "London" = the London region and the London region = Greater London. MRSC 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * So under which definition was London the capital of the UK before the creation of GLC? London County and the Square Mile combined? — Instantnood 20:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No place is or was officially defined as the capital. When London was only the City of London that was the capital, except for when it was in Winchester. After London grew beyond its walls there is no official definition of what forms the capital. In Victorian times they called the urbanised part of London "the metropolis" but this area varied for postal deliveries, administration and policing. Trying to define what constituted the capital is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. MRSC 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. :-) — Instantnood 08:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater London/Archive 1


text:
Gas mask

A gas mask is an item of personal protective equipment used to protect the wearer from inhaling airborne pollutants and toxic gases. The mask forms a sealed cover over the nose and mouth, but may also cover the eyes and other vulnerable soft tissues of the face. Most gas masks are also respirators, though the word gas mask is often used to refer to military equipment (such as a field protective mask), the scope used in this article. Gas masks only protect the user from ingesting or inhaling chemical agents, as well as preventing contact with the user's eyes (many chemical agents affect through eye contact). Most combined gas mask filters will last around 8 hours in a biological or chemical situation. Filters against specific chemical agents can last up to 20 hours.

Airborne toxic materials may be gaseous (for example, chlorine or mustard gas), or particulates (such as biological agents). Many filters provide protection from both types.

The first gas masks mostly used circular lenses made of glass, mica or cellulose acetate to allow vision. Glass and mica were quite brittle and needed frequent replacement. The later Triplex lens style (a cellulose acetate lens sandwiched between glass ones) became more popular, and alongside plain cellulose acetate they became the standard into the 1930s. Panoramic lenses were not popular until the 1930s, but there are some examples of those being used even during the war (Austro-Hungarian 15M). Later, stronger polycarbonate came into use.

Some masks have one or two compact air filter containers screwed onto inlets, while others have a large air filtration container connected to the gas mask via a hose that is sometimes confused with an air-supplied respirator in which an alternate supply of fresh air (oxygen tanks) is delivered.

Early breathing devices
According to Popular Mechanics, "The common sponge was used in ancient Greece as a gas mask..."

The book of Ingenious Devices published in 850 by the Banū Mūsā brothers describes a gas mask which allowed the wearer to breathe safely in a toxic environment.

In 1785, Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier invented a respirator.

Primitive respirator examples were used by miners and introduced by Alexander von Humboldt in 1799, when he worked as a mining engineer in Prussia. The forerunner to the modern gas mask was invented in 1847 by Lewis P. Haslett, a device that contained elements that allowed breathing through a nose and mouthpiece, inhalation of air through a bulb-shaped filter, and a vent to exhale air back into the atmosphere. First Facts states that a "gas mask resembling the modern type" was patented by Lewis Phectic Haslett of Louisville, Kentucky, who received a patent on June 12, 1849. U.S. patent #6,529 issued to Haslett, described the first "Inhaler or Lung Protector" that filtered dust from the air.

Early versions were constructed by the Scottish chemist John Stenhouse in 1854 and the physicist John Tyndall in the 1870s. Another early design was the "Safety Hood and Smoke Protector" invented by Garrett Morgan in 1912, and patented in 1914. It was a simple device consisting of a cotton hood with two hoses which hung down to the floor, allowing the wearer to breathe the safer air found there. In addition, moist sponges were inserted at the end of the hoses in order to better filter the air.

First World War

The First World War brought about the first need for mass-produced gas masks on both sides because of extensive use of chemical weapons. The German army successfully used poison gas for the first time against Allied troops at the Second Battle of Ypres, Belgium on April 22, 1915. An immediate response was cotton wool wrapped in muslin, issued to the troops by May 1. This was followed by the Black Veil Respirator, invented by John Scott Haldane, which was a cotton pad soaked in an absorbent solution which was secured over the mouth using black cotton veiling.

Seeking to improve on the Black Veil respirator, Cluny MacPherson created a mask made of chemical-absorbing fabric which fitted over the entire head. A 50.5 x 48 cm canvas hood treated with chlorine-absorbing chemicals, and fitted with a transparent mica eyepiece. Macpherson presented his idea to the British War Office Anti-Gas Department on May 10, 1915; prototypes were developed soon after. The design was adopted by the British Army and introduced as the British Smoke Hood in June 1915; Macpherson was appointed to the War Office Committee for Protection against Poisonous Gases. More elaborate sorbent compounds were added later to further iterations of his helmet (PH helmet), to defeat other respiratory poison gases used such as phosgene, diphosgene and chloropicrin. In summer and autumn 1915, Edward Harrison, Bertram Lambert and John Sadd developed the Large Box Respirator. This canister gas mask had a tin can containing the absorbent materials by a hose and began to be issued in February 1916. A compact version, the Small Box Respirator, was made a universal issue from August 1916.

In the first gas masks of World War I, it was initially found that wood charcoal was a good absorbent of poison gases. Around 1918, it was found that charcoals made from the shells and seeds of various fruits and nuts such as coconuts, chestnuts, horse-chestnuts, and peach stones performed much better than wood charcoal. These waste materials were collected from the public in recycling programs to assist the war effort.

The first effective filtering activated charcoal gas mask in the world was invented in 1915 by Russian chemist Nikolay Zelinsky.

Also in World War I, since dogs were frequently used on the front lines, a special type of gas mask was developed that dogs were trained to wear. Other gas masks were developed during World War I and the time following for horses in the various mounted units that operated near the front lines. In America, thousands of gas masks were produced for American as well as Allied troops. Mine Safety Appliances was a chief producer. This mask was later used widely in industry.

Second World War

The British Respirator, Anti-Gas (Light) was developed in 1943 by the British. It was made of plastic and rubber-like material that greatly reduced the weight and bulk compared to World War I gas masks, and fitted the user's face more snugly and comfortably. The main improvement was replacing the separate filter canister connected with a hose by an easily replaceable filter canister screwed on the side of the gas mask. Also, it had replaceable plastic lenses.

Modern mask
Gas mask development since has mirrored the development of chemical agents in warfare, filling the need to protect against ever more deadly threats, biological weapons, and radioactive dust in the nuclear era. However, for agents that cause harm through contact or penetration of the skin, such as blister agent or nerve agent, a gas mask alone is not sufficient protection, and full protective clothing must be worn in addition to protect from contact with the atmosphere. For reasons of civil defence and personal protection, individuals often buy gas masks since they believe that they protect against the harmful effects of an attack with nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) agents, which is only partially true, as gas masks protect only against respiratory absorption. Most military gas masks are designed to be capable of protecting against all NBC agents, but they can have filter canisters proof against those agents (heavier) or only against riot control agents and smoke (lighter and often used for training purposes). There are lightweight masks solely for protection against riot-control agents and not for NBC situations.

Although thorough training and the availability of gas masks and other protective equipment can nullify the casualty-causing effects of an attack by chemical agents, troops who are forced to operate in full protective gear are less efficient in completing tasks, tire easily, and may be affected psychologically by the threat of attack by those weapons. During the Cold War, it was seen as inevitable that there would be a constant NBC threat on the battlefield and so troops needed protection in which they could remain fully functional; thus, protective gear and especially gas masks have evolved to incorporate innovations in terms of increasing user comfort and compatibility with other equipment (from drinking devices to artificial respiration tubes, to communications systems etc.).

During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–88), Iraq developed its chemical weapons program with the help of European countries such as Germany and France and used them in a large scale against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. Iran was unprepared for chemical warfare. In 1984, Iran received gas masks from the Republic of Korea and East Germany, but the Korean masks were not suited for the faces of non-East Asian people, the filter lasted for only 15 minutes, and the 5,000 masks bought from East Germany proved to be not gas masks but spray-painting goggles. As late as 1986, Iranian diplomats still travelled in Europe to buy active charcoal and models of filters to produce defensive gear domestically. In April 1988, Iran started domestic production of gas masks by the Iran Yasa factories.

Principles of construction
Absorption is the process of being drawn into a (usually larger) body or substrate, and adsorption is the process of deposition upon a surface. This can be used to remove both particulate and gaseous hazards. Although some form of reaction may take place, it is not necessary; the method may work by attractive charges. For example, if the target particles are positively charged, a negatively charged substrate may be used. Examples of substrates include activated carbon, and zeolites. This effect can be very simple and highly effective, for example using a damp cloth to cover the mouth and nose while escaping a fire. While this method can be effective at trapping particulates produced by combustion, it does not filter out harmful gases which may be toxic or which displace the oxygen required for survival.

Safety of old gas masks
Gas masks have a useful lifespan limited by the absorbent capacity of the filter. Filters cease to provide protection when saturated with hazardous chemicals, and degrade over time even if sealed. Most gas masks have sealing caps over the air intake and are stored in vacuum-sealed bags to prevent the filter from degrading due to exposure to humidity and pollutants in normal air. Unused gas mask filters from World War II may not protect the wearer at all, and could be harmful if worn due to long-term changes in the chemical composition of the filter.

Some World War II and Soviet Cold War gas masks contained chrysotile asbestos or crocidolite asbestos in their filters,  not known to be harmful at the time. It is not reliably known for how long the materials were used in filters.

Typically, masks using 40 mm connections are a more recent design. Rubber degrades with time, so boxed unused "modern type" masks can be cracked and leak. The US C2 canister (black) contains hexavalent chromium; studies by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps found that the level in the filter was acceptable, but suggest caution when using, as it is a carcinogen.

Modern filter classification
The filter is selected according to the toxic compound. Each filter type protects against a particular hazard and is color-coded:

Particle filters are often included, because in many cases the hazardous materials are in the form of mist, which can be captured by the particle filter before entering the chemical adsorber. In Europe and jurisdictions with similar rules such as Russia and Australia, filter types are given suffix numbers to indicate their capacity. For non-particle hazards, the level "1" is assumed and a number "2" is used to indicate a better level. For particles (P), three levels are always given with the number. In the US, only the particle part is further classified by NIOSH air filtration ratings.

A filter type that can protect against multiple hazards is notated with the European symbols concatenated with each other. Examples include ABEK, ABEK-P3, and ABEK-HgP3. A2B2E2K2-P3 is the highest rating of filter available. An entirely different "multi/CBRN" filter class with an olive color is used in the US.

Filtration may be aided with an air pump to improve wearer comfort. Filtration of air is only possible if there is sufficient oxygen in the first place. Thus, when handling asphyxiants, or when ventilation is poor or the hazards are unknown, filtration is not possible and air must be supplied (with a SCBA system) from a pressurized bottle as in scuba diving.

Use
A modern mask typically is constructed of an elastic polymer in various sizes. It is fitted with various adjustable straps which may be tightened to secure a good fit. Crucially, it is connected to a filter cartridge near the mouth either directly, or via a flexible hose. Some models contain drinking tubes which may be connected to a water bottle. Corrective lens inserts are also available for users who require them.

Masks are typically tested for fit before use. After a mask is fitted, it is often tested by various challenge agents. Isoamyl acetate, a synthetic banana flavourant, and camphor are often used as innocuous challenge agents. In the military, teargases such as CN, CS, and stannic chloride in a chamber may be used to give the users confidence in the efficacy of the mask.

Shortcomings
The protection of a gas mask comes with some disadvantages. The wearer of a typical gas mask must exert extra effort to breathe, and some of the exhaled air is re-inhaled due to the dead space between the facepiece and the user's face. The exposure to carbon dioxide may exceed its OELs (0.5% by volume/9 grammes per cubic metre for an eight-hour shift; 1.4%/27 grammes per m3 for 15 minutes' exposure) by a factor of many times: for gas masks and elastomeric respirators, up to 2.6% ); and in case of long-term use, headache, dermatitis and acne may appear. The UK HSE textbook recommends limiting the use of respirators without air supply (that is, not PAPR) to one hour.

Reaction and exchange
This principle relies on substances harmful to humans being usually more reactive than air. This method of separation will use some form of generally reactive substance (for example an acid) coating or supported by some solid material. An example is synthetic resins. These can be created with different groups of atoms (usually called functional groups) that have different properties. Thus a resin can be tailored to a particular toxic group. When the reactive substance comes in contact with the resin, it will bond to it, removing it from the air stream. It may also exchange with a less harmful substance at this site.

Though it was crude, the hypo helmet was a stopgap measure for British troops in the trenches that offered at least some protection during a gas attack. As the months passed and poison gas was used more often, more sophisticated gas masks were developed and introduced. There are two main difficulties with gas mask design:

 * The user may be exposed to many types of toxic material. Military personnel are especially prone to being exposed to a diverse range of toxic gases. However, if the mask is for a particular use (such as the protection from a specific toxic material in a factory), then the design can be much simpler and the cost lower.
 * The protection will wear off over time. Filters will clog up, substrates for absorption will fill up, and reactive filters will run out of reactive substances. Thus the user only has protection for a limited time, and then they must either replace the filter device in the mask, or use a new mask.

title: Gas mask


text:
Talk:Gender and sexuality studies

Possible Move
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - personally I'm suspicious whether we can get a whole entry out of some of the words from that list. I left them on the page for now so keyword searches will find the page. Comments? -- I was thinking of them as some topics to write pages in this area about. Maybe not all, but many of them could certaintly could be articles. Some of them already are articles, but some of these (e.g. AIDS) don't deal with the topic with the same emphasises as generally encountered in G&SS. G&SS tends to concentrate more on the social aspects of AIDS, for instance, than medical ones; especially as it effects gay people. -- SJK

Should this be renamed List of gender studies topics? —Ashley Y 23:49, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Come to think of it, should this be a category instead? —Ashley Y 08:21, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

 * Given that it is alphabetically sorted, a category would probably be the best, although I personally have come to hate these stupid things. A list as backupt might not be bad, either. -- AlexR 12:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to rename it unless anyone has any objections. -- TheMightyQuill 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Genital Modification/Mutilation
Surely genital modification and mutilation is pretty obviously of interest to gender and sexuality studies? —Ashley Y 23:31, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * Why? - Robert the Bruce 05:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Because genital modification and mutilation affects sexuality directly, and in extreme cases may affect gender. —Ashley Y 09:14, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Nah, you are casting the net altogether too wide. - Robert the Bruce 09:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, where do you get the idea of "affecting gender" from? If you mean sex-assignments of intersex kids that go wrong, well, the surgeries are not the cause of the trouble with gender assignment, but one consequence of it. Also, if I may say so, Genital modification and mutilation is a pretty stupid article, because it throws two things together that do not really belong togehter - it is like throwing together getting your ears pieced for earrings and cutting ears of as punishment in the middle ages. I see no reason of linking an article which is at best of periperal interest, especially when it is such a bad article. -- AlexR 13:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sex reassignment is a form of genital modification and is listed there accordingly. The article is clearly relevant: if you oppose the article itself, I suggest you argue there. —Ashley Y 22:04, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

 * Have a look at some of the other entries to see how wide this net is usually cast. —Ashley Y 09:55, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If genital modification and mutilation isn't part of gender and sexuality studies, I don't know what is. It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic to claim that. Timbo ( t a l k )  22:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that female genital cutting is an appropriate topic for gender and sexuality studies. If female genital cutting is an appropriate topic for gender and sexuality studies, why shouldn't male genital cutting also be an appropriate topic? -- DanBlackham 09:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because female genital cutting is an intentional mutilation to "keep women in check" and therefore part of the overall problem of the surpression of women. Circumcision was just a lousy idea of a preventive medical treatment that just happend to apply to male bodied person. -- AlexR 17:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. The cutting efforts in history target males ("the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment" thanks to Dr. Kellogg). Proponents of FGM never say they want to "keep women in check" - more often it is a claim of "marriagability".  Both were touted as medical by various cultures in various points in history, but I agree with your reluctace to detail such things here.  I propose that we direct only to genital modification and mutilation since there are clear gender and sexual overtones to the topic (including piercings and such clear sex-related information) and there is no need to detail the nuances within this article.   DanP 18:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Control of sexuality is only one of several reasons cited for female genital cutting. Like male circumcision, female genital cutting is done primarily for social and cultural reasons. Another reason cited for female genital cutting is the belief it improves hygiene. It is also sometimes done because the parents believe it is a religious requirement for their daughter to be circumcised.

There are many forms of female genital cutting ranging for genital scarification to infibulation which is the most damaging form. The form of female genital cutting most similar to male circumcision is called sunna circumcision. Sunna circumcision removes the prepuce of a girl's clitoris. Male circumcision removes the prepuce of a boy's penis.

All of the reasons cited for female genital cutting have been cited for male genital cutting, including control of sexuality. Non-religious circumcision started in the United States in the late 1800's in part because doctors thought it would keep boys from masturbating. Although control of sexuality is not a reason cited today for male circumcision, it is one of the reasons the practice was introduced in the United States.

In my opinion both female genital cutting and male genital cutting are appropriate topics for gender and sexuality studies. I understand that some people may feel that listing male genital cutting is not appropriate (especially people from circumcising cultures), but I am surprised there is any opposition to listing female genital cutting. -- DanBlackham 10:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. They belong in List of sexology topics, but not here. Exploding Boy 17:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand: Absolutely absurd. How is genital (i.e. sexual organs of the body) violence/mutilation/alteration not a concern of gender and sexuality studies? It being concerned with body, sex, the sexed body, sexual violence... ? Besides which it just IS studied by those very scholars constituting queer theory, lesbian feminism, feminism (as well as psychoanalysis and anthropology) - hence "gender and sexuality studies."

Neverthless, gender and sexuality studies sounds like the name of a course. I have certainly never come across it as a conceptual terminology - is this a US thing perhaps?. Perhaps better to root under gender studies, feminism, lesbian and gay history, queer theory (and as the good man says sexology) etc.,?? Which do cover - or perhaps should - all of these things???

Possible merger - what do you think
I'm involved in the update and revision of the Gender Studies article and I was wondering should this page be merged with it. I'm sensitive to the difference between the two fields but I would say that Sexuality studies has a had a major impact on Gender Studies as a field. What would be the general opinion on merging this page into the Gender Studies page?--Cailil 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The content on this page is pretty weak. I would approve a merger, given that not much of this page makes it onto the Gender Studies page. - TheMightyQuill 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Studies?
Many of these items don't seem to have to do with gender and sexuality studies, per se... and it seems like a pretty random list of things that are somehow related to gender and sexuality. I think it's impossible to list everything that has something to do with gender and sexuality... maybe we could limit the list to things that are more academic-y? like queer theory, queer studies, gender studies, sexuality studies, intersection theory (i'm hoping to improve that article soon... it's just a stub), I dunno... any thoughts?

Fokion 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gender and sexuality studies