text:
Epicenter

The epicenter, epicentre, or epicentrum in seismology is the point on the Earth's surface directly above a hypocenter or focus, the point where an earthquake or an underground explosion originates.

Determination
The primary purpose of a seismometer is to locate the initiating points of earthquake epicenters. The secondary purpose, of determining the 'size' or magnitude must be calculated after the precise location is known.

The earliest seismographs were designed to give a sense of the direction of the first motions from an earthquake. The Chinese frog seismograph would have dropped its ball in the general compass direction of the earthquake, assuming a strong positive pulse. We now know that first motions can be in almost any direction depending on the type of initiating rupture (focal mechanism).

The first refinement that allowed a more precise determination of the location was the use of a time scale. Instead of merely noting, or recording, the absolute motions of a pendulum, the displacements were plotted on a moving graph, driven by a clock mechanism. This was the first seismogram, which allowed precise timing of the first ground motion, and an accurate plot of subsequent motions.

From the first seismograms, as seen in the figure, it was noticed that the trace was divided into two major portions. The first seismic wave to arrive was the P-wave, followed closely by the S-wave. Knowing the relative 'velocities of propagation', it was a simple matter to calculate the distance of the earthquake.

One seismograph would give the distance, but that could be plotted as a circle, with an infinite number of possibilities. Two seismographs would give two intersecting circles, with two possible locations. Only with a third seismograph would there be a precise location.

Modern earthquake location still requires a minimum of three seismometers. Most likely, there are many, forming a seismic array. The emphasis is on precision since much can be learned about the fault mechanics and seismic hazard, if the locations can be determined to be within a kilometer or two, for small earthquakes. For this, computer programs use an iterative process, involving a 'guess and correction' algorithm. As well, a very good model of the local crustal velocity structure is required: seismic velocities vary with the local geology. For P-waves, the relation between velocity and bulk density of the medium has been quantified in Gardner's relation.

Surface damage
Before the instrumental period of earthquake observation, the epicenter was thought to be the location where the greatest damage occurred, but the subsurface fault rupture may be long and spread surface damage across the entire rupture zone. As an example, in the magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake of 2002 in Alaska, the epicenter was at the western end of the rupture, but the greatest damage was about 330 km away at the eastern end. Focal depths of earthquakes occurring in continental crust mostly range from 2 to 20 km. Continental earthquakes below 20 km are rare whereas in subduction zone earthquakes can originate at depths deeper than 600 km.

Epicentral distance
During an earthquake, seismic waves propagates in all directions from the hypocenter. Seismic shadowing occurs on the opposite side of the Earth from the earthquake epicenter because the planet's liquid outer core refracts the longitudinal or compressional (P-waves) while it absorbs the transverse or shear waves (S-waves). Outside the seismic shadow zone, both types of wave can be detected, but because of their different velocities and paths through the Earth, they arrive at different times. By measuring the time difference on any seismograph and the distance on a travel-time graph on which the P-wave and S-wave have the same separation, geologists can calculate the distance to the quake's epicenter. This distance is called the epicentral distance, commonly measured in ° (degrees) and denoted as Δ (delta) in seismology. The Láska's empirical rule provides an approximation of epicentral distance in the range of 2 000 − 10 000 km.

Once distances from the epicenter have been calculated from at least three seismographic measuring stations, the point can be located, using trilateration.

Epicentral distance is also used in calculating seismic magnitudes as developed by Richter and Gutenberg.

Fault rupture
The point at which fault slipping begins is referred to as the focus of the earthquake. The fault rupture begins at the focus and then expands along the fault surface. The rupture stops where the stresses become insufficient to continue breaking the fault (because the rocks are stronger) or where the rupture enters ductile material. The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the total area of its fault rupture. Most earthquakes are small, with rupture dimensions less than the depth of the focus so the rupture doesn't break the surface, but in high magnitude, destructive earthquakes, surface breaks are common. Fault ruptures in large earthquakes can extend for more than 100 km. When a fault ruptures unilaterally (with the epicenter at or near the end of the fault break) the waves are stronger in one direction along the fault.

Macroseismic epicenter
The macroseismic epicenter is the best estimate of the location of the epicenter derived without instrumental data. This may be estimated using intensity data, information about foreshocks and aftershocks, knowledge of local fault systems or extrapolations from data regarding similar earthquakes. For historical earthquakes that have not been instrumentally recorded, only a macroseismic epicenter can be given.

Etymology
The word is derived from the Neo-Latin noun epicentrum, the latinisation of the ancient Greek adjective ἐπίκεντρος, "occupying a cardinal point, situated on a centre", from ἐπί (epi) "on, upon, at" and κέντρον (kentron) "centre". The term was coined by Irish seismologist Robert Mallet.

It is also used to mean "center of activity", as in "Travel is restricted in the Chinese province thought to be the epicentre of the SARS outbreak." Garner's Modern American Usage gives several examples of use in which "epicenter" is used to mean "center". Garner also refers to a William Safire article in which Safire quotes a geophysicist as attributing the use of the term to "spurious erudition on the part of writers combined with scientific illiteracy on the part of copy editors". Garner has speculated that these misuses may just be "metaphorical descriptions of focal points of unstable and potentially destructive environments."

title: Epicenter


text:
Einar Benediktsson

Einar Benediktsson, often referred to as Einar Ben (31 October 1864 – 12 January 1940) was an Icelandic poet and lawyer.

Einar Benediktsson's poetry was a significant contribution to the nationalistic revival which led to Iceland's independence. To this end, he was active both in founding the Landvarnarflokkurinn in 1902, and as the editor of Iceland's first daily newspaper, Dagskrá, from 1896 to 1898. As a poet, he may be classified as a Neo-Romantic. He advocated for Greenland to become part of an independent Iceland.

He pioneered as a strong advocate of inward foreign investment to utilize Iceland's natural resources. In 1906 he joined the management of two companies, Skjálfanda and Gigant, formed to build and operate hydroelectric power plants, particularly the northern waterfalls of the Skjálfandafljót and Jökulsá á Fjöllum rivers. Fund raising began, but there was opposition from people who objected to foreign involvement. In 1914 Einar Benediktsson was one of the founders of Fossafélagið Títan and three sister companies Sirius, Orion and Taurus, established to harness the power of the Þjórsá waterfalls.

His translations include English, and American poetry, and a masterpiece in rendering Henrik Ibsen's epic, Peer Gynt, into Icelandic. Einar Benediktsson was buried at Iceland's national shrine, Þingvellir. He has descendants living today in Iceland, other European countries, and the United States, most notably including former ambassador and namesake Einar Benediktsson (b. 1931).

He resided at Höfði house in northern Reykjavík for twelve years (1913-1925). Einar's statue, made in 1964 by Ásmundur Sveinsson, was moved in 2015 from park Miklatún and now stands near the house.

Works

 * 1897: Sögur og kvæði (Stories and poems)
 * 1901: Pétur Gautur, translation from Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt.
 * 1906: Hafblik, poems
 * 1913: Hrannir, poems
 * 1921: Vogar, poems
 * 1930: Hvammar, poems

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

title: Einar Benediktsson


text:
David Baltimore

David Baltimore (born March 7, 1938) is an American biologist, university administrator, and 1975 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine. He is a professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), where he served as president from 1997 to 2006. He founded the Whitehead Institute and directed it from 1982 to 1990. In 2008, he served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

At age 37, Baltimore won the Nobel Prize with Renato Dulbecco and Howard M. Temin "for their discoveries concerning the interaction between tumour viruses and the genetic material of the cell", specifically the discovery of the enzyme reverse transcriptase. He has contributed to immunology, virology, cancer research, biotechnology, and recombinant DNA research. He has also trained many doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows, several of whom have gone on to notable and distinguished research careers. In addition to the Nobel Prize, he has received a number of awards, including the U.S. National Medal of Science in 1999 and the Lasker Award in 2021.

Early life and education
Baltimore was born on March 7, 1938, in New York City to Gertrude (Lipschitz) and Richard Baltimore. Raised in the Queens neighborhoods of Forest Hills and Rego Park, he moved with his family to suburban Great Neck, New York, while he was in second grade because his mother felt that the city schools were inadequate. His father had been raised as an Orthodox Jew and his mother was an atheist, and Baltimore observed Jewish holidays and would attend synagogue with his father through his Bar Mitzvah. He graduated from Great Neck North High School in 1956, and credits his interest in biology to a high-school summer spent at the Jackson Laboratory's Summer Student Program in Bar Harbor, Maine. It was at this program that he met Howard Temin, with whom he would later share the Nobel Prize.

Baltimore earned his bachelor's degree with high honors at Swarthmore College in 1960. He was introduced to molecular biology by George Streisinger, under whose mentorship he worked for a summer at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as part of the inaugural cohort of the Undergraduate Research Program in 1959. There he also met two new MIT faculty, future Nobel Laureate Salvador Luria and Cyrus Levinthal, who were scouting for candidates for a new program of graduate education in molecular biology. They invited him to apply to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Baltimore's future promise was evident in his work as a graduate student when he entered MIT's graduate program in biology in 1960 with a brash and brilliant approach to learning science, completing his PhD thesis work in two years. His early interest in phage genetics quickly yielded to a passion for animal viruses. He took the Cold Spring Harbor course on animal virology in 1961 and he moved to Richard Franklin's (got his doctoral degree from Rockefeller Institute) lab at the Rockefeller Institute at New York City, which was one of the few labs pioneering molecular research on animal virology. There he made fundamental discoveries on virus replication and its effect on cell metabolism, including the first description of an RNA replicase.

Career and research
After his PhD, Baltimore returned to MIT for postdoctoral research with James Darnell in 1963. He continued his work on virus replication using poliovirus and pursued training in enzymology with Jerard Hurwitz at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1964/1965.

Independent investigator
In February 1965, Baltimore was recruited by Renato Dulbecco to the newly established Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla as an independent research associate. There he investigated poliovirus RNA replication and began a long and storied career of mentoring other scientists' early careers including Marc Girard, and Michael Jacobson. They discovered the mechanism of proteolytic cleavage of viral polyprotein precursors, pointing to the importance of proteolytic processing in the synthesis of eukaryotic proteins. He also met his future wife, Alice Huang, who began working with Baltimore at Salk in 1967. He and Alice together carried out key experiments on defective interfering particles and viral pseudo types. During this work, he made a key discovery that polio produced its viral proteins as a single large polyprotein that was subsequently processed into individual functional peptides.

Reverse transcriptase
In 1968, he was recruited once more by soon-to-be Nobel laureate Salvador Luria to the department of biology at MIT as an associate professor of microbiology. Alice S. Huang also moved to MIT to continue her research on vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). They became a couple, and married in October 1968. At MIT, Huang, Baltimore, and graduate student Martha Stampfer discovered that VSV replication involved an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase within the virus particle, and used a novel strategy to replicate its RNA genome. VSV entered a host cell as a single negative strand of RNA, but brought with it RNA polymerase to stimulate the processes of transcription and replication of more RNA.

Baltimore extended this work and examined two RNA tumor viruses, Rauscher murine leukemia virus and Rous sarcoma virus. He went on to discover reverse transcriptase (RTase or RT) – the enzyme that polymerizes DNA from an RNA template. In doing so, he discovered a distinct class of viruses, later called retroviruses, that use an RNA template to catalyze synthesis of viral DNA. This overturned the simplified version of the central dogma of molecular biology that stated that genetic information flows unidirectionally from DNA to RNA to proteins. Reverse transcriptase is essential for the reproduction of retroviruses, allowing such viruses to turn viral RNA strands into viral DNA strands. The viruses that fall into this category include HIV.

The discovery of reverse transcriptase, made contemporaneously with Howard Temin, who had proposed the provirus hypothesis, showed that genetic information could traffic bidirectionally between DNA and RNA. They published these findings in back-to-back papers in the journal Nature. This discovery made it easier to isolate and reproduce individual genes, and was heralded as evidence that molecular and virological approaches to understanding cancer would yield new cancer treatments. This may have influenced President Richard Nixon's War on Cancer which was launched in 1971 and substantially increased research funding for the disease. In 1972, at the age of 34, Baltimore was awarded tenure as a professor of biology at MIT, a post that he held until 1997.

Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA
Baltimore also helped Paul Berg and Maxine Singer to organize the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, held in February 1975. The conference discussed possible dangers of new biotechnology, drew up voluntary safety guidelines, and issued a call for an ongoing moratorium on certain types of experiments and review of possible experiments, which has been institutionalized by recombinant DNA advisory committees established at essentially all US academic institutions conducting molecular biology research. Baltimore was well aware of the importance of the changes occurring in the laboratory: "The whole Asilomar process opened up to the world that modern biology had new powers that you had never conceived of before."

MIT Cancer Center
In 1973, he was awarded an American Cancer Society Professor of Microbiology that provided substantial salary support. Also in 1973, he became one of the early faculty members in the newly organized MIT Center for Cancer (CCR), capping a creative and industrious period of his career with nearly fifty research publications including the paradigm-shifting paper on reverse transcriptase. The MIT CCR was led by Salvador E. Luria and quickly achieved pre-eminence with a group of faculty including Baltimore, Phillips Robbins, Herman Eisen, Philip Sharp, and Robert Weinberg, who all went on to illustrious research careers. Baltimore was honored as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1974. He returned to New York City in 1975, for a year-long sabbatical at Rockefeller University working with Jim Darnell.

Nobel Prize
In 1975, at the age of 37, he shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine with Howard Temin and Renato Dulbecco. The citation reads, "for their discoveries concerning the interaction between tumor viruses and the genetic material of the cell." At the time, Baltimore's greatest contribution to virology was his discovery of reverse transcriptase (Rtase or RT) which is essential for the reproduction of retroviruses such as HIV and was discovered independently, and at about the same time, by Satoshi Mizutani and Temin.

After winning the Nobel Prize, Baltimore reorganized his laboratory, refocusing on immunology and virology, with immunoglobulin gene expression as a major area of interest. He tackled new problems such as the pathogenesis of Abelson murine leukemia virus (AMuLV), lymphocyte differentiation and related topic in immunology. In 1980, his group isolated the oncogene in AMuLV and showed it was a member of a new class of protein kinases that used the amino acid tyrosine as a phosphoacceptor. This type of enzymatic activity was also discovered by Tony Hunter, who has done extensive work in the area. He also continued to pursue fundamental questions in RNA viruses and in 1981, Baltimore and Vincent Racaniello, a post-doctoral fellow in his laboratory, used recombinant DNA technology to generate a plasmid encoding the genome of poliovirus, an animal RNA virus. The plasmid DNA was introduced into cultured mammalian cells and infectious poliovirus was produced. The infectious clone, DNA encoding the genome of a virus, is a standard tool used today in virology.

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
In 1982, with a charitable donation by businessman and philanthropist Edwin C. "Jack" Whitehead, Baltimore was asked to help establish a self-governed research institute dedicated to basic biomedical research. Baltimore persuaded Whitehead that MIT would be the ideal home for the new institute, convinced that it would be superior at hiring the best researchers in biology at the time, thus ensuring quality. Persuading MIT faculty to support the idea was far more difficult. MIT as an institution had never housed another before, and concerns were raised that the wealth of the institute might skew the biology department in directions faculty did not wish to take, and that Baltimore himself would gain undue influence over hiring within the department. The controversy was made worse by an article published by the Boston Globe framing the institute as corporate takeover of MIT. After a year of intensive discussions and planning, faculty finally voted in favor of the institute. Whitehead, Baltimore, and the rest of the planning team devised a unique structure of an independent research institute composed of "members" with a close relationship with the department of biology of MIT. This structure continues to this day to attract an elite interactive group of faculty to the Department of Biology at MIT and has served as a model for other distinguished institutes such as the Broad Institute.

The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (WIBR) was launched with $35 million to construct and equip a new building located across the street from the MIT cancer center at 9 Cambridge Center in Cambridge Massachusetts. The institute also received $5 million per year in guaranteed income and a substantial endowment in his will (for a total gift of $135 million). Under Baltimore's leadership, a distinguished group of founding members including Gerald Fink, Rudolf Jaenisch, Harvey Lodish, and Robert Weinberg was assembled and eventually grew to 20 members in disciplines ranging from immunology, genetics, and oncology to fundamental developmental studies in mice and fruit flies. Whitehead Institute's contributions to bioscience have long been consistently outstanding. Less than a decade after its founding with continued leadership by Baltimore, the Whitehead Institute was named the top research institution in the world in molecular biology and genetics, and over a recent 10-year period, papers published by Whitehead scientists, including many from Baltimore's own lab, were the most cited papers of any biological research institute. The Whitehead Institute was an important partner in the Human Genome Project.

Baltimore served as director of the WIBR and expanded the faculty and research areas into key areas of research including mouse and drosophila genetics. During this time, Baltimore's own research program thrived in the new Institute. Important breakthroughs from Baltimore's lab include the discovery of the key transcription factor NF-κB by Dr. Ranjan Sen and David Baltimore in 1986. This was part of a broader investigation to identify nuclear factors required for lg gene expression in B lymphocytes. However, NF-κB turned out to have much broader importance in both innate and adaptive immunity and viral regulation. NF-κB is involved in regulating cellular responses and belongs to the category of "rapid-acting" primary transcription factors. Their discovery led to an "information explosion" involving "one of the most intensely studied signaling paradigms of the last two decades."

As early as 1984, Rudolf Grosschedl and David Weaver, postdoctoral fellows, in Baltimore's laboratory, were experimenting with the creation of transgenic mice as a model for the study of disease. They suggested that "control of lg gene rearrangement might be the only mechanism that determines the specificity of heavy chain gene expression within the lymphoid cell lineage." in 1987, they created transgenic mice with the fused gene that developed fatal leukemia.

David G. Schatz and Marjorie Oettinger, as students in Baltimore's research group in 1988 and 1989, identified the protein pair that rearranges immunoglobulin genes, the recombination-activating gene RAG-1 and RAG-2. this was a key discovery in determining how the immune system can have specificity for a given molecule out of many possibilities, and was considered by Baltimore as of 2005 to be "our most significant discovery in immunology".

In 1990, as a student in David Baltimore's laboratory at MIT, George Q. Daley demonstrated that a fusion protein called bcr-abl is sufficient to stimulate cell growth and cause chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This work helped to identify a class of proteins that become hyperactive in specific types of cancer cells. It helped to lay the groundwork for a new type of drug, attacking cancer at the genetic level: Brian Druker's development of the anti-cancer drug Imatinib (Gleevec), which deactivates bcr-abl proteins. Gleevec has shown impressive results in treating chronic myelogenous leukemia and also promise in treating gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

Rockefeller University
Baltimore served as the director of the Whitehead Institute until July 1, 1990, when he was appointed the sixth president of Rockefeller University in New York City. He moved his research group to New York in stages and continued to make creative contributions to virology and cellular regulation. He also began important reforms in fiscal and faculty management and promoted the status of junior faculty at the university. After resigning on December 3, 1991 (see Imanishi-Kari case), Baltimore remained on the Rockefeller University faculty and continued research until the spring of 1994. He was invited to return to MIT and rejoined the faculty as the Ivan R. Cottrell Professor of Molecular Biology and Immunology.

California Institute of Technology
On May 13, 1997, Baltimore was appointed president of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). He began serving in the office October 15, 1997 and was inaugurated March 9, 1998.

During Baltimore's tenure at Caltech, United States President Bill Clinton awarded Baltimore the National Medal of Science in 1999 for his numerous contributions to the scientific world. In 2004, Rockefeller University gave Baltimore its highest honor, Doctor of Science (honoris causa).

In 2003, as a postdoctoral fellow in David Baltimore's lab at Caltech, Matthew Porteus was the first to demonstrate precise gene editing in human cells using chimeric nucleases.

In October 2005, Baltimore resigned the office of the president of Caltech, saying, "This is not a decision that I have made easily, but I am convinced that the interests of the Institute will be best served by a presidential transition at this particular time in its history...". Former Georgia Tech Provost Jean-Lou Chameau succeeded Baltimore as president of Caltech. Baltimore was appointed President Emeritus and the Robert Andrews Milikan Professor of Biology at Caltech and remains an active member of the institute's community. On January 21, 2021, Caltech president Thomas F. Rosenbaum announced the removal of the name of Caltech's founding president and first Nobel laureate, Robert A. Millikan, from campus buildings, assets, and honors due to Millikan's substantial participation in the eugenics movement. Baltimore's title was changed to "Distinguished Professor of Biology."

Caltech Laboratory (1997–2019)
Baltimore's laboratory at Caltech focused on two major research areas: understanding the development and functioning of the mammalian immune system and translational studies creating viral vectors to make the immune system more effective in resisting cancer. Their basic studies went in two directions: understanding the diverse activity of the NF-κB transcription factor, and understanding the normal and pathologic functions of microRNA.

Translational Science Initiatives
A primary focus of Baltimore's lab was use of gene therapy methods to treat HIV and cancer. In the early 2000s one of Baltimore's graduate students, Lili Yang, developed a lentivirus vector that allowed for the cloning of genes for two chains of TCR. Recognizing its potentially profound implications for enhancing immunity, Baltimore developed a translational research initiative within his laboratory called "Engineering Immunity." The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the program with a Grand Challenge Grant, and he used the funding to divide the initiative into four research programs and hire additional lab staff to lead each one. Two of the research programs sparked gene therapy start-up companies, Calimmune and Immune Design Corp, founded in 2006 and 2008 respectively. A third program focused on the development of an HIV vaccine, and eventually lead to clinical trials at NIH. In 2009 Baltimore became director of the Joint Center for Translational Medicine, a shared initiative between Caltech and UCLA aimed at developing bench to bedside medicine.

MicroRNA Research
A focus of Baltimore's lab from his arrival at Caltech to the lab's closure in 2018 was understanding the role of microRNA in the immune system. MicroRNAs provide fine control over gene expression by regulating the amount of protein made by particular messenger RNAs. In recent research led by Jimmy Zhao, Baltimore's team has discovered a small RNA molecule called microRNA-146a (miR-146a) and bred a strain of mice that lacks miR146a. They have used the miR146a(-) mice as a model to study the effects of chronic inflammation on the activity of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Their results suggest that microRNA-146a protects HSCs during chronic inflammation, and that its lack may contribute to blood cancers and bone marrow failure.

Splicing Control Research
Another concentration within Baltimore's lab in recent years was control of inflammatory and immune responses, specifically splicing control of gene expression after inflammatory stimuli. In 2013 they discovered that ordered expression of genes following an inflammatory stimulus was controlled by splicing, not transcription as previously supposed. This led to further discoveries that delayed splicing was caused by introns, with the revelation that RNA-binding protein BUD13 acts at this intron to increase the amount of successful splicing (2 articles by Luke Frankiw published in 2019 and 2020).

In an autobiographical piece published in Annual Review Immunology in 2019, Baltimore announced that half of his lab space at Caltech would be taken over by a new assistant professor in Fall 2018, and his current lab group would be the last. "I have been involved in research for 60 years, and I think it is time to leave the field to younger people."

Public policy
In the span of his career, Baltimore has profoundly impacted national science policy debates, including the AIDS epidemic and recombinant DNA research. His efforts to organize the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA were key to creating consensus within scientific and policy spheres.

In recent years Baltimore has joined with other scientists to call for a worldwide moratorium on use of a new genome-editing technique to alter inheritable human DNA. A key step enabling researchers to slice up any DNA sequence they choose was developed by Emmanuelle Charpentier, then at Umea University in Sweden, and Jennifer A. Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley. Reminiscent of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA in 1975, those involved want both scientists and the public to be more aware of the ethical issues and risks involved with new techniques for genome modification.

An early spokesperson for federal funding for AIDS research, Baltimore co-chaired the 1986 National Academy of Sciences committee on a National Strategy for AIDS. In 1986, he and Sheldon M. Wolff were invited by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to coauthor an independent report: Confronting AIDS (1986), in which they called for a $1 billion research program for HIV/AIDS. As of 1996 he was appointed head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) AIDS Vaccine Research Committee (AVRC).

Biotechnology
Baltimore holds nearly 100 different biotechnology patents in the US and Europe, and has been preeminent in American biotechnology since the 1970s. In addition to Calimmune and Immune Design, he also helped found s2A Molecular, Inc. He has consulted at various companies including Collaborative Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, and most recently Virtualitics. He serves on the board of directors at several companies and non-profit institutions including Regulus Therapeutics and Appia Bio. He has also been a member of numerous Scientific Advisory Boards, and currently serves with PACT Pharma, Volastra Therapeutics, Vir Biotechnology, and the Center for Infectious Diseases Research at Westlake University. He is the principal scientific advisor for the Science Philanthropy Alliance.

Awards and legacy
Baltimore's honors include the 1970 Gustave Stern Award in Virology, 1971 Eli Lilly and Co. Award in Microbiology or Immunology, 1999 National Medal of Science, and 2000 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences USA (NAS) in1974; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1974; the NAS Institute of Medicine (IOM), 1974; the American Association of Immunologists, 1984; the American Philosophical Society, 1997. He was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 1987; the French Academy of Sciences, 2000; and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). He is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1978. In 2008, Baltimore was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

He has published over 700 peer-reviewed articles.

Baltimore is a member of the USA Science and Engineering Festival's Advisory Board and an Xconomist (an editorial advisor for the tech news and media company, Xconomy). Baltimore also serves on The Jackson Laboratory's board of trustees, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Board of Sponsors, Amgen, Inc.'s board of directors, and numerous other organizations and their boards.

In 2019 Caltech named a graduate fellowship program in biochemistry and molecular biophysics in honor of Baltimore. The program combined a $7.5 million gift from the Amgen Foundation with an existing one-year Amgen fellowship and $3.75 million given by Caltech's Gordon and Betty Moore Graduate Fellowship Match.

Imanishi-Kari case
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Thereza Imanishi-Kari, a scientist who was not in Baltimore's laboratory but in a separate, independent laboratory at MIT, was implicated in a case of scientific fraud. The case received extensive news coverage and a Congressional investigation. The case was linked to Baltimore's name because of his scientific collaboration with and later his strong defense of Imanishi-Kari against accusations of fraud.

In 1986, while a professor of biology at MIT and director at Whitehead, Baltimore co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with Thereza Imanishi-Kari (an assistant professor of biology who had her own laboratory at MIT) as well as four others. A postdoctoral fellow in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory, Margot O'Toole, who was not an author, reported concerns about the paper, ultimately accusing Imanishi-Kari of fabricating data in a cover-up. Baltimore, however, refused to retract the paper.

O'Toole soon dropped her challenge, but the NIH, which had funded the contested paper's research, began investigating, at the insistence of Walter W. Stewart, a self-appointed fraud buster, and Ned Feder, his lab head at the NIH. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) also aggressively pursued it, eventually calling in U.S. Secret Service (USSS; U.S. Treasury) document examiners.

Around October 1989, when Baltimore was appointed president of Rockefeller University, around a third of the faculty opposed his appointment because of concerns about his behaviour in the Imanishi-Kari case. He visited every laboratory, one by one, to hear those concerns directly from each group of researchers.

In a draft report dated March 14, 1991, based mainly on USSS forensics findings, NIH's fraud unit, then called the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), accused Imanishi-Kari of falsifying and fabricating data. It also criticized Baltimore for failing to embrace O'Toole's challenge. Less than a week later, the report was leaked to the press. Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper; however, Imanishi-Kari and Moema H. Reis did not sign the retraction. In the report, Baltimore stated that he may have been "too willing to accept" Imanishi-Kari's explanations and felt he "did too little to seek an independent verification of her data and conclusions." Baltimore publicly apologized for not taking a whistle-blower's charge more seriously.

Amid concerns raised by negative publicity in connection with the scandal, Baltimore resigned as president of Rockefeller University and rejoined the MIT Biology faculty.

In July 1992, the US Attorney for the District of Maryland, who had been investigating the case, announced he would not bring criminal or civil charges against Imanishi-Kari. In October 1994, however, OSI's successor, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; HHS) found Imanishi-Kari guilty on 19 counts of research misconduct, basing its conclusions largely on Secret Service analysis of laboratory notebooks, documents that these investigators had little experience or expert guidance in interpreting.

An HHS appeals panel began meeting in June 1995 to review all charges in detail. In June 1996, the panel ruled that the ORI had failed to prove any of its 19 charges. After throwing out much of the documentary evidence gathered by the ORI, the panel dismissed all charges against Imanishi-Kari. As their final report stated, the HHS panel "found that much of what ORI presented was irrelevant, had limited probative value, was internally inconsistent, lacked reliability or foundation, was not credible or not corroborated, or was based on unwarranted assumptions." It did conclude that "The Cell paper as a whole is rife with errors of all sorts ... [including] some which, despite all these years and layers of review, have never previously been pointed out or corrected. Responsibility ... must be shared by all participants." Neither OSI nor ORI ever accused Baltimore of research misconduct. The reputations of Stewart and Feder, who had pushed for the investigation, were badly damaged. The pair were reassigned to other positions at NIH because they failed to maintain productivity in their roles as scientists and questions were raised about the legitimacy of their self-appointed inquiries into scientific integrity.

The Imanishi-Kari controversy was one among several prominent scientific integrity cases of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States. In nearly all cases, defendants were ultimately cleared. The case profoundly impacted the process for handling of scientific misconduct in the United States. Baltimore has been both defended and criticized for his actions in this matter. In 1993, Yale University mathematician Serge Lang strongly criticized Baltimore's behavior. Historian of science Daniel Kevles, writing after the exoneration of Imanishi-Kari, recounted the affair in his 1998 book, The Baltimore Case. Horace Freeland Judson also gives a critical assessment of Baltimore's actions in The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science. Baltimore has also written his own analysis.

Luk van Parijs case
In 2005, at Baltimore's request, Caltech began investigating the work that Luk van Parijs had conducted while a postdoc in Baltimore's laboratory. Van Parijs first came under suspicion at MIT, for work done after he had left Baltimore's lab. After van Parijs had been fired by MIT, his doctoral supervisor also noted problems with work van Parijs did at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, before leaving Harvard to go to Baltimore's lab. The Caltech investigation concluded in March 2007. It found van Parijs alone committed research misconduct, and that four papers co-authored by Baltimore, van Parijs, and others required correction.

COVID-19 and lab-leak theory
In May 2021, Baltimore was quoted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in an article about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, saying, "When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2." This quote was widely shared and gave credence to the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak that has been discussed extensively as part of investigations into the origin of COVID-19.

A month later, Baltimore told the Los Angeles Times that he "should have softened the phrase 'smoking gun' because I don't believe that it proves the origin of the furin cleavage site but it does sound that way. I believe that the question of whether the sequence was put in naturally or by molecular manipulation is very hard to determine but I wouldn't rule out either origin."

Awards and honors

 * 1971 First recipient of the Gustav Stern Award in Virology
 * 1971 Warren Triennial Prize
 * 1971 Eli Lilly Award in Immunology and Microbiology
 * 1974 Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * 1974 NAS Award in Molecular Biology
 * 1974 Canada Gairdner International Award
 * 1975 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
 * 1983 EMBO Member
 * 1986 Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement
 * 1999 National Medal of Science
 * 2000 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize
 * 2021 Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science

Honorary degrees

 * 1976 Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
 * 1987 Mount Holyoke College, So. Hadley, MA
 * 1990 Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
 * 1990 Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY
 * 1990 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
 * 1998 Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
 * 1999 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
 * 1999 University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL
 * 2001 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
 * 2004 Columbia University, New York, NY
 * 2004 Yale University, New Haven, CT
 * 2004 The Rockefeller University, New York, NY
 * 2005 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
 * 2012 University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Personal life
Baltimore married Dr. Alice S. Huang in 1968. The couple has one daughter. Baltimore is an avid fly-fisher.

Books
Luria, S. E., J.E. Darnell, D. Baltimore and A. Campbell (1978) General Virology 3rd edition John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Darnell, J., H. Lodish and D. Baltimore (1986) Molecular Cell Biology, Scientific American, New York, New York.

title: David Baltimore


text:
Cyril Burt

Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt, FBA (3 March 1883 – 10 October 1971) was an English educational psychologist and geneticist who also made contributions to statistics. He is known for his studies on the heritability of IQ.

Shortly after he died, his studies of inheritance of intelligence were discredited after evidence emerged indicating he had falsified research data, inventing correlations in separated twins which did not exist, alongside other fabrications.

Childhood and education
Burt was born on 3 March 1883, the first child of Cyril Cecil Barrow Burt (b. 1857), a medical practitioner, and his wife, Martha Decina Evans. He was born in London (some sources give his place of birth as Stratford-upon-Avon, probably because his entry in Who's Who gave his father's address as Snitterfield, Stratford; in fact the Burt family moved to Snitterfield when he was ten).

Burt's father initially kept a chemist shop to support his family while he studied medicine. On qualifying, he became the assistant house surgeon and obstetrical assistant at Westminster Hospital, London. The younger Cyril Burt's education began in London at a Board school near St James's Park.

In 1890, the family briefly moved to Jersey then to Snitterfield, Warwickshire, in 1893, where Burt's father opened a rural practice. Early in Burt's life he showed a precocious nature, so much so that his father often took the young Burt with him on his medical rounds.

One of the elder Burt's more famous patients was Darwin Galton, brother of Francis Galton. The visits the Burts made to the Galton estate not only allowed the young Burt to learn about the work of Francis Galton, but also allowed Burt to meet him on multiple occasions and to be strongly drawn to his ideas; especially his studies in statistics and individual differences, two defining characters of the London School of Psychology whose membership includes both Galton and Burt.

He attended King's (now known as Warwick) School, in the county town, from 1892 to 1895, and later won a scholarship to Christ's Hospital, then located in London, where he developed his interest in psychology.

From 1902, he attended Jesus College, Oxford, where he studied Classics and took an interest in philosophy and psychology, the latter under William McDougall. McDougall, knowing Burt's interest in Galton's work, taught him the elements of psychometrics, thus helping Burt with his first steps in the development and structure of mental tests, an interest that would last the rest of his life. Burt was one of a group of students who worked with McDougall, which included William Brown, John Flügel, and May Smith, who all went on to have distinguished careers in psychology.

Burt graduated with second-class honours in Literae Humaniores (Classics) in 1906, taking a special paper in psychology in his Final Examinations. He subsequently supplemented his BA with a teaching diploma.

In 1907, McDougall invited Burt to help with a nationwide survey of physical and mental characteristics of the British people, proposed by Francis Galton, in which he was to work on the standardization of psychological tests. This work brought Burt into contact with eugenics, Charles Spearman, and Karl Pearson.

In the summer of 1908, Burt visited the University of Würzburg, Germany, where he first met the psychologist Oswald Külpe.

Work in educational psychology

In 1908, Burt took up the post of Lecturer in Psychology and Assistant Lecturer in Physiology at Liverpool University, where he was to work under the famed physiologist Sir Charles Sherrington. In 1909 Burt made use of Charles Spearman's model of general intelligence to analyse his data on the performance of schoolchildren in a battery of tests. This first research project was to define Burt's life's work in quantitative intelligence testing, eugenics, and the inheritance of intelligence. One of the conclusions in his 1909 paper was that upper-class children in private preparatory schools did better in the tests than those in the ordinary elementary schools, and that the difference was innate.

In 1913, Burt took the part-time position of a school psychologist for the London County Council (LCC), with the responsibility of picking out the "feeble-minded" children, in accordance with the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913. He notably established that girls were equal to boys in general intelligence. The post also allowed him to work in Spearman's laboratory, and receive research assistants from the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, including Winifred Raphael.

Burt was much involved in the initiation of child guidance in Great Britain and his 1925 publication The Young Delinquent led to opening of the London Child Guidance Clinic in Islington in 1927. In 1924 Burt was also appointed part-time professor of educational psychology at the London Day Training College (LDTC), and carried out much of his child guidance work on the premises.

Later career
In 1931 Burt resigned his position at the LCC and the LDTC after he was appointed professor and Chair of Psychology at University College London, taking over the position from Charles Spearman, thus ending his almost 20-year career as a school psychological practitioner. One of his students, Reuben Conrad, recalled that he once arrived at the university with a chimpanzee that he had borrowed from London Zoo, though Conrad could not recall what point Burt was trying to make. While at London, Burt influenced many students, including Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck, and toward the end of his life, Arthur Jensen and Chris Brand. Burt was a consultant with the committees that developed the 11-plus examinations. This issue, and the allegations of fraudulent scholarship against him, are discussed in various books and articles listed below, including Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed and The Mismeasure of Man.

Despite his lasting reputation as a statistical psychologist Cyril Burt was also involved in psychoanalysis. He was a member of the Tavistock Clinic Council in the early 1930s and of the British Psychoanalytical Society. In The Young Delinquent, he expressed the view that "nearly every tragedy of crime is in its origin a drama of domestic life."

In 1942 Burt was elected president of the British Psychological Society. In 1946 he became the first British psychologist to be knighted for his contributions to psychological testing and for making educational opportunities more widely available, according to an account by J. Philippe Rushton. Burt was a member of the London School of Differential Psychology, and of the British Eugenics Society. Because he had suggested on radio in 1946 the formation of an organization for people with high IQ scores, he was made honorary president of Mensa in 1960. He officially joined Mensa soon thereafter.

Burt retired in 1951 at the age of 68, but continued writing articles and books. He died of cancer at age 88 in London on 10 October 1971.

Scientific misconduct
Burt published numerous articles and books on a host of topics ranging from psychometrics through philosophy of science to parapsychology. It is his research in behaviour genetics, most notably in studying the heritability of intelligence (as measured in IQ tests) using twin studies, that has created the most controversy, frequently referred to as "the Burt Affair."

Shortly after Burt died it became known that all of his notes and records had been burnt, and he was accused of falsifying research data. From the late 1970s, it has been generally accepted that "he had fabricated some of the data, though some of his earlier work remained unaffected by this revelation." This was due in large part to research by Oliver Gillie (1976) and Leon Kamin (1974).

The 2007 Encyclopædia Britannica noted it is widely acknowledged that his later work was flawed and many academics agree that data were falsified, though his earlier work is generally accepted as valid.

The possibility of fabrication was first brought to the attention of the scientific community when Kamin noticed that Burt's correlation coefficients of monozygotic and dizygotic twins' IQ scores were the same to three decimal places, across articles – even when new data were twice added to the sample of twins. Leslie Hearnshaw, a close friend of Burt and his official biographer, concluded after examining the criticisms that most of Burt's data from after World War II were unreliable or fraudulent. William H. Tucker argued in a 1997 article that: "A comparison of his twin sample with that from other well documented studies, however, leaves little doubt that he committed fraud."

Two other psychologists Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, themselves involved in controversy for their views on race, have claimed that the contentious correlations reported by Burt are in line with the correlations found in other twin studies.

Rushton (1997) wrote that five different studies on twins reared apart by independent researchers corroborated Cyril Burt's findings and had given almost the same heritability estimate (average estimate 0.75 vs. 0.77 by Burt). Jensen argued that "[n]o one with any statistical sophistication, and Burt had plenty, would report exactly the same correlation, 0.77, three times in succession if he were trying to fake the data." Burt's statistical sophistication was, however, called into question by his student Charlotte Banks, who in a foreword to Burt's last book, published posthumously, wrote that he combined samples gathered from schoolchildren in different earlier years in his later papers without comment. A paper Burt published in 1943, Burt states an average IQ of 153.2 for the parents in the higher professional or administrative classes, at a time when there were no standardised IQ tests for adults in the upper ranges of IQ. In 1961, Burt revised this figure to 139.7 and, in other papers, noted that he had arrived at such figures by "assessment", or guesswork, rather than testing.

According to Earl B. Hunt, it may never be found out whether Burt was intentionally fraudulent or merely careless. Noting that other studies on the heritability of IQ have produced results very similar to those of Burt's, Hunt argues that Burt did not harm science in the narrow sense of misleading scientists with false results, but that in the broader sense science in general and behaviour genetics in particular were profoundly harmed by the Burt Affair, leading to a general rejection of genetic studies of intelligence and a drying up of funding for such studies.

Gillie's 1976 article in The Sunday Times, reprinted in The Phi Delta Kappan in 1977, summarised attempts to trace two of Burt's supposed collaborators, Margaret Howard and J. Conway. Publications attributed to these two were published in a journal edited by Burt between 1952 and 1959, including a joint paper of Burt and Howard, remarkable as one of the few, if not the only, research paper not authored solely by Burt. The papers in the names of Howard or Conway were published after Burt's retirement from University College although their affiliations were said to be with University College, Howard's specifically with its Psychology Department. No-one with these names was registered as a member of staff or student at University College between 1914 and 1976, or in any other institution within the University of London, and its Psychology Department could not trace either of them. Between 1952 and 1959, Burt lived in London and had two associates, Charlotte Banks and Gertrude Keir, neither of who ever met Howard or Conway. Although they suggested to Gillie that Burt may have corresponded with the two, there was no trace of any such correspondence in Burt's papers. Burt's housekeeper from 1950 recalled to Gillie that she had questioned Burt on why he had written papers in the names of Howard and Conway; his response was that they had done the research and should be credited. He explained their absence and lack of contact by adding that both had emigrated and he had lost their addresses. Based on his investigation, Gillie considered it likely that neither Howard nor Conway existed, but were a fantasy of the ageing Burt himself.

Arthur Jensen was given the opportunity to respond to Gillie's article in the same issue of the same journal, and described the claims as libellous, without evidence and driven by opposition to Burt's theories. However, he does not address the central issue, that Burt wrote scientific papers and published them as editor of a journal under false names and without the consent of the supposed authors.

In response to articles by Fletcher, claiming that his biography of Burt and attacks by others were motivated by ideological or political malice, Hernshaw added to Gillie's claims by stating that Burt's detailed records of visitors contained no records of visits by Howard or Conway in the years they were supposed to have collaborated with him on collecting and testing 32 pairs of separated monozygotic twins, that his papers contained no correspondence with or written material from them, and that no one close to Burt had met them. He added that testing separated twins was expensive: Burt had no research funds to pay research workers and his own finances were too stretched to pay for it himself. Further, he instanced two other example of what he terms Burt's deviousness ignored by Fletcher. The first was Burt's falsification of the early history of factorial analysis and his untruthful claim to have been the first to use that technique. The second was that Burt could not have obtained the results on the declining levels of scholastic attainments in the 1950s and 1960s that he claimed to have. Finally, Hernshaw claimed that Burt's failings in his years of retirement went far beyond carelessness.

In his 1991 book, Fletcher questioned Gillie's claim of the lack of independent articles published by Howard or Conway in scientific journals other than the Journal of Statistical Psychology edited by Burt, claiming Howard was also said to be mentioned in the membership list of the British Psychological Society, John Cohen was said to have remembered her well during the 1930s, and Donald MacRae had personally received an article from her in 1949 and 1950. According to Ronald Fletcher, there is documentary evidence of the existence of Conway. Other writers have suggested that Howard and Conway may have existed, but that Burt had simply used their names to support his research, as he had been shown to have done with another named so-called researcher.

Robert Joynson (in 1989) and Ronald Fletcher (in 1991) published books in support of Burt. However Joynson accepted that Burt frequently used assumed names to publish (in the journal Burt edited, the Journal of Statistical Psychology) papers that Burt had written himself: the names he used included those of Howard and Conway. Burt's defenders have claimed that everyone knew that, after his retirement, Burt's data was flawed and that he published articles under pseudonyms, adding that the British Psychological Society could have stopped this if it had violated accepted ethical norms of the time. However, although it is clear that some individual members of the British Psychological Society were aware of Burt's questionable conduct, the reason why he was not censured were as likely to be that it would have been in bad taste to call such a great man to public account, a fault of a profession and its members that could tolerate at the time, and apologise later, for Burt's behaviour.

Nicholas Mackintosh edited Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed?, which was presented by the publisher as arguing that "his defenders have sometimes, but by no means always, been correct, and that his critics have often jumped to hasty conclusions. In their haste, however, these critics have missed crucial evidence that is not easily reconciled with Burt's total innocence, leaving the perception that both the defence and prosecution cases are seriously flawed." W. D. Hamilton claimed in a 2000 book review shortly before Hamilton's death that the claims made by his detractors in the so-called "Burt Affair" had been either wrong or grossly exaggerated.

However, Mackintosh himself, then emeritus professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge, summed up the evidence against Burt in 1995, saying that the data Burt presented were "so woefully inadequate and riddled with error", that consequently "no reliance (could) be placed on the numbers he present(ed)", and went on to confirm his agreement with Kamin's original conclusion, that Burt had fabricated his data.

Biographies

 * Valentine, Charles (1965). "Cyril Burt: A Biographical Sketch and Appreciation." In C. Banks, & P. L. Broadhurst (eds), Stephanos: Studies in Psychology Present to Cyril Burt (pp. 11–20). London: University of London.
 * Hearnshaw, L.S. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Also published London: Hodder and Stoughton.
 * (1983) "Sir Cyril Burt". AEP (Association of Educational Psychologists) Journal, 6 (1) [Special issue].
 * Fancher, R.E. (1985) The Intelligence Men: Makers of the I.Q. Controversy. New York: Norton.
 * Scarr, S. (1994). "Burt, Cyril L.", in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 231–234). New York: Macmillan.
 * Scarr, S. (1994). "Burt, Cyril L.", in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 231–234). New York: Macmillan.

Books by Burt

 * Burt, C.L. (1917). The Distribution and Relations of Educational Abilities. London: The Campfield Press.
 * Burt, C.L. (1921). Mental and Scholastic Tests. London: P. S. King. Republished and revised (4th ed.). London: Staples (1962).
 * Burt, C.L. (1923). Handbook of Tests for Use in Schools. London: P. S. King. Republished (2nd ed.) London: Staples (1948).
 * Burt, C.L. (1925). The Young Delinquent. London: University of London Press. Republished and revised (3rd ed.) London: University of London Press (1938); (4th ed.) Bickley: University of London Press (1944).
 * Burt, C.L. (1930). The Study of the Mind. London: BBC.
 * Burt, C.L. (1934). How the Mind Works. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company. Republished London: Allen & Unwin (1945).
 * Burt, C.L. (1935). The Subnormal Mind. London: Oxford University Press. Republished London: Oxford University Press (1937).
 * Burt, C.L. (1937). The Backward Child. London: University of London Press. Republished (5th ed.) London: University of London Press (1961).
 * Burt, C.L. (1940). The Factors of the Mind: An Introduction to Factor Analysis in Psychology. London: University of London Press.
 * Burt, C.L. (1946). Intelligence and Fertility. London.
 * Burt, C.L. (1957). The Causes and Treatments of Backwardness (4th ed.). London: University of London Press.
 * Burt, C.L. (1959). A Psychological Study of Typography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). Psychology and Psychical Research: the Seventeenth Frederic W. H. Myers Memorial Lecture, The Society for Psychical Research.
 * Burt, C.L. (1975). The Gifted Child. New York: Wiley and London: Hodder and Stoughton
 * Burt, C.L. (1975). ESP and Psychology. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Edited by Anita Gregory.

Articles by Burt

 * Burt, C. L. (1951). "General Psychology". In Dingle, Herbert (ed.), A Century of Science (pp. 272–286). Hutchinson's Scientific And Technical Publications.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C. L. (1951). "General Psychology". In Dingle, Herbert (ed.), A Century of Science (pp. 272–286). Hutchinson's Scientific And Technical Publications.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C. L. (1951). "General Psychology". In Dingle, Herbert (ed.), A Century of Science (pp. 272–286). Hutchinson's Scientific And Technical Publications.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C. L. (1951). "General Psychology". In Dingle, Herbert (ed.), A Century of Science (pp. 272–286). Hutchinson's Scientific And Technical Publications.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.
 * Burt, C.L. (1968). "An Illustration of Factor Analysis". In Butcher, Harold J. Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (pp. 66–71). London: Methuen.

Readings on the Burt Affair

 * Blinkhorn, S. F. (1995). "Burt and the Early History of Factor Analysis", in N.J. Mackintosh, Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed?, Oxford University Press.
 * Brace, C. Loring (2005). "Sir Cyril Burt: Scientific Fraud", in Race is a Four Lettered Word, the Genesis of the Concept, Oxford University Press.
 * Fletcher, Ronald (1991). Science, Ideology, and the Media. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
 * Gould, S. J. (1996). "The Real Error of Cyril Burt Factor Analysis and the Reification of Intelligence," in The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton & Company.
 * Joynson, R.B. (1989). The Burt Affair. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01039-X.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Fletcher, Ronald (1991). Science, Ideology, and the Media. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
 * Gould, S. J. (1996). "The Real Error of Cyril Burt Factor Analysis and the Reification of Intelligence," in The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton & Company.
 * Joynson, R.B. (1989). The Burt Affair. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01039-X.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Joynson, R.B. (1989). The Burt Affair. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01039-X.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Woolridge, Adrian (1994). Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England, c.1860-c.1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

title: Cyril Burt


text:
Noggin the Nog

Noggin the Nog is a fictional character appearing in a BBC Television series (of the same name, originally broadcast 1959–1965 and 1982) and a series of illustrated books (published 1965–1977), created by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin. The television series is considered a cult classic from the golden age of British children's television. Noggin himself is the simple, kind and unassuming "King of the Northmen" in a roughly Viking Age setting, with various fantastic elements such as dragons, flying machines and talking birds.

Peter Firmin is said to have come up with the name of Noggin after travelling on the London Underground and seeing Neasden tube station, which made him think "Noggin".

Some of the original artwork for the series is on display at the Rupert Bear Museum in Canterbury. The appearance of the characters was influenced by that of the Lewis chessmen in the British Museum.

Plot and characters
The stories were based around the central character of Noggin, the rather simple but good-natured son of Knut, King of the Nogs, and his queen Grunhilda. When King Knut dies, Noggin must find a queen to rule beside him or else forfeit the crown to his uncle, Nogbad the Bad. Noggin meets and marries Nooka of the Nooks (an Inuit princess), and becomes the new king. Noggin and Nooka have a son, Knut, who comes to the fore in later storylines. Other regular characters include:

 * Thor Nogson - Noggin's closest friend and Captain of the Royal Guard. As the "Hero of a Thousand Battles" Thor Nogson portrays himself as "fierce", but is actually anything but fierce, and is a little lazy. But he is unfailingly loyal, and never hesitates to defend the honour of his king.
 * Olaf the Lofty - an eccentric and occasionally arrogant, but well-meaning, inventor. Olaf's inventions rarely work out exactly as he intends them to, although his most notable success is the Flying Machine.
 * Graculus - a big green bird who arrives as Nooka's messenger in the first episode. Later by chance they return to the place of his birth and meet his family, who unlike him are incapable of human speech.
 * Grolliffe - a friendly ice dragon whom Noggin befriends, and who helps Noggin and his friends in a later episode.

Although the individual stories vary, any trouble encountered by the heroes is usually caused by Nogbad the Bad, who never gives up trying to claim Noggin's throne for himself. Nogbad always loses in the end, though not always through the intervention of Noggin himself.

Television series
The original television series was first broadcast, beginning on 11 September 1959, by the BBC in the United Kingdom, and continued until 1965. Production company Smallfilms made 21 programmes in black and white, and six in colour, each with a running time of 10 minutes.

When the programme made a comeback in 1982 it ran for just six episodes and was made in colour. The new series comprised one new two-part story and a colour remake of the second saga, originally a six-parter, "Noggin and the Ice Dragon". The level of stop-motion animation was basic, but did not detract from the popularity of the series.

The on-screen title is "The Saga of Noggin the Nog", since the stories were based on the principle of a Norse saga, and episodes began with the words, "Listen to me and I will tell you the story of Noggin the Nog, as it was told in the days of old", or "In the lands of the North, where the Black Rocks stand guard against the cold sea, in the dark night that is very long, the Men of the Northlands sit by their great log fires and they tell a tale ... and those tales they tell are the stories of a kind and wise king and his people; they are the Sagas of Noggin the Nog. Welcome to Northlands, a tribute to Noggin, King of the Nogs and the People of the Northlands". These opening lines were accompanied by Vernon Elliott's bassoon score.

Visually, the series was primarily inspired by the Lewis chessmen (of Norse origin); one of the stories is about Noggin playing chess with Nogbad the Bad.

A new series was rumoured in the late 1990s, but nothing came of it.

The complete series was released on DVD in 2005, in a package that also included DVD versions of the short story books.

Television sagas

 * 1) "The Saga of Noggin the Nog" (a.k.a. "The King of the Nogs") (6 episodes) (b/w)
 * 2) "The King"
 * 3) "The Ship"
 * 4) "The Journey"
 * 5) "The Island"
 * 6) "Nogbad the Bad"
 * 7) "The King of the Nogs"
 * 8) "The Ice Dragon" (6 episodes) (b/w)
 * 9) "The Little Man"
 * 10) "The Journey"
 * 11) "The Hot Water Valley"
 * 12) "The Dragon"
 * 13) "The Treasure"
 * 14) "Nogbad the Bad"
 * 15) "The Flying Machine" (3 episodes) (b/w)
 * 16) "The Jar"
 * 17) "The Birds"
 * 18) "The City"
 * 19) "The Omruds" (3 episodes) (b/w)
 * 20) "The Great Invention"
 * 21) "Under the Hill"
 * 22) "The Challenge"
 * 23) "The Firecake" (3 episodes) (b/w)
 * 24) "The Crown of Flowers"
 * 25) "The Dream"
 * 26) "The Sorcerer's Sword"
 * 27) "Noggin and the Ice Dragon" (4 episodes) (colour) (remake of 2nd saga)
 * 28) "Noggin and the Pie" (2 episodes) (colour) (based on the book published in 1971)

Narrated by Oliver Postgate.

Character voices by Oliver Postgate and Ronnie Stevens.

Stories by Oliver Postgate, Pictures by Peter Firmin.

Music by Vernon Elliott.

Books
Various Noggin short stories were also published, and a visitor in one of them, Noggin and the Moon Mouse, provided the basis for the characters in the popular Clangers TV series. All the books were written by Oliver Postgate, illustrated in full colour by Peter Firmin, and published by Kaye & Ward.

Edmund Ward Starting to Read books:
 * 1) "Noggin The King" (1965)
 * 2) "Noggin and The Whale" (1965)
 * 3) "Noggin and The Dragon" (1966)
 * 4) "Nogbad Comes Back!" (1966)
 * 5) "Noggin and The Moon Mouse" (1967)
 * 6) "Nogbad and The Elephants" (1967)
 * 7) "Noggin and The Money" (1973)
 * 8) "Noggin and The Storks" (1973)

There was also a standard book series published in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of 12 illustrated hardback books:

 * 1) "King of the Nogs" (1968)
 * 2) "The Ice Dragon" (1968)
 * 3) "The Flying Machine" (1968)
 * 4) "The Omruds" (1968)
 * 5) "The Island" (1969)
 * 6) "The Firecake" (1969)
 * 7) "The Pie" (1971)
 * 8) "The Flowers" (1971)
 * 9) "The Game" (1972)
 * 10) "The Monster" (1972)
 * 11) "The Black-Wash" (1975)
 * 12) "The Icebergs" (1975)

A large book about Nog's life, illustrated in black and white, was also published:

 * "Nogmania" (1977) (reprinted by The Dragon's Friendly Society in 2000)

Two omnibus books were published to tie in with the colour TV series:

 * 1) "Three Tales of Noggin Volume 1" (1981) ("Noggin the King" / "Noggin and The Whale" / "Noggin and the Moon Mouse")
 * 2) "Three Tales of Noggin Volume 2" (1981) ("Noggin and the Dragon" / "Nogbad and the Elephant" / "Noggin and the Storks")

In 1992, a fully illustrated 96-page colour book, The Sagas of Noggin the Nog, was published by HarperCollins. This volume contains four tales: "King of the Nogs", "The Ice Dragon", "The Flying Machine", and "The Omruds".

Theatre
In 1971, the Birmingham Repertory Theatre produced a stage version: ''Noggin the Nog. - The Rings of Nudrug'', with an Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin script. The show was designed by Firmin and included six Postgate songs, with music by Norman Dannatt. Directed by Michael Simpson, it premiered on 23 December and ran for 27 performances until 15 January 1972. Noggin was played by Piers Rogers, with Jane Sandbrook as Nooka, Paul Chapman as Nogbad and Stuart Knee as Prince Knut. A programme produced to accompany the production included this explanatory note:

"The tale of The Rings of Nudrug is a hitherto unknown story. It tells how Noggin’s son, Prince Knut celebrates his birthday by taking a long and mainly unintentional journey. It tells how the Rings of the Black Sorcerer of Nudrug were brought together again, how the King of the trolls is transformed and how at last the evil power of the rings is broken".

A message to "learned Nogophilists" in the programme pointed out that there were certain discrepancies between the tale presented on stage and that seen on TV, but explained that this was a function of the frequent reinvention of mythical tales. Graculus was absent, and credit for the flying machine was here given to Olaf the Lofty. In fact, this machine was previously stated to have been invented before the birth of Prince Knut, who was seen as a youth in the stage version.

VHS and DVD releases
Between 4 June 1990 and 5 August 1991, two Noggin the Nog videos were released by the BBC.

 * The Saga of Noggin the Nog: Tales of the Northlands (BBCV 4359). Released: 4 June 1990. Two series:
 * "Noggin and the Ice Dragon" (colour)
 * "Noggin and The Flying Machine" (black and white)
 * The Saga of Noggin the Nog: The Omruds/The Firecake' (BBCV 4651). Released: 5 August 1991. Two series:
 * "Noggin and the Omruds" (black and white)
 * "Noggin and the Firecake" (black and white)

Recognition
Noggin has received an accolade achieved by very few Norse characters – he appeared with the Ice Dragon reading him a note from Nogbad, on a British commemorative postage stamp (SG1804) in January 1994. The art work for the stamp was drawn by Peter Firmin, who also produced a series of illustrations for the advertising campaign to publicise the new stamps. The stamp was one of a set of ten on the theme of "messages", featuring characters from British children's literature. All the characters were pictured holding a letter, note or message. Noggin's note reads: "I, Nogbad 'the Bad' do hereby promise to be 'the Good'".

title: Noggin the Nog


text:
Talk:List of towns and cities in Norway

Svalbard
Should cities of Svalbard be here or there?

 * "There". It should include both Russian and Norwegian settlements and a place like Pyramiden (an abandoned Russian settlement) should not be on a list of Norwegian cities. The title "List of cities in Svalbard" should also be changed to something like "List of settlements on Svalbard" (if that makes sense to the English speaking readers). Also see my comment on Svalbard an Jan Mayen status on Talk:Norway. -- Gustavf Tue Jan 28 15:14:26 CET 2003

Bjørnøya is not a town, surely. Also, I don't think it is part of Svalbard, so it is even more misleading. Since this is a list of cities, none of the Svalbard places qualify anyway -- Egil

Bjørnøya is definetely a settlement, and in fact (even though it is far from Spitsbergen) it _is_ a part of Svalbard islands. About cities and settlements, I can agree with you, but they were in the list, I just refined the list according to a prior comment, and the facts that some settlements were missing. As was (I later recalled) Advent City (Adventsbyen) (abandoned). -- Chrmb

 * OK. Made a new list, list of settlements in Svalbard. None of the settlements would qualify as a "city", anyway. Egil 13:16 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Map
I would find it really useful if this page had a map with all the cities marked on them. Would this be possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs).
 * I included a map where at least some of the cities are shown. Punkmorten 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge
See Cities of Norway - the content (cities ordered by population) should, I think, be merged into this article. Thanks/wangi 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Just be bold and do it. Remember to consult What links here and fix any issues. -- Egil 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * After 5 months without any action, I decided to be bold myself. I did not conduct the merge, but I did rewrite and move Cities of Norway. Reason: Cities of Norway did not deal with cities, but urban areas. Everything should be ok now. Punkmorten 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Future towns?
This is original research, so it's not going in the article. But these are places that might seek town status in the future:

 * Nesoddtangen, Nesodden (pop. 11,083)
 * Fetsund, Fet (pop. 6,579)
 * Jessheim, Ullensaker (pop. 13,038)
 * Kløfta, Ullensaker (pop. 6,101)
 * Eidsvoll, Eidsvoll (pop. 3,456, pop. municipality 18,338)
 * Brumunddal, Ringsaker (pop. 8,704)
 * Raufoss, Vestre Toten (pop. 6,096)
 * Søgne, Søgne (pop. 7,650)
 * Ålgård, Gjesdal (pop. municipality 9,248)
 * Vossevangen, Voss (pop. 5,621)
 * Norheimsund, Kvam (pop. 2,087, pop. municipality 8,389)
 * Osøyro, Os (pop. 8,032)
 * Kleppestø, Askøy (pop. municipality 21,522)
 * Knarvik, Lindås (pop. 4,455, pop. municipality 12,879)
 * Straume, Fjell (pop. municipality 19,613)
 * Volda, Volda (pop. 5,406)
 * Ørsta, Ørsta (pop. 6,427)
 * Sunndalsøra, Sunndal (pop. 4,140, pop. municipality 7,409)
 * Orkanger, Orkdal (pop. municipality 10,448)
 * Melhus, Melhus (pop. 4,835, pop. municipality 13,782)

This is just my speculation. Punkmorten 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Brumunndal and Moelv will get town status, probably on 1 January 2010. Punkmorten (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities without 0 as third digit
What on earth is that supposed to mean? - Oreo Priest  00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is described in the text body. Punkmorten 09:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It is, and from what I can ascertain this today has no bearing on the city status of any given community. Therefore I propose we de-emphasize this item, particularly dissolve the partition into two different tables based on this archaic measure. Instead, I suggest we point out cities with less than 5,000 inhabitants. Perhaps we should call these towns and the rest cities? __meco (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * For the category tree, anyway, they are now grouped as "cities and towns". Punkmorten (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems somebody is preempting a slow-moving, but in my view necessary, consensus-building discourse on this subject. Please see
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway/Archive 3.
 * Category talk:Cities in Norway
 * Categories for discussion/Unincorporated cities in Norway
 * Categories for discussion/Cities in Norway
 * __meco (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

City?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved, as there seems to be no reason why not. I will caution editors to be careful about strictly applying Norwegian categories to the English language; just because a word is always translated in a certain way does not mean that it would sound natural to an average native speaker of English. -- Aervanath (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of places listed in this article don't really deserve being named "city", but should be listed as towns. There are few cities in Norway, in terms of the Norwegian word "storby" (lit. largetown), those being Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim and perhaps Tromsø (the latter not by size, but by culture and influence). Naming Hammerfest or Kongsvinger (my home town) a city is bizarre at the best if not utterly stupid. Since it's a rather large change, I have chosen not to change this article in to a list of towns before we have had a discussion about it, but it certainly should be done. Rkarlsba (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * If this article List of cities in Norway is to be List of towns and cities in Norway, it should be moved there, not copied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see - sorry about that. See the added population column - it's not, as I see it, really good to name this page a "list of cities", as most of the places are far too small to be named a city. Rkarlsba (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your intent for List of cities/towns in Norway by population? Why is that named "cities/towns" instead of "towns and cities"?  What about villages?    — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Towns and cities is probably better, yes. I think there's a separate page for the villages Rkarlsba (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest a more-encompassing "inhabited places" or perhaps "municipalities".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think list of municipalities is good, but perhaps also a list of villages, towns and cities would be good. What do you think? Rkarlsba (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "municipality" is used to translate "kommune". Sometimes the main town (kommunesenter) in a municipality (kommune) has the same name as the municipality, sometimes it does not. In a few cases, towns have grown into neighbouring municipalities. As to villages, what are the criteria for inclusion? They could easily drown out the more important places. The classifications used in Norway seems to be somewhat different from the city-town-village system used here. Places that are grouped together as villages here, are treated differently on the Norwegian wikipedia. Ters (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Norwegian towns/cities are not just "big" settlements; they have an actual town status that sets them apart from smaller settlements (usually known as "tettsted" in Norwegian, which is a confusing term because it is also SSB's translation of "urban area"). Somehow merging this list with a list of "villages" would for this reason be wrong: they wouldn't be equivalent because this is not just a "list of big settlements". --Aqwis (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between "towns" and "cities" in Norway and trying to decide which settlements are "cities" and which are "towns" is original research. Do note that many small places, for various reasons, are called "city" in the US and other countries, which shows that our "having to" call the smaller settlements "towns" is incorrect. --Aqwis (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In English, there's a distinct difference between town and city, and since this article is written in English, a town of 5000 inhabitants should not be listed as a city. Rkarlsba (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I demonstrated with my example from the US, this is blatantly incorrect. The distinction between "town" and "city" varies from country to country and (US) state to state, and cannot be applied to Norway. Yes, "cities" are generally relatively large while "towns" are relatively small, although this rule has many exceptions, but then you have to set a limit somewhere between "big" and "small" settlements which, without a reliable source that defines such a limit, requires original research. --Aqwis (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improvement suggestions
Boeing720 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) There are too many pictures for a list, and since the list contains unnecessary posts (like municipality in a list of cities and towns, where almost 100% have the same name) many users just can see a lot of pictures to the right and blank white space to the left. This could be solved by reducing the number of posts columns. (And make a gallery of most pictures, if all pictures really are necessary)
 * 2) The figures appear to show inhabitants of the (often very large) municipalities, rather than inhabitants of the town or city.
 * 3) Is the year 1996 "magical" within Norwegian demography ? I would prefer one list only.

 * By the earlier legislation, it was the municipalities that were towns/cities. This is reflected by the third digit in municipality number being zero for cities. In the 1990s (possibly 1996/1997), Norway formally stopped bothering with the concept of cities/towns. The formal term (as opposed to the even less precise use of the word(s) in everyday speech) is now purely a marketing gimmick, without any formal geographical definition (in most cases at least). As such, there are no sources to be found for number of inhabitants, except for the traditional "municipal cities". (The way I read the law, it is still so that only municipalities can be cities, by satisfying certain criteria, but no one seems to care. The fact that they didn't remove all mention of the city/town concept from the law altogether seems to be to not hurt the pride of existing cities/towns.) Ters (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of towns and cities in Norway. 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 tag to http://www.ssb.no/emner/00/90/rapp_9913/rapp_9913.pdfl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107110157/http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/beftett_en/tab-2007-06-07-01-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/beftett_en/tab-2007-06-07-01-en.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of towns and cities in Norway. 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/20060215125453/http://www.kommunal-rapport.no/index.db2?id=3725 to http://www.kommunal-rapport.no/index.db2?id=3725

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of towns and cities in Norway


text:
Talisman City

Talisman City is an expansion to the Talisman board game. It was published in 1989 by Games Workshop.

Description
Talisman City provides 72 new Encounter cards, 7 new Adventure cards, 3 new Dungeon cards, 20 new Purchase cards, 10 new Spells, 6 new Characters, and an additional board that represents Talisman City.

The Talisman City expansion replaces the city space in the Outer Region on the original Talisman game board, where there are more places to visit and additional items to purchase.

Special rules
All characters visiting the city must always own at least one gold; an arrest warrant is issued for a penniless character, and if that character encounters the Patrol or Watch, the character is arrested and thrown into the Dungeon. Combat within the City also results in an arrest warrant.

New characters
Two of the new characters, the Minotaur and the Valkyrie, are regular characters. The four others (Sheriff, Archmage, King's Champion and Master Thief) are "titles" or "offices" that a character can acquire. If the character accepts one of these titles, the player hands in the original character card and receives the new position with all its attributes and abilities.

Publication history
In 1983, Robert Harris designed the fantasy board game Talisman and it was published by Games Workshop (GW) with black & white cards. The game proved popular, and two years later, GW issued a second edition, which only differed in having full colour cards and new box cover art. In 1986, GW released an expansion set with new characters, spells and adventure cards. The expansion set also proved popular, and GW released more expansions: The Adventure (1986), Dungeon (1987), City (1989), and Dragons (1993).

City was designed by Evan Friedman and Paul Morrow.

Reception
In the September–October 1989 edition of Games International (Issue 9), Richard Ashley commented, ""If you enjoy Talisman this is well worth adding as it is fun, although I found the rich [characters] had an easier time." Ashley concluded by giving it an average rating of 3 out of 5.

In the January 1990 issue of Shadis, B.O. Felton thought that this expansion, the fifth for Talisman, "raises the question of how far Games Workshop can take the Talisman system and retain the playability of the original game." Felton felt this game added too much time, noting, "In our sessions, the City expansion seemed to double the normal playing time of an already time-devouring game. The game dragged on and on. Players became disinterested after a few hours and we were relieved when someone finally managed to claim victory." Despite this, Felton noted a positive aspect, commenting, "Our group is renowned for its backstabbing sessions of Talisman and City has only fueled our nefarious gameplay. The presence of the Dungeon and the ability to frame other players has become our bread and butter and most of us have spent our share of time staring at the dungeon walls." Felton concluded that those that already enjoyed Talisman would be the beneficiaries of this game, saying, "If you are an avid Talisman player you will no doubt enjoy this new offering. If, however, you only moderately liked the basic game, you will probably find that the expansion has only heightened the qualities of the game you didn't like. Those drawbacks are mainly the time requirements needed to play and the length of time before your turn comes around."

In the Italian edition of Videogame & Computer World, Massimo De Lisio noted, "The City is not exactly like the Dungeon or Timescape expansions, in the sense that it is not interspersed with the base game, but constantly supports it, increasing the potential for randomness and new events."

title: Talisman City


text:
Talk:Haram (site)

Comments
The word Haram is also generally used in a meaning roughly equivalent for "forbidden" : Drinking alcohol his haram. Ericd 18:21 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

For real! Doesn't it seem positively misleading to say that "haram" refers only to city planning when it can also include pork, wine, hashish and so on? QuartierLatin1968 00:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * yes, and religious sanctuaries as well, e.g. Masjid al Haram and Haram al-Sharif. The term has certainly been interpreted from an environmental ethical perspective but that meaning is not the only one, nor should it be the sole focus of this article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Especially when the "Haraam" article spells it "Haram" as the first word of the article. I think this page needs to be a disambiguation page. Jamie Kitson (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The origins of Mecca as a 'haram' predate Islam, and so I think 'Arabic' or 'Arabian' would be better substitutes for 'Islamic' in the case of the definition. Joey 06:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, but in Islamic terminology, Mecca's pagan status is really somewhat irrelevant to whether it's haram in Islam.  You could add a section on the history of the use of the word, but I think that what's currently there is adequate to the current intended purpose... AnonMoos 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

HRM
You have rejected all my sugestion, i no longer care how you want it, do as you wish: just put in the damn link somewhere in the intro, among the rest of the etymology talk!--Striver 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Dude, if you want it to be linked, then it's really your obligation to do so in a correct and unobtrusive manner. The way to do so is definitely not to refer to the concept of consonantal root twice in the prologue.  The purpose of the prologue in the first place is really to explain rather briefly how the words haram and haraam are different, and not to provide detailed etymological references. Anyway H-R-M is already linked below from the article, and you haven't explained why H-R-M should be linked twice... AnonMoos 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pyramids in Cairo
Aren't the pyramids in Cairo also refered to as 'Haram'? (plural 'Ahramat') (albeit with the strudel lookalike h instead of the 7 h as in haraam/forbidden). Further example for this use: The Egyptian newspaper AlAhram. If so, shouldn't this be mentioned or worked into a (yet to create) disambiguation page?--Soylentyellow 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * ه and ح are two completely different consonants in the Arabic language, with different pronunciations and sets of etymological correspondences. In the vast majority of cases, there is no real connection between two words, one spelled with ه and the other with ح. If the singular haram هرم  has not established itself as a form commonly used in English, then there is no need to refer to it in this article... AnonMoos 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Haram (site). There didn't seem to be a consensus about which disambiguator to use, but this seems to capture both definitions fine and distinguish this from Haraam and also Harem. But I'm open to alternate suggestions. (Also, I have no idea why this was in the Backlog section of RM when it was relisting on July 16.) --  tariq abjotu  05:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Haram → Haram (sanctuary) – Possible spelling of "Haraam" seems to include "Haram" and there is already much disambiguation info on this page. This page should IMHO redirect to Haram (disambiguation). Relisting — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Jamie Kitson (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Merriam-Webster and Oxford define "haram" only in the sense of "forbidden", i.e. haraam/ḥarām/حرام. There is no mention of any architectural meaning. "Sanctuary" is a translation of haram/ḥaram/ حرم, so the proposed title is not properly constructed. I suggest Haram (architecture). Kauffner (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Haram (architecture)" seems good. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't see much need for a change, but if a change is made, it definitely should not be to "Haram (architecture)", which would be rather misleading, since this article covers meanings of Arabic ħaram to refer to various sacred/forbidden/protected areas or zones or sites -- not a specific architectural form or type of building... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Support without a preference for a disambiguator. Haraam is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, and is frequently spelled as such in English. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Support a move away from the common title. What Wikipedia calls "Haraam" is the primary topic for Haram.  I'm not crazy about "architecture" as a disambiguator per User:AnonMoos.  "Sanctuary" is a bit vague but my only suggestion, "physical place", seems clumsy.  —  AjaxSmack   05:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese characters
The Chinese characters in the footnote are probably bogus, but I'm not going to try to figure them out right now... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Haram (site)