text:
Confederate States Navy

The Confederate States Navy (CSN) was the naval branch of the Confederate States Armed Forces, established by an act of the Confederate States Congress on February 21, 1861. It was responsible for Confederate naval operations during the American Civil War against the United States's Union Navy.

The three major tasks of the Confederate States Navy during its existence were the protection of Confederate harbors and coastlines from outside invasion, making the war costly for the United States by attacking its merchant ships worldwide, and running the U.S. blockade by drawing off Union ships in pursuit of Confederate commerce raiders and warships.

It was ineffective in these tasks, as the coastal blockade by the United States Navy reduced trade by the South to 5 percent of its pre-war levels. Additionally, the control of inland rivers and coastal navigation by the US Navy forced the south to overload its limited railroads to the point of failure.

The surrender of the CSS Shenandoah in Liverpool, England, marked the end of the Civil War and the Confederate Navy's existence.

History
The Confederate Navy could never achieve numerical equality with the Union Navy. It instead sought to take advantage of technological innovation, such as ironclads, submarines, torpedo boats, and naval mines (then known as torpedoes). In February 1861, the Confederate States Navy had 30 vessels, only 14 of which were seaworthy. The opposing Union Navy had 90 vessels. The C. S. Navy eventually grew to 101 ships to meet the rise in naval conflicts and threats to the coast and rivers of the Confederacy. On April 20, 1861, the U.S. was forced to quickly abandon the important Gosport Navy Yard at Portsmouth, Virginia. In their haste, they failed to effectively burn the facility with its large depots of arms, other supplies, and several small vessels. As a result, the Confederacy captured a large supply of much-needed war materials, including heavy cannon, gunpowder, shot, and shell. Of most importance to the Confederacy was the shipyard's dry docks, barely damaged by the departing Union forces. The Confederacy's only substantial navy yard at that time was in Pensacola, Florida, so the Gosport Yard was sorely needed to build new warships. The most significant warship left at the Yard was the screw frigate USS Merrimack.

The U.S. Navy had torched Merrimack's superstructure and upper deck, then scuttled the vessel; it would have been immediately useful as a warship to their enemy. Little of the ship's structure remained other than the hull, which was holed by the scuttling charge but otherwise intact. Confederate Navy Secretary Stephen Mallory had the idea to raise Merrimack and rebuild it. When the hull was raised, it had not been submerged long enough to have been rendered unusable; the steam engines and essential machinery were salvageable. The decks were rebuilt using thick oak and pine planking, and the upper deck was overlaid with two courses of heavy iron plate. The newly rebuilt superstructure was unusual: above the waterline, the sides sloped inward and were covered with two layers of heavy iron-plate armor, the inside course laid horizontally, the outside course laid vertically.

The vessel was a new kind of warship, an all-steam powered "iron-clad". In the centuries-old tradition of reusing captured ships, the new warship was christened CSS Virginia. She later fought the Union's new ironclad USS Monitor. On the second day of the Battle of Hampton Roads, the two ships met and each scored numerous hits on the other. On the first day of that battle Virginia, and the James River Squadron, aggressively attacked and nearly broke the Union Navy's sea blockade of wooden warships, proving the effectiveness of the ironclad concept. The two ironclads had steamed forward, tried to outflank or ram the other, circled, backed away, and came forward firing again and again, but neither was able to sink or demand surrender of its opponent. After four hours, both ships were taking on water through split seams and breaches from enemy shot. The engines of both ships were becoming dangerously overtaxed, and their crews were near exhaustion. The two ships turned and steamed away, never to meet again. This part in the Battle of Hampton Roads between Monitor and Virginia greatly overshadowed the bloody events each side's ground troops were fighting, largely because it was the first battle in history between two iron-armored steam-powered warships.

The last Confederate surrender took place in Liverpool, United Kingdom on November 6, 1865, aboard the commerce raider CSS Shenandoah when her flag (battle ensign) was lowered for the final time. This surrender brought about the end of the Confederate navy. The Shenandoah had circumnavigated the globe, the only Confederate ship to do so.

Creation
The act of the Confederate Congress that created the Confederate Navy on February 21, 1861, also appointed Stephen Mallory as Secretary of the Department of the Navy. Mallory was experienced as an admiralty lawyer and had served for a time as the chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the United States Senate. The Confederacy had a few scattered naval assets and looked to Liverpool, England, to buy naval cruisers to attack the American merchant fleet. In April 1861, Mallory recruited former U.S. Navy Lieutenant James Dunwoody Bulloch into the Confederate navy and sent him to Liverpool. Using Charleston-based importer and exporter Fraser Trentholm, who had offices in Liverpool, Commander Bulloch immediately ordered six steam vessels.

As Mallory began aggressively building up a formidable naval force, a Confederate Congress committee on August 27, 1862, reported:

"Before the war, nineteen steam war vessels had been built in the States forming the Confederacy, and the engines for all of these had been contracted for in those States. All the labor or materials requisite to complete and equip a war vessel could not be commanded at any one point of the Confederacy.

[The Navy Department] had erected a powder-mill which supplies all the powder required by our navy; two engine, boiler and machine shops, and five ordnance workshops. It has established eighteen yards for building war vessels, and a rope-walk, making all cordage from a rope-yarn to a 9-inch cable, and capable of turning out 8,000 yards per month .... Of vessels not ironclad and converted to war vessels, there were 44. The department has built and completed as war vessels, 12; partially constructed and destroyed to save from the enemy, 10; now under construction, 9; ironclad vessels now in commission, 12; completed and destroyed or lost by capture, 4; in progress of construction and in various stages of forwardness, 23."

In addition to the ships included in the report of the committee, the C.S. Navy also had one ironclad floating battery, presented to the Confederacy by the state of Georgia, one ironclad ram donated by the state of Alabama, and numerous commerce raiders making war on Union merchant ships. When Virginia seceded the Virginia Navy was absorbed into the Confederate Navy.

Naval flags
The practice of using primary and secondary naval flags after the British tradition was common practice for the Confederacy; the fledgling Confederate navy therefore adopted detailed flag requirements and regulations in the use of battle ensigns, naval jacks, as well as small boat ensigns, commissioning pennants, designating flags, and signal flags aboard its warships. Changes to these regulations were made during 1863, when a new naval jack, battle ensign, and commissioning pennant design was introduced aboard all Confederate ships, echoing the Confederacy's change of its national flag from the old "Stars and Bars" to the new "Stainless Banner". Despite the detailed naval regulations issued, minor variations in the flags were frequently seen, due to different manufacturing techniques employed, suppliers used, and the flag-making traditions of each southern state.

Privateers
On April 17, 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis invited applications for letters of marque and reprisal to be granted under the seal of the Confederate States, against ships and property of the United States and their citizens:

"Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, do issue this, my proclamation, inviting all those who may desire, by service in private armed vessels on the high seas, to aid this government in resisting so wanton and wicked an aggression, to make application for commissions or letters of marque and reprisal, to be issued under the seal of these Confederate States..."

President Davis was not confident of his executive authority to issue letters of marque and called a special session of Congress on April 29 to formally authorize the hiring of privateers in the name of the Confederate States. On 6 May the Confederate Congress passed "An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States, and concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods." Then, on May 14, 1861, "An act regulating the sale of prizes and the distribution thereof," was also passed. Both acts granted the president power to issue letters of marque and detailed regulations as to the conditions on which letters of marque should be granted to private vessels, the conduct and behavior of the officers and crews of such vessels, and the disposal of such prizes made by privateer crews. The manner in which Confederate privateers operated was generally similar to those of privateers of the United States or of European nations.

The 1856 Declaration of Paris outlawed privateering for such nations as the United Kingdom and France, but the United States had neither signed nor endorsed the declaration. Therefore, privateering was constitutionally legal in both the United States and the Confederacy, as well as Portugal, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Germany. However, the United States did not acknowledge the Confederacy as an independent country and denied the legitimacy of any letters of marque issued by its government. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared all medicines to the Confederacy to be contraband and any captured Confederate privateers were to be hanged as pirates. Ultimately, no one was hanged for privateering because the Confederate government threatened to retaliate against U.S. prisoners of war.

Initially, Confederate privateers operated primarily from New Orleans, but activity was soon concentrated in the Atlantic, as the Union Navy began expanding its operations. Confederate privateers harassed Union merchant ships and sank several warships, although they were unable to relieve the blockade on Southern ports and its dire effects on the Confederate economy.

Ships

In May 1861, Confederate Congress appropriated $2,000,000 to either construct or purchase ironclad vessels in England. The Confederacy intended to use the European ironclads to break the Union blockade. Aside from those built in Europe, the Confederacy also manufactured their own vessels. Despite a lack of materials (especially iron and engines) and shipbuilding facilities, the Confederacy was able to construct at least twenty ironclads that were commissioned and put into operation during the war.

One of the more well-known ships was the CSS Virginia, formerly the sloop-of-war USS Merrimack (1855). In 1862, after being converted to an ironclad ram, she fought USS Monitor in the Battle of Hampton Roads, an event that came to symbolize the end of the dominance of large wooden sailing warships and the beginning of the age of steam and the ironclad warship.

The Confederates also constructed submarines, among the few that existed after the early Turtle of the American Revolutionary War. Of those the Pioneer and the Bayou St. John submarine never saw action. However, Hunley, built in Mobile as a privateer by Horace Hunley, later came under the control of the Confederate Army at Charleston, SC, but was manned partly by a C. S. Navy crew; she became the first submarine to sink a ship in a wartime engagement.

The Hunley later sank the sloop-of-war USS Housatonic (1861), resulting from the large blastwave that traveled from its exploding spar torpedo's 500-pound black powder charge, during the sinking of USS Housatonic. The sinking of the Housatonic became the first successful submarine attack in history.

Confederate Navy commerce raiders were also used with great success to disrupt U.S. merchant shipping. The most famous of them was the screw sloop-of-war CSS Alabama, a warship secretly built for the Confederacy in Birkenhead, near Liverpool, United Kingdom. She was launched as Enrica but was commissioned as CSS Alabama just off the Azores by her captain, Raphael Semmes. She began her world-famous raiding career under his command, accounting for 65 U.S. ships, a record that still remains unbeaten by any ship in naval warfare. CSS Alabama 's crew was mostly from Liverpool, and the cruiser never once dropped anchor in a Confederate port, though she sank a blockading Union gunboat off the coast of Texas. She was sunk in June 1864 by USS Kearsarge (1861) at the Battle of Cherbourg outside the port of Cherbourg, France.

A similar raider, CSS Shenandoah, fired the last shot of the American Civil War in late June 1865; she did not strike her colors and surrender until early November 1865, in Liverpool, England five months after the conflict had ended.

Organization

Between the beginning of the war and the end of 1861, 373 commissioned officers, warrant officers, and midshipmen had resigned or been dismissed from the United States Navy and had gone on to serve the Confederacy. The Provisional Congress meeting in Montgomery accepted these men into the Confederate Navy at their old rank. In order to accommodate them they initially provided for an officer corps to consist of four captains, four commanders, 30 lieutenants, and various other non-line officers. On 21 April 1862, the First Congress expanded this to four admirals, ten captains, 31 commanders, 100 first lieutenants, 25 second lieutenants, and 20 masters in line of promotion; additionally, there were to be 12 paymasters, 40 assistant paymasters, 22 surgeons, 15 passed assistant surgeons, 30 assistant surgeons, one engineer-in-chief, and 12 engineers. The act also provided for promotion on merit: "All the Admirals, four of the Captains, five of the Commanders, twenty-two of the First Lieutenants, and five of the Second Lieutenants, shall be appointed solely for gallant or meritorious conduct during the war."

Administration
The Department of the Navy was responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Confederate Navy and Confederate Marine Corps. It included various offices, bureaus, and naval agents in Europe.

By July 20, 1861, the Confederate government had organized the administrative positions of the Confederate navy as follows:
 * Stephen R. Mallory – Secretary of the Navy
 * Commodore Samuel Barron – Chief of the Bureau of Orders and Detail
 * Commander George Minor – Chief of Ordnance and Hydrography
 * Paymaster John DeBree – Chief of Provisions and Clothing
 * Surgeon W. A. W. Spottswood – Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
 * Edward M. Tidball – Chief Clerk

Notable engagements

 * Battle of Cherbourg
 * Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip
 * First Battle of Memphis
 * Battle of Mobile Bay
 * Battle of Hampton Roads
 * Bahia incident
 * Battle of the Head of Passes
 * Siege of Fort Pulaski
 * Battle of Plum Point Bend
 * Action off Galveston Light

Ranks
By 1862 regulations specified the uniforms and rank insignia for officers. Petty officers wore a variety of uniforms, or even regular clothing.

Officers
Officers of the Confederate States Navy used, just like the army, a combination of several rank insignias to indicate their rank. While both hat insignia and sleeve insignia were used here the primary indicator were shoulder straps. Only line officers wore those straps shown below as officers of various staff departments (Medical, Pay, Engineering and Naval Construction) had separate ranks and different straps. Likewise the anchor symbol on the hats was substituted accordingly and they did not wear loops on the sleeve insignias.

Paymasters, surgeons and chief engineers of more than twelve year's standing ranked with commanders. Paymasters, surgeons and chief engineers of less than twelve year's standing ranked with lieutenants. Assistant paymasters ranked with masters during the first five years of service, then with lieutenants. Passed assistant surgeons and professors ranked with masters. Assistant surgeons, first assistant engineers and secretaries to commanders of squadrons ranked with passed midshipmen. Second and third assistant engineers and clerks to commanding officers and paymasters ranked as midshipmen.

Pay
Annual pay for commissioned and warrant officers

 * Notes

Monthly pay for petty officers, men and boys

title: Confederate States Navy


text:
Talk:Bricks and clicks business model

--How do I redirect the 'click-and-mortar' definition to this page? Csurguine 05:49, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * You want a redirect from Click-and-mortar to this page? Dysprosia 05:51, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes. Can you help me out?

Csurguine 05:52, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Sure. Before I do, are you sure it's Click and not Clicks-and-mortar? Dysprosia 05:52, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It's #REDIRECT article-name :) Dysprosia 05:55, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I say Click-and-mortar, but I'm sure you can call it Clicks-and-mortar also (it's supposed to be Brick-and-mortar, but with Click instead of Brick) ;) Csurguine 05:57, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some of the advantages of the clicks and bricks model versus the pureplay model are not specific to clicks and bricks retailers, but apply to all companies. For instance, core competency and learning curves are not specific advantages...pureplay e-tailers also have a core competency and can have learning curves. An additional advantage for clicks-and-bricks retailers relative to pureplay etailers is that -in case of physical products- customers can return their faulty merchandise: they have more trust in buying online, as they can go to the store to 'get' their money.--Thijs Broekhuizen 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bricks and clicks business model


text:
User:Csurguine

Put a

 * 1) REDIRECT bricks and clicks in the article

title: User:Csurguine


text:
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) is a Canadian performance rights organization that represents the performing rights of more than 175,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers. The organization collects license fees through a music licensing program approved by the Copyright Board of Canada.

History
SOCAN is a result of a merger that took place in 1990 between the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada (CAPAC) and the Performing Rights Organization of Canada (PROCAN).

In 2013, Front Row Insurance Brokers Inc. initiated an online musical instrument insurance program for members of various Canadian music associations, including SOCAN.

In May 2016, SOCAN acquired the Seattle-based company Medianet Digital for an undisclosed amount; the organization planned to leverage the company's software and database of rights metadata to assist in the calculation and distribution of royalties for works on digital music streaming services. In July 2016, SOCAN acquired Audiam, a U.S. startup created by TuneCore founder Jeff Price that specializes in managing the distribution of royalties for songs used on digital services such as YouTube, using a database of song recordings and metadata for identification.

In July 2019, SOCAN partnered with Re:Sound to launch Entandem, a single online portal to collect both copyright and neighbouring rights royalties.


text:
Blockade

A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.

A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country, although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade. Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine. In the 20th century, air power has also been used to enhance the effectiveness of blockades by halting air traffic within the blockaded airspace.

Close patrol of hostile ports, in order to prevent naval forces from putting to sea, is also referred to as a blockade. When coastal cities or fortresses were besieged from the landward side, the besiegers would often blockade the seaward side as well. Most recently, blockades have sometimes included cutting off electronic communications by jamming radio signals and severing undersea cables. Blockades often result in the starvation of the civilian population, notably during the blockade of Germany during World War I and the blockade of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War.

According to modern international law, blockades are an act of war. When used as a part of an effort to starve the civilian population, they are illegal as part of a war of aggression or when used against a civilian population, instead of a military target. In such case, they are a war crime and potentially a crime against humanity.

History
Although primitive naval blockades had been in use for millennia, the first successful attempts at establishing a full naval blockade were made by the British Royal Navy during the Seven Years' War (1754–1763) against France. Following the British naval victory at Quiberon Bay, which ended any immediate threat of a major invasion of Britain, Britain established a close blockade on the French coast. This starved French ports of commerce, weakening France's economy. Admiral Edward Hawke took command of the blockading fleet off Brest and extended the blockade to cover the entire French Atlantic coast from Dunkirk to Bordeaux, and also to Marseilles on France's Mediterranean coast.

The strategic importance of blockade was shown during the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars, when the Royal Navy successfully blockaded France, leading to major economic disruptions. The Union blockade of southern ports was a major factor in the American Civil War. During World War I, the Allies blockaded the Central Powers, depriving them of food and other strategic materials. Germany's attempted U-boat blockade caused some shortages in Britain, but ultimately failed. This outcome was repeated in World War II.

Naval strategic thinkers, such as Sir Julian Corbett and Alfred Thayer Mahan, wrote that naval conflicts were won primarily by decisive battles, but also by blockade.

Close, distant, and loose blockades
A close blockade entails placing warships within sight of the blockaded coast or port, to ensure the immediate interception of any ship entering or leaving. It is both the most effective and the most difficult form of blockade to implement. Difficulties arise because the blockading ships must remain continuously at sea, exposed to storms and hardship, usually far from any support, and vulnerable to sudden attack from the blockaded side, whose ships may stay safe in harbor until they choose to come out.

In a distant blockade, the blockaders stay well away from the blockaded coast and try to intercept any ships going in or out. This may require more ships on station, but they can usually operate closer to their bases, and are at much less risk from enemy raids. This was almost impossible prior to the 16th century due to the nature of the ships used.

A loose blockade is a close blockade where the blockading ships are withdrawn out of sight from the coast (behind the horizon) but no farther. The object of loose blockade is to lure the enemy into venturing out but to stay close enough to strike.

British admiral Horatio Nelson applied a loose blockade at Cádiz in 1805. The Franco-Spanish fleet under Pierre-Charles Villeneuve then came out, resulting in the Battle of Trafalgar.

Pacific blockade
Until 1827, blockades, as part of economic warfare, were always a part of a war. This changed when France, Russia and Britain came to the aid of the Greek rebels against Turkey. They blockaded the Turkish-occupied coast, which led to the battle of Navarino. War was never declared, however, so it is considered the first pacific — i.e. peaceful — blockade. The first truly pacific blockade, involving no shooting at all, was the British blockade of the Republic of New Granada in 1837, established to compel New Granada to release an imprisoned British consul.

Legal status

Since 1945, the United Nations Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the council can also apply blockades. The UN Charter allows for the right of self-defense but requires that this must be immediately reported to the Security Council to ensure the maintenance of international peace.

According to the not ratified document San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea but is governed by rules. The manual describes what can never be contraband. The blockading nation is free to select anything else as contraband in a list, which it must publish.

The blockading nation typically establishes a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship resist capture, they can be lawfully attacked.

Act of war
Whether or not a blockade was seen as lawful depended on the laws of the nations whose trade was influenced by the blockade. The Brazilian blockade of Río de la Plata in 1826 during the Cisplatine War, for instance, was considered lawful according to British law but unlawful according to French and American law. The latter two countries announced they would actively defend their ships against Brazilian blockaders, while Britain was forced to steer for a peaceful solution between Brazil and Argentina.

Blockade planning
Blockades depend on four general factors
 * The value of the item being blockaded must warrant the need to blockade. For example, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the items to be blockaded (or "quarantined" to use the more neutral term selected by President John F. Kennedy) were Medium-range ballistic missiles, capable of delivering nuclear weaponry, bound for Cuba. Their value was high, as a military threat against the United States.
 * The strength of the blockading force must be equal to or greater in strength than the opposition. The blockade is only successful if the 'thing' in question is prevented from reaching its receiver. For example, the overwhelming power of the Royal Navy allowed a successful blockade of Germany.
 * Geography. Knowing the routes of the enemy will help the blockader choose where to blockade: for example, a high mountain pass or a strait is a natural choke point and a candidate for fortification.
 * A blockade tends to be a long campaign requiring a long-term commitment by the blockading power. The Atlantic U-boat campaign of World War I and Battle of the Atlantic were essentially about German blockades, and lasted nearly as long as their respective wars. The Imperial Japanese Navy, however, made only sporadic efforts at blockade during the Pacific war, preferring to seek victory by fleet action.

Blockade running
Blockade running is the practice of delivering cargo (food, for example) to a blockaded area. It has mainly been done by ships (called blockade runners) across ports under naval blockade. Blockade runners were typically the fastest ships available and often lightly armed and armored. It is now also been done by aircraft, forming airbridges, such as over the Berlin Blockade after World War II.

title: Blockade


text:
PRS for Music

PRS for Music Limited (formerly The MCPS-PRS Alliance Limited) is a British music copyright collective, made up of two collection societies: the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and the Performing Right Society (PRS). It undertakes collective rights management for musical works on behalf of its 175,000 members. PRS for Music was formed in 1997 following the MCPS-PRS Alliance. In 2009, PRS and MCPS-PRS Alliance realigned their brands and became PRS for Music.

PRS represents their songwriter, composer and music publisher members’ performing rights, and collects royalties on their behalf whenever their music is played or performed publicly.

MCPS also represents songwriters, composers and music publishers – representing their mechanical rights, and collects royalties whenever their music is reproduced as a physical product – this includes CDs, DVDs, digital downloads and broadcast or online.

PRS (Performing Right Society) and MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) are two separate collection societies with PRS running its own operations, providing services to MCPS under the name PRS for Music. As of 2018 PRS has entered a joint venture with Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) under a newly formed private company called PPL PRS Ltd with the aim of making it easier for their customers to obtain a music licence.

History
The Performing Right Society was founded in 1914 by a group of music publishers, to protect the value of copyright and to help provide an income for composers, songwriters and music publishers. At the time, PRS collected fees for live performance from sheet music.

PRS was distinct from both the activities of the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society which was founded in 1910, and the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), founded in 1934 by Decca and EMI.

The Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society began as Mecolico, the Mechanical Copyright Licenses Company, which was founded in 1910 in anticipation of the Copyright Act of 1911. Mecolico licensed the mechanical rights within musical works and merged with the Copyright Protection Society in 1924. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) collected fees for playing gramophone recordings.

Another agency, the British Copyright Protection Company or Britico was founded in 1932 by Alphonse Tournier, specialising on collecting royalties in the UK on French and German musical copyright, and becoming the British Copyright Protection Association in 1962. This company, Britico, started to share computer facilities with PRS in 1970.

Tariffs
PRS for Music administers the performance rights and mechanical rights of about 41 million musical works on behalf of its songwriters, composers and publishing members and in 2018 processed over 11.1 trillion uses of music. PRS for Music licenses and collects royalties for its members' musical works whenever they are publicly performed, or recordings of them are broadcast, streamed online or played in public spaces, both in the UK and globally through its partner network.

After operating costs are deducted, the remaining money is distributed to PRS for Music's songwriter, composer and publisher members and to affiliate societies.

The principal sources of PRS for Music revenue collection are broadcasting (i.e. radio and television channels), public performance (i.e. music at gigs, concerts, theatres, restaurants, retailers and workplaces), online (i.e. music streamed online, digitally downloaded), and international.

PRS for Music also has a number of tariffs for organisations in different sectors (businesses, government organisations, educational establishments, and so on). Dependent on their size and the extent to which each premises uses music, whether they are commercial premises or not, as well as other criteria, PRS for Music's tariffs vary.

Around 350,000 UK businesses have paid and are licensed to play music under a PRS for Music licence, however some workplaces do not need one:

 * Inpatient and treatment areas in hospitals
 * Medical day centres
 * Residential homes (in most circumstances)
 * Music used in divine worship (although licences are required for copyrighted music)
 * Civil wedding ceremonies and partnership ceremonies
 * Lone and home workers.

In 2018, PPL and PRS for Music formed a jointly owned subsidiary, PPL PRS Ltd, to collect all licence fees for public performances. PPL PRS Ltd is based in Leicester, England.

ICE – Global Licensing Hub
In July 2015, PRS for Music, Sweden collecting society STIM and German collecting society GEMA announced the completion of a joint venture to launch an integrated multi-territory music licensing and processing hub covering European territories. In November 2015, it was confirmed the new hub would be called 'ICE'.

PRS for Music and PPL joint venture for public performance licensing
In February 2016, PRS for Music and PPL, the body who licenses the sound recording of a song, confirmed plans to create a new joint venture for public performance licensing. The new joint venture would focus on servicing all UK public performance licensing customers. The joint venture launched in 2018.

Streamfair
In July 2015, PRS for Music launched a pro-creator campaign called Streamfair. The campaign focused on four areas, Copyright Legislation, Online Licensing, Promoting the value of music creators and education. The campaign was supported by acclaimed songwriters and composers including Jimmy Napes, Michael Price, Crispin Hunt, Gary Clark and Debbie Wiseman.

Heritage Awards
The PRS for Music Heritage Award scheme launched in 2009 with the first award going to Blur. Ceremonial plaques are unveiled to honour the performance birthplaces of legendary bands, artists and songwriters - as well as recognising the network of pubs, clubs and live music venues. Those honoured include Squeeze, Elton John, Pulp, Queen and UB40.

Financial information
In May 2016, PRS for Music announced its 2015 financial results, which showed an 8.4% increase in distributions to its songwriter members. The figures for 2016 were announced in May 2017 showing that revenues increased by 10.1% and royalty payments to its members increased to £527.6 m (up 11.1%). The organisation reported record royalty distributions in 2017, with a payout of £605.1 m (up 14.7%).

Legal cases
In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers'. In June 2008, PRS for Music accused Lancashire Constabulary of playing music at police stations not covered by a license, and sought an injunction and payments for damages.

In 2014, PRS for Music and commercial broadcaster ITV failed to negotiate a licensing deal resulting in a Copyright Tribunal dispute. In July 2016, The Copyright Tribunal awarded in favour of PRS for Music. ITV appealed and subsequently lost a High Court appeal in early 2017.

In 2015, PRS for Music entered into a licensing agreement with the Berlin-based company SoundCloud after several months of litigation. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Cross-border European licensing
The Santiago Agreement was established in 2000 between five European collecting societies including the UK's PRS for Music, France's SACEM, and Germany's GEMA. The agreement allows each collecting society to collect royalties on behalf of members of the other collecting society, e.g. PRS for Music would collect money for German artists listed with GEMA, but to restrict licences to be sold only within the member organisation's home country.

The European Commission decided in 2008 that the cross-licensing agreements formed by 24 collecting societies in Europe were in violation of anti-competition laws.

Schools
Along with Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), PRS for Music use the Centre for Education and Finance Management (CEFM) as agents to collect licensing money from schools and colleges. Universities have separate arrangements.

Enforcement
In 2008, PRS for Music began a concerted drive to make commercial premises pay for annual "performance" licences. In one case it told a 61-year-old mechanic that he would have to pay £150 to play his radio while he worked by himself. It also targeted a bakery that played a radio in a private room at the back of the shop, a woman who used a classical radio to calm her horses and community centres that allowed children to sing carols in public. However, questions have been raised about the tactic of targeting small businesses:

Radio stations pay large amounts of money to licensing organizations PRS and PPL for the music they play, and music has been on the radio for many years. During the war, there were programmes like Workers Playtime and Music While You Work. Now, many radio stations have features about workplaces. If the PRS force people to switch their radios off then how are these stations going to survive? Music has to be heard before people go out and buy it.
 * —The Bolton News

In March 2009, the on line video-sharing site YouTube removed all premium music videos for UK users, even those supplied by record labels, due to a failure to find "mutually acceptable terms for a new licence" with PRS for Music. As a consequence, PRS for Music established the Fair Play for Creators campaign in order to provide a forum where musicians could "publicly demonstrate their concern over the way their work is treated by online businesses". David Arnold, Jazzie B, Billy Bragg, Guy Chambers, Robin Gibb, Pete Waterman, Mike Chapman, Wayne Hector, Pam Sheyne and Debbie Wiseman sent a letter to The Times newspaper in support of the campaign launched by PRS for Music. A rights deal was settled in September 2009 between PRS for Music and Google that allowed YouTube users in UK to view music videos.

Wiltshire Constabulary refused to pay PRS for Music for a £32,000 licence fee in April 2009. Instead the force told all officer and civilian staff that music could no longer be played in their workplaces but that ban excluded patrol cars. A total of 38 of 49 UK police forces currently hold PRS for Music licences.

In May 2009, the British Chambers of Commerce published a survey of business attitudes to PRS for Music. Just 6% of companies rated their experience as good or excellent. In contrast, over half said their experience had been poor or very poor. Businesses were also asked to submit comments about their experiences. Many of these replies referred to the PRS for Music's behaviour as "aggressive" and "threatening".

In October 2009, PRS for Music apologised to a 56-year-old shelf-stacker at a village in Clackmannanshire for pursuing her for singing to herself while stacking shelves. PRS for Music initially told her that she would be prosecuted and fined thousands of pounds if she continued to sing without a "live performance" licence. However PRS for Music subsequently acknowledged its mistake.

In October 2010, it was reported that Sussex Police, in a money-saving move, were not intending to renew their PRS for Music licence, meaning that police officers would no longer be able to listen to the radio in their squad cars or other work places.

Independent Welsh agency
In 2012, a high per centage of Welsh-language musicians left PRS for Music to form a separate agency, Eos (Welsh for nightingale), after changes in the way PRS for Music calculates royalties led to a fifteen-fold decrease in payments. In 2007, PRS for Music had reclassified Welsh-language station BBC Radio Cymru as a local station, where previously it had been considered a national station. This led to a decrease in royalty rates from £7.50 per minute to 50p per minute of broadcast music. The English-language sister station, BBC Radio Wales, is classified by PRS for Music as a national station and attracts the higher rates.

As of December 2012, Eos is in negotiations with the BBC, whose Welsh-language service is highly dependent on its members' output. From 1 January 2013, a PRS licence will not be required to play such music, and will not give any permission to do so.

title: PRS for Music


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education

Request for Expert Contributions
Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to invite your expertise and collaboration in improving the quality and accuracy of the Wikipedia article draft on Don Bosco College, Panjim. As experts and contributors in this field, your insights and contributions would be invaluable in ensuring that the information presented is comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

The current draft can be found here: Draft:Don Bosco College, Panjim

We are particularly looking for improvements in the following areas:
 * 1) History: Detailed historical background and significant milestones.
 * 2) Academic Programs: Comprehensive list and descriptions of academic programs offered.
 * 3) Notable Alumni: Information on notable alumni and their achievements.
 * 4) References: Addition of reliable sources to improve the article's credibility.
 * 5) Notability: Information and sources that demonstrate the college's significance and impact.

Improving the notability of the draft is crucial for its acceptance as a full Wikipedia article. Notability can be established through reliable secondary sources such as news articles, academic papers, and books that discuss the college in detail.

Contributing to Wikipedia is a collaborative and transparent process. You can make edits directly to the draft, or if you prefer, share your suggestions and sources here, and we can incorporate them accordingly. Your contributions will be properly cited, ensuring that your work is recognized.

Thank you for considering this request. Your participation would greatly enrich the Wikipedia community and help disseminate reliable information to a global audience.

Best regards,

Xcus

If you have any questions or need assistance with editing, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Note: This request has been made in good faith to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing and citation. Please ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability and no original research.

Help Formating
On the page List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the images to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in [spanish] --HarveyPrototype (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:VPT may be a better venue to get technical help. For what it's worth, the Spanish version looks pretty miserable on my current computer - the images are all stacked at the top of the article and then the table is below it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, it seems that when tab isn't occupying the full screen that's what it looks like.
 * I was editing with two screens side by side and that made it look terrible. HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Doctor of Philosophy#Requested move 24 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Doctor of Philosophy that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robminchin (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

When should an institution that is closing be added to the proper disestablishment category?
There seems to be disagreement among editors about when an institution that is in the process of being closing should be added to the appropriate disestablishment category. Here are two recent examples:

 * On May 23, the Delaware College of Art and Design announced that this year's graduating class was its last graduating class and that the institution would begin closing immediately. The following day, RevelationDirect added the article to Category:Educational institutions disestablished in 2024. Wizzito objected and reverted that edit and there has been some subsequent back-and-forth in the article's edit history.

 * On April 29, Wells College announced that it would close at the end of the spring semester. On May 26 - today - DASonnenfeld added the article to Category:2024 disestablishments in New York (state). I subsequently objected and removed the article from that category.

All of these editors are editing in good faith. No one disputes that these institutions are in the process of closing. There is, however, disagreement about when it's appropriate to place these articles, and presumably others in similar situations, into the appropriate disestablishment category. So I think that is the question on the table: When is it appropriate to place an article about a college or university that is closing into the appropriate disestablishment category?

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to do this until the institution has actually closed. Even after the last class has been taught and the last class has graduated, there is still significant work that usually takes months - ensuring that teach out plans are carried out, transitioning institutional records to the party who will be responsible for maintaining them, closing out financial records, etc. During that time, the institution still exists as a corporate entity even though it does so in a very different state than it did when it was a fully functioning educational institution. So I don't think it's correct to say that it's been completely disestablished at that point.

Other editors who have been directly involved in these edits should have received an automatic notice since I linked to their user account above and I welcome their perspectives and recommendations. And other editors are also invited to share their thoughts and advice. ElKevbo (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for posting this question. I guess the answer depends on whether one thinks of "disestablishment" as a done-deal or as a process. In the cases of Wells College and Goddard College -- two institutions that are in the process of closing in 2024, I would think that it would be value-added to readers to indicate that they were (being) disestablished. Why wait until the last door is closed, the last light turned off, the last bill paid? It might be years... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * For me, it's natural to interpret these categories as being about institutions that have been disestablished, not institutions that have been or are in the process of being disestablished. But I don't ever work with categories, much less these specific categories. Is there any established practice for their usage or any relevant documentation or history in how they are used? ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of with disestablishment categories. We do have clear precedent with the opposite though: categorizing things that will start happening in the future, like Category:2028 Summer Olympics. Of course this assumes the "almost certain to take place" exception is met in WP:CRYSTALBALL. But even that's not full proof: the 2020 Olympics ended up being held in 2021. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I would favor adding categories as soon as there are reliable sources that a end of classes is planned by a certain date and concrete steps are being taken (like a teach-out plan).
 * The WP:CRYSTALBALL section of the content policy wants to avoid speculation but has a pretty clear exception: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place".
 * In general, categories need to be WP:DEFINING and I can hardly think of anything more defining than a school closing next month! And the point of categories in general is to aid reader navigation and it seems likely that someone looking at the Wells College article might wonder what other colleges are closing this year.
 * Thanks for opening this discussion. I look forward to other viewpoints. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that I added a neutral notice over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization to encourage more viewpoints. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging you to make sure you see this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a great discussion and I'm glad we are having it. I usually tend to try and copy-edit condense sometimes add to colleges that are closing and I know there is lots of back and forth on this. My two cents: we should prioritize what regional accreditors and state department of educations say. You have some weird cases like King's College in NY, that still says they are open despite not having any students for over a year.
 * I think that when spring classes end, or when graduation happens is usually too early, but most of these places are ceasing instruction around June 30th of each closure year, just following these sort of closures the last 5 years or so. Just because there are accountants still doing 990s for another year or two doesn't in my book mean the college is still open. For some of the weird cases like King's and ASA, we add a note or two and let time do what it will. Jjazz76 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * A couple of further thoughts: (a) With disestablishments categorized by year, I would think that listing an institution as a "2024 disestablishment" could be done anytime (perhaps even in a prior year) that that disestablishment was formally announced. Why wait? (b) The term, "defunct", I relate to somewhat differently. With respect to educational institutions, for all intents and purposes, I would think of "defunct" as when there no longer were any matriculated students. So, for schools that were in the process of closing, "defunct" only after graduation, the end of all classes, etc. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's actually a good point and a good idea. The time of the announcement does seem like a fine time to add the disestablishment tag, even if it is somewhat speculative. The reversal of closure announcements is pretty rare (Hampshire College, maybe one or two others.) It also helps remind us of which institutions are closing which is often news when the announcement is made and everyone just forget about it afterwards. Cleaning up the NY State College list a few months ago, there were at least half dozen colleges that had closed years before that were still on the list because everyone just forgot about them.
 * Using the tag in this way is also a useful way for us to monitor for those that jump the gun and put "this institution is closed" when it still has a semester and summer session left of classes.
 * I actually used the tag last night to double check the institutions that had already closed in 2024, but these were of the sudden closure variety where a college just closed up shop and shut the doors mid-semester. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or where the spring semester ends earlier than other institutions like Oak Point University. wizzito  |  say hello!  00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late response, have been busy. I generally agree with ElKevbo's position that we don't add the categories until a stated closure date. But I recognize there are some institutions where the exact date is not said. wizzito  |  say hello!  00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some feel a sense of urgency to report this type of event. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a crystal ball. Articles are supposed to reflect actual happenings, not projected outcomes. Same as with announcements of new chancellors--we don't update the Infobox until installation has taken place. It is fine to add text indicating the closure announcement and its source. However, the institution is not defunct until the date has passed and/or there is a source backing its actual closure. Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear on not forecasting outcomes. Rublamb (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We agree on the defunct part. But we're both citing WP:CRYSTALBALL but landing on different sides of the conversation for adding the disestablishment date. The relevant passage to me was the exception when "the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Is your concern that some of these schools will find last-minute funding/students and not close after all? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This ws a real issue at St Benet's Hall, Oxford where I reverted any statement of actual closure before October 2022, although closure was effectively inevitable from May 2022. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that actually happend with Sweet Briar College in Virginia, so yes. Rublamb (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I recommend recat upon actual closing, and not upon announcement. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with FieldMarine. Don't change the cat until the establishment is actually closed. Sure, mention the expected closing in the article, but until it closes, it shouldn't be in the disestablished cat (any more than we would add one that was expected to open in, say 2028, to the established in 2028 cat now). Meters (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Higher_education_in_India
There is a content dispute discussed at that would benefit from wider input. 128.41.35.204 (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
A third opinion is requested in a discussion between two editors at Talk: University of Cambridge. Robminchin (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities
Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * This reassessment seems to have been closed. The article is deficient in many ways:
 * "there is no professional fraternities with active chapters"
 * "gender inclusive GLOs" -- does that mean that the others don't include genders?
 * paragraph beginning with "fraternities of Dartmouth College were directly involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s" is completely unsourced
 * paragraph beginning with "Other national social changes affected Greek societies at Dartmouth in the 1960s" is supported only by a dead link
 * paragraph ending with "new location on West Street (where it is still in operation as of the 2013-14 academic year" is unsourced and the reference to 2013 shows that is is outdated --
 * Melchior2006 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Melchior2006: I agree this article needs updating to regain its GA status. However, I don't see an issue with the term "gender inclusive" as is in the dictionary, meaning for any gender. The oppositve of gender inclusive fraternity would be a group that limits the gender of its members. This terminology has replaced the somewhat dated term "co-educational" for many organizations and campuses because it is considered to be inclusive of trans and nonbinary individuals. Of course, there could also be a link to gender inclusive in Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the major issue was that it's a list rather than an article, and thus not eligible for GA status under the WP:Good article criteria. I took a quick look when the notice was posted and this seemed irrefutable, even if other deficiencies were addressable. It should probably be looked at in terms of the WP:Featured list criteria rather than trying to regain GA status. Robminchin (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robminchin: Just because an article includes a list does not make it a list article. It currently has more text than would be typical for a FL introduction, which probably pushes it to a regular article classification, along with the narrative format of the "list". I will see what my fellow WP:Lists editors think. I feel like the bigger issue was the flag for updates which has been lingering. Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How to handle tables of Greek Life Organizations (GLOs)
There is a discussion open at U of Pittsburgh article concerning unsourced or badly-sourced tables of GLOs and similar issues. It would be great if some guidelines could be established. So far, @Jax MN, @VQuakr, @ElKevbo, @Rublamb, and I have been involved in the talk. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Culinary Institute of America Criticism request
Hi editors, as part of my work for Beutler Ink, on behalf of The Culinary Institute of America, I've made a request regarding the article's Criticism section. I was hoping that editors here would be interested in joining the conversation. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Merger cleanup project
In passing, I noticed that Connecticut State Community College was created in 2023 by the merger of 12 institutions. According to its article, all twelve of the merged colleges have name changes. However, the 12 related articles were not updated to reflect the merger or name change. In addition, their logos/graphics are all for the old institutional names. If anyone has time to work on this, it would be appreciated. Rublamb (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mary McLeod Bethune
Mary McLeod Bethune has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft
Hi, can I receive some feedback/advice on this draft: Draft:Pak-Austria Fachhochschule: Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology and can I add "Academic Programs" from the official website? (Primary source)

Thank you. ExoField (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits about Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania (AICUP)
I disagree with and have reverted many of the edits made by PA4C101 that added a sentence about the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania (AICUP) to all articles for members of that organization, a few dozen articles total. I am opening this discussion here as it's a centralized location where we can more efficiently discussed these identical edits spanning many articles.

Simply put, I object to adding even a sentence about this organization to these articles as it's undue weight. Membership in this organization just is not meaningful, interesting, or impactful enough to warrant mentioning among the dozens or more organizations of which these colleges and universities are also members. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like fairly trivial info to me. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick look, I'm not even convinced that the organisation is WP:NOTABLE. Certainly doesn't look to be very meaningful and, on searching a (small) sample of websites of the member institutions, it seems that it is hardly mentioned. Robminchin (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This body is the sole representative for 85 colleges and 280,000 students, so of course it's relevant to include this information.
 * Please see peer organizations listed on dozens of college pages. Example: Pages that link to "Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Association_of_Independent_Colleges_and_Universities_in_Massachusetts
 * ·        Massachusetts Institute of Technology  (links | edit)
 * ·        Williams College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Amherst College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Boston University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Brandeis University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Tufts University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Mount Holyoke College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Hampshire College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Wellesley College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Babson College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Olin College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Boston College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Clark University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Worcester Polytechnic Institute  (links | edit)
 * ·        Suffolk University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Northeastern University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Emerson College  (links | edit)
 * ·        College of the Holy Cross  (links | edit)
 * ·        New England Conservatory of Music  (links | edit)
 * ·        Merrimack College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Springfield College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Wentworth Institute of Technology  (links | edit)
 * ·        Boston Baptist College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Wheelock College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Western New England University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Ralph Hexter  (links | edit)
 * ·        Nichols College  (links | edit)
 * ·        Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences  (links | edit)
 * ·        Gregory S. Prince Jr.  (links | edit)
 * ·        Gregory H. Adamian  (links | edit)
 * ·        Harvard University  (links | edit)
 * ·        Frederick M. Lawrence  (links | edit)
 * ·        MGH Institute of Health Professions  (links | edit) PA4C101 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's it's a representative body is not actually an argument that it's particularly important in terms of the colleges concerned or even that it's notable. As noted above, the colleges themselves don't seem to think it particularly worth mentioning on their own webpages. Robminchin (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But they do mention it on their own pages. That's the Massachusetts example, showing that two dozens colleges like Harvard and MIT mention their representative body on their page (Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts).
 * The only reason this does not show in Pennsylvania is because the Wikipedia editors continue to delete the page. In doing so, they are silencing 280,000 students, the largest body of college students in the state, larger than the state and state related school system, which are allowed to have Wiki pages.   PA4C101 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors do not actually have the power to delete things from colleges' own webpages, that's the colleges failing to think AICUP is important enough to mention. The question at hand is simply whether this organisation is important enough, on its own merits, to mention in the articles of the members or whether, given that those same members seemingly don't care enough to make much of it on their own webpages, that would be WP:UNDUE. You need arguments other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly where it is unclear that the 'other stuff' is actually equivalent, to justify inclusion. Robminchin (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is "silencing 280,000 students." It simply doesn't appear that the organization merits mention in articles because it hasn't played a large enough role to be included in those encyclopedia articles. It's not a slight - there are thousands of organizations and tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have been involved or are currently involved in those institutions but they also don't have enough independent sourcing to merit including in those encyclopedia articles.
 * Given the information that is currently available, I am skeptical that either of these articles would survive a deletion nomination. If you would like the article(s) to remain, I strongly encourage you to locate and add independent reliable sources that are focused on the organization in question.
 * (For the sake of transparency, please be aware that I have also removed the similar Massachusetts organization from the infoboxes of all of the articles listed above. The documentation for that template requires that academic affiliations "provide essential definition of the institution" and that organization does not rise to that level.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've tagged Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts for lack of independent/in-depth sourcing sufficient to emonstrate notability. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:European University of Madrid
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European University of Madrid that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Diermeier updates
Hi editors, I made a request on the Daniel Diermeier article Talk page that might be of interest to the folks here to add some content related to his time as chancellor of Vanderbilt University. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or assistance you can offer. I have a COI so I can't make these changes myself. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. Cheers VandyBE (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

List of fictional British and Irish universities
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of fictional British and Irish universities. Pam D  22:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge of inactive higher education wikiprojects
There are a large number of inactive or semi-active wikiprojects related to higher education, mostly on individual universities:

 * WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities
 * WikiProject Florida International University
 * WikiProject Georgia Tech
 * WikiProject MTSU
 * WikiProject Mizzou
 * WikiProject Polytechnic University of the Philippines
 * WikiProject University of California
 * WikiProject University of Pennsylvania
 * WikiProject University of Pittsburgh

Added to proposal 19/07/2024:
 * WikiProject Brigham Young University
 * WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona
 * WikiProject Florida State University
 * WikiProject Stanford University
 * WikiProject University of Belgrade
 * WikiProject University of Cambridge
 * WikiProject University of Central Florida
 * WikiProject University of Connecticut
 * WikiProject University of Florida
 * WikiProject University of Houston
 * WikiProject University of Southeastern Philippines
 * WikiProject University of Southern California
 * WikiProject University of the Philippines
 * WikiProject Virginia Tech

Removed from proposal 19/07/2024 (already operating under another project):
 * WikiProject Columbia University
 * WikiProject Cornell University
 * WikiProject Dartmouth College
 * WikiProject East Carolina University
 * WikiProject Notre Dame
 * WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University
 * WikiProject Pennsylvania State University
 * WikiProject Rutgers
 * WikiProject State University of New York
 * WikiProject Texas A&M
 * WikiProject University of Massachusetts
 * WikiProject University of North Texas
 * WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
 * WikiProject University of Virginia
 * WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis
 * WikiProject West Virginia University

Removed from proposal 20/07/2024:
 * WikiProject Louisiana Tech
 * WikiProject Purdue
 * WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 * WikiProject North Carolina State University

I propose merging these projects into WikiProject Higher education in order to redirect interested editors to a more active group, stimulate collaboration on the broader topic, and reduce duplicate work in maintaining talk page banners etc. The process is quite straightforward and is outlined at WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Support Great idea! Go for it. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Support all. Not sure if there was ever sufficient activity to warrant wikiprojects on topics as niche as an individual institution, but in 2024 there certainly is not.  Sdkb  talk 19:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Support This seems like the best place for them. Robminchin (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Support. Seems like the right place to address.  Comment that the list above is a bunch of individual US universities, and a broader (though still fairly narrow) project for Bangladeshi universities.  The latter is of a slightly different nature.  I think it's probably still reasonably well served by merging here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment. How exactly would this proposed merge work? Some of these projects are already essentially task forces of their respective US state projects, for example, WikiProject State University of New York is already a subproject of WikiProject New York (state) and operates under the Template:WikiProject New York banner. Would that project continue to operate under WikiProject New York, or would everything be merged in here instead? On another note, is there any reason why none of the UK university projects (i.e. WikiProject University of Oxford, etc.) were included in this proposed merge? Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ejgreen77 The proposal lists 26 out of 44 individual university projects as inactive or semi-active. There are only 2 UK university projects, for Oxford and Cambridge, and they both show some recent activity on their talk pages. TSventon (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I personally don't think it would be a bad idea to make them task forces of this project too, but merges of active wikiprojects are can be more contentious and so should be discussed separately. Also, I was working from WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society which doesn't have Cambridge listed. Do I understand correctly that there are 18 other inactive university projects that I've missed? Can we add them here? – Joe (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The details are at WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects but basically you merge/redirect the project pages here and replace all the banners with WikiProject Higher education.
 * I overlooked that WikiProject State University of New York was a already a subproject; it would make more sense to merge it to its parent then. I'll check the others and then update the list above. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

TSventon (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the following projects: WikiProject Columbia University, WikiProject Cornell University, WikiProject Dartmouth College, WikiProject East Carolina University, WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, WikiProject North Carolina State University, WikiProject Notre Dame, WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University, WikiProject Pennsylvania State University, WikiProject Rutgers, WikiProject State University of New York, WikiProject Texas A&M, WikiProject University of Massachusetts, WikiProject University of North Texas, WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, WikiProject University of Virginia, WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis, and WikiProject West Virginia University. All of those projects are subprojects and task forces of their respective US state based projects, and I don't believe that any further merging is desirable. I have no opinion as to any of the other projects listed in the above proposal other then the ones I have specifically named in this comment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I looked at WikiProject Higher education I believe the missing projects are as below. Some may be active or merged.
 * WikiProject Brigham Young University
 * WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona
 * WikiProject California State University
 * WikiProject Florida State University
 * WikiProject Louisiana Tech
 * WikiProject Purdue
 * WikiProject Stanford University
 * WikiProject Texas Tech University
 * WikiProject University of Belgrade
 * WikiProject University of Cambridge
 * WikiProject University of Central Florida
 * WikiProject University of Connecticut
 * WikiProject University of Florida
 * WikiProject University of Houston
 * WikiProject University of Oklahoma
 * WikiProject University of Southeastern Philippines
 * WikiProject University of Southern California
 * WikiProject University of the Philippines
 * WikiProject Virginia Tech
 * Thanks, . I've removed the sixteen projects that are already operating as task force of another one, and added the sixteen additional inactive ones that aren't. Could you please check to see if this affects your !vote? – Joe (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the new list.  Sdkb  talk 12:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the new list. There seemed some doubt over whether the Cambridge project was active or not so I checked it out – while there had been recent activity on the talk page, this has all been posting of notices or questions and the last time a post received a reply was 2016, so I'd call this inactive. In contrast, the Oxford project has had replies in 2024. Robminchin (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The new list looks fine, at least at a glance. I'll expand: For me, I think the essential thing is that we deprecate long-time moribund university-specific Wikiprojects, as possibly misleading without balancing upside.  I think that Wikiproject Higher Education is probably a better target than the state/region projects in general, although it is a more complicated project to get buy-in from region projects in cases where the university is already a subproject.  I also think that articles on universities should generally list both the higher ed wikiproject and also the state/region wikiproject.  Thus, it may be mostly moot what we redirect to, so long as both wikiprojects are listed on such articles (as I think they generally are). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose the amended proposal for the following projects: WikiProject Louisiana Tech and WikiProject Purdue. Both of those projects are subprojects and task forces of their respective US state based projects, and I don't believe that any further merging is desirable. Note that while WikiProject Purdue has its own talk page banner, it is also fully functional within Template:WikiProject United States with a |Purdue=yes option added into it. Template:WikiProject Purdue should be sent to TfD individually and replaced in all instances with Template:WikiProject United States |Purdue=yes. Continue to oppose for WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and WikiProject North Carolina State University which were both in the original nomination and have not been stricken as of yet, for the same reasons. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed those too. We probably need a separate discussion of what to do with all these dead pseudo-projects now. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, I don't think any individual university is ever going to be a big enough topic to warrant a task force. It'll have a few dozen pages at most, and the talk page of the university article will always be a better place to discuss the rare things that pertain to all of them than a project page.  Sdkb  talk 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RADA
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RADA that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:History of Cambodia

Human rights and multi-party democracy - POV issues
The article claims:
 * It established a multiparty liberal democracy...The constitution provides for a wide range of internationally recognized human rights.

but the Democracy Index lists the country as a "hybrid regime" (between "flawed democracy" and "authoritarian regime"); List of freedom indices sources describe it as "not free", "mostly unfree", and "difficult situation"; and Human rights in Cambodia lists a lot of serious criticism. Author Joel Brinkley in Cambodia's Curse describes the post-election government as having been decided by force, with Hun Sen as a very corrupt dictator since things settled down. This summary needs to be more well-rounded in its description. -- Beland (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I guess this section deals with the "neutrality" tag of Modern Cambodia. I think we should simply make it clear (summarize with refs), that political reality is very hard to reconcile with Cambodia's constitution and the initial setup of powers, the distribution and control thereof etc. After all, Cambodia is a normal country, not ideally governed - every country has weaknesses in its system. ATBWikirictor (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Cambodia hasn't been a "normal" country since 1970. The phrase "not ideally governed" may be the biggest understatement I've seen this month. Between elections, Hun Sen and the CPP at least try to give the appearance of "reforms" but as each election nears, they always give up the pretense and their corruption and dictatorial policies become clear. Last month Sam Rainsy's deputy, Kem Sokha, the highest ranking member of the opposition CNRP in office was forcefully removed by an illegal vote by the CPP and his house was surrounded for 6 hours with his wife and children inside while her calls to police and other officials were ignored. This happened in concert with "CNRP lawmakers Nhay Chamroeun and Kong Sakphea (being) dragged from their cars and savagely beaten" by a mob that included "members of the security services dressed in civilian clothing and prominent Cambodian People’s Party activists". The two MPs had to be transported to Thailand for medical treatment out of fear that the CPP would enter Cambodian hospitals and "finish the job". Also in a related move, Hun Sen and the CPP issued an arrest warrant for Sam Rainsy on a trumped up "defamation" charge from 2008, a charge for which Rainsy had already been pardoned and had been given immunity. Rainsy was also removed from being an MP. These moves are clearly politically motivated by Hun Sen's fear of losing the next election to Rainsy and his CNRP. In fact, Hun Sen stated publicly that his party wouldn't give up power even if they lost the next election, and threatened a return to civil war if CNRP won.

 * From the aborted coup attempt led by Prince Norodom Chakrapong in 1994, to the 1997 CPP coup, to the brutal contested election of 2013, Hun Sen has not hesitated to use the armed forces and National Police, controled by his various nephews and sons-in-law, to do his bidding. Add to this the Human Rights violations, violent, illegal land grabs, etc, etc. and this is much more than "weaknesses in its systems", its a downright oppressive dictatorial regime that, according to most international observers, is one of the most corrupt in the world.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think, what you outlined is more or less normal in - let's say - 60% of all countries. Moreover, i seriously doubt, that political culture in Cambodia is going to change, once Hun Sen is gone. Anyhow, thank you for your reply. ATBWikirictor (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 * .--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Clean Up
Hi! i have written a new head section for the article, here: User:Wikirictor/sandbox. Please have a look at it. i am going to complete the refs soon, though. Wikirictor (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 * vibol123 117.20.115.80 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please join in!
I am going to replace the head section - it is evenly supported.

If you have something better for e.g.: "These powers had perceived, understood and increasingly followed the imperative of controlling the lower Mekong basin as the key to control all Indochina. A weak Khmer kingdom only encouraged the strategists in Ayutthaya (later Bangkok) and Huế." please go ahead

ATBWikirictor (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Image ancient script
i suggest to move the image - to the Chenla section.

Wikirictor (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Funan Empire?
Empire - This is maybe a bit over the top. Anyhow i am gonna re-edit Funan, Chenla, the Empire and the Dark Ages.Wikirictor (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Elegance
Hi! i have added lots of text and sources. Please EVERYBODY get involved and check and correct my mistakes and - hopefully - give the article some elegance.

ATB! Wikirictor (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
The paragraph beginning with "The 19th century arrival of then technologically superior and ambitious European colonial powers..." reads as systematically biased. Flagging for future editing. 175.100.98.172 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Cambodia. 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/20130309074636/http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/Mosyakov.doc to http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/Mosyakov.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090810/http://cambodia.ohchr.org/klc_pages/KLC_files/section_001/section_01_01_ENG.pdf to http://cambodia.ohchr.org/klc_pages/KLC_files/section_001/section_01_01_ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090810/http://cambodia.ohchr.org/klc_pages/KLC_files/section_001/section_01_01_ENG.pdf to http://cambodia.ohchr.org/klc_pages/KLC_files/section_001/section_01_01_ENG.pdf

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) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Cambodia. 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/20150614182252/http://khmer-geo.com/siemreap/event/laser-scans-flesh-out-the-saga-of-cambodias-1200-year-old-lost-city to http://khmer-geo.com/siemreap/event/laser-scans-flesh-out-the-saga-of-cambodias-1200-year-old-lost-city
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622235550/http://www.epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/source.html to http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/source.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701055419/http://www.epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/MSL.pdf to http://www.epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/MSL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205122644/http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-01.htm to http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630042439/http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-02.htm to http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-02.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110165813/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx
 * Added Cambodia History and Information http://www.veayoleta.com/cambodia-travel-gude/

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) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wat phnom.history.jpg

Lede
"The history of Cambodia, a country in mainland Southeast Asia, can be traced back to Indian civilization."

While there is truth in this statement, would it not make more sense to summarize Cambodian history from the start, such as early human settlement or Neolithic cultures? I understand that "Cambodia" as a state-level entity does not emerge until later, with significant Indian influence, but since all country history pages include pre-recorded history as part of the article, this opening sentence seems a bit arbitrary. - A Morozov  〈talk〉 03:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Cambodia


text:
Talk:Lahar

Comments
I did point that the lahars killed 23,001 people in Colombia not so long ago. That's outside of the US.

If anyone else knows of towns outside the US that have lahar warning systems, please add them to the article. -- hike395

 * Added Mount Ruapehu. -- hike395

Lahar comes from the indonesian word Berlahar, it was cut short because Kapampangan Filipinos who were blasted by Mount Pinatubo could cut the word short, it was soon accepted as a world-wide term after Dr. Reynaldo Punongbayan of PHIVOLCS gave it recognition decades before.

isn't lahar an icelandic word?
Isn't lahar an icelandic word? It's my understading that a lahar can only occur when a volcano melts snow or a glacier (neither of which Indonesia has much of!). Otherwise, it's just a plain old mudslide. --radiojon 09:08, 2003 Sep 6 (UTC)

 * The USGS says that it is an Indonesian word: . It doesn't need snow or ice: a lake of water can cause lahars. They have them in Indonesia, see, which states:
 * As the 1982-1983 eruption waned a crater lake began to form. The presence of the lake, high rainfall, and the large volume of exposed pyroclastic material on the volcano have made the hazard associated with secondary lahars very high.
 * Dunno, but I used to call everything solid out from crater lahar at my childhood, wether it was lahar or lava, we called it lahar in informal Indonesian.Aditthegrat 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not, it comes from the Indonesian word Berlahar cut short.- FromTarlac — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromTarlac (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Volcanoevacuationroute.jpg
Image:Volcanoevacuationroute.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect picture
The picture of MT. St. Helens doesn't show a lahar, but instead shows a pyroclastic flow. Lahar forms from icemelt and ash mixing, would be a mid-range gray, and would not originate from the middle of the volcano, as shown by this map: Mt. St. Helens aftermath Would it be possible for someone to get a better picture of a lahar? 71.36.204.207 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New Flow in New Zealand, 25 September 2007
It should be noted a new lahar flow has been widely reported in New Zealand on 25 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.234.53 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lahar is Indonesian/Javanese.
It comes from the word Berlahar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromTarlac (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Javanese seems more likely, Java island is full of active volcanoes. Malay origin is doubtful, considering that virtually all Malay ethnic live in coastal areas in Sumatra, Borneo and Malay Peninsula, where there are no volcanoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.93.24 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Decimate
The lead says "...even been known to decimate entire settlements." Decimate (properly speaking) just means "reduce by 10%". I believe the editor intended something stronger. I know "decimate" is used colloquially to mean great destruction, but in an encyclopedia we should be more formal. The sentence does not have a cite, but the body describes destruction of an entire community. Would "destroy" or "devastate" be too strong? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lahar


text:
Desiccant

A desiccant is a hygroscopic substance that is used to induce or sustain a state of dryness (desiccation) in its vicinity; it is the opposite of a humectant. Commonly encountered pre-packaged desiccants are solids that absorb water. Desiccants for specialized purposes may be in forms other than solid, and may work through other principles, such as chemical bonding of water molecules. They are commonly encountered in foods to retain crispness. Industrially, desiccants are widely used to control the level of water in gas streams.

Types of desiccants
Although some desiccants are chemically inert, others are extremely reactive and require specialized handling techniques. The most common desiccant is silica gel, an otherwise inert, nontoxic, water-insoluble white solid. Tens of thousands of tons are produced annually for this purpose. Other common desiccants include activated charcoal, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, and molecular sieves (typically, zeolites). Desiccants may also be categorized by their type, either I,II,III,IV, or V. These types are a function of the shape of the desiccant's moisture sorption isotherm.

Alcohols and acetones are also dehydrating agents. Development of desiccants made of treated rice husks is a promising use of waste agricultural products.

Performance efficiency
One measure of desiccant efficiency is the ratio (or percentage) of water storable in the desiccant relative to the mass of desiccant.

Another measure is the residual relative humidity of the air or other fluid being dried.

The performance of any desiccant varies with temperature and both relative humidity and absolute humidity. To some extent, desiccant performance can be precisely described, but most commonly, the final choice of which desiccant best suits a given situation, how much of it to use, and in what form, is made based on testing and practical experience.

Colored saturation indicators
Sometimes a humidity indicator is included in the desiccant to show, by color changes, the degree of water-saturation of the desiccant. One commonly used indicator is cobalt chloride, which is blue when anhydrous, but turns purple upon bonding with two water molecules (·2). Further hydration results in the pink hexaaquacobalt(II) chloride complex. However, the use of cobalt chloride raises health concerns, being potentially carcinogenic.

Applications
One example of desiccant usage is in the manufacture of insulated windows where zeolite spheroids fill a rectangular spacer tube at the perimeter of the panes of glass. The desiccant helps to prevent the condensation of moisture between the panes. Another use of zeolites is in the "dryer" component of refrigeration systems to absorb water carried by the refrigerant, whether residual water left over from the construction of the system, or water released by the degradation of other materials over time.

Bagged desiccants are also commonly used to protect goods in barrier-sealed shipping containers against moisture damage: rust, corrosion, etc. Hygroscopic cargo, such as cocoa, coffee, various nuts and grains, and other foods can be particularly susceptible to mold and rot when exposed to condensation and humidity. Because of this, shippers often take measures by deploying desiccants to protect against loss. Pharmaceutical packaging often includes small packets of desiccant to keep the atmosphere inside the package below critical levels of water vapor.

Desiccants induce dryness in any environment and reduce the amount of moisture present in air. Desiccants come in various forms and have found widespread use in the food, pharmaceuticals, packing, electronics and many manufacturing industries.

Air conditioning systems can be based on desiccants, as drier air feels more comfortable and absorbing water itself removes heat.

Desiccants are used in livestock farming, where, for example, new-born piglets are highly susceptible to hypothermia owing to their wetness.

Drying of solvents

Desiccants are also used to remove water from solvents, typically required by chemical reactions that do not tolerate water, e.g., the Grignard reaction. The method generally, though not always, involves mixing the solvent with the solid desiccant. Studies show that molecular sieves are superior as desiccants relative to chemical drying reagents such as sodium-benzophenone. Sieves offer the advantages of being safe in air and recyclable.

title: Desiccant