text:
Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 11

11 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9 Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11(You are here.) Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20 Graculus: I've now studied 172's draft. It is an improvement over his last 45K version, and the structure is broadly satisfactory (though not the order or, as 172 acknowledges may be the case, the headings).

The two contents boxes at the top are an eyesore - there should be one or the other, but not both. The earlier comment about including the origins of the word "imperialism" is a valid one, though I was initially content to see the paragraph dropped.
 * 172: The two contents boxes are different. One is a feature added to all Wikipedia articles with subtopics that can be hidden. This box organizes the daughter article. The other is a contents box for the entire series. If you find that two boxes are an eyesore, hide one (take another look in case you haven't noticed that feature). Go to the History of Germany series and you'll see two boxes as well.

 * Graculus: Why not move the right-hand one down so they're not adjacent - this would at least avoid the jarring break in the text.

Graculus: The order needs fundamental overhaul. The theories should appear at the end, not two-fifths of the way down where they interrupt the discussion of what happened: the facts gave rise to the theories, not vice versa.
 * 172:Conventionally, a theories section goes on the bottom of the series. Perhaps the theories article could be renamed, since I think that it has a proper place as the second article. The theories section will help clarify why there was a revival of imperialism occurred after the 1870s, and why it came with a rush. It will help give readers a sense of what factors ended the era between 1815 and 1870, an era of free trade and laissez faire, when formal colonization was waning. Since the previous section dealt with the main factors in the center (the breakdown of the post-1815 order, the loss of Britain's comparative advantage, the rise of finance capitalism, etc.), the next section, which also focuses on shifts in the center, continues the previous one. It will also help give a reader a sense of why history is unfolding in such a direction when he/she reads the subsequent articles. Perhaps this section can be renamed so that it wouldn't seem out of place. 172 05:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: The theories can clarify at the end. The rest of the article should be clear, which it isn't: see below.

Graculus: The content remains far too Anglocentric: France has all but vanished, German colonialism is barely discussed, and the US is relegated to a paragraph. The daughter list indicates that Russia is to be considered merely as a trigger to British action, though I accept that this is subject to revision.

 * 172: I'm going to stand by dealing with Russian imperialism only as a trigger to British imperialism. First, the Russian empire grew from the center outward by a process of accretion. It was a contiguous, internal empire, not an overseas one. Moreover, there was nothing "new" about Russian imperialism; the Russians had been pushing out into the great plain that surrounded them since the days of the grand duchy of Moscow. It was primarily the expansion of a land-hungry people, and also a struggle of an effectively landlocked country for access to a warm water port. Although I'm going to stretch an analogy way too far, in many respects, its expansionism was more comparable to the growth of Ile de France and to the growth of Spain around Castile and Aragon than the expansionism than to the expansion of the advanced industrial powers. It was really unrelated to British, German, American, Japanese, etc. Russia's only mentioned since its expansion was a perennial fear of paranoid British Conservatives.

 * Graculus: Russian expansionism in Sibera and Central Asia was the old-fashioned territory-building until the late 19th century, an observation I added in my earlier draft: Russia's 19th-century designs upon the Ottoman Empire were traditional power politics. Russian involvement in China was of an entirely different order, triggering Anglo-American diplomatic action against partition, the Anglo-Japanese alliance and subsequently Japan's intervention in Manchuria. While Russian policy in the 1890s and 1900s wasn't necessarily an expression of the New Imperialism, it's fairly key to the story, and its unintended consequences are far more illustrative of the powers' attitudes to China than your text.

 * 172: I didn't state that more on Russia shouldn't be added. I just stated that it shouldn't be added for its own sake. The more content on Russia the better insofar as it is related to other powers.

 * Graculus: The later phase (1895-1914) is relevant in its own right, not just as an adjunct to others' policy processes.

 * 172: Perhaps, but the lack of other content is more pressing at the moment. Overall, the article doesn't really deal with the post-1890 era. Why don't we get to it? Why don't we pick areas of interest so that we can add relevant content to the main article and daughter articles?

 * Graculus: Structure first, then content. I've made my disapproval of the daughters' creation at this stage abundantly clear, however well-intentioned the move may have been: I don't want to spend too much time on daughters which may, as you have accepted, later need fundamental overhaul with the substantial rewriting that that usually involves if there's to be a good result. I want first to sort out the main article and its arrangement (which at the moment is that of the hierarchy, though there's no reason why the one should necessarily resemble the other).

 * 172: First, it is necessary that the structure of main article, which is an executive summary of the daughter articles, reflect that of the series. If you don't take my word for it, ask Mav, the site's most active contributor. Second, substantial rewriting of the daughter articles isn't necessary. They are merely incomplete. You yourself made that clear. I'd guess that 95% of your 34 K version was borrowed from the existing text anyway.

 * Graculus: 70% actually, and not by preference, believe me - I just didn't want to remove more of others' work than was necessary to get it to a manageable size and coherent order. The whole did have to be thoroughly reorganised and largely reworded, and I'd have gone a lot further were it not for the wish to preserve others' input. I've never said your proposed daughters are "merely incomplete": their whole existence in their present form is your own unilateral preference, to which I never subscribed. Graculus 12:16, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * 172: No, there had been support for creating an executive summary for weeks with links to daughter articles. Support for this even predated the creation of your user name. You're free to edit them, rearrange their sequencing in the series, and rename them. I acknowledge that the daughters and the executive summary are incomplete and that a new structure might be more effective, but I haven't really had the time to focus on them extensively, having spent far more time on the talk page. However, the vast majority of the content in them is salvageable in one way or another. 172 12:32, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: Indeed the creation of a summary was discussed, but the daughters themselves weren't prior to creation: I'm happy to let you develop them without interference, but I needed to clarify your statement as to my position. Graculus 12:47, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * 172: No, the idea was to have a summary/series. If you don't believe me, ask someone else involved. And incidentally, I don't want to develop those articles without interference. If you're unwilling to work on them, I'm sure that someone else will. 172 12:53, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: The idea of a summary does not establish the character of each daughter. I'm quite willing to contribute to the daughters if you wish - on the understanding that their arrangement may have to be revised - but I consider the parent primary at this stage. Graculus 13:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * 172: Once again, the idea of creating a History of Germany-style series (which is an executive summary linked to daughter articles) was discussed for a long time. I just asked another user to confirm this since you don't believe me. Furthermore, the structure, sequencing, and content of the main summary article will have to be modeled after those of the daughters. If the way the series is arranged gets in the way of your new ideas, you can easily change the series. Right now, I'm too busy to make a major overhaul at the moment. I'm only online right now to keep an eye on this talk page. 172 13:09, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: I'm working on improvements, but I'm not about to make any drastic change at the moment. I'm in the same position as you. Graculus 13:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Good. Then let's come up with a more effective structure and sequencing of the series. 172 13:24, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * 172: In addition, while I'd like to add more content pertaining to the other powers, I stand behind a central focus on Britain. The article's periodization defines three eras of overseas expansion: mercantilism, the free trade of Pax Britannica, and New Imperialism, explaining its central focus on Britain. The article is focusing on the shift to aggressive nationalism and imperial rivalry that replaced the age of Pax Britannica, explaining why the expansion of the rival powers contributed to a rush of British expansion and why they were interested in completing with Britain. There are also links to the Meiji era, German empire, US history, etc, which will give you further details. I actually have written a good deal on late nineteenth century Italian, German, and Japanese expansionism in other articles. But we are all under pressure to utilize the hyperlinks as much as possible.

 * Graculus: Mercantilism is of a different age and doesn't belong here: discuss that in an article on Pax Britannica or Free Trade if you like. You seem to see New Imperialism as a British-directed phenomenon, which it wasn't.

 * 172: Of course I'm aware of that. However, this might not be clear to readers, so backgrounding is necessary. Above, I made it clear that New Imperialism is a different era. Reread the statement. 172 09:31, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * 172: I would actually like to start three new daughter articles, one on the promotion of colonialism in the home front, and another on the colonial world. And in these articles, I'd like to include much more on French, German, Japanese, Italian, and US imperialism. It should also go in detail comparing the contrasts between how French and British imperialism were promoted and the contrasts between their colonial styles, comparing the roles of class, race, and gender in the colonial rule. The contrasts between the promotion of French and British colonialism has long been an interest of mine, although I never got around to it. How France promoted a progressive form of imperialism since the founding of the Third Republic rooted in its republican character is also very fascinating. The era of Napoleon III is also a long-running interest of mine. But I wanted to get the central focus out of the way first. 172 05:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: No, the central article should offer a balanced overview, not scrutinise a central focus. The latter is for a daughter.

 * 172: I stated that I wanted to add those topics to new or existing daughter articles, not the main article. We do not disagree on this point. 172 09:31, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Graculus: The arrangement of the second section still gives the impression that the whole process was initiated by surplus British capital, a discussion which is better placed among the theories. There appears to be a basic confusion between the "New imperialism" of late-19th-century colonialism and the capital-driven economic "Imperialism" of Hobson and Lenin. The latter concept is, as PP observes, a matter for the article "Imperialism" or some daughter thereof.
 * 172: I don't want to get into theory on the talk page, but the imperialism of Hobson and Lenin was New Imperialism. To be brief, according to scholars that gravitate in this field, capitalism evolved in stages. The stage from 1750 to the last decades of the nineteenth century was industrial capitalism, made possible by the accumulation of vast amounts of capital and its investment in machinery and manufacturing. During the resulting Industrial Revolution the industrialist replaced the merchant as the dominant figure in the capitalistic system. The next stage was finance capitalism, stemming from the establishment of mammoth industrial empires and the ownership and management of their assets by financers divorced from the production process. According to those scholars, during this stage the financier replaced the industrialist as the dominant figure in the capitalistic system. Hobson and Lenin associated the export of finished goods, when Britain was the "workshop of the world" with industrial capitalism. In a nutshell, they regarded New Imperialism as more finance-driven than capital-driven, due especially to their focus on Britain. Their work focuses on the post-1870s era, not the preceding one. Later scholars have noted that the British government, dominated by landowners rather than industrialists, was by and large more interested in offering state backing to finance due to their stake in finance. They'd also argue that this explains why those linked to manufacturing, like Joseph Chamberlain, argued for protectionism to no avail after the 1870s when they shifted to protectionism due to the rise of competition. So to them, amalgamation and the rise of finance would explain the surge in state backing when capitalism shifted from "industrial capitalism" to "finance capitalism." It was Karl Marx writing in the mid nineteenth century, during the era of "cut throat capitalism" before rise of amalgamations, cartels, monopolies, or whatever your want to call them (although he predicted such a concentration of wealth), not Hobson and Lenin as you seem to maitain, who wrote about capital-driven imperialism. Lenin and Hobson focused on finance. From your comments, you're confusing the original work of Karl Marx with Hobson and Lenin. I'm not promoting Hobson's Imperialism and Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism since they are very flawed works of history, failing to reconcile their theories with far more complicated historical realities, but later scholars have not dismissed their theories wholesale. It almost seems that you're dismissing them because Hobson's theories were picked up by Lenin, who was a Marxist, and no Marxist could ever be right. 172 05:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: No, the Hobson-Lenin Imperialism isn't New Imperialism, which was an aggressive pursuit {usually in the context of this 40-year period} of political domination over less-developed lands, rather than the economically exploitative capital export which often accompanied it. Whether Lenin or Hobson is right is irrelevant: the point is that as theoretical interpretations their analyses shouldn't form the basis for the article's approach unless it's about their concept, which it isn't. Your approach is perfectly legitimate in the theories or at the article Imperialism, but not here.

 * 172: No, Hobson was writing at the time of the Anglo-Boer War and his focus was the Scramble for Africa. And a synopsis of Hobson's work belongs in the theories section. Your comments seem to pertain to Marx, not Lenin. They're contending that the flow of capital was related to the adoption of imperialism as a political policy. 172 09:31, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: They're related, but two distinct phenomena. Imperialism is economic. The "New imperialism" is economic or stategic in inception but political in expression.

 * 172: That's a good way of putting it. Now I understand your point; before it almost seemed as if you were discussing Marx's analysis. But there was no confusion, as you earlier asserted. However, if you want to put your above statement in the article to make the relation clearer to readers, that would be fine.

Graculus: There's new detail to be corrected (India was never "a formal British colony"; Ismail sold his shares in 1875). I'll attend to these at my next edit.
 * 172: Opps. What can I say? I read fast and I favor the smallest text size on my view feature. I'm not a perfect editor. I'm far more used to editing text when it's on paper right before me. 172 05:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Graculus: Except in the matter of brevity, I still do not see its content as in any way an improvement on the direction of my own draft of 08:01 (to whose order and content I notice no-one has so far ventured a reasoned objection, and which was no less capable of being linked to appropriate daughter articles): I shall endeavour to combine the better points of both.
 * 172: That's what I've been doing. Once again, every one of your original contributions is in the daughter articles. 172 05:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Graculus: It's this central article I'm concerned about about at the moment. The balance just isn't there.

Graculus 22:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

PS. I'd be interested to hear also the views of other arbiters of our "consensus" - if they have any. Graculus 09:16, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hello. I just took a look at this work, and worried about NPOV issue. I might not be the first one to raise this question, but I didn't see POV issue in a few archived talks that I've read. So, just in case, let me suggest how this could be a better article in terms of NPOV. If not, just showing us a pointer to a past discussion would help similar concerns of others like me.

I felt that many causal relations of historical events are simply asserted, as opposed to be explained & attributed to somebody.

Not that I suspect there weren't those influences, but it is hard to believe most historians studying relevant subjects agree that these are the exact set of chain of events to be explained. Maybe some pick other events as more important factors that caused or shaped New Imperialism.

So, if there are disagreements among scholars, I think mentioning those different views would greatly increse the credibility of the article. When there is no disagreements about certain part of article, it also helps to make it clear (like by saying "it is fairly established that A, B, &C are the most imporatant causes of D.")

Alternatively, it would be good to specify what kind of viewpoint this set of articles represent.

Hope this helps. Tomos 05:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) - Little by little all these concerns will be addressed. So far, we have a focus on economic, political, and social factors in the center and the colonies, giving it a balance. However, because of the global nature of this phenomenon, it's one of the most conceivably complicated and contentious topics that would be included in any sourcebook. Like thousands of other articles on this site, this one is a work in progress. 172 07:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Series box
The "series box" is too big. Something the size of History of Germany's one would be more appropriate. You don't need details on what's in each sub-article: it should be obvious from the title and the summary. Martin 12:50, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Seconded: it also makes subsequent amendment all the harder: it should be kept basic for the time being, with the possibility of later expansion when it's more final. Graculus 13:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

172 continues to remove the links to the temp pages (Despite the vote) and he continues to allow anyone else to make any substantial edits to the page. Pizza Puzzle --- Lir/Pizza Puzzle: the temp page is irrelevant now that the page is well below the 32 K limit.

In addition, I earlier reverted an attempt by Lir/Vera Cruz/PP to insert his much touted list. So that nobody believes his assertions that I'm somehow censoring him, let me post another user's criticisms:

 * No, there doesn't have to be a list: Wikipedia is clogged with lists of this, that & the other: a link to a biographical article is far more valuable in its proper context within an article that refers to that person. The discussion in the old version was largely redundant, as the proper place to discuss a politician's views in depth is the biography entry. National policy is never the expression of one person, and historical articles should reflect that. Graculus 21:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It tries to compress to much information into too short a space: the names are inappropriate here (and the Second Empire predates it while Cleveland is peripheral to what follows). I don't like personalising history: these men were all important participants but each expressed national phenomena. The thing about wiki is that links are highlighted in the text where they are in their appropriate context within the article: they don't need to be listed at the top unless they're broader subjects which provide the context of the article itself. Graculus 18:57, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

172 18:32, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) Having been quoted in the foregoing message, I feel I should comment. My above remarks to PP were solely a response to his request for comments on his opening paragraph, and do not relate to the present issue. I don't recall the vote on a link incorporating provision for its removal, clearly an unwise oversight. We now have a somewhat altered situation in which PP is attempting to re-insert text previously ecxised (even if it presently resides elsewhere) rather than removing it. I do think that the main draft's reduction to under 32K removes the need for a link, so long as PP is able to contribute legitimate edits here on the same basis as anyone on any other page (ie without unsupported reversion) in the absence of evidence of current misconduct. The other drafts should stay where they are pending the resolution of fundamental issues relating to this article. I'd like a rest now, so if everyone goes away and works out improvements in their drafts which can reduce the difference between them, we may actually make some progress. Graculus 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Click here for information on Pizza Puzzle's banned status. Evercat put an incredible amount of work into proving the Lir/PP connection, linking him to his innumerable banned identities, such as Adam, Bridget, Lir, Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, and Dietary Fiber. 172 18:43, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Why isn't he banned already, for heaven's sake? He admitted being a vandal himself ("you can't stop my vandalism spree") and his general behaviour proves it.

 * The only person with authority to ban signed in users is User:Jimbo Wales - if you or anybody else wants any user to be banned, the right thing to do would be to write to him or raise the matter on the WikiEn mailing list. --Camembert

This page has been protected by someone.Pizza Puzzle
 * By whom? 172 19:16, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * The protection will have to be lifted whenever Graculus comes back, since he is a non-sysop extremely well versed in this subject interested in editing the page and adding content. 172 19:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It's been protected by me. I don't really want to get involved at all, but the rate of the reversions was such that it was taking up quite a lot of Recent Changes real estate and wouldn't have allowed anybody else time to edit anyway. I'm not going to leave it protected for long, because I can't stay on the Wikipedia for long, but I hope everyone will realise that an edit war over this is pretty silly. --Camembert

 * Of course it's silly, but so is Lir. See here for proof that Lir=PP. This is the only way you can respond to his trolling. 172 19:29, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * And about the link to the top of the page. It's irrelevant now that there is an executive summary/main series page well under the 32 K limit. It's time to list his temp page with all its jumbled lists page and headlines on the VFD. 172 19:32, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Edit wars are so uncivilized. Why not a formal edit duel? A neutral third party should unprotect the page, and without reloading the page at all wait a random time, and then protect it again, the person with the last edit then declared the winner. On protecting the page, the neutral third party would see who had the last edit, avoiding the risk of a sysop cheating (which wouldn't happen anyway, of course). The looser would then agree not to revert again, and the page could be unprotected, to allow normal edits. Ксйп Cyp 19:34, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have to go, so I'm unprotecting the page. I hope people will find something better to do than restart the war - don't be afraid to let the other side "win" for an hour or two and then quietly revert later when they're not looking. --Camembert

 * Just to say that the link should remain - we went though this: the page was protected for ages, we allowed two days for votes, and, despite lots of lobbying from 172, we voted to have the link.
 * Pizza Puzzle gets a week. At the end of a week, if he hasn't convinced anyone here that his version is worth buiding on to replace this one, then at least two people said that they'd no longer support including the link, and at that point it can certainly be deleted.
 * Patience folks. Martin 19:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Note that I'm not going to edit war over this. Martin

This is getting absurd. Now we have two temps. That is blatently abusing wiki. It was reluctantly agreed to allow one link for one week. But two is taking the mickey. One has to go. FearÉIREANN 20:15, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) I have moved Temp 2 to this page. These things are breeding like rabbits.

title: Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 11


text:
Chain of custody

Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence. Of particular importance in criminal cases, the concept is also applied in civil litigation and more broadly in drug testing of athletes and in supply chain management, e.g. to improve the traceability of food products, or to provide assurances that wood products originate from sustainably managed forests. It is often a tedious process that has been required for evidence to be shown legally in court. Now, however, with new portable technology that allows accurate laboratory quality results from the scene of the crime, the chain of custody is often much shorter which means evidence can be processed for court much faster.

The term is also sometimes used in the fields of history, art history, and archives as a synonym for provenance (meaning the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, document or group of documents), which may be an important factor in determining authenticity.

Criminal evidence
When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty.

Establishing the chain of custody is made of both a chronological and logical procedure, especially important when the evidence consists of fungible goods. In practice, this most often applies to illegal drugs which have been seized by law enforcement personnel. In such cases, the defendant at times disclaims any knowledge of possession of the controlled substance in question. Accordingly, the chain of custody documentation and testimony is presented by the prosecution to establish that the substance in evidence was in fact in the possession of the defendant.

An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).

Maintaining a chain of custody is essential for the forensic scientist that is working on a specific criminal case. The documentation of evidence is key for maintaining a chain of custody because everything that is done to the piece of evidence must be listed and whoever came in contact with that piece of evidence is accountable for what happens to it. This prevents police officers and other law officials from contaminating the evidence or taking the piece of evidence.

Example
An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at a murder scene:
 * 1) Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container, then gives it to forensics technician Bill.
 * 2) Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.
 * 3) Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting everyone who has accessed the original evidence (the knife, and original copies of the lifted fingerprints).

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.

In the courtroom, if the defendant questions the chain of custody of the evidence it can be proven that the knife in the evidence room is the same knife found at the crime scene. However, if there are discrepancies and it cannot be proven who had the knife at a particular point in time, then the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the resulting evidence declared inadmissible.

Chain of custody is also used in most chemical sampling situations to maintain the integrity of the sample by providing documentation of the control, transfer, and analysis of samples. Chain of custody is especially important in environmental work where sampling can identify the existence of contamination and can be used to identify the responsible party.

Supply chain management
ISO standard 22095, Chain of custody – General terminology and models was published in 2020. The ISO describes this standard as "a simple solution" designed "to help boost manufacturer and consumer confidence, reducing supply chain costs by addressing issues like risk, loss of time and conditions of production".

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

title: Chain of custody


text:
User talk:Maximus Rex

Welcome to Maximus Rex's Talk Page

Nomination of Uber (company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uber (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Uber (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 23:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Cleaned to place up a bit
I have cleaned the place up a bit to make it look more presentable and to get rid of stuff which is no longer a concern any more but you can all ways change it back if you want.  User: H.Brian Griffin talk 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Brakteat bischof ulrich von halberstadt und albrecht der baer.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Brakteat bischof ulrich von halberstadt und albrecht der baer.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Freak for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Freak until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Brakteat bischof ulrich von halberstadt und albrecht der baer.jpg

The file File:Brakteat bischof ulrich von halberstadt und albrecht der baer.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unused file, unsuitable for Commons"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – User 45  65  41  16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Thermochromic Paint" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thermochromic Paint and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Duragesic®" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Duragesic® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Melbourne, Australia." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melbourne,_Australia.&redirect=no Melbourne, Australia.] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Naropa (disambiguation)

The article Naropa (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

ITN archives
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I am glad to tell you that In the news/Posted/Archives are now fully available, with all the vandalism/disruptive edits removed. While creating the bot for the archival process, I went through a lot of the older posts, you are one of the editors whose name popped quite often in ITN in "back in the day", so I personally wanted to let you know about the archives I hope you see this message someday. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maximus Rex


text:
User talk:Kyokpae~enwiki

Hello, and a belated welcome to you! I noticed your banner at Banners and buttons; very nice! Do you contribe to the Polish Wikipedia as well? -- Stephen Gilbert 07:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * come back, shane :-) --sj

I am :) thnx!

Image:Kyokpae_banner.png
Hello, I hope you don't mind, but I've changed the image tag from to , since  tags are no longer used I assumed that you released the image to the public (which isn't really something for me to decide). If you disagree please revert my irresponsable edit. --– sampi ( talk • contrib ) 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on European Freestate Project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve (Slf67)talk 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

banners and buttons page
Someone feels that teh banners and buttons articles violates wikipedia policy on free use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. If you have an opinon on the issue feel free ot enter the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Mrdthree 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mooncrest 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of European Jazz Trio
A tag has been placed on European Jazz Trio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kyokpae. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kyokpae~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kyokpae~enwiki


text:
Otopeni

Otopeni is a town in Ilfov County, Muntenia, Romania, neighbouring the north of Bucharest along the DN1 road to Ploiești. It has 21,750 inhabitants, of which 99.0% are ethnic Romanians. One village, Odăile, is administered by the city.

Henri Coandă International Airport is located inside Otopeni. The head office of the airline TAROM is located inside the International Departures Terminal in the airport. In addition the head office of Țiriac Air is in Otopeni.

History
The oldest discovered human settlements in the region are very old. On the occasion of excavations in 1966 to expand the nearby Henri Coandă International Airport, archaeologist Margaret Constantiniu of the History Museum of Bucharest identified fragments of ancient pottery and other objects that belonged to an important human settlements existing since the first period of the Iron Age. In an overlay was discovered another settlement are dated to the 10th century.

By charter of 14 February 1587, Mihnea Turcitul – voivode of Wallachia – gave Holy Trinity Monastery half to the village of Islazul and half to the village of Hodopeni (today Otopeni) mills and gypsies.

On 20 May 1620, Maria, great Băneasa, Holy Trinity monastery was given back (later Radu Vodă) half the village Hodopeni with Rumani, given by Master Villa, commanding Ruman listen. Historian Constantin C. Giurescu argued that the name Hodopeni comes from Hodopa or Hodoba.

At the end of the 19th century, Otopeni town was part of Dâmbovița County, Ilfov province, consisting of two villages, Lower Otopeni and Upper Otopeni, with 851 inhabitants in total. The commune operated a school with 29 students and two churches (one in each village). The village chambers were then part of the town Bucoveni, with 125 inhabitants.

Otopeni was transformed into a city as part of Nicolae Ceaușescu's Systematization plan. It replaced the semidetached houses with four-story high apartment buildings.

Local government
The mayor of Otopeni is Constantin Silviu Gheorghe, as of 2020, from the National Liberal Party. The Otopeni Local Council has 17 councillors, even though before the 2008 local elections, it only had 15. It is considered to be a safe Liberal district, currently having the following party composition:

Natives

 * Lucian Croitoru (born 1957), economist
 * Mihai Dobrescu (born 1992), footballer
 * Ioana Tudoran (born 1948), rower

title: Otopeni


text:
Automated external defibrillator

An automated external defibrillator or automatic electronic defibrillator (AED) is a portable electronic device that automatically diagnoses the life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia, and is able to treat them through defibrillation, the application of electricity which stops the arrhythmia, allowing the heart to re-establish an effective rhythm.

With simple audio and visual commands, AEDs are designed to be simple to use for the layperson, and the use of AEDs is taught in many first aid, certified first responder, and basic life support (BLS) level cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) classes.

The portable version of the defibrillator was invented in the mid-1960s by Frank Pantridge in Belfast, Northern Ireland and the first automatic, public-use defibrillator was produced by the Cardiac Resuscitation Company in the late 1970s. The unit was launched under the name Heart-Aid.

Conditions that the device treats
An automated external defibrillator is used in cases of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias which lead to sudden cardiac arrest, which is not the same as a heart attack. The rhythms that the device will treat are usually limited to:

 * 1) Pulseless Ventricular tachycardia (shortened to VT or V-Tach)
 * 2) Ventricular fibrillation (shortened to VF or V-Fib)

In each of these two types of shockable cardiac arrhythmia, the heart is electrically active, but in a dysfunctional pattern that does not allow it to pump and circulate blood. In ventricular tachycardia, the heart beats too fast to effectively pump blood. Ultimately, ventricular tachycardia leads to ventricular fibrillation. In ventricular fibrillation, the electrical activity of the heart becomes chaotic, preventing the ventricle from effectively pumping blood. The fibrillation in the heart decreases over time, and will eventually reach asystole.

AEDs, like all defibrillators, are not designed to shock asystole ('flat line' patterns) as this will not have a positive clinical outcome. The asystolic patient only has a chance of survival if, through a combination of CPR and cardiac stimulant drugs, one of the shockable rhythms can be established, which makes it imperative for CPR to be carried out prior to the arrival of a defibrillator.

Effect of delayed treatment
Uncorrected, these cardiac conditions (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, asystole) rapidly lead to irreversible brain damage and death, once cardiac arrest takes place. After approximately three to five minutes in cardiac arrest, irreversible brain/tissue damage may begin to occur. For every minute that a person in cardiac arrest goes without being successfully treated (by defibrillation), the chance of survival decreases by 7 percent per minute in the first three minutes, and decreases by 10 percent per minute as time advances beyond ~three minutes.

Requirements for use
AEDs are designed to be used by laypersons who ideally should have received AED training. However, sixth-grade students have been reported to begin defibrillation within 90 seconds, as opposed to a trained operator beginning within 67 seconds. This is in contrast to more sophisticated manual and semi-automatic defibrillators used by health professionals, which can act as a pacemaker if the heart rate is too slow (bradycardia) and perform other functions which require a skilled operator able to read electrocardiograms.

Bras with a metal underwire and piercings on the torso must be removed before using the AED on someone to avoid interference. The American television show MythBusters found evidence that use of a defibrillator on a woman wearing an underwire bra can lead to arcing or fire but only in unusual and unlikely circumstances.

In a study analyzing the effects of having AEDs immediately present during Chicago's Heart Start program over a two-year period, of 22 individuals, 18 were in a cardiac arrhythmia which AEDs can treat. Of these 18, 11 survived. Of these 11 patients, 6 were treated by bystanders with absolutely no previous training in AED use.

Placement and availability
Automated external defibrillators are generally either kept where health professionals and first responders can use them (health facilities and ambulances) as well as public access units which can be found in public places including corporate and government offices, shopping centres, restaurants, public transport, and any other location where people may congregate.

In order to make them highly visible, public access AEDs are often brightly coloured and are mounted in protective cases near the entrance of a building. When these protective cases are opened or the defibrillator is removed, some will sound a buzzer to alert nearby staff to their removal, though this does not necessarily summon emergency services; trained AED operators should know to phone for an ambulance when sending for or using an AED. In September 2008, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation issued a 'universal AED sign' to be adopted throughout the world to indicate the presence of an AED, and this is shown on the right.

A trend that is developing is the purchase of AEDs to be used in the home, particularly by those with known existing heart conditions. The number of devices in the community has grown as prices have fallen to affordable levels. There has been some concern among medical professionals that these home users do not necessarily have appropriate training, and many advocate the more widespread use of community responders, who can be appropriately trained and managed.

Typically, an AED kit will contain a face shield for providing a barrier between patient and first aider during rescue breathing; a pair of nitrile rubber gloves; a pair of trauma shears for cutting through a patient's clothing to expose the chest; a small towel for wiping away any moisture on the chest, and a razor for shaving those with very hairy chests.

Preparation for operation
Most manufacturers recommend checking the AED before every period of duty or on a regular basis for fixed units. Some units need to be switched on in order to perform a self check; other models have a self check system built in with a visible indicator.

All manufacturers mark their electrode pads with an expiration date, and it is important to ensure that the pads are in date. The typical life expectancy of AED pads are between 18 and 30 months. This is usually marked on the outside of the pads. Some models are designed to make this date visible through a 'window', although others will require the opening of the case to find the date stamp.

It is also important to ensure that the AED unit's batteries have not expired. The AED manufacturer will specify how often the batteries should be replaced. Each AED has a different recommended maintenance schedule outlined in the user manual. Common checkpoints on every checklist, however, also include a monthly check of the battery power by checking the green indicator light when powered on, condition and cleanliness of all cables and the unit, and check for the adequate supplies.

Mechanism of operation
An AED is "automatic" because of the unit's ability to autonomously analyse the patient's condition. To assist this, the vast majority of units have spoken prompts, and some may also have visual displays to instruct the user.

"External" refers to the fact that the operator applies the electrode pads to the bare chest of the victim (as opposed to internal defibrillators, which have electrodes surgically implanted inside the body of a patient).

When turned on or opened, the AED will instruct the user to connect the electrodes (pads) to the patient. Once the pads are attached, everyone should avoid touching the patient so as to avoid false readings by the unit. The pads allow the AED to examine the electrical output from the heart and determine if the patient is in a shockable rhythm (either ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia). If the device determines that a shock is warranted, it will use the battery to charge its internal capacitor in preparation to deliver the shock. The device system is not only safer - charging only when required, but also allows for a faster delivery of the electric current.

When charged, the device instructs the user to ensure no one is touching the patient and then to press a button to deliver the shock; human intervention is usually required to deliver the shock to the patient in order to avoid the possibility of accidental injury to another person (which can result from a responder or bystander touching the patient at the time of the shock). Depending on the manufacturer and particular model, after the shock is delivered most devices will analyze the patient and either instruct CPR to be performed, or prepare to administer another shock.

Many AED units have an 'event memory' which store the ECG of the patient along with details of the time the unit was activated and the number and strength of any shocks delivered. Some units also have voice recording abilities to monitor the actions taken by the personnel in order to ascertain if these had any impact on the survival outcome. All this recorded data can be either downloaded to a computer or printed out so that the providing organisation or responsible body is able to see the effectiveness of both CPR and defibrillation. Some AED units even provide feedback on the quality of the compressions provided by the rescuer.

The first commercially available AEDs were all of a monophasic type, which gave a high-energy shock, up to 360 to 400 joules depending on the model. This caused increased cardiac injury and in some cases second and third-degree burns around the shock pad sites. Newer AEDs (manufactured after late 2003) have tended to utilise biphasic algorithms which give two sequential lower-energy shocks of 120–200 joules, with each shock moving in an opposite polarity between the pads. Others may give a stepped approach to energy delivery, usually in a 200J, a second 200J, then 300J, and finally 360J shock, with any further shocks also being 360 Joules. This lower-energy waveform has proven more effective in clinical tests, as well as offering a reduced rate of complications and reduced recovery time.

Simplicity of use
Unlike regular defibrillators, an automated external defibrillator (AED) requires minimal training to be used (or even no training). That is possible because all AEDs approved for use in the United States and many other countries use an electronic voice to prompt users through each step. Many AEDs now include visual prompts in case of a hearing impaired user. Most units are designed for use by non-medical operators. Their ease of use has given rise to the notion of public access defibrillation (PAD).

An AED automatically diagnoses the heart rhythm and determines if a shock is needed. Automatic models will administer the shock without the user's command. Semi-automatic models will tell the user that a shock is needed, but the user must tell the machine to do so, usually by pressing a button. In most circumstances, the user cannot override a "no shock" advisory by an AED. Some AEDs may be used on children – those under 55 lbs (25 kg) in weight or under age 8. If a particular model of AED is approved for pediatric use,.

Benefit
Observational studies have shown that in out of hospital cardiac arrest, public access defibrillators when used were associated with 40% median survival. When operated by non-dispatched lay first responders they have the highest likelihood of leading to survival.

United States
Automated external defibrillators are now easy enough to use that most states in the United States include the "good faith" use of an AED by any person under Good Samaritan laws. "Good faith" protection under a Good Samaritan law means that a volunteer responder (not acting as a part of one's occupation) cannot be held civilly liable for the harm or death of a victim by providing improper or inadequate care, given that the harm or death was not intentional and the responder was acting within the limits of their training and in good faith. In the United States, Good Samaritan laws provide some protection for the use of AEDs by trained and untrained responders. AEDs create little liability if used correctly; NREMT-B and many state Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training and many CPR classes incorporate or offer AED education as a part of their program.

Canada
In addition to Good Samaritan laws, Ontario, Canada also has the "Chase McEachern Act (Heart Defibrillator Civil Liability), 2007 (Bill 171 – Subsection N)", passed in June, 2007, which protects individuals from liability for damages that may occur from their use of an AED to save someone's life at the immediate scene of an emergency unless damages are caused by gross negligence.

Australia
Legislation in Australia varies by state, with separate liability issues relating to providing and using AED equipment. Each state and territory has enacted "Good Samaritan" laws that offer legal protection to a person who gives assistance in a medical emergency - the standard of care expected corresponds to their training (or lack of training). In New South Wales, the Work Health and Safety Regulation (2011) requires an employer to use a risk assessment to ensure that there is adequate provision for first aid; when there is a sufficient risk it warrants providing a defibrillator.

Reliability
In 2012, AED's (automated external defibrillators) were under scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which considered reclassifying AEDs as class III premarket approval devices. Technical malfunctions likely contributed to more than 750 deaths in the 5-year period between 2004 and 2009, in most cases by component failures or design errors. During the same period, up to 70 types of AEDs were recalled, including recalls from every AED manufacturer in the world.

In January and February 2015, the FDA issued this news release: "The FDA issued a final order that will require AED manufacturers to submit premarket approval applications (PMAs), which undergo a more rigorous review than what was required to market these devices in the past. The agency's strengthened review will focus on the critical requirements needed to ensure the safety and reliability of AEDs and their necessary accessories, including batteries, pad electrodes, adapters and hardware keys for pediatric use."

In the United Kingdom there is concern that poor maintenance may make public defibrillators unreliable. The Henley Standard reported on 21 July 2017 that more than half the defibrillators in Henley-on-Thames and the surrounding area were at risk of failing, either because of low battery power or because adhesive pads had deteriorated.

History
The first use of an external defibrillator on a human was in 1947 by Claude Beck. The portable version of the external defibrillator was invented in 1957 by Frank Pantridge in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a pioneer in emergency medical treatment. Pantridge's defibrillator required a trained operator to perform the shock procedure and charted a course for many new innovations in external defibrillation.

In the late 1970s the Heart-Aid was developed as the first truly automated external defibrillator that was designed for the public. The principles of ABC assessment and a human voice relaying instructions helped bystanders respond to a sudden cardiac event while waiting for the first responders to get to scene. Many of the early innovations in the Heart-Aid model are still part of the current generation of AEDs, although some innovations, like the airway electrode have fallen from use.

Case studies
In a study published in 2017, researchers in Poland selected the main entrances of buildings which had AEDs, although the researchers themselves did not know the exact locations of the devices. In drills of pretend heart attack, the average time to bring the AED to the patient was 96 seconds, with a time that ranged from 52 to 144 seconds. This met the three minute goal. In some cases, the use of the AED required the continuous presence of building personnel. Future improvements include more obvious signage and public-access AEDs which do not require a staff member of the building to either retrieve or use the device.

title: Automated external defibrillator


text:
Robert, Count of Mortain

Robert, Count of Mortain, first Earl of Cornwall of 2nd creation (c. 1031–c. 1095) was a Norman nobleman and the half-brother (on their mother's side) of King William the Conqueror. He was one of the very few proven companions of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings and as recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 was one of the greatest landholders in his half-brother's new Kingdom of England.

Life
Robert was the son of Herluin de Conteville and Herleva of Falaise and brother of Odo of Bayeux. Robert was born c. 1031 in Normandy, a half-brother of William the Conqueror. and was probably not more than a year or so younger than his brother Odo, born c. 1030. About 1035, Herluin, as Vicomte of Conteville, along with his wife Herleva and Robert, founded Grestain Abbey.

Count of Mortain
Around 1049 his brother Duke William made him Count of Mortain, in place of William Werlenc, who had been banished by Duke William; according to Orderic Vitalis, on a single word. William Werlenc was a grandson of Duke Richard I and therefore a cousin once removed to William, Duke of Normandy. Securing the southern border of Normandy was critical to Duke William and Robert was entrusted with this key county which guarded the borders of Brittany and Bellême.

Conquest of England
In early 1066, Robert was present at both the first Council of Lillebonne, that of William's inner circle, and the second larger council held to discuss the Duke's planned conquest of England. Robert agreed to provide 120 ships to the invasion fleet, which was more than any other of William's magnates. Robert was one of those few known to have been at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He is pictured at a dinner at Pevensey on the Bayeux Tapestry, seated with his brothers William and Odo on the day of the landing in England. When granting the monastery of St Michael's Mount in Cornwall to the Norman monastery on the Mont-Saint-Michel in Normandy, Robert recorded that he had fought at the Battle of Hastings under the banner of St Michael (habens in bello Sancti Michaelis vexillum).

Lands granted by William the Conqueror
Robert's contribution to the success of the invasion was clearly regarded as highly significant by the Conqueror, who awarded him a large share of the spoils; in total 797 manors at the time of Domesday. The greatest concentration of his honours lay in Cornwall where he held virtually all of that Earldom and was considered by some the Earl of Cornwall. While Robert held lands in twenty counties, the majority of his holdings in certain counties was as few as five manors. The overall worth of his estates was £2100. He administered most of his southwestern holdings from Launceston, Cornwall, and Montacute in Somerset. The holding of single greatest importance was the rape of Pevensey (east Sussex) which protected one of the more vulnerable parts of the south coast of England.

Later life
In 1069, together with Robert of Eu, he led an army against a force of Danes in Lindsey and effected great slaughter against them. After that there is little mention of Robert who appears to have been an absentee landholder spending the majority of his time in Normandy. Along with his brother Odo he participated in a revolt in 1088 against William II but afterwards he was pardoned. Robert died in 1095, possibly on 9 December, and chose to be buried at the Abbey of Grestain, near his father and next to his first wife Matilda.

Character
He was described by William of Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum Anglorum as a man of stupid dull disposition (crassi et hebetis ingenii). William the Conqueror considered him one of his greatest supporters and trusted him with the important county of Mortain. Further clues to his character are found in the Vita of Vitalis of Savigny, a very wise monk whom Robert sought out as his chaplain. One incident tells of Robert beating his wife and Vital, intervening, threatened to end the marriage if Robert did not repent. In still another entry Vital tells of his leaving Robert's service abruptly and after being escorted back to him, Robert begged for Vital's pardon for his actions. Overall, Robert was proficient in every duty William assigned him. He was a religious man yet ill-tempered enough to beat his wife, but was not known as a man of great wisdom.

Family
Robert was married to Matilda, daughter of Roger de Montgomery, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, before 1066 and together they had:

 * William, Count of Mortain, who succeeded him, was offered to wed Mary of Scotland.
 * Agnes who married André de Vitré, seigneur of Vitré.
 * Denise, married in 1078 to Guy, 2nd Sire de Laval.
 * Emma of Mortain (ca. 1058 – 1080), married to William IV of Toulouse, Duke of Narbonne.

Through Emma's daughter Philippa, Countess of Toulouse, Robert was the great-great-grandfather of Eleanor of Aquitaine and hence an ancestor of all English monarchs after Henry II.

After Matilda de Montgomery's death in 1084 Robert secondly married Almodis. The couple had no children.

Portrayals on screen
On screen, Robert has been portrayed by Gordon Whiting in the two-part BBC TV play Conquest (1966), part of the series Theatre 625, and by Richard Ireson in the TV drama Blood Royal: William the Conqueror (1990).

title: Robert, Count of Mortain


text:
Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport

Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport (Aeroportul Internațional Henri Coandă București) is Romania's busiest international airport, located in Otopeni, 16.5 km north of Bucharest's city centre. It is currently one of the two airports serving the capital of Romania. The other is Aurel Vlaicu Airport. The airport covers 605 hectares (1,495 acres) of land and contains two parallel runways, both 3,500 meters long.

The airport is named after Romanian flight pioneer Henri Coandă, builder of Coandă-1910 aircraft and discoverer of the Coandă effect of fluidics. Prior to May 2004, the official name was Bucharest Otopeni International Airport (Romanian: Aeroportul Internațional București Otopeni). Henri Coandă International Airport serves as headquarters for TAROM, the country's national airline. It also serves as a base of operations for low-cost airlines Animawings, Ryanair and Wizz Air. It is managed by The National Company Bucharest Airports S.A. (Compania Națională Aeroporturi București S.A.). The military section of the airport is used as the 90th Airlift Base of the Romanian Air Force.

Early years
Originally, the airport in Otopeni was intended to be used as a Romanian civil aviation and military training center. During World War II, it was used as an airbase by the Luftwaffe. It was further developed in 1943, becoming one of the principal Luftwaffe bases around Bucharest. By 1944, it featured a beam approach system and two concrete runways, one of 1370 m aligned North-South and one of 1190 m aligned East-West. After 23 August 1944, the airport was used to launch air raids on Bucharest in support of the German efforts to overthrow the new government. It was bombed by the USAAF on 26 August and taken over by the Romanian military in the aftermath.

Until 1965, it was a major airfield for the Romanian Air Force, with Băneasa Airport serving as Bucharest's commercial airport. In 1965, with the growth of air traffic, the Otopeni airbase was converted to a commercial airport. The runway was modernized and extended to 3500 m from the previous 1200 m, making it one of the longest in Europe at that time.

In August 1969, when United States President Richard Nixon visited Romania, a VIP lounge was inaugurated. A new passenger terminal (designed by Cezar Lăzărescu), with a capacity of 1,200,000 passengers per year, was opened on 13 April 1970, for domestic and international flights. An improvement program added a second runway in 1986, expanding capacity to 35 aircraft movements per hour.

In 1992, Otopeni Airport became a regular member of Airports Council International (ACI).

Expansion since the 1990s
The first stage of the plan (Phase I), taking place between 1994 and 1998, involved the construction of a new departures terminal and of a new airside concourse with five jetways and nine gates (referred to as 'the Finger') as well as the extension of airport ramps and of their associated taxiways.

The second phase (labeled Phase II/IIe) of the plan led to the construction of a terminal dedicated to domestic flights and of a multi-story car park (2003), the complete overhaul of the control tower (between 2005 and 2007) as well as the transformation of the old terminal building into a dedicated arrivals hall (in 2000). During the same phase, two high-speed taxiways (Victor and Whiskey) were constructed. Phase II was completed in 2007.

TAROM ended its unprofitable service to New York City in November 2003. In June 2007, Delta Air Lines began flying the same route with Boeing 767s. The company made the link seasonal in 2008. Delta terminated it in September 2009 due to the recession and difficulty competing with other airlines. HiSky has commenced service to New York in June 2024, reconnecting Bucharest to the United States.

The third stage of the plan (Phase III), which started in 2009, involved the extension of the airside concourse ('the Finger') with 15 new gates (nine of which have jetways), as well as the expansion of the Departure Hall (with 8 new gates). The airside concourse extension, designed by Studio Capelli Architettura & Associati, and measuring 17000 m2, was inaugurated on 29 March 2011. It was followed, in November 2012, by the extension of the Departure Hall to a total area of 38600 m2.

In March 2012, all air traffic except for business air traffic was transferred from Aurel Vlaicu International Airport (at that time Bucharest's low-cost hub) to Henri Coandă International Airport. Air Canada Rouge introduced seasonal routes to Toronto and Montreal in June 2018. The carrier operated the flights with Boeing 767s.

Future development
Beyond Phase III, a new terminal building (Henri Coandă 2) at the eastern end of the current location is envisaged. The new building is expected to include a large commercial space. Henri Coandă 2 will be of a modular design, consisting of four separate buildings, each capable of handling 5 million passengers annually. Each module will be built as traffic demands dictate. By 2030, Terminal 2 alone should be able to handle the expected volume of 20 million passengers per year. The terminal will be directly connected to the A3 motorway and to the railway system. However, the plans might get delayed due to funding problems.

On 18 January 2021, it has been announced that the airport purchased all the land it needs in order to begin the expansion. However, on 15 May 2023, the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure declared that a new terminal will not be built in the near future, because it is not necessary, a declaration which sparked criticism.

Terminals
The airport's facilities consist of a single terminal with three main facilities (colloquially referred to as "Terminals"): the Departures Hall/Terminal, the Arrivals Hall/Terminal, and the Finger Terminal (the airside concourse). A walkway with shops connects the departures and arrivals buildings. The airside concourse is organized in two (domestic and international) passengers flows. The entire terminal has 104 check-in desks, 38 gates (of which 14 are equipped with jetways), and a total floor area of 86000 sqm.

Passenger
The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights at Bucharest Henri Coandă Airport:

Passengers
In 2018, 13,824,830 passengers passed through the airport, an increase of 7.95% compared to 2017. In 2018, the airport handled 13.8 million passengers (63.3% of the total number of passengers carried by Romanian airports) and 39,534 tons of cargo (81.4% of the total amount of cargo handled by Romanian airports).

Rail
An airport rail link service to the main railway station, Gara de Nord (Bucharest North), runs from the Airport railway station located near the parking lot of the Arrivals hall. As of August 2021, the trains, alternately operated by CFR and TFC depart every 40 minutes, seven days a week. A one-way trip takes 15–20 minutes.

A new Metro Line M6 is also planned, connecting the airport to the Gara de Nord train station, and integrating the airport into the Bucharest Metro network.

Bus
Henri Coandă Airport is connected to the public transport company STB system. The 100 route provides 24/7 express bus service to the city center (Piața Unirii).

Car
The airport is 16.5 km north of central Bucharest, to which it is connected by the DN1 national road. The DN1 also connects the airport with the nearby A0 motorway. The A3 motorway will connect the future terminal 2 and the city.

Taxi and ride-share
As of May 2013, taxis serving Henri Coandă Airport can be ordered using a touch screen system in the arrivals terminal, allowing the taxi drivers to enter the pick-up area. This measure was taken after many complaints from passengers who were being overcharged when using illegal, high-price taxis. Uber and Bolt are also available at the airport.

Incidents and accidents

 * On 9 February 1989, a TAROM Tupolev TU-154 crashed during a training flight following a simulated engine failure when a flight crew member raised the flaps too soon. All 5 occupants were killed.
 * On 31 March 1995, TAROM Flight 371, an Airbus A310-324 registered as YR-LCC, simultaneously experienced asymmetric thrust during climb and one of the pilots being incapacitated. The plane crashed near Balotești just two minutes after takeoff. All 60 people aboard were killed.
 * On 30 December 2007, a TAROM Boeing 737-300 (YR-BGC "Constanța"), flying Flight 3107 hit a car on the runway while taking off for Sharm-el-Sheikh. The aircraft stopped beside the runway and was severely damaged.


text:
Tracheotomy

Tracheotomy (, UK also ), or tracheostomy, is a surgical airway management procedure which consists of making an incision (cut) on the anterior aspect (front) of the neck and opening a direct airway through an incision in the trachea (windpipe). The resulting stoma (hole) can serve independently as an airway or as a site for a tracheal tube or tracheostomy tube to be inserted; this tube allows a person to breathe without the use of the nose or mouth.

Etymology and terminology
The etymology of the word tracheotomy comes from two Greek words: the root tom- (from Greek τομή tomḗ) meaning "to cut", and the word trachea (from Greek τραχεία tracheía). The word tracheostomy, including the root stom- (from Greek στόμα stóma) meaning "mouth", refers to the making of a semi-permanent or permanent opening and to the opening itself. Some sources offer different definitions of the above terms. Part of the ambiguity is due to the uncertainty of the intended permanence of the stoma (hole) at the time it is created.

Indications
There are four main reasons why someone would receive a tracheotomy:

 * 1) Emergency airway access
 * 2) Airway access for prolonged mechanical ventilation
 * 3) Functional or mechanical upper airway obstruction
 * 4) Decreased/incompetent clearance of tracheobronchial secretions

In the acute (short term) setting, indications for tracheotomy include such conditions as severe facial trauma, tumors of the head and neck (e.g., cancers, branchial cleft cysts), and acute angioedema and inflammation of the head and neck. In the context of failed tracheal intubation, either tracheotomy or cricothyrotomy may be performed.

In the chronic (long-term) setting, indications for tracheotomy include the need for long-term mechanical ventilation and tracheal toilet (e.g., comatose patients, extensive surgery involving the head and neck). Tracheotomy may result in a significant reduction in the administration of sedatives and vasopressors, as well as the duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU).

In extreme cases, the procedure may be indicated as a treatment for severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) seen in patients intolerant of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. The reason tracheostomy works well for OSA is because it is the only surgical procedure that completely bypasses the upper airway. This procedure was commonly performed for obstructive sleep apnea until the 1980s, when other procedures such as the uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, genioglossus advancement, and maxillomandibular advancement surgeries were described as alternative surgical modalities for OSA.

If prolonged ventilation is required, tracheostomy is usually considered. The timing of this procedure is dependent on the clinical situation and an individual's preference. An international multicenter study in 2000 determined that the median time between starting mechanical ventilation and receiving a tracheostomy was 11 days. Although the definition varies depending on hospital and provider, early tracheostomy can be considered to be less than 10 days (2 to 14 days) and late tracheostomy to be 10 days or more.

Alternatives
Biphasic cuirass ventilation is a form of non-invasive mechanical ventilation that can — in a small subset of cases — allow people to avoid a tracheostomy.

Components
A tracheostomy tube may be single or dual lumen, and also cuffed or uncuffed. A dual lumen tracheostomy tube consists of an outer cannula or main shaft, an inner cannula, and an obturator. The obturator is used when inserting the tracheostomy tube to guide the placement of the outer cannula and is removed once the outer cannula is in place. The outer cannula remains in place but, because of the buildup of secretions, there is an inner cannula that may be removed for cleaning after use or it may be replaced. Single-lumen tracheostomy tubes do not have a removable inner cannula, suitable for narrower airways. Cuffed tracheostomy tubes have inflatable balloons at the end of the tube to secure them in place. A tracheostomy tube may be fenestrated with one or several holes to let air through the larynx, allowing speech.

Special tracheostomy tube valves (such as the Passy-Muir valve ) have been created to assist people in their speech. The patient can inhale through the unidirectional tube. Upon expiration, pressure causes the valve to close, redirecting air around the tube, past the vocal folds, producing sound.

Open surgical tracheotomy (OST)
The typical procedure done is the open surgical tracheotomy (OST) and is usually done in a sterile operating room. The optimal patient position involves a cushion under the shoulders to extend the neck. Commonly a transverse (horizontal) incision is made two fingerbreadths above the suprasternal notch. Alternatively, a vertical incision can be made in the midline of the neck from the thyroid cartilage to just above the suprasternal notch. Skin, subcutaneous tissue, and strap muscles (a specific group of neck muscles) are retracted aside to expose the thyroid isthmus, which can be cut or retracted upwards. After proper identification of the cricoid cartilage and placement of a tracheal hook to steady the trachea and pull it forward, the trachea is cut open, either through the space between cartilage rings or vertically across multiple rings (cruciate incision). Occasionally a section of a tracheal cartilage ring may be removed to make insertion of the tube easier. Once the incision is made, a properly sized tube is inserted. The tube is connected to a ventilator and adequate ventilation and oxygenation is confirmed. The tracheotomy apparatus is then attached to the neck with tracheotomy ties, skin sutures, or both.

Percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy (PDT)
The first widely accepted percutaneous tracheotomy technique was described by Pat Ciaglia, a New York surgeon, in 1985. The next widely used technique was developed in 1989 by Bill Griggs, an Australian intensive care specialist. In 1995, Fantoni developed a translaryngeal approach of percutaneous tracheostomy. The Griggs and Ciaglia Blue Rhino techniques are the two main techniques in current use. A number of comparison studies have been undertaken between these two techniques with no clear differences emerging An advantage of PDT over OST is the ability to perform the procedure at the patient's bedside. This significantly decreases costs and time/people-power needed for an operating room (OR) procedure. Contraindications for percutaneous tracheostomy include infection at the site of tracheostomy, uncontrolled bleeding disorder, unstable cardiopulmonary status, patient unable to stay still, abnormal anatomy of the tracheolaryngeal structures.

Risks and complications
As with most other surgical procedures, some cases are more difficult than others. Surgery on children is more difficult because of their smaller size. Difficulties such as a short neck and bigger thyroid glands make the trachea hard to open. There are other difficulties with patients with irregular necks, the obese, and those with a large goitre.

The many possible complications include hemorrhage, loss of airway, subcutaneous emphysema, wound infections, stoma cellulites, fracture of tracheal rings, poor placement of the tracheostomy tube, and bronchospasm.

Early complications include infection, hemorrhage, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, tracheoesophageal fistula, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, and tube displacement. Delayed complications include tracheal-innominate artery fistula, tracheal stenosis, delayed tracheoesophageal fistula, and tracheocutaneous fistula.

A 2013 systematic review (published cases from 1985 to April 2013) studied the complications and risk factors of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT), identifying major causes of fatality to be hemorrhage (38.0%), airway complications (29.6%), tracheal perforation (15.5%), and pneumothorax (5.6%) A similar systematic review in 2017 (cases from 1990 to 2015) studying fatality in both open surgical tracheotomy (OST) and PDT identified similar rates of mortality and causes of death between the two techniques.

Hemorrhage is rare, but the most likely cause of fatality after a tracheostomy. It usually occurs due to a tracheoarterial fistula, an abnormal connection between the trachea and nearby blood vessels, and most commonly manifests between 3 days to 6 weeks after the procedure is done. Fistulas can result from incorrectly positioned equipment, high cuff pressures causing pressure sores or mucosal damage, a low surgical trachea site, repetitive neck movement, radiotherapy, or prolonged intubation.

A potential risk factor identified in a 2013 systematic review of the percutaneous technique was the lack of bronchoscopic guidance. Use of the bronchoscope, an instrument inserted through a patient's mouth for internal visualization of the airway, can help with proper placement of instruments and better visualization of anatomical structures. However, this can also be dependent on the skills and familiarity of the surgeon with both the procedure and the patient's anatomy.

There are a multitude of potential complications related to the airway. The main causes of mortality during PDT include dislodgment of the tube, loss of airway during procedure and misplacement of the tube. One of the more urgent complications include displacement or dislodgment of the tracheotomy tube, either spontaneously or during a tube change. Although uncommon (< 1/1000 tracheostomy tube days), the associated fatality is high due to the loss of airway. Due to the seriousness of such a situation, individuals with a tracheotomy tube should consult with their healthcare providers to have a specific, written, emergency intubation and tracheostomy recannulation (reinsertion) plan prepared in advance.

Tracheal stenosis, otherwise known as an abnormal narrowing of the airway, is a possible long term complication. The most common symptom of stenosis is gradually-worsening difficulty with breathing (dyspnea). However incidence is low, ranging from 0.6 to 2.8% with increased rates if major bleeding or wound infections are present. A 2016 systematic review identified a higher rate of tracheal stenosis in individuals who underwent a surgical tracheostomy, as compared to PDT, however the difference was not statistically significant.

A 2000 Spanish study of bedside percutaneous tracheostomy reported overall complication rates of 10–15% and a procedural mortality of 0%, which is comparable to those of other series reported in the literature from the Netherlands and the United States. A 2013 systematic review calculated procedural mortality to be 0.17% or 1 in 600 cases. Multiple systematic reviews identified no significant difference in rates of mortality, major bleeding, or wound infection between the percutaneous or open surgical methods.

Specifically a 2017 systematic review calculated the most common causes of death and their frequencies, out of all tracheotomies, to be hemorrhage (OST: 0.26%, PDT: 0.19%), loss of airway (OST: 0.21%, PDT: 0.20%), and misplacement of tube (OST: 0.11%, PDT: 0.20%).

A 2003 American cadaveric study identified multiple tracheal ring fractures with the Ciaglia Blue Rhino technique as a complication occurring in 100% of their small series of cases. The comparative study above also identified ring fractures in 9 of 30 live patients while another small series identified ring fractures in 5 of their 20 patients. The long term significance of tracheal ring fractures is unknown.

Ancient history
Tracheotomy was first potentially depicted on Egyptian artifacts in 3600 BC. Hippocrates condemned the practice of tracheotomy as incurring an unacceptable risk of damage to the carotid artery. Warning against the possibility of death from inadvertent laceration of the carotid artery during tracheotomy, he instead advocated the practice of tracheal intubation.

Despite the concerns of Hippocrates, it is believed that an early tracheotomy was performed by Asclepiades of Bithynia, who lived in Rome around 100 BC. Galen and Aretaeus, both of whom lived in Rome in the 2nd century AD, credit Asclepiades as being the first physician to perform a non-emergency tracheotomy. Antyllus, another Roman-era Greek physician of the 2nd century AD, supported tracheotomy when treating oral diseases. He refined the technique to be more similar to that used in modern times, recommending that a transverse incision be made between the third and fourth tracheal rings for the treatment of life-threatening airway obstruction.

Medieval world
The 7th century Byzantine physician Paul of Aegina, an advocate of the procedure, acknowledged previous Greek authors' works on the subject of tracheotomies and provided descriptions of the procedure in his own works. In 1000, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (936–1013), an Arab who lived in Arabic Spain, published the 30-volume Kitab al-Tasrif, the first illustrated work on surgery. He never performed a tracheotomy, but he did treat a slave girl who had cut her own throat in a suicide attempt. Al-Zahrawi (known to Europeans as Albucasis) sewed up the wound and the girl recovered, thereby proving that an incision in the larynx could heal. Circa AD 1020, Avicenna (980–1037) described tracheal intubation in The Canon of Medicine in order to facilitate breathing. The first clear description of the tracheotomy operation for treating asphyxiation was given by Ibn Zuhr (1091–1161) in the 12th century. According to Mostafa Shehata, Ibn Zuhr (also known as Avenzoar) successfully practiced the tracheotomy procedure on a goat, justifying Galen's approval of the operation.

16th–18th centuries
The European Renaissance brought with it significant advances in all scientific fields, particularly surgery. Increased knowledge of anatomy was a major factor in these developments. Surgeons became increasingly open to experimental surgery on the trachea. During this period, many surgeons attempted to perform tracheotomies, for various reasons and with various methods. Many suggestions were put forward, but little actual progress was made toward making the procedure more successful. The tracheotomy remained a dangerous operation with a very low success rate, and many surgeons still considered the tracheotomy to be a useless and dangerous procedure. The high mortality rate for this operation, which had not improved, supported their position. From the period 1500 to 1832 there are only 28 known reports of tracheotomy.

In 1543, Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) wrote that tracheal intubation and subsequent artificial respiration could be life-saving. Antonio Musa Brassavola (1490–1554) of Ferrara treated a patient with peritonsillar abscess by tracheotomy after the patient had been refused by barber surgeons. The patient apparently made a complete recovery, and Brassavola published his account in 1546. This operation has been identified as the first recorded successful tracheostomy, despite many ancient references to the trachea and possibly to its opening. Ambroise Paré (1510–1590) described suture of tracheal lacerations in the mid-16th century. One patient survived despite a concomitant injury to the internal jugular vein. Another sustained wounds to the trachea and esophagus and died.

Towards the end of the 16th century, anatomist and surgeon Hieronymus Fabricius (1533–1619) described a useful technique for tracheotomy in his writings, although he had never actually performed the operation himself. He advised using a vertical incision and was the first to introduce the idea of a tracheostomy tube. This was a straight, short cannula that incorporated wings to prevent the tube from advancing too far into the trachea. He recommended the operation only as a last resort, to be used in cases of airway obstruction by foreign bodies or secretions. Fabricius' description of the tracheotomy procedure is similar to that used today. Giulio Cesare Casseri (1552–1616) succeeded Fabricius as professor of anatomy at the University of Padua and published his own writings regarding technique and equipment for tracheotomy. Casseri recommended using a curved silver tube with several holes in it. Marco Aurelio Severino (1580–1656), a skillful surgeon and anatomist, performed multiple successful tracheotomies during a diphtheria epidemic in Naples in 1610, using the vertical incision technique recommended by Fabricius. He also developed his own version of a trocar.

In 1620 the French surgeon Nicholas Habicot (1550–1624), surgeon of the Duke of Nemours and anatomist, published a report of four successful "bronchotomies" which he had performed. One of these is the first recorded case of a tracheotomy for the removal of a foreign body, in this instance a blood clot in the larynx of a stabbing victim. He also described the first tracheotomy to be performed on a pediatric patient. A 14-year-old boy swallowed a bag containing 9 gold coins in an attempt to prevent its theft by a highwayman. The object became lodged in his esophagus, obstructing his trachea. Habicot suggested that the operation might also be effective for patients with inflammation of the larynx. He developed equipment for this surgical procedure which displayed similarities to modern designs (except for his use of a single-tube cannula).

Sanctorius (1561–1636) is believed to be the first to use a trocar in the operation, and he recommended leaving the cannula in place for a few days following the operation. Early tracheostomy devices are illustrated in Habicot's Question Chirurgicale and Casseri's posthumous Tabulae anatomicae in 1627. Thomas Fienus (1567–1631), Professor of Medicine at the University of Louvain, was the first to use the word "tracheotomy" in 1649, but this term was not commonly used until a century later. Georg Detharding (1671–1747), professor of anatomy at the University of Rostock, treated a drowning victim with tracheostomy in 1714.

19th century
In the 1820s, the tracheotomy began to be recognized as a legitimate means of treating severe airway obstruction. In 1832, French physician Pierre Bretonneau employed it as a last resort to treat a case of diphtheria. In 1852, Bretonneau's student Armand Trousseau reported a series of 169 tracheotomies (158 of which were for croup, and 11 for "chronic maladies of the larynx") In 1858, John Snow was the first to report tracheotomy and cannulation of the trachea for the administration of chloroform anesthesia in an animal model. In 1871, the German surgeon Friedrich Trendelenburg (1844–1924) published a paper describing the first successful elective human tracheotomy to be performed for the purpose of administration of general anesthesia. In 1880, the Scottish surgeon William Macewen (1848–1924) reported on his use of orotracheal intubation as an alternative to tracheotomy to allow a patient with glottic edema to breathe, as well as in the setting of general anesthesia with chloroform. At last, in 1880 Morell Mackenzie's book discussed the symptoms indicating a tracheotomy and when the operation is absolutely necessary.

20th century

In the early 20th century, physicians began to use the tracheotomy in the treatment of patients affected by paralytic poliomyelitis who required mechanical ventilation. However, surgeons continued to debate various aspects of the tracheotomy well into the 20th century. Many techniques were described and employed, along with many different surgical instruments and tracheal tubes. Surgeons could not seem to reach a consensus on where or how the tracheal incision should be made, arguing whether the "high tracheotomy" or the "low tracheotomy" was more beneficial. The currently used surgical tracheotomy technique was described in 1909 by Chevalier Jackson of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Jackson emphasised the importance of postoperative care, which dramatically reduced the death rate. By 1965, the surgical anatomy was thoroughly and widely understood, antibiotics were widely available and useful for treating postoperative infections, and other major complications had also become more manageable.

Society and culture
Notable individuals who have or have had a tracheotomy include Catherine Zeta-Jones, Mika Häkkinen, Stephen Hawking, Connie Culp, Christopher Reeve, Roy Horn, William Rehnquist, Gabby Giffords, George Michael, Val Kilmer, and many others.

Across movies and TV shows, there are many situations where an emergency procedure is done on an individual's neck to re-establish an airway. An example is in the 2008 horror film, Saw V, in which a character being drowned from the neck up performs a manual tracheotomy, stabbing his neck with a pen to create an airway to breathe through. The most common procedure is a cricothyrotomy (or "crike"), which is an incision through the skin and cricothyroid membrane. This is often confused or misnamed as a tracheotomy (or "trach") and vice versa. However, they are quite different based on location of the opening and length of time the alternate airway is needed.

Another example of an emergency attempt at this procedure is featured in the 2013 comedy film The Heat, where Sandra Bullock’s character, Sarah Ashburn, attempts to perform the operation on a person choking on a pancake in a Denny's, but fails. Melissa McCarthy’s character, Detective Mullens, then presses hard on the man's chest, causing the piece of food to be expelled from his mouth.

title: Tracheotomy