text:
William Connor Magee

William Connor Magee (17 December 1821 – 5 May 1891) was an Irish clergyman of the Anglican church, Bishop of Peterborough 1868–1891 and Archbishop of York for a short period in 1891.

Life
He was born in Cork, Ireland. His father was a minor canon of St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork and a curate of the parish attached to the Anglican cathedral; his grandfather was William Magee, Archbishop of Dublin. Young Magee was educated at Kilkenny College and entered Trinity College, Dublin with a scholarship at thirteen. In November 1843, he delivered the inaugural address as Auditor of the reformed College Historical Society, in Trinity College.

He was ordained in 1844 to the curacy of St Thomas's, Dublin, but, being threatened with tuberculosis, went after two years to Málaga, Spain. On his return he took a curacy at Bath, England (1849–1851) and was soon appointed to the Octagon Chapel (1851–1860), where his fame both as preacher and platform speaker continued to spread. Some years afterwards he was made prebendary of Wells Cathedral. In 1860, poor health caused him to accept the living of Enniskillen, Ireland. In 1864 he was made Dean of Cork and in 1866, additionally, Dean of the Chapel Royal, Dublin Castle, and a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant. Here he showed those great gifts which ultimately raised him to high office; a powerful grasp of mental, moral and political problems, combined with eloquence of a high order, illuminated with brilliant flashes of wit.

In 1868 the question of the disestablishment of the Irish church came to the fore, and Magee threw himself into its defence with his usual energy and vivacity. The success of his orations caused Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli to offer him the bishopric of Peterborough, England. He justified his appointment by his magnificent speech when the Disestablishment Bill reached the House of Lords in 1869, and then plunged into diocesan and general work in England. He preached three remarkable sermons on Christian Evidence in Norwich Cathedral in 1871. He took up the temperance question, and declared in the House of Lords that he would rather see "England free than England compulsorily sober", a statement which was misquoted and attacked.

Initially highly critical of the calling of the second Lambeth Conference (1878) he was won over by the experience, writing in his biography that, "I feel I have learned much from the Pananglican and I see, too, that it is really an institution which will root itself and will ... exercise a powerful influence in the future of the Anglican Communion. That is a great deal so say on the part of one who greatly disliked and dreaded the affair from the first"

He was also a supporter of the movement for abolishing the recitation of the Athanasian Creed in the public services of the Church of England, believing, as he said, that the "presence" of the damnatory clauses, "as they stand and where they stand, is a real peril to the Church and to Christianity itself", and that those clauses "are no essential part" of the creed. The project was laid aside because of the hostility of a large body of the clergy, reinforced by the threat of Edward Bouverie Pusey and Canon Henry Parry Liddon to abandon their offices if it were carried.

He was elevated to the see of York in January 1891 and enthroned on 17 March. By this time his energies were exhausted, and he died on 5 May, four months after his appointment.

He was buried at Peterborough Cathedral. The life-size marble effigy marking his grave lies in the south aisle.

Family
He married his cousin Anne Smith in 1851.

Legacy
Magee had taken a prominent part in the Ritual controversy, opposing what he conceived to be romanising excess in ritual, as well as the endeavour of the opposite party to "put down Ritualism", as Disraeli expressed it, by the operation of the civil law. His incisive way of putting things earned for him the title of the "Militant Bishop", but his efforts were ever for peace. Magee's manifold activities, his capability as an administrator, his sound judgment, and his remarkable, insight into the ecclesiastical problems of his time, rank him among the most distinguished of English prelates.

Quotes
"The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything." – W. C. Magee, 1868

"I should say it would be better that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober." 1872

Works

 * Anglican sisterhoods (1886)
 *  Christ the light of all Scripture (1892)

title: William Connor Magee


text:
Talk:UK garage

Untitled
see also Talk:2Step

Untitled
Disambiguation Dear Sir/Madam, Please add a note about other meanings of garage-parking space/car workshop etc. I would have done it myself, but I do not want to edit the main page as I am new to Wikipedia and do not want to unintentionally damage/vandalize a page. Thanks a lot and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Thanks George E Matthew

Hi guys, I haven't been to this page since I wrote the article, which is more than a year ago now. Nice to see that it was awarded the "good article" quality label form Wikipedia. So thanks to everyone who contributed and improved my original article. However, I saw the discussion about the title of the article and wanted to add my thoughts.

When I first wrote it, I wrote it under the "2step". Since then, some of you have changed the titles and now there is this article and the "UKG: UK Garage and Two-step", which is basically the same article again. I suggest that we clean up this mess. My solution is that we have a disambiguation page with the title "Garage" and two separate articles on UK Garage (where we leave 2step and 4x4) and US garage.

Furthermore I wanted to tell Sven that "heavily shuffled" means exactly what is written in the other article. In other words: yes, link them! :-)

Next, the pronunciation issue: The thing is that US and UK garage are close in terms of history and even closer in terms of terminology (it's both garage, right? *lol*). The different pronunciation on either side of the Atlantic helped many people to distinguish between the two genres and so they deliberately used the different ways to say it. "garaadge" was the US pronunciation and "garridge" was the UK’s version. It's not like it would be relevant for the music itself, but it’s just how the majority of people would refer to it. However, as we’ve seen now, there are people out there (at least in Sussex) who deviate from this "cultural classification". This is the reason why I believe it makes sense to have two separate pages for the articles with two different names, UK and US garage. The main problem is that “Garage” is just the lazy way of referring either to UK or US garage. But without hearing it ("garaadge" or "garridge"?) it is difficult to figure out which one is meant. So please, don’t simply use “garage” as a title for the page as it does not accurately reflect what is really meant (which of course is UK garage in this case).

Last but not least: It's nice to see that the lists of links and artists are being extended, but I believe it's getting too much here. Links like "DJ Emerge- House & UK Garage" and "www.hlsrecords.com" are definitely in the wrong place here. Same goes for artists like Artifact and Danny Bond (D-Tox and DJ Veteran are ok because I like their productions *lol*). No, seriously, this is supposed to be an explanatory article to illustrate what the music is and to give people who are interested in it a starting point of internet references and popular artists if they want to dig deeper. But this is not simply a link collection where every record store or artist can add his page.

Cheers to all of you! Foresight

This page arose bacause I noticed garage means different thing to different people. Maybe it should be a disambiguation page between UK garage and Garage music (US). Or maybe it should stay as it is because they're related. Andy G 11:15 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * See also The Great Garage Debate 80.43.82.71 16:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I Agree that Garage and UKG /two step should be separate...will put it under a new heading as well

Pronunciation of "Garage"
Good article, but I disagree with the following statement:

- The correct pronunciation of UK Garage is "Garridge"... -

But I didn't want to change it without asking what other people think.

I live in Sussex in the UK and I was quite a big fan of UK Garage. I don't pronounce garage as "garridge", but more like "ga-raadge" - a bit like large. Saying "garridge" is really an accent. To be really pedantic, I don't think the Queen would say "garridge".
 * UK Gah-raaaaaaaaj?! HAHA. that sounds very silly. I don't think I know ANYBODY who pronounces "garage" in the context of music like that. It's definitely "garridge".

 * What can I say? I'm from England and I say "Gah-raaaaj". What do you want me to do!!? It's like the old song: "You say neither and I say neither - let's call the whole thing off!" . We could have a fairly pointless argument about this. I haven't got a problem whether anyone says "garridge" or "garaadge", but my main points below still stand: correct pronunciation and relevance.

I accept that a lot of people in the UK would probably say "garridge", but I think the description as "correct pronunciation" is a bit strong. And I wonder whether the sentence is really relevant for the article anyway.

Garage was born in London and had/has it's greatest following in London. Londoners pronounce it 'Garridge' (unless they are upper class) therefore it is 'garridge'. I have heard posh fellows calling it 'garahjjj' and it sounds ridiculous. Kid Dynamite

Garaaaj...this bloke must be joking right...I've never heard anyone say garaaj for the music or the thing you put cars in. Maybe a few people from public school may say garaaj but really he must be having a laugh.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.68.255 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in San Francisco and I'm very involved in the underground music scene and here, in 2010, we pronounce it the American way. My friends from London pronounce it differently, obviously. I think the whole issue of pronunciation should be scrapped. 67.164.98.225 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy shuffle
quote: "All 2Step tracks are heavily shuffled, which gives the tracks a swing feeling."

Does anyone know if this shuffle is referring to shuffle as in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shuffle_note&redirect=no and if so, how about adding a wiki-link to this musical article?

Regards, Sven

suggested merge
Both Garage (dance music) and UKG: UK Garage and Two-step cover much of the same material. One is more general and the other includes one of the sub classes in the name. A merge would eliminate duplicate material and be less confusing. Vegaswikian 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to just move all the UK Garage stuff over to UKG. US and UK garage aren't really the same type of thing at all. Most of the people into UK Garage are unaware of the connection to the Paradise Garage. What happened as I remember, was that you had the Tony Humphries New Jersey garage sound and this stuff along with other New York city house music became popular with UK djs around the late 1980s/early1990s. Then you had a little offshoot where UK djs, mainly in London, would play a lot of the "skippier" type of stuff out of New York, early MAW mixes, Mood II Swing, and especially Todd Edwards and would tend to speed it up to plus 7 or 8 on the decks. This music was only "garage" in the sense that at that time pretty much any house music from New York was called "garage". This mini-scene crosss-fertilised with the heavy bass lines from Drum and Bass - at the time you would have large raves at the likes of Bagley's warehouse in Kings Cross and one room would play the skippy Garage stuff while Drum and Bass was played in the larger rooms. That's how Speed Garage/UK Garage was born and by this stage there was really no connection at all with the Paradise Garage.

I think it's still worthwhile maintaining a page just about the music inspired by the Paradise Garage with possibly a link over to the UK Garage article. Mcgahon 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep as separate article Escaper7 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * UK and US garage should have seperate articles, they're different styles with completely different origins. If all the subgenres of house, trance, techno and drum & bass have seperate articles then these should too. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Garage and UK Garage may cover much of the same material, but Garage itself is Deep House and what you're saying that UK Garage is Speed Garage makes it pointless to merge. Because in that sense they don't go under the same name unless you're saying Garage > Deep House > UK > Speed Garage. Odd Faden 11:07am 04/17/06
 * The suggestion was to list the common elements in the main body of the article. The differences could be covered in a heading for the various sub genres.  Vegaswikian 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

UK Garage isnt Speed Garage. Speed Garage is a totally different sounding genre. Many people who do not listen to it, think it is 2-step garage that has been "Sped-up" and this isnt the case. The connection between the 2 genres is sometimes only in name, the differences are far too strong to say "UK Garage IS speed garage". And US Garage is also different, In the same way that US house is different to UK House.

 * This difference between UK Garage and Speed Garage stated above is only partially correct. Speed Garage was the name used originally (often in a derogatory manner) for UK Garage when it first emerged as a distinct genre and sub-culture/'scene'. The DJs, promoters and clubbers who went to these nights preferred to UK Garage epithet because it addressed the fact that it was a distinct music (albeit with US garage influences) that was being developed in the UK. SupernautRemix 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that Garage is dance music?
Electronic and garage music are entirely different.

Ableton Live is perfect for Techno songs due to the live recording, beat repeat, and special filters to produce a "break" in a dance song.

FL Studio (Fruity Loops) is perfect for creating grimey instrumentals. Note artists Wiley Dexplicit Skepta listen to their instrumentals at last.fm you can tell it's been made with fruity loops as it sounds like it's bean made with a drum matrix with different instruments making different melodies mixing together. Does that sound like dance music to you? even Channel U A grimey british tv station Channel U TV.

Desbest 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Garage has very little in common with Dance or House music and the 2 step beat makes it next to impossible to mix with other genres of dance music (which led to its demise in Europe with the 90s explosion in popularity of dance DJs in the Balearics).

Although UK Garage may have been influenced by US Garage, the UKG is far more 'hard' with lyrics about violence and deprivation as a common theme. This article does not cover the controversy around Garage, So Solids prisoned members, the numerous stabbings and shootings at UK Garage nights that plagued the genera and the increased negative sub culture associated with this music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.140.185 (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

US garage music
why is US garage dance music only skimmed over? there was plenty of US garage music in the 90s and it had little to do with the Disco sounds of the 70s and 80s. there's way too much slant on UK garage here. Spunkymcpunk 07:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is called "UK Garage" not US Garage LOL --82.37.224.143 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NY House merger
ARGGGGGGGG something needs to be done to reorganise the garage genres!!!??!?! --Reubot 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged
Okay, someone already started this off by moving everything from UKG: UK Garage and Two-step to Garage (dance music) and turning the former into a redirect, I've finished it by cleaning the UK garage article up a bit and moving it here (seemed the more appropriate title). So there are now only two articles, UK Garage and New York House (the general opinion seemed to be separate articles...) - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable tracks list
I'm suggesting something needs to be done about this list; embedded, indiscriminate lists are discouraged in articles particularly when they're this long and full of redlinks. If it must be done as a list, I'd say a shorter list with explanations as to why each track is notable, like in the electro house article, would probably work better. - Zeibura Talk 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I also doubt that "Ed Case" was some sort of American leader as well... -SK, 03 August 2007

 * I have removed this section as there is no valid criteria under which it exists. If someone wants to re-add this section it needs to be properly cited/sourced, not just a random list of people's favourite songs. 83.147.134.22 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox?
Article doesn't have an infobox... I'd like to fix it but I don't know enough about the genre to add one with any useful information.

85.148.120.85 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Zeibura (Talk) 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested external links
Dubplates Raver Community Forum Since 2003 UK Garage, Grime, Bassline & other underground genres: Unsigned artists upload and share your music online get free legal mp3 downloads plus live Internet radio shows plus extra features http://www.dubplates.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.189.171 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a good history & description of the various forms of UK garage here:  86.136.133.12 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about http://speedgarage.net ? It's a fan site dedicated to speed garage music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrayka (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest Ukgarage.tv for inclusion into Wikipedia. Ukgarage.tv is a video share site for the Uk garage scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.6.197 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I didn't sign my request before for ukgarage.tv so... Cazpa (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Influences
i would say it's influenced by dub reggae...quite heavily. yall feel me? --Marco Passarani 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Person
Reworded —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelBriand (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Split
The article needs to be split into UK Garage (common words for this phenomenon), 2Step and 4x4. -- Werwerwer11 (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete crap
This article has become complete crap. Whoever decided to re-write it all has done a horrible job. This was once a "good article" by Wikipedia standards. I've even embedded sequencer loops and audio to illustrate this fascinating style. Now the article's short and bad and it's a shame. Wikipedia at it's worst. I'm disappointed. - Foresight  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foresight (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely spot on - it's rubbish. Hardly a single date in the history section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.109.254 (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NOT HOUSE
Garage has different time frame to house, it may share elements of style with house but only because house covers so many genres. Because Garage is built from the base up on a different time frame its connection to house is strained. The reference to chicago house should be removed, Garage is not 8 bar music it can not be mixed into house music by a DJ because the frames clash, it is called 2 step and 4 x 4 for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.156.231 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Garage
This UK Garage is not entirely correct, and not very good, seems to me that its written by either fans who were not involved with the music directly, and in part, someone who is trying to change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Portelli (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which parts do you suggest are incorrect? tetraedycal 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I had to open an account to comment. This page is a disgrace. Before it was called speed garage by the people who hated it the name was underground 1997-1999 was one of the best things to happen to uk music since soul 2 soul and it deserves better than this rubbish written by Some one who obviously was not there in the shops have that buzz on a Saturday morning for what was comming out. I spent hours and a fortune on some of the best music made in the Uk. And MJ cole had one bad tune sincere where as Tuff Jam were peerless. Just get better was one of the first along with - spin spin sugar, club lonely, sweet sensation, big baby. And the bible for the time was Touch magazine. How could a serious article miss out that important part? Absolute Joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deannut (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Im wondering why the article states it emerged in the "early to mid nineties" - having followed British dance music fairly closely from 94 to c2005 i genuinely dont remember hearing it untill d&b had peaked 96-97 - i personally first heard it on London pirate radio in summer 1998 and remember reading about speed garage in 'the Face' magazine the same year. I remember the article discussed how noone yet knew how to dance to it. Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:UK garage


text:
William Rathbone Greg

William Rathbone Greg (1809 – 15 November 1881) was an English essayist.

Life
Born in Manchester, the son of Samuel Greg, the creator of Quarry Bank Mill, and Hannah Greg, he was brother to Robert Hyde Greg and the junior Samuel Greg.

He was educated at the University of Edinburgh. In 1827, he joined the Plinian Society, on the same day as Charles Darwin. Greg offered a talk to prove "the lower animals possess every faculty & propensity of the human mind".

For a time, he managed a mill of his father's at Bury, and in 1832 began business on his own account. He entered the struggle for free trade, and obtained in 1842 the prize offered by the Anti-Corn Law League for the best essay on Agriculture and the Corn Laws. He was too busy with political, economical and theological speculations to give undivided attention to his business, which he gave up in 1850 to devote himself to writing. His Creed of Christendom was published in 1851, and in 1852 he contributed no less than twelve articles to four leading quarterlies. Disraeli praised him. Sir George Cornewall Lewis bestowed a Commissionership of Customs on him in 1856. In 1864 he was made Comptroller of the Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

In 1868 he responded to Darwin's On the Origin of Species with an article in Fraser's Magazine, "On the failure of 'Natural Selection' in the case of Man". In this he argues that natural selection no longer operates within civilised societies, endorsing eugenicist ideas to counter this fact. Darwin cited this, and responded, in The Descent of Man.

He became a member of the Metaphysical Society. Besides contributions to periodicals he produced several volumes of essays on political and social philosophy. The general spirit of these is indicated by the titles of two of the best known, The Enigmas of Life (1872) and Rocks Ahead (1874). They represent a reaction from the high hopes of the author's youth, when wise legislation was assumed to be a remedy for every public ill. Greg was interested in many philanthropic works. He died at Wimbledon, London.

He was married in 1835 to Lucy, daughter of William Henry, and also of Manchester. His second wife was the daughter of James Wilson.

One son, Percy Greg, was also a writer; another, Walter Wilson Greg, was a leading bibliographer of English Renaissance theatre.

title: William Rathbone Greg


text:
Bill Rodgers, Baron Rodgers of Quarry Bank

William Thomas Rodgers, Baron Rodgers of Quarry Bank, (born 28 October 1928), is a British politician and life peer. As a Labour Party member of Parliament, he served as Secretary of State for Transport from 1976 to 1979, and was one of the "Gang of Four" of senior Labour politicians who defected to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP). He subsequently helped to lead the SDP into the merger that formed the Liberal Democrats in 1988, and later served as the party's leader in the House of Lords between 1997 and 2001.

Early life
Rodgers was born in Liverpool, Lancashire, and educated at Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. After national service in the King's Regiment (Liverpool), he studied Modern History at Magdalen College, Oxford on an Open Exhibition. He was general secretary of the Fabian Society from 1953 to 1960 and a councillor on St Marylebone Borough Council from 1958 to 1962. He was instrumental in lobbying the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to reverse its vote in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament in 1961. He also unsuccessfully fought a by-election at Bristol West in 1957.

Political career
Rodgers first entered the House of Commons at a by-election in 1962, representing Stockton-on-Tees, and served in Labour governments under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, becoming Secretary of State for Transport in Callaghan's cabinet in 1976. Within the Labour Party, he was known for being a highly effective organiser around centrist causes such as multilateral nuclear disarmament and Britain's membership of the European Economic Community. He held the post until Labour's defeat in the 1979 general election. From 1979 to 1981 he was Shadow Defence Secretary. With Labour drifting to the left, Rodgers joined Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins and David Owen in forming the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. In September 1982, Rodgers stood to become the president of the SDP, but took only 19.4 per cent of the vote, finishing in a distant second place behind Williams.

At the 1983 general election the SDP–Liberal Alliance won many votes but few seats, and Rodgers lost his seat of Stockton North (known as Stockton-on-Tees before the boundary changes of 1983). He remained outside Parliament, unsuccessfully contesting Milton Keynes for the SDP in the 1987 general election, until he was created a life peer as Baron Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of Kentish Town in the London Borough of Camden, on 12 February 1992. During that interval he was Director-General of the Royal Institute of British Architects and also became Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority.

In 1987, Rodgers was chairman of the successful "Yes to Unity" campaign within the SDP in favour of merger with the Liberal Party. He became the Liberal Democrats' Lords spokesman on home affairs in 1994 and was the party's leader in the Lords between 1997 and 2001. Rodgers's autobiography was titled Fourth Among Equals, reflecting his position as the least prominent of the SDP's founders. He was interviewed in 2012 as part of The History of Parliament's oral history project.

Rodgers retired from the House of Lords on 12 December 2023.

Personal life
In 1955, Rodgers married Silvia Szulman (1928–2006), a Berlin-born artist and writer, who became a political hostess. The couple had three daughters: Rachel, Lucy, and Juliet.

On 8 May 2001, Rodgers suffered a stroke at his home and was treated at the Royal Free Hospital and attended speech therapy sessions at North Middlesex Hospital for two and a half years. He said he was "very, very lucky not to have suffered any physical damage" as a result. He has since been a keen advocate for better treatment and care for stroke victims.

In popular culture
Rodgers was a main character in Steve Waters's 2017 play Limehouse, which premiered at the Donmar Warehouse; he was portrayed by Paul Chahidi.


text:
Talk:Bill Rodgers, Baron Rodgers of Quarry Bank

Untitled
Apparently there is also a prominent marathon runner of this name, so we may have to disambiguate later. "Bill Rodgers" (rather than "William") does seem to be the most common form of the UK politician's name, and is the name under which he wrote his 2000 autobiography. --rbrwr

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Rodgers (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


text:
Grecia, Costa Rica

Grecia is a district of the Grecia canton, in the Alajuela province of Costa Rica.

Geography
Grecia has an area of 7.51 km2 and an elevation of 999 m. It is in the foothills of the Cordillera Central on the eastern edge of the Central Valley. The city, which was once named "the cleanest city in Latin America," is 20 km northwest of the provincial capital city of Alajuela, 27 km from Juan Santamaría International Airport, and 45 km from the national capital city of San José.

Pre-Columbian Era
Grecia, and its neighboring districts, was previously inhabited by indigenous peoples belonging to the Western Huetar Kingdom. This presence occurred during the reign of King Garabito.

19th Century
Grecia was petitioned to be founded as a town as early as October 1828. The first group of settlers, who later became bosses to future settlers, found the unestablished land to be very fertile. Furthermore, the state government motivated these travelers to discover pathways up North by offering them incentives. These discoveries and rewards led to an increase of migration of settlers into the northwest of the Central Valley, looking for unclaimed land to work on.

Eventually, the increase of settlements and construction of homes in the territory motivated residents to look for permission from the local government to officially establish the town. Their request, named File Number 21, was not approved until ten years later.

Legislation Number 69 was signed and enacted on April 27, 1838. The act allowed travelers to explore past the "other side of the Poas" and construct a settlement they would call Grecia.

Economy
Grecia is part of the tourist route of the western region of the Central Valley of Costa Rica, given the existence in the canton of waterfalls, protected areas, and the Catholic church of Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, which is part of Costa Rica's historical-architectural heritage.

Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes
Grecia is noted for its unique church, Church of Our Lady of Mercy (Grecia), made entirely of pre-fabricated steel plates painted red. The building was constructed in the 19th century to represent the practice of Catholic religion in Grecia and honor the Virgin Mary.

Initially approved to be designed as a doric style brick temple, the Church of Our Lady of Mercy is built with neoclassical influence due to Angel Miguel Velasquez, secretary of public works at the time who introduced the design to the district.

There are several urban legends about this church. One recounts how the church was donated by some foreign country, and sent to Greece as a gift, but was wrongly shipped to Grecia, Costa Rica. Another legend states that the final destination of the church was the city of Punta Arenas in Chile but was disembarked, by mistake, in the port of Puntarenas, Costa Rica, and later sent to the city of Grecia, where it was assembled.

However, records clearly show that the instruction, shipment, and construction of the church were a coordinated effort of Grecia's population, the Catholic Church, the Costa Rican government, and Alejo E. Jiménez Bonnefil (1858–1922), a Costa Rican coffee producer and exporter who was in charge of commanding and importing the church from the manufacturer Ateliers de la Société de Couvillet in Belgium, in the late 19th century.

Grecia Central Park
Located in front of Our Lady of Mercy Church, Grecia Central Park is one of the many parks in the district. The park has undergone numerous changes over the past few years, including the remodeling of its entire electrical system. The recreation ground is primarily used for walking. After numerous closures, however, the local government made an effort to promote the use of the space for its residents. The Vamos al Parque program, in collaboration with the University of Costa Rica, developed events such as free art, education, and recreation activities for its residents.

Flora and fauna
A toucan named Grecia is the first toucan to receive a prosthetic beak. Its name is due to where the bird was found injured prior to its admission to the Rescate Wildlife Rescue Center (formerly Rescate Animal Zoo Ave), south of the city.

Demographics
In June 2023, the population of Grecia was predicted to be 16,158—an 8% increase over 2011.

In the district, population is predicted to vary by age, with 21.4% at age 19 and under, 6.5% from 20 to 24, 35.7% from 25 to 44, 25.3% from 45 to 64 and 11.1% who were 65 or more.

Government and politics
The local government of the district of Grecia is that of the Grecia canton—Grecia is a district in the Grecia canton. The municipality serves every district in the canton and its main responsibility is to administer local services and satisfy the interests of its residents. In 2020, Francisco Murillo Quesada, a lawyer, became the mayor of the Grecia canton. This also made him the mayor of the district of Grecia. He succeeded Minor Molina in May 2020. The first and second vice mayors of Grecia are Nora Maria Suarez Cruz and Francisco Rodriguez Gutierrez, respectively.

The district of Grecia is one of the seven districts that belong to the local government of the Grecia canton. The municipality consists of a popularly elected council, a trustee for each district, and a mayor. Currently, the trustee of the Grecia district is Luz María Jiménez Arrieta. She succeeded Roy José Rodríguez Corrales, who resigned in 2023.

Road transportation
The district is covered by the following road routes:
 * CR RNS 107.svg National Route 107
 * CR RNS 118.svg National Route 118
 * CR RNS 154.svg National Route 154
 * CR RNT 711.svg National Route 711

title: Grecia, Costa Rica


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 4

Mav, Eloquence seems to be unaware of the decision some months back to allow the usage of both dd/mm/yy and mm/dd/yy (though of course only one version in each article). It appears that whomever was behind the debate that reached this conclusion failed to write it into the MofS. As a result Eloquence refuses to accept such a system and wants to change dd/mm/yys to mm/dd/yy, telling people if they want to use such a change they should propose it. (so obviously the endless debate we had, the agreement reached, the program written to facilitate such a system was our collective 'Bobby Ewing' moment and never actually happened. *sigh*) Could you please have a word with him over this. I fail to understand how a normally excellent user has suddenly become so determined to trample over hundreds of other articles and insist on applying the MofS when the MofS was presumably inadvertently not updated to incorporate the system agreed. After the hassle of Joe Canuck et al, I really don't have the stomach for another war with a user trying to do everything his way, particularly when the user is someone I respect and whose determination to ignore even the observations of as constructive a wikipedian as Arwel Parry I find puzzling. FearÉIREANN 21:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that I have no intention to "trample over hundreds of articles", but I do intend to adapt existing articles I work on to reflect the current MoS, just like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) suggests: "NB: the Manual of Style is not mandatory. However, copyeditors will change entries to match the manual of style". I am doing just this until you provide evidence that the convention has been changed. As for the datebot, see Talk:10 Rillington Place. --Eloquence 21:50 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well then we will have to update the MoS page to reflect the agreed upon compromise and be tolerant and respectful of both date styles in the same way we tolerate and respect all valid English spellings. Consistency in these cases needs to be within the article and not throughout the entire encyclopedia. --mav

 * I'd still like to know where, when and by whom this compromise was "agreed upon". The talk page of the policy page shows only 8 votes for such a compromise. The vast majority (36 votes) wants one of the two options (XOR) to apply. --Eloquence 23:52 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * And there was no clear winner. So we must respect both styles the same way we respect all valid English spellings. --mav

 * Interesting logic. The inconsistent options were options in the poll. They lost with a clear margin, so they are clearly not wanted! Now you've unilaterally declared a losing option the winner because there is no "clear winner" (whatever that means). This is completely undemocratic.

 * If we want a consistent style (which the majority of voters do want) the right thing to do is to have a second ballot only containing the two options, and to call all Wikipedians for input. I am sure we would get enough votes to determine a reasonably clear winner. In the meantime, the old MoS convention should be used. --Eloquence 00:07 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Set it up then. The previous vote was flawed and can be interpreted a great many ways. But it is clear that this is a very divisive issue so IMO we need to respect both styles. --mav

 * This is illogical. The divisiveness of the issue is not overcome by "respecting both styles", since the inconsistency within Wikipedia caused by doing so is itself divisive. Because that is the case, I am not happy with your recent edit of the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) page -- it does not reflect the current distribution of opinion, it only reflects your own. --Eloquence 00:20 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The votes were 15 for keeping the mm/dd status quo
 * 21 for making dd/mm the standard
 * 10 for encouraging the use of dd/mm
 * 8 for allowing the use of either (no preference) - hardly "only 8 votes for such a compromise"
 * 2 for keeping mm/dd as the standard, allowing either in entries.
 * That lot seems to indicate to me a general preference for dd/mm. Arwel 00:14 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree (keep in mind that each user can vote multiple times, though, so it's not as clear as you suggest -- 15 voted for keeping the current standard). I would be perfectly happy with letting Sean Barrett run his datebot to change existing dates to the British format. This, of course, needs to be announced on the mailing list first and would cause more votes, which would be a good thing. A separate ballot would also be possible. In the meantime, the previous standard should be used. --Eloquence 00:20 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I do have my doubts about converting all the dates to "American" format -- I thought Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) had agreed that we could use either dd/mm or mm/dd and mm/dd/yy in an article about a British event simply looks very wrong to me, so I'm changing them back. --Arwel 18:50 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * As you can see from my user page, I am not an American. However, I like to have consistency in Wikipedia, and so do most people on the page you linked to -- while there seems to be a growing preference for the dd/mm format, the current standard is the mm/dd format, and it is counterproductive to use different formats in different places. British date format for articles about British events? So should I write "17. June 1953" in an article about a German event? Or do just the Brits get preferential treatment because they also speak English? That doesn't make sense to me.

 * If you want another date format, please work for its adoption before using it in articles. --Eloquence 18:58 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Eloquence but you are wrong. This was debated some months ago and it was decided by a vote that either mm/dd//yy or dd/mm/yy could be used. That is why there is a growing preference; it was agreed and as a result most non-Americans (and many Americans) now use dd/mm/yy. I have not used mm/dd/yy since I think March. It was decided that an article should be left if possible in the form written, but that where possible it should also be in the form used in a country. While this seems contradictory, I think in practice it means that biographical entries should be as entered by users, historical articles should use the form of the country being described. Just as we apply British english to British articles and American english to American articles, so it makes sense to apply British (well actually world) dating to British articles and American dating to American articles.

I am somewhat surprised that you did not know about the dating decision. It was voted on and agreed some months ago, to the relief it must be said of non-Americans (I for example never ever used American dating except on wiki!) who could now use their native format. In fact many historical articles have been changed to the native style. All dates were provided with redirects so that ether format would work.

As a result and in view of the decision taken I have reverted this article to the relevant form of date. As this is an article about Britain I have reverted this article to British english dating. That is the agreed and correct form. FearÉIREANN 19:49 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * You write as if there was some kind of consensus on the matter. Neither Manual of Style (dates and numbers) nor the talk page report such a consensus. The current opinion on the talk page is that the style should be changed to DD MM, closely followed by the opinion that the existing policy should be kept. The official MoS recommendation is still to use Month DD YYYY. I can accept using the British format in imported articles, but as soon as an article has been changed to reflect MoS, it should not be changed back.

 * The MoS exists to provide a consistent style across all Wikipedia articles. It makes no sense to have different styles for different topics. This is not the UK-pedia, and the preference for British dates is pointless. For the record, I also think that allowing British spelling in articles about British subjects is annoying and should stop, but we should at least be able to agree on a consistent date format. Everything else looks unprofessional.

 * I have no objection against changing the recommended date format and don't have an opinion as to which one is stylistically preferable. What I care about is consistency. Let's keep Wikipedia as consistent in style as reasonably possible to convey the impression of a professionally edited publication, and not a hodgepodge of different styles that is typical for a website whose users cannot agree with each other. By the same logic with which you want to use British style dates in this article, I could use German style dates in an article about a German subject (that is, "17. June" instead of "17 June"). Or is this just a British/American thing? In that case, I don't think that articles about UK subjects should be written in UK style, and all other articles in US style. Do you? --Eloquence 20:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

1. Personally as most of the world does not use American english and in fact dislike it being forced on them, I think US english about be restricted to US articles.

2. Yes there IS a consensus, a clear and unambiguous 100% consensus to use both. If it isn't mentioned that is because those people responsible for conducting the vote on the issue failed to amend the rules accordingly,( ie an oversight), in which case I will rewrite the rules to reflect the consensus that was reached. (I know from personal experience it is possible to have agreement on an issue and inadvertently forget to put it onto the revelant rules page until someone who does not know about the rule makes an issue of it and the relevant oversight has to be amended.) But the vote took place, the issue was debated, a consensus agreed, a program written to facilitate the implementation of that consensus, a request made to delay implementing the consensus until the program was ready, then a message saying 'program in place. Both alternative date systems can now be used.'

3. As to this not being UK-pedia. Nor is it US-pedia. /dd/yy is a format rarely used outside the US. In fact outside the US its usage is restricted to a small number of areas, (eg newspaper dates, due to pre-computerisation cataloguing reasons in that case). The vast majority of people in the world use dd/mm/yy. So if wiki was going to apply one style, it would have to be dd/mm/yy as that is the worldwide system used and is also widely used in the US.

4. Re German dating. The issue decided was whether to use dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy, yy/mm/dd, all or a couple. It was decided by clear consensus (and reflected in the resultant computer program created to implement the decision) that dd/mm/yy and //mm/dd/yy could be used, and nothing else.

The consensus decision is that British english and British dating is used in British articles. American english and american dating is used in American articles. It is a perfectly logical compromise. If either was going to be dropped it would American dating as that is only used by a minority of english users.

The decision was reached. Hundreds of wiki users have been using dual dating for months now. It is unfortunate that you seem not to know of the decision. Given that most non-Americans have been using dd/mm/yy for months I would have thought even those who did not know of the original debate would have noticed and got the message by now. If it was not as of yet mentioned on the wiki manual of style that was an accidential failure to up date it to reflect the new agreed consensus. However any attempt by users to revert articles to the previous universally applied format of mm/dd/yy will simply be reverted, just as any attempt by people to force American english on pages written in British english is constantly reverted. Dual dating is the agreed format for recording dates and has been so for months, as other users will confirm if check with them. FearÉIREANN 20:53 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Repeating something does not make it any more true, no matter how often you do it. The talk page lists several options, and the number of votes next to each option. The option "Allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year, express no preference" received only 8 votes (as opposed to 21 for changing the policy, and 15 for keeping it the same). Of the listed options, none suggests to use British style in articles about British subjects, and US style in all others, which seems to be what you are proposing. You speak boldly of a clear and unambiguous 100% consensus, of which I see no record. Please point to the record, or stop reverting articles, and keep them in the proper form in accordance with our manual of style. --Eloquence 21:00 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FCOL this is getting ridiculous. When it was suggested that a program could be written to allow both for fomats to be used, that was agreed to as a compromise, in that it allowed for the use of one or other date formats. That was the decision. It was then suggested that we simply follow the rule as it is applied in the naming conventions. Leave article in the form written, but aim to achieve a form of language or dating relevant to the content of the article. It is clear as day, it is the agrement which wiki members have been using for months. If the MoS has not been correctly updated then I will update it. Please do not try to force your preferred date onto other users when it was decided that the two formats could and would be used. As to reverting, any article in which you or anyone else tries to force American english or American dating onto when it has been agreed to use British english and British dating will of course be reverted by any and all users who find it. Or maybe you think that hundreds of users who have been faithfully following this agreeent all dreamt it up, that hundreds of users on wiki are collectively hallucinated the agreement and all collectively turned into trolls to vandalise wikipedia dates?

Frankly if you did not notice that a consensus had been reached on this issue months ago, that is your problem. If you choose to be the Rip Van Winkle of wiki that is your right. But the issue was decided on and has been implemented. Any attempt ro bulldoze your preferred language into articles in flagrant breach of the agreement reached simply will not be let stand. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN 21:29 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * FearÉIREANN, before I begin here I'd like to make clear that I'm on your side of the substantive part of this issue with regard to the dating convention.

 * However, I strongly recommend that you not update the Manual of Style unless you can specifically point to the source that states when and by whom this consensus was reached. It's no different than having a reputable source for an article. Eloquence made a simple request, and I think he deserves an answer.  All such discussion is web-archived, whether it be on talk pages or on the mailing list.

 * Hephaestos 21:38 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The datebot was written by Sean Barrett to change the content of existing pages from one format to the other. He never ran it on the entire Wikipedia, only on the ship pages . If I recall correctly, there was some argument about convention regarding the date style for ship pages being changed to DD MM, but the MoS has no record of it.

 * I am hardly alone in my dislike for inconsistent style, and the voting results as documented on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) back me up in that assertion. We have a datebot, we can convert the existing style to another one -- I would agree with that and the voting results support it. So why do you not ask Sean to run the datebot, after a mailing list discussion on the matter? That seems like the most reasonable approach. --Eloquence 21:57 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And at any rate if the British style of dates is used they don't get commas. I can't tell you how many of those I've run into just today. - Hephaestos 00:22 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Apologies if I was a bit narky earlier. I've had a rather stressful few days (a major edit lost because of problems getting a save on wiki, (it took me 26 minutes at one stage to get Mav's page to open!!!) the hassle over Joe Canuck and an ear infection on top of everything that has for the last 48 hours left me in constant pain - which had just reminded me to take more painkillers!). From my understanding of the debate, the voting itself proved inconclusive. I and others involved kept asking 'so what is the position?'. Because of problems over page size (and that damned I Explorer that makes it impossible to enter pages over a certain length) the debate was continued on in the various user talk pages and the messages that went around said that the datebot was up and running and could be used for all dates. I, Arwel and others were told that we could from that moment on move to the dd/mm/yy and almost immediately most non-US users abandoned the mm/dd/yy format. In fact I was one of the last to abandon that, because I wanted to make sure that it was OK. I am a bit of a fanatic about uniformity, as my work on the Naming conventions (names and titles) shows. So I wanted the position to be clear.

All the messages I received along with others said that because it was obvious that many people wanted to change, the best solution was to allow both date systems to be used, subject to the situation that as with BE and AE only one style be used in an article, which I have rigidly followed, on occasion changing all dates in some articles to the mm/dd/yy format when the articles were originally written that way or when the article was on an american topic. In addition there was no question of the dual system causing problems, since we spell out months rather than use numbers. While dd/mm/yy may look odd to users of mm/dd/yy, the latter looks distinctly odd to most of the rest of the world who don't use it. Indeed its use reinforced the image that wiki is an American encyclopædia for Americans, with the rest of the world being expected to follow a dating system that even many Americans don't use. (On my eMac, for example, the dating system is linked to country. I made a point of checking what the menu options were. Only the US had mm/dd/yy on my computer, all the rest of the world bar two I think, showed up as dd/mm/yy. Those two were shown as yy/mm/dd/)

To be honest, I hated using mm/dd/yy. It is a form I never ever used except on wiki. Most Americans I know don't even use it. When I was told categorically that both format could be used I abandoned using mm/dd/yy. I made a point of telling people that as that was the agreed format, it should be put in naming conventions pages and the MofS and I was told that that was in the process of being done. (I was already updating another naming conventions page to include a consensus achieved elsewhere, and to be honest am fed up being the one having to 'word' changes to conventions. So I left it to others to make the change.) At this stage, even if we wanted to we could not go back to simply using mm/dd/yy on wiki; a large number of users now use dd/mm/yy and from what I have seen lately at least 50% of new users are using it, with mm/dd/yy only being used with the odd exception by americans. In any case, the MoS is, as it itself makes clear, not obligatory. At this stage there is no question of my returning to use mm/dd/yy. I find it as irritating as being expected to write american spellings like 'amature', 'fetus', 'behavior', etc. If all I am being asked to do with to 'write american' to produce an american encyclopædia for americans, then you can count me out. This is supposed to be a world sourcebook. Non-Americans are already up in arms at demands from Americans that American english rather than British english capitalisation rules be followed. Non-Americans go ballistic every time an American tries to turn something written in British english or Hiberno english into American english. One user (I won't use the language I described him by when I saw it. Suffice to say it cast doubts on the marital status of their parents) a couple of days ago not merely sought to turn an article on an Irish topic into American english, using American spelling and American capitalisation, but even went so far as to americanise my comments on the talk page. (His changes were reverted, and a rather strong message left on his talk page.)

In conclusion, as far as Arwel. I and many many others were concerned, we were told it was perfectly acceptable to use dd/mm/yy. Even if it turns out we were misled, there is no question of returning to use mm/dd/yy. As the MofS makes explicitly clear, its mm/dd/yy is not obligatory. I do not intend ever to use that format again (not juts on wiki but in life), other than when writing on US topics or in creating uniformity in an article where that was the original form used. Any effort to 'americanise' articles will not be accepted. In the area of capitalisation, many non-americans were brought to the brink of quitting wiki altogether by having their work americanised to follow american capitalisation rules, rules most of the rest of the world was taught were grammatically incorrect. Americanising British english in articles is guaranteed to trigger edit wars, with BE users reverting articles as often as necessary to ensure the BE they were written in is the form the article remains in. The same is true of dates. To attempt to force AE-style dates on article written in BE is guaranteed to cause edit wars. If American english users want an american english encyclopædia they can always go off and write one. But this is a world encylopædia, not an American one. if AE user want to be treated with respect, and have their capitalisation, spelling, linguistic structure and dating shown respect, they better get use to recognising that most of the rest of the world uses a different form of english to which they should show respect also. Non AE users will continue to write in BE, spell in BE, capitalise in BE and use dates in BE on wiki, whether AE users like it or not.

One final point: people who are so concerned about uniformity should look at the vast areas of wiki other than dates where not just is there no uniformity but where elementary grammatical rules that apply in all forms of english are being disregarded. I have spent most of the last three months trying to turn articles in any form of english, trying to create some degree of uniformity in title use, etc. There are far far more problems than dates, especially when dates, because they are spelt out, cannot confuse people. FearÉIREANN 01:03 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel about the ear infection. I have no idea why there are so many nerves in the canal! Not that the amount of pain makes any difference in how a person treats it, as it's out of reach of most aids. "God" should be killed. Anyway, I'm not sure why or how you're using national teachings as a defence for any special capitalisation; it's not about what nation teaches what, but how things should be. So I'm boggled by your odd and wavering use of capitals. Languages are names, not words, so they should be capitalised. So should nationalities. lysdexia 01:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I am a sucker for uniformity as well, and I care most about order where chaos is the most visible. Thousands of our articles contain dates, and when, clicking from one article to the next to a third one, I see alternating date styles, this simply looks unprofessional. As an occasional copyeditor, I also find it highly annoying to first always have to check whether the article is about a British subject and to then adjust my style accordingly.

 * An encyclopedia is more than an index of pages -- it should try to follow a consistent style throughout. We succeed in this to an already marvelous degree, given that thousands of our contributors are anonymous IP numbers who we will never see again. We have full intro sentences, bolded keywords, separated "see also" and "external links" sections, fairly standardized rules on italics etc. Generally, two medium-sized Wikipedia articles tend to look at least very similar. But stuff like the date style separation breaks this uniformity.

 * A compromise is only a compromise if both parties to it are at least slightly unhappy. The current solution is very favorable to the British speaking segment of Wikipedia, and unfavorable to the rest, including relatively neutral parties like myself. As a German, I still prefer the "March 21" style, because that's what I read the most and what sounds most natural to me. But I could live with and would follow the "21 March" rule gladly. In return, it would be nice if the British users would accept "Americanization" of their spellings, at least where a Google test shows a clear preference of the US spelling.  Yes, I know, terrible, horrible, evil, etc. -- but if you're not at least cursing a little bit, it's not a compromise. ;-)

 * Still, these issues should be treated separately. Instead of referring to unspecified and unquantified talk page agreements, we should get a clear record of the preferred date style, and then establish it consistently across all wiki pages. As a separate matter, we could vote on the spelling issue. Perhaps it turns out that I am relatively alone in my desire for wiki-wide consistency here, but in the case of dates the current vote outcome shows that I am clearly not. Sean Barrett has written the datebot to convert all dates to a single standard. The technology is there if we want to use it.

 * What we should avoid is the impression that a few influential Wikipedians can change the existing policy to their liking, and that the recorded votes are ignored. Yes, people may make decisions you do not agree with. The German Wikipedia, much to my dismay, recently decided to prohibit fair use of images. Still, I will respect their decision -- that's always part of the deal. If the community process works, avoiding it will, on average, result in worse decisions than not doing so. The individual decision makers will almost never be able to see that their decisions were wrong. That's why respect for the community process is important -- or you have to argue for its abolition and replacement with something else entirely. --Eloquence 01:39 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Eloquence seems to be unaware of the decision some months back to allow the usage of both dd/mm/yy and mm/dd/yy

I was also unaware of this decision. The decision to change this policy should be taken on this talk page. A selection of Wikipedians getting together to decide policy on an unannounced user talk page (or worse, IRC or private email) is more fitting to a cabal than a genuinely open project. Martin 01:39 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Because of problems over page size (and that damned I Explorer that makes it impossible to enter pages over a certain length) the debate was continued on in the various user talk pages and...

If a page gets too long, archive it. "various user talk pages" are not the correct place to formulate policy. I really feel strongly about this. You didn't even have the courtesy to provide a link here, let alone update us with the results of your deliberations. Martin

 * there has to be some flexibility on this issue as well as spelling. As it happens, I rarely use dates, but I could live with US dates in US articles, just as I would be prepared to use AE spelling where it seemed appropriate. For example, Gray Whale, which is a Pacific species, rather than "Grey Whale". If we want to make it more professional, a better starting point would be to put references to 1876 bible encyclopedias and comments on the lines of "can anyone add to this..." as hidden text, so it is only seen by editors. jimfbleak 05:48 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

'Archived. 22 June 2003'


text:
Raymond de Sèze

Raymond Romain, Comte de Sèze or Desèze (26 September 1750 – 2 May 1828) was a French advocate. Together with François Tronchet and Malesherbes, he defended Louis XVI, when the King was brought before the Convention for trial. De Sèze is remembered for a speech on Louis' behalf which impressed even his opponents.

Life
Raymond de Sèze was born in Bordeaux, Aquitaine, and studied in the famous law school of that city. He gained a reputation for remarkable passion and persuasiveness, and came to prominence in 1789 when he defended Pierre Victor, Baron de Besenval de Brunstatt, against the charge of the crime of lèse-nation.

When, at forty-four, he was called out of retirement to assist Louis XVI's defence, he was considered one of the best lawyers in France. Though he had to prepare his defence arguments in a short amount of time, his brilliance shone through in a first draft that, although moving, Louis rejected as too rhetorical, saying, "I do not want to play on their (the Convention's) feelings". When the time for the real defence came, despite having had no sleep for over four days, de Sèze pleaded the King's case for three hours, arguing eloquently yet discreetly that the Convention should spare his life. Beginning with a description of why the charges were invalid (under the terms of the constitution of 1791 Louis, as King, was immune from prosecution), he attacked the right of Convention to stand as judge and jury. Finally, he moved to a rejection of the charges in the acte enonciatif drawn up by the constitution charge by charge, with a royalist history of the revolution, portraying Louis as 'the restorer of French Liberty". De Sèze finished, like many of the set-piece speeches of the revolution, with an appeal to history: "Louis ascended the throne at the age of twenty, and at the age of twenty he gave to the throne the example of character. He brought to the throne no wicked weaknesses, no corrupting passions. He was economical, just, severe. He showed himself always the constant friend of the people. The people wanted the abolition of servitude. He began by abolishing it on his own lands. The people asked for reforms in the criminal law... he carried out these reforms. The people wanted liberty: he gave it to them. The people themselves came before him in his sacrifices. Nevertheless, it is in the name of these very people that one today demands... Citizens, I cannot finish... I stop myself before History. Think how it will judge your judgement, and that the judgement of him will be judged by the centuries."

Jean-Paul Marat, the démagogue of the sans-culottes, was favourably impressed, and declared: "De Séze read a long speech made with a great deal of art". The Commune, the most violent of the factions at the time, described the speech as "very adroit". Nevertheless, the case was lost, and the King was sent to the guillotine.

De Sèze himself was imprisoned during the revolution, but he managed to elude the scaffold. He was released after the fall of Robespierre, but he disappeared from public life, serving neither the Directory nor the Napoleonic government, both of which he saw as illegitimate. Upon the return of the Bourbons he was made a peer, as well as a judge and a member of the French Academy, before dying at the age of seventy eight.

Source

 * The King's Trial (Louis XVI vs The French Revolution), David P. Jordan, University of California Press, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition. Copyright 1979, 2004

title: Raymond de Sèze


text:
Induction motor

An induction motor or asynchronous motor is an AC electric motor in which the electric current in the rotor that produces torque is obtained by electromagnetic induction from the magnetic field of the stator winding. An induction motor therefore needs no electrical connections to the rotor. An induction motor's rotor can be either wound type or squirrel-cage type.

Three-phase squirrel-cage induction motors are widely used as industrial drives because they are self-starting, reliable, and economical. Single-phase induction motors are used extensively for smaller loads, such as garbage disposals and stationary power tools. Although traditionally used for constant-speed service, single- and three-phase induction motors are increasingly being installed in variable-speed applications using variable-frequency drives (VFD). VFD offers energy savings opportunities for induction motors in applications like fans, pumps, and compressors that have a variable load.

History
In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations. By manually turning switches on and off, Walter Baily demonstrated this in 1879, effectively the first primitive induction motor.

The first commutator-free single-phase AC induction motor was invented by Hungarian engineer Ottó Bláthy; he used the single-phase motor to propel his invention, the electricity meter.

The first AC commutator-free polyphase induction motors were independently invented by Galileo Ferraris and Nikola Tesla, a working motor model having been demonstrated by the former in 1885 and by the latter in 1887. Tesla applied for US patents in October and November 1887 and was granted some of these patents in May 1888. In April 1888, the Royal Academy of Science of Turin published Ferraris's research on his AC polyphase motor detailing the foundations of motor operation. In May 1888 Tesla presented the technical paper A New System for Alternating Current Motors and Transformers to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) describing three four-stator-pole motor types: one having a four-pole rotor forming a non-self-starting reluctance motor, another with a wound rotor forming a self-starting induction motor, and the third a true synchronous motor with a separately excited DC supply to the rotor winding.

George Westinghouse, who was developing an alternating current power system at that time, licensed Tesla's patents in 1888 and purchased a US patent option on Ferraris' induction motor concept. Tesla was also employed for one year as a consultant. Westinghouse employee C. F. Scott was assigned to assist Tesla and later took over development of the induction motor at Westinghouse. Steadfast in his promotion of three-phase development, Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky invented the cage-rotor induction motor in 1889 and the three-limb transformer in 1890. Furthermore, he claimed that Tesla's motor was not practical because of two-phase pulsations, which prompted him to persist in his three-phase work. Although Westinghouse achieved its first practical induction motor in 1892 and developed a line of polyphase 60 hertz induction motors in 1893, these early Westinghouse motors were two-phase motors with wound rotors until B. G. Lamme developed a rotating bar winding rotor.

The General Electric Company (GE) began developing three-phase induction motors in 1891. By 1896, General Electric and Westinghouse signed a cross-licensing agreement for the bar-winding-rotor design, later called the squirrel-cage rotor. Arthur E. Kennelly was the first to bring out the full significance of complex numbers (using j to represent the square root of minus one) to designate the 90º rotation operator in analysis of AC problems. GE's Charles Proteus Steinmetz improved the application of AC complex quantities and developed an analytical model called the induction motor Steinmetz equivalent circuit.

Induction motor improvements flowing from these inventions and innovations were such that a modern 100-horsepower induction motor has the same mounting dimensions as a 7.5-horsepower motor in 1897.

3-phase motor
In both induction and synchronous motors, the AC power supplied to the motor's stator creates a magnetic field that rotates in synchronism with the AC oscillations. Whereas a synchronous motor's rotor turns at the same rate as the stator field, an induction motor's rotor rotates at a somewhat slower speed than the stator field. The induction motor stator's magnetic field is therefore changing or rotating relative to the rotor. This induces an opposing current in the rotor, in effect the motor's secondary winding. The rotating magnetic flux induces currents in the rotor windings, in a manner similar to currents induced in a transformer's secondary winding(s).

The induced currents in the rotor windings in turn create magnetic fields in the rotor that react against the stator field. The direction of the rotor magnetic field opposes the change in current through the rotor windings, following Lenz's Law. The cause of induced current in the rotor windings is the rotating stator magnetic field, so to oppose the change in rotor-winding currents the rotor turns in the direction of the stator magnetic field. The rotor accelerates until the magnitude of induced rotor current and torque balances the load on the rotor. Since rotation at synchronous speed does not induce rotor current, an induction motor always operates slightly slower than synchronous speed. The difference, or "slip," between actual and synchronous speed varies from about 0.5% to 5.0% for standard Design B torque curve induction motors. The induction motor's essential character is that torque is created solely by induction instead of the rotor being separately excited as in synchronous or DC machines or being self-magnetized as in permanent magnet motors.

For rotor currents to be induced, the speed of the physical rotor must be lower than that of the stator's rotating magnetic field ($$n_s$$); otherwise the magnetic field would not be moving relative to the rotor conductors and no currents would be induced. As the speed of the rotor drops below synchronous speed, the rotation rate of the magnetic field in the rotor increases, inducing more current in the windings and creating more torque. The ratio between the rotation rate of the magnetic field induced in the rotor and the rotation rate of the stator's rotating field is called "slip". Under load, the speed drops and the slip increases enough to create sufficient torque to turn the load. For this reason, induction motors are sometimes referred to as "asynchronous motors".

An induction motor can be used as an induction generator, or it can be unrolled to form a linear induction motor which can directly generate linear motion. The generating mode for induction motors is complicated by the need to excite the rotor, which begins with only residual magnetization. In some cases, that residual magnetization is enough to self-excite the motor under load. Therefore, it is necessary to either snap the motor and connect it momentarily to a live grid or to add capacitors charged initially by residual magnetism and providing the required reactive power during operation. Similar is the operation of the induction motor in parallel with a synchronous motor serving as a power factor compensator. A feature in the generator mode in parallel to the grid is that the rotor speed is higher than in the driving mode. Then active energy is being given to the grid. Another disadvantage of the induction motor generator is that it consumes a significant magnetizing current I0 = (20–35)%.

Synchronous speed
An AC motor's synchronous speed, $$f_s$$, is the rotation rate of the stator's magnetic field,
 * $$f_s = {2f \over p}$$,

where $$f$$ is the frequency of the power supply, $$p$$ is the number of magnetic poles, and $$f_s$$ is the synchronous speed of the machine. For $$f$$ in hertz and $$n_s$$ synchronous speed in RPM, the formula becomes:
 * $$n_s = {2f \over p} \cdot \left(\frac{60\ \mathrm{seconds}}{\mathrm{minute}}\right)={120f\over{p}} \cdot \left(\frac{\mathrm{seconds}}{\mathrm{minute}}\right)$$.

For example, for a four-pole, three-phase motor, $$p$$ = 4 and $$n_s = {120f \over 4}$$ = 1,500 RPM (for $$f$$ = 50 Hz) and 1,800 RPM (for $$f$$ = 60 Hz) synchronous speed.

The number of magnetic poles, $$p$$, is the number of north and south poles per phase. For example; a single-phase motor with 3 north and 3 south poles, having 6 poles per phase, is a 6-pole motor. A three-phase motor with 18 north and 18 south poles, having 6 poles per phase, is also a 6-pole motor. This industry standard method of counting poles results in the same synchronous speed for a given frequency regardless of polarity.

Slip
Slip, $$s$$, is defined as the difference between synchronous speed and operating speed, at the same frequency, expressed in rpm, or in percentage or ratio of synchronous speed. Thus

 * $$s = \frac{n_s-n_r}{n_s}\,$$

where $$n_s$$ is stator electrical speed, $$n_r$$ is rotor mechanical speed. Slip, which varies from zero at synchronous speed and 1 when the rotor is stalled, determines the motor's torque. Since the short-circuited rotor windings have small resistance, even a small slip induces a large current in the rotor and produces significant torque. At full rated load, slip varies from more than 5% for small or special purpose motors to less than 1% for large motors. These speed variations can cause load-sharing problems when differently sized motors are mechanically connected. Various methods are available to reduce slip, VFDs often offering the best solution.

Standard torque
The typical speed-torque relationship of a standard NEMA Design B polyphase induction motor is as shown in the curve at right. Suitable for most low performance loads such as centrifugal pumps and fans, Design B motors are constrained by the following typical torque ranges:
 * Breakdown torque (peak torque), 175–300% of rated torque
 * Locked-rotor torque (torque at 100% slip), 75–275% of rated torque
 * Pull-up torque, 65–190% of rated torque.

Over a motor's normal load range, the torque's slope is approximately linear or proportional to slip because the value of rotor resistance divided by slip, $$R_r'/s$$, dominates torque in a linear manner. As load increases above rated load, stator and rotor leakage reactance factors gradually become more significant in relation to $$R_r'/s$$ such that torque gradually curves towards breakdown torque. As the load torque increases beyond breakdown torque the motor stalls.

Starting
There are three basic types of small induction motors: split-phase single-phase, shaded-pole single-phase, and polyphase.

In two-pole single-phase motors, the torque goes to zero at 100% slip (zero speed), so these require alterations to the stator such as shaded-poles to provide starting torque. A single phase induction motor requires separate starting circuitry to provide a rotating field to the motor. The normal running windings within such a single-phase motor can cause the rotor to turn in either direction, so the starting circuit determines the operating direction. In certain smaller single-phase motors, starting is done by means of a copper wire turn around part of a pole; such a pole is referred to as a shaded pole. The current induced in this turn lags behind the supply current, creating a delayed magnetic field around the shaded part of the pole face. This imparts sufficient rotational field energy to start the motor. These motors are typically used in applications such as desk fans and record players, as the required starting torque is low, and the low efficiency is tolerable relative to the reduced cost of the motor and starting method compared to other AC motor designs.

Larger single phase motors are split-phase motors and have a second stator winding fed with out-of-phase current; such currents may be created by feeding the winding through a capacitor or having it receive different values of inductance and resistance from the main winding. In capacitor-start designs, the second winding is disconnected once the motor is up to speed, usually either by a centrifugal switch acting on weights on the motor shaft or a thermistor which heats up and increases its resistance, reducing the current through the second winding to an insignificant level. The capacitor-run designs keep the second winding on when running, improving torque. A resistance start design uses a starter inserted in series with the startup winding, creating reactance.

Self-starting polyphase induction motors produce torque even at standstill. Available squirrel-cage induction motor starting methods include direct-on-line starting, reduced-voltage reactor or auto-transformer starting, star-delta starting or, increasingly, new solid-state soft assemblies and, of course, variable frequency drives (VFDs).

Polyphase motors have rotor bars shaped to give different speed-torque characteristics. The current distribution within the rotor bars varies depending on the frequency of the induced current. At standstill, the rotor current is the same frequency as the stator current, and tends to travel at the outermost parts of the cage rotor bars (by skin effect). The different bar shapes can give usefully different speed-torque characteristics as well as some control over the inrush current at startup.

Although polyphase motors are inherently self-starting, their starting and pull-up torque design limits must be high enough to overcome actual load conditions.

In wound rotor motors, rotor circuit connection through slip rings to external resistances allows change of speed-torque characteristics for acceleration control and speed control purposes.

Resistance
Before the development of semiconductor power electronics, it was difficult to vary the frequency, and cage induction motors were mainly used in fixed speed applications. Applications such as electric overhead cranes used DC drives or wound rotor motors (WRIM) with slip rings for rotor circuit connection to variable external resistance allowing considerable range of speed control. However, resistor losses associated with low speed operation of WRIMs is a major cost disadvantage, especially for constant loads. Large slip ring motor drives, termed slip energy recovery systems, some still in use, recover energy from the rotor circuit, rectify it, and return it to the power system using a VFD.

Cascade
The speed of a pair of slip-ring motors can be controlled by a cascade connection, or concatenation. The rotor of one motor is connected to the stator of the other. If the two motors are also mechanically connected, they will run at half speed. This system was once widely used in three-phase AC railway locomotives, such as FS Class E.333. By the turn of this century, however, such cascade-based electromechanical systems became much more efficiently and economically solved using power semiconductor elements solutions.

Variable-frequency drive
In many industrial variable-speed applications, DC and WRIM drives are being displaced by VFD-fed cage induction motors. The most common efficient way to control asynchronous motor speed of many loads is with VFDs. Barriers to adoption of VFDs due to cost and reliability considerations have been reduced considerably over the past three decades such that it is estimated that drive technology is adopted in as many as 30–40% of all newly installed motors.

Variable frequency drives implement the scalar or vector control of an induction motor.

With scalar control, only the magnitude and frequency of the supply voltage are controlled without phase control (absent feedback by rotor position). Scalar control is suitable for application where the load is constant.

Vector control allows independent control of the speed and torque of the motor, making it possible to maintain a constant rotation speed at varying load torque. But vector control is more expensive because of the cost of the sensor (not always) and the requirement for a more powerful controller.

Construction
The stator of an induction motor consists of poles carrying supply current to induce a magnetic field that penetrates the rotor. To optimize the distribution of the magnetic field, windings are distributed in slots around the stator, with the magnetic field having the same number of north and south poles. Induction motors are most commonly run on single-phase or three-phase power, but two-phase motors exist; in theory, induction motors can have any number of phases. Many single-phase motors having two windings can be viewed as two-phase motors, since a capacitor is used to generate a second power phase 90° from the single-phase supply and feeds it to the second motor winding. Single-phase motors require some mechanism to produce a rotating field on startup. Induction motors using a squirrel-cage rotor winding may have the rotor bars skewed slightly to smooth out torque in each revolution.

Standardized NEMA & IEC motor frame sizes throughout the industry result in interchangeable dimensions for shaft, foot mounting, general aspects as well as certain motor flange aspect. Since an open, drip proof (ODP) motor design allows a free air exchange from outside to the inner stator windings, this style of motor tends to be slightly more efficient because the windings are cooler. At a given power rating, lower speed requires a larger frame.

Rotation reversal
The method of changing the direction of rotation of an induction motor depends on whether it is a three-phase or single-phase machine. A three-phase motor can be reversed by swapping any two of its phase connections. Motors required to change direction regularly (such as hoists) will have extra switching contacts in their controller to reverse rotation as needed. A variable frequency drive nearly always permits reversal by electronically changing the phase sequence of voltage applied to the motor.

In a single-phase split-phase motor, reversal is achieved by reversing the connections of the starting winding. Some motors bring out the start winding connections to allow selection of rotation direction at installation. If the start winding is permanently connected within the motor, it is impractical to reverse the sense of rotation. Single-phase shaded-pole motors have a fixed rotation unless a second set of shading windings is provided.

Power factor
The power factor of induction motors varies with load, typically from about 0.85 or 0.90 at full load to as low as about 0.20 at no-load, due to stator and rotor leakage and magnetizing reactances. Power factor can be improved by connecting capacitors either on an individual motor basis or, by preference, on a common bus covering several motors. For economic and other considerations, power systems are rarely power factor corrected to unity power factor. Power capacitor application with harmonic currents requires power system analysis to avoid harmonic resonance between capacitors and transformer and circuit reactances. Common bus power factor correction is recommended to minimize resonant risk and to simplify power system analysis.

Efficiency
Full-load motor efficiency ranges from 85–97%, with losses as follows:
 * Friction and windage, 5–15%
 * Iron or core losses, 15–25%
 * Stator losses, 25–40%
 * Rotor losses, 15–25%
 * Stray load losses, 10–20%.

For an electric motor, the efficiency, represented by the Greek letter Eta, is defined as the quotient of the mechanical output power and the electric input power, calculated using this formula:

$$\eta=Output Mechanical Power\div Input Electrical Power$$

Regulatory authorities in many countries have implemented legislation to encourage the manufacture and use of higher efficiency electric motors. Some legislation mandates the future use of premium-efficiency induction motors in certain equipment. For more information, see: Premium efficiency.

Steinmetz equivalent circuit
Many useful motor relationships between time, current, voltage, speed, power factor, and torque can be obtained from analysis of the Steinmetz equivalent circuit (also termed T-equivalent circuit or IEEE recommended equivalent circuit), a mathematical model used to describe how an induction motor's electrical input is transformed into useful mechanical energy output. The equivalent circuit is a single-phase representation of a multiphase induction motor that is valid in steady-state balanced-load conditions.

The Steinmetz equivalent circuit is expressed simply in terms of the following components:
 * Stator resistance and leakage reactance ($$R_s$$, $$X_s$$).
 * Rotor resistance, leakage reactance, and slip ($$R_r$$, $$X_r$$ or $$R_r'$$, $$X_r'$$, and $$s$$).
 * Magnetizing reactance ($$X_m$$).

Paraphrasing from Alger in Knowlton, an induction motor is simply an electrical transformer the magnetic circuit of which is separated by an air gap between the stator winding and the moving rotor winding. The equivalent circuit can accordingly be shown either with equivalent circuit components of respective windings separated by an ideal transformer or with rotor components referred to the stator side as shown in the following circuit and associated equation and parameter definition tables.

The following rule-of-thumb approximations apply to the circuit:
 * Maximum current happens under locked rotor current (LRC) conditions and is somewhat less than $$V_\text{s}/X$$, with LRC typically ranging between 6 and 7 times rated current for standard Design B motors.
 * Breakdown torque $$T_\text{max}$$ happens when $$s \approx R_\text{r}'/X$$ and $$I_\text{s} \approx 0.7\;LRC$$ such that $$T_\text{max} \approx KV_\text{s}^2/2X$$ and thus, with constant voltage input, a low-slip induction motor's percent-rated maximum torque is about half its percent-rated LRC.
 * The relative stator to rotor leakage reactance of standard Design B cage induction motors is
 * $$\frac{X_\text{s}}{X_\text{r}'} \approx \frac{0.4}{0.6}$$.
 * Neglecting stator resistance, an induction motor's torque curve reduces to the Kloss equation
 * $$T_\text{em} \approx \frac{2T_\text{max}}{\frac{s}{s_\text{max}} + \frac{s_\text{max}}{s}}$$, where $$s_\text{max}$$ is slip at $$T_\text{max}$$.

Linear induction motor
Linear induction motors, which work on the same general principles as rotary induction motors (frequently three-phase), are designed to produce straight line motion. Uses include magnetic levitation, linear propulsion, linear actuators, and liquid metal pumping.

title: Induction motor