text:
Talk:Advance Australia Fair

Two "Eora" versions
One version from the Darug website, another reported in the papers. The orthography of the latter is pretty bad, but they're obviously completely different. Any idea what the history of this is? Has the first version ever been performed in a non-aboriginal context? — kwami (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of problems with the article's coverage of these indigenous-language versions of Advance Australia Fair:
 * The first sentence of the Dharawal lyrics section of the article mistakenly characterises Dharug as the language spoken by the Dharawal people. The Dharug and Dharawal are separate groups, each with their own language, although I believe the languages are thought to be so closely related that each was intelligible to the speakers of the other.
 * This Dharawal version is mistakenly quoted as the one performed by Corey Kirk at the third 2010 state of of origin NRL match. Kirk's performance was actually of this version, slightly shortened by omission of the first four-bar phrase "iyura marriyalabilya ngyina guulyangarri". Here's a YouTube clip of the performance. Judging from this newspaper report of the performance, Richard Green, the author of its lyrics, asserts that they're in the Dharug language.
 * A version reported as having been sung at the Wallabies vs Pumas rugby test on December 5, 2020, by Olivia Fox, is said by the article to be in the Dharug language. This may well be true, but neither of the cited sources says that. What they say is that it was sung in "Eora language" or "the language of the Eora nation".  For all I know, it may well be the case that Eora is the same as, or a dialectal variant of, Dharug, but my impression is that there is some dispute about this amongst the local descendants of these indigenous groups.

 * There are (at least) two other versions of Advance Australia Fair in this group of languages:
 * One version, Naluyan Australiagal, was written by Matthew Doyle for the children of the Soldiers’ Settlement School, Matraville, and published by the Australian Children's Music Foundation in 2016. Here's a YouTube clip of a performance of this version by children of that school. According to the ACMF's pamphlet describing this version, it's in "a combination of Dharawal and Dharug languages".
 * Another version, Barayabanyi Australiagal, was written by Jeremy Steele and published on his blog in 2016. The term "Biyal-Biyal", used by Steele to refer to the language of this version appears to be a synonym for "Eora".

 * There have been several other public performances of versions of Australia's national anthem in at least four other Australian indigenous languages: Luritja, Yugambeh, Pitjantjatjara, and Ngunnawal.
 * In 2010, a Luritja woman, Alison Anderson, and singer-song writer, Ted Egan, translated Advance Australia Fair into Luritja, and in 2011 published a kit of materials aimed at teaching the song to schoolchildren, and promoting the translation of Advance Australia Fair into other indigenous languages. According to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald in July 2011, the Australian Government committed funding of AU$130,000 to the distribution of 5,000 of these kits to schools across Australia.
 * The lyrics of the Yugambeh version can be obtained for free from the Yugambeh Museum website. It was performed at the 2011 NRL indigenous all stars match, on February 12, 2011 by students of the Aboriginal Centre for the Performing Arts. The NRL has made a video of the entire match, including the performance of the national anthem, accessible for free on its website.  You may need to register and set up an account to gain access, but this is free. Later that same year, on May 23, Tyrone Drahm and Alec Warner performed this version at the launch of the Dreamworld Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). Here's a YouTube clip of their performance.
 * Here's a YouTube clip of the performance of a version in Pitjantjatjara on September 10, 2011.
 * According to the Canberra Times, the Gondwana Children's choir performed a version of the national anthem with a verse in Ngunnawal at Australia's Parliament House on September 6, 2017. Here's a YouTube clip of the Gondwana choirs performing this version of the anthem.  The Canberra Times's assertion that this was the first translation into Ngunnawal may not be accurate, however. Some time between 2005 and 2010 a singer performed a version of the national anthem purporting to contain a verse in Ngunnawal, at a public event in Canberra (either Skyfire or New Year's day festivities—I don't remember which).  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down the source where I saw this reported a year or two after it happened, or any other source which mentions it.
 * 2001:8004:1D72:7930:70B9:B0DC:42CE:9F7A (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair - what does it mean now, and what did it mean when the song was written?
When I look at http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fair the definition of fair begins:

FAIR, adjective

1. Clear; free from spots; free from a dark hue; white; as a fair skin; a fair complexion. hence,

Recent definitions and use of "fair" has clearly changed and many people now intend it in an almost exactly opposite meaning. They intend to include all people of all colours. Surely, the intention of the original author is relevant, and also relevant is the intention of the current users of the song.

How should this be discussed or ignored in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:311:5440:5F0:817E:7B1C:494F (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have wondered the same thing myself. It's hard to get into the head of someone back in 1878. We cannot add anything without reliable sourcing, and I don't know where we would find anything to help. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Dodds McCormick also wrote another song, "Awake Awake Australia", with similar lyrics regularly using the term "Australia fair", http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/aaf/awake.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:311:5440:64DE:38BE:D942:A4DF (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

From " How fair is fair? the colour of justice in Australias official anthem " https://journal.media-culture.org.au/mcjournal/article/view/1964

"This paper asks, very simply, what is the meaning of the word fair in the title and the song." and "This song is specifically about the civilising process, about the white man's burden, as it applied to this particular far-flung reach of empire." and "The progress of the white race over the continent is an advance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:311:5440:CC10:777E:73A1:E81B (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikionary gives the following among its definitions:
 * fair (archaic or literary): Beautiful, of a pleasing appearance, with a pure and fresh quality.
 * Monday's child is fair of face.
 * There was once a knight who wooed a fair young maid.

I'm sure he'd have been using a literary meaning. Hence, beautiful. A "fair young maid" could just as easily be a brunette as a blonde. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I expect that the best source for this would be the Oxford English Dictionary online edition, available through institutional libraries subscribing to it (I don't have such access at the moment). It gives literary and other examples. Errantius (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Lots of speculation here. I'll add my own. Maybe the word's meaning is related to that in a fair go. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually both literary and your suggestion are correct. at least that's what he told my grandfather. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for “one and free”
User:AussieLegend

I disagree that it's at all clear what the rationale for changing “young” to “one” is. The official media release (https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australians-one-and-free) states that it was changed “for all Australians”.

“'During the past year we have showed once again the indomitable spirit of Australians and the united effort that has always enabled us to prevail as a nation. It is time to ensure this great unity is reflected more fully in our national anthem,' the Prime Minister said.”

A part of the reason may be to recognise Aboriginal history, but nothing suggests that it is intended only to recognise that. See: “Also, while Australia as a modern nation may be relatively young, our country’s story is ancient, as are the stories of the many First Nations peoples whose stewardship we rightly acknowledge and respect.” Steepleman (t) 07:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 * As I indicated, the reason is everywhere on the internet. The wording of the PM's press release makes it clear that the change was made to be inclusive of Australian Aboriginals and everyone has accepted that as the reason. Ironically, Australia as a nation did not formally exist until only 120 years ago and even if you go back to the First Fleet when we were only a British colony, that's only 232 years ago, which is pretty young for a nation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The press release indicates that it is one reason (and your sources suggest that it is more recognising the history of Aboriginal people), but that was not the sole purported purpose. “It is time to ensure this great [united effort that has always enabled us to prevail as a nation] is reflected more fully in our national anthem.” Steepleman (t) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The change was the result of an older proposal by the NSW Premier. If it was anything more than acknowledgement of the Aboriginal people, then "young and free" did not need to be changed as "young" still applied. The change to "one" was specifically to recognise that Aboriginal society is not young. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thnk that a clarificatory ref was needed and have added the first of those suggested by AussieLegend. Errantius (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Key
Is the anthem usually sung in the key that's shown in the example? Some people can't sing that high. A lot of people can sing that high, too - but in my experience even most of those who can are reluctant to do so. TooManyFingers (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Questionable case of "influence"
I don't think it's fair or correct to say that the viceregal salute has been influenced by Advance Australia Fair, because it was either established custom or some type of regulation or law that dictated the inclusion of part of the country's national anthem in the salute. That is to say (at least as far as I can tell), when a viceregal salute is wanted, part of the home country's national anthem *will* be in there, that's simply how it's done. Its inclusion would therefore be expected and required, not a result of any influence from this particular anthem. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Lyrics
Hi peoples

I have had a look at the image on this page of Advance Australia Fair and I am pretty sure that the word ‘young’ has become ‘one’?. Anyway, if anyone could change it that would be great. Thanks! Someone764 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the infobox image? That image is from an 1878 postcard so use of "young" is correct. Regardless, the words of Advance Australia Fair are as they were up to 1984. Only the words used as the National Anthem, which is a variant, are changed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks Someone764 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

McFarlane Cowriter
It is commonly accepted that Advance Australia Fair was first published under the pen-name "Amicus", Latin for "Friend", and attributed to McCormick who later published under his own name. The decendents of John McFarlane passed down orally the story of John McFarlane, a teacher colleague of Peter Dodds McCormick, writing it together, with McFarlane penning the music and first verse.

https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mccormick-peter-dodds-7323

The wording implies clarity to who "friend" was at the first publishing, should that be less absolute in phrasing? Greg (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sons vs All
Why does the lyric under The lyrics published in the second edition (1879) were as follows: say Australian's all, when the linked reference at says Australia's sons? Jmz668 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article's wording is correct, though it can take a careful reading see that. In 1879 the word "sons" was used, but it was changed to "all" in 1984, when it became the national anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Advance Australia Fair


text:
Star Tribune

The Star Tribune is an American daily newspaper based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is Minnesota's largest newspaper and the eighth-largest in the United States by circulation, and is distributed throughout the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area, the state, and the Upper Midwest.

It originated as the Minneapolis Tribune in 1867 and the competing Minneapolis Daily Star in 1920. During the 1930s and 1940s, the two papers consolidated, with the Tribune published in the morning and the Star in the evening. They merged in 1982, creating the Star and Tribune, renamed the Star Tribune in 1987. After a tumultuous period in which the newspaper was sold and resold and filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009, it was purchased by local businessman Glen Taylor in 2014.

The Star Tribune typically contains national, international, and local news, sports, business, and lifestyle stories. Journalists from the Star Tribune and its predecessor newspapers have won seven Pulitzer Prizes.

Minneapolis Tribune
The Star Tribune roots date to the creation of the Minneapolis Daily Tribune by Colonel William S. King, William D. Washburn, and Dorilus Morrison. The two men previously operated different Minneapolis newspapers, the State Atlas and the Minneapolis Daily Chronicle. The newspaper was designed to unify the local republican party under one newspaper. The Tribune first issue was published on May 25, 1867. The newspaper went through several different editors and publishers during its first two decades, including John T. Gilman, George K. Shaw, Albert Shaw, and Alden J. Blethen. In 1878, the Minneapolis Evening Journal began publication, giving the Tribune its first competition. On November 30, 1889, downtown Minneapolis's Tribune headquarters caught fire. Seven people were killed and 30 injured, and the building and presses were a total loss.

In 1891, the Tribune was purchased by Gilbert A. Pierce and William J. Murphy for $450,000 (equivalent to $ in ). Pierce quickly sold his share to Thomas Lowry, and Lowry sold it to Murphy, making Murphy the newspaper's sole owner. His business and legal background helped him structure the Tribune debt and modernize its printing equipment. The newspaper experimented with partial-color printing and the use of halftone for photographs and portraits. In 1893, Murphy sent the Tribune first correspondent to Washington, D.C. As Minneapolis grew, the newspaper's circulation expanded; the Tribune and the Evening Journal were closely competitive, with the smaller Minneapolis Times in third place. In 1905, Murphy bought out the Times and merged it with the Tribune.

He died in 1918, endowing a school of journalism at the University of Minnesota. After a brief transitional period, Murphy's younger brother Frederick became the Tribune publisher in 1921.

Minneapolis Daily Star
The other half of the newspaper's history begins with the Minnesota Daily Star, which was founded on August 19, 1920, by elements of the agrarian Nonpartisan League and backed by Thomas Van Lear and Herbert Gaston. The Daily Star had difficulty attracting advertisers with its overtly political agenda and went bankrupt in 1924. After its purchase by A. B. Frizzell and former New York Times executive John Thompson, the newspaper became the politically independent Minneapolis Daily Star.

Cowles era

In 1935, the Cowles family of Des Moines, Iowa purchased the Star. The family patriarch, Gardner Cowles Sr., had purchased The Des Moines Register and the Des Moines Tribune during the first decade of the century and managed them successfully. Gardner's son, John Cowles Sr. (1898–1983), moved to Minneapolis to manage the Star. Under him, it had the city's highest circulation, pressuring Minneapolis's other newspapers. In 1939, the Cowles family purchased the Minneapolis Evening Journal, merging the two newspapers into the Star-Journal. Tribune publisher Fred Murphy died in 1940; the following year, the Cowles family bought the Tribune and merged it with their company, giving it ownership of the city's major newspapers. The Tribune became the city's morning newspaper, the Star-Journal (renamed the Star in 1947) was the evening newspaper, and they published a joint Sunday edition. A separate evening newspaper (the Times) was spun off and published separately until 1948.

In 1944, John Cowles Sr. hired Wisconsin native and former Tulsa Tribune editor William P. Steven as managing editor of the two newspapers; Steven became vice president and executive editor in 1954. During his tenure in Minneapolis, he was president of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association in 1949 and first chairman of the organization's Continuing Study Committee. By August 1960, John Cowles Jr. was vice president and associate editor of the two papers, and it was soon apparent that he disapproved of Steven's hard-nosed approach to journalism. When Steven chafed under the younger Cowles's management, he was fired.

After Steven's ouster, John Cowles Jr. was editor of the two newspapers; he became president in 1968 and editorial chairman the following year. He had a progressive political viewpoint, publishing editorials supporting the civil rights movement and liberal causes.

In 1982, the afternoon Star was discontinued due to dwindling circulation, a trend common for afternoon newspapers. The two papers were merged into a single morning paper, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Cowles Jr. fired publisher Donald R. Dwight. His handling of Dwight's termination led to his removal as editor in 1983, although his family retained a controlling financial interest in the newspaper.

In 1983, the Star and Tribune challenged a Minnesota tax on paper and ink before the Supreme Court of the United States. In Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, the court found that the tax (which targeted specific newspapers) was a violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the newspaper's name was simplified to Star Tribune, and the slogan "Newspaper of the Twin Cities" was added.

1998 to present
In 1998, the McClatchy Company purchased Cowles Media Company for $1.4 billion, ending the newspaper's 61-year history in the family in one of the largest sales in American newspaper history. Although McClatchy sold many of Cowles's smaller assets, it kept the Star Tribune for several years. On December 26, 2006, McClatchy sold the paper to private equity firm Avista Capital Partners for $530 million, less than half of what it had paid for Cowles eight years earlier.

In March 2007, Par Ridder was appointed Star Tribune publisher after his predecessor, J. Keith Moyer, left the newspaper after the sale. Ridder is a member of the Ridder family, which had owned Knight Ridder (publishers of several newspapers, including at that time the rival St. Paul Pioneer Press). Ridder's arrival resulted in litigation when it was discovered that he had stolen a hard drive containing information about employees and advertisers, which the Pioneer Press called "trade secrets". Ridder also took two high-ranking staff members to the Minneapolis paper, which raised eyebrows since such employees usually have non-compete clauses in their contracts. On September 18, 2007, Ridder was removed from his post by a Ramsey County judge,  and he resigned on December 7.

On January 15, 2009, the paper, then the country's 15th-largest daily, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. On September 17, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a bankruptcy plan for the Star Tribune, which emerged from bankruptcy protection on September 28. The paper's senior secured lenders received about 95 percent of the post-bankruptcy company.

Since 2010, the Star Tribune has given out awards to the "Top 150 Workplaces in Minnesota".

Since the Star Tribune bankruptcy, its former ownership group, led by New York City–based Avista Capital Partners, has no stake in the company.

Wayzata Investment Partners became majority owner of the Star Tribune Company in August 2012, with a 58% stake. In 2014, the company was acquired by Glen Taylor, owner of the NBA's Minnesota Timberwolves and the WNBA's Minnesota Lynx. Taylor, a former Republican state senator, said that the Star Tribune would be less liberal under his ownership. He also said the paper had already begun a shift and would focus on accurately reporting both sides of all issues. In May 2015, the company acquired alternative weekly City Pages from Voice Media Group. City Pages continued publishing until it became another victim of advertising revenue loss and the COVID-19 pandemic. It shuttered in October 2020, and the website was moved to the Hennepin County Library's archives.

Editions
After the 1987 formation of the Star Tribune, the newspaper was published in three editions: one for Minneapolis and the western suburbs, one for St. Paul and the eastern suburbs, and a state edition for Minnesota and the Midwest. The St. Paul edition was discontinued in 1999 in favor of a metro edition for the Minneapolis–St. Paul area and a state edition for areas beyond the metropolitan area.

Although the newspaper competes with the St. Paul–based Pioneer Press in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, the Star Tribune is more popular in the western metropolitan area, and the Pioneer Press is more popular in the eastern metro area. The newspapers share some printing and delivery operations.

The Star Tribune went online in 1995, introducing the StarTribune.com website the following year. In 2011, the website erected a paywall.

Departments
The Star Tribune has five main sections: main news, local news, sports, business, and variety (lifestyle and entertainment). Special weekly sections include Taste (restaurants and cooking), travel, Outdoors Weekend, and Science + Health. The Sunday edition has a more prominent editorial and opinion section, Opinion Exchange.

Awards
Journalists with the pre-merger Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune won three Pulitzer Prizes:
 * 1948: Nat S. Finney (Minneapolis Tribune), National Reporting
 * 1959: William Seaman (Minneapolis Star), Photography
 * 1968: Nathan K. (Nick) Kotz (Des Moines Register and Minneapolis Tribune), National Reporting

Star Tribune journalists have won three Pulitzers:
 * 1990: Lou Kilzer and Chris Ison, Investigative Reporting
 * 2013: Steve Sack, Editorial Cartooning
 * 2013: Brad Schrade, Jeremy Olson and Glenn Howatt, Local Reporting

In 2021, the staff of the Star Tribune won the Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage for the "urgent, authoritative and nuanced" coverage of the murder of George Floyd.

Staff and management
Columnists affiliated with the Star Tribune include: • Dan Barreiro, Sportswriter (former)

• Nick Coleman, Politics and news reporter (former)

• Sid Hartman, Sportswriter (deceased)

• Katherine Kersten, Conservative columnist (former)

• James Lileks, Humorist and local news reporter

• Patrick Reusse, Sportswriter

• Jim Souhan, Sportswriter

In April 2023, Steve Grove became the new publisher as Michael Klingensmith stepped down. Grove was the head of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development under Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. He formerly worked as a reporter and a Google executive, leading the Google News Lab. Klingensmith has served as publisher since 2010.

Headquarters and printing plant

After the Cowles family consolidated the city's newspapers, their offices were gradually moved to the former the Daily Star headquarters in downtown Minneapolis. The building was renovated from 1939 to 1940 and expanded in a larger renovation from 1946 to 1949. After 1949, the building housed the offices and presses of the Star and the Tribune. During the 1980s, an annex, the Freeman Building, was built across the street from the headquarters and connected with a skyway. In 1987, the Star Tribune opened a new, $110 million printing plant, called the Heritage Center, in a historic warehouse district on the northern edge of downtown Minneapolis. Its five offset presses took over printing all Star Tribune editions. News and business offices remained in the downtown headquarters, whose old presses were removed.

In 2014, the company announced that it would relocate from the 95-year-old headquarters building to the newly christened Star Tribune Building at the Capella Tower complex, making way for development around nearby U.S. Bank Stadium. Demolition of the buildings began in 2014; the last employees relocated in mid-2015, and the demolition was completed later that year. Also in 2014, the Star Tribune's Heritage printing plant began printing the St. Paul Pioneer Press under a contract with its cross-town rival. The following year, USA Today contracted with the Star Tribune to print regional copies of its daily edition at the Heritage plant. Printing plants owned by those newspaper companies in St. Paul and Maple Grove, Minn., shut down.

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

title: Star Tribune


text:
Talk:Serbia and Montenegro

Legal succession 2006
Legal succession after this country needs to be mentioned in the article but I am unable to find good sources for it. This UN source mentions legal succession but it is a bit unclear and contradictory:

There are four possible options of what happened regarding the legal succession in 2006: 1) no legal successor(s), 2) Serbia as the sole legal successor, 3) Montenegro as the sole legal successor, 4) Montenegro and Serbia as legal successors.

Seems this country ceased to exit in 2006 with its sole legal successor being Serbia – is that so? I need to find sources for this. Please help me.92.63.48.182 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the entity called most recently "Serbia and Montenegro", a federation of both Serbia and Montenegro, dissolved. Serbia is still Serbia, Montenegro is still Montenegro. There is no legal successor nor does there need to be one. Str1977 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is your source, Serbia is the legal successor of Serbia and Montenegro
 * "In a letter dated 3 June 2006, the President of the Republic of Serbia informed the Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro was being continued by the Republic of Serbia, following Montenegro's declaration of independence". The UN accepted this, as the UN members list states that Serbia joined the UN on 1st of November 2000. ImStevan (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While that makes Serbia the diplomatic successor, the term "legal succession" however is all too often misunderstood. We have to be clear that Serbia is not the same as Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. Just like Russia and the Soviet Union aren't the same, wheras Germany has been one state from 1871 until present day (with the East Germany being the exception). Str1977 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Language
To answer your : No, the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro was a constitution per se, not an amendment to the actual Constitution.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Split
Not only did the name change in 2003, but also how the country works as a single entity, creating unnecesary confusion in the infobox. Furthermore, the history of FR Yugoslavia is so packed that I don't think an article that presents it together with Serbia and Montenegro can do either of them justice, as there is a lot more to say about one than the other ImStevan (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Do not split. There was no "Yugoslavia" that ceased to exist in 2003. You would confuse a plenty more users who learn that Yugoslavia broke up in 1991/92 by not straight up informing them the 1992–2003 "Yugoslavia" consisted of only two former republics of the real Yugoslavia, and that this remained a single country until 2006 despite a system of government and name change. Keep integrity. –Vipz (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vipz that in that this will further confuse readers learning about the downfall of Yugoslavia and the Balkan wars. An article dedicated to the country itself from 1992-2003 can be problematic and bring instability. If your aim is to create an article on the government as an entity itself as opposed to the country, Government of Yugoslavia is currently a redirect to Yugoslavia with possibilities, but you may need to clarify as FR Yugoslavia. Burgeoning Contracting   13:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar proposals (either to split the article or to rename it) were made in the past and all of them were rejected. Vacant0 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No split as per above, it's too confusing, since its name was also Yugoslavia at one point, but was not related to the communist Yugoslavian government.  TomMasterReal  TALK 02:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it would necessarily be particularly confusing to separate this article into two, especially if information on shared succession of previous SFRY and the fact that FRY was a new state is clearly and explicitly stated very early in article's intro. I actually see the current option as a bit more confusing considering that the 2003 reform was indeed substantial. The fact that the article was not split before doesn't necessarily mean that such a choice was the right one or that it was made with the full understanding of the issue (I don't know if there are links to those discussions?). Interestingly, probably all Wikipedia editions from the region treat this content as two different articles (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian... Wikipedias). I don't know if I am omitting some important arguments on why this should remain as one article but I am of course willing to consider any strong points you may have.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:COMMONNAME - the use of the name "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was not actually really appreciated in the international community throughout the period of the sanctions against Yugoslavia. I've posted some more info about this at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election. So the country spent the first 9 years of its existence trying to usurp the name Yugoslavia and being consistently denied, then after the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević everyone else finally started tolerating it as FRY, but after just 2 years it did change the name to Serbia and Montenegro, and in turn after another 3 years it had Montenegro secede. Also, the regional Wikipedias have consistently been plagued with horrific quality issues, so to consider anything they did as having any more weight over any policy-based considerations at the well-regulated English Wikipedia would honestly in my mind be a gross violation of WP:CIRCULAR and WP:ARBMAC. --Joy (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the name "Serbia and Montenegro" was used even before 2003, see this example from 1993. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 06:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Serbia and Montenegro


text:
Generic trademark

A generic trademark, also known as a genericized trademark or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that, because of its popularity or significance, has become the generic term for, or synonymous with, a general class of products or services, usually against the intentions of the trademark's owner.

A trademark is prone to genericization, or "genericide", when a brand name acquires substantial market dominance or mind share, becoming so widely used for similar products or services that it is no longer associated with the trademark owner, e.g., linoleum, bubble wrap, thermos, taser. A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use.

Trademark owners can inadvertently contribute to genericization by failing to provide an alternative generic name for their product or service or using the trademark in similar fashion to generic terms. In one example, the Otis Elevator Company's trademark of the word "escalator" was cancelled following a petition from Toledo-based Haughton Elevator Company. In rejecting an appeal from Otis, an examiner from the United States Patent and Trademark Office cited the company's own use of the term "escalator" alongside the generic term "elevator" in multiple advertisements without any trademark significance. Therefore, trademark owners go to extensive lengths to avoid genericization and trademark erosion.

In subpopulations
Genericization may be specific to certain professions and other subpopulations. For example, Luer-Lok (Luer lock), Phoroptor (phoropter), and Port-a-Cath (portacath) have genericized mind share among physicians due to a lack of alternative names in common use: as a result, consumers may not realize that the term is a brand name rather than a medical eponym or generic term.

In pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceutical trade names are somewhat protected from genericization due to the modern practice of assigning nonproprietary names based on a drug's chemical structure. This circumvents the problem of a trademarked name entering common use by providing a generic name as soon as a novel pharmaceutical enters the market. For example, aripiprazole, the nonproprietary name for Abilify, was well-documented since its invention. Warfarin, originally introduced as a rat poison, was approved for human use under the brand name Coumadin.

Examples of genericization before the modern system of generic drugs include aspirin, introduced to the market in 1897, and heroin, introduced in 1898. Both were originally trademarks of Bayer AG. However, U.S. court rulings in 1918 and 1921 found the terms to be genericized, stating the company's failure to reinforce the brand's connection with their product as the reason.

A different sense of the word genericized in the pharmaceutical industry refers to products whose patent protection has expired. For example, Lipitor was genericized in the U.S. when the first competing generic version was approved by the FDA in November 2011. In this same context, the term genericization refers to the process of a brand drug losing market exclusivity to generics.

Trademark erosion
Trademark erosion, or genericization, is a special case of antonomasia related to trademarks. It happens when a trademark becomes so common that it starts being used as a common name  and the original company has failed to prevent such use. Once it has become an appellative, the word cannot be registered any more; this is why companies try hard not to let their trademark become too common, a phenomenon that could otherwise be considered a successful move since it would mean that the company gained an exceptional recognition. An example of trademark erosion is the verb "to hoover" (used with the meaning of "vacuum cleaning"), which originated from the Hoover company brand name.

Nintendo is an example of a brand that successfully fought trademark erosion, having managed to replace excessive use of its name with the term "game console", at that time a neologism.

Legal concepts
Whether or not a mark is popularly identified as genericized, the owner of the mark may still be able to enforce the proprietary rights that attach to the use or registration of the mark, as long as the mark continues to exclusively identify the owner as the commercial origin of the applicable products or services. If the mark does not perform this essential function and it is no longer possible to legally enforce rights in relation to the mark, the mark may have become generic. In many legal systems (e.g., in the United States but not in Germany) a generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone. Nevertheless, there exists the possibility of a trademark becoming a revocable generic term in German (and European) trademark law.

The process by which trademark rights are diminished or lost as a result of common use in the marketplace is known as genericization. This process typically occurs over a period of time in which a mark is not used as a trademark (i.e., where it is not used to exclusively identify the products or services of a particular business), where a mark falls into disuse entirely, or where the trademark owner does not enforce its rights through actions for passing off or trademark infringement.

One risk factor that may lead to genericization is the use of a trademark as a verb, plural or possessive, unless the mark itself is possessive or plural (e.g., "Friendly's" restaurants).

However, in highly inflected languages, a tradename may have to carry case endings in usage. An example is Finnish, where "Microsoftin" is the genitive case and "Facebookista" is the elative case.

Avoiding genericization
Generic use of a trademark presents an inherent risk to the effective enforcement of trademark rights and may ultimately lead to genericization.

Trademark owners may take various steps to reduce the risk, including educating businesses and consumers on appropriate trademark use, avoiding use of their marks in a generic manner, and systematically and effectively enforcing their trademark rights. If a trademark is associated with a new invention, the trademark owner may also consider developing a generic term for the product to be used in descriptive contexts, to avoid inappropriate use of the "house" mark. Such a term is called a generic descriptor and is frequently used immediately after the trademark to provide a description of the product or service. For example, "Kleenex tissues" ("facial tissues" being the generic descriptor) or "Velcro-brand fasteners" for Velcro brand name hook-and-loop fasteners.

Another common practice among trademark owners is to follow their trademark with the word brand to help define the word as a trademark. Johnson & Johnson changed the lyrics of their Band-Aid television commercial jingle from, "I am stuck on Band-Aids, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid brand, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me." Google has gone to lengths to prevent this process, discouraging publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to Web searches. In 2006, both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary struck a balance between acknowledging widespread use of the verb coinage and preserving the particular search engine's association with the coinage, defining google (all lower case, with -le ending) as a verb meaning "use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet". The Swedish Language Council received a complaint from Google for its inclusion of ogooglebar (meaning 'ungoogleable') on its list of new Swedish words from 2012. The Language Council chose to remove the word to avoid a legal process, but in return wrote that "[w]e decide together which words should be and how they are defined, used and spelled".

Where a trademark is used generically, a trademark owner may need to take aggressive measures to retain exclusive rights to the trademark. Xerox Corporation attempted to prevent the genericization of its core trademark through an extensive public relations campaign advising consumers to "photocopy" instead of "xerox" documents.

The Lego Company has worked to prevent the genericization of its plastic building blocks following the expiration of Lego's last major patents in 1978. Lego manuals and catalogs throughout the 1980s included a message imploring customers to preserve the brand name by "referring to [their] bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys', and not just 'LEGOS'." In the early 2000s, the company acquired the Legos.com URL in order to redirect customers to the Lego.com website and deliver a similar message. Despite these efforts, many children and adults in the United States continue to use "Legos" as the plural form of "Lego," but competing and interchangeable products, such as those manufactured by Mega Brands, are often referred to simply as building blocks or construction blocks. The company has successfully put legal pressure on the Swedish Academy and the Institute for Language and Folklore to remove the noun lego from their dictionaries.

Adobe Inc. has experienced mixed success with preventing the genericization of their trademarked software, Adobe Photoshop. This is shown via recurring use of "photoshop" as a noun, verb, or general adjective for all photo manipulation throughout the Internet and mass media.

Protected designation of origin
Since 2003, the European Union has actively sought to restrict the use of geographical indications by third parties outside the EU by enforcing laws regarding "protected designation of origin". Although a geographical indication for specialty food or drink may be generic, it is not a trademark because it does not serve to identify exclusively a specific commercial enterprise and therefore cannot constitute a genericized trademark.

The extension of protection for geographical indications is somewhat controversial. A geographical indication may have been registered as a trademark elsewhere; for example, if "Parma Ham" was part of a trademark registered in Canada by a Canadian manufacturer, then ham manufacturers in Parma, Italy, might be unable to use this name in Canada. Wines (such as Bordeaux, Port and Champagne), cheeses (such as Roquefort, Parmesan, Gouda, and Feta), Pisco liquor, and Scotch whisky are examples of geographical indications. Compare Russian use of "Шампанское" (= Shampanskoye) for champagne-type wine made in Russia.

In the 1990s, the Parma consortium successfully sued the Asda supermarket chain to prevent it using the description "Parma ham" on prosciutto produced in Parma but sliced outside the Parma region. The European Court ruled that pre-packaged ham must be produced, sliced, and packaged in Parma in order to be labeled for sale as "Parma ham".

Scale of distinctiveness
A trademark is said to fall somewhere along a scale from being "distinctive" to "generic" (used primarily as a common name for the product or service rather than an indication of source). Among distinctive trademarks the scale goes from strong to weak:
 * "Fanciful" or "coined"
 * original words with no meaning as to the nature of the product

 * "Arbitrary"
 * existing words with little if any reference to the nature of the product or service

 * "Suggestive"
 * having primarily trademark significance but with suggestion as to the nature of the product

 * "Descriptive"
 * not just suggesting, but actually describing the product or service yet still understood as indicating source

 * "Merely descriptive"
 * having almost entirely reference to the product or service but capable of becoming "distinctive".

title: Generic trademark


text:
Targa Tasmania

Targa Tasmania is a tarmac-based rally event held on the island state of Tasmania, Australia, annually since 29 April 1992. The event takes its name from the Targa Florio, a former motoring event held on the island of Sicily. The competition concept is drawn directly from the best features of the Mille Miglia, the Coupe des Alpes and the Tour de Corse.

Rally format
The rally started as a five-day event, but has been run as a six-day event for anniversaries in 2001, 2006 and 2016.

The layout of the 2016 event was:

 * Leg 1 Launceston - George Town - Launceston
 * Leg 2 Launceston - St Helens - Launceston
 * Leg 3 Launceston - Sheffield - Launceston
 * Leg 4 Launceston - Stanley - Strahan
 * Leg 5 Strahan - New Norfolk - Hobart
 * Leg 6 Hobart - Hobart

In 2008 the course was substantially revised, a number of well liked stages from previous years are now used (Riana), and a number of all new stages were introduced (Mt Claude and Rossarden). Leg 3 was dropped by shortening the Leg 2 East Coast day ending back in Launceston (rather than Hobart). Leg 3 is another loop north out of Launceston (running through Devonport on this day). Leg 4 now runs from Launceston through the lunch stop at Burnie to the evening end at Strahan. It remains the longest tarmac rally in Australia with no repeated stages. Although a couple of stages will share the same piece of road in opposite directions on consecutive days.

The Targa is one of several Tarmac Rally events to be held in Australia. It also has had international connections with Targa New Zealand and Targa Newfoundland which have evolved since the inception of Targa Tasmania.

List of past winners
In 2016 the premier category changed from Modern to Showroom GT2.

Trophies Awarded
A Targa Trophy is awarded to the driver and co-driver/navigator of each crew that completes all stages within the specified time for their class of vehicle. In subsequent years, the trophy may be upgraded as follows:

 * Golden Targa Trophy - 3 consecutive regular trophies
 * Platinum Targa Trophy - having achieved Gold then gaining another 3 consecutive regular trophies

 * Diamond Targa Trophy - having achieved Platinum then gaining another 3 consecutive regular trophies
 * Gold Diamond Targa Trophy - having achieved Diamond then gaining another 3 consecutive regular trophies

 * Platinum Diamond Targa Trophy - having achieved Gold Diamond then gaining another 3 consecutive regular trophies

Once achieving Platinum Gold, the competitor is inducted into the Targa Hall of Fame Legends

In 2019, Geoff Taylor (aged 73+) was the only competitor to have competed in all events.

In addition, each year the Denny Hulme Memorial Trophy is awarded to the competitor who exhibits tenacity to overcome adversity while completing the event. It was first awarded in 1993.

Notable competitors
Notable past and current competitors have included Andrew Miedecke, Barry Sheene, Bob Wollek, Denny Hulme, Dick Johnson, Glenn Ridge, Greg Crick, Gregg Hansford, Sir Jack Brabham, Jim Richards, Jochen Mass, Steven Richards, Michael Doohan, Murray Walker, Neal Bates, Peter Brock, Peter Fitzgerald, Roger Clark, Rusty French, Sandro Munari, Sir Stirling Moss, Alister McRae, Walter Röhrl and Eric Bana. The first person with a spinal cord injury to compete in the rally was Australian wheelchair rugby player Nazim Erdem.

title: Targa Tasmania


text:
Governor-General of India

The governor-general of India (1833 to 1950, from 1858 to 1947 the viceroy and governor-general of India, commonly shortened to viceroy of India) was the representative of the monarch of the United Kingdom in their capacity as the Emperor/Empress of India and after Indian independence in 1947, the representative of the Monarch of India. The office was created in 1773, with the title of Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William. The officer had direct control only over his presidency but supervised other East India Company officials in India. Complete authority over all of British territory in the Indian subcontinent was granted in 1833, and the official came to be known as the "Governor-General of India".

In 1858, because of the Indian Rebellion the previous year, the territories and assets of the East India Company came under the direct control of the British Crown; as a consequence, company rule in India was succeeded by the British Raj. The governor-general (now also the Viceroy) headed the central government of India, which administered the provinces of British India, including Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Punjab, the United Provinces, and others. However, much of India was not ruled directly by the British Government; outside the provinces of British India, there were hundreds of nominally independent princely states or "native states", whose relationship was not with the British Government or the United Kingdom, but rather one of homage directly with the British monarch as sovereign successor to the Mughal emperors. From 1858, to reflect the governor-general's new additional role as the monarch's representative in response to the fealty relationships vis the princely states, the additional title of Viceroy was granted, such that the new office was entitled "Viceroy and Governor-General of India". This was usually shortened to "Viceroy of India".

The title of Viceroy was abandoned when British India was partitioned into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan, but the office of governor-general continued to exist in each country separately until they adopted republican constitutions in 1950 and 1956, respectively.

Until 1858, the governor-general was selected by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, to whom he was responsible. Thereafter, he was appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the British Government; the Secretary of State for India, a member of the British Cabinet, was responsible for instructing him on the exercise of their powers. After 1947, the sovereign continued to appoint the governor-general but thereafter did so on the advice of the government of the newly independent Dominion of India.

The governor-general served at the pleasure of the sovereign, though the practice was to have them serve five-year terms. A governor-general could have their commission rescinded; and if one was removed, or left, a provisional governor-general was sometimes appointed until a new holder of the office could be chosen. The first governor-general in India (of Bengal) was Warren Hastings, the first official governor-general of British India was Lord William Bentinck, and the first governor-general of the Dominion of India was Lord Mountbatten.

History
Many parts of the Indian subcontinent were governed by the British East India Company (founded in 1600), which nominally acted as the agent of the Mughal emperor. Early British administrators were presidents or governors of Bengal Presidency. In 1773, motivated by corruption in the company, the British government assumed partial control over the governance of India with the passage of the Regulating Act of 1773. A governor-general and Supreme Council of Bengal were appointed to rule over the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal. The first governor-general and Council were named in the Act.

The Charter Act 1833 replaced the governor-general and Council of Fort William with the governor-general and Council of India. The power to elect the governor-general was retained by the Court of Directors, but the choice became subject to the sovereign's approval via the India Board.

After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British East India Company's territories in India were put under the direct control of the sovereign. The Government of India Act 1858 vested the power to appoint the governor-general in the sovereign. The governor-general, in turn, had the power to appoint all lieutenant governors in India, subject to the sovereign's approval.

India and Pakistan acquired independence in 1947, but governors-general continued to be appointed over each nation until republican constitutions were written. Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, remained governor-general of India for ten months after independence, but the two nations were otherwise headed by native governors-general. India became a secular republic in 1950; Pakistan became an Islamic one in 1956.

Functions
The governor-general originally had power only over the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal. The Regulating Act, however, granted the governor-general additional powers relating to foreign affairs and defence. The other presidencies of the East India Company (Madras, Bombay and Bencoolen) were not allowed to declare war on or make peace with an Indian prince without receiving the prior approval of the governor-general and Council of Fort William.

The powers of the governor-general, in respect of foreign affairs, were increased by the India Act 1784. The act provided that the other governors under the East India Company could not declare war, make peace or conclude a treaty with an Indian prince unless expressly directed to do so by the governor-general or by the company's Court of Directors.

While the governor-general thus became the controller of foreign policy in India, he was not the explicit head of British India. That status came only with the Charter Act 1833, which granted him "superintendence, direction and control of the whole civil and military Government" of all of British India. The act also granted legislative powers to the governor-general and council.

in 1835, Lord William Bentinck became the first governor general of India.

After 1858, the governor-general (now usually known as the viceroy) functioned as the chief administrator of India and as the sovereign's representative. India was divided into numerous provinces, each under the head of a governor, lieutenant governor or chief commissioner or administrator. Governors were appointed by the British government, to whom they were directly responsible; lieutenant governors, chief commissioners, and administrators, however, were appointed by and were subordinate to the viceroy. The viceroy also oversaw the most powerful princely rulers: the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Mysore, the Maharaja (Scindia) of Gwalior, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the Gaekwad (Gaekwar) Maharaja of Baroda. The remaining princely rulers were overseen either by the Rajputana Agency and Central India Agency, which were headed by representatives of the viceroy or by provincial authorities.

The Chamber of Princes was an institution established in 1920 by a royal proclamation of King-Emperor George V to provide a forum in which the princely rulers could voice their needs and aspirations to the government. The chamber usually met only once a year, with the viceroy presiding, but it appointed a standing committee, which met more often.

Upon independence in August 1947, the title of viceroy was abolished. The representative of India's sovereign, King George VI, became known once again as the governor-general. In 1948, C. Rajagopalachari became the only Indian governor-general. The governor-general's role was almost entirely ceremonial, with power being exercised on a day-to-day basis by the Indian cabinet. After the nation became a republic in 1950, the president of India continued to perform the same functions.

Council
The governor-general was always advised by a Council on the exercise of his legislative and executive powers. The governor-general, while exercising many functions, was referred to as the "Governor-General in Council."

The Regulating Act 1773 provided for the election of four counsellors by the East India Company's Court of Directors. The governor-general was to be assisted by an executive council of four members and was given a casting vote but no veto. The decision of the council was binding on the governor-general.

In 1784, the council was reduced to three members; the governor-general continued to have both an ordinary vote and a casting vote. In 1786, the power of the governor-general was increased even further, as Council decisions ceased to be binding.

The Charter Act 1833 made further changes to the structure of the council. The Act was the first law to distinguish between the executive and legislative responsibilities of the governor-general. As provided under the Act, there were to be four members of the Council appointed by the Court of Directors. The first three members were permitted to participate on all occasions, but the fourth member was only allowed to sit and vote when legislation was being debated.

In 1858, the Court of Directors ceased to have the power to appoint members of the council. Instead, the one member who had a vote only on legislative questions came to be appointed by the sovereign, and the other three members by the secretary of state for India.

The Indian Councils Act 1861 made several changes to the council's composition. Three members were to be appointed by the Secretary of State for India, and two by the Sovereign. The power to appoint all five members passed to the Crown in 1869. The viceroy was empowered to appoint an additional 'six to twelve' members (changed to 'ten to sixteen' in 1892, and to 'sixty' in 1909). The five individuals appointed by the sovereign or the Indian secretary headed the executive departments, while those appointed by the viceroy debated and voted on legislation.

In 1919, an Indian legislature, consisting of a Council of State and a Legislative Assembly, took over the legislative functions of the Viceroy's Council. The viceroy nonetheless retained significant power over legislation. He could authorise the expenditure of money without the Legislature's consent for "ecclesiastical, political [and] defence" purposes, and for any purpose during "emergencies." He was permitted to veto, or even stop debate on, any bill. If he recommended the passage of a bill, but only one chamber cooperated, he could declare the bill passed over the objections of the other chamber. The Legislature had no authority over foreign affairs and defence. The president of the Council of State was appointed by the viceroy; the Legislative Assembly elected its president, but the election required the viceroy's approval.

Style and title
Until 1833, the title of the position was "governor-general of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal". The Government of India Act 1833 converted the title into "governor-general of India", effective from 22 April 1834. The title "viceroy and governor-general" was first used in the queen's proclamation appointing Viscount Canning in 1858. It was never conferred by an act of parliament but was used in warrants of precedence and in the statutes of knightly orders. In usage, "viceroy" is employed where the governor-general's position as the monarch's representative is in view. The viceregal title was not used when the sovereign was present in India. It was meant to indicate new responsibilities, especially ritualistic ones, but it conferred no new statutory authority. The governor-general regularly used the title in communications with the Imperial Legislative Council, but all legislation was made only in the name of the Governor-General-in-Council (or the Government of India).

The governor-general was styled Excellency and enjoyed precedence over all other government officials in India. He was referred to as 'His Excellency' and addressed as 'Your Excellency'. From 1858 to 1947, the governor-general was known as the viceroy of India (from the French roi, meaning 'king'), and wives of Viceroys were known as Vicereines (from the French reine, meaning 'queen'). The Vicereine was referred to as 'Her Excellency' and was also addressed as 'Your Excellency'. Neither title was employed while the Sovereign was in India. However, the only British sovereign to visit India during the period of British rule was George V, who attended the Delhi Durbar in 1911 with his wife, Mary.

When the Order of the Star of India was founded in 1861, the viceroy was made its grand master ex officio. The viceroy was also made the ex officio grand master of the Order of the Indian Empire upon its foundation in 1877.

Most governors-general and viceroys were peers. Frequently, a viceroy who was already a peer would be granted a peerage of higher rank, as with the granting of a marquessate to Lord Reading and an earldom and later a marquessate to Freeman Freeman-Thomas. Of those viceroys who were not peers, Sir John Shore was a baronet, and Lord William Bentinck was entitled to the courtesy title 'lord' because he was the son of a duke. Only the first and last governors-general – Warren Hastings and Chakravarti Rajagopalachari – as well as some provisional governors-general, had no honorific titles at all.

Flag and insignia
From around 1885, the viceroy of India was allowed to fly a Union Flag augmented in the centre with the 'Star of India' surmounted by a crown. This flag was not the viceroy's personal flag; it was also used by governors, lieutenant governors, chief commissioners and other British officers in India. When at sea, only the viceroy flew the flag from the mainmast, while other officials flew it from the foremast.

From 1947 to 1950, the governor-general of India used a dark blue flag bearing the royal crest (a lion standing on the Crown), beneath which was the word 'India' in gold majuscules. The same design is still used by many other Commonwealth Realm governors-general. This last flag was the personal flag of the governor-general only.

Residence
The governor-general of Fort William resided in Belvedere House, Calcutta, until the early nineteenth century, when Government House was constructed. In 1854, the lieutenant governor of Bengal took up residence there. Now, the Belvedere Estate houses the National Library of India.

Lord Wellesley, who is reputed to have said that 'India should be governed from a palace, not from a country house', constructed a grand mansion, known as Government House in Calcutta, between 1799 and 1803. The mansion remained in use until the capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi in 1912. Thereafter, the lieutenant governor of Bengal, who had hitherto resided in Belvedere House, was upgraded to a full governor and transferred to Government House. Now, it serves as the residence of the governor of the Indian state of West Bengal, and is referred to by its Bengali name Raj Bhavan.

After the capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi, the viceroy occupied the newly built Viceroy's House, designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. Though construction began in 1912, it did not conclude until 1929; the palace was not formally inaugurated until 1931. The final cost exceeded £877,000 (over £35 million in modern terms)—more than twice the figure originally allocated. Today the residence, now known by the Hindi name of 'Rashtrapati Bhavan', is used by the president of India.

Throughout the British administration, governors-general retreated to the Viceregal Lodge (now Rashtrapati Niwas) at Shimla each summer to escape the heat, and the government of India moved with them. The Viceregal Lodge now houses the Indian Institute of Advanced Study. The Peterhoff building in Shimla was also used by several viceroys, although the original building was destroyed by fire in 1981.

title: Governor-General of India


text:
Traditional Chinese characters

Traditional Chinese characters are a standard set of Chinese character forms used to write Chinese languages. In Taiwan, the set of traditional characters is regulated by the Ministry of Education and standardized in the Standard Form of National Characters. These forms were predominant in written Chinese until the middle of the 20th century, when various countries that use Chinese characters began standardizing simplified sets of characters, often with characters that existed before as well-known variants of the predominant forms.

Simplified characters as codified by the People's Republic of China are predominantly used in mainland China, Malaysia, and Singapore. "Traditional" as such is a retronym applied to non-simplified character sets in the wake of widespread use of simplified characters. Traditional characters are commonly used in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, as well as in most overseas Chinese communities outside of Southeast Asia. As for non-Chinese languages written using Chinese characters, Japanese kanji include many simplified characters known as standardized after World War II, sometimes distinct from their simplified Chinese counterparts. Korean hanja, still used to a certain extent in South Korea, remain virtually identical to traditional characters, with variations between the two forms largely stylistic.

There has historically been a debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Because the simplifications are fairly systematic, it is possible to convert computer-encoded characters between the two sets, with the main issue being ambiguities in simplified representations resulting from the merging of previously distinct character forms. Many Chinese online newspapers allow users to switch between these character sets.

Terminology
Traditional characters are known by different names throughout the Chinese-speaking world. The government of Taiwan officially refers to traditional Chinese characters as. This term is also used outside Taiwan to distinguish standard characters, including both simplified, and traditional, from other variants and idiomatic characters. Users of traditional characters elsewhere, as well as those using simplified characters, call traditional characters, , or  to distinguish them from simplified characters.

Some argue that since traditional characters are often the original standard forms, they should not be called 'complex'. Conversely, there is a common objection to the description of traditional characters as 'standard', due to them not being used by a large population of Chinese speakers. Additionally, as the process of Chinese character creation often made many characters more elaborate over time, there is sometimes a hesitation to characterize them as 'traditional'.

Some people refer to traditional characters as 'proper characters' ( or ) and to simplified characters as or, owing to the fact that the words for simplified and reduced are homophonous in Standard Chinese, both pronounced as.

Use by region
The modern shapes of traditional Chinese characters first appeared with the emergence of the clerical script during the Han dynasty c. 200 BCE, with the sets of forms and norms more or less stable since the Southern and Northern dynasties period c. the 5th century.

Hong Kong and Macau
In Hong Kong and Macau, traditional characters were retained during the colonial period, while the mainland adopted simplified characters. Simplified characters are contemporaneously used to accommodate immigrants and tourists, often from the mainland. The increasing use of simplified characters has led to concern among residents regarding protecting what they see as their local heritage.

Taiwan
Taiwan has never adopted simplified characters. The use of simplified characters in government documents and educational settings is discouraged by the government of Taiwan. Nevertheless, with sufficient context simplified characters are likely to be successfully read by those used to traditional characters, especially given some previous exposure. Many simplified characters were previously variants that had long been in some use, with systematic stroke simplifications used in folk handwriting since antiquity.

Singapore
Traditional characters were recognized as the official script in Singapore until 1969, when the government officially adopted Simplified characters. Traditional characters still are widely used in contexts such as in baby and corporation names, advertisements, decorations, official documents and in newspapers.

Philippines
The Chinese Filipino community continues to be one of the most conservative in Southeast Asia regarding simplification. Although major public universities teach in simplified characters, many well-established Chinese schools still use traditional characters. Publications such as the Chinese Commercial News, World News, and United Daily News all use traditional characters, as do some Hong Kong-based magazines such as Yazhou Zhoukan. The Philippine Chinese Daily uses simplified characters. DVDs are usually subtitled using traditional characters, influenced by media from Taiwan as well as by the two countries sharing the same DVD region, 3.

North America
With most having immigrated to the United States during the second half of the 19th century, Chinese Americans have long used traditional characters. When not providing both, US public notices and signs in Chinese are generally written in traditional characters, more often than in simplified characters.

Encoding
In the past, traditional Chinese was most often encoded on computers using the Big5 standard, which favored traditional characters. However, the ubiquitous Unicode standard gives equal weight to simplified and traditional Chinese characters, and has become by far the most popular encoding for Chinese-language text.

Input methods
There are various input method editors (IMEs) available for the input of Chinese characters. Many characters, often dialectical variants, are encoded in Unicode but cannot be inputted using certain IMEs, with one example being the Shanghainese-language character —a composition of with the  radical—used instead of the Standard Chinese.

Typefaces
Typefaces often use the initialism TC to signify the use of traditional Chinese characters, as well as SC for simplified Chinese characters. In addition, the Noto, Italy family of typefaces, for example, also provides separate fonts for the traditional character set used in Taiwan (TC) and the set used in Hong Kong (HK).

Webpages
Most Chinese-language webpages now use Unicode for their text. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recommends the use of the language tag zh-Hant to specify webpage content written with traditional characters.

Comparison with other scripts
In the Japanese writing system, kyujitai are traditional forms, which were simplified to create shinjitai for standardized Japanese use following World War II. Kyūjitai are mostly congruent with the traditional characters in Chinese, save for minor stylistic variation. Characters that are not included in the jōyō kanji list are generally recommended to be printed in their traditional forms, with a few exceptions. Additionally, there are kokuji, which are kanji wholly created in Japan, rather than originally being borrowed from China.

In the Korean writing system, hanja—replaced almost entirely by hangul in South Korea and totally replaced in North Korea—are mostly identical with their traditional counterparts, save minor stylistic variations. As with Japanese, there are autochthonous hanja, known as gukja.

Traditional Chinese characters are also used by non-Chinese ethnic groups. The Maniq people living in Thailand and Malaysia use Chinese characters to write the Kensiu language.

title: Traditional Chinese characters


text:
User:Rednblu

Brief summary of my Point of View
The following will serve as a reference point to shorten my explanations in the Talk pages.

My Certainties

There is no way for creationism or scientific creationism to be scientific--because Occam's razor slices the Creator from any creationist's or scientific creationist's hypothesis.

 * But some evolutionists believe that evolution is fact, and they are deluding themselves by confusing fact with cause for the fact.

 * That is, just because most scientists find evolution a crucial piece in their understanding of the world does not make evolution a fact.

 * That standard of finding would find that creationism was fact at least until about 1850. Surely scientific fact is different from majority vote.

 * Hence, there is something pathological about the evolutionists asserting that evolution is fact.

 * I say this with a twinge of embarrassment for my own family--for I would say that I also am an "evolutionist," that is, someone who believes that people evolved from some stranded and stressed colonies of descendants of the ancestors of the chimpanzees.

My Conjectures

 * Those evolutionists that assert that evolution is fact are aflicted with the disease of Religion in failing to recognize how important it is to distinguish between 1) what is true and 2) what they hope is true.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Leadership

Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger was a nurse who visited poor families. And she was appalled at the number of babies born to poor women who had no control over their lives. Furthermore, she understood the problem first hand because she was the fifth of eleven children. When she asked, she found that poor women were interested in being able to have full sexual relations with their husbands without having more children. But the women did not know how to have full sexual relations with their husbands without having more children. Sanger told them. But for the women with big families, it was already too late.

When she and her colleagues published the first issue of the new magazine Woman Rebel, she expected objections from religious people because she had argued in the magazine that women should have access to information on methods for contraception. But to her surprise, the first huge objection arose from the United States Post Office who declared her magazine "unmailable" because of a federal law prohibiting the mailing of information about contraception.

She was amazed that the newspapers failed to notice that the government had squelched a "free press." Instead, one paper published a front page pun on barring Sanger from "mails."

She pointed out that she was only mailing an argument: That women should have access to information on contraception. But the United States Department of Justice indicted her anyway.

"My faith was still childlike," she wrote. She thought that the judge would listen to reason. "All I had to do was explain to those in power what I was doing and everything would come [out] right."

When she appeared in a sudden call before the judge without an attorney and asked to postpone the trial so she could get ready for the trial, the male prosecutor insisted that she not be given a postponement during which time she could publish more arguments that women should be informed of the options for contraception. The male judge agreed and ordered her to appear the very next day with an attorney to represent her. The male attorney she found suggested that her best option was to plead guilty.

"I indignantly refused to plead guilty under any circumstances. . . . I was trying to prove the law was wrong, not I." So she decided that she must insist and put her foot down against the society and insist that the courts, media, and public begin to deal with the case as a problem in the society rather than as a problem in herself. Hence, she jumped bail, left her children with her husband, took a train that night to Canada, and from there sailed to England to prepare her case. She saw that the public would not tackle the tough public problem in the case if she allowed the system merely to put her in jail and inevitably to break her spirit.

Almost a year later she returned to America when she was prepared to argue her case in court. After reconstituting the case in full force against her, the federal government finally relented months later and dismissed the charge against her.

The general public had expressed sympathy for her when her five-year old daughter died, thereby putting pressure on the federal government to be reasonable. And the publicity had generated many wealthy contributors who came to understand in the public demonstration that Sanger was working a tough problem in the society, not her own personal problem.

Beethoven, bless his heart
I just discovered a wonderful site where you can follow the scores to Beethoven's symphonies.

It also helps to have a legal download of high presence recordings by Zubin Mehta and Peter Serkin and a new pair of Bose airplane engine noise-cancelling earphones to get up there.

title: User:Rednblu