text:
Stereoscope

A stereoscope is a device for viewing a stereoscopic pair of separate images, depicting left-eye and right-eye views of the same scene, as a single three-dimensional image.

A typical stereoscope provides each eye with a lens that makes the image seen through it appear larger and more distant and usually also shifts its apparent horizontal position, so that for a person with normal binocular depth perception the edges of the two images seemingly fuse into one "stereo window". In current practice, the images are prepared so that the scene appears to be beyond this virtual window, through which objects are sometimes allowed to protrude, but this was not always the custom. A divider or other view-limiting feature is usually provided to prevent each eye from being distracted by also seeing the image intended for the other eye. Most people can, with practice and some effort, view stereoscopic image pairs in 3D without the aid of a stereoscope, but the physiological depth cues resulting from the unnatural combination of eye convergence and focus required will be unlike those experienced when actually viewing the scene in reality, making an accurate simulation of the natural viewing experience impossible and tending to cause eye strain and fatigue.

Although more recent devices such as Realist-format 3D slide viewers, the View-Master, or virtual reality headsets are also stereoscopes, the word is now most commonly associated with viewers designed for the standard-format stereo cards that enjoyed several waves of popularity from the 1850s to the 1930s as a home entertainment medium.

Devices such as polarized, anaglyph and shutter glasses which are used to view two actually superimposed or intermingled images, rather than two physically separate images, are not categorized as stereoscopes.

Wheatstone stereoscope
The earliest stereoscopes, "both with reflecting mirrors and with refracting prisms", were invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone and constructed for him by optician R. Murray in 1832. Herbert Mayo shortly described Wheatstone's discovery in his book Outlines of Human Physiology (1833) and claimed that Wheatstone was about to publish an essay about it. It was only one of many projects of Wheatstone's and he first presented his findings on 21 June 1838 to the Royal College of London. In this presentation he used a pair of mirrors at 45 degree angles to the user's eyes, each reflecting a picture located off to the side. It demonstrated the importance of binocular depth perception by showing that when two pictures simulating left-eye and right-eye views of the same object are presented so that each eye sees only the image designed for it, but apparently in the same location, the brain will fuse the two and accept them as a view of one solid three-dimensional object. Wheatstone's stereoscope was introduced in the year before the first practical photographic processes became available, so initially drawings were used. The mirror type of stereoscope has the advantage that the two pictures can be very large if desired.

Brewster stereoscope

Contrary to a common assertion, David Brewster did not invent the stereoscope, as he himself was often at pains to make clear. A rival of Wheatstone, Brewster credited the invention of the device to a Mr. Elliot, a "Teacher of Mathematics" from Edinburgh, who, according to Brewster, conceived of the idea as early as 1823 and, in 1839, constructed "a simple stereoscope without lenses or mirrors", consisting of a wooden box 18 in long, 7 in wide, and 4 in high, which was used to view drawn landscape transparencies, since photography had yet to become widespread. Brewster's personal contribution was the suggestion to use lenses for uniting the dissimilar pictures in 1849; and accordingly the lenticular stereoscope (lens-based) may fairly be said to be his invention. This allowed a reduction in size, creating hand-held devices, which became known as Brewster Stereoscopes, much admired by Queen Victoria when they were demonstrated at the Great Exhibition of 1851.

Brewster was unable to find in Britain an instrument maker capable of working with his design, so he took it to France, where the stereoscope was improved by Jules Duboscq who made stereoscopes and stereoscopic daguerreotypes, and a famous picture of Queen Victoria that was displayed at The Great Exhibition. Almost overnight a 3D industry developed and 250,000 stereoscopes were produced and a great number of stereoviews, stereo cards, stereo pairs, or stereographs were sold in a short time. Stereographers were sent throughout the world to capture views for the new medium and feed the demand for 3D images. Cards were printed with these views often with explanatory text when the cards were looked at through the double-lensed viewer, sometimes also called a stereopticon, a common misnomer.

Holmes stereoscope
In 1861 Oliver Wendell Holmes created and deliberately did not patent a handheld, streamlined, much more economical viewer than had been available before. The stereoscope, which dates from the 1850s, consisted of two prismatic lenses and a wooden stand to hold the stereo card. This type of stereoscope remained in production for a century and there are still companies making them in limited production currently.

Multiple view stereoscope
Multiple view stereoscopes allow viewing multiple stereoscopic images in sequence by turning a knob, crank, or pushing down a lever. The first design was patented by Antoine Claudet in 1855, but the design of Alexander Beckers from 1857 formed the basis for many revolving stereoscopes that were manufactured from the 1860s. The images are placed in holders that are attached to a rotating belt. The belt can usually hold 50 paper card or glass stereoviews, but there are also large floor standing models for 100 or 200 views.

A more advanced multiple view stereoscope is only intended for glass slides and was especially popular in France, as the printing of stereo images on glass was a French specialty and popular until the 1930s. Most devices were manufactured in France, but also in Germany by ICA and Ernemann. The glass slides are placed in a bakelite or wooden tray. Turning a crank (or pushing down a lever) will lift a slide from the tray and brings it into viewing position. Turning further will place the slide back in the tray and moves the tray over a rail to select the next slide. The most sophisticated and well known design was the Taxiphote by Jules Richard, patented in 1899.

Modern use
In the mid-20th century the View-Master stereoscope (patented 1939), with its rotating cardboard disks containing image pairs, was popular first for 'virtual tourism' and then as a toy. In 2010, Hasbro started producing a stereoscope designed to hold an iPhone or iPod Touch, called the My3D. In 2014, Google released the template for a papercraft stereoscope called Google Cardboard. Apps on the mobile phone substitute for stereo cards; these apps can also sense rotation and expand the stereoscope's capacity into that of a full-fledged virtual reality device. The underlying technology is otherwise unchanged from earlier stereoscopes.

Several fine arts photographers and graphic artists have and continue to produce original artwork to be viewed using stereoscopes.

Principles

A simple stereoscope is limited in the size of the image that may be used. A more complex stereoscope uses a pair of horizontal periscope-like devices, allowing the use of larger images that can present more detailed information in a wider field of view. The stereoscope is essentially an instrument in which two photographs of the same object, taken from slightly different angles, are simultaneously presented, one to each eye. This recreates the way which in natural vision, each eye is seeing the object from a slightly different angle, since they are separated by several inches, which is what gives humans natural depth perception. Each picture is focused by a separate lens, and by showing each eye a photograph taken several inches apart from each other and focused on the same point, it recreates the natural effect of seeing things in three dimensions.

A moving image extension of the stereoscope has a large vertically mounted drum containing a wheel upon which are mounted a series of stereographic cards which form a moving picture. The cards are restrained by a gate and when sufficient force is available to bend the card it slips past the gate and into view, obscuring the preceding picture. These coin-enabled devices were found in arcades in the late 19th and early 20th century and were operated by the viewer using a hand crank. These devices can still be seen and operated in some museums specializing in arcade equipment.

The stereoscope offers several advantages:
 * Using positive curvature (magnifying) lenses, the focus point of the image is changed from its short distance (about 30 to 40 cm) to a virtual distance at infinity. This allows the focus of the eyes to be consistent with the parallel lines of sight, greatly reducing eye strain.
 * The card image is magnified, offering a wider field of view and the ability to examine the detail of the photograph.
 * The viewer provides a partition between the images, avoiding a potential distraction to the user.

A stereo transparency viewer is a type of stereoscope that offers similar advantages, e.g. the View-Master.

Disadvantages of stereo cards, slides or any other hard copy or print are that the two images are likely to receive differing wear, scratches and other decay. This results in stereo artifacts when the images are viewed. These artifacts compete in the mind resulting in a distraction from the 3D effect, eye strain and headaches.

title: Stereoscope


text:
User:Chopchopwhitey

Hello, my name is Neil Mather.

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

title: User:Chopchopwhitey


text:
Argentine tango (disambiguation)

Argentine tango or Tango Argentino or is a social dance. It may also refer to:

 * Tango music as a musical genre
 * Tango Argentino (musical), a musical created by Claudio Segovia.
 * Tango Argentino (film), 1969 Argentinian documentary

title: Argentine tango (disambiguation)


text:
Variation of the field

In heraldry, variations of the field are any of a number of ways that a field (or a charge) may be covered with a pattern, rather than a flat tincture or a simple division of the field.

Patterning with ordinaries and subordinaries
The diminutives of the ordinaries are frequently employed to vary the field.

Any of these patterns may be counterchanged by the addition of a division line; for example, barry argent and azure, counterchanged per fess or checquy Or and gules, counterchanged per chevron.

Barry, paly, bendy, pily, chevronny
When the field is patterned with an even number of horizontal (fesswise) stripes, this is described as barry e.g. of six or eight, usually of a colour and metal specified, e.g. barry of six argent and gules (this implies that the chiefmost piece is argent). With ten or more pieces, the field is described as barruly. A field with narrow piles throughout, issuing from either the dexter or sinister side of the shield, is barry pily. When the field is patterned with an even number of vertical stripes (pallets), the field is described as paly. When the field is patterned with a series of diagonal stripes (bendlets), running from top-left to bottom-right, the field is described as bendy. In the opposite fashion (top-right to bottom-left) it is bendy sinister (of skarpes, the diminutive in England of the bend sinister); of chevronels, chevronny. An unusual example of bendy is one in which a metal alternates with two colours.

In modern practice the number of pieces is nearly always even. A shield of thirteen vertical stripes, alternating argent and gules, would not be paly of thirteen, argent and gules, but argent, six pallets gules. One unusual design is described in part as bendy of three though, as each third is again divided, the effect is of a six-part division.

If no number of pieces is specified, it may be left up to the heraldic artist, but is still represented with an even number.

An instance of a fess... paly Sable, Argent, Bleu celeste and Or occurs in the arms of the 158th Quartermaster Battalion of the United States Army, although this is atypical terminology and it could be argued that the fess should be blazoned as "per pale, in dexter per pale Sable and Argent, and in sinister per pale Bleu Celeste and Or".

In the modern arms of the Count of Schwarzburg, the quarters are divided by a cross bendy of three tinctures.

When the shield is divided by lines both palewise and bendwise, with the pieces coloured alternately like a chess board, this is paly-bendy; if the diagonal lines are reversed, paly-bendy sinister. If horizontal rather than vertical lines are used, it is barry-bendy; and similarly, when reversed, barry-bendy sinister.

A field which seems to be composed of a number of triangular pieces is barry bendy and bendy sinister.

Chequy
When divided by palewise and fesswise lines into a chequered pattern, the field is chequy. The coat of arms of Croatia Chequy gules and argent is a well known example of the red and white chequy. The arms of "Bleichröder, banker to Bismarck", show chequy fimbriated (the chequers being divided by thin lines). The arms of the 85th Air Division (Defense) of the United States Air Force show "a checky grid" on part of the field, though this is to be distinguished from "chequy". The number of chequers is generally indeterminate, though the fess in the arms of Robert Stewart, Lord of Lorn, they are blazoned as being "of four tracts" (in four horizontal rows); and in arms of Toledo, fifteen chequers are specified. The number of vertical rows can also be specified. When a bend or bend sinister, or one of their diminutives, is chequy, the chequers follow the direction of the bend unless otherwise specified. James Parker cites the French term equipolle to mean chequy of nine, though mentions that this is identical to a cross quarter-pierced (strangely, this is blazoned as "a Latin square chequy of nine" in the arms of the Statistical Society of Canada). He also gives the arms of Prospect as an unusual example of chequy, Chequy in perspective argent and sable; which must be distinguished from cubes as a charge. Chequy is not "fanciable"; that is, the lines of chequy cannot be modified by lines of partition.

Lozengy, fusilly, masculy and rustré
When the shield is divided by both bendwise and bendwise-sinister lines, creating a field of lozenges coloured like a chessboard, the result is lozengy. A field lozengy must be distinguished from an ordinary such as a bend which is blazoned of one tincture and called "lozengy"; this means that the ordinary is entirely composed of lozenges, touching at their obtuse corners. Such arrangement is better blazoned as lozenges bendwise. In paly bendy the bendwise lines are supposed to be less acute than in plain lozengy.

Part of the field of the arms of the 544th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group of the United States Air Force is lozengy in perspective.

A field fusilly can be very difficult to distinguish from a field lozengy; the fusil is supposed to be proportionately narrower than the lozenge, and the bendwise and bendwise-sinister lines are therefore more steeply sloped.

A field masculy is composed entirely of mascles; that is, lozenges pierced with a lozenge shape – this creates a solid fretwork surface and is to be distinguished from a field fretty.

An extremely rare, possibly unique example of a field rustré - counterchanged rustres - occurs in Canadian heraldry in the arms of R.C. Purdy Chocolates Ltd.

Gyronny
A shield that is divided quarterly and per saltire, forming eight triangular pieces, is gyronny. This is technically a field covered with "gyrons", a rare charge in the form of a wedge, shown individually in the well-known arms of Mortimer. Possibly the best known example is in the arms of the ancient Scottish family of Campbell: Gyronny of eight or and sable, borne most notably by the Duke of Argyll, Chief of the Clan Campbell. The first tincture in the blazon is that of the triangle in dexter chief. Gyronny can also have a different number of pieces than eight; for example, Sir William Stokker, Lord Mayor of London, had a field gyronny of six; there may be gyronny of ten or twelve, and the arms of Clackson provide an example of gyronny of sixteen. While the gyrons of gyronny almost invariably meet in the fess point, the exact centre of the shield, the arms of the University of Zululand are an unusual example of gyronny meeting in the nombril point, a point on the shield midway between the fess point and the base point. Gyronny can be modified by most of the lines of partition, with exceptions such as dancetty and angled. The canting arms of Maugiron show Gyronny of six, clearly deemed mal-gironné ("badly gyronny").

Variations of lines
Any of the division lines composing the variations of the field above may be blazoned with most of the different line shapes; e.g. paly nebuly of six, Or and sable. One very common use of this is barry wavy azure and argent; this is often used to represent either water or a body of water in general, or the sea in particular, though there are other if less commonly used methods of representing the sea, including in a more naturalistic manner.

Semé
When the field (or a charge) is described as semé or semy of a sub-ordinary or other charge, it is depicted as being scattered (literally "seeded") with many copies of that charge. Semé is regarded as part of the field and thus within the opening section of the blazon describing the field before the first comma. Thus: Azure semy-de-lis or not Azure, semy-de-lis or. A charge on top would be blazoned: Azure semy-de-lis or, a bend argent.

To avoid confusion with a simple use of a large number of the same charge (e.g. Azure, fifteen fleurs-de-lis Or), the charges semé are ideally depicted cut off at the edge of the field, though in olden depictions this is often not the case. An example of this can be found in the modern Coat of arms of Denmark, which now features three lions among nine hearts, but the ancient arms depicted three leopards on a semy of hearts, the number of which varied and was not fixed at nine until 1819. There are also some exceptions to this, as in the case of some bordures blazoned "semé", which are usually depicted with a discrete number (often eight) of the charge. Thus for example the arms of Jesus College, Cambridge, which despite a blazon of "seme" are invariably depicted with either eight or ten "crowns Golde" on its bordure. A large number (usually eight) of any one charge arranged as if upon an invisible bordure is said to be in orle, an orle being a diminutive band within the bordure.

Most small charges can be depicted as semé, e.g. semé of roses, semé of estoiles, and so forth. In English heraldry, several types of small charges have special terms to refer to their state as semé:

 * semé of cross-crosslets: crusily
 * semé of fleurs-de-lis: semé-de-lis
 * semé of bezants: bezanté
 * semé of plates: platé
 * semé of billets: billeté
 * semé of annulets: annulletty
 * semé of sparks: étincellé;
 * semé of gouttes ("drops" (of liquid)): gouttée / guttée, with variants:
 * Guttée-de-sang (blood, gules)
 * Guttée-de-poix (pitch (bitumen), sable)
 * Guttée-d'eau (water, argent)
 * Guttée-de-larmes (tears, azure)
 * Guttée-d'olives (olives, vert)
 * semé of torteaux (roundels gules): tortelly

When a field semé is of a metal, the charges strewn on it must be of a colour, and vice versa, so as not to offend the rule of tincture.

In Cornish heraldry the arms granted to the Hockin family are Per fesse wavy gules and azure, in chief a lion passant gardant or beneath the feet a musket lying fesswise proper the base semy of fleurs-de-lis confusedly dispersed of the third, alluding to an incident in which the Cornish soldier Thomas Hockin caused the French to scatter.

The 1995-2002 arms of Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia show Vert, semee of disks or decreasing in size from base to chief.

The heraldic furs of the ermine family appear to be semé of the "ermine spots", but they are not counted as such except when the tinctures of the spots and the field cannot be described as one of the four furs ermine, ermines, erminois or pean.

Masoned
A field or ordinary masoned shows a pattern like that of a brick or ashlar stone wall. This can be "proper" or of a named tincture. The tincture relates to the mortar between the stones or bricks: a wall of red bricks with white mortar is thus blazoned gules masoned argent.

Honeycomb
The town of Viļāni, Latvia, has part of its field honeycombed. Another example of this is in the arms of Fusagasugá, Cundinamarca, Colombia.

Folds
The arms of the Special Troops Battalion of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division of the United States Army has the unique field Per pale Sable and Gules with stylized folds Sanguine, the sinister half of the field symbolizing a warrior's cape.

Pappellony
A field pappellony (French: Papillon, "butterfly") shows a pattern like the wings of a butterfly, though this is categorised as a fur. The number of rows of pappellony are sometimes defined, such as seven in the arms of the Aleberici Family of Bologna. The ancient arms of the French Barons de Châteaubriant were Gules papellony or. The Italian term squamoso and the French écaillé, meaning 'scaly', are similar.

Pied at random
Used in some South-African coats, this means patterned like the markings of a bull or cow. There are other examples of South African heraldry that are more elaborately blazoned.

Tapissé of wheat
A field tapissé of wheat is entirely covered (literally "carpeted") by an interlocking stylised pattern looking like a wheat field.

Diapering
In English heraldry, diapering, or covering areas of flat colour with a tracery design, is not considered a variation of the field; it is not specified in blazon, being a decision of the individual artist. A coat depicted with diapering is considered the same as a coat drawn from the same blazon but depicted without diapering.

In French heraldry, diapering is sometimes explicitly blazoned.

Fretty and trellisé
A field fretty is composed of bendlets and bendlets-sinister or "scarps", interleaved over one another to give the impression of a trellis. Although almost invariably the bendlets and scarpes are of the same tincture, there is an example in which they are of two different metals. It is rare for the number of pieces of the fretty to be specified, though this is sometimes done in French blazon. The bendlets and bendlets sinister are very rarely anything other than straight, as in the arms of David Robert Wooten, in which they are raguly. Objects can be placed in the position of the bendlets and bendlets sinister and described as "fretty of," as in the arms of the Muine Bheag Town Commissioners: Party per fess or fretty of blackthorn branches leaved proper and ermine, a fess wavy azure. Square fretty is similarly composed of barrulets and pallets.

Trellisé appears in the arms of Luc-Normand Tellier, where it consists of "bendlets, bendlets sinister and barrulets" interlaced. These are not, strictly speaking, variations of the field, since they are depicted as being on the field rather than in it.

Blazoning of French adjectives
Variations of the field present a particular problem concerning consistent spelling of adjectival endings in English blazons. Heraldry developed at a time when, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, English clerks wrote in Anglo-Norman French; consequently, many terms in English heraldry, as a distinct style of the craft, are of French origin, as is the practice of most adjectives being placed after nouns rather than, as is standard in English, before. A problem arises as to acceptable spellings of French words used in English blazons, especially in the case of adjectival endings, determined in normal French usage by gender and number. It is considered by some heraldic authorities as pedantry to adopt strictly correct linguistic usage for English blazons:
 * "... for to describe two hands as appaumées, because the word is feminine in French, savours somewhat of pedantry. A person may be a good armorist, and a tolerable French scholar, and still be uncertain whether an Escallop-shell, covered with bezants, should be blazoned as bezanté or bezantée."

Cussans (1898) adopted the convention of spelling all French adjectives in the masculine singular, without regard to the gender and number of the nouns they qualify; however, as Cussans admits, the commoner convention is to spell all French adjectives in the feminine singular form, for example: a chief undée and a saltire undée, even though the French nouns chef and sautoir are in fact masculine.

title: Variation of the field


text:
Talk:Agrippina the Younger

Prize

 * A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states''" in a complete sentence. A Winner of the March 2005 West Dakota Prize This entry is one of only seventeen that have won the March 2005 West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence. --Wetman 08:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Too bad the sentence is no longer in the article.QueenofRods (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

First Comments
She was a terrible woman, but she was so for a reason like many other women in that period of time. I have to say however that I'm impressed with her will to live, how many times Nero had to try and kill her, and she was a survivor? Quite impressive if you think of it.--Camblunt100 09:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. As nasty as she supposedly was, she was quite a woman and very interesting. --Sophie-Lou 11:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

-

In 50 AD, wasn't she given the title of Augusta by Claudius? I'm sure I read that somewhere. --Sophie-Lou 11:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Britannicus
who Brittanicus and why was he killed

 * Britannicus was the son of Claudius and Messalina (though in the Masterpiece Theatre rendering of "I Claudius/Claudius The God" Claudius has suspicions that Britannicus was actually fathered by Caligula.) Britannicus was the natural heir to the throne before Claudius adopted Nero. Nero and Britannicus were to be Claudius' joint heirs upon Claudius' demise.  When Nero fell out of favor with his mother, Agrippina Minor, she retaliated by threatening that Britannicus was the true heir to the throne.  Nero responded by having Britannicus poisoned.

Legend states...
So what is the source of the legend about Agrippinilla's death? It doesn't appear in this form in Suetonius or Tacitus. Gdr 13:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear User, Tacitus' story is very complex. Her death is not clear. Probably her loyal defenders put her on safe (I think in Germany, where she founded the city of Cologne, whom real name is Colonia Agrippinensis).

Number of wives
Wasn't Messalina Claudius's third wife? I thought I would check before I changed it, but Im pretty sure Urgulania and Sejanus's relative (forget the name) count. --24.61.187.109 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Messalina was his third wife. Agrippina was his fourth. --Sophie-Lou 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Medieval

 * Dante puts her in hell for killing Claudius (Inferno XXXII)

 * This is not supported by the text on Wikisource (trans. Longfellow) nor in any other translation I've read (I only speak English but I've perused the current Italian text from time to time). Can someone give the canto, line number and (if applicable) translator to support this? Ellsworth 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This absurd statement is completely false. Just one of many lies about Agrippina's memory. Dante never put Agrippina in Inferno. Agrippina never killed Claudius, who was probably killed by Seneca's party.

Her demise
From the article Quinquatria

At the Quinquatria in 59, Nero invited his mother, Agrippina the Younger, to his villa near Baiae, in an attempt to assassinate her. His old tutor, Anicetus, whom he had raised to be captain of the fleet of Misenum, had undertaken to construct a vessel which could be sunk, without exciting suspicion. Agrippina landed at Bauli, between Baiae and Cape Misenum, and completed her journey in a litter. After the banquet, when night had fallen, she was induced to return to Bauli in the vessel which had been prepared for her destruction. But the mechanism did not work as planned, and Agrippina succeeded in swimming to shore, from which she proceeded to her villa on the Lucrine lake. Nero soon after succeeded in his goal, however, with further help from Anicetus.[5]

If this is true, why not copy it here, with additions to how Nero finally killed her ?

Chris CII

Dear Chris, Tacitus' story is very complex. Her death is not clear. Probably her loyal defenders put her on safe (I think in Germany, where she founded the city of Cologne, whom real name is Colonia Agrippinensis).

-- Hmm. Tacitus' story is pretty straightforward and leaves no room for magical escapes to Germany. But leaving that aside and turning to the main text: Where do "four attempts" come from? After the collapsing boat trick didn't work, Nero sent soldiers right away (Tac. Ann. 14.1-9). This could count as two separate attempts (one of which successful), but... ? --Frippo 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is not at all neutral and needs serious editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.111.127 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

This article is simply ridicolous. Especially ridicolous is the "child-like" allegation: "Agrippina did not reject murder as a way to win her battles", while it's cruel to affirm she murdered her husband Claudius, without quoting Barrett's studies and Racine's interpretation in "Britannicus". See Italian version for a good article.

Agreed -- I'm glad that a lot of the ideas in this discussion aren't reflected in the main article, but the article is still in need of some serious cleanup in both content and English style, and citations are needed for just about everything. I will start by removing the following sentence from the introduction: "This gave her a near mystical status and Tacitus tells that 'Her exceptionally illustrious birth is indisputable.'" I'm not sure where "near mystical status" comes from and the alleged quotation does not appear in Tacitus. I'm also deleting the bit about being resentful of male primogeniture; the sources depict her as avid for power and behaving as a co-ruler, but some sort of hatred of the patriarchy is anachronistic -- not to mention that the sentence as written grammatically suggests that "with her ... demise, [she grew] resentful," which is nonsense. More is necessary, but not tonight. --Frippo 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cologne
Agrippina did not help found the colonia at modern-day Cologne until the year 50, when she was already the wife of Claudius -- not in her "early life." I'm not sure where this stuff about helping Rome's brave boys comes from.

She certainly as a member of the Julio-Claudian family and most especially as the daughter of Germanicus had great popularity among the army, however. It's just not linked to helping veterans in her youth. --Frippo 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence sense?
I've read this a couple of times, but it still doesn't make sense. From the "Return from exhile" section: When Agrippina returned from exile, Messalina realised that Agrippina’s son was a threat to her son’s position, Messalina had sent assassins to strangle Lucius during his siesta. The assassins left in terror, when the snake suddenly darted from beneath Nero’s pillow; but was a slaughed snake-skin in his bed; near his pillow. "Slaughed"? Should that be "slaughtered"? Or something else completely? Why is "pillow" repeated? Can anyone re-write this so it makes more sense? -CaptainJae 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's misspelled, should be sloughed. That said it doesn't make much sense. And on the subject of making sense, wth is with all the "hads"? They are way over-used in my opinion. For example, immediately after the above quote (which I note has been fixed): "In 47 Crispus had died" What is that? I mean, okay, yes, I know, it's a tense (the exact name for the tense escapes me atm) but why is it being used in almost every other sentence? It's an extremely rare tense in normal English, and makes the article read poorly. Maybe it was someone's attempt to get rid of passive voice (which, imo, would actually be preferable). That sentence should read either "...Crispus died" or, if we don't know for certain that he died in 47, something more like "...Crispus was dead" (which, now that I look at it, isn't even passive). I guess what's most annoying is that this construction seems to be violating parallelism with other nearby verbs.--75.83.200.29 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've finally traced the source of all the had's to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agrippina_the_Younger&oldid=139379222 edit by Anriz. They did not exist prior to this (major) edit, and do not appear to have been altered since then. However, they are completely and totally unnecessary. I'll try to get them all in one edit so it can be easily reverted if necessary. I doubt that it will be. --75.83.200.29 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update 2: Well... I tried. But I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to resolve a lot of the ambiguities in the text. There should be a lot fewer past perfects in the sections up to Empress of Rome. But that isn't the only problem with the massive changes introduced in the edit mentioned above. Oh, and yes, I am the previous editor, I just hadn't logged in yet. Also, the edit above does not appear to cite any sources, which is especially worrisome given the large amount of new content it introduced. --Wlerin 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It reads much better now - Thanks to whoever tackled it! -CaptainJae (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES!!!
There are a lot of facts in this article and yet there is very little source material quoted to back up these facts. Could someone who knows their stuff please add at least some links to quotes from classical authors to prove some of the facts. It's very easy to just say stuff about Agrippina the Younger but you need to be able to prove it.

 * I am unaware of who penned the above note, but I propose, after 7 days, to go through the article removing items of unsourced material. If they are sourced, they may be reinstated of course, but I believe I will be following WIki-policy in "cleansing" unsourced materials. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC).

This was written quite some time ago, but the problem still remains. Though I think it isn't so much a lack of sources as sloppy sourcing. An entire section will be written based on Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, for example, with the first paragraph citing one chapter and the rest none, even though much of the material comes from multiple different chapters in that same work. I'm not sure how to improve this, without dramatically inflating the number of citations. There's probably a wiki policy, but I am woefully unfamiliar with them.--Wlerin (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright violation...maybe...
Looking at the aureus photo...considering its photographic merit...it occurred to me to check the copyright. The justification includes:

"Coin from CNG coins, through Wildwinds.

Credit the source as "CNG coins (http://www.cngcoins.com)".

which seems to imply, reasonably enough, that CNG Coins wishes to be recognized as the source of the photo. That sourcing, however, does not happen in the three Wiki article pages this photo is used. Further (correct me here where I go wrong), adding the credit CNG Coins stipulates would be: a) An inadmissible advertising plug, and b) Irrelevant to satisfying Wiki policy, because the image has not been released into the public domain.

Does anyone have a keen insight into the Wiki policy on this? Piano non troppo (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reign of Caligula
What is the origin of the extraordinary piece of information that Caligula forced Agrippina and Livilla to dive for sponges to make a living while they were in exile? This is simply ridiculous. According to Barrett’s biography of Agrippina, there were at least two villas on the island, one of them apparently quite luxurious (p. 69). Barrett says that Agrippina would have been relatively comfortable, and she would have enjoyed a large staff. He says: “Her main problem, shared by all imperial exiles, would have been boredom.” He does mention some strange kind of shellfish that flourished in the waters of the area, but there’s certainly no suggestion that Agrippina had to dive for it! As for the suggestion that she learnt to swim well at this time, it appears that Agrippina was a good swimmer, as she was able to swim to safety after the shipwreck which nearly killed her, but the comment that she may have learnt to swim while in exile is pure speculation. Anna Lowenstein 62.211.196.54 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

''I second that--and what is the source for the paragraphs describing her funeral? Also terrible syntax, grammar and punctuation:

After Agrippina's death, Nero viewed her corpse and commented how beautiful she was. Her body was cremated that night on a dining couch; during the funeral, Nero was witless, speechless and scared. When the news spread that Agrippina had died, the Roman army, senate and various people sent him letters of congratulations that he had murdered his mother.

During his reign, her grave was not covered or enclosed. Her household later on gave her a modest tomb in Misenum. Nero would have his mother’s death on his conscience. He felt so guilty he would have nightmares about his mother. He even saw his mother’s ghost and got Persian magicians to scare her away. Years before she died, Agrippina had visited astrologers to ask about her son’s future. The astrologers predicted that her son would become emperor and would kill her. She replied ‘Let him kill me, provided he becomes emperor’.''

Amy od (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that no one else has done it, I've now removed the detail about diving for sponges, and also the assertion that Agrippina learnt to swim well at this time. Basically, the whole article needs to be thoroughly edited, but at least that gets rid of the worst inaccuracy. Anna Lowenstein (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina's name
Agrippina's names are listed at the beginning of the article, including the form "Agrippinilla". I have already removed this once, but someone has put it back. As far as I know, Agrippina is never referred to as Agrippinilla in any historical source, but only in Robert Grave's novel "I, Claudius". I see no reason to include this name in an article about the historical Agrippina. I have removed it a second time, and if anyone wants to put it back, would they please give the reference, if one exists, or else put it under the heading "In later literature". Anna Lowenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.54.67 (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistency of the stories about her assassination
"All surviving stories of Agrippina's death contradict themselves and each other, and are generally fantastical." While this is mostly true it is not 100% true. All of the stories feature the boat that was designed to sink. As fantastical as this is, it still a consistency that should be acknowledged. 96.233.134.156 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC) A

Citation for claims of writing a memoir
I added the citation needed tag to the claims that the subject penned a memoir. A cursory search simply finds either modern works or other claims, without any reference to a primary source. Does anyone know of any appropriate sources to this work, or credible evidence of it having existed at some point? Gravy2272 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 * It's well-known that it existed and and its loss is much regretted. Imagine if our knowledge wasn't dominated by Tacitus's combination of detestation of the Julio-Claudians, misogyny and aggression towards anyone that offends against his narrow proprieties. Ah well. I've added a couple of refs, and you might find these mentions reassuring too. NebY (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent! Thanks for finding those. Should the article also make mention that it's considered a lost work? I think it's an important distinction to make so the casual reader doesn't infer that the work itself is known in any meaningful detail or contributed to the information in the article. Gravy2272 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea - done. Of course, it may have contributed indirectly, if Tacitus et al made use of it (Tacitus very rarely mentions sources). The sentence about her memoir is in this article's narrative for about 47–48, and I'm not sure that's the best place. I'll keep an eye open for any indications, and maybe someone else will know. NebY (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the Tacitus ref, corrected a misunderstanding (possibly a mistranslation of Tacitus) and moved it into Legacy rather than leave it situated at 47–48 without any clear reason. NebY (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Agrippina the Younger


text:
Talk:November 18

Untitled
Inconsistency:
 * 1493 – Christopher Columbus first sights what is now Puerto Rico.

This is inconsistent with the article for November 17 which states that:
 * 1493 – Christopher Columbus lands on Puerto Rico.

Obviously these conflict each other, with Columbus landing before actually sighting Puerto Rico. I lack specific dates, however. --90.209.127.236 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed:
 * 1497 - Bartolomeu Dias discovers the Cape of Good Hope.

Could not be confirmed outside of 'this day in history'-type websites (very bad source). --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved:
 * 1820 - Captain Nathaniel Palmer becomes the first American to see Antarctica (the Palmer Peninsula was later named after him).

Nope. He first saw it on November 17. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved:
 * 1912 - Albania declares its independence from the Ottoman Empire.

Nope. It happened on November 28. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed:
 * 1976 - The Cortes of Spain declares the country a democracy.

Could not be confirmed. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed: I removed the anniversary "2002 - New Jersey schools ban dodgeball and tag." While this can be considered of some importance, ie relating to "zero tolerance" policies, the issue is a local one, and is hardly of importance compared with the other anniversaries, which are influential or memorable events. This event was neither in my opinion

Fictional Holidays?
What the heck is "fictional holidays" supposed to mean? Is someone saying that Calvin and Hobbes Day is not a real holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.90.109 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2005

 * Calvin and Hobbes Day is not mentioned in Calvin and Hobbes so I am removing it. It appears to be only the day the comic strip started, thus is certainly not a real holiday. Even as an event it is not important enough for inclusion there. — Joe Kress 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes Day most certainly is a real holiday. In fact, my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along. A journalist even mentioned Calvin and Hobbes Day in an article they wrote. A putting Calvin and Hobbes Day back on the article. If you remove it, I will simply put it back on again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.90.109 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 December 2005

 * my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along Looking back, it looks like that statement is, as George Bush likes to say, "non-operative": that was added on November 10th by User:69.218.246.223, which is presumably you. Eight days before the cited story and twenty-six days before your claim above is not "months", no matter what calendar you're using. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with Joe Kress here, Calvin and Hobbes day is not a real holiday and should not be included in this list. An event as marginal as the start of a comic book series is simply not important enough to be mentioned on one of our "day" articles - if we included every comic strip, game etc, our lists would be hopelessly cluttered and utterly useless. -- Ferkelparade π 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * While "Calvin and Hobbes Day" is certainly not a holiday (Where is it celebrated? Do banks, post offices, and schools there close in honor of it? Do stores have Calvin and Hobbes Day Sales there?) neither is it too trivial to mention in the Events section -- where, I will note, there is and has been for as long as I can recall a mention at 1985. This was a hugely influential comic strip despite its brief run (2.4 million hits on Google), and when a complete "Calvin and Hobbes" collection was published recently it got a LOT of press (right now, "Calvin and Hobbes" gets 67 hits on Google News alone). My daily newspaper (The International Herald Tribune) still runs the strip, despite the fact that its run ended ten years ago.

 * Marking the first publication of this influential comic strip (NOT book, guy) is most definitely important enough to mention, and I, for one, will revert any attempt to remove its entry in the "Events" section -- and I will be not be alone, you can rest assured. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Errrm...wait a minute, I think my comment above was badly phrased - I don't really mind the entry under "events", and you might notice that I didn't touch that entry, so there's no need to argue about that. What I do oppose is the inclusion of made-up, fictional holidays based on such events that are not celebrated anywhere in the real world, and it seems we actually agree on that issue. And yes, I know it's a comic strip, not a comic book, so there's no need for condescending language - I used the phrase "comic book, game etc" as a catch-all phrase for stuff that's not necessarily on the same level as actual historical events -- Ferkelparade π 10:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * An event as marginal as the start of a comic book series is simply not important enough to be mentioned on one of our "day" articles. Nothing about a holiday, just "event". Nothing about "game, etc" there, either. What part of that did I misunderstand? --Calton | Talk 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1.: That's what I meant with "badly phrased" :P I guess I got carried away while trying to tak some sense into the anon... 2.: I was referring to if we included every comic book, game etc,... (someone changed that to read "comic strip", I originally said "book", I guess that's what prompted you to say "NOT book, guy!"). Anyway, since we apparently agree on the original issue (ie, on removing Calvin and Hobbes day), can we consider this misunderstanding resolved? :) -- Ferkelparade π 14:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, it should not be under Holidays. Removing again since all but 69.223.90.109 seem to agree. Jeroen [[User_talk:Jkruis|(talk)]] 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems that this keeps coming up, judging by the change history. As a Calvin and Hobbes fan, I'd love if C&H Day existed.  But an anniversary is not a holiday.  If someone could provide a link to a government-sponsored holiday celebrating this comic, I'd love to see it, that way we can stop editing this page so much. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, this isn't the place to lobby for a C&H holiday.  It's mentioned in the article that C&H started on November 18, isn't that enough?   Wiggster 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I accidentally deleted this from my comment in between hitting Preview and Submit, but replying to the comment:
 * Calvin and Hobbes Day most certainly is a real holiday. In fact, my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along. A journalist even mentioned Calvin and Hobbes Day in an article they wrote.
 * The linked story contains the following quote: To celebrate what is now officially Calvin and Hobbes Day -- at least according to Wikipedia and numerous on-line sources. We cannot rely on this as a source, as it is relying on Wikipedia as a source.  C&H Day was in Wikipedia for months, so a journalist noticed that and wrote a small article mentioning it.  If we are to include Calvin and Hobbes Day as a holiday, we'll need a reliable source, preferably one that predates the insertion of C&H Day into this article.  Just because "Calvin and Hobbes Day" returns hits in Google does not mean that it's a holiday, it could simply be a meme. Wiggster 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing Google hits for "Calvin and Hobbes Day", but none are meme-like, in my opinion. The top hit is for the National Post story already cited (which itself cites Wikipedia), while the others I've skimmed are mostly either Wikipedia mirrors or coincidences ("A 'Calvin and Hobbes' day-dream? For real. Get it..." or "I think Poncho is the funniest cartoon since Calvin and Hobbes. Day the Earth "Stood Still, the...") As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing was cooked up by the user behind IP number 69.223.90.109, start to finish.
 * Upon further investigation, I see that the links I was seeing on Google weren't actually memes, fans were just using the term to describe November 18th. Some Star Trek fans celebrate First Contact Day on April 4th, to celebrate the flight of the ficticious Zefram Cochrane detailed in Star Trek: First Contact, but I wouldn't put that as a holiday on April 4th.  Just because you can add the word "Day" to the end of something, it doesn't turn an anniversary into a holiday. Wiggster 16:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because a holiday is not regognised by the goverment, does not mean it isn't a holiday at all. Calvin and Hobbes Day can be regognised as an obscure holiday. (along with smores day, talk like a pirate day, Literature week, ect.) Maybe someone can write an article listing the obscure holidays.--FelineFanatic13 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, I'll refer you to the definition of a holiday, which criteria does Calvin and Hobbes Day meet? I cannot find any information in Google about what is done on Calvin and Hobbes Day.  The only references are wikis (which no doubt garnered the information from Wikipedia or had the information added by the same people) and fan forums.  Compare this to ITLaP Day; it is discussed in newspapers, celebrated at colleges, has countless pages devoted to it, etc.  International Talk Like a Pirate Day is listed under the Holidays and observances because thousands, if not millions, celebrate it each year.  Despite being a big fan of Calvin and Hobbes, I never heard of the notion about Calvin and Hobbes Day.  If it is real as you say it is, please provide information about it.  When did it start?  Who started it?  What is done to celebrate it?  Who participates in it?  As near as I can surmise, Calvin and Hobbes day is simply the anniversary of when Calvin and Hobbes started.  That doesn't make it a holiday.  Again, please provide some information.  Refer to Cite your sources; this is obviously being disputed (by fans of Calvin and Hobbes no less).  Just because you want it to be a holiday doesn't make it one.  If you're going to make the argument of it being an obscure holiday, please provide some information to back up that claim.  I want to believe you, I just need some evidence. Wiggster 16:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we add a comment such as <!-- Please do not add Calvin and Hobbes Day to this section until Consensus is reached on the talk page --> ? I'm not sure if the line from Good-faith to Bad-faith has been crossed and this could be considered vandalism, but a note might stop all the reverts without putting a ban up. Wiggster 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not the user who put Calvin and Hobbes Day on the article. The only reason I do keep puting it back is that it was accepted by wikipedia for 26 days. In my opinion, that's enough reason to keep it there. If only two people agree it should stay, I will stop putting it up. --FelineFanatic13 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because it went unnoticed for 26 days doesn't make it true. Since the majority here believes that C&H Day doesn't exist (and only one person actively believes that it does), it shouldn't be on the page. - Jeroen [[User_talk:Jkruis|(talk)]] 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, that's enough reason to keep it there. That's not a reason; it barely rises to the level of "excuse".

 * But can you explain why you and other people are so suddenly taking it down?  Because it's untrue? Fake? Fictitious? Made up? Not real? The actual question should be why you want to re-add something that is untrue, fake, ficticious, etc.

 * But hey, maybe I'm wrong: to prove it, all you need do is cite a credible outside source. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UT)

Seems to be a new meme out there, "National Have Sex with a Guy with a Mustache Day". Will it achieve persistent notability enough to warrant mention? I'm not certain. However, I thought I'd at least broach the subject here and people can keep an ear out. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed

 * 1951 - Justin Raimondo, American author - as he doesn't seem that notable to be included here. feydey 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Irrelevant: he has a genuine Wikipedia article, he's entitled to a listing. If 'he doesn't seem that notable to be included here', nominate the article for deletion. --CalendarWatcher 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe the day articles are not meant to be the dumping grounds for all people in Wikipedia. Could You please elaborate where it says that: "[if] ...he has a genuine Wikipedia article, he's entitled to a listing." And when saying "be included here" I meant of course the article November 18. feydey 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * 'I believe the day articles are not meant to be the dumping grounds for all people in Wikipedia'. If that's your belief, it's incorrect: the Birth and Death listings, by long-standing practice, have two criteria only: accuracy and having a Wikipedia article, full stop, characterisations as a 'dumping ground' notwithstanding. I repeat, if 'he doesn't seem that notable to be included here', nominate the article for deletion, as that's the only way for your statement to become true. --CalendarWatcher 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Please could You point to the page where it says: "[if] ...he has a genuine Wikipedia article, he's entitled to a listing" and "the Birth and Death listings, by long-standing practice, have two criteria only: accuracy and having a Wikipedia article". Personally, after going through WikiProject Days of the year, I found no such guidelines. If these guidelines are given somewhere could You please give a link to there. Thanks, feydey 08:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but what portion of 'by long-standing practice' was unclear? When did I say or even suggest that written policy was involved? The phrase 'by long-standing practice', in fact, implies just the opposite. And demanding rigidly bureaucratic guidelines to dissuade you from applying purely subjective standards doesn't strike you as the least bit contradictory?

 * I'll make it simple: I WILL revert any deletions of listings for subjects of bona fide Wikipedia articles, in accordance with long-standing practice. Full stop. Unless you can point me to a guideline that says I can't. Are we clear? --CalendarWatcher 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

cool!
Whoa we've got the records for what happened on 11/18/2006 and it's only been that date for one and a half hours! The Texas Drama King 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kim Duk-koo
I’ve moved a line about the death of boxer, Kim Duk-koo to this page, from the entry on the 17th November. I did this the article on Kim Duk-koo gives 18th November as the day of his death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Duk-koo

Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Atwood
Margaret Atwood (b. November 18, 1939) should be restored to the list of births on this date. Her entry, as it appeared until November 14, was as shown below:

 * 1939 – Margaret Atwood, Canadian novelist, poet, and critic

Atwood's entry disappeared when the entry for Margaret Jay, born on the same date, was added.

Thank you! 2607:FEA8:22A0:280:AC4E:5A4B:F10B:2515 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ Good eye. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was actually done with this edit, on the grounds that the UPI reference was not acceptable. So we need to look for alternative sources. Deb (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an alternative source now. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That editor had also removed Louis Daguerre so I found a better source and put him back. Deb (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:November 18


text:
Congressional Research Service

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a public policy research institute of the United States Congress. Operating within the Library of Congress, it works primarily and directly for members of Congress and their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. CRS is sometimes known as Congress' think tank due to its broad mandate of providing research and analysis on all matters relevant to national policymaking.

CRS has roughly 600 employees reflecting a wide variety of expertise and disciplines, including lawyers, economists, historians, political scientists, reference librarians, and scientists. In the 2023 fiscal year, it was appropriated a budget of roughly $133.6 million by Congress.

Modeled after the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, CRS was founded during the height of the Progressive Era as part of a broader effort to professionalize the government by providing independent research and information to public officials. Its work was initially made available to the public, but between 1952 and 2018 was restricted only to members of Congress and their staff; non-confidential reports have since been accessible on its website. In 2019, CRS announced it was adding "the back catalog of older CRS reports" and also introducing new publicly available reports, such as its "two-page executive level briefing documents".

CRS is one of three major legislative agencies that support Congress, along with the Congressional Budget Office (which provides Congress with budget-related information, reports on fiscal, budgetary, and programmatic issues, and analyses of budget policy options, costs, and effects) and the Government Accountability Office (which assists Congress in reviewing and monitoring the activities of government by conducting independent audits, investigations, and evaluations of federal programs). Collectively, the three agencies employ more than 4,000 people.

History
In 1914, Senator Robert La Follette Sr. and Representative John M. Nelson, both of Wisconsin, promoted the inclusion in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriations act of a provision directing the establishment of a special reference unit within the Library of Congress. Building upon a concept developed by the New York State Library in 1890, and the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library in 1901, they were motivated by Progressive era ideas about the importance of the acquisition of knowledge for an informed and independent legislature. The move also reflected the expanding role of the librarian and the professionalization of the profession. The new department was charged with responding to congressional requests for information. The legislation authorized the Librarian of Congress, Herbert Putnam, to "employ competent persons to prepare such indexes, digests, and compilations of laws as may be required for Congress and other official use..."

Renamed the Legislative Reference Service and given a permanent authorization with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, it assisted Congress primarily by providing facts and publications and by transmitting research and analysis done largely by other government agencies, private organizations, and individual scholars. Verner W. Clapp headed the unit.

The Library of Congress, the home of CRS, had experimented during the 1940s with unrestricted publication Public Affairs Bulletins, which were produced by staff of the Legislative Reference Service, and devoted to various public policy issues. They were promoted by Archibald MacLeish, the Librarian of Congress, and, among other topics, addressed timely policy issues, such as American national defense. About 100 Public Affairs Bulletins were generated before congressional appropriators ended their production in 1951.

The renaming under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 reflected the service's changing mission: This legislation directed CRS to devote more of its efforts and increased resources to doing research and analysis that assists Congress in direct support of the legislative process.

The Congressional Research Service Review launched in 1980 and continued until the early 1990s; then congressional appropriators, once again, invoked "fiscal closure." The Review was published ten times a year and was available to the public by subscription. It offered analytical articles, summaries of CRS research products, and other assistance to the congressional community.

Inquiries increased from 400,000 questions per year in 1980 to 598,000 in 2000. CRS reorganized in 1999 partly to handle the load, relocating staff, adopting more efficient workstations, and attempting to enable more communication across disciplinary specialists.

CRS reports were not generally available to the public until September 18, 2018, when a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 which directed that CRS reports be available to the public was implemented.

Mission
CRS offers Congress research and analysis on all current and emerging issues of national policy. CRS offers timely and confidential assistance to all Members and committees that request it, limited only by CRS's resources and the requirements for balance, nonpartisanship and accuracy.

CRS makes no legislative or other policy recommendations to Congress; its responsibility is to ensure that Members of the House and Senate have available the best possible information and analysis on which to base the policy decisions the American people have elected them to make. In all its work, CRS analysts are governed by requirements for confidentiality, timeliness, accuracy, objectivity, balance, and nonpartisanship.

CRS services are not limited to those that relate directly to enacting new laws. For example, CRS attempts to assess emerging issues and developing problems so that it will be prepared to assist the Congress if and when it becomes necessary. Although it rarely conducts field research, CRS assists committees in other aspects of their study and oversight responsibilities. In addition, it offers numerous courses, including legal research seminars and institutes on the legislative process, the budget processes, and the work of district and state staff. At the beginning of each Congress, CRS also provides an orientation seminar for new Members.

CRS does not conduct research on sitting Members or living former Members of Congress, unless granted specific permission by that Member or if that Member is nominated by the President for another office.

Organization
CRS is divided into six interdisciplinary research divisions, each of which is further divided into subject specialist sections. The six divisions are: American Law; Domestic Social Policy; Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade; Government and Finance; Knowledge Services; and Resources, Science and Industry.

The six research divisions are supported in their work by five "infrastructure" offices: Finance and Administration, Information Management and Technology, Counselor to the Director, Congressional Information and Publishing, and Workforce Management and Development.

Overview of services
Responses to Congressional requests take the form of reports, memoranda, customized briefings, seminars, videotaped presentations, information obtained from automated databases, and consultations in person and by telephone.

CRS "supports the Members, committees, and leaders of the House and Senate at all stages of the legislative process": "At the preliminary stage, members may ask CRS to provide background information and analysis on issues and events so they can better understand the existing situation and then assess whether there is a problem requiring a legislative remedy. This assistance may be a summary and explanation of the scientific evidence on a technically complex matter, for example, or it may be a collection of newspaper and journal articles discussing an issue from different perspectives, or a comparative analysis of several explanations that have been offered to account for a generally recognized problem. CRS also identifies national and international experts with whom Members and staff may consult about whatever issues concern them and sponsors programs at which Members meet with experts to discuss issues of broad interest to Congress." "If a Member decides to introduce a bill, CRS analysts can assist the legislator in clarifying the purposes of the bill, identifying issues it may address, defining alternative ways for dealing with them, evaluating the possible advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, developing information and arguments to support the bill, and anticipating possible criticisms of the bill and responses to them. Although CRS does not draft bills, resolutions, and amendments, its analysts may join staff consulting with the professional draftsman within each chamber's Office of the Legislative Counsel as they translate the Member's policy decisions into formal legislative language. Members and committees also can request CRS to help them assess and compare legislative proposals, including competing bills introduced by Members and proposals presented by executive branch officials, private citizens and organizations. CRS can assess the intent, scope, and limits, of the various proposals."
 * Ideas for legislation. A 2008 CRS report details how the service can assist legislators in evaluating the need for legislation:
 * Analyzing a bill. The same 2008 report also clarifies the various ways in which the service further supports the work of legislators once a bill has been introduced:

The report goes on: "During committee and floor consideration, CRS can assist Representatives and Senators in several different ways, in addition to providing background information to assist Members in understanding the issues a bill addresses. CRS attorneys can help clarify legal effects the bill may have. CRS policy analysts can work with Members in deciding whether to propose amendments and then in making certain that their amendments are designed and phrased to achieve the desired results. CRS also can help Members prepare for the debate by providing data and other information that they can use to support the positions they have decided to take."
 * Hearings. When a subcommittee selects a bill (or several bills on the same subject) for serious attention, it usually begins by conducting public hearings on one or more days at which executive branch officials, other Members of Congress, representatives of private organizations, and even individual citizens present their views on the bill's merits. CRS analysts can assist in this process by providing background information and reports, presenting a preliminary briefing to Members or staff, identifying potential witnesses, and suggesting questions that Members may consider asking the witnesses.
 * Subcommittee or committee votes. After the hearings on a bill, the subcommittee or committee meets to debate and vote on amendments to it. If requested, CRS staff may attend these meetings to serve as a nonpartisan source of expert information available to all Members. If the subcommittee and then the full committee conclude that new legislation is needed, they report a bill to the House or Senate for all its Members to consider. The committee also submits a written report that explains the background for its decision, analyzes the purposes and effects of each major provision of the bill, and includes other information, such as predictions about the cost of implementing it, that help other Members decide whether they should support the bill. CRS specialists may assist the committee's staff in preparing some sections of this report, although cost estimates are developed by the Congressional Budget Office.
 * Parliamentary procedure. CRS staff can clarify the legislative procedures of the House and Senate, assisting Members and staff in understanding the effects of these procedures and how Members can use the procedures to promote their own legislative goals.
 * Conference committees. CRS analysts can contribute to this last stage of the legislative process by helping identify the issues to be resolved, by clarifying and comparing the positions of the two houses on each issue, and by identifying different ways in which the legislative disagreements could be resolved.

CRS also performs several functions that support Congressional and public understanding of the legislative process and other issues.

 * Bill Summaries. Since 1935 the Legislative Analysis and Information Section (formerly "Bill Digest") of CRS has had statutory responsibility for preparation of authoritative, objective, nonpartisan summaries of introduced public bills and resolutions and maintenance of historical legislative information. Detailed revised summaries are written to reflect changes made in the course of the legislative process. This CRS office also prepares titles, bill relationships, subject terms, and Congressional Record citations for debates, full texts of measures, and Member introductory remarks. The bill summaries are released to the public via THOMAS, the Library of Congress's online database.
 * Constitution Annotated. The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service prepares The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (popularly known as the Constitution Annotated), a continually updated legal treatise that explains the U.S. Constitution as it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service reports
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context.

Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; 566 new products were prepared in Fiscal Year 2011. Nearly 7,800 were in existence as of the end of 2011.

The types of CRS reports include Issue Briefs (IB), Research Memos (RM), and Reports, which appear in both Short (RS) and Long (RL) formats.

A categorical listing of CRS reports was published by Air War College of the United States Air Force, last updated on May 13, 2011.

Access to CRS reports
most CRS reports are available to the public through the official US Congress website crsreports.congress.gov. Older CRS reports versions may be accessed from community supported sources. Since as of September 18, 2018, the official US government website "makes non-confidential reports available on its website" alternative access sites are less needed.

Previously they were confidential. While not classified, they were exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests due to Congressional privilege and therefore not readily accessible nor was their authenticity easily verifiable. Prior to September 2018, CRS products were only made directly available to members of Congress, Congressional committees, and CRS's sister agencies (CBO and GAO) through the internal CRS Web system.

Predecessors
Other than a passing generic reference to "reports" in its statutory charter, CRS has no mandate for these products. They are created in the context of the overall mission of CRS to provide research support to Congress.

The Library of Congress, the home of CRS, had experimented during the 1940s with unrestricted publication Public Affairs Bulletins, which were produced by staff of the Legislative Reference Service, and devoted to various public policy issues. They were promoted by Archibald MacLeish, the Librarian of Congress, and, among other topics, addressed timely policy issues, such as American national defense. About 100 Public Affairs Bulletins were generated before congressional appropriators ended their production in 1951.

When the Congressional Research Service Review was launched in 1980, it continued for a little more than a decade before congressional appropriators, once again, invoked fiscal closure with the last issue published v. 13 #9 (Sept. 1992). The Review, which was published ten times a year and available to the public by subscription, offered original analytical articles, summaries highlighting CRS research products, and other kinds of assistance to the congressional community.

Copyright status
The New York Times has written that the reports contain neither classified information nor copyrighted information.

However, in a passage analyzing its own liability under United States copyright law, the CRS has written that: "CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public domain sources, in certain instances the material, appropriately credited, may be from copyrighted sources. To the extent that the material is copyrighted, CRS either: However, the copyright permission obtained is usually understood to be for the purpose of legislative use by members of Congress.
 * obtains permission for the use;
 * considers its information-gathering function protected by the speech or debate clause;
 * or believes that the use falls under the 'fair use' doctrine of the Copyright Act as applied in the context of the legislative process."

Thus, persons seeking public domain content in CRS reports can avoid infringing copyright by paying attention to the internal citations.

Appearance
CRS written work products fall into three major categories:(1) Congressionally Distributed Products Providing Research and Analysis on Legislative Issues, (2) Responses to Individual Members and Committees, and (3) Legislative Summaries, Digests, and Compilations.

Congressionally Distributed Products Providing Research and Analysis on Legislative Issues itself is broken into two subcategories: Reports for Congress and Congressional Distribution Memoranda.

Reports for Congress: CRS often prepares reports for Congress, analyses, or studies on specific policy issues of legislative interest. These reports clearly define issues in legislative contexts. Analysts define and explain technical terms and concepts, frame the issues in understandable and timely contexts, and provide appropriate, accurate, and valid quantitative data. The content of the report is summarized on its first page. These reports may be updated as events occur, or archived when they no longer reflect the current legislative agenda but can provide background and historical context.

Congressional Distribution Memoranda: Similar to the reports, memoranda are prepared when the interest of a relatively small number of congressional readers is anticipated or when an issue is sufficiently transient that CRS deems it inappropriate to include it in its list of products. Memoranda can be recast as a report if it becomes important to a larger congressional audience.

Responses to Individual Members and Committees: CRS staff provide custom services for Members and committees and their staff, tailored to address specific questions, and usually in a memorandum format. Written documents include Confidential Memoranda, Email Responses, and Briefing Books.

Confidential Memoranda: Confidential memoranda are prepared to meet a specific congressional request and are often designed for a congressional reader with a high level of expertise in a given topic. These memoranda are prepared for the use of the requester and are not distributed by CRS to a larger audience unless the requester gives permission.

Email Responses: Email responses to request for information can range from providing a statistic or a name to a short briefing to an interactive discussion on a variety of issues.

Briefing Books: Prepared for use by congressional delegations traveling abroad, these books are collections of material that support the specific purposes of a congressional trip. Briefing books can include a variety of materials, such as maps, selected products, and brief tailored written work, all of which contain background and current issues regarding U.S. relations with specific countries on the trip as well as questions Members may ask when meeting with government or other officials.

Legislative Summaries, Digests, and Compilations: Since 1935, the Legislative Analysis and Information Section (formerly the "Bill Digest" section) of CRS has had the statutory responsibility for preparation of authoritative, objective, nonpartisan summaries of introduced public bills and resolutions and the maintenance of historical legislative information. Detailed revised summaries are written to reflect changes made in the course of the legislative process. This CRS office also prepares titles, bill relationships, subject terms, and Congressional Record citations for debates, full text of measures, and Member introductory remarks.

Confidentiality of CRS Reports
The confidentiality status of Congressional Research Service reports, until September 18, 2018, was a matter of contention due to the lack of public access to research that was paid for by taxpayer money.

Congress had historically reserved to itself control over the dissemination of CRS products to the public on the principle that CRS, as an extension of congressional staff, works exclusively for the Congress: "dissemination is limited to Members of Congress." From 1952 until 2018, a provision was included in CRS annual appropriations acts requiring approval by one of its two congressional oversight committees for acts of "publication" by the CRS.

The limitation began in the House as a flat prohibition on publications by the Library of Congress using funds appropriated to the Legislative Reference Service (now CRS). In 1954, a provision was added providing for exception only with the approval of our oversight committees.

Unlocking CRS report access

 * 1978: The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issued a proposal under which CRS would have received access to the files of State research materials abstracted by the NCSL, and would have had the opportunity to order copies of desired items for use in answering congressional inquiries. In return, CRS would have provided the NCSL with periodic listings of CRS Reports (called "multiliths" at that time) and with only one copy of those CRS Reports which the NCSL requested. Under this proposal, the NCSL also would have gained access to certain files from the Library of Congress's SCORPIO system, including CRS Issue Briefs. A congressional committee expressed the view that it was appropriate for Members of Congress, rather than CRS, to determine whether and to what extent various CRS products should be publicly disseminated. As a result, no action was taken to implement the proposed CRS-NCSL exchange.
 * 1980: The Joint Committee on the Library released a policy statement regarding the publication of CRS written products: that said "the long-standing policy of confidentiality in the work of CRS for individual congressional clients should be maintained" and gave cost as part of its reason. A subsequent statement referred to "the legislative process and ... the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution."
 * 1990: Facing a challenge, the Senate Majority Leader reiterated the importance of "protecting the work done by CRS in preparing communications to the Members and committees of Congress": and elaborated by noting "A committee or Member of the Senate, of course, may determine to make available to the public a report or memorandum which the Congressional Research Service has provided to the committee or Senator... Nevertheless, ... it is important to protect the confidentiality of CRS's preparatory work in order to encourage the freest possible exploration by CRS..."
 * 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003: Attempts were made by members of congress to pass legislation requiring the CRS to make its products available on a public website. All failed to pass.

Some members of congress used committee websites to disseminate individual reports, beginning in 1998. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) was the first to act, putting almost 300 CRS products on his website. They were subsequently removed.

Representatives Shays and Mark Green (R-WI) have placed many CRS products on their own websites in an attempt to make some CRS products available to the public.

"Reports are produced by the Congressional Research Service staff for the education of members of Congress", Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue in the House, wrote in an e-mail message to The New York Times. "Just as other memos produced by staffers for members of Congress aren't made public, these are not."

This was countered by a clarification saying that the goal was the public release of only reports the research service produces, not the memorandums it also writes for members of Congress. (Former) Senator Joseph I. Lieberman said in an e-mail message to The New York Times. "These reports inform members of Congress and their staffs on a wide range of issues. The American people, who pay for these reports, should be able to learn from this same expert analysis."

1997 CRS memorandum
In a December 1997 memorandum, the CRS summarized the "Legal Issues Presented by Proposals for the General Release of CRS Products to the Public":
 * Speech and debate immunity: Reducing "substantial role in the legislative process".  Such proposals might "cause the judiciary and administrative agencies to reassess their perception of CRS as playing a substantial role in the legislative process, and thereby might endanger a claim of [Speech and Debate Clause] immunity even in an instance in which CRS was fulfilling its legislative mission (e.g., by preparing a confidential memorandum for a Member on a pending bill.)"
 * Libel, slander, and defamation. CRS also believes that slander or libel actions might occur more frequently if CRS products were put on the Internet, because more people would read CRS products and know of their existence.
 * Confidentiality of CRS files. CRS believes that broader dissemination of CRS products would likely inspire more litigants who wish to obtain, for purposes of discovery, the files of CRS analysts. This might, CRS argues, cause the public release of correspondence between Members of Congress and CRS.
 * Copyright infringement. CRS argues that it might be subject to claims of copyright infringement if CRS products were available on the Internet. CRS sometimes incorporates copyrighted work into its reports and products. (Elsewhere, the CRS notes that these inclusions are always "appropriately credited".)

Memorandum of Gary Ruskin
On January 5, 1998, Gary Ruskin, Director of the Congressional Accountability Project, wrote a memorandum that disputed each of the arguments in the 1997 CRS memorandum.

Letter of Stanley M. Brand
On January 27, 1998, Stanley M. Brand, the former General Counsel to the House of Representatives, wrote a letter to Senator John McCain:

"Concerning applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, 6, cl. 1, to certain CRS products which your bill would, if enacted, make available on the Internet, I believe that the concerns expressed in the CRS memorandum are either overstated, or the extent they are not, provide no basis for arguing that protection of CRS works will be weakened by your bill."

(See also his letter addressing a 2001 reintroduction of the same legislation. )

John McCain cited this letter on the Senate floor when he was proposing an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 1999 that would direct the Director of the Congressional Research Service to post 'CRS Reports to Congress' and 'CRS Issue Briefs' on the Internet. In this speech, he also noted:

"I would like to point out that the Rules Committee has approved a decentralized system, where Senators can release CRS products on their private web pages. I see no difference between the release of CRS material on one hundred independent web pages and THOMAS, a Congressionally mandated web page. Both approaches should protect CRS equally.

I also urge my colleagues not to believe other arguments that CRS will suffer from a huge rise in workload from this amendment. It will require only two computer technicians to set up this web site, and keep it updated. CRS already has a process for deciding which information goes up on their web site for Members of Congress. This bill only asks that they duplicate this process for a public version of that web page. Also, we release paper copies of these products to our constituents every day without causing a great strain to CRS staff. Finally, I have the results of an analysis of state legislative research organizations that do work similar to CRS and post these products on the Internet. None of these organizations have complained of a huge increased workload from releasing their products to the Internet."

Written work-product
Document types include CRS Reports, appropriations Reports (usually released as a Long Report), and Congressional distribution memoranda.

CRS Reports
The most commonly requested CRS product is the general congressional distribution reports, known as "CRS Reports". The purpose of a report is to clearly define the issue in the legislative context. The types of CRS reports include Issue Briefs (IB), Research Memos (RM), and Reports, which appear in both Short (RS) and Long (RL) formats.

Other than a passing generic reference to "reports" in its statutory charter, CRS has no mandate for these products. They are created in the context of the overall mission of CRS to provide research support to Congress.

The reports may take many forms, including policy analysis, economic studies, statistical reviews, and legal analyses.

CRS reports are considered in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, and topped the list of the "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology in 1996.

title: Congressional Research Service


text:
Yaroslav

Yaroslav is a Slavic masculine given name. Its variant spelling is Jaroslav and Iaroslav, and its feminine form is Yaroslava. The surname derived from the name is Yaroslavsky and its variants. All may refer to:

Historical figures

 * Yaroslav I the Wise (978–1054), Grand Prince of Kiev, later King Jaroslav I of Kiev, and son of Vladimir the Great, founder of Yaroslav the city
 * Yaroslav II of Kiev (died 1180), son of Iziaslav II of Kiev
 * Yaroslav II of Vladimir (1191–1246), Grand Prince and son of Vsevolod the Big Nest and Maria Shvarnovna
 * Yaroslav of Tver (1220–1271), sometimes called Yaroslav III, Grand Prince and son of Yaroslav II of Vladimir

Yaroslav

 * Yaroslav Amosov (born 1993), Ukrainian mixed martial arts fighter
 * Yaroslav Askarov (born 2002), Russian ice hockey player
 * Yaroslav Blanter (born 1967), Russian physicist
 * Yaroslav Levchenko (born 1987), Russian artist based in Greece
 * Yaroslav Paniot (born 1997), Ukrainian figure skater
 * Yaroslav Rakitskiy (born 1989), Ukrainian footballer
 * Yaroslav Senyshyn, also known as Slava, Canadian pianist, author, professor of philosophy of music aesthetics, philosophy, and moral education
 * Yaroslav Stetsko (1912–1986), leader of the Stepan Banderas Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)

Yaroslava

 * Yaroslava Bondarenko (born 1997), Russian cyclist
 * Yaroslava Frolova (born 1997), Russian handball player
 * Yaroslava Mahuchikh (born 2001), Ukrainian high jumper.
 * Yaroslava Nechaeva, ice dancer who competed for the Soviet Union, Russia, and Latvia
 * Yaroslava Pavlovich (born 1969), Belarusian rowing player
 * Yaroslava Plaviuk (1926–2023), Ukrainian women's movement leader and activist
 * Yaroslava Pulinovich, Russian playwright and screenwriter, writer of the 2017 film Bird
 * Yaroslava Shvedova (born 1987), Russian-born Kazakhstan tennis player
 * Yaroslava Yakushina (born 1993), Russian middleweight boxer

Jaroslav

 * Jaroslav Drobný, Czech tennis player
 * Jaroslav Foglar, Czech novelist
 * Jaroslav Halák, Slovak ice hockey player
 * Jaroslav Hašek, Czech author
 * Jaroslav Heyrovský, Czech chemist and inventor, recipient of the Nobel prize
 * Jaroslav Janiš, Czech race car driver
 * Jaroslav Janus, Slovak ice hockey player
 * Jaroslav Jakubovič, Czech jazz saxophonist
 * Jaroslav Levinský, Czech tennis player
 * Jaroslav Modrý, former Czech ice hockey player
 * Jaroslav Nešetřil, Czech mathematician
 * Jaroslav Pelikan, American Christian scholar
 * Jaroslav Pospíšil, Czech tennis player
 * Jaroslav Seifert, Czech poet, recipient of the Nobel prize
 * Jaroslav Špaček, Czech Ice Hockey player

Jarosław

 * Jarosław, Duke of Opole (c. 1143–1201), Duke Opole from 1173 and Bishop of Wrocław from 1198 until his death
 * Jarosław z Bogorii i Skotnik (c. 1276–1376), Polish nobleman and bishop, member of the Bogoriowie family of the Bogorya
 * Jarosław Dąbrowski (1836–1871), Polish nobleman, military officer, and political activist
 * Jarosław Hampel (born 1982), Polish Speedway rider
 * Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz (1894–1980), Polish writer, poet, essayist, dramatist and translator
 * Jarosław Kaczyński (born 1949), Polish politician, Prime Minister (2006-2007)
 * Jarosław Kukowski (born 1972), Polish contemporary painter
 * Jarosław Kukulski (1944–2010) Polish composer
 * Jarosław Wałęsa (born 1976), Polish politician and son of former Polish President Lech Wałęsa

Jarosława

 * Jarosława Jóźwiakowska (born 1937), Polish athlete who mainly competed in the high jump

Contemporary people with the surname

 * Yemelyan Yaroslavsky (Minei Gubelman), Soviet politician
 * Zev Yaroslavsky (born 1948), U.S. politician
 * Oleksandr Yaroslavsky (born 1959), Ukrainian businessman

title: Yaroslav


text:
Talk:Congressional Research Service

CRS Report
I'm not fond of the redirect from CRS Report to Congressional_Research_Service, since I frequently insert the CRS Report wikilink to inform outsiders what a CRS Report is, leaving them quite befuddled.

I'm going to add a note to my to-do list to solve this problem, but if someone can tackle it in the meantime that would be great. Until then, I'm changing the redirect to point to Congressional_Research_Service. Agradman talk/contribs 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly not so RS after all...
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/01/quote-of-the-day-2.html In 2003, Dan invented a new standard of ‘neutrality’ that prohibits any analyst, no matter the weight of evidence, from stating that one position is stronger than another. The result is a remarkable watering down of CRS reports, a trend that has been noticed not only by congressional staff but by readers outside of Congress. Neither CBO nor GAO follows the standard of ‘neutrality[.]’

 * Ouch! Hcobb (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a common refrain from long-time staff.

See long video of experts on CRS. http://transparencycaucus.org/events/2011/05/09/may-2011-act-event/

Luminousenchiladas (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

nonpartisanship - what exactly does that mean?
Nonpartisanship is a deceptive misnomer that attempts to paint a patina of objectivity onto material that is anything but objective. To many, nonpartisanship implies "unaffiliated with any political party, e.g. no Democrat or Republican bias". However, that definition is inadequate at best, deceptive at worst. What nonpartisanship should imply is "unaffiliated with any specific political philosophy, e.g. no bias in the Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, libertarian, Socialist, Communist, etc. direction". From my perusal of the work done by the CRS, that is just not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.178.22 (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you appear to be wishing to wield a definition of "nonpartisan" that is not in the English language dictionaries, which focus on relationship to party, not philosophy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

THOMAS defunct; Need expert update
On July 5, 2016, THOMAS was replaced by (or merged into) congress.gov. This article lists 14 places that still refer to THOMAS, as well as LIS and crs.gov. According to the article, these three websites have different contents and different access procedures.

Now that THOMAS is no more, this article needs a major update by someone familiar with the subject. For example, what was the purpose of switching over to congress.gov? With the reorganization, will all CRS Reports be available to the public? This update should be made in concert with changes to congress.gov. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Links to old revisions
I stumbled upon this article when it appeared like this, with lots of links to old revisions in the "Confidentiality of CRS Reports" section. I can't find the specific part of the MOS that says you're not supposed to do this, but I'm pretty certain links to diffs aren't supposed to be in mainspace, so I've removed them; I also removed a few parts that didn't really make sense without the diffs, and which were uncited. Thought I'd mention it here in case anyone ever wants to bring back anything useful from those old revisions. YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Congressional Research Service