text:
Charter of the French Language

The Charter of the French Language (La charte de la langue française), also known as Bill 101 (Loi 101), is a law in the Canadian province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the official language of the provincial government. It is the central piece of legislation that forms Quebec's language policy and one of the three principle statutes upon which the cohesion of Quebec's society is based, along with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec. The Charter also protects the Indigenous languages of Quebec.

First tabled by Camille Laurin, the Minister of Cultural Development under the first Parti Québécois government of Premier René Lévesque, it was passed by the National Assembly and received Royal Assent on August 26, 1977. The Charter 's provisions expanded upon the 1974 Official Language Act (Bill 22), which was enacted during the tenure of Premier Robert Bourassa's Liberal government to make French the official language of Quebec. Prior to 1974, Quebec had no official language and was subject only to the requirements on the use of English and French contained in article 133 of the British North America Act, 1867. The Charter has been amended more than six times since 1977, each of which has been met with controversy in Quebec. Most recently, in 2022, the Charter was amended (also covered in this article) by the adoption of the Act respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec, commonly known as Bill 96.

Objective
The preamble of the Charter states that the National Assembly resolves "to make French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business". It also states that the National Assembly shall pursue this objective "in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness" and recognizes "the right of the First Nations and the Inuit in Quebec, the first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their original language and culture".

Titles
The Charter consists of six titles and two schedules:

 * Title I includes nine chapters pertaining to the status of the French language, which:
 * declare French the sole official language (chapter I),
 * define the fundamental language rights of persons (chapter II), and
 * define the status of French in the parliament and the courts (chapter III), the civil administration (chapter IV), the semipublic agencies (chapter V), labour relations (chapter VI), commerce and business (chapter VII) and language of instruction (chapter VIII).
 * Title II includes five chapters pertaining to linguistic officialization, toponymy and the francization of the civil service and businesses.
 * Title III establishes the Office québécois de la langue française (Quebec Office of the French language) and defines its mission, powers and organization.
 * Title IV establishes the Conseil supérieur de la langue française (Superior Council of the French language).
 * Title V and VI define penal provisions and sanctions and transitional and miscellaneous provisions.

Status of the French language
In order to achieve the goal of making French the "normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business" and ensure the respect of francophone Quebecers' language rights, the Charter contains a number of key provisions and various regulations.

Official language
In the first article of the Charter, French is declared the official language of Quebec.

The French language was previously declared the sole official language of Quebec with the adoption of the Official Language Act in 1974. Quebec is constitutionally obliged nonetheless to provide English services in the courts and the National Assembly of Quebec (see below).

Fundamental language rights
The fundamental French-language rights in Quebec are:

 * 1) The right to have the civil administration, the health services and social services, the public utility enterprises, the professional corporations, the associations of employees and all enterprises doing business in Quebec communicate with the public in French. (article 2)
 * 2) The right to speak French in deliberative assemblies. (article 3)
 * 3) The right of workers to carry on their activities in French. (article 4)
 * 4) The right of consumers to be informed and served in French. (article 5)
 * 5) The right of persons eligible for instruction in Quebec to receive that instruction in French. (article 6)

Parliament and courts
French is the declared language of the legislature and courts in Quebec. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, still in effect, nonetheless requires that bills be printed, published, passed and assented to in French and English in the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Quebec.

French or English may be used by any person before the courts of Quebec. Parties may request the translation in French or English of the judgments by the courts or decisions rendered by any "body discharging quasi-judicial functions".

The French text prevails over the English one, in case of any discrepancy, for any regulation to which section 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867 does not apply.

The first version of the Charter provided that laws be enacted only in French. In 1979, the related provisions (articles 7 through 13) were rendered inoperative by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie; however, Quebec responded by re-enacting in French and in English the Charter of the French Language, leaving intact articles 7 through 13.

In 1993, the Charter 's provisions related to the language of the legislature and courts were made compliant with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Civil administration
The government departments and agencies are designated by their French name alone, and all administrative documents are drafted and published in that official language. All communications by the administration with other governments and legal persons, between departments and internally inside departments, are conducted in the official language.

A person must have knowledge of the official language appropriate to the office for which he or she is applying.

A non-official language may be used on signs and posters of the administration, but only for health or public safety reasons.

Semi-public agencies
Public utilities and professional orders must provide service in the official language and use it for their internal and general communications. Professional orders may issue permits only to persons who have a knowledge of the official language appropriate to the practice of their profession.

Labour relations
Nineteen articles of the Charter provide for the general goal of making French the language of labour relations and ensuring each worker's right to work in French.

Employers are to draw up written communications to all or part of their staff, including after termination of the employment relationship, in French. They are also required to publish offers of employment, transfer or promotion in the official language. An employment contract must be provided in French first to a candidate if it falls under the definition of contracts of adhesion (i.e., a contract whose main provisions are not negotiable). It is only after the parties have examined the contract's French version that they may choose to be bound by its version in another language. Freely negotiated employment contracts may be drawn up in another language than French at the parties' express wish.

In particular, an employer cannot dismiss, lay off, demote, transfer or take reprisals against, or impose any other penalty on, a staff member on the sole account of he or she being exclusively French-speaking or of possessing insufficient knowledge of a non-official language, or because that member demanded the respect of his or her right to work in French. As a job requirement, knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than French is prohibited, unless the nature of the duties require it.

The Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Employment Standards, Equity, Health and Safety Commission) arbitrates in case of disagreement over the necessity of knowing a non-official language to perform a given work. The burden of the proof is on the employer, who must satiety each the following criteria in order to meet the requirement of having taken all reasonable means to avoid requiring knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language:

 * 1) The employer assessed the actual language needs associated with the duties to be performed;
 * 2) The employer made sure that the language knowledge already required from other staff members was insufficient for the performance of those duties; and
 * 3) The employer restricted as much as possible the number of positions involving duties whose performance requires knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language.

Commerce and business
Product labels, their instructions, manuals, warranty certificates as well as restaurant menus and wine lists must be in French. Other languages may be used, provided French's prominence is at least equivalent.

Catalogues, brochures, folders, commercial directories and other such publications must be in French. All software (for example, video games and operating systems) must be available in French unless no such version exists.

Signs and posters must be in French, and if they include any additional language, the French must be markedly predominant. A recognized trademark within the meaning of the Trademarks Act may appear exclusively in a language other than French unless a French version has been registered. Where a trademark is displayed outside a building exclusively in a language other than French, a sufficient presence of French must also be ensured.

A number of exceptions to the general rules for commercial products, signs and advertising:

 * Products destined exclusively for export;
 * Educational products for the teaching of a language other than French;
 * Cultural and ideological companies, groups, signs, and literature (including non-French broadcasters and newspapers); and
 * Companies (usually multinational corporations) that sign an agreement with the OQLF permitting an exemption from the francization requirement. (However, the rules regarding the right of a worker to work in French still apply.)

In some parts of Quebec, like Montreal, bilingual signs with French and English text of equal sizes can be seen (such as in historically English educational institutions, and in federally regulated businesses), although French is sometimes predominant on these signs. For example, French is located to the left of other languages so that it is read before the non-French text when reading left to right. (Formerly, the size and colour of text in other languages were tightly regulated as well.)

Application to indigenous languages
Though article 97 clarifies that while "the Indian reserves are not subject to this Act", the local indigenous languages are still subject to it off-reserve. For example, indigenous languages are not exempted from the application of article 58, whereby "public signs, advertising and posters must be in French", but may be in the local indigenous language "provided that French is markedly predominant".

Though article 58 does allow the provincial government to "determine by regulation the places, cases, conditions or circumstances ... where French need not be predominant or where such signs, posters and advertising may be in another language only", it imposes no obligation on the government to exempt indigenous languages.

Language of instruction
The language of instruction from kindergarten to secondary school is French. (The instruction language is the language in which the classes are taught. Learning of English as a second language is mandatory for all children attending French school beginning in elementary school.)

Articles 87, 88 and 89 provide for the use of Indigenous languages and Inuktitut as the language of instruction. The rate of introduction of French and English as languages of instruction is left to school committees and parents' committees.

At the request of parents, the following may receive instruction in English:

 * 1) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English anywhere in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;
 * 2) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada.

The original 1977 Charter provided for the English instruction not on the basis of a parent having received his instruction in English in Canada, but in Quebec only. This came to be amended following the adoption of the Constitution Act 1982, which defined the educational right of French and English minorities in all provinces under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Office québécois de la langue française
The Office québécois de la langue française (Quebec Office of the French Language) (OQLF), informally known by some Anglophones as the "language police", is the commission responsible for administering policies pertaining to linguistic officialization, toponymy and francization of civil administration and businesses. It also has the mission of "monitoring the linguistic situation in Quebec", promoting the official language and conducting research. In 2016–17, the budget of the OQLF was CA$24.1 million. The OQLF has seen, from time to time, criticism over some of its decisions, such as the 2013 controversy dubbed "pastagate", in which it cited an Italian restaurant was cited for having on its menu Italian words like "pasta", "antipasti" and "calamari" rather than using their French equivalents. The OQLF has also objected to use of the term "grilled cheese sandwich", insisting that they be called "sandwich de fromage fondu", which literally translates to "melted cheese sandwich". Likewise, the OQLF objects to "on/off" switches and to the sale of "steaks", insisting that they be called "bifteck", despite the fact that "steak" is the more commonly used term by Francophones."

Conseil supérieur de la langue française
The Conseil supérieur de la langue française (Superior Council of the French language) is an advisory body whose mission is "to advise the Minister responsible for the application of the Charter of the French Language on any question relative to the French language in Quebec". It works in close collaboration with equivalent bodies in France, Belgium and Switzerland.

Legal dispute
Language in Canada is defined federally by the Official Languages Act since 1969 and is part of the Constitution of Canada since 1982. Parts of the Charter have been amended in response to rulings by Quebec Courts which were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Before 1982, the only part of the Charter of the French Language that could be challenged constitutionally was that of the language of legislation and the courts. It was challenged in 1979 by Peter Blaikie, Roland Durand and Yoine Goldstein (Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie).

In 1982, the patriation of the Canadian Constitution occurred as the British Parliament passed the Canada Act 1982. This act enacted the Constitution Act, 1982 for Canada (including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms); section 23 introduced the notion of "minority-language education rights". This opened another door to a constitutional dispute of the Charter.

Alliance Quebec, an anglophone rights lobby group, was founded in May 1982 and operated until 2005. It was mainly through this civil association that a number of lawyers have challenged the constitutionality of Quebec's territorial language policy.

A judge temporarily suspended two articles of Bill 96. The articles mandated companies to pay for the translation into French of legal documentation. Quebec Superior Court Justice Chantal Corriveau decided that requiring companies to pay for certified translation might delay some anglophone bodies from the right to access justice.

1988 and 1993 amendments (Bills 178 and 86)
Bill 178 was passed in direct response to the legal case of Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) and invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield the articles on business signage from judicial review. Because the law could not be challenged in Canadian courts due the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, a group of English-rights activists instead filled a claim at the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1989: in Ballantyne v Canada, the Quebec language law was found to have violated the rights of the complainants. In response, the Quebec Liberals introduced Bill 86 which made the Charter compliant with the Canadian court rulings without the need for the override provisions.

Proposed 2013 amendments (Bill 14)
In 2013 Diane De Courcy, the Minister responsible for the Charter of the French Language under Premier Pauline Marois of the Parti Québécois introduced Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and Other Legislative Provisions. The bill would have made changes to both the Charter of the French Language and the Charter of Rights of Quebec.

Marois eventually withdrew the legislation in the face of criticism from Anglophone and Allophone Quebecers and the Quebec Liberal Party, and shifted focus to the Charter of Quebec Values. However, most of the details formed basis of the 2021 amendments.

2021 amendments (Bill 96)
On August 26, 2020, Quebec's Minister of Justice and French Language, Simon Jolin-Barrette, announced plans for 2021 that would strengthen the Charter.

On May 12, 2021, the CAQ government of François Legault announced Bill 96, which strengthened the charter.

Bill 96 invoked the notwithstanding clause, allowing the law to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The invocation expires five years after its use, or earlier if legislation is passed to repeal it sooner. At the point it expires, it may be renewed again by the Quebec National Assembly.

Some of the proposed measures were.
 * Adding clauses to the Canadian Constitution, saying Quebec is a nation and that its official and common language is French.
 * Forcing all commercial signage that includes non-French trademarks to include a "predominant" amount of French on all signs.
 * Removing a municipality's bilingual status if census data shows that English is the first language for less than 50 per cent of its population, unless the municipality decides to maintain its status by passing a resolution to keep it.
 * Creating the French Language Ministry and the position of French-Language Commissioner, as well as bolstering the role of the OQLF.
 * Giving access to French training for those who are not obligated by law to go to school in French.
 * Applying the charter to businesses with 25−49 employees and federal workplaces.

The leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, said he supported aspects of the bill, but felt it did not go far enough, saying, "Unfortunately, the CAQ gave us the absolute minimum." A few days later PQ announced their plan if elected, which would include
 * cutting off funding to companies that do not respect their obligations when it comes to using French
 * subjecting CEGEPs to the charter, imposing a uniform French exam on English-speaking CEGEP students
 * lowering immigration thresholds.

According to a poll by Léger published on May 22, among Francophones the approval rate for the various proposals was fluctuating between 72% and 95%.

Protests against the bill included "several thousand" people in Montreal and Indigenous youth.

Bill 96 was adopted on May 24, 2022, with 78 MNAs in favour (from the CAQ and Québec solidaire) and 29 against (from the Liberal Party and Parti Québécois). It received royal assent from Lieutenant Governor J. Michel Doyon on June 1, and subsequently became law.

Criticism
The Charter was criticised by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who called Bourassa's Bill 22 as a "slap in the face", in his memoirs, as he saw it as contrary to the federal government's initiative to mandate bilingualism. Except for New Brunswick, most other provinces that accepted Trudeau's bilingualism initiative never fully implemented it. The most notable case was Ontario, where Premier Bill Davis did not grant full official status to the French language, despite the fact that the infrastructure was already in place.

Political opposition to the Charter and earlier such language legislation has had limited success, given the support of the laws by the Parti Québécois and Quebec Liberal Party. Legislative initiatives prior to Bill 101 such as An Act to promote the French language in Quebec (Bill 63) were often perceived by francophones as insufficient. After Bourassa passed the Official Language Act, opponents turned their support to the Union Nationale in the 1976 election, but despite that short resurgence of support, the party collapsed in the subsequent election. Court challenges have been more successful: Many of the key provisions of the initial language legislation having been rewritten to comply with rulings. Despite compliance since 1993 of the Charter with the Canadian Constitution, opposition to the Charter and the government body enforcing it has continued.

According to Statistics Canada, up to 244,000 English-speaking people have emigrated from Quebec to other provinces since the 1970s; those in Quebec whose sole native language was English dropped from 789,000 in 1971 to 575,555 in 2006 when they accounted for 7.6% of the population. Altogether, in 2006, 744,430 (10%) used mostly English as their home language, and 918,955 (12.2%) comprised the Official Language Minority, having English as their First Official language spoken. When many anglophones relocated outside of Quebec after the introduction of the Charter in the 1970s, several English-language schools in Montreal closed their doors. These school closures may also have been brought about by restrictions on who can attend English schools, which has been another ongoing drain on the English school system. Of the Anglophones between 25 and 44 years old who left the province between 1981 and 1986, 15,000 individuals, which was half of this group, had university degrees. The province's unemployment rate rose from 8.7 per cent in 1976 to 10.4 per cent in 1977, remaining above 10 per cent for 19 of the last 23 years of the 20th century. The language barrier has also been regarded as a "soft cap" for population growth; for instance from 2013 to 2014 while Montreal gained around 43,000 immigrants from other parts of the world it lost 10,000 residents to other provinces.

Many companies, most notably Sun Life, Royal Bank and Bank of Montreal (which even considered removing "Montreal" from its name), moved their major operations to Toronto as a consequence of the adoption of the Charter. This concerted fleeing of business and subsequent loss of thousands of jobs is believed to have hindered Quebec's economy and allowed Toronto to overtake Montreal as Canada's business centre. On the other hand, Toronto's advantage had been growing since the 1930s and had become apparent in the 1950s, and is also related to the greater importance of the United States, rather than Britain, in Canada's economy. This action may have simply accelerated, rather than allowed, this change of status between the two cities.

Levying fines of up to CA$7000 per offence, Charter enforcers were widely labelled in the English media as the "language police" or "tongue troopers". While the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) provides several warnings before resorting to legal sanctions, allegations that it has abused its powers has led to charges of racism and harassment. The OQLF took action against stores retailing imported kosher goods that did not meet its labelling requirements, an action perceived in the Jewish community as an unfair targeting that coincided with a high-profile case against the well-known Schwartz's delicatessen, the owner of which was subjected to failed legal action by the OQLF due to the apostrophe in his sign, which remains. In the mid-1980s, another delicatessen Dunn's got in trouble for having the English word, "Smoked Meat" on the sign out front. The manager at the time stated that Parti Québécois MNA Gérald Godin himself ordered the sandwich by its name. Dunn's also fought a ruling to change the name of "Smoked Meat" to "Boeuf Mariné" in order to conform to Quebec Language Law. They won the ruling by appeal by proving that if they didn't advertise "Smoked Meat" they would confuse and anger customers. Due to the work of Myer Dunn, under the new ruling, enacted in 1987, Smoked meat became a word in both Official languages of Canada. In 2002, there were reported cases of harassment of allophone merchants who refused to speak French.

The 2004 annual report of the OQLF was criticized by a columnist of The Gazette who alleged that there was a "totalitarian mindset in the bureaucracy". The columnist complained of sections of the report which described the continued prevalence of languages other than French in two-thirds of Montreal's households as an "alarming" trend that would present a formidable challenge to francophones in Montreal. In reality, the report judged alarming the fact that adoption of English as a home language by allophones grew faster than the adoption of French as a home language.

The use of the notwithstanding clause in the 1990s to circumvent the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regards to signage also resulted in reactions from other Canadian provinces; the syndrome de Sault Ste. Marie was a series of symbolic but divisive resolutions by some municipalities outside Quebec declaring their towns unilingually English in protest of what they saw as an infringement on the rights embodied in the charter. It is often believed that the controversy over the Charter was what influenced the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord to fail. The Supreme Court in their ruling regarding the signs case which led to the use of the notwithstanding clause, ruled that in fact any sign law was a violation of the freedom of expression right.

Aside from the civil rights infringement, the Charter has faced legal challenges because the restricted education opportunities have hindered not only unilingual but bilingual anglophones' employment. Although the Charter made French the official language of government and civil administration, the same cannot be said of the private sector. Despite over 40 years of the Charter, it has never been applied as rigorously as intended because to do so would violate civil liberties. English is still often made a requirement by employers in Montreal, including many French-Canadian owned ones, and, to a lesser extent, in Gatineau and Quebec City, with the workforce in Montreal remaining largely bilingual.

On November 14, 1988, the political and human rights watchdog organization Freedom House published "The Doctrine of 'Preponderance of Blood' in South Africa, the Soviet Union and Quebec" in its journal Exchange. Introduced by Zbigniew Brzezinski (an anglophone who had once lived in Montreal) former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's National Security adviser, the essay compared the language of instruction provisions of the charter with South African apartheid statutes and jurisprudence. However, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the discrimination-based-on-ancestry argument under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), believing that it conflicted with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The criteria used by Quebec to determine if parents are entitled to have their children instructed in English are the same as those found under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Influence abroad
The 2001 report of the Estates-General on the Situation and Future of the French Language in Quebec identified the negative perception of Quebec's language policy in the rest of Canada and the United States as a problem to solve. It stated:

"In Canada and abroad, the linguistic policy of Quebec is too often negatively perceived. The business community and the media, in particular, know it very little. For their part, the Americans remain opposed to legislation that appears to them to reduce individual liberties and limit the use of English. For them, language and culture are two separate elements, they do not see how the protection of Quebec culture also includes the protection of the French language, even though 35 American States have adopted declarations proclaiming English the official language. Thus, must be developed the perception that Quebec culture is a part of the North-American heritage and that it is necessary to preserve it. It is also important to correct the erroneous perceptions regarding the Quebec language policy and its application."

Recommendation 147 of the report suggested the creation of an institutional television and radio campaign targeting both Quebec citizens and certain groups abroad to inform on the state of French in North America and the language policy of Quebec. Recommendation 148 suggested the creation of a watchdog to correct errors made "both in good faith and bad faith" in the media.

As part of the effort to improve how its policies are perceived, the OQLF conducted an inquiry on the influence of Quebec's language policy abroad in countries where the fragility of certain languages prompted the use of legislative measures. It requested and published the opinions of various experts from Spain, Israel, the United States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Wales, Australia and Flanders in a special issue of the OQLF's Revue d'aménagement linguistique celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Charter in 2002.

Jonas Žilinskas, a lecturer at University of Šiauliai in Lithuania described the state of the Lithuanian language after a prolonged Russian rule over his country:

"One proclaimed a policy of bilingualism which was expressed only by the obligation made to Lithuanians to learn Russian while Russians did not bother to learn Lithuanian. If the written Lithuanian language were more or less protected by writers through newspapers and publishers, the spoken Lithuanian language was degraded. Often, in the institutions, it was only a language of oral communication, the greatest part of technical documentation and correspondence being written in Russian."

This "false bilingualism" was followed by the Sąjūdis movement, during which the government of Lithuania declared their language the sole official language and began working on a language policy modelled on the experience of Quebec.

Mart Rannut, vice-dean of research at the Department of Philology of the University of Tallinn, in Estonia, recalled the influence of Quebec's expertise in the field of linguistic human rights and language planning which helped countries that have gained independence from the Soviet Union and concluded that "Bill 101 indirectly touched one-sixth of the planet".

Ina Druviete, at the time dean of the department of sociolinguistics at the Linguistic Institute of Latvia, noted the similarities between the language policies in all three Baltic states (which have large, if often officially unrecognized, Russophone minorities) and that of Quebec. All policies aiming "to prevent language shifts and to modify the hierarchy of languages in the public life. The principal sectors of intervention were the language used in the government agencies and the administration, in meetings and office spaces in particular, in corporate names, information and education. The principle of territorial linguistic rights was instituted."

In Wales, the language policy of Quebec had a great influence, but a similar policy could not be implemented as it was in the Baltic States, because Welsh speakers do not form a majority in this constituent country of the United Kingdom. According to Colin H. Williams, professor and researcher at the Welsh Department of Cardiff University particular lessons followed in Wales which stem from the experience of Quebec are:

 * The acquisition of detailed census data and explanatory facts aiming at clarifying the public discussion
 * The linguistic legislation (official language status, right to speak Welsh before the court, Welsh Language Board responsible to administer the law)
 * The iconography of the linguistic landscape
 * The progress in the teaching of the Welsh language

In Israel, while the "penetration of English in the sociolinguistic organization of the country" is perceived, according to Bernard Spolsky, professor emeritus of English at the Bar-Ilan University, as a threat to Hebrew, the language policy has thus far only influenced linguists and some politicians. He writes:

Periodically, Israeli politicians present bills to proclaim Hebrew the sole official language of the country. Presently, Hebrew shares this title with Arabic only, because a measure was taken soon after the foundation of the State, in 1948, to modify the British policy, which imposed three languages, and gave up English. The last attempt at giving a judicial protection to Hebrew goes back to December 2000: two bills were then rejected.

In Catalonia, according to Miquel Reniu i Tresserras, president of the Comissió de Lectorats and former chief executive officer of the Catalan language policy, Quebec's legislation constituted a "reference model" and the OQLF and the equivalent body in Catalonia were in close collaboration.

title: Charter of the French Language


text:
Talk:Prime Minister's Questions

Presubmitted
Are the questions pre-submitted so the PM can prepare an answer? He always seems to have a bevy of statistics on almost any subject, even obscure hospital budgets in obscure regions.

Kitplane01 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Grammar
I tried to fix the grammar in the first section, but it's a little unreadable. With the risk of munging the content again, I think I'll propose the change here first.

Original: on every Wednesday that the House of Commons is sitting the Prime Minister spends roughly half an hour answering questions from MPs.

Proposed: on every Wednesday the House of Commons is sitting with the Prime Minister, spending roughly half an hour answering questions from MPs. -- is this better, and correct?

Thx Dysprosia 21:45, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anyone know when the practice originated? Mackensen 15:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Do continental European parliamentary systems have prime minister's questions? dinopup

anachronism
Prime Minister's Questions were part of the inspiration behind the Anglophile Woodrow Wilson's revival of the State of the Union Address.
 * I believe that PMQs only began during the premiership of Harold MacMillan, so this seems to be an anachronistic assertion. Mintguy (T) 22:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * They're that young, Mintguy? Are you sure?

 * They certainly seem like they've been around forever.:-) In any case, if anyone knows, adding more information on their history would be a good idea. --Penta 19:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * On number-10.gov.uk it says that they were in fact started under Harold MacMillan in 1961, so one does doubt that they were Wilson's inspiration. I have no great knowledge of this topic, but according to the State of the Union Address article the speech was inspired by the Speech from the throne.  Epugachev 5 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
 * It's great you found this. The State of the Union looks nothing like PMQ anyway, so we should not even have left that bit in. Dinopup 5 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
 * Not only that, the State of the Union is mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and has been delivered -- at times orally and at times on paper -- by every president in U.S. history. Wilson revived nothing.CoramVobis 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to State of the Union, Wilson revived the doing it in person bit, which Jefferson had dropped in 1801. Enlightened Bystander 21:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then should the leaders at the dispatch box bit be modified to run from 1961 instead?Enlightened Bystander 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Query
I've noticed that when somebody gets up to ask a question at PMQs often a number of other MP's from the same party will stand up and then sit straight down again. I was wondering if someone could enlighten me as to why this is? Iron Ghost 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's because those MPs are hoping they'll be called by the Speaker. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. I thought the questioners were all chosen ahead of time, but that makes sense. Thankyou. Iron Ghost 22:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That is not true. During PMQs, an MP standing up and sitting straight down again is there way of showing support or agreement with a point that had just been made! It is not so they can get picked by the Speaker as the people chosen to question the PM are chosen using a completly random 'raffle' type system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 * This is also not true. MPs are chosen to speak by computer, at random, after submitting a request. Those who stand up and sit down (it is called 'bobbing') are hoping to be called by the Speaker to fill any time available beyond that taken up by those chosen prior to PMQs.Digitaltyke (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you say that PM Question time is a way of Parliament controlling the executive and because Tony blair changed the two sessions to one half hour session that was his way of trying to take the control back? Has there been any other recent examples of the Parliament clearly controlling the executive?

Lots of them, thats practically a topic in AS level polotics (thats not very high level) Tony Blair has dominated parliment althoguh with a much smaller majority he may have to change. High Party loyalty, carear politictions who want the job rather than feel responsible and his ability to appoint "loyal" MPs to any position or kick rebels out the party are some reasons why he has so much power.

Procedure

 * ''The first formal question on the Order Paper is to ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for the day, to which the Prime Minister replies: -

 * ''This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
 * ''After this the MP may ask a supplementary question about any subject which might occupy the Prime Minister's time. The reason for asking the Prime Minister about his engagements is because, until recently, any member of the cabinet could answer the posed question, allowing the Prime Minister to avoid having to answer any questions himself, but once someone answers a question, they are obliged to answer follow up questions (on any topic). The only question that the Prime Minister had to answer personally was his list of engagements for the week, hence he is asked this question first, and all subsequent questions are follow up questions, forcing the Prime Minister to answer the questions himself.

Aren't the other questions on the Order Paper technically questions in their own right? Sometimes MPs have tabled specific questions and the Speaker has slapped down supplementaries on different subjects saying it's a "closed question". Can anyone confirm? Timrollpickering 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hansard for Feb 28 2007 gives an example of the non-open questsions. The first question was by Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon): What assessment he has made of the impact on patient services in Oxfordshire of financial pressures on the NHS ? Blair answers, and Dr Harris, has another follow up question as shown here.

''Dr. Harris: Does the Prime Minister’s briefing note make reference to the plans to restrict access to various operations in the county, for the strategic health authority to spend £2 million asking PricewaterhouseCoopers how to privatise commissioning services, or to cut nearly two thirds of the community hospital beds, including at Abingdon community hospital? If he provides the number of nurses for which his funding—which I voted for—has paid, will he explain whether the figure is net or gross of the hundreds of job cuts at the Oxford John Radcliffe hospital?'' which was given a further answer.

The 2nd question on the order paper was about the engagements for the day, and the open follow-up, as were the 3rd and 4th. The 5th question was again a specific one, with a specific follow-up on the same topic. For a specific question, the follow-up must be related to the original. In this case they are both about patient care in Oxfordhsire.

That day was certainly an unusual one for PMQ's. The first question wasn't the customary engagements question, but the second one was, and then there were 2 fixed questions on the order paper, usually there aren't any.Catwhoorg 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hansard for June 27, 2007 gives an interesting version of the "engagements for the day" on Tony Blair's last day on the job:
 * ''This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have no such further meetings today, or any other day.

Tangurena (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Further Content
This article could do with a few further details - why PMQs were launched in the first place and so on. I have a very good book at home on the history of the role of the Prime Minister in the UK and will delve into that to see if it could help here. I know using a book is not always accepted here =) but we'll need historial context as well as modern practices. doktorb | words 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Presidential PM
"This, coupled with large majorities that rarely require his vote, has led to the claim that Blair is running a "presidential" government, acting more as a head of state rather than a head of government. (The Queen is head of state)."

This doesn't seem quite right. No PM submits to the Queen; every modern PM is a de facto head of state. The presidential criticism is rather to do with his perceived lack of respect for Parliament and Cabinet. Jon.baldwin 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comedy Value?
Should something be noted about the often jokey atmosphere in the PMQ? I think that would help to explain why it's become popular in the US. - MichiganCharms 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Commotion?
I've been wondering what the commotion in the House means. It sounds like a mass of people hollering and booing during the question and answer portion. Can this article address it or at least explain what is going on? Is that noise of support or scorn?04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because applause is banned in the House of Commons, so they have to find other ways so showing appreciation or otherwise. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Numbers
"The first formal question on the Order Paper, posed by simply saying "Number One, Mr Speaker"" - Should this be changed? I heard that theyve recently changed the format and no longer can backbenchers ask questions simply by telling the prime minister the question number. Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.168.182 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think "Number One" is still said but often there's noise and disruption at the start (and the BBC sometimes switch in a few seconds late). What was dumped in 1997 was the repeated asking of the same question - an MP would say "Number Three" and the PM would say "I refer the/my (Rt) Honourable Member/Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago" before the MP would ask the actual question. This was thought to be time consuming and was jettisoned in the changes. However it can create real confusion because sometimes there are specific questions tabled and the MP asking one still has to shout out the number, so it's easy to lose track of when they're coming up. (John Prescott, standing in for Blair, once had an absolute car crash of a PMQs because of both this and his ignorance of the European Union withholding tax.)
 * The other confusing one is (approximately) "To ask if the Prime Minister has any plans to visit the MP's constituency" - I don't know if this is considered the same or not (it may depend if the constituency is named or not). This is another basically open question as the supplementary is about how if the PM does go and visit (they usually have no plans) they will be able to see for themselves the effect of some government policy and "doesn't this prove the government is doing a fantastic/atrocious job?" Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comb affair?
Does anybody else have a problem with the line "Compared to the British questioning it's a rather comb affair" in the introduction? If nobody objects, I'll remove it in a few days. I'm assuming that the original contributor is trying to say that the Swedish PMQs are much tamer than the UK PMQs; isn't this POV anyway (although quite possibly true enough)?

Opticrom (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck is a comb affair? 72.93.2.187 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue... I can only assume that the sentence was written by a well-meaning Swedish person - my guess is that they meant to say "tame" instead of "comb". I'm going to remove it now. Opticrom (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Occurences
I've removed this section as neither event was really notable (How is the second woman to take PMQs notable, while the first isn't?) and it's basically a trivia section by another name (In fact it was a trivia section and was renamed). If either event is notable then it could easily be incorporated into the main text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.229.118 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DPMQs
Section should be expanded. Also, Harriet Harman was not the first to face Nick Clegg. The role was first delegated to Jack Straw before the Labour election 2010.Cibwins2885 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

PMQ on the BBC
I listen regularly to "Yesterday in parliament" on BBC Radio 4 LW. I have not heard the phrase "I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a short time ago" since...well in my head, it's John Major's voice. Does this mean that the practice has changed in the house, or is it just that Auntie now edits it out? Noble Branch (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Time
Does PM questions have a fixed or usual starting time? If so, can it be added, in section 'practice'? --Corriebertus (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing PMQs 27/07/16
There has been no broadcast of the PMQs today, nor are there any new episodes planned to be broadcast according to the BBC website. is there any reason for this? could the times where PMQs have been suspended be worked into the text? cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.229.135 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Parliament is currency in recess until September for the summer holidays. Prime Minister's Questions only takes place when the House of Commons is sitting, which is stated in the opening paragraph. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh thanks for clearing that up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.178.28 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Opening of Prime Minister's Questions 2013-02-13.ogg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Opening of Prime Minister's Questions 2013-02-13.ogg

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

title: Talk:Prime Minister's Questions


text:
Mating

In biology, mating is the pairing of either opposite-sex or hermaphroditic organisms for the purposes of sexual reproduction. Fertilization is the fusion of two gametes. Copulation is the union of the sex organs of two sexually reproducing animals for insemination and subsequent internal fertilization. Mating may also lead to external fertilization, as seen in amphibians, fishes and plants. For most species, mating is between two individuals of opposite sexes. However, for some hermaphroditic species, copulation is not required because the parent organism is capable of self-fertilization (autogamy); for example, banana slugs.

The term mating is also applied to related processes in bacteria, archaea and viruses. Mating in these cases involves the pairing of individuals, accompanied by the pairing of their homologous chromosomes and then exchange of genomic information leading to formation of recombinant progeny (see mating systems).

Animals
For animals, mating strategies include random mating, disassortative mating, assortative mating, or a mating pool. In some birds, it includes behaviors such as nest-building and feeding offspring. The human practice of mating and artificially inseminating domesticated animals is part of animal husbandry.

In some terrestrial arthropods, including insects representing basal (primitive) phylogenetic clades, the male deposits spermatozoa on the substrate, sometimes stored within a special structure. Courtship involves inducing the female to take up the sperm package into her genital opening without actual copulation. Courtship is often facilitated through forming groups, called leks, in flies and many other insects. For example, male Tokunagayusurika akamusi forms swarms dancing in the air to attract females. In groups such as dragonflies and many spiders, males extrude sperm into secondary copulatory structures removed from their genital opening, which are then used to inseminate the female (in dragonflies, it is a set of modified sternites on the second abdominal segment; in spiders, it is the male pedipalps). In advanced groups of insects, the male uses its aedeagus, a structure formed from the terminal segments of the abdomen, to deposit sperm directly (though sometimes in a capsule called a "spermatophore") into the female's reproductive tract.

Other animals reproduce sexually with external fertilization, including many basal vertebrates. Vertebrates reproduce with internal fertilization through cloacal copulation (in reptiles, some fish, and most birds) or ejaculation of semen through the penis into the female's vagina (in mammals).

In domesticated animals there are various type of mating methods being employed to mate animals like Pen Mating (when female is moved to the desired male into a pen) or paddock mating (where one male is let loose in the paddock with several females).

Plants and fungi
Like in animals, mating in other Eukaryotes, such as plants and fungi, denotes. However, in vascular plants this is mostly achieved without physical contact between mating individuals (see pollination), and in some cases, e.g., in fungi no distinguishable male or female organs exist (see isogamy); however, mating types in some fungal species are somewhat analogous to sexual dimorphism in animals, and determine whether or not two individual isolates can mate. Yeasts are eukaryotic microorganisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described. In general, under high stress conditions like nutrient starvation, haploid cells will die; under the same conditions, however, diploid cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae can undergo sporulation, entering sexual reproduction (meiosis) and produce a variety of haploid spores, which can go on to mate (conjugate) and reform the diploid.

Protists
Protists are a large group of diverse eukaryotic microorganisms, mainly unicellular animals and plants, that do not form tissues. The earliest eukaryotes were likely protists. Mating and sexual reproduction are widespread among extant eukaryotes including protists such as Paramecium and Chlamydomonas. In many eukaryotic species, mating is promoted by sex pheromones including the protist Blepharisma japonicum. Based on a phylogenetic analysis, Dacks and Roger proposed that facultative sex was present in the common ancestor of all eukaryotes.

However, to many biologists it seemed unlikely until recently, that mating and sex could be a primordial and fundamental characteristic of eukaryotes. A principal reason for this view was that mating and sex appeared to be lacking in certain pathogenic protists whose ancestors branched off early from the eukaryotic family tree. However, several of these protists are now known to be capable of, or to recently have had, the capability for meiosis and hence mating. To cite one example, the common intestinal parasite Giardia intestinalis was once considered to be a descendant of a protist lineage that predated the emergence of meiosis and sex. However, G. intestinalis was recently found to have a core set of genes that function in meiosis and that are widely present among sexual eukaryotes. These results suggested that G. intestinalis is capable of meiosis and thus mating and sexual reproduction. Furthermore, direct evidence for meiotic recombination, indicative of mating and sexual reproduction, was also found in G. intestinalis. Other protists for which evidence of mating and sexual reproduction has recently been described are parasitic protozoa of the genus Leishmania, Trichomonas vaginalis, and acanthamoeba.

Protists generally reproduce asexually under favorable environmental conditions, but tend to reproduce sexually under stressful conditions, such as starvation or heat shock.

title: Mating


text:
Room on Fire

Room on Fire is the second studio album by American rock band the Strokes, released on October 21, 2003, through RCA Records. Its title is derived from a lyric in the song "Reptilia".

Room on Fire received positive reviews upon its release, and reached number four on the US Billboard 200 (where it went on to sell 597,000 units by October 2006 and was certified gold) and number two on the UK Albums Chart. Three singles were released from the album: "12:51", "Reptilia", and "The End Has No End".

Recording
Immediately after touring for their debut album Is This It, the Strokes returned to the studio. They hired Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich, but fired him when, according to the band, their work together proved "soulless". Godrich said of the failed collaboration: "The problem there was that me and [singer Julian Casablancas] are just too similar, we're both control freaks. He wanted to do it his way, I wanted to do it my way, and obviously that's the point of me being there. And I'm saying 'Well, why am I here if you're not prepared to try and do it the way I want to do it?' We got on great, it was just one of those laughable things where it just doesn't work. I wanted them to change, and they didn't."

Those sessions were ultimately scrapped and the band returned to their original producer, Gordon Raphael. The Strokes had exactly only three months of studio time to record the album. Guitarist Nick Valensi stated that "the album would've ended up a lot better if we'd had another couple of weeks."

Critical reception
Room On Fire received generally positive reviews from critics: on the review aggregating website Metacritic, it currently has a score of 77 out of 100 based on 31 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews". However, in general, reviewers found the album too similar to Is This It. Rob Mitchum of Pitchfork gave the album an 8 out of 10, but stated that the band "have all but given birth to an identical twin." A positive review from Rolling Stone said that "the Strokes have resisted the temptation to hit the brakes, grow up and screw around with a sound that doesn't need fixing — yet." The review also stated that "if you want comfort and clarity, you're definitely in the wrong room. This record was built for thrills and speed." Dan Tallis of BBC Music gave it a favorable review and said, "Bands should think themselves lucky to achieve such heights just once in their careers. However, they've done all they could have done. They've made Is This It part two. It's more of the same plus extras. And I'm more than happy to settle for that."

Ben Thompson of The Observer gave it all five stars and said, "This is a feeling that can be inspired only by people making the absolute most of an opportunity to communicate: cutting through all the rubbish that surrounds them to make a clear and memorable artistic statement. And that the Strokes should have managed to do such a thing at this stage in their careers, is - I think - an achievement of real significance." Greg Milner of Spin gave it a score of eight out of ten and said that its "similarity to its predecessor ultimately bespeaks a purity of vision, not a dearth of new ideas." Jenny Tatone of Neumu gave it a score of nine stars out of ten and said, "The Strokes don't make the most original sounding music you've ever heard, but they make something that is only the Strokes." In his Consumer Guide, Robert Christgau gave the album a three-star honorable mention while picking out two songs from the album ("Between Love and Hate" and "What Ever Happened?") and stating simply, "Narcissism repeats itself."

Not all reviews were positive, however. Raoul Hernandez of The Austin Chronicle gave the album a score of two stars out of five and stated that "even the half-hearted retreads... cashing in on the notoriously unwashed NYC quintet's debut can't muster a wink." Iain Moffat of Playlouder gave the album only one star and said of the Strokes, "There's little of the pop sparkle that shone through the likes of 'The Modern Age' and 'Last Nite' even when - as with 'You Talk Way Too Much' - they're rewriting old material, and Julian's vocals are, to be blunt, awful, sounding uncomfortable to record and rather complacently nasal."

In 2013, Room On Fire was listed at number 360 on NME's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. In 2018, the BBC included it in their list of "the acclaimed albums that nobody listens to any more".

Reappraisal
In 2021, Pitchfork included Room on Fire on its list of album review scores they "would change if they could", upgrading its score from 8.0 to 9.2 out of 10, though they stated this would not change the actual score. Lane Brown of Pitchfork praised it as a "different, better album with major improvements over its predecessor". Scoring a 0.1 bonus point more than Is This It, Room on Fire is commended in marking confident progress and "at least partially thwarting rock history's most inevitable backlash."

Commercial performance
The album peaked at number four on the Billboard 200 in the US, and was later certified Gold by the RIAA in December 2003, and platinum certification for selling over one million units in June 2021.

Personnel
The Strokes
 * Julian Casablancas – vocals
 * Albert Hammond, Jr. – guitar
 * Nick Valensi – guitar
 * Nikolai Fraiture – bass guitar
 * Fabrizio Moretti – drums

Production
 * Gordon Raphael – producer
 * Toshikazu Yoshioka – head engineer
 * William Kelly – second engineer
 * Greg Calbi – mastering
 * Steve Fallone – mastering
 * J. P. Bowersock – "sensei"

Design
 * Peter Phillips – cover art ("War/Game", used with permission and courtesy of Zoe Phillips)
 * Colin Lane – photography
 * Brett Kilroe – art direction

title: Room on Fire


text:
Pay-as-you-earn tax

A pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go (PAYG) in Australia, is a withholding of taxes on income payments to employees. Amounts withheld are treated as advance payments of income tax due. They are refundable to the extent they exceed tax as determined on tax returns. PAYE may include withholding the employee portion of insurance contributions or similar social benefit taxes. In most countries, they are determined by employers but subject to government review. PAYE is deducted from each paycheck by the employer and must be remitted promptly to the government. Most countries refer to income tax withholding by other terms, including pay-as-you-go tax.

Origins
Devised by Sir Paul Chambers, PAYE was introduced into the UK in 1944, following trials in 1940–1941. As with many of the United Kingdom's institutional arrangements, the way in which the state collects income tax through PAYE owes much of its form and structure to the peculiarities of the era in which it was devised. The financial strain that the Second World War placed upon the country meant that the Treasury needed to collect more tax from many more people. This posed significant challenges to the government and to the many workers and employers who had previously never come into contact with the tax system.

Nature
PAYE is applied to sick pay, maternity pay, directors' fees and pensions (but not the state pension, although it remains taxable), as well as wages and salaries. Each person has a tax code which is used to reflect any allowances, along with other taxable income (including the state pension). This means that the PAYE system typically results in the correct amount of tax being paid on all the taxable income of a taxpayer, making a tax return unnecessary. However, if the taxpayer's affairs are complicated, a tax return may be required to determine the amount of tax payable or refundable.

Reporting
The employer is responsible for sending the Income Tax on to HMRC each month, along with various other employment taxes. The amounts deducted from each payment to individual employees must be reported using an electronic submission on or before the day payment is made.

Ireland
PAYE in Ireland includes deduction of income tax and PRSI (Pay Related Social Insurance) by employers from payments to employees. The amount is determined by employers based on a Certificate of Tax Credits and Standard Rate (Certificate) provided by Ireland Revenue (Revenue).

PAYE applies to earnings of all kinds arising from your employment, including bonuses, overtime and non-cash payments known as "benefits in kind" such as the use of a company car.

Forms and reporting
Employees must apply to Revenue for the certificate by submitting Form 12A to Revenue. A certificate is issued at the beginning of each tax year based on the employee's personal circumstances. At the end of each tax year, the employer must give the employee a certificate of Pay, Tax and PRSI deducted during the year, Form P60.

A Form P45 is a certificate given by an employer to an employee on cessation of employment. This form certifies the employee's pay, tax and PRSI contributions from the start of the tax year to date of cessation and also certifies that the deductions have been made in accordance with the instructions given by Revenue.

If the PAYE is not the same as tax that would be due for the year, the employee must file Form 12, an annual tax return.

New Zealand
PAYE is deducted by employers from employees' salary or wages in New Zealand, and paid to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) on their behalf. It includes income tax and ACC earners' levy. PAYE is calculated by employers based on tax codes provided by the employee and tables provided by the IRD. Employees may calculate their expected tax and tax code using the PAYE calculator.

Forms and reporting
Employees must provide their employer with a completed IR330 Tax code declaration form, advising their employer of their IRD number (which is one's identification number with the IRD) and the appropriate tax code for which to deduct in tax, and if required, student loan repayments. If an employer does not receive a correctly completed IR330, the employer may deduct tax at the "no-notification rate" of 45%.

Employers use either the IR340 (weekly/fortnightly) or IR341 (four-weekly/monthly) PAYE deduction tables to determine the appropriate amounts to deduct from an employee's wages. Every month, an employer must file a complete IR348 Employer monthly schedule with the IRD, stating the income and deductions of each employee. Tax withheld must be paid to the IRD monthly or semi-monthly, accompanied (or sent separately in the case of electronic payment) with a completed IR345 Employer deductions form.

Australia
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) administers a pay-as-you-go tax (PAYG) withholding system. Introduced in 1999, it merged 11 previous payment and reporting systems, one of which was a "PAYE" system for employee income, from which the name "PAYG" distinguishes. Employers must calculate the amount of income tax to withhold based on ATO tables, based on employee declarations. These arrangements cover payments from employment as well as under the Prescribed Payments system and the Reportable Payments system. The PAYG system involves regular payments made by employers and other payers, for example, superannuation funds. It is used to collect by instalments income tax, HELP repayments, Medicare and other payments. PAYG amounts to be withheld are determined based on the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) PAYG schedules. Discrepancies and deduction amounts are declared in the annual income tax return and will be part of the refund that follows after annual assessment or reduce the tax debt that may be payable after assessment.

For an employee's primary job, the withholding tax rate is lower because of the existence of a tax-free threshold in Australia. All other work has tax withheld based on a rate that excludes the tax-free threshold.

PAYG summaries
Each employee who receives PAYG-type payments during a financial year would receive a PAYG payment summary from their employer at the end of the financial year - commonly known as the Group Certificate. The PAYG payment summary will include:

 * the employee's details including the Tax File Number (TFN)
 * the gross income earned by the employee from that payer
 * the total PAYG amount withheld by the payer
 * the payer's Australian Business Number or withholding payer number (WPN).

The information on the PAYG payment summary is needed to enable the employee to complete his or her income tax return.

The payer must send to the ATO a copy of the PAYG payment summaries as well as an annual PAYG summary. This may be sent to the ATO electronically using Standard Business Reporting enabled software, or it may be sent as a hard copy by mail. The total of the wages paid reported on the PAYG summary and the total amount withheld must agree with the totals as reported by the payer to the ATO on the Business Activity Statements (BASs) for the year. The ATO will use the information on the PAYG payment summary to match with the employee, using the employee's TFN.

Barbados
The PAYE tax system was introduced in Barbados in 1957 which allowed employees to have their income tax be paid on the behalf of their employers by deducting the amount from their wage/salary. Every employer who has employees earning more than $481 per week or $2,083 per month is required to register as an employer with the Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA) in either 12 month or 52 weekly installments.

Forms and reporting
PAYE can be calculated via a provided PAYE Tax Calculator form on the BRA website. Employers must receive the employees' 13 digit Tax Identification Number (TIN) and register them via a provided A47: 001 Employee Declaration Form along with a A47.004 PAYE Tax Deduction Remittance Form where after they must pay the employees' taxes to the Revenue Commissioner on or before the 15th of the month following the month in which it was deducted. There is also a provided Tax Tables Booklet that assists employers with instructions on how to correctly calculate and pay an employee's income tax.

Similar systems
Several other countries operate systems similar to PAYE that may be referred to as withholding tax or deduction of tax at source. See the articles listed below.

Canada
Canada requires tax deduction at source on payments of compensation by employers. The deduction is required for federal and provincial income taxes, Canada Pension Plan contributions, and Employment Insurance.

France
Initially set to start in 2018, France will introduce a pay-as-you-earn scheme for the collection of its state income tax (impôt sur le revenu) in January 2019. To accommodate the progressivity of the French tax system, which considers the total income and composition of the household to set the tax rate of individuals, while preserving the privacy of employees to their employers, the administration only transmits to companies the individual tax rate to retain on their employees' paychecks, along with other payroll withholding, such as social security contributions.

Morocco
Employers are required to withhold income tax on salary paid to employees. The tax must be paid to the government during the month following the withholding.

Germany
In Germany employers are required to pay salary tax (Lohnsteuer) for their employees which is an advance payment on the income tax. The employer are liable for the salary tax but the employee has to pay it. The employer is liable for the salary tax. In most situations it is not mandatory to file taxes as the salary tax can cover the whole income tax. Unemployment aid, short time work aid or other sources of income like a business or a rental object require people in Germany to file taxes.

United States
Withholding of income, Social Security and Medicare taxes is required in the United States. The plan was developed by Beardsley Ruml, Bernard Baruch, and Milton Friedman in 1942. The government forgave taxes due March 15, 1942, for tax year 1941, and started withholding from paychecks. Income tax withholding applies to federal and state income taxes. In addition, certain states impose other levies required to be withheld.

In the United States, the term "pay-as-you-earn" and PAYE typically refer to Income-based repayment of loans, not taxation. However, an IRS article published March 29, 2022 updates and reviews the policy as pay-as-you-go, or else you may be penalized for not paying estimated taxes if you owe more than $1,000 after taxes are withheld.

title: Pay-as-you-earn tax


text:
Flight control surfaces

Aircraft flight control surfaces are aerodynamic devices allowing a pilot to adjust and control the aircraft's flight attitude.

Development of an effective set of flight control surfaces was a critical advance in the development of aircraft. Early efforts at fixed-wing aircraft design succeeded in generating sufficient lift to get the aircraft off the ground, but once aloft, the aircraft proved uncontrollable, often with disastrous results. The development of effective flight controls is what allowed stable flight.

This article describes the control surfaces used on a fixed-wing aircraft of conventional design. Other fixed-wing aircraft configurations may use different control surfaces but the basic principles remain. The controls (stick and rudder) for rotary wing aircraft (helicopter or autogyro) accomplish the same motions about the three axes of rotation, but manipulate the rotating flight controls (main rotor disk and tail rotor disk) in a completely different manner.

Flight control surfaces are operated by aircraft flight control systems.

Considered as a generalized fluid control surface, rudders, in particular, are shared between aircraft and watercraft.

Development
The Wright brothers are credited with developing the first practical control surfaces. It is a main part of their patent on flying. Unlike modern control surfaces, they used wing warping. In an attempt to circumvent the Wright patent, Glenn Curtiss made hinged control surfaces, the same type of concept first patented some four decades earlier in the United Kingdom. Hinged control surfaces have the advantage of not causing stresses that are a problem of wing warping and are easier to build into structures.

Axes of motion
An aircraft is free to rotate around three axes that are perpendicular to each other and intersect at its center of gravity (CG). To control position and direction a pilot must be able to control rotation about each of them.

Transverse axis
The transverse axis, also known as lateral axis, passes through an aircraft from wingtip to wingtip. Rotation about this axis is called pitch. Pitch changes the vertical direction that the aircraft's nose is pointing. The elevators are the primary control surfaces for pitch.

Longitudinal axis
The longitudinal axis passes through the aircraft from nose to tail. Rotation about this axis is called roll. The angular displacement about this axis is called bank. The pilot changes bank angle by increasing the lift on one wing and decreasing it on the other. This differential lift causes rotation around the longitudinal axis. The ailerons are the primary control of bank. The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

Vertical axis
The vertical axis passes through an aircraft from top to bottom. Rotation about this axis is called yaw. Yaw changes the direction the aircraft's nose is pointing, left or right. The primary control of yaw is with the rudder. Ailerons also have a secondary effect on yaw.

These axes move with the aircraft and change relative to the earth as the aircraft moves. For example, for an aircraft whose left wing is pointing straight down, its "vertical" axis is parallel with the ground, while its "transverse" axis is perpendicular to the ground.

Main control surfaces
The main control surfaces of a fixed-wing aircraft are attached to the airframe on hinges or tracks so they may move and thus deflect the air stream passing over them. This redirection of the air stream generates an unbalanced force to rotate the plane about the associated axis.

Ailerons
Ailerons are mounted on the trailing edge of each wing near the wingtips and move in opposite directions. When the pilot moves the aileron control to the left, or turns the wheel counter-clockwise, the left aileron goes up and the right aileron goes down. A raised aileron reduces lift on that wing and a lowered one increases lift, so moving the aileron control in this way causes the left wing to drop and the right wing to rise. This causes the aircraft to roll to the left and begin to turn to the left. Centering the control returns the ailerons to the neutral position, maintaining the bank angle. The aircraft will continue to turn until opposite aileron motion returns the bank angle to zero to fly straight.

Elevator
The elevator is a moveable part of the horizontal stabilizer, hinged to the back of the fixed part of the horizontal tail. The elevators move up and down together. When the pilot pulls the stick backward, the elevators go up. Pushing the stick forward causes the elevators to go down. Raised elevators push down on the tail and cause the nose to pitch up. This makes the wings fly at a higher angle of attack, which generates more lift and more drag. Centering the stick returns the elevators to neutral and stops the change of pitch. Some aircraft, such as an MD-80, use a servo tab within the elevator surface to aerodynamically move the main surface into position. The direction of travel of the control tab will thus be in a direction opposite to the main control surface. It is for this reason that an MD-80 tail looks like it has a 'split' elevator system.

In the canard arrangement, the elevators are hinged to the rear of a foreplane and move in the opposite sense, for example when the pilot pulls the stick back the elevators go down to increase the lift at the front and lift the nose up.

Rudder
The rudder is typically mounted on the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer, part of the empennage. When the pilot pushes the left pedal, the rudder deflects left. Pushing the right pedal causes the rudder to deflect right. Deflecting the rudder right pushes the tail left and causes the nose to yaw to the right. Centering the rudder pedals returns the rudder to neutral and stops the yaw.

Ailerons
The ailerons primarily cause roll. Whenever lift is increased, induced drag is also increased so when the aileron control is moved to roll the aircraft to the left, the right aileron is lowered which increases lift on the right wing and therefore increases induced drag on the right wing. Using ailerons causes adverse yaw, meaning the nose of the aircraft yaws in a direction opposite to the aileron application. When moving the aileron control to bank the wings to the left, adverse yaw moves the nose of the aircraft to the right. Adverse yaw is most pronounced in low-speed aircraft with long wings, such as gliders. It is counteracted by the pilot using the rudder pedals. Differential ailerons are ailerons which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects less than the upward-moving one, causing less adverse yaw.

Rudder
The rudder is a fundamental control surface which is typically controlled by pedals rather than at the stick. It is the primary means of controlling yaw—the rotation of an airplane about its vertical axis. The rudder may also be called upon to counter-act the adverse yaw produced by the roll-control surfaces.

If rudder is continuously applied in level flight the aircraft will yaw initially in the direction of the applied rudder – the primary effect of rudder. After a few seconds the aircraft will tend to bank in the direction of yaw. This arises initially from the increased speed of the wing opposite to the direction of yaw and the reduced speed of the other wing. The faster wing generates more lift and so rises, while the other wing tends to go down because of generating less lift. Continued application of rudder sustains rolling tendency because the aircraft flying at an angle to the airflow - skidding towards the forward wing. When applying right rudder in an aircraft with dihedral the left hand wing will have increased angle of attack and the right hand wing will have decreased angle of attack which will result in a roll to the right. An aircraft with anhedral will show the opposite effect. This effect of the rudder is commonly used in model aircraft where if sufficient dihedral or polyhedral is included in the wing design, primary roll control such as ailerons may be omitted altogether.

Turning the aircraft
Unlike turning a boat, changing the direction of an aircraft normally must be done with the ailerons rather than the rudder. The rudder turns (yaws) the aircraft but has little effect on its direction of travel. With aircraft, the change in direction is caused by the horizontal component of lift, acting on the wings. The pilot tilts the lift force, which is perpendicular to the wings, in the direction of the intended turn by rolling the aircraft into the turn. As the bank angle is increased, the lifting force can be split into two components: one acting vertically and one acting horizontally.

If the total lift is kept constant, the vertical component of lift will decrease. As the weight of the aircraft is unchanged, this would result in the aircraft descending if not countered. To maintain level flight requires increased positive (up) elevator to increase the angle of attack, increase the total lift generated and keep the vertical component of lift equal with the weight of the aircraft. This cannot continue indefinitely. The total load factor required to maintain level flight is directly related to the bank angle. This means that for a given airspeed, level flight can only be maintained up to a certain given angle of bank. Beyond this angle of bank, the aircraft will suffer an accelerated stall if the pilot attempts to generate enough lift to maintain level flight.

Alternate main control surfaces
Some aircraft configurations have non-standard primary controls. For example, instead of elevators at the back of the stabilizers, the entire tailplane may change angle. Some aircraft have a tail in the shape of a V, and the moving parts at the back of those combine the functions of elevators and rudder. Delta wing aircraft may have "elevons" at the back of the wing, which combine the functions of elevators and ailerons.

Spoilers
On low drag aircraft such as sailplanes, spoilers are used to disrupt airflow over the wing and greatly reduce lift. This allows a glider pilot to lose altitude without gaining excessive airspeed. Spoilers are sometimes called "lift dumpers". Spoilers that can be used asymmetrically are called spoilerons and can affect an aircraft's roll.

Flaps
Flaps are mounted on the trailing edge on the inboard section of each wing (near the wing roots). They are deflected down to increase the effective curvature of the wing. Flaps raise the maximum lift coefficient of the aircraft and therefore reduce its stalling speed. They are used during low speed, high angle of attack flight including take-off and descent for landing. Some aircraft are equipped with "flaperons", which are more commonly called "inboard ailerons". These devices function primarily as ailerons, but on some aircraft, will "droop" when the flaps are deployed, thus acting as both a flap and a roll-control inboard aileron.

Slats
Slats, also known as leading edge devices, are extensions to the front of a wing for lift augmentation, and are intended to reduce the stalling speed by altering the airflow over the wing. Slats may be fixed or retractable - fixed slats (e.g. as on the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch) give excellent slow speed and STOL capabilities, but compromise higher speed performance. Retractable slats, as seen on most airliners, provide reduced stalling speed for take-off and landing, but are retracted for cruising.

Air brakes

Air brakes are used to increase drag. Spoilers might act as air brakes, but are not pure air brakes as they also function as lift-dumpers or in some cases as roll control surfaces. Air brakes are usually surfaces that deflect outwards from the fuselage (in most cases symmetrically on opposing sides) into the airstream in order to increase form-drag. As they are in most cases located elsewhere on the aircraft, they do not directly affect the lift generated by the wing. Their purpose is to slow down the aircraft. They are particularly useful when a high rate of descent is required. They are common on high performance military aircraft as well as civilian aircraft, especially those lacking reverse thrust capability.

Control trimming surfaces
Trimming controls allow a pilot to balance the lift and drag being produced by the wings and control surfaces over a wide range of load and airspeed. This reduces the effort required to adjust or maintain a desired flight attitude.

Elevator trim
Elevator trim balances the control force necessary to maintain the correct aerodynamic force on the tail to balance the aircraft. Whilst carrying out certain flight exercises, a lot of trim could be required to maintain the desired angle of attack. This mainly applies to slow flight, where a nose-up attitude is required, in turn requiring a lot of trim causing the tailplane to exert a strong downforce. Elevator trim is correlated with the speed of the airflow over the tail, thus airspeed changes to the aircraft require re-trimming. An important design parameter for aircraft is the stability of the aircraft when trimmed for level flight. Any disturbances such as gusts or turbulence will be damped over a short period of time and the aircraft will return to its level flight trimmed airspeed.

Trimming tail plane
Except for very light aircraft, trim tabs on the elevators are unable to provide the force and range of motion desired. To provide the appropriate trim force the entire horizontal tail plane is made adjustable in pitch. This allows the pilot to select exactly the right amount of positive or negative lift from the tail plane while reducing drag from the elevators.

Control horn
A control horn is a section of control surface which projects ahead of the pivot point. It generates a force which tends to increase the surface's deflection thus reducing the control pressure experienced by the pilot. Control horns may also incorporate a counterweight which helps to balance the control and prevent it from fluttering in the airstream. Some designs feature separate anti-flutter weights.

(In radio controlled model aircraft, the term "control horn" has a different meaning)

Spring trim
In the simplest arrangement, trimming is done by a mechanical spring (or bungee) which adds appropriate force to augment the pilot's control input. The spring is usually connected to an elevator trim lever to allow the pilot to set the spring force applied.

Rudder and aileron trim
Most fixed-wing aircraft have a trimming control surface on the elevator, but larger aircraft also have a trim control for the rudder, and another for the ailerons. The rudder trim is to counter any asymmetric thrust from the engines. Aileron trim is to counter the effects of the centre of gravity being displaced from the aircraft centerline. This can be caused by fuel or an item of payload being loaded more on one side of the aircraft compared to the other, such as when one fuel tank has more fuel than the other.

title: Flight control surfaces


text:
Talk:Flight control surfaces

New article
New author. Please help me with formatting and wikification. Any appropriate graphics would be appreciated. Thanks! Skeetch 22:00, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

Intranet link
- *Controls - Selkirk Collage Aviation Intranet: Notes on a wide range of aviation subjects.

This link - now removed by another user, is actually part of an intranet, not the internet, so it won't be visible to anyone outside the intranet. Peter Manchester 21:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yaw
Hi everyone, Adverse yaw is not a secondary effect of the ailerons. It is a primary effect. The secondary is a yaw in the same direction as the bank. Example: You bank left and at first the nose travels right and up (part of the primary effects of the aileron) but then the windvane effect of the fin makes the nose go left-down (secondary). This is not so pronunciated in UL:s and other airplanes with relatively short wingspan but it is a matter of life and death to a glider pilot. /Nick the glider instructor :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.226.232 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Skeetch, I believe you are making a common miscoception about yaw, roll and pitch. The three axes are relative to the aircraft, not to the ground. Therefore the rudder always causes the aircraft to yaw, the elevators always cause a pitch change, and the ailerons always cause a roll change. Ailerons cause yaw as a secondary effect, and rudder causes roll as a secondary effect.

Turning is not the same as yawing. An aircraft in a coordinated bank turns but does not yaw.

In short: Effects of controls are:
 * Elevators: primary pitch
 * Rudder: primary yaw, secondary roll
 * Aileron: primary roll, secondary yaw

Change of heading is not the same as yaw. For example, in a 90 degree bank they are not related at all.

This site, although it is about models, explains it well. http://www.bmfa.org/faq/flight_controls.htm also http://www.holdfastmac.com.au/techair3.html

It's also not generally true that neutralising the elevators returns the pitch to what it was. In general to recover from a nose-down attitude, for example, it is necessary to pull bak on the controls to raise the nose. It will not usually come up by itself.

DJ Clayworth 19:34, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, the (hidden) assumption for all these effects is an intial attitude of straight and level flight at constant speed and altitude. The goal was to give the uninformed reader an introduction to the subject.  An instructional treatise for student pilots needs to cover all situations and variables in detail.  That was purposefully outside my scope for this article.  Skeetch

A sensible approach, and one of the reasons I added the disclaimer a the start. I think we can get the basics across without having to confuse turning with yawing, which will only confuse people who actually fly. I've given this a go - what do you think? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The section on 'Trimming Tail Plane' implies that all large aircraft use a fully movable tailplane for trimming. I'm pretty sure that ,for example, a 747 doesn't do this. Can anyone clarify? DJ Clayworth 14:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I have the same problem with this section. Having owned a Partenavia P68 (a light twin) I know it had a "trimming tail plane" as it is described in this article although I seem to remember it was called a stabilator. The photograph of the Airbus 319 appears to show a fixed horizontal stabilizer with an elevator. This site provides a description of these and even goes into some detail on V tails (which are briefly mentioned in the Wikipedia article) and canards (which don't get a mention in the article). --CloudSurfer 05:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merger
On august 4, 2005, user:Trevor MacInnis proposed that this article be merged with airplane flight mechanics.

I oppose as I feel that this is a significantly detailed topic to warrant its own article. ericg ✈ 05:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this merger, because airplane flight mechanics largely duplicates the matter here. This is the better article, and airplane flight mechanics should redirect here. Only a small amount of info should need to be copies across. However I would suggest a rename to airplane flight controls because those for e.g. balloons and helicopters are both very different and not covered here. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that a merger with Flight dynamics would make more sense as it is currently a stub and most of its content is covered here already. Lucas42 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

a comment to your picture: if you press the right pedal in an airplane it will yaw to the right. In the picture the effect is inverted.

April 17, 2006 From an unregistered user to be identified as Commander_Shrek:

There are a couple nice things about having separate yet related articles: 1) The information is not clumped in one space thus simplifying information in each spot. 2)  Users searching for pages will have a better shot at finding what they're looking for if there are related pages with different names.

The part about turning an aircraft definitely does not belong under flight controls but under flight dynamics. Yeah, I just edited that section. Yes, I'm arguing for the removal, or at the very least merging, of what I just rewrote. Daft move? No comments... Effte (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative control techniques
Comment from Dave Ashley (dashley@gmail.com)

The article about control of aircraft in the absence of flight control is incomplete. At minimum, these additional techniques exist (some of which won't work with large aircraft):

1)Redistributing weight within the aircraft (having all the passengers move to the front or back or to one side, or redistributing fuel).

2)Changing the flap setting (this changes the pitch behavior A LOT).

3)Using the landing gear.

4)Opening the door(s) of the aircraft and pushing them against the airstream to create a ruddering effect (presumably only works on light airplanes).

5)Kicking out the windshield or rear window to change the flight dynamics (changes things quite a lot in a light airplane).

6)Using trim adjustment (some of these are independent of the other controls, depending on the specifics of the aircraft).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.182.135 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Commentary in Dutch and Greek (to me)
je hebt ook nog onderscheid tussen primaire en secundaire flight controls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.216.167 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Bing, this seems to be Dutch for "You've also got distinction between primary and secondary flight controls". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

are thrust reversers no secundairi flightcontrols —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.216.167 (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which seems to mean something like "Aren't thrust reversers considered secondary flight controls?" —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Invention of control surfaces
I would suggest that the article mention that the wright brothers invented control surfaces, at it was the basis of the patent application. gliders before the wright's were controled by body movement. Also the wrights used warping of flexible structures. Glen Curtis tried to skirt the patent by using hindged panels. Saltysailor (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Per the comment below, plural seems to be appropriate for the name of an article about a class of objects. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Flight control surfaces → Flight control surface – WP:SINGULAR. It does not seem too awkward to talk about a single aircraft control surface. The article can start with some phrasing such as "A flight control surface is an element of an aircraft that allows a pilot to adjust and control the aircraft's flight attitude." —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:SINGULAR does not apply to "classes of objects". A pilot requires use of all the control surfaces to properly control the attitude. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight control surfaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505105053/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/wing_warping/DI56.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/wing_warping/DI56.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight control surfaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916060435/http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/ to https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flight control surfaces