text:
Talk:New Urbanism

Reference
Does someone have a reference for the 13 principles in "Defining Elements", i.e. where was it originally written/spoken? dml 22:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I have not seen the quote but I did an internet query and came up with the book produced by an organization Duany (supposed author of the elements), Congress for the New Urbanism. Here are the bibliographic references.  Can someone confirm one of these books has the 13 principles in it?

Duany is one of the contributors to the "charter".

 * The Congress for the New Urbanism considers the charter their "seminal document" defining the work and here's a PDF they produced. They also consider this charter "The defining document of the New Urbanist movement".

 * I found that they have more than just 13 principles though.... they have broken down 1 - 9 items for A) The Region (City)  B) The neighborhood and C) The block.

 * I also took a closer look and saw that Duany and Elizabeth Playter-Zyberk co authored the below book that also contains "elements" of new urbanism. The Duany-Zyberk duou also have a company they formed called Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.  They are also working on a work to be published called The Smart Growth Manual.

 * Rhallanger 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Criticism of Peter Gorton Criticism: The car-oriented city may not have been what people wanted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFhsrbtQObI

Wikipedia won't save you or play devil's advocate because it's always scared of the truth. Might as well tell the idealist fools to just see it for themselves and decide. But list a lot of examples, because Wikipedians love to list examples.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.26.253 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is very uncritical. I added the last two paragraphs, but could someone have a look at the grammar?

I added a bit of critique based on http://www.cnu.org/about/index.cfm, and cleaned up the grammar a bit. Bryce 03:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * A lot of the content in the final two paragraphs was factually incorrect, so I've deleted them. I've added a link to the FAQ About New Urbanism that addresses the criticisms listed in the final paragraph.

 * Of course, there is no new urbanist development that is perfect, and new urbanists spend a lot of time hashing out the flaws in various projects and how to avoid them in the future. There are several books and magazines that record those discussions but I'm not sure it's possible to summarize them in two paragraphs. LaurenceJA 23:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not that knowledgable on the subject (I mostly look at other's work) but I can say right off the bat that the section is a good idea. I'm suprised the person(s) who wrote the article didn't even think of a criticism section.HereToHelp 12:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to all: walkable is NOT A WORD.

I'm surprised there has been no discussion of the Criticism section for 18 months. The New Urbanism certainly begs critical analysis, but I don't think this rambling and wordy section is much help.

I recommend editing down the entire article, which I have started to do; deleting the present Criticism section; and creating a new one, based on the updated content as it develops. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Walkable, perhaps, perhaps not, yet, dangerous for everyone. Not just is the mindset horrendously dangerous, the design being implemented is very dangerous to those riding bicycles~ including so~called "bicycle friendly" areas. Maybe, even, particularly, "bicycle friendly" areas. Unfortunately, the bicycle organizations have been taken over, as well as making deals with developers, & any "community involvement" is just a way to get approval & shut down opposing voices. How such a humongous scam has gained so much traction is beguiling. It will take enormous effort to weed out this distinction & truly make safe & well designed streets, again.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Listing Projects
Wikipedia is not a good format for an open source listing of new urban projects. Here's why.

Debates about what does and does not constitute new urbanism have been ongoing since the Congress for the New Urbanism was founded and its charter was written. Widespread discussions about a rigorous appraisal or certification scheme have been ongoing at least since 2000. There's a lot of intractable disagreement about a number of critical issues -- what factors to measure and how to weight them. The issue has become more pressing as numerous developers and marketers adopt the new urbanism moniker without necessarily including new urbanist principles in the design of their projects.

Therefore, a Wikipedia list of projects will be subject to endless disagreement, revisions, and appeals. Furthermore, it is duplicating the existing lists and databases which have the benefit of years of development, fairly consistent standards and resources for updating and maintenance.

However, there is still a great need for an open source evaluation of neighborhood quality. Open source taps into the wisdom of crowds, and avoids the flaws of top-down administration.

One good way to accomplish this would be a rating system that rates neighborhoods on a selection of characteristics. Since there is so much disagreement on rating criteria, the user could choose the investigators whose ratings they wish to see and to average together. And anyone could be an investigator; they simply would need to spell out the criteria they use.

It's going to take some resources and software development/customization to put this into practice, but it's the only productive way to accomplish open source neighborhood ratings.

LaurenceJA 15:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm much more pragmatic about this. If there is such a thing as "New Urbanism", then we should list some projects which could be categorized as such. Ofcourse there can be (endless) discussions on what makes a project fall into such a category, but we don't need to list all possible NU projects, just a few clear case ones to make this article more complete. NU is mainly about changing 'traditional' late 20th century, western, urban planning habits, and as such is an evolving movement rooted in Urban Planning traditions. NU is part of an ongoing cultural change in the way the western 'building industry/governments' perceive good/better urban environments, something that has been going on for many decades already. "Neighborhood quality" is something different than NU, and is a complex thing to measure in many ways. Also, the concept of quality always has some subjective elements in it, and in the case of urban planning there are many of these elements. Eg. the neighorhoods quality also depends on the people and their activities: social networking, violence/crime, gardening, pollution (trash, noise, dust), etc.. Walden 15:55, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're right about neighborhood quality. I should have said "neighborhood design and planning quality." And your description of new urbanism movement is beautiful. I can only hope the built results live up to the ideals you mention. In some cases they do; in some they do not.

How are we (Wikipedia users) going to agree which developments can be characterized as new urbanism? There have been several already listed that I do not consider to be representative of CNU charter principles. At any rate, it would be better to mention significant projects in their historical context. I have asked the author of an excellent, comprehensive “About New Urbanism” article for permission to reprint it in the Wikipedia. LaurenceJA 03:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I obtained copyright release from Robert Steuteville to post his article in Wikipedia. I hope that the authorship attribution meets Wikipedia standards -- I've styled it like a citation.LaurenceJA 22:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TND and TOD
Some writers have stated that transit-oriented development (TOD) and traditional neighborhood development (TND) are two different camps; however, this is factually incorrect. In practice, new urbanist designers employ the same principles whether or not transit service is available to a particular location. Of course, it is always preferable that convenient transit be provided to new urbanist developments, but the lack of transit is not a make-or-break condition, and certainly does not indicate a failure. This is according to the mainstream, prevailing principles of new urbanism as derived from sources such as the CNU Charter, the practice of leading firms, and academic studies. LaurenceJA 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is "New Urbanism" really capitalized that way in all references to it? That would seem to be a tad unusual for terms like that. — Stevie is the man!  Talk 23:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It varies by writer, but capitalization of the term is becoming less common. A publications firm I work with uses the rules of the "Associated Press Stylebook," and based on that they do not capitalize new urbanism.LaurenceJA 02:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a redirect from other capitalazations. If EVERYONE starts using lower case, we could consider moving the page accoringly. For now, it's fine. As for references, use the grammar used by the author. HereToHelp 12:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Firms
I recommend against keeping a list of new urbanist firms in Wikipedia for a number of reasons. First, several of the external links already refer to organizations that maintain directories of new urbanist firms. Second, I just checked the CNU website and there are 537 architects and 266 developers listed. If there is going to be a list of new urbanist firms in Wikipedia, which ones should Wikipedia include and which ones should be left out? What about the planners, researchers, activists, NGOs, media people, realtors, attorneys, etc., who also implement new urbanism? Third, a links list is a high-maintenance proposition. If broken links aren't constantly corrected, the list quickly becomes useless.

Please note that I'm not talking about articles and other items about new urbanism that firms make available on their websites. Some firms provide valuable information about the principles and practice of new urbanism. It can be a good idea to link to material like that.LaurenceJA 20:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe there should just be Internal Links to Wikipedia pages about those firms. The two that were listed, DPZ, and Wolff Lyon are considered the forerunners in New Urbanism Design, and their sites give excelnt examples of New Urbanism. DPZ was listed in the Refrences.

 * I concur. If a site has valuabe info, link it. If it is just to say "this is a new urbanist firm" or worse, and advertisment for a firm (Wikipedia is not a free hosting service, propaganda machine, etc.), don't link it.HereToHelp 12:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

More Criticism
Responses to SlightlySlack's additions of 05-09-25:

1. New urbanist principles bar the privatization of civic space and gated communities. 2. Claims that "provision for interchange is .. very limited" are unsupported, especially when compared to conventional suburban developments. 3. There are only a handful of new urbanist resorts in Florida, and they are not typical of the hundreds of new urbanist developments throughout the U.S.A. 4. New urbanists do not claim to supplant the long-term cultural interactions that create community, nor do they seek to freeze those interactions. 5. Many new urbanist developments include a significant component of affordable housing. 6. Many mainstream academics teach that new urbanism provides an alternative to conventional suburban development, and that students should learn about it. 7. Kunstler is just one supporter of new urbanism among many. He is not a founder of the movement, and he is not even very involved at this point in time. A focus on his rhetorical techniques is not representative of the work or positions taken by thousands of new urbanist practitioners and the industry associations that support the movement.LaurenceJA 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 1-5. I didn't add most of the text in these sections. The BoBos comment is a gibe, admittedly, but one might argue that what this country needs is a whole lot more BoBos.  Looking at The Glen and Stapleton, I think it's safe to say that NU developments have been quite mixed in socioeconomic groupings; however, their addiction to subsidies to create affordability is a consistent problem that is going to make NU developments unattractive to developers who don't want to get involved with the bureaucratic nightmares that go along with subsidization and set-asides.  (One of the problems with Stapleton is that big-box retail--specifically a Wal-Mart, where none of the residents shop--is the only way that the property-tax-starved Denver government can create enough of a tax increment to pay for the subsidies going into the development.)  Part of my long-term research agenda is figuring out ways of getting affordable ped-transit housing (such as NU communities) built without having to resort to such explicit or implicit subsidies and without pissing off the neighbors.  I stand by my comments about the declining supply of brownfields and Kelo.  In areas where there's actually sufficient demand for housing to make infill developments relatively attractive, there is fierce competition for brownfield sites because government entities do not like having to ED residences for things like schools and police precincts.  The Kelo backlash is going to make this that much more of a problem.  Let's also not forget that as time marches on, the existing supply of brownfields is going to be of an ever-lower quality with a higher chance of the sort of environmental contamination that typically scotches any sort of development.

 * 6. Wanna bet? In my department at USC (which, admittedly, displays an uncommonly wide ideological diversity, ranging from hardcore libertarian econocentrists like Peter Gordon to design mavens like Tridib Banerjee), there is a vigorous chicken-and-egg debate concerning design and society.  Even folks who are sympathetic to the NU movement are uneasy about its obsession with design.  The well-respected planning theorist Ann Markusen, head of the planning department at Rutgers and hardly a sprawl apologist, has dismissed NU as theoretically flimsy because of its obsession with design and has recommended that it not be taught to urban planning students.

 * 7. That's fair, but the Nowhere books are sacred texts to most students of urban planning, in large part because of their narrative strength. Also, Kunstler is one of the founding fathers of the movement--he signed the charter and calls himself a "card-carrying" member of the movement.  He addresses the Congress on a regular basis.  I would argue that NU needs to distance itself from Kunstler (which it has not) if it wants to academically defensible; most "lay" supporters of NU don't get much past him and Jacobs, and both authors' rhetoric and methods have been savagely attacked over the years.  (Read James Dunn's pro-sprawl screed Driving Forces, which is intellectually dishonest in many areas but has trenchant criticisms of the Marxist "false consciousness" arguments that intellectually underpin the 1960s-1970s criticisms of autocentricity that are the direct intellectual forebears of NU.)

 * I hope these clarify the graf I added. I admit to great rhetorical sloppiness of the sort that could be misconstrued as the work of a right-wing vandal (which I most definitely am not), which is why I shouldn't be Wiki'ing at 5 AM.--Slightlyslack 21:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * One more thing to add to point #6: Because Calthorpe and Duany are architects, and most NU practitioners are other architects or urban designers, the planning academy distrusts the movement. Academic planning study has long incorporated economics, engineering, policy analysis, sociology, and geography into its analytical framework, and generally treats design and architecture as secondary to these on the grounds of "form follows function."  The idea that urban form itself can cause or cure social ills is hardly new, BTW: it goes back to the Garden City movement, and to the progressive housing movement of the 1920s and 1930s.  I think we all know how well these places have done in the job of "uplifting" their residents: some of the most critically acclaimed Garden City housing projects include such magnificent urban paradises as Los Angeles' Aliso Village and Jordan Downs.--Slightlyslack 02:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments. Affordable housing is the subject of extensive debate among new urbanists. Some of the discussions are collected in the "New Urban Post II: On Gentrification" and "New Urban Post X: On Affordable Housing." (1). You may be familiar with "New Urbanism: Comprehensive report and Best Practices Guide" which has a chapter on affordability. I happen to agree with your criticism of Stapleton, and new urbanists continue to debate whether affordable housing can be provided in hot housing markets without subsidies. The research you describe may be of great value.

 * Your speculations about brownfields and Kelo may or may not prove to be correct. We don't know how the technology of brownfield remediation will progress; we don't know what unknown pollutants remain to be discovered; we don't know if the Kelo backlash will be lasting. Conclusions based on such speculations aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

 * In regards to academic involvement and research into new urbanism, the CNU Educators Task Force provides extensive and broad-based bibliographies.

 * Kunstler is not a founder of new urbanism, although he is one of its most visible supporters. If you look at the Timeline of New Urbanism you'll see the movement began gathering steam in the mid-1970s and the first generation of projects broke ground in the early- to mid-1980s. A small group of architects and town planners formally organized the CNU in 1991. The Charter was not presented for signing until several years later. If "card-carrying" means membership in the CNU, there are several thousand members -- all that's required is a fee payment. But more importantly, why should new urbanists distance themselves from Kunstler? You might as well argue, "Journalists (or muckrakers, Germans, libertarians, etc.) must distance themselves from HL Mencken if they want academic respectability, because Mencken wrote to shock and scandalize his readers."

 * As to your final point, you're absolutely right that planning is a generalists' field, and that many disciplines and viewpoints are needed besides physical design. No new urbanist that I'm aware of says otherwise, and indeed there are new urbanist engineers, sociologists, policy analysts, geographers, and representatives of many other disciplines who are very active in the field. However, after a strong involvement through the 1950s, it seems the planning discipline drifted away from physical design, with some notably negative effects as a result. The new urbanist focus on physical design has provided a valuable corrective to that drift, and it continues to promote best practices in the field. Also, new urbanists do not claim "urban form itself can cause or cure social ills" -- that's a red herring. This essay and this essay by Emily Talen are good discussions of the issue.LaurenceJA 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think Mencken is taken very seriously as a journalist--the guy barely ever left Baltimore. He's more beloved as a social commentator and a misanthrope, neither of which is a "legitimate" calling with a certain degree of respectability to maintain. (Both of which are absolutely necessary for a well-functioning society).  Regarding urban form, when Talen says that "[C]ommunity defined as common good can be legitimately engendered through design," how can you say that this does not imply that design can cure social ills?  Surely the decline of social capital inspires hand-wringing among New Urbanists the way it does among, say, governance scholars; is not "community defined as common good" really just a synonym for social capital?

 * Excellent points overall, and I concede that the tone of my statements probably isn't meant for an encyclopedia--but on the other hand, when the vast majority of text in an article about a movement comes from an official publication of the movement, the issue of NPOV should be in play.--Slightlyslack 10:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Talen says, "Clearly, the community-design link is tenuous when community is conventionally defined, i.e., within the confines of social science." This includes social networks, as Talen states explicitly. She goes on to offer an alternative definition of "common good" based on the goals of social diversity, accessibility and neighborhood identity, and achieved by the provision of mixed housing types, mixed uses, pedestrian access, compactness, and public space. These elements by themselves will not build community; they only constitute physical patterns that can potentially support some forms of community. Residents may or may not choose to use that potential.LaurenceJA 02:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Smartcode, what is it?
I ran across this Smartcode on Duany Plater-Zyberk website. It looks like a model planning code but I'm not an architect. Would this have any use in putting in the article, or is it too proprietary? Maybe a better option is to mention some examples of info obtained from a review of the code. Smartcode 7.0 PDF File 7Mb

 * As I understand it, the SmartCode is indeed a proprietary product: a "form-based" model code for cities to adopt, replacing their previous zoning codes. A local New Urbanist planning firm installed the Central Petaluma SmartCode in Petaluma, California, in 2004:  Newspaper stories implied that the Smartcode may not be consistent with California planning law.  -- Mukrkrgsj 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Men
For "collectivist plot" reference, see Freedom 21 Santa Cruz. See also Thoreau Institute editorial that conflates new urbanism and Soviet planning. For representative example of "capitalistic excess" charge, see Mike Davis' widely-disseminated feature in Mother Jones magazine. For examples of "good instantly" criticisms, see evaluations of newly-built new urbanist developments by Wendell Cox, Alex Marshall and Michael Sorkin, among many others. LaurenceJA 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed two of the criticisms; they were unsourced and seemed to be very "out there", as if the writer was channelling Ayn Rand and Mao Zedong. --Bletch 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean they were unsourced? I provided the sources above. Check them out. LaurenceJA 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Laurence, I like the contributions. Could you source them in the article itself? Ed Sanville 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Change category name from New Urbanism to...
I have proposed changing the name of Category:New Urbanism. My best alternative is Sustainable urban planning or Sustainable urban design but perhaps there is something more suitable.

See discussion at Category talk:New Urbanism. (Don't respond here) --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image
I think we should find a more attractive image to use as an example of New Urbanism. The building architecture in the current photo leaves much to be desired, IMO. I'm certain there are better examples to use. (Also, what is that trailer doing out front? Is this example still under construction?) Ed Sanville 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Human Scale
Would it be accurate to note that many of the tenets of New Urbanism were inspired by (or at least foreshadowed by) Sale's Human Scale? It certainly seems that way to me, but I don't have significant domain expertise here. Tlesher 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Projects by state?
Do we really need that section? Why not spin it off into a list article? The article already has a lot that aren't in that section --AW 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I spun off the list, in the "Examples" section into a new article, Examples of New Urbanism. It still needs some of the examples from the body of the article added to it. Scott182 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article on the New Urbanism doesn't need a section containing examples of it, how can that section stand alone? Why not bring it back here, and edit it down to a few representative examples? Or if it genuinely merits a separate article, why not rename it something like New Urbanist communities? -- Mukrkrgsj 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New Urbanism - a US phenomenon?
I had made some earlier edits to this article, but the whole thing has seemed problematic from a European persepctive. New Urbanism has been seen as very much an American phenomenon (and one can look to various US architects, activists and theorists, such as Jacobs, Sales, and so on, who have attempted to champion what can be regarded as typical historical European urban models). So what may be called "New Urbanism" in USA, may simply be "urbanism" in Europe. This is hardly to say that Modernism has not decimated European cities and even become a standard model for planing in many European countries (e.g. former east bloc): and so, in Europe, too, many of these lessons are now being re-learnt -- ironically somewhat making pastiches of their previous living traditions. It is somewhat unfortunate that as it stands the examples are given as USA, followed by the individual US states and then "the rest of the world". --TTKK 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it should be stressed that this is largely an American movement, at least so far as regarading the tenets as "new" (or even "urbanism"). The Brits have a more extensive New Town track record, but even in the US the principles were evident in planning of the early twentieth century. The retro taste for historic models is exemplied by many suburban developments of that period, and more recently in Britain by the Prince of Wale's new town project, Poundbury [].

The notions of New Urbanism have derived from architects' perspective of urban issues. This presentation might integrate more views of others, such as historians and sociologists, who might place the movement in the context of class and cultural eilitism--and the movement warrants this sort of critique. Phmalo 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, and I believe it is largely a result of how much of America's development has occurred during the automobile age. As stated, Britain has some notable programs that could be equated to New Urbanism, as does Australia -- another location whose growth has largely occurred during the automobile age.  --Thisisbossi 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the New Urbanism is the product of a few American architects and planners, it is certainly an American movement. But there is little that's new about the New Urbanism. Part of it is nostalgia for the pre-industrial, self-contained agrarian village; and part of it is a rationale for both renewing inner-city neighborhoods, and building new subdivisions, based on that archaic, idyllic model.

IMHO, the question is whether the New Urbanism really has anything to offer not only the U.S., but the U.K. and Europe, and the developing nations of the Third World. To be successful--dare I say sustainable?--the New Urbanism must propose genuine mitigations for the negative impacts of the Industrial Revolution, including the current issues of "peak oil" and "global warming".

Maybe the "New Ruralism" is a better response to the impacts of industrialization and international development than the aging New Urbanism. Maybe the ultimate answer is worldwide population control; a few highly specialized, urban centers of science, technology, and industry throughout the world; and a multi-national network of independent, self-sustaining agrarian villages, linked by electronic communications, with limited ground and air transport between them.-- Mukrkrgsj 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Deleted "Worldwide View" Template?
I agree, this is an American phenomenon. It's responding to American circumstances. That's why all the conferences have been held in the United States. We should delete the template on the bottom section about it not representing a "worldwide view". NittyG (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Solving the Commute
I didn't spot anything on this in the article... I hope to clean it up and find a good place to add it in myself should I find the time; but I welcome others to expand upon this criticism and insert it or critique it as need be:

''While New Urbanism addresses traffic issues such as retail or dining trips, it does not typically address what is often the primary source of traffic congestion: the daily commute. In many cases, the residential property values greatly exceed the demand of the equivilent upper-scale workforce, as most of the local commercial and industrial properties are staffed with lower-income employees whom cannot afford the residential properties within the development. Therefore, a socioeconomic disparity remains: causing the residents to continue commuting elsewhere and the local workers to continue commuting in. While this could, to some degree, be address through a centralised mass transit mode, such transit-oriented developments are still a relatively rare occurrence.''

--Thisisbossi 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand you to say something like this:

 * "The New Urbanism does not adequately address what is often the primary source of traffic congestion: the daily commute to and from NU developments. Housing can be so expensive that employees of local business and industry can't afford to live there. They must commute in, and some residents may also commute out.  The NU's solution is mass transit, but transit-oriented developments are still relatively rare."

 * I think you're pointing at the fundamental weakness of the New Urbanism. Whether they are within existing cities or are new suburban subdivisions, New Urbanist communities are not, in fact, self-contained, independent villages.

 * The ideal NU community would provide for its residents to live, work, and satisfy almost all their daily needs within a mile or so of their homes. Thus the New Urbanism does not, in fact, seek to recreate the traditional urban design of American cities before WWII.  Its real model is an isolated farm village before the Industrial Revolution.

 * -- Mukrkrgsj 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of examples
I think we need to clean up that list. It's awfully big --AW 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a simple bulleted list of the examples. This definitely looks better than the long list. Scott182 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This list has now been spun off into an article, Examples of New Urbanism, but still remains in this article for now. Scott182 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the reference about the project in Lisbon. I am not an expert in New Urbanism, but the project does not fit in the definition for sure. For instance, take the central avenue of the Alta de Lisboa where the following picture was taken: http://fotos.sapo.pt/rB66zjKerOZHpkPQez9V/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.52.186 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is unreadable
How can this article be considered to be of "top importance"?

If there is any genuine substance to The New Urbanism, why haven't its proponents produced a readable Wikipedia page that clearly defines and explains it?

Is it a theory and philosophy of urban planning, or just an excuse for continuous, unmitigated growth and development? Mukrkrgsj 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right, the article is not in very good shape. For a clear overview, visit the website of the Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/). Continuous, unmitigated growth and development in the USA doesn't make any excuses for itself, and it doesn't have too, since it has the law on its side. Given that it will take sea change in the law, in people's attitudes towards taxes and property rights, and in the economic foundation of the country before there is a healthly approach to the development of land, New Urbanism is the best thing we have to ensure that new development is not awful. But blaming New Urbanism for growth is preposterous. The overwhelming majority of new developments (I would guess well over 95%) continue to be the standard cul de sac, segregated use, 100% auto-dependent suburbia.Sylvain1972 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! It should be obvious that I don't blame the NU for growth per se.

My point is that in my own city of more than 150,000, and county of close to 500,000, outspoken local advocates of the NU and "Smart Growth" are touting their principles as justifying and excusing continuous urban and suburban growth--even as the traffic congestion, and other impacts of that growth, become increasingly severe. Let me add that I'm in California, and what the developers and local politicians are doing, is not necessarily consistent with local and state law.

I copied three sections this evening, reorganized them, and edited them for brevity and clarity, while keeping as much of the original thought as possible. I don't necessarily agree with them--I'm just trying to boil this unreadable page down to its essence, to see if it has one!

Once again, I hope responsible proponents of the NU will jump in at some point, and clearly and concisely explain what they're up to. Mukrkrgsj 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New Ruralism?
I'm thinking of deleting this section. It seems to be added by someone from Simpler Times Village, the link in the section. The drawing Image:Aerial-Perspective-artist-d.jpg, which I removed, was hand drawn by User:Villagemaker, and is also the same one from the Simpler Times website. I suspect they created that section as an ad. There may be a valid thing called New Ruralism, but it needs some real sources. --AW 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Google finds several references to the New Ruralism. Here's a headline from the planning site Planitizen, which reprints an article Defining The New Ruralism: "Peter S. Rummell, CEO of The St. Joe Company, outlines a vision for the development of new real estate products based on a concept he calls 'the New Ruralism'."

If the NR is more than a real estate gimmick, it may still be little more than a rehash of the post-'60s hippie back to the land movement. If there's something to it, maybe it should have its own page, and just a reference here? -- Mukrkrgsj 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" claim
I substituted the recent "unreferenced" tag with the more appropriate template. Some parts of the article are clearly referenced, and the "References" section is rather big. However, I would agree that essay-like parts need referencing badly. --Futurano 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-industrial
Umm, rather than an element of nostalgia for a pre industrial age, isn't it more for the late 19th century, the time of wonderful new inventions such as streetcar suburbs and bicycles? Thus, post industrial nostalgia for an industrial age? Jim.henderson 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it meant pre-automobile, so I changed it. --W.marsh 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Tigne Point
Would this be considered a form of New Urbanism? Marcus1234 12:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion by 12.218.199.245 excessive and described inaccurately
Undisputed changes were lost in the shuffle. I'll revert the change, then resurrect the original see-also list. 68.165.76.202 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality Problem in One Particular Passage
I find the following paragraph to be more editorial than educational; note particularly the perjorative phrase "lego projects":   ''It is very unlikely that the members of this congress have a comprehensive understanding of the real effects of New Urbanist "lego projects" on the people that live within them. These effects are not always positive. New Columbia If grassroots participation is not the scaffolding of the New Urbanist model of mixed-income development, which it is not, the projects will suffer lack of cohesion. Until high-level bureaucracies such as HUD and HOPE VI make great efforts to build a common sense of identity through participatory planning, there will be no essential foundation of social stability upon which to construct new buildings.''   I suggest this passage be deleted, since I can imagine no way of revising it to remove its biases (because the entire passage is an opinion). --Skb8721 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

whats this?
The New Urbanist preference for 'permeable' street grids has been criticised on the grounds that it gives private motor vehicles an advantage over walking, cycling and public transport. i suggest removing this part, this grid street system is clearly much more advantageous to walking, biking and transit that hierarchical streets.

there are some criticisms listed that are just random baseless charges against the new urbanism (like calling it fascist), we need to filter out these and strengthen the the major and most common criticisms of the movement mainly that some view it as old fashioned, that some communities are still quite autodependent, some NIMBYs finding it too dense, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxstreetcar (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Pdxstreetcar (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing this part. It appears to be a minor group trying to get visibility by setting itself up as common critique of New Urbanism. I think I can edit to say it criticizes NU for not going far enough to prioritize peds Tebici (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

adding a section about style issues and urban new urbanism
I think there needs to be more mention about the issue and role of architectural style in new urbanism, people seem to think new urbanism=traditional architecture. Certainly a lot of NU projects use traditional architecture but there are a good number of projects that either have a mix of styles or are modernist and the CNU charter is specific in stating that NU not be style specific.

Also I think it is worth having a section on 'Urban New Urbanism' or large scale urban infill projects that employ new urbanist principles like Hoyt Street Yards/Pearl District in Portland, South Lake Union in Seattle, South Waterfront in Portland, Yaletown/Concord pacific in Vancouver BC, LoDo in Denver, Victory Park in Dallas, Capital Center/Waterplace Park in Providence, South Boston Waterfront in Boston, Mission Bay in San Francisco, to name a few. Pdxstreetcar (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Does merging Congress for the New Urbanism into this article look like a good idea? I think that most of the material is already here. Comments? --Stormbay (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth / New Pedestrianism
This "variant of New Urbanism" seems to be just one individual, whose personal Wikipedia entry was recently nominated for deletion. Even if it were a notable school of thought with many disciples, it doesn't deserve mention within the first five sentences of an article about New Urbanism. Even under the person listing -- he's the only person not on that list who isn't either extensively published (on topics relating to urban design) or honored as a Fellow of the AIA. Paytonc (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New Urbanism Advantages
I just got done browsing the New Urbanism wikipedia page and I see nothing there regarding the ADVANTAGES of new urbanism. It was mentioned that the New Urban design philosophies are about human-scale enviroments and walkable communities, but these descriptions come off looking like industry jargon. The average Joe aint going to know what that means in layman's terms. These terms should be extrapolated.

What about all the advantages inherent in human-scale enviroments and walkable communities? For example:

1) More walking means a healthier citizenship. If you ain't driving to the nearby Wendy's, but instead you are walking there... you might just have enough walking distance between your house and the local Wendy's to burn off any excess calories gained from your cheeseburger.  With driving (urban sprawl) those calories would just end up in your rear end.

2) Healthier citizens means less time at the doctor and lower medical bills. Good health also promotes increased self-esteem and self-confidence.  It also may mean fewer suicides and domestic disputes.

3) Reduced driving time also decreases automobile accidents. This means fewer automobile fatalities and fewer patients in the hospital to care for (for those who survive violent car crashes).  More money saved.

4) Reduced driving time cuts back on the amount of gasoline and/or alternative energy needed to fuel automobiles. This saves money individually and nationally.  IMPORTANT.

5) Walkable communities promote increased social interactions. This reduces crime rates and reduces social isolation, which lends itself to happier citizens and an overall improvement in mental well being.

6) High density NU communities also reduces municipality requirements and highway construction costs. This is due to a more efficient and elegant use space.

These are some of the main points, I would guess. Perhaps they could even be ellaborated upon. In any case, if there is going to be a CRITICISMS catagory, there should be an ADVANTAGES catagory in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.142.246 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much criticism
Although I generally prefer criticism sections (and even "Trivia Sections") in articles, I believe that this one is way over-the-top in being negative and excessive. In fact, it makes it seem that nearly everyone is staunchly opposed to New Urbanism, ranging from conservatives/libertarians to far-leftists and anarcho-primitivists. It sounds (reads) like this article has mainly been edited repeatedly by persons diametrically opposed to it who are willing to use any and all arguments against it. I admit that I come to this topic out of near total ignorance, but I find it incredible (unbelievable) that there is really almost no support for this (New Urbanism)---academic or otherwise---from any middle-of-the-road or more moderate/mainstream "liberal" and pro-environmental interests, whether in the establishment or more counter-establishment. These issues really need to be addressed. Shanoman (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should outline significant criticisms of the topic, but shouldn't give an undue weight to one side or another. Is there some information mentioned in the criticism that you think is exaggerated, unfair or insufficiently supported?  TastyCakes (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New Pedestrianism
Though this article is in need of a general cleanup, one place to start would be a consideration of the prominence of "New Pedestrianism." New Pedestrianism is not a significant subdivision of New Urbanism, unlike TOD or TND. Seemingly all of the references about New Pedestrianism can be traced back to Michael E. Arth, its founder. This is inconsistent with WP:NOR, and unless someone wants to make the case that New Pedestrianism is, as the article seems to suggest in its current form, a significant part of NU, I'm going to scale back its role to fit its limited impact on the New Urbanist movement. LDNash (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how this issue as been brought up before in this talk page, I'll go ahead and proceed with the edits. LDNash (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think it's part and parcel of the same thing. The very beginning mentions walkable neighborhoods, for example. Some references should be ok. You really didn't remove very much at all. --AW (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, the differences aren't particularly great. But New Pedestrianism is an uncommon way of discussing and treating space that isn't used very often by New Urbanists. Considering both its similarity to NU and its small base, I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning in the intro. On that note, actually, the next thing I'm going to follow up on some of the edits you made and work on cleaning up the intro. It's too long as it is right now, and some of the info can be moved down into other sections. I may edit the caption for the picture you put back in as well. I can't find the term "walk street" in any New Urbanist literature or online.LDNash (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe just pedestrian street. --AW (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Defining Elements section
This section is pretty lackluster as it stands. It only discusses the neighborhood scale and lacks citations. I think the best way to go about redoing this section is to use the scales referenced in the New Urbanism charter: region, neighborhood, street/building. I'd guess most of the information in this section can be based off of the charter, perhaps with some references to examples. It is, after all, basically a "defining elements" section in itself. LDNash (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"a collectivist plot designed to rob Americans of their civil freedoms..."
The full sentence: "Some libertarians and Conservatives view new urbanism as a collectivist plot designed to rob Americans of their civil freedoms, property rights, and free-flowing traffic."

This is cited as the source:

 * "Plan Obsolescence," Reason, June 1998

I'm reading the whole thing. It doesn't once contain the word collectivist. Yes, it's in a libertarian magazine, Reason (magazine), but that's not what the article says. The article is more subtle than this...it's not some nutcase libertarian propaganda. The article is critical of conservatives at the American Enterprise Institute as well as the traditional liberals who push new urbanism. I'm going to rework this sentence (and possibly this whole section) to be more neutral and more accurately reflect what the article actually says. Cazort (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

more cleanup
I removed this paragraph as it was unsourced, I'm pasting it here in case anyone wants to find sources to salvage it: Thanks. Cazort (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps the most frequent criticism of the movement is that the most famous and highest-profile projects most associated with the movement (primarily Celebration, Kentlands, and Seaside) are all greenfield projects built on what was previously open space and therefore are just another form of sprawl. (The city of Hercules on the other hand is developing its New Urbanism communities on brownfields.) Other projects like Stapleton (Denver), the Pearl District (Portland) and Glenwood Park (Atlanta) are all newer brownfield projects that are all beginning to undermine this long standing criticism. Critics react to this as a controlled sprawl that assumes that social situations can and should also be controlled, such that preconceived rules of what a town need be are first worked out on paper and then acted out in real space. Often the results are elitist and exclusionary, and are almost always conservative in nature. "

Picture
Can we please get a new picture for (the top of) this article? It's a terrible representation of what the New Urbanism is. And, more than that, new pictures for the article throughout? There are some really terrible ones here. Pretty much all of them need to be replaced. Someone new to the concept would walk away from this article having no real understanding of what new urbanism is from these pictures. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what replacing the pictures entails exactly; copyrights-wise. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Removal
I'm removing the line, "Although the current use of non-mixed ghettoed social housing projects have been a dismal failure..." It's marked with a "citation needed," but quite frankly, there is no citation that anyone can provide that supports any statement such as this as definitively, empirically, and obviously true. If data shows it to be a "failure," then it should say (with a citation), "recent data/sociologists/someone-specific-with-authority-on-the-topic show(s) that the current use of non-mixed, ghetto social housing projects have been unsuccessful. [citation to that data/report on data/etc]" While Conservapedia.com likes to think that statements like this are simply "truisms" that ought not be questioned, this is just laden with personal-opinion-as-truth. It's gone.24.59.177.38 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't signed in. Original statement by Treefingers1206 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Cotton District

 * The Cotton District got its name because it is built in an area that surrounds an old cotton mill.

"an area" is hopelessly vague; I'd make it either it surrounds an old cotton mill or it is near an old cotton mill, depending on whether the Cotton District itself surrounds the mill. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this, changed it to "vicinity of" —screamingman14 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.166.245 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think urban renaissance and new urbanism cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. It seems kind of like the former article is specifically about the UK, but that's not enough grounds for a separate article. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose these are distinct terms with different meaning. The assertions of similarities between the two terms made in the urban renaissance article are unreferenced. -- ELEKHHT 01:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose The urban renaissance page references a general social trend, whereas new urbanism refers to a developed design philosophy, which is distinct from population movement to cities.--Sbrowndc (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Even if an urban renaissance was solely the result of new urbanist policies, it makes sense to separate a design philosophy from its results. Fitnr (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose Tebici (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

picture caption error
"Prospect New Town in Longmont, Colorado, showing a mix of aggregate housing and traditional detached homes"

aggregate housing has no wikipedia page nor clear definition when googled, perhaps the word "townhouse" or "apartment building" would be more accurate?

80.5.128.19 (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Recursion
the link to "traditional neighborhood design" is useless, as it redirects back to New Urbanism. 216.67.27.126 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete Mountain House
I propose that Mountain House be removed from the examples list.

Mountain House is not walkable and has very few amenities. Picking a random address inside of Mountain House we see that it has a walkscore of 6/100: https://www.walkscore.com/score/97+Ameno+Ln+Mountain+House+CA+95391/lat=37.771725/lng=-121.54746

The section states that "In addition, a future train station, transit center and bus system are planned for Mountain House." There is no reference for this and I can't find anything online to support this statement. The nearest train station is the ACE train station in Tracy, CA - 11 miles away from Mountain House (certainly not walkable). Mountain House Residents are currently petitioning ACE Train to add a stop at Patterson Pass Road - but that would still be 5 miles from Mountain House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealWillMartin (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Urbanism. 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/20141023010313/http://www.newpartners.org/about/about-the-event to http://www.newpartners.org/about/about-the-event
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014174711/http://www.cnu.org/leednd to http://www.cnu.org/leednd
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001092432/http://www.chesterfieldtwp.com/Smart%20Growth/smartgrowthpage.html to http://www.chesterfieldtwp.com/Smart%20Growth/smartgrowthpage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117025306/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj06/indepth/communities.asp to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj06/indepth/communities.asp

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) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Urbanism. 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/20160611102029/http://www.botsfor.no/publikasjoner/litteratur/new%20urbanism/new%20urbanism%20and%20the%20city%20by%20charles%20bohl.pdf to http://www.botsfor.no/publikasjoner/litteratur/new%20urbanism/new%20urbanism%20and%20the%20city%20by%20charles%20bohl.pdf

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) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Urbanism. 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/20140625234557/http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Canons.pdf to http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Canons.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412172431/https://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/del-mar-station-2007 to https://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/del-mar-station-2007
 * Added tag to http://www.jeunesarchi.com/

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) 10:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Fluff
This article is full of non factual attempts to “define” this topic. Pleas remove the irrelevant and nonfactual references 2601:584:101:B0D0:148F:AFD2:41C9:E29 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Landscape Restoration
— Assignment last updated by Danimilkweed (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Congress for the New Urbanism CNU
is CNU worthy of its own article? Doug Grinbergs (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Urbanism


text:
Treaty of Kiel

The Treaty of Kiel (Kieltraktaten) or Peace of Kiel (Swedish and Kielfreden or freden i Kiel) was concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Sweden on one side and the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway on the other side on 14 January 1814 in Kiel. It ended the hostilities between the parties in the ongoing Napoleonic Wars, where the United Kingdom and Sweden were part of the anti-French camp (the Sixth Coalition) while Denmark–Norway was allied to France.

Frederick VI of Denmark joined the anti-French alliance, ceded Heligoland to George III of the United Kingdom, and further ceded the Kingdom of Norway to Charles XIII, to enter a union with Sweden, in return for Swedish Pomerania. Specifically excluded from the exchange were the Norwegian dependencies of Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which remained in the union with Denmark. (Norway would unsuccessfully contest the Danish claim to all of Greenland in the Eastern Greenland Case of 1931–33. )

However, not all provisions of the treaty would come into force. Norway declared its independence, adopted a constitution and elected Crown Prince Christian Frederik as its own king. Sweden therefore refused to hand over Swedish Pomerania, which instead passed to Prussia after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. After a short war with Sweden, Norway accepted entering into a personal union with Sweden at the Convention of Moss. King Christian Frederik abdicated after convening an extraordinary Storting, which revised the Constitution to allow for the Union. It was formally established when the Storting elected Charles XIII as king of Norway on 4 November 1814.

Background
In the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark-Norway and the Kingdom of Sweden tried to maintain neutrality but soon became involved in the fighting, joining opposite camps. Swedish king Gustav IV Adolf entered an alliance with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Russian Empire against Napoleon Bonaparte in 1805, and declared war on Napoleonic France. The United Kingdom, which had declared war on France in 1803, paid subsidies to Sweden. Before Gustav IV Adolf marched his forces out of Swedish Pomerania, a province long coveted by Prussia, he negotiated an agreement that Prussia would not attack it. Denmark remained neutral.

In 1807, Napoleonic forces seized Swedish Pomerania and forced Prussia and Russia to sign the Treaty of Tilsit. Russia was therein obliged to attack Napoleon's enemies, and since Gustav IV Adolf refused to break his alliance with the United Kingdom, the tsar invaded Finland and severed it from Sweden in the Finnish War, 1808/1809. Sweden could no longer uphold her anti-French foreign policy, and French Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was elected heir to the Swedish throne in 1810. Denmark-Norway entered an alliance with France after the second British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807.

In 1812, Napoleon's forces were decimated in their failed attempt to subdue Russia, and started their westward retreat. Sweden allied with Russia on 30 August 1812, with the United Kingdom on 3 March 1813, and with Prussia on 22 April 1813. Previously, on 23 March 1813, she had declared war on Napoleon. Bernadotte's condition for entering the anti-Napoleonic alliance was the gain of Norway, which the United Kingdom and Russia accepted in May 1813. Prussia however did not acknowledge this claim at first. Thus, Bernadotte hesitated to enter the war with full force, and only engaged in a campaign against Hamburg which on 30 June was re-conquered by allied French and Danish forces. When Prussia finally accepted the Swedish claim to Norway on 22 July, Sweden joined the alliance of Reichenbach concluded between Russia, the United Kingdom and Prussia on 14/15 June. With three armies (North, Main and Silesian, the Northern army under Bernadotte's command), the allies subsequently cleared Northern Germany of French forces. Denmark, who had maintained the alliance with Napoleon because of the Swedish claim to Norway, was isolated and, as a consequence of the war, bankrupt. Bernadotte, now free to attack Denmark after Napoleon's defeat at Leipzig in Mid-October, took his combined Swedish/Russian Army and quickly defeated the outnumbered Danish Army and occupied Holstein and Schleswig during late December 1813. Frederick VI agreed to make peace once it was clear that Bernadotte would occupy Jutland and Zealand (with British naval assistance), if necessary to force the Norwegian cession.

Dano-British treaty
The treaty between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was negotiated by Danish diplomat Edmund Bourke and the British envoy at the Swedish court, Edward Thornton. It consisted of 14 articles, to which two articles were added in Brussels on 7 April.

In article III, the United Kingdom was obliged to return all occupied Danish possessions to the Danish king. Excepted was the island of Heligoland, where the British king was granted "full and unlimited sovereignty".

In article VI, the Danish king joined the anti-Napoleonic alliance, and obliged himself to maintain an army of 10,000 men that was to be joined to the Allied forces in Northern Germany and likewise be commanded by the Swedish crown prince. This Danish contingent was to be treated the same way the Swedish contingent was treated, and the Danish king was to receive an annual 400,000 pounds of British subsidies for maintenance and pay of the army, to be paid in monthly installments as soon as the army entered Allied service.

Article VIII was concerned with the abolishment of slave trade. In article X, the British king promised the Danish king to negotiate further compensation for Denmark's territorial cessions to Sweden in a pending final peace. In article XIII, older Dano-British treaties were confirmed.

The articles added in Brussels were concerned with the property of Danish subjects in the colonies or in ceded territories, which was to remain untouched by the British for the next three years, and equal treatment of Danish, British and Hanoveranian subjects, who were not to be prosecuted because of their participation in the war on different sides, nor because of their political or religious beliefs.

Dano-Swedish treaty

The treaty between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden was negotiated by Danish diplomat Edmund Bourke (Burke) and Swedish envoy Baron Gustaf af Wetterstedt with British mediation. It consisted of 28 articles and one separate article. In article III, the Danish king promised to join the alliance against Napoleonic France, and with reference to the Dano-British treaty confirms his obligation to put part of his army under Swedish command.

In article IV, the Danish king in his and his successors' name "irrevocably and forever" renounced claims to the Kingdom of Norway, which would enter a union with Sweden under the Swedish king. The Norwegian kingdom was defined as consisting of the bishoprics of Christiansand, Bergen, Akershus and Trondheim, as well as the coastal islands and the northern regions of Nordland and Finnmark to the Russian border. Excepted were Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The Norwegian subjects were freed of their obligations to the Danish king. In article VI, the Swedish crown took over the debts and financial obligations of Norway, which was to be determined by a joint Dano-Swedish commission.

Article VII ruled that Swedish Pomerania was to be handed over to Denmark. In article XV, it was ruled that the Swedish forces were to take over the Norwegian fortresses as soon as the treaty was ratified, and that they were to abandon Swedish Pomerania as soon as the Norwegian fortresses Fredriksten, Fredrikstad, Kongsvinger and Akershus were handed over. In article XIII, the Swedish king promised the Danish king to negotiate full compensation for the cession of Norway in a pending final peace, and the cession of Swedish Pomerania is described as a "proof" of this intention.

In article XII, the king of Sweden promised to maintain the Norwegian University of Christiania, and the Pomeranian University of Greifswald, which was to pass to Denmark according to article VII, and confirmed donations made before the exchange. Also, it was agreed in article XX that subjects of the Danish king could choose within the next six years whether they would finally settle in Norway or Denmark, whereby property in the realm which would not become the permanent residence was to be sold only to inhabitants of this realm. This provision was also enacted with respect to Swedish Pomerania. In article XVI, it was agreed that the governors general and all foreign-born officials of the exchanged territories, as long as they did not decide to remain, were removed from their offices. Article XXI obliged the Danish administration to hand over all civilian and military administrative documents and archives concerning Norway.

Article XVII provided for a mutual exchange of all prisoners of war. According to article XV, allied troops were to leave the Danish Duchy of Schleswig (Slesvig), but were allowed to remain in the German confederal Duchy of Holstein (Holsten), ruled in personal union with Denmark and Schleswig, to participate in the encirclement of Hamburg. In article XXVII, former Dano-Swedish peaces were confirmed as long as their provisions were not in conflict with the treaty of Kiel, namely the Treaty of Copenhagen (1660), the Treaty of Stockholm (June 1720), the Treaty of Frederiksborg (July 1720) and the Treaty of Jönköping (1809). A separate article was concerned with the cession of hostilities.

Union between Sweden and Norway
The Swedish crown prince intended to invade Norway to enforce the Treaty of Kiel. This was supported by the majority of people living in Sweden. However, the Swedish elite in Christiania supported resistance. The bishop Johan Nordahl Brun wrote to Claus Pavels and urged his religious colleagues in Christiania to grab their rifles so as to never surrender. There was a brief war but a ceasefire allowed for the union between Norway and Sweden to be established. The Norwegian Parliament voted for a constitution and elected the Swedish king to the Norwegian throne. So Danish sovereignty over Norway was superseded with Swedish sovereignty over Norway. As of 1814 a distinction was made between genuine Norwegians and those allegedly un-Norwegian. The Norwegian elite used this identity labeling to resist Swedification.

Swedish Pomerania
Due to the refusal of Norway to subordinate itself to the Swedish king, Charles XIII of Sweden did not hand over Swedish Pomerania to Frederick VI of Denmark. The problem was solved at the Congress of Vienna, when the Great Powers followed a plan worked out by Karl August von Hardenberg, prime minister of the Kingdom of Prussia, who proposed a ring exchange of territories and payments between the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Hanover (ruled in personal union with Great Britain and Ireland), the Kingdom of Prussia and the Kingdom of Sweden.

According to Hardenberg's plan, Prussia ceded East Frisia with Emden to Hanover, and in exchange received from Hanover the Duchy of Lauenburg. This duchy was then handed over from Prussia to Denmark, along with an additional payment of 3.5 million talers. Prussia also took over a Danish debt to Sweden of 600,000 talers, and agreed on an additional payment of 2 million talers to Sweden. Denmark and Sweden in turn relinquished their claims to Swedish Pomerania in favour of Prussia. Charles XIII of Sweden then released his Pomeranian subjects from their obligations towards Sweden on 1 October 1815, and on 23 October the province was handed over to von Ingersleben, president of Prussian Pomerania.

East Greenland case

Between 1931 and 1933, Norway contested the Danish possession of all of Greenland at the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague. , this was the only case where possession of a polar territory was ever decided by an international court.

The Norwegian side argued that Denmark did not hold rights to any part of the island where she did not exact actual sovereignty, and accordingly proclaimed a Norwegian Eirik Raudes Land in eastern Greenland on 10 July 1931, which had been occupied in the previous month. On 5 April 1933 however, the court ruled that on the basis of the Treaty of Kiel and subsequent treaties, Denmark was the sovereign over the whole of Greenland.

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

title: Treaty of Kiel


text:
Furfural

Furfural is an organic compound with the formula C4H3OCHO. It is a colorless liquid, although commercial samples are often brown. It has an aldehyde group attached to the 2-position of furan. It is a product of the dehydration of sugars, as occurs in a variety of agricultural byproducts, including corncobs, oat, wheat bran, and sawdust. The name furfural comes from the Latin word furfur, meaning bran, referring to its usual source. Furfural is only derived from dried biomass. In addition to ethanol, acetic acid, and sugar, furfural is one of the oldest organic chemicals available readily purified from natural precursors.

History
Furfural was first isolated in 1821 (published in 1832) by the German chemist Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner, who produced a small sample as a byproduct of formic acid synthesis. In 1840, the Scottish chemist John Stenhouse found that the same chemical could be produced by distilling a wide variety of crop materials, including corn, oats, bran, and sawdust, with aqueous sulfuric acid; he also determined furfural's empirical formula (C5H4O2). George Fownes named this oil "furfurol" in 1845 (from furfur (bran), and oleum (oil)). In 1848, the French chemist Auguste Cahours determined that furfural was an aldehyde. Determining the structure of furfural required some time: the furfural molecule contains a cyclic ether (furan), which tends to break open when it's treated with harsh reagents. In 1870, German chemist Adolf von Baeyer speculated about the structure of the chemically similar compounds furan and 2-furoic acid. Additional research by German chemist Heinrich Limpricht supported this idea. From work published in 1877, Baeyer had confirmed his previous belief on the structure of furfural. By 1886, furfurol was being called "furfural" (short for "furfuraldehyde") and the correct chemical structure for furfural was being proposed. By 1887, the German chemist Willy Marckwald had inferred that some derivatives of furfural contained a furan nucleus. In 1901, the German chemist Carl Harries determined furan's structure through work with succindialdehyde and 2-methylfuran, thereby also confirming furfural's proposed structure.

Furfural remained relatively obscure until 1922, when the Quaker Oats Company began mass-producing it from oat hulls. Today, furfural is still produced from agricultural byproducts like sugarcane bagasse and corn cobs. The main countries producing furfural today are the Dominican Republic, South Africa and China.

Properties
Furfural dissolves readily in most polar organic solvents, but it is only slightly soluble in either water or alkanes.

Furfural participates in the same kinds of reactions as other aldehydes and other aromatic compounds. It exhibits less aromatic character than benzene, as can be seen from the fact that furfural is readily hydrogenated to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. When heated in the presence of acids, furfural irreversibly polymerizes, acting as a thermosetting polymer.

Production
Furfural may be obtained by the acid catalyzed dehydration of 5-carbon sugars (pentoses), particularly xylose.
 * xylose → + 3

These sugars may be obtained from pentosans obtained from hemicellulose present in lignocellulosic biomass.

Between 3% and 10% of the mass of crop residue feedstocks can be recovered as furfural, depending on the type of feedstock. Furfural and water evaporate together from the reaction mixture, and separate upon condensation. The global production capacity is about 800,000 tons as of 2012. China is the biggest supplier of furfural, and accounts for the greater part of global capacity. The other two major commercial producers are Illovo Sugar in South Africa and Central Romana in the Dominican Republic.

In the laboratory, furfural can be synthesized from plant material by heating with sulfuric acid or other acids. With the purpose to avoid toxic effluents, an effort to substitute sulfuric acid with easily separable and reusable solid acid catalysts has been studied around the world. The formation and extraction of xylose and subsequently furfural can be favored over the extraction of other sugars with varied conditions, such as acid concentration, temperature, and time.

In industrial production, some lignocellulosic residue remains after the removal of the furfural. This residue is dried and burned to provide steam for the operation of the furfural plant. Newer and more energy efficient plants have excess residue, which is or can be used for co-generation of electricity, cattle feed, activated carbon, mulch/fertiliser, etc.

Uses and occurrence
It is commonly found in many cooked or heated foods such as coffee (55–255 mg/kg) and whole grain bread (26 mg/kg).

Furfural is an important renewable, non-petroleum based, chemical feedstock. It can be converted into a variety of solvents, polymers, fuels and other useful chemicals by a range of catalytic reduction.

Hydrogenation of furfural provides furfuryl alcohol (FA), which is used to produce furan resins, which are exploited in thermoset polymer matrix composites, cements, adhesives, casting resins and coatings. Further hydrogenation of furfuryl alcohol leads to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA), which is used as a solvent in agricultural formulations and as an adjuvant to help herbicides penetrate the leaf structure.

In another application as a feedstock, palladium-catalyzed decarbonylation on furfural manufactures industrially furan.

Another important solvent made from furfural is methyltetrahydrofuran. Furfural is used to make other furan derivatives, such as furoic acid, via oxidation, and furan itself via palladium catalyzed vapor phase decarbonylation.

Furfural is also a specialized chemical solvent.

There is a good market for value added chemicals that can be obtained from furfural.

Safety
Furfural is carcinogenic in lab animals and mutagenic in single cell organisms, but there is no data on human subjects. It is classified in IARC Group 3 due to the lack of data on humans and too few tests on animals to satisfy Group 2A/2B criteria. It is hepatotoxic.

The median lethal dose is high, 650–900 mg/kg (oral, dogs), consistent with its pervasiveness in foods.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set a permissible exposure limit for furfural at 5ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), and also designates furfural as a risk for skin absorption.

title: Furfural


text:
PFI

PFI may stand for:
 * Pay for inclusion (paid inclusion), charge by a search engine to include a Web site in its index
 * Pellet Fuels Institute, trade association of the wood pellet fuel industry
 * Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology
 * Performance Freediving International, a freediving organization
 * Popular Front of India, an Islamist organisation in India
 * Port fuel injection (indirect injection), a type of fuel injection used in automobiles
 * Practical Farmers of Iowa, an agriculture NGO in Iowa
 * Pre-flight inspection, of an aircraft
 * Private finance initiative, a way of funding public sector projects with private capital
 * The Prize Fighter Inferno, a musical project of Coheed and Cambria frontman Claudio Sanchez
 * Pro forma invoice, a billing document that is not a demand for payment but gives information about a shipment
 * PFI Convention (Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests), a multilateral EU treaty on fraud
 * Perspektivnyi Frontovoy Istrebitel ("Perspective Frontline Fighter"), Soviet military aircraft; see Post-PFI Soviet/Russian aircraft projects
 * PFIs, or Pharmaceutical Formulation Intermediates, a pharmaceutical term
 * Press Freedom Index

title: PFI


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles

WikiProject Automobiles exists to co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobiles, automotive parts and technology of the automotive industry. Additionally, it has the goal of presenting all articles in a consistent, legible and informative format. WikiProject Automobiles is a child project of WikiProject Transport, and a parent project of WikiProject Japan/Japanese car taskforce. See the talk page for proposals and discussion related to this WikiProject.

Departments

 * List of
 * /Conventions (standards for naming, typography, and other issues)
 * Automobile watchlist (broken)
 * /Requested images (outstanding requests for automobile images or photographs)
 * /Templates (showcasing templates for use in the automobile articles)
 * Related areas:
 * Portal:Cars (an automotive-specific entry point to content on Wikipedia)
 * Commons's Category:Automobiles (images)

Project members
You can become a member by placing the template on your userpage. It will automatically add your userpage to.

 * Or if you don't like the userbox, you can also add yourself to the category by placing:   on your userpage.

Physical properties

 * for the aerodynamic coefficient of drag
 * for drag area.
 * for coefficient of rolling resistance.

Stubs
Instead of using the standard stub template, you may want to use one of the following more specific automobile stub tags, some of which are:
 * auto-stub or vehicle-stub for stubs about general automotive topics. Unfortunately, those categories contains many articles, so use of one of the more targeted subcategories is recommended:
 * motorvehicle-company-stub - for stub articles about automotive companies
 * auto-factory-stub - for stub articles about automotive factories
 * automotive-part-stub - for stub articles about automotive parts or components
 * automotive-tech-stub - for stub articles about automotive technologies
 * veteran-auto-stub - for stub articles about veteran automobiles produced before 1905
 * brass-auto-stub - for stub articles about brass-era automobiles produced from 1905-1915
 * vintage-auto-stub - for stub articles about classic automobiles produced from 1915-1930
 * classicprw-auto-stub - for stub articles about pre-war automobiles produced from 1930-1945
 * classicpow-auto-stub - for stub articles about post-war automobiles produced from 1945-1975
 * modern-auto-stub - for stub articles about modern automobiles produced after 1975
 * truck-stub - for stub articles about trucks (from our sister WikiProject Trucks)

Assessment

 * See the Assessment department for more information!

Popular pages
There is a list of Popular pages, ordered by number of views, a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles


text:
Joint Task Force 2

Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2) is Canada's Tier 1 special operations force mandated with protecting Canadian national interests and combating terrorism threats both domestic and abroad. JTF 2 serves under the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command of the Canadian Armed Forces and is typically compared to American Delta Force and SEAL Team Six, the British Special Air Service, the Australian Special Air Service Regiment and 2nd Commando Regiment, and the New Zealand Special Air Service. Most information concerning JTF 2 is classified and is not usually commented on by the Canadian Armed Forces or the Government of Canada.

JTF 2's team of assaulters specialize in counterterrorism, direct action raids, hostage rescue, maritime special operations, special protection, and special reconnaissance often employed in complex, classified and dangerous missions against high-value targets backed up by specialized teams of supporting personnel.

History
In 1992, Deputy Minister of Defence Robert Fowler announced he was recommending to Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn that he disband the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) and create a new military counter-terrorism group. The decision was made largely because the Canadian Forces offered a greater pool of recruits for the program than civilian police forces, and it stemmed the public uproar about police being taught to use primarily lethal means.

In early 1993, the unit was activated with just over 100 members, primarily drawn from the Canadian Airborne Regiment and Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. They were given the SERT facility on Dwyer Hill Road near Ottawa as their own base of operations, and permanently parked a Greyhound bus and a DC-9 aircraft on the grounds for use in training.

Its first scheduled action was Operation Campus, the protection of highways and water treatment plants around the Oka reserve while a police force tried to "crack down on smuggling" on the native reserve, immediately following the Oka crisis. However two daily newspapers in Quebec revealed the operation just days before it was to go into action, and it was cancelled. The federal budget of December 2001 allocated approximately $120 million over six years to expand unit capabilities and double its size to an estimated 600 personnel, as part of the overall plan following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Bosnia
JTF 2 forces were inserted into Bosnia, operating in two- to four-man teams hunting for Serbian snipers who were targeting UN forces at the sniper alley. They were scheduled to free approximately 55 hostages in Operation Freedom 55, but the mission was cancelled as the Bosnian Serbs released all the prisoners voluntarily.

Haiti
In 1996, JTF 2 deployed to Haiti to advise the security forces of President René Préval on methods to repel the revolutionary army, train local SWAT teams and raid weapons smugglers in Port-au-Prince.

According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, JTF 2 was also in Haiti at the time that Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted from power in 2004. They protected the Canadian embassy and secured the airport.

War on Terror
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the American declaration of a War on Terror, approximately 40 JTF 2 soldiers were sent to southern Afghanistan in early December 2001 to be part of Task Force K-Bar, under the command of Captain Robert Harward. The Canadian public was not informed of the deployment. However, in Sean M. Maloney's book Enduring the Freedom, it was reported that JTF 2 was secretly deployed without Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's permission in early October 2001. Under Task Force K-Bar, JTF 2 worked extensively with the U.S. 3rd Special Forces Group; one of their first missions in Afghanistan was what Harward described as "the first Coalition direct action mission since the Second World War." The joint operation with a team of Green Berets targeting a Taliban command node almost ended in disaster when a Chinook carrying JTF 2 operators was forced to make a hard landing near the target site. While serving with Task Force K-Bar, Harward also stated that the JTF 2 team under his command was his first choice for any direct action. JTF 2 was based at the time in Kandahar Air Field.

Several months later, The Globe and Mail published an image on its front page showing operators in distinctive forest-green Canadian Forces combat uniforms delivering captured prisoners to the Americans. This prompted an outcry in Parliament as MPs were never informed these operations were underway. Vice Admiral Greg Maddison was called before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to address claims that Minister of Defence Art Eggleton had purposely misled the public and the government, even failing to inform the Prime Minister that JTF 2 had been operating in Afghanistan. Segments of the Canadian media made much of the special forces handing over detainees, particularly those who may have been sent to Guantanamo Bay. In January 2002, JTF 2 deployed reconnaissance teams to the series of caves discovered in Zhawar Kili, just south of Tora Bora. Airstrikes hit the sites before SOF teams were inserted into the area. A platoon from SEAL Team 3, including several of their Desert Patrol Vehicles, accompanied by a German Kommando Spezialkräfte (KSK) element and a Norwegian SOF team, spent some nine days conducting extensive site exploitation, clearing an estimated 70 caves and 60 structures in the area, recovering a huge amount of both intelligence and munitions, but they did not encounter any al-Qaeda fighters. In March 2002, JTF 2 reconnaissance teams took part in Operation Anaconda; they also conducted close protection tasks and participated in numerous direct action missions, allegedly including the siege at Mirwais hospital in Kandahar, where a US Army Special Forces operational detachment-A (SFODA) killed a group of al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in a hospital ward; JTF 2 also carried out numerous operations with the New Zealand Special Air Service. JTF 2's first rotation was completed when they returned to Canada in May 2002, to be replaced by a second, shorter term, deployment until October 2002.

In 2004, an estimated 40 members of JTF 2 serving with Task Force K-Bar were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation by the U.S. government for service in Afghanistan. Very little is known on JTF 2 operations in Afghanistan, but during a conference the former Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, stated that JTF 2 was in "high demand" and that they were considered to be "world class". He went on to say that the unit was providing direct support to the Afghan government and was targeting the Taliban leadership in southern Afghanistan. He stated that "trying to help neutralize those leaders is a key part of their role and that's what they will continue to do."

On 26 November 2005, members of the terrorist group Swords of Righteousness Brigade – a small offshoot of possibly Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI), Ansar al-Islam (AAI), Army of Islam, or a cover name for their abduction cells, or freelance cash criminal abductors – kidnapped four members (two Canadian, one British and one American) of the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Baghdad, Iraq. In response, Task Force Knight — the British special forces task force in Iraq — initiated Operation Lightwater; spearheaded by B Squadron, 22nd Special Air Service Regiment (SAS), the aim of which was to find and recover the hostages; a small team of JTF 2 and Canadian intelligence experts joined the task force for the operation whilst the United States provided technical intelligence to the operation. Together the force carried out relentless raids across the city, building up a picture by exploiting intelligence in the search for the hostages, eventually on the 23 March 2006 the three remaining hostages were rescued by the SAS. The Pentagon and the British Foreign Office both commented on the instrumental role JTF 2 played in rescuing the British and Canadian Christian Peacemaker Team that were being held hostage in Iraq. Involvement of JTF 2 was not confirmed by Canadian officials.

There has been much speculation in the Canadian media on possible JTF 2 operational deployments. As of 2001, the unit had 297 members, but by the end of the year, with the War on Terror becoming a reality, the federal government announced their intentions to increase it to 600 members within four years.

As of 2014, the unit was believed to be in Iraq as training personnel, under the Canadian Operation Impact which is part of Operation Inherent Resolve. The Canadian Government has not denied or confirmed JTF 2's involvement.

In June 2017, it was reported that a JTF 2 sniper in Iraq had shot and killed an ISIL fighter from a distance of 3540 m, setting a world record for the longest confirmed kill. The shot was taken from a high-rise building using a standard Canadian military issued McMillan Tac-50 rifle, a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm) anti-materiel rifle commonly used by snipers in an anti-personnel role. The Canadian Forces designation is the C15 Long-Range Sniper Weapon (LRSW).

Other actions
Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden also confirmed that JTF 2 would take a role in securing the 2010 Winter Olympics and 2010 Winter Paralympics.

JTF 2 has also acted as bodyguards to Canadians travelling abroad, notably accompanying Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril and Raymond Chrétien to Zaire in November 1996. When photographs provided to the media were revealed to show the faces of JTF 2 forces, they were redacted and reissued with the faces removed. In 1998, they accompanied General Roméo Dallaire to Tanzania where he was due to testify against a Rwandan Hutu official accused of complicity in the 1994 genocide. They similarly accompanied war crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour into Kosovo. In early November 2000, Conservative Defence Critic David Price stated that JTF 2 had been deployed to Kosovo, however, this was denied by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Defence Minister Art Eggleton.

The unit was believed to be operating with the Special Air Service and Special Boat Service in Operation Mobile, the Canadian operation in the 2011 Libyan civil war.

In August 2021, JTF 2 and CSOR operators were deployed to Afghanistan to evacuate staff from the Canadian Embassy in Kabul.

In May 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Ukraine to show solidarity and to witness the war for himself, alongside members of the cabinet. As part of the security detail, they were accompanied by members of JTF 2.

In October 2023, JTF 2 and other CANSOFCOM elements were deployed to Israel to help with security at the Canadian embassy. In March 2024, JTF 2 operators were deployed to Haiti to protect the Canadian Embassy and staff.

Unit accountability
On 21 December 2006, a Federal Court judge rejected a request to proceed with a court martial against an unnamed JTF 2 officer, accused of assaulting and mistreating a subordinate. Because court martial requests require that the accused be named, the judge suggested that they explore other avenues to proceed with the court martial.

JTF 2 has acknowledged the death of one member. Master Corporal Anthony Klumpenhouwer, 25, died on April 18, 2007, after falling off a communications tower in Kandahar, Afghanistan. In 2010, the investigation into Klumpenhouwer's death was completed, and revealed that he had been knocked unconscious by a surge of electricity.

Equipment
Operators use a range of weapons including:
 * Colt Canada series of rifles: C7, C8 and C8SFW
 * SIG Sauer SIG 716 G2 designated marksman rifle
 * Heckler & Koch MP5 (A2/A3/SD) submachine gun
 * FN Herstal P90 personal defence weapon
 * SIG Sauer P226 sidearm
 * SIG Sauer P320 sidearm
 * Remington Model 870 and Benelli M3 shotguns
 * FN Minimi C9A1 light machine gun
 * M2 Browning heavy machine gun.
 * Accuracy International AWP, C14 Timberwolf, Heckler & Koch PSG1, M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System, McMillan TAC-50 and Barrett M82 sniper rifles
 * M203 grenade launcher, Heckler & Koch GMG automatic grenade launcher and Heckler & Koch HK69A1 grenade launcher.
 * Rafael Spike-LR anti-tank guided missile
 * Saab Bofors Dynamics AT4 anti-tank weapon.
 * Carl Gustaf 8.4cm recoilless rifle M4 version

JTF 2 uses the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) special operations version. A replacement project was cancelled in 2010. In 2016, the DAGOR (Deployable Advanced Ground Off-road) vehicle by Polaris Defense was awarded the Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) contract to provide 78 vehicles to CANSOFCOM.

title: Joint Task Force 2


text:
Religious school

A religious school is a school that either has a religious component in its operations or its curriculum, or exists primarily for the purpose of teaching aspects of a particular religion.

For children
A 2002 study in the United States found higher academic performance in children attending religious schools than those attending secular institutions, including when controlling for socioeconomic status.

A school can either be of two types, though the same word is used for both in some areas:

Religious teaching
Institutions solely or largely for teaching a particular religion, often outside regular school
 * Cheder (Jewish)
 * Hebrew school (Jewish)
 * Madrasa (Muslim)
 * Sunday school (Christian)
 * Talmud Torah (Jewish)

General education
Institutions providing general education but run by a religious group, or in some way giving extra weight to a particular religion
 * Bais Yaakov (Jewish girls school)
 * Cathedral school (Christian)
 * Catholic school
 * Chabad (Jewish)
 * Christian school
 * Faith school UK term
 * Jewish day school
 * Lutheran school (Christian)
 * Madrasa (Muslim) also general education in some places
 * Parochial school USA in particular, former UK
 * Separate school Canada

For adults

 * Bible college (Christian)
 * Madrasa (Muslim)
 * Yeshiva (Jewish)

title: Religious school