text:
User talk:Gewang

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You can introduce yourself on the new user page.

Here's some tips:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 13:03, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Just letting you know that you might want to say hi to Rev3rend, who is also new here and is also working on computer music topics. You two might find it useful to collaborate. Isomorphic 07:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of free audio software
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of free audio software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of free audio software. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Taps specgram.jpg

The file File:Taps specgram.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Taps spectrum.jpg

The file File:Taps spectrum.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Commodity operating systems" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Commodity operating systems and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gewang


text:
Liam Lawlor

Liam Lawlor (19 October 1944 – 22 October 2005) was an Irish Fianna Fáil politician. He resigned from the Fianna Fáil in 2000 following a finding by a party standards committee that he had failed to co-operate with its investigation into planning irregularities, and subsequently came into conflict with the Mahon Tribunal.

Early life
Lawlor was born in Dublin in 1944. He grew up in Crumlin and was educated at Synge Street CBS and the College of Technology, Bolton Street (now part of the Dublin Institute of Technology). In his youth he played hurling and was on the Dublin minor and the Leinster Railway Cup hurling teams. After college he went into the refrigeration business, running his own company.

Professional life
In 1974, he unsuccessfully stood as a candidate in the local elections to Dublin County Council. At the 1977 general election he was elected to Dáil Éireann as a Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin County West constituency. In 1979, he became a member of Dublin County Council.

At the 1981 general election he lost his Dáil seat in what was now the constituency of Dublin West, regained it in February 1982, but lost it again in the November 1982 general election. Lawlor regained his Dáil seat again at the 1987 general election, and was appointed Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. He resigned the position in 1989 due to his position as a non-executive director of Food Industries, a company that wished to acquire the Irish Sugar Company. In 1991 he lost his seat on Dublin City Council, and at the 1992 general election he nearly lost his Dáil seat to Tomás Mac Giolla of the Workers' Party. It is widely believed that Mac Giolla was cheated by Fianna Fáil in the election; the emergence of information that the since disgraced and jailed George Redmond was one of the local government officials who conducted the election count has added weight to this view.

Lawlor was one of a number of local councillors who were called as witnesses before the Mahon Tribunal investigating planning and payments in County Dublin. He admitted receiving sums of money from the lobbyist Frank Dunlop which he stated were political donations and not bribes.

Lawlor was also a European member of the controversial private political group, the Trilateral Commission.

Corruption
In the light of allegations of planning corruption, Fianna Fáil established an internal committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee interviewed a number of party members, including Lawlor, but eventually found that Lawlor had failed to co-operate with it by not naming an individual who had furnished him with a donation. On the eve of publication of the committee report in June 2000, Lawlor resigned from the party; however he continued to support the government in Dáil Éireann. He did not stand at the 2002 general election. Lawlor appeared at the Flood Tribunal several times and was imprisoned on three occasions (in January 2001, January 2002 and February 2002, for a total of six weeks) in Mountjoy Prison for contempt of court arising from Orders of the High Court requiring him to co-operate with the tribunal. The final report of the Tribunal, eventually chaired by Justice Alan Mahon, was published on 22 March 2012.

On 7 February 2002 Lawlor was released from jail to make a Dáil appearance during which he ignored unprecedented all-party calls for his resignation. In what the Irish Independent described as "one of the most sensational days in the House", Lawlor was released temporarily by the High Court to mount his own defence during an hour-long debate. Taken into Leinster House in a prison van, Lawlor sat alone at the rear of the Chamber while the five party leaders, in turn, called on him to step down. Instead Lawlor made an aggressive defence of his own position during a 20-minute speech while making no reference at all to the unprecedented joint motion.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, said Lawlor had repeatedly let politics down and his position was untenable. Lawlor, he said, had been committed to prison three times and political life was "cheapened" by this. No vote was required as the decision to ask him to resign was unanimous. Lawlor was released by the High Court for about two hours on third day of his 28-day sentence for not co-operating with the Flood Tribunal. As the Dáil sat at 10.30am, Lawlor's legal advisers were petitioning the High Court to allow him make his own case to his fellow TDs. High Court president Justice Joseph Finnegan granted the request but laid down strict conditions on Lawlor's release, saying he was to be taken from Mountjoy to Leinster House, stay for the debate and then be returned to jail.

Death
Lawlor was killed on 22 October 2005, when the Mercedes-Benz car he was being driven in on the way from Sheremetyevo International Airport crashed into a concrete street light on the Leningrad Shosse, the main road between Saint Petersburg and Moscow, twenty-three kilometres from Moscow. Lawlor had been travelling with Julia Kushnir, a Ukrainian legal assistant, aged 29, confirmed by the Lawlor family to be working as Lawlor's interpreter in Russia. She was injured in the crash that killed Lawlor. The driver, a Russian businessman, Ruslan Suleymanov, was fatally injured, when he swerved the car to avoid a man and a woman who ran out onto the road in front of it.

The funeral of Lawlor was held in Lucan on 26 October 2005.

False media claims about the accident
The Russian police initially reported that the woman in Lawlor's car may have been a sixteen-year-old prostitute. The report was the lead in a number of Sunday newspapers. The Sunday Independent editor Aengus Fanning apologised to the Lawlor family for the report, following a public outcry on the reportage and condemnation of the publication from the National Union of Journalists. The Sunday Tribune, the Sunday World, The Observer, and a number of British tabloids also published the claim. The Observer initially refused to apologise for the error, but on the Tuesday following the accident, the newspaper issued a statement saying that "serious discrepancies" had arisen in the story it had published, and admitted that it had erred, removing the story from its website. The controversial nature of the coverage led to calls for a body to regulate and oversee standards in the Irish press similar to the Press Complaints Commission in the UK.

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

title: Liam Lawlor


text:
Wikipedia:Page footers

The MediaWiki namespace has seen a rather enthusiastic increase of use recently and has been used to create page footers that link related articles. For example, the bottom of Germany links to the other EU countries; the bottom of Neptune (planet) links to the other planets in our solar system; the bottom of University of California, Berkeley links to the other University of California campuses. Unfortunately, all three of these footers have a rather different look.

This page aims to reach consensus on what these footers should look like, to ensure consistency across Wikipedia.

You are encouraged to come up with a new layout and post it here. Hopefully we will find a consistent look that most everyone will be happy with.

Please notice that this page is deliberately enclosed in a <div> tag that makes the background white. This is so that you get the real impression of how these footers look on an article page.

This is not a poll (yet). This is an attempt to reach a consensus. If need be, we might have a poll later on. By then we should have some more designs to vote for.

Suggestion #1: modelled after the look of the Tables of Contents; was instituted in the third week of February 2004

Suggestion #2: thick horizontal rule, then simple links; was the standard form for all countries from late 2002 until February 2004 . It's still part of the template of WikiProject Countries.

Miscellaneous topics
Main article: List of China-related topics

 * Chinese law
 * Education in the People's Republic of China
 * Transportation in China

title: Wikipedia:Page footers


text:
History of Lithuanian culture

The culture of Lithuania, dating back to 200 BC, with the settlement of the Balts and has been independent of the presence of a sovereign Lithuanian state.

Pre-Lithuanian period (before the 10th century AD)
The Lithuanian nation rose between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. Earlier, the Balts, ancestors of Lithuanians and Latvians, had arrived at the territories between the Dnepr and Daugava rivers and the Baltic Sea. An Indo-European people, the Balts are presumed to have come from a hypothetic original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans; many scientists date this arrival to 3rd millennium BCE.

The Balts, who are believed to have arrived with the main wave of Indo-Europeans, were unconnected with the formation of later Indo-European nations in Southern and Western Europe. Thus, the Balts' culture is believed to have preserved primeval features of Indo-European culture for a longer time. When later contacts with newly formed European nations increased, differences between the Balts' primeval culture and the culture of the new European nations were so great that closer cultural interchange was difficult. This resulted in preservation of the Balts' Indo-European roots but may also have contributed to their isolation.

After the period of Gothic domination in Europe, the culture of the Balts appeared in a more restricted territory between the Wisla and Daugava rivers. Almost anything said about the Balts' cultural isolation level in these times is speculation, but it was likely decreasing. Still, the Balts conserved forms of ancient Indo-European proto-language until much later times. The most archaic language forms were preserved by the Western Balts, who lived approximately in the territory of later Prussia (today's Kaliningrad and north-west Poland). These dialects developed into Old Prussian, which became extinct by the beginning of the 18th century.

The Eastern Balts had less archaic forms of language. For example, some popular simplifications took hold, such as a decrease in the number of verb forms, which presumably happened when the ancient cultural elite lost its influence over the people. It may have taken place, for example, in times of "barbarian" invasions (not later than the 8th century). Later, eastern dialects of Balts developed into the modern Lithuanian and Latvian.

Knowledge about the Balts' cultural life in these times is scanty. It is known that Balts at the end of this period had a social structure comparable with that of Celtic people in South-West Europe during the 2nd—1st centuries BC.

In the 10th century, religious life of the Balts was not unified, with various forms of cults present. An important feature of Balt culture was willful avoidance of using material attainments in their religious life. Some more complicated forms of architecture, equipment, and literacy were disapproved of, even when these things were allowed by and were well known from neighbouring nations. Religious life was concentrated on verbal tradition, with singing and perhaps with some elements of mystery theatre. Material forms of this life were closely connected with unsophisticated wooden shrines, nature objects ( such as trees and stones), and special ornamented vestments and their accessories.

Period of the Lithuanian nation rising (10th – 14th centuries)
The Lithuanian nation began to form in about 7th – 8th centuries CE. The growing difference between Western and Eastern Balts was a result of some cultural modernization of the Eastern Balts even before this period. Differences also grew between northern and southern parts of the Eastern Balts. Lithuanians derived from the southern parts of Eastern Balts till 9th century CE. At this time, the Eastern Balts did not form any political unit. They were divided into some autonomous clans, but culturally and religiously, they were part of the Balts. The common name for them, Lithuanians, was already known.

Historians have occasionally attributed the name "Lithuania" of this period only to one of the Eastern Balts' tribes. It is not known for certain in what political circumstances Lithuanians acquired their common name, and whether it took place before the beginning of the 11th century, when the name was first mentioned in written sources, or later. Traditionally, historians consider religion-based union of the Balts. This theory is supported by historical sources that wrote about existence of centers of religious life (named Romuva, using the present-day variant of this word), concentrated around more significant shrines, holy and mystic areas. Servants of these religious centers have influences on other not central shrines. This influence was based more on authority than on formal structure of organization. Finally, there is some historical data about the main religious center of all Balts. The level of organization and extent of this religious cooperation are under discussion. For example, some historians argue that union was more local and included only southern Balts (Lithuanians and Prussians), but Northern Balts (ancestors of Latvians) did not participate in it. Information concerning religious unity is influenced by later Lithuanian and Latvian myths and is not strongly based on historical sources and archaeological research.

The new point of distinguishing the Balts' nations and their cultural development was the occupation of a significant part of the land by Catholic military orders in the 13th century. The main areas of Western Balts, known under the name of Prussia, were occupied by Teutonic order. Livonian order occupied northern territories, beginning from areas around the Gulf of Riga, creating so-called Livonia.

Therefore, later cultural development of these two and the third unoccupied part of Balts' areas was different. Old Prussians (Balts) never regained a nation, but the Latvian nation was formed in Livonia. The third unoccupied part was a basis for the Lithuanian nation to form.

Outer aggression forced Baltic nations to form more strict institutions of political life. A Lithuanian state, Lithuania, was founded in 13th century and it included regions of still unoccupied Eastern Balts and remaining Western Balts' areas (These Western Balts' ethnic groups are known under names of Yotvingians and Sudovians).

In the middle of the 14th century, Lithuania emerged as a large eastern European state, with former Kievan Rus' and some Ruthenian regions to the north of it (approximately present Belarus) included. This expansion shows a great political potential of the Lithuanian ruling classes, and this potential could not be reached without respective cultural basis. Christian Ruthenian rulers became some kind of vassals of non-Christian Lithuanian rulers, but culturally the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (G.D.L.) remained bipolar. It consisted of a non-Christian Lithuanian part in North-West (later known as Lithuania Propria) and Eastern Christian Orthodox Ruthenian regions (partial Duchies).

The price of cooperation and recognition of pagan dominance by Ruthenian Orthodoxes in G.D.L. was recognition of wide cultural rights for orthodoxes. These rights included, for example, customs, that Lithuanian dukes had to be christened before taking office in a partial duchy in orthodox parts. Wives of Lithuanian dukes, if they were Ruthenians, stayed orthodox, but Grand Dukes in this case had to ensure that it was possible for his wife to perform orthodox rites and take part in orthodox services. Children of orthodox duchesses officially became observers of their father's religion, the old-Lithuanian one in that case. In reality, the religion of the mother could have some (sometimes great) influence.

In this period, both nations of G.D.L. insistently stood on their cultural basis, and the main directions of Lithuanian culture remained unchanged until Christianization. Lithuanian culture stayed far from growing significant literacy in Europe and there were no significant changes, for example, in cult architecture. However, there were some new tendencies too. Religious intolerance, hardly avoidable during religiously-based war as with crusaders, was offset by tolerance to orthodox Christians, so the Lithuanian community stayed tolerant in the cultural and religious sense. There were some attempts to modernize Lithuanian religious life too. For example, there were at least two Christian churches, Catholic and orthodox, both of brick stonework, in Vilnius town. The main shrine of the old-religion in the town was bricked, and not wooden as it was customary.

Cultural changes in higher estates
The cultural background of formation and persistence of higher estates before Christianization is almost unknown. Christianization of Lithuania brought changes towards European feudalism of the 15th century. It is logical that Lithuanian political culture had some influence of Western European and, especially, Ruthenian feudalism before Christianization, but the christening broke the isolation barrier and the influence became more direct.

Adding to this, the strengthening of Western cultural constituent by Christianization mostly affected political culture. For example, this situation caused interesting effects on jurisprudence. Presence of old Ruthenian legal norms and old Lithuanian traditions as well as coming of Western European legal norms raised various inconveniences, and, in the beginning of the 16th century, the Lithuanian law codex, the First Statute of Lithuania of 1529 was issued. Lithuanian law was exercised in the territory of G.D.L. till 1840, survived not only times of state independence before Union of Lublin of 1569, but the state itself. Thus, since its beginning, Lithuanian law became one of the factors of political integrity of G.D.L. and distinguished Lithuania from other European regions including The Crown of the Polish Kingdom. The issuance of the codex is an illustration of two different tendencies in the political elite of G.D.L. The issuance of a written law codex shows a significant western influence on Lithuanian political culture of this time. However, the existence of a Lithuanian system of law shows that cultural differences from Western Europe existed and were acknowledged by ruling classes.

In this time, Lithuanians were getting acquainted with Western European culture and this process had interesting discoveries, which also caused later ruling political ideas. However, the process was not trivial. To become "educated in aristocratic manner" a Lithuanian had to learn at least three languages: Ruthenian, Polish and Latin. German with variety of its dialects and Italian were also used. In reality, this educational objective could not usually be realised, so knowledge of languages (and even cultural orientation) depended on estate of person. Priests and humanitarians learned Latin, merchants learnt German. Polish was preferred by the upper classes, but Ruthenian by the lower strata of nobles.

Since the end of the 14th century, Lithuanians began to study in universities abroad, mostly in Kraków and Prague Universities and, sometimes, in Western European ones. Latin, being a church and humanitarian language, was studied by a number of Lithuanian citizens, mostly Catholics. Latin had a specific reason to be considered interesting for Lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians. Being acquainted with Latin language, Lithuanian humanitarians discovered great similarities between a large number of Lithuanian and Latin words, such as (Lithuanian words are given in their modern form) aušra – aurora (a dawn), dūmas – fumus (fume, smoke), mėnesis – mensis (a month), senis – senex (an old man) and so on. This paradoxical similarity was explained by raising an idea that Lithuanian was directly derived from Latin.

This idea, joined with one, maybe earlier, myth about modernized cultural hero Palemon, treating him as a Latin language pioneer in earlier pre-Christian Lithuania, has a great influence to the political mindset of noble Lithuanians. It constricted an area of Lithuanian cultural independence, prescribing to Lithuanians affinity with Italics and showing Lithuanian culture as secondary, derivative and mixed. On the other hand, it stimulated patriotism, arguing that Lithuanian popular culture is more "Latin" than Polish and German cultures, so more cultured according to the thinking of that time. This theory raised the prestige of old Lithuania (thought of by neighbors as "pagan" and "barbarian") firstly in the eyes of Lithuanians themselves, and had the same effect on foreign people (especially Poles, who often treated their mediating in Lithuania's Christianization as their own cultural achievement against "eastern" or "pagan" "barbarism").

Despite using the existence of Lithuanian as a patriotic argument, the usage of the language itself became more and more narrow among the higher strata of nobles. Ruthenian became official after the Christianization, for it had more developed written tradition and, maybe, because of negative attitude of Orthodox nobles towards Lithuanian. During the 15th century, Ruthenian became anchored more in all machinery of the state. As it was common European tendency of the 15th to 17th centuries to make the transition from feudalism to bigger state dominance, the role of the state grew, and prestige of Lithuanian decreased. Documents of Lithuanian law were written in Ruthenian, and it looked normal. Usage of Ruthenian however never reached amounts of official language usage in modern sense, and stayed comparable with usage of Latin in Medieval Europe.

On the other hand, not only Ruthenian, but Latin and Polish also narrowed the use of Lithuanian. The Great Duke of Lithuania (later, also the king of Poland) Alexander (as the Great Duke reigned 1492–1506) was taught "Lithuanian". Even if "Lithuanian" does not mean "Ruthenian", Alexander would have been the last Great Duke who knew Lithuanian.

The loss of ethnic basis did not reduce patriotism among nobles. The variegate Lithuanian mythology of this time (legend about emigration of Palemon from Rome to Lithuania, legend about the founding of the capital of Lithuania Vilnius by Duke Gediminas, and other pieces) had been presented in a spirit of high lucid and virtuous patriotism.

Original architectural style (with Western-European and Byzantine tendencies fused in it) and other manifestations of material culture of this time prove Lithuania as a distinctive cultural unit. However, Lithuania was too little known to Western Europeans in these times.

The Protestant Reformation in Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The Protestant Reformation was met differently by different strata of Lithuanians. Ruling classes entered into the Reformation struggles both on pro and contra sides. Urban people in the biggest towns, especially in the Catholic part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (G.D.L.), were involved in these struggles too, mostly as clients of some persons of influence in the highest stratum. Ordinary people of towns  played a role of believers in both Catholic and Protestant churches. From the mid 16th century until the end of the Reformation, sporadic street scuffles between Catholic and Protestant hotheads were often found in these towns. However even in the time of the religious struggle, some partial tolerance existed, and both involved sides proclaimed their abstinence from solving the question in the form of violence. The scuffles always were restricted by officials and they never grew into military conflicts or massacre.

The answer of ordinary country people to the Reformation was their return to "paganism". After some stabilization, both Catholic Jesuits in G.D.L. and Protestant priests in Prussia describe the situation such, as if Lithuania was christened not before 250 years, but still before the events. It seems likely that both sources described this situation so emphatically in order to simulate bigger merits in rechristening. But it also points out that "pagan" tendencies still existed not only in a subconscious form, but also in performing rites. Besides to it, Christian life had to remain in some forms in country-regions too.

It must also be emphasized that the eastern part of G.D.L. stayed orthodox and orthodox culture had its broad cultural life. The same can be said about Jewish, Tatar and Karait minorities in G.D.L. And all these facts show how variegated and different-sided the cultural situation in Lithuania was.

Adding to this, there were some tendencies in cultural life of G.D.L. not directly connected with religious problems on Reformation background. In the first place, absorption of ideas of Western cultural development in 13th – 16th centuries by nobles (especially, urban ones). Italian cultural ideas of Rinascemento had an especially big influence. They were reflected on literature (written mostly in Latin or Polish, or, in case of orthodox, in Ruthenian).

The main reasons for such exceptional thoughts of Italy were conservatism of Lithuanians and position of the Royal court. All facts showed Italy to Lithuanians as a country of ancient and high culture. Additionally, the Queen of Poland wife of Sigismund I Bona was Italian. Thus despite the growth of Reformation, the cultural orientation hadn't changed.

The Reformation in Lithuania remained on the level of political and religious regulating ideas and didn't turn into a cultural movement as it did in West European countries. disputes about the Reformation were in the form of peaceful verbal discussion among the highest estate of the country. And in these discussions, the Latin language, eloquence, citation and knowledge of ancient philosophers referred more to Italy than to any other country of Western Europe.

In this atmosphere Catholics decided to use this cultural attachment to improve their position. Their leaders decided to found a unit of Jesuit order in Lithuania (Jesuits were known as masters of discussion and providers of a modernized Latin-based scholastic education). In their turn Jesuits founded the University of Vilnius (officially 1579). Students and graduates of the University soon became true supporters of the Catholic Church.

These events caused the wave of Reformation to fall. With the decrees of Reformation aspirations in the higher strata, activity of reformers among the rest of the urban population was more and more restricted by officials. Thus after the middle of the 17th century, the non-Orthodox part of Lithuania became firmly Catholic (with a Protestant minorities in some towns like Vilnius, Kėdainiai, and Biržai).

Printing of books
Another cultural factor, not connected with the reformation directly, was printing of books. The first printed books reached Lithuania before the beginning of the Reformation. But multiplied religious discussions and the increase of printing in Western Europe both activated interest in printing books in Lithuania. The first book in Lithuanian was printed in 1547 in Königsberg (it was a Protestant Catechism by Martynas Mažvydas). The first typography in G.D.L. was opened in approx. 1575 in Vilnius.

Presence of printed books became the signal factor to change ancient Lithuanian cultural attitude against literacy. The necessity of literacy became evident. But in G.D.L. at the same time the growing of literacy coincided with refusal of Lithuanian culture among the nobility.

Background
Lithuanian-language culture derived directly from old Lithuanian culture, among lower strata prevalently. The language barrier caused it to remain isolated from innovations in culture in the 15th century. However the Christianity of higher estates and presence of Christian parishes even in country regions weakened a base of old religion and induced some non direct changes towards culture, based on common European values.

The higher strata in Lithuania for unknown reasons accepted innovations in culture directly, without any attempts at inculturation or adaptation to local cultural thinking. It meant accepting of extraneous culture in all its complexity, with using new language and so on. So, old Lithuanian culture (or, as a later form, Lithuanian-language culture) was negated and rejected by a part of the population in Lithuanian part of G.D.L., especially by the highest estates since approx. middle 15th century. This situation became a serious impediment to Lithuanian-language culture. Lithuanians of lower estates could not become acquainted with European Christian culture, but their peculiar cultural life was strongly slowed too. So all later facts of Lithuanian cultural life till the middle of the 19th century were more or less sporadic.

National Lithuanian culture did not become a factor of unification of Lithuanian elite during this period. Christianity was declared then as such a factor, but different European cultural influences made this idea complex. There were followers of Polish, German, Italian cultures, and Protestants and Catholics contested in Lithuania in that time. And both orthodoxes and Jews, even if they stayed a bit in a side, contributed to all this variety. - But this situation saved Lithuanian-language culture as well. Being strictly negated, it also did not have clear directions of change and stayed original. In its turn this having no direction was dangerous for self-isolation and remaining stagnate without creative flight.

When the Catholic Church (or the Lutheran one, if we speak about Lithuanians in Prussia) became a provider of new ideas for Lithuanian people, it became something like a window to the extraneous world. It's a question how much this role was accepted voluntary by the church. Some historians argue that it was made by pressure of rivalry between Catholics and Protestants and it weakened when Reformation struggles decreased.

At any rate, the other, opposite to negating Lithuanian culture, tendency had its supporters too. Even more, these two tendencies, the inculturating and the negating one, remained as two main components in Lithuanian culture till the beginning of the 19th century and have their evident consequences now.

The development
Changes of old Lithuanian culture became mostly evident in a sphere of religion. We know only approximately what new elements had been introduced into (old) Lithuanian culture, clothing and so on in the beginning of this period. But the popular-kind simplifying  (or becoming more rustic) of old Lithuanian religion is an unquestioned thing. The ritual became strictly connected with the calendar of rural works and other factors of this kind; witnesses of that time found a multitude of sacred objects (they simply described them as "gods"), which were connected totally with all material life, but didn't refer to more philosophically common or abstract ideas (in opposition to descriptions of religion in the 14th century). It allows us to think about some form of pantheism, as if all the world was holy for Lithuanians.

This old vision of the world retreated slowly and finally was extinguished in the end of the 18th century. There were two stages of this process. Firstly the extinguishing of original attributes of the old religion, as names, forms of rite, details of clothing, and especially words of holy prayers, songs and poems. All these traditional forms still had some existence in the 16th century, but they became less and less known a century later. And we can date the beginning of the new stage approximately to the last quarter of the 16th century.

Two other processes started in this time. The first was stabilization of some old cultural forms, maybe less confronting to Christian requirements. Later, some of them survived the time of the very understanding old culture values and became known by neighboring nations as Lithuanian popular traditions since the middle of the 19th century or sporadically even earlier. The traditional popular songs (dainos) and Lithuanian woven sashes (juostos) are among them. Lithuanians began to create the songs in these times instead of forgotten or forbidden old holy songs and prayers. The melodic base of dainos, especially in the very beginning, was the same as in these songs. Juostos had been woven by women since old times. During this period they became the main ware, in which traditional Lithuanian ornaments still were used. The ornaments may have had some conventional symbolic significance, but during this period they began to be   seen only as forms of art, which later developed into a standard of Lithuanian popular art.

The second process, which took place after the end of the 16th century, was introduction of ideas of Christianity into the Lithuanian environment, using Lithuanian culture's symbols and traditions. This program was initiated by Jesuits (in G.D.L. only). The worship of various old religion holy essences was changed into cult of saints. On the other hand, traditional Catholic art forms of sacred objects were supplemented in Lithuania by some forms, which were comparable with ones, taken from old Lithuanian art ware. As the best example, traditional (both iron and wooden) crosses in present Lithuania, West Belarus and Northern Poland with raying sun and moon could be noted. In this case we can see old symbols still having symbolic (maybe different from pre-Christian times) sense too. During this period, new forms were added to country art. Local craftsmen made (mostly wooden) statues of saints, chapels, wooden an iron crosses (statues and chapels often had well-seen prototypes, made by famous European artists, but there were also original ones). Till the 19th century it became a significant branch of Lithuanian country art, known and used also by urban people. This program of inculturation required a good knowledge of Lithuanian. The superiors of Jesuits in Lithuania always paid some (though not very big) attention to it. The time after founding Jesuits in Lithuania was exceptional in this point. The rivalry with Reformers and, maybe, more direct survey from Rome caused, that attention, paid to Lithuanian by Jesuits was greater, than before or after it. Jesuit Lithuanian Daukša even wrote a manifesto (printed in his Postil, a collection of sermons in Lithuanian, in 1599), in which he exhorted Lithuanian nobles to regard and to use Lithuanian. Twenty years later the first dictionary with Lithuanian words was published (Polish–Latin–Lithuanian dictionary by Jesuit priest Konstantinas Sirvydas, in approx. 1620) and it became a significant fact of Lithuanian cultural life. The dictionary had a big influence to the development of Lithuanian, especially to its standardization and modernization. Adding to this, Lithuanian was presented in a satisfactory form in the dictionary, with borrowings forming only a small part of the entire word corpus. And it meant not only a difference of Lithuanian-language culture from others, but also a big potential of this culture.

So the short period during which Lithuanian-language culture was fostered by the Society of Jesus had positive effects.

After the middle of the 17th century, a moderate rise of Lithuanian-speaking culture took place. Politically it was the time of turmoils and wars. Despite this, towns were growing in Lithuania and various new realities came into life. The number of urban people increased and newcomers (in much cases Lithuanian-speaking) had significant input to it. The degree of communication between state and town officials and ordinary inhabitants increased as well. This development caused necessary changes in language policy. In non-orthodox regions of G.D.L. the middle and lower strata of urban people used Lithuanian. And only some regions in the South of G.D.L. as Grodna, Augustów regions and Vilnius town (not region) were exceptions to it, having however Lithuanian-speaking population parts, mostly in lower strata. This situation caused it to be necessary for the highest stratum of nobles to know Lithuanian too. The prestige of Lithuanian was increasing at this time and we can speak about some relative expansion and renovation of Lithuanian-speaking culture.

Lithuanian didn't gain official status then. Among various causes of it, some more significant must be emphasized. Firstly, the two biggest towns in G.D.L. were polonized earlier and more than other towns. Secondly, position of Catholic church in G.D.L. was favorable to Polish. Adding to this, whereas publishing of books was sponsored by the highest nobles and by Catholic and Orthodox churches, publishing of books in Lithuanian did not increase. Lithuanian-language books became more and more inconspicuous among Polish and Latin publications.

As a result, the Lithuanian-speaking culture did not expand among the highest nobles. But some positive changes took place in this time too. The language was modernized, it was no longer a language of mere country people. Style of courtesy re-appeared in the language (some style of this kind had to exist in pre-Christian Lithuania). All this contributed to the existence of a Lithuanian-speaking culture among further generations of nobles and urban people. And these processes, going on only on a part of the territory of G.D.L., were a sign of a growing modern Lithuania.

Lithuanian-language culture in the Duchy of Prussia
Lithuanians, mostly villagers, lived in the North and North-East regions of the Duchy of Prussia. This fact was confirmed later in administrative way, and administrative unit, called Lithuanian counties was created. Unofficially it was called Lithuania, Prussian Lithuania, or, in later times, also Lithuania Minor. In the beginning of the 16th century, Lithuanians in Prussia had the same cultural traditions as neighboring Lithuanians in G.D.L., and some inessential differences are not worth mentioning here. But later the cultural difference between Prussian Lithuania and Lithuanian part of G.D.L. increased. The main points of this process were: In 1530, Prussia became a secular Protestant state. So Prussian Lithuanians became Protestants (Lutherans), while Lithuanians in G.D.L. stayed Catholics. The next point was presence of some official attention to religious education in the native language in Prussia. At the beginning, after 1530, for this purpose the first secular ruler of Prussia, the duke Albert invited a number of educated Lithuanians Protestants from G.D.L. They became senior priests in Prussian Lithuania and authors of church texts, holy songs in Lithuanian and their translations into Lithuanian, but one of them, Martynas Mažvydas, wrote a catechism, which was published in 1547 in Königsberg, becoming the first printed book in Lithuanian.

Since this time priests of Lithuanian parishes were obliged to know Lithuanian and they did this obligation more or less. There were talented persons among them, and sometimes books in Lithuanian with new translations of religious texts, new holy songs and so on were published. In 1653 the first Lithuanian grammar, Grammatica Litvanica by Daniel Klein, was issued in Königsberg. And unpublished material on Lithuanian language and culture, collected by them, was big too.

The interest of Lutheran priests of Prussian Lithuanian parishes in Lithuanian was deeper than the interest of their Catholic colleagues in G.D.L., and they managed to print more books for a relatively small Lithuanian population in Prussia, than Catholic editors for all Lithuanian population in G.D.L.

Catholic priests paid less attention towards Lithuanian popular traditions than Lutheran ones. Also the existence of G.D.L. had some influence to Prussian ruling persons and even put some pressure on them, and it did not allow disregarding of existing Lithuanians and their cultural needs. And the situation of Lithuanians was better, than, for example, the Old Prussian population, whose language was called "barbarian" and attained only minimal attention. Despite good attention to Lithuanian, Lithuanians were not admitted to the Prussian ruling class, which remained German. And the church career was the only one available for Lithuanians. Concentration of Lithuanian intellectuals in priest estate had some significant consequences. Lithuanian remained in use in Prussian Lithuania till the beginning of the 20th century and later. Besides this, Lithuanians became loyal and faithful to Evangelical Church in Prussia and Protestantism, their faith assumed some forms of pietism. And, in its turn, they became loyal and devoted subjects and patriots of Prussia. Thus, in fact, this part of the Lithuanian nation was separated from the main part in G.D.L. during this period.

The later part of Middle Christian period from the end of the 17th century to the mid-19th century suffered a period of decline for the Grand duchy of Lithuania.

List of cultural events of the 18th to the 20th centuries
The table below contains the main historical events connected with cultural life in Lithuania in the 18th to 20th centuries.

title: History of Lithuanian culture


text:
Char (chemistry)

Char is the solid material that remains after light gases (e.g. coal gas) and tar have been driven out or released from a carbonaceous material during the initial stage of combustion, which is known as carbonization, charring, devolatilization or pyrolysis.

Further stages of efficient combustion (with or without char deposits) are known as gasification reactions, ending quickly when the reversible gas phase of the water gas shift reaction is reached.

title: Char (chemistry)


text: Template:PD-US

title: Template:PD-US


text:
Template talk:PD-US

This is for copyright-expired images in the US. Secretlondon 13:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please move
Could an admin please move this template to Category:Images in the public domain in the United States per Categories_for_deletion/US_vs_U.S.? Thanks, Beland 07:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fomatting?
Can someone possibly format this template to look more distinctive, perhaps like Template:PD-old? It doesn't stand out from the text enough as is, IMHO. I would do it, but the page is protected. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Size of Image:PD-icon.png
Does anyone have any objections to a reduction in the size of Image:PD-icon.png in this template ? It's sticking out of the box. I think 25px would fit within the box nicely, but I don't know the wikicodes well enough to position it properly. -- PFHLai 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

vi:Tiêu bản:PD-US

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. flag
The reason for a U.S. flag is to point out that the copyright is specific to the U.S.. People have a tendency to upload files to Wikimedia Commons or other Wikipedia projects under the assumtion that PD tag means it is PD everywhere. That is definitely not the case. If you don't object, I'll add this flag to some other commonly used PD-US tags.

I'd also like to add to this template "The work of art is not necessarily Public Domain in other countries.", but I don't want to cludder the template, so please speak if you think this is a bad idea. / Fred-Chess 08:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition
Along with the pre-1923-in-the-U.S. rule, why don't we add "or was published outside of the United States before July 1909." This would resolve most of the ambiguities which come up with people regarding things which are old enough to be PD-US but are not necessarily published in the US, but are not old enough to fall under one of the PD-Old tags. --Fastfission 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I added some of the cases from that page. What if we add "See the talk page for more cases where this may apply"?  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is sr:Шаблон:ЈВ-САД Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Done! Next time try Template:Editprotected and you'll probably get quicker service :) Haukur 10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. And thanks for the advice, I got that right meantime ;-) --Branislav Jovanovic 06:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PD-Layout
Can PD-Layout be used to simplfy this template and harmonize it with other PD-templates? See PD-USGov-USDA-NAL for an example use 68.39.174.238 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I'm not sure in a quick look-over. A copyable example would be very helpful; I'm leaving the editprotected tag on in case some other admin is able to do this; feel free to remove in a few days if no-one does it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit protect
I have created a newer version on the photos used. Other that the grey copyright mark and the US flag, i have merged them together (as seen ) this attracts more attention than just the flag and the mark. Cocoaguy *talk*| (Edits) 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting idea but I see two shortcomings: The "no symbol" is not as visible as before, and that is a very important part of the template. As-is, the template is easy to adapt to works which are PD under other countries' laws.  A merged symbol would require custom art for each new template, and many countries flags would not adapt well to this type of merge. —Dgiest c 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I might also add that that is a GIF and should be an SVG image. 68.39.174.238 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There seems no consensus for this change. I've thus removed the edit request tag for now. --Ligulem 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
Are these only public domain in the US, or are they public domain everywhere because they were originally published in the US? --Random832 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If the image was first published in the U.S. (and not elsewhere simultaneously) before 1923, then it's PD everywhere. If the image was first published outside the U.S. before 1923, it's still considered PD in the U.S., but it's considered copyrighted elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily; Germany, Canada and Mexico and several other nations don't have the rule of the shorter term with respect to US works (or in general for some of those nations), and hence just because it was first published in the US prior to 1923 doesn't mean that it's PD everywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What about post-1923 PD images?
At the top of this talk page, it states several cases where this tag could be applied. These include works first published in the U.S. before 1963 without a copyright notice, etc. But the text of the template itself says that the work was first published before 1923. Are there any objections to me changing the text of this tag to cover all cases mentioned at the top of this page? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"in the United States"
editprotected

Please change

 * In most cases, this means that it was first published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923

to

 * In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923.

As noted at the top of this page, works published outside the United States before 1923 are also in the public domain. Commons:Template:PD-US does not include the phrase "in the United States" in the second sentence and neither should this template. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * ✅ Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you! —Remember the dot (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This template needs to be split into two
Currently, this tag is used both for US works published before 1923, which are public domain in most of the world, and for non-US works, some of which are still copyrighted almost everywhere except the US. This causes two problems: To solve these problems, we need either two different tags or else a parameter specifying the country of origin. Two tags would probably be simpler.—Celithemis 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Someone who wants to reprint Wikipedia articles outside the US cannot tell which images are public domain except by individually examining each one.
 * 2) The fact that both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have a PD-US tag misleads people into assuming that anything tagged PD-US here can be moved there. Some of these images are not allowed on Commons, and are subject to deletion there—specifically, non-US works published before 1923 whose creators died less than 70 years ago.  An image could easily wind up transwikied to Commons, deleted here as redundant, and then deleted on Commons as a copyright violation—wasting everyone's time and losing an image that was perfectly OK here.

 * I say we go for six different tags - representing the six cases at the top. Haukur 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The tag for the fifth case would contain a warning that the image might not be suitable for the Commons. Haukur 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but see one problem: we will have a lot of images that are difficult to choose a tag for.  Something painted in 1900 by an Italian artist who died in 1920, for example:  it could be case #5, #6, or even #1, depending on when and where it was first published, but one way or another it's public domain unless, by some fluke, its first publication was in the US after 1922.  How would we handle cases like this? —Celithemis 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point I hadn't thought of. In your example the painting could actually also (though it is unlikely) fit cases #2, #3 or #4. Perhaps we could use #6 as a sort of default for cases like that. But in theory we'd always need to establish date of (first) publication to ensure it didn't fall into the 1978-2002 danger zone. Maybe we could deal with some real examples to get a feel for how we'd like image description pages to look. Here's an image I uploaded with a prototype template: Image:Sjoundi dagur i Paradis.jpg. Does it have enough information to establish PD status? Does it have too much information? Is it hopelessly confusing? Haukur 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I've started looking through some categories of (supposedly) PD images and they are generally very poorly documented indeed. Take the images in Haystacks (Monet) for example. Haukur 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Paintings in particular are in a dreadful state, since the old language of Public domain led people to slap on a PD-art or PD-art-life-70 tag and leave it at that.  Very, very few have the publication history that would be needed to be completely sure they're public domain in the US.  That's why I think we're going to have to focus on images that are truly likely to be copyright violations, at least for now, rather than trying to pin down which specific criterion every image on Wikipedia fits.  Your suggestion of using a default tag for creators whose works were PD in their home country by 1996 sounds like a good start. —Celithemis 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. We could start slapping "nosource" or even "nopublicationdate" templates on all sorts of images which look like they probably are in the public domain even if their image description pages don't really prove it. That may not be so productive. I think those Monet haystacks are an interesting example. Monet died in 1926 so he probably had some of his copyrights restored by the URAA. On the other hand it seems likely that at least some of those wildly popular haystack paintings were published before 1923. I'm not keen to personally do the research needed to verify that. Haukur 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not either, though that's a good example of one that really should be investigated (in someone's copious free time).
 * My priority right now is to do something about distinguishing US and non-US works that are tagged PD-US, because I'm really getting sick of having to watch images that I've uploaded to make sure someone doesn't transwiki them to Commons. I just now had to ask the same person not to do that for a second time.  It's too confusing to have PD-US templates on en.wiki and Commons that don't mean the same thing. —Celithemis 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. Let's make a specific tag for pre-1923 works published abroad and attach a prominent warning not to transfer images tagged with it to Commons. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Template:PD-art-life-70, though it is actually carefully worded and not wrong, is rather misleading. It's very easy to take it to mean that the US is a 70 p.m.a. country. Haukur 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. That might be better used as an auxiliary tag, which would have to be used in conjunction with another tag that explains how the image is public domain in the US. —Celithemis 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Every image should have a tag explaining why the image is in the public domain in the United States. Everything else is icing on the cake. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I have created Do not move to Commons. Feel free to tweak it (including adding a category if necessary). -Nard 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We actually already have templates for cases #3 and #4. See Template:PD-Pre1978 and Template:PD-US-not renewed. Haukur 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first of those templates is quite wrong, of course. The "irrevocably" part applies only to US works - others are subject to the URAA-1996 magic fairy dust of copyright restoration. Haukur 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I put in an edit request for that one. It looks like it is only used on a handful of images anyway. —Celithemis 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. I think I'll add a US flag to it to bring it in line with its brethren. Haukur 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a specific tag for the case of works published abroad before 1923, Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, and applied it to some images. Now we have specific tags for cases #3-#6. I think case #2 is quite rare, I'm not aware of any images that fall under it (though I'm sure there are some). Case #1 is probably the most common by far and the present tag already mentions it so I think there's no rush to create a separate template for it (though I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to do so). Haukur 23:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, and have already used it. Just two thoughts:
 * Maybe the filename should use the date 1922, to make it clearer that works published in 1923 are not included?
 * I think we should be using this as a default in any case where we're not 100% sure that the first publication was U.S. There are probably a lot of images for which we know about one publication before 1923, but it's unclear whether it's the first.  Maybe the language of the tag should reflect this.
 * As for case #2, I agree we can ignore it for now. There must be images out there that it applies to -- previously unpublished drawings that have been uploaded to museum websites in the last few years, for instance -- but it's going to be very hard to prove. —Celithemis 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that 1922 would be better in the name. Now would be a good time to do any renaming while the template is only on a handful of images. As for case #2 it may not be that hard to prove in all cases. There must be post-2002 art books which tout something as previously unseen and unpublished. I was looking at a book of 19th century French photographs the other day and it noted that some of the pictures had never before been published (though, infuriatingly, it didn't say which ones). As for case #1 I'm thinking maybe we should start a specific template for it after all. I've been looking through the categories of images tagged with PD-US and most of them are severely underdocumented, often making no case for why the template should apply. Moving those which do clearly document a pre-1923 US publication date to a specific template would make things at least slightly clearer. Haukur 09:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I don't like about that is that the templates called "PD-US" here and on Commons will cover different things. That's already true of the PD-Old tags, though.  Maybe it's just a lost cause trying to keep them in sync.  If we do that, I think this tag should clearly state that the image may not be appropriate for Commons.

 * As for that pesky case #2, eh. No harm in making the template and seeing if anyone uses it.  I vaguely remember reading about a case where someone's photos were embargoed by their estate until 2010, so that's another way it could happen. —Celithemis 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Commons licencing situation is an even bigger mess than the one over here. I mean, just take a look at the upload screen. It tells you right out that a file is in the public domain if "author died more than 70 years ago". It also tells you to give a "Date of creation or publication if the former is unknown". In reality the 70 pma is not a sufficient criterion and a year of publication should be provided whether a year of creation is given or not. If you start uploading to Commons you're being fed wrong information right off the bat.

 * Sure, we can make a case #2 template for sakes of completeness. Haukur 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a whole other can of worms. Commons's problem is that other language Wikipedias want to follow the copyright laws of the countries they serve, but the servers are all in the U.S.  They asked the Foundation about this a while ago and got back a "no comment".  There was talk of adding tags that say "this image is not public domain in the U.S.", but nothing has been done, and perhaps it never will be, since that basically says "yes, we are aware that we are violating the law".

 * The whole project of building an archive of public domain images for both life+70 countries and the US is fairly quixotic, and English Wikipedia would be well advised to host all its own public domain images instead, but I doubt that will happen. —Celithemis 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, this template will need to be split into an absolute minimum of two templates, and perhaps many more than that in the long term. To begin with, I give as an example the wildly erroneous statement in the template: "In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases)." Firstly, publishing between 1923 and 1963 increased as much as fifty-fold in that time period. Secondly, over 90% of the copyrights originally registered with the U.S. Copyright Office between 1923 and 1963 were not renewed prior to the passing of 28 years from original date of publication as would be required to extend copyright beyond 28 years after the original publication date. Thirdly, as much as 99%, perhaps more, of the total material published in the US between 1923 and 1963 were not renewed prior to the elapsing of the 28-year initial copyright period (assuming, of course, the formalities were in place in the first place).. As a practical matter, this arguably leaves some 99%-or-so of the U.S.-public domain material in something of a black hole on Wikpedia. Given that no one has the right to confer anything in the public domain over to a "free license" such that it might not fall into the massive WP:Black hole, I must say that at present this discussion is arguably in need of. ... Kenosis 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The template documentation does discuss the cases of images whose copyright was never registered or not renewed, and as of now it points to specific tags that can be used for them. So I don't see the "black hole" you're referring to.  I do see your point that the word "most" could be misleading -- I had taken it as meaning "most images tagged PD-US on Wikipedia", rather than "most public domain images that exist".  Maybe it could be changed to "many" for now.  But I think we are trying to move toward a setup in which all images tagged with this specific template will fall under the pre-1923 criterion. —Celithemis 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give a day, week, month, year... to figure out the rough numbers. If WP is in fact preventing itself from using over 99% of the material presently in the public domain in the US, then, perhaps, it has (1) some growth to undergo, or (2) some apologizing to do to its past and present donors, be those donors financial or otherwise. ... Kenosis 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Wikipedia is preventing itself from using any material that is in the public domain. We can use material that has lost its copyright due to nonregistration or nonrenewal.  As far as I know, we have always been able to. —Celithemis 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Switch to WP:DOC format
editprotected

Please replace the contents of this template with:

 This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Public domain and Copyrights for more details.

This will bring the template into conformance with WP:DOC and move the template documentation off the talk page. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. Haukur 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy at Template:Pd-us
I've made a protected verbatim copy of this template at pd-us for us lazy types unable to reach the shift key. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting
editprotected

Replace the source code with:

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Public domain and Copyrights for more details.

which produces the template below; the American flag is positioned to the right and is more visually appealing -- penubag  (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Public domain and Copyrights for more details. documentation

 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Using ambox
I really wish all the image licence tags could conform to a single style, ideally a new colour of ambox. could be copied to a new name (e.g. (image message box) and given a new colour. In my opinion, the image pages all look so cluttered and jumbled and it's really hard to gauge just from looking where all the information is. Trouble is - it might be being too bold - everyone is affected. It would make such a difference in my opinion though. What are all your thoughts? Drum guy (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Imbox is in work as we speak, but it's intended for maintenance tags, not license tags. Personally I'd like to standardize en Wikipedia license tags with Commons license tag as much as possible. Kelly  hi! 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What does published mean?
How does one know where a work was published? I would like to upload photographs I am certain were created before 1923, since the subject died before then, but I have no idea when the image was first published. Any advice? Thanks. —johndburger 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You need to find out the exact source of the photos. Were they published in a newspaper? Who was the photographer, and have they also died? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmm, so basically most "old" photos found on the net are useless to us—too bad. I suspect this due diligence has not, in fact, been done for many of the images tagged with this template, since the few that I randomly looked at make no mention of the author or original publication. Or am I being too cynical? —johndburger 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Change pd-us tempate to a redirect to PD-US
editprotected

Wouldn't it be better if pd-us was just a redirect rather than a copy of the PD-US template?

 * 1) REDIRECT Template:PD-US

-- WOSlinker (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No, because it has a high number of transclusions, and the redirect will show up on the transclusion. It's better to keep it as it is. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Published definition
I keep finding pages with pictures that were painted before 1923 (see a series of Matisse's paintings at User:Modernist for instance) claiming public domain... As i understand it, however, the law only relates to works that were mass produced. ie photos in magazines, books, newspapers, records etc. The law does not apply to unique items such as paintings. Is there a lawyer up on US copyright law who could comment? This seems to be a practice that's spreading.Franciselliott (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The law applies to when a work was "published". A painting is legally published when it is put on display for public consumption, or when copies are made and distributed. So if a painting was put up in a gallery before 1923, then it's PD. – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If this was in the USA only, surely? In France copyright subsists until (now) 70 years after the author's death, and if the work was not "published" in the US before 1923, the rules of the country of first publication will normally apply. Plus if only copies are published - eg a photo in a book - only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original. I think. A lawyer should confirm. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those images were uploaded (not by me) with that understanding..that they were published and/or publically displayed before 1923..not everything, but those images that were specifically discussed, as far as I know they are ok, which was why we used them in various articles and why I also have them on my user page...Modernist (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it means (I'm not a lawyer) that the work of art itself is in the public domain if it was shown in the US or it was reproduced in a US publication before 1923. @ Johnbod: The entire work of art is in the public domain, not simply the reproduction, and while again I am not a lawyer, I derive this from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: if the reproductions do not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted, then their PD status is inextricable from that of the artwork. Besides, it is so difficult to research the publication history of an artwork (see Tyrenius's excellent work on File_talk:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg) that I believe we should assume works made before 1923 are PDUS, and deal with individual cases as they are challenged by the "copyright holder"- if it is hard to prove then it is equally hard to disprove, within reasonable doubt. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very dubious your Bridgeman point is correct; anyway with the point below it may be irrelevant. If it were true there would be effectively no copyright at all for 2-d works in the US, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and if you are correct, then there is no use of PDUS at all unless we can track down a scan of the exact printing of the image that constituted its publication. For Les Demoiselles that would be this tiny black and white reproduction. I make no pretension to being correct, and from rereading my statement I see how you could interpret it to state that reproductions of copyrighted works are PDUS. That was not at all my meaning; I simply followed this logic: if "A: If a printed reproduction of a 2d work of art was published in the US before 1923, that reproduction is in the public domain within the US." and "B: A reproduction of a 2d work of art does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted." are true, then "C: Any reproduction of a 2d work of art that was reproduced before 1923 in the US will have the same copyright status as the reproduction that was produced before 1923" would seem to follow. If the reproduction does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted in the first place, then its publication in the US before 1923 would not release merely the reproduction into the public domain in the US- you cannot take away from it what it never had, ie the protection of copyright. Therefore it is the work of art itself that passes into the public domain. That was my reasoning, in any event. Once again I make no claim to it being right, but simply wish not to be misunderstood. I stand corrected re publication vs. exhibition, but this is a different issue entirely.

 * The consequences of your statement ("only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original") being absolutely true are worrisome; I can scarcely imagine PDUS being claimed at all for works from another country of origin, and the quality of images so procured for WP would suffer greatly, as the Les Demoiselles reproduction evidences. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Display for public consumption does not constitute "publication". Per 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Law,
 * "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

 * To perform or display a work 'publicly' means —

 * (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

 * (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

 * This is why the White House Collections has claimed copyright for the painted portraits of US Presidents, which (with the exception of Gilbert Stuart's George Washington) were first published in Presidents of the United States of America (1962), and has been continually renewed with every new edition. There are several Presidential portraits on Commons that should be deleted.  Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images
It appears that the vast majority of PD-Old and PD-US photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is PDUS, the entire work (ie any reproduction of it), or only the reproduction that was published before 1923?
I'd like to have a definite answer to this crucial question, which emerged as a side issue to the discussion on the definition of "published". (see the discussion two sections previous to this one). Here's the relevant discussion, you can see more above:

 * Johnbod:...if only copies are published - eg a photo in a book - only that copy/photo will be PD, not the original. I think. A lawyer should confirm.

 * Me:...if the reproductions do not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted, then their PD status is inextricable from that of the artwork.

 * Johnbod:...If it were true there would be effectively no copyright at all for 2-d works in the US, no?

Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Me:...That was not at all my meaning; I simply followed this logic: if "A: If a printed reproduction of a 2d work of art was published in the US before 1923, that reproduction is in the public domain within the US." and "B: A reproduction of a 2d work of art does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted." are true, then "C: Any reproduction of a 2d work of art that was reproduced before 1923 in the US will have the same copyright status as the reproduction that was produced before 1923" would seem to follow. If the reproduction does not have sufficient originality to be copyrighted in the first place, then its publication in the US before 1923 would not release merely the reproduction into the public domain in the US- you cannot take away from it what it never had, ie the protection of copyright. Therefore it is the work of art itself that passes into the public domain.(as an addendum: How can you publish an original work of art anyway, without copying it? It is impossible. If we apply Johnbod's logic to PD worldwide, then only reproductions made more than 70 years ago could be used to represent PD works, which would be contra WP policy that follows Bridgeman. I see no reason why our treatment of PDUS should not be analogous)

Unlink request
Please unlink United States, which is a well-known term, per WP:OVERLINK in the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unpublished
It would seem helpful to add a line, if not a template, for previously unpublished work. Cornell says unpublished work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the author (photographer too?) and anonymous work 120 years after the work was created. This covers a huge volume of family and archived photos, diaries, etc. Wikipedians can find this rule by clicking through to the "complete list" reference at Cornell, but it would be clearer to note the dichotomy between published and unpublished in the main text.

The line or template might note that at least in the US, previously unpublished work (a) enters the public domain because of the "unpublished" rules, and (b) stays in the public domain even if it is now published, because works published in the US after 2002 enter the public domain "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." (same Cornell reference). Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

template for indicating that a work is free in its source country but not the United States?
Is there an opposite of this template?

In other words, do we have a template that indicates a work is free in the country of origin but not the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I guess it depends on the reason, if it's due to URAA restoration, then you can use or something like  accompanied with the appropriate non-free use tag like . Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm thinking about situations where the country of origin has a higher threshold of originality than the United States. Something like the opposite of PD-ineligible-USonly but for foreign countries. It seems we don't have a template for each country or the ability to specify that the work is in public domain because it's too simple to be copyrighted. Or do we just stick to fair-use templates in these cases? Ixfd64 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean there's Category:Public domain copyright templates by country, but I don't think you can specify that it's because of ToO. That said, the situation that there would be something that is original enough in the US but not in the source country seems very rare as the US threshold is already quite high; the source country's threshold would have to be even higher, so that it would be below its threshold but above the US threshold. AFAIK there isn't any country which has a threshold of originality that is significantly higher than in the US apart from Brazil (c:com:TOO Brazil). Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Template talk:PD-US


text:
Clive Granger

Sir Clive William John Granger (4 September 1934 – 27 May 2009) was a British econometrician known for his contributions to nonlinear time series analysis. He taught in Britain, at the University of Nottingham and in the United States, at the University of California, San Diego. Granger was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2003 in recognition of the contributions that he and his co-winner, Robert F. Engle, had made to the analysis of time series data. This work fundamentally changed the way in which economists analyse financial and macroeconomic data.

Early life
Clive Granger was born in 1934 in Swansea, south Wales, United Kingdom, to Edward John Granger and Evelyn Granger. The next year his parents moved to Lincoln.

During World War II Granger and his mother moved to Cambridge because Edward joined the Royal Air Force and deployed to North Africa. Here they stayed first with Evelyn's mother, then later Edward's parents, while Clive began school. Clive would later recall a primary school teacher telling his mother that "[Clive] would never be successful".

Clive started secondary school in Cambridge, but continued in Nottingham, where his family moved after the war. Here two teachers encouraged Granger's interest in physics and applied mathematics. He had anticipated following the convention of completing schooling at age 16 to enter the workforce and saw himself working in a bank or insurance company. However, positive social influence from his peers and support from his father led him to enroll in sixth-form for two years as preparation for a university degree.

Granger enrolled in a joint degree in economics and mathematics at the University of Nottingham but switched to full mathematics in his second year. After receiving his BA in 1955, he remained at the University of Nottingham for a PhD in statistics under the supervision of Harry Pitt.

In 1956, aged 21, Granger was appointed a junior lecturer in statistics at the university. His interest in applied statistics and economics led him to choose as the topic of his doctoral thesis time series analysis, a field in which he felt that relatively little work had been done at the time. In 1959 Granger completed his PhD degree with a thesis titled "Testing for Non-stationarity".

Academic life
Granger spent the next academic year, 1959–60, at Princeton University under a Harkness Fellowship of the Commonwealth Fund. He had been invited to Princeton by Oskar Morgenstern to participate in his Econometrics Research Project. Here, Granger and Michio Hatanaka as assistants to John Tukey on a project using Fourier analysis on economic data.

In 1964, Granger and Hatanaka published the results of their research in a book on Spectral Analysis of Economic Time Series (Tukey had encouraged them to write this themselves, as he was not going to publish the research results.) In 1963, Granger also wrote an article on "The typical spectral shape of an economic variable", which appeared in Econometrica in 1966. Both the book and the article proved influential in the adoption of the new methods.

Granger also became a full professor at the University of Nottingham.

In a 1969 paper in Econometrica, Granger also introduced his concept of Granger causality.

After reading a pre-print copy of the time series book by George Box and Gwilym Jenkins in 1968, Granger became interested in forecasting. For the next few years he worked on this subject with his post-doctoral student, Paul Newbold; and they wrote a book which became a standard reference in time series forecasting (published in 1977). Using simulations, Granger and Newbold also wrote the famous 1974 paper on spurious regression which led to a re-evaluation of previous empirical work in economics and to the econometric methodology.

Granger spent 22 years at the University of Nottingham. In 2005, the building that houses the Economics and Geography Departments was renamed the Sir Clive Granger Building in honor of his Nobel prize award.

In 1974 Granger moved to the University of California at San Diego. In 1975 he participated in a US Bureau of Census committee, chaired by Arnold Zellner, on seasonal adjustment. At UCSD, Granger continued his research on time series, collaborating closely with Nobel prize co-recipient Robert Engle (whom he helped bring to UCSD), Roselyne Joyeux (on fractional integration), Timo Teräsvirta (on nonlinear time series) and others. Working with Robert Engle, he developed the concept of cointegration, introduced in a 1987 joint paper in Econometrica; for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in 2003.

Granger also supervised many PhD students, including Mark Watson (co-advisor with Robert Engle).

In later years Granger also used time series methods to analyse data outside economics. He worked on a project forecasting deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. In 2003, Granger retired from UCSD as a professor emeritus. He was a Visiting Eminent Scholar of the University of Melbourne and the University of Canterbury. He was a supporter of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, an organisation which campaigns for democratic reform of the United Nations.

Granger was married to Patricia (Lady Granger) from 1960 until his death. He was survived by their son, Mark William John, and their daughter, Claire Amanda Jane.

Granger died on 27 May 2009, at Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla, California.

Honors and awards
In 2003, Granger and his collaborator Robert Engle were jointly awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He was made a Knight Bachelor in the New Year's Honours in 2005.

Granger was a fellow of the Econometric Society since 1972 and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy since 2002. In 2004, he was voted as one of the 100 Welsh Heroes.

title: Clive Granger


text:
George Cakobau

Ratu Sir George Kadavulevu Cakobau (6 November 1912 – 25 November 1989) was a Fijian statesman and athlete. A great-grandson of Ratu Seru Epenisa Cakobau, the paramont chief of Bau who had unified all the tribes of Fiji under his reign in the mid-1800s, Ratu Sir George held the traditional titles of Vunivalu of Bau and Tui Levuka and thus was considered by many as Fiji's highest-ranking traditional chief. Ratu Cakobau was appointed Governor-General of Fiji in 1973, becoming the first indigenous Fijian to serve as the viceregal representative of Elizabeth II, Queen of Fiji.

Education and early career
Cakobau was educated first at Fiji's Queen Victoria School, then at Newington College in Australia (1927–1932) and Wanganui Technical College in Wanganui, New Zealand. He became a member of the Great Council of Chiefs in 1938, where he remained until 1972. When he first joined the Council, it had the power to make laws for the ethnic Fijian population, but this power was removed towards the end of the colonial era, as modern political institutions were built.

Cakobau served with the Royal Fiji Military Forces in World War II (1939–1945), rising to the rank of captain. Following his return to Fiji after the end of the war, he was nominated to the Legislative Council in 1951 to replace the deceased George Toganivalu. He remained a member of this body, which was renamed the House of Representatives when Fiji became independent in 1970 as the Dominion of Fiji until his appointment as Governor-General. He served in the Cabinet, first as Minister for Fijian Affairs and Local Government and subsequently as a minister without portfolio, from 1970 to 1972.

Governor-General of Fiji
One significant event marked Cakobau's tenure as Governor-General. In March 1977, a constitutional crisis developed following a general election that gave a narrow majority to the Indo-Fijian dominated National Federation Party (NFP). Three days after the election, the NFP splintered in a leadership brawl, and Cakobau, acting as Fiji's effective head of state, then called on the defeated Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, to form a new government, pending fresh elections (which were held in September, and resulted in a landslide win for Mara's Alliance Party).

In a public statement, Cakobau defended his actions thus: "In the recent general election, the people of Fiji did not give a clear mandate to either of the major political parties. It, therefore, became the duty of the Governor-General under the Constitution to appoint as Prime Minister the Member of the House of Representatives who appeared to him best able to command the support of the majority of the Members of the House. The Governor-General has not been able to act sooner as it was not until this afternoon that he was informed who had been elected leader of the National Federation Party. The Governor-General, after taking all relevant circumstances into account, has come to the firm conclusion that the person best able to command support of the majority of the Members is the Leader of the Alliance Party, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. In compliance with the Constitution and acting in his own deliberate judgment the Governor-General has accordingly appointed Ratu Sir Kamisese as Prime Minister."

Although Cakobau's actions were unquestionably constitutional, they were controversial. Despite the disarray in the NFP, many people, especially in the Indo-Fijian community, were outraged at his role in usurping a popular election, in what many Indo-Fijians saw as a blatant move to protect the privileged position of his fellow Fijian chiefs, who dominated the Mara government.

Honours
Cakobau was decorated with many honours during his lifetime. Among these was Royal Victorian Chain, a rare and prestigious honour awarded as a sign of the special relationship between Fiji and the Monarchy, following the visit of Queen Elizabeth II in 1982. He was a Freemason.

Sport
Cakobau played four first-class cricket matches for Fiji during their 1947–48 tour to New Zealand. Cakobau made his debut first-class debut against Auckland and played his fourth and final first-class match on tour against Otago.

In his four first-class matches Cakobau scored 176 runs at a batting average of 25.14, with a single half-century score of 67* coming against Wellington. With the ball, he took 5 wickets at a bowling average of 52.00, with best figures of 2/48. Additionally, he took 3 catches in the field.

During the tour to New Zealand, Cakobau also played 9 non-first-class matches for Fiji, with his final match coming against Hawke's Bay.

He also played a rugby union Test match for Fiji in 1939, against a New Zealand Maori team at Hamilton. Fiji won by 10 points, with Cakobau contributing two points, through a conversion.

Personal life and legacy
Cakobau was married twice, first to Adi Veniana Gavoka then to Lady Lelea Seruwaia Balekiwai. Several of his children have distinguished themselves in public service. Adi Samanunu Talakuli has held Cabinet office and has been her country's High Commissioner to Malaysia, before being appointed to the Senate in June 2006. Ratu George Cakobau Jr. and Adi Litia Cakobau also served in the Senators from 2001 to 2006. His youngest son, Ratu Tanoa Cakobau, was President of the Conservative Alliance, the junior partner in the ruling coalition from 2001 to 2006.

Cakobau retired from office in 1983, but as Fiji's traditional Paramount Chief, he remained influential until his death in 1989.

Ratu Epenisa Cakobau was installed as Ratu Sir George's successor as Vunivalu of Bau on the 10th of March 2023.

title: George Cakobau