text:
Talk:The Boat Race

New logo
The logo in this article is out of date - new logo on http://theboatraces.org/ has word "RACES" instead of "RACE". If anyone out there is a graphics geek, could they fix this? It seems non-trivial as right-clicking on the logo on the website doesn't offer any "save image" options, so it's apparently not a separate image file. Pam D  15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Boat Race → The Boat Races – This year the women's boat race is also happening on the tideway and the event has been re-branded as The Boat Races. However, the BNY Mellon Boat Race and the Newton Women's Boat race remain as brand names for the specific races. It is also the case that all the information about the women's boat races preceding 2015 is contained in the article about the Henley Boat Race. Given the complexity of this issue I thought it should be discussed before any move. Should this page be moved to The Boat Races? Alternatively should a seperate page be made for The Boat Races, and perhaps even one for the Women's Boat Race separate from the Henley Boat Races article? Bosstopher (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for info: Women's Boat Race was created today, replacing a redirect. Pam  D  19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

*Support I am open to the idea of having one article for both events as The Boat Races which would certainly avoid the WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS of having the different classes of title. Otherwise I suggest keeping the title The Boat Race for the history of related Boat Race events, and then have two sub and stub articles: Results of The Boat Race, men's event and Results of The Boat Race, women's event. In any case, since 1965, there have been two events in "The Boat Race", the main race and the reserve race.
 * Oppose There have always been multiple races as the reserve crews race first on the same day. The event is traditionally known as the Boat Race (singular) and we should stick with this per WP:COMMONNAME, unless and until we see that this new addition sticks.  The organisers have also been using the sponsor's name for the event before but I don't get the impression that that has much currency. Andrew D. (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In both contents: Template:Cambridge University Rowing Clubs and Template:Oxford University Rowing Clubs, the "event" is called The Boat Race. As far as I remember, and I have watched "it" most years, "The Boat Race" has always referred to the whole event. If the event, associated with Oxford and Cambridge geniuses, is finally being titled with correct grammar, then good luck to them. GregKaye 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose although I think that it would be a positive development if a navigation page were created at The Boat Races. Both names, The Boat Race and The Women's Boat Race are presented at http://theboatraces.org.  GregKaye 01:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I drafted a disambiguation page for The Boat Races in my sandbox. Some sources are included as hidden text. Welcome any comments. Whizz40 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support creation of a disambig page Seems like the best solution.Bosstopher (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose The term "the Boat Race" is very well established in Britain for this specific race, although there may be a case for moving it to something more specific in an international encyclopedia. However "the Boat Races" would not be meaningful to most British people, far from obvious that this covers both the men and women's events, some might assume it referred to the men's races over the years. PatGallacher (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and arguments above. But support creation of a navigation page as suggested. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The common name is still the singular. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Based on the comments above, I'll create the navigation page The Boat Races. Whizz40 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Media coverage: self-serving?
While Boat Race is clearly an (upper) class event, it has been reasonably easy for the ruling elite to con-vince people that it is some kind of a working class event - were the lower orders can watch for free. So, in relation to the Boat Race, should not Wikipedia re-consider the term "British national institution"? .

Link 34 broken
References http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/The-University-Year/The-Boat-Race

This link is broken unsure how to take it out or fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbos2hm (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Startling course image error!!
Dear Wikipedians, Why is the image representing the course West to East, i.e. a negative of the actuality? The course goes up river westwards, so why show the start on the right when it should be on the left? Unfortunately, I do not possess the skills to alter it, but I am sure someone else can. In hope, --Po Kadzieli (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is quite clearly because when you look at a map of the Thames you expect the West to be on the left, and East to be on the right (otherwise your map would be upside down). The image is quite clear where the start and end are located. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge lead in cumulative wins date
The lead states that "Cambridge has led Oxford in cumulative wins since 1928" - this isn't supported by the table on List of The Boat Race results which shows Oxford still leading by 40-39 after the 1928 race. It looks like Cambridge levelled the score in 1929 and finally went ahead with a win in 1930. I don't want to change this article myself as I'm not really sure of the history and whether maybe some races are discounted as part of the overall score but it looks like something isn't correct somewhere. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks, I've cross-checked with the list of results as you noted and I have adjusted the lead to say since 1930, not since 1928. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks - I've now fixed the lead of that list itself to read 1930 as well. There is a cite after that year there to a website of results but I can't see anything specific on that site referring to Cambridge taking the overall lead so I've left the cite alone. Thanks for picking that fix up, all the best. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2017

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Boat Race → The Boat Races – "The Boat Race" apparently has changed to "The Boat Races" to include the women's race too. The logo has now changed too, where it hadn't in 2015 (above). Seth Whales  talk    20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's known by its common name, The Boat Race. Maybe in ten years time... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was discussed and rejected in 2015, see above. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is 2 years later...the World doesn't stand still. Seth Whales   talk    08:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is a separate article for the Women's Boat Race which covers its separate history. The annual events have been combined and are covered in combined articles since 2015, eg The Boat Races 2017, but it still consists of two separate events. The current series of articles properly reflects this. Whizz40 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this article is about the male race and not the now combined event. Maybe we should make this more clear in the lead or a hatnote? Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Aloneinthewild that as the Woman's Boat Race has a seperate article. Wetter88 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Made some changes to the lead, hopefully these help clarify the scope of this article and the relationship to 'the boat races'. Whizz40 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, this article is for the men's race, for which The Boat Race is the common name. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Following on the discussion, I'll add the relevant move requests to move Category:The Boat Race and Template: The Boat Race to the plural since they both already cover both races. Whizz40 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Race of 1839
What happened in 1839, did Oxford sink or run aground? --95.222.186.244 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 * No. The race is described at The Boat Race 1839. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Boat Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theboatrace.org/article/newsandmedia/20102011news/xchangings
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924062736/http://theboatrace.org/men/results to http://theboatrace.org/men/results

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Boat Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007064520/http://theboatrace.org/men/statistics to http://theboatrace.org/men/statistics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007064520/http://theboatrace.org/men/statistics to http://theboatrace.org/men/statistics

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race articles
Currently, we have this article, which covers the men's race, and also the women's race in less detail (with separate infoboxes for both); and Women's Boat Race, which covers only the women's race.

I'd suggest we either need to (a) make this article more clearly about the men's race - explicitly specify this in the lead, remove the women's race infobox, remove "Men's Race" subheadings, move any women's race-specific content into the Women's Boat race article and mention the women's race only in passing or as relevant to the men's race; or (b) merge the two articles.

For what it's worth, the current official website uses "The Boat Race" to mean the entire event, and "The Men's Boat Race" and "The Women's Boat Race" for the separate races. I suspect, though, that in common parlance "The Boat Race" often means the men's event. TSP (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 * The history of the men's Boat Race was completely separate from the Women's Boat Race for 189 years until 2015. The history of the women's race is covered separately in a Good Article. This article is closer to C-Level. Unless an editor who knows the topic well is willing to improve this article and there is a consensus to combine them, then I suggest we keep the two articles separate. However, as you note the current races are run as a single event so readers would now expect this article to reflect that. Hence my proposal for the current compromise as the most stable alternative that is easily navigable for readers. That is, this article covers the combined event and the Men's race and its history in detail, with references to the Women's Boat Race article in WP:Summary Style. Whizz40 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Though worrying about the editing history and relative quality of the articles seems a bit editor-centric rather than reader-centric?
 * I think the biggest problem may be the headnotes. This article has "For the Women's Boat Race, see Women's Boat Race"; that article has "For the Men's Boat Race, see The Boat Race."  That strongly suggests this article is only about the men's race, which is not the case.
 * Perhaps "For the separate history of the Women's race, see Women's Boat Race"; and "for the Men's race and the current combined event, see The Boat Race"? It's a bit long, but I think the current situation is pretty confusing. TSP (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Makes sense, however that information may belong in the article itself per WP:LEGITHAT. In which case, we should remove those hatnotes from this article and the Women's Boat Race article. Whizz40 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Good point - I think that's best; on reflection neither of the hatnotes is actually helpful.
 * I think "For the 1895 film, see The Oxford and Cambridge University Boat Race (film)." can go too - it's a film about this event, already mentioned in the Media Coverage section.
 * I'd suggest this article should have This article is about the race between Oxford and Cambridge universities. For other uses, see Boat race (disambiguation). ('Oxbridge' is a bit jargony for a disambiguation) and Women's Boat Race doesn't need a hatnote at all.  TSP (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Looks good. Whizz40 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Text of 1987 Oxford mutiny
The section relating to the 1987 mutiny stated  "A fitness test between Clark and Macdonald (in which the American triumphed) resulted in a call for the Scotsman's removal". However Macdonald was not mentioned in the text before this, so the statement lacked context. For this reason I have slightly amended the statement. Dunarc (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I've edited this further for clarity. It's very literary to talk about "the American" and "the Scotsman", but given that Macdonald's nationality had never been mentioned before and Clark's not for several paragraphs, it's a lot less confusing to simply use their names. TSP (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I think this makes things much clearer and reads much better. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary primary sources
The following list of newspapers publishing in 1877 is based on that in "British Historical Facts 1830–1900" ed. Chris Cook and Brendan Keith (St Martin's Press, 1975).

Sunday newspapers of 25 March 1877

 * ''The Examiner
 * Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper: "the Cantabs coming with a great and well-sustained effort 100 yards below the Ship, made a DEAD HEAT of it at the finishing point at Barker's rails. ... The Oxonians appealed from the decision of John Phelps, the judge, to Mr. Joseph Chitty, Q.C., the umpire. The learned gentleman was "opening" a case before the Master of the Rolls, when he learned that his presence was desired elsewhere. Straightway the learned advocate was transformed into a judge, and the all-important cause of Oxford and Cambridge was argued before him in the Rolls robing-room. The impartial lovers of aquatics will not be sorry to learn that the judgment of the court below was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, of course without costs.
 * Phelps asserts that the boats came in so close together that it was impossible for him to do otherwise than declare it a dead heat." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 7, column 5.

 * ''News of the World
 * ''Observer
 * Reynolds Newspaper: "A few strokes from the winning post both boats were exactly level and close alongside one another; but on nearing the flagpost the Oxford coxswain pulled his right string and threw the boats apart again, so that it was most difficult to really see which boat, if either, was ahead. John Phelps, the waterman, fired the gun as the signal of the conclusion of the race. His verdict was a dead heat, but among the crowd of boats which congregated together in the general anxiety to learn the result of so close a finish it was some time before he could be found, and it was at first thought that Oxford had won by a yard or so." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 1, column 4.
 * ''The Spectator
 * ''Sunday Dispatch
 * ''Sunday Illustrated News
 * Sunday Referee (founded 1877; check it was by 24 March)
 * Sunday Times: "A few strokes from the winning-post both boats were exactly level and close alongside one another; but on nearing the flag-post the Oxford coxswain pulled his right string and threw the boats apart again, so that it was most difficult to really see which boat, if either, was ahead. John Phelps fired the gun as the signal of the conclusion of the race. His verdict was a DEAD HEAT, but among the crowd of boats which congregated together in the general anxiety to learn the result of so close a finish it was some time before he could be found, and it was at first thought that Oxford had won by a yard or so." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 5, column 4.

Daily newspapers

 * ''Daily Chronicle
 * Daily News: "Both crews made a grand spurt, and when the gun fired, it was impossible for any one behind to known [sic] the result. Loud cries of "Oxford" announced that Cambridge had lost, and overwhelming applause resounded on all sides. In a few moments the victory of the Dark Blues began to be doubted; questions were asked as to the judge's decision, and one or two on the Press steamer who knew Phelps were the only persons who actually knew what his verdict was. In the ordinary way the judge should have formally given his decision to the umpire, but for some unexplained reason he failed to do so. On all hands, however, the dead heat was acknowledged, after a while, but the decision being called in question, the umpire, Mr. Chitty, Q.C., subsequently had an interview with Phelps, and the matter was settled.
 * At the dinner in the evening Mr. Chitty made a statement which at once set the matter at rest. Phelps, it appears, was watching the boats from the Middlesex side of the river, and as they passed between him and a post fixed on the opposite shore, he was unable to perceive which of the two boats came past him first. This statement the umpire very rightly decided was equivalent to a dead heat" (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 3, column 4.

 * ''Daily Telegraph
 * ''Manchester Guardian
 * Morning Advertiser (?? specialist paper for the licensed trade)
 * Morning Post: "Shoot by shoot the Cantabs crept up, and, amid the yells and deafening shouts of countless thousands, the judge declared it a "dead heat". Time, 24min. 4sec.
 * Some of the Oxford people were not satisfied with the decision of the judge, and it was questioned before the umpire, but Phelps was not moved by anybody, and adhered to his verdict that it was so close he could not say which came in first." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 6, column 6.

 * ''The Standard
 * ''The Times

London evening newspapers

 * Evening Standard: "The race finishes about 100 yards above the Ship, at which point Oxford had still a lead of a few yards, and it was not until in the last few strokes that a final spurt on Shafto's part placed the two boats level.
 * The crowd on the banks and the crush on the river so obscured the winning post that it was only by the smoke from the gun fired by the judge as the crews reached the goal that its whereabouts could be at once discerned. As the crews eased it was impossible to tell from astern which was ahead, and it was some time before an answer could be given to the question "Who won?"
 * Old John Phelps, who has ever since the University Race has been rowed on the Thames officiated as judge, had again been appointed to this now important post; but after the race was over the umpire was unable to find him in order to ascertain what was really the result, and after half an hour had been consumed in steaming up and down in search of him the umpire's boat returned to town, those on board having to be content with the hearsay statement that the verdict of the result was a "dead heat." In the course of the afternoon Mr. Chitty had an opportunity of seeing Phelps at Lincoln's-inn, and any doubt there may have been as to the result was set at rest." ...
 * "In the course of the evening Mr. Chitty, Q.C., the umpire, stated that he had had an opportunity of questioning John Phelps on the result of the race, and was satisfied from his replied that both boats had actually passed the post simultaneously, and that the result was, as had previously been stated, a dead heat."
 * "The telegram announcing the success of Oxford, which reached there as early as nine o'clock and was posted publicly, was read with the greatest possible enthusiasm, which soon gave away to feelings of intense disappointment when an hour later a further telegram announcing a "dead heat" came to hand. The excitement was intensified by the arrival of private telegrams stating that Phelps, the judge, had at first declared Oxford as the winners, and that in consequence the umpire (Mr. Chitty) had suspended his decision until he had had an interview with the judge on the subject. Owing to Mr. Chitty's legal duties compelling him to return to town early the ultimate decision was considerably delayed, and in the meantime public feeling was raised to an unusual extent, the arrival during the day of several persons from the scene of action who declared Oxford had come in first having further increased the agitation. When all doubt had been removed by the confirmation of the unpalatable intelligence of the dead heat the excitement culminated, and a general opinion was evinced that the Oxonians had been the victims of unfairness." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 2, columns 4-5.

 * ''Globe
 * ''Pall Mall Gazette
 * ''The Echo
 * ''The Star

Other newspapers

 * Illustrated London News (No. 1968, Saturday, March 31, 1877). "in spite of the desperate exertions of the other seven men, the Cambridge boat rapidly gained; and, though the general opinion was that Oxford won by about a couple of yards, the decision given by John Phelps was a dead-heat, a result with few parallels in the history of rowing." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".)

Comments

 * I fixed all the formatting errors, no need for any barnstars! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could add more publication information (e.g. date, author, issue number, page number etc), that would actually be useful for the 1877 article. Otherwise I just get the feeling this is a lengthy exercise to achieve almost literally nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I believe there are no sources from 1877 that quote "dead heat to Oxford" or words to like effect. I could just cite a few, but in that case it may be argued that there were others as yet unchecked which did contain the quote. So I have to find all possible sources where the quote might have appeared, confirm that it did not. I promise that if I find a source that does claim Phelps made some similar remark I will include it. But I have not yet. Of course if you accept that that remark was never made, and there are no contemporary sources for it, then our disagreement is at an end. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I have already explained that I have three sources which claim he did say that or a variation on that. Your quest is all very interesting, and may bring some additional depth to the 1877 article, but it changes literally nothing per your original beef.   So, if you continue to pursue this, at least add proper citations so we can use your research to enhance the articles.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A question
Do we need "Cambridge has led Oxford in cumulative wins since 1930" and "Cambridge has led Oxford in cumulative wins since 1966". If both are accurate surely we only need the first. --Bduke (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think the first is about the men's race and the second is about the women's race, but it could be clearer. --Bduke (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clarify this in the article.--Bduke (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

in the wee map....
.... I see "harrods depositary". that's not how it's spelled in real life, & it changes the meaning quite substantially. is this out of ignorance or an archaic affectation on the part of our cartographer?

duncanrmi (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it, matching the font as best as I can (inexpertly) judge. Thincat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Boat Race


text:
Rudolf Bultmann

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (20 August 1884 – 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early 20th-century biblical studies. A prominent critic of liberal theology, Bultmann instead argued for an existentialist interpretation of the New Testament. His hermeneutical approach to the New Testament led him to be a proponent of dialectical theology.

Bultmann is known for his belief that the historical analysis of the New Testament is both futile and unnecessary, given that the earliest Christian literature showed little interest in specific locations. Bultmann argued that all that matters is the "thatness," not the "whatness" of Jesus, i.e. only that Jesus existed, preached, and died by crucifixion matters, not what happened throughout his life.

Bultmann relied on demythologization, an approach interpreting the mythological elements in the New Testament existentially. Bultmann contended that only faith in the kerygma, or proclamation, of the New Testament was necessary for Christian faith, not any particular facts regarding the historical Jesus.

Background
Bultmann was born on 20 August 1884 in Wiefelstede, Oldenburg, the son of Arthur Kennedy Bultmann, a Lutheran minister. He did his Abitur at the Altes Gymnasium in the city of Oldenburg, and studied theology at Tübingen. After three terms Bultmann went to the University of Berlin for two terms, and finally to Marburg for two more terms. He received his degree in 1910 from Marburg with a dissertation on the Epistles of St Paul written under the supervision of Johannes Weiss. He also studied under Hermann Gunkel and Wilhelm Heitmüller. After submitting a habilitation two years later, he became a lecturer on the New Testament at Marburg.

Bultmann married Helene Feldmann on 6 August 1917. The couple had three daughters. Bultmann's wife died in 1973.

After brief lectureships at Breslau and Giessen, Bultmann returned to Marburg in 1921 as a full professor, and stayed there until his retirement in 1951. His doctoral students included Hans Jonas, Ernst Käsemann, Günther Bornkamm, Helmut Koester, and Ernst Fuchs. He also taught Hannah Arendt. From autumn 1944 until the end of the Second World War in 1945 he took into his family Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who had fled the bombs and destruction in Essen.

Bultmann became friends with Martin Heidegger who taught at Marburg for five years. Heidegger's views on existentialism had an influence on Bultmann's thinking. What arose from this friendship was a "sort of comradery" grounded on an active and open dialogue between Bultmann and Heidegger from 1923 to 1928. However, Bultmann himself stated that his views could not simply be reduced to thinking in Heideggerian categories, in that "the New Testament is not a doctrine about our nature, about our authentic existence as human beings, but a proclamation of this liberating act of God."

He was critical of Nazism from the beginning and his career between 1933 and 1941 was marked by a series of struggles with Nazis regarding their influence upon the universities and the Protestant Church. As a Lutheran who held that the Church could not expect the Nazi State to be Christian, he did not directly denounce its anti-Semitism. But he objected to its claim to have authority over all aspects of German life including the universities and the Protestant church and believed it was his responsibility to preach that it was unChristian, especially after Heidegger gave his pro-Nazi rectorial address in 1933. He particularly rejected the Aryan paragraph that disenfranchised all people racially Jewish from civic organizations and many professions including clergy, entailing defrocking any Christian clergy with Jewish ancestry. He stated that the Aryan paragraph was "incompatible with the essence of the Christian church", since the church made no distinction between Jew and Gentile. He joined the Confessing Church, a Protestant movement in Nazi Germany that arose in opposition to government-sponsored efforts to unify all Protestant churches into a single pro-Nazi Reich Church.

Bultmann received many honors during and after his career, including honorary doctorates from many universities and elections to honorary societies. In 1974, the Federal Republic granted him the highest level of the Order of Merit.

He died on 30 July 1976 in Marburg.

Theological approaches
Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Tradition (1921) remains highly influential as a tool for biblical research, even among scholars who reject his analyses of the conventional rhetorical pericopes (narrative units) which comprise the gospels, and the historically-oriented principles of "form criticism" of which Bultmann was the most influential exponent.

According to Bultmann's definition, "[t]he aim of form-criticism [sic] is to determine the original form of a piece of narrative, a dominical saying or a parable. In the process we learn to distinguish secondary additions and forms, and these in turn lead to important results for the history of the tradition."

In 1941 Bultmann applied form criticism to the Gospel of John, in which he distinguished the presence of a lost Signs Gospel on which John—alone of the evangelists—depended. His monograph, Das Evangelium des Johannes, highly controversial at the time, became a milestone in research into the historical Jesus. The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to demythologize the New Testament; in particular he argued for replacing supernatural biblical interpretations with temporal and existential categorizations. His argument, in many ways, reflected a hermeneutical adaption of the existentialist thought of his colleague at the time, the philosopher Martin Heidegger - but also the hermeneutic procedures developed by Hans Jonas, a student of Heidegger and an exile from Nazi Germany. This approach led Bultmann to reject doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ. Bultmann believed his endeavors in this regard would make accessible to modern audiences — already immersed in science and technology — the significance (or existential quality) of Jesus' teachings. Bultmann thus thought of his endeavor of "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" as fundamentally an evangelism task, clarifying the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, by stripping it of elements of the first-century "mythical world picture" that had potential to alienate modern people from Christian faith: It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work.

Bultmann saw theology in existential terms, and maintained that the New Testament was a radical text, worthy of understanding yet questioned in his time because of the prevailing Protestant conviction in a supernatural interpretation. In both the boasting of legalists "who are faithful to the law" and the boasting of the philosophers "who are proud of their wisdom", Bultmann finds a "basic human attitude" of "highhandedness that tries to bring within our own power even the submission that we know to be our authentic being". Standing against all human high-handedness is the New Testament, "which claims that we can in no way free ourselves from our factual fallenness in the world but are freed from it only by an act of God ... the salvation occurrence that is realized in Christ." Bultmann remained convinced that the narratives of the life of Jesus offered theology in story form, teaching lessons in the familiar language of myth. They were not to be excluded, but given explanation so they could be understood for today. Bultmann thought faith should become a present-day reality. To Bultmann, the people of the world appeared to be always in disappointment and turmoil. Faith must be a determined vital act of will, not a culling and extolling of "ancient proofs". Bultmann said about salvation and eternity: "As from now on there are only believers and unbelievers, so there are also now only saved and lost, those who have life and those who are in death."

Bultmann carried form criticism so far as to call the historical value of the gospels into serious question. Despite that, Bultmann was an outspoken opponent of the Christ myth theory. In his book Jesus and the Word, he wrote:"'Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community'"

Concerning the relationship between body, soul, and Spirit, he affirmed a monistic point of view.

Legacy and criticism
Bultmann was an outstanding teacher, and he encouraged independence of mind among his students. The result was two major developments within the “Bultmann school.” In 1954 Ernst Käsemann raised “the question of the historical Jesus” (i.e., the question of the significance of knowledge of the historical Jesus for Christian faith), and a number of Bultmann’s pupils developed a position independent of their teacher’s on the matter. Then Ernst Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling, building on Bultmann’s existentialist analysis, developed a method of interpreting the New Testament that emphasized the linguistic mode of human existence, giving birth to the so-called new hermeneutic. Bultmann himself took part in these discussions along with his pupils for as long as his health permitted, later living quietly in Marburg, where he died in 1976.

Posthumously, Bultmann’s approach to the New Testament has been subject to increasing criticism, which has led modern scholars to overcome his theorems. According to the theologian and historian of Christianity Larry Hurtado, Bultmann "approached the ancient Christian texts with a theological criterion, a particular formulation of justification by faith, which he used to judge whether the writings were valid or not." John P. Meier believes that Bultmann had a "disconcerting way of solving problems with a few evasive sentences, his arguments do not hold up, despite having been handed down for generations." Bart D. Ehrman, while agreeing with some of Bultmann's positions, underlines that "among our ranks there are no more form critics that agree with the theories of Bultmann, the pioneer of this interpretation". According to Werner H. Kelber, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect."

Bultmann's skeptical approach to the New Testament has received criticism from conservative biblical scholars like Klaus Berger and Craig Blomberg. Form criticism, in particular, has been challenged in recent years by Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham and Brant J. Pitre, who have reasserted the traditional theory that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Selected works

 * - German original
 * (seminal work on form criticism)
 * - German original
 * - German original
 * - (contains the essay "The New Testament and Mythology" with critical analyses and Bultmann's response)
 * - German original
 * - German original
 * - German original
 * - German original
 * - In this dialogue with philosopher Jaspers, Jaspers first makes the case that Christianity can not be understood apart from its mythical framework, and that myth is a necessary form of communication through symbol. Bultmann responds that modern scientific analysis of the text is required to separate the genuine from the miraculous claims, thereby revealing the true message.
 * - German original
 * - German original
 * - In this dialogue with philosopher Jaspers, Jaspers first makes the case that Christianity can not be understood apart from its mythical framework, and that myth is a necessary form of communication through symbol. Bultmann responds that modern scientific analysis of the text is required to separate the genuine from the miraculous claims, thereby revealing the true message.
 * - German original
 * - In this dialogue with philosopher Jaspers, Jaspers first makes the case that Christianity can not be understood apart from its mythical framework, and that myth is a necessary form of communication through symbol. Bultmann responds that modern scientific analysis of the text is required to separate the genuine from the miraculous claims, thereby revealing the true message.
 * - In this dialogue with philosopher Jaspers, Jaspers first makes the case that Christianity can not be understood apart from its mythical framework, and that myth is a necessary form of communication through symbol. Bultmann responds that modern scientific analysis of the text is required to separate the genuine from the miraculous claims, thereby revealing the true message.

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

title: Rudolf Bultmann


text:
Football League Fourth Division

The Football League Fourth Division was the fourth-highest division in the English football league system from the 1958–59 season until the creation of the Premier League prior to the 1992–93 season. Following the creation of the Premier League, the fourth tier of English football was renamed the Football League Third Division, before being rebranded as Football League Two in 2004.

History
The Fourth Division was created in 1958 alongside a new national Third Division by merging the regionalised Third Division North and Third Division South. The original economic reasons for having the two regional leagues had become less apparent and thus it was decided to create two national leagues at levels three and four. The twelve best teams of each regional league in 1957–58 went into the Third Division, and the rest became founder members of the Fourth Division.

Founder members of Fourth Division were:
 * From Third Division North: Barrow, Bradford (Park Avenue), Carlisle United, Chester City, Crewe Alexandra, Darlington, Gateshead, Hartlepools United, Oldham Athletic, Southport, Workington, York City
 * From Third Division South: Aldershot, Coventry City, Crystal Palace, Exeter City, Gillingham, Millwall, Northampton Town, Port Vale, Shrewsbury Town, Torquay United, Walsall, Watford

Before 1987, the top four teams were promoted to the Third Division and the bottom four teams were subject to a re-election vote by other league clubs to determine whether they would remain in the league. Automatic relegation to the Conference was introduced in 1987, the same year the fourth promotion place began to be decided through a play-off.

The highest average league attendance in the Fourth Division was 19,092, achieved by Crystal Palace in the 1960/61 season. The highest attendance at an individual match was recorded the same season: 37,774 for the Good Friday game at Selhurst Park between Crystal Palace and Millwall.

Promotions and relegation
Automatic relegation between the Fourth Division and the Conference was introduced for the 1986–87 season.

Previous League champions
See List of winners of English Football League Two and predecessors.

Play-offs
See Football League Two Play-offs.

title: Football League Fourth Division


text:
Sylvain Sylvain

Sylvain Mizrahi (February 14, 1951 – January 13, 2021), known professionally as Sylvain Sylvain, was an American rock guitarist, most notable for being a member of the New York Dolls.

Early years
Sylvain was born in Cairo, Egypt, to a Mizrahi Jewish family, who fled in the 1950s, first to France and finally to New York, United States. They lived first on Lafayette Avenue in Buffalo, New York, but later moved to the New York City neighborhood of Rego Park, Queens, while he was still a child. Sylvain had dyslexia. He attended Newtown High School in Queens and Quintano's School for Young Professionals in Manhattan.

Prior to joining the New York Dolls, Sylvain and future New York Doll bandmate Billy Murcia ran a clothing company called "Truth and Soul," which helped define his fashion sense and would play a role in the band's groundbreaking look. He had one brother, Leon (deceased), and one sister, Brigitte.

Career
Before joining the New York Dolls in 1971, Sylvain was a member of the band Actress, which also featured Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders and former fashion partner, Billy Murcia. He played rhythm guitar for the Dolls from 1971 until the group's dissolution in 1977. Sylvain and singer David Johansen were the last remaining members at the time the group broke up for the final time. After the first dissolution of the Dolls, he frequently played with Johansen on some of his solo records. He started his own band, The Criminal$, with another ex-Doll, Tony Machine, and continued to play the New York club scene. He landed a solo recording contract with RCA, and released one album with Lee Crystal (drums; later of Joan Jett's Blackhearts) and Johnny Ráo (guitar).

He moved to Los Angeles in the early 1990s and recorded one record, Sleep Baby Doll for Fishhead Records. His bandmates on this record were: Brian Keats, drums, John Carlucci, bass, and Olivier LeBaron' on lead guitar, with guest appearances by Frank Infante of Blondie and Derwood Andrews of Generation X. In the late 90s he teamed up with the LA punk band The Streetwalkin' Cheetahs for some touring and they recorded a live radio broadcast on KXLU that remains unreleased. The tour ended with an Atlanta show at the Navarre annual conference co-headlining with John Entwistle. In 2004 he reunited with the surviving members of the New York Dolls, along with Steve Conte, Brian Koonin and Brian Delaney. Arthur Kane, who died in 2004, was replaced by Sami Yaffa of Hanoi Rocks. They released three records: One Day It Will Please Us To Remember Even This (2005), Cause I Sez So (2009), and Dancing Backward in High Heels (2011). The reunion was filmed as part of a documentary on former band member Kane that was released in 2005 as New York Doll.

On March 18, 2010, at the South by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas, Sylvain and Cheetah Chrome of The Dead Boys and Rocket from the Tombs debuted their new band, The Batusis. Their EP is on Smog Veil Records.

In November 2012, Sylvain posted a video for his new single, "Leaving New York," on the Internet, and available on iTunes on December 2, 2012.

In 2013 and 2014 Sylvain joined with Glen Matlock as the Sex Doll Tour.

In 2015, Sylvain emerged with a new band called Sylvain Sylvain and the Sylvains from Austin, Texas, consisting of Chris Alaniz (drums), Jason "Ginchy" Kottwitz (guitar), and Gabriel Von Asher (bass). In March 2016, they performed at South by Southwest.

In 2018, Sylvain joined forces with Steve Conte, Sami Yaffa, and Robert Eriksson for two one-off dates in Tokyo as "The Dolls." They played at Shinjuku Marz on February 11, and Shimokitazawa Garden on February 12.

Personal life
After living in Atlanta for several years, Sylvain moved to Nashville in 2015. On April 27, 2019, Sylvain announced that he had cancer. He set up a GoFundMe page to raise money to help pay for treatment. He died from cancer at his home on January 13, 2021, at age 69.

With New York Dolls

 * New York Dolls (1973, Mercury Records)
 * Too Much Too Soon (1974, Mercury Records)
 * One Day It Will Please Us to Remember Even This (2006, Roadrunner Records)
 * Cause I Sez So (2009, Atco Records)
 * Tokyo Dolls Live (credited to 'David and Sylvain') – a live album by the Dolls line-up of Johansen and Sylvain with Peter Jordan/Chris Robison/Tony Machine. French Fan Club/New Rose.
 * New York Dolls Red Patent Leather – live album of McLaren-era Dolls allegedly produced by Sylvain, with original manager Marty Thau credited as Executive Producer
 * Dancing Backward in High Heels (2011, 429 Records)

As Sylvain Sylvain

 * Sylvain Sylvain (1979, RCA Records)
 * Sleep Baby Doll (1998, Fishhead Records)
 * Leaving New York single (2012, self-released)

With Syl Sylvain and the Teardrops

 * Syl Sylvain and the Teardrops (1981, RCA Records)

With Sylvain Sylvain and The Criminal$

 * 78 Criminals (1985, Fan Club)
 * Bowery Butterflies (2000, Munster Records)

With She Wolves

 * Sheena Is a Punk Rocker single (2007, Poptown Records)

With the Batusis

 * Batusis EP (2010, Smog Veil Records)

With Roman Sandals

 * This Is It Single (1984, Body Rock)

As producer

 * River City Rebels, Hate To Be Loved album (2004, Victory Records).

'Motorcycle Boy', 'Popsicle' album (1991,Triple X Records).

title: Sylvain Sylvain


text:
American Historical Association

The American Historical Association (AHA) is the oldest professional association of historians in the United States and the largest such organization in the world. Founded in 1884, AHA works to protect academic freedom, develop professional standards, and support scholarship and innovative teaching. It publishes The American Historical Review four times annually, which features scholarly history-related articles and book reviews.

AHA is the major learned society for historians working in the United States, while the Organization of American Historians is a field society for historians who study and teach about the United States. The AHA's congressional charter of 1889, established it "for the promotion of historical studies, the collection and preservation of historical manuscripts, and for kindred purposes in the interest of American history, and of history in America."

Activities
AHA operates as an umbrella organization for the discipline of history, and works with other major historical organizations and acts as a public advocate for the field. Within the profession, the association defines ethical behavior and best practices, particularly through its "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct". AHA also develops standards for good practice in teaching and history textbooks.

The association publishes The American Historical Review, a major journal of history scholarship covering all historical topics since ancient history and Perspectives on History, the monthly news magazine of the profession. In 2006 the AHA started a blog focused on the latest happenings in the broad discipline of history and the professional practice of the craft that draws on the staff, research, and activities of the AHA.

The association's annual meeting each January brings together more than 5,000 historians from around the United States to discuss the latest research and discuss how to be better historians and teachers. Many affiliated historical societies hold their annual meetings simultaneously. The association's web site offers extensive information on the current state of the profession, tips on history careers, and an extensive archive of historical materials (including the G.I. Roundtable series), a series of pamphlets prepared for the War Department in World War II.

The association also administers two major fellowships, 24 book prizes, and a number of small research grants.

History

The early leaders of the association were mostly gentlemen with the leisure and means to write many of the great 19th-century works of history, such as George Bancroft, Justin Winsor, and James Ford Rhodes. However, as former AHA president James J. Sheehan points out, the association always tried to serve multiple constituencies, "including archivists, members of state and local historical societies, teachers, and amateur historians, who looked to it – and not always with success or satisfaction – for representation and support." Much of the early work of the association focused on establishing a common sense of purpose and gathering the materials of research through its Historical Manuscripts and Public Archives Commissions.

Women and African Americans
According to the Association, "Women and minorities were officially accepted into the Association from the beginning, but enjoyed little or no representation at the Association’s meetings and in the governing structure. No African Americans were represented on the AHA governing Council until 1959, and it would be another 20 years before John Hope Franklin was elected president of the AHA. Similarly, only 15 women served on the AHA Council before 1971 (out of over 186 members), and in the Association’s first 100 years only one woman, Nellie Neilson, had been elected to the presidency [in 1943]. By 1973 an assistant executive secretary had been appointed for the specific purpose of dealing with such problems."

Thavolia Glymph was elected president of the AHA for the term beginning in 2024. The 140th president, she is the first Black woman to hold that post.

Publication standards
From its founding, the association was largely managed by historians employed at colleges and universities, and served a critical role in defining their interests as a profession. The association's first president, Andrew Dickson White, was president of Cornell University, and its first secretary, Herbert Baxter Adams, established one of the first history Ph.D. programs to follow the new German seminary method at Johns Hopkins University. The clearest expression of this academic impulse in history came in the development of the American Historical Review in 1895. Formed by historians at a number of the most important universities in the United States, it followed the model of European history journals. Under the early editorship of J. Franklin Jameson, the Review published several long scholarly articles every issue, only after they had been vetted by scholars and approved by the editor. Each issue also reviewed a number of history books for their conformity to the new professional norms and scholarly standards that were taught at leading graduate schools to Ph.D. candidates. From the AHR, Sheehan concludes, "a junior scholar learned what it meant to be a historian of a certain sort".

AHA and public history
Meringolo (2004) compares academic and public history. Unlike academic history, public history is typically a collaborative effort, does not necessarily rely on primary research, is more democratic in participation, and does not aspire to absolute "scientific" objectivity. Historical museums, documentary editing, heritage movements and historical preservation are considered public history. Though activities now associated with public history originated in the AHA, these activities separated out in the 1930s due to differences in methodology, focus, and purpose. The foundations of public history were laid on the middle ground between academic history and the public audience by National Park Service administrators during the 1920s–30s.

The academicians insisted on a perspective that looked beyond particular localities to a larger national and international perspective, and that in practice it should be done along modern and scientific lines. To that end, the association actively promoted excellence in the area of research, the association published a series of annual reports through the Smithsonian Institution and adopted the American Historical Review in 1898 to provide early outlets for this new brand of professional scholarship.

Establishing a national history curriculum
In 1896, the association appointed a "Committee of Seven" to develop a national standard for college admission requirements in the field of history. Before this time, individual colleges defined their own entrance requirements. After substantial surveys of prevailing teaching methods, emphases and curricula in secondary schools, the Committee published "The Study of History in Schools" in 1898. Their report largely defined the way history would be taught at the high school level as a preparation for college, and wrestled with issues about how the field should relate to the other social studies. The Committee recommended four blocks of Western history, to be taught in chronological order—ancient, medieval and modern European, English, and American history and civil government—and advised that teachers "tell a story" and "bring out dramatic aspects" to make history come alive. "[T]he student who is taught to consider political subjects in school, who is led to look at matters historically, has some mental equipment for a comprehension of the political and social problems that will confront him in everyday life, and has received practical preparation for social adaptation and for forceful participation in civic activities.... The pupil should see the growth of the institutions which surround him; he should see the work of men; he should study the living concrete facts of the past; he should know of nations that have risen and fallen; he should see tyranny, vulgarity, greed, benevolence, patriotism, self-sacrifice, brought out in the lives and works of men. So strongly has this very thought taken hold of writers of civil government, that they no longer content themselves with a description of the government as it is, but describe at considerable length the origin and development of the institutions of which they speak."

The association also played a decisive role in lobbying the federal government to preserve and protect its own documents and records. After extensive lobbying by AHA Secretary Waldo Leland and Jameson, Congress established the National Archives and Records Administration in 1934.

As the interests of historians in colleges and universities gained prominence in the association, other areas and activities tended to fall by the wayside. The Manuscripts and Public Archives Commissions were abandoned in the 1930s, while projects related to original research and the publication of scholarship gained ever-greater prominence.

Recent developments
In recent years, the association has tried to come to terms with the growing public history movement and has struggled to maintain its status as a leader among academic historians.

The association started to investigate cases of professional misconduct in 1987, but ceased the effort in 2005 "because it has proven to be ineffective for responding to misconduct in the historical profession."

Recent presidents

 * 2016: Patrick Manning (University of Pittsburgh)
 * 2017: Tyler Stovall (University of California, Santa Cruz)
 * 2018: Mary Beth Norton (Cornell University)
 * 2019: J. R. McNeill (Georgetown University)
 * 2020: Mary Lindemann (University of Miami)
 * 2021: Jacqueline Jones (University of Texas at Austin)
 * 2022: James H. Sweet (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
 * 2023: Edward Muir (Northwestern University)
 * 2024: Thavolia Glymph (Duke University)

Selected awards

 * For publications:

 * Herbert Baxter Adams Prize for the best book in European history
 * George Louis Beer Prize for the best book in European international history since 1895
 * Jerry Bentley Prize for the most outstanding book on world history
 * Albert J. Beveridge Award in American history for a distinguished book on the history of the United States, Latin America, or Canada, from 1492 to the present
 * Paul Birdsall Prize for a major book on European military and strategic history since 1870
 * James Henry Breasted Prize for the best book in any field of history prior to AD 1000
 * John H. Dunning Prize for the most outstanding book on US history
 * John K. Fairbank Prize for the best book on East Asian history since 1800
 * Morris D. Forkosch Prize for the best book in the field of British history since 1485
 * Leo Gershoy Award for the best book in the fields of 17th and 18th-century western European history
 * Friedrich Katz Prize for the best book in Latin American and Caribbean history
 * Eugenia M. Palmegiano Prize in the history of journalism
 * James A. Rawley Prize for the best book that explores the integration of Atlantic worlds before the 20th century

 * For professional distinction:

 * James Harvey Robinson Prize for the teaching aid that has made the most outstanding contribution to the teaching and learning of history in any field
 * Herbert Feis Award for distinguished contributions to public history
 * Award for Scholarly Distinction to senior historians for lifetime achievement
 * Martin A. Klein Prize instituted in his name for the most distinguished work of scholarship on African history published in English during the previous calendar year
 * The Nancy Lyman Roelker Mentorship Award

Past presidents
Presidents of the AHA are elected annually and give a president's address at the annual meeting:

 * Andrew Dickson White (1884, 1885)
 * George Bancroft (1886)
 * Justin Winsor (1887)
 * William Frederick Poole (1888)
 * Charles Kendall Adams (1889)
 * John Jay (1890)
 * William Wirt Henry (1891)
 * James Burrill Angell (1892–1893)
 * Henry Adams (1893–1894)
 * George Frisbie Hoar (1895)
 * Richard Salter Storrs (1896)
 * James Schouler (1897)
 * George Park Fisher (1898)
 * James Ford Rhodes (1899)
 * Edward Eggleston (1900)
 * Charles Francis Adams Jr. (1901)
 * Alfred Thayer Mahan (1902)
 * Henry Charles Lea (1903)
 * Goldwin Smith (1904)
 * John Bach McMaster (1905)
 * Simeon E. Baldwin (1906)
 * J. Franklin Jameson (1907)
 * George Burton Adams (1908)
 * Albert Bushnell Hart (1909)
 * Frederick Jackson Turner (1910)
 * William Milligan Sloane (1911)
 * Theodore Roosevelt (1912)
 * William A. Dunning (1913)
 * Andrew C. McLaughlin (1914)
 * H. Morse Stephens (1915)
 * George Lincoln Burr (1916)
 * Worthington C. Ford (1917)
 * William R. Thayer (1918–1919)
 * Edward Channing (1920)
 * Jean Jules Jusserand (1921)
 * Charles H. Haskins (1922)
 * Edward P. Cheyney (1923)
 * Woodrow Wilson (1924, died before completing his term as president)
 * Charles M. Andrews (1924, 1925)
 * Dana C. Munro (1926)
 * Henry Osborn Taylor (1927)
 * James H. Breasted (1928)
 * James Harvey Robinson (1929)
 * Evarts Boutell Greene (1930)
 * Carl Lotus Becker (1931)
 * Herbert Eugene Bolton (1932)
 * Charles A. Beard (1933)
 * William E. Dodd (1934)
 * Michael I. Rostovtzeff (1935)
 * Charles McIlwain (1936)
 * Guy Stanton Ford (1937)
 * Laurence M. Larson (1938)
 * William Scott Ferguson (1939)
 * Max Farrand (1940)
 * James Westfall Thompson (1941)
 * Arthur M. Schlesinger (1942)
 * Nellie Neilson (1943)
 * William L. Westermann (1944)
 * Carlton J. H. Hayes (1945)
 * Sidney B. Fay (1946)
 * Thomas J. Wertenbaker (1947)
 * Kenneth Scott Latourette (1948)
 * Conyers Read (1949)
 * Samuel E. Morison (1950)
 * Robert Livingston Schuyler (1951)
 * James G. Randall (1952)
 * Louis Gottschalk (1953)
 * Merle Curti (1954)
 * Lynn Thorndike (1955)
 * Dexter Perkins (1956)
 * William L. Langer (1957)
 * Walter Prescott Webb (1958)
 * Allan Nevins (1959)
 * Bernadotte E. Schmitt (1960)
 * Samuel Flagg Bemis (1961)
 * Carl Bridenbaugh (1962)
 * Crane Brinton (1963)
 * Julian P. Boyd (1964)
 * Frederic C. Lane (1965)
 * Roy F. Nichols (1966)
 * Hajo Holborn (1967)
 * John K. Fairbank (1968)
 * C. Vann Woodward (1969)
 * R. R. Palmer (1970)
 * David M. Potter (1971, died before completing his term as president)
 * Joseph R. Strayer (1971)
 * Thomas C. Cochran (1972)
 * Lynn Townsend White Jr. (1973)
 * Lewis Hanke (1974)
 * Gordon Wright (1975)
 * Richard B. Morris (1976)
 * Charles Gibson (1977)
 * William J. Bouwsma (1978)
 * John Hope Franklin (1979)
 * David H. Pinkney (1980)
 * Bernard Bailyn (1981)
 * Gordon A. Craig (1982)
 * Philip D. Curtin (1983)
 * Arthur S. Link (1984)
 * William H. McNeill (1985)
 * Carl N. Degler (1986)
 * Natalie Zemon Davis (1987)
 * Akira Iriye (1988)
 * Louis R. Harlan (1989)
 * David Herlihy (1990)
 * William E. Leuchtenburg (1991)
 * Frederic E. Wakeman Jr (1992)
 * Louise A. Tilly (1993)
 * Thomas C. Holt (1994)
 * John H. Coatsworth (1995)
 * Caroline Walker Bynum (1996)
 * Joyce Appleby (1997)
 * Joseph C. Miller (1998)
 * Robert Darnton (1999)
 * Eric Foner (2000)
 * Wm. Roger Louis (2001)
 * Lynn Hunt (2002)
 * James M. McPherson (2003)
 * Jonathan Spence (2004)
 * James J. Sheehan (2005)
 * Linda K. Kerber (2006)
 * Barbara Weinstein (2007)
 * Gabrielle M. Spiegel (2008)
 * Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (2009)
 * Barbara Metcalf (2010)
 * Anthony Grafton (2011)
 * William Cronon (2012)
 * Kenneth Pomeranz (2013)
 * Jan E. Goldstein (2014)
 * Vicki L. Ruiz (2015)
 * Patrick Manning (2016)
 * Tyler E. Stovall (2017)
 * Mary Beth Norton (2018)
 * J. R. McNeill (2019)
 * Mary Lindemann (2020)
 * Jacqueline Jones (2021)

Affiliated societies

 * Alcohol and Drugs History Society
 * American Association for State and Local History
 * American Association for the History of Medicine
 * American Catholic Historical Association
 * American Jewish Historical Society
 * American Journalism Historians Association
 * American Printing History Association
 * American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies
 * American Society for Environmental History
 * American Society for Legal History
 * American Society of Church History
 * Coordinating Council for Women in History
 * Conference on Latin American History
 * National Council on Public History
 * Oral History Association
 * Phi Alpha Theta
 * Radical History Review
 * Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media
 * Peace History Society
 * Society for History in the Federal Government
 * Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship
 * Society for Military History
 * Society of Architectural Historians
 * Swiss American Historical Society
 * World History Association

Selected bibliography

 * Alonso, Harriet Hyman. " Slammin' at the AHA." Rethinking History 2001 5(3): 441–446. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco. The theme of the 2001 annual meeting of the AHA, "Practices of Historical Narrative", attracted a variety of panels. The article traces one such panel from its conception to presentation. Taking the theme to heart, the panelists created a "slam" (or reading) of narrative histories written by experienced historians, a graduate student, and an undergraduate student, and then opened the session to readings from the audience.
 * American Historical Association Committee on Graduate Education. "We Historians: the Golden Age and Beyond." Perspectives 2003 41(5): 18–22. Surveys the state of the history profession in 2003 and points out that numerous career options exist for persons with a Ph.D. in history, although the traditional ideal of a university-level appointment for new Ph.D.s remains the primary goal of doctoral programs.
 * Bender, Thomas, Katz, Philip; Palmer, Colin; and American Historical Association Committee on Graduate Education. The Education of Historians for the Twenty-First Century. U. of Illinois Press, 2004. 222 pp.
 * Elizabeth Donnan and Leo F. Stock, eds. An Historian's World: Selections from the Correspondence of John Franklin Jameson, (1956). Jameson was AHR editor 1895–1901, 1905–1928
 * Higham, John. History: Professional Scholarship in America. (1965, 2nd ed. 1989). ISBN 978-0-8018-3952-8
 * Meringolo, Denise D. "Capturing the Public Imagination: the Social and Professional Place of Public History." American Studies International 2004 42(2–3): 86–117. Fulltext in Ebsco.
 * Morey Rothberg and Jacqueline Goggin, eds., John Franklin Jameson and the Development of Humanistic Scholarship in America (3 vols., 1993–2001). ISBN 978-0-8203-1446-4
 * Novick, Peter. That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-521-35745-6
 * Orrill, Robert and Shapiro, Linn. "From Bold Beginnings to an Uncertain Future: the Discipline of History and History Education." American Historical Review 2005 110(3): 727–751. Fulltext in History Cooperative, University of Chicago Press and  Ebsco. In challenging the reluctance of historians to join the national debate over teaching history in the schools, the authors argue that historians should remember the leading role that the profession once played in the making of school history. The AHA invented school history in the early 20th century and remained at the forefront of K–12 policymaking until just prior to World War II. However, it abandoned its long-standing activist stance and allowed school history to be submerged within the ill-defined, antidisciplinary domain of "social studies."
 * Sheehan, James J. "The AHA and its Publics - Part I." Perspectives 2005 43(2): 5–7.
 * Stearns, Peter N.; Seixas, Peter; and Wineburg, Sam, ed. Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History. New York U. Press, 2000. 576 pp. ISBN 978-0-8147-8142-5
 * Townsend, Robert B. History's Babel: Scholarship, Professionalization, and the Historical Enterprise in the United States, 1880–1940. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-226-92393-2
 * Tyrrell, Ian. Historians in Public: The Practice of American History, 1890–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-226-82194-8

title: American Historical Association


text:
RFA

RFA may refer to:

Government and private organizations

 * Radio Free Asia, a private news broadcaster and publisher in East Asia, funded in part by the U.S. government
 * Renewable Fuels Agency, a former UK renewable fuel regulatory agency
 * Renewable Fuels Association, a body representing the U.S. ethanol industry
 * République fédérale d'Allemagne, the French acronym for the Federal Republic of Germany
 * Rocket Factory Augsburg, a German New Space start-up located in Augsburg.

Military

 * Royal Field Artillery, a unit of the British Army from 1899 to 1924
 * Royal Fleet Auxiliary, a civilian-crewed fleet owned by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence

Sports

 * Restricted free agent, in professional sports
 * Resurrection Fighting Alliance, a former mixed martial arts promotion based in the United States
 * Rugby Fives Association, the governing body for the sport of Rugby Fives

Other uses

 * Radiofrequency ablation, a medical procedure in which tissue is burned away using electrically generated heat
 * Red Faction: Armageddon, a video game released in 2011
 * Regional Forest Agreement, a series of plans for conservation of Australian forests
 * Regulatory Flexibility Act, a 1980 act of the U.S. Congress
 * Report for America, a national service program for emerging journalists in the U.S.
 * Request for admissions, part of US civil law procedures
 * Requests for adminship, on Wikipedia
 * Ring Fit Adventure, a Nintendo RPG exercise game released in 2019
 * Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships
 * Royal Frankish Annals, Latin records of the state of the Frankish monarchy from 741 to 829

title: RFA


text:
Strindberg (disambiguation)

August Strindberg (1849–1912), was a Swedish dramatist and painter.

Strindberg may also refer to:

People

 * Nils Strindberg (1872–1897), Swedish photographer
 * Friedrich Strindberg (1897–1978), Swedish writer, son of Frida Uhl and Frank Wedekind, adopted by August
 * Anita Strindberg (born 1937), Swedish actor
 * Henrik Strindberg (born 1954), Swedish composer

Other

 * Strindberg Museum, Stockholm, Sweden
 * Strindberg (crater), an impact basin in the Shakespeare quadrangle of Mercury

title: Strindberg (disambiguation)


text:
Chargaff's rules

Chargaff's rules (given by Erwin Chargaff) state that in the DNA of any species and any organism, the amount of guanine should be equal to the amount of cytosine and the amount of adenine should be equal to the amount of thymine. Further, a 1:1 stoichiometric ratio of purine and pyrimidine bases (i.e., ) should exist. This pattern is found in both strands of the DNA. They were discovered by Austrian-born chemist Erwin Chargaff in the late 1940s.

First parity rule
The first rule holds that a double-stranded DNA molecule, globally has percentage base pair equality: A% = T% and G% = C%. The rigorous validation of the rule constitutes the basis of Watson–Crick base pairs in the DNA double helix model.

Second parity rule
The second rule holds that both Α% ≈ Τ% and G% ≈ C% are valid for each of the two DNA strands. This describes only a global feature of the base composition in a single DNA strand.

Research
The second parity rule was discovered in 1968. It states that, in single-stranded DNA, the number of adenine units is approximately equal to that of thymine (%A ≈ %T), and the number of cytosine units is approximately equal to that of guanine (%C ≈ %G).

The first empirical generalization of Chargaff's second parity rule, called the Symmetry Principle, was proposed by Vinayakumar V. Prabhu in 1993. This principle states that for any given oligonucleotide, its frequency is approximately equal to the frequency of its complementary reverse oligonucleotide. A theoretical generalization was mathematically derived by Michel E. B. Yamagishi and Roberto H. Herai in 2011.

In 2006, it was shown that this rule applies to four of the five types of double stranded genomes; specifically it applies to the eukaryotic chromosomes, the bacterial chromosomes, the double stranded DNA viral genomes, and the archaeal chromosomes. It does not apply to organellar genomes (mitochondria and plastids) smaller than ~20-30 kbp, nor does it apply to single stranded DNA (viral) genomes or any type of RNA genome. The basis for this rule is still under investigation, although genome size may play a role. The rule itself has consequences. In most bacterial genomes (which are generally 80-90% coding) genes are arranged in such a fashion that approximately 50% of the coding sequence lies on either strand. Wacław Szybalski, in the 1960s, showed that in bacteriophage coding sequences purines (A and G) exceed pyrimidines (C and T). This rule has since been confirmed in other organisms and should probably be now termed "Szybalski's rule". While Szybalski's rule generally holds, exceptions are known to exist. The biological basis for Szybalski's rule is not yet known.

The combined effect of Chargaff's second rule and Szybalski's rule can be seen in bacterial genomes where the coding sequences are not equally distributed. The genetic code has 64 codons of which 3 function as termination codons: there are only 20 amino acids normally present in proteins. (There are two uncommon amino acids—selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—found in a limited number of proteins and encoded by the stop codons—TGA and TAG respectively.) The mismatch between the number of codons and amino acids allows several codons to code for a single amino acid—such codons normally differ only at the third codon base position.

Multivariate statistical analysis of codon use within genomes with unequal quantities of coding sequences on the two strands has shown that codon use in the third position depends on the strand on which the gene is located. This seems likely to be the result of Szybalski's and Chargaff's rules. Because of the asymmetry in pyrimidine and purine use in coding sequences, the strand with the greater coding content will tend to have the greater number of purine bases (Szybalski's rule). Because the number of purine bases will, to a very good approximation, equal the number of their complementary pyrimidines within the same strand and, because the coding sequences occupy 80–90% of the strand, there appears to be (1) a selective pressure on the third base to minimize the number of purine bases in the strand with the greater coding content; and (2) that this pressure is proportional to the mismatch in the length of the coding sequences between the two strands. The origin of the deviation from Chargaff's rule in the organelles has been suggested to be a consequence of the mechanism of replication. During replication the DNA strands separate. In single stranded DNA, cytosine spontaneously slowly deaminates to adenosine (a C to A transversion). The longer the strands are separated the greater the quantity of deamination. For reasons that are not yet clear the strands tend to exist longer in single form in mitochondria than in chromosomal DNA. This process tends to yield one strand that is enriched in guanine (G) and thymine (T) with its complement enriched in cytosine (C) and adenosine (A), and this process may have given rise to the deviations found in the mitochondria.

Chargaff's second rule appears to be the consequence of a more complex parity rule: within a single strand of DNA any oligonucleotide (k-mer or n-gram; length ≤ 10) is present in equal numbers to its reverse complementary nucleotide. Because of the computational requirements this has not been verified in all genomes for all oligonucleotides. It has been verified for triplet oligonucleotides for a large data set. Albrecht-Buehler has suggested that this rule is the consequence of genomes evolving by a process of inversion and transposition. This process does not appear to have acted on the mitochondrial genomes. Chargaff's second parity rule appears to be extended from the nucleotide-level to populations of codon triplets, in the case of whole single-stranded Human genome DNA. A kind of "codon-level second Chargaff's parity rule" is proposed as follows:

! scope=col | First codon !! scope=col | Second codon !! scope=col | Relation proposed !! scope=col | Details
 * + Intra-strand relation among percentages of codon populations
 * (1st base position is T) ||  (3rd base position is A) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (1st base position is C) ||  (3rd base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (2nd base position is T) ||  (2nd base position is A) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (2nd base position is C) ||  (2nd base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (3rd base position is T) ||  (1st base position is A) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (3rd base position is C) ||  (1st base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * }
 * (2nd base position is C) ||  (2nd base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (3rd base position is T) ||  (1st base position is A) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * (3rd base position is C) ||  (1st base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * }
 * (3rd base position is C) ||  (1st base position is G) || %   $$ \simeq $$ %   ||   and   are mirror codons, e.g.   and
 * }
 * }

Examples — computing whole human genome using the first codons reading frame provides: 36530115 TTT and 36381293 AAA (ratio % = 1.00409). 2087242 TCG and 2085226 CGA (ratio % = 1.00096), etc...

In 2020, it is suggested that the physical properties of the dsDNA (double stranded DNA) and the tendency to maximum entropy of all the physical systems are the cause of Chargaff's second parity rule. The symmetries and patterns present in the dsDNA sequences can emerge from the physical peculiarities of the dsDNA molecule and the maximum entropy principle alone, rather than from biological or environmental evolutionary pressure.

Percentages of bases in DNA
The following table is a representative sample of Erwin Chargaff's 1952 data, listing the base composition of DNA from various organisms and support both of Chargaff's rules. An organism such as φX174 with significant variation from A/T and G/C equal to one, is indicative of single stranded DNA.

! scope=col|Organism!!scope=col|Taxon!!scope=col|%A !!scope=col|%G !!scope=col|%C !!scope=col|%T !!scope=col|A / T !!scope=col|G / C !!scope=col|%GC !!scope=col|%AT
 * Maize || Zea || 26.8 || 22.8 || 23.2 || 27.2 || 0.99 || 0.98 || 46.1 || 54.0
 * Octopus || Octopus || 33.2 || 17.6 || 17.6 || 31.6 || 1.05 || 1.00 || 35.2 || 64.8
 * Chicken || Gallus || 28.0 || 22.0 || 21.6 || 28.4 || 0.99 || 1.02 || 43.7 || 56.4
 * Rat || Rattus || 28.6 || 21.4 || 20.5 || 28.4 || 1.01 || 1.00 || 42.9 || 57.0
 * Human || Homo || 29.3 || 20.7 || 20.0 || 30.0 || 0.98 || 1.04 || 40.7 || 59.3
 * Grasshopper || Orthoptera || 29.3 || 20.5 || 20.7 || 29.3 || 1.00 || 0.99 || 41.2 || 58.6
 * Sea urchin || Echinoidea || 32.8 || 17.7 || 17.3 || 32.1 || 1.02 || 1.02 || 35.0 || 64.9
 * Wheat || Triticum || 27.3 || 22.7 || 22.8 || 27.1 || 1.01 || 1.00 || 45.5 || 54.4
 * Yeast || Saccharomyces || 31.3 || 18.7 || 17.1 || 32.9 || 0.95 || 1.09 || 35.8 || 64.4
 * E. coli || Escherichia || 24.7 || 26.0 || 25.7 || 23.6 || 1.05 || 1.01 || 51.7 || 48.3
 * φX174 || PhiX174 || 24.0 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 31.2 || 0.77 || 1.08 || 44.8 || 55.2
 * Grasshopper || Orthoptera || 29.3 || 20.5 || 20.7 || 29.3 || 1.00 || 0.99 || 41.2 || 58.6
 * Sea urchin || Echinoidea || 32.8 || 17.7 || 17.3 || 32.1 || 1.02 || 1.02 || 35.0 || 64.9
 * Wheat || Triticum || 27.3 || 22.7 || 22.8 || 27.1 || 1.01 || 1.00 || 45.5 || 54.4
 * Yeast || Saccharomyces || 31.3 || 18.7 || 17.1 || 32.9 || 0.95 || 1.09 || 35.8 || 64.4
 * E. coli || Escherichia || 24.7 || 26.0 || 25.7 || 23.6 || 1.05 || 1.01 || 51.7 || 48.3
 * φX174 || PhiX174 || 24.0 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 31.2 || 0.77 || 1.08 || 44.8 || 55.2
 * Yeast || Saccharomyces || 31.3 || 18.7 || 17.1 || 32.9 || 0.95 || 1.09 || 35.8 || 64.4
 * E. coli || Escherichia || 24.7 || 26.0 || 25.7 || 23.6 || 1.05 || 1.01 || 51.7 || 48.3
 * φX174 || PhiX174 || 24.0 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 31.2 || 0.77 || 1.08 || 44.8 || 55.2
 * φX174 || PhiX174 || 24.0 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 31.2 || 0.77 || 1.08 || 44.8 || 55.2
 * φX174 || PhiX174 || 24.0 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 31.2 || 0.77 || 1.08 || 44.8 || 55.2

title: Chargaff's rules