text:
Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath (dyspnea), rapid breathing (tachypnea), and bluish skin coloration (cyanosis). For those who survive, a decreased quality of life is common.

Causes may include sepsis, pancreatitis, trauma, pneumonia, and aspiration. The underlying mechanism involves diffuse injury to cells which form the barrier of the microscopic air sacs of the lungs, surfactant dysfunction, activation of the immune system, and dysfunction of the body's regulation of blood clotting. In effect, ARDS impairs the lungs' ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. Adult diagnosis is based on a PaO2/FiO2 ratio (ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen) of less than 300 mm Hg despite a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of more than 5 cm H2O. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema, as the cause, must be excluded.

The primary treatment involves mechanical ventilation together with treatments directed at the underlying cause. Ventilation strategies include using low volumes and low pressures. If oxygenation remains insufficient, lung recruitment maneuvers and neuromuscular blockers may be used. If these are insufficient, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option. The syndrome is associated with a death rate between 35 and 50%.

Globally, ARDS affects more than 3 million people a year. The condition was first described in 1967. Although the terminology of "adult respiratory distress syndrome" has at times been used to differentiate ARDS from "infant respiratory distress syndrome" in newborns, the international consensus is that "acute respiratory distress syndrome" is the best term because ARDS can affect people of all ages. There are separate diagnostic criteria for children and those in areas of the world with fewer resources.

Signs and symptoms
The signs and symptoms of ARDS often begin within two hours of an inciting event, but have been known to take as long as 1–3 days; diagnostic criteria require a known insult to have happened within 7 days of the syndrome. Signs and symptoms may include shortness of breath, fast breathing, and a low oxygen level in the blood due to abnormal ventilation. Other common symptoms include muscle fatigue and general weakness, low blood pressure, a dry, hacking cough, and fever.

Complications
Complications may include the following:
 * Lungs: barotrauma (volutrauma), pulmonary embolism (PE), pulmonary fibrosis, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)
 * Gastrointestinal: bleeding (ulcer), dysmotility, pneumoperitoneum, bacterial translocation
 * Neurological: hypoxic brain damage
 * Cardiac: abnormal heart rhythms, myocardial dysfunction
 * Kidney: acute kidney failure, positive fluid balance
 * Mechanical: vascular injury, pneumothorax (by placing pulmonary artery catheter), tracheal injury/stenosis (result of intubation and/or irritation by endotracheal tube)
 * Nutritional: malnutrition (catabolic state), electrolyte abnormalities

Other complications that are typically associated with ARDS include:
 * Atelectasis: small air pockets within the lung collapse
 * Complications that arise from treatment in a hospital: blood clots formed by lying down for long periods of time, weakness in muscles that are used for breathing, stress ulcers, and issues with mental health and depression.
 * Failure of multiple organs
 * Pulmonary hypertension or increase in blood pressure in the main artery from the heart to the lungs. This complication typically occurs due to the restriction of the blood vessel due to inflammation of the mechanical ventilation

Causes
There are direct and indirect causes of ARDS depending whether the lungs are initially affected. Direct causes include pneumonia (including bacterial and viral), aspiration, inhalational lung injury, lung contusion, chest trauma, and near-drowning. Indirect causes include sepsis, shock, pancreatitis, trauma (e.g. fat embolism), cardiopulmonary bypass, TRALI, burns, increased intracranial pressure. Fewer cases of ARDS are linked to large volumes of fluid used during post-trauma resuscitation.

Pathophysiology
ARDS is a form of fluid accumulation in the lungs not explained by heart failure (noncardiogenic pulmonary edema). It is typically provoked by an acute injury to the lungs that results in flooding of the lungs' microscopic air sacs responsible for the exchange of gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide with capillaries in the lungs. Additional common findings in ARDS include partial collapse of the alveoli (atelectasis) and low levels of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia). The clinical syndrome is associated with pathological findings including pneumonia, eosinophilic pneumonia, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, acute fibrinous organizing pneumonia, and diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). Of these, the pathology most commonly associated with ARDS is DAD, which is characterized by a diffuse inflammation of lung tissue. The triggering insult to the tissue usually results in an initial release of chemical signals and other inflammatory mediators secreted by local epithelial and endothelial cells.

Neutrophils and some T-lymphocytes quickly migrate into the inflamed lung tissue and contribute in the amplification of the phenomenon. The typical histological presentation involves diffuse alveolar damage and hyaline membrane formation in alveolar walls. Although the triggering mechanisms are not completely understood, recent research has examined the role of inflammation and mechanical stress.

One research group has reported that broncho-alveolar lavage fluid in later-stage ARDS often contains trichomonads, in an amoeboid form (i.e. lacking their characteristic flagellum) which makes them difficult to identify under the microscope.

Diagnostic criteria
Diagnostic criteria for ARDS have changed over time as understanding of the pathophysiology has evolved. The international consensus criteria for ARDS were most recently updated in 2012 and are known as the "Berlin definition". In addition to generally broadening the diagnostic thresholds, other notable changes from the prior 1994 consensus criteria include discouraging the term "acute lung injury", and defining grades of ARDS severity according to degree of decrease in the oxygen content of the blood.

According to the 2012 Berlin definition, adult ARDS is characterized by the following:
 * lung injury of acute onset, within 1 week of an apparent clinical insult and with the progression of respiratory symptoms
 * bilateral opacities on chest imaging (chest radiograph or CT) not explained by other lung pathology (e.g. effusion, lobar/lung collapse, or nodules)
 * respiratory failure not explained by heart failure or volume overload
 * decreased Pa/Fi ratio (a decreased Pa/Fi ratio indicates reduced arterial oxygenation from the available inhaled gas):
 * mild ARDS: 201 – 300 mmHg (≤ 39.9 kPa)
 * moderate ARDS: 101 – 200 mmHg (≤ 26.6 kPa)
 * severe ARDS: ≤ 100 mmHg (≤ 13.3 kPa)
 * The Berlin definition requires a minimum positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cm for consideration of the Pa/Fi ratio. This degree of PEEP may be delivered noninvasively with CPAP to diagnose mild ARDS.

The 2012 "Berlin criteria" are a modification of the prior 1994 consensus conference definitions (see history).

Medical imaging
Radiologic imaging has long been a criterion for diagnosis of ARDS. Original definitions of ARDS specified that correlative chest X-ray findings were required for diagnosis, the diagnostic criteria have been expanded over time to accept CT and ultrasound findings as equally contributory. Generally, radiographic findings of fluid accumulation (pulmonary edema) affecting both lungs and unrelated to increased cardiopulmonary vascular pressure (such as in heart failure) may be suggestive of ARDS. Ultrasound findings suggestive of ARDS include the following:
 * Anterior subpleural consolidations
 * Absence or reduction of lung sliding
 * "Spared areas" of normal parenchyma
 * Pleural line abnormalities (irregular thickened fragmented pleural line)
 * Nonhomogeneous distribution of B-lines (a characteristic ultrasound finding suggestive of fluid accumulation in the lungs)

Treatment
Acute respiratory distress syndrome is usually treated with mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Mechanical ventilation is usually delivered through a rigid tube which enters the oral cavity and is secured in the airway (endotracheal intubation), or by tracheostomy when prolonged ventilation (≥2 weeks) is necessary. The role of non-invasive ventilation is limited to the very early period of the disease or to prevent worsening respiratory distress in individuals with atypical pneumonias, lung bruising, or major surgery patients, who are at risk of developing ARDS. Treatment of the underlying cause is crucial. Appropriate antibiotic therapy is started as soon as culture results are available, or if infection is suspected (whichever is earlier). Empirical therapy may be appropriate if local microbiological surveillance is efficient. Where possible the origin of the infection is removed. When sepsis is diagnosed, appropriate local protocols are followed.

Mechanical ventilation
The overall goal of mechanical ventilation is to maintain acceptable gas exchange to meet the body's metabolic demands and to minimize adverse effects in its application. The parameters PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure, to keep alveoli open), mean airway pressure (to promote recruitment (opening) of easily collapsible alveoli and predictor of hemodynamic effects), and plateau pressure (best predictor of alveolar overdistention) are used.

Previously, mechanical ventilation aimed to achieve tidal volumes (Vt) of 12–15 ml/kg (where the weight is ideal body weight rather than actual weight). Recent studies have shown that high tidal volumes can overstretch alveoli resulting in volutrauma (secondary lung injury). The ARDS Clinical Network, or ARDSNet, completed a clinical trial that showed improved mortality when people with ARDS were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg compared to the traditional 12 ml/kg. Low tidal volumes (Vt) may cause a permitted rise in blood carbon dioxide levels and collapse of alveoli because of their inherent tendency to increase shunting within the lung. Physiologic dead space cannot change as it is ventilation without perfusion. A shunt is a perfusion without ventilation within a lung region.

Low tidal volume ventilation was the primary independent variable associated with reduced mortality in the NIH-sponsored ARDSNet trial of tidal volume in ARDS. Plateau pressure less than 30 cm was a secondary goal, and subsequent analyses of the data from the ARDSNet trial and other experimental data demonstrate that there appears to be no safe upper limit to plateau pressure; regardless of plateau pressure, individuals with ARDS fare better with low tidal volumes.

Airway pressure release ventilation
No particular ventilator mode is known to improve mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Some practitioners favor airway pressure release ventilation when treating ARDS. Well documented advantages to APRV ventilation include decreased airway pressures, decreased minute ventilation, decreased dead-space ventilation, promotion of spontaneous breathing, almost 24-hour-a-day alveolar recruitment, decreased use of sedation, near elimination of neuromuscular blockade, optimized arterial blood gas results, mechanical restoration of FRC (functional residual capacity), a positive effect on cardiac output (due to the negative inflection from the elevated baseline with each spontaneous breath), increased organ and tissue perfusion and potential for increased urine output secondary to increased kidney perfusion.

A patient with ARDS, on average, spends between 8 and 11 days on a mechanical ventilator; APRV may reduce this time significantly and thus may conserve valuable resources.

Positive end-expiratory pressure
Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is used in mechanically ventilated people with ARDS to improve oxygenation. In ARDS, three populations of alveoli can be distinguished. There are normal alveoli that are always inflated and engaging in gas exchange, flooded alveoli which can never, under any ventilatory regime, be used for gas exchange, and atelectatic or partially flooded alveoli that can be "recruited" to participate in gas exchange under certain ventilatory regimens. The recruitable alveoli represent a continuous population, some of which can be recruited with minimal PEEP, and others can only be recruited with high levels of PEEP. An additional complication is that some alveoli can only be opened with higher airway pressures than are needed to keep them open, hence the justification for maneuvers where PEEP is increased to very high levels for seconds to minutes before dropping the PEEP to a lower level. PEEP can be harmful; high PEEP necessarily increases mean airway pressure and alveolar pressure, which can damage normal alveoli by overdistension resulting in DAD. A compromise between the beneficial and adverse effects of PEEP is inevitable.

The 'best PEEP' used to be defined as 'some' cm above the lower inflection point (LIP) in the sigmoidal pressure-volume relationship curve of the lung. Recent research has shown that the LIP-point pressure is no better than any pressure above it, as recruitment of collapsed alveoli—and, more importantly, the overdistension of aerated units—occur throughout the whole inflation. Despite the awkwardness of most procedures used to trace the pressure-volume curve, it is still used by some to define the minimum PEEP to be applied to their patients. Some new ventilators can automatically plot a pressure-volume curve.

PEEP may also be set empirically. Some authors suggest performing a 'recruiting maneuver'—a short time at a very high continuous positive airway pressure, such as 50 cm (4.9 kPa)—to recruit or open collapsed units with a high distending pressure before restoring previous ventilation. The final PEEP level should be the one just before the drop in Pa or peripheral blood oxygen saturation during a step-down trial. A large randomized controlled trial of patients with ARDS found that lung recruitment maneuvers and PEEP titration was associated with high rates of barotrauma and pneumothorax and increased mortality.

Intrinsic PEEP (iPEEP) or auto-PEEP—first described by John Marini of St. Paul Regions Hospital—is a potentially unrecognized contributor to PEEP in intubated individuals. When ventilating at high frequencies, its contribution can be substantial, particularly in people with obstructive lung disease such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). iPEEP has been measured in very few formal studies on ventilation in ARDS, and its contribution is largely unknown. Its measurement is recommended in the treatment of people who have ARDS, especially when using high-frequency (oscillatory/jet) ventilation.

Prone position
The position of lung infiltrates in acute respiratory distress syndrome is non-uniform. Repositioning into the prone position (face down) might improve oxygenation by relieving atelectasis and improving perfusion. If this is done early in the treatment of severe ARDS, it confers a mortality benefit of 26% compared to supine ventilation. However, attention should be paid to avoid the SIDS in the management of the respiratory distressed infants by continuous careful monitoring of their cardiovascular system.

Fluid management
Several studies have shown that pulmonary function and outcome are better in people with ARDS who lost weight or whose pulmonary wedge pressure was lowered by diuresis or fluid restriction.

Medications
As of 2019, it is uncertain whether or not treatment with corticosteroids improves overall survival. Corticosteroids may increase the number of ventilator-free days during the first 28 days of hospitalization. One study found that dexamethasone may help. The combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine also requires further study as of 2018.

Inhaled nitric oxide (NO) selectively widens the lung's arteries which allows for more blood flow to open alveoli for gas exchange. Despite evidence of increased oxygenation status, there is no evidence that inhaled nitric oxide decreases morbidity and mortality in people with ARDS. Furthermore, nitric oxide may cause kidney damage and is not recommended as therapy for ARDS regardless of severity.

Alvelestat (AZD 9668) had been quoted according to one review article.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is mechanically applied prolonged cardiopulmonary support. There are two types of ECMO: Venovenous which provides respiratory support and venoarterial which provides respiratory and hemodynamic support. People with ARDS who do not require cardiac support typically undergo venovenous ECMO. Multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of ECMO in acute respiratory failure. Specifically, the CESAR (Conventional ventilatory support versus Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory failure) trial demonstrated that a group referred to an ECMO center demonstrated significantly increased survival compared to conventional management (63% to 47%).

Ineffective treatments
As of 2019, there is no evidence showing that treatments with exogenous surfactants, statins, beta-blockers or n-acetylcysteine decreases early mortality, late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or number of ventilator-free days.

Prognosis
The overall prognosis of ARDS is poor, with mortality rates of approximately 40%. Exercise limitation, physical and psychological sequelae, decreased physical quality of life, and increased costs and use of health care services are important sequelae of ARDS.

Epidemiology
The annual rate of ARDS is generally 13–23 people per 100,000 in the general population. It is more common in people who are mechanically ventilated with acute lung injury (ALI) occurring in 16% of ventilated people. Rates increased in 2020 due to COVID-19, with some cases also appearing similar to HAPE.

Worldwide, severe sepsis is the most common trigger causing ARDS. Other triggers include mechanical ventilation, sepsis, pneumonia, Gilchrist's disease, drowning, circulatory shock, aspiration, trauma—especially pulmonary contusion—major surgery, massive blood transfusions, smoke inhalation, drug reaction or overdose, fat emboli and reperfusion pulmonary edema after lung transplantation or pulmonary embolectomy. However, the majority of patients with all these conditions mentioned do not develop ARDS. It is unclear why some people with the mentioned factors above do not develop ARDS and others do.

Pneumonia and sepsis are the most common triggers, and pneumonia is present in up to 60% of patients and may be either causes or complications of ARDS. Alcohol excess appears to increase the risk of ARDS. Diabetes was originally thought to decrease the risk of ARDS, but this has shown to be due to an increase in the risk of pulmonary edema. Elevated abdominal pressure of any cause is also probably a risk factor for the development of ARDS, particularly during mechanical ventilation.

History
Acute respiratory distress syndrome was first described in 1967 by Ashbaugh et al. Initially there was no clearly established definition, which resulted in controversy regarding the incidence and death of ARDS.

In 1988, an expanded definition was proposed, which quantified physiologic respiratory impairment.

1994 American-European Consensus Conference
In 1994, a new definition was recommended by the American-European Consensus Conference Committee which recognized the variability in severity of pulmonary injury.

The definition required the following criteria to be met:
 * acute onset, persistent dyspnea
 * bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph consistent with pulmonary edema
 * hypoxemia, defined as Pa:Fi < 200 mmHg (26.7 kPa)
 * absence of left atrial (LA) hypertension
 * pulmonary artery wedge pressure < 18 mmHg (obtained by pulmonary artery catheterization)
 * if no measured LA pressure available, there must be no other clinical evidence to suggest elevated left heart pressure.

If Pa:Fi < 300 mmHg (40 kPa), then the definitions recommended a classification as "acute lung injury" (ALI). Note that according to these criteria, arterial blood gas analysis and chest X-ray were required for formal diagnosis. Limitations of these definitions include lack of precise definition of acuity, nonspecific imaging criteria, lack of precise definition of hypoxemia with regards to PEEP (affects arterial oxygen partial pressure), arbitrary Pa thresholds without systematic data.

2012 Berlin definition
In 2012, the Berlin Definition of ARDS was devised by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and was endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. These recommendations were an effort to both update classification criteria in order to improve clinical usefulness and to clarify terminology. Notably, the Berlin guidelines discourage the use of the term "acute lung injury" or ALI, as the term was commonly being misused to characterize a less severe degree of lung injury. Instead, the committee proposes a classification of ARDS severity as mild, moderate, or severe according to arterial oxygen saturation. The Berlin definitions represent the current international consensus guidelines for both clinical and research classification of ARDS.

Terminology
ARDS is the severe form of acute lung injury (ALI), and of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), though there are other causes. The Berlin definition included ALI as a mild form of ARDS. However, the criteria for the diagnosis of ARDS in the Berlin definition excludes many children, and a new definition for children was termed pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS); this is known as the PALICC definition (2015).

Research directions
There is ongoing research on the treatment of ARDS by interferon (IFN) beta-1a to aid in preventing leakage of vascular beds. Traumakine (FP-1201-lyo) is a recombinant human IFN beta-1a drug, developed by the Finnish company Faron Pharmaceuticals, which is undergoing international phase-III clinical trials after an open-label, early-phase trial showed an 81% reduction-in-odds of 28-day mortality in ICU patients with ARDS. The drug is known to function by enhancing lung CD73 expression and increasing production of anti-inflammatory adenosine, such that vascular leaking and escalation of inflammation are reduced.

Aspirin has been studied in those who are at high risk and was not found to be useful.

An intravenous ascorbic acid treatment was tested in the 2019 RCT, in people with ARDS due to sepsis and there was no change in primary endpoints.

title: Acute respiratory distress syndrome


text:
New Reform Party of Ontario

The New Reform Party of Ontario (NRP; Nouveau Parti réformiste de l'Ontario) was a minor provincial political party in Ontario, Canada, that promoted a populist, fiscally conservative, socially conservative, libertarian, and localist ideology.

It was formed in Hamilton in 1987 as the Family Coalition Party of Ontario (FCP) through 11,000 signatures fulfilling the Elections Ontario requirements by members from the Liberals for Life (a splinter group of the Liberal Party of Canada) and members of the anti-abortion organization Campaign Life Coalition. It has fielded candidates in every provincial election since then. None of its candidates were ever elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

In late 2015, the FCP renamed itself the "New Reform Party of Ontario", which maintained the party's conservative social values, while also promoting conservative fiscal values. It began to overhaul its principles, policies, and platform, reorganizing the central office, and aiming to reestablish is provincial executive council regionally in time for the next provincial election in Fall 2018.

The last leader of the NRP was James Gault and provincial party president was Lynne Scime.

The party was deregistered by Elections Ontario in January 2016.

History

The FCP was founded in 1987, as a political extension of the anti-abortion organization Campaign Life Coalition with anti-abortion Liberal members from the splinter group Liberals for Life. Donald Pennell, who had previously been a candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party in the Burlington South riding during the 1975 provincial election, was chosen as the FCP's first leader. In addition to promoting an anti-abortion position, the party developed a platform opposed to divorce, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and adoption of children by same-sex couples, embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, pornography, and contraception.

The party's first election was the 1987 provincial election, where the party ran 36 candidates for 48,110 votes overall and 1.3% of the vote in only four weeks of existence to organize for a fourth place showing ahead of the Libertarians. This solid performance from the upstart party led to expansion into new ridings with bigger membership base. The party's strongest showing was in the 1990 provincial election, when it received over 100,000 votes, once again good enough for a fourth place showing ahead of the Confederation of Regions Party. In 1990, several candidates received over 10% of the popular vote (the best was 13%). The party ran 76 candidates.

Its strong support declined dramatically in the 1995 and 1999 elections with fourth placings ahead of Natural Law, followed by a modest recovery in 2003 when the FCP ran in 51 of 103 ridings, but dropped from fourth to fifth place just below the Greens. The minor breakthrough was made, according to FCP leader Giuseppe Gori, through the democratization of the internet beyond the mainstream media and hope for a form of proportional representation ballot electoral reform. The party nominated 83 candidates in the 107 ridings for the 2007 provincial election; in those 83 ridings, it obtained 1.045% of the votes, or 0.82% province-wide. The FCP stayed in fifth place, under the Greens, but above the other minor parties.

The loss of traction in 1995 was blamed on the true blue wave of the Common Sense Revolution by the Mike Harris led Ontario PCs, taking with it a large swatch of anti-abortion socially conservative constituency from the traditional FCP base of support via the "Mulroney Effect" as was coined by the Campaign Life Coalition.

Pennell was succeeded by Giuseppe Gori in 1997, who lead the party into the 1999 election. The party achieved limited media attention by conducting a demonstration at Queen's Park featuring three "cloned sheep" to represent Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty and New Democratic Party leader Howard Hampton. The FCP's intent was both to indicate their opposition to cloning technology, and to suggest that the major parties were identical in ignoring family issues, using the slogan "Liberal, Tory, NDP same old status quo story".

The FCP supported the 2007 electoral reform referendum for a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) hybrid voting system.

The FCP set, according to the Toronto Star, a record for the number of family members running as candidates in a single election in 2007. Eight members of the Kidd family and six members of the Carvalho family are running as candidates in the Greater Toronto Area. The newspaper could not find a Guinness Book record for such a feat.

The party nominated 31 candidates in the 107 ridings for the 2007 provincial election; in those 31 ridings, it obtained 0.23% of the votes province-wide. The FCP dropped to sixth place as the Greens and Libertarians surpassed. Gori stepped down in 2009, and Phil Lees was acclaimed leader.

After the 2011 provincial election, the FCP worked on local advocacy campaigns within various communities around the province, most notably involving the challenge of Bill 13, the anti-bullying legislation introduced by the Ontario Liberal government. Lees was a speaker at two Queen's Park Bill 13 protest rallies in early 2012. Education soon became the prime issue for the FCP. The FCP stated in early 2014 that it intends to become more active and visible between elections, to better represent what it calls the "traditional-principled" electorate in Ontario, which led it to move closer towards a grassroots participatory democratic political ideology.

After the 2014 election, the Reform Party of Ontario had been deregistered by Elections Ontario for failing to run candidates, and the FCP had finished poorly with its worst showing in a distant seventh place, running only six candidates in 2014 for 0.09% of the votes province-wide for the former fourth party just more than a quarter century previous. The party voted to change its name to the New Reform Party of Ontario (NRP) in a December 2014 membership vote and began the process to overhaul its principles, policies, and platform, reorganizing the central office, and reestablishing provincial executive council regionally in time for the next provincial election. In 2015, Gault stood in the Simcoe North byelection against newly chosen Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown; Gault placed fifth out of eight candidates, with 197 votes and 0.50%. The party was deregistered in 2016, shortly after Gault filed to run in the Whitby—Oshawa by-election; Gault was formally included as an independent, though he continued to promote the party. He later withdrew from the race and endorsed Greg Vezina of the None of the Above Party of Ontario, which he stated shared the NRP's "3Rs of Democracy" idea of responsible government, referendum, and recall.

Relationship with the Christian Heritage Party
The NRP's membership overlapped significantly with that of the federal Christian Heritage Party of Canada. The parties shared many socially conservative policies, but had no organizational connection.

Ideology
New Reform Ontario's principles remained the same as they were with the FCP, which include respect for life, freedom, and ownership of property. The NRP "adheres to principles expressed in the Canadian Constitution that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, natural law and just human law. The New Reform Party believes in the democratic principle of subsidiarity: Government is an institution created by people, while people’s fundamental rights are inherent in every human being as each one is created by the Creator God. The role of government is restricted to what individuals and private organizations cannot do by themselves. The New Reform Party is committed to restricting its own policies and rule accordingly, were it elected to govern." The NRP believed all people are equal and should be treated as such under the law.

On familial issues, they emphasized "the family, rather than the individual" as the "basic building block of our society", and asserted that the promotion of stronger family units will result in reduced social problems and a more robust workforce. On marriage issues, the party emphasised the family unit, favouring heterosexual married couples, as it opposed spousal benefits for same-sex couples and common-law heterosexual couples. The NRP supported increasing personal and spousal tax exemption, and providing assistance to single mothers who choose to carry a pregnancy to term. It also recognized "the work of mothers in the nurturing of children", and supported increased tax benefits for stay-at-home parents. The party opposed Sunday shopping and supported a housing and taxation policy beneficial to family. On human life issues, the party supported an end to the taxpayer funding and support of abortion by the government, and the "harvesting" and production of "spare parts" by keeping anencephalic babies alive. On education issues, they supported funding of all schools, not just the public and Catholic systems favouring options for families to choose the form of education that best suits their values and needs, and the protection of parental values in the school setting.

The party's "Contract with Ontario", after the 2007 election, incorporated 12 points: "We will not breach your trust and we will uphold the truth; we will govern according to moral principles, defending life, freedom and property; we believe in the value and dignity of the human person over and above material goods, ideologies and corporate entities; we will defend the traditional family as the first government where children are educated in knowledge, wisdom and responsibility; we believe any government above the family is delegated and must be chosen through fair and democratic elections; we will maintain an optimum amount of government and avoid government duplication of what individuals, families, associations, groups and businesses can do; we believe an optimum amount of government can greatly improve the economic environment and thus, the standard of living, employment levels, and wealth creation; we believe people have free will and are called to exercise it; we believe people are dignified by employment; we believe people fully develop their potential by self-employment; we believe competition and high standards drive excellence; we do not believe in government or corporate monopolies."

The New Reform Ontario's ideals on various matters were generally traditional, being fiscal, economic, social, libertarian reformed conservative in tone, although not universally so. For one example, the NRP opposed the privatization and firesale of Hydro One by the Wynne Ontario Liberal government to pay down the debt and balance the budget, as it had no mandate from its recent majority election having not run on the idea and is just a "quick cash grab to pay short term projects and past financial mistakes" which run counter to free market economics. New Reform Ontario supported a reduction in the size of government, and "the long-term removal of all measures that insulate industries, businesses, financial institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition". The NRP believed that the limited government has a reduced role to play in issues relating to environmental, educational, and health care management, and ensuring access to health services regardless of ability to pay.

Party leaders

 * Donald Pennell (1987–1997)
 * Giuseppe Gori (1997–2009)
 * Phil Lees (2009–2014)
 * Eric Ames (2014) (interim)
 * James Gault (2014–2016)

Election candidates

 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 1990 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election
 * Family Coalition Party of Ontario candidates, 2014 Ontario provincial election

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

title: New Reform Party of Ontario


text:
Rumination

Rumination may refer to:
 * Rumination, the digestive process of ruminants
 * Rumination syndrome, a chronic condition characterized by effortless regurgitation of most meals following consumption
 * Deep thought or consideration
 * Rumination (psychology), contemplation or reflection, which may become persistent and recurrent worrying or brooding
 * Ruminations, an email column and series of books written by comedian Aaron Karo
 * Ruminations (album), a 2016 album by American musician Conor Oberst

Rumination

title: Rumination


text:
Talk:Rupee

Untitled
It seems like this page should become a disambiguation page (and there should be pages for the Indian Rupee, Pakistani Rupee, "Hyrule" Rupee, etc...)

Japan also used Rupees in the past. Not sure of the timescale but certainly during WW2.

The Japanese issued Rupees, but these were for the Japanese occupation of Burma (1942-45). - (Aidan Work 01:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

Caps
Why are some "rupees" capitiolized and some not? shouldn't all be non-caps? Joe I 21:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Joe, I reckon all currency units should be capitalised anyway. - (Aidan Work 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

 * But seriously, reckoning aside, which is it?
 * Has Wikipedia adopted a particular style-guide? That would be the best way to answer questions like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.97.230 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 December 2006

Currency unit should be lower case per WikiProject Numismatics/Style. User:Aidan Work is banned --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has had since 2005 to speak their mind. The currency should not be capitalized. I just fixed it.  Blue Rasberry  16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rupee
Images and infomation about other variants of the rupee in other countries should be noted in this article (User:71.116.94.54 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Worth now
It mentions it used to be worth about six dollars in current currency, but I see no indication of current worth. -Iopq 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The numbers were wrong. I corrected it. The amount of silver of the "original" rupee is worth US$4 today.   In the late 19th and early 20th century, 1 rupee was a little less than 1/2 of USD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger with History of the rupee
I think the fact that there's a specific page for the history of the rupee is a little unnecessary, since the original rupee article doesn't seem long enough to be split off into pages about categories such as "History". Plus, and I suppose this is a minor complaint, but the addition of "History of the rupee" seems to add an enormous amount of white space to the rupee template. El Cid 06:54, 13 October 2009(UTC)

 * I too think a merger with History of the rupee is not required, that article is on the Indian rupee, whereas this one in on rupees of various countries.-- PremKudva Talk  09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. I support under these condition
 * History of the rupee merged into rupee as a section
 * Part of History of the rupee that is too Indian specific to me moved to Indian rupee
 * National specific details permitted in the merged rupee only if it has significance, e.g. comparison of the decemalisation of varous countries.
 * Images of various rupee stays, even if a higher percentage will be Indian

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * History of the rupee is completely India specific and should not be merged with Rupee-- PremKudva Talk  06:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Support provided Indian specific be added to only Indian rupee.  Jo  e  I  09:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * SupportThe rupee might be primarily used in India, but mention should be made of all the other countries using it, one back/front image if possible. The history of the rupee is directly tied to which countries use it, whether they be large or small. --87.194.21.101 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) *edit, forgot to sign in first! =) --IceflamePhoenix 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment: This article is too long to be a single section of any other article. Especially, since other articles are small, adding this to them will make them almost entirely about history of the rupee, whereas they are supposed cover all aspects, not just history. I agree that this article, which I wrote almost entirely, is mostly about the Indian rupee. We could rename it as History of the Indian rupee if a need is felt. PS: "This article"" refers to History of the rupee. deeptrivia (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Support merge under conditions set by ChoChoPK. Chris 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol
Tahoma renders ₨ as Rp. Is this an error? Also, XE.com’s graphic has a crossbar through the R. Are these ever used? Wiki Wikardo Bedtime, 5 January 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:5000rupiah2001.JPG
Image:5000rupiah2001.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PKR 5000 Front.jpg
Image:PKR 5000 Front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Indonesian Rupiah is not a Rupee
The map in the main article needs to be altered to remove Indonesia. Indonesia is not Rupee territory. Although the word Rupiah may have the same etymology as Rupee, the Rupiah is not a Rupee. The Rupiah is actually descended from the Dutch two and a half silver Guilder coins that corresponded to the Spanish silver dollars in the Netherlands East Indies. David Tombe (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, but the Indionesian word 'Rupiah' is descended from the same sanskrit term as Rupee. Additionally, the hindi word for Rupee, 'Rupiya' is pronounced the exact same way. Rupee is an anglicized version of our currencies, and can be used for Indonesia as well. I actually saw an IMF picture depicting Turkey and (formerly) Italy as 'pound' territory on the basis that 'lira' is simply pound in another language, so Rupiah will definately qualify for Rupee status. Here in India we barely use the word 'Rupee' in English conversation, we denote sums like 'lakh' or 'Crore' and for small sums, we simply us the ubiquitous term, 'buck'. (Totaldutchacess (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Hindi pronunciation
@Bmurthy --> Hindi and Urdu (i.e. Hindustani) pronounce it as Rupiya or Rupp-yaa. Ru-pa-ya is incorrect. The most common pronunciation has a soft 'i'. Hindi-Urdu have a general [y -> soft i + y] tendency. Similarly, Zyada (more) is pronounced ziyada, with a soft 'i'. Buffalo (भैंस) is bhains but Brother (भैया) is bha-i-ya. Words like these can be used to tell native and non-native speakers of Hindi apart. Another example is पालतू (tame, as in Shaikh Paltu), which in strict Nagri reading would be Pa-la-too but is pronounced as Paal-too by native speakers. 'Devanagri' (देवनागरी) iself is an example - non-native speakers often say Day-va-na-ga-ree. Native Hindi speakers say Dev-naag-ree, and will often transcribe it as Devnagri in English lettering. This process of how Nagri spelling came to be standardized slightly differently from actual pronunciation is described in http://books.google.com/books?id=0X1jAAAAMAAJ (Hindi and Urdu since 1800: a common reader) if you are interested. Hindi speakers still understand non-native speakers perfectly if strict Nagri-based pronunciation is followed, but they know instantly that the speaker is non-native. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You are mixing up spoken Hindi/Urdu with written Hindi/Urdu. While in Urdu alphabet the letter ye doubles up for the ya and i (and e for that matter) sounds, Devanagari has distinct letters for the all of them (I know you know all this, but putting it down for clarification if someone else is interested). Which is why a native Urdu speaker would be right in pronouncing the word as Rupiya (as written in Urdu), but a Hindi speaker (pronouncing the word as written in Devanagari) would not. And you are absolutely right in asserting that in colloquial Hindi a word like Devanagari would indeed be pronounced in most Hindi Speaking parts of India as Devnaagri, is not right to transliterate it as Devnaagri. I also have no quarrel with you over the evolution of Khad(r)i Boli as the spoken Hind/Urdu and its divergence from the written word (and there are many more other from the implied hal for last sound in a syllable), but that is a separate topic, and I also do not agree with all your examples in entirety, e.g. in most of the Hindi speaking parts of India zyada would indeed be pronounced as zyaadaa, or worse jyaadaa :). Coming specifically to the issue of Rupiya vs Rupaya, however, there is no confusion, there is no i sound (implied or otherwise) as written in Devanagari/Devnaagri. In any case, what is being put into this article is the rendering of the word (and only by implication pronunciation). The word in question is *rendered* as Rupaya and not Rupiya in Devanagari/Devnaagri (the script for Hindi). I will let you respond before making any changes. Bmurthy (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)bmurthy

 * Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani pronunciations of words do not differ. They are identical because they are two standardized registers of the same language with the difference being vocabulary. When a so-called Hindi speaker says a word and a so-called Urdu speaker says the same word, you cannot identify which register-affiliation exists in either one of them. Is it your contention that you can tell them apart? You can't have rupiya in one language and rupaya in another. No native Hindi speaker I know would say rupaya in natural speech (just as no one will say palatu for पालतू unless it is for dramatic effect as in "AA-MAAZE-INGG"). It's rupyaa or rupiya or (often in song) rupaiya - this is how native Hindi speakers usually transcribe it also. If you'd like to put down an entry for Devnagri that says Devnagri: Rupaya, I'd be fine with that. Otherwise it's misleading. BTW you aren't correct on zyada, unless you're talking about Bihari languages (part of Eastern Indic languages - which had a huge debate - see Hindi in Bihar - and are, by consensus, non-Hindi languages that influence the way Hindi is spoken there). I tried to find a song with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw614Cpd4Iw at 2:05) - people usually say zaadaa or ziyaada, zyaada is rare.

 * Unless you can produce an unambiguous reference that explicitly says "rupiya" is wrong and "rupaya" is right in Hindi, please leave it the way it is. I can produce a number of refs that say rupiya, and I am sure there are plenty that say rupaya (incorrectly). Script and language are different things. Classic example: ष and श which, in Devnagri are ʂ and ɕ respectively. No such distinction is made in Hindi at all though, by convention, Sanskrit spelling is conserved. These are NOT colloquialisms. These are specific conventions in how the script has come to be used. In this case, documented conventions. I do not disagree with you on what the Devnagri should imply here - रुप्या or रुपिया should have been standardized on. In Hindi magazines and books, you can actually see writers struggling with words like this: रुप्या, रुपिया, रुपैया, पाल्तू all show up. BTW, don't want to complicate it, but the actual colloquial tendency is [ya -> ia], so Rupia, Ziada, Siar (for fox - Siyar). That, however, IS a colloquialism, and not uniform among native Hindi-speakers. I await your response. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You are muddling the issue here by bringing in extraneous issues. Are you disputing what the value in Hindi (Devanagari) script is written as? Can you provide a specific reference which states that the letter ya (in Devanagari) actually contains the i sound, I would love to see it? Are you disputing that in every Indian banknote the name of the currency is written in both Hindi and Urdu scripts (along with a host of other languages)? Ergo, the two are different!! You are bringing the ambiguity of Urdu script (as I have pointed earlier) as an ambiguity in Hindi. In fact, I would assert that the word can be ru-pa-ya in Urdu as well, but because of the ambiguity of the script gets pronounced differently, no such issue exists in Hindi. And as for the "colloquial tendency" as you put it is, there are enough regional variations in most languages to negate that factor anyway. However, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the written word, which is the point here. रुपया and रुपिया are two different words in Hindi, which when transcribed in the Roman alphabet are ru-pa-ya and ru-pi-ya respectively. The one which is correct is the former. I do not have to provide a reference, you see it *is* the written word. Unless you can provide a reference that explicitly states that the latter rendition is actually the correct one instead of the former, there is no argument here at all. If you can dig up a reference which explicitly states that ru-pi-ya is an acceptable alternative pronunciation for रुपया, feel free to mention it so and provide the citation.

 * I would be glad to take you up on the difference between Urdu and Hindi as larger issue separately, feel free to engage outside of this forum.
 * Bmurthy (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am not muddling any issue. The point here is to convey to readers how Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) speakers say the word, not the formal rules of how Devnagari letters are pronounced. 'gh' in normal Roman script shouldn't make the sound 'ff' which it does in cough. English transcription is extremely non-phonetic, so stuff like this is rife. In Hindi transcription, there are also a limited set of systematic deviations from Sanskritic phonetic use of Devnagri. One is where the original Sanskrit lettering is preserved, even though virtually all Hindi speakers pronounce the word differently. Another is the halant issue, another is ष and श. The rupee case is actually an instance of the halant issue, just as paltu is - except in this case the halant is inside the word rather than at the end. Rupyaa (with the soft i), not Rupaya. Devnagri is just a script that is used to write Hindi. Tomorrow, Hindi could be written in Perso-Arabic (i.e. drop Nagri and use only that for its standard script), Roman, Brahmi, Cyrillic, whatever. The script doesn't dictate how a word is pronounced. You are applying Sanskrit pronunciation rules to Hindi. Same deal with Urdu. Just because the sira letter can indicate i or y or e doesn't mean it's any of them. There is no ambiguity in native-speaker pronunciation. It is the way native speakers say it - rupiya or rupya. On references, you can find many (as I said, either way) -
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=nKaZmX9hdMkC A pageant of Indian culture: art and archaeology, Volume 2 By Asoke Kumar Bhattacharyya Its supersession was by the rupiya (rupee), the latter meaning 'of beautiful form', 'wrought silver'
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ooH5VfLTQEQC Hindi By Yamuna Kachru rupya 'rupee'
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=f7VjAAAAMAAJ A grammar of Hindi By Annie Montaut rupya [rupya] "rupee"
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=H1LzD8-iipgC Allied Chambers transliterated Hindi-Hindi-English dictionary Rupee From rupiya, (lit.) wrought silver
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=26RjAAAAMAAJ Hindi phonology: a synchronic description of the contemporary standard By Ramesh Chandra Mehrotra in very many positions and occurrences, and the 'only contact' and 'only release' are distinctive in Hindi ... to show the contrast between a single and a double consonant before medial /y/ are given here: /rUpya -' a rupee'''
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ukZmAAAAMAAJ Spink numismatic circular, Volume 90 By Spink & Son The word "Rupee" originates from the Hindi word "Rupiya", which is derived from the Sanskrit "Rupya", which means wrought silver

 * I can find many, many more because the word really *is* pronounced Rupiya/Rupya. I didn't create the pronunciation, and I can't help you change it. Again, we are talking about HINDI here, not Devnagri. I have no dispute with you making an additional entry for Devnagri, as long as you don't replace the Hindi entry with something that is incorrect. No interest in Hindi-Urdu issues on this specific topic. There is no pronunciation difference between them. This discussion is a little unreal BTW. It's like if I started insisting that the Nashik article be renamed Nashika. It can't, because that is not the name - Sanskritic Nagri pronunciation rules notwithstanding. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I absolutely cannot agree with you at all. First of all, you have not provided a single reference which asserts that there is an (implied or otherwise) i sound accompanying the ya letter. That's because that is simply not true. Let's consider some examples, जया/जिया, पयाम/पिया, हया/हिया, नया/नियाज़ amply demonstrate that where appropriate the words are written explicitly with the i vowel. No one, including you would pronounce the former word in each pair with a soft or any i sound at all. Note that all of them include the elongated form of yaa as in rupayaa, and there are words that do not originate from Sanskrit.

 * Second, let's look at a couple of dictionaries, since you seem to like them, as to how they represent the word in question रुपया in Roman alphabet. The first one is the respected Platt's dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English. Here is the entry

 * H رپيا रुपया rupayā, रुपिया rupiyā, rupyā, रुपीया rupīyā, रुपैया rupaiyā [Prk. रुप्पअं; S. रूप्यकं], s.m. A rupee (the silver coin so called); coin, cash, money, wealth (in Urdū the word is frequently written روپيا rupayā; but the و is inserted merely to indicate that the vowel of ر is u. (here is the link http://dsal1.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:3404.platts)

 * Second, the reference you yourself provided

 * http://books.google.com/books?id=H1LzD8-iipgC Allied Chambers transliterated Hindi-Hindi-English dictionary Rupee From rupiya, (lit.) wrought silver

 * There are 50 references to the representation rupaya, but only one for rupiya, look up for yourself

 * http://books.google.com/books?id=_QIVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA116&dq=rupaya&ei=Dr2jS77YBYrqlQSn2qT2Bw&cd=4#v=onepage&q=rupaya&f=false

 * Some of the entries containing the representation rupaya

 * pp 161 - Currency, n. 2. sikka; chalta rupaya

 * pp 220 - dry-money, naqd rupaya, khalis rupaya

 * pp 234 - Earnest, n hundi ka rupaya

 * pp 413 - Money, n, rupaya; rupaya paisa

 * and on and on. The one entry for rupiya was actually bahu-rupiya which is obviously a red herring.

 * In short, if the original is written as रुपिया, by all means spell it as rupiya, however, if the source is रुपया the only way to put it in the Roman alphabet is rupaya. No two ways about it.

 * As for the other references, I do not attach any credence to Spink, their catalogs/publications often contain mistakes. As for the other references, please provide direct links, as I do not have the print versions and the search didn't yield any of references you mention (note however, that none of them even in your own notes mention rupiya).Bmurthy (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Dude, you can search inside a book from the google books link (usually a box on the left hand side). Just try it for http://books.google.com/books?id=H1LzD8-iipgC or http://books.google.com/books?id=nKaZmX9hdMkC or http://books.google.com/books?id=pntjAAAAMAAJ or http://books.google.com/books?id=ICylixhKK4QC - I can find many more. Like I said, rupiya and rupya are correct. You can find rupaya too - many people make this mistake when transcribing Hindi in Devnagri to Roman, because that is what the lettering would show. Just like people write Palatu. It's a milder form of someone writing 'cough' as कग़ or कघ. Looks stupid but you can understand why it would happen. The mistake is milder because Hindi speakers would still understand the word spoken erroneously that way if accompanied by proper context. They would immediately know you are a non-native speaker though. On your examples - जया/जिया, पयाम/पिया, हया/हिया, नया/नियाज़ - they are GREAT examples because they illustrate the precise linguistic reason why the 'i' comes in the first place. Your examples are looking at consonant+vowel followed by 'y', which makes it easy for the vowel+'y' to be pronounced. The soft 'i' gets introduced for ease of pronouncing it after a pure consonant. Note that 'z' in zyaadaa, 'p' in rupyaa (< रूप्य, the actual Sanskrit word from which rupiya is descended), 'p' in pyaadaa are consonants only. If it was jya instead of jaya, Hindi speakers would say jiya (with a soft 'i'), e.g. rajya sabha is pronounced rajya or rajiya, never rajaya. The original error in convention was to spell it as रुपया when the Sanskrit was रूप्य. If Rajya had been spelled as राजय instead of राज्य, Hindi-speakers would still say rajya or rajia/rajiya (c.f. rupya and rupia/rupiya) and you would be here insisting that Hindi-speakers say rajaya. Similarly, नया is naya but if न्याय had been rendered नयाय in Nagri for Hindi, it would still be pronounced Nyaya or Niyaya. Convention has caused the letter rendering to vary from native speaker pronunciation. Maybe if the Sanskrit word had been रुपय instead of रूप्य, Hindi-Urdu speakers would be saying rupaya today. It wasn't, and they aren't. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * When shown examples, you just seem to change your argument:). Let's see, if what you say is correct, then we wouldn't have separate words for क्या and किया, although in Urdu both are written identically. Everyone who is conversant in Hindi knows the correct way to pronounce these two. However, according to you at least one of them would be redundant. What rule of pronunciation would you invoke to prove that these two are same words and that they should be pronounced identically?

 * You see, the problem is once again, what I mentioned very early in the thread, those used to the Urdu spelling sometimes tend to pronounce the words ambiguously, e.g. iman for the raga yaman when a person who has seen the word in Devanagari will never make that mistake. I wonder if you will insist that it should be iman instead!! As for your other examples, I would never insist that राज्य be pronounced rajaya, for the simple reason that it is not, however, I will not accept either that it be pronounced as rajiya either since, it is not written that way. Coming back to the issue at hand, once again न्याय is nyaaya and not nayaay which would have to be written नयाय and certainly not niyaaya, which would have to be written नियाय. The confusion only occurs for people who have encountered the word through the Urdu script and do not know the correct pronunciation. Let me give you a different example, هندوستان can be pronounced Hindustan or Hindostan, but हिन्दुस्तान is Hindustan and हिन्दोस्तान is Hindostan. Why, because, Devanagari has the ability to represent the sounds differently, and in some cases the Urdu script doesn't. Just like رپيا is rupaya/rupiya but रुपया is rupaya.

 * Your only argument seems to be "trust me I know", but you do not support your arguments with any references, nor are you able to refute any examples? I have provided you with both written and spoken examples and shown you the distinction that exists in different scenarios. Provide me explicit references which say 1) that the letter य has an i sound, not 2) रुपया is pronounced is rupiya. You have provided neither, all you have shown is that there is a pronunciation rupiya for the word when the word is written رپيا/रुपिया, which I have no quarrel with. However, since the official spelling on all legal tender is रुपया and not रुपिया, there is absolutely no recourse but to spell it rupaya and not rupiya. If you want to create a separate entry for रुपिया specifying that there exists an alternate informal spelling and pronunciation go ahead and create with the stipulation that it is an informal/colloquial alternative, I would have no quarrel. Bmurthy (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * My argument is emphatically not "trust me I know". I have provided several credible sources that say it is rupiya. Unless you can provide sources that explicitly say it is not rupiya, you cannot change it. Script and language are two different things. Hindustani - the actual source language of which Standard Hindi and Urdu are registers - can be rendered in ANY script - Nagri, Perso-Arabic, Roman. The script does NOT dictate how a word is pronounced. Answer a blunt question: how do you pronounce पालतू? If you say Palatu, you are totally wrong and you know it. Hindi-Urdu speakers do not say rupaya. Only people who are non-natives do that because they also say things like palatu. BTW it isn't just Hindi. This is the pronunciation in all North Indian & Pakistani languages - Punjabi, Kashmiri, etc. This isn't colloquial. This is the correct pronunciation. I don't think you are a native speaker and you seem to be approaching this from a Devnagri-centric rather than Hindi-centric perspective. From your "alien to Hindi" perspective (no disrespect meant), I can understand the elementary mistake you are making. Again, feel free to create a Devnagri entry and be a purist about it. That's like someone insisting that cough is pronounced cugg-H in English because that is what the letters indicate. Hindi has several non-phonetic standardizations (including systematically missing halants, which is what this is a special case of too). How do you pronounce अनजान? According to you it would be anajaana, which would be totally wrong (actually sounds like many non-native speakers would mispronounce it). It is anjaan. Why? Because the standardization varies from Sanskritic Nagri use. It should be अन्जान् but that is NOT how it got standardized. I have given you a good book that explains how this process happens. Your Nagri dogmatism is all fine and dandy, but is isn't okay to put patently wrong content into an encyclopedia. Spanish uses Roman in a much more phonetic way than English, and Spanish-speakers will sometimes say "buku-et" for "bouquet." But English bends the phoneticism, just like Hindi does. The script doesn't dictate English pronunciation, the language does. The script tries to render it. Same with Hindi and Devnagri. Hindi/Hindvi/Hindustani was first composed into literature by Amir Khusro in Perso-Arabic, remember. Nagri was adapted to it afterwards. In North India, even Sanskrit was generally not written in Nagari in most of the land. That is all within the last 300 years or so. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 * While I paraphrased and implied, your stand was pretty close to "trust me, I am right". Here is an example from an earlier response by you

 * "I can produce a number of refs that say rupiya, and I am sure there are plenty that say rupaya (incorrectly)"

 * However, the only reference which explicitly has the corresponding roman representations of different Hindi spellings was provided by me, which you conveniently ignored, here it is again

 * H رپيا रुपया rupayā, रुपिया rupiyā, rupyā, रुपीया rupīyā, रुपैया rupaiyā [Prk. रुप्पअं; S. रूप्यकं], s.m. A rupee (the silver coin so called); coin, cash, money, wealth (in Urdū the word is frequently written روپيا rupayā; but the و is inserted merely to indicate that the vowel of ر is u. (here is the link http://dsal1.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:3404.platts)

 * Are you saying that the above reference is not credible? You have provided a few references which spell the word rupiya in Roman but without the source spelling. Yet, even more of your references spell the word as rupya than rupiya, including one which actually has more instances of rupaya than rupiya.

 * However, let me take up the issue which according to you is the crux of the matter here, especially since you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about where I come from:). You say that pronunciation often differs from the written word in Hindi/Urdu. You are right, a language can be rendered using any script and often different scripts have different issues, so much so that sometimes a language may never be fully or accurately represented by the chosen script. I have no issue with this. Having said that, Hindi and Devanagari (Devnagri, if you please) have a pretty tight phonetic relationship, the Perso-Arabic script much less so, but still quite close. Roman alphabet is at the other end of the spectrum with respect to English, but using the conventions by Hindi/Urdu speakers much closer, although significant problems remain. I believe this is where our agreements end, and our differences are more in the specifics of the exceptions, especially with Hindi's relationship to Devanagari. And let us keep this to Hindi/Urdu Devanagari/Urdu scripts.

 * Where the spoken word differs is largely in how the neutral अ is pronounced. At the end of a syllable, it is typically not pronounced, like aanbaan or anjaan or yes paaltu; but there are variations, e.g. while someone with Panjabi background may pronounce अनुपमा as anupmaa, someone from a different Hindi speaking region of India would pronounce it anupamaa. No one can insist that the latter be written as anupma (some may choose to, but that's beside the point). The same vowel sometimes also has a more Persian like pronunciation, e.g. बहन, लहर, कह, सह, शय, जय etc which are pronounced behen/behan, leher/lehar, keh, seh, shey, jey etc. The vowel here sounds more like the Bangla e sounds but different from the normal Hindi e sound. Having said that, there are no cases where the vowel has an i sound and there are no variations in how any consonant is pronounced. There are no exceptions in case of any other vowel or a consonant. You may argue about श and ष, but that is just muddling the issue. Just because a good portion of the population cannot distinguish among the letter pairs isn't a good enough reason to say they are one and the same. Would you stipulate that फिर and फ़िर are same just because a lot of people pronounce the former like the latter?

 * In any case, Hindi and Devanagari have a very tight phonetic relationship and there are no (except for the above cases) pronunciations based on the context, either by position of a letter in a word or by combination of letters. On the other hand, in Urdu script not only is there a much looser relationship between the written and the spoken, a letter is also not only written different based on its position, there are rules about how to pronounce how them in different positions, not to mention an ambiguity in pronunciation even when the spelling is same in two cases, e.g. kya and kiya (BTW, which you again completely ignored in your reply).

 * Once again, people conversant only with Urdu script often say rupiya, but the only correct way to pronounce रुपया is rupaya. Let me once again pose this question to you, show me a reference which says रुपया is pronounced rupiya, which means the reference must include both representations (I have already shown a reference to the contrary) and show me a reference which explicitly states that the letter य has an explicit i sound preceding it(please do not insist that the Urdu letter ye is same as devanagari ya, they are not). Until then, all your arguments are to nought. As I have said before, you are welcome to create an entry for रुपिया, however, रुपया must be spelt rupaya. The issue is not dogmatic, it is one of accuracy. Bmurthy (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I forgot to mention one thing earlier. Just because the majority uses a wrong construct is no the reason to include patently wrong usage in an encyclopedia (to paraphrase you). For example, if the word is قسم you would not spell it kasam just because a majority of the population pronounces it such. You have to put the most correct and accurate representation. Not that this is the issue with the word रुपया, just pointing out another fallacy in your argument. Bmurthy (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You say - "Hindi and Devanagari have a very tight phonetic relationship and there are no (except for the above cases) pronunciations based on the context, either by position of a letter in a word or by combination of letters." This is absolutely wrong. Much work has been written on schwa deletion in Hindi (of which the issue at hand is one example). There are clear instances when something that is spelled a given way in Devnagri is pronounced different ways in Hindi depending on context. One example (see paper at bit.ly/d7eKgA) is धड़कने which is pronounced dharkane aur dharakne depending on context. Dil धड़कने laga is Dil dharak.ne laga (heart started beating) while Dil ki धड़कने is Dil ki dhar.kane (beats of the heart; correction: there is a nasalization here, dharkanen, but the preceding sequence stays the same - the paper notes this). Another is नमक (pronounced namak) vs नमकीन (pronounced nam.keen - the 'a' in म is gone). Also (see paper at bit.ly/aRNOal), रचना is rachana in Sanskrit but rach.na in Hindi. This is all quite important because it complicates text-to-speech efforts and also makes it harder for Devnagri-Familiar yet Non-Native speakers to sound fluent/unaccented in Hindi. They need to unlearn something they have always taken for granted, like you do in this case. The entire core of your argument is this - "Because a Sanskritic Devnagri interpretation says something, it must also apply to Hindi." This contention is provably incorrect and I have proved it (many refs on Hindi phonology, including these two papers). Before we proceed any further, you really have to clarify your stance on this one basic fact which undermines your whole thesis about this so-called tight relationship between Hindi and Devnagri. How do you explain धड़कने being pronounced two different ways in Hindi depending on context? Do you admit that Hindi pronunciation varies from what you would expect in Nagri? If you do (and I don't see how you cannot), no number of lectures on "this is what the Nagri says, so this is what must be the pronunciation" are of any avail.

 * As far as sources are concerned, your own source lists rupiya as a legit Hindi alternative for rupee, does it not? It is also listing the Sanskritic Nagri transliterations. Why do you think these multiple renderings in Nagri exist? It is because रुपया is variant from the Sanskritic sense, but became convention. Native Hindi-speakers don't stumble here or care too much about this because schwa-deletion exists in Hindi and is used extensively, though it does make Nagri script usage non-phonetic. Would it make you happy if we just changed the Nagri spelling for Hindi to रुपिया and listed that as rupiya? That would be fine by me, as long as rupaya isn't listed as a Hindi pronunciation, simply because it is wrong. Also, you said "You may argue about श and ष, but that is just muddling the issue. Just because a good portion of the population cannot distinguish among the letter pairs" - this is just plain wrong. There is no difference in Hindi pronunciation between श and ष - it's got nothing to do with good portion of the population (this "percentage of population" stuff is your concoction, not mine). This, again, is a typical error that results from assuming Skt rules in Nagri apply to Hindi unchanged. They don't. From bit.ly/cpz9UJ, "The retroflex sibilant ष has lost its identity in modern Hindi and is invariably pronounced as the palatal sibilant श."

 * The -ya -> -ia/-iya transition is actually pretty old in the OldIndoAryan->MiddleIndoAryan evolution. From "A grammar of the Hindi language" (bit.ly/ac7tYx) - "The termination ya in Prakrit became ia, whence, eg, from Sk chalya, Pr chalia". From "Historical grammar of Apabhraṁśa" (bit.ly/a0Uv1e) - "According to Pischel -i, -ia (and its WSAp. cognates -iu, -iya (-ya [consonant]+ia/ya. However, as I have said before, BOTH pronunciations co-exist in standard speech, and I am fine with either one. However, Namakeen and Palatu are wrong. Just as कुरसी is kursi (wrong: kurasi). You consistently dodge these obvious examples BTW. Again, answer this direct question: are you claiming that नमकीन is namakeen and पालतू is palatu for Hindi-speakers? Look at your own statement - "'Where the spoken word differs is largely in how the neutral अ is pronounced. At the end of a syllable, it is typically not pronounced." रुप in रुपया is a syllable, i.e. you yourself are saying it should be rupya. If Rupya works for you, I'd be fine to change both Hindi and Urdu to Rupya. روپيا is consistent with that. This reference - bit.ly/aDJnaw - specifically talks about the rule with rupya as a specific example along with रुपया in Nagri. Works for you? --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * [Addition] By the way, there are Arabic-centered purists (just as there are Sanskritic Devnagri-centered purists) who insist that ض (as in رمضان) should be pronounced 'dh' because in Arabic ض and ز are different. However, not in Urdu-Hindi, they are *not*. رمضان is Ramzaan in Urdu and Hindi, not Ramadhaan. It's a good analogy to the श and ष situation. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * [Addition2] Realized I didn't address - "we wouldn't have separate words for क्या and किया, although in Urdu both are written identically". The fact they're written identically in Urdu is irrelevant. This (same sequence of letters being pronounced differently) could happen in any non-fully-phonetic script, including Nagri as used by Hindi (धड़कने, dharakne or dharkane - note these words are different but are written similarly in Hindi-Nagri where Roman would write them distinctly). क्या is, in fact, interchangeably pronounced two different ways by native Hindi speakers - kya and kɨya (I will use ɨ to denote the 'soft i' sound - found it in the IPA list). किया is pronounced kiya. In everyday speech, these can, in fact, collide - but rarely so due to additional context. क्या usually accompanies a questioning tone, while किया is more a statement. However, if only one word is used as a question - "क्या? kɨya (what?)" versus "किया? kiya (did you do it?)", they can (and do) cause confusion. You're unfamiliar with this, clearly, and I'd like to give you an analogy (for -ya <-> -ɨya), but can't think of anything exact. Maybe the situation with 'v' and 'w' in Hindi? Both sounds exist in Hindi-Urdu and native Hindi speakers use both, but use them as allophones (see: bit.ly/aSmraY - Implications of Hindi Prosodic Structure). The same Hindi speaker will pronounce इतवार as 'itvar' one minute and 'itwar' the next. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * [Addition 3] Thought you'd get a chuckle out of this. Just google "taja mahala" or "kitaba book hindi" or "uttara pradesha" or "kanapura" or "kurasi chair" or "namakina salty". You'll agree all these are wrong pronunciations, correct? Yet see how many people transliterate it this way. They're all basically complying with Devnagri. They are correct Sanskritically for Nagri, but are all wrong for Hindi. Just like all the times "rupaya" shows up. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Rupee
I have edited and moved the information regarding the new symbol for Indian rupee from the top of the intro page to under the 'Indian Rupee' section. The intro should be about the definition and other such facts. --ifesvr (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rupee
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rupee's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Redy": From History of the rupee:  From Indian rupee:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rupee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100711053911/http://finmin.nic.in:80/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/infrastructure_div/message_symbol_final.asp to http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/infrastructure_div/message_symbol_final.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100627235834/http://ptinews.com:80/news/740593_Cabinet-defers-decision-on-rupee-symbol to http://www.ptinews.com/news/740593_Cabinet-defers-decision-on-rupee-symbol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rupee. 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/20080516085855/http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html to http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516085855/http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html to http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html
 * Added tag to https://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html

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) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Refs to add

 * https://unicode.org/L2/L2009/09331-gujarati-rupee-sign-deprec.pdf
 * https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2010/10249r-n3862r-rupee.pdf

Abbreviation in Kannada
The table has Telugu రూ (ru) and Sinhala රු (ru), but Kannada ರ (ra). Should this be ರೂ (ru)? If I plug ರೂ into Google Translate, it gives me "Rs" as the English equivalent. Do they really use just ra in Kannada or is this a typo? Pelagic (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: split article to create a separate Rupee sign article
A large part of this article is taken up with a section on the symbol. Elsewhere we have Dollar sign, Euro sign, Yen sign, Indian rupee sign, Ruble sign and so on. So unless anyone objects, I would like to spin off the #Symbol section of the article into a new Rupee sign article, leaving just a and a short summary here. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As no objections have been raised in over a week, I will go ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Value section: column giving "value" (actually price) v US dollar
Is this column really worth having? It seems to me to contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE. It is always out of date. The individual articles each have a section giving links to forex rate sites if anybody wants to know. Does it have any useful purpose, or is it just yet another proxy for the India/Pakistan rivalry? Is there any convincing reason to keep it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

11.66 g, .917 fine silver)
11.66 g, .917 fine silver)

What the fuck does this mean?

Either the coin weighs 11.66 grams and the purity is 11/12, fine, that makes sense. Why not just say so?

OR the coin contains exactly 11.66917 g of pure silver but we don't know how much alloy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b730:5800:449e:676d:f348:8e41 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article fineness explains the meaning of standard usage like ".917 fine". Fractions like 11/12 are never used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reworded that sentence so that it now says: The original silver rupee (.917 fine silver, 11.66 g) was divided .... Does that hit the spot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rupee
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rupee's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rbi-c-mogul": From History of the rupee: Mughal Coinage at RBI Monetary Museum. Retrieved on 4 May 2008. From Indian rupee: Mogul Coinage at RBI Monetary Museum. Retrieved 4 May 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

European powers minting coins
"The European powers started minting coinage as early as mid-17th century, under patronage of Mughal Empire."

IIRC, coins were minted in Europe by the 4th millennium BCE (Crete, Minoan civilisation), and not by authority of the Mughal empire, which did not exist until the Middle Ages. If this sentence is meant to say that the European powers started minting coinage within the Mughal Empire under patronage, please explicitly say so as the sentence as it stands is misleading IMO. I don't right now have the time to chase down the sources on this matter, which is why I won't make the edit myself at this time, hoping somebody who does, will. Thanks. --Stizzleswick (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indian 10 Rupee 1858.jpg

title: Talk:Rupee


text:
Baron Sheffield

Baron Sheffield is a title that has been created four times: once in the Peerage of England, twice in the Peerage of Ireland, and once in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.

The first creation, as Baron Sheffield of Butterwick, was in the Peerage of England in 1547 for Edmund Sheffield (1521–1549), second cousin of Henry VIII, who was murdered in Norwich during Kett's Rebellion. His grandson, the 3rd Baron Sheffield, was created Earl of Mulgrave in 1626, and the 3rd Earl of Mulgrave was finally advanced to the dukedom of Buckingham and Normanby. In 1735, at the death of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Normanby, however, all of the titles became extinct since no heirs to them remained.

The next three creations were all in favour of one person, John Baker-Holroyd (1735–1821). In 1781, on the second creation of the title, he was made Baron Sheffield, of Dunnamore in the County of Meath in the Peerage of Ireland. This peerage was created with normal remainder to the heirs male of his body. Two years later, in 1783, John Baker-Holroyd obtained the third creation of the title when he was made Baron Sheffield, of Roscommon in the County of Roscommon, also in the Peerage of Ireland, with remainder, failing heirs male of his body, to the heirs male of his daughters from his first marriage. On the fourth creation of a Sheffield barony in 1802, John Baker-Holroyd was created Baron Sheffield, of Sheffield in the County of York, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. In 1816 the same John Baker-Holroyd was further made Earl of Sheffield and Viscount Pevensey in the Peerage of Ireland. The latter titles were all created with remainder to the heirs male of his body. He was succeeded by his son from his second marriage.

On the death in 1909 of the 3rd Earl of Sheffield, his earldom, the Pevensey viscountcy and the Sheffield baronies of 1781 and 1802 became extinct. However, he was succeeded in the Sheffield barony of 1783 according to special remainder by Edward Stanley, 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley, who was also 3rd Baron Eddisbury and now became 4th Baron Sheffield as well. The 4th Baron Sheffield was the grandson of Lady Maria Josepha Holroyd, daughter of the 1st Earl of Sheffield. These titles remain extant and united, see Baron Stanley of Alderley for further succession.

Barons Sheffield, First creation (1547)

 * Edmund Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield (1521–1549)
 * John Sheffield, 2nd Baron Sheffield (c. 1538–1568)
 * Edmund Sheffield, 3rd Baron Sheffield (c. 1564–1646), created Earl of Mulgrave in 1626

Barons Sheffield, Second and fourth creations (1781; 1802), Earls of Sheffield (1816)

 * John Baker-Holroyd, 1st Earl of Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield (1735–1821)
 * George Augustus Frederick Charles Holroyd, 2nd Earl of Sheffield, 2nd Baron Sheffield (1802–1876)
 * Fredrick Henry Stuart Holroyd, Viscount Pevensey (1827–1829)
 * Henry North Holroyd, 3rd Earl of Sheffield, 3rd Baron Sheffield (1832–1909)

Barons Sheffield, Third creation (1783)

 * John Baker-Holroyd, 1st Earl of Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield (1735–1821)
 * George Augustus Frederick Charles Holroyd, 2nd Earl of Sheffield, 2nd Baron Sheffield (1802–1876)
 * Henry North Holroyd, 3rd Earl of Sheffield, 3rd Baron Sheffield (1832–1909)
 * Edward Lyulph Stanley, 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 3rd Baron Eddisbury, 4th Baron Sheffield (1839–1925) (known as Lord Sheffield )
 * Arthur Lyulph Stanley, 5th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 4th Baron Eddisbury, 5th Baron Sheffield (1875–1931) (known as Lord Stanley )
 * Edward John Stanley, 6th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 5th Baron Eddisbury, 6th Baron Sheffield (1907–1971) (known as Lord Stanley)
 * Lyulph Henry Victor Owen Stanley, 7th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 6th Baron Eddisbury, 7th Baron Sheffield (1915–1971) (known as Lord Sheffield)
 * Thomas Henry Oliver Stanley, 8th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 7th Baron Eddisbury, 8th Baron Sheffield (1927–2013) (known as Lord Stanley)
 * Richard Oliver Stanley 9th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 8th Baron Eddisbury and 9th Baron Sheffield (born 1956)

The heir presumptive is the present holder's brother Hon. Charles Ernest Stanley (born 1960), who has three daughters. The next in line to the peerages is his brother Hon. Harry John Stanley (born 1963), whose heir is his only son Bertram Thomas Zulfikar Stanley (born 2007).

title: Baron Sheffield


text:
Baron Stanley of Alderley

Baron Stanley of Alderley, in the County of Chester, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1839 for the politician and landowner Sir John Stanley, 7th Baronet.

History
When the 1st Baron died in 1850, he was succeeded as 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley and 8th Baronet of Alderley Hall by his son Edward, who was a prominent Liberal politician and notably served as President of the Board of Trade, Postmaster General and had in 1848 been created Baron Eddisbury, of Winnington in the County Palatine of Chester, in his own right. His wife Henrietta was a prominent campaigner for women's education. After his death, the Stanley of Alderley and Eddisbury baronies remained united; most holders have since chosen to be known as Lord Stanley of Alderley. The 3rd Baron Stanley of Alderley had a career in the Diplomatic Service; as he was childless he was succeeded by his younger brother, the 4th Baron. He was liberal member of parliament for Oldham. In 1909, the 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley acquired a further title when he succeeded his first cousin once removed, the Earl of Sheffield, according to a special remainder and thus inherited the title of 4th Baron Sheffield. After his death the titles passed to his son, the 5th Baron Stanley of Alderley. He was Liberal Member of Parliament for Eddisbury and also served as Governor of Victoria. His eldest son, the 6th Baron Stanley of Alderley, sold the family seat of Alderley Hall in 1938. He was married four times, the second time to Sylvia Ashley. On his death the titles passed to his younger brother, who preferred to be known as Lord Sheffield. He only held the titles for three months. the titles are held by the latter's cousin, the 9th Baron Stanley of Alderley, who succeeded his father in that year. He is the grandson of Oliver Hugh Stanley, youngest son of the 4th Baron.

The Stanley baronetcy, of Alderley Hall in the County of Chester, was created in the Baronetage of England in 1660 for the barrister Thomas Stanley. He was a descendant of Sir John Stanley, third son of Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley (whose eldest son was created Earl of Derby in 1485). He was succeeded by his son, the second Baronet. He was High Sheriff of Cheshire in 1678. His great-grandson, the sixth Baronet, was a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber. His eldest son was the seventh Baronet, who was elevated to the peerage in 1839. See above for further succession.

The Right Reverend Edward Stanley, second son of the sixth Baronet, was Bishop of Norwich. Venetia Stanley was the youngest daughter of the fourth Baron.

The traditional burial place of the Lords Stanley of Alderley was the Stanley Mausoleum in the churchyard of St Mary, Nether Alderley, Cheshire, built in 1909. The building now belongs to the parish council. The London house of the Stanley family at 40 Dover Street was purchased by The Arts Club, a club for gentlemen interested in the arts, in 1896. It remains there to this day.

The family seat now is Rectory Farm, near Stanton St. John, Oxfordshire.

Stanley baronets, of Alderley Hall (1660)

 * Sir Thomas Stanley, 1st Baronet (1597–1672)
 * Sir Peter Stanley, 2nd Baronet (1626–1683)
 * Sir Thomas Stanley, 3rd Baronet (1652–1721)
 * Sir James Stanley, 4th Baronet (died 1747)
 * Sir Edward Stanley, 5th Baronet (died 1755)
 * Sir John Thomas Stanley, 6th Baronet (1735–1807)
 * Sir John Thomas Stanley, 7th Baronet (1766–1850) (created Baron Stanley of Alderley in 1839)

Baron Stanley of Alderley (1839)

 * John Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley of Alderley (1766–1850)
 * Edward John Stanley, 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley (1802–1869) (created Baron Eddisbury in 1848)
 * Henry Edward John Stanley, 3rd Baron Stanley of Alderley and 2nd Baron Eddisbury (1827–1903)
 * Edward Lyulph Stanley, 4th Baron Sheffield, 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 3rd Baron Eddisbury (1839–1925) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Arthur Lyulph Stanley, 5th Baron Sheffield, 5th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 4th Baron Eddisbury (1875–1931) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Edward John Stanley, 6th Baron Sheffield, 6th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 5th Baron Eddisbury (1907–1971) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Lyulph Henry Victor Owen Stanley, 7th Baron Sheffield, 7th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 6th Baron Eddisbury (1915–1971) (known as Lord Sheffield)
 * Thomas Henry Oliver Stanley, 8th Baron Sheffield, 8th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 7th Baron Eddisbury (1927–2013) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Richard Oliver Stanley 9th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 8th Baron Eddisbury and 9th Baron Sheffield (born 1956)

The heir presumptive is the present holder's brother Hon. Charles Ernest Stanley (born 1960), who has three daughters. The next in line to the peerages is his brother Hon. Harry John Stanley (born 1963), whose heir is his only son Bertram Thomas Zulfikar Stanley (born 2007).

title: Baron Stanley of Alderley


text:
Grammy Award for Best Historical Album

The Grammy Award for Best Historical Album has been presented since 1979 and recognizes achievements in audio restoration. Since this category's creation, the award had several minor name changes:

 * In 1979 the award was known as Best Historical Repackage Album
 * In 1980 it was awarded as Best Historical Reissue
 * In 1981 it was awarded as Best Historical Reissue Album
 * From 1982 to the present it has been awarded as Best Historical Album

Years reflect the year in which the Grammy Awards were presented, for works released in the previous year. The award is presented to individuals responsible for compiling and engineering the winning album. The roles of these individuals have changed over time:

 * From 1979 to 1993 the award was given to the Producer(s)
 * From 1994 to 1995 it was awarded to the Compilation Producer(s)
 * In 1996 it was awarded to the Art Director, Compilation Producer, Mastering Engineers, and/or Album Notes Writers
 * From 1997 to 2018 it was awarded to the Compilation Producer(s) and/or Mastering Engineer(s)
 * Since 2019 it has been awarded to the Compilation Producer(s), Mastering Engineer(s) and/or Restoration Engineer(s).

The award does not go to the artists, unless an artist is also a compilation producer and/or mastering engineer.

title: Grammy Award for Best Historical Album


text:
Baron Eddisbury

Baron Eddisbury, of Winnington in the County Palatine of Chester, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 12 May 1848 for the Whig politician and diplomat Edward Stanley (1802–1869), son of the politician Sir John Stanley, 7th Baronet.

Edward Stanley started his career in 1831 as Whig member of the House of Commons before holding various cabinet posts under Prime Ministers Lord Melbourne, Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston. He became a member of the Privy Council in 1841, was created Baron Eddisbury in 1848 and served as Postmaster-General from 1860 to 1866.

In 1839, Lord Eddisbury's father Sir John Stanley, 7th Baronet, had been raised to the peerage as Baron Stanley of Alderley. Upon his death in 1850, his barony and the Stanley Baronetcy passed to Lord Eddisbury, who thereby became 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley and 8th Baronet of Alderley Hall. These titles have remained united since; most holders have chosen to be known as Lord Stanley of Alderley. In 1909, Edward Stanley, the 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley and 3rd Baron Eddisbury, acquired a further title for the Stanley family when he succeeded his first cousin once removed, the 3rd Earl of Sheffield, according to a special remainder and thus inherited the title of 4th Baron Sheffield.

Barons Eddisbury (1848)

 * Edward John Stanley, 1st Baron Eddisbury, 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley (1802–1869)
 * Henry Edward John Stanley, 2nd Baron Eddisbury, 3rd Baron Stanley of Alderley (1827–1903)
 * Edward Lyulph Stanley, 3rd Baron Eddisbury, 4th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 4th Baron Sheffield (1839–1925) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Arthur Lyulph Stanley, 4th Baron Eddisbury, 5th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 5th Baron Sheffield (1875–1931) (known as Lord Sheffield)
 * Edward John Stanley, 5th Baron Eddisbury, 6th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 6th Baron Sheffield (1907–1971) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Lyulph Henry Victor Owen Stanley, 6th Baron Eddisbury, 7th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 7th Baron Sheffield (1915–1971) (known as Lord Sheffield)
 * Thomas Henry Oliver Stanley, 7th Baron Eddisbury, 8th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 8th Baron Sheffield (1927–2013) (known as Lord Stanley of Alderley)
 * Richard Oliver Stanley, 8th Baron Eddisbury, 9th Baron Stanley of Alderley, 9th Baron Sheffield (b. 1956)

The heir presumptive is the present holder's brother Hon. Charles Ernest Stanley (b. 1960).

title: Baron Eddisbury