text:
Talk:Allan R. Bomhard

Rationale for moving this page
This doesn't seem like an article at all, it's merely a list of publications. Even IF it could have grown to be a proper article, this list is far too long and would have made it unreadable. Maroux 11:50, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Moving the page discourages the creation of an article on the person (since it leaves a redirect). If a bio were made, then this info would belong there. Moved back. --Jiang 22:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"List of publication by Allan R. Bomhard" is also ungrammatical. --Jiang

Vigorous Objection
Why I object to the term “fringe theory” when applied to MY WORK on Nostratic as well is to the recent changes to my biographical entry: 1.	My work has been published by respected academic publishers, including John Benjamins, Walter de Gruyter, and E. J. Brill. One of my books on the subject has even been included in the prestigious “Leiden Dictionary Series” published by E. J. Brill.

2.	ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication.

3.	ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč.

4.	My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School” (Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky). Moreover, my work is also far more comprehensive, dealing with phonology, morphology, and lexicon as well as homelands, including the latest findings in multiple, interrelated disciplines.

5.	Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals. Those reviews have been mixed — some have been positive, and some have been critical. I have taken those reviews, as well as private feedback from colleagues and peer reviewers, into consideration when preparing updated versions of my work. I have attempted to address all of the criticism received in the revised versions.

6.	I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality.

7.	The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč, almost exclusively from a handful of Russian scholars. However, by their own admission, they have an agenda, namely, promoting the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč at all costs.

8.	I have dealt decisively with those Russian scholars who defend the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč in a 192-page review (originally prepared in 2021, updated on 12 August 2023) of Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic Dictionary. That review is available for free download from academia.edu and Researchgate.

9.	My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies. That work has been favorably cited in publications by numerous reputable scholars. A list of my publications is available for free download from academia.edu.

10.	Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories". Arbomhard (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC) (10th pt added 20:00)

 * Let me attempt to break this down one by one

 * My work has been published by respected academic publishers

 * I understand that, and those sources are mentioned on Wikipedia. That said, that does not make them accepted theories, merely published ones. Please see WP:PARITY. One book published with Brill does not override the majority of historical linguistis on this topic, and there are an abundance of citations to that effect. I mean no disrespect with this, and clearly you've put an enormous amount of effort into this work, but Mass Comparison is not an accepted technique for determining familial relationships in linguistics.

 * ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication.

 * Mere publication does not meet the standard for inclusion. We need to treat published sources with due weight (see WP:UNDUE) and just because a theory is published in peer review does not mean it's accepted.

 * ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč.

 * That the objections weren't specifically directed at you doesn't mean that they don't apply to your approach to the theory. Of course, it doesn't mean they do, but you need to provide peer reviewed evidence that they're more accepted. Do so, and I think you'd find that none of us would have too strong an issue including it in the article, though we're not going to treat an extreme minority perspective as co-equal with the majority of linguists. Again, WP:PARITY.

 * My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School”....

 * If your theories have merit I'm certain you can provide outside scholarship accepting them more widely in linguistics. I do not intend this as a personal attack, I just merely think you're overweighting the value of publication relative to the wider acceptance of what is published. Your particular take on Nostratic is no more accepted than any other, it's merely different, as I understand it. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm open to reading sources to that effect. I want to build a good encyclopedic article, not attack you.

 * Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals...

 * Wikipedia is not the place to make that case (or for me to criticize it). See WP:ADVOCACY.

 * I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality.

 * Publishing is not a popularity contest, and yes, fringe theories often are quite popular.

 * The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of...

 * "All my detractors have an agenda" is absolutely the language of fringe theory. You're discounting the general wide rejection of the theory within historical linguists. Again, none of us here have any issue with working with you to include verifiable and more widely accepted material, or even to discuss material that's been discussed more widely in linguistics circles. We're just asking you to provide sources for your statements prior to their inclusion. In the past your editing history appears to almost exclusively be to introduce your own written content into the theories in question, which isn't kosher here.

 * My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies.

 * That seems like the sort of thing that probably should be included in the article about you. If you'd provide some sources for us I'm sure I and a few other editors will make an effort to include them. Note that your prior attempts to edit out the comments about people being critical of your work won't fly; we're working on an encyclopedia article, not writing a puff piece (or an attack article, to be clear).

 * Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories".

 * This is a non sequitur, people less credible than yourself are invited to give talks all the time.

 * Again, none of us are setting out to create an attack article, and I appreciate the enormous amount of time that went into creating your work. That said, just because it's a passion project for you and represents a significant and respectable intellectual effort, does not mean it warrants being treated as more credible than it is viewed by the larger linguistics community. Nobody here is trying to be disrespectful or setting out to editorialize the understanding of Nostratic that exists per your papers, but you cannot expect Wikipedia to reflect your preferred version of this topic when the wider community disagrees. If you have specific edits you'd like to see, again, I suggest you provide sourced arguments (keeping WP:RS and WP:PARITY in mind) and other editors will work to discuss their inclusion. You may also enjoy engaging with the Linguistics Wikiproject on this topic, rather than the talk page of this article, as more people will be able to see it. Warrenmck (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Warren: Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about and come across as antagonistic, even belligerent.  I NEVER requested or even expected that my "preferred version of this topic" be the only point of view presented.  That is a blatant misrepresentation!  What I expect is that the obvious bias and disorganization in the current entry on Nostratic be removed.  What I actually requested was that the original entry be restored (see "talk" under "Nostratic") due to the inaccuracies in the current version -- I did not specify what the inaccuracies were.  To return to the current entry, please, either restore the original biographical entry or remove it altogether.  Thank you.  On another note, thank you for the invitation to engage with the Wikipedia team.  I respectfully decline -- I prefer to spend my time doing research and writing on topics that are of interest to me.  2603:6080:7200:BD6D:1A7:93EE:D464:C481 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Observation
From reading the comments of Wikipedia contributors, both in relation to my biographical entry as well as the entry on Nostratic, it is clear that several of these contributors are not familiar with the most recent scholarship across several fields. For example, Altaic/Transeurasian is hardly a dead or rejected field. It has recently received new attention on the part of several reputable scholars. "Contoversial" perhaps, but hardly a "fringe theory". And so on, and so forth in other areas. This makes me question the credentials of some Wikipedia contributors and whether they are really entitled to the opinions they are so confidently expressing. Arbomhard (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore original entry
Please, either RESTORE the original entry (see the following) or DELETE it altogether. Thank you.

Allan R. Bomhard (born 1943 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American linguist. He was educated at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Hunter College, and the City University of New York, and served in the U.S. Army from 1964—1966. He currently resides in Florence, SC. He has studied the controversial hypotheses about the underlying unity among the proposed Nostratic and Eurasiatic language families. He has published nearly 100 articles and 19 books on comparative-historical linguistics, as well as a number of books/booklets on Buddhism. 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:1A7:93EE:D464:C481 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Without proper sources for the claims in the proposed paragraph, it cannot be included, because of our strict policy on basing all claims in biographies of living people on published sources. In particular the description of Bomhard's education, Army service, and residence have already been removed from the article for exactly that reason and cannot be restored without sources.
 * Also, in no sense is that the original version of this article. The original version of this article, in 2004, was an indiscriminate listing of publications without any context or sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * David: I did a copy and paste from an earlier version of my biographical entry and changed "Charleston" to "Florence" and updated the number of books and articles -- that is all. This is ridiculous and inssulting -- you cannot possibly think I do not know where I live or when and where I was born. What sources could you possibly require -- college transcripts? Military records? Proof of address? List of publications? Birth certificate? I have made many of my publications (both books and articles) available for free download on academia.edu and Researchgate.  Pictures from my military service are on Facebook plus my diploma from the Army Intelligence School at Ft. Holabird, MD. as well as the certificate of appreciation for my service in Vietnam.  My life is an open book, and you are welcome to check for yourself -- much of it is already on the Internet.  The current version of my biographical entry is biased and inaccurate.  Please, either restore the EARLIER version (as corrected), or delete it altogether.  Moreover, please do NOT remove Warren's comments.  He has totally embarrassed himself, and I want his comments there for the whole world to see.  Thanks.  Allan 24.211.74.172 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you when you state this history. But my believing you is not sufficient. For this kind of content, Wikipedia rules demand published sources, not merely good faith in the honesty of semi-anonymous contributors. I'm sure you can imagine the kinds of abuses that have happened on other biographies to produce the recognition that such rules are necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

David: That is, indeed, a valid point. Fortunately, I have the required credentials, and, as I said, they are freely available on the Internet for the world to see. Check amazon.com, for example, and you will see several of my books listed for sale. Check E. J. Brill, and you will see one of my books there. Do a Google search on my name. Please state what PROOFS you require -- I am sure I have them all. I am a well-established researcher, with publications going back to 1973. Do you need copies? You can download them, or I can supply them. This is hardly even a challenge. What do you actually need, and how can I get it too you? Allan. PS: David: There is no need to disagree here. Do not take my word on any of this. Please take the time to check the Internet yourself and verify that what I am saying is true -- everything you could possibly need is and has long been in the public domain. Thus, it has absolutely nothing to do with belief or trust -- instead, factual evidence is paramount. Thanks. Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

David: Thinking about what you wrote above, let us look at the history here. By your own admission, I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia since at least 2004. Once the entry was finalized, it remained pretty much the same for around two decades and then, for no apparent reason, it got changed recently to a distorted, biased entry. For nearly TWO DECADES, no one questioned my credentials or the contents of my Wikipedia biographical entry. Indeed, even in the distorted current version of the entry, several of my publications are listed. Thus, the current distorted entry, by itself, fully corroborates my credentials! Since both you and Warren have thrown up meaningless roadblocks to restoring the earlier version (with corrections), it appears to me that there is some sort of hidden agenda operating here, almost as though someone tried to pull a fast one, got caught, and is now trying to cover their backside. So, what is really going on? Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 * On the 2 decades thing, in 2004, WP:s rules were less strict. Over time, they have changed, but that doesn't mean content are updated quickly or at all, that require someone to notice and bother to do something about it. Finding "old stuff" that doesn't measure up is common. On todays WP, WP:BLP matters, and a WP-article about you is meant to be a summary of independent WP:RS about you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Let me be quite specific here. Replacing "old stuff" that "doesn't measure up" is absolutely a smokescreen for replacing a factual narrative with one's personal prejudices, personal opinions, biases, etc. Let me give a concrete example. The current version of my biographical entry includes the following statement: "The theory is widely rejected by mainstream linguists.[1][2] Among Nostratists [sic], he has been described as 'a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible' among far-flung languages not generally believed to be related." The appropriate reference is given (fortunately). However, when one checks this reference, one finds that the writer is not even a linguist, let alone anyone who has done original research on Nostratic. Thus, saying "The theory is widely rejected by mainstream linguists.[1][2] Among Nostratists, he has been described as...", using the given quotation as a justification for making that statement is a blatant misrepresentation! To make things even worse, the quotation is taken out of context. Here is what the author is referring to: "...he [Bomhard] is a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible: to the language families recognized as Nostratic by Pedersen, he adds Dravidian, the Kartvelian languages of the Caucasus (such as Georgian and Circassian), the Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages of eastern Siberia, and such long-extinct languages as Etruscan, which was spoken in central Italy, and Sumerian, whose homeland was southern Iraq." Even more interestingly, the author concludes: "A Nostraticist, I suppose, would scoff at such a possibility, or at least say, 'I am dealing with linguistic science. If you prefer to deal with imaginative fantasies based on religious texts, that’s your right, but don’t invoke me as your authority.; That’s fair enough. There are linguists who consider Nostratics an imaginative fantasy, too. I think they’re wrong, but I wouldn’t go so far as to swear on a Bible that the Bible had nothing to do with it." (italics mine). Thus, it appears that those who made the changes to my biographical entry were not really interested in replacing "old stuff" that "doesn't measure up" but, instead, in promoting their own distorted agenda -- the proof that this is, in fact, the case is there for all to see. Consequently, I come back to my uncompromising demand that the current biased, distorted, incomplete biographic entry be replaced by the earlier, factual entry (with corrections)! It is unambiguously the case that it is the current entry that "doesn't measure up". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Now, let us look at another example of bias in the current version of my biographical entry. The end of the entry includes a reference to a highly critical review of my work by the Russian scholars George Starostin, Mikhail Zhivlov, and Alexei Kassian. These authors are, to be sure, critical of my work on Nostratic. But, this presents a very one-sided (biased) picture. What is missing is a balanced approach that presents reviews that are supportive of my work. For exammple, here is what the late Russian (!) Semiticist Igor M. Diakonoff wrote about one of my books: "The computer-printed copy of the book which lies before me is probably the most important contribution to Nostratic linguistics to date. It includes a vocabulary of circa 650 Common Nostratic stems, i.e., stems present in all or some of the six linguistic families of the Nostratic macro family plus Sumerian; a new system of phonological reconstructions is suggested, and important new conclusions are presented. This is certainly an excellent work and is going to be a vademecum for all scholars interested in long-range comparisons." And what about the rather positive review of another one of my books on amazon.com? That review is at least as valid as the first one cited in my revised biographical entry. And so on, and so forth. As for the alleged shortcomings of my work on Nostratic identified by Starostin, Zhivlov, and Kassian, I have addressed and demolished their concerns in a rather lengthy (192 pages) review of Illich-Svitych's Nostratic Dictionary (2021; revised 12 October 2023) available for free download from academia.edu and ResearchGate. Inasmuch as the Wikipedia contributors who revised my biographical entry have only cited references that support their own agenda, their revisions present a biased, distorted, unbalanced account of my work. Thus, my biographical entry has gone from being a factual description to being a hatchet job. If this is allowed to stand, it reflects badly not only on those contributors, it also undermines the credibility of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You do not seem to be familiar with what I have asked to be RESTORED, so here, yet again, it is:

Allan R. Bomhard (born 1943 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American linguist. He was educated at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Hunter College, and the City University of New York, and served in the U.S. Army from 1964—1966. He currently resides in Florence, SC. He has studied the controversial hypotheses about the underlying unity among the proposed Nostratic and Eurasiatic language families. He has published nearly 100 articles and 19 books on comparative-historical linguistics, as well as a number of books/booklets on Buddhism.

I made two updates: (1) I currently live in Florence, SC, not Charleston, SC; and (2) I updated the statistics regarding the number of publications. As you can see, it is not a particularly long or complicated biographical entry, but it is accurate, and everything can be VERIFIED by information freely available on the Internet. "Old stuff" does not necessarily mean "inaccurate stuff" -- it did not require the changes that were made by the Wikipedia contributors.

Here are links to reliable source material:

E. J. Brill biographical description for Allan R. Bomhard is available at: https://brill.com/flyer/title/17810?print=pdf&pdfGenerator=headless_chrome

For a list of books and articles by Allan R. Bomhard published by John Benjamins, see: https://www.jbe-platform.com/search?value1=allan+r.+bomhard&option1=fulltext&pageSize=40

For information on the book published by Allan R. Bomhard by Mouton de Gruyter, see: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110875645/html

For a list of publications by Allan R. Bomhard, see: https://www.academia.edu/35820480/Publications_of_Allan_R_Bomhard_revised_20_June_2023_

For information on my military service, see: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151578007232713&set=pb.702682712.-2207520000&type=3 And: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151576986197713&type=3 And: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064771506242

For free downloads of some of my publications, see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Allan-Bomhard

Here is a link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica article in which the work of Allan R. Bomhard is mentioned: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nostratic-hypothesis#ref170079

Here is a link to the amazon.com page listing several of the books of Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Allan%20R.%20Bomhard/author/B001JOK448

Here are links to the Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages (2021). A short biographical sketch of Allan R. Bomhard is listed on p. xlv: https://academic.oup.com/book/41762?login=false https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Guide-Transeurasian-Languages/dp/0198804628

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article in which some recent work by Allan R. Bomhard is favorably discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_homeland

Here is a positive review of the work on Nostratic by Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.radikaliai.lt/radikaliai/4598-allan-r-bomhard

Just for fun, here is a link to the critical review of V. M. Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic Dictionary by Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.academia.edu/43591378/Bomhard_A_Critical_Review_of_Illi%C4%8D_Svity%C4%8Ds_Nostratic_Dictionary_revised_12_August_2023_

Here is a link to a review of volumes 1 & 2 alone: https://www.academia.edu/43318641/Bomhard_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Volumes_1_and_2_of_Illi%C4%8D_Svity%C4%8Ds_Nostratic_Dictionary_revised_29_December_2021_

Also, here is the peer review Allan R. Bomhard prepared at the request of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at Cambridge University (UK) of Aharon Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary: https://www.academia.edu/2210896/Bomhard_A_Critical_Review_of_Dolgopolskys_Nostratic_Dictionary_2008

Here is a link to a positive discussion of the work of Allan R. Bomhard on distant linguistic comparison (begins on p. 74): https://www.academia.edu/35292662/Hellas_Vuosaly_Latest_Horizon_in_Long_Range_Historical_Comparative_Linguistics_2016_

Here is a link to a positive review of one of the books on Nostratic by Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.amazon.com/Reconstructing-Proto-Nostratic-Vols-Indo-European-Etymological/dp/9004168532/ref=sr_1_6?crid=1ECSU7SWFK3W1&keywords=allan+r.+bomhard&qid=1696130066&sprefix=allan+r.+bomhard%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-6#customerReviews

Here is a link to a positive review by Igor M. Diakonoff of another of the books on Nostratic by Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.academia.edu/44512785/Igor_M_Diakonoff_Review_of_Bomhard_1995_Indo_European_and_the_Nostratic_Hypothesis

Here is a link to a positive review by Daniel McCall of the work of Allan R. Bomhard on Nostratic: https://www.academia.edu/39004969/Daniel_McCall_Review_of_Bomhard_1996_Indo_European_and_the_Nostratic_Hypothesis

Here is a very brief discussion by Edgar Polomé of the book by Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kerns on Nostratic: https://www.academia.edu/31058738/Edgar_Polom%C3%A9_Review_of_Bomhard_and_Kerns_1994_The_Nostratic_Macrofamily

Here is a rather long, positive review by Simonetta Pelusi of the work of Allan R. Bomhard on Nostratic: https://www.academia.edu/14299778/Simonetta_Pelusi_Review_of_Bomhard_2008_Reconstructing_Proto_Nostratic

Here are two links to the most recent book on Nostratic (5 volumes, 3,239 pp.) by Allan R. Bomhard: https://www.academia.edu/5901593/Bomhard_A_Comprehensive_Introduction_to_Nostratic_Comparative_Linguistics_5th_revised_corrected_and_expanded_edition_2023_revised_23_September_2023_5_volumes_3_239_pp_combined_into_a_single_PDF_

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323987149_A_Comprehensive_Introduction_to_Nostratic_Comparative_Linguistics_5th_edition_2023

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Facebook links and a sales flyer from a book publisher do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. And the only biographical information in the sales flyer is a list of three universities at which Bomhard was educated, but not what degrees he might have earned from them or when, making the relevance of this information difficult to ascertain. The biosketch in the OUP book might be usable but I cannot read it. The rest of the supposed sources do not look usable for anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

David: Thanks for the feedback. Please tell me what specific "reliable sources" you need and how I can get it to you (but see PSS below). I really am new at this and am trying my best to comply with Wikipedia's requirements. Please help me resolve this matter in a way that pleases everyone concerned. Moreover, I must admit that I do not react positively to being asked for "reliable sources" when the first reference given in the current version of my biographical entry is unequivocally not a "reliable resource" (see below for details). Thank you.

PS: Here is the biosketch from the OUP book: "Allan R. Bomhard is a retired linguist living in Florence, South Carolina, USA. His main areas of interest are distant linguistic relationship and comparative linguistics, though he has also made meaningful contributions to Afroaiatic and Transeurasin comparative linguistics. He has published over 80 articles and 14 books, with a concentration on Nostratic comparative linguistics -- his most recent work on this subject (2018) is the third edition of A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics, with special reference to Indo-European (4 volumes, 2,755 pages)." As a contributor, I have a PDF of the OUP book and would be happy to send you a copy (please let me know how) so that you can verify this for yourself.

PSS: I am very, very reluctant to upload such things as my birth certificate, college transcripts, diplomas, degrees, awards, records from my military service, and other personal or confidential information on this or any other public Internet forum. With the prevalence of identity theft and other criminal activity, this is simply not prudent. If it means that you (and the other contributors) are unwilling to accept that I know where and when I was born, for example, then so be it.

I have included the positive reviews of my work above on Nostratic for two reasons: (1) The current version of my biographic entry is clearly biased. Two references are given, both allegedly critical of my work on Nostratic. However, the first, which begins "Among Nostratists..." (this should be "Nostraticists"), is quoted out of context and is not really a critique at all. The author is not even a linguist, let alone a Nostraticist, and he does not claim to be either. When one reads the full article to the end, the author actually expresses his support for Nostratic. The second reference is to the critique of my work by Starostin, Kassian, and Zhivlov. These authors are, as claimed, critical of my work on Nostratic, especially Starostin, as was his father (the late Sergei Starostin) before him. However, they have an agenda, which I address in my review of volumes 1 & 2 of Illič-Svityč's Nostratic Dictionary, and that is why I have included it above. Finally, there are also several quite positive reviews of my work freely available on the Internet (also included above). Fairness requires that at least one of them be cited as well. (2) This has to do with the Wikipedia entry on Nostratic. The bias is clear in that I have published more on Nostratic than all of the others combined, and I am not even mentioned in the current version of the Nostratic entry. Finally, this is supposed to be a biographical entry. In my opinion, inasmuch as there is a separate Wikipedia entry on Nostratic, that is the proper place to discuss and assess my contribution to research on Nostratic. Thanks again.

David: Thinking about this situation, I believe that a compromise may be possible here after all. Instead of replacing my current Wikipedia biographic entry with the earlier version, as I previously requested, why not consider replacing it with one based upon the OUP biosketch? This gets around the objections that I have raised as well as the ones you have raised.

 * The biosketch was written by you as part of your book? Per WP:BLPSPS, that could probably be used for factual claims ("is a retired linguist living in Florence, South Carolina") but not evaluative claims ("has also made meaningful contributions"). We also cannot use its text directly; that would be a copyright violation. But I am confused about a point that maybe you could clarify. The biosketch writes "is a retired linguist", which strongly implies a retirement from a career as a professional linguist. Is that an accurate implication, or would we be misleading readers by suggesting that?
 * Similarly, in an article about a scholar, listing three universities at which that scholar has studied strongly implies earning a degree from each, typically a bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D., in the topic of the scholar's expertise. Is that an accurate implication, or would we be misleading readers by suggesting that?
 * In any case, replacing the article with a sanitized biosketch is not up for discussion. I thought we were discussing expanding the article by restoring some biographical detail. What justification do you have for removing all published criticism of your work? The existence of that criticism is what makes it possible to have an article at all; otherwise it would have been deleted in the last discussion.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

David: I have NEVER requested removing all criticism of my work!!! What I have repeatedly and clearly asked is that it be MOVED to the entry on Nostratic, stating "that is the proper place to discuss and assess my contribution to research on Nostratic". I have repeated ad nauseum that the current biographical entry is biased in that it ONLY includes criticism (by Starostin, Kassian, and Zhivlov) of my work but does NOT include positive (some very positive) reviews of my work, and I have provided links to where the supportive reviews can be found on the Internet -- concrete, reliably sourced material! Also, I did not ask that the current Wikipedia entry be REPLACED by the OUP biosketch. I said specifically that a new Wikipedia biographical entry be BASED UPON the OUP biosketch. For what it is worth, the OUP biosketch was finalized by Martine Robbeets, with full knowledge that, except for one time when I was asked to teach a course in Indo-European Comparative Linguistics at the College of Charleston, I did not earn my living in academia -- that fact has been widely known among linguistics colleagues going all the way back to the mid-1970s and has even been commented on in print. You also refer to the OUP book as "your book" -- it is not "my book". I was invited by the editors to contribute the chapter on Altaic/Transeurasian phonology, and as a preliminary, I was invited by the editors to speak on the subject at the Altaic/Transeurasian Workshop held at the Max Planck Institute in Jena, Germany, in January 2018, which I did (they paid all transportation, lodging, and food expenses). This invitation was based on previous, peer reviewed work I had published on the subject. I have offered to provide you (privately) documentation of my education and military service, but you have refused to tell me how to get it to you. As previously stated, I am NOT going to post any personal or confidential information on a public Internet site. You keep misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I have said, making disparaging comments, refusing to acknowledge the bias in the current version of the biographical entry (itself a violation of Wikipedia policy), and obstructing any kind of meaningful discussion or compromise, so, let's just delete the distorted, biased biographical entry from Wikipedia and be done with it, as was previously suggested by other contributors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:7200:bd6d:e14b:4c29:169d:cc65 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is in anyone's interest to continue this discussion further. Please permanently delete the current biographical entry from Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 * You are free to propose the article for deletion using the WP:AFD process, I think it unlikely to succeed however. Theroadislong (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Whatever we do, let's NOT nominate it for deletion. There have already been three previous deletion discussions, and there's no need to go through all that yet again right now...  Biographical Wikipedia articles have been deleted at the request of the article's subject a few times in the past, but more often they're not deleted, and there's no "right" to have an article about you be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will not pursue this matter further. Allan R. Bomhard. 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:E12F:5AFF:9E5C:EBE5 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Some content updates
I've tried making Bomhard's status as an independent scholar and his work on a fringe theory slightly clearer, though I'm not trying to downplay his contributions to the field. I (sincerely, is there a policy that applies here?) don't know if it's appropriate to use the title "Comparative linguist". Specifically, @David Eppstein pointed out:

 * "The biosketch writes "is a retired linguist", which strongly implies a retirement from a career as a professional linguist. Is that an accurate implication, or would we be misleading readers by suggesting that?"

and

 * "in the sales flyer is a list of three universities at which Bomhard was educated, but not what degrees he might have earned from them or when, making the relevance of this information difficult to ascertain"

I think between these and the fact that the vast majority of the biographical information we have is self-published and has very consistent and careful phrasing I think we need to tread carefully around some WP:WEASEL and WP:PUFF concerns and do our best to neither parrot them nor try to "correct" them in the absence of any other evidence. I'm genuinely going to try to proceed carefully here, it's not my intention to come across as WP:HOUNDING in the aftermath of the last ANI, but my approach here will be to (carefully!) try to proceed as cleaning up any other BLP article, since I was waiting for the ANI to conclude. If anyone takes issue with anything I've edited please let me know, it isn't my intention to editorialize or antagonize with my edits. Warrenmck (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Allan R. Bomhard


text:
Ontario Mills

Ontario Mills is a shopping and outlet mall located in Ontario, California, within the Los Angeles metropolitan area. With 28 million annual visitors, it is one of the top shopping and tourist destinations in California. It is one of three Mills landmarks in California that are now managed by Simon Property Group since April 2007. Simon owns 50% of it. The Outlets at Orange and The Great Mall are the others. Ontario Mills was designed by the architectural firm, F+A Architects.

The mall is near the Ontario International Airport and Auto Club Speedway, as well as the interchange between the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) and the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate 10), one of the busiest in Southern California.

Size
According to the mall's former owners, the Mills Corporation, it is the largest one-level shopping mall in Western North America (there are larger malls, but they have two or more levels). In addition, it is California's largest outlet and value retail shopping destination.

Like other Mills malls, Ontario Mills is divided into neighborhoods. This mall has the most out of the Mills malls with ten.

Tenants
Some of the mall's major tenants include Off 5th Saks Fifth Avenue, H&M, Skechers Factory Store, Nike Factory Store, Forever 21, Nordstrom Rack, Marshalls, Burlington Coat Factory, Uniqlo, a 30-screen AMC Theatres megaplex, the dining and entertainment venue Dave & Buster's video game arcade, and the Ontario IMPROV comedy club.

Ontario Mills is home to many designer-label outlet stores, including Tory Burch, Ann Taylor, Ralph Lauren, Hugo Boss, DKNY, Tommy Hilfiger, Perry Ellis, Calvin Klein, Coach, Kate Spade, LACOSTE and Michael Kors. Other stores include GameStop, LEGO Store, Disney Store Outlet, Tumi, Movado, J. Crew, ULTA Beauty, Express, and Levi's.

The mall also has a large food court called "Market", formerly called "Big Food", with about 1,000 seats and tenants like Panda Express, Burger King, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Sbarro, Starbucks Coffee, and Cinnabon. Restaurants outside the food court include Rainforest Cafe, Market Broiler, and Blaze Pizza.

History
Ontario Mills opened to the public on November 14, 1996, across the highway from the site of the Ontario Motor Speedway (built on the site of the old speedway parking lot). Like all other Mills properties, it was first developed and once owned by the Mills Corporation. Ontario Mills is the first Mills landmark center to have the racetrack layout and themed neighborhoods. On December 13, 1996, AMC Ontario Mills 30 opened, making it the largest theatre in the world at the time.

An IMAX-like UltraScreen theater and a California Welcome Center operated by the entrance near the food court until 2000, when it was replaced by the Ontario IMPROV comedy club, Market Broiler, and a Nike Factory Store. Ontario Mills was formerly home to a Vans Skate Park, which in early 2005 was closed and converted into Steve & Barry's. In 2009, Steve & Barry's and Virgin Megastore were closed due to their chains' liquidations. Sports Authority closed its 50111 sqft store in 2004 when the company merged with Gart Sports; Sports Authority then reopened in the mall next to the Nike Factory Store in 2012, but closed again in August 2016 due to Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of the company, leading to the liquidation of all stores; it is now occupied by Aki Home. The well-known Wolfgang Puck Cafe closed in early 2005 and was replaced by the Polo Ralph Lauren Factory Store. A Neiman Marcus Last Call opened in 2012 on the former Steve & Barry's, along with an expansion of the existing Forever 21 and Nordstrom Rack stores and a new renovated food court. Ontario Mills also had one of the few JCPenney 5 Star outlets in the country, but it closed after JCPenney liquidated them in 2013 and was replaced by Fashion Q in 2014. Bed Bath & Beyond moved its store out of the mall across the street into a new shopping center in 2015; Restoration Hardware opened an outlet store in the former Bed Bath & Beyond space in 2016, and an Ulta Beauty also opened that year at the mall. Neiman Marcus Last Call closed on December 31, 2016 and was replaced by the Skechers Factory Store. One of the former video game arcade tenants opened on July 20, 1997, GameWorks closed in July 2017 after 20 years in Ontario Mills and was replaced by the Under Armour Factory Store. On May 13, 2018 (Mother's Day), after opening the previous year, Toys R Us Outlet closed due to Chapter 11 Bankruptcy after the company announced they would be going out of business. The mall's first expansion opened in the former JCPenney 5 Star Outlet building in the Summer of 2016, including an expanded Tommy Hilfiger store, and new tenants including Uniqlo, The North Face, Coach, and a Blaze Pizza with an outdoor patio. A new mall entrance was also added to the area with a more contemporary and modernized look.

Like other premium outlet centers, Ontario Mills was built in an area that had ample land available. The development of the mall has since contributed to the further urbanization of the eastern Ontario area and adjacent cities.

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

title: Ontario Mills


text:
Talk:Allosteric site

Hmm, what about a merge with Allosteric? --Lexor|Talk 11:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Will attempt later. --Diberri 20:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite the entry for allosteric. Its still needs some fixing, but I think it's a decent start. --Diberri 03:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Allosteric site


text:
Braj

Braj, also known as Vraj, Vraja, Brij or Brijbhumi, is a region in India on both sides of the Yamuna river with its centre at Mathura-Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh state encompassing the area which also includes Palwal, Ballabhgarh and Nuh in Haryana state, Deeg, Bharatpur, Karauli, and Dholpur in Rajasthan state and Morena District in Madhya Pradesh. Within Uttar Pradesh, it is very well demarcated culturally, the area stretches from the Mathura, Aligarh, Agra, Hathras and districts up to the Farrukhabad, Mainpuri and Etah districts. Braj region is associated with Radha and Krishna who according to scriptures were born in Barsana and Mathura respectively. It is the main centre of Krishna circuit of Hindu pilgrimage.

It is located 150 km south of Delhi and 50 km northwest of Agra.

Ecologically, the character of Braj has drastically changed in the last 200 years, with a heavy decline in the amount of wild animals along with deforestation. Writing in the late 1980s, Entwistle noted there were only a few groves left in the region, and that many sacred sites were being encroached upon by human agricultural settlements.

Etymology
The term Braj is derived from the Sanskrit word व्रज vraja. Vraja was first mentioned in Rigveda, and in Sanskrit it means a pasture, shelter or resort for cattle from the Sanskrit term "vraj" which means "to go" in English.

Braj pilgrimage circuits
The Braj Yatra circuit of pilgrimage was formally established by the 16th-century sadhus of the vaishnava sampradaya with fixed routes, itinerary and rituals. The area the circuit covers is spread across 2500 km2 with 84 kos or 300 km long periphery extending 10 km to the east and 50 km to the north and west. Braj has two main types of pilgrimage circuits, the traditional longer Braj Yatra encompassing the whole circuit, and the other shorter significantly modified contemporary point-to-point pilgrimage to visit the main sites at Mathura, Vrindavan, Gokul, Govardhan. The former, longer traditional pilgrimage route, also includes additional sacred sites Nandgaon and Barsana with travel on foot.

Notable Pilgrimage Sites
Notable pilgrimage sites taken from Entwistle (1987).
 * Mathura
 * Vishram Ghat
 * Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex
 * Kans Quila
 * Dwarkadhish Temple, Mathura
 * Madhu Forest
 * Radha Kund
 * Kusum Sarovar
 * Govardhan Hill
 * Bachhgaon
 * Deeg
 * Kaman, Rajasthan
 * Barsana
 * Nandgaon, Uttar Pradesh
 * Kamai, Uttar Pradesh
 * Chhata
 * Kokilavan
 * Paigaon
 * Shergarh, Uttar Pradesh
 * Bhandirvan, Vrindavan
 * Vrindavan
 * Radha Madan Mohan Temple
 * Banke Bihari Temple
 * Radha Vallabh Temple
 * Radha Damodar Temple
 * Nidhivan
 * Radha Raman Temple
 * Baldeo
 * Mahaban
 * Gokul

title: Braj


text:
Bundeli language

Bundeli (Devanagari: बुन्देली/बुंदेली) or Bundelkhandi is an Indo-Aryan language  spoken in the Bundelkhand region of central India. It belongs to the Central Indo-Aryan languages and is part of the Western Hindi subgroup.

Classification
A descendant of the Sauraseni Apabhramsha language, Bundeli was classified under Western Hindi by George Abraham Grierson in his Linguistic Survey of India. Bundeli is also closely related to Braj Bhasha, which was the foremost literary language in north-central India until the nineteenth century.

Like many other Indo-Aryan languages, Bundeli has often been subject to a designation as a dialect, instead of a language. Furthermore, as is the case with other Hindi languages, Bundeli speakers have been conflated with those of Standard Hindi in censuses.

Grierson divided Bundeli into four dialect groups:

 * Standard Bundeli, Bundeli, language of Tikamgarh, Lalitpur etc.
 * Northeaster Bundeli (closely related to Bagheli)
 * Northwester Bundeli (similar to Braj Bhasha)
 * Southern Bundeli

Geographical distribution
The Bundelkhand region comprises regions of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Bundeli is spoken in the Banda, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Datia, Chhatarpur, Panna, Tikamgarh, Sagar, Damoh, Niwari districts.

History
Early examples of Bundelkhandi literature are the verses of the Alha-Khand epic. It is still preserved by bards in the Banaphari region. The epic is about heroes who lived in the 12th century CE. Formal literary works in Bundeli dates from the reign of Emperor Akbar. Notable figures are the poet Kesab Das of the 16th century, while Padmakar Bhatt and Prajnes wrote several works during the 19th century. Prannath and Lal Kabi, produced many works in Bundeli language at the court of Chhatrasal of Panna.

title: Bundeli language


text:
L.A. County Fair

The Los Angeles County Fair is an annual county fair. It was first held on October 17, 1922, and ran for five days through October 21, 1922, in a former beet field in Pomona, California. Highlights of the fair's first year were harness racing, chariot races and an airplane wing-walking exhibition. The fair is one of the largest county fairs in the United States. Attendance has topped one million people every year with the exception of three years since 1948, and is the 4th largest fair in the United States. Since its opening year, over 89,000,000 visitors have attended the LA County Fair.

Since its inception, the fair has been the link between California’s agriculture industry and the public, providing a community gathering place where people learn about California’s heritage and enjoy traditional fair food, activities and entertainment. In recent years, the fair has moved away from such agricultural heritage by transitioning from livestock competitions for area growers and ranchers to hired petting zoos. In addition to the 13 acre Ray Cammack Shows carnival, the fair has an operational farm, an outdoor miniature garden railroad, California’s Heritage Square historical exhibit and America’s Kids-Education Expo. They also have the Flower and Garden Pavillion, a grandstand for shows and several large Expo Halls.

The May Concert Series features multiple nights of musical entertainment, including many well-known acts. When the Fair was held in September, there was the "End of Summer Concert Series" which also included motocross and monster truck performances.

The fair is operated by the Los Angeles County Fair Association, a non-profit 501(c)(5) corporation. The fair has been regularly held during the end-of-summer months from its inception in 1922 through the 2000s, except for all fairs since 2022, held in May. The fair is built on 543 acre of fairgrounds known as Fairplex (Los Angeles County Fair, hotel and exposition complex). This also generates a national economic impact of more than $250 million.

The Los Angeles County Fair's mascot "Thummer" was introduced in 1948 as "Porky the Hitchhiking Pig". The artist - Morrie Stewart - originally designed the pig mascot for Kaiser Steel before being approached by the fair to create a new mascot with the re-opening of the fair following World War II. "Porky the Hitchhiking Pig" appeared at the Los Angeles County Fair through 1952 when another cartoon claimed naming rights to the name. The fair held a naming contest through radio and television, and the name "Thummer" was adopted. Thummer has been a regular appearance at the Los Angeles County Fair ever since. Thummer wore his trademark outfit and carried a briefcase through the 1980s when a "Mrs. Thummer" was introduced. Thummer disappeared in the early 1980s, but reappeared in 1988.

Fairplex also includes the Sheraton Fairplex Hotel & Conference Center, the Sheraton KOA/RV Park, Barretts Sales and Racing, a defunct 0.625 mi horse racing track, the Millard Sheets Art Center, the Child Development Center at Fairplex, the Fairplex railway exhibit, Barretts Equine Ltd., a thoroughbred horse racing auction facility and the Wally Parks NHRA Motorsports Museum.

The Los Angeles County Fair was canceled shortly after the 1941 fair due to the outbreak of World War II and re-opened in 1948. The 2020-21 fairs were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in California, deferring, as announced in May 2021, the next fair to May 2022, citing that summer heat resulted in reduced attendance.

Patrollers include security guards, the Pomona Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office.

History

 * The Tongva village site of Tooypinga was located at or near the grounds of the fair.
 * These grounds were once used as a Wartime Civilian Control Administration assembly center during World War II. Japanese Americans were held here before being sent to internment camps. There is no historical marker at the site. It was occupied from May 7 to August 24, 1942, and held more than 5,000 people. There are few, if any, buildings left from the original assembly center.
 * The first L.A. County Fair was held in 1922, at the Los Angeles Fairgrounds in Pomona. The grounds, now known as Fairplex (short for L.A. County Fair, Hotel and Exposition Complex), are home to hundreds of other year-round events and activities other than the Fair. The Wally Parks NHRA Motorsports Museum is located on the grounds, as well as the Sheraton Fairplex Hotel & Conference Center, the Rail Giants Museum (Fairplex railway exhibit), and the Auto Club Raceway at Pomona.
 * Besides 1942, it was also cancelled from 1943 to 1947 and again from 2020 to 2021, coming back in 2022 for its 100th anniversary.

Events held during the Fair
The Los Angeles County Fair offers visitors a number of rides as well as a variety of food and drinks available. Community days feature community heroes (senior, adult and youth), elected officials and high school marching bands from cities within the 15-mile radius of Fairplex. The May concert series feature singers, bands and entertainers perform during the evening. Until 2013, there was horse racing during the Los Angeles County Fair meet at the Fairplex Park. From 2014 to 2021, all races during the Los Angeles County Fair meet had been held at the Los Alamitos Race Course for two weeks (8 race days, Thursday–Sunday). Thereafter, those races are at Santa Anita Park. At the start of each year, a theme for the fair is chosen by the Los Angeles County Fair Association.

In popular culture
The county fair is played as a carnival in the HBO series Euphoria, however, the carnival is built outside the county fair.

title: L.A. County Fair


text:
Bagheli language

Bagheli (Devanagari: बघेली) or Baghelkhandi is a Central Indo-Aryan language spoken in the Baghelkhand region of central India.

Classification
A language belonging to the Eastern Hindi subgroup, Bagheli is one of the languages designated as a 'dialect of Hindi' by the Indian Census Report of 2011. Bagheli is a regional language used for intra-group and inter-group communication.

George Abraham Grierson in his Linguistic Survey of India classified Bagheli under Eastern Hindi. The extensive research conducted by local specialist Dr. Bhagawati Prasad Shukla is commensurate with Grierson's classification. Ethnologue cites Godwani, Kumhari and Rewa as dialects of Bagheli. According to Shukla, the Bagheli language has three varieties:

 * 1) Pure Bagheli
 * 2) Western-Mixed Bagheli
 * 3) Southern-Broken Bagheli

Like many other Indo-Aryan languages, it has often been subject to erroneous, arbitrary, or politically-motivated designation as a dialect, instead of a language. Furthermore, as is the case with other Hindi languages, Bagheli speakers have been conflated with those of Standard Hindi in censuses.

Geographical distribution
Bagheli is primarily spoken in the Rewa, Satna, Sidhi, Singrauli, Shahdol, Umaria, Anuppur, Katni districts of Madhya Pradesh and in some parts of Prayagraj and Chitrakoot districts of Uttar Pradesh and also Baikunthpur of Madhya Pradesh.

Popular culture
The Pao, a scheduled tribe also known as the Pabra, speak Bagheli as their first language. Their language was mistakenly reported to be Tibeto-Burman by Ethnologue, perhaps due to confusion with the Pao language of Burma.

There are several radio and TV programmes in Bagheli. All India Radio is broadcasting Bagheli songs and agricultural programmes from Shahdol, Rewa and Bhopal. Furthermore, courses pertaining to Bagheli literature are available to be studied at Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa.

title: Bagheli language


text:
Monokini

The monokini (also known as a "topless bikini" or "unikini") was designed by Rudi Gernreich in 1964, consisting of only a brief, close-fitting bottom and two thin straps; it was the first women's topless swimsuit. His revolutionary and controversial design included a bottom that "extended from the midriff to the upper thigh" and was "held up by shoestring laces that make a halter around the neck." Some credit Gernreich's design with initiating, or describe it as a symbol of, the sexual revolution.

Gernreich designed the monokini as a protest against a repressive society. He did not initially intend to produce the monokini commercially, but was persuaded by Susanne Kirtland of Look to make it available to the public. When the first photograph of a frontal view of Peggy Moffitt wearing the design was published in Women's Wear Daily on June 3, 1964, it generated a great deal of controversy in the United States and other countries. Gernreich sold about 3,000 suits, but only two were worn in public. The first was worn publicly on June 19, 1964, by Carol Doda in San Francisco at the Condor Nightclub, ushering in the era of topless nightclubs in the United States, and the second at North Avenue beach in Chicago in July 1964 by artist's model Toni Lee Shelley, who was arrested.

Etymology
Gernreich may have chosen his use of the word monokini (mono meaning 'single') through back-formation by interpreting the bi of bikini as the Latin prefix bi- ('two'), denoting a two-piece swimsuit. But in fact the bikini swimsuit design was named by its inventor Louis Réard after the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, five days after Operation Crossroads, the first peace-time test of nuclear weapons, took place there. Réard hoped his design would have a similarly explosive effect.

Background

Austrian-American fashion designer, co-founder of the Mattachine Society, and nudist  Rudi Gernreich had strong feelings about society's sexualization of the human body and disagreed with religious and social beliefs that the body was essentially shameful. Gernreich developed a reputation as an avant-garde designer who broke many of the rules, and his swimsuit designs were unconventional. In its December 1962 issue, Sports Illustrated remarked, "He has turned the dancer's leotard into a swimsuit that frees the body. In the process, he has ripped out the boning and wiring that made American swimsuits seagoing corsets." That month he first envisioned creating a topless swimsuit which he called a monokini.

Origins
At the end of 1963, editor Susanne Kirtland of Look called Gernreich and asked him to submit a design for the suit to accompany a trend story along futuristic lines. He resisted the idea at first, but said, "It was my prediction. For the sake of history, I didn't want Pucci to do it first.  Gernreich found the design more difficult than he expected. His initial designs looked like trunks or boxer shorts. He felt the swimsuit ought to just be bikini bottoms, but realized that this wouldn't constitute a unique design. He initially designed a Balinese sarong that began just under the breasts, but Kirtland didn't feel the design was bold enough and needed to make more of a statement. Gernreich finally chose a design that ended around mid-torso and then added two straps that rose between the breasts and were tied around the neck.  The first two initial attempts to cut the design failed. When a photo shoot was arranged on Montego Bay in the Bahamas, all five models hired for the session refused to wear the design. The photographer finally persuaded  an adventurous local to model it.

To avoid letting others sensationalize the swimsuit and to retain some control of the design, Gernreich asked William Claxton, the husband of Gernreich's usually sole model Peggy Moffitt, to take pictures of his wife in the yellow wool swimsuit. Claxton, Moffitt, and Gernreich wanted to publish their own pictures for the fashion press and news media, and Gernreich gave pictures of Moffit modeling the monokini to a carefully selected handful of news organizations.

Moffitt was initially resistant to the idea of posing topless. She said, "I didn't want to do it when he asked me. I am a puritanical descendent of the Mayflower. I carried that goddamned Plymouth Rock on my back. When I did give in, I did so with a lot of rules. I would not show myself on the runway that way. I'd do it only with Bill. Since Rudi would never ever have enough money to do this, I did it for free. But I had final say on everywhere it went photographically." Look published a rear view, of an adventurous local from Montego Bay, modeling the swimsuit on June 2, 1964. Claxton took his pictures of Moffit to Life but they said they could only print pictures of naked breasts "if the woman is an aborigine." Claxton took additional pictures of Moffit especially for Life with her arms covering her breasts. The picture was one of several images of Moffit in a story about the historical evolution of the breast in fashion history from 1954 to 1964. Moffit said, "The photograph of me in that issue—hiding my breasts with my arms—is dirty. If you are wearing a fashion that does not have a top as part of its design and hold your arms over your bosom, you're going along with the whole prudish, teasey thing like a Playboy bunny."

The following day columnist Carol Bjorkman of Women's Wear Daily published Claxton's frontal view of Moffitt wearing the suit. It became a celebrated image of the extremism of 1960s designs. Moffit later said, "It was a political statement. It wasn't meant to be worn in public." On June 12, 1964 the San Francisco Chronicle featured a photo of a woman in a monokini with her exposed breasts clearly visible on its front page. Claxton's frontal image of Moffit modeling the swimsuit was subsequently published by Life and numerous other publications. Life writer Shana Alexander noted, "One funny thing about toplessness is that it really doesn't have much to do with breasts. Breasts of course are not absurd; topless swimsuits are. Lately people keep getting the two things mixed up." She mocked the swimsuit design as a "joke". The photo catapulted Moffitt into instant celebrity, reportedly resulting in her receiving everything from marriage proposals to death threats. Moffitt and Claxton later wrote The Rudi Gernreich Book, described as an aesthetic biography of the fashion revolutionary.

Gernreich originally thought that only "six or seven" monokinis would likely be sold, but decided to design it anyway. However, when the design got worldwide notice, orders for the non-existent suit poured in until over 1,000 orders were pending. Despite the reaction of fashion critics and church officials, Harmon Knitwear made over 3,000 monokinis. Gernreich first sold the suit to the Joseph Magnin department store in San Francisco, where it was an instant hit. In New York City, leading stores like B. Altman & Company, Lord & Taylor, Henri Bendel, Splendiferous and Parisette placed orders. On June 16, 1964, Gernreich's topless swimsuit went on sale in New York City. The suit was priced at $24 each.

Moffit said in 1985 that she had been offered $17,000 in 1964 by Playboy to publish Claxton's photograph of her wearing the suit, but refused. "I turned it down as unthinkable. And I don't want to exploit women any more now than I did in 1964. The statement hasn't changed. The suit still is about freedom and not display."

On August 13, 1985, Los Angeles Fashion Group produced a gala at the Wiltern Theatre to benefit the Rudi Gernreich Design Scholarship Fund. Moffit was a member of the committee. When the group considered showing the Monokini suit during the benefit, Moffitt strongly objected. She told the Los Angeles Times,

The regional director of the Fashion Group, Sarah Worman, believed that the swimsuit was "the single most important idea he ever had—the one that changed the way women dressed all over the Western world." She said Moffitt's refusal to show it on a model did not make sense when the benefit was modeling everything else he ever did on live models.

Fashion statement
Gernreich did not originally intend to produce the swimsuit commercially. It had more meaning to Gernreich as an idea than as a reality. Gernreich had Moffitt model the suit in person for Diana Vreeland of Vogue, who asked him why he conceived of the design. Gernreich told her he felt it was time for "freedom-in fashion as well as every other facet of life," but that the swimsuit was just a statement. He said, “[Women] drop their bikini tops already,” he said, “so it seemed like the natural next step.”  She told him, "If there's a picture of it, it's an actuality. You must make it." Gernreich said in television interview, "It may well be a bit much now. But, just wait. In a couple of years topless bikinis will be a reality and regarded as perfectly natural."

Gernreich purposefully used his designs to advance his socio-political views. He wanted to reduce the stigma of a naked body, to “cure our society of its sex hang up,” as he put it. Gernreich stated, "To me, the only respect you can give to a woman is to make her a human being. A totally emancipated woman who is totally free."

Gernreich said, "Baring the breasts seemed logical in a period of freer attitudes, freer minds, the emancipation of women." Gernreich told Time magazine in 1969, the monokini "is a natural development growing out of all the loosening up, the re-evaluation of values that's going on. There is now an honesty hangup, and part of this is not hiding the body—it stands for freedom."

In January 1965, he told Gloria Steinem in an interview that despite the criticism he'd do it again.

Moffitt said the design was a logical evolution of Gernreich's avant-garde ideas in swimwear design as much as a scandalous symbol of the permissive society. She said, "He was trying to take away the prurience, the whole perverse side of sex." She said his design was "prophetic." "It had to do with more than what to wear to the beach. It was about a changing culture throughout all society, about freedom and emancipation. It was also a reaction against something particularly American: the little boy snickering that women had breasts."

Los Angeles Times staff writer Bettijane Levine wrote, "His topless was an artistic statement against women as sex objects, much as Pablo Picasso painted Guernica as a statement against war." Over the next few weeks, his design was covered in more than 20,000 press articles.

History

There was a strong public reaction to the original swimsuit design. The Soviet Union denounced the suit, saying it was "barbarism" and indicated "capitalistic decay". The Vatican denounced the swimsuit, and the L'Osservatore Romano said the "industrial-erotic adventure" of the topless bathing suit "negates moral sense." Many of Rudi's contemporaries in the fashion industry reacted negatively. In the US, some Republicans tried to blame the suit on the Democrats' stance on moral issues. Gernreich introduced the monokini at a time when U.S. nudists were trying to establish a public persona. The United States Postmaster General had banned nudist publications from the mail until 1958, when the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the naked body in and of itself could not be deemed obscene. Use of the word monokini was first recorded in English that year.

In the 1960s, the monokini influenced the sexual revolution by emphasizing a woman's personal freedom of dress, even when her attire was provocative and exposed more skin than had been the norm during the more conservative 1950s. Quickly renamed a "topless swimsuit", the design was never successful in the United States, although the issue of allowing both genders equal exposure above the waist has been raised as a feminist issue from time to time.

As the suit gained notoriety, the New York City Police Department was strictly instructed by the commissioner of parks to arrest any woman wearing a monokini. In Dallas, Texas, when a local store featured the suit in a window display, members of the Carroll Avenue Baptist Mission picketed until they removed the display. Copious coverage of the event helped to send the image of exposed breasts across the world. Women's clubs and the Catholic church actively condemned the design. In Italy and Spain, the Catholic Church warned against the topless fashion.

France
In France in 1964, Roger Frey led the prosecution of the use of the monokini, describing it as: "a public offense against the sense of decency, punishable according to article 330 of the penal code. Consequently, the police chiefs must employ the services of the police so that the women who wear this bathing suit in public places are prosecuted." At St. Tropez on the French Riviera, where toplessness later became the norm, the mayor ordered police to ban toplessness and to watch over the beach via helicopter.

Jean-Luc Godard, a founding mover of French New Wave cinema, incorporated monokini footage shot by Jacques Rozier in Riviera into his film A Married Woman, but it was edited out by the censors. A few defended Gernreich's design. Fashion designers Geraldine Stutz, president of Henri Bendel, said, "I only wish I were young enough to be one of the pioneers myself." Carol Bjorkman, a columnist at Women's Wear-Daily's wrote, "What's the matter with the front? After all, it is here to stay, and it is awfully nice being a girl."

Chicago
When Toni Lee Shelley, a 19-year-old artists model, wore the topless bathing suit to the North Avenue beach in Chicago in 1964, 12 police officers responded, 11 to control and disperse the public and photographers, and one to arrest her. She was charged with disorderly conduct, indecent exposure, and appearing on a public beach without suitable attire. At her arraignment she asked for an all-male jury. She told the press that the swimsuit was "certainly more comfortable." Shelley was fined US$100 for wearing the swimsuit on a public beach.

San Francisco
On 12 June 1964, the San Francisco Chronicle published on its front page a photo of a woman with clearly visible, exposed breasts wearing a monokini.

On 19 June 1964, Davey Rosenberg saw an Joseph Magnin ad for the Monokini in a newspaper. Davey Rosenberg, the publicist of the Condor Club in San Francisco's North Beach district, bought Gernreich's monokini from Joseph Magnin, and gave it to former prune picker, file clerk, and waitress Carol Doda to wear for her act. That night, June 19, Doda became the first modern topless dancer in the United States, renewing the burlesque era of the early 1900s in the U.S. San Francisco Mayor John Shelley said, "topless is at the bottom of porn." Within a few days, women were baring their breasts in many of the clubs lining San Francisco's Broadway St., ushering in the era of the topless bar. Doda’s debut as a topless dancer was featured in Playboy magazine in April 1965.

San Francisco public officials tolerated the topless bars until April 22, 1965, when Doda was arrested along with Pete Mattioli and Gino del Prete, owners of the Condor Club. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the police department, calling for release of both Doda and free speech activist Mario Savio, held in the same station. Doda, Mattioli and Gino del Prete were cleared when two judges instructed not-guilty verdicts. Judge Friedman's memorandum to opposing attorneys reads, "Whether acts ... are lewd and dissolute depends not on any individual's interpretation or personal opinion, but on the consensus of the entire community...". Doda rapidly became a symbol of sexual freedom, while topless restaurants, along with shoeshine parlors, ice-cream stands and girl bands proliferated in San Francisco and elsewhere. Journalist Earl Wilson wrote in his syndicated column, "Are we ready for girls in topless gowns? Heck, we may not even notice them." English designers created topless evening gowns inspired by the idea. The San Francisco Examiner published a real estate advertisement that promised "bare top swimsuits are possible here".

Later designs

Going topless reached its highest popularity during the 1970s. In the early 1980s monokini designs that were simply a bikini-bottom (also known as the unikini) became popular. , some swimsuit designers continue to produce a variety of monokini or topless swimsuits that women can wear in private settings or in places where topless swimsuits are allowed.

Unlike Gernreich's original design exposing the women's breasts, current designs are one-piece swimsuits that cover the women's breasts but typically include large cut-outs on the sides, back, or front. The cutouts are connected with varying fabrics, including mesh, chain, and other materials to link the top and bottom sections together. From the back the monokini looks like a two-piece swimsuit. The design may not be functional but aesthetic. Some suits are designed with a g-string style back and others offer full coverage.

Pubikini
In 1985, four weeks before his death, Gernreich unveiled the lesser-known pubikini, a topless bathing suit that exposed the wearer's mons pubis. It was a thin, V-shaped, thong-style bottom that in the front featured a tiny strip of fabric that exposed the wearer's pubic hair. The pubikini was described as a pièce de résistance totally freeing the human body.

title: Monokini


text:
Rudi Gernreich

Rudolf "Rudi" Gernreich (August 8, 1922 – April 21, 1985) was an Austrian-born American fashion designer whose avant-garde clothing designs are generally regarded as the most innovative and dynamic fashion of the 1960s. He purposefully used fashion design as a social statement to advance sexual freedom, producing clothes that followed the natural form of the female body, freeing them from the constraints of high fashion.

He was known for the early use of vinyl and plastic in clothing, and for his use of cutouts. He designed the first thong bathing suit, unisex clothing, the first swimsuit without a built-in bra, the minimalist, soft, transparent No Bra, and the topless monokini. He was a four-time recipient of the Coty American Fashion Critics Award. He produced what is regarded as the first fashion video, Basic Black: William Claxton w/Peggy Moffitt, in 1966. He had a long, unconventional, and trend-setting career in fashion design.

He was a founding member of and financially supported the early activities of the Mattachine Society. He consciously pushed the boundaries of acceptable fashion and used his designs as an opportunity to comment on social issues and to expand society's perception of what was acceptable.

Early years
Gernreich was the only child of Siegmund Gernreich and Elisabeth (née Müller) Gernreich, a Jewish couple who lived in Vienna, Austria. His father was a stocking manufacturer who had served in World War I and who died by suicide when Gernreich was eight years old.

Gernreich learned about high fashion from his aunt, Hedwig Müller, who with her husband Oskar Jellinek, owned a dress shop. He spent many hours in his aunt's shop sketching her designs for Viennese high society and learned about fabrics. He also gained early impressions of sexuality. He later told one of his favorite models, Leon Bing, about images of "leather chaps with a strap running between the buttocks of street laborers' work pants and the white flesh of women's thighs above gartered black stockings." When he was 12, Austrian designer Ladislaus Czettel saw his sketches and offered Gernreich a fashion apprenticeship in London, but his mother refused, believing her son was too young to leave home.

Jewish refugee
After the German Anschluss (when Nazi Germany annexed Austria) on 12 March 1938, Hitler, among many other acts, banned nudity. Austrian citizens were advocates of exercising nude, a rejection of the over-civilized world. His mother took 16-year-old Rudi and escaped to the United States as Jewish refugees, settling in Los Angeles, California. To survive, his mother baked pastries that Rudi sold door-to-door. His first job was washing bodies to prepare them for autopsy in the morgue of Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. He told Marylou Luther, "I grew up overnight. I do smile sometimes when people tell me my clothes are so body-conscious [that] I must have studied anatomy. You bet I studied anatomy." He attended Los Angeles City College, where he studied art and apprenticed for a Seventh Avenue clothing manufacturer. He attended Los Angeles City College from 1938 to 1941, and the Los Angeles Art Center School from 1941 to 1942.

Career

He briefly worked in Hollywood costume design, but hated it. In 1942, he joined the Lester Horton's modern dance company as both a dancer and designer. Gernreich said "I never was a very good dancer ... I wanted to become a choreographer, but that never happened." Of his time with the Theater, Gernreich said that dancing made him "aware of what clothes did to the rest of the body." He also designed freelance but left Lester Horton in 1948 and became a fabric salesman for Hoffman Company. Gernreich moved into fashion design from fabric design.

The fashion climate at that time was dictated by designers in Paris. In 1949 he briefly worked in New York at George Carmel but didn't like the position because he felt pressured to imitate Parisian fashion. Gernreich said, "Everyone with a degree of talent was motivated by a level of high taste and unquestioned loyalty to Paris. Dior, Fath, Balenciaga were gods—kings. You could not deviate from their look."

In 1951, still attempting to gain entry into the fashion world, Gernreich got a job with Morris Nagel to design for Versatogs, but Nagel required Gernreich to stick to the Versatogs design formula, which Gernreich hated.

He began designing his own line of clothes in Los Angeles and New York until 1951, when fellow Viennese immigrant Walter Bass in Beverly Hills convinced him to sign a seven-year contract with him. William Bass Inc. produced a collection of dresses that they sold to Jack Hanson, the owner of Jax, an emerging Los Angeles boutique that focused on avant-garde clothing that was fun and adventuresome. He also designed costumes for Lester Horton until 1952. For most of the 1950s, he collaborated with Hungarian Holocaust survivor and immigrant Renée Firestone in Los Angeles, before she started her own line in 1960.

In 1955, he began designing swimwear for Westwood Knitting Mills in Los Angeles. They hired him in 1959 as the swimwear designer. Genesco Corporation also hired him as a shoe designer in 1959. He completed his seven-year contract with Walter Bass in 1960 and founded his firm G.R. Designs in Los Angeles. He changed his company's name to Rudi Gernreich Inc. in 1964. His designs were featured in what is generally regarded as the first fashion video, Basic Black: William Claxton w/Peggy Moffitt, in 1966.

In the early 1960s, Gernreich opened a Seventh Avenue showroom in New York City where he showed his popular designs for Harmon knitwear and his own more expensive line of experimental garments. Gernreich wanted his designs to be affordable and in 1966, he broke American fashion's unwritten rule that name designers don't sell to chain stores. On January 3, 1966, he took the unprecedented action of signing a contract with Montgomery Ward, a chain store. Rudi's fashions proved popular and lasted several seasons, showing that original designs would sell at popular prices.

In 1966, Gernreich was named one of the "fashion revolutionaries" in New York by Women's Wear Daily, alongside Edie Sedgwick, Tiger Morse, Pierre Cardin, Paco Rabanne, Baby Jane Holzer, André Courrèges, Emanuel Ungaro, Yves Saint Laurent, and Mary Quant. He designed the Moonbase Alpha uniforms worn by the main characters of the 1970s British science-fiction television series Space: 1999, pushing the boundaries of the futuristic look in clothing over the course of three decades.

Fashion as social commentary
Gernreich was very much against sexualization of the human body and the notion that the body was essentially shameful. Gernreich developed strong feelings about society's sexualization of the human body and disagreed with religious and social beliefs that the body was essentially shameful. He wanted to reduce the stigma of a naked body, to "cure our society of its sex hang up," as he put it. Gerneich stated, "To me, the only respect you can give to a woman is to make her a human being. A totally emancipated woman who is totally free."

Gernreich approached fashion as a social commentary. He said, "I realized you could say things with clothes." Editors of Life magazine asked him to envision clothes in the future for its January 1, 1970, issue, and he produced designs of minimalist, unisex garments that could be worn by either men or women. He said he wanted to create a "utility principle" that would "take our mind off how we look and concentrate on really important matters." Fashion writer Marylou Luther, who became a good friend of Gernreich, wrote that he had two motives in his designs: one was to create modern fashion "for the 20th century and beyond," and the other was as "a social commentator, who just happened to work in the medium of clothes." Gernreich purposefully used his designs to advance his socio-political views.

Impact on fashion design
During his career, he was compared in influence to these same fashion houses: Balenciaga, Dior, and André Courrèges, but he steadfastly refused to show his designs in Paris. Instead, he named Claire McCardell as his influence. Gernreich developed a reputation as an avant-garde designer who broke many design rules. As a former dancer, Gernreich was interested in liberating the body from the limitations of clothing. In 1952, while designing for Westwood, he introduced the first swimsuit without a built-in bra. Most swimsuits at the time had stiff inner construction with boned linings. His designs used elasticized wool knits that clung to the woman's body.

In its December 1962 issue, Sports Illustrated remarked, "He has turned the dancer's leotard into a swimsuit that frees the body. In the process, he has ripped out the boning and wiring that made American swimsuits seagoing corsets". He was regarded as the designer who freed women from the limits of high fashion by creating vibrant, young, "often daring clothing that followed the natural form of the female body."

Gernreich is regarded by some as the "most innovative and dynamic fashion designers of the 20th century." In 1964, he created the first topless swimsuit, which he called the "monokini". Gernreich was featured on the cover of Time in December 1967 with models Peggy Moffitt and Leon Bing. The magazine described him as "the most way-out, far-ahead designer in the U.S."

Cynthia Amnéus, Chief Curator and Curator of Fashion and Textiles at the Cincinnati Art Museum in Ohio, said "Rudi was one of the most important and visionary American fashion designers of the 21st century ... Rudi was doing very shocking and avant-garde things, like taking all the structure out of swimwear, and creating a trapeze dress in the 1950s way before Yves Saint Laurent did."

He worked closely with model Peggy Moffitt and her husband and photographer William Claxton for many years, pushing the boundaries of the "futuristic look" in clothing over the course of three decades. His work paired minimalist designs with bright, psychedelic colors and strong geometric patterns, pushing the boundaries of contemporary women's clothing. Moffitt increased the notoriety of his designs with avant-garde makeup and haircuts.

He was the sixth American designer to be elected to the Coty American Fashion Hall of Fame. He designed the first see-through chiffon blouse, fashioned clothes from leotards and tights, decorated them with zippers and dog leash clasps, and in 1970 introduced the idea of unisex clothing that was minimalist, utilitarian, and optional, including men's suits and hats for women.. He showed his designs on a male and female model who were both shaved. He designed coordinated outfits of dresses, handbags, hats, and stockings. He was among the first to regularly use vinyl and plastic in clothes, used cut-out details, and designed the first soft, transparent bra — the No Bra.

In 1974, in response to Los Angeles banning nude beaches, he designed and named the first thong bathing suit that exposed the buttocks for both men and women. Gernreich patented the thong design but gave up enforcing his rights due to legal difficulties. From 1970 to 1971 he designed furnishings for Fortress and Knoll International, and in 1975 he designed men's style underwear for Lily of France.

The next year he worked on cosmetics for Redken and costumes for the Bella Lewitzky Dance Company, along with kitchen accessories and ceramic bathroom accessories. Gernreich continued to collaborate with Lewitzky, designing sets and costumes for Pas de Bach in 1977, Rituals in 1979, Changes & Choices in 1981, and Confines in 1982, all danced by the WCK3.

Monokini
Gernreich is most well known for his design of the first topless swimsuit, which he called the "Monokini". Gernreich conceived the Monokini at the end of 1963, after Susanne Kirtland of Look called Gernreich and asked him to draw a suit to accompany a trend story along futuristic lines. That month he first envisioned a topless swimsuit that became the Monokini. The Monokini bottom was similar to a maillot swimsuit style but ended at mid-torso and was supported by two straps between the breasts and around the neck.

When Claxton's photograph of his wife Peggy Moffitt modeling the design was published in Women's Wear Daily on June 4, 1964, it generated a great deal of controversy in the United States and other countries. Moffitt said the design was a logical evolution of Gernreich's avant-garde ideas in swimwear design as much as a scandalous symbol of the permissive society. He saw the swimsuit as a protest against repressive society. He predicted that "bosom will be uncovered within five years". He saw baring of a woman's breasts as a form of freedom.

He initially did not intend to produce the design commercially, but Kirtland of Look urged him to make it available to the public. "I thought we'd sell only six or seven, but I decided to design it anyway." Moffitt later said that the Monokini "was a political statement. It wasn't meant to be worn in public."

In January, 1965, he told Gloria Steinem in an interview that despite the criticism he'd do it again.

"A designer stands or falls on the totality of each year's collection, not just one item. At the moment, this topless business has done nothing but take away from my work, but in the end, I'm sure having my name known internationally will be a help. But that isn't why I'd do it again. I'd do it again because I think the topless, by overstating and exaggerating a new freedom of the body, will make the moderate, right degree of freedom more acceptable."

He later designed the "pubikini"—a bikini bottom with a window in front that revealed the model's dyed and shaped pubic hair.

No Bra
Gernreich preferred that his designs should be worn braless, and in October 1964, at the request the brassiere manufacturer Exquisite Form, Gernreich announced the "No Bra". The bra was made of sheer fabric without underwires or lining of any kind. Unlike contemporary bras, his design allowed breasts to assume their natural shape, rather than being molded into an aesthetic ideal.

It was a soft-cup, light-weight, seamless, sheer nylon tricot and elastic bra only available for small-breasted women. It came in three sheer colors: powder puff, black, and white, and in sizes 32 to 36, A and B cups. It had a single hook in the back.

The No Bra was a big departure from the sculpted, bullet-shaped bosom of the previous decade. It was quite similar to the original bra of the 1920s and like the first modern bra invented by Mary Phelps Jacob, two handkerchiefs attached to a band and tied around the chest. Gernreich's no-bra was little more than that. Both the 1920s and the 1960s celebrated the stick-like figure of adolescence, and with that meant small, flat breasts.

His minimalist bra revolutionized brassiere design, initiating a trend toward more natural shapes and soft, sheer fabrics.

The retail success of the No Bra was followed in 1965 with the next design, a "no-side" bra to accommodate dresses with deep armholes. It had a narrow stretch band around the torso that allowed women to wear open-sleeved garments without displaying a bra band. The sheer cups were cut part of the bias and part of the half-bias. He also produced a "No Front" maillot design with a deep, plunging front for slit-to-the-waist necklines, and a "No-Back" long-line version that was anchored using contoured stretch-waistband that allowed a woman to wear a backless dress.

Exhibitions
Rudi exhibited his fashion at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York in 1967, "Two Modern Artists of Dress: Elizabeth Hawes and Rudi Gernreich". A retrospective titled "Fashion Will Go Out of Fashion" was assembled in Kunstlerhaus Graz, Austria, in 2000. In 2003, an exhibition of his work held at the Phoenix Art Museum, in Phoenix, Arizona, hailed him as one of the most original, prophetic, and controversial American designers of the 1950s through to the 1970s. In 2019, the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles created Fearless Fashion: Rudi Gernreich, a major exhibition detailing Gernreich's life and career.

Awards and recognition
Gernreich received his first design award in 1956, a junior award from Sports Illustrated. They awarded him the American Sportswear Design Award for his design of a black-and-white check wool jersey tank suit with no built-in bra. He won the Wool Knit Association award in 1960. In 1963, Gernreich won two major awards: in May he received Sports Illustrated 's Sporting Look Award and in June he was awarded the Coty American Fashion Critics Award. The Coty Award stirred a controversy when the first recipient of the award, Norman Norell, gave his Coty Award back as a protest against Gernreich's recognition. Norell told Women's Wear Daily, "It no longer means a thing to me. I can't bear to look at it anymore. I saw a photograph of a suit of Rudi's and one lapel of the jacket was shawl and the other was notched—well!" He blamed the vote on "jury members from Glamour and Seventeen who don't get around to high fashion collections are responsible for the Gernreich vote." In response to Norell's protest, the Bonwit Teller department store ran a half-page ad with the headline: "Rudi Gernreich, we'd give you the Coty Award all over again!" He received the award again in 1963, 1966, and 1967.

Additional awards included the Neiman Marcus award, Dallas, 1961; Sporting Look award, 1963; Sunday Times International Fashion Award, London, 1965; Filene's Design award, Boston, 1966; Knitted Textile Association award, 1975; Council of Fashion Designers of America Special Tribute, 1985. Marylou Luther, the Los Angeles Times fashion editor, wrote, "To most of the people in the fashion industry, he was considered the most inventive designer of these times."

In 1985 Tom Bradley, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, proclaimed August 13 as 'Rudi Gernreich Day' in recognition of Gernreich's contributions to fashion and Los Angeles, declaring "His designs were social commentary and forecast on our times and the future lifestyles of our nation."

On April 2, 2012, Time magazine named him to its list of the "All-TIME 100 Fashion Icons". In 2000, the city of New York placed bronze plaques honoring American fashion designers, including Gernreich, along Seventh Avenue.

Later life
In his later life, Gernreich devoted himself to gourmet soups. He is credited with a recipe for red pepper soup, a cold soup served in red pepper cases and garnished with caviar and lemon.

Personal life
Gernreich became a U.S. citizen in 1943. He met Los Angeles-based Communist and gay rights activist Harry Hay in July 1950, and the two became lovers. Hay showed Gernreich The Call, a document outlining his plan for a gay support organization, and Gernreich told him, "You know that I'm an Austrian refugee. This is the most dangerous thing I have ever read. And, yes, I'm with you 100 percent." In 1951 Gernreich was arrested and convicted in a police homosexual entrapment case, which was common in Southern California at that time.

Gernreich was a founding member of and an enthusiastic financial supporter of the Mattachine Society, though privately, preferring to be known by the initial "R". Gernreich ended the relationship with Hay in 1952.

In 1953, Gernreich met Oreste Pucciani, future chairman of the UCLA French department, who was a key figure in bringing Jean-Paul Sartre to the attention of American educators. Oreste Pucciani was also a pivotal figure in the gay rights movement. The two men kept their relationship private as Gernreich believed public acknowledgment of his homosexuality would negatively affect his fashion business.

Gernreich never announced his sexual orientation. Moffit said, "He just thought his sexuality was obvious." Gernreich typically wore a toupee, Gucci loafers, and jumpsuits with industrial zippers and drove a white Bentley around West Hollywood, where he lived with Pucciani until he died. Gernreich was diagnosed with lung cancer in January 1985 and died on April 21, 1985, at age 62. Oreste Pucciani, Gernreich's partner for 31 years, endowed a trust in their name for the American Civil Liberties Union in 1988.

In popular culture
In 1967, he portrayed himself on an episode of the TV Series Batman, along with Eartha Kitt as “Catwoman”, entitled “Catwoman’s Dressed To Kill” (S3E14).

In 2009, Gernreich and the Mattachine Society became the subjects of the play The Temperamentals by Jon Maran. After workshop performances in 2009, the play opened off-Broadway at New World Stages in February 2010. Actor Michael Urie, who performed the role of Gernreich, received a Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Lead Actor.

After his death due to lung cancer, Moffitt retained the trademark on Gernreich's name. In 2003, she signed a contract to re-create his designs with Rei Kawakubo, an avant-garde Japanese designer under her Comme des Garcons label. Some designs were reissued under the Peggy Moffitt/Comme des Garçons label. In 2012, Women's Wear Daily reported that a German investor had committed to reissuing some of Gernreich's designs.

The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art contains more than 100 pieces of Gernreich's designs in its collection.

A knit coat dress was sold at auction for $1,245 in 2008 at Christie's. Doyle's holds the record for Gernreich, set in 2002: $8,500 for two minidresses with peekaboo vinyl inserts. On October 30, 2008, one of Gernreich's original retail monokini was auctioned by Christie's for £1,250 ($2,075).

title: Rudi Gernreich


text:
Zveno

Zveno (Звено), Politicheski krag "Zveno", officially Political Circle "Zveno" was a Bulgarian political organization, founded in 1930 by Bulgarian politicians, intellectuals and Bulgarian Army officers. It was associated with a newspaper of that name.

As a palingenetic nationalist movement, Zveno advocated for rationalization of Bulgaria's economic and political institutions under a dictatorship that would be independent from both the Soviet Union and the Axis powers. They strongly opposed the Bulgarian party system, which they saw as dysfunctional, and the terror of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), the Bulgarian Macedonians' liberation movement. Zveno was also closely linked to the so-called Military League, the organization behind a coup in 1923, responsible for killing Prime Minister Aleksandar Stamboliyski.

In 1934, pro-Zveno officers like Colonel Damyan Velchev and Colonel Kimon Georgiev seized power. Georgiev became Prime Minister. They dissolved all parties, political organizations and trade unions and openly attacked the IMRO. As a political organization itself, Zveno dissolved itself. The new government introduced a corporatist economy, similar to that of Benito Mussolini's Italy. As a nationalist organization, Zveno changed many of the Ottoman-era Turkish place names of villages and towns in Bulgaria to Bulgarian ones. King Boris III, an opponent of Zveno, orchestrated a coup through a monarchist Zveno member, General Pencho Zlatev, who became Prime Minister (January 1935). In April 1935, he was replaced by a civilian, Andrey Toshev, also a monarchist. After participating in the Bulgarian coup d'état of 1934, Zveno supporters declared their intention to immediately form an alliance with France and to seek the unification of Bulgaria into an Integral Yugoslavia. Zveno supported an Integral Yugoslavia that included Bulgaria as well as Albania within it.

In 1943, Zveno joined the anti-Axis resistance movement, the Fatherland Front. In September 1944, the Fatherland Front engineered a coup d'état. Georgiev became Prime Minister and Velchev Minister of Defense, and they managed to sign a ceasefire agreement with the Soviet Union.

In 1946, Velchev resigned in protest against communist actions, while Georgiev was succeeded by communist leader Georgi Dimitrov, after which Bulgaria became a People's Republic. Georgiev remained in government until 1962, but Zveno was disbanded as an autonomous organization in 1949. Zveno continued to exist within the Fatherland Front but was only a puppet organization by then.

title: Zveno


text:
Celastrus

Celastrus, commonly known as staff vine, staff tree or bittersweet, is the type genus of the family Celastraceae; it contains over 40 species of shrubs and vines, which have a wide distribution in East Asia, Australasia, Africa, and the Americas.

Description
The leaves are alternate and simple, ovoid, and typically 5 - 20 cm long. The flowers are small, white, pink or greenish, and borne in long panicles; the fruit is a three-valved berry.

In North America, they are known as bittersweet, presumably a result of confusion with the unrelated bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara) by early colonists. C. orbiculatus is a serious invasive weed in much of eastern North America.

Species
Plants of the World Online includes:

 * 1) Celastrus aculeatus Merr.
 * 2) Celastrus angulatus Maxim.
 * 3) Celastrus australis Harv. & F.Muell. – Australian staff vine
 * 4) Celastrus caseariifolius Lundell
 * 5) Celastrus cuneatus (Rehder & E.H.Wilson) C.Y.Cheng & T.C.Kao
 * 6) Celastrus flagellaris Rupr.
 * 7) Celastrus franchetianus Loes.
 * 8) Celastrus gemmatus Loes.
 * 9) Celastrus glaucophyllus Rehder & E.H.Wilson
 * 10) Celastrus grenadensis Urb.
 * 11) Celastrus hindsii Benth.
 * 12) Celastrus hirsutus H.F.Comber
 * 13) Celastrus homaliifolius P.S.Hsu
 * 14) Celastrus hookeri Prain
 * 15) Celastrus hypoleucoides P.L.Chiu
 * 16) Celastrus hypoleucus (Oliv.) Warb. ex Loes.
 * 17) Celastrus kusanoi Hayata
 * 18) Celastrus lenticellatus Lundell
 * 19) Celastrus madagascariensis Loes.
 * 20) Celastrus membranifolius Prain
 * 21) Celastrus microcarpus D.Don
 * 22) Celastrus monospermoides Loes.
 * 23) Celastrus monospermus Roxb.
 * 24) Celastrus novoguineensis Merr. & L.M.Perry
 * 25) Celastrus oblanceifolius Chen H.Wang & P.C.Tsoong
 * 26) Celastrus obovatifolius X.Y.Mu & Z.X.Zhang
 * 27) Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. – Oriental bittersweet
 * 28) Celastrus panamensis Lundell
 * 29) Celastrus paniculatus Willd. – black oil plant, climbing staff tree, or intellect tree
 * 30) Celastrus pringlei Rose
 * 31) Celastrus punctatus Thunb.
 * 32) Celastrus richii A.Gray
 * 33) Celastrus rosthornianus Loes.
 * 34) Celastrus rugosus Rehder & E.H.Wilson
 * 35) Celastrus scandens L. – American bittersweet
 * 36) Celastrus stephanotiifolius (Makino) Makino
 * 37) Celastrus stylosus Wall.
 * 38) Celastrus subspicatus Hook.
 * 39) Celastrus tonkinensis Pit.
 * 40) Celastrus vaniotii (H.Lév.) Rehder
 * 41) Celastrus virens (F.T.Wang & T.Tang) C.Y.Cheng & T.C.Kao
 * 42) Celastrus vulcanicola Donn.Sm.
 * 43) Celastrus yuloensis X.Y.Mu
 * 44) Celastrus zhejiangensis P.L.Chiu, G.Y.Li & Z.H.Chen

title: Celastrus