text:
Non-heart-beating donation

Prior to the introduction of brain death into law in the mid to late 1970s, all organ transplants from cadaveric donors came from non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs).

Donors after brain death (DBD) (beating heart cadavers), however, led to better results as the organs were perfused with oxygenated blood until the point of perfusion and cooling at organ retrieval, and so NHBDs were generally no longer used except in Japan, where brain death was not legally or culturally recognized, until very recently.

However, a growing discrepancy between demand for organs and their availability from DBDs has led to a re-examination of using non-heart-beating donations, DCD (Donation after Circulatory Death, or Donation after Cardiac Death ), and many centres are now using such donations to expand their potential pool of organs.

Tissue donation (corneas, heart valves, skin, bone) has always been possible for NHBDs, and many centres now have established programmes for kidney transplants from such donors. A few centres have also moved into DCD liver and lung transplants. Many lessons have been learnt since the 1970s, and results from current DCDs transplants are comparable to transplants from DBDs.

Maastricht classification
Non-heart-beating donors are grouped by the Maastricht classification: developed at Maastricht in the Netherlands. in 1995 during the first International Workshop on Non-Heart‐Beating donors.

Categories I, II, IV and V are termed uncontrolled and category III is controlled.

As of yet, only tissues such as heart valves, skin and corneas can be taken from category I donors. Category II donors are patients who have had a witnessed cardiac arrest outside hospital, have cardiopulmonary resuscitation by CPR-trained providers commenced within 10 minutes but who cannot be successfully resuscitated. Category III donors are patients on intensive care units with nonsurvivable injuries who have treatment withdrawn; where such patients wished in life to be organ donors, the transplant team can attend at the time of treatment withdrawal and retrieve organs after cardiac arrest has occurred.

Maastricht definitions were reevaluated after the 6th International Conference in Organ Donation held in Paris in 2013 and a consensus agreement of an established expert European Working Group on the definitions and terminology were standardized, and later the word "retrieved" (organ) was substituted for "recovered" throughout the text.

Organs that can be used
Kidneys can be used from category II donors, and all organs except the heart can potentially be used from category III, IV and V donors. An unsuccessful kidney recipient can remain on dialysis, unlike recipients of some other organs, meaning that a failure will not result in death.

Kidneys from uncontrolled (category II) donors must be assessed with care as there is otherwise a high rate of failure. Many centres have protocols for formal viability assessment. Relatively few centres worldwide retrieve such kidneys, and leaders in this field include the transplant units in Maastricht (the Netherlands), Newcastle upon Tyne and Leicester (United Kingdom), Madrid and Barcelona (Spain), Pavia (Italy)  and Washington, DC (United States).

Livers and lungs for transplant can only be taken from controlled donors, and are still somewhat experimental as they have only been performed successfully in relatively few centres. In the United Kingdom, NHBD liver transplants are currently performed in Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, King's College Hospital London, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, Newcastle upon Tyne and the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit in Edinburgh. In other countries such as Spain, currently up to one-third of transplants are performed with NHBD. The International Meeting on Transplantation from Non-Heart-Beating Donors is organised in the UK every two years and brings together specialists in transplantation including transplant physicians, surgeons, fellows, nurses, coordinators, intensive care physicians, perfusion technicians, ethicists, and researchers interested in the aspects of retrieval, preservation and transplantation of DCD thoracic and abdominal organs and cells.

Lectures are held by experts on the most challenging themes such as clinical outcomes of transplantation of controlled and uncontrolled DCD organs, progress made on machine perfusion of kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts and ethics and legal issues regarding donation after cardiac death.

Procedure for uncontrolled donors
Following declaration of death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is continued until the transplant team arrive. A stand-off period is observed after cessation of CPR to confirm that death has occurred; this is usually from 5 to 10 minutes in length and varies according to local protocols.

Once the stand-off period has elapsed, a cut down is performed over the femoral artery, and a double-balloon triple-lumen (DBTL) catheter is inserted into the femoral artery and passed into the aorta. The balloons are inflated to occlude the aorta above and below the renal arteries (any donor blood specimens required can be taken before the top balloon is inflated). A pre-flush with streptokinase or another thrombolytic is given through the catheter, followed by 20 litres of cold kidney perfusion fluid; the opening of the lumen is between the balloons so that most of the flush and perfusion fluid goes into the kidneys. Another catheter is inserted into the femoral vein to allow venting of the fluid.

Once full formal consent for organ donation has been obtained from relatives, and other necessary formalities such as identification of the deceased by the police and informing the Coroner (in the UK), the donor is taken to the operating room, and the kidneys and heart valves retrieved.

Procedure for controlled donors
If the liver or lungs are felt to be suitable for transplantation, then the donor is usually taken directly to the operating room after cardiac arrest, and a rapid retrieval operation is performed once a 10-minute stand-off period has elapsed. It seems this stand-off period has been reduced to as short as 75 seconds based on a recent article by the CBC. This is now causing an ethical debate as to whether physicians will declare death sooner than is currently required. This is similar to a normal multi-organ retrieval, but prioritises rapid cannulation, perfusion and cooling with ice, with dissection following later.

If only the kidneys are suitable for retrieval, either rapid retrieval or cannulation with DBTL catheter can be used. Use of a DBTL catheter allows relatives of the deceased to see them after death, but the donor must be taken to the operating room as soon as possible.

Category IV donors (who are already brain-stem dead), should either proceed as for a normal multi-organ retrieval—if this has already started—or should be managed as a category II or III as appropriate to the circumstances of cardiac arrest.

Ethical issues
Certain ethical issues are raised by NHBD transplantation such as administering drugs which do not benefit the donor, observance of the Dead-donor Rule, the decision-making surrounding resuscitation, the withdrawal of life-support, the respect for a dying patient and the dead body, as well as proper information for the family. In 2016 author Dale Gardiner issued a report called "How the UK Overcame the Ethical, Legal and Professional Challenges in Donation After Circulatory Death".

Actions prior to consent
In category II uncontrolled donors, the donor may die and the transplant team arrive before the donor's next-of-kin can be contacted. It is controversial whether cannulation and perfusion can be started in these circumstances. On one hand, it can be considered a violation of the potential donor's autonomy to cannulate before their in-life wishes are known. On the other hand, delay in cannulation may mean that a patient's strongly held wish to be donor cannot be respected. Many ethicists also feel that a doctor's duty of care to the still living outweighs any duty of care to the dead. The compromise reached is usually to cannulate if there is any evidence of a wish to donate (such as a donor card or registration as a donor) even in the absence of next-of-kin.

For category III donors, treatment is being withdrawn from a living person, who will then die and become a donor. Important factors for assessment include A) that the decisions regarding nonsurvivable injuries are correct, B) continued treatment is futile and C) that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests be made completely independently of any consideration of suitability as an organ donor. Only after such decisions have been firmly made should a patient be considered as a potential organ donor. Although such treatment can be continued until the transplant team arrives, no additional treatment should be started to improve the organs—until the point of death, the patient should be treated exactly as any other dying patient.

The standard recommendation to ensure this is to require a complete separation of the treatment and organ procurement teams. It is not, however, clear how complete this separation can be in those jurisdictions that require hospitals to report the names of candidates for organ donation to an Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) before life support has been withdrawn so that organ donation can be discussed with surrogates. This forces treating physicians to view their patients partly as potential organ donors, and even absent an OPO, it is unrealistic to think treating physicians are not aware of benefits to others of transplantation, and sometimes weigh this against the benefit of continued treatment to the patient. As one author puts it: "If the person in need of organ transplantation is younger, more attractive, or in some way more deserving than another critically ill patient"—and there are always such patients awaiting transplants—"then the conclusion that one patient's condition is hopeless can be tainted by an understanding of the tremendous hope organ availability holds for another."

Factored into this is the element of judgement that physicians bring to evaluating the "best interest" of patients. There is considerable variability among physicians in determining from whom to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. Bias has been demonstrated on the part of medical professionals against patients who are perceived as disabled or are otherwise stigmatized. Studies have shown that, when evaluating the quality of life of severely disabled patients, physicians consistently apply much poorer rating than do the patients themselves. This raises the question: Would prejudice about vulnerable patients, such as disabled people, lead medical professionals to approach such individuals and families for NHBD more than others with higher "quality of life" ratings? Thus, as Doig puts it: "…the possibility of conflicted decision-making in a controlled DCD program is more than a theoretical possibility." The upshot is that the mere existence of a NHBD program in a hospital potentially compromises the care of patients. Few have rejected those programs on this basis, but the question of how to protect against it is ongoing.

Dead donor rule
The so-called "dead donor rule" (DDR) requires that persons be dead before their organs can be taken, and this rule is basic to all DCD programs. Also common to all DCD programs is that death is determined by cardiocirculatory criteria according to which life-support is withdrawn, an interval of the monitored absence of pulse, blood pressure, and respiration observed, and then death declared. Programs differ, however, on the length of the interval. The Pittsburgh Protocol requires 2 minutes, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation (CCDT) 5 minutes, the 1981 President's Commission 10 minutes, and recently Boucek et al. have proposed that it can be shortened to 75 seconds.

These times are based on estimates of when autoresuscitation (i.e., the spontaneous recovery of circulatory activity) becomes impossible. The scientific validity of all these times, however, has been questioned. The IOM in 2000 concluded that "existing empirical data cannot confirm or disprove a specific interval at which the cessation of cardiopulmonary function becomes irreversible." In addition, none of these intervals precludes the possibility of CPR restoring cardiocirculatory activity. To preclude that, brain death is required. The exact interval at which that occurs is likewise not known, but it is known to be more than 10 minutes. In light of this we can now raise the question of whether patients declared dead by cardiocirculatory criteria are really dead. It is generally agreed that death occurs when the patient is in an irreversible state. Whether patients declared dead by cardiocirculatory criteria are really dead thus depends on what is meant by "irreversible," and the term is open to a stronger and weaker interpretation.

On the stronger interpretation "irreversibility" means that spontaneous cardiocirculation "cannot be restored no matter what intervention is done, including CPR." On the weaker interpretation it means that spontaneous cardiocirculation "cannot be restored because CPR efforts have been refused by the patient (as a DNR order in an advance directive), by a surrogate decision-maker or by the medical team because it is not medically indicated." Thus the person need not be in a physically irreversible state, but only in a morally or legally irreversible state.

On the weaker interpretation, persons declared dead by DCD cardiocirculatory criteria cannot be known to be dead, as it is not always physically impossible to restore circulation by vigorous CPR. The weaker interpretation, however, does allow persons declared dead by DCD criteria to be counted as dead. It is often objected that this interpretation does not accord with the everyday meaning of death. Ordinarily we do not think that persons are dead when we have reasons not to revive them, but only when they cannot physically be revived. Nonetheless, declaring persons dead for purposes of transplantation by DCD criteria is "accepted medical practice" in many parts of the world, and where it is (as in Canada, for example ) the legal standard for declaring death is met.

The upshot is that we cannot straightforwardly say whether DCD violates the DDR. Whether it does or not depends on whether we think this requires that people be dead in the ordinary sense of the word or in a legal or some other understanding of it, and writers are lined up on both sides of this issue.

Pain and suffering
Controlled DCD may involve interventions such as vessel cannulation before life-sustaining therapy is withdrawn and death is declared, and may also involve post-mortem interventions such as in situ preservation. Uncontrolled DCD may additionally involve chest compressions and mechanical ventilation both before and after consent for DCD is obtained and typically requires the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. We know that all of these interventions cause distress to conscious patients who are not taking palliative medications. Thus, because patients who are candidates for DCD are not known to be brain dead either before or shortly after they are declared dead by cardiocirculatory criteria, the possibility that they may experience distress must be considered.

There are three approaches that have been taken to this possibility of pain and suffering: (1) provide palliative medications where there are physical signs compatible with distress; (2) withhold all such medications on the ground that even if signs of distress are occurring, the patient does not have sufficient cognition to interpret any sensations as noxious; or (3) provide palliative medications prophylactically to prevent any possible distress. Whichever approach is adopted, worries have been expressed over whether patients can be guaranteed not to experience any distress. Re: (1) providing medication only on signs compatible with distress does not prevent the possibility of distress. Re: (2), since patients declared dead by cardiocirculatory criteria cannot be known to be brain dead, dismissing signs compatible with distress as not being distress again does not prevent the possibility of distress. Re: (3) physicians may inappropriately withhold sufficient sedative or analgesic medication to avoid the appearance of euthanasia or in order to improve organ viability.

There is also the question of whether DCD patients receive compromised end of life (EOL) care. The President's Council for Bioethics has warned that DCD can transform EOL care from a "peaceful dignified death" into a profanely "high-tech death" experience for donors and donor's families. ICUs are not typically set up to provide optimum palliative care. The process of obtaining donation consent and subsequent donor management protocols for DCD deviate from some of the quality indicators recommended for optimal EOL care. Organ-focused behaviour by professionals requesting consent for organ donation and ambivalent decision making by family members increase the risk of relatives of deceased donors subsequently developing traumatic memories and stress disorders. The processes required for the successful accomplishment of donation consent and subsequent organ recovery can interfere with many of the interventions that lessen the burden of bereavement of relatives of ICU decedents.

Informed consent
The standard consent for DCD goes like this. Patients or families are told that they will have a chance to say their goodbyes, the patient will then be taken to the operating room, life support will be removed, and after 2–10 minutes of continuously observed absence of pulse, blood pressure, and respiration, death will be declared and the removal of organs begin. Consent to this is taken to be consent to organ donation at death determined by cardiocirculatory criteria, i.e., to DCD. The problem is that death is commonly understood as an irreversible state in the strong sense. The commonsense understanding of death is that it is a permanent state, and that if a person has truly died then life cannot be restored to the individual. Death understood as an irreversible state in the weak sense—as one that will not be, or ought not to be, or cannot legally or morally be reversed—is on this view a revisionist account of how death can be best conceived rather than an accurate descriptive account of how it actually is commonly understood. Given this, when donors consent to donation at death they can only be presumed to be consenting to organ donation when their loved one is in a physically irreversible state. Since, however, death determined by cardiocirculatory criteria is not necessarily a physically irreversible state, consent to organ donation at death is not consent to organ donation at death determined by cardiocirculatory criteria.

Menikoff criticizes the IOM for not routinely disclosing to prospective donors and families that and how death determined by cardiocirculatory criteria differs from death in the ordinary sense. In particular, he faults the IOM for not telling them that donors will be declared dead before brain death is known to have occurred, and hence they may have their organs removed when portions of the brain (including the higher brain) are still functional. Potts et al. on behalf of the IOM reply that informed consent does not require this level of disclosure: "Reviewing with interested family members that all brain activity may not have ceased at the exact moment that death is pronounced may be appropriate in some circumstances, but, for many families confronted with such overwhelming emotional matters, knowledge that death has been pronounced is what is paramount.  The sensitivity and skill of the physicians and nurses to the individual needs of families is the key factor whether or not organ donation is involved."

Behind this disagreement on what disclosure is required is a larger one that Brock has characterized as a choice between "truth or consequences". In Brock's view, public policy cannot centre in on the unqualified and unconstrained search for the truth without concern for the consequences of that search. On some occasions "the likely effects on the well-being and rights of the public of exposing the full complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty, and controversy surrounding a particular public policy could be sufficiently adverse and serious to justify not exposing them and presenting the issue in misleading or oversimplified terms instead." Brock concludes that "No general answer can be given to truth-or-consequences choices that will hold for all cases. In any particular instance of this choice, we must instead weigh the policy gains against the moral and political risks, and how that balances out will often be empirically uncertain and morally controversial."

On the issue at hand, Menikoff and Brock think that the importance of informed consent should put us on the "truth" side of the question. Menikoff writes: "Deceiving prospective organ donors about relevant truths concerning their condition is likely, ultimately, to lead to diminished public confidence and to fewer organ donations.  But even if it did not reduce the number of donated organs, in a system that is allegedly based on freely given consent, we must recognize that obtaining such consent by telling less than the truth is fundamentally wrong." And Brock contends that in a democratic state there is a presumption that the citizens will be informed about all relevant information of public policy, and thinks that DCD involves such a radical change in the timing of death from what people ordinarily think, that it is something that they should be informed about. By contrast, the IOM took itself to have the task of addressing the question: "Given a potential donor in an end-of-life situation, what are the alternative medical approaches that can be used to maximize the availability of organs from that donor without violating prevailing ethical norms regarding the rights and welfare of donors?" And it replied: "Our goal was to support both the interests of patients and families regarding nature and time of death and the public's interests in increased organ procurement.  In striking the balance, the expert panel strictly adhered to widely endorsed principles of ethics and established legal and legal guidelines." In thus balancing what is disclosed to the family against what is in the interest of organ procurement, the IOM comes down on the "consequences" side of the "truth or consequences" debate.

DCD and the future
DCD is a procedure that operates in an area set by two rules. The first is the DDR, which says that no vital organs can be taken before the patient is dead. The second, a corollary of this, prohibits killing patients by or for organ procurement.

It is not, however, always clear how procedures that are beneficial to transplantation can be fit under those rules. For example, providing ECMO (Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation) to donors immediately after death is declared by cardiocirculatory criteria can keep organs in their freshest possible condition. If, however, ECMO provides circulation and oxygenation to the entire body, can the donor really be declared dead by those criteria? The rules can also generate other puzzle cases. If a donor is declared dead by cardiocirculatory criteria, can the heart be transplanted, or does the fact that the heart is started in another negate the determination of death in the first?

Further such problems are bound to arise in the future. To handle them Bernat recommends that a committee be set up: "A consensus-driven oversight process should determine whether investigational protocols reflect appropriate medical treatment and whether their translation into accepted clinical practice is sound public policy.  Leaders of the critical care, neurology, and transplantation communities need to jointly draft practice guidelines for organ donation after circulatory death that establish acceptable boundaries of practice.  These boundaries should be based on scientific data and accepted principles and should be demarcated conservatively to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the transplantation enterprise."

Others, however, argue that rather than having to either provide answers to these problems that square with the rules in question or forgo advantageous procedures, it would be best to reject those rules. Instead of making the question "When is the patient dead?" the central question to trigger organ retrieval, the proposal is to shift the focus to obtaining valid consent from patients or surrogates and the principle of nonmaleficence. As Truog explains the proposal: "On this view, policies could be changed such that organ procurement would be permitted only with the consent of the donor or appropriate surrogate and only when doing so would not harm the donor.  Individuals who could not be harmed by the procedure would include those who are permanently and irreversibly unconscious (patients in a persistent vegetative state or newborns with anencephaly) and those who are imminently and irreversibly dying. Qualified individuals who had given their consent could simply have their organs removed under general anesthesia without first undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support.  Anencephalic newborns whose parents requested organ donation could likewise have the organs removed under general anesthesia without the need to wait for the diagnosis of brain death."

This approach has conceptual and pragmatic advantages. On the conceptual side, securing organs at optimum times does not require us to constantly redefine death and when it occurs so that persons who are alive may have their organs taken. It would also allow us to say that when a physician removes life-support and the patient dies that the physician caused patient's death. Many think this is more natural than saying that all the physician did was to return the patient to an untreated disease state and that state caused the death. Finally, we thereby avoid the proliferation of definitions of death with differing times in different jurisdictions, different definitions of death for different purposes (the cardiocirculatory definition of death discussed in this article is only valid for DCD), and arbitrary rulings such as declaring anencephalic infants with heartbeat dead.

On the pragmatic side, rejecting the rules in question would have advantages for recipients and donors in transplant programs. Because there will now be no necessary interval between pulselessness and the declaration of death, there can be a reduction in warm ischemia time, and so an improvement in the quality and quantity of transplantable organs. It will also be possible to give the donor drugs such as heparin and phentolamine, which can hasten death but also maximize organ preservation. Finally, it will eliminate the possibility that patients will experience discomfort as they are withdrawn from ventilator support by allowing potentially fatal doses of morphine that are not titrated to signs of distress.

The main obstacle to accepting the proposal is securing the acceptance of the public to allow physicians to cause the death of (which is to say kill) patients to obtain transplantable organs. Proponents of the proposal contend that robust consent requirements can provide the public with the assurance against exploitation that the dead donor rule and the prohibition on killing are designed to provide. Others deny this. Thus the question can be posed: "Given the difficulties our society is likely to experience in trying to openly adjudicate these disparate views [of accepting or rejecting the prohibition on physicians killing for transplantation], why not simply go along with the quieter strategy of policy creep?  It seems to be getting us where we want to go, albeit slowly.  Besides, total candor is not always compatible with public policy (Calabresi G and Bobbitt P. Tragic Choices. New York: Norton,1978)." The debate continues unresolved.

title: Non-heart-beating donation


text:
Standard English

In an English-speaking country, Standard English (SE) is the variety of English that has undergone codification to the point of being socially perceived as the standard language, associated with formal schooling, language assessment, and official print publications, such as public service announcements and newspapers of record, etc. All linguistic features are subject to the effects of standardisation, including morphology, phonology, syntax, lexicon, register, discourse markers, pragmatics, as well as written features such as spelling conventions, punctuation, capitalisation and abbreviation practices. SE is local to nowhere: its grammatical and lexical components are no longer regionally marked, although many of them originated in different, non-adjacent dialects, and it has very little of the variation found in spoken or earlier written varieties of English. According to Peter Trudgill, Standard English is a social dialect pre-eminently used in writing that is distinguishable from other English dialects largely by a small group of grammatical "idiosyncrasies", such as irregular reflexive pronouns and an "unusual" present-tense verb morphology.

The term "Standard" refers to the regularisation of the grammar, spelling, usages of the language and not to minimal desirability or interchangeability (e.g., a standard measure). For example, there are substantial differences among the language varieties that countries of the Anglosphere identify as "standard English": in England and Wales, the term Standard English identifies British English, the Received Pronunciation accent, and the grammar and vocabulary of United Kingdom Standard English (UKSE); in Scotland, the variety is Scottish English; in the United States, the General American variety is the spoken standard; and in Australia, the standard English is General Australian. By virtue of a phenomenon sociolinguists call "elaboration of function", specific linguistic features attributed to a standardised dialect become associated with nonlinguistic social markers of prestige (like wealth or education). The standardised dialect itself, in other words, is not linguistically superior to other dialects of English used by an Anglophone society.

Unlike with some other standard languages, there is no national academy or international academy with ultimate authority to codify Standard English; its codification is thus only by widespread prescriptive consensus. The codification is therefore not exhaustive or unanimous, but it is extensive and well-documented.

Definitions
Although standard English is usually associated with official communications and settings, it is diverse in registers (stylistic levels), such as those for journalism (print, television, internet) and for academic publishing (monographs, academic papers, internet). This diversity in registers also exists between the spoken and the written forms of SE, which are characterised by degrees of formality; therefore, Standard English is distinct from formal English, because it features stylistic variations, ranging from casual to formal. Furthermore, the usage codes of nonstandard dialects (vernacular language) are less stabilised than the codifications of Standard English, and thus more readily accept and integrate new vocabulary and grammatical forms. Functionally, the national varieties of SE are characterised by generally accepted rules, often grammars established by linguistic prescription in the 18th century.

English originated in England during the Anglo-Saxon period, and is now spoken as a first or second language in many countries of the world, many of which have developed one or more "national standards" (though this does not refer to published standards documents, but to the frequency of consistent usage). English is the first language of the majority of the population in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas and Barbados and is an official language in many others, including India, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa and Nigeria; each country has a standard English with a grammar, spelling and pronunciation particular to the local culture.

As the result of colonisation and historical migrations of English-speaking populations, and the predominant use of English as the international language of trade and commerce (a lingua franca), English has also become the most widely used second language. Countries in which English is neither indigenous nor widely spoken as an additional language may import a variety of English via instructional materials (typically British English or American English) and consider it "standard" for teaching and assessment purposes. Typically, British English is taught as standard across Europe, the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, and American English is taught as standard across Latin America and East Asia. This does, however, vary between regions and individual teachers. In some areas a pidgin or creole language blends English with one or more native languages.

Grammar
Although the standard Englishes of the anglophone countries are similar, there are minor grammatical differences and divergences of vocabulary among the varieties. In American and Australian English, for example, "sunk" and "shrunk" as past-tense forms of "sink" and "shrink" are acceptable as standard forms, whereas standard British English retains only the past-tense forms of "sank" and "shrank". In Afrikaner South African English, the deletion of verbal complements is becoming common. This phenomenon sees the objects of transitive verbs being omitted: "Did you get?", "You can put in the box". This kind of construction is infrequent in most other standardised varieties of English.

Origins
In the past, different scholars have meant different things by the phrase 'Standard English', when describing its emergence in medieval and early modern England. In the nineteenth century, it tended to be used in relation to the wordstock. Nineteenth-century scholars Earle and Kington-Oliphant conceived of the standardisation of English in terms of ratios of Romance to Germanic vocabulary. Earle claimed that the works of the poets Gower and Chaucer, for instance, were written in what he called 'standard language' because of their amounts of French-derived vocabulary.

Subsequently, attention shifted to the regional distribution of phonemes. Morsbach, Heuser and Ekwall conceived of standardisation largely as relating to sound-change, especially as indicated by spellings for vowels in stressed syllables, with a lesser emphasis on morphology.

Mid-twentieth-century scholars McIntosh and Samuels continued to focus on the distribution of spelling practice but as primary artefacts, which are not necessarily evidence of underlying articulatory reality. Their work led to the publication of the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, which aims to describe dialectal variation in Middle English between 1350 and 1450. The final date was chosen to reflect the increasing standardisation of written English. Although as they note, "The dialects of the spoken language did not die out, but those of the written language did".

A number of late-twentieth-century scholars tracked morphemes as they standardised, such as auxiliary do, third-person present-tense -s, you/thou, the wh- pronouns, and single negation, multiple negations being common in Old and Middle English and remaining so in spoken regional varieties of English.

Present-day investigations
In the twenty-first century, scholars consider all of the above and more, including the rate of standardisation across different text-types such as administrative documents;   the role of the individual in spreading standardisation;  the influence of multilingual and mixed-language writing; the influence of the Book of Common Prayer; standardisation of the wordstock; evolution of technical registers; standardisation of morphemes; standardisation of letter-graphs,  and the partial standardisation of Older Scots.

Late West Saxon
After the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms by Alfred the Great and his successors, the West Saxon variety of Old English began to influence writing practices in other parts of England. The first variety of English to be called a "standard literary language" was the West Saxon variety of Old English.

However, Lucia Kornexl defines the classification of Late West Saxon Standard as rather constituting a set of orthographic norms than a standardised dialect, as there was no such thing as standardisation of Old English in the modern sense: Old English did not standardise in terms of reduction of variation, reduction of regional variation, selection of word-stock, standardisation of morphology or syntax, or use of one dialect for all written purposes everywhere.

The Norman Conquest of 1066 decreased the usage of Old English, but it was still used in parts of the country for at least another century.

Mixed language
Following the changes brought about by the Norman Conquest of 1066, England became a trilingual society. Literate people wrote in Medieval Latin and Anglo-Norman French more than they wrote in monolingual English. In addition, a widely used system developed which mixed several languages together, typically with Medieval Latin as the grammatical basis, adding in nouns, noun-modifiers, compound-nouns, verb-stems and -ing forms from Anglo-Norman French and Middle English. This mixing of the three in a grammatically regular system is known to modern scholars  as mixed-language, and it became the later fourteenth and fifteenth-century norm for accounts, inventories, testaments and personal journals.

The mixed-language system was abandoned over the fifteenth century, and at different times in different places, it became replaced by monolingual supralocal English, although it was not always a straightforward exchange. For example, Alcolado-Carnicero surveyed the London Mercers' Livery Company Wardens' Accounts and found that they switched back and forth for over seventy years between 1390 and 1464 before finally committing to monolingual English.

Individual scribes spent whole careers in the mixed-language stage, with no knowledge that monolingual English would be the eventual outcome and that it was in fact a stage of transition. For much of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, writing in mixed-language was the professional norm in money-related text types, providing a conduit for the borrowing of Anglo-Norman vocabulary into English.

Middle English
From the 1370s, monolingual Middle English was used increasingly, mainly for local communication. Up until the later fifteenth century, it was characterised by great regional and spelling variation. After the middle of the fifteenth century, supralocal monolingual varieties of English began to evolve for numerous pragmatic functions.

Supralocalisation is where "dialect features with a limited geographical distribution are replaced by features with a wider distribution".

Over the later fifteenth century, individuals began to restrict their spelling ratios, selecting fewer variants.

However, each scribe made individual selections so that the pool of possible variants per feature still remained wide at the turn of the sixteenth century.

Thus, the early stage of standardisation can be identified by the reduction of grammatical and orthographical variants and loss of geographically marked variants in the writing of individuals.

Demise of Anglo-Norman
The rise of written monolingual English was due to the abandonment of Anglo-Norman French between 1375 and 1425, with subsequent absorption into supralocal varieties of English of much of its wordstock and many of its written conventions. Some of these conventions were to last, such as minimal spelling variation, and some were not, such as digraph $⟨þ⟩$ and trigraph $⟨þ⟩$.

Anglo-Norman was the variety of French that was widely used by the educated classes in late medieval England. It was used, for example, as the teaching language in grammar schools. For example, the Benedictine monk Ranulph Higden, who wrote the widely copied historical chronicle Polychronicon, remarks that, against the practice of other nations, English children learn Latin grammar in French. Ingham analysed how Anglo-Norman syntax and morphology written in Britain began to differ from Anglo-Norman syntax and morphology written on the Continent from the 1370s onwards until the language fell out of use in Britain in the 1430s.

After the last quarter of the fourteenth century Anglo-Norman written in England displayed the kind of grammatical levelling which occurs as the result of language acquired in adulthood, and deduces that the use of Anglo-Norman in England as a spoken vehicle for teaching in childhood must have ceased around the end of the fourteenth century. An examination of 7,070 Hampshire administrative (episcopal, municipal, manorial) documents written 1399–1525 showed that Anglo-Norman ceased to be used after 1425.

The pragmatic function for which Anglo-Norman had been used – largely administering money – became replaced by monolingual English or Latin. Anglo-Norman was abandoned towards the end of the fourteenth century, though the consequent absorption of many of its written features into written English paralled the socio-economic improvement of the poorer, monolingually English-speaking classes over that century.

Supralocal varieties
When monolingual English replaced Anglo-Norman French, it took over its pragmatic functions too. A survey of the Middle English Local Documents corpus, containing 2,017 texts from 766 different locations around England written 1399–1525, found that language choice was conditioned by the readership or audience: if the text was aimed at professionals, then the text was written in Latin; if it was aimed at non-professionals, then the text was written in Anglo-Norman until the mid-fifteenth century and either Latin or English thereafter. More oral, less predictable texts were aimed at non-professionals as correspondence, ordinances, oaths, conditions of obligation, and occasional leases and sales.

The supralocal varieties of English which replaced Anglo-Norman in the late fifteenth century were still regional, but less so than fourteenth-century Middle English had been, particularly with regard to morphemes, closed-class words and spelling sequences. As some examples: less regionally-marked features "urban-hopped" in texts from Cheshire and Staffordshire ("urban-hopping" refers to texts copied in cities being more standardised than those copied in smaller towns and villages, which contained more local dialect features); a lower frequency of regionally-marked spellings were found in wills from urban York versus those from rural Swaledale; and texts from Cambridge were less regionally marked than those from the surrounding Midlands and East Anglian areas.

However, these late fifteenth- and sixteenth-century supralocal varieties of English were not yet standardised. Medieval Latin, Anglo-Norman and mixed-language set a precedent model, as Latin and French had long been conventionalised on the page and their range of variation was limited. Supralocal varieties of English took on this uniformity by reducing more regionally-marked features and permitting only one or two minor variants.

Transition to Standard English
Later fifteenth- and sixteenth-century supralocalisation was facilitated by increased trade networks.

As people in cities and towns increasingly did business with each other, words, morphemes and spelling-sequences were transferred around the country by means of speaker-contact, writer-contact and the repeat back-and-forth encounters inherent in trading activity, from places of greater density to those of lower. Communities of practice such as accountants auditing income and outgoings, merchants keeping track of wares and payments, and lawyers writing letters on behalf of clients, led to the development of specific writing conventions for specific spheres of activity. English letter-writers 1424–1474 in one community of practice (estate administrators) reduced spelling variation in words of Romance origin but not in words of English origin, reflecting the pragmatics of law and administration, which had previously been the domain of Anglo-Norman and mixed-language.

This shows that the reduction of variation in supralocal varieties of English was due to the influence of Anglo-Norman and mixed-language: when English took over their pragmatic roles, it also took on their quality of spelling uniformity. Members of the gentry and professionals, in contradistinction to the nobility and lower commoners, were the main users of French suffixes in a survey of the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 1410–1681.

This finding that the middling classes uptook French elements into English first is in keeping with estate administrators' reduction of spelling variation in words of French origin: in both cases, the literate professional classes ported Anglo-Norman writing conventions into their English.

Standard English was not to settle into its present form until the early nineteenth century. It contains elements from different geographical regions, "an urban amalgam drawing on non-adjacent dialects".

Examples of multiregional morphemes are auxiliary do from south-western dialects and third-person present tense -s and plural are from northern ones. An example of multiregional spelling is provided by the reflex of Old English /y/ – Old English /y/ was written as $⟨y⟩$ in the north and north-east Midlands, $⟨lx⟩$ in the south and south-west Midlands, and $⟨aun⟩$ in the south-east and south-east Midlands. Standard English retains multiregional $⟨i⟩$ spellings such as cudgel (Old English cycgel), bridge (Old English brycg), merry (Old English myrig).

Unlike earlier twentieth-century histories of standardisation, it is no longer felt necessary to posit unevidenced migrations of peoples to account for movement of words, morphemes and spelling conventions from the provinces into Standard English. Such multiregionalisms in Standard English are explained by the fifteenth-century countrywide expansion of business, trade and commerce, with linguistic elements passed around communities of practice and along weak-tie trade networks, both orally and in writing.

Superseded explanations
Although the following hypotheses have now been superseded, they still prevail in literature aimed at students. However more recent handbook accounts such as those of Ursula Schaeffer and Joan C. Beal explain that they are insufficient.

A. East Midlands
Bror Eilert Ekwall hypothesised that Standard English developed from the language of upper-class East Midland merchants who influenced speakers in the City of London.

By language, Ekwall stipulated just certain $⟨u⟩$ graphs and $⟨e⟩$ letter-graphs in stressed syllables, present plural suffix -e(n, present participle suffix -ing, and pronoun they, which he thought could not be East Saxon and so must be from eastern Anglian territory. He, therefore, examined locative surnames in order to discover whether people bearing names originating from settlements in the East Midlands (in which he included East Anglia) migrated to London between the Norman Conquest of 1066 and 1360. By this method, he found that most Londoners who bore surnames from elsewhere indicated an origin in London's hinterland, not from East Anglia or the East Midlands. Nevertheless, he hypothesised that East Midlands upper-class speakers did affect the speech of the upper classes in London. He thought that upper-class speech would have been influential, although he also suggested influence from the Danelaw in general. Thus his dataset was very limited, by 'standard' he meant a few spellings and morphemes rather than a dialect per se, his data did not support migration from the East Midlands, and he made unsupported assumptions about the influence of the speech of the upper classes (details in Laura Wright 2020 ).

B. Central Midlands
Michael Louis Samuels criticised Ekwall's East Midlands hypothesis.

He shifted Ekwall's hypothesis from the East to the Central Midlands, he classified late medieval London and other texts into Types I-IV, and he introduced the label '"Chancery Standard'" to describe writing from the King's Office of Chancery, which he claimed was the precursor of Standard English. Samuels did not question Ekwall's original assumption that there must have been a migration from somewhere north of London to account for certain $⟨i, u, e⟩$ graphs and $⟨a⟩$ letter-graphs in stressed syllables, present plural suffix -e(n, present participle suffix -ing, and pronoun they in fifteenth-century London texts, but his work for the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English did not support the possibility of an East Anglian or East Midland migration, and he replaced it by hypothesising a migration of people from the Central Midlands, although without historical evidence. Like Ekwall, Samuels was not dogmatic and presented his work as preliminary.

C. Types I-IV
Samuels classified fifteenth century manuscripts into four Types.

These divisions have subsequently proved problematical, partly because Samuels did not specify exactly which manuscripts fall into which class, and partly because other scholars do not see inherent cohesiveness within each Type. Matti Peikola examining Type 1, ('Central Midland Standard') spelling ratios in the orthography of 68 hands who wrote manuscripts of the Later Version of the Wycliffite Bible, concluded: "it is difficult to sustain a 'grand unifying theory' about Central Midland Standard".

Jacob Thaisen analysing the orthography of texts forming Type 2 found no consistent similarities between different scribes' spelling choices and no obvious overlap of selection signalling incipient standardisation, concluding "it is time to lay the types to rest".

Simon Horobin examining spelling in Type 3 texts reported "such variation warns us against viewing these types of London English as discrete … we must view Samuels' typology as a linguistic continuum rather than as a series of discrete linguistic varieties".

D. Chancery Standard
Samuels's Type IV, dating after 1435, was labelled by Samuels 'Chancery Standard' because it was supposedly the dialect in which letters from the King's Office of Chancery supposedly emanated.

John H. Fisher and his collaborators asserted that the orthography of a selection of documents including Signet Letters of Henry V, copies of petitions sent to the Court of Chancery, and indentures now kept in The National Archives, constituted what he called "Chancery English". This orthographical practice was supposedly created by the government of Henry V, and was supposedly the precursor of Standard English. However, this assertion attracted strong objections, such as those made by Norman Davis, T. Haskett, R. J. Watts, and Reiko Takeda. Takeda points out that "the language of the documents displays much variation and it is not clear from the collection what exactly 'Chancery English' is, linguistically" (for a critique of Fisher's assertions, see Takeda. ) For a critique of Fisher's philological work, see Michael Benskin 2004, who calls his scholarship "uninformed not only philologically but historically".

Gwilym Dodd  has shown that most letters written by scribes from the Office of Chancery were in Medieval Latin and that petitions to the Crown shifted from Anglo-Norman French before c. 1425 to monolingual English around the middle of the century. Scribes working for the Crown wrote in Latin, but scribes working for individuals petitioning the king – it is likely that individuals engaged professionals to write on their behalf, but who these scribes were is not usually known – wrote in French before the first third of the fifteenth century, and after that date in English. As with mixed-language writing, there followed decades of switching back and forth before the Crown committed to writing in monolingual English so that the first English royal letter of 1417 did not signal a wholesale switchover.

Latin was still the dominant language in the second half of the fifteenth century. As Merja Stenroos put it, "the main change was the reduction in the use of French, and the long-term development was towards more Latin, not less. On the whole, the output of government documents in English continued to be small compared to Latin."

Spelling
With rare exceptions, Standard Englishes use either American or British spelling systems, or a mixture of the two (such as in Australian English and Canadian English). British spellings usually dominate in Commonwealth countries.

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

title: Standard English


text:
Talk:Kosovo/Kosova

From Votes for deletion
Copied here for the record from Votes for Deletion (permalink):

Kosova Dictionary entry and could never become more then one. All of its contents already exists in Kosovo and Metohia. Not even needed as a redirect as it is not a word of English language. Nikola 09:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article covers the political context of the use of the name "Kosova", so it is not just a dictionary definition. It already links through to the article on Kosovo and Metohia. Also, voters should be aware that Nikola does not like using Albanian alternative placenames, for apparently nationalist reasons, and has systematically removed from them from Kosovo-related articles; this proposal for deletion should be considered in that light. -- ChrisO 10:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons as ChrisO. Ambivalenthysteria 10:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. In view of the controversy, it would be extremely POV to delete the Albanian spelling completely. The matter of removing the duplicated text (and it is) and/or of making it a redirect is not a VfD issue. Andrewa 11:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, propaganda. Everyking 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid article, context explained reasonably well. Zoney 02:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with ChrisO. Secretlondon 12:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid entry. perhaps merge with Kosovo and Metohia and redirect. --Jiang 22:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, Albanian seperatists propaganda. Merge non-propaganda info with Kosovo and Metohia. Possibly redirect, but English name is Kosovo with an O, not an A. — Jor (Darkelf) 16:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Make it a redirect (to those saying there should be no redirect, please notice that there are close to half a million hits on google on this name). Move the contents of the article to a title that better describing the contents. Jor, there is nothing propagandistic about the article, and I take offense at your words (I'm Albanian, though not from Kosovo). Hopefully someday Kosovo will be independent (and perhaps the name changed), but until then the official name should be kept, otherwise we open a whole can of worms. Dori | Talk 16:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect, integrate with Kosovo and Metohija and watch that the content remains there. Alternatively, create a separate article "Names of Kosovo and Metohia", and integrate the content from Kosovo and Metohia and Kosova. No propaganda as it stands. Andres 20:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it is propaganda, the correct response is more information, not less.  Add some more content to explain propaganda issues and the unterlying politics of ALL sides.  It is always interesting to watch how an alternative view gets in and how the views then get merged.Kd4ttc 21:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisO (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 March 2004 (UTC)

Comments post-VfD
The article is certainly not intended to be propagandistic. Like other contributors to the debate, I'm not sure what in it could be considered propaganda, although I'm grateful to Everyking for providing the following explanation on my talk page:

 * It is something that can just as easily be stated in a few words on an article on Kosovo or its politics. The existence of this article seems to me to be a subtle attempt to increase the recognition of this alternate spelling as the norm here. Everyking 20:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do accept the point that's been made about the potential redundancy between this article and the main one on Kosovo and Metohia. The purpose of having a separate article entitled Kosova (which was originally a redirect created last July) was to explain the naming controversy. The issue is not unlike that of the Republic of Macedonia. However, I see that that article covers the controversy as part of the article rather than in a separate piece, so I propose to follow the same precedent and merge this article into the main one. A redirect will be left here (which is definitely required, considering that the Albanian version of name is well-used). -- ChrisO 13:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disambig
We don't make disambigs out of the most commonly used terms (when they're so overwhelming in one direction). Perform a search on google, what do you get for like the first 10 pages? Dori | Talk 16:40, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * We don't. I notice, however, that most of the 10 pages are not in English. Another point is that then the article this one would redirect to would have two disambiguations, which is quite unusual (I don't know any page with that). Perhaps this could be a redirect and the ambiguation would be at, say, Kos-. Then again, Bantu tribe probably doesn't have this root.
 * I have to state that I am willing to accept any decision on this, as long as it's made. Nikola 08:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The two disambigs is very unusual and ugly (I've never seen it either). I would be glad if they were combined under some name (don't know what, and it doesn't matter since the only link to it would probably be from Kosovo). All I know is that 99% of the people who would search or link Kosova would want to go to Kosovo, so this article should be a redirect there. Dori | Talk 13:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that I have seen some similar cases where the name of the article was used for the name of the disambiguation article even though not all articles in the disambiguation article were called that way. Nikola 06:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be OK with merging "Kosova (disambiguation)" into "Kosovo (disambiguation)" if that's what you're saying. Others may disagree. Dori | Talk 14:00, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would support the merge, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I just merged it with Kosovo (disambiguation). I also included Kosova, since it was almost the same as this page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This is was the best argument of you nationationalists- Hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP - 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is Kosova not Kosovo. You are iderecteng wrong. If ther are multiple Kosova then you must create a Kosova(disambiguation). How ever this explexns evey thing about you serbian propagander in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.208.232.183 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Kosovo
So, let me see... If I want to go to the article about Kosova, Estonia, I first have to go to the Kosovo article, THEN the disambiguation page, and THEN maybe find the article among a bunch of similar looking sentences with the word Kosovo or Kosova in them? Please... --K OCOBO  02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually no, this is the way disambiguation of places normally works. The most important place takes precedence, with less important places being disambiguated from the article on the most important place. For instance, the British city London takes precedence over the other places called London. This is indicated by the article on London stating: This article is about the capital city of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see London (disambiguation). Similarly, the place in Serbia called Kosova takes precedence over the various towns and villages around the world with the same name. -- ChrisO 13:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "Londres" may provide a good comparison. Evv 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that's a bit different. "Londres" is not a local name, but "Kosova" is. A better comparison would be Geneva (French name) / Genf (German name) - notice that they both redirect to the same article with a disambiguation provided on that article. -- ChrisO 16:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe "Wien" then :-) . Evv 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just understood that apparently the decision was already taken to make "Kosova" a simple redirect to "Kosovo", and not a desambiguation page. I didn't understood it the first time I looked at this talk page. Sorry for my last edits... Feel free to revert me.

Having said that, and for what is worth at this late stage, I would prefer to have it as a disambiguation page, like "Wien". This is NOT to "suppress the Albanian name", but on the contrary to make it more interesting by providing the readers with a broader spectrum of information: I wouldn't like "Morava, Norge, Normandie, Polska, Suomi, Wien" to be a simple redirects either.

However, I respect any previously taken decisions. Once again, sorry for not reading this talk page more carefully. - Regards. Evv 20:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Kosovo, 2008
Although the form "Kosova" is often used in English-language discourse, it's almost only done so in the context of Albanian activism, while the form "Kosovo" remains the standard English usage in virtually all other forms of English discourse.

Under these circumstances, I prefer the current disambiguation page, because I believe it's more usefull to our English-speaking readers -it has more encyclopedic value- than a simple, sterile redirect to "Kosovo". - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The term is used even in by native English speakers to refer to a whole country and it can not be compared with such little villages named Kosova. This should redirect to Kosovo, while another disambiguation page would play the current role.--Getoar (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Turned back into a redirect to Kosovo as per consensus on Talk:Kosovo. This meaning is far and away the predominant one among all the ones listed on the dab page, therefore redirect plus dab notice at the top of Kosovo, as per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kosovo/Kosova


text:
Abu Ali Mustafa

Mustafa Ali Zabri (مصطفى علي العلي; 1938 – 27 August 2001), better known by his kunya Abu Ali Mustafa (أبو علي مصطفى) and also known as Mustafa Alhaj, was a Palestinian militant who served as the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) from July 2000 until he was assassinated by Israeli forces in a targeted killing on 27 August 2001. Mustafa was succeeded as Secretary General by Ahmad Saadat, and the PFLP subsequently renamed their armed wing in the Palestinian territories the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades.

Biography
Mustafa Zabri was born in 1938, in the northern West Bank town of Arrabah, the son of a farmer. In 1955 he joined the Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM), and two years later was arrested by the Jordanian authorities for his political activities. On his release in 1961, he took charge of the ANM's military operations in the northern West Bank. Following the Israel Defense Forces' capture of the West Bank in the Six-Day War, he left the West Bank and spent 32 years mainly in Damascus and Jordan.

Mustafa joined George Habash and other left-wing members of the ANM in establishing the Marxist–Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in 1967, and became a leading member of the new organization. He was also a prominent member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, rising to become a member of its ruling Executive Committee. He was for a long time deputy to Habash's leadership of the PFLP.

In September 1999 he returned to the West Bank under a deal struck between Yasser Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. In July 2000 he was elected as the new general secretary of the PFLP after Habash retired. The PFLP is designated a terrorist organization by Israel and many western states. Israel held Mustafa personally responsible for 10 different car-bomb attacks undertaken by the PFLP during his time as general secretary (in Jerusalem, Or-Yehuda, Yehud, and Haifa) and other shootings.

Assassination
Mustafa was killed by two rockets fired from two Israeli Apache helicopters through his two office windows, as he sat at his desk in his office in Al-Bireh city, in a targeted killing on 27 August 2001. Over 50,000 mourners attended his funeral.

In an interview with Al Jazeera shortly before his death, Mustafa repeated his belief that the Palestinian people have the right to struggle using all means, including the armed struggle. Asked about the risk of targeted killing at Israeli hands he said: "We all are targeted as soon as we begin to be mobilised. We do our best to avoid their guns, but we are living under the brutal Zionist occupation of our lands, and its army is only a few metres away from us. Of course we must be cautious, but we have work to do, and nothing will stop us." He also rejected anything less than Israel's "destruction", saying "we do not make deals or truces with Israel."

Israeli tourist minister Rehavam Ze'evi was subsequently assassinated on 17 October 2001 by PFLP member Hamdi Quran in revenge for Mustafa's killing. Ze'evi had been a strong supporter of Israel carrying out targeted killing of Palestinian militants.

title: Abu Ali Mustafa


text:
Witch's broom

Witch's broom or witches' broom is a deformity in a woody plant, typically a tree, where the natural structure of the plant is changed. A dense mass of shoots grows from a single point, with the resulting structure resembling a broom or a bird's nest. It is sometimes caused by pathogens.

Diseases with symptoms of witches' broom, caused by phytoplasmas or basidiomycetes, are economically important in a number of crop plants, including the cocoa tree Theobroma cacao, jujube (Ziziphus jujuba) and the timber tree Melia azedarach.

Causes
A tree's characteristic shape, or habit, is in part the product of auxins, hormones which control the growth of secondary apices. The growth of an offshoot is limited by the auxin, while that of the parent branch is not. In cases of witch's broom, the normal hierarchy of buds is interrupted, and apices grow indiscriminately. This can be caused by cytokinin, a phytohormone which interferes with growth regulation. The phenomenon can also be caused by other organisms, including fungi, oomycetes, insects, mites, nematodes, phytoplasmas, and viruses. The broom growths may last for many years, typically for the life of the host plant. If twigs of witch's brooms are grafted onto normal rootstocks, freak trees result, showing that the attacking organism has changed the inherited growth pattern of the twigs.

Ecological role
Witches' brooms provide nesting habitat for birds and mammals, such as the northern flying squirrel, which nests in them.

title: Witch's broom


text: User talk:216.135.84.186

title: User talk:216.135.84.186


text:
Talk:International Healing Foundation

Untitled
This page is identified on Cleanup as 'needing massive NPOV', but I have to say it seems fine to me. It's clear from the introduction that the views presented are those of the IHF, and there doesn't seem to be any particular endorsement or rejection of those ideas, except perhaps implicit in the word 'helped' in the last line, which it is also made clear is the IHF's opinion. PlatinumX, can you point to anything specifically POV in the article? -- Karl Naylor 13:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I retract my statement and will remove from cleanup; I did not notice "The following outlines the IHF's theory," and the Table of Contents implies that the "outline" is the substance of the article. Perhaps a no-table tag until there are enough sections to create a ==IHF's theory== section? It could be a little clearer -- PlatinumX 22:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've removed the TOC. -- Karl Naylor 15:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The old organization of the sections was confusing and unorthodox. I reorganized the article to fix this.  Between this and Ifnord's addition of a criticisms section, I will tentatively remove the NPOV tag. Fireplace 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From Cleanup
 * International Healing Foundation needs massive NPOV treatment also -- PlatinumX - I disagree, see talk page Karl Naylor

IMHO what the article needed was a statement of criticisms of this organization's support of Reparative therapy. I have included this, and replaced the TOC. Ifnord 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I like Fireplace's use of the {main} template to link to Reparative therapy. Well-organized articles, that's what we need around here. --Uncle Ed 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:International Healing Foundation


text:
Shriekback

Shriekback are an English rock band formed in 1981 in Kentish Town by Barry Andrews, formerly of XTC and the League of Gentlemen (keyboards/synthesizers/vocals), and Dave Allen, formerly of Gang of Four (bass guitar), with Carl Marsh, formerly of Out on Blue Six (guitars/vocals) soon added to the line-up. The band's early music was a funk-influenced version of new wave and post-punk, later moving towards art rock and always featuring "insidiously weird vocals".

History
The band enjoyed some success on the dance chart on its original Y Records label and had a string of hits on the UK Indie Chart, while its first album, Care (1983), was picked up by Warner in the United States. The band left Y for Arista Records for Jam Science (1984), also recruiting the drummer Martyn Barker. The album reached number 85 on the UK Albums Chart and "Hand on my Heart" was a number 52 UK single. The 1985 album Oil and Gold was recorded on Arista (released by Island Records in the US). Marsh left Shriekback during the recording of Oil and Gold and was replaced on guitar by Mike Cozzi, with Andrews taking over lead vocals. Shriekback also left Arista and signed to Island Records for whom they recorded Big Night Music (1986), after which Allen left to rejoin Gang of Four, and Shriekback remained a collaborative centred on Andrews. Allen also went on to play in King Swamp and The Elastic Purejoy. Marsh was also in the band Happyhead.

After another album in 1988, Go Bang!, the band split up. Andrews continued working on other projects before re-forming Shriekback in 1992, although after the single "The Bastard Sons of Enoch" and album Sacred City, there were no further releases until Naked Apes and Pond Life (2000). Both Allen and Marsh returned to the studio to contribute to the recording of the 2003 release Having a Moment. After Having a Moment, Andrews recorded three albums for Malicious Damage (Killing Joke's original label) under the Shriekback name.

Shriekback are still actively producing music and released the studio album, ''Why Anything? Why This?'', in May 2018. The same line-up of Andrews, Barker and Marsh self-released a 15th studio album, Some Kinds of Light, on 6 December 2019. 1000 Books and Bowlahoola followed in 2021 and 2022.

Members
Other than those listed above, Shriekback members or contributors have included Luc van Acker, Linda Nevill, Emma Burnham, Brian Nevill, Pedro Ortiz, Clare Hirst, Lu Edmonds, Wendy and Sarah Partridge (from Electric Guitars), Steve Halliwell, Eve Moon, Ivan Julian, Mike Cozzi and Jessica Palin/Jose Fina Cupido.

In other media
The film director Michael Mann was a fan of the band and used several Shriekback songs in his films Manhunter and Band of the Hand and in his television series Miami Vice. Music composed by Shriekback is used as the theme song for the Squaring the Strange podcast hosted by Benjamin Radford and Pascual Romero. They selected it because of their fondness for music from the 1980s.

Studio albums

 * Tench (1982)
 * Care (1983), Y (UK Indie No. 7)
 * Jam Science (1984), Arista (UK No. 85 )
 * Oil and Gold (1985), Arista
 * Big Night Music (1986), Island
 * Go Bang! (1988), Island
 * Sacred City (1992), World Domination/Capitol
 * Naked Apes and Pond Life (2000), Mauve/Mushroom
 * Having a Moment (2003)
 * Cormorant (2005)
 * Glory Bumps (2007)
 * Life in the Loading Bay (December 2010)
 * Without Real String or Fish (March 2015)
 * Why Anything? Why This? (May 2018)
 * Some Kinds of Light (December 2019)
 * 1000 Books (December 2021)
 * Bowlahoola (November 2022)

Compilations and live albums

 * The Infinite (The Best of Shriekback) (1984), Kaz
 * Evolution – Best of Shriekback Vol. 2 (1988), Kaz
 * The Dancing Years (1990), Island
 * Natural History – The Very Best of Shriekback (1994), Essential
 * Priests and Kannibals: The Best of Shriekback (1994), Arista
 * The Y Records Years (2000), Sanctuary
 * Aberrations 81–84 (2001), Weatherbox
 * Vicissitudes (2002) (Shriekback.com Internet-only release)
 * 2 Live Shows (2002)
 * Live at Hatfield (2002)
 * Secrets of the City (2002) (Shriekback.com Internet-only release)
 * Island of the Hopeful Monsters (2015)
 * Live at Park West, Chicago '87 (2016)
 * Peel Sessions and Singularities (2016)
 * Big Live Band 2017 (2017)
 * The Elated World (2017) (album of commissioned songs)

Video albums

 * Jungle of the Senses (1987) Island Visual Arts

title: Shriekback


text:
St Margarets, London

St Margarets is an affluent suburb and neighbourhood in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, about 9 mi west-southwest of central London. It is bounded by the Thames Tideway to the north-east, and the River Crane to the north-west and north where the land tapers between those rivers. Land and buildings closer to Richmond Bridge than the eponymous railway station are, traditionally distinctly, known as East Twickenham. Both places go by their post town and traditional parish, Twickenham quite often; in the 19th century the south of St Margarets was marked on maps as Twickenham Park.

The area hosts a house that J. M. W. Turner saw built during his painting career and St Margarets railway station is within 1/3 mi of Marble Hill House.

Uniquely in London among the few places prefixed Saint it is named after a house. Specifically it is named after a large house together with appurtenant land of an 18th-century Scottish-New Jerseyan aristocrat, rather than a church which began in 1930.

History
The place hosted, in the south-east, remnants of the site of an encampment of the barons and their men in 1261. This refers to a minor civil war of the last three weeks of June or so – a power struggle between the crown (ministry of Henry III of England) and the aristocracy, a few uprisings later cemented into constitutional change led by de Montford. The net result of the uprisings was a settled parliamentary system enabling limits to the monarch's powers to tax and departure from such edicts as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster.

Saint Margarets takes its name from the former Saint Margaret's House, the second guise of which stood from 1827 to 1853. It was the country house of Archibald Kennedy, 1st Marquess of Ailsa (12th Earl of Cassilis), and for a few final decades became the home of the Earl of Kilmorey. Their names can be found in such streets as Kilmorey Gardens and Ailsa Road.

Victorian and Edwardian houses dominate the housing stock. In 1854 the St Margaret's Estate was laid out for building family houses, becoming one of the first garden suburbs.

Today's developed suburb dates from the arrival of the railway. The new railway station was preliminarily "Ailsa Crossing" as it passed through the estate, but it became "St Margarets" before opening.

A memorial was unveiled in April 2017 to the 6000 Belgian refugees many of the adults of whom lived and worked locally during the First World War. It is on the west bank of the Thames at Warren Gardens, next to the site of the Pelabon Munitions Works.

Annual events
St Margarets Fair is held each July in Moormead Park by the River Crane, a channel from its larger stream, on the western limits.

Buildings
In 1814 the painter J. M. W. Turner had built Solus Lodge in Sandycoombe Road. The house survives as Sandycombe Lodge.

Gordon House is a Grade II-listed Georgian mansion on the river Thames at St Margarets. Like St Margaret's House it was owned by Lord Kilmorey. The house has a Robert Adam wing, added in 1738. For many years, it was used as part of Brunel University. In recent years the house has been redeveloped by Octagon Developments, with the former chapel and coachhouse converted to private homes.

The Kilmorey Mausoleum has been moved several times, and is now on the northern edge of St Margarets. It was built in the 1850s by the 2nd Earl of Kilmorey and contains the bodies of the Earl and his mistress, Priscilla Anne Hoste. Now a Grade II* listed building, it was built to resemble an ancient Egyptian monument. It is jointly maintained by Richmond upon Thames Council and English Heritage. The mausoleum is occasionally open to the public.

The Roman Catholic Church of St Margaret of Scotland on St Margarets Road was built to a modern design of the architect Austin Winckley and opened in 1969. In 1999 it became a Grade II listed building. Its forerunner stood on site from 1938, after the relevant mission begun in an adjoining house in 1930. Twickenham and Isleworth as broad encompassing areas have had no other churches named after the saint.

In Anglicanism, two late-19th-century-founded Anglican church parishes serve the area. The place represents the north-west third of Saint Stephen's and the eastern two-fifths of All Souls, if the Crane is taken as the northern limit.

Education
There are three main schools nearby, in Twickenham: Orleans Park School (secondary), St. Stephen's Primary School (primary) and Orleans Primary School (primary).

Local commerce and townscape
Two main streets have a range of shops, cafés and bars/pubs serving food. Twickenham Studios are at the heart of the village and have recently announced plans to expand their presence in St Margarets.

The high street has well-frequented local, independent businesses.

Most roads are residential, some of which tree-lined. The most common house type is semi-detached; some detached, mainly those of three or four storeys have been subdivided. To the east of the "village" is the relatively verdant-setting houses and many classical flats (apartment buildings) of Twickenham Park.

Neighbouring areas
Direct neighbours comprise:
 * East Twickenham/Cambridge Park to the south-east.
 * Richmond across the river to the east (accessible across Twickenham Bridge, Richmond Bridge and Richmond Lock Footbridge)
 * Twickenham from the west through to the south.
 * Old Isleworth and the Ivybridge estate, Isleworth is to the north and northwest in the adjoining London Borough of Hounslow.

Between Richmond Lock and Kew Bridge is the first reach of the Thames proceeding upstream out of Central London with green, wooded expanses on both sides: Kew Gardens, associated golf course, and Syon Park which are all lightly wooded.

Marble Hill House and Marble Hill Park are immediately to the south.

Road
In modern station-centric terms St Margarets is quite narrowly cut through, as to about $2/5$, by the busy Chertsey Road (A316), which connects central London to the M3 motorway. Much of south St Margarets is in a controlled parking zone (CPZ), which restricts parking to residents and holders of vouchers.

Rail
The normal service from St Margarets station is four stopping-service trains per hour to and from Waterloo. Both Richmond and Twickenham stations are a short bus journey from most parts of the suburb and have status as major stops on the transport network – meaning semi-fast and somewhat fast services call at those stations.

Bus
Two bus routes run through St Margarets: the 110 (Hounslow – Hammersmith) and the H37 (Hounslow – Richmond). Other nearby bus routes are 33, R68, R70 and 490 coming from central Twickenham along Richmond Road; all of these, except 33, go past Richmond station.

title: St Margarets, London


text:
Talk:Frits Bolkestein

NPOV
I don't think sentences like the kind of people who he listens to seems to be still very big-player-oriented and so it is seen to be in her interest to push the enforcement of copyright violation forward even attempt to uphold a NPOV. Abigail 13:56, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Transcript of his debate with Chomsky? LamontCranston 08:04, June 5, 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frits Bolkestein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303073332/http://www.harlemdesir.com/article/articleview/783/1/1442/ to http://www.harlemdesir.com/article/articleview/783/1/1442/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frits Bolkestein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310215733/http://www.fritsbolkestein.com/books.htm to http://www.fritsbolkestein.com/books.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211051834/http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/529411/Joden-emigreer.html to http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/529411/Joden-emigreer.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frits Bolkestein


text:
Charles Frédéric Gerhardt

Charles Frédéric Gerhardt (21 August 1816 – 19 August 1856) was a French chemist, born in Alsace and active in Paris, Montpellier, and his native Strasbourg.

Biography
He was born in Strasbourg, which is where he attended the gymnasium (an advanced academic secondary school). He then studied at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, where Friedrich Walchner's lectures first stimulated his interest in chemistry. Next he attended the school of commerce in Leipzig, where he studied chemistry under Otto Linné Erdmann, who further developed his interest into a passion for questions of speculative chemistry.

Returning home in 1834, he entered his father's white lead factory, but soon found that business was not to his liking, and after a sharp disagreement with his father in his 20th year he enlisted in a cavalry regiment. In a few months military life became equally distasteful, and he purchased his discharge with the assistance of the German chemist Justus von Liebig. After a short period of living in Dresden, he went to the University of Giessen in central Germany in 1836 to study and work in Liebig's laboratory. His stay at Giessen lasted 18 months, and in 1837 he re-entered the factory. Again, however, he quarrelled with his father, and in 1838 he went to Paris with introductions from Liebig.

In Paris, he attended Jean Baptiste Dumas’ lectures and worked with Auguste Cahours (1813–1891) on essential oils, especially cumin, in Michel Eugène Chevreul’s laboratory at the Jardin des Plantes, meanwhile earning a precarious living by teaching and making translations of some of Liebig’s writings. In 1841, through the influence of Dumas, he was charged with the duties of chemistry professor at the Montpellier faculty of sciences, becoming titular professor in 1844.

In 1842 he annoyed his friends in Paris by the matter and manner of a paper on the classification of organic compounds. Later, he published Précis de chimie organique (1844–1845). In 1845 he and his opinions were the subject of an attack by Liebig, unjustifiable in its personalities but not altogether surprising in view of his wayward disregard of his patron’s advice. The two were reconciled in 1850, but his faculty for disagreeing with his friends did not make it easier for him to get another appointment after resigning the chair at Montpellier in 1851, especially as he was unwilling to go into the provinces.

He obtained leave of absence from Montpellier in 1848 so that he could pursue without interruption his special investigations, and from that year until 1855 he resided in Paris. During that period he established an École de chimie pratique ("School for practical chemistry") for which he had great hopes. However, these hopes were disappointed, and in 1855, after refusing the offer of a chair of chemistry at the new Zürich Polytechnic in 1854, he accepted the professorships of chemistry at the Faculty of Sciences and the École Polytechnique at Strassburg, where he died the following year, having just completed checking the proofs for the final volume of his Traité de chimie organique (4 vols., Paris, 1853–56), his magnum opus. This latter work embodies all his ideas and his discoveries.

Work
Gerhardt is known for his work on reforming the notation for chemical formulas (1843–1846). He also worked on acid anhydrides, and synthesized acetylsalicylic acid, albeit in an unstable and impure form.

Gerhardt is usually linked with his contemporary, Auguste Laurent, with whom he shared a strong and influential interest in theories of chemical combination.

The rare mineral gerhardtite is named after him.

Death
He died on August 19, 1856, two days short of his 40th birthday, of a sudden fever.

title: Charles Frédéric Gerhardt


text:
Jajce

Jajce (Јајце) is a town and municipality in the Central Bosnia Canton of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the 2013 census, the town has a population of 7,172 inhabitants, with 27,258 inhabitants in the municipality, It is situated in the region of Bosanska Krajina, on the crossroads between Banja Luka, Mrkonjić Grad and Donji Vakuf, on the confluence of the rivers Pliva and Vrbas.

Ancient times
Jajce Mithraeum is a temple dedicated to the God of the Sun, Mithra. The god was worshiped and the cult spread to other parts of the Roman Empire throughout the Mediterranean basin by slaves and merchants from the Orient, and by Roman soldiers who came into contact with the followers of the cult in the East. The temple is dated to the 2nd century AD and was renovated sometime during the 4th century AD. This particular Mithraeum is renowned as one of the best preserved in Europe. It was discovered accidentally during the construction of a private house. The temple is protected by glass walls so that visitors can see inside even without entering the facility. However, for entry and a closer look, visitors need to give notice of their visit in advance by contacting the Ethnological Museum of Jajce.

The Jajce Mithraeum has been declared a National Monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnian Kingdom
Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, at the height of his power, founded the town of Jajce, and built a fortress on the site of an earlier fort. It is assumed that one of the locations of his death could be Jajce, where he built his tomb, known as the Catacombs of Jajce. However, another location of his burial is possibly believed to be Zgošća near Kakanj, where the Zgošća Stećak, a burial megalith, had been found. Jajce was first built in the 14th century and served as the capital of the independent Kingdom of Bosnia during its time. The first references to the name of Jajce in written sources is from the year 1396, but the fortress already existed before this. The town has gates as fortifications, as well as a castle with walls which lead to the various gates around the town. About 10–20 kilometres from Jajce lies the Komotin Castle and town area which is older but smaller than Jajce. It is believed the town of Jajce was established after Komotin was struck by the Black Death. Jajce was the residence of the last Bosnian king Stjepan Tomašević where he received the royal crown from Pope Pius II as "by grace of God, the King of Serbs, Bosnia, Littoral, Hum, Dalmatia, Croats, etc.". The king was slain in the town after the Ottoman conquests.

The Ottomans besieged the town and executed Tomašević, but held it only for six months. At this point it was the Hungarians who looked to seize the opportunity to hinder the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans. With the Bosnian King's death, an opportunity arised for the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus to try and capture Bosnia before the Ottomans, which consequentially lead to the Siege of Jajce and suppression of the Ottoman forces' advancement. This derailed Ottoman plans for nearly half a century, for which time the Hungarians established the Banovina of Jajce. Before her death in 1478 Queen Catherine restored the Saint Mary's Church in Jajce, nowadays the oldest church in the town.

Ottoman period
Skenderbeg Mihajlović besieged Jajce again in 1501, which, although the siege was unsuccessful, marked the approaching demise of the town and the Hungarian rule in Bosnia. Mihajlović was repelled by Ivaniš Korvin, who was assisted by the Zrinski, Frankopan, Karlović and Cubor families.in 1520 Petar Keglević became the Ban of Jajce. In 1527, Jajce fell to the Ottomans. Under the Ottomans, the town lost its strategic importance, as the border moved further north.

There are several churches and mosques built at different times during different reigns, making Jajce a rather diverse town in this aspect.

Austria-Hungary period
Jajce was ruled together with the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the administration of Austria-Hungary from 1878 to 1918. The Franciscan monastery of Saint Luke was completed in 1885.

World War II
From 1929–1941, Jajce was part of the Vrbas Banovina of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During the Second World War, Jajce gained importance as centre of a large swath of free territory, and on 29 November 1943 it hosted the second convention of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ). There, representatives from throughout Yugoslavia decided to establish a federal Yugoslavia, one that would have equality between its ethnic groups, and established that Bosnia and Herzegovina would be one of its constitutive republics. The post-war economy of Jajce in socialist times was based on industry and tourism.

Bosnian War

At the beginning of the Bosnian War, Jajce was inhabited by people from all ethnic groups, and was situated at a junction between areas of the Bosnian Serb majority to the north, Bosniak majority areas to the southeast and Bosnian Croat majority areas to the southwest.

At the end of April and the beginning of May 1992, almost all ethnic Serbs fled or were expelled to the territory under Republika Srpska control. In the summer of 1992, the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) started heavy bombardment of the town. Jajce was defended by Croat (HVO) and Bosniak (ARBiH) forces with two separate command lines, but fell to Serb forces on 29 October. Retreating forces were joined by a column of 30,000 to 40,000 civilian refugees, stretching 10 mi towards Travnik, under VRS sniping and shelling. Shrader defined it as "the largest and most wretched single exodus" of the Bosnian War.

Bosniak refugees resettled in Central Bosnia, while Croats moved either to Croatia or closer to the Croatian border due to rising tensions. By November 1992 the pre-war population of Jajce had shrunk from 45,000 to just several thousand.

In the following weeks, all mosques and Catholic churches in Jajce were demolished. It is presumed that the Orthodox church was demolished on 10–11 October by members of the so-called "Krajina Brigade" within the Army of BiH. The VRS converted the town's Franciscan monastery into a prison and its archives, museum collections and artworks were looted; the monastery church was completely destroyed. By 1992, all religious buildings in Jajce had been destroyed, except for two mosques whose perilous positioning on a hilltop had made them unsuitable for demolition.

Jajce was re-captured together with Bosanski Petrovac in mid-September 1995 during Operation Mistral 2 by the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), after VRS forces had evacuated the Serb population. Jajce became part of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Dayton Agreement. Returning Bosniaks were at first blocked by a mob of Croats in early August 1996, which according to US diplomat Robert Gelbard was personally led by convicted Bosnian Croat war criminal Dario Kordić. Bosniak refugees were able to return peacefully only a few weeks after, being accompanied by many more. Dario Kordić surrendered and was flown to the Hague following political pressure on Zagreb, particularly by the United States.

A significant number of Serb refugees settled in Brčko while the rest settled in Mrkonjić Grad, Šipovo, and Banja Luka.

National Monument and UNESCO Tentative List
The economy of the Jajce municipality is nowadays weak. UNESCO, with a Swedish organisation Kulturarv utan gränser, initiated a project of the renovation of the historical core of the town. The main project of the company was to renovate old traditional houses which symbolize the panoramic view of the town with the waterfall. As of 2006, most of the houses were rebuilt.

The old Jajce walled city core, including the waterfall, and other individual sites outside the walled city perimeter, such as the Jajce Mithraeum, is designated as The Natural and Architectural Ensemble of Jajce and proposed for the inscription into the UNESCO's World Heritage Site list. The bid for the inscription is currently placed on the UNESCO Tentative list.

Tourism
Jajce was a popular tourist destination in Yugoslav times, mostly due to the historical importance of the AVNOJ session. Tourism has restarted, and its numbers (20-55,000 tourists in 2012–2013) are relevant in relation to the municipality's population (25,000). Tourists from across the former Yugoslavia still make up most of the visitors to Jajce, but Middle Eastern tourists have also increased since the early 2000s. Organised school trips also make up a significant portion of tourists. Spring and autumn are the main tourist seasons.

The town is famous for its beautiful 22 m high waterfall where the Pliva River meets the river Vrbas. It was damaged during the Bosnian War by high waters and severe flooding, as the area of the Jajce-1 Hydroelectric Power Station was at the battlefront and out of service; the sudden rise in water levels and discharge created a tidal wave which damaged the travertine body of the waterfall.

Jajce is situated in the mountains; there is beautiful countryside near the town, rivers such as the Vrbas and Pliva, and lakes such as Pliva lake, which is also a popular destination for the local people and tourists. Not far from Jajce there are mountains that are over 2,000 metres high, such as Vlašić near the town of Travnik. Travelling through the mountain roads to the town may not be pleasant for some visitors, because the roads are in poor condition, but the scenery is picturesque.

Demographics
In 1931 the municipality of Jajce was part of the much bigger Jajce County (together with today's municipalities of Jezero, Dobretići and Šipovo).

266 Serbs from Jajce are documented to have been murdered at the Jasenovac concentration camp during World War II.

Settlements
Bare

Barevo

Bavar

Biokovina

Bistrica

Borci

Božikovac

Bravnice

Brvanci

Bučići

Bulići

Carevo Polje

Cvitović

Čerkazovići

Ćusine

Divičani

Dogani

Donji Bešpelj

Doribaba

Drenov Do

Dubrave

Đumezlije

Gornji Bešpelj

Grabanta

Grdovo

Ipota

Jajce

Jezero

Kamenice

Karići

Kasumi

Klimenta

Kokići

Kovačevac

Krezluk

Kruščica

Kuprešani

Lendići

Lučina

Lupnica

Ljoljići

Magarovci

Mile

Peratovci

Perućica

Podlipci

Podmilačje

Prisoje

Prudi

Pšenik

Rika

Selište

Seoci

Smionica

Stare Kuće

Šerići

Šibenica

Vinac

Vrbica

Vukićevci

Zastinje

Zdaljevac

Žaovine

Notable people

 * Pero Šimleša (1910–1988), pedagogue from Ljuša
 * Dubravko Lovrenović, medievalist and author
 * Mato Jajalo (born 1988), footballer
 * Marin Leovac (born 1988), footballer
 * Irfan Škiljan (born 1973), computer scientist, author of the IrfanView program

Twin towns – sister cities
Jajce is twinned with:

 * 🇹🇷 Alaçatı (Çeşme), Turkey
 * 🇸🇪 Hallsberg, Sweden
 * 🇨🇿 Kutná Hora, Czech Republic
 * 🇦🇹 Ottensheim, Austria
 * 🇮🇹 Piacenza, Italy
 * 🇭🇺 Szekszárd, Hungary
 * 🇧🇦 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Virovitica, Croatia
 * 🇧🇦 Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

title: Jajce


text:
Charles Gerhardt

Charles Gerhardt may refer to:

 * Charles Frédéric Gerhardt (1816–1856), French chemist
 * Charles H. Gerhardt (1895–1976), American general
 * Charles Gerhardt (conductor) (1927–1999), American conductor
 * Charles Gerhardt (United States Army officer) (1863–1957), United States Army officer

title: Charles Gerhardt