text:
Kindertransport

The Kindertransport (German for "children's transport") was an organised rescue effort of children from Nazi-controlled territory that took place in 1938–1939 during the nine months prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. The United Kingdom took in nearly 10,000 children, most of them Jewish, from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Free City of Danzig. The children were placed in British foster homes, hostels, schools, and farms. Often they were the only members of their families who survived the Holocaust. The programme was supported, publicised, and encouraged by the British government, which waived the visa immigration requirements that were not within the ability of the British Jewish community to fulfil. The British government placed no numerical limit on the programme; it was the start of the Second World War that brought it to an end, by which time about 10,000 kindertransport children had been brought to the country.

Smaller numbers of children were taken in via the programme by the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Sweden, and Switzerland. The term "kindertransport" may also be applied to the rescue of mainly Jewish children from Nazi German territory to the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. An example is the 1,000 Chateau de La Hille children who went to Belgium. However, most often the term is restricted to the organised programme of the United Kingdom.

The Central British Fund for German Jewry (now World Jewish Relief) was established in 1933 to support in whatever way possible the needs of Jews in Germany and Austria.

In the United States, the Wagner–Rogers Bill was introduced in Congress, which would have increased the quota of immigrants by bringing to the U.S. a total of 20,000 refugee children, but it did not pass.

Policy
On 15 November 1938, five days after the devastation of Kristallnacht, the "Night of Broken Glass", in Germany and Austria, a delegation of British, Jewish, and Quaker leaders appealed, in person, to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Neville Chamberlain. Among other measures, they requested that the British government permit the temporary admission of unaccompanied Jewish children, without their parents.

The British Cabinet debated the issue the next day and subsequently prepared a bill to present to Parliament. The bill stated that the government would waive certain immigration requirements so as to allow the entry into Great Britain of unaccompanied children ranging from infants up to the age of 17, under a number of conditions.

No limit upon the permitted number of refugees was ever publicly announced. Initially, the Jewish refugee agencies considered 5,000 as a realistic target goal. However, after the British Colonial Office turned down the Jewish agencies' separate request to allow the admission of 10,000 children to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine, the Jewish agencies then increased their planned target number to 15,000 unaccompanied children to enter Great Britain in this way.

During the morning of 21 November 1938, before a major House of Commons debate on refugees, the Home Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare met a large delegation representing Jewish groups, as well as Quaker and other non-Jewish groups, working on behalf of refugees. The groups, though considering all refugees, were specifically allied under a non-denominational organisation called the "Movement for the Care of Children from Germany". This organisation was considering only the rescue of children, who would need to leave their parents behind in Germany.

In that debate of 21 November 1938, Hoare paid particular attention to the plight of children. He reported that enquiries in Germany had determined that nearly every parent asked had said that they would be willing to send their child off unaccompanied to the United Kingdom, leaving their parents behind.

Although Hoare declared that he and the Home Office "shall put no obstacle in the way of children coming here," the agencies involved had to find homes for the children and also fund the operation to ensure that none of the refugees would become a financial burden on the public. Every child had to have a guarantee of £50 sterling to finance his or her eventual re-emigration, as it was expected the children would stay in the country only temporarily. Hoare made it clear that the monetary and housing and other aid required had been promised by the Jewish community and other communities.

Organisation and management

Within a short time, the Movement for the Care of Children from Germany, later known as the Refugee Children's Movement (RCM), sent representatives to Germany and Austria to establish the systems for choosing, organising, and transporting the children. The Central British Fund for German Jewry provided funding for the rescue operation.

On 25 November, British citizens heard an appeal for foster homes on the BBC Home Service radio station from former Home Secretary Viscount Samuel. Soon there were 500 offers, and RCM volunteers started visiting possible foster homes and reporting on conditions. They did not insist that the homes for Jewish children should be Jewish homes. Nor did they probe too carefully into the motives and character of the families: it was sufficient for the houses to look clean and the families to seem respectable.

In Germany, a network of organisers was established, and these volunteers worked around the clock to make priority lists of those most in peril: teenagers who were in concentration camps or in danger of arrest, Polish children or teenagers threatened with deportation, children in Jewish orphanages, children whose parents were too impoverished to keep them, or children with a parent in a concentration camp. Once the children were identified or grouped by list, their guardians or parents were issued a travel date and departure details. They could only take a small sealed suitcase with no valuables and only ten marks or less in money. Some children had nothing but a manila tag with a number on the front and their name on the back, others were issued with a numbered identity card with a photo:

The first party of 196 children arrived at Harwich on the TSS Prague on 2 December, three weeks after Kristallnacht, disembarking at Parkeston Quay. A plaque unveiled in 2011 at Harwich harbour marks this event.

In the following nine months almost 10,000 unaccompanied children, mainly Jewish, travelled to England.

There were also Kindertransports to other countries, such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. Dutch humanitarian Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer arranged for 1,500 children to be admitted to the Netherlands; the children were supported by the Dutch Committee for Jewish Refugees, which was paid by the Dutch Jewish Community. In Sweden, the Jewish Community of Stockholm negotiated with the government for an exception to the country's restrictive policy on Jewish refugees for a number of children. Eventually around 500 Jewish children from Germany aged between 1 and 15 were granted temporary residence permits on the condition that their parents would not try to enter the country. The children were selected by Jewish organisations in Germany and placed in foster homes and orphanages in Sweden.

Initially the children came mainly from Germany and Austria (part of the Greater Reich after Anschluss). From 15 March 1939, with the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, transports from Prague were hastily organised. In February and August 1939, trains from Poland were arranged. Transports out of Nazi-occupied Europe continued until the declaration of war on 1 September 1939.

A smaller number of children flew to Croydon Airport, mainly from Prague. Other ports in England receiving the children included Dover.

Last transport
The last transport from the continent with 74 children left on the passenger-freighter SS Bodegraven on 14 May 1940, from IJmuiden, Netherlands. Their departure was organised by Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer, the Dutch organiser of the first transport from Vienna in December 1938. She had collected 66 of the children from the orphanage on the Kalverstraat in Amsterdam, part of which had been serving as a home for refugees. She could have joined the children, but chose to remain behind. This was a rescue action, as occupation of the Netherlands was imminent, with the country capitulating the next day. This ship was the last to leave the country freely.

As the Netherlands was under attack by German forces from 10 May and bombing had been going on, there was no opportunity to confer with the parents of the children. At the time of this evacuation, these parents knew nothing of the evacuation of their children: according to unnamed sources, some of the parents were initially very upset about this action and told Wijsmuller-Meijer that she should not have done this. After 15 May, there was no more opportunity to leave the Netherlands as the country's borders were closed by the Nazis.

Trauma suffered by the children
Many children went through trauma during their extensive Kindertransport experience. Reports of this trauma is often presented in personal terms, with trauma varying based on the child's experiences, including their age at separation from their parents, their experience during the wartime, and their experience after the war.

The primary trauma experienced by children in the Kindertransport was the separation from their parents. Depending on the child's age, the explanation for why they were leaving the country and their parents differed widely: for example, children might be told "you are going on an exciting adventure", or "you are going on a short trip and we will see you soon". Young children, roughly six or younger, would generally not accept such an explanation and would demand to stay with their parents.

Older children, who were "more willing to accept the parents' explanation", would nevertheless realise that they would be separated from their parents for a long or indefinite period of time; younger children, in contrast, who had no developed sense of time, would not be able to comprehend that they may see their parents again, thus making the trauma of separation total from the beginning. The actual leaving, via railway station, was also not a peaceful process, and there are many records of tears and screaming at the various railway stations where the actual parting took place.

Having to learn a new language, in a country where the child's native German or Czech was not understood, was another cause of stress. To have to learn to live with strangers, who only spoke English, and accept them as "pseudo-parents", was a trauma. At school, the English children would often view the refugee children as "enemy Germans" instead of "Jewish refugees".

Before the war started on 1 September 1939, and even during the first part of the war, some parents were able to escape from Hitler and reach England and then reunite with their children. However, this became the exception, as most of the parents of the refugee children were murdered by the Nazis.

Older refugee children became fully aware of the war in Europe during the period of 1939–1945 and would become concerned for their parents. During the latter years of the war, they may have become aware of the Holocaust and the actual direct threat to their Jewish parents and extended family. After the war ended in 1945, nearly all the children learned, sooner or later, that their parents had been murdered.

In November 2018, for the 80th anniversary of the Kindertransport programme, the German government announced that it would make a payment of €2,500 (about US$2,800 at the time) to each of the "Kinder" who was still alive. This payment, although a token amount, represented an explicit recognition and acceptance of the immense damage that had been done to each child, both psychological and material.

Transportation and programme completion
The Nazis had decreed that the evacuations must not block ports in Germany, so most transport parties went by train to the Netherlands; then to a British port, generally Harwich, by ferry from the Hook of Holland near Rotterdam. From the port, a train took some of the children to Liverpool Street station in London, where they were met by their volunteer foster parents. Children without prearranged foster families were sheltered at temporary holding centres at summer holiday camps such as Dovercourt and Pakefield, with the Broadreeds holiday camp, at Selsey, West Sussex, being used as a transit camp for girls. While most transports went via train, some also went by boat, and others aeroplane.

The first Kindertransport was organised and masterminded by Florence Nankivell. She spent a week in Berlin, hassled by the Nazi police, organising the children. The train left Berlin on 1 December 1938, and arrived in Harwich on 2 December with 196 children. Most were from a Berlin Jewish orphanage burned by the Nazis during the night of 9 November, and the others were from Hamburg.

The first train from Vienna left on 10 December 1938 with 600 children. This was the result of the work of Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer, a Dutch organiser of Kindertransports, who had been active in this field since 1933. She went to Vienna with the purpose of negotiating with Adolf Eichmann directly, but was initially turned away. She persevered however, until finally, as she wrote in her biography, Eichmann suddenly "gave" her 600 children with the clear intent of overloading her and making a transport on such short notice impossible. Nevertheless, Wijsmuller-Meijer managed to send 500 of the children to Harwich, where they were accommodated in a nearby holiday camp at Dovercourt, while the remaining 100 found refuge in the Netherlands.

Many representatives went with the parties from Germany to the Netherlands, or met the parties at Liverpool Street station in London and ensured that there was someone there to receive and care for each child. Between 1939 and 1941, 160 children without foster families were sent to the Whittingehame Farm School in East Lothian, Scotland. The Whittingehame estate was the family home of Arthur Balfour, former UK prime minister and, in 1917, author of the Balfour Declaration.

The RCM ran out of money at the end of August 1939, and decided it could take no more children. The last group of children left Germany on 1 September 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland, and two days later Britain, France, and other countries declared war on Germany. A party left Prague on 3 September 1939, but was sent back.

Sculpture groups on the Kindertransport route
Marking the European route of the children's transport and created from personal experience, Frank Meisler's sculpture groups show similarities but with different details. The memorials show two groups of children and young people standing with their backs to each other waiting for a train. Depicted in different colours, the group of the rescued is outnumbered, as the majority of Jewish children (more than one million) perished in the Nazi death camps.
 * 2006: Kindertransport – The Arrival at the initiative of Prince Charles there is a monument to the Kindertransporten at London's Liverpool Street Station, where the children from Hook of Holland arrived.
 * 2008: Children's Transport Monument. Züge ins Leben – Züge in den Tod: 1938–1939 (Trains to life – trains to death) at Berlin Friedrichstraße station for the rescue of 10,000 Jewish children, who travelled from here to London. The monument was unveiled on 30 November 2008.
 * 2009: Kindertransport – Die Abreise (The Departure). At the request of the mayor of Gdańsk, Paweł Adamowicz, Frank Meisler designed another group of children's sculptures in May 2009, in memory of 124 departing children.
 * 2011: Crossing Channel to life. Monument to the 10,000 Jewish children who travelled from Hook of Holland to Harwich. The newspaper De Rotterdammer of 11 November 1938 is depicted next to the sitting boy, with the messages The admission of German Jewish children and Thousands of Jews must leave Germany.
 * 2015: Kindertransport – Der letzte Abschied (The last farewell), at Hamburg Dammtor station.

In September 2022 a bronze memorial entitled Safe Haven was unveiled on Harwich Quay by Dame Steve Shirley, a former Kindertransport child. The work by artist Ian Wolter is a life-size, bronze sculpture of five Kindertransport refugees descending a ship’s gangplank. Each child is portrayed with a different emotion representing the storm of emotions they must have felt at the end of their journey by train and then ship. The figures are also engraved with quotes of four of the refugees describing their first experience of the UK. The memorial is within sight of the landing place at Parkeston Quay of thousands of Kindertransport children.

Habonim hostels
A number of members of Habonim, a Jewish youth movement inclined to socialism and Zionism, were instrumental in running the country hostels of South West England. These members of Habonim were held back from going to live on kibbutz by the war.

Records
Records for many of the children who arrived in the UK through the Kindertransports are maintained by World Jewish Relief through its Jewish Refugees Committee.

Recovery
At the end of the war, there were great difficulties in Britain as children from the Kindertransport tried to reunite with their families. Agencies were flooded with requests from children seeking to find their parents, or any surviving member of their family. Some of the children were able to reunite with their families, often travelling to far-off countries in order to do so. Others discovered that their parents had not survived the war. In her novel about the Kindertransport titled The Children of Willesden Lane, Mona Golabek describes how often the children who had no families left were forced to leave the homes that they had gained during the war in boarding houses in order to make room for younger children flooding the country.

Nicholas Winton
Before Christmas 1938, Nicholas Winton, a 29-year-old British stockbroker of German-Jewish origin, travelled to Prague to help a friend involved in Jewish refugee work. Under the loose direction of the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, headed by Doreen Warriner, Winton spent three weeks in Prague compiling a list of children in Czechoslovakia, mostly Jewish, who were refugees from Nazi Germany. He then went back to Britain with the objective of fulfilling the legal requirements to bring the children to Britain and to find homes for them. Trevor Chadwick remained behind to head the children's programme in Czechoslovakia. Winton's mother also worked with him to place the children in homes, and later hostels, with a team of sponsors from groups like Maidenhead Rotary Club and Rugby Refugee Committee. Throughout the summer, he placed advertisements seeking British families to take them in. A total of 669 children were evacuated from Czechoslovakia to Britain in 1939 through the work of Chadwick, Warriner, Beatrice Wellington, Quaker volunteers, and others who worked in Czechoslovakia while Winton was in Britain. The last group of children, which left Prague on 3 September 1939, was turned back because the Nazis had invaded Poland – the beginning of the Second World War.

The work of the BCRC in Czechoslovakia was little noted until 1988 when the refugee children held a reunion. By that time most of the people who had worked in the kindertransport in Czechoslovakia had died and Winton became the living symbol of British help to refugees fleeing the Nazis, especially Jewish refugees, before the Second World War.

Wilfrid Israel
Wilfrid Israel (1899–1943) was a key figure in the rescue of Jews from Germany and occupied Europe. He warned the British government, through Lord Samuel, of the impending Kristallnacht in November 1938. Through a British agent, Frank Foley, passport officer at the Berlin consulate, he kept British intelligence informed of Nazi activities. Speaking on behalf of the Reichsvertretung (the German Jewish communal organisation) and the Hilfsverein (the self-help body), he urged a plan of rescue on the Foreign Office and helped British Quakers to visit Jewish communities across Germany to prove to the British government that Jewish parents were indeed prepared to part with their children.

Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld
Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld brought in 300 children who practised Orthodox Judaism, under auspices of the Chief Rabbi's Religious Emergency Council. He housed many of them in his London home for a while. During the Blitz he found for them in the countryside often non-Jewish foster homes. In order to assure the children follow Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut), he instructed them to say to the foster parents that they are fish-eating vegetarians. He also saved large numbers of Jews with South American protection papers. He brought over to England several thousand young people, rabbis, teachers, ritual slaughterers, and other religious functionaries.

Internment and war service
In June 1940, Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, ordered the internment of all male 16-to 70-year-old refugees from enemy countries – so-called 'friendly enemy aliens'. A complete history of this internment episode is given in the book Collar the Lot!.

Many of the children who had arrived in earlier years were now young men, and so they were also interned. Approximately 1,000 of these prior-kinder were interned in these internment camps, many on the Isle of Man. Around 400 were transported overseas to Canada and Australia (see HMT Dunera).

The fast, unescorted liner, SS Arandora Star was sunk by German submarine U-47 on 2 July 1940. Many of her 1213 German, Italian, and Austrian refugees, and internees (she was also carrying 86 German POWs) were ex-Kindertransport children. There was difficulty launching the lifeboats, and as a result, 805 people died out of the original complement of 1673. This led to evacuations of British children on passenger liners under the Children's Overseas Reception Board and the United States Committee for the Care of European Children to be protected by convoys.

As the camp internees reached the age of 18, they were offered the chance to do war work or to enter the Army Auxiliary Pioneer Corps. About 1,000 German and Austrian prior-kinder who reached adulthood went on to serve in the British armed forces, including in combat units. Several dozen joined elite formations such as the Special Forces, where their language skills were put to good use during the Normandy landings, and afterwards as the Allies progressed into Germany. One of these was Peter Masters, who wrote a book which he titled Striking Back.

Most of the interned 'friendly enemy aliens' were refugees who had fled Hitler and Nazism, and nearly all were Jewish. When Churchill's internment policy became known, there was a debate in Parliament. Many speeches expressed horror at the idea of interning refugees, and a vote overwhelmingly instructed the Government to "undo" the internment.

United Kingdom and the United States
In contrast to the Kindertransport, where the British Government waived immigration visa requirements, these OTC children received no United States government visa immigration assistance. The U.S. government made it difficult for refugees to get entrance visas. However, from 1933 to 1945, the United States accepted about 200,000 refugees fleeing Nazism, more than any other country. Most of the refugees were Jewish.

In 1939 Senator Robert F. Wagner and Rep. Edith Rogers proposed the Wagner-Rogers Bill in the United States Congress. This bill was to admit 20,000 unaccompanied refugees under the age of 14 into the United States from Germany and areas under German control. Most of the child refugees would have been Jewish. However, due to opposition from Senator Robert Rice Reynolds, it never left the committee stage and failed to get Congressional approval.

Notable people saved
A number of children saved by the Kindertransports went on to become prominent figures in public life, with two (Walter Kohn, Arno Penzias) becoming Nobel Prize winners. These include:
 * Benjamin Abeles (from Czechoslovakia), physicist
 * Yosef Alon (from Czechoslovakia), Israeli military officer and fighter pilot who served as air and naval attaché to the United States, assassinated under suspicious circumstances in Maryland in 1973.
 * Alfred Bader (from Austria), Canadian chemist, businessman, and philanthropist
 * Ruth Barnett MBE (from Germany), British writer
 * Leslie Brent MBE (from Germany), British immunologist
 * Julius Carlebach (from Germany), British sociologist, historian and rabbi
 * Paul Moritz Cohn (from Germany), British mathematician, Fellow of the Royal Society
 * Rolf Decker (from Germany), American professional, Olympic, and international footballer
 * Alfred Dubs, Baron Dubs (from Czechoslovakia), British politician
 * Susan Einzig (from Germany), British book illustrator and art teacher
 * Hedy Epstein (from Germany), American political activist
 * Rose Evansky (from Germany), British hairdresser
 * Walter Feit (from Austria), American mathematician
 * John Grenville (from Germany), British historian
 * Hanus J. Grosz (from Czechoslovakia), American psychiatrist & neurologist
 * Karl W. Gruenberg (from Austria), British mathematician
 * Heini Halberstam (from Czechoslovakia), British mathematician
 * Geoffrey Hartman (from Germany), American literary critic
 * Eva Hesse (from Germany), American artist
 * Sir Peter Hirsch HonFRMS FRS (from Germany), British metallurgist
 * David Hurst (from Germany), actor
 * Otto Hutter (from Austria), British physiologist
 * Robert L. Kahn (from Germany), American professor of German studies and poet
 * Helmut Kallmann (from Germany), Canadian musicologist and librarian
 * Walter Kaufmann (from Germany), Australian and German author
 * Peter Kinley (from Vienna), born Peter Schwarz in 1926, British artist
 * Walter Kohn (from Austria), American physicist and Nobel laureate
 * Renata Laxova (from Czechoslovakia), American geneticist
 * Gerda Mayer (from Czechoslovakia), British poet
 * Frank Meisler (from Danzig), Israeli architect and sculptor
 * Gustav Metzger (from Germany), artist and political activist resident in Britain and stateless by choice
 * Isi Metzstein OBE (from Germany), British architect
 * Ruth Morley, nee Birnholz (from Austria), American costume designer for film and theater, created the Annie Hall look
 * Otto Newman (from Austria), British sociologist
 * Arno Penzias (from Germany), American physicist and Nobel laureate
 * Hella Pick CBE (from Austria), British journalist
 * Sidney Pollard (from Austria), British economic and labour historian
 * Sir Erich Reich (from Austria), British entrepreneur
 * Karel Reisz (from Czechoslovakia), British film director
 * Lily Renée Wilhelm (from Austria), American comic book pioneer (graphic novelist, illustrator)
 * Wolfgang Rindler (from Austria), British/American physicist prominent in the field of general relativity
 * Paul Ritter (from Czechoslovakia), architect, planner and author
 * Michael Roemer (from Germany), film director, producer and writer
 * Dr. Fred Rosner (from Germany), Professor of medicine and medical ethicist
 * Joe Schlesinger, CM (from Czechoslovakia), Canadian journalist and author
 * Hans Schwarz (from Austria), artist
 * Lore Segal (from Austria), American novelist, translator, teacher, and author of children's books, whose adult book Other People's Houses describes her own knocked-from-house-to-house experiences
 * Robert A. Shaw (b. Schlesinger, Vienna) British, professor of chemistry
 * Dame Stephanie Steve Shirley CH, DBE, FREng (from Germany), British businesswoman and philanthropist
 * Michael Steinberg, (from Breslau, Germany—now Wrocław, Poland), American music critic
 * Sir Guenter Treitel QC FBA (from Germany), British law scholar
 * Marion Walter (from Germany), American mathematics educator
 * Hanuš Weber (from Czechoslovakia), Swedish TV producer
 * Yitzchok Tuvia Weiss (from Czechoslovakia), Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem
 * Peter Wegner (from Austria), American computer scientist.
 * Ruth Westheimer (born Karola Siegel, 1928; known as "Dr. Ruth") (from Germany), German-American sex therapist, talk show host, author, professor, and former Haganah sniper.
 * Herbert Wise (from Austria), British theatre and television director.
 * George Wolf (from Austria), American professor of physiological chemistry
 * Astrid Zydower MBE (from Germany), British sculptor

Post-war organisations
In 1989,, who escaped Germany via Kindertransport, organised the Reunion of Kindertransport, a 50th-anniversary gathering of kindertransportees in London in June 1989. This was a first, with over 1,200 people, kindertransportees and their families, attending from all over the world. Several came from the east coast of the US and wondered whether they could organise something similar in the U.S. They founded the Kindertransport Association in 1991.

The Kindertransport Association is a national American not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to unite these child Holocaust refugees and their descendants. The association shares their stories, honours those who made the Kindertransport possible, and supports charitable work that aids children in need. The Kindertransport Association declared 2 December 2013, the 75th anniversary of the day the first Kindertransport arrived in England, as World Kindertransport Day.

In the United Kingdom, the Association of Jewish Refugees houses a special interest group called the Kindertransport Organisation.

Documentary films

 * The Hostel (1990), a two-part BBC documentary, narrated by Andrew Sachs. It documented the lives of 25 people who fled the Nazi regime, 50 years on from when they met for the first time as children in 1939, at the Carlton Hotel in Manningham, Bradford.
 * My Knees Were Jumping: Remembering the Kindertransports (1996; released theatrically in 1998), narrated by Joanne Woodward. It was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It was directed by Melissa Hacker, daughter of costume designer Ruth Morley, who was a Kindertransport child. Melissa Hacker has been influential in organizing the kinder who now live in America. She was also involved in working to arrange the award of 2,500 euros from the German Government to each of the kinder.
 * Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport (2000), narrated by Judi Dench and winner of the 2001 Academy Award for best feature documentary. It was produced by Deborah Oppenheimer, daughter of a Kindertransport child, and written and directed by three-time Oscar winner Mark Jonathan Harris. This film shows the Kindertransport in personal terms by presenting the actual stories through in-depth interviews with several individual kinder, rescuers Norbert Wollheim and Nicholas Winton, a foster mother who took in a child, a Dunera survivor and later British Army sergeant Abrascha Gorbulski and later Alexander Gordon, and a mother who lived to be reunited with daughter Lore Segal. It was shown in cinemas around the world, including in Britain, the United States, Austria, Germany, and Israel, at the United Nations, and on HBO and PBS. A companion book with the same title expands upon the film.
 * The Children Who Cheated the Nazis (2000), a Channel 4 documentary film. It was narrated by Richard Attenborough, directed by Sue Read, and produced by Jim Goulding. Attenborough's parents were among those who responded to the appeal for families to foster the refugee children; they took in two girls.
 * Nicky's Family (2011), a Czech documentary film. It includes an appearance by Nicholas Winton.
 * The Essential Link: The Story of Wilfrid Israel (2017), an Israeli documentary film by Yonatan Nir. It proposes that Wilfrid Israel played a significant part in the initiation of the Kindertransport. Seven men and women from different countries and backgrounds tell the stories, of the days before and when they boarded the Kindertransport trains in Germany.

Feature films

 * One Life, a 2023 British biographical drama film directed by James Hawes. It is based on the true story of British banker, stockbroker and humanitarian Nicholas Winton as he looks back and reminisces about his past involvement and efforts to help Jewish children in German-occupied Czechoslovakia to escape in 1938-39.

Plays

 * Kindertransport: The Play (1993), a play by Diane Samuels. It examines the life, during the war and afterwards, of a Kindertransport child. It presents the confusions and traumas that arose for many kinder, before and after they were fully integrated into their British foster homes. And, as importantly, their confusion and trauma when their real parents reappeared in their lives; or more likely and tragically, when they learned that their real parents were dead. There is also a companion book by the same name.
 * The End Of Everything Ever (2005), a play for children by the New International Encounter group, which follows the story of a child sent from Czechoslovakia to London by train.

Books

 * I Came Alone: the Stories of the Kindertransports  (1990, The Book Guild Ltd) edited by Bertha Leverton and Shmuel Lowensohn, a collective non-fiction description by 180 of the children of their journey fleeing to England from December 1938 to September 1939 unaccompanied by their parents, to find refuge from Nazi persecution.
 * And the Policeman Smiled: 10,000 children escape from Nazi Europe (1990, Bloomsbury Publishing) by Barry Turner, relates the tales of those who organised the Kindertransporte, the families who took them in and the experiences of the children.
 * Austerlitz (2001), by the German-British novelist W. G. Sebald, is an odyssey of a Kindertransport boy brought up in a Welsh manse who later traces his origins to Prague and then goes back there. He finds someone who knew his mother, and he retraces his journey by train.
 * Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport (2000, Bloomsbury Publishing), by Mark Jonathan Harris and Deborah Oppenheimer, with a preface by Richard Attenborough and historical introduction by David Cesarani. Companion book to the Oscar-winning documentary, Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport with expanded stories from the film and additional interviews not included in the film.
 * Sisterland (2004), a young adult novel by Linda Newbery, concerns a Kindertransport child, Sarah Reubens, who is now a grandmother; 16-year-old Hilly uncovers the secret her grandmother has kept hidden for years. This novel was shortlisted for the 2003 Carnegie Medal.
 * My Family for the War (2013), a young adult novel by Anne C. Voorhoeve, recounts the story of Franziska Mangold, a 10-year-old Christian girl of Jewish ancestry who goes on the Kindertransport to live with an Orthodox British family.
 * Far to Go (2012), a novel by Alison Pick, a Canadian writer and descendant of European Jews, is the story of a Sudetenland Jewish family who flee to Prague and use bribery to secure a place for their 6-year-old son aboard one of Nicholas Winton's transports.
 * The English German Girl (2011), a novel by British writer Jake Wallis Simons, a fictional account of a 15-year-old Jewish girl from Berlin who is brought to England via the Kindertransport operation.
 * The Children of Willesden Lane (2017), a historical novel for young adults by Mona Golabek and Lee Cohen, about the Kindertransport, told through the perspective of Lisa Jura, mother of Mona Golabek.
 * The Last Train to London (2020), a fictionalised account of the activities of Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer by Meg Waite Clayton, also published in Dutch as De laatste trein naar de vrijheid.
 * Escape from Berlin (2013), a novel by Irene N. Watts, is a fictional account of two Jewish girls, Marianne Kohn and Sophie Mandel, who fled Berlin through the Kindertransport.

Personal accounts

 * Bob Rosner (2005) One of the Lucky Ones: rescued by the Kindertransport, Beth Shalom in Nottinghamshire. ISBN 0-9543001-9-X. -- An account of 9-year-old Robert from Vienna and his 13-year-old sister Renate, who stayed throughout the war with Leo Schultz in Hull and attended Kingston High School. Their parents survived the war and Renate returned to Vienna.
 * Brand, Gisele. Comes the Dark. Verand Press, (2003). ISBN 1-876454-09-1. Published in Australia. A fictional account of the author's family life up to the beginning of the war, her experiences on the kinder-transport and life beyond.
 * David, Ruth. Child of our Time: A Young Girl's Flight from the Holocaust, I.B. Tauris.
 * Fox, Anne L., and Podietz, Eva Abraham. Ten Thousand Children: True stories told by children who escaped the Holocaust on the Kindertransport. Behrman House, Inc., (1999). ISBN 0-874-41648-5. Published in West Orange, New Jersey, United States of America.
 * Golabek, Mona and Lee Cohen. The Children of Willesden Lane — account of a young Jewish pianist who escaped the Nazis by the Kindertransport.
 * Edith Bown-Jacobowitz, (2014) "Memories and Reflections:a refugee's story", 154 p, by 11 point book antiqua (create space), Charleston, USA ISBN 978-1495336621, Bown went in 1939 with her brother Gerald on Kindertransport from Berlin to Belfast and to Millisle Farm (Northern Ireland) [more info|Wiener Library Catalogue
 * Newman, Otto, British sociologist and author; Escapes and Adventures: A 20th Century Odyssey. Lulu Press, 2008.
 * Oppenheimer, Deborah and Harris, Mark Jonathan. Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport (2000, republished 2018, Bloomsbury/St Martins, New York & London) ISBN 1-58234-101-X.
 * Segal, Lore. Other People's Houses – the author's life as a Kindertransport girl from Vienna, told in the voice of a child. The New Press, New York 1994.
 * Smith, Lyn. Remembering: Voices of the Holocaust. Ebury Press, Great Britain, 2005, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-7867-1640-1.
 * Strasser, Charles. From Refugee to OBE. Keller Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1-934002-03-2.
 * Weber, Hanuš. Ilse: A Love Story Without a Happy Ending, Stockholm: Författares Bokmaskin, 2004. Weber was a Czech Jew whose parents placed him on the last Kindertransport from Prague in June 1939. His book is mostly about his mother, who was killed in Auschwitz in 1944.
 * Whiteman, Dorit. The Uprooted: A Hitler Legacy: Voices of Those Who Escaped Before the "Final Solution" by Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA 1993.
 * A collection of personal accounts can be found at the website of the Quakers in Britain at www.quaker.org.uk/kinder.
 * Leverton, Bertha and Lowensohn, Shmuel (editors), I Came Alone: The Stories of the Kindertransports, The Book Guild, Ltd., 1990. ISBN 0-86332-566-1.
 * Shirley, Dame Stephanie,Let IT Go: The Memoirs of Dame Stephanie Shirley. After her arrival in the UK as a five-year-old Kindertransport refugee, she went on to make a fortune in with her software company; much of which she gave away.
 * Part of The Family – The Christadelphians and the Kindertransport, a collection of personal accounts of Kindertransport children sponsored by Christadelphian families. Part of the Family
 * Part of The Family – The Christadelphians and the Kindertransport, a collection of personal accounts of Kindertransport children sponsored by Christadelphian families. Part of the Family

Winton train
On 1 September 2009, a special Winton train set off from the Prague Main railway station. The train, consisting of an original locomotive and carriages used in the 1930s, headed to London via the original Kindertransport route. On board the train were several surviving Winton children and their descendants, who were to be welcomed by the then hundred-year-old Sir Nicholas Winton in London. The occasion marked the 70th anniversary of the intended last Kindertransport, which was due to set off on 3 September 1939 but did not because of the outbreak of the war. At the train's departure, Sir Nicholas Winton's statue was unveiled at the railway station.

Controversy
Jessica Reinisch notes how the British media and politicians alike allude to the Kindertransport in contemporary debates on refugee and migration crises. She argues that "the Kindertransport" is used as evidence of Britain's "proud tradition" of taking in refugees; but that such allusions are problematic as the Kinderstransport model is taken out of context and thus subject to nostalgia. She points out that countries such as Britain and the United States did much to prevent immigration by turning desperate people away; at the Évian Conference in 1938, participant nations failed to reach agreement about accepting Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi Germany.

title: Kindertransport


text: File:The Ataris - So Long, Astoria cover.jpg

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


text:
Linhares

Linhares is a municipality in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, 135 km north of the state capital, Vitória. It is the largest municipality by area in the state, at 9,501.6 km2, and has a population of 176,688 people as of 2020.

The municipality is named in honor of Rodrigo de Souza Coutinho, Count of Linhares, who was a minister in the Brazilian government in the first two decades of the 19th century. The city took international knowledge, being the residence of Miss Gay Brazil 2013 and 2014.

History
The area today known as Linhares was once inhabited by the Botocudo. The town, founded by Europeans on August 22, 1800, was destroyed by the Indians during a war in 1809.

The area was visited by Brazilian Emperor Dom Pedro II in 1860. An island he set foot on is still known as the Emperor's Island.

Linhares became a municipality in 1945, when it was detached from the municipality of Colatina.

Economy
The economy of Linhares is mostly based on commerce, agriculture, cattle and oil.

Geography
Linhares is characterized by undulating lowlands and numerous lakes. The town sits on the Doce River amidst its 69 lakes.

The climate is hot, tropical, and humid, typically with a dry winter season and a more humid summer. The main freshwater lagoons in the region are: Japaranã-Mirim, Palmas, Durão, Palminhas, Aguiá, Monsarás, Limão, Feia, Combóios, Piabanha, Óleo, Pau Grosso, Terra Alta and Patrão.

The Juparanã Lagoon (freshwater) is also the second largest in water volume in the country.

There is an official nudist beach called Barra Seca 60 km to the east of Linhares.

The municipality contains part of the 785 ha Comboios Biological Reserve, a fully protected area. It also contains part of the 27858 ha Sooretama Biological Reserve, a strictly protected conservation unit created in 1982 when two earlier units were merged. It contains the 1424 ha Goytacazes National Forest, created in 2002.

Transportation
Linhares is served by Antônio Edson de Azevedo Lima Airport.

title: Linhares


text:
Poznań County

Poznań County (powiat poznański) is a unit of territorial administration and local government (powiat) in Greater Poland Voivodeship, west-central Poland. It came into being on January 1, 1999, as a result of the Polish local government reforms passed in 1998. Its administrative seat is the city of Poznań, although the city is not part of the county (it constitutes a separate city county). The county's administrative offices (starostwo powiatowe) are in the Jeżyce neighbourhood of Poznań.

Composition, Area and Population
Poznań County contains 10 towns: Swarzędz, 11 km east of (central) Poznań, Luboń, 8 km south of Poznań, Mosina, 18 km south of Poznań, Murowana Goślina, 20 km north of Poznań, Puszczykowo, 14 km south of Poznań, Kostrzyn, 21 km east of Poznań, Pobiedziska, 27 km north-east of Poznań, Kórnik, 22 km south-east of Poznań, Buk, 28 km west of Poznań, and Stęszew, 21 km south-west of Poznań.

The county covers an area of 1899.61 km2. As of 2012 its total population is 341.357, out of which the urban population is 132,048 (Swarzędz 29,894, Luboń 26,935, Mosina 12,150, Murowana Goślina 10,140, Puszczykowo 9,311, Kostrzyn 8,539, Pobiedziska 8,329, Kórnik 6,981, Buk 6,181, Stęszew 5,339), and the rural population is 209,309.

Neighbouring counties
Apart from the city of Poznań, Poznań County is also bordered by Oborniki County and Wągrowiec County to the north, Gniezno County and Września County to the east, Środa Wielkopolska County to the south-east, Śrem County and Kościan County to the south, Grodzisk Wielkopolski County and Nowy Tomyśl County to the west, and Szamotuły County to the north-west.

Administrative division
The county is subdivided into 17 gminas (two urban, eight urban-rural and seven rural). These are listed in the following table, in descending order of population.

Finances
At the 5th European Congress of Councils in Kraków in 2019, the county was nationally awarded as best financially prudent among urban councils. A year later they came second.

In announcing 2021 budget they foresaw an annual income of 408,379,127.79zł and an expenditure of 446,379,127.79zł, leaving a deficit of 38,000,000.00zł which will be covered through its credit.

title: Poznań County


text:
Zhao Mengfu

Zhao Mengfu (courtesy name Zi'ang (子昂); pseudonyms Songxue (松雪, "Pine Snow"), Oubo (鷗波, "Gull Waves"), and Shuijing-gong Dao-ren (水精宮道人, "Master of the Water Spirits Palace"); 1254–1322), was a Chinese calligrapher, painter, and scholar during the Yuan dynasty. He was a descendant of the Song dynasty's imperial family through Emperor Xiaozong's brother Zhao Bogui who married a lady surnamed Song who was the granddaughter of Emperor Huizong. Zhao Bogui was a descendant of Emperor Taizu, through his son Zhao Defang.

He was recommended by the Censor-in-chief to pay an audience with Kublai Khan in 1286 at the Yuan capital of Dadu, but was not awarded an important position in office. His work was however, greatly appreciated later by the Confucian-inspired Yuan Emperor Renzong. Zhao was a member of the "Academy of Worthies".

He was married to Guan Daosheng, who was also an accomplished poet, painter and calligrapher. His rejection of the refined, gentle brushwork of his era in favour of the cruder style of the eighth century is considered to have brought about a revolution that created the modern Chinese landscape painting. He was known for his paintings of horses. His landscapes are also considered to be done in a style that focuses more on a literal laying of ground. Rather than organizing them in a foreground, middle ground, and background pattern he layers middle grounds at various heights to create a sense of depth. This pattern of organization makes his paintings appear very simple and approachable. It was this characteristic that so many people valued about his style.

One of his most celebrated landscape paintings is exhibited at the Princeton University Art Museum with the title “The Mind Landscape of Xie Youyu” (幼輿丘壑), an allusion to the nature-loving scholar-official Xie Youyu (280–322). However, in 2019 Dutch scholar Lennert Gesterkamp argued that the colophon attached to the painting and mentioning Xie Youyu is a forgery, and that in fact Zhao Mengfu's intention was to honor his own spiritual master, Daoist scholar Du Daojian (1237–1318), who also celebrated nature.

Zhao Mengfu had several sons with his wife Guan Daosheng. His second son, Zhao Yong, also became a famous painter and calligrapher. He was also the maternal grandfather of Wang Meng, another famous painter. Zhao Mengfu was related to the later Ming dynasty literary figure Zhao Yiguang and his son Zhao Jun.

Legacy
The former residence of Zhao Mengfu in Huzhou, Zhejiang province has been restored into a museum, and opened to public since 2012.

A 167 kilometer diameter crater on Mercury (132.4° west, 87.3° south) was named the "Chao Meng-Fu crater" in memorial of him.

Genealogy

 * Zhao Kuangyin
 * Zhao Defang
 * Zhao Weixian
 * Zhao Congyu
 * Zhao Shijiang
 * Zhao Linghua
 * Zhao Zicheng
 * Zhao Bogui
 * Zhao Shichui
 * Zhao Xiyan
 * Zhao Yuyin
 * Zhao Mengfu

title: Zhao Mengfu


text:
Frank J. Selke

Francis Joseph Aloysius Selke (May 7, 1893 – July 3, 1985) was a Canadian professional ice hockey executive in the National Hockey League. He was a nine-time Stanley Cup champion with the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens and a Hockey Hall of Fame inductee.

Early career
Born in Berlin, Ontario, Selke was managing the Iroquois Bantams in his hometown at the age of 14. He coached the Berlin Union Jacks junior team in the Ontario Hockey Association from 1912 to 1915, reaching the finals of the league championship in his final season. In 1919, he coached the University of Toronto Schools hockey team to the first Memorial Cup title.

He coached the St. Mary's junior OHA team to its third-straight SPA junior championship in the 1924–25 season, with a team that included future Toronto Maple Leafs star Joe Primeau. In 1926–27, the team became the Toronto Marlboros, and again won the junior SPA championship. Eventual Hall of Famer Red Horner was a star defenceman on the Toronto team. During his time with the organization, Selke also coached the Marlboros senior team.

In 1927–28, Selke became coach and manager of the Toronto Ravinas of the Canadian Professional Hockey League, with Primeau as the team's leading scorer. The team was bought by the Toronto Maple Leafs and renamed the Toronto Falcons mid-season. Late in the year, the team played some home games in Brantford, Ontario, after drawing poor crowds in Toronto.

Rejoining the Marlboros in 1928–29, Selke helped lead the team to the 1929 Memorial Cup championship.

Toronto Maple Leafs
Selke became the top assistant to Maple Leafs managing director Conn Smythe in September 1929 — a position he would hold until 1946. He helped raise funds for the construction of Maple Leaf Gardens in 1931. While Smythe served in World War II, Selke filled in as acting manager of the Leafs and Maple Leaf Gardens. He did such a good job in that role that some of the directors of the company wanted him to remain in charge after Smythe returned.

Selke and Smythe clashed when Selke traded Frank Eddolls to the Montreal Canadiens for the rights to Ted Kennedy in 1943. Though Kennedy would go on to become one of Smythe's favourite Leafs, Smythe strongly supported Eddolls at the time and was upset that Selke had not consulted with him before making the deal. Once Smythe returned to Toronto, there was tension between the two, particularly after Selke refused to back Smythe's bid to become president of Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. With his working conditions becoming intolerable, Selke submitted his resignation in May 1946.

Montreal Canadiens
Two months after resigning from the Leafs, Selke was hired as manager of the Montreal Forum and became general manager of the Montreal Canadiens. He took over a team that had just come off two Stanley Cup championships in the previous three seasons but was in financial trouble. Regardless, he signed a great deal of players and created an extensive farm system. Anchored by Hall of Famers Maurice Richard, Elmer Lach, Doug Harvey and Jacques Plante, Selke won his first Stanley Cup with the Canadiens in 1953.

In December 1946, Selke proposed that the NHL sponsor junior ice hockey teams under the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association jurisdiction. The plan implemented a farm system composed of professional prospects spread out across Canada, as opposed to the strongest players being concentrated on all-star teams in Ontario.

Last years
By the mid-1950s, the farm system that Selke had established began to put life into the Canadiens, producing additional Hall of Famers Jean Béliveau, Dickie Moore, Tom Johnson and Henri Richard. After falling to the rival Detroit Red Wings in seven games in consecutive years, 1954 and 1955, the Canadiens won a record five consecutive Cups from 1956 to 1960. Selke retired after the 1963–64 season, turning the reins over to Sam Pollock.

He died in 1985 at the age of 92 in Rigaud, Quebec.

Honours
A nine-time Stanley Cup champion (1932, 1942, 1945 with the Maple Leafs; 1953, 1956–60 with the Canadiens), Selke was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1960. A while after his retirement, in 1978, the NHL inaugurated the Frank J. Selke Trophy that is awarded annually to the best defensive forward in the league. In the QMJHL, the Frank J. Selke Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the league's best defensive forward. In 2016, Frank J. Selke and his son, Frank Selke Jr., were posthumously recognized by the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame with the Bruce Prentice Legacy Award.

title: Frank J. Selke


text: User talk:67.69.161.213

title: User talk:67.69.161.213


text:
Talk:Wolfgang Schüssel

Neutrality
The article is like a white-wash attempt. There is no mention of how and why he lost the re-election, there is no mention of corruption during his chancellor-ship. Other wikipedia articles, like the one about Tony Blair, at least mention criticism about him being a potential war criminal. But this article here? Pure whitewash. At least mention WHY he lost the elections - it was the reason why after 10 years of power he was voted OUT of office! 84.112.136.52 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FPÖ= far right-winged
The terms "left" and "right" refer to political differnet views determined under a simplified one-dimensional model. The Austrian Socialdemocrats are considered left, while the Austrian Communist Party should be considered far-left as to state that their views are further to the left as the Socialdemocrats. The Austrian People's party is a right-winged party, while the FPÖ has more nationalistic and xenophobic views of the world and should therefore be considered as a far right-winged party in order to distinguish them from Parties with more moderate views. In addition illegality has nothing to do with the political scale. You can be a member of a extreme left-wing, purely communist party and still do not need to do anything "illegal". That's the reason why I reverted the article again Themanwithoutapast 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if this anon user responded here. I had a similar problem with him on Germanic peoples, where he insisted on calling Austrians "German", even though I pointed out to him that this is considered a right-wing extremist POV today. Martg76 09:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The 22 edits by User:213.162.65.17 have not necessarily improved this article. It now seems to have been written by an ardent follower of Schüssel, and it is full of POV statements. For example, you cannot deny the fact that Schüssel's government has drastically reduced education at school by simply deleting from the article the sentence where it says so. The passage about pension reform is extremely one-sided and does not belong in a biography anyway.

Is there still a template "The neutrality of this article is disputed"? This is exactly what we would need here.  17:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality of the old article is disputed!

The old article was extremely one sided. It had totally different content compared to the corresponding german article. 50% of the old article consisted of pure propaganda. What does it help when KF requests all anti-Schüssel arguments to be there and nothing positive should be said about Schüssel.

The old article countained lots of accusations from demonstators and the opposition aggainst Schüssel. This look like the accusations in a court. Exaggerated expressed: The old article obtained the impression of a dictator hated by the population (But this just does not fit the landslide victory of 42%).

Articles of other prominent politicans contain no such accusations and no propaganda. Compared for example to the article about Schröder the old Schüssel article was just not balanced.

The new article tries to be more balanced and based on facts.

For example: The EU requested a balanced Budged. But the Goal was only reached by raising fees. In the old article the EU as reason was missing and just a long and detailed list of raised fees was listed. In my opinion it is unfair to represent government decisions in such a way as if the population is to be harmed. The result of a better balanced budged compared to other countrys was not mentioned in the old article.

In my opinion the reasons for gouvernment actions should be mentioned. A gouvernment does not act in a vacuum.

The new article explains Schüssels decision making process of not asking for permission. This is just a fact and it can be seen positive or negative.

But of course the new article can be polished. When I have time I will try to make the article more acceptable for opposition and gouvernment followers. But basically the new article should be politically neutral and should not have a totally different content than the corresponding german article. TM

 * Dear TM aka User:213.162.65.17,
 * Just as you believe that your revised version of this article is "politically neutral" I am of the opinion that the old version was NPOV. I agree that it may not have been exhaustive, but that's the main idea behind Wikipedia: that people add something to a topic they know something about.
 * However, they are not supposed to delete information unless they have a (very) good reason to do so. It's easy, isn't it, to claim that "50% of the old article consisted of pure propaganda", but every critical mind will dismiss such an assertion as ridiculously exaggerated (just as the phrase "a dictator hated by the population"). For example, in 2000 the government did use an underground corridor to get to Thomas Klestil to be sworn in. Similarly, Schüssel's government did re-introduce study fees for universities and did severely cut the educational budget, first and foremost by reducing the lessons Austrian schoolchildren have to spend in class. You can adopt a blinkered view and ignore all this, but it is still true.
 * You seem to be a rich man/woman because you are so much in favour of Schüssel's reform of state pensions. But this is a topic details of which belong in a different article (Politics of Austria, I'd guess), not in a biography.
 * Never mind the German Wikipedia. One could even claim that the articles actually should be different, for two reasons: (a) The Anglo-Saxon tradition and culture of academic writing (encyclopaedia articles included) is different from the German tradition in both form and content; and (b) the target groups of the two Wikipedia articles are different. And anyway, the German text is much shorter, isn't it?
 * You say that when you have time you "will try to make the article more acceptable for opposition and government followers". This, I believe, is the typical Austrian Lagermentalität which Austrians should have got rid of 70 years ago. I think someone else should (also) have a go at the article as both you and me seem to be biased. All I'm going to do is correct a few grammar mistakes and typos.
 * All the best,  23:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Never mind the German Wikipedia. One could even claim that the articles actually should be different, for two reasons: (a) The Anglo-Saxon tradition and culture of academic writing (encyclopaedia articles included) is different from the German tradition in both form and content; and (b) the target groups of the two Wikipedia articles are different. And anyway, the German text is much shorter, isn't it?
 * You say that when you have time you "will try to make the article more acceptable for opposition and government followers". This, I believe, is the typical Austrian Lagermentalität which Austrians should have got rid of 70 years ago. I think someone else should (also) have a go at the article as both you and me seem to be biased. All I'm going to do is correct a few grammar mistakes and typos.
 * All the best,  23:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You say that when you have time you "will try to make the article more acceptable for opposition and government followers". This, I believe, is the typical Austrian Lagermentalität which Austrians should have got rid of 70 years ago. I think someone else should (also) have a go at the article as both you and me seem to be biased. All I'm going to do is correct a few grammar mistakes and typos.
 * All the best,  23:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * All the best,  23:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First: I am not a rich man/woman. But beeing rich or poor is not a criteria to write. What makes you think that I am in favour of Schüssels pension reform? Read the article carefully. The reasons to do a reform in this area are not disputed by other parties and the union (From all sides you hear someting like: Of course a pension reform is necessary, but ... ). The history of past reforms of the Austrian pension system shows: Every reform is said to be the last, but two or three years later the next reform is necessary. The article mentions that experts criticise Schüssels pension reform as not beeing ambicious enough. So they think more reforms are necessary in a few years. This is IMHO a heavy critic. The critic of the opposition and the union (too many losses) and their heavy protests is also mentioned.

If a "underground corridor" story is told it should be balanced by the fact that 54% of the voters did vote for parties supporting this gouvernment. Otherwise you get the "a dictator hated by the population" feeling. It was a gouvernment supported by the majority of the parliament (and the voters) but heavily fought by the opposition for being a coalition with a right-wing party.

Of course negative things like "study fees" and raising of other fees are hard to carry for the current generation (and unpopular). But I think no democratic gouvernment does actions in a way as if the population is to be harmed. There are always reasons (For example: A growing defizit for decades is putting a heavy load on the shoulders of later generations). If the negative things (raising of fees) are described, an equal room for a description of the reasons and the proposed positive effect on future generations (as seen by neutral experts) should be added.

Again for the pension part: Pension reforms take place in a lot of countrys. You hear of demonstations and strikes against pension reforms in many countrys. I think an international pension reform page would help. There the reasons for this reforms (which normally are accepted by all parties and the unions) could be shown with statistical material.

I think a description of a political reform should/could have the following parts:

- The reason for this particular reform - A short description of the reform law - How other countrys handle the same problem - How experts see this reform - Reference to previous attemts to solve this problem - How the opposition and other organisations see this reform

Greetings TM

To TM
TM, for the sake of the old Wikipedia principle of NPOV, please refrain from editing this article. You still have to accept the fact that Wikipedia is not a web site run by the ÖVP.

Your edit of December 1, 2004, 15:41 p.m. is absolutely ridiculous. What you do there is deny the fact that

(1) in 2000 the ÖVP had fewer votes than the FPÖ and that Schüssel lied when he said that under those circumstances he would not seek the chancellorship;

(2) consensus democracy was abolished by Schüssel and his team;

(3) Karl Heinz Grasser, in spite of horrendous cuts, first and foremost in the field of education, failed miserably to achieve something even resembling a balanced budget.

I do not know who you hope to be manipulating here, and I am still wondering why you want to do so. Once again, this is an encyclopaedia, and as such Wikipedia is supposed to present facts.  17:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

From TM
No, I am not a party member of any party.

The old article made by KF looked like made from an SPÖ Member. All the views shown in the old page matched exactly the official view of the SPÖ. It just looked like a "Schüssels hater page" from an SPÖ Member and was absolutely ridiculous.

KF, you have to accept the fact that Wikipedia is not a web site run by the SPÖ.

ad 1: Did you write that Kreisky lied when he promised to leave office when losing the Zwentendorf voting, in the Kreisky page? I think Kreisky's change of mind is at the same level than Schüssels. So it should be written in the same manner as it is done for Kreisky.

ad 2: Nobody denies Schüssels decision to change the consensus democracy. This is described in detail as "Change of the decision making process" in the article. Schüssel asks for permission only in his party and the coalition but not outside. This is described with: "not asking everyone for permission". To state that he is "not asking anyone for permission" is giving the impression of a dictator, just not correct and pure propaganda.

ad 3: As you said yourself information should be added and not removed: The fact of failing for the goal of a balanced budget should be added. But it should not replace the fact that the results where better than in other countrys (see germany, france or italy which have bigger deficit problems).

The first person who tried to manipulate opinions with the Schüssel page was KF. Now KF tries to turn things around with accusations aggainst people with other views in the same way as the old page contained just accusations aggainst Schüssel.

KF, when you say this is an encyclopaedia, and as such Wikipedia is supposed to present facts, why do you praise Kreisky at his page and remove all critical facts from the Kreisky page, while at the same time insisting that only a "Schüssels hater page" would be politically neutral.

Greetings TM

 * TM, I said on July 13 (see above) that someone else (neither you nor me, that is) should have a look at the Wolfgang Schüssel article. I even posted a message on the German Wikipedia, hoping that someone would be interested. However, I did so to no avail, as so far no one has shown any interest. I'll just keep on waiting. If, however, you make any further substantial changes to the articles in question—Wolfgang Schüssel, Viktor Klima, and now Bruno Kreisky (and maybe some more, I'll have to check)—I'll revert those changes in order to re-establish the status quo.

 * People who know me would laugh out loud if they read your verdict on my political preferences. Also, as you may have realized, I'm not that much interested in Austrian politics and usually write about completely different things here at Wikipedia.  00:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

KF, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY REVERT CHANGES OF OTHER PEOPLE
KF, it is obvious that in the political area you have by far no "Neutral point of view". For all politicans of the SPÖ you add praises of their politics and want to remove all critical points while for politicans of the ÖVP you want just to mention critical points.

Examples of critical points ommited at Kreisky's page:

-- Kreiskys first gouvernment was silently supported by the FPÖ which was headed at that time by a former member of the SS. Kreisky just said: "I decide who is a NAZI".

-- Kreisky did not reduce the military service to six months. He promised to do this before an election and after the election reduced it to eight months (when done at once) or six months plus eight weeks later on. As I mentioned elsewhere the real reduction to six months was proposed by a commission headed by Helmut Zilk and is sceduled by Schüssel for (I think) 2006.

-- Kreisky ignored a voting of 1.3 million people (Volksabstimmung) aggainst the "Konferenzzentrum" (1.3 million people is by far the all time high of this sort of votings). This gave all later gouvernment's excuses to ignore such votings.

-- Kreisky not only raised a lot of taxes (for example the "Umsatzsteuer" which was 8% in the year 1970 and was raised by Kreisky to 10%) but also invented whole new taxes like the "Luxussteuer" (30% on cars for example) which also is not mentioned.

-- Kreisky's politic of supporting gouvernment owned companys (vor example VÖST) with lots of money (deficit spending) did just postpone worker layoffs for a few years and was done before elections. After Kreisky this politic had to be stopped because of financial reasions. The subsequent economic problems (which in your opinion do not exist) where layoffs in the supported companys, which where necessary, in the time after Kreisky. So the enormous sums given to companys had only a short effect on the employment but a very long and negative effect on the budgets.

-- You insist that the raises of fees that Schüssels gouvernment did and all the protests aggainst them should be mentioned in detail, while the heavy tax raises of Kreisky's time should not be mentioned.

KF, this are just some examples which come into my mind quickly, but they show that your point of view (in the political area) is by far not neutral.

This leads to the following conclusion: KF, when you start to generally remove all my changes, I have to mark some of this pages as having no "Neutral point of view". I hope this is not necessary, but when neccessary I will do this very carefully and document all the reasons for this decision.

Greetings TM

another reply to TM (and TM's answer to this reply included)
TM, please calm down. And don't make a fool of yourself by generalizing and exaggerating things. Let me answer each of your points separately to show you that I take your objections seriously:

 * KF, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY REVERT CHANGES OF OTHER PEOPLE

 * I do not "generally revert changes of other people". I  once  (as in "on one occasion only") reverted  your  changes to the Bruno Kreisky article because I think they were detrimental to a very good, and balanced, "featured" article, i.e. an article that had gone through a stage of peer approval.

 * There is hardly any hierarchy here at Wikipedia, so anyone, including anonymous users, have the "right" to revert changes if they feel this is necessary. However, if you want to press the point, I am specifically entitled to revert what is usually referred to as "vandalism" in my capacity as administrator, and I will continue doing that job, whether you like it or not.

 * KF, it is obvious that in the political area you have by far no "Neutral point of view". For all politicans of the SPÖ you add praises of their politics and want to remove all critical points while for politicans of the ÖVP you want just to mention critical points.

 * First of all I must say I'm glad that this is the impression you got. For example, I personally consider Viktor Klima one of the most stupid and incompetent politicians that have ever appeared in the Austrian political arena. (I even hated his looks, with those XXXL teeth sticking out of his mouth.) When I wrote his biography I of course tried to suppress my prejudice, and I take your comment as proof that it worked. For details, have a look at the "writing for the enemy" concept.

 * Secondly, if A criticizes B for publishing biased writing and vice versa, why not step back and let a third party finish the job or decide who is "right"? I have suggested this particular course of action several times now, the only problem being that, on a global scale, Austrian politicians are such unimportant figures that no one from the English-speaking world wants to have a look at those articles. Let's keep on waiting.

 * Examples of critical points ommited at Kreisky's page:

 * Kreiskys first gouvernment was silently supported by the FPÖ which was headed at that time by a former member of the SS. Kreisky just said: "I decide who is a NAZI".

 * True. Should/Could be added. I don't know why it is not already there, but two reasons appear logical: (a) Adam Carr, who wrote the biography, did not know. Or, much more likely, (b) he did know but chose not to mention it because what he was writing was an encyclopaedia article rather than a monograph on Kreisky.

 * Kreisky did not reduce the military service to six months. He promised to do this before an election and after the election reduced it to eight months (when done at once) or six months plus eight weeks later on. As I mentioned elsewhere the real reduction to six months was proposed by a commission headed by Helmut Zilk and is sceduled by Schüssel for (I think) 2006.

 * So what? Why would that be important?

 * TM: If Kreisky really had reduced the military service to six months, the reduction sceduled now would not be necessary. So if both reductions are mentioned they should contain the real and not the promised numbers. And second: It is also a good example of an election promise (I know, done by all politicans).

 * Kreisky ignored a voting of 1.3 million people (Volksabstimmung) aggainst the "Konferenzzentrum" (1.3 million people is by far the all time high of this sort of votings). This gave all later gouvernment's excuses to ignore such votings.

 * Even if this is true, I think the sentence, "Voters were reacting against what they saw as Kreisky's complacency and preoccupation with international issues" says it all. You just can't go into greater detail in an encyclopaedia article.

 * TM: Excuse me, it was a "Volksbegehren" (my fault). I guess you are to young to remember (not your fault), but "the ignoring of the voters will" by Kreisky (for a "Volksbegehren" you have to show your passport and write your name and address) is really true and should be seen in the context of the protesters aggainst Schüssel (both politicans refer to their majority in the parlament and the majority voters (I know: In the case of Schüssel there is a coalition). So if a big picture and a lot of text about protesters is shown at Schüssels page, the weak points of Kreisky (in this case ignoring 1,3 millon voters of the "Konferenzzentrum Volksbegehren") should at least be mentioned.

 * If you did, you would probably confuse readers from, say, the United Kingdom or Finland. Just have a look at the biographies of James Callaghan and Kalevi Sorsa, which are relatively short.

 * TM: If praises for a person are added, critical points should be added as well.

 * Kreisky not only raised a lot of taxes (for example the "Umsatzsteuer" which was 8% in the year 1970 and was raised by Kreisky to 10%) but also invented whole new taxes like the "Luxussteuer" (30% on cars for example) which also is not mentioned.

 * But in spite of that more and more people could afford more and more things so most of them didn't really mind. Also, the idea of a Luxussteuer is appealing, isn't it: If you want to live in luxury, by all means go ahead if (a) you have the money and (b) your conscience is not protesting, but don't expect tax deductions for it.

 * TM: If you can afford more and have to pay more taxes the total effect is not so big. This is the politic of taking money from your right pocket and giving money to your left pocket. The critic is: If the gifts of Kreisky have been smaller, the tax raises could have been avoided.

 * TM: Of course there are pro and contra arguments for the "Luxussteuer" but this are not facts, but depend on your point of view. The EU does not allow such tax and most people do not see a car as luxury.

 * Again, this is irrelevant in an encyclopaedia article.

 * TM: You see massive tax raises as irrelevant. Can it be that you do not pay tax. Introducing of study fees you see as extremely bad (Just to show my POV: I also think they should be avoided). But this is something depending on the point of view. A student sees study fees as bad and a employee sees the income taxes ("Lohnsteuer") as too high. (Btw. Schüssel did raise several fees, but the income taxes remaind unchanged) Conclusion: Mention Tax and fee raises in the same detail for all politicans (when mentioning positive things) or omit all tax and fee raises. There is no distinction between good (left party) and bad (right party) tax or fee raises.

 * Kreisky's politic of supporting gouvernment owned companys (vor example VÖST) with lots of money (deficit spending) did just postpone worker layoffs for a few years and was done before elections. After Kreisky this politic had to be stopped because of financial reasions. The subsequent economic problems (which in your opinion do not exist) where layoffs in the supported companys, which where necessary, in the time after Kreisky. So the enormous sums given to companys had only a short effect on the employment but a very long and negative effect on the budgets.

 * One of the richest countries in the world cannot have  serious  "economic problems". Let's adopt a global perspective, shall we? While Austria has lots of problems, they are nothing to do with the economy of the country.

 * TM: I did not write of serious economic problems. But if you loose your job it is serious for you. The heavy industry shrinked at the end of the Kreisky area and there where big layoffs. This has nothing to do with a country beeing rich or not. If you loose your job, you want it back or something new and probably do not care about the country beeing rich. Kreisky tried to avoid layoffs by giving money to gouvernment owned companys. If you praise Kreisky for this, you should also write how it worked out: For the huge amounts of money only a short postpone of the layoffs could be reached. His approach just did not work very well (other countrys took a different and more successful approach: E.g.: Giving the money to new growing industries instead of a dying one). And this funding was only done for companys with close connections to the gouvernment, For layoffs in privately owned companys Kreisky did not care very much. The fact that Kreisky gave only money to "red" companys and before elections is also a good example for an election gift (I know other politicans ... ).

 * You insist that the raises of fees that Schüssels gouvernment did and all the protests aggainst them should be mentioned in detail, while the heavy tax raises of Kreisky's time should not be mentioned.

 * As I pointed out above, in the 1970s people did not experience any particular feelings of deprivation. Rather the opposite was true: Study fees were  abolished , for Christ's sake, not re-introduced. The only parallel I can see is that Herta Firnberg was just as haughty as Minister as Elisabeth Gehrer is today.

 * TM: If somebody feels deprivated or not depends totally on the point of view. In your point of view there was no deprivation under Kreisky (certainly not NPOV). I guess the name "Mallorca-Paket" is unknown to you. Older people know: Kreisky invented several of them, and they contained a lot of fee and tax raises. I guess the "Sparbuchsteuer" is also unknown to you. The good Kreisky who did not make mistakes and had just gifts and never raised taxes is just a dream of his hard core followers. To your denying of Kreiskys tax, fee and deficit raises I can only cite him: "Lernen Sie Geschichte" (In english: learn history).

213.229.1.114 13:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) "Sparbuchsteuer" (tax on savings) clearly is a propaganda slogan from the ÖVP. To imply that a capital gains tax is a tax on the savings itself is grossly misleading. And to your denying that the government Schüssel produced the highest overall quota of taxation in the Second Republic I can only say that Kreisky managed to do much more reasonable things with a lower quota of taxation.

 * Answer from TM to the Message from 213.229.1.114 above: I used the word "Sparbuchsteuer" because it was used widely and the official name "ZEST" (=Zinsertragssteuer) was almost not in use and nobody would remember. I do not deny that the taxation quota was high for some time under Schüssel, but 2004 it was lower than under Klima and the tax reform of 2005 makes this even better (Contraty to the description on the main (Schüssel) page employees are also relieved by the 2005 tax reform). But of course taxes are always to high. Comparing Schüssel with Kreisky is not so simple: Kreisky started from a much better position than Schüssel. E.g.: Kreisky got an almost balanced budget from his predecessor and the total amount of gouvernment loans (German: Staatsverschuldung) was also much much smaller. Such a comparison is not easy. It is like comparing CEOs of companys in different (economic) times. It is easy to be a CEO when the economy runs well and the marked expands. But a good CEO can also save a company and its employees in hard times when a company runs out of money. Kreisky however showed how he handled budget problems: With tax raises.

 * KF, this are just some examples which come into my mind quickly, but they show that your point of view (in the political area) is by far not neutral.

 * This leads to the following conclusion:
 * KF, when you start to generally remove all my changes, I have to mark some of this pages as having no "Neutral point of view". I hope this is not necessary, but when neccessary I will do this very carefully and document all the reasons for this decision.

 * Think about it again before doing anything rash. All the best,  11:24, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * TM: I will follow your advice and calm down. Now that there is an new Schüssel article which is IMHO in general an improvement over your (KF) and my (TM) version of the article. Greetings TM

Removal of vandalism by DrogenNeger
I just removed several changes by DrogenNeger due to subtle vandalism, such as changing the image of Wolfgang Schüssel. As this user has a history of vandalising articles, and has been given a warning, he or her should now be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. PaiTrakt 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wolfgang Schüssel


text:
User talk:Sycocowz

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your help on budget. We really appreciate it. If you have any questions about editing, check FAQ, or ask at Help desk. You can test things out in Sandbox. And our most important policy is NPOV. Or just feel free to browse, making edits here and there--they're greatly appreciated. Yours, Meelar 18:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sycocowz


text:
Talk:Larry Doby

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Boulderboy123. Peer reviewers: Bking22, Evanm3195.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Year of birth
I'm not sure about the Larry Doby's birth year. Some sources say 1923, others say 1924. I'm going with 1923, because that is the year in MLB's obituary of Doby. R ADICAL B ENDER ★  18:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * No worries, I've read multiple sources that state 1923. The toughest part is NNL stats. Zepppep (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

biography?
is there a good biography out there about doby? Kingturtle 23:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the references section. The definitive is one is by Joseph Thomas Moore. Zepppep (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated editorial.
About this nugget, "During the 1997 season, when the long-departed Jackie Robinson's number 42 was being retired throughout baseball, and the still-living Larry Doby was being virtually ignored by the media, an editorial in Sports Illustrated pointed out that Doby had to suffer the same indignities that Robinson did, and with nowhere near the media attention and implicit support."

Does anyone have the original editorial article handy, or at least know in which issue it was published?Perplexed 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed (talk • contribs)

Photo of Doby and Gromek
View the picture from the Plain Dealer here. Zepppep (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Image
I've been asked to help peer-review this for possible advancement to FA. I made some technical edits for footnote placement and the like, and more neutral language in one instance. It's a long and well-written article with encyclopedic tone. Without combing through it, the only significant addition I would make is to caption and identify the image "Larry Doby 1951.jpg," a Bowman baseball card. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on 1947 section
Wizardman asked me to look at this section with a view to FAC. I did some cutting, which anyone can freely revert if I've messed anything up.
 * ”Veeck hoped a quick arrival to Cleveland would keep the pressure Doby would feel to a minimum.”: I don’t quite understand this.
 * ”Unlike the Brooklyn Dodgers' Branch Rickey who in 1945 declined to pay for the purchasing rights of Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs, Veeck was "determined to buy Doby's contract from the Eagles.””: And I’m not too sure about this. The quote also requires in-text attribution.
 * I’m not too sure about using “her second baseman” to describe Doby.
 * ”The two took a train from Newark to Chicago where the Indians were scheduled to play the Chicago White Sox the next day.”: Apparently unreferenced at the end of the paragraph.
 * ”Veeck hired two plainclothes police officers to accompany Doby as he went to Comiskey Park to prevent the large number of black fans from affecting the first black player to enter an American League stadium.”: These two ideas do not seem connected. How could the police stop Doby being affected?
 * ”Bill Veeck in the 1949 movie The Kid from Cleveland tells the story that Gordon struck out on three swings in his immediate at-bat after Doby to save face for his new teammate. However, Doby's second strike was the result of a foul ball, both the Associated Press and Chicago Tribune stated Doby struck out on five pitches instead of three, and in addition, Gordon was standing on third base during Doby's at-bat.”: This seems to waste a lot of time refuting something which doesn’t seem that important.
 * We also seem to dwell too long on the glove.
 * We mention his unfriendly team-mates twice, and we may be labouring the point.
 * I think some of the paragraphs would stand splitting, as it is quite a heavy wall of text in places. I think a few parts lend themselves to being broken up. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Larry Doby. 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/20130523041835/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=MPJ&chapterID=MPJ-878&path=books%2Fgreenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=MPJ&chapterID=MPJ-878&path=books%2Fgreenwood
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140413203318/http://www.phillytrib.com/sports/baseball/baseball-great-doby-receives-postage-stamp.html to http://www.phillytrib.com/sports/baseball/baseball-great-doby-receives-postage-stamp.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127230709/http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/hall-fame-weekend/past-ceremonies/1998-induction-ceremony to http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/hall-fame-weekend/past-ceremonies/1998-induction-ceremony
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414162239/http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/07/27/2963100/fans-flock-to-camden-as-larry.html to http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/07/27/2963100/fans-flock-to-camden-as-larry.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130414224817/http://capitolwords.org/date/1997/07/08/E1365-2_tribute-to-baseball-legend-and-civil-rights-pionee/ to http://capitolwords.org/date/1997/07/08/E1365-2_tribute-to-baseball-legend-and-civil-rights-pionee/

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) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Larry Doby Statue.jpg

What's the convention for calling the Cleveland Team?
Since the Cleveland baseball team changed its name to "The Guardians," some parts of the article inconsistently use that current name in historical context. Meanwhile, the deprecated old name, "Indians," is used throughout much of the article. Should the old name be replaced with the new name? If it's decided to replace the old name, there should be mention early in the article that original name was replaced with the current name. Abebenjoe (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see zero places in the article where it uses Guardians (except for the infobox but I don't really count that as "the article"). For the prose itself obviously Indians would be used since that was the team name when Doby played even if it's the Guarrdians for current players. Wizardman  03:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Larry Doby


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Klein (0th nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Bruce Klein.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

 * Vanity. Delete. (unsigned addition at 18:48, May 15, 2004 by User:Janus san)
 * Ooh...delete is right. - Lucky 6.9 18:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If this is vanity, is Immortality Institute also vanity?  Or, is it encyclopedic? Actual question, not sarcasm.  Me thinks delete both, but not sure.  Isomorphic 20:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that Immortality Institute links to both Bruce Klein and Michael_Anissimov. They're all interconnected. Should possibly look at the other "See alsos" on "Immortality Institute." Isomorphic 21:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There has been wide editing of many articles linking to cryonics etc. Most of it is obscure and irrelevant to the topics under discussion (see this edit to see what I mean). Needs to be checked out. JFW | T@lk  08:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hysterical. Delete.  I don't really have a vote on Immortality Institute, though.  RickK 20:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This smells like a conspiracy to overthrow the government to me. Better delete before it gets out of hand.--Beelzebubs 03:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ghastly. Delete. JFW | T@lk  08:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:22, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all vanity pages Ensiform 03:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete him and his dog. 66.8.158.140 10:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Just Say No

"Just Say No" was an advertising campaign prevalent during the 1980s and early 1990s as a part of the U.S.-led war on drugs, aiming to discourage children from engaging in illegal recreational drug use by offering various ways of saying no. The slogan was created and championed by Nancy Reagan during her husband's presidency.

Initiation
The campaign emerged from a substance abuse prevention program supported by the National Institutes of Health, pioneered in the 1970s by University of Houston Social Psychology Professor Richard I. Evans. Evans promoted a social inoculation model, which included teaching student skills to resist peer pressure and other social influences. The campaign involved University projects done by students across the nation. Jordan Zimmerman, then a student at University of South Florida, and later an advertising entrepreneur, won the campaign. The anti-drug movement was among the resistance skills recommended in response to low peer pressure, and Nancy Reagan's larger campaign proved to be an effective dissemination of this social inoculation strategy.

Nancy Reagan first became involved during a campaign trip in 1980 to Daytop Village in New York City. She recalls feeling impressed by a need to educate the youth about drugs and drug abuse. Upon her husband's election to the presidency, she returned to Daytop Village and outlined how she wished to help educate the youth. She stated in 1981 that her best role would be to bring awareness about the dangers of drug abuse:

"Understanding what drugs can do to your children, understanding peer pressure and understanding why they turn to drugs is ... the first step in solving the problem."

Efforts
The "Just Say No" slogan was the creation of Robert Cox and David Cantor, advertising executives at the New York office of Needham, Harper & Steers/USA in the early 1980s. The firm was working with the Advertising Council on a media campaign for children, for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Nancy Reagan often attributed the origins of the phrase to a 1982 visit to Longfellow Elementary School in Oakland, California: when asked by a schoolgirl what to do if she was offered drugs by her peers, the First Lady responded, "Just say 'no'." Just Say No club organizations within schools and school-run anti-drug programs soon became common, in which young people were making pacts not to use drugs.

When asked about her efforts in the campaign, Nancy Reagan said: "If you can save just one child, it's worth it." She traveled throughout the United States and several other nations, totaling over 250000 mi. Nancy Reagan visited drug rehabilitation centers and abuse prevention programs. With the media attention that the first lady received, she appeared on television talk shows, recorded public service announcements, and wrote guest articles. By the autumn of 1985, she had appeared on 23 talk shows, co-hosted an October 1983 episode of Good Morning America, and starred in a two-hour PBS documentary on drug abuse.

The campaign and the phrase "Just Say No" made their way into popular American culture when television series such as Diff'rent Strokes and Punky Brewster produced episodes centered on the campaign. In 1983, Nancy Reagan appeared as herself on Diff'rent Strokes to garner support for the anti-drug campaign. She participated in a 1985 rock music video "Stop the Madness" as well. She even appeared in numerous public service announcements, including one which aired in movie theaters where she appeared alongside actor Clint Eastwood. La Toya Jackson became spokesperson for the campaign in 1987 and recorded a song titled "Just Say No" with British hit producers Stock/Aitken/Waterman.

In 1985, Nancy Reagan expanded the campaign internationally. She invited the First Ladies of 30 nations to the White House in Washington, DC, for a conference entitled the "First Ladies Conference on Drug Abuse". She later became the first First Lady invited to address the United Nations.

She enlisted the help of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, Kiwanis Club International, and the National Federation of Parents for a Drug-Free Youth to promote the cause; the Kiwanis put up over 2000 billboards with Nancy Reagan's likeness and the slogan. Over 5000 Just Say No clubs were founded in schools and youth organizations in the United States and abroad. Many clubs and organizations remain in operation around the country, where they aim to educate children and teenagers about the effects of drugs.

Just Say No crossed over to the United Kingdom in the 1980s, where it was popularized by the BBC's 1986 "Drugwatch" campaign, which revolved around a heroin-addiction storyline in the popular children's TV drama serial Grange Hill. The cast's cover of the original US campaign song, with an added rap, reached the UK top ten. The death of Anna Wood in Sydney, Australia and British teen Leah Betts from Essex in the mid-1990s sparked a media firestorm across both the UK and Australia over the use of illegal drugs. Wood's parents even released her school photograph on a badge with the saying "Just say no to drugs" placed on it to warn society on the dangers of illicit drug use. The photograph was widely circulated in the media. A photo of Betts in a coma in her hospital bed was also circulated in British media. Both teenagers died due to water intoxication as they drank too much water after ingesting ecstasy.

Effects
Nancy Reagan's related efforts increased public awareness of drug use, but extant research has not established a direct relationship between the Just Say No campaign and reduced drug use. Although the use and abuse of illegal recreational drugs significantly declined during the Reagan presidency, this may be a spurious correlation: a 2009 analysis of 20 controlled studies on enrollment in one of the most popular "Just Say No" programs, DARE, showed no impact on drug use.

The campaign drew significant criticism. Critics labelled Nancy Reagan's approach to promoting drug awareness reductive, arguing that tackling the issue of drug abuse required a more complex approach than simply encouraging the use of a catchphrase. In fact, two studies suggested that enrollees in DARE-like programs were actually more likely to use alcohol and cigarettes. Journalist Michael McGrath suggested that inflamed fears from "Just Say No" exacerbated mass incarceration and prevented youth from receiving accurate information about dealing with drug abuse and responsible drug use. Critics also think that "Just Say No" contributed towards the well seasoned stigma about people who use drugs being labelled as "bad", and the stigma toward those people who are addicted to drugs being labelled as making a cognizant immoral choice to engage in drug use. In a 1992 paper, Evans et al commented: that the "Just Say No" approach had been “taken out of context and redirected in form as a formula for preventing all substance abuse. ... Because of the current pervasiveness of the catchphrase, we emphasize that ‘Just Say No’ is not enough!"

In 2020, when scholars and historians were asked during the Siena College Research Institute's first ladies study to assess the signature initiatives of the then most-recent ten first ladies (those from Lady Bird Johnson onward), "Just Say No" was ranked as the second-worst, with only Melania Trump's "Be Best" campaign being more lowly assessed.

title: Just Say No