text:
Talk:Pro-Europeanism

Pro-European Parties
I'm wondering why it is necessary to list the pro-european parties from France and the UK. I understand that listing the parties from all the member states would make the article too long, but selecting France and the Uk seems arbitrary. I can understand mentioning the UK since it has a different political division on this issue. Also the vast majority of the political parties in the EU (exept for the UK) are pro-European. Maybe it would be better to make a list based on political views? Ive added ''Although the situation differs in each member state, in general, most political parties can be considered as being pro-European in varying degrees. The main exeptions being far left, far right and nationalist parties.'' Maybe it's to generalistic, let me know what you think!

i think within the country we should have disscusions on are thaughts then prosent them with all of the eu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.166.243 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-European Links
I was very impressed by the number of sceptic links there are on the Eurosceptic page (I've added some myself), so I though it might be worth having a few pro-Europeans ones on this page too. Unfortunately, there a bit UK specific at the mo, so if others could broaden them that'd be great... - Tom

Reform of EU
I think a key part of any pro-European viewpoint must include an aim to improve and reform the EU. For example, I personally think CAP is a very expensive way to 'protect' food supplies and agricultural employment, and is highly damaging to some developing countries that rely heavily on agricultural exports. Does anyone know of good links on reform that could be added to the page? - Tom

The point
What's the point of this article when there's already a synonymous one? It also seems to be rather Britain-centric. --Shallot 16:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Some people like Kenneth Clarke, consider themselves pro-European without the uncritical 'love' europhile might imply. Certainly there are more references in Wikipedia to Pro-European than to Europhile. That said, perhaps a redirect from one to the other might be appropriate as they are quite similar.

In terms of UK specific, it is, but a few contributions from others could broaden it to encompass other pro-European campaigns and political parties. --EuroTom 18:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy
This page really should be here. There are lots of references to it in multiple pages and it isn't self-explanatory unless you view the EU as Europe (!)... --anon

 * Agreed, but perhaps the various pro-EU pages (this one, and Europhile, and any others that are hanging around) could be combined into one bigger page covering the various grades of pro-EU thought. A similar thing should be done with the various eurosceptic pages. Toby W 08:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Odd sentence
I just tidied up a rather wordy intro but couldn't find a way to tidy up this sentence:

N.B. Whilst it is stated above that a pro-European position supports the EU, it does not necessarily follow that someone who may be labelled anti-European would be non-supportive of the EU.

I'm not sure what this means. It seems to be saying that pro-Europeans support the EU but anti-Europeans don't necessarily oppose it, but that can't be right because it's patently untrue. Any suggestions? Wombat 19:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge Europhile to this article
The Europhile article is vague, and it is UK usage anyway. 'Pro-European' makes sense all over Europe, and is widely used.Paul111 11:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Me too. Merge (and redirect) the UK variant into this. Marcus22 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag
Isn't the flag upside down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonk (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
As part of the necessary cleanup, I am removing this bit of unencyclopedic discussion of terminology, but I'll move it here first in case anyone thinks something can be saved from it. I suppose it might conceivably belong on Wiktionary. "In practice the term is used as a de facto antonym of eurosceptic. In turn anti-European and the pejorative Europhobe are synonyms of Eurosceptic, and Europhile is often seen as a pejorative term for a pro-European. Some Eurosceptics would describe themselves as 'pro-European' in the sense that they are not anti-Europe or anti-EU per se, although they would clearly not identify themselves as being pro-European in the sense described in this article. The precise meaning of these terms is often dependent on the context." --Boson (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is pro-Europeanism a political ideology?
I have long seen pro-Europeanism used in many infoboxes for political parties in the ideolgies section. As far as I was remember it had a few years ago been agreed and accepted that it is a political ideology. However a long time editor,, removed this from the page Scottish Labour Party, claiming it is not a political ideology. Is there any current consensus on this? If it is not an ideology a lot of infoboxes will need changing because as far as I'm aware it was general consensus that this could be included, as it is used quite frequently in this section. As such would Euroscepticism also need removing? I could see this as being far more complex and less justified as a lot of parties are based mainly around this. As such if Euroscepticism is acceptable then I don't really see why pro-Europeanism isn't. Helper201 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing Pro-Europeanism from Parties' infobox
User:Nick.mon, User:Vif12vf, User:Scia Della Cometa, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Autospark. User:Davide King, User:Broncoviz, User:AleCapHollywood, User:Egeymi, User:Yakme, User:Vacant0, User:Ermanarich, User:BastianMAT, User:Shadow4dark, User:The Account 2, User:Martopa, User talk:Braganza, User:Karma1998, User talk:Mureungdowon, User:Nick Number, User:Nick Number, User:Stevan Mitnick, User:Gorrrillla5, User:Skywatcher68 and User:Checco

I want to get a consensus to remove the Pro-Europeanism tag from all Parties' infobox because this tag is too generic and this tag's definition is undefined Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Most of the political parties listed here are well referenced within their "ideologies" section or their infobox's highlighting the party's "pro-European" stance/position. I believe this to be a matter of sourcing. I think you are better off placing WP:CITENEED tags in the articles where sources are non-existent. For the cases in which a particular party's views are ill-defined/or where WP:RS is lacking, taking it to the talk page(s) of those respective articles to discuss/seek consensus would be more appropriate. Considering each article is different, creating one mass rule-of-thumb to apply to all these articles (including the well sourced articles) doesn't particularly make sense. I think an individual, case-by-case approach is what's needed. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also including HapHaxion and Charles Essie here as I see they had to restore several articles where Pomchi-Inu87 had already begun removing the ideology from articles prior to any consensus being reached. Archives908 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose: I agree with the reasoning of Archives908. User:ValenciaThunderbolt should also be made aware of this discussion based on his recent edits removing Pro-Europeanism from multiple infoboxes. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Support: As it isn't an ideology and rather a stance, which can be incorporated into an article's ideology section (if not already), I support its removal. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its arguable that even "stances" are ideologically based in principal. Do you have any WP:RS which proves its categorically not an ideology? Several of these "pro-European" parties place closer European integration/development of ties with the EU/prospective EU membership as a goal prominently within their respective manifestos. In contrast, Euroscepticism has become a pretty prominent ideological stance of many parties in Europe, so why the double standard with "Pro-Europeanism" as an ideology? Archives908 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose I don't think that pro-Europeanism should be indicated in the infoboxes of all pro-European parties, but in some cases it is a distinctive feature of some parties, characterizing itself "de facto" as a political ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Support, enthusiastically. Pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism are not ideologies, but policies. Political party infoboxes should contain only pure ideologies and, possibly, not more than two or three of them. Policies like pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, Atlanticism, Russophilia, anti-immigration and so on should not be among them. --Checco (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose: not only are pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism real ideologies, but they're very useful for users to instantly understand what a particular European party's outlook on EU is. --Zlad! (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are policies, not ideologies. They are also quite generic, loose and poor indicators. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * big headache = minor spelling mistake.
 * meant to write ideologies lol Zlad! (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The "pro-Europeanism" label in the ideology section of a party's infobox is a critical marker of where the party stands on European integration and support for the European Union. In today's European political climate, where the divide between pro-Europeanism and euroscepticism is increasingly pronounced, this label offers essential insight into a party's core beliefs and policy directions.
 * Firstly, "pro-Europeanism" provides clarity about a party's stance on the EU, an issue that gives readers a hint at their policies on trade, immigration, environmental regulations and more. By clearly labeling a party as pro-European, readers of the Wiki can easily gain a better understanding of where that party stands on these issues.
 * Moreover, the presence of the "pro-Europeanism" label allows for straightforward comparisons between parties. This is especially important in a political environment where opinions on the EU can be deeply polarized. People can easily distinguish between parties that support EU integration and those that are more skeptical or outright opposed.
 * Additionally, the stance on the EU is often a significant part of a party's identity and history. Many parties have evolved in response to Europe-related issues, and their position on the EU has been a defining trait, for example, Volt Europa. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a clear and accepted term to indicate a party's ideological position. Labrang (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concern about an alleged long list of ideologies is not to be blamed on the ideologies but on the concerned parties. I would rather be concerned with citation overkill which seems to be a trend in en-wiki. Labrang (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I would say that it depends on the country's context, and in some countries the label would play a big role or matter a lot, so we should keep it.
 * Lastjourneyman. (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, I can't imagine Georgian parties without them. First are your views on EU, and then economic and social platforms. Zlad! (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, removing it just removes information from Infoboxes, it's useful to know the parties' stances on the EU. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While it may be useful for outside-EU political parties, it is completely useless for EU member parties as it is the assumed default position - being for oneself is *normal*.
 * In that context, we can also invent "Pro-Frenchism" as an ideology in infoboxes for some(!) of the French political parties. And "Pro-Greekism" for some(!).
 * On the practical scale, Federalism is a real description of a party ideology/policy. Pro-Europeanism is not. Not for EU political parties.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism are established and widely used ideologies, while pro-Frenchism is not. Zlad! (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That something is used - in academia - does not mean it is useful for further one's understanding of the world.
 * I have nothing against the existence of the term as an academic one with a very specific article noting the nuances /and the limitations/ of what is actually meant by this one more in my view - language-abusing - word. There are a lot of terms like that in the academic world and yet we do not "transplant" them into the casual vocabulary. Not without major caveats/explanations at a minimum.
 * The issue I see is the term was created *before* there was an actual EU and referred to the desire to *create* an Europe-wide structure of sorts. The objective which wa largely achieved by now. This was as opposed to the concept at the time which were against moving in the EU creation direction. As a raw term, it had a lot of meaning - 20+ years ago. The problem is that, today, general populace still associates that original meaning with it while academia diverged a lot on that. I argue that using the term to describe political parties of the EU *30 years after its creation* is useless. Not that the term does not exist. The same way a term of "Frenchism" would have been valid at the time modern France was formed as a unitary state. I used an invented word intentionally to show the point only.
 * On the contrary, the term "Euroscepticism" is actually a much newer term - it represents policies *within* the EU and refers to the conviction about the ability of the centralised EU structures to solve/not solve all problems effectively. A very current term which has a meaning for EU-based parties. Incidentally, not much meaning so for outside-EU ones in a mirror way.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (Conditional), the term has no place for EU-based parties these days. It can still be used for outside-EU parties where it has a meaning. Like UK, Belarus, Turkey, etc. It can also be kept for historical, now defunct parties which had the position before their country joined the EU.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be revived and a consensus should be achieved, eventually. More broadly, we should decide whether only ideologies should be mentioned in political party articles' infoboxes. I have long argued that only recognised ideologies, not policies and let alone neologisms, should be be included. Also, infoboxes should not contain long lists of ideologies, but we need a clear consensus. I hope we will find the proper place for that discussion. In the meantime, we should find consensus on the "pro-Europeanism/Euroscepticism" issue, at least. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy that more users are writing on the issue. I understand that the stance on the EU is somewhat critical in the current circumstances, but not all parties are clearly defined by being pro-Europeanist or Eurosceptic. Moreover, I quite dislike long list of ideologies, supposed ideologies, policies and stances to infoboxes. There should be only a couple of recognised ideologies, otherwise why pro-Europeanism/Euroscepticism and not pro-NATO/anti-NATO, pro-immigration/anti-immigration, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc.? --Checco (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its important to note that this certainly is not the talk page to debate if other random ideologies warrant inclusion on infoboxes or not. As for "Pro-Europeanism", it seems there is a WP:SNOWBALL majority who, as of now, vote to keep it. Archives908 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true, but we absolutely need to have a general picture and agreement on which items can be added or not in political party infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The term Europeanism would actually be the correct term. It doesn't need the "pro" - of that helps. Labrang (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * hmmm, that would be an interesting and a wide reaching change. Zlad! (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, I prefer this over "pro-Europeanism", as it implies there is "anti-Europeanism", when it is actually Euroscepticism. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. Zlad! (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I also dislike a long list of ideologies, but I feel ideology section should accurately reflect party's views on 1. economic matters 2. social issues 3. foreign policy
 * For example for parties in Georgia you may see economic ideology like Libertarianism or democratic socialism, then social like social liberalism or social conservatism, then stance on EU like euroscepticism or pro-europeanism and finally Atlanticism for favoring NATO integration and Russophilia for favoring Russia relations. This perfectly summarizes the party's ideology and essence in a way that is not a long bloated list. Zlad! (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And that is the core of the point. "Pro-Europeanism" has a very well understood and specific meaning for parties *outside* the European Union.
 * But the most people who have issues using it have a problem with (ab)using it for EU parties. There it is used as a political tool to insinuate that a parties not labeled "Pro-Europeanian" are in some way anti-Europeanian.
 * For non-EU parties, the correct term is indeed "Pro-Europeanism" as this is an umbrealla term, covering BOTH Europeanist and Eurosceptic views, and al in between. It is about the direction/alignement with the European Union per se.
 * For EU-based parties the correct term is "Europeanism" which is a more nuanced one, that *is* applicable for EU-based parties and political discourse while vice versa is not really applicable for outside-EU parties /it has no meaning for their polities/.
 * This conflation is the source of the conflict in my view. Until this is somehow split - i.e. we have a separate "Pro-Europeaninsm" article focusing on the outside-EU polities and a separate "Europeanism" article focussing solely on the EU-based polities the conflict will not go away.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Support: The policy is not an ideology. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact Europeanism is an ideology/ideological family - as various academics have argued. Labrang (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please state sources. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's odd. You make a statement without providing sources to corroborate your statement, while expecting me/others to proof their replies with sources. Of course I did not say the above randomly in an uninformed fashion. For example such as these links or this. Labrang (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of the term "Euorpeanism", as it has always been pro- or anti-Europeanism here. The reason why I said, before I knew of these page, is because of the way the intro of the page here is as follows "Pro-Europeanism, sometimes called European Unionism, is a political position that favours European integration and membership of the European Union (EU).. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you delve into sources you'll see Europeanism is a long used term and has evolved from into an ideology, a set of ideas - with Pro-Europeanism basically being synonymous for that, but simply highlighting it is "pro" that. Our Europeanism redirect summarizes this set of ideas in the section McCormick (2010) from this book - which I did not link yesterday, but which you can access with your Wikipedia Library account. Labrang (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the academia. This is Wikipedia.
 * The English language meaning of "Pro-Europeanism" is interpretted as "being for the European Union" and is being - politically used as such even. To say that anyone who is not "Pro-European" is "anti-European Union".
 * That has been mangled up in accademia publications to a different meaning does not change is generally accepted meaning as per the English language.
 * The only way I can see sustaining this if the article on Pro-Europeanism was explictly educative, describing the term as having gronw into a political propaganda tool to un-label opponents, purposely using the double-meaning to confuse. But that is a very, very, slippery slope there. Much better to just go with the common meaning of the term. And that is not ideological. Alternatively, the term can be split into a separate "Pro-Europeanism (Politology)" article that would focus on the academia meanings specifically while the general article should cover the UK and other non-EU countries meaning only.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, the term would still have no place in the infoboxes for EU-based parties. So either way it is "support" from here.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

word is a package deal
I am wondering is this word is not a package deal? Being 'pro' Europe does not have to entail supporting European political centralisation. Would European federalism or centralisation not be a clearer word to use? Since we are talking here about political parties. Similarly euro-skepticism usually does not entail being skeptical about Europe, but being skeptical about (more) centralisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg21dg21 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * No, because not all "Pro-EU" parties advocate for federalism. Some parties support maintaining the EU as is, others call for reform, while others like Volt Europa actively call for the federalization of the EU. Archives908 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pro-Europeanism


text: User talk:69.29.130.152

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

title: User talk:69.29.130.152


text:
The Vaselines

The Vaselines are a Scottish alternative rock band. Formed in Glasgow, Scotland in 1986, the band was originally a duo between its songwriters Eugene Kelly and Frances McKee, but later added James Seenan and Eugene's brother Charlie Kelly on bass and drums respectively from the band Secession. McKee had formerly been a member of a band named The Pretty Flowers with Duglas T. Stewart, Norman Blake, Janice McBride and Sean Dickson. Eugene Kelly had formerly played in The Famous Monsters.

History
The band formed in 1986, initially as a duo backed by a drum machine. Originally intending to create a fanzine, Kelly and McKee decided to form a band instead. Stephen Pastel of The Pastels is credited with coming up with their name. After playing their first gigs, they signed to Pastel's 53rd and 3rd label and recorded the Son of a Gun EP with him producing, released in summer 1987. The EP featured a cover of Divine's "You Think You're a Man" on its B-side. By late 1987, Eugene's brother Charlie Kelly had joined on drums with James Seenan on bass. With this line-up and with Stephen Pastel producing again, they recorded the Dying for It EP, released in early 1988. It featured the songs "Molly's Lips" and "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam," both of which Nirvana would later cover. In June 1989 they released their first album, Dum-Dum, again on 53rd and 3rd but distributed by Rough Trade. The band broke up shortly after its release due jointly to the dissolution of 53rd & 3rd and the end of Kelly and McKee's romantic relationship. They briefly reformed in October 1990 to open for Nirvana when they played in Edinburgh.

Kelly went on to found the band Captain America (later renamed Eugenius after legal threats from Marvel Comics), supporting Nirvana on their UK tour. Following solo performances Kelly released the album Man Alive in 2004. McKee founded the bands Painkillers in 1994 and Suckle in 1997 before releasing her first solo album, Sunny Moon, in 2006.

Though they were not widely known outside Scotland during their short career, their association with Nirvana brought exposure to the band. Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain once described Kelly and McKee as his "favorite songwriters in the whole world". With their songs "Son of a Gun" and "Molly's Lips" covered on Nirvana's album Incesticide and "Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam" covered on MTV Unplugged in New York, the band gained a new audience. At the 1991 Reading Festival, Kelly joined Nirvana on stage for a performance of "Molly's Lips". "I've never made any money apart from my Nirvana royalties," Kelly noted. "It was my tiny bit of rock history, but a strange feeling because by then I was striving for recognition with other bands. I still haven't come to terms with it, although it allowed me to go on playing, and get a mortgage without having a job."

In 1992, Sub Pop released The Way of the Vaselines: A Complete History, a compilation that contained The Vaselines' entire body of work at the time.

The story of the Vaselines from 1986 to the early 1990s is covered in the 2017 documentary Teenage Superstars, in which both McKee and Kelly feature.

Reformation
In the summer of 2006, McKee and Kelly took to the stage together for the first time since 1990 to perform a set of Vaselines songs, as part of a joint tour to promote their individual solo albums.

The Vaselines reformed (minus the old rhythm section) on 24 April 2008 for a charity show for the Malawi Orphan Support group at Glasgow's MONO venue. Invitation was by word-of-mouth with no press announcements and the band played to a packed, enthusiastic audience.

The Vaselines performed on 16 May 2008 at Scotland's Tigerfest. Members of Belle and Sebastian supported their live set. The band then played their first-ever U.S. performance at Maxwell's in Hoboken, NJ on 9 July. The band also performed at Sub Pop Records' 20th Anniversary SP20 music festival on 12 July at Marymoor Park just outside Seattle WA.

On 27 March 2009, they played their first London date in 20 years at the London Forum.

On 5 May, Sub Pop released Enter the Vaselines. A deluxe-edition reissue of the 1992 Sub Pop release, it includes remastered versions of the band’s two EPs (Son of a Gun and Dying for It), and a remixed version of their sole album (Dum-Dum), as well as demos and live recordings from 1986 and 1988. The band toured the U.S. in May 2009, playing six dates, starting in Los Angeles on 10 May, then heading up the west coast to San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. Dates for Chicago, IL and Brooklyn, NY would end the tour on 18 May. The band finished their May tour at the Primavera Sound festival in Barcelona.

On 19 July 2009, The Vaselines played the Uncut Arena at the Latitude Festival in Suffolk.

On 9 October 2009, The Vaselines made a long-awaited return to Edinburgh to support Mudhoney at HMV Picture House.

The band were chosen personally by Belle and Sebastian to perform at their second Bowlie Weekender festival presented by All Tomorrow's Parties in the UK in December 2010.

The band performed a cover version of the Nirvana song "Lithium" as part of a Spin Magazine's exclusive album, Newermind. It is the Nirvana album Nevermind, performed by different artists.

The Vaselines second studio album, Sex With an X, was released in September 2010.

The Vaselines announced their third studio album, V for Vaselines, in June 2014 which was released on 29 September 2014 on Rosary Music. "One Lost Year" from the album was made available for free download from their SoundCloud page. The single "High Tide Low Tide" followed in August, being released as a digital download and 7-inch vinyl.

Current members

 * Eugene Kelly – vocals, guitar, harmonica (1986–1990, 2006, 2008–present)
 * Frances McKee – vocals, guitar (1986–1990, 2006, 2008–present)
 * Michael McGaughrin – drums (2009–present)
 * Graeme Smillie – bass, keyboards (2014–present)
 * Carla Easton – keyboards (2017–present)

Former members

 * James Seenan – bass (1987–1990)
 * Charlie Kelly – drums (1987–1990)
 * Stevie Jackson – guitar (2008–2014)
 * Bobby Kildea – bass (2008–2014)
 * Paul Foley – guitar (2010–2011)
 * Gareth Russell – bass (2010–2011)
 * Scott Paterson – guitar (2014–2016)

title: The Vaselines


text:
Theodore Hesburgh

Theodore Martin Hesburgh, CSC (May 25, 1917 – February 26, 2015) was an American Catholic priest and academic who was a member of the Congregation of Holy Cross. He is best known for his service as the president of the University of Notre Dame for thirty-five years (1952–1987).

In addition to his career as an educator and author, Hesburgh was a public servant and social activist involved in numerous American civic and governmental initiatives, commissions, international humanitarian projects, and papal assignments. Hesburgh received numerous honors and awards for his service, most notably the United States's Presidential Medal of Freedom (1964) and Congressional Gold Medal (2000). As of 2013, he also held the world's record for the individual with the most honorary degrees with more than 150.

Hesburgh is credited with bringing Notre Dame, long known for its football program, to the forefront of American Catholic universities and its transition to a nationally respected institution of higher education. He supervised the university's dramatic growth, as well as the successful transfer of its ownership from Holy Cross priests to the Notre Dame board of trustees in 1967. During his tenure as president, the university also became a coeducational institution. In addition to his service to Notre Dame, Hesburgh held leadership positions in numerous groups involved in civil rights, peaceful uses of atomic energy, immigration reform, and Third World development. Hesburgh was also active on the boards of numerous businesses, nonprofits, civic organizations, and Vatican missions.

Early life and education
Theodore Martin Hesburgh was born on May 25, 1917, in Syracuse, New York, to Theodore Bernard Hesburgh, a Pittsburgh Plate Glass warehouse manager, and Anne Murphy Hesburgh. His father was of Luxembourgish ancestry; his mother's family was of Irish descent. Young Theodore was the second child and oldest son in a family of five children that included two boys and three girls. He attended Most Holy Rosary, a parochial school in Syracuse, and also served as an altar boy. Hesburgh claimed that he had wished to become a priest since the age of six. Thomas Duffy, a missionary priest from the Congregation of Holy Cross, which owned the University of Notre Dame, encouraged Hesburgh's interest in joining the priesthood.

Hesburgh graduated from Most Holy Rosary High School in Syracuse in 1934 and enrolled in the Holy Cross Seminary at Notre Dame in the fall. In 1937, his teachers decided to send the promising young seminarian to study in Rome, Italy, where he graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian University with a bachelor of philosophy degree in 1940. When the American consul in Rome ordered all U.S. citizens to leave Italy in 1940, due to the outbreak of World War II, Hesburgh returned to the United States to continue his studies. He spent three years (1940–43) studying theology at the Holy Cross College in Washington, D.C., and two years (1943–45) studying at The Catholic University of America, where he earned a doctorate in sacred theology in 1945.

On June 24, 1943, Hesburgh was ordained a priest for the Congregation of Holy Cross at Notre Dame's Sacred Heart Church (later renamed the Basilica of the Sacred Heart). Inspired by an inscription carved in stone above the church's door, Hesburgh dedicated his life to "God, Country, and Notre Dame." Afterwards, Father Ted, as he preferred to be called, returned to Washington, D.C., to complete his studies and assist at area parishes. In addition, Hesburgh served as a chaplain at the National Training School for Boys (a juvenile detention facility) and at a military installation. He also ran a large United Service Organization (USO) club in a Knights of Columbus hall in Washington, D.C. Although Hesburgh expressed an interest in serving as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he returned to Notre Dame, Indiana, in 1945, after completion of his studies in Washington, D.C., to begin a teaching career at the university.

Early years
Hesburgh joined the Notre Dame faculty as an instructor in the university's Department of Religion in 1945. In 1948 Hesburgh was named head of the Department of Theology, and in 1949 Notre Dame's president, John J. Cavanaugh, C.S.C., appointed Hesburgh executive vice president. Three years later, at the age of thirty-five, Hesburgh succeeded Cavanaugh as president.

President of Notre Dame

Hesburgh served as Notre Dame's president for thirty-five years, from 1952 until his retirement in 1987. At that time his was "the longest presidency in American higher education." Hesburgh immediately began efforts to transform the school, primarily known for its football program, "into a nationally respected institution of higher learning." In 1953 the university created the Distinguished Professors Program to attract top scholars to Notre Dame. By the time of Hesburgh's retirement in 1987, the school had established more than a hundred distinguished professorships.

Hesburgh supervised dramatic growth at the university and expansion of its endowment, as well as its transition to a coeducational institution which occurred in 1972. During his presidency (1952–87), the annual operating budget increased from $9.7 million to $176.6 million and the university's endowment increased from $9 million to $350 million. Research funding increased from $735,000 to $15 million. Student enrollment nearly doubled from 4,979 to 9,676, and its faculty more than doubled from 389 to 951. The average faculty salary rose from $5,400 to $50,800. The number of degrees conferred annually doubled from 1,212 to 2,663. While Hesburgh was president, the university also initiated forty new building projects, including the $8 million library with the famous "Word of Life" mural, better known as "Touchdown Jesus," on its façade.

Hesburgh played a key role in developing the Land O'Lakes Statement that North American representatives of the International Federation of Catholic Universities issued in 1967. The document outlined a commitment to academic freedom with independent governance and insisted that "a Catholic university properly developed can even more fully achieve the ideal of a true university." The statement created some controversy because it declared that Catholic universities should be autonomous, free from all authority, including the Catholic Church. Despite the conflicts that the statement initiated, Hesburg's commitment to excellence "transformed Notre Dame into one of the most recognizable and prestigious Catholic universities in the United States". In 1967, Hesburgh ended the university's exclusive, century-long leadership by the Congregation of Holy Cross clergy. Hesburgh and Howard Kenna worked together to establish a plan for transferring ownership of the university from the Congregation of Holy Cross priests to the University of Notre Dame Board of Trustees. The new governing board included laypersons and Holy Cross priests as trustees and fellows.

During the 1960s, when student demonstrations were held at colleges and universities across the United States, Hesburgh and many other collegiate presidents came under attack. For Notre Dame the climax of student unrest occurred in 1968–69. On February 17, 1969, Hesburgh took a controversial position in dealing with anti-Vietnam War student activism on campus when he issued an eight-page letter to the student body outlining the university's stance on protests. Hesburgh's letter stated that student protesters who violated the rights of others or disrupted the school's operations would be given fifteen minutes to cease and desist before facing suspension, or expulsion if they refused to disperse. Hesburgh's action provoked controversy and made national headlines. The letter was reprinted in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Although Hesburgh received harsh criticism from Notre Dame's students, including requests for his resignation, responses to editorials in 250 newspapers about his "fifteen-minute rule" were nearly all favorable. In addition, President Richard Nixon sent Hesburgh a telegram praising his "tough stance" on the campus's student protests.

At President Nixon's request, Hesburgh offered advice to Vice President Spiro Agnew in a letter written on February 27, 1969, that included suggestions for potential actions that could be taken to control the violence on college campuses. Hesburgh, who generally disagreed with the Nixon administration's policy in Vietnam and favored an accelerated withdrawal of the troops, advised against repressive legislation to control campus protests. Hesburgh argued that university and college administrations should be allowed to continue to decide the appropriate action to take on their respective campuses. The National Governors Conference agreed with his view; the majority of state governors opposed the proposed legislation. In October 1969, Hesburgh publicly expressed his opposition to the war by signing a letter with other college presidents calling for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and was present at an on-campus peace Mass with 2,500 Notre Dame students the following day.

Hesburgh, a member and later chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, was publicly vocal in his support for equal rights, but he did not immediately recognize or take significant action to eliminate institutional racism at Notre Dame, where the number of black students and employees "remained at token levels until the late 1960s." In 1969, after some of Notre Dame's African American student activists criticized the low level of blacks enrolled at the university, Hesburgh appointed a student-faculty committee to assess the issue. The committee's findings caused him to take immediate measures to increase minority employment and aggressively recruit minority students. Hesburgh also persuaded the university's trustees to lift their forty-year ban on participation in postseason football games and used revenue generated from Notre Dame's bowl game appearances to fund minority scholarships. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish's win over the University of Texas Longhorns in the Cotton Bowl Classic in 1970 raised $300,000 for Notre Dame's scholarship fund.

Notre Dame, as with other colleges and universities around the country, continued to experience antiwar protests as the Vietnam War proceeded to escalate. In early May 1970, after learning of rumors that a group of students and antiwar activists planned to firebomb the Notre Dame campus's Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) building, Hesburgh responded with a public statement on May 4. In an address to a crowd of approximately 2,000 students, Hesburgh spoke against the war and objected to Nixon's decision to send troops into Cambodia. During his conciliatory remarks, Hesburgh also outlined steps that he thought the government could take to address student concerns. On May 18, Hesburgh sent a letter to President Nixon and a copy of his address, which became known as the Hesburgh Declaration. Although campus unrest caused classes to be canceled on May 6, Notre Dame's seven days of protest ended without damage, violence, or National Guard presence as it did on other college campuses, such as Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and elsewhere.

By the early 1970s, Hesburgh had become the most well-known American Catholic in the United States. He continued to respond to student concerns during the 1970s and 1980s. To increase student involvement in the administration's decision-making process, Hesburgh added student representatives to university committees.

Civic and U.S. government activist

Hesburgh's career included many civic activities, as well as American and international initiatives beyond his work at Notre Dame. Hesburgh estimated he spent about 40 percent of his time off-campus and believed that his civic involvement "enriched" his priesthood.

Beginning in 1955, Hesburgh served in a number of posts on government commissions that included National Science Board and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and also served on the boards of non-profit organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, and Vatican missions. His career included at least sixteen presidential appointments involving some of the major social issues of his era: civil rights, campus unrest, Third World development, peaceful uses of atomic energy, and immigration reform, "including the American policy of amnesty for immigrants in the mid-1980s."

Hesburgh's first presidential appointment occurred in 1954, when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the National Science Board. Although Hesburgh had no previous experience as an activist supporting civil rights issues, President Eisenhower made him a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1957, beginning fifteen years of service on the commission. Hesburgh emerged as a civil rights advocate and spokesperson for the commission. In an appendix to the commission's annual report in 1959, Hesburgh outlined his position on civil rights and equality: "I believe that civil rights were not created, but only recognized and formulated, by our Federal and State constitutions and charters. Civil rights are important corollaries of the great proposition … that every human person is a res sacra, a sacred reality, and as such is entitled to the opportunity of fulfilling those great human potentials with which God has endowed every man."

In 1961 Hesburgh persuaded the Indiana Conference of Higher Education to support a Notre Dame-based pilot project for President John F. Kennedy's new Peace Corps initiative that trained new volunteers for service in Chile, but he felt that the Kennedy administration had a poor record on civil rights issues. In contrast to his assessment of the Kennedy administration's civil rights efforts, Hesburgh praised Lyndon B. Johnson's work to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the U.S. Congress and his courage for supporting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hesburgh also made public appearances to show his support for the civil rights movement. On July 21, 1964, Hesburgh delivered an impromptu speech during Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights rally in Chicago, Illinois. At the conclusion of the event, he joined hands with King and other civil rights supporters as the group sang "We Shall Overcome."

Hesburgh served as chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission from 1969, when President Nixon appointed him to the leadership position, until 1972, when White House aides asked for Hesburgh's resignation. His dismissal from the commission in 1972 followed a series of disagreements between Hesburgh, the commission, and the Nixon administration about civil rights policies. Hesburgh objected to the president's slowdown policy on school desegregation, opposed Nixon's anti-busing policy, and advocated for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, which the Nixon administration wanted to amend. Hesburgh publicly explained that he believed the primary reason for his dismissal was due to the commission's report on minority employment in government.

According to Rick Perlstein in Nixonland (2008), when Thomas Eagleton dropped out of the race as George McGovern's vice presidential running mate in the 1972 presidential election, Hesburgh was among many people considered as a replacement candidate for Eagleton, but he declined the offer. In the 1970s, Hesburgh made public his approval for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. During that decade, the organization Catholics Act for ERA sent out marketing materials on behalf of the amendment quoting support from Hesburgh.

President Jimmy Carter appointed Hesburgh to a blue-ribbon immigration reform commission in 1979; the commission's finding that any national immigration reform proposals can succeed only if the American national border is properly secured beforehand was cited by various opponents of illegal immigration to the United States. His efforts on the commission led to the passing of the Refugee Act of 1980, and the creation of a professional Asylum Corps in the 1990s.

Papal appointments
Hesburgh served as a permanent Holy See representative from 1956 to 1970 to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. Pope Paul VI appointed Hesburgh as head of the Vatican representatives attending the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations' human rights declaration in Tehran, Iran, and as a member of the Holy See's U.N. delegation in 1974. Pope John Paul II appointed Hesburgh to the Pontifical Council for Culture in 1983.

Business and nonprofit foundation leader
Throughout his career, Hesburgh was active on many advisory boards related to higher education, science, business, and civic affairs. He also traveled the world on behalf of the university and the organizations he served.

In the field of higher education, Hesburgh was a contributor to The Pursuit of Excellence (1958), an analysis of the U.S. education system that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund commissioned as part of its Special Studies Project. Hesburgh also served as a member of the International Federation of Catholic Universities, and as its president from 1963 to 1970; a board member and eventual president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities; a board member of the American Council on Education; and a board member of the Institute of International Education, among other education-related groups.

In 1990, during his retirement years, Hesburgh became the first priest to be elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers (board of directors), and served from 1994 to 1996 as the board's president. Hesburgh also served as co-chairman of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics that made significant revisions to the regulation of American collegiate sports.

Hesburgh was involved with several science-related projects and organizations. From 1956 until 1970, he served as the permanent Vatican representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. In addition to serving on the U.S. National Science Board, Hesburgh was appointed U.S. ambassador to the 1979 United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development. He also served with the Midwestern Universities Research Association and the Nutrition Foundation Board. While serving on the board of the United States Institute of Peace, Hesburgh "helped organize a meeting of scientists and representative leaders of six faith traditions who called for the elimination of nuclear weapons."

Hesburgh was a board member of numerous business and civic organizations. From 1961 to 1982 he served on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and from 1977 to 1982 as board chairman. Hesburgh also served as a director for the Chase Manhattan Bank and was one of the four main founders of People for the American Way, which was among many other organizations he served with. Hesburgh's interest in international affairs also led to his service on numerous international commissions and humanitarian projects.

Later years

After his retirement as president of the University of Notre Dame in 1987, Hesburgh took a year off for travel and vacation. Upon his return, he came to campus to work each day at his new office on the thirteenth floor of the library that eventually bore his name, and wrote his autobiography, God, Country, Notre Dame: The Autobiography of Theodore M. Hesburgh (1990) with Jerry Reedy. The book spent six weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. At the conclusion of the book, Hesburgh remarked:"I believe that with faith in God and in our fellow humans, we can aim for the heights of human endeavor, and that we can teach them, too."

Hesburgh kept busy in his retirement years, which also included time to relax at the Holy Cross property at Land O' Lakes, Wisconsin. He wrote regularly, including a second book, Travels with Ted and Ned (1992), which received mixed reviews, and edited The Challenge and Promise of a Catholic University (1994), a collection of essays on Catholic higher education. Hesburgh continued to deliver speeches and lectures, as well as serving on numerous boards and committees, including his controversial decision in 1994 to co-chair the legal defense fund for President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton with former U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach.

Hesburgh was especially active in the development of five institutions he organized: the Ecumenical Institute for Theology Studies at Tantur, Jerusalem; Notre Dame's Center for Civil and Human Rights; the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies; the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; and the Hank Family Environmental Research Center. Other retirement activities included co-chairing the Knight Commission with William C. "Bill" Friday, former president of the University of North Carolina, and joining the Harvard Board of Overseers in 1990. In 2009, he supported the invitation to Barack Obama to speak at Notre Dame, which was controversial because of Obama's strong endorsement of pro-choice legislation.

Death and legacy
Hesburgh died on February 26, 2015, at the age of 97. His death, funeral, and memorial service gained widespread media attention. Attendees and speakers at the memorial service included former President Jimmy Carter, Condoleezza Rice, Lou Holtz, then cardinal Theodore McCarrick and cardinal Roger Mahony, former U.S. senator Harris L. Wofford, Indiana governor Mike Pence, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, former U.S. senator Alan K. Simpson, U.S. senator Joe Donnelly, William G. Bowen, and a video message from President Barack Obama.

Father Hesburgh was the president of the University of Notre Dame from 1952 to 1987. He was an American Roman Catholic priest and educator who achieved national prominence through his public service work. He increased the stature and size of the university, liberalized the rules regulating student life, promoted academic freedom, and worked toward making Notre Dame one of the top universities in the country, doubling its enrollment and greatly increasing its endowment. He transferred its governance from the Congregation of Holy Cross to a mixed lay and religious board and oversaw the admittance of women students in 1972. He was also the chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights and of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. He received numerous awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1964) and a Congressional Gold Medal (1999), and more than 150 honorary degrees. He was a steadfast champion for human rights, the cause of peace, and care for the poor.

Hesburgh's leadership as president of the University of Notre Dame brought it to the forefront of American Catholic universities. A Time magazine cover story from February 9, 1962, named him as "the most influential figure in the reshaping of Catholic higher education in the U.S." Long known for its football program, Notre Dame also became known for its academics. While Hesburgh was slow to recognize that Notre Dame's "policies and practices unintentionally produced unequal outcomes," he took decisive action after its minority students challenged him to do so. By the 1970s Notre Dame was a "much more diverse university than it had been ten years earlier."

The university has named several buildings, scholarships, and academic programs in his honor, including the Hesburgh Library, the Hesburgh Institute for International Studies, which Hesburgh founded in 1985, the Hesburgh-Yusko Scholarship, and the Hesburgh International Scholar Experience. Hesburgh's papers are housed in the Archives of the University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame's Hesburgh Library initially opened as the Memorial Library on September 18, 1963, and was renamed in his honor in 1987. In his retirement, Hesburgh maintained a private office on the library's thirteenth floor.

Hesburgh, one of the country's "most respected clergyman," was a strong supporter of interfaith dialogue. He also brought a Catholic perspective to the numerous government commissions, civic initiatives, and other projects in which he was involved. From his position within the American political establishment and as a major figure in the Catholic Church from the 1950s to the 1990s, he used his influence to urge support of political policies and legislation to help solve national problems.

Hesburgh remained an activist for most of his adult life, especially in the area of civil rights and equality. He played a significant role in national affairs, beginning in the mid-twentieth century, and became well known for his liberal point of view, which was based on concepts of freedom and autonomy. Hesburgh supported the peaceful use of atomic energy, aid to developing Third World countries (especially Africa and Latin America), and civil rights and equality. Although his remarks and actions were controversial at times, "he nearly always came through unscathed."

As a fifteen-year member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Hesburgh took a public stand against racism and prejudice. He used his skills as a leader to forge strong alliances, even with those who held different political philosophies. For Hesburgh, civil rights were a moral issue, as he once declared: "Our moral blindness has given us a divided America and ugly America complete with black ghettos. …We allow children to grow up in city jungles, to attend disgraceful schools, to be surrounded with every kind of physical and moral ugliness, and then we are surprised if they are low in aspiration and accomplishment." While Hesburgh was criticized by some for his social and political ideas, many praised his "contributions to ecumenism, civil rights, and world peace"

In 2018, Hesburgh, a documentary film directed by Patrick Creadon, was released. It covers Hesburgh's life, particularly his presidency at Notre Dame and his work in civil rights.

Presidential appointments

 * National Science Board (1954–56), Committee on International Science
 * National War College, Board of Consultants
 * Overseas Development Council (1971–82)
 * President's Commission on All-Volunteer Armed Forces
 * President's Committee on the Holocaust
 * President's General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs
 * Presidential Clemency Board (1974–75)
 * U.S. Advisory Committee on International Educational and Cultural Affairs (1962–65)
 * U.S. Ambassador and Chair, U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development (1979)
 * U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1957–72)
 * U.S. Commission on United States-Latin American Relations
 * U.S. Institute of Peace, Board of Directors
 * U.S. Naval Academy, Board of Visitors
 * U.S. Official Observer Team for El Salvador Elections (1982)
 * U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Relief Policy (1979–81)
 * U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Council

Books

 * With Paul A. Miller and Clifton R. Wharton Jr.,
 * With Jerry Reedy,
 * Editor,
 * With Paul A. Miller and Clifton R. Wharton Jr.,
 * With Jerry Reedy,
 * Editor,
 * With Paul A. Miller and Clifton R. Wharton Jr.,
 * With Jerry Reedy,
 * Editor,
 * With Paul A. Miller and Clifton R. Wharton Jr.,
 * With Jerry Reedy,
 * Editor,
 * With Jerry Reedy,
 * Editor,
 * Editor,

Honors and awards
Hesburgh received numerous honors and awards for his public service. In 1964, President Johnson awarded Hesburgh the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. In 2000, Hesburgh was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the first person from higher education to receive the honor. On September 1, 2017, the United States Postal Service (USPS) released a First Class postage stamp honoring Hesburgh in the year of the 100th anniversary of his birthday. The release ceremony was held at the Joyce Center at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana.

Hesburgh's awards include, among many others:
 * Namesake of minor planet 1952 Hesburgh, discovered by the Indiana Asteroid Program (1952)
 * Elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1960)
 * Honorary member of the Austrian Catholic fraternity KÖHV Alpenland (1961)
 * Presidential Medal of Freedom (1964)
 * Alexander Meiklejohn Award (1970) from the American Association of University Professors
 * Elected to the American Philosophical Society (1974)
 * The Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an annual award presented by Jefferson Awards (1976)
 * Sylvanus Thayer Award from the United States Military Academy (1980)
 * F. Sadlier Dinger Award by educational publisher William H. Sadlier, Inc. in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the ministry of religious education in America. (1982)
 * Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences (1984)
 * Elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences (1984)
 * Four Freedoms Award for the Freedom of Worship (1993) from the Roosevelt Institute
 * Namesake of the TIAA–CREF's Hesburgh Award (1993)
 * Blessed are the Peacemakers Award from Catholic Theological Union (1998)
 * Indiana Living Legend (2001) award from the Indiana Historical Society
 * NCAA Gerald R. Ford Award (2004 inaugural recipient) for leadership in intercollegiate athletics
 * Awarded the Sagamore of the Wabash by the Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels in 2006.
 * Honorary U.S. Navy chaplain (2013)

World records
In a flight that took place on February 28, 1979, Hesburgh, one of a very few number of civilians to ride in a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, flew at Mach 3.35 (about 2,200 miles per hour) as a favor owed to him by President Jimmy Carter.

In 1982, after receiving his ninetieth honorary degree, Hesburgh's name was added to the Guinness Book of World Records as the individual with the "Most Honorary Degrees." As of 2013, he had received more than 150 honorary degrees.

Honorary degrees
Hesburgh was the recipient of more than 150 honorary degrees. These include:

title: Theodore Hesburgh


text:
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) is an informal international group of systematic botanists who collaborate to establish a consensus on the taxonomy of flowering plants (angiosperms) that reflects new knowledge about plant relationships discovered through phylogenetic studies.

, four incremental versions of a classification system have resulted from this collaboration, published in 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2016. An important motivation for the group was what they considered deficiencies in prior angiosperm classifications since they were not based on monophyletic groups (i.e., groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor).

APG publications are increasingly influential, with a number of major herbaria changing the arrangement of their collections to match the latest APG system.

Angiosperm classification and the APG
In the past, classification systems were typically produced by an individual botanist or by a small group. The result was a large number of systems (see List of systems of plant taxonomy). Different systems and their updates were generally favoured in different countries. Examples are the Engler system in continental Europe, the Bentham & Hooker system in Britain (particularly influential because it was used by Kew), the Takhtajan system in the former Soviet Union and countries within its sphere of influence and the Cronquist system in the United States.

Before the availability of genetic evidence, the classification of angiosperms (also known as flowering plants, Angiospermae, Anthophyta or Magnoliophyta) was based on their morphology (particularly of their flower) and biochemistry (the kinds of chemical compounds in the plant).

After the 1980s, detailed genetic evidence analysed by phylogenetic methods became available and while confirming or clarifying some relationships in existing classification systems, it radically changed others. This genetic evidence created a rapid increase in knowledge that led to many proposed changes; stability was "rudely shattered". This posed problems for all users of classification systems (including encyclopaedists). The impetus came from a major molecular study published in 1993 based on 5000 flowering plants and a photosynthesis gene (rbcL). This produced a number of surprising results in terms of the relationships between groupings of plants, for instance the dicotyledons were not supported as a distinct group. At first there was a reluctance to develop a new system based entirely on a single gene. However, subsequent work continued to support these findings. These research studies involved an unprecedented collaboration between a very large number of scientists. Therefore, rather than naming all the individual contributors a decision was made to adopt the name Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, or APG for short. The first publication under this name was in 1998, and attracted considerable media attention. The intention was to provide a widely accepted and more stable point of reference for angiosperm classification.

, three revisions have been published, in 2003 (APG II), in 2009 (APG III) and in 2016 (APG IV), each superseding the previous system. Thirteen researchers have been listed as authors to the three papers, and a further 43 as contributors (see Members of the APG below).

A classification presents a view at a particular point in time, based on a particular state of research. Independent researchers, including members of the APG, continue to publish their own views on areas of angiosperm taxonomy. Classifications change, however inconvenient this is to users. However, the APG publications are increasingly regarded as an authoritative point of reference and the following are some examples of the influence of the APG system:
 * A significant number of major herbaria, including Kew, are changing the order of their collections in accordance with APG.
 * The influential World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (also from Kew) is being updated to the APG III system.
 * In the United States in 2006, a photographic survey of the plants of the US and Canada is organized according to the APG II system.
 * In the UK, the 2010 edition of the standard flora of the British Isles (by Stace) is based on the APG III system. The previous editions were based on the Cronquist system.

Principles of the APG system
The principles of the APG's approach to classification were set out in the first paper of 1998, and have remained unchanged in subsequent revisions. Briefly, these are:
 * The Linnean system of orders and families should be retained. "The family is central in flowering plant systematics." An ordinal classification of families is proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". Orders are considered to be of particular value in teaching and in studying family relationships.
 * Groups should be monophyletic (i.e. consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). The main reason why existing systems are rejected is because they do not have this property, they are not phylogenetic.
 * A broad approach is taken to defining the limits of groups such as orders and families. Thus of orders, it is said that a limited number of larger orders will be more useful. Families containing only a single genus and orders containing only a single family are avoided where this is possible without violating the over-riding requirement for monophyly.
 * Above or parallel to the level of orders and families, the term clades is used more freely. (Some clades have later been given formal names in a paper associated with the 2009 revision of the APG system.) The authors say that it is "not possible, nor is it desirable" to name all clades in a phylogenetic tree; however, systematists need to agree on names for some clades, particularly orders and families, to facilitate communication and discussion.

For a detailed discussion on phylogenetic nomenclature, see Cantino et al. (2007).)

APG I (1998)
The initial 1998 paper by the APG made angiosperms the first large group of organisms to be systematically re-classified primarily on the basis of genetic characteristics. The paper explained the authors' view that there is a need for a classification system for angiosperms at the level of families, orders and above, but that existing classifications were "outdated". The main reason why existing systems were rejected was because they were not phylogenetic, i.e. not based on strictly monophyletic groups (groups which consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). An ordinal classification of flowering plant families was proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". The broad approach adopted to defining the limits of orders resulted in the recognition of 40 orders, compared to, for example, 232 in Takhtajan's 1997 classification.

In 1998 only a handful of families had been adequately studied, but the primary aim was to obtain a consensus on the naming of higher orders. Such a consensus proved relatively easy to achieve but the resultant tree was highly unresolved. That is, while the relationship of orders was established, their composition was not.

Other features of the proposed classification included:
 * Formal, scientific names are not used above the level of order, named clades being used instead. Thus eudicots and monocots are not given a formal rank on the grounds that "it is not yet clear at which level they should be recognized".
 * A substantial number of taxa whose classification had traditionally been uncertain are given places, although there still remain 25 families of "uncertain position".
 * Alternative classifications are provided for some groups, in which a number of families can either be regarded as separate or can be merged into a single larger family. For example, the Fumariaceae can either be treated as a separate family or as part of Papaveraceae.

A major outcome of the classification was the disappearance of the traditional division of the flowering plants into two groups, monocots and dicots. The monocots were recognized as a clade, but the dicots were not, with a number of former dicots being placed in separate groups basal to both monocots and the remaining dicots, the eudicots or 'true dicots'. The overall scheme was relatively simple. This consisted of a grade consisting of isolated taxa (referred to as ANITA), followed by the major angiosperm radiation, clades of monocots, magnolids and eudicots. The last being a large clade with smaller subclades and two main groupings, rosids and asterids, each in turn having two major subclades.

APG II (2003)
As the overall relationship between groups of flowering plants became clearer, the focus shifted to the family level, in particular those families generally accepted as problematic. Again, consensus was achieved relatively easily resulting in an updated classification at the family level. The second paper published by the APG in 2003 presented an update to the original classification of 1998. The authors stated that changes were proposed only when there was "substantial new evidence" which supported them.

The classification continued the tradition of seeking broad circumscriptions of taxa, for example trying to place small families containing only one genus in a larger group. The authors stated that they have generally accepted the views of specialists, although noting that specialists "nearly always favour splitting of groups" regarded as too varied in their morphology.

APG II continued and indeed extends the use of alternative 'bracketed' taxa allowing the choice of either a large family or a number of smaller ones. For example, the large family Asparagaceae includes seven 'bracketed' families which can either be considered as part of the Asparagaceae or as separate families. Some of the main changes in APG II were:
 * New orders are proposed, particularly to accommodate the 'basal clades' left as families in the first system.
 * Many of the previously unplaced families are now located within the system.
 * Several major families are re-structured.

In 2007, a paper was published giving a linear ordering of the families in APG II, suitable for ordering herbarium specimens, for example.

APG III (2009)
The third paper from the APG updates the system described in the 2003 paper. The broad outline of the system remains unchanged, but the number of previously unplaced families and genera is significantly reduced. This requires the recognition of both new orders and new families compared to the previous classification. The number of orders goes up from 45 to 59; only 10 families are not placed in an order and only two of these (Apodanthaceae and Cynomoriaceae) are left entirely outside the classification. The authors say that they have tried to leave long-recognized families unchanged, while merging families with few genera. They "hope the classification [...] will not need much further change."

A major change is that the paper discontinues the use of 'bracketed' families in favour of larger, more inclusive families. As a result, the APG III system contains only 415 families, rather than the 457 of APG II. For example, the agave family (Agavaceae) and the hyacinth family (Hyacinthaceae) are no longer regarded as distinct from the broader asparagus family (Asparagaceae). The authors say that alternative circumscriptions, as in APG I and II, are likely to cause confusion and that major herbaria which are re-arranging their collections in accordance with the APG approach have all agreed to use the more inclusive families. This approach is being increasingly used in collections in herbaria and botanic gardens.

In the same volume of the journal, two related papers were published. One gives a linear ordering of the families in APG III; as with the linear ordering published for APG II, this is intended for ordering herbarium specimens, for example. The other paper gives, for the first time, a classification of the families in APG III which uses formal taxonomic ranks; previously only informal clade names were used above the ordinal level.

APG IV (2016)
In the development of a fourth version there was some controversy over the methodology, and the development of a consensus proved more difficult than in previous iterations. In particular Peter Stevens questioned the validity of discussions regarding family delimitation in the absence of changes of phylogenetic relationships.

Further progress was made by the use of large banks of genes, including those of plastid, mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal origin, such as that of Douglas Soltis and colleagues (2011). The fourth version was finally published in 2016. It arose from an international conference hosted at the Royal Botanical Gardens in September 2015 and also an online survey of botanists and other users. The broad outline of the system remains unchanged but several new orders are included (Boraginales, Dilleniales, Icacinales, Metteniusales and Vahliales), some new families are recognised (Kewaceae, Macarthuriaceae, Maundiaceae, Mazaceae, Microteaceae, Nyssaceae, Peraceae, Petenaeaceae and Petiveriaceae) and some previously recognised families are lumped (Aristolochiaceae now includes Lactoridaceae and Hydnoraceae; Restionaceae now re-includes Anarthriaceae and Centrolepidaceae; and Buxaceae now includes Haptanthaceae). Due to nomenclatural issues, the family name Asphodelaceae is used instead of Xanthorrhoeaceae, and Francoaceae is used instead of Melianthaceae (and now also includes Vivianiaceae). This brings the total number of orders and families recognized in the APG system to 64 and 416, respectively. Two additional informal major clades, superrosids and superasterids, that each comprise the additional orders that are included in the larger clades dominated by the rosids and asterids are also included. APG IV also uses the linear approach (LAPG) as advocated by Haston et al. (2009) In a supplemental file Byng et al. provide an alphabetical list of families by orders.

Updates
Peter Stevens, one of the authors of all four of the APG papers, maintains a web site, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (APWeb), hosted by the Missouri Botanical Garden, which has been regularly updated since 2001, and is a useful source for the latest research in angiosperm phylogeny which follows the APG approach. Other sources include the Angiosperm Phylogeny Poster and The Flowering Plants Handbook.

Members of the APG
a = listed as an author; c = listed as a contributor

APG

 * APG I-IV (1998–2016)

title: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group


text:
User talk:Spellraiser

Thanks very much for reverting that vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia--it's not always like that. We appreciate it. If you have any questions, read the FAQ or ask on Help Desk. The best place to learn how to edit is Tutorial. Yours, Meelar 00:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spellraiser