text:
Pygoscelis

The genus Pygoscelis ("rump-legged") contains three living species of penguins collectively known as "brush-tailed penguins".

Taxonomy
Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA evidence suggests the genus split from other penguins around 38 million years ago, about 2 million years after the ancestors of the genus Aptenodytes. In turn, the Adelie penguins split off from the other members of the genus around 19 million years ago.

 * Extant species

A 2020 study found that the gentoo penguin may actually comprise a species complex of 4 similar but genetically distinct species: the northern gentoo penguin (P. papua), the southern gentoo penguin (P. ellsworthi), the eastern gentoo penguin (P. taeniata), and the newly-described South Georgia gentoo penguin (P. poncetii). However, in 2021 the International Ornithological Congress recognized these as being subspecies of P. papua.

A study has estimated that there are about 3.79 million pairs of Adélie, 387,000 pairs of gentoo, and 8 million pairs of chinstrap penguins in their particular areas, making up 90% of Antarctic avian biomass.
 * Fossil species
 * Pygoscelis grandis (Bahía Inglesa Formation, Late Miocene/Early Pliocene of Bahía Inglesa, Chile)
 * Pygoscelis calderensis (Bahía Inglesa Formation, Late Miocene of Bahía Inglesa, Chile)
 * Pygoscelis tyreei (Pliocene of New Zealand)

The latter two are tentatively assigned to this genus.

title: Pygoscelis


text:
Kathleen Scott

Edith Agnes Kathleen Young, Baroness Kennet, FRBS (née Bruce; formerly Scott; 27 March 1878 – 25 July 1947) was a British sculptor. Trained in London and Paris, Scott was a prolific sculptor, notably of portrait heads and busts and also of several larger public monuments. These included a number of war memorials plus statues of her first husband, the Antarctic explorer Captain Robert Falcon Scott. Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes her as "the most significant and prolific British women sculptor before Barbara Hepworth", her traditional style of sculpture and her hostility to the abstract work of, for example Barbara Hepworth and Henry Moore, has led to a lack of recognition for her artistic achievements.

Kathleen Scott was the mother of Sir Peter Scott, the painter and naturalist and of the writer and politician Wayland Young from her second marriage to Edward Hilton Young. She is the grandmother of the sculptor Emily Young and of the writer Louisa Young.

Early life
Born at Carlton in Lindrick, Nottinghamshire, Kathleen Scott was the youngest of the eleven children of the Church of England clergyman Lloyd Stuart Bruce (1829–1886) and his first wife Jane Skene (c. 1828–1880), an amateur artist. An orphan by the age of eight, Scott was brought up by a relative, William Forbes Skene, in Edinburgh where she attended St George's School before being sent to boarding schools in England including a convent school run by nuns.

Paris and Macedonia
Scott studied at the Slade School of Fine Art in London from 1900 to 1902. Then, with two friends from the Slade, Jessie Gavin and Eileen Gray, Scott enrolled at the Académie Colarossi in Paris. Although she had taken some modelling classes at the Slade, at the Académie Colarossi Scott concentrated on sculpture and within three months had a statuette of a mother and child accepted for the Paris Salon, where it won a medal. She was befriended by Auguste Rodin who, although he was not formally taking students at the time, agreed to mentor her and for Scott to visit his studio on a regular basis. In Paris, Scott also met Aleister Crowley, who wrote several poems about her, Gertrude Stein, Edward Steichen, Isadora Duncan and, very briefly, Pablo Picasso. Scott and Duncan became friends and in 1903 travelled to Belgium and the Netherlands together.

In December 1903, following the Ilinden uprising Scott joined a relief mission to Macedonia, undertaking logistic duties and some basic nursing work at refugee camps. There, in February 1904, Scott fell ill with a life-threatening bout of influenza and, possibly, typhoid. When she recovered she decided to return to Paris and boarded a freighter for Marseille but, finding herself to be the only women on the ship, disembarked at Naples and spent some months in Florence before returning to Paris and reopening her studio. Scott spent the summer of 1906 at Noordwijk in the Netherlands supporting a pregnant Isadora Duncan and then spent some months on an island near Methana in Greece before moving to London.

Marriage to Robert Falcon Scott
In London, Scott took a flat in Cheyne Walk and made a series of portrait busts, mostly of young men. She became acquainted with George Bernard Shaw, Max Beerbohm and J. M. Barrie, whose former home she later bought. At one point she became seriously ill with an abdominal cyst and was thought unlikely to live. Scott recovered and subsequently assisted her upstairs neighbour, a district maternity nurse, on house calls to deliver babies.

In October 1907 she met Captain Robert Falcon Scott at a tea party having briefly seen him at a lunch hosted by Mabel Beardsley several months earlier. The two spent ten days together before he left London on Naval duties but within a month they had decided to marry. Their wedding was on 2 September 1908, in the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace with Rodin among the 150 guests. The couple took a house on Buckingham Palace Road in London and in September 1909 their son Peter Scott, who became famous in painting and conservation, was born.

In July 1910, she accompanied her husband to New Zealand to see him off on his journey to the South Pole and in October that year they spent a fortnight together at Lyttleton, on the South Island, before Captain Scott and his crew departed on 29 November. Kathleen Scott returned to England and, after extended stop-overs in Australia and Egypt, arrived at Dover in February 1911. It has been suggested that, in her husband's absence, she had a brief affair with the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen. This has been denied by others.

In London Kathleen Scott created portrait busts and heads of various friends and relatives and also worked on a statuette of Florence Nightingale while supporting fund-raising exercises for the Antarctic expedition. She received her first commission for a public monument, a life-size statue of Charles Rolls, which was unveiled in April 1912. When Rolls's family lent Scott some of his clothing for her model, she was shocked to find they had included blood-stained items from his fatal air crash. During 1912 she also created portrait busts of, among others, the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, Fridtjof Nansen, Compton Mackenzie plus a series of figures of bishops for the chapel at Winchester College and a sculpture of a baby for a hospital. At the end of the year she began working on a statuette of her husband.

Kathleen Scott decided to travel to New Zealand to meet her husband on his return from Antarctica. She left Liverpool on 4 January 1913 for New York, then travelled by train to New Orleans and El Paso and went camping in Mexico before sailing from California to Tahiti. The bodies of Captain Scott and his companions were discovered on the 12 November 1912 and the news reached London on 11 January 1913 with a memorial service, attended by King George V, being held at St Paul's Cathedral on 14 February 1913. Five days later a wireless message finally reached the ship Kathleen Scott was on and she was informed of her husband's death. She continued on to New Zealand where she was given the diaries and letters which had been recovered when her husband's body had been found.

On her return to London Scott, and her son, were the subject of intensive public and press attention which she tried to counter by embarking on a concentrated period of work. She began work on large statues of Captain Scott, Asquith and Captain Edward Smith. In August 1913 she spent some time in Andorra and in 1914 she went to North Africa. After trekking in the Sahara, Scott returned to Britain shortly before World War I began.

World War I
During World War I, Scott initially set aside sculpture and worked in a variety of other roles to support the British and Allied war effort. She helped to set up an ambulance service for the French army by transporting vehicles to northern France and raised money and recruited volunteers to support the establishment of Hôpital Temporaire d'Arc-en-Barrois at the Chateau d'Arc-en-Barrois where she subsequently worked for a time. Scott then worked on the assembly benches of a Vickers electronics factory at Erith in south London. In England she also worked on three statues connected with the Terra Nova expedition. The first to be commissioned, by the mayor of Cheltenham, was her statue of Edward Wilson which was unveiled in July 1914. Her statue of Scott in his naval greatcoat with a husky at his feet was commissioned by officers of the Portsmouth naval base and dockyards and was unveiled in February 1915. Her bronze statue of Captain Scott was unveiled in central London in November 1915, although Scott did not attend the ceremony and spent the day at the Vickers factory. In March 1916 Scott travelled, via Paris and Rome, to the quarry in Carrara, Italy where she carved the white marble Statue of Captain Robert Falcon Scott which was erected at Christchurch Central City, New Zealand, in 1917. In 1917, Scott served as a private secretary to Sir Matthew Nathan in the Ministry of Pensions. She resigned that post towards the end of 1917 but resumed working for the Ministry in Paris for a short while.

During October 1918 Scott began working at the Queen's Hospital in Sidcup, creating masks and facial models of wounded patients for the plastic surgeons there, including Harold Gillies, to use in planning their reconstruction operations.

1920s
Scott visited Paris immediately after the war ended and worked to promote the formation of the League of Nations. She continued to receive considerable press coverage for her dignified manner as the widow of a national hero while continuing to work as a sculptor. She received numerous commissions for portraits, war memorials and regimental pieces and had three works shown at the Royal Academy in London in 1919. Throughout the inter-war years she had six significant solo exhibitions and continued to regularly show new works at the Royal Academy, with at least one piece shown there every year, except once, between 1920 and 1940. Early in 1920 she visited Italy and during 1921 undertook an extended trip to the United States, Panama, Cuba and Ecuador. During the early 1920s, along with many smaller pieces and statuettes, Scott made a large portrait bust of David Lloyd George, created the Thinking Soldier war memorial for Huntingdon and the large male nude, modelled by the 22-year-old Arnold Lawrence, which is now outside the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. The Lawrence statue was one of several idealised sculptures of young male nudes that Scott created throughout her career. The Lawrence figure was originally designed by Scott as a war memorial and was exhibited several times at major exhibitions in London and Paris under different titles, such as Youth and These had most to give. Although it won a medal at the 1925 Paris Salon the work failed to sell and Scott donated it to the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. Despite initial opposition from the Institute's board of management, the statue now known as May Eternal Light Shine Upon Them, was erected on the forecourt of the Institute's new building in 1934 where it serves as a memorial to the 1911–1912 Antarctic Expedition.

In November 1919 Scott met Edward Hilton Young, an M.P. with a distinguished war record, and they married in March 1922, the ceremony taking place in the St Mary Undercroft crypt of the Palace of Westminster. Later the same year the couple attended the Hague conference on trade with Russia together. Her second son, Wayland Hilton Young, who became a writer and politician, was born the following year. Marriage to a politician suited Scott who had long counted several leading statesmen, most notably Asquith but also Lloyd George, Austen Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin, among her social circle. Asquith, even when Prime Minister, frequently visited Scott's studio and regularly wrote to her. Her bust of Asquith is in the Tate collection in London. From 1927 Scott and her family lived at Leinster Corner near Lancaster Gate in central London overlooking Kensington Gardens, in a house once owned by J. M. Barrie. The property had a coach-house, which she converted into a two-storey high studio, and a large garden where she worked on monumental pieces in the open air. These included a larger than life-size bronze statue of Thomas Cholmondeley, 4th Baron Delamere, on a ten foot base, costing £2,000, for Nairobi, Kenya.

Later life
Scott's 1929 solo exhibition at the Greatorex Gallery in central London received favourable press reviews and included portrait sculptures of, among others, John Reith, 1st Baron Reith, John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon and Anthony Bernard. Throughout the 1930s, despite bouts of ill health, Scott continued to work and travel. She visited Italy in 1930 and 1936, attended the Paris Salon in 1932 and, most years spent some weeks in Switzerland with her sons. She created a plaque depicting Queen Mary for the ocean liner of the same name, made busts of George V and Neville Chamberlain, a memorial for Poets' Corner and a statue of the actor Sabu.

Scott's work was in great demand in the years preceding the Second World War. Between 1935 and 1940 she produced a monumental nude figure originally entitled The Strength Within and later England, plus busts of Montague Norman, George Bernard Shaw and the Prince of Wales, before he became King Edward VIII. She was the subject of BBC Television's first programme on sculpture in 1937 and the following year a illustrated volume, ''Homage. A Book of Sculptures'' was published with text by Stephen Gwynn. At the start of World War II, Scott volunteered to work with plastic surgeons as she had done in World War I but was not called upon although she did host a number of evacuee children at her country cottage in Norfolk near Fritton Lake for a short time.

Throughout her life, Scott remained a traditional sculptor and worked independently of contemporary artistic developments such as modernism and abstraction. Described by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as "the most significant and prolific British women sculptor before Barbara Hepworth", her traditional style of sculpture and her hostility to the abstract work of, for example Henry Moore and, especially, Jacob Epstein. This coupled, with the media emphasis on her being Captain Scott's widow, has led to a subsequent lack of recognition for her artistic career.

Scott died, from leukaemia, at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, near to her Lancaster Gate home in July 1947. Her funeral service was held at West Overton in Wiltshire where a commemorative plaque is sited. A memorial exhibition of her work was held at the Mansard Gallery in 1947 and two years later her autobiography, Self Portrait of An Artist was published. Scott's grandchildren include the artist Emily Young and the writer Louisa Young, her biographer.

Awards and memberships

 * 1915 Member of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers.
 * 1925 Medal winner, Paris Salon
 * 1925 Associate member of the Societe des Artistes Francais
 * 1928 Associate member of the Royal Society of British Sculptors
 * 1946 Fellow of the Royal Society of British Sculptors

Titles
In 1913, Scott was granted the rank (but not the style) of a widow of a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. This meant that, for the purposes of establishing official precedence, she was treated as if she were the widow of such a knight. However, she was not entitled to be called Lady Scott merely by virtue of this (although she often was), and it did not amount to Captain Scott being posthumously knighted. When her second husband was created Baron Kennet on 15 July 1935, she gained the title Baroness Kennet.

In popular culture
Scott was played by the actress Diana Churchill in the 1948 Ealing Studios film Scott of the Antarctic, with John Mills as her husband. In 1985, she was played by Susan Wooldridge in the television miniseries The Last Place on Earth, from Central Independent Television, with Martin Shaw as her husband. A BBC Radio play, Imitations by Michael Butt, was based on the friendship between Scott and George Bernard Shaw, who frequently sat for her.

Other works

 * A small bronze of the Indian actor Sabu which is now missing, after a theft.
 * Bust of George Forrest Browne in Bristol Cathedral
 * A larger than life-size statue of Thomas Cholmondeley, 4th Baron Delamere. It was initially situated in Nairobi, Kenya, but is now in the Soysambu Conservancy, near Nakuru, Kenya.
 * Here Am I, Send Me, a bronze figure of a nude boy raising his arm as if volunteering. Following World War I, Scott made two casts of the figure as war memorials, one for West Downs School and one for Oundle School which were her son Peter's schools. When West Downs closed, the memorial was relocated to WWT Slimbridge, the nature reserve he had established.
 * A memorial plaque to Captain J. M. T. Richie at the church of St Peter & St Paul at Medmenham in Buckinghamshire.
 * A large standing statue, c. 1928, with arms folded and head bowed, of Edwin Montagu, former Secretary of State for India. Originally erected in Calcutta in 1931, the statue was subsequently relocated to the grounds of Flagstaff House, Barrackpore.
 * The Royal Collection holds Scott's 1935 bust of King George V while the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich in London has her head and shoulders figure of George VI.
 * Bronze bust of Robert Falcon Scott, commissioned by the Devonport Corporation c. 1913-14, and displayed at the Stoke Damerel Community College in Plymouth.
 * Three works by Scott are in the collection of London's National Portrait Gallery, and she is also the subject of several photographic portraits there.

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

title: Kathleen Scott


text:
Crested penguin

Eudyptes is a genus of penguins whose members are collectively called crested penguins. The exact number of species in the genus varies between four and seven depending on the authority, and a Chatham Islands species became extinct in recent centuries. All are black and white penguins with yellow crests, red bills and eyes, and are found on Subantarctic islands in the world's southern oceans. All lay two eggs, but raise only one young per breeding season; the first egg laid is substantially smaller than the second.

Taxonomy
The genus Eudyptes was introduced by the French ornithologist Louis Pierre Vieillot in 1816; the name is derived from the Ancient Greek words meaning "fine", and  meaning "diver". The type species was designated as the southern rockhopper penguin by George Robert Gray in 1840.

Six extant species have been classically recognised, with the recent splitting of the rockhopper penguin increasing it to seven. Conversely, the close relationship of the macaroni and royal penguins, and the erect-crested and Snares penguins have led some to propose that the two pairs should be regarded as species.

Order Sphenisciformes The Chatham Islands Eudyptes warhami is known only from subfossil bones, and became extinct shortly following human colonisation of the Chatham Islands. This genetically-distinct species was relatively large, with a thin, slim and low bill. (T.L. Cole et al. (2019) Mol. Biol. Evol.)
 * Family Spheniscidae
 * Fiordland penguin, Eudyptes pachyrhynchus
 * Snares penguin, Eudyptes robustus – has been considered a subspecies of the Fiordland penguin
 * Erect-crested penguin, Eudyptes sclateri
 * Southern rockhopper penguin, Eudyptes chrysocome
 * Eastern rockhopper penguin, Eudyptes (chrysocome) filholi
 * Western rockhopper penguin, Eudyptes (chrysocome) chrysocome
 * Northern rockhopper penguin, Eudyptes moseleyi – traditionally considered a subspecies of Eudyptes chrysocome as the rockhopper penguin.
 * Royal penguin, Eudyptes schlegeli – sometimes considered a morph of E. chrysolophus
 * Macaroni penguin, Eudyptes chrysolophus
 * Chatham penguin, Eudyptes warhami (extinct)

Evolution
Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA evidence suggests that the crested penguins split from the ancestors of their closest living relative, the yellow-eyed penguin, in the mid-Miocene around 15 million years ago, before splitting into separate species around 8 million years ago in the late Miocene.

A fossil penguin genus, Madrynornis, has been identified as the closest known relative of the crested penguins. Found in late Miocene deposits dated to about 10 million years ago, it must have separated from the crested penguins around 12 million years ago. Given that the head ornamentation by yellow filoplumes seems plesiomorphic for the Eudyptes-Megadyptes lineage, Madrynornis probably had them too.

Description
The crested penguins are all similar in appearance, having sharply delineated black and white plumage with red beaks and prominent yellow crests. Their calls are more complex than those of other species, with several phrases of differing lengths. The royal penguin (mostly) has a white face, while other species have black faces.

Breeding
Crested penguins breed on Subantarctic islands in the southern reaches of the world's oceans; the greatest diversity occurring around New Zealand and surrounding islands. Their breeding displays and behaviours are generally more complex than other penguin species. Both male and female parents take shifts incubating eggs and young.

Crested penguins lay two eggs, but almost always raise only one young successfully. All species exhibit the odd phenomenon of egg-size dimorphism in breeding; the first egg (or A-egg) laid is substantially smaller than the second egg (B-egg). This is most extreme in the macaroni penguin, where the first egg averages only 60% the size of the second. The reason for this is a mystery remains unknown, although several theories have been proposed. British ornithologist David Lack theorized that the genus was evolving toward the laying of a one-egg clutch. Experiments with egg substitution have shown that A-eggs can produce viable chicks that were only 7% lighter at time of fledging. Physiologically, the first egg is smaller because it develops while the mother is still at sea swimming and thus has less energy to invest in the egg.

Recently, brooding royal and erect-crested penguins have been reported to tip the smaller eggs out as the second is laid.

Cited text

 * Cole, Theresa L.; Ksepka, Daniel T.; Mitchell, Kieren J.; Tennyson, Alan J. D.; Thomas, Daniel B.; Pan, Hailin; Zhang, Guojie; Rawlence, Nicolas J.; Wood, Jamie R.; Bover, Pere; Bouzat, Juan L.; Cooper, Alan; Fiddamanl, Steven; Hart, Tom; Miller, Gary; Ryan, Peter G.; Shepherd, Lara D.; Wilmshurst, Janet M.; Waters, Jonathan M. (2019). "Mitogenomes uncover extinct penguin taxa and reveal island formation as a key driver of speciation". Molecular Biology and Evolution. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz017.
 * Cole, Theresa L.; Ksepka, Daniel T.; Mitchell, Kieren J.; Tennyson, Alan J. D.; Thomas, Daniel B.; Pan, Hailin; Zhang, Guojie; Rawlence, Nicolas J.; Wood, Jamie R.; Bover, Pere; Bouzat, Juan L.; Cooper, Alan; Fiddamanl, Steven; Hart, Tom; Miller, Gary; Ryan, Peter G.; Shepherd, Lara D.; Wilmshurst, Janet M.; Waters, Jonathan M. (2019). "Mitogenomes uncover extinct penguin taxa and reveal island formation as a key driver of speciation". Molecular Biology and Evolution. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz017.

title: Crested penguin


text:
Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 6

Untitled
I removed all content of the discussion page as of 2.June 2004 here, although a few paragraphs will remain on the discussion page itself. -- AlexR 01:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What we're still working on
"Transgender people offer another challenge to the assumption of an unambiguously male or female human beings. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity. Many also seek to change the sexual characteristics of their body, and this is seen as violation of the assumption of unambiguous anatomy, and also of gender roles and sexuality." is now "Transgender people offer another challenge to the assumption that sex, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation correspond to one another and must all either be male or female."
 * This loses much of the awkwardness of the previous version, and also eliminates the sweeping "always" that I was having so much trouble with, while still addressing the sex=gender identity=gender role=sexual orientation equation you want dealt with there. Snowspinner
 * Yes, unfortunately it looses much content as well. I agree that the old sentences would not have won a Pulizer price, but your edit is - once again - just a reiteration of the definition of heteronormativity, and therefore redundant. It is important to tell how exactly transgender people violate that idea. I'll give a better wording some thoughts, but you know, changing the same sentence again and again, while removing the debates about it to the archive, and then claiming you want "cooperation" does not exactly look convincing. -- AlexR 10:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The debates had gotten to be such a mess, as well as so long, that I thought clarity was preserved best through going back to what the issues were. I figured if we needed to recall a point, we could crawl through the archive. It's not as though I erased all record of the debate. I just made it easier to actually continue said debate. In any case, let's see what you can come up with for new wording there. Snowspinner 15:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"basically confirms" to "reinforces"
 * Confirms would mean that transsexuals prove the system exists. Since we are both in agreement that the system does not exist, we probably ought not say that it does exist. Reinforces is a reasonable synonym. Snowspinner

"include" to "can include"
 * You have already said that this does not happen in 100% of the cases - can puts a necessary hedge on this. Snowspinner

 * Quick note: This isn't an appropriate way to speak about transgendered people. Hyacinth 19:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * "Do not let non-intersex people such as doctors and therapists speak on behalf of intersex people."
 * "Do not automatically include intersex people in "trans" and "queer" categories. Many intersex people do not feel included or represented by the trans and queer movements, for good reasons."
 * "Do not exploit intersex existence for the sake of deconstructing sexism, homophobia and/or transphobia while neglecting issues they are facing."
 * from http://www.survivorproject.org/is-intro.html, I realize it reads intersex people, but is more than applicable to trans people. Hyacinth 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Project Critical Theory again

 * This is equivalent to putting the article in a series, which is reasonable. It is an important term in critical theory. Yes, there are other important terms that are not marked. This is not the point. The point is that major terms in critical theory should have a box pointing towards other resources for people who came to the term looking for information on them, much like major figures in philosophy (Immanuel Kant) have the series box at the bottom. I have, however, trimmed the box so that it takes up slightly less space. Snowspinner
 * Than can be done with a link, and needs not to be done with a still-too-big box, which will leave casual readers with the impression that this article is critical theory only, which it is not. Funny how you removed that debate to the archive already, isn't it? The box goes, because this article is not only relevant for critical theory. And I am saying that again: Those boxes are seen to be problematic in most of the Wikipedia, not just by me. If you keep insisting of this box, this isn't the last revert war you will find yourself into, that is predictable. -- AlexR 10:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not a hijack when there's another box on the page for a different project/grouping. You had half a point when it was the only box on the page, but now that there's an LGBT box (at the top, no less), there's no reason to exclude the critical theory project's box at the bottom.  It goes in.  Or is that only members of the LGBT community can claim the page for their own? Justin Johnson 13:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very basic problem
As one of the recently debated sections shows, the article has a very bis problem - the basic heteronormative assumption of sex = gender identity = gender role = sexual orientation is not defined anywhere anymore; it must have gotten lost during the edit wars. Consequently, the article is very likely somewhat confusing; that should go back to the very beginning of the article. I am however to tired to do so right away, so do we have a volunteer here? -- AlexR 04:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll put it in before I go to bed. Snowspinner 04:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the text box
My personal feeling is that Alex tends to be a little autocratic when it comes to the articles s/he cares about. I don't see the problem with the box really, though I've agreed with a few of Alex's comments here. Whatever the case, it's time to take a break from reverting this article. You're already at 6 reverts in the last day. Exploding Boy 13:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! No, I am usually not, on the contrary. However, this particular article has seen 3 1/2 edit wars in the last week or two, I think there was exactly one day of rest in between. Consequently, my patience is a bit thin right now. I don't mind a link to the list, I put it in myself. But that box is far too big, it hijacks the whole article as being part of critical theory only, which is what snowspinner tried for days now. Obviously, this is not acceptable. Numerous other project just put in links, and why should this one be different. As for the LGBT box - I am rather surprised by it, one person is throwing it into many articles now. In this case, it is not really needed, in my personal opinion, since all topics it links to are in the List of transgender-related topics, too. A link would be OK, but I am not particularly sad about trading it in for no Critical Theory box. -- AlexR 13:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I wasn't particularly thrilled with the LGBT box (not just on this article but in general), but the Critical Theory box I didn't mind. At any rate, in case you weren't aware, it's recently been decided that 3 reverts (per person per article per day) is the limit.  People have been getting listed for  Quickpolls for violating this rule, so you might want to take a break for a bit.  Exploding Boy 14:02, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reminding me, although luckily most "reverts" were not reverts, technicaly. It's bad behaviour, I know - but I really don't like the article being hijacked with that box. It's not as if they were shot if they didn't manage to keep it in the article, either. And as I said, a link is perfectly alright, but why this gigantic thing that dominates the whole perception of the reader? The TG-list is just a list, and it does the job just as well. Making it into a project so I can have a big box, too, would be rather childish. Or does the person with the biggest box win a price? Why not let the readers decide where else they want to go from here? There is just no point in having the link to Critical Theory dominate the whole thing, that's all. -- AlexR 14:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I don't think we've technically been doing reverts so much as heatedly coming to a compromise. I do resent the claim that I made the Critical Theory project just to put a box on the page. I don't mind the LGBT box. As I've said, I'm happy to have articles have as many boxes as is relevent. Personally, I think the LGBT box could stand to be better designed (I'd model off of one of the philosophy series boxes, which are very aesthetically pleasing boxes), but I think it's a good thing and it belongs on the page. As I've said, I shrunk the box, because I agree that three lines of box may well be too much. And the reader is welcome to decide where to go. I don't imagine anyone who came in looking at transgender topics is going to get confused about the CT box. I think they'll recognize that as another aspect of the word. In any case, as per the advice of people, I'll leave this one be for the day, and see how the discussion develops. Snowspinner 15:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * We're at about 24 hours, and it seems to be a distinctly minority view that the boxes should go. So they're back. Snowspinner 04:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As another note, I'm out of town for the weekend. If AlexR reverts the box again and I don't do anything until Monday, it should not be taken as my giving up on the matter - it's just that I wasn't near a computer where I could do anything. =) Snowspinner 06:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

for the record
I heartilly object to the removal of the objections section. Sam Spade 06:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not sure why. If, as you claim, the term has little use outside of Wikipedia, it wouldn't have many objections that are worth noting, would it? Or are you saying the term is more widely used than you'd suggested. Where are these objections actually coming from? Snowspinner 14:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikiproject boxes
I moved to this talk page. Every other Wikiproject links only from the talk pages, never from the articles. I don't want to get involved in whatever fights are going on with this article, but please retain the conventions of the other projects in keeping this out of the main namespace. Angela. 11:12, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * As it stands, we're currently using the box not only as a call for editing help (In which case it would belong on the talk pages, I agree) but also as a series box, providing links to related resources. I'd do a normal series, but if you look at the topics page for the project, they're heirarchically ordered by school of thought within Critical Theory, making a linear series an unworkable choice - hence the box. I'll give the box an edit to make it emphasize its series-like quality more. Snowspinner 14:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The article already has a series box. It's probably best not to overdo it. Also, any links to the Wikipedia namespace will need to be removed from the CT one if it's going to stay (I'm not saying it should stay - just that Wikipedia namespace links definitely shouldn't). Angela. 14:17, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * The LGBT series box was actually added following the addition of the Critical Theory box. So if we're going with "Whatever box got here first," it's Critical Theory. That said, I think there's room for both boxes - one at the top, one at the bottom. As for the Wikipedia namespace, I'm not sure how to work around that. The categorized list is in the Wikipedia namespace, because that's where we put it for the project, since its original purpose was as a list of articles for the project. Shortly after we made it, we went "Hey, wait, this list is a really good resource unto itself." It seems somewhat silly to make a copy of the list outside of namespace just to put in the box. Particularly when we have notable figures, basic topics, and notable works in critical theory articles that can be found outside of namespace already, all of which link to the heirarchical list through the boxes. So it's not as though someone searching for the list won't get you there. As for the rest of the namespace links... I dunno. I just don't see the sense of this rule in this situation, honestly. The box is neither a straightforward project box nor a straightforward series box. It's somewhere in between, and I think it sort of needs to be decided on the merits of the particular situation. That said, feel free to take a stab at editing the content of the box if you like... Snowspinner 14:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think the CT box needs editing. Whatever form you put it in, it will not be suitable for the article. It is an advert for a wikiproject, and is therefore relevant to editors, not to readers. This is why it should be on the talk page. This is the same for every Wikiproject. If you want to link to a list of relevant topics, put that list in the main namespace and link to it. There is no reason to move this box from the talk page to the article. I can't see a single benefit for it. You also have to remember that Wikipedia is not the only user of the content. Many of our Mirrors and forks do not download the Wikipedia namespace, so such a link would break. This is not acceptable. Angela. 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * My conceptualization of wikipedia is that readers and editors are the same people. I'm not so sure that your distinction between the two is justified. Voyager640 15:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's just an advert, honestly. I can see what I can do about revising it, but its primary purpose really is for readers - readers interested in critical theory. In any case, I can't deal with this again until Monday, as I'm out of town. Snowspinner 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * This are so childish arguments, its hard do believe. "But the others can have a box, too, why can't I have a box?" and "If they can have a box, I want one, too!". But that is not the question - the lgbt box is also debated, but at least it is a navigation box, not a project box. Also, the question remains why a simple link to a list does not suffice, as I suggested. Now look: Shall we really start a box war now? Let's make an LGBT-box, and a CT-box, and then a Transgender-Box, and an Intersex-box. A Feminism-box might be useful, too. I am sure we can think of a few more boxes, if we try. And then, what do we get? More boxes than article. How much sense does that make?
 * Those boxes are a brand new idea, and there should be a general consensus about them. In my personal opinion, these boxes are needes as much as a toothache, but that should be discussed at another place. -- AlexR 20:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
NPOV dispute, Accuracy dispute. Read the policies, and try not to be so silly. Sam Spade 21:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * And who but you debates the accuracy and the neutrality of this article? There is nobody else I can see. -- AlexR 22:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, why don't you read them yourself, Sam? -- till we *) 17:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quotes again

 * "'Queer commentary shows that much of what passes for general culture is riddled with heteronormativity [the view that heterosexuality is and should be the norm]' (Berlant any í Warner 1995, 349)." The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Ideologies of Desire) by Edward Stein, ISBN 0195142446
 * "heterosexism, heteronormativity Heterosexism is discrimination against lesbians and gays...In 1975 the Dutch lesbian feminist Purple Semptember staff named heteronormativity an instrument of perpetuating power. Both lesbian feminists and queer theorists address the compulsory nature of heterosexuality (see lesbian feminism; queer theory). However, 1990s queer theorists focused on transgressoin and deviance while lesbian feminists focused on structural analysis. The difference: lesbian feminists regard a heterosexual man buying a prostitute as normative heterosexuality, queer theorists regard it as transgressive/progressive. See also: heteropatriarchy; homophobia" Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories by Lorraine Code, ISBN 0415132746
 * "Compulsory heterosexuality (or what some have called 'heteronormativity') functions to underline the fact that heterosexuality is an institution, a practice, with its own set of expectations, norms, and principles of conduct." Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader by Gail Dines, ISBN 076192261X
 * "Heterocentrism. Heteronormativity. These terms were coined recently to refer to the placing of heterosexual experience at the center of one's attention, or the routine assumption that heterosexuality is "normal" and that any other sexuality is "deviant." ibid

These are mostly for Sam's benefit. Hyacinth 00:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What for? Do you seriously expect him to actually come forward with an argument? Check his history, he is a well know troll. He will take those quotes only as further proof that society indeed need protection against these "horrors". Check his remark from 9 Apr 2004 20:32 (UTC) in /Archive 2004 2, that should tell you all about his attitude you'll ever need to know. -- AlexR 01:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Boxes once again
Wow, when a page draws the most recent three entries on RfC, it's hard to tell whether an outside participant weighing in will cool tempers or fuel the fire. Anyway...

Boxes. What function do these boxes serve that is not served by the See also or Related articles on many pages? Here, it seems that the box is a collection of articles that while somewhat related to the issue at hand, are more broadly related than the articles listed under "See also," which raises the question of why those articles less directly related are given emphasis through highlighting? I think the "List of transgender-related topics" link is the right idea ... one of the "See also" links is a link to a list of the broadly related topics. Shimmin 02:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I had a kind of gut reaction to them that makes me wonder whether they are a good idea. Other people may not react this way, but they reminded me of the paid advertisement boxes on the right-hand side of a Google search reply. (If you search for "wells and springs" you see listings for companies that sell ink wells, stainless steel springs, Springtime in the Bahamas, etc., etc.) They look like advertisements for a point of view. I think that will be offensive to those who are antagonistic to non-conventional thoughts on sex-related subjects, and counterproductive for those who hope to aid people to think more clearly on these subjects. P0M 05:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't personally see the boxes as being useful overall unless they provide a specific framework for the linked articles. The contents of the LGBT box can easily be moved to the "see also" section. -Sean 08:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bleh. The See also list is now ridiculously long, and contains entries that are indirectly linked to Heteronormativity at best. On top of that, the entry would become totaly unmanagable were I to add in the Critical Theory articles that the CT box would provide reference to. One of the things that the boxes allow is for a different kind of link. The See Also category should contain topics that directly relate to the content of the article. Boxes, on the other hand, give topics that are more related "in spirit" if you will - topics that may not address the same exact subject matter, but that instead reflect a similar viewpoint. For instance, an article on Evolution will have a see also to Puncuated Equilibrium, Creationism, and Biology. But it's not necessarily going to have something to memes, to social Darwinism, etc. I think, though, that there's a promising approach to reading the articles that way. In that regard, a series box might be justifiable.

Put another way, Wikipedia is hyperlinked, which allows for a wealth of threads and insights. One of the biggest advantages of it is the way in which it allows threads to be traced beyond the most obvious and most universally accepted ones. Series boxes are an essential part of that. Snowspinner 21:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Strange, then, how the Wikipedia could have ever had any success without those obnoxious boxes. While I do agree that the linking of the articles from the LGBT box was less than elegantly done, would you mind telling me which of those entries "are indirectly linked to Heteronormativity at best"? And how is it better to have entries that may or may not be only indirectly linked to a subject in very noticable boxes, while it is unacceptable to have them much less obtrusively in the see also section? You still fail to convince me that those boxes do anything that a link can not do, and can not do much better. -- AlexR 23:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Happy too. I do not think that see also links are in any way needed for Gender Roles, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Straight, Bisexual, Intersexual, Heterosexuality, or Homosexuality. Although the terms are mentioned in the article (And are thus already linked to), they are not articles that expand on Heteronormativity, and thus are not see-also appropriate.
 * As for the boxes being "obnoxious" and "very noticable," sure, they're noticable. They're visually striking. And they're small - especially compared to the article itself. They do not overpower the article. And, finally and more to the point, they are already generally in use. If you want to seek a general ruling against boxes, that is one thing, but given that they are already in use, and given that heteronormativity is a concept in critical theory, the box is appropriate. I'm sorry you don't like boxes. I don't like some things about Wikipedia either. But consensus and general opinion are against me, so there's not much I can do about it. Snowspinner 00:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I really don't know where from you have that optimcistic view that those boxes are universaly accepted, everybody but the makers of these boxes are universaly annoyed by them. Just check the debates about them; not just this one. The mailing list is one place, the IRC another, and how about Wikipedia talk:Article series
 * Also, your claim that critical theory is so important that it needs a box, but other subjects should not even be mentioned in links is a bit biased. Of course those links expand on Heteronormativity, by explaing and expanding on the practical aspects of it. I know practical aspects are not exactly relevant on academic journals, but you know, they happen to matter to people outside of the ivory tower. -- AlexR 01:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The other subjects should get a box - as I've said, I like the LGBT box. I liked it right up on top. I don't think they're right for a see also when they're already mentioned and linked to in the article. But the article belongs in an LGBT series. As for the Wikipedia talk article series, I can't help but notice that the topic was largely dead for two weeks prior to this specific article coming up there. So, yeah, I think the issue had largely been resolved until you decided to pretend it wasn't. Snowspinner 02:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey yall, maybe a third persepctive is needed. It seems to me there are two questions:
 * Should there be boxes?
 * What form should those boxes take and where should they be placed?

I find very enticing Snowspinner's arguments that boxes are just one of many ways to link to things. They would never be central to, but could be a part of, wikipedias pluralism. I think that they could be a quicker and more clear way of grouping articles than to do so in the text of the articles, which may then be given over to explaining how it differs from or partially falls outside of any groups.

I find very convincing AlexR's arguments that boxes easily interfere with understanding articles and how those articles connect to other subjects, and how they may POV an article or group of articles.

I would suggest to Snowspinner that you create clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes, in that way you can ensure their quality and at least partially meet the objections against them (by incorporating those objections in your guidelines). I would suggest to AlexR that, if not completely opposed to ALL boxes, you create guidelines yourself, or at least a description of which boxes, where and when, you find acceptable. Ideally, you would collaborate. Things to consider:

 * 1) What belongs in "see also"s?
 * 2) What belongs in boxes?
 * 3) Where should boxes be placed?
 * 4) What is the maximum size a box should be?

If this doesn't alleviate the tone of the dispute, it will at least bring more clarity. If this is already taking place, my apologizes, please point me to it.

Hyacinth 02:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) See also should contain articles that provide direct background or expansion on the topic of an article, or that contain information that was glanced over in the article. For instance, in this article, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler are not mentioned directly, even though they are two important people who use the term within Critical Theory. They therefore go in See Also, because their theories directly expand and relate upon the concept of heteronormativity.
 * 2) Boxes should contain references to less obvious and immediately related paths through Wikipedia. Article links and see also contain the links that are materially relevent. Boxes should contain the links that are more abstractly relevent - linking Derrida to Foucault, John Adams to Bill Clinton, or soccer to basketball. All of these are connections that obviously make sense, but would not be directly made in the article.
 * 3) Either at the bottom of an article, or right-justified somewhere within the article - either at the top or by a section to which they are particularly relevent. (Right justifying at the bottom is visually unappealing)
 * 4) I can't see setting a blanket rule for this as a good idea, so let's just say "Boxes should not be offensively big, garrish, or stupid." And allow this to be fought out on talk pages. As it stands, I do not believe the LGBT box or the CT box to be overly large. Snowspinner 20:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was no agreement!
I removed both boxes - the LGBT-Links had been added to the link section, and you can link your List of CT-articles to the links, too, as everybody else does. Did you hope it won't be noticed, or are you seriously convinced that a list of articles on critical theory has more rights than other topics or lists? -- AlexR 20:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If I were hoping it wouldn't have been noticed, I would have stealth edited, put it as minor, and claimed it were a typo fix. Except, notably, I didn't. I put the edit in because the opposign forces, that is, you, stopped posting here, despite the fact that the discussion moved to trying to come up with a generalized sense of when boxes were appropriate.
 * Boxes are widely in use on Wikipedia - attempts to get them blocked have been unsuccessful. You need to come to a compromise here - a categorical rejection of boxes is going to get you nowhere. I've shrunk the box, I've stopped referencing the project, I've done every single thing you've complained about in the name of compromise, and you're not even still discussing the agreement. I can't help but think that, for you, this article is about your political agenda, and not about providing useful information for people. If this is not the case, I advise that you either adjust your manner in these talk pages, or cease editing Wikipedia. Snowspinner 20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * First, I stopped posting here for two reasons: One is that obviously you are not willing to listen to any arguments - you want your box, and therefore, it has to be there. Two, I took the debate to more appropriate places for general debates, namely the mailinglist and Wikipedia talk:Article series.
 * Second, I never wanted all boxes to be banned, but I do have objections against those that are not about articles that are in a series, like list of Kings or so on, but articles simply belonging to a field. And my argument is not that lists of articles are not relevant, my objections are against putting links to these lists (and whatever else) into boxes, therefore making this particular field appear more relevant than links to lists that are not put in boxes.
 * As for "pushing an agenda" and your "willingness to compromise". Sorry, but it is you who is pushing an agenda, namely that of your box in any article that is related, and if you were willing to compromise, you would have simply put a link to this list into the see also section, instead of insisting on your box. And kindly cease to advise me as to whether I should or should not cease to work on the Wikipedia - I have been around here much longer than you are, and I think I can say that I contributed more than a political agenda as well.
 * -- AlexR 21:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The box is now a series box. The series is broken up into schools of thought within critical theory, with each school of thought having substantial sub-articles. Perhaps when the critical theory coverage of Wikipedia expands, these subsections will be spun off into individual series - right now, that would be overkill, and this is the best organization for the series. As for moving things to the mailinglist and Article series, you might want to mention that to people here. I am not on the mailing list, nor is the article series talk page on my watchlist, so this move served primarily to cut me out of the debate.
 * If you look at my edit history, you will notice substantial contributions across a variety of fields. I am not pushing any agenda, beyond the agenda of Wikipedia - informing people. The box serves to inform people about the connection of heteronormativity to a massive conversation and field - critical theory. I can't think of any directions or connections to heteronormativity that are not adequately represented currently in the article. I can't even think of any that don't have boxes. If someone comes up with one, the issue of excluding and marginalizing concerns might be relevent. Right now, it's a hypothetical situation.
 * I am at a loss for why you are so antagonistic here. I have attempted to compromise with you on this article for some time. I have worked hard to understand your points and to find phrasings that are mutually agreeable. I have changed the Critical Theory box at least three times on your concerns. What more do you want? Is there any level of compromise that is acceptable to you beyond my reverting the article to where it was a few weeks ago and leaving every article you have any interest in alone? Snowspinner 21:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving to the left again for reasons of readability. I don't know what makes you think that you adapted the box according to my comments - my comment on this box is that it should not be a box at all, but a link, like the "List of transgender-related subjects". And I did mention taking the debate elsewhere - "Just check the debates about them; not just this one. The mailing list is one place, the IRC another, and how about Wikipedia talk:Article series (...) AlexR 01:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)" And I have already noticed that you don't consider intersex and transgender people to be particular relevant - I guess they just did not turn up in sufficient numbers in your academic journals to be noticed. (LGB people not, either, I guess, but they already put in their own box), I already mentioned that more than once, too. Both don't have boxes yet, because they did what was adequate, making a list. Actually, at them moment they are still on the same list. But you know, that might change quickly. And those are particularly the ones that you currently drown with the box. You have not mentionend a single reason why the link of the article to Critical Theory is so much more important than for example the one to the List of transgender-related subjects. (Except your personal bias towards it, of course.) The link, as it is now, is perfectly OK with me, and that is what I suggested in the first place. Now please give me one reason what you consider to be wrong with that. And don't exaggerate, either. I never suggested simply reverting the article, nor would I object at all if you could put something more about the academical part of the subject in -- preferably without deleting other stuff as you did in the beginning. It is merely this box we have been talking about for ages now; time both of us could have spent in a much more productive way, I am sure. -- AlexR 22:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Intersexual was in the box at one point. I thought it still was. I would be perfectly happy to see a box made out of transgender topics. As I've said many times, I think a series or project would be beneficial. The fact that you are not interested in that is hardly my fault or problem.
 * The link is dimly acceptable as a stopgap measure, provided that, once that list becomes unwieldy and gets broken down into proper series, the queer theory series that will ensue will get a box on the page, as, at that point, it will no longer be a simple list. Snowspinner 22:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Intersex was taken out of the LGBT box, obviously because an intersex person did not consider it appropriate for it to be there; as far as I can tell, that was correct, since most intersex people don't feel they are part of the LGBT community, unless they are LGBT. (The T part is of course a bit tricky there, too, which is the reason why I feel slighty uncomfortable about intersex not having its own list.)
 * Also, the point of not making a series box out of transgender is not so much that I am not interested, but that I see simply not much of a point. How should I lead people through these articles, and why? Why not simply let them decide what they want to read? Not everybody will, for example, be interested in all the technical details about surgeries. Or about the articles about the various forms of intersex. Besides, I just do not believe in putting rings through people's noses and leading them around where I want them - I believe in showing people what's there and let them decide for themselves where they want to go. Pretty much the same will be true for "Queer Theory", btw, as well as for all other "series" which are not series in the first place. I can only point you to the page I mentioned and the mailing list again.
 * Besides, your box right now does absolutey nothing more than the link now does - it links to a list of articles. So I don't really understand what is so "dimly accaptable" about treating it like any other link to a list. -- AlexR 23:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said, I won't make the switch until the list starts getting unwieldly, at which point it will be a proper series. We're a ways off from that now, since Queer Theory only has three articles in that section right now. I wouldn't even consider it until all of the sections we have become about 8 entries long. Snowspinner 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

General proposal on Article Series Boxes
After much debate on the subject, Hyacinth suggested creating clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes in Talk:Heteronormativity, which is a good idea, in my opinion. Here, therefore, my attempt can be found: User:AlexR/Article series boxes -- AlexR 16:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Pejoratives
Shall we edit racism, sexism, homophobia, marxism, pacifism, socialism, communism, evil, bad..... to include a link to pejorative in their first sentence?

 * Minus a few of those, yes. I got the idea from here Sam Spade 23:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree that the term is used perjoratively - at least, universally. Yes, I can't think of many critical theorists who are really pro-heteronormativity, but generally, at this point, when something is called heternormative, it's usually, at this point, more a matter of fact analysis - usually in the service of a larger claim about culture. Really, critical theory at this point is fairly pessimistic about the possibility of any political change - especially on the level of heteronormativity. It's more trying to understand than to criticize.
 * I'm also uncertain that every article of a term that's critical to something needs to link to pejorative. Snowspinner 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't mind the term "heteronormative" itself so much, but some of the definitions here seem to outlandishly insulting as to be based in a perjorative status. Sam Spade 00:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, which parts really bother you? Snowspinner 00:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

What really bothers me
For starters I made a number of edits of what I could see no reasonable person arguing in favor of (excesses of POV). The folowing are either more debatable, or more often, difficult for me to replace.

 * It is descriptive of a dichotomous system of categorization that directly links social behavior and self identity with one's genitalia.

 * No one links their self identity to their genitalia, or at least nobody I would want to meet...

 * Genitalia largely define gender - plenty of people identify as male or female. Most of them decide which to identify as through consultation with their genitals. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * men and women are interpreted to be natural complements

 * this is being insinuated to be a subject of debate?

 * I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a subject of debate - c .f. the existence of gay people. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As with much of critical theory, the focus is less on reasons for the norm, and more on trying to figure out what voices and groups are not given a voice or an identity within the terms of the norm

 * is there no mention to be made of the voices of those who are maligned and dismissed as "heteronormative" and who are out of the cultural loop? Has anyone seen MTV or HBO lately? Gay culture is as trendy as can be, its practically ancient greece out there

 * Yes and no. There's plenty of work being done on the appropriation of gay culture - MTV and HBO being central texts in this. The readings of most of these shows is not the straightforward reading that they're advocating gay culture. They're generally read as redefining what gayness is, and then advocating their new definition as though it were not new. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people or denying vital services to transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe)

 * Can you cite the numerous contemporary examples necessary to make this provocative claim? I seriously doubt the accuracy of it.

 * Here I've got nothing. Alex? Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * When this happens, if transgender or transsexual feelings and behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, people are left with two choices: they may either conform to the norms for their births sex, meaning that no medical treatment is given, and legal change of name and/or gender is not permitted, or they may comply with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted.

 * who gives them these choices? And what are you talking about, no medical treatment is given? If they are in a car accident they are left to die? If they need orthadontic work, this is not allowed? Again, I would need copious contemporary citations for this preposterous claim.

 * The medical treatment in question is pretty clearly, from context, referring to the sex change process, and not medical treatment at large. Still, if you'd like this clarified, it can be done. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * From the end of the 1990s or the beginning of the 2000s, in some places, transgendered peoples are given medical treatment as well, although their legal situation is still somewhat more difficult than that of people who can obtain a diagnosis of transsexualism.

 * similar to above, and confusingly worded. What is difficult about their legal situation? Which jail to put them in? And what is ment by "in some places"? Where are they not being given medical care?

 * That would be the legal situation of their gender - something very relevent to, say, getting married, getting health care, etc. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Documentation/clarification?

All in all, the person really to blame here is not any of you, nor any editor of the wikipedia, but rather the hack prof. who came up w this confounded assault upon intelligible discourse. Sam Spade 04:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Your argument isn't really founded on a good understanding of how the concept is employed in critical theory. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but the term just isn't used that way - at least not in critical theory. I don't know about other usages, and though I think I understand what AlexR was getting at in the latter sections better than you seem to, i don't know whether I wholly agre with it. But as for your first three objections... there's not much there. The idea that gay culture (As opposed to simply gayness) is becoming accepted is far from clear. Indeed, the idea that gayness is becoming accepted isn't wholly clear - it's becoming an acceptable subject for entertainment, but there's a difference between being amused by something and accepting it. (For a good example of this, consider gangsta rap. Plenty of people can take a gangsta rapper as an object of entertainment. Fewer people can take being gang raped as an object of entertainment. The gang member is not accepted - it's appropriated.) Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I think you might want to substitute your gang member example for something less distressing! I happen to have been close friends w a large number of gang members, and they didn't rape anybody to my knowledge, gang style or otherwise. As far as critical theory, I know absolutely nothing of it outside of what I have seen here, so you might expect a bit of differences in our perceptions on it. I suppose I'll have to take a look at Critical Theory. I notice you made no mention of the issues regarding poorly documented allegations, and thus assume you are in general agreement w me on these particulars? Sam Spade 05:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think, in that case, that the gang comparison is particularly apt, in that it shows clearly the act of a real culture (gang culture) being overwritten by an "accepted" popular view of it (The gang raping gangsta rapper, etc). Many would say something similar happens with gay culture. As for the other allegations, I'm neutral on the subject. I would not ask for their deletion, since I find them believable, however I also could not provide evidence to defend their inclusion. As for critical theory... it's tough. It's especially tough to figure out exactly what its political investments are. And, unlike a science, there's fierce disagreement in it - tracking it with generalized claims is very hard. That said, its view is that there's almost always someone being silenced - and that it's very often not who you think. :) Snowspinner 05:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Eve Sedgwick
"It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated from that of another (dimensions that include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of 'sexual orientation'" - Eve Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, page 8.

That is why that sentence is there. Because it is clearly Sedgwick's point. Snowspinner 05:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that Snowspinner's edit in question only clarifies things. Most people *do* only think of sexual orientation in terms of gender of sexual partner. It takes a leap of mind to think of sexual orientation in any other terms, and the phrase you added helps the reader make that leap. It's simply another way of viewing the question, and NPOV is all about presenting multiple points of view without making a judgement (all the article is doing there is presenting Sedgwick's point as Sedgwick's point. I've restored the text. - Seth Ilys 05:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * But you don't allow for the same in articles about "politically incorrect" subjects, ideas, persons or groups. There it is all about making a straw man, and disallowing any real argument to reach the surface. I am not saying that this therefore should be the rule, because it's just screwed up to do against anybody, but Snowspinner's version is crossing the line between presenting an argument, and making the article slanted and assuming.

 * The passage in question has the qualifier "is viewed as", and is specified as being in the work of Sedgwick. I am unsure what other methods could be used to explain Sedgwick's point. Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at rephrasing the passage instead of deleting it? Snowspinner 06:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 6


text:
Laura Ingalls (disambiguation)

Laura Ingalls (1867–1957) is the birth name of American writer Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of the Little House on the Prairie books.

Laura Ingalls may also refer to:
 * Laura Ingalls (aviator) (1893–1967), American pilot and Nazi agent
 * Laura Louise Colby Ingalls (1810–1883), mother of Charles Ingalls and paternal grandmother of Laura Ingalls Wilder

title: Laura Ingalls (disambiguation)


text:
Anthroposophical Society

The General Anthroposophical Society is an "association of people whose will it is to nurture the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world." As an organization, it is dedicated to supporting the community of those interested in the inner path of schooling known as anthroposophy, developed by Rudolf Steiner.

The Anthroposophical Society was founded on December 28, 1912 in Cologne, Germany, with about 3000 members. Central to this founding was Rudolf Steiner, who acted as an advisor and lecturer. The members of its original Executive Council were Marie von Sivers, Michael Bauer, and Carl Unger. The Society was re-founded as the General Anthroposophical Society in 1923/4 in Dornach, Switzerland. It includes an esoteric School of Spiritual Science.

The Society's headquarters is at the Goetheanum, located in Dornach, Solothurn, Switzerland. The Society has national Societies in many countries, including every English-speaking country. Its primary activities include organizing members' meetings and conferences, supporting research, and providing communication channels for a variety of purposes. The Society also encourages sustainable initiatives in the many practical fields in which its members are active.

As of 2013, the Society has approximately 52,000 members. Formal branches of the Society have been established in 50 countries, and smaller groups are active in 50 further countries. About 10,000 institutions base their work on anthroposophy, including schools, farms, medical practices, and communities for the handicapped.

Origins
The Anthroposophical Society traces its history back to 1902, when Rudolf Steiner became General Secretary of the German branch of the Theosophical Society. Prior to this time, Theosophy had made little headway in Germany; despite some visits by Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society, to Germany and its prominent Theosophists, it was not until after her death in 1891 that a single Berlin Lodge was officially chartered in 1894. Its nominal leadership by Dr Huebbe-Schleiden was supported by the ongoing efforts of Count and Countess Brockdorff, under whose auspices Steiner was first asked to lecture to an audience including German Theosophists in August 1900. His spiritual ideas found a responsive audience here, as many German Theosophists had found in Theosophy only an imperfect reflection of their own beliefs.

Throughout Steiner's term in office, the German branch worked quite independently of the rest of the Theosophical Society; in particular, Steiner sought to link to European philosophy and science and to Christian esoteric traditions, while the Theosophical Society was both geographically and spiritually based in Adyar, India.

Besant's tolerance for the differences in their approaches grew strained over the years. By 1907, Steiner had shifted from Theosophical terminology to his own vocabulary and the uniqueness of his approach was becoming increasingly apparent, for example at the International Congress at Munich in May 1907. Later that year, "by mutual consent", the esoteric circle Steiner had founded as an offshoot of the Theosophical Society's Esoteric Section (E. S.) became a wholly independent institution.

Gathering tensions over a variety of issues, including the rapid growth of the German section and its increasing activity in areas outside of Germany, came to a head when the leadership of the Theosophical Society declared that they had found the reincarnated Christ in a young boy named Jiddu Krishnamurti. Followers of Krishnamurti, most of whom were Theosophists, founded the Order of the Star in the East in 1911. Steiner's opposition to this order was made unmistakable by his 1912 declaration that no member of the new Order could remain a member of the German Theosophical Society. By the end of that year, Besant had induced the General Council of the Theosophical Society to revoke the charter for the German Section, which was under Steiner's leadership. In February 1913, Steiner and a group of prominent German theosophists founded a new society, the Anthroposophical Society, with the intent of pursuing a more Western path of spirituality than that nurtured in the Theosophical Society.

The German branch had numbered only a single Lodge and a few individual members when Steiner became its head in 1902. By 1913, it had burgeoned to 69 Lodges, 55 of which (about 2,500 people) left with Steiner to be part of the new Anthroposophical Society. The General Council of the Theosophical Society issued a new charter to the 14 Lodges which remained in the Theosophical Society, which were once again led by Dr Huebbe-Schleiden. The early Anthroposophical Society was predominantly German-speaking, though there were some founding members from other European countries, particularly the Netherlands. Its inaugural general meeting was held in January 1913 at Berlin. English anthroposophy was limited to a small anonymous club until after World War I.

After a split occurred between younger members, many of whom were founding or active in new initiatives such as a school, a curative home for the handicapped, a medical clinic, and a farm, and who had formed their own "Free Anthroposophical Society," and the older members, the anthroposophical society was formally refounded, with new leadership, in December 1923. Both groups came together in the new version of the society.

A conference was first called to refound the society. At this conference, which became known as the Christmas Conference, Steiner suggested that a meditative verse he had created for the occasion, the Foundation Stone Meditation, should become the spiritual cornerstone of a renewed anthroposophical movement. This movement should for the first time become unified with the Society that nurtured it. At this time, the Anthroposophical Society was renamed as the General Anthroposophical Society and affiliated national societies were formed.

Steiner gave a series of lectures on world history over the course of the eight-day conference, and established a School of Spiritual Science as his esoteric school, which became a new focus for ‘esoteric’ commitment and authority. While there was no requirement for membership in the General Anthroposophic Society, First Class members had to have been members of the General Society for 2 years, and accept ‘inner responsibility’ for Anthroposophy."

History
On November 1, 1935, the National Socialist regime banned the society in Germany for its "close relations with foreign freemasons, Jews and pacifists." The order issued by Reinhard Heydrich stated that, as a result of its opposition to the National Socialistic idea of Volk, the activities of the Anthroposophical Society endangered the National Socialistic state. Jewish teachers at the Waldorf schools were consequently dismissed.

From the 1930s until the 1960s, disputes over two separate issues, publishing rights for Steiner's books and the spiritual direction of the society, led to the Anthroposophical Society being effectively divided into several groups with little connection. Through efforts on all sides, the splinter groups merged again into the present Society in the early 1960s.

United States
The Anthroposophical Society in America, headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is one of over seventy national societies of the international General Anthroposophical Society, headquartered at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. The American Society has branches, groups, and sections in over 36 states.

The goal of the Anthroposophical Society in America is to further the work of Rudolf Steiner. It is a non-sectarian, non-political association devoted to such ends. It supports study groups, regional branches, the School for Spiritual Science in North America, and the Rudolf Steiner Library.

The administrative offices for the U.S. Society are located at the Rudolf Steiner House, 1923 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The U.S. Society is governed by a General Council. Current members of the General Council are
 * Mary Stewart Adams, General Secretary and President
 * Leah Walker, Secretary
 * Gino Ver Eecke, Interim Chair and Eastern Region Representative
 * Christine Burke, Western Region Representative
 * Margaret Runyon, Member at large.

A partial list of branches follows:
 * The Chicago Branch
 * The Los Angeles Branch
 * The New York City Branch
 * The Portland Branch
 * The Seattle Branch

Principles
The founding principles of the society were:

 * 1) The Anthroposophical Society is to be an association of people whose will it is to nurture the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.
 * 2) The persons gathered at the Goetheanum in Dornach at Christmas, 1923, both the individuals and the groups represented, form the nucleus of the Society. They are convinced that there exists in our time a genuine science of the spiritual world, elaborated for years past, and in important particulars already published; and that the civilisation of today is lacking the cultivation of such a science. This cultivation is to be the task of the Anthroposophical Society. It will endeavour to fulfill this task by making the anthroposophical spiritual science cultivated at the Goetheanum in Dornach the centre of its activities, together with all that results from this for brotherhood in human relationships and for the moral and religious as well as the artistic and cultural life.
 * 3) The persons gathered in Dornach as the nucleus of the Society recognise and endorse the view of the leadership at the Goetheanum (represented by the Vorstand [Executive Council] formed at the Foundation Meeting): 'Anthroposophy, as fostered at the Goetheanum, leads to results which can serve every human being as a stimulus to spiritual life, whatever his nation, social standing or religion. They can lead to a social life genuinely built on brotherly love.  No special degree of academic learning is required to make them one's own and to found one's life upon them, but only an open-minded human nature. Research into these results, however, as well as competent evaluation of them, depends upon spiritual-scientific training, which is to be acquired step by step. These results are in their own way as exact as the results of genuine natural science. When they attain general recognition in the same way as these, they will bring about comparable progress in all spheres of life, not only in the spiritual but also in the practical realm.'
 * 4) The Anthroposophical Society is in no sense a secret society, but is entirely public. Anyone can become a member, without regard to nationality, social standing, religion, scientific or artistic conviction, who considers as justified the existence of an institution such as the Goetheanum in Dornach, in its capacity as a School of Spiritual Science. The Anthroposophical Society rejects any kind of sectarian activity. Party politics it considers not to be within its task.
 * 5) The Anthroposophical Society sees the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach as a centre for its activity. The School will be composed of three classes. Members of the Society will be admitted to the School on their own application after a period of membership to be determined by the leadership at the Goetheanum. They enter in this way the First Class of the School of Spiritual Science. Admission to the Second or Third Classes takes place when the person requesting this is deemed eligible by the leadership at the Goetheanum.
 * 6) Every member of the Anthroposophical Society has the right to attend all lectures, performances and meetings arranged by the society, under conditions to be announced by the Vorstand.
 * 7) The organising of the school of Spiritual Science is, to begin with, the responsibility of Rudolf Steiner, who will appoint his collaborators and his possible successor.
 * 8) All publications of the Society shall be public, in the same sense as are those of other public societies.  The publications of the School of Spiritual Science will form no exception as regards this public character; however, the leadership of the School reserves the right to deny in advance the validity of any judgment on these publications which is not based on the same training from which they have been derived. Consequently, they will regard as justified no judgement which is not based on an appropriate preliminary training, as is also the common practice in the recognised scientific world.  Thus the publications of the School of Spiritual Science will bear the following note: 'Printed as manuscript for members of the School of Spiritual Science, Goetheanum, … Class.  No one is considered competent to judge the content, who has not acquired - through the School itself or in a manner recognised by the School as equivalent - the requisite preliminary knowledge.  Other opinions will be disregarded, to the extent that the authors of such works will not enter into a discussion about them.'
 * 9) The purpose of the Anthroposophical Society will be the furtherance of spiritual research; that of the School of Spiritual Science will be this research itself. A dogmatic stand in any field whatsoever is to be excluded from the Anthroposophical Society.
 * 10) The Anthroposophical Society shall hold a regular General Meeting at the Goetheanum each year, at which time the Vorstand shall present a full report with accounting. The agenda for this meeting shall be communicated by the Vorstand to all members, together with the invitation, six weeks before the meeting.  The Vorstand may call special meetings and fix the agenda for them. Invitations to such meetings shall be sent to members three weeks in advance. Motions proposed by individual members or groups of members shall be submitted one week before the General Meeting.
 * 11) Members may join together in smaller or larger groups on any basis of locality or subject. The headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society is at the Goetheanum.  From there the Vorstand shall bring to the attention of the members or groups of members what it considers to be the task of the Society. The Vorstand communicates with officials elected or appointed by the various groups. Admission of members will be the concern of the individual groups; the certificate of membership shall, however, be placed before the Vorstand in Dornach, and shall be signed by them out of their confidence in the officials of the groups. In general, every member should join a group. Only those for whom it is quite impossible to find entry to a group should apply directly to Dornach for membership.
 * 12) Membership dues shall be fixed by the individual groups; each group shall, however, submit 15 Swiss Francs for each of its members to the central leadership of the Society at the Goetheanum.
 * 13) Each working group formulates its own statutes, but these must not be incompatible with the Statutes of the Anthroposophical Society.
 * 14) The organ of the society is the weekly „Das Goetheanum“, which for this purpose is provided with a supplement containing the official communications of the Society. This enlarged edition of „Das Goetheanum“ will be supplied to members of the Anthroposophical Society only.
 * 15) The Founding Vorstand will be:
 * President: Dr. Rudolf Steiner
 * Vice-President: Albert Steffen
 * Recorder: Dr. Ita Wegman
 * Members: Marie Steiner and Dr. Elisabeth Vreede
 * Secretary and Treasurer: Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth

These principles were originally intended to serve as statutes as well; the legal requirements of registering such societies led to an expanded set of statutes, however.

title: Anthroposophical Society


text:
Radio Norwich

Radio Norwich is a fictional radio station in Norwich, England, in the television series I'm Alan Partridge. It parodies elements from both BBC Local Radio and Independent Local Radio.

The title character, played by Steve Coogan, can be seen on-air at the beginning of several episodes, usually hosting phone ins on various inane topics (for example: "Which is the best Lord: Lord of the Rings, of the Dance, or of the Flies?") Partridge can also often be seen bickering with DJ Dave Clifton (played by Phil Cornwell), who takes the slots after his own in both series of the show.

In real-life, Norwich and Norfolk are served by BBC Radio Norfolk. A real-life commercial radio station named 99.9 Radio Norwich launched on 29 June 2006. It closed on 1 September 2020 when it was replaced by Greatest Hits Radio.

Radio shows
Alan hosts different radio shows on each of the two series. In the first series he hosts an early morning slot, Up With The Partridge (4am – 7am), whilst in the second series he hosts Norfolk Nights (10pm – 1am). Each of his shows in both series were followed by Dave Clifton's two shows, The Breakfast Show and Dave Clifton's Nightclub. In series two, Alan claims he has "the third best slot" on Radio Norwich. A point he also makes several times during the second series is that he also hosts Skirmish, a military-based general knowledge quiz show on digital cable television channel UK Conquest. He also goes on to say that the show "boasts the largest audience share of a daytime digital channel at that time of day, in the Norfolk area".

Elements in his radio shows included:
 * Super Talk (brought to you by Ginsters pasties)
 * Alan's Deep Bath (brought to you by Dettol)
 * Alan's Fact of the Day
 * Cock-a-Doodle-Who?

Filming locations
The exterior of Radio Norwich is the offices of UBC Media Group at 50 Lisson Street, London. Alan's studio is UBC's radio production studio on the first floor of the building. This studio (which had subsequently been refurbished) was also used for the filming of Alan's later series Mid-Morning Matters.

title: Radio Norwich


text:
Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts

The Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts (Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts) is an extensive piece of reform legislation signed into law by Francis I of France on August 10, 1539, in the city of Villers-Cotterêts and the oldest French legislation still used partly by French courts.

Largely the work of Chancellor Guillaume Poyet, the legislative edict had 192 articles and dealt with a number of government, judicial and ecclesiastical matters (ordonnance générale en matière de police et de justice).

Articles 110 and 111
Articles 110 and 111, the most famous, and the oldest still in use in the French legislation, called for the use of French in all legal acts, notarized contracts and official legislation to avoid any linguistic confusion:

"CX. Que les arrestz soient clers & entendibles. Et affin quil ny ait cause de doubter sur lintelligence desdictz arrestz. Nous voulons & ordonons quilz soient faictz & escriptz si clairement quil ny ait ne puisse auoir aulcune ambiguite ou incertitude ne lieu a en demander interpretation.

 * 110. That decrees be clear and understandable.
 * And in order that there may be no cause for doubt over the meaning of the said decrees. We will and order that they be composed and written so clearly that there be not nor can be any ambiguity or uncertainty, nor grounds for requiring interpretation thereof.

CXI. De prononcer & expedier tous actes en langage francoys. Et pource que telles choses sont souuentesfoys aduenues sur lintelligence des motz latins contenuz esdictz arrestz. Nous voulons que doresenavant tous arrestz ensemble toutes autres procedeures soyent de noz cours souueraines ou autres subalternes et inferieures, soyent de registres, enquestes, contractz, commissions, sentences, testamens et autres quelzconques actes et exploictz de justice, ou qui en dependent, soyent prononcez, enregistrez et deliurez aux parties en langage maternel francoys et non autrement.

 * 111. On pronouncing and drawing up all legal documents in the French language.
 * And because so many things often hinge on the meaning of Latin words contained in the said documents. We will that from henceforth all decrees together with all other proceedings, whether of our royal courts or others subordinate or inferior, whether records, surveys, contracts, commissions, awards, wills, and all other acts and deeds of justice or dependent thereon be spoken, written, and given to the parties in the French mother tongue and not otherwise."

The major goal of these articles was to discontinue the use of Latin in official documents (although Latin continued to be used in church registers in some regions of France), but they also had an effect on the use of the other languages and dialects spoken in many regions of France.

Registrations of births and deaths
The ordinance was part of a wider legislation regarding the policing of church benefices, to keep vital records registers in the various church local institutions (mainly parishes). The ordinance ordered the creation of at least a register of baptisms, needed for determining the age of candidates for ecclesiastical office, as a proof of one's date of birth, and a register of burials of churchmen, as a proof of one's date of death. Though both registers were kept by religious authorities, they were authenticated by a public notary, always a layman, and were kept in the local royal administration's archives. In fact, as the church kept parish registers since the Middle Ages (the oldest one in France is Giry's, of 1303), these registers were used to meet the ordinance's dispositions.

The national registration was fully laicized in 1792 during the French Revolution by order of the French Republic. These records have continued until the present and are kept at the departmental archives. The civil registration now includes birth, marriage, divorce, and death records.

Other articles
Another article prohibited guilds and trade federations (toute confrérie de gens de métier et artisans') in an attempt to suppress workers' strikes (although mutual-aid groups were unaffected).

Effects
Many of these clauses marked a move towards an expanded, unified and centralized state and the clauses on the use of French marked a major step towards the linguistic and ideological unification of France at a time of growing national sentiment and identity.

Despite the effort to bring clarity to the complex systems of justice and administration prevailing in different parts of France and to make them more accessible, Article 111 left uncertainty in failing to define the French mother tongue. Many varieties of French were spoken around the country, to say nothing of sizeable regional minorities like Occitans, Bretons and Basques whose mother tongue was not French at all.

It was not until 1794 that the government decreed French to be the only language of the state for all official business, a situation still in force under Article 2 of the current French Constitution.

title: Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts


text:
Megadyptes

Megadyptes ("large diver") is a genus of penguins from New Zealand.

Species
The yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) is the sole extant species in the genus Megadyptes. A smaller, recently extinct species, the Waitaha penguin (M. waitaha), was described in 2009. A 2019 study recommended classifying the Waitaha penguin as M. a. waitaha, a subspecies of the extant yellow-eyed penguin. The same 2019 study described M. a. richdalei, a recently extinct dwarf subspecies from the Chatham Islands.

Range
Until recently, it was assumed that yellow-eyed penguins were widespread and abundant before the arrival of Polynesian settlers in New Zealand. However, genetic analysis has since revealed that its range only expanded to include mainland New Zealand in the past 200 years. Yellow-eyed penguins expanded out of the Subantarctic to replace New Zealand's endemic Waitaha penguin (M. waitaha). The Waitaha penguin became extinct between about 1300 and 1500, soon after Polynesian settlers arrived in New Zealand. Jeremy Austin, a member of the team that discovered the Waitaha penguin, said, "Our findings demonstrate that yellow-eyed penguins on mainland New Zealand are not a declining remnant of a previous abundant population, but came from the subantarctic relatively recently and replaced the extinct Waitaha penguin."

A 2019 study recommended classifying the Waitaha penguin as M. a. waitaha, a subspecies of the extant yellow-eyed penguin. If this taxonomic revision is confirmed, then Megadyptes antipodes is native to mainland New Zealand after all.

A dwarf subspecies from the Chatham Islands, M. a. richdalei, is extinct. The modern population of yellow-eyed penguins does not breed on the Chatham Islands.

Today, yellow-eyed penguins are found in two distinct populations. The northern population extends along the southeast coast of the South Island of New Zealand, down to Stewart Island and Codfish Island. It includes four main breeding areas in Banks Peninsula, North Otago, Otago Peninsula and the Catlins. It is also referred to as the mainland population. The southern population includes the Subantarctic Auckland Islands and Campbell Island. There is little gene flow between the northern and southern populations as the large stretch of ocean between the South Island and Subantarctic region and the subtropical convergence act as a natural barrier.

title: Megadyptes


text:
Carew Castle

Carew Castle (Castell Caeriw) is a castle in the civil parish of Carew in Pembrokeshire, Wales. The Carew family take their name from this site and have owned the castle for more than 900 years. It is leased to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park for administration purposes. .

Construction
The present castle, which replaced an earlier stone keep, is constructed almost entirely from the local Carboniferous limestone, except for some of the Tudor architectural features such as window frames, which are made from imported Cotswold stone. Although originally a Norman stronghold the castle maintains a mixture of architectural styles as modifications were made to the structure over successive centuries.

Entry to the inner ward is across a dry moat that had a barbican and gatehouse. The front of the castle had three D-shaped towers and crenelated walls. The rear of the castle has two large round towers. In the 16th century the northern defensive wall was converted into a Tudor range with ornate windows and long gallery.

The outer ward has earthworks that were built by Royalist defenders during the English Civil War in the 1640s.

History
The use of the site for military purposes extends back at least 2000 years.

Early history
The castle stands on a limestone bluff overlooking the Carew inlet, part of the tidal estuary that makes up the Milford Haven Waterway. The site must have been recognised as strategically useful from the earliest times, and recent excavations in the outer ward have discovered multiple defensive walls of an Iron Age fort.

The Norman castle has its origins in a stone keep built by Gerald de Windsor around the year 1100. Gerald was made castellan of Pembroke Castle by Arnulf of Montgomery in the first Norman invasion of Pembrokeshire. He married Nest, princess of Deheubarth around 1095. Nest brought the manor of Carew as part of her dowry, and Gerald cleared the existing fort to build his own castle on Norman lines. The original outer walls were timber, and only the keep was of stone. This still exists in the later structure as the "Old Tower".

Medieval
Gerald's son William took the name "de Carew", and in the middle of the 12th century created an enclosure with stone walls incorporating the original keep, and a "Great Hall" inside it. The current high-walled structure with a complex of rooms and halls around the circumference was created in about 1270 by Nicholas de Carew (d.1297), concurrent with (and influenced by) the construction of the Edwardian castles in North Wales. At this time, the outer ward was also walled in.

Tudor period
The de Carews fell on hard times in the post-Black Death period and mortgaged the castle. It fell into the hands of Rhys ap Thomas, who made his fortune by strategically changing sides and backing Henry VII just before the battle of Bosworth.

Rewarded with lands and a knighthood, he extended the castle with luxurious apartments with many Tudor features in the late 15th century. An inner doorway is decorated with three coats of arms: those of Henry VII, his son Arthur and Arthur's wife Catherine of Aragon. This allegiance turned sour. Rhys' grandson Rhys ap Gruffudd fell out of favour and was executed by Henry VIII for treason in 1531. The castle thus reverted to the crown and was leased to various tenants. In 1558 it was acquired by Sir John Perrot, a Lord Deputy of Ireland, who completed the final substantial modifications of the castle. The Elizabethan plutocrat reconstructed the north walls to build a long range of domestic rooms.

Demise
Perrot subsequently fell out of favour and died imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1592. The castle reverted to the crown and was finally re-purchased by the de Carew family in 1607. In the Civil War, the castle was refortified by Royalists although south Pembrokeshire was strongly Parliamentarian. After changing hands three times, the south wall was pulled down to render the castle indefensible to Royalists. At the Restoration the castle was returned to the de Carews, who continued to occupy the eastern wing until 1686.

The castle was then abandoned and allowed to decay. Much of the structure was looted for building stone and for lime burning. Since 1984 Cadw has funded a substantial amount of restoration performed by the Pembrokeshire National Park Authority.

Tidal mill
Carew Tidal Mill is the only restored tidal mill in Wales. The origins of the mill are undocumented but evidence suggests that a mill was in existence on the site by 1542. It is often called the "French Mill" and this may have arisen from its use of French burrstone millstones. Causeway walls and floodgates were restored by Sir John Carew in about 1615. One of the mill wheels is dated 1801. Use of the mill ended in 1937 and the building became derelict.

title: Carew Castle