text:
Tapa, Estonia

Tapa (Taps) is a town in Tapa Parish, Lääne-Viru County, Estonia, located at the junction of the country's Tallinn–Narva (west–east) and Tallinn–Tartu–Valga (north–south) railway lines. It is an important centre of transit for freight (mainly Russian oil and timber) as well as rail passengers (mostly Estonian commuters), a home to soldiers since the 1930s. Tapa also plays an important role in training young men and women in the Estonian Defense Forces, being nearby to Keskpolügoon (Central training area). The Valgejõgi River passes Tapa on its northeastern side.

Tapa developed as a village in the 13th–14th centuries. It was first mentioned in 1482 and the Tapa knight manor (Taps) in 1629. Tapa was officially recognized as a town in 1926. In October 2005, the town merged with the municipalities of Lehtse Parish, Saksi Parish, and Jäneda Parish to form Tapa Parish.

Tapa Museum was opened on 10 June 2004. The museum, in a 1934 two-story house, collects and exhibits objects including photos and documents related to the history and culture of Tapa. All of the objects in the museum reflect the soul of Tapa's citizens, past and present. Temporary exhibits celebrate notable days in Tapa's history and feature the hobbies of the town's residents. The permanent collection presents Tapa as a railway, military, and sausage town.

Name

The original etymology of Tapa is uncertain. However, in Estonian, "tapa" is also the imperative form of the verb "kill". This has led to an urban legend that during Soviet times the town had a newspaper called Tapa Kommunist, which could mean either Communist of Tapa, or Kill a Communist. Later the name was changed to Tapa Edasi, which could mean either Tapa Forward, or Keep Killing. In reality the local party newspaper was called Edasi Kommunismile (Forward to Communism).

Similarly, where a backroad from Kadrina comes to a T at route 24, a sign gives drivers directions to "Tapa" (to the left) or to "Loobu" (to the right). In Estonian, loobuma means to abandon, to desist, to waive. Therefore, drivers have the options to "Kill" or "Quit".

Railway
Tapa owes its existence to the railroad. (The three long, white rectangles on Tapa's flag represent the three branches of the railway that meet there.) In the 1860s, there were only native meadows where Tapa sits today. Forests of fir trees were chopped down as railroad tracks were laid eastward from Paldiski (in northwestern Estonia) to St. Petersburg, Russia. The Baltic Railway Company opened the tracks on 24 October 1870. Construction of the Tapa–Tartu branch of the railway began in 1875, and the first train to Tartu passed through Tapa on 21 August 1876. From that day on, Tapa grew quickly as a railway town. Land was purchased from the Tapa Manor (Gut Taps) to build a railway station and a depot for repairing and maintaining locomotives. The repair shop opened in 1876. The station was given the German name Taps from the manor, and the town got its name from the station.

Military bases
Tapa has been known as both a railway and a military town throughout its history. On 1 August 1923, an armoured train regiment (soomusrongirügement) was formed in Tapa with two armoured wagons: the Kapten Irv, which served in the Estonian War of Independence, and the Onu Tom. On 30 November 1934, a regiment in Valga (in southern Estonia) was moved to Tapa. The regiment's base, located on the southern edge of town around Tapa Manor's main building, played a considerable role in the town's life and contributed to the town's continued development.

In January 1941, however, the regiment was dissolved by Soviet forces. Seven months later, on 14 August 1941, Nazi German troops took over Tapa. During the German occupation, German military items were housed where the Estonian armoured train regiment's headquarters had been. In 1972, the engineering-technical education military unit no. 67665 of the Soviet army was on the site.

There has been an airfield on the southern edge of Tapa since 1932. The Tapa Aerial Union (Tapa Õhuasjanduse Ühing) held its first fly-in on 30 September 1934. The Russians began building a military airfield on the site in the fall of 1939. The Soviets began extensive construction of a military airfield in the spring of 1952. MiG-17s were stationed at the base by the end of the same year. Later, Tapa Airfield was made home to the Soviet 656th Interceptor Aviation Regiment. In 1993, the Estonian Defence Ministry assumed control of the airfield. On 18 June 1993, the first civilian plane touched down on the cement runway.

The phrase "the burning water of Tapa" (Tapa põlev vesi) refers to the fact that so much fuel from Soviet MiG-23 fighters leaked into Tapa's ground water that one could actually set a glass of tap water on fire. As the Soviet troops and their families left Tapa, the town's population dropped from 10,395 in 1989 to 6,800 in 2000. Tapa was left with a vacant, ransacked, poorly constructed military district. Yet, its life as a military town did not end. In January 2002, following changes in the structure of Estonian defence units, Tapa again became the home of a military base. The Northeast Defence District (Kirde Kaitseringkond) in Tapa includes an army training center, an artillery battalion, an anti-aircraft battalion and an engineer battalion.

The base is also home to a British-led eFP battlegroup, as part of 1st Infantry Brigade.

Today, on the north wall of Tapa's railway station, there is a bronze plaque, originally dedicated on 9 January 1934 and re-dedicated on 20 February 1993, that commemorates the Estonian War of Independence. On the plaque is the symbol of Tapa's armoured train regiment. Called "Flying Death on the Railway", the symbol is a skull with a pair of angel wings and wagon train wheels behind it.

Religion and culture
Throughout Tapa's history, in between the depot and the military base, civic and religious institutions have flourished. At services on 2 December 2007, the first Sunday of Advent, the congregation of the St. Jacob's Lutheran Church, celebrated its 75th anniversary.

A temporary house of prayer was dedicated in Tapa on 19 June 1921 by the first bishop of the EELK Jaak Kukk. It was named after the apostle John. St. Jacob's was dedicated on 27 November 1932, the first Sunday of Advent. Either August Tauk or Anatoli Podchekayev is the architect of the neo-historical stone church. The altarpiece, called the "Joyous Christ" or "Come to me", was painted by Russian icon artist Olga Obolyaninova. The church was renovated from 1953–55 and from 1972–74.

On 10 June 2007, the Baptist church in Tapa celebrated its 75th anniversary. The church was established on 12 June 1932, and Philip Gildemann was its first pastor. In 1940, with Gottfried Palias as pastor (1933–45), services moved to Tapa's Methodist church building. In 1980, with Dimitri Lipping as pastor (1976–92), it acquired the building at Kooli street 1 for Sunday school and other youth programs. In November 2003, it changed its name to the Tapa Living Faith Church (Tapa Elava Usu Kogudus). It holds Sunday services, with simultaneous translation into Russian, in Tapa's Methodist church at Kesk street 11.

At 75, Tapa's Baptist church had 40 members: 58 percent were between the ages of 21 and 74 and 68 percent were female. There were 50 participants in its Sunday school and more than 100 youth in its summer camp. Its other pastors were Evald Aer (1945–56), Paldor Teekel (1956–60), Eduard Kaur (1961), Erich Sõmer (1962–67), Heino Kivisild and Arli Tammo (1968–1975), and Toomas Kivisild (from 1993). The church belongs to the Union of Free Evangelical and Baptist Churches of Estonia (Eesti Evangeeliumi Kristlaste ja Baptistide Koguduste Liit).

On 17 March 2007, Tapa Music School (Tapa Muusikakool) celebrated its 50th anniversary with a concert by its students and its graduates. Like many Estonian towns, Tapa has a music school that is second only to the local elementary and high school in educating children and preparing them for successful lives as teenagers and young adults. The music school opened in the fall of 1957. Peeter Kald was the school's director from 1979 until 2007 when his son Ilmar was named director.

The town is also the site of a sausage festival.

Estonian language
On 30 May 1908, learned individuals from Tallinn and Tartu met in Tapa to agree on how the Estonian language should be written. By the beginning of the 19th century, two forms of Estonian had evolved: a Tallinn Estonian in the north and a Tartu Estonian in the south. So the Estonian Literary Society in Tartu and the Literature Department of the Folk Education Society of Estonia in Tallinn convened a conference. The first of four conferences that were held from 1908 to 1911 was in Tapa because it was easily accessible by train from both Tallinn and Tartu. The meeting took place in the Harmonie room of what is today Tapa's music school.

What was so different about what Estonians in the north were writing and what their fellow countrymen just 240 km to the south were writing? The spelling of some words was different because the pronunciation of the words was different. For example, the word pea (head) in the south was pää in the north, hea (good) was hää, and seal (there) was sääl. Similarly, õõ at one end of the country was written õe at the other end, õuu was õu, and the -gi ending was written -ki. Also, in both the north and the south the h sound at the beginning of a word, like hõbune (horse) and hoidma (to hold), was clearly written but softly spoken. So the conference participants wanted to decide if the h should be written if it is not pronounced.

On 30 May 2008, the 100th anniversary of this conference, Tapa organized another conference on the Estonian language with esteemed representatives from the Mother Tongue Society (Emakeele Selts), the Estonian Language Institute, the Language Inspectorate of the Estonian Ministry of Education (Keeleinspektsioon), the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, Tartu University's Estonian and General Linguistics Institut, and the Estonian Writers' Union. The theme of the conference was "Language Grows from Me" (Keel kasvab minust enesest). The master of ceremonies was Marika Rajur of the Tapa Literary Club.

Before the conference began, a plaque to commemorate the very first conference was unveiled in front of the music school by Kuno Rooba, Tapa's mayor. The plaque reads "The first conference on written Estonian took place in Tapa" (Tapal toimus esimene eesti kirjakeele konverents).

In popular culture

 * The railway station in Tapa served as the Tallinn railway station in the 2008 Estonian movie Detsembrikuumus (December Heat).

Sister cities
The former municipality of Tapa was twinned with:
 * 🇫🇮 Akaa, Finland
 * 🇩🇪 Preetz, Germany
 * Dobele, Latvia
 * 🇸🇪 Trosa Municipality, Sweden
 * 🇺🇸 Cumberland, United States

title: Tapa, Estonia


text: Category:Russian politicians

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

title: Category:Russian politicians


text:
Category:Disney characters

Characters in works by The Walt Disney Company.

title: Category:Disney characters


text:
John Greig

John Greig (born 11 September 1942) is a Scottish former professional footballer who played as a defender. He spent his entire career with Rangers, as a player, manager and director. Greig was voted "The Greatest Ever Ranger" in 1999 by the club's supporters, and has been elected to Rangers' Hall of Fame.

Early life
Greig played his youth football with United Crossroads Boys Club in Edinburgh, under the supervision of Eric Gardiner, and supported Hearts as a boy. It is unknown if Hearts showed any interest in signing him. Bob McAuley signed Greig for Rangers and despite his initial reluctance, Greig did as instructed by his father. However, after viewing a match between Rangers and Hibernian at Easter Road, where he witnessed them beating Hibs 6–1, he was convinced the move was right.

Club
A determined, forceful player, recognised for his great leadership qualities, Greig made 755 official appearances for Rangers (498 in the domestic league, 72 in the Scottish Cup, a club record 121 in the League Cup and 64 in European tournaments). He scored 120 goals for the club and won three domestic trebles. Greig actually started his career with Rangers as a forward, prior to being moved back to midfield — playing initially alongside another Rangers legend in Jim Baxter — and finally to left back. It was therefore in those initial years that he scored the majority of his goals for the club.

Greig was captain when Rangers won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1972 beating Dynamo Moscow 3–2 in Barcelona. Although Greig's was an enormously successful playing career, his captaincy coincided with a period of sustained success for Rangers' city rivals, Celtic, from the late 1960s until the mid-1970s. Greig's fortitude during that period further cemented his reputation as one of Rangers' most celebrated captains.

He was granted a testimonial match in 1978 against a Scotland XI as part of the national squad's preparations for the 1978 FIFA World Cup; Rangers won 5–0 before a crowd of 65,000 at Ibrox.

International
Greig played for Scotland on 44 occasions, 15 as captain, between 1964 and 1975. He scored the late winner in Scotland's 1–0 victory against Italy at Hampden Park on 9 November 1965 and in 1967 achieved the distinction of captaining the Scottish side who beat England 3–2 — their first defeat as World Champions — at Wembley. Greig also represented the Scottish League XI 14 times.

Managerial career
Greig's playing career ended in May 1978 when he was appointed manager of Rangers, replacing Jock Wallace. The club failed to win the league championship during Greig's time as manager, finishing no higher than the second place achieved in 1978–79. Greig's team had come close to winning a domestic treble and performed well in Europe in that first season. Rangers reached the quarter-final of the 1978–79 European Cup, defeating Italian champions Juventus and becoming the first club to win in European club competition at PSV's Philips Stadion, before eventual elimination to Cologne. There was also the partial compensation of success in domestic cup competitions, with two Scottish Cups and two League Cups secured over the course of Greig's five full seasons as manager. Greig was also responsible for signing Rangers' greatest ever goalscorer Ally McCoist from Sunderland. However, these were isolated achievements, and Greig — under intense pressure from the Scottish media, Rangers supporters and the club's directors — resigned in October 1983, replaced by the returning Wallace.

Post-football career
After leaving Rangers, Greig worked as a pundit for Radio Scotland and BBC television. He returned in 1990 as part of the club's public relations team. Dick Advocaat, manager of Rangers from 1998 to 2001, re-involved Greig in football coaching during which time he contributed to youth development. In 2003, he joined the Rangers board of directors. Greig resigned this position in October 2011, soon after the takeover of the club by Craig Whyte. Greig and John McClelland, who resigned at the same time as Greig, stated that they had been excluded from the corporate governance of the club since Whyte had taken control. Greig later re-joined Rangers on 23 May 2015, when he was named the club's honorary life president with ambassadorial responsibilities.

International goals

 * Scores and results list Scotland's goal tally first

Honours
Greig was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) on 15 November 1977. In June 2008, he was awarded honoris causa, from the University of Glasgow in recognition for outstanding achievement in football and continuing ambassadorship for the sport.

He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2023 Birthday Honours for services to association football and the community in Scotland.

Club

 * Rangers
 * UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1971–72
 * Scottish League First Division/Premier Division (5): 1962–63, 1963–64, 1974–75, 1975–76, 1977–78
 * Scottish Cup (6): 1962–63, 1963–64, 1965–66, 1972–73, 1975–76, 1977–78
 * Scottish League Cup (4): 1963–64, 1964–65, 1975–76, 1977–78

Individual

 * SFWA Footballer of the Year: 1965–66, 1975–76
 * Scottish Football Hall of Fame (inaugural inductee)
 * Scottish Sports Hall of Fame (inaugural inductee)
 * Ballon d'Or: 1972 (18th place)

As a manager

 * Scottish Cup: 1978–79, 1980–81
 * Scottish League Cup: 1978–79, 1981–82

title: John Greig


text:
Talk:Basic life support

Untitled
No, BLS should NOT be merged with CPR.

Basic Life Support is a level of prehospital medical care, the most that can be provided if paramedics, doctors or other advanced responders are unavailable.

CPR is just one of many techniques that can be useful in BLS.

I have tried to expand this article, with US and UK BLS guidelines and some references. I hope this is of some use. I feel that there probably still needs to be more depth and clarity in the introduction, which I will try to provide when I have more time. Gilo1969 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Astrokassie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Basic life support (BLS) seems to be nothing more than first aid. As defined by the American Heart Association and the Resuscitation Council (UK) in the given citations, BLS is equivalent to "emergency first aid" in Canada and "basic first aid" in Australia. I suggest that encyclopedic content from this page be merged with the relevant sections of "First aid" and that "Basic life support" any any pages that redirect to it be redirected to "First aid" or a section thereof. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BLS and first aid are not equivalent, though this article makes it seem like they are. This article is improperly focused entirely on the CPR courses by the AHA and Resuscitation Council, which comprise only a part of BLS. Essentially, BLS is scope of practice of what basic EMTs can perform. BLS and ALS are levels of care, while first aid is what lay people provide. First aid typically does not include BLS skills such as airway insertion, mechanical ventilation, oxygen administration, airway suctioning, and spinal immobilization. This, and other EMS-related articles have been relatively poor over the years, with lots of redundant content. Better defining the scope of each article would be a good start to improving these articles. --Scott Alter (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose - First aid is a wide topic, covering many different skills, and BLS is a very focused topic looking at one set of protocols. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Basic life support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028183115/http://www.vfv.it:80/tecnica/capitolo_4.pdf to http://www.vfv.it/tecnica/capitolo_4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basic life support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202034805/http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/bls.pdf to http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/bls.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hey Wikipedians. I'm focusing on this article to edit in my undergrad Technical and Professional editing course. Over the next couple weeks I plan on updating this page to follow Wikipedia's guidelines by Once I get a draft in my sandbox going, I'll post it here. If there's anything you'd like me to know about this article going forward, let me know. Astrokassie (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Minor copyediting
 * 2) Rewriting the how-to/training sections into a more encyclopedic tone
 * 3) Organizing the random subheadings (like "choking" and "drowning") into more general ones
 * 4) Trying to incorporate more of the scope of BLS instead of just cardiac and respiratory emergencies, which seem to be the only ones mentioned here.
 * Realized that BLS is just the treatment of generally cardiac and respiratory emergencies, so disregard the part about incorporating more than that. Astrokassie (talk)
 * . Be aware that making a single major edit to an established article runs the risk of getting everything reverted in a single major undo by someone who finds sufficient problems to not be prepared to fix them all. It is often less stressful to make one's initial edits on Wikipedia as small edits, fixing one thing at a time, and taking feedback from the regulars into account for subsequent edits. This gives a less precipitous learning curve. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm still trying to figure out what to even do with this article, given that it's mostly instructions. If you have any suggestions or want to work on this article with me, let me know. Astrokassie (talk)
 * . For a start, you could try describing the procedures, possibly adding some explanation of what they are intended to achieve. Add background information where it looks like it may be make the procedure clearer to the reader. Explain your actions in the edit summaries. Remember that nothing is irreversible. Give it a go on a small scale, see what the reception is like, discuss if anyone asks. Ping me if you want comment, and you can ask for suggestions and comments at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Start sooner rather than later, add references at least one per paragraph. Work in manageable chunks, but dont be shy to make small edits to fix typos, formatting errors and the like. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have the same advice. If you make more smaller edits then it is easier for wiki reviewers to point to individual things you did for feedback. If you try making one big change then you and any reviewer would have to have additional conversation to point to what specifically is under discussion. WP:Be bold with many small edits and yes bring questions here to talk page.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the instructional text
Hi again. I am wanting to delete all of the steps that are listed (WP:NOTHOWTO) because there are other pages (like Cardiopulmonary resuscitation) that do the job of explaining what doesn't need to be explained in detail here. I'm still working in the sandbox of what I would like the page to look like, but feel free to talk to me about what you think can be changed User:Astrokassie/sandbox2. I'm not going to make any huge changes to this page all at once. Astrokassie (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is generally OK to link to another article which covers the topic in more detail rather than including a content fork (repeating the same details in another place). Use a summary section with a see also or main hatlink. The lead section of the main article can be a good guide to what should be in the summary section (if it has been written according to the manual of style, which is not always the case). You may have to look up references. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In you sandbox you have a section "Other countries". This implies that the main article is about a specific country, which has not been identified and the title does not suggest that the topic is country-specific. It is preferable to make all articles as internationally applicable as reasonably practicable if the topic is internationally applicable - this is English language Wikipedia, it is used by a very wide range of people from all countries where English is an official language, and many people from other language regions because there may not be an equivalent in their own language Wikipedia, or en: may have a more comprehensive article. If there is a special reason why the article is about a regionally specific topic then that should be clear from the title. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I keep the section about the European Resuscitation Council the way it is currently, then? I feel like there's a better way to include that, because it's important, I just can't think of how. Astrokassie (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts? Concerns?
Hey all, I think I've finished editing this article to what I think is enough. I mostly just reorganized the information that was already present. I don't have enough time to do some research and add any new tabs, but per WP:MEDMOS tab suggestions, I think there's room to add a section on "Society and Culture." Maybe talk about how some laypeople are hesitant to perform BLS because of the fear of legal action and discuss the Good Samaritan Law a little. Let me know what you all think. Astrokassie (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rearranging the existing content was what the article needed most.
 * The lead section should be a brief summary of the content of the whole article, taking into account relevance and due weight.
 * A section on legal consequences would be good. Be sure to specify national variations/scope of the law. Where adequate articles on such laws already exist, a short summary and a link is appropriate. A detailed discussion would only be appropriate if the law was specifically about BLS. If there are large numbers of applicable laws, an annotated list of links may be suitable.
 * A section on "Society and culture" would be good if you have references to use, but not urgent.
 * See also links are considered WP:Hatnotes by the MoS and the preferred placing is at the top of the section, directly below the section header.
 * The navboxes appear to be adequate for linking to related articles, but you might notice something that should be there and is not.
 * If you ever come across something you think should be added, you can come back and do that if no-one else has done it already. That is how Wikipedia works. Over time other people will make changes. Some will be good, others not. The bad stuff usually gets reverted quite quickly. The good stuff often inspires someone to expand further. I hope editing this article will inspire you to make more contributions when you use Wikipedia and see something you can improve. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (forgot to ping for above). · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: EDT 251 - Research Skills and Strategies
— Assignment last updated by Jktmiami (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Shock Section
Hey all, I just wanted to include a shock section under the indications portion of the article since it is covered under BLS protocol and there's a basic and passive procedure that can be carried out at the BLS level. Im working on the section right now but Ill include a paragraph and title once Im done with it. Stay tuned. Ailenilin (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Here's a sneak peak
 * Shock, also known as Inadequate Tissue Perfusion, is a life-threatening condition that occurs as a result of the disruption to three major components of the cardiovascular system: Heart Function, Blood Vessel Function, and Blood Volume. Perfusion describes the process of adequate blood flow to the organs, where the waste and reactants that are involved in cellular respiration are removed or transported throughout the three parts of the cardiovascular system for metabolism to be processed effectively. However, if one part were to fail, important resources for cellular respiration such as oxygen would not be able to reach the organs that need it to function. In an attempt to compensate, the body would divert blood to organs that cannot tolerate the lack of blood, such as the heart and the brain, resulting in widespread vasoconstriction, or thinning of the blood vessels. Consequently, blood is prevented from reaching organs that can tolerate the lack of perfusion, or hypo perfusion, in organs such as the skin, resulting in the typical presentation of pale and clammy skin conditions during shock. Moreover, disruptions may present specifically to each component or multiple systems may be affected at the same time, which generally results in the three designated types of shock: Obstructive, Distributive, Hypovolemic. Typically, patients would have a presentation of shock at the Compensated, Decompensated, and Irreversible Stage. Source: : |edition= has extra text (help) Ailenilin (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Source: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. (2021). Chapter 13: Obstructive Shock. In Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured (12th ed., pp. 535–536). essay. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://a.co/d/7wnRhc Ailenilin (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to let yall know I moved my draft to the main page, feel free to review it for any mistakes. Thanks! Ailenilin (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Basic life support


text:
Talk:Bureaucracy

Old expansion
I have expanded info on Weber's theories on bureaucracy. Perhaps at some future's date majority of that can be moved to their own specialized articles, but for present I think it is the best home for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion..
I think it would be appropriate to mention the film Brazil, which is almost entirely about the dehumanising effects of bureaucracy run wild... not sure which section though. Perhaps a whole new one concerning bureaucracy in literature and film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.204.137 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If one were to do this, maybe include the movie Office Space? It is pretty much how pop culture views the bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.29.227.4 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. (Maybe not Office Space, but certainly Brazil.) And perhaps a tounge-in-cheek reference to the bureaucracy of the wiki itself might be fun too, and worthwhile. For instance, that so many of the ideals that are attempted to be portrayed in this encyclopaedia are in such contrast with the pace of modern living. (eg. the tension between the world of blogs as a personal model of expression vs. the wiki as a public model held to certain standards.) Information doesn't seem to be viewed as being inclusive to the wiki if it hasn't been run through the non-virtual publishing bureaucracy first. This seems quite backwards when the entire project of the wiki is founded upon the freedom of the virtual, open-source edit. Is this not stifling, and retrogressive, from a certain vantage point? Not that any of this is definitively true, but that these kinds of ubquitous bureaucratic cages are present (as explored in the film Brazil), seems worth mentioning in any progressive article on bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.25.7 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not office space? There could be a section as to movie references eg. Office Space, Pretender, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I went here tying to locate the side effects from the imposed bureaucracy, the old ways(wich are mostly present in Brazil or in any other 3° world contrys). If anyone could write it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.151.191 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I came on here to suggest adding a link to Brazil, but found that it had already been suggested! Wikipedia is pretty freakin cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.83.220 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If one is going to mention Brazil which i agree is as the person above put it "pretty freakin cool" then one should also mention other bureaucrats in fiction primarily the Vogon from Douglas Adams's acclaimed Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series those being a race supposedly entirely bureaucratic. Though do mention the Vogons from the audio play and the books rather than the movie version, it really was appalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosephVZByrne (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider including the story Bartleby, the Scrivener and its adaptations, too. Shoreranger (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion..
We need a new article regarding bureaucratic agencies as in (US) government. With such points as GS ratings, Senior Executive Service, and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.55.67 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your suggestions. Be bold, register and try creating them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The following was added by an anon to the bottom. Perhaps it can be incorportated into the text: Some procedures that are created from bureaucracy to solve one particular problem often become another problem within itself due to differing viewpoints and intentions of all members involved in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems
Can we get some citations? The two sections on Marx and Weber read like OR. POV of the article seems unneccessarily swayed towards Weber. -- Scaife    (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * What do you mean "read like original research"? 99 % of that stuff on weber can be found in a basic University text-book (one of which I have added to sources). And how do you mean "swayed towards Weber?" Weber is the person everyone refers to when introducing the concept of bureaucracy. Yes, one should be careful in adding information without sources but one should be equally careful about filling a page with templates "just because". For example, there is no way one can claim that the sentence "the Oxford English Dictionary cites usage in several different years between 1818 and 1860, prior to Weber's birth in 1864" lacks sources. They are right there. -Samulili 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Peter_principle be mentioned in here somewhere?SMesser 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why all the Marxism?
I am not sure why there is so much Marx in this article. Bureaucracy refers to the methodology of public and private administration. What does this have to do with Marxism in particular? IF Marx should be mentioned (I don't see why), it should not go to the extend of arguing about the feasibility of socialism. That's just totally off topic. Dietwald 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Neither am I. Marx didn't say much about the topic... With the excetion of the excellent section on Weber written by Piotrus, this article needs a rewrite. I hope to get around to rewriting it myself in the near future, unless someone beats me to it. 172 | Talk 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Dudes, marx was the first to make considerations from de bureaucracy, and Weber wrote all of his principles in bureaucracy(valids until today), based on Marx!Totaly necessary. For me, you should include Trotsky and Stalin too!The first sense of bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.151.191 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Karl Marx section (tagged with original research) should be deleted. I agree with the above comments that it is not relevant. --Vince 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps split instead of deletion would be better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You mean delete the section and split it up into existing sections? Or make new sections? I think some of the material could be summarized and included in the introduction or a theory section. -- Vince 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the Marx theory on the historical basis for bureaucracy is useful. It might be shortened, worked into the History section, or possibly placed after Weber's theory.  It's not merely American & English capitalists who use bureacracies.SMesser 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Oddly, now – 5 dec 2011 – there's nothing! The article should treat bureaucracy per se before mentioning sociological models for bureaucracy. Karl Marx is regarded as one of the three founding sociologists, the other two being Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. (Weber is the primary modeller of bureaucracy, but I think Marx said important things too when formulating his theory of alienation).  Despite Marx'es ideology is seemingly dead and buried, he also made other contributions which are really considered scientific, namely his modelling of capitalist economy, and his sociology. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * HAHAHA oh I am getting so sick of reading from people who haven't gone in depth with (or read more than a few pages of) marx saying this nonsense about "dead and buried" - marx is one of the most relevant thinkers today. Look around you! Trichometetrahydron (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 3
Hey, but the film is higly relevant to the word "bureacracy". I think it is an excellent idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.167.66 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

POV example removed
The article says:

"Not allowing people to use common sense, as everything must be as is written by the law. For example: a particular person cannot be convicted even if they are clearly guilty of a crime, simply because the law does not accept the evidence given against them."

But many philosophies consider this procedural justice, not an anomaly of bureaucracy gone wild. Letting someone go who can't be convicted in the eyes of the law? The article says it is against common sense. I say it is common sense. Either way it's POV. I deleted the example. Illuminatingvision 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Weber's ideal bureaucracy
Under Criticism: "As Max Weber himself noted, in reality no ideal type organization can exist. Thus the real bureaucracy will be less optimal and effective than his ideal model. Each of Weber's seven principles can degenerate."

This so-called criticism misses the point of Weber's Ideal type, completely. In short not a valid criticism of Weber’s model and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.120.169 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The part you quoted is confusing. I don't think it should be removed but it should be improved, for Weber did point out that "total bureaucracy" will fail. In other words Weber believed that an ideal (pure, ideal type) bureaucracy will not be ideal (good).

 * Basically, what I think is wrong with those sentences is the word "thus". The two aren't in fact connected. I'll remove the first one. -Samulili 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Weber did think of ideal as being synonymous with good. He meant ideal type, which means an abstract, pure type.AnaSoc (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Serious gaps in this article
Marx died in 1883. Weber died in 1920. Yet most of this article tells us what Weber and Marx said. While it is true that this article ought to include these viewpoints--especially Weber's contributions, which are still taught in college courses on bureaucracy--the focus of this article ought to be elsewhere. Our understanding of bureaucracy has progressed considerably since 1883 and 1920. Now, we mostly worry about the policy implications of delegating rule-making powers (among other responsibilities) from elected politicians to unelected bureaucracies. This concern is dominant both in politics (how many times have you heard a campaign advertisment mention "unaccountable bureaucrats?") as well as in academia (which has moved from "iron triangles" to "capture theory" to "police patrols and fire alarms"). Indeed, the bulk of the bureaucratic studies literature focuses exclusively on questions of delegation and policy control: Legislatures delegate regulatory authority to bureaucrats, who may use this authority in unexpected ways.

I wrote a section on these topics a couple months ago (the "Current Debates" section in the article), which should probably be renamed, expanded, and moved upward (IMHO). To make this article relevant to the typical visitor, should we not be focusing more on these issues of accountability and regulation? While Weber's contributions are relevant (probably more so than Marx's), the detailed summary of them available here belongs in a textbook, or in a less prominent part of the present article.

Implementing these suggestions would involve rather radical changes to the article as presently constituted. Although Wikipedia's guidelines encourage us to be bold, I'll forego overhauling the article until waiting for some feedback. (Better yet, since I'm quite pressed for time, perhaps somebody else wants to step up to the plate.)

Apologies for the long rant. A10brown 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion add Subset Bureaucratic Reform
See the Talk page which I created "Government Reform subset Bureaucratic Reform"

I have recently added this talk page with references to my web blog on government Reform at: http://managementconsultant.blogsome.com and my Ebook site at: http://ebooksbylrosier.blogspot.com Reprinted articles are noted but few all other material is my original work and constitutes a break through in Bureaucratic reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.153.189 (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * You realize that the wiki adds "nofollow" tags to those links, right? Perhaps your SEO efforts would be better spent elsewhere....
 * - A10brown 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamic influences
Some sources suggest the Ottoman city of Bursa as the first source of bureaucracy, I see no mention of it in the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris.Haamer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Or, alternately, any mention of the extensive Chinese bureaucratic systems that extend back into ancient times. The "Development of Bureaucracy" section seems to assume the ridiculous idea that the first bureaucracy to develop was in the United States. siafu 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins/Development
I'm not aware of any good sources on the history of bureaucratic government or authority (Foucault maybe?), but surely the United States is not the origin of the idea. Granted, early bureaucracies weren't called "bureaucracies" or any similar name (bureaucracies precede both the French and English languages after all), but the general idea was already taking shape in the ancient world-- the cursus honorum in the Roman Empire, for example, was a series of bureaucratic posts (aediles and censors in particular), and the ancient Chinese states (even those preceding the Qin Dynasty) were known for their bureaucratic functioning and authority.

So, in short, the section needs a complete rewrite. Anyone have anything to suggest or argue? siafu 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

--I wrote a description of some of the origins of bureaucracy from ancient Sumer to the modern day. Most of that is based on my own personal knowledge of history, which is pretty thorough. If anyone wants to make any changes, though, that's fine. Segregold 17:55, 17 August 2007

Further development
I contributed the bit on the etymology and a bit on the Marxian interpretation. However there exists a large contemporary literature on bureaucracy and therefore I agree the article could be expanded. Both the Marxist and Weberian interpretations have been very influential though. User:Jurriaan 23:57 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Lead Section
The banned user Serafin, editing anonymously, insists on including this information at the top of the article:

 * "In a literal sense, Bureaucracy means the rule of offices. In democratic systems however political power belongs to the people, and administrative offices are created only for the execution of legal rules not for political or other influences."

It is a complete non sequitur, and contradicts another part of the lead section:

 * "Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, corporations, hospitals, courts, ministries and schools."

Of these, only (some) governments are "democratic systems". Yet Serafin insists on making his argument in the lead paragraph, violating WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. -- Karldoh 11:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I've tried to restore what was before. Please watch this page, everybody. His edits can be reverted on sight and should be reported, for example at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin or WP:AIV. Sciurinæ 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

American usage
The sub-section selectively uses definitions to try to prove a POV. In each example, two or more definitions, listed earlier in precedence in the source, do not have any negative connotation to them. I do not suggest that the assertion is entirely false, only that the citations used do not prove the claims made and, in fact, imply the claims are not as widely accepted as indicated. Shoreranger (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the addition of a discussion of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy will provide sufficient amplification of the typical American attitude toward this institution to account for the negative connotation almost universally accorded the concept of bureaucracy in American culture, in which the bureaucratic imperative — however it manifests — is utterly despised. Indeed, Pournelle's relatively dispassionate criticism of bureaucracy may not go far enough to accurately convey the pure hatred held by the average American for bureaucrats and everything having to do with the institution of bureaucracy in both the private and the public sectors. It does not (for example) address the bureacrat's propensity for sloughing responsibility:

"'There's a reason bureaucrats are seen as ass-coverers whose foremost priority is to ensure that they're never accountable for anything. It's because many bureaucrats really are ass-coverers whose overriding priority is to ensure that they're never accountable for anything. As a corollary, if things go wrong, support for the idea that you predicted it may be helpful in building your bureaucracy's importance at the expense of its rivals."

"'This is as true within corporations as it is in the public sector or the military. If you've spent much time in the working world, you've seen this tendency in action.'"

 * ...which is (in American eyes) particularly despicable for its abject cowardice as well as its wastefulness, ineffectiveness, and inherently obstructionist effects.

 * Hm. And while we're at it, how come we're not discussing the sheer Vogosity of bureaucracy?

 * This attitude toward the bureaucrats doesn't really seem to be an exclusively American peculiarity at all, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on "Iron Triangle"
Presently, the article credit Thomas Lowi (1971) for coining the phrase. It's been quite a while since I've checked the original sources, but I've usually seen credit going to Douglass Cates, Power in Washington, which was published quite a few years earlier (1964) by Random House. I'm not a registered "user," but I have no objections to having my "IP address" recorded -- I'm professor Wm. Freudenburg, UCSB  if anyone wants to follow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.76.21 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Crozier's work on Bureaucracy
I have added a section of the work of the French Sociologist Michel Crozier - I was surprised to find that there was no mention of his work here although his work is widely cited in the French speaking world []

Compo (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add this in
Bureaucracy is a formal organization based on rationality and efficiency. And also add in the reference. Smallman12q (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, perhaps a wiktionary link would help.

Spelling
Bureaucracy is one of the most misspelled words in the English language. Even google calmly accepts the misspelling beaurocrasy without further comment. Can we redirect Beaurocrasy to Bureaucracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.12.184 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

broken refs
This article show the "broken references" warning. I suppose you know how to fix that one. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It was because those footnotes were defined below the reflist function. Fixed by removing them. Martinmsgj 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Scientology a bureaucracy?
Based on the fact that Scientology, despite claiming to be a religion, operates more like a money-grubbing cult, I think that Scientology could be classified as a bureaucracy. However, the article isn't very clear on the structure of its organization, such as who ranks where, how labor is divided, the qualifications to be employed by an institution of Scientology, and how promotions can occur (among other features of a bureaucracy.) So, does Scientology bear the trappings of a bureaucracy, or am I just deluding myself? --Luigifan (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Per Max Weber, it's not very much a bureaucratic, but rather a charismatic organization. For the rest see Scientology, and take a look on Jehovah's Witnesses and Landmark Education regarding building their organizations entire existence on expensively sold cheap-quality products. Regarding relation between bureaucracy and power, examine the Debian/GNU/Linux distribution (see this image): no top power (except a weak democratic presidency), no profit, heavy and slow but still efficient bureaucracy. Things aren't simple, bureaucracy doesn't necessarily come from the high bosses, isn't necessarily profitable, and isn't necessarily evil. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mises
As Marx, Weber and the like get so much attention, I think Mises might be worth a look in?

"Mises's 1944 book applies his insight concerning economic calculation to delineate the difference between bureaucratic management and profit-and-loss management in the free market. The implications of his argument are far reaching, for it shows that all types of public administration lack the ability to conduct their affairs in an economic rational manner." http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I'd suggest just as an external link, but a little section might be ok too.Larklight (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 * WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURO
I think the addition at the top of a direct to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY would be good. Fences and windows (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Just an FYI - the section of "criticism" seems to be plagiarized from this book:

Chattopadhyay, H.P., and Indu Baghel. Indian Administration Vol. 1. New Dehli: Global Vision Publishing House, 2009. Print.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-wfGxBk09uAC&pg=PR3&dq=Chattopadhyay,+H.P.,+and+Indu+Baghel.+Indian+Administration&hl=en&ei=YZrIS6rMIcH-8Aa6g52LBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Chattopadhyay%2C%20H.P.%2C%20and%20Indu%20Baghel.%20Indian%20Administration&f=false

Just try searching for that first phrase "As Max Weber himself noted, real bureaucracy will be less optimal and effective than his ideal type model. " and you'll find it on page 89.130.156.46.252 (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)TIMER

 * Thanks for finding the similarity! It looks, though, as if they copied from Wikipedia. The book claims its first edition is 2009. That sentence has been in the article since January 2007, where it matured from a seed planted in June 2005. I'm not sure how extensive the copying may be in that book, but if it should prove to be extensive, backwardscopyvio might be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Closer examination tells me they've been quite liberal with their taking from the article. Pages 84-91 seem to be nearly verbatim. I'm tagging the article accordingly; if they have not properly cited Wikipedia, content contributions to this article can see Mirrors and forks for potential remedies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 168.68.1.127, 13 September 2010
Add citation for Bureaucracy:

USLaw.com Dictionary (http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/b/Bureaucracy)

168.68.1.127 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is this really necessary? They have the definition well cemented using other resources? -- Crazysane (T/C\D) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This article itself has asked for many citations and refernces, and a legal source normally does well. This may be away of the user trying to put his two-cents in, I have replaced the template with until we get a user reply either way. -- Wolfnix  •  Talk  • 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page.

Suggestion
I ran across this in the Illinois employer handbook: http://www.ides.state.il.us/employer/magnetic-filing.asp

Though someone mite want to use it to talk about some of the possible side effects of bureaucracy.

Smittycity42 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)smittycity42

Is Sumerian really that bad?
The article says "The Sumerian script was so complicated that it required specialists who had trained for their entire lives in the discipline of writing to manipulate it."

Is Sumerian really more complicated than, say, English (which, after all, has no systematic rules for spelling)?

I suspect the real problem is this: in a primarily non-literate culture, where only a few people learn to read and write, these few people will form a class that is very hard to enter. After, most of us here spent years learning to read and write; if schools weren't widespread this would seem like a mammoth undertaking. But that doesn't mean we "trained for our entire lives" in order to read and write. It just feels that way when we're in high school or college. :-)

Hmm, but I guess if the life expectancy were about 30-40 years, it would be closer to true...

Anyway: I'm questioning whether Sumerian is really particularly complicated as written languages go.

John Baez (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

spelling issue
Hi, I don't mean to be a pain, but in the Weber section it says:

"However, he also emphasized that bureaucracy becomes inefficient when a decision must be adopted to an individual case."

I think there's a grammar/spelling issue here. Shouldn't it either be adapted to an individual case or adopted for an individual case?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccawidom (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Michel Crozier
This recent edit removed the tag, suggesting that the material was in fact "pretty short". Given that this chunky section deals with just one writer—the only one to get such treatment in this broad-brush article—wouldn't WP:UNDUE be more appropriate? If Crozier does have sufficient significance over the topic to warrant an individual mention then a WP:SS template would do, otherwise treat him in the same way as the others, with a "see also" link at the foot of the page.

Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Entirely WP:UNDUE. What's there actually refers to Weber but doesn't discuss it first.  Makes no sense.  Shoreranger (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have not looked at this article for some time - it looks like it has been hacked about a bit. Including Marx was always a moot point, the material on Crozier was too detailed and needed to be reduced but cutting out Weber is going to far.  The problem is not that Crozier is too long for only one author, it is the fact that he is the only author left! Compo (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The section removed, leaving only the link to his WP page.   Max Weber likewise. Is there scope for a more general section to deal with academic study of the topic, along the lines suggested by User:Compo? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Now perhaps I am confused here, but I thought this was a social and political philosophy article (see the rather confusing list of categories at the bottom of the page) - I find it a bit difficult to even think about an article that deals with social and political philosophy that does not include at least some consideration of the academic study of the topic. Like I said before, it seems to me that the article has been subject to some over zealous hacking that was intended to clean it up but has actually resulted a lot of stuff that was central to the original article being cut out. Compo (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I take that as a "yes", then: a section dealing with bureaucracy as an academic subject is required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Er.avijit.pandey, 11 February 2011
edit semi-protected

the term "bureaucracy" was first coined by Vincent de Gournay, a french economist in 1745. he stated,"we have an illnes in france which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called Burreaumania." In French word 'bureau' means a desk.

Er.avijit.pandey (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing content
A series of recent edits have removed almost the entire content of the article:. I am not sure if this improved the article, much content was unreferenced, but was roughly correct and useful (for example, the Weber section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 * On the second thought, most of that was quite bad. Interested editors can find the content in the history of the article, maybe something is salvageable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, some of it was at least good enough to be included in a published book - see the "Plagiarism" discussion above. It seems that a hatchet was used on this article when a knife, if not a scalpel, would have been the proper instrument. Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You are more then welcome to try to salvage anything from the past mess. I am an inclusionist, so I'd support restoring old content - but let's try to reference it first... and yes, there was some total garbage in the mix, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial blurb is an advertisement not a definition
The initial "the purpose of a bureaucracy" blub reads more like an advertisement and less like something that distinguishes a bureaucracy from an non-bureaucracy. Heck, the sentence would not lose any meaning if "bureaucracy" was changed to "form of government" or "organizational methodology". The distinguishing characteristic between a bureaucratic and a non-bureaucratic organization seems to be the the former has its activities or governance split across a number of "bureaus", "departments", or other groupings. Admittedly, today, it seems like an obvious necessity for larger organizations. Still, the initial text should list the defining characteristic. Mike Mondy (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Mike

Removed biased, unsourced section
I just removed the material below from the article, because it's biased and has no sources. I think it would be fine to add something like this back once it's properly sourced, and balanced by differing points of view. If nobody else does that I will try to come back and do it myself; I can't do it right now though. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 * ==Negative Stereotypes==

 * "In modern use, the term bureaucracy refers to an organization that has a combination of the following traits: inefficent, slow moving, uncreative, wasting of time, money, and resources, making ineffectual decisions based on misinformation passed up through overly complex chains of command and control, having complex and overly hierachical structures, confusing and overly complex rules and procedures that defeat the purpose of the rules. Bureacracies are said to create red tape.  Example, to bog down progress and wrap the project in red tape.  Another common expression related with bureaucracy is "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" referring to the fact that poorly functioning bureaucratic structures are often overly top heavy and operate in unproductive circular motions without forward progress."

-- You raise a good point, but I think the negative connotations of the word bureaucracy should be a section in the overall topic, rather than characterising the entire topic. Many people don't like paying tax but you wouldn't expect the opening sentence of the Wiki entry for 'Tax' to present it negatively; you would expect an objective presentation of the topic. This Wiki page opens with bureaucracy being defined as creating red tape and other negative connotations. kabl00ey (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost empty!!?
It seems the article have been absurdly pruned to only contain Max Weber. Max Weber isn't bureaucracy. He didn't invent it, and presumably he didn't even invent the term, he is one of the main founding sociologers modelling it. The article should contain:
 * 1. the etymology of the word "bureaucracy", what it meant, and what it means today (w references),
 * 2. how bureaucracies were described by various scientists, and how they defined it, and how they modelled it.

Personally I believe the Romans invented bureaucracy based on my observations from reading the Asterix cartoon, but an alternative theory is that the Roman Catholic church modified it extensively, and then offered it as a holy gift to ruling almost-christian barbarian kings in migration age Europe. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * If you are trying to put togehter a comprehensive list of relevant models, don't forget the Aston Group's achievements. Besides, Henry Mintzbergs configurations, Charles Handy's cultures, all contain significant bureaucratic elements. In its current state, this article is very sorry. Yotwen (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
It appears as almost every edit in January is vandalism. Perhaps some in December as well. Jokeyxero (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor
This article is terrible. This is an important subject for people to understand, Wikipedia contributors shouls do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.76.223 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed completely. The summary is particularly dreadful.  It's full of bias and irrelevance, although I am unfortunately not adequately qualified to re-write it myself.  I hope someone who knows what they're doing comes along and resolves this.  Cheers.  172.248.191.33 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Four years later, and we're still waiting for that Hero.* Double Plus Ungood (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The article begins as if "bureaucracy" were a term referring exclusively to public ("governmental") organizations. Regardless of how one views bureaucracy, all organization theorists worthy of the name now recognize that "bureaucracy" refers to the structure of the organization, whether publicly- or privately-owned. I have more to say on this topic much further down the page. Landrumkelly (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed out of existence
Maybe the page had some flaws back in January 2011, but at least it contained useful material. Since then, it's been pruned out of existence. Revert and try again? 190.42.170.72 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Several editors were in agreement, over a period of several months, that the referencing was inadequate and that some of what was left was given undue prominence. The deletions were a valid response: see "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed" in WP:V. Better, perhaps, not to reinstate but to start from scratch, making sure everything is referenced and balanced as we go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree it was much better before. This article is unbalance and misleading as it is. Shoreranger (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Narrow scope?
This sentence from the introductory paragraph: " In other words, a government bureaucracy carries out the decisions of the legislature or democratically-elected representation of a state."

It implies that bureaucracies only exist in democratic systems of government, and do not exist in non-democratic forms (ie dictatorships, communism, etc). CDB-Man (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * "individual power-seekers in creating politicized organizations characterized by internal conflict"

 * and what in the name bourgeois socioligist crap does the above mean?.  Bureacracy is formed in the interest of the Capitalist ruling class for their benefit.  It will fade away in the ensuing Socialist and then Communist socio-economic relations of production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk • contribs)

-

Please sign your posts with the four tildes: ~

Bureaucracies exist an any large organization. They are needed to carry out the functions of the organization.

Does a dictator not need a bureaucracy to implement his/her policies, such as propaganda or taxation? Does a Socialist government not need a bureaucracy to run all of their social programs, such as health care or or social security?

My quote from the article, " In other words, a government bureaucracy carries out the decisions of the legislature or democratically-elected representation of a state." the quote is implying bureaucracies ONLY exist to carry out the decisions of a legislature or democratic representation, to the exclusion on non-legislature/democratic governments (ie dictatorships/autocrats). But like I described, any large organization, such as a government, needs a bureaucracy to implement its functions.

CDB-Man (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC); Edited: CDB-Man (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Moved it from the lead to the section to one on modern bureaucracy since it is talking solely about modern application and is an inappropriate for the lead for a topic that covers thousands of years of applications most of which have NOTHING to do with democracies. WP:UNDUE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

total rewrite.
this article has been trimmed to the point that it contains almost no relevant information, and is a hollow shell. it needs a fresh start, with accurate, cited information. Aunva6 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

older version contains good information
I wrote a solid outline of the subject with accurate, cited information. This included a description of bureaucracy, etymology of the historical origins of the word, historical examples of bureaucracies, and theoretical approaches to understanding this system of government. Everything was carefully sourced.

This revision was deleted by the site's editors. However, you can still find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureaucracy&oldid=517350592

Feel free to expand and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.193.65 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I would like an explanation of why all the information was trimmed. it was all sourced and neutral. I do not see ANY reason for the information to have been trimmed. Aunva6 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The content in that revision looks great, and I also wonder why it was removed. If nobody objects, I am going to begin re-adding parts of it.   Shirudo   talk  23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Now that I've finally gotten around to attempting to bring back parts of the good version, I've realized that there have been practically no additions to the article since that time, other than the Imperial China section (which can easily be re-added). Since the old version is so radically better, I believe the best course of action is to just revert to it and re-add the few things which have been added since then, rather than add the old article in piece by piece to the current very skimpy and mostly unreferenced article.   Shirudo   talk  00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The areas that might benefit from updating is "The German sociologist, Max Weber, argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient..." is missing commas before and after "Max Webers" name. "Here, too, the sense was pejorative, with Irish novelist Lady Morgan referring to "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed."[19] There doesn't need to be a comma after pejorative.  Mel29g (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bureaucracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141222072511/http://www.civilservant.org.uk:80/northcotetrevelyan.pdf to http://www.civilservant.org.uk/northcotetrevelyan.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100101031942/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1996/44/b34991.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1996/44/b34991.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition On Women in the Bureaucracy
My plan for contributing to the Bureaucracy article in Wikipedia is focused on adding a section on women in bureaucracy. This is a widely discussed topic in academia with many scholarly conversations to back it up. With my plan I will be adding on a section to the end of the article that expands the term of bureaucracy and how it relates to women/ women in charge. I plan to start with statistics of women in the bureaucracy and go into explaining the barriers that women face when trying to rise to positions of power in bureaucratic agencies. I will also talk about the effect of the lack of representation of women in the bureaucracy in terms of passive and active representation including policy areas women represent and what in turn it means for their constituents. My main source, “Some Ceilings Have More Cracks: Representative Bureaucracy in Federal Agencies” by Amy Smith, outlines the number of women in bureaucratic agencies and the glass ceiling they experience. I will use this article to get statistics on the number of women in the federal bureaucracy and how it relates to the number of men. I will use my other sources to get information on how women struggle to reach positions of power in bureaucratic agencies. One of my sources proposes a theory that women are put in charge of agencies that are seen as weak or set for failure. It includes proper research to support this concept. AfWill (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Can I ask why this is important and relevant. Your arguments do hold for many organisations, but seem to have to do more with "old boys" network of men promoting men to high positions and less with bureaucracy as a system. That many institutions, both commercial and governmental happen to have this problem with women representation and at the same time happen to be bureaucracies does not justify the link (it seems more like a spurious relationship than anything else). To make your point it is essential to develop the argument (supported by reliable secondary sources) that bureaucracies (regardless of their current gender balance in staffing) favour men over women. Arnoutf (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your input! If you look at my source you'll see that it focuses specifically on women in bureaucracy and the effect of representation on policy implementation. My sources are specific to bureaucratic agencies as the lack of representation of women leads to different issues in bureaucracies specifically than elected bodies. Adding a section on women's representation in bureaucratic agencies is supported by wikipedia's goal to act as a comprehensive source that contains extensive information. This is an active issue with scholarly conversation. By adding a section of women's role in the bureaucracy I will be adding on information that is relevant and important to the topic. AfWill (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * If this is indeed an active topic in scholarly discussion than it would make sense to add this. But please make sure that you include multiple sources, as scientific papers are considered primary sources regarding their own findings. Also carefully read the papers as in my experience political and policy science papers sometimes present a normative outlook as the core of their argument / analysis. This is not necessarily wrong or bad science, but it makes it even more a primary source. All the best in developing this. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the advice! I will keep it in mind as I go forward with adding information to this article. AfWill (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the addition. Because this section focused on the U.S., I moved the info to Government employees in the United States. I also condensed it down a bit. Kfc 930 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There is almost no mention of PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AS BUREAUCRACIES! What there is is buried deep in the article. I have taught in two graduate programs in public administration since the early 1980s (and in undergraduate programs in public administration since 1977), as well as offered the occasional course on modern organizations/organizational behavior in a business department. The bureaucratic form of social organization is ubiquitous in modern society, and everything that Weber wrote about publicly-owned organizations can as easily be applied to private organizations. My view is not "marxist." Among organization theorists (and I am one, along with being a political theorist) such a perspective is mainstream. The article says next to nothing about (typically large) private organizations as being inherently bureaucratic, but the way the article leads off suggests that bureaucracies are inherently public in nature. They are NOT. This results in a gross distortion of readers' understanding of modern organizations, almost all of which are bureaucratic in nature. Lest I be misunderstood, both private and public organizations tend to be bureaucratic in nature. Weber's descriptors of "bureaucracy" are the same, whether the organization is publicly-owned or privately-owned. We can argue here forever about both the positive and negative aspects of bureaucratization in culture, but we must first make clear to readers that bureaucracy in itself is not inherently something having to do with the public sphere. It is NOT. --J. Landrum Kelly, Ph.D., (Florida) Landrumkelly (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Human system of bureaucracy and emerging Artificial Intelligence.
Emerging in nearest future AI and self-aware, self-conscious AI will lead to birth of self-making AI. That may have a potential of creating pure AI micro and macro societies. A human competition with AI is not only possible, it is one of the scenarios of AI developing and auto-recognizing itself in human society.

As such AI very unlikely inherit or create a system of bureaucracy for its own society. Every innovation or invention that AI brings to life would go seamlessly from idea to production without relying on a bureaucratic system, registering, reporting and so on.

At the peaceful stage of competition between human society and that of AI society - human system of bureaucracy might be severely diminished or even destroyed - in order to be able to compete with non-bureaucratic AI society(societies).

A human bureaucracy system might experience a severe blow as a result of such competition. AI would minimize time between making a decision and executing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerraliberta (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

David Graeber's The Utopia of Rules
Any opinions on whether The Utopia of Rules should be given weight here? It's cited 683 times in Google Scholar as of this writing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucratic
Bureaucratic 2405:204:5215:4BDB:0:0:1854:E0A0 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Social science
Discribe the features of bureacracy 2409:4073:30E:E8C7:0:0:1F07:D8A0 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

United States should be added as an example of Modern Bureaucracy
The use of Ashanti Empire, the United Kingdom, and France as the three examples of "Modern" bureaucracy is odd. While the Ashanti Empire is worthy of greater recognition, I don't think that its bureaucratic systems and processes are sufficiently understood to make meaningful contributions to our understanding of bureaucracy itself. In place of (or in addition to) the Ashanti Empire, I would argue that the United States has relevancy to the study of bureaucracy and would be of interest to readers. Elements of interest would be the history of the federal government bureaucracy during the times of the founding fathers and the patronage of Andrew Jackson, the development of the merit system through mechanisms like the Pendleton Act, and the difficulty in measuring the size of the American bureaucracy.

Another interesting element of modern bureaucracy would be the rise of multinational organizations such as the EU and the United Nations. JSF2009 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)JSF2009

title: Talk:Bureaucracy


text:
Thérèse Casgrain

Marie Thérèse Casgrain,, née Forget (10 July 1896 – 3 November 1981) was a French Canadian feminist, reformer, politician and senator. She was a leader in the fight for women's right to vote in the province of Quebec, as well as the first woman to lead a political party in Canada. In her later life she opposed nuclear weapons and was a consumer activist. A strong federalist, one of her last political actions, at age 83, was to intervene on the "No" side in the 1980 Quebec sovereignty referendum.

Family and early life
Born in Saint-Irénée-les-Bains, near Quebec City, Thérèse was raised in a wealthy family, the daughter of Blanche, Lady Forget (née MacDonald), and Sir Rodolphe Forget, a wealthy entrepreneur and Conservative Member of Parliament.

In 1905, at eight years old, she became a boarder at the Dames du Sacré-Coeur, at Sault-au-Récollet, near Montreal. Upon graduation, she hoped to further her studies at university, but her father opposed the idea, not seeing any utility in further education for women. In his view, Thérèse should instead learn how to manage a household, a skill that would befit a future wife of her stature.

Thérèse was engaged twice. Her first fiancé died falling out of a window while sleepwalking, when she was only seventeen years old. In 1916, aged twenty, she married Pierre-François Casgrain, a wealthy Liberal politician with whom she raised four children.

Thérèse's father, Sir Rodolphe, had represented the Charlevoix riding since the general election of 1904, holding it as a Conservative. However, he was opposed to conscription and with the Conscription Crisis looming, he decided that he would not stand for re-election in the general election of 1917. Her husband, Pierre Casgrain, sought the nomination in the new Charlevoix—Montmorency riding for the Liberal Party as a Laurier Liberal, opposed to conscription. He was elected in the general election.

Women's right to vote
Thérèse Casgrain accompanied her husband to Ottawa, the national capital, for the opening of the parliamentary session in the spring of 1918. It was during her time in Ottawa that she became aware of the importance of the right to vote for women. Prior to the 1917 Canadian federal election, women did not have the right to vote in federal elections. In the lead-up to the election, the government of Prime Minister Borden had enacted the Wartime Elections Act, which gave the right to vote to wives, widows, mothers, and sisters of soldiers serving overseas. Although this was a clear attempt to gain votes in favour of the war effort, it was a significant milestone for women's suffrage in Canada. The Borden government would later adopt the Women's Suffrage Act, which gave the right to vote at federal elections to all Canadian women aged twenty-one years or older, from 1919 onwards.

In spite of these changes at the federal level, and the expansion of women's suffrage in most other provinces, women in Quebec still could not vote during provincial elections. The opposition for such an extension of the law was strong, notably from the clergy and the conservative elite.

Casgrain led the women's suffrage movement in Quebec for twenty years. Her tenacity, her political contacts through her husband (who eventually became Speaker of the House of Commons), her leadership and her ability to inspire, all helped her to achieve her goal of women's right to vote in Quebec. She founded the Provincial Franchise Committee in 1921 and campaigned for women's rights, writing innumerable letters to influential people, making annual trips to the provincial capital at Quebec City, and broadcasts on radio, speaking for women's rights. From 1928 to 1942, she was the leader of the League for Women's Rights. She founded her own radio show in the 1930s, Fémina. Finally in 1938, she succeeded in having women's right to vote added to the platform of the Liberal Party of Quebec. The right was not won until 1940.

Electoral politics
In late 1941, Casgrain's husband was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec. She sought the nomination of the Liberal Party to stand for election in the vacant riding of Charlevoix—Saguenay, the same riding which had been held by her father and then her husband, but the party turned her down. In the resulting federal by-election, she stood as an "Independent Liberal" candidate in the riding, but was not successful.

Following World War II, she left the Liberal Party and joined the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). In 1948, she became one of the federal vice presidents of the CCF. She led the Quebec wing of the party, the Parti social démocratique du Québec, from 1951 to 1957. She was, therefore, the first female leader of a political party in Canada. In the 1960s, she was president of the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party, the CCF's successor.

Casgrain was a CCF candidate in a 1952 federal by-election and in the 1953, 1957, and 1958 federal general elections and a New Democratic Party candidate in the 1962 and 1963 federal general elections. She also used her position as a platform to campaign against the government of Maurice Duplessis.

Activism
In 1945, Casgrain was successful in ensuring that women in Quebec could receive family allowance cheques in their own name. Prior to that time, and only in Quebec, family allowance cheques were only made out to the father. She also agitated for equal treatment of married women in the Quebec justice system.

In the 1960s, she became a campaigner against nuclear weapons, founding in February 1961 the Quebec wing of Voice of Women (VOW) and serving as the national president of VOW from 1962 to 1963. She also was a founder of the La Ligue des droits de l'homme, which in 1978 became the Ligue des droits et libertés, and the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

In 1969, Casgrain was elected president of the Consumers' Association of Canada Quebec section. Casgrain succeeded to an anglophone president, David Macfarlane, who considered that the Quebec section's position was indefensible, as it was dominated by anglophone elements and used English as its primary work language. Many members of the association hoped Casgrain would fix this problem as president.

Senator and later life
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau appointed Casgrain to the Senate of Canada in 1970, where she sat as an independent for nine months before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75. As senator she questioned the prime minister's policy on the use of Canadian-made napalm and defoliants in Vietnam.

In 1972, she published her autobiography, A Woman in a Man's World.

For the last decade of her life, she was committed to helping the rights of Indigenous women. She also involved herself in charity works and consumer rights.

In spite of her inherited wealth, by the end of her life she was financially dependent on her daughters.

1980 Quebec sovereignty referendum
During the 1980 Quebec sovereignty referendum, Casgrain campaigned for the "No" side. She was among the voices who criticized Lise Payette, then provincial minister for the status of women, for saying that women who didn't back a "Yes" vote would be responsible for blocking progress. Payette likened them to Yvette, a fictional schoolgirl who featured in school primers.

Death
Thérèse Casgrain died in 1981, living with one of her daughters in Montreal. She is interred in the Cimetière Notre-Dame-des-Neiges in Montreal.

Assessment
It was during her period as a candidate with the CCF and the Parti social démocratique du Québec, that Casgrain acquired the reputation of a "pearl-necklace leftist." Always impeccably dressed and coiffed, with elegant hats, she would make speeches to workers, encouraging them to make their demands known to their employers in companies and mines - companies of which she was often a share-holder, with shares inherited from her businessman father.

Those who knew her said that she was not one to consult with others or to follow the rules, and could be exhausting to work with. However, she always seemed to know who to call on the telephone to obtain the goal she was working towards. She was known above all for her tenacity in working for women's causes. By the end of her life she was well-known, respected, but sadly alone in solitude.

Recognition

 * 1967: Officer of the Order of Canada

 * 1968: received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Montreal.

 * 1974: promoted to Companion of the Order of Canada

 * 1974: Loyola College, one of Concordia University's founding institutions, awarded her the Loyola Medal.

 * 1979: one of the first recipients of the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case.

 * 1980: awarded the title of "Grand Montrealer" from the city of Montreal, in the social category

 * 1980: received an honorary doctorate from Concordia University

 * 1981: received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Windsor

 * 1982: the federal government created the Thérèse Casgrain Volunteer Award

 * 1985: Canada Post honoured Thérèse Casgrain with a postage stamp

 * 1991-1992: received the medal of the Bar of Montreal (a posthumous title).

 * 2004: commemorated on the $50 banknote of the Canadian Journey Series, along with The Famous Five. This commemoration was discontinued in 2012 with the introduction of a new design on the reverse of the fifty-dollar bill.

 * 2012: statue of Casgrain, along with Marie Lacoste Gérin-Lajoie, Idola Saint-Jean and Marie-Claire Kirkland, unveiled on the grounds of the National Assembly of Quebec by Pauline Marois, first female premier of Quebec, to commemorate the role of women in politics in Quebec

 * 2016: appointed commander of the Order of Montreal (a posthumous title)

 * 2022: named a National Historic Person by the government of Canada

Archives
The Thérèse-Casgrain fonds is conserved in Ottawa by Library and Archives Canada. The archival reference number is R7906, former archival reference number MG32-C25. The fonds covers the date range 1818 to 1981. It consists of 2.05 metres of textual records and 534 photographs.

The Thérèse F.-Casgrain Foundation fonds is conserved at the Montreal archives centre of the National Library and Archives of Quebec.

Publications
Thérèse F. Casgrain, Une femme chez les hommes (Montréal: Éditions du Jour, 1971)

Thérèse F. Casgrain, ''A Woman in a Man's World (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972)

title: Thérèse Casgrain


text:
The Notebook of Trigorin

The Notebook of Trigorin is a play by American playwright Tennessee Williams, adapted from Anton Chekhov's drama The Seagull (1895). Williams based his adaptation primarily on Ann Dunnigan's 1960 translation.

The play was first produced in 1981 by the Vancouver Playhouse in Vancouver, British Columbia. In 1980, Williams' play The Red Devil Battery Sign had been given a new production at the Playhouse by artistic director Roger Hodgman while Williams was Writer in Residence at the University of British Columbia. Invited to return with a new play, Williams confessed his desire to adapt Chekov's The Seagull. The October 1981 production was confirmed before a single page of the adaptation was written. A 1996 production of the play by the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park directed by Stephen Hollis and starring Lynn Redgrave as Madame Arkadina was the American premiere. The play received its London premiere at the Finborough Theatre in 2010. The production was directed by Phil Willmott and starred Stephen Billington as Trigorin. The play received its New York premiere with the Attic Theatre Company in 2013 at The Flea Theater. The production was directed by Laura Braza and starred Michael Schantz as Trigorin, with scenic design by Julia Noulin-Mérat.

title: The Notebook of Trigorin


text:
Robert Methven Petrie

Robert Methven Petrie (May 15, 1906 – April 8, 1966) was a Canadian astronomer.

He was born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada at the age of five. He grew up in Victoria, British Columbia and studied physics and mathematics at the University of British Columbia. He began working summer jobs at the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory and became fascinated with astronomy.

He obtained his PhD at the University of Michigan in 1932. He taught there until 1935, when he joined the staff of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory. In 1951 he became its director.

He extensively studied spectroscopic binaries.

The crater Petrie on the Moon is named after him. The Canadian Astronomical Society established the R. M. Petrie Prize Lecture to honor his astrophysical research.

Obituaries

 * JRASC 60 (1966) 157
 * Obs 86 (1966) 132 (one sentence)
 * PASP 78 (1966) 311

title: Robert Methven Petrie


text: Category:Malnutrition

title: Category:Malnutrition