text:
First class (computing)

In database modeling, a first class item is one that has an identity independent of any other item. The identity allows the item to persist when its attributes change, and allows other items to claim relationships with the item.

As a general rule, first class items represent things rather than relationships. For example, the database representations of a human and of a company are each first class items. However, the fact that the person is an employee of that company is not a first class item. Likewise, data about that relationship, e.g. information about the salary the company pays to its employee, is not a first class item.

Typically, a relational database will include several tables, each of which contains rows representing first class items of a given type (e.g. a table of people, a table of companies). It will also contain other tables representing relationships between these first class items.

In a table representing first class items, one column of the table will typically contain a different integer assigned to each row (effectively, to each item) as a unique identifier: that is to say, unique for objects of this type; objects of different types, represented in different tables, can coincidentally have the same identifier, but the coincidence is meaningless.

In a relational database, a table representing a relationship between two or more first class items (or data about that relationship) will usually not have special identifiers for its rows. Instead these rows will be identified by an ordered tuple consisting of unique identifiers of the first class items involved in the relationship.

title: First class (computing)


text:
Kelmscott Manor

Kelmscott Manor is a limestone manor house in the Cotswolds village of Kelmscott, in West Oxfordshire, southern England. It dates from around 1570, with a late 17th-century wing, and is listed Grade I on the National Heritage List for England. It is situated close to the River Thames. The nearest town is Lechlade-On-Thames.

History 1570 to 1870
The house was built by local farmer Thomas Turner and remained in the family for many generations. After George Turner died in 1734, the house was let out. The house was originally called Lower House, but became Kelmscott Manor when James Turner (d.1870) purchased 53½ acres of manorial land together with the lordship in 1864. After James died the manor passed to his nephew, Charles Hobbs, who let out the property.

William Morris and family
Kelmscott Manor was the country home of the writer, designer and socialist William Morris from 1871 until his death in 1896. Today it is owned by the Society of Antiquaries of London, and is open to the public on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays during the summer.

Morris drew great inspiration from the unspoilt authenticity of the house's architecture and craftsmanship, and its organic relationship with its setting, especially its garden. The Manor is featured in Morris' work News from Nowhere. It also appears in the background of Water Willow, a portrait of his wife, Jane Morris, painted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti in 1871.

After William Morris's death in 1896, the Manor continued to be occupied by his widow, Jane Morris (who purchased it in 1913) and later, his daughters. May Morris died in 1938 and bequeathed the house to Oxford University, on the basis the contents were preserved and the public were granted access. The University were unwilling to preserve the house as 'a museum piece' and passed the house and land to the Society of Antiquaries in 1962.

21st century
The manor was in a precarious state of decay when passed to The Society and much of the 1960's work was to make sure that the manor house did not deteriorate further. Most of the main roof beams were rotten which meant that a lot of the structure needed to be replaced. Internal walls and floors were strengthened and a new porch added to the North entrance. The associated barns were purchased by the Society in the 1970's and converted into a shop and tearoom.

The internal décor today is substantially that of Morris, and includes many of his famous textile patterns as well as much of his furniture. Visitors can explore all three floors of the manor, including the attic spaces which would originally have been used by farm labourers. Morris's bedroom contains many of his original books, and a collection of Dürer prints. Other rooms display furniture from Red House in Bexleyheath, Kelmscott House in Hammersmith and other family homes. There are also further works by Rossetti, Sir Edward Burne-Jones, and Pieter Brueghel the Younger.

The manor was reopened in April 2022 after a major restoration project undertaken by the Society. The work, funded by grants totalling £6m from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Kelmscott: Past Present and Future campaign, has seen extensive work undertaken to the structure of the house, as well as renovation of the interior. The manor is a Grade I listed building.

Garden
The garden includes many old trees, including a very old black mulberry at the rear of the house. The front garden is walled with a summer house in one corner, and both the wall and the summerhouse are Grade II listed. The front garden contains many standard roses. Although part of the original orchard has been removed to make a small car park, many fruit trees have been left intact.

William Morris named his London residence "Kelmscott House" and the private press that he founded "the Kelmscott Press" after Kelmscott. He was buried in the village churchyard in a tomb designed by his friend and colleague Philip Webb.

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

title: Kelmscott Manor


text:
Lupita Jones

María de Guadalupe "Lupita" Jones Garay (, ; born 6 September 1967) is a Mexican actress, model, producer and beauty queen who was crowned Miss Universe 1991. She was the first Mexican contestant to win a major international beauty pageant.

Since 1994, Jones had been the national director of the Mexican division of the Mexicana Universal franchise. To date, she has produced the 59th and 69th Miss Universe titleholders.

Jones was a candidate for the governorship of Baja California in the 2021 Mexican gubernatorial elections.

Education
Lupita Jones got her business administration degree before becoming Miss Universe and also did postgraduate studies in industrial administration at the Centro de Enseñanza Técnica y Superior at her native city of Mexicali, Baja California.

Señorita Mexico
In September 1990, Jones won the title of Señorita México representing the state of Baja California.

Miss Universe
On 17 May 1991, Jones competed against 72 contestants for the title of Miss Universe 1991 at Las Vegas, Nevada representing Mexico. She advanced to the semifinals of the event as first place.

Jones was the only contestant with an average score above 9. During the final stage, Jones won every single round of competition: swimsuit, interview and evening gown. She dominated the next two rounds of competition (the Top 6 judges' questions and the Top 3 final question), and won the crown, the prizes and the Miss Universe title for her country.

TV producer
After ending her reign in 1992, she started the company Promocertamen in 1994 with Televisa to produce Nuestra Belleza México, the Mexico's official pageant responsible to choose Mexico's delegates for Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International. This new pageant was created when Señorita México was moved to another TV network, TV Azteca.

In 1997, she attempted to launch the first male-only beauty contest, El Modelo México, but the show got little attention from the public.

In 2001, for the Nuestra Belleza México show, Lupita Jones launched the report her campaign which invited the public to report beautiful women in their state. Critics attacked the campaign on discrimination charges. She produced a winner at one of the 3 most well-known beauty pageants in the planet since 1960: Priscila Perales, Miss International 2007 and another one in 2009 with Anagabriela Espinoza, Miss International 2009. In 2010, a Mexican woman was crowned as Miss Universe 2010, Ximena Navarrete. Accordingly, Jones promised she would vacate the direction of Nuestra Belleza México once a new Mexican Miss Universe would be entitled, but did not follow through after Navarrete won the title.

From 2008 to 2014, Lupita Jones and longtime pageant director-rival Osmel Sousa were brought together to judge Nuestra Belleza Latina, a beauty pageant-related reality television series created by the US Hispanic network Univision, which searches for young women of Latin American descent across the United States.

In 2015, in response to negative comments on Mexicans by Donald Trump, part-owner of the Miss Universe organization, as head of Nuestra Belleza México, Jones endorsed withdrawal of the 2015 contestant from Mexico and urged a boycott of products associated with the 2015 pageant.

Humanitarian causes
In 1999, Lupita Jones decided that the contest would support an important program for ill-treated girls in the country through the Integral Family Development project.

In 2000, Jones accepted an appointment as UNFPA Goodwill Ambassador and Face to Face Campaign Spokesperson for Mexico.

Political career
In 2021, Jones ran as a candidate of the Va por México electoral alliance for governor of Baja California, coming in third place with 13% behind Jorge Hank Rhon of the Encuentro Solidario Party, with 28%, and the winner Marina del Pilar Ávila Olmeda, of the Juntos Hacemos Historia coalition, who won 45% of the votes. Regarding the results, Jones said that she was typecast as a beauty queen and that she was not allowed to prove that she could work in another area.

title: Lupita Jones


text:
Talk:Fred Barnes (performer)

source of the Fred Barnes info.
This reads like a magazine article - what's the source, and is it copyright? Andy Mabbett 10:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't worry. I wrote a short bio on Fred Barnes as a voluntary contribution to a local magazine, this is a version of it. There won't be a problem as i own any rights to this piece. --Air luigi 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett 14:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fred Barnes (performer)


text:
AUA

AUA may stand for:

Association
 * American Unitarian Association, a Unitarian religious denomination in the United States and Canada from 1828 to 1961
 * American Urological Association
 * Asian Universities Alliance
 * Association of University Administrators, a professional body for higher education administrators and managers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland
 * Australian Uranium Association

Union
 * American Union of Associationists, national organization of supporters of Fourierism in the United States from 1846 to 1851

University
 * Adventist University of Africa
 * Agricultural University of Athens
 * American University of Antigua College of Medicine
 * American University of Armenia
 * Atlantic University Alliance, Ireland

Others
 * The IATA airport code for Queen Beatrix International Airport in Oranjestad, Aruba
 * Austrian Airlines (ICAO code)
 * As-Salamu Alaykum, a traditional Islamic greeting.

Aua may refer to :
 * Aua, American Samoa, a village in American Samoa
 * Aua (Neuenstein), a village in Hesse, Germany
 * Aua Island, an island in Bismarck Archipelago part of Western Islands, Papua New Guinea
 * Aua, Reef Islands, one of the Reef Islands of the Solomon Islands province of Temotu
 * Aua (Inuit), an Inuit angakkuq (shaman)
 * Aua (New Zealand), the Maori (indigenous) name for King Billy Island

title: AUA


text:
Talk:Kazimir Malevich

Citizenship and nationality
He identified himself as a Ukrainian. We read it from his data, filled in by himself. And that's all. Why do we need the opinions of modern scientists about his nationality, especially after centuries of appropriation of Ukrainian culture by the Russians? Why can a Russian administrator deny the valid rules of Wikipedia? And if it is so important for him to talk about citizenship (not nationality!) he can write "Ukrainian artist who was of Ukrainian and Polish origin and was a citizen of the Russian Empire, Ukraine and the Soviet Union", but not "Russian artist". However, I do not know of any examples where citizenship indicates the identification of a person. Belcher.Jr (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 * In Wikipedia we are using secondary sources Marcelus (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, but we must define a person's nationality first of all in terms of self-identification. Does it come from the Wikipedia rules? Belcher.Jr (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat again: we are using secondary sources, first and foremost. Marcelus (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also duplicate it here so as not to get lost in a dispute with an engaged user. This is a Ukrainian source, but it is authoritative and widely discloses the topic, here about changes in the museums of the Netherlands and here. Here is ukrainian academic sources and here. It should be understood that these are not all sources. And what I was able to find on my own quickly. I ask you to also try to help establish justice, and at least point out that there are different points of view regarding nationality, but do not write "Russian artist". Belcher.Jr (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI I am Dutch. At this moment, Ukrainian trolls escalated the situation to the point that every user in good standing who sees their edits just reverts them on sight. Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your native language is Russian. Isn't it? Belcher.Jr (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so what? The mothertongue of half of your compatriots is Russian. Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your language shows your origin and therefore your bias towards the subject of discussion. Even in 2021, there were only 18% of them. Most of them are Russians. Belcher.Jr (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And I ask you to refrain from labeling me as a troll. Belcher.Jr (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you see this t/p? Every week or two someone demands the change of Malewicz's nationality to Ukrainian, it's always answered the same way: provide sources, show its not a fringe view. Do you really think that one more post about the same topic will change anything? I'm not calling you a troll, but I understand why some may think that such a behaviour is close to trolling. Marcelus (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Especially if all edits of the user are on this page. Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a Ukrainian source, but it is authoritative and widely discloses the topic, here about changes in the museums of the Netherlands and here. Here is ukrainian academic sources and here. Belcher.Jr (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sources pretty much say that Ukraine considers Malevich to be a Ukrainian artist (and insists he is spelled as Malevych). We know that. The Ukrainian Wikipedia understandably states this as well. You are also not the first person to make this argument. Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not directed at you. It’s answer for Marcellus. You have a political bias and a clear conflict of interest. therefore, discussing this topic with you is not interesting to me and is contradictory from the point of view of Wikipedia's rules. And you also offended me Belcher.Jr (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Ymblanter, and see no reason to exclude his voice from the dicussion Marcelus (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, do I understand correctly that you ignore my sources and arguments, and agree with his subjective statements and manipulations, and also do not see the bias and political involvement of this user, which can affect the outcome of the discussion? Belcher.Jr (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: Your sources pretty much say that Ukraine considers Malevich to be a Ukrainian artist (and insists he is spelled as Malevych). We know that. The Ukrainian Wikipedia understandably states this as well. You are also not the first person to make this argument. Marcelus (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, can we then put it on the page that he identified himself as a Ukrainian and was born in Ukraine, but he also had citizenship of the Russian Empire and lived during the Posi occupation, so he is also considered Russian. Isn't this a fair interpretation given the sources and history, and not the manipulations of the Russian PSYOP? Belcher.Jr (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no Russian manipulation; I think the article is good as it is. Marcelus (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I heard you. I am sorry that I and my sources could not convince you. Perhaps it will take time for the truth to prevail and everything to fall into place. Belcher.Jr (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * welcome to the club Bigshlomo (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The same can be said if you substitute "Ukraine" with "Russia" in your reply. So why do russian sources have priority over Ukrainian ones? UApatriot69 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw Kyiv Post 2023 is a pure propaganda outlet. All reasonable journalists left it in 2021.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there authoritative sources for such a claim? Are these your subjective politically engaged statements? Belcher.Jr (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of which went on to create the Kyiv Independent. I think you’ll be surprised to see their take on this issue. You yourself have confirmed that they are credible.
 * https://kyivindependent.com/how-russia-steals-and-rewrites-ukrainian-history-to-justify-its-claims-in-ukraine/ Bigshlomo (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have a citation for the infobox claim that between 1917 and 1922 he was a Ukrainian national? If I read the article, it does not seem to say that he has been in Ukraine during this period. Immight be wrong on this one though and I do not currently have access to good literature.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. He wasn't in Ukraine, so he had no way to get the UNR citizenship, even if it at least had a citizenship law. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024
Ukrainian artist 173.70.150.80 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Kyiv
@Ymblanter to avoid reverting, I wanted to clarify why we should use "Kyiv" in the lead: 1) it is the primary spelling of the linked article, a romanized Ukrainian version that has been officially adopted by the United States Board on Geographic Names 2) spelling of "Kiev" is, as I am sure you know, Soviet-era Russian and has become a reflection of Russia's imperialism and colonialism. Ppt91   talk   16:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The community consensus (see Talk:Kyiv) is to use Kyiv for everything after 1991, and Kiev for everything before, but definitely for everything pre-1918. Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter Can you please point me to the specific discussion where these historical distinctions have been explicitly established with community consensus? This only affirms using the preferred spelling of Kyiv for the city article. Thanks.  Ppt91    talk   17:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9 Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter I am afraid this does not resolve the issue. The discussion does not mention a specific rule of definitely for everything pre-1918 at all.
 * Rather, the consensus is to use Kiev for unambiguously historical topics, such as when referencing historical events like the 1920 "Kiev offensive", which makes sense and doing otherwise could be construed as anachronistic. Even in that article, however, the spelling of "Kiev" in the lead is followed by "(Kyiv)" in brackets.
 * Also worth noting is that the article about Malevich is a biography and we are linking a city (geographical location) where he was born, rather than an historical event, and some context for using "Kiev" needs to be provided. Two good examples are Mikhail Bulgakov (Kiev, Kiev Governorate of the Russian Empire) and Alexander Vertinsky (Kiev (now Kyiv, Ukraine)). I believe we should follow either of these two conventions for historical accuracy. Otherwise, it's just arbitrary spelling.  Ppt91    talk   19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Concerning your second point, the infobox says "Kiev <...>, now Kyiv, Ukraine". As far as I am concerned this is fully sufficient. Concerning the first point, I do not see your argument. If 1920 is unambiguously historical, everything pre-1920 is unambiguously historical as well. Malevich was born in Kiev, not in Kyiv, and the article reflects this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter I must have missed that this information was included in the infobox, my bad. I think that works perfectly fine. On a related note, the article certainly needs a lot of editing and citations seem to be all over the place. I've started rewriting some of the stuff I thought was most urgent and I'd be happy to collaborate on gradually improving the rest of the article over the next several months (being realistic with my IRL commitments, as I am on a self-imposed semi-wikibreak), if that is something you'd be interested in. Malevich's work might not at the core of my research, but is definitely a critical reference point and he's also somewhat of a personal passion project.  Ppt91    talk   20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, because the article was for many years under constant attack of driveby users who were only interested in stating that Malevich was Ukrainian and he had no relation to Russian whatsoever. This is why references had to be added. The article now is under indefinite protection, but if we remove these references and it gets unprotected sometime the same users would be quickly back. Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that was a big part of the problem, also because of how politically charged this issue is right now. I am sure we can keep a good deal of current citations and only replace those for which more appropriate WP:RS can be found. Either way, it'd be great to work on improving it, even if that process takes a while.  Ppt91    talk   20:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nationality
Kazimir actually is a Ukrainian artist. Kindly change the information here. 37.73.20.177 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * No, he was not. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes! He always identified himself as Ukrainian and calling him "russian" is just rude and it sounds uneducated. Diana.demelko (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Kazamir Malevich was an Ukrainian artist
He saw and identified himself as a Ukrainian.(He talked about it himself) He saw himself as Ukrainian and he was born in the territory of Ukraine now. Russia is changing historical facts and it is not ok just to take lies as it is. You will be learning false facts because of this and become more uneducated instead of educating yourself as you expect from Wiki. It would be better for everyone if it was changed. Diana.demelko (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 * No, it would only be better for Ukrainian propaganda. For everybody else this would be disinformation and cultural appropriation. Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is knowing truth is being disinformation?How can stating TRUE facts can play into propaganda? Kazimir stated he was Ukrainian not even Polish so why call him Russian if he had nothing to do with them by blood and mentality? I would recommend reading about propaganda and especially how Russia is using it. A person who knows what propaganda means and who has a little bit of basic knowledge would know that telling FACTS can not be bad not propaganda. It's like stating Shakespeare is a USA artist. Historical facts are not propaganda while lying about someone being of a different nationality helps propaganda (Russian propaganda in this case). Lying to make someone else's culture "better" that is propaganda. This website is for knowledge and facts. Diana.demelko (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Diana.demelko, I think we all know how propaganda works. I haven't looked at the article or its sourcing, but if you are going to argue this point you will need to present actual evidence. You can say he saw himself as Ukrainian, but Wikipedia needs sourcing. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that I read through it, and read a few of the sources, I think that the article represents the matter and the consensus pretty fairly. So the Met went back and forth on Aivazovsky and now has something like what our article has; the Stedelijk went a step further with “born in Ukraine to parents of Polish origin", but that's actually already in the lead. So, no, I see no reason to change what we have. What all this makes clear of course is that the 19th-c disease of nationalism still rages, but that's not something we're going to fix on this talk page. Ymblanter, let's go to Amsterdam, you and me, and we'll see just how much Malevich is in the Stedelijk. We'll rent bikes and eat fries too, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am in the Stedelijk on a regular basis, last time I have been there was last year. Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had no idea you lived in the motherland, or maybe I forgot. I appreciate your contribution to our intellectual GDP. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I am proud to be a Dutch citizen (and I do not hold any other nationality). Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kazimir Malevich


text:
Category:Celestial mechanics

Celestial mechanics is an application of physics, particularly Newtonian mechanics, to astronomical objects such as stars and planets.

title: Category:Celestial mechanics


text:
Black-throated gray warbler

The black-throated gray warbler or black-throated grey warbler (Setophaga nigrescens) is a passerine bird of the New World warbler family Parulidae. It is 13 cm long and has gray and white plumage with black markings. The male has the bold black throat of its name, and black stripes on its head, as well as black streaks on its flanks; the female is a paler version of the male, with a white throat and less distinct black markings on the flanks and wings. It breeds in western North America from British Columbia to New Mexico, and winters in Mexico and the southwestern United States. The habitats it prefers are coniferous and mixed forests and scrubland, especially those with pinyon pines, junipers, sagebrush, and oaks. Its nest is an open cup of plant fibers lined with feathers, built a few metres from the ground in the branches of a tree or shrub. Three to five eggs are laid, and young are fed by both parents. Common in its breeding range, it does not seem to be seriously threatened by human activities, unlike many migratory warblers.

Taxonomy
The black-throated gray warbler was first described by John Kirk Townsend from a specimen collected near today's Portland, Oregon. It was known to the Chinook inhabitants of the northwest coast, who called it Ah Kah a qual. Townsend described the species as Sylvia nigrescens, placing it with the other New World warblers and the unrelated Old World warblers in the genus Sylvia. It is now placed in the genus Setophaga along with about thirty other species, after having been classified in Dendroica for some time. Within its genus, it is part of a group with black throats and yellow face markings that includes the hermit warbler and Townsend's warbler. It is usually considered an early offshoot among this group of species, but genetic studies suggest a close relation to Grace's warbler.

Of these relatives, the range of the black-throated gray warbler overlaps with those of Townsend's warbler and the hermit warbler, but they occur in different habitats. While Townsend's and hermit warblers commonly hybridize with each other, records of either species hybridizing with the black-throated gray warbler are uncommon.

There are two subspecies, which are highly similar and of dubious validity. The nominate subspecies S. n. nigrescens occurs on the Pacific coastal region from British Columbia to northern California, while S. n. halseii, described by Giraud in 1841, occupies the inland parts of its range. S. n. halseii birds are slightly larger and more gray in their upperparts.

Description
The black-throated gray warbler has mostly black, gray, and white plumage, which is soft, lacking gloss. With its striping and the small yellow spot between its eye and bill, it is a distinctive bird. The sexes differ slightly, both having gray upperparts with black streaks, and white underparts with black streaks on the flanks. The adult male is striped with black on the crown, throat, and below the eye, and has white around its chin and above its eye. The adult female has more dingy plumage on its head, with a white throat and dark gray cheeks. The most similar birds to the black-throated gray warbler are the black-and-white and blackpoll warblers, which although marked in black have entirely different plumage patterns.

It is typically 13 cm long, weighing 8.4 g. Wing lengths are 5.6 –, tail lengths 4.7 –, bill lengths 8.4 –, and tarsus lengths 1.66 –, with females slightly smaller than males. Wingspan ranges from 7.5-7.8 in (19-19.7 cm).

This bird gives a sharp tup or thick call, like that of Townsend's warbler but flat and unmusical, as well as a high see flight call. The male's song is a series of buzzy notes, with the earlier notes doubled and the next to last note high. This song has three variations, including a quiet "soft song" given by the males while following females gathering material for a nest.

Distribution and habitat
The black-throated gray warbler breeds in western North America, its range extending from southwestern British Columbia along the Pacific coast to northern Baja California, and east to New Mexico and southern Montana. It winters mostly in Mexico, from southern Baja California to Oaxaca state. It has spread into parts of Wyoming and Montana only recently, as Juniperus osteosperma has expanded its range due to a warming climate. Vagrants have been recorded across eastern North America and in Cuba.

The black-throated gray warbler breeds in open coniferous and mixed forest with a brushy understory, in dry open oak forests, and in chaparral and other scrubland. It is particularly associated with pinyon pines, junipers, and oaks. It migrates to the south late in the fall, returning north in mid-spring. While migrating, it forages in any woodland or scrub it passes through. In its wintering grounds, it occurs in dry woodland and tall scrub. Though its status is not well known, it does not appear to be seriously threatened by habitat destruction or other human activities, unlike many migratory warblers. It is a fairly common bird, among the most common in some localities. Because it is common and not in rapid decline, it is assessed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.

Behavior
The black-throated gray warbler is usually approachable, and can easily be observed while foraging. Despite this, it is poorly known, especially in its breeding behavior, of which Birds of North America said "almost no information is available". It forages, often in flocks with other species. It feeds on insects gleaned on low branches, especially caterpillars.

The nest is usually placed on a horizontal tree branch or in a shrub, a few metres above the ground. The nest is an open cup constructed of grass stalks and other fibres, and lined with feathers and hair. The female lays three to five pinkish eggs with brown dots from May to July. Incubation and fledging periods are unknown. This species has been recorded giving a distraction display, pretending to be injured to distract predators from its nest. Both parents feed the young, though the female may do so more frequently.

title: Black-throated gray warbler


text:
Talk:Greater Boston

Untitled
Ideas for expansion:

Companies of Boston, 128, 495

Geographic features (rivers, hills...)

Recreation (parks, swimming, cycling, fishing...)

Communications (TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, antenna farm)

Research facilities (observatories, labs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2004 (UTC)

Population
If Greater Boston indeed has 5.8 million people, it should have more than two congressman - specifically, that's about 10 congressmen - presumably the 2 NH congressmen and 8 of the 10 MA ones. john k 05:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 5.8 million people? There's only 6.3m in the whole state. That's an extremely liberal definition of "Greater Boston" -- Springfield and Worcester, which are certainly outside the region, have 350,000 residents in the city cores alone. This should probably be corrected. 160.39.145.124 20:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 5.8 million includes areas of N.H., Maine and Rhode Island. Parts of those states are included in Greater Boston (a loosely defined region). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.64.147 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The US Census Bureau has more than one type of metropolitan area definition and one of them, Combined Statistical Area, is very inclusive. The Boston-Manchester-Worcester CSA does in fact have over 5.7 million people.  Greater Boston, however, doesn't necessarily correspond to this or any other census definition.  --DeanoNightRider 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What do you expect? This is Wikipedia and some editior(s) on here is clearly engaging in spreading Boston propaganda.  They even claimed that it was a business and cultural hub for CT!  Now I see this and it further confirms what I had already proven to these crooked editors, but they want the lies to continue because their feelings got hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.37.6 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Worcester is certainly outside the Greater Boston area? I question this assertion. Many people in the Worcester area work in Boston, and many people who live in Boston work in Worcester. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Pepkoka

 * According to data produced by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the population of the cities and towns within the area they oversee, generally the area within Route 495, is 5,414,140 as of the 2010 Census. You can find this data here.Dombett (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Eighth District
Eighth district includes at least Somerville which is certainly greater Boston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.251.201 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

Largest town
Framingham is most certainly not the "largest town in North America"; that honor probably goes to Hempstead (town), New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121a0012 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox data
For the infobox I used 4,424,649—the 2004 estimate for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy in List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population. —David618 23:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Boston-Worcester-Manchester CSA
In trying to update the CSA data for the Boston... CSA, I came upon two conflicting sources. This source suggests a 2000 population of 5,517,730. This source lists a 2000 population of 7,316,770, with a 2005 population of 7,427,336. This second source is much higher than I've ever heard for the Boston area. I cannot figure out the source for the discrepancies. The three principal cities are the same for both sources; the first source is in "MA-CT-NH" while the second is in "MA-RI-NH" (which would seem to suggest an even smaller area, not a larger area). With the exception of the figures for Boston, all of the other figures (e.g. Washington-Baltimore, San Franscisco, New York, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) seem reasonable and in agreement with other sources. I'm almost inclined to think this might be a mistake (but only for Boston) and am inclined to contact the U.S. C.B. if I don't any revealing information on their website. Anyone have any ideas??? Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The Boston CSA was redefined last May. It now includes the Providence MSA because the commuter interchange has exceeded the threshold value. --Polaron | Talk 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh and your first source is a NECTA which is slightly different (but probably a better representation of the true metro area). --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * To echo Polaron, the larger figures probably include Providence.Kmusser 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

boundary is wrong, population totals inconsistant
This article is confusing, claiming that Manchester (NH), Worcester, and Providence (RI) are all in Greater Boston, then citing a definition with population data that uses a significantly smaller area. United States metropolitan area lists "Boston–Cambridge–Quincy" as 11th largest, and that title's link points here, but the List of United States metropolitan areas shows a separate entry for "Providence–New Bedford–Fall River," ranked 35th largest at 1.6 million people, another separate entry for "Worcester," ranked 64th at 783 thousand, and yet another entry for "Manchester–Nashua," ranked 120th at 401 thousand. The sum of these numbers would make this article's definition of Greater Boston have a population of over 7.2 million.

I have lived and worked in Greater Boston for my whole life ... I've never heard of Manchester being included in Greater Boston, and Worcester is considered all-but in Greater Boston. The definition I've always lived by is that of I-495, with the real action happening inside MA-128. This seems to fit with the census data above, with the exception of "Rockingham County–Strafford County," which is outside I-495 (and I do not personally consider to be within Greater Boston). -- Adam Katz 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, and then the info-box only lists MA/NH being in the region, while the graphic shows Rhode Island completely included. Which is it?  CSZero 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think this stems from Manchester being included in the BosWash megalopolis and Boston being the dominant large city in the New England region. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The larger definition (The 7.x million people one) is a commuter-range definition. People from Manchester definitely commute into the more restrictive Boston Metro (The 4.x million people one).  People from Providence do as well.  I think extreme Southern New Hampshire (Nashua, Windham) are even more likely to do so and they do fall into the more narrow Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA, definition of Boston (as far as the US Gov't is concerned).  I guess my question is which is the article about. CSZero 19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Since I did the map - I was trying to show both, the red boundary is what I think most people think of as Greater Boston. The yellow area is the Census Bureau's definition of the Boston CSA, which includes the Boston, Nashua, Providence, and Worcester MSAs.  That distinction is on the image description, but maybe it should be included in the article somewhere as well.  Kmusser 19:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that's a good idea. Maybe the map could be slightly modified so that the red area exactly matches the MSA and the yellow the CSA, and the image description could be updated accordingly.  I'd do it myself but I don't know how to edit the image.  CSZero 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Already working on it :-) Kmusser 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CSA vs NECTA vs CNECTA
The Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas in whole county units, which is how the Boston-Worchester-Manchester CSA is made. But for New England, where towns function more like counties do elsewhere, the Census Bureau also defines metropolitan areas based on cities and towns (NECTA = "New England City and Town Area"), which is how the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA is made. Then there is a "combined" NECTA, the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-CT CNETA. So there are three different definitions of "metro Boston" provided by the Census Bureau. Since the CSA form is common for the whole USA, it is perhaps the obvious one to use for Boston, but as User:Kmusser pointed out, it probably makes more sense to use the NECTA or CNECTA. They were specifically created to better define New England metro areas after all.

Not being that familiar with Greater Boston, I'm not sure which definition should be used on this page, although perhaps the differences between the three ought to be described in the text somewhere. For the infobox, perhaps the NECTA (which reaches slightly into NH but not as far as Manchester) should be used, rather than the CNECTA (which incluedes Manchester and parts of CT). In any case, here are some links and population figures from the 2000 Census:

CSA: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH. Population (2000): 5,715,698

NECTA: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA. Population (2000): 4,540,941

CNECTA: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-CT Combined New England City and Town Area. Population (2000): 5,517,730

There are probably more recent population estimates somewhere on the Census website, but I'm not sure where. Also, one more twist, the "Metropolitan NECTA" is subdivided into "NECTA Divisions". There are 9 divisions for the "Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA". The largest by far is "Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division", population (2000) 2,773,832. The other 8 divisions all have populations below 300,000 and include places like Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, Framingham, Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, Lawrence-Methuen-Salem, Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, Lynn-Peabody-Salem, and Taunton-Norton-Raynham. I think these are all considered "Greater Boston".

More info on the various metro area definitions here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html Pfly 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. A full list of the towns and cities included in the NECTA definitions can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/msa_def.htm#71650 Pfly 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I would recommend against using the CSA definition. The Census Bureau no longer considers the CSA definition as being a metropolitan area; the MSA is essentially closer to a metropolitan area definition.  One more note on the CSA, though.  Betweem 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau changed their definition of the Boston CSA to now include the Providence-Fall River-Bedford, RI-MA MSA.  This is why the total for the CSA is now 7,427,336.  (Past years 2000-2004 are given for comparison using the new definition which was not in effect back then.)  So, if maybe there could be a minor mention of the CSA, but with reduced emphasis.

 * Next, I would also say that for the sake of consistency, the MSA definitions using counties would be of more benefit. On another article, we found that there was a slight overlap between the Hartford NECTA definition and the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA definition (which uses only a county definition and no definition based on town areas).  For this reason, I used the definition by counties so that parts of counties weren't being double-counted by the NYC... CSA and Hartford NECTA definition.  Since MSA definitions (using counties) are available in New England, I would probably use those for consistency.  I will try to get another opinion on this as well.  Ufwuct 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ufwuct. The MSA definition is the current standard used by the US Govt to define metropolitan areas nationwide and should be the main focus of the article. While it is true that the NECTA definition is more accurate because of its use of towns as building blocks, for statistical comparability with the rest of the country's metro areas, the MSA is probably better. We should definitely mention the CSA in the article as well but emphasizing that it is composed of multiple metropolitan areas of which Greater Boston is the central one. It would also be useful to highlight the slight differences between the NECTA and the MSA. --Polaron | Talk 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Worcester
It is listed under Cities of Grater Boston, but not shown on map. Worcester is not in greater Boston. Only Cities and towns inside the 495 beltway are considered to be part of greater boson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorazine (talk • contribs).

 * And your source is?

 * Atlant 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The wikipedia article. It states those 2 ways of dividing it up ways. Besides Worcester is the seat of its own county, and it has a population of over 170 thousand people. Dose that not make it its own metropolitan area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.93.139 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think Atlant was asking your source that inside the I-495 is the only definition of Greater Boston. That seems unlikely as the article already talks about varying definitions which are sourced.  The smaller definition may be more common, but it's not the only one.  Kmusser 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Kmusser, yes, thank you, that was what I was asking.

 * Atlant 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why Massachusetts would not be stronger if the Boston-Worcester corridor were not treated as a single unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * sorry did not mean to post without signing. am not anonymous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Quite a few people from Worcester sit comfortably on the Greater Boston page. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Principal Cities and Towns
Wanted to move this discussion here and look for more input:

 * Hello, could you point me to a place where I can find the data for the principal cities list in Greater Boston? I watch that article, and I notice that cities get added and reverted from there all the time. The list can't be based on cities that have more jobs than residents, because, for example, Lowell (so I read somewhere) has a daytime population of 60,000, even though it has 100,000+ residents. However, as the 4th largest city in the state, and the second largest in Greater Boston, I think it belongs on this list. Lawrence is probably even worse for that, and Lynn, which isn't on the list, isn't much smaller than deeply depressed Lawrence. I think an official, directly cited source would reduce the constant edit/revert situation. Thanks, CSZero 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want the list to be based on population, I think that is fine. That might even be closer to what most people think as major cities. My only concern is that people will start adding more and more to the list of towns. But I guess as long as we state the criteria, it should be ok.

Any objections/ideas? CSZero 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Alright, how's that look? CSZero 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Providence
The expansion of the Greater Boston CSA engulfed the remainder of Rhode Island without adding Providence to the name. A city of that size, much larger than Worcester or Manchester to boot, without a doubt needs to be included in the name. After all, without it, San Francisco and Philadelphia would still have larger CSA populations than Greater Boston. Heff01 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * To be fair, Providence and Worcester, proper, both have populations around 175,000. Manchester is smaller at around 110,000. CSZero 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * CSA names are given by the Census Bureau, I don't think it's up to us to rename them. Kmusser 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Providence metropolian area has a population of 1.6 million. Worcester's would probably be around a half million if you could extricate it from Boston.  Manchester's metro is 177,000.  Still, the US Census Bureau hasn't renamed it so we can't just make up a new name out of some sense of justice.--Loodog (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The source for the list of towns is here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/List8.txt but it is no longer a valid link... CSZero (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Objections explained
Here is this section I am questioning, and I will provide several reasons below:

This list has been provided by the Census based on commuter populations, and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region.

 * Boston
 * Cambridge
 * Framingham
 * Nashua
 * Newton
 * Peabody
 * Quincy
 * Waltham

Comments:

The entire introductory sentence as written violates the following guidelines:

WP:Citing sources The sentence is likely to be challenged because the list names some locations but not others without providing a source. If the source is dead, another needs to be found. The original source from 2006 is possibly somewhere within the archives at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html, but the latest figures for 2008 should be used if the same list exists there.

WP:Verifiability The sentence is not verifiable because of the lack of a source, and similarly the list itself is not verifiable because it isn't clear which data set is being used. Are these all from the CSA, MSA, the NECTA or some other list the census has published? The criteria for this list needs to be explicitly stated.

WP:Avoid weasel words The second part of the sentence, "and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region" is ambiguous in that the area is not defined and generally together with consider implies opinions which are not within the scope of census data and can not be proven with reliable sources. That part of the introductory sentence for the list is simply not allowed under multiple guidelines.

I have no problem with having this list included in the article as long as it is clear what the criteria for inclusion (population of city/town >50K? commuter population>some number?) and what the area is but a source that provides the exact list needs to be added; if towns or cities are left out or added by criteria established after the fact here on Wikipedia, that constitutes a violation of the policy against original research. However, the second half of the sentence needs to be left out entirely because it states an unprovable opinion. For now, I removed that part of the sentence and unless a source is found for the list and given in the text explaining what the "area" is, it should be removed as well. Sswonk (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Source for 2008 is here (NECTA) and here (MSA). The definition of a principal city is here (Part D, Section 5). The concept of principal city is indeed somewhat non-intuitive but basically is a place that attracts commuters from its surroundings. --Polaron | Talk 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * So, how about a reword like this: The Census Bureau defines the following as principal cities in the Boston NECTA using criteria developed for what the Office of Management and Budget calls a Core Based Statistical Area. Sswonk (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm happy with that if you want to put it. If you don't soon and I get no objections, I will. CSZero (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Please use proper citations and not bare links. 121a0012 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course; I used bare links as a form of shorthand here on the talk page for convenience, they will be cited properly. Since there are no objections, I will make the change to the page. Sswonk (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The Boston city population was revised by the US Census, July 2008 to 620,535 as corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.252.242 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Metro vs. Greater Boston
Currently the lead says "...Metro Boston is usually reserved to signify the "inner core" surrounding the City of Boston, while Greater Boston usually at least overlaps the North and South Shores, as well as MetroWest and the Merrimack Valley." There's a "citation needed" on the first phrase about Metro Boston. Some quick searching seems to show that the terms Metro and Greater Boston are very often used interchangeably, and with varying definitions/delineations. This MetroBoston website defines "Metro Boston" as a fairly large area, and on various pages uses the term "Greater Boston" for the same region. Its planning region includes "most of the communities inside the I-495 corridor". This website, Greater Boston Employment Collaborative uses the terms Metro and Greater interchangeably, and defines it as "within Route 128". Confusingly, the site also defines a "Metro West", beyond "Greater Boston". Anyway, my brief search for clarity on these terms only made me more confused. Either better, clearer sources should be found or our page should explain how neither term is particularly well defined. Pfly (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Population and statistical areas need updating
The descriptions of the various statistical areas need to be checked against the current definitions (as used in the 2010 census) and the populations should show the 2010 numbers and not 2005 estimates. I added update section to the CSA section without realizing that all three of the OMB/Census-based sections need the same kind of updates. 121a0012 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Greater Boston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829235936/http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html to http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522112709/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310130608/http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf to http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010004102/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Boston. 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/20141018182241/http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office to http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office

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) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Springfield and Northampton, MA are NOT part of the Boston CSA nor are they part of the "Boston area".
Following sentences were removed from the article:

 * In 1777, General Henry Knox founded the Springfield Armory, which during the Industrial Revolution catalyzed numerous important technological advances, including interchangeable parts. In 1786, Shays' Rebellion, a populist revolt led by disaffected Revolutionary War veterans, influenced the United States Constitutional Convention. In the 18th century, the Protestant First Great Awakening, which swept the Atlantic world, originated from the pulpit of Northampton preacher Jonathan Edwards. Mikeanthony1965 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they belong in different articles covering central Massachusetts, if anywhere. Reify-tech (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for "principal cities and towns"
By what criteria are the "principal cities and towns" determined? I assumed it would be proximity (i.e. following the light-blue towns highlighted on the map), however the bulleted list includes several municipalities that are quite a distance away, many of which wouldn't normally be considered part of Greater Boston (e.g. New Bedford, Barnstable, Provincetown, Edgartown, West Tisbury), while omitting many municipalities that are more often considered "Greater Boston", and many of which are even highlighted on the map (e.g. Rochester, Middleborough, Lakeville, Plympton, Carver). This seems like something that should be re-evaluated, especially since that particular section offers no references or sources and seems rather arbitrary. VSatire (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how it is determined. Different people have different opinions on what is included in Greater Boston, so no clear boundary is known. However, a good starting point would be the MAPC list. Livinlife133 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Boston


text:
World Anti-Doping Agency

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA; Agence mondiale antidopage, AMA) is a foundation initiated by the International Olympic Committee based in Canada to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against drugs in sports. The agency's key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti-Doping Code, whose provisions are enforced by the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport. The aims of the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention and the United States Anti-Doping Agency are also closely aligned with those of WADA.

WADA is responsible for the World Anti-Doping Code, adopted by more than 650 sports organisations, including international sports federations, national anti-doping organisations, the IOC, and the International Paralympic Committee.

History
The World Anti-Doping Agency is a foundation created through a collective initiative led by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It was set up on 10 November 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland, nearly a year after meetings that resulted in what was called the "Declaration of Lausanne", to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against drugs in sports. Since 2002, the organisation's headquarters have been located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The Lausanne office became the regional office for Europe. Other regional offices have been established in Africa, Asia/Oceania and Latin America. WADA is responsible for the World Anti-Doping Code, adopted by more than 650 sports organisations, including international sports federations, national anti-doping organisations, the IOC, and the International Paralympic Committee. , its president is Witold Banka.

Initially funded by the International Olympic Committee, WADA receives half of its budgetary requirements from them, with the other half coming from various national governments. Its governing bodies are also composed in equal parts by representatives from the sporting movement (including athletes) and governments of the world. The Agency's key activities include scientific research, education, development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the World Anti-Doping Code.

McLaren Report

In 2016, academic Richard McLaren, an independent investigator working on behalf of WADA, published a second part of his report (the first having been published in July 2016) showing that more than 1,000 Russian athletes in over 30 sports had been involved in or benefited from state-sponsored doping from 2011 to 2015. As a result of the report, many Russian athletes were barred from participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics. Despite widely accepted evidence, in 2018 WADA lifted its ban on Russian athletes. The reinstatement was strongly criticised by, among others, Russian whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov, and his lawyer, James Walden.

Organisation and governance
WADA is an international organisation. It delegates work in individual countries to Regional and National Anti-Doping Organisations (RADOs and NADOs) and mandates that these organisations are compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. WADA also accredits around 30 laboratories to perform the required scientific analysis for doping control.

The statutes of WADA and the World Anti-Doping Code mandate the Court of Arbitration for Sport's ultimate jurisdiction in deciding doping-related cases.

Foundation Board
The highest decision-making authority in WADA is the 38-member Foundation Board, which is comprised equally of IOC representatives and representatives of national governments. The Foundation Board appoints the agency's president. Most day-to-day management is delegated to the executive committee.

Executive Committee
The executive committee, comprising 16 members, is delegated the Foundation Board to manage the day-to-day operations of the WADA. They are also responsible for all decisions not reserved by WADA's Statutes to the Board. Representatives are appointed by the IOC and governments. Many are current or former athletes. Witold Bańka is president, and Yang Yang is vice-president of the committee.

Other committees
The Nominations Committee was created in September 2019 in order to ensure that the right people are recruited to serve in senior governance roles within the organisation. Independent Australian business executive Diane Smith-Gander was appointed as inaugural chair of the committee. Other independent members appointed are German human resources expert Regine Buettner and British business executive Simon Gillham. The sports movement nominee is Kelly Fairweather from South Africa, and Maja Makovec Brenčič of Slovenia is the public authority (government) nominee.

There also exist several sub-committees with narrower remits, including a Finance and Administration Committee and an Athlete Committee peopled by athletes.

World Anti-Doping Code
The World Anti-Doping Code is a document published by WADA that approximately 700 sports organisations across the world are signatories to. The code "harmonizes anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sport organisations and among public authorities" for the purpose of "protect[ing] the athletes' fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport". The code is supplemented by eight international standards published by WADA covering the topics of prohibited substances, testing and investigations, laboratories, Therapeutic Use Exemptions, protection of privacy and personal information, code compliance by signatories, education, and results management. The most recent version of the code took effect on 1 January 2021.

In 2004, the World Anti-Doping Code was implemented by sports organisations prior to the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. In November 2007, more than 600 sports organisations (international sports federations, national anti-doping organisations, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, and a number of professional leagues in various countries of the world) unanimously adopted a revised Code at the Third World Conference on Doping in Sport, to take effect on 1 January 2009.

In 2013, further amendments to the Code were approved, doubling the sanction for a first offence where intentional doping is established, but allowing for more lenient sanctions for inadvertent rule violations or for athletes co-operating with anti-doping agencies. The updated code came into effect on 1 January 2015.

On 16 November 2017, WADA's Foundation Board initiated the 2021 Code Review Process, which also involved simultaneous review of the International Standards. During this time, stakeholders had multiple opportunities to contribute and make recommendations on how to further strengthen the global anti-doping program. Following the review process, stakeholders were invited to intervene publicly on the proposed Code and Standards during the Agency's Fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport in Katowice, Poland – an opportunity which was taken up by over 70 stakeholder organisations – before the Code and the full suite of Standards were approved by the Foundation Board and executive committee respectively.

Whereabouts rule
The anti-doping code revised the whereabouts system in place since 2004, under which,, athletes are required to select one hour per day, seven days a week to be available for no-notice drugs tests.

This was unsuccessfully challenged at law in 2009 by Sporta, the Belgian sports union, arguing that the system violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and by FIFPro, the international umbrella group of football players' unions, basing its case on data protection and employment law.

A significant number of sports organisations, governments, athletes, and other individuals and organisations have expressed support for the "whereabouts" requirements. The International Association of Athletics Federations and UK Sport are two of the most vocal supporters of this rule. Both FIFA and UEFA have criticised the system, citing privacy concerns, as has the BCCI.

WADA has published a Q&A explaining the rationale for the change.

Statistical validity of tests
Professor Donald A. Berry has argued that the closed systems used by anti-doping agencies do not allow statistical validation of the tests. This argument was seconded by an accompanying editorial in the journal Nature (7 August 2008). The anti-doping community and scientists familiar with anti-doping work rejected these arguments. On 30 October 2008, Nature (Vol 455) published a letter to the editor from WADA countering Berry's article. There has been at least one case where the development of statistical decision limit used by WADA in HGH use testing was found invalid by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Chinese doping allegations
In 2018, the exterior case containing samples from an anti-doping test, but not the vials themselves, was smashed by the security guards of Chinese swimmer Sun Yang. In justification, the Doping Control Assistant (DCA) in charge of the testing mission was later criticised by Sun Yang, Chinese media, journalists, and scholars for not following the proper protocols. Sun argued the DCA in question lacked proper identification, a situation that he said had happened previously with the same assistant. FINA's Doping Panel issued Sun with a warning but imposed no penalty. WADA appealed the FINA decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Sunday Times reported on January 27, 2019 that FINA's Doping Panel issued Sun with a warning but imposed no penalty on Sun despite the heavy criticism levelled at the swimmer and his entourage by the International swimming federation's Doping Panel. As a result of that newspaper report, WADA investigated the matter and appealed the FINA decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Later, in July 2019, News Corp in Australia, part of the same media group as The Sunday Times in London, published in full the report FINA had kept secret.

A three-member CAS panel found Sun guilty of refusing to co-operate with sample testers and banned him from competitive swimming until February 2028. However, Sun's lawyers appealed the ruling, which was widely celebrated but also criticised in some quarters. On December 22, 2020, the Swiss Federal Tribunal set the CAS award aside due to the perceived bias of the president of the panel, who before the Sun Yang case came to light had tweeted comments in opposition to videos showing animal cruelty in China that included a racial slur. In addition, another arbitrator, Romano Subiotto, had been sitting on a WADA's working group, though this was no impediment to him serving on a CAS panel. After a second hearing, which unlike the first was not held in public, Sun's suspension was reduced to four years and three months, opening up the possibility of the swimmer being able to participate in the 2024 Olympics, even though it would turn out that his ban would not end until after China's Olympic swimming trials for the Paris Games.

On 20 April 2024, The New York Times revealed that 23 members of the Chinese swimming team tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug called Trimetazidine seven months prior to the start of the 2020 Summer Games and were allowed to participate in the games with some of the swimmers winning medals. Following the publication of the report, Travis Tygart, CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, accused the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) of covering up doping by Chinese swimmers.

WADA argued the amount detected was too low to enhance performance, and CHINADA, who had reported the results to WADA and FINA (now World Aquatics), blamed them on contamination from a hotel kitchen, a rationale that potentially exempts findings from being made public. WADA released a statement, explaining that "[it] was not possible for WADA scientists or investigators to conduct their enquiries on the ground in China given the extreme restrictions in place due to a COVID-related lockdown. WADA ultimately concluded that it was not in a position to disprove the possibility that contamination was the source of TMZ and it was compatible with the analytical data in the file." World Aquatics's investigation agreed with WADA.

After the story was leaked, WADA was criticised by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and athletes. WADA's choice of a Swiss attorney to lead an investigation into the matter also drew criticism because he was hand-picked by the agency. Experts interviewed by The New York Times said trace amounts of TMZ can be detected near the end of a doping excretion period but could not rule out contamination either.

In a second statement, Tygart accused both World Anti-Doping Agency and the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency for not being transparent about the findings and keeping "clean athletes in the dark". WADA was also accused of having a double-standard as Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva tested positive for TMZ and used the same excuse, but was subsequently banned for four years. WADA argued, based on non-published information and pharmacokinetics, that contamination would not have been possible in Valieva's case, but in the case of the Chinese swimmers, that no international competition was occurring around the time of the positive tests, only athletes who stayed at one of the hotels tested positive, and some individuals alternated between positive and negative results all point to contamination, not doping.

In May 2024, WADA announced that it hold an extraordinary meeting to discuss the doping case of the Chinese swimmers. WADA said it asked USADA to produce the whistleblowers alleging doping by the Chinese but has received no response, adding that American athletes had "some of the most elaborate and surprising contamination scenarios" in the past. USADA in response criticised WADA for attacking the messenger and its lack of transparency. The United States has threatened to stop funding WADA and called the FBI to look into the matter.

Eleven of the 23 swimmers involved in the controversy were named to the 2024 Chinese Olympic swimming team. In June 2024, US Olympic swimmers Michael Phelps and Allison Schmitt criticized the WADA in a Congressional hearing.

Database leaks
In August 2016, the World Anti-Doping Agency reported the receipt of phishing emails sent to users of its database claiming to be official WADA communications requesting their login details. After reviewing the two domains provided by WADA, it was found that the websites' registration and hosting information were consistent with the Russian hacking group Fancy Bear. According to WADA, some of the data the hackers released had been forged.

Due to evidence of widespread doping by Russian athletes, WADA recommended that Russian athletes be barred from participating in the 2016 Rio Olympics and Paralympics. Analysts said they believed the hack was in part an act of retaliation against whistleblowing Russian athlete Yuliya Stepanova, whose personal information was released in the breach. In August 2016, WADA revealed that their systems had been breached, explaining that hackers from Fancy Bear had used an IOC-created account to gain access to their Anti-doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) database. The hackers then used the website fancybear.net to leak what they said were the Olympic drug testing files of several American athletes who had received therapeutic use exemptions, including gymnast Simone Biles for methylphenidate, tennis players Venus Williams (for prednisone, prednisolone, triamcinolone, and formoterol), and Serena Williams (for oxycodone, hydromorphone, prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone), and basketball player Elena Delle Donne (for an amphetamine and hydrocortisone). The hackers focused on athletes who had been granted exemptions by WADA for various reasons. Subsequent leaks included athletes from many other countries.

Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention
The Anti-Doping Convention of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg was opened for signature on 16 December 1989 as the first multilateral legal standard in this field. It has been signed by 52 states including all 47 member states of the Council of Europe and non-member states Australia, Belarus, Canada, Morocco, and Tunisia. The convention is open for signature by other non-European states. It does not claim to create a universal model of anti-doping, but sets a certain number of common standards and regulations requiring parties to adopt legislative, financial, technical, educational and other measures. In this sense the Convention strives for the same general aims as WADA, without being directly linked to it.

The main objective of the convention is to promote the national and international harmonisation of the measures to be taken against doping. Furthermore, the Convention describes the mission of the monitoring group set up in order to monitor its implementation and periodically re-examine the list of prohibited substances and methods which can be found in an annex to the main text. An additional protocol to the Convention entered into force on 1 April 2004 with the aim of ensuring the mutual recognition of anti-doping controls and of reinforcing the implementation of the Convention using a binding control system.

UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport
Given that many governments cannot be legally bound by a non-governmental document such as the World Anti-Doping Code, they are implementing it by individually ratifying the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the first global international treaty against doping in sport, which was unanimously adopted by 191 governments at the UNESCO General Conference in October 2005 and came into force in February 2007. As of April 2020, 189 states had ratified the convention, setting a UNESCO record in terms of speed.

The UNESCO Convention is a practical and legally binding tool enabling governments to align domestic policy with the World Anti-Doping Code, thus harmonizing the rules governing anti-doping in sport. It formalizes governments' commitment to the fight against doping in sport, including by facilitating doping controls and supporting national testing programs; encouraging the establishment of "best practice" in the labelling, marketing, and distribution of products that might contain prohibited substances; withholding financial support from those who engage in or support doping; taking measures against manufacturing and trafficking; encouraging the establishment of codes of conduct for professions relating to sport and anti-doping; and funding education and research.

National Football League
It was revealed in May 2011 that the American National Football League (NFL), which had previously resisted more stringent drug testing, might allow WADA to conduct its drug tests instead of doing it in-house. This could lead the way to testing for HGH, which had previously been without testing in professional American football. However,, cooperation was stalemated because "blood-testing for human growth hormone in the NFL had been delayed by the NFL's players union, who had tried 'every possible way to avoid testing. As American football players do not participate in international sporting events, that issue is not a top priority for WADA.

title: World Anti-Doping Agency


text: Category:French painters

title: Category:French painters