text:
Giovanni Battista Re

Giovanni Battista Re (born 30 January 1934) is an Italian cardinal of the Catholic Church whose service has been primarily in the Roman Curia. He was elevated to the rank of cardinal in 2001. He was prefect of the Congregation for Bishops from 2000 to 2010. As the senior cardinal-bishop in attendance, he chaired the March 2013 papal conclave to elect Pope Benedict XVI's successor. Pope Francis approved his election as Dean of the College of Cardinals on 18 January 2020.

Early years
Born in Borno, Italy, the son of the carpenter Matteo Re (1908–2012), Giovanni Battista Re was ordained a priest by Archbishop Giacinto Tredici in Brescia on 3 March 1957. He holds a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, and taught in the Brescia seminary. To prepare for a diplomatic career he entered the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in 1961.

Curial service
Re has been a member of the Roman Curia since 1963, where he served as personal secretary to Archbishop Giovanni Benelli. He was elevated to monsignor and served in various diplomatic positions before being named both bishop of the titular see of Forum Novum and secretary of the Congregation for Bishops on 9 October 1987. Pope John Paul II administered the episcopal consecration one month later, on 7 November.

Sostituto
On 12 December 1989, he became sostituto ("substitute") for general affairs of the Vatican's Secretariat of State, one of the key positions under the Cardinal Secretary of State.

Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops
He was named on 16 September 2000 to head the Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. Re became Cardinal-Priest of Ss. XII Apostoli in the consistory held 21 February 2001, named first among those elevated. The next year, on 1 October, he was named Cardinal Bishop of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto. Re automatically lost his position as prefect on 2 April 2005 upon the death of John Paul II and was reconfirmed in office by Pope Benedict XVI on 21 April 2005. He held both positions until 30 June 2010.

Lincoln excommunications
In 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, notified Catholics in his diocese that they would incur automatic excommunication if they belonged to groups that espoused beliefs that contradicted Catholic teaching, specifying Call to Action Nebraska, Catholics for a Free Choice, the Freemasons, the Hemlock Society, Planned Parenthood, and others. Call to Action challenged his authority to make such a declaration, asking the Congregation for Bishops to provide an "authoritative judgment of the Holy See". As prefect of the congregation, Re upheld Bruskewitz's action in 2006.

Wielgus scandal
Re, who as prefect of the Congregation of Bishops assisted the pope in deciding the future careers of the clergy, said, "When Monsignor Wielgus was nominated, we did not know anything about his collaboration [with the secret services]. Wielgus resigned his position as Archbishop of Warsaw on 6 January 2007, just one day after being installed in that post in a private ceremony, just before the start of his public installation, because of revelations that he cooperated with the Polish communist secret police decades earlier".

Society of Saint Pius X
In January 2009, Re published a decree removing the excommunications from the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos stated that if anyone in the Vatican should have known about Richard Nelson Williamson's negationist views, it was Re, whose congregation oversaw information about bishops and prelates.

Brazilian abortion
In March 2009, after an abortion on a nine-year-old girl raped by her stepfather and pregnant with twins had been performed to save her life, Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife stated that automatic excommunication had been incurred by the girl's mother and the medical team. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticized what he called the archbishop's "conservative attitude" and health minister José Gomes Temporão directed his criticism against the Catholic Church's position, describing it as "extreme, radical and inadequate". In a comment to an Italian newspaper, Re deplored what he called an attack on the church in Brazil: "It is a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated. Life must always be protected. The attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified." He added that excommunication of those who performed the abortion was just. The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil declared the Archbishop's statement mistaken.

McCarrick Scandal
As prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Re played a central role in Benedict XVI's attempts to discipline former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Re's role in this matter came to light after Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's August 2018 "Testimony" made a number of specific statements regarding his involvement in the matter, which were clarified and expanded upon by subsequent reporting.

Viganò said that in 2000, Re, as newly appointed prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, opposed McCarrick's appointment as archbishop of Washington. This statement has been supported by reporting by the Catholic News Agency and by Andrea Tornielli and Gianni Valente's book Il Giorno del Giudizio.

Further, according to Tornielli and Valente, sometime after Bishop Paul Bootkoski of Metuchen, McCarrick's former see, reported to Nuncio Gabriel Montalvo Higuera on 5 December 2005, that his diocese had made at least one settlement with a former seminarian who accused McCarrick of sexual harassment, Re informed McCarrick in writing that negative reports about him had come to light. McCarrick was replaced as archbishop of Washington shortly after. In late 2006 or early 2007, after McCarrick had been replaced as archbishop and further reports of McCarrick's sexual assault of adults had reached Rome, Re sent McCarrick a letter via Nuncio Pietro Sambi in which he instructed him to leave the Redemptoris Mater seminary where he was living and to lead a life of retreat and prayer. These instructions were not obeyed. Following the April 2008 publication of Richard Sipe's "Statement for Pope Benedict XVI", Re sent McCarrick another written letter, which was presented to him at the nunciature by Nuncio Pietro Sambi, telling him to leave Redemptoris Mater and live in a monastery or become the chaplain of a home for the elderly run by nuns. In a letter of response, McCarrick refused Re's instructions and proposed instead that he live in a residence for priests in Washington, a parish in Washington, an apartment in Rome, or in a residence near an American Catholic university. He also argued that canceling all his pending invitations and public appearances would bring unwelcome attention. In a subsequently leaked communication to Fr. Anthony Figueiredo of 7 October 2008, McCarrick stated that "Cardinal Re has approved my moving to a parish and my Archbishop [ Donald Wuerl ] has been great in beginning to work that out". He also stated that he had agreed to make no public appearances either in the United States or abroad without Re's approval and to resign from all Roman and USCCB entities, and that Re had forbidden him to come to Rome. However, McCarrick continued to make many public appearances around the world and to travel to Rome in subsequent years, with no public objection from Re.

According to his August 2018 "Testimony", Viganò learned from a conversation with Re sometime between 16 July 2009 and 30 June 2010 that Benedict XVI had imposed disciplinary measures (which Viganò inaccurately referred to as "canonical sanctions") on McCarrick that required him to leave Redemptoris Mater seminary and forbade him to celebrate mass in public, take part in public meetings, give lectures, or travel. While Vigano's original statement gives the impression that he believed that Re was telling him about new events rather than actions that had been undertaken in 2007–2008, a subsequent October 2018 statement clarifies that the 2009-2010 time frame referred to the time when Re told him of these measures, not the time at which the measures were implemented.

Re has refused to speak about his involvement in the matter of McCarrick to journalists.

Other positions
Re was a member of various offices of the Curia. In May 2008, Pope Benedict named him a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. He was also a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in addition to the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. He held these memberships until his 80th birthday.

College of Cardinals
Re was one of the cardinal electors who participated in the 2005 papal conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI. He was identified by numerous commentators before and during the 2005 conclave as a potential successor to John Paul II.

When Pope Benedict XVI resigned on 28 February 2013, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the subdean, were over the age of 80 and therefore ineligible to participate in the conclave to elect his successor. Re, as the senior cardinal elector, presided over the conclave that elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis. At the new pope's inauguration on 19 March 2013, Re was one of the six cardinals who made a public profession of obedience to the new pope on behalf of the College of Cardinals.

On 10 June 2017, Pope Francis approved Re's election as subdean of the College of Cardinals by the cardinals of the suburbicarian sees. On 18 January 2020, Pope Francis approved his election to a five-year term as dean of the College of Cardinals by the nine Latin Church cardinal bishops.

As Dean of the College of Cardinals, Re along with Pope Francis presided over the state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI on 5 January 2023. It was the first funeral for a retired pope since Pope Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 and died two years later.

title: Giovanni Battista Re


text:
User:RedWolf/Image permissions

The page lists the results of permission requests/verifications I have sent via email to the image owner.

Image:ShishaPangma.jpg
From:	"Janne Corax"  To:	"Fixation Author"  Subject: Re: Shisha Pangma image Date:	Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:14:56 +0100 (CET)

hi!

after some consideration i decided to let you take the photo away from wikipedia. i like the site and the concept, but on the other hand, i'm earning my money from expeditions and usually i let people interested in my photos buy them. remove it from wikipedia, please.

...and yes...south america is wonderful. heading for some really remote mountains in a couple of days.

janne corax.

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

title: User:RedWolf/Image permissions


text:
Talk:List of autistic fictional characters

Untitled
Will this page last? cornince 1441 6 February 2005 CST
 * I think it is much more likely to last if the list only included people who were identified in the piece of work or by the author as being autistic. If someone was added to the list because it is the personal opinion of a Wikipedian that the person exhibited autistic traits, but was not identified as autistic in the piece of work or was not identified as autistic by any of the work's creators, then it would constitute POV and original research, which might get this page in trouble. Q0 14:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user adds, June 13 2005:

It will now I edited it into 'known' and 'suspected'.

I really think the external link to fictional characters needs to be removed. The page is calling Lisa Simpson and Alex Keaton spectrumy -- this is very pop-y, and very misleading, particularly if the author is not going to list the traits he/she sees represented in each individual.

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Votes for deletion/List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum. -- BD2412 talk 05:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad
I removed the following content from this list:
 * The character of Stevie, in Joseph Conrad's novel, The Secret Agent is a classic example of an autist from fiction, showing how autism existed in the popular imagination long before Kanner named it. Stevie, though literate, is unable to work, as his absence of 'theory of mind' makes hime easily led, he is disorientated by noise and crowds (sensory overload), interprets figurative language literally, becoming highly distressed. His chief occupation is drawing circles with a pair of compasses (repetitive, stereotyped behaviour). His brother-in-law, Verloc, the secret agent of the title, exploits Stevie's vulnerability by asking him to plant a bomb, which explodes prematurely in Greenwich Park and kills him.

Clearly, Joseph did not describe the character as autistic, and I can't find any indication that there has been academic speculation of his autism. I'd be happy to have it back if some references can be provided. Pburka 20:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Goren
Hi! I was very surpriced as Rober Goren from Law and Order, Criminal Intent, was missing from that list. I have worked years with both autistic and asperger-kids and my own 8 year old has mild asperger symptoms. One of the finest and real accurate picture of asperger that I have seen made in fictionally is Robert Goren.

≈≈≈≈ 12.8.2013≈≈≈≈K.Laine≈≈≈≈≈

Addition?
Nora Reid from the TV show The wilds. Played by Helena Howard. She's described as being in the "high-functioning end of the spectrum" in the pilot's script. 83.39.243.170 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized by the revised No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Johnson proposed a major reform of federal education policy in the aftermath of his landslide victory in the 1964 United States presidential election, and his proposal quickly led to the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The act provides federal funding to primary and secondary education, with funds authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement promotion. The act emphasizes equal access to education, aiming to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing federal funding to support schools with children from impoverished families.

Since 1965, ESEA has been modified and reauthorized by Congress several times. The Bilingual Education Act provides support for bilingual education and educational efforts for Native Americans and other groups. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination against students and teachers. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) introduced a testing regime designed to promote standards-based education. The Every Student Succeeds Act retained some of the testing requirements established by the NCLB, but shifted accountability provisions to the states.

Historical context
President Lyndon B. Johnson, whose own ticket out of poverty was a public education in Texas, fervently believed that education was a cure for ignorance and poverty. Education funding in the 1960s was especially tight due to the demographic challenges posed by the large Baby Boomer generation, but Congress had repeatedly rejected increased federal financing for public schools. Buoyed by his landslide victory in the 1964 election, Johnson sought to dramatically increase federal funding for education at the start of his second term.

On January 25, 1965, President Johnson called for congressional efforts to improve education opportunities for America's children. Wary of popular fears regarding increased federal involvement in local schools, the Johnson administration advocated giving local districts great leeway to use the new funds, which were to be first distributed as grants to each state. Shortly thereafter, Carl D. Perkins (D-KY), the chair of the General Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor introduced H.R. 2362. With the Johnson administration's support, and after significant wrangling over the structure of the bill's funding formula committee, the full committee voted 23–8 to report it on March 2, 1965. Following a failed attempt to derail the bill by Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA), the House passed H.R. 2362 on March 26, 1965, in a 263–153 roll-call vote.

As the Senate prepared to consider the education bill, S. 370, Democratic leaders urged their colleagues to pass it without amendment, in hopes of avoiding the bill being returned to the House to endure further reconsideration. S. 370 was assigned to the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, which subsequently reported the bill to the Senate floor with unanimous support. During the Senate debates, several amendments were introduced, though none passed. The Senate passed the bill in a 73–18 vote on April 7, 1965.

President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law two days later on April 9, 1965. For the first time, large amounts of federal money went to public schools. In practice ESEA meant helping all public school districts, with more money going to districts that had large proportions of students from poor families (which included all the big cities). Also for the first time, private schools (most of them Catholic schools in the inner cities) received services, such as library funding, comprising about 12 percent of the ESEA budget. Though federal funds were involved, they were administered by local officials, and by 1977 it was reported that less than half of the funds were applied toward the education of children under the poverty line. Presidential biographer Robert Dallek further reports that researchers cited by Hugh Davis Graham soon found that poverty had more to do with family background and neighborhood conditions than the quantity of education a child received. Early studies suggested initial improvements for poor children helped by ESEA reading and math programs, but later assessments indicated that benefits faded quickly and left pupils little better off than those not in the schemes.

Sections of the original 1965 Act

 * Title I – Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families
 * Title II – School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials
 * Title III – Supplementary Educational Centers and Services
 * Title IV – Educational Research And Training
 * Title V – Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education
 * Title VI – General Provisions

New Titles Created by Early Amendments to 1965 Law

 * 1966 amendments (Public Law 89-750)
 * Title VI – Aid to Handicapped Children (1965 title VI becomes Title VII).

 * 1967 amendments (Public Law 90-247)
 * Title VII – Bilingual Education Programs (1966 title VII becomes Title VIII).

Overview
Title I ("Title One"), which is a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, is a program created by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families, with the intention to create programs that will better children who have special needs that, without funding, could not be properly supported. Funding is distributed first to state educational agencies (SEAs) which then allocate funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) which in turn dispense funds to public schools in need. Title I also helps children from families that have migrated to the United States and youth from intervention programs who are neglected or at risk of abuse. The act allocates money for educational purposes for the next five fiscal years until it is reauthorized. In addition, Title I appropriates money to the education system for the prosecution of high retention rates of students and the improvement of schools; these appropriations are carried out for five fiscal years until reauthorization.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, to be an eligible Title I school, at least 40% of a school's students must be from low-income families who qualify under the United States Census's definition of low-income, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Title I mandates services both to eligible public school students and eligible private school students. This is outlined in section 1120 of Title I, Part A of the ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title I states that it gives priority to schools that are in obvious need of funds, low-achieving schools, and schools that demonstrate a commitment to improving their education standards and test scores.

There are two types of assistance that can be provided by Title I funds. The first is a “schoolwide program” in which schools can dispense resources in a flexible manner. The second is a “targeted assistance program” which allows schools to identify students who are failing or at risk of failing.

Assistance for school improvement includes government grants, allocations, and reallocations based on the school's willingness to commit to improving their standing in the educational system. Each educational institution requesting these grants must submit an application that describes how these funds will be used in restructuring their school for academic improvement.

Schools receiving Title I funding are regulated by federal legislation. Most recently, this legislation includes the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed in 2001. In the 2006–2007 school year, Title I provided assistance to over 17 million students who range from kindergarten through twelfth grade. The majority of the funds (60%) were given to students between kindergarten through fifth grade. The next highest group that received funding were students in sixth through eighth grade (21%). Finally, 16% of the funds went to students in high school with 3% provided to students in preschool.

Historical context
In its original conception, Title I under the ESEA, was designed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to close the skill gap in reading, writing and mathematics between children from low-income households who attend urban or rural school systems and children from the middle-class who attend suburban school systems. This federal law came about during President Johnson's “War on Poverty” agenda. Numerous studies have been conducted since the original authorization of the ESEA in 1965 that have shown that there is an inverse relationship between student achievement and school poverty. Specifically, student achievement has been found to decrease as school poverty increases. According to the United States Department of Education (USDOE), students from low-income households are “three times as likely to be low achievers if they attend high-poverty schools as compared to low-poverty schools.”  Within this context, Title I was conceived in order to compensate for the considerable educational deprivations associated with child poverty.

First 15 years
In the years following 1965, Title I has changed considerably. For the first 15 years, the program was reauthorized every three years with additional emphasis placed on how funds were to be allocated. In the course of these reauthorizations, strict federal rules and regulations have been created for the guarantee that funds would be allocated solely to students in need – specifically students eligible for services based on socioeconomic status and academic achievement.

Regulations also included added attention to uniformity in regards to how resources were distributed to Title I and non-Title I schools as well as the role of parents in the revisions of the program. In addition to more stringent rules, during these years, policy makers outlined punitive actions that could be taken for those who were out of compliance. Attention was also placed upon the assurance that Title I funds would not serve as replacements for local funds; but rather they would serve as subsidiary resources. These federal regulations, which were focused on financial resources, influenced local Title I programs in many ways. Pull-out programs were adopted by Title I schools in order to comply with the financial stipulations that were made in the initial reauthorizations. These programs separated eligible students from ineligible ones to ensure that those who were in-need would benefit from the program. By 1978, in response to the extensive criticism of pull-outs on the grounds that they were asynchronous with the instruction occurring in classrooms, another option for providing assistance to students was introduced, the school wide approach. Schools with a student body in which the make-up had 100% or more low-income students could use Title I funds for the entire school's improvement rather than for specific individuals. Despite this amendment, local fund requirements prevented all eligible students from using the school wide approach.

The 1980s
During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I. This reflected the administration's stance that resource control should be in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level. Despite the change outlined by the ECIA and the new designation of Title I as Chapter I, little was done to implement it and traditional Title I practices, like the use of pull-outs, continued.

As the financial regulations became incorporated into practice, the conversation shifted around Title I to student achievement. In 1988, the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act, re-focused Title I on cultivating school improvement and excellent programs. The additions that were made through this legislation called for synchrony between Chapter I and classroom instruction, it raised the achievement standard for low-income students by emphasizing advanced skills instead of basic ones and increased parental involvement. It also had two new provisions: program improvement and school wide projects. Program improvements were modifications that would occur when students who received funding were not improving. The school wide projects altered the requirement that local funds had to match school wide program funding by Title I, allowing a larger number of high need schools to implement school wide programming.

From the 1990s to the present
A 1993 National Assessment noted shortcomings of the 1980s alterations to Title I. These catalyzed the introduction of the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA.

This was the last major alteration prior to those made by No Child Left Behind. The IASA attempted to coordinate federal resources and policies with the pre-existing efforts at the state and local levels in order to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major changes to Title I.   It added math and reading/language arts standards to be used to assess student progress and provide accountability. It reduced the threshold for schools to implement school-wide programs from 75% poverty to 50% and gave schools a longer reign to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school wide level. Lastly, the IASA gave more local control overall so that federal officials and states could waive federal requirements that interfered with school improvements.

The most recent and significant alteration to the original Title I was made by its reauthorization under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In this reauthorization, NCLB required increased accountability from its schools both from the teachers and from the students. Yearly standardized tests were mandated in order to measure how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I. Schools were also responsible for publishing annual report cards that detailed their student achievement data and demographics. Schools were now held accountable not only by punitive measures that would be taken if schools fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but also corrective actions were taken if states did not have an assessment system approved by Title I. Under NCLB, Schools are also required to plan for “restructuring” if they fail to make AYP for three years after being identified for improvement. More schools took corrective action under NCLB than under IASA. NCLB also required teachers to be highly qualified if hired using Title I funding.

Modern applications of the Title I money have been diverse. Recent uses include wide-scale purchasing of iPads and other Internet using devices as electronic textbooks for students in 1:1 initiatives. Along with this, students from low-income families often do not have adequate Internet access from home. Thus, various public money, including Title I funds, are being investigated for possible use to provide cellular Internet access for students to receive remediation or other instructional content from home. The purpose of 24/7 internet access from home is to close the gap between higher income families where remediation resources are generally more available through parents and additional services and low-income students where such resources are scarce. Educational Technology advocates have long cited 24/7 Internet access as a boon to the education and advancement of at-risk children.

Funding
Under NCLB, Title I funding is given to schools where at least 35% of the children in the school attendance area come from low-income families or to schools where 35% of the student population is low-income. To determine the percentage of low-income families, school districts may select a poverty measure from among the following data sources: (1) the number of children ages 5–17 in poverty counted in the most recent census; (2) the number of children eligible for free and reduced price lunches under the National School Lunch Program; (3) the number of children in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; (4) the number of children eligible to receive Medicaid assistance; or (5) a composite of these data sources. The district must use the same measure to rank all its school attendance areas. The funds are appropriated for the use of improving academic achievement for students in low-income households.

Title I funding is received by more than 50% of all public schools. NCLB also requires that for funding to be received, all districts and schools must meet adequate yearly progress goals for their student populations and specific demographic subgroups. Non-Title I schools are schools that do not receive federal Title I funds. Although school districts have some freedom in how Title I funding is distributed among schools within a district, Title I requires them to prioritize the highest-poverty schools.

There are four distribution formulas under NCLB for Title I funding: Basic Grant, Concentration Grant, Targeted Assistance Grant, and the Education Finance Incentive Grant. The Federal Education Budget Project details the requirements for each formula extensively. All of the grants mentioned above are designed to close the gap in education resources in underserved and funded communities

Basic Grant
The Basic Grant formula provides funding to school districts based on the number of low income children they serve. To receive money through this grant, the school district must meet the requirement of having at least 10 poor children and 2% of its students in poverty.

Concentration Grant
The Concentration Grant formula is similar to the basic grant formula in the regard that funding is given to schools based on the number of low income children they serve. In order to receive money through this grant, school districts must meet the requirement of having at least 15% of children in poverty or a total of 6,500 poor children.

Targeted Assistance Grant
The Targeted Assistance Grant formula allocates more money for each child as the poverty rate in a district increases. This means that school districts with more poverty get more money for each poor child than districts with low poverty.

Education Finance Incentive Grant
The Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula is two-pronged approach. Its main intention is to reward schools that expend more state resources on public education and distribute funding in an equitable manner. It is also meant to concentrate funds in districts with high poverty that inequitably distribute state and local education funding. In states, funding is allocated to school districts in a way similar to the Targeted Assistance Grant formula but the weight of schools in districts with high poverty that inequitably distribute funding is doubled.

Since 2001, Federal Title I funding has increased by 88%. In dollars, this has been a $7.7 billion increase. These funds were distributed through the Targeted Assistance and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas, which target funds to disadvantaged students most directly.

Title II
Title II funds are used in two ways: to train, prepare and recruit high quality teachers and principals, and to enhance teacher quality through ongoing professional development.

Title III
Title III of ESEA originally provided matching grants for supplementary education centers (Political Education, Cross 2004).

Title III was the innovations component of ESEA. It was, for its time, the greatest federal investment in education innovation ever. Its best innovations, after validation, became part of the National Diffusion Network.

Title V
This section of the original ESEA provided for strengthening state departments of education (Political Education, Cross 2004). The original Title V was amended to state the purposes of education reform efforts between local and state educational systems. Title V states that the government should endorse and support local education reforms that parallel reforms occurring at the state level. Parts of this section also state that the government should support innovative programs that help to improve an educational system. This includes support programs for libraries, scientific research leading to state and local educational agencies to put promising reforms into place, as well as for programs to improve teacher performance.

Title V also provides government grants given to educational institutions appropriating money to gifted programs for students, foreign language developers, as well as physical education, the arts, and overall mental health care of children and students.

Title VI
This section of the original ESEA had a number of general provisions, such Section 601, which defined various terms used throughout the ESEA.

Section 604 of the original ESEA prohibited the federal government from using the ESEA as the basis for a national curriculum. It provided that nothing in the act shall be construed as giving the federal government control over the curriculum, program of administration, personnel, or administration of any educational institution or school system. A similar section is still in effect today.

Title VII
Added during the 1967 reauthorization of ESEA, Title VII introduced a program for bilingual education. It was championed by Texas Democrat Ralph Yarborough (Political Education, Cross 2004). It was originally created to aid Spanish-speaking students. However, in 1968 it transformed to the all-encompassing Bilingual Education Act (BEA). In its original form, the BEA was not explicit in mandating that all school districts provide bilingual education services—it left much room for interpretation by districts. The ruling in Lau v. Nichols provided some clarity—specific program goals were established, support centers for bilingual education were created, and what a “bilingual education program” should look like was defined. The courts upheld the language of the BEA as it declared a “bilingual education program” as one providing English instruction in unison with the native language. The idea was to push students to high academic achievement via a program encouraging them to learn English while maintaining the native language. "It proposed to cultivate in this child his ancestral pride, to reinforce (not destroy) the language he natively speaks, to cultivate his inherent strengths, to give him the sense of personal identification so essential to social maturation," summarizes Professor Cordasco of Montclair State College.

In addition to programs for bilingual students, Title VII implemented plans to help Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaskan natives be provided opportunities for achieving academic equality. In late 1967, Congress gave $7.5 million to school districts, scholars, and private research groups who proposed the best programs for improving bilingual education. This section of the ESEA promotes the federal government working closely with local educational institutions to ensure that Indian, Hawaiian, and Alaskan students are being aided in getting the same educational experiences as all other students. This is achieved through programs that keep cultural values intact and push students to strive for academic excellence.

It is worth noting that Title VII was replaced in a reauthorization of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, becoming Title III “Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students.” The most recent reauthorization of the ESEA was through the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which renamed Title III to “Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students.”

Effects on bilingual education
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education which allowed for the Bilingual Education campaign to expand bilingual education programs. In addition to Carter's efforts, President Clinton also showed his support through the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. The act dramatically increased funding for bilingual and immigrant education. In 1998, the Linguistic Society of America showed its support for the BEA arguing that bilingual education was a basic human right; it believed that children should be educated in order to maintain their native language and cultural identity while acquiring the English language.

In 2001 Texas authorized and encouraged school districts to adopt dual language immersion programs for elementary-aged students. It stipulated that instruction in each language should be split 50–50 in class. More recently The Civil Rights Project, a research center founded at Harvard University and located at UCLA since 2007 is calling on policymakers to develop a new vision for bilingual education. Gándara and Hopkins gather compelling evidence that shows English-only policies in the states that adopted these restrictions aren’t working The project proposes a new attitude that embraces bilingualism: “It is time that the U.S. join the rest of the developed world in viewing bilingualism as an asset, not a deficit,” argues Gary Orfield, co-director of the project.

The Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2019 extended funding for the Native American Languages Grant Program (established under the Native American Programs Act of 1974) through 2024.

The biggest obstacle to the BEA and expansion of bilingual education programs is the English-only Movement. There is no official language in the U.S., although some states have declared English as their official language. Three states in particular, California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, have declared English as their official language. In 1998, California passed Proposition 227 with the help of sponsor, Ron Unz, essentially ending bilingual education programs in exchange for an English immersion model which values assimilation over multiculturalism. In 2000, Arizona passed the English for Children initiative backed, again, by Ron Unz which mirrored California's Proposition 227 in replacing bilingual education programs with English immersion ones.

Many Americans question whether bilingual education programs or English immersion models are the best route to helping students acquire English. The question of whether public education should encourage the development of the native tongue or completely leave that up to the parent is a difficult one. Some point out that California's Proposition 227 is failing the students for simply failing to address both the linguistic and cultural struggles that students face; in 2004, the test results for California public school students showed the achievement gap for English learners widening and the test scores of English learners to be declining across grade levels. Scholar Stephen Krashen maintains that these three states who have taken the harshest anti-bilingual education policies have seen progress that is modest, at best. In a report to the United States Government, an Arizona study shows that English language learners can take up to 13 years to attain fluency—most school programs only offer 3 years of participation in English-immersion or bilingual programs, putting the effectiveness of these programs into question. In order to ease the worries and qualms that people had in the programs' effectiveness, the Obama Administration had proposed the implementation of an evaluation system states would be required to use in order to judge the progress seen in English language learners in schools. This would potentially restore faith in the bilingual programs and hold schools more accountable to student achievement and progress. The question remains if states are properly equipped across the board to meet such high expectations.

Landmark court cases

 * 1972: Aspira of New York, Inc v. New York Board of Education
 * Court ruled in favor of Puerto Rican and other Hispanic students whose language and cultural needs weren't being addressed. This triggered an increased development of bilingual programs in New York public schools.
 * 1973: Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1
 * Court ruled in favor of Keyes recognizing the right that Hispanic children had to go to desegregated schools and not be racially isolated. The ruling recognizes Latinos’ suffering from systemic educational inequities.
 * 1974: Lau v. Nichols
 * Court ruled in favor of Lau which guarantees students the right to a “meaningful education” regardless of language. This ruling ensures that districts will provide students with the same curriculum via initiatives such as bilingual programs and ESL classes. It also increased district accountability—schools with high numbers of English language learners must submit reports to the federal government to show they're providing adequate support for these students.
 * 1974: Serna v. Portales
 * Court ruled in favor of Serna that Portales Municipal Schools must provide a bilingual curriculum to accommodate the non-English speaking students. Texas also commits to employ bilingual personnel in schools.
 * 1978: Rios v. Reed
 * Court ruled in favor of Rios that the Pastchogue-Medford School District's bilingual program offered to students was essentially an English-only course. The ruling states that these students were denied an equal education since they weren't instructed in Spanish extensively in elementary school.
 * 1981: Castañeda v. Pickard
 * Court ruled in favor of Castañeda that the school was racially segregating the Hispanic children in classes and not providing adequate bilingual programs to help them overcome English-language barriers. The decision established a clear evaluation system to hold bilingual programs accountable for providing equal educational opportunities (programs based on educational theory, implemented effectively, and proven to be successful in overcoming language barriers).
 * 2009: Horne v. Flores
 * Court ruled in favor of Horne that the state should have the right to determine the requirements of its English Language Learner programs. This holds schools less accountable for producing fluent English-speakers.

Notable reauthorizations

 * Clinton's Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
 * Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2002
 * Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015
 * House Bill 610 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/610

title: Elementary and Secondary Education Act


text:
Handball at the 1980 Summer Olympics

Handball at the 1980 Summer Olympics was represented by 2 events - a men's and a women's team competitions. They were held in two venues: in the Sokolniki Sports Palace (central part of Moscow) and in the Dynamo Sports Palace at Khimki-Khovrino (north-eastern part of Moscow). The schedule began on July 20 and ended on July 30. 100,493 spectators watched 51 matches of handball events at venues, mentioned above.

Participating nations
Each qualified country was allowed to enter one team of 14 players and they all were eligible for participation. Four nations competed in both tournaments.

A total of 248(*) handball players (166 men and 82 women) from 14 nations (men from 12 nations - women from 6 nations) competed at the Moscow Games:

(*) NOTE: There are only players counted, which participated in one game at least.
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:0 women:14)
 * (men:13 women:0)
 * (men:0 women:13)
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:14)
 * (men:14 women:14)
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:14)
 * (men:13 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:0)
 * (men:14 women:14)

Medal table
Remark:country names are not given in the form they were used in the official documents of the IOC in 1980.

Literature

 * (Program magazine)

title: Handball at the 1980 Summer Olympics


text:
Talk:Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Untitled
in 2000 the olympic tournament already allocated points to the ATP Ranking

points awarded
How much points, at least winner and finalist, were awarded. 213.149.51.105 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics


text:
User:Astronautics~enwiki/Neo-nazi watchlist

This is an artificial watchlist for use with topics that might possibly be targeted by a neo-nazi/white (supremacist/nationalist) POV astroturfing campaign against Wikipedia. In order to use it, bookmark or click on related changes. Feel free to contribute to this page. It is incomplete.

 * 6000000 (number)
 * Adelaide Institute
 * Adolf Eichmann
 * Adolf Hitler
 * African American
 * Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging
 * Alan Berg
 * Alfred Rosenberg
 * Alt.revisionism
 * Alternative for Germany
 * American Free Press
 * American History X
 * American Israel Public Affairs Committee
 * American Nazi Party
 * Anne Frank
 * Anti-Defamation League
 * Anti-Semitism
 * Apartheid
 * Arnold Leese
 * Aryan
 * Aryan Brotherhood
 * Aryan Nations
 * Ante Pavelić
 * Aufseherin
 * Auschwitz
 * Auschwitz concentration camp
 * Harry Elmer Barnes
 * Battle of Cable Street
 * Belzec extermination camp
 * Benjamin Nathaniel Smith
 * Bill White (neo-Nazi)
 * Birkenau
 * Black Power
 * Black supremacy
 * Bombing of Dresden in World War II
 * Caucasoid
 * Caucasian race
 * Chelmno extermination camp
 * Christian Identity
 * Christianity and anti-Semitism
 * Combat 18
 * Concentration camp
 * Cosmotheism
 * Creativity Movement
 * Culture of Critique
 * David Duke
 * David Irving
 * David Lane (white nationalist)
 * Deborah Lipstadt
 * Der Stürmer
 * Dietrich Eckart
 * Don Andrews
 * Don Black (white nationalist)
 * Elie Wiesel
 * Enoch Powell
 * Enoch was right
 * Ethnocentrism
 * Ernst Zündel
 * Eugenics
 * Eustace Mullins
 * Extermination camp
 * Faurisson affair
 * Final solution
 * Flemish Block
 * Fourteen Words
 * France in modern times
 * Frank Collin
 * Fred A. Leuchter
 * Führerprinzip
 * Genetic Freedom
 * George Burdi
 * German-American Bund
 * Germanenorden
 * Germar Rudolf
 * Gerry Gable
 * Hal Turner
 * Hammerskins
 * Heinrich Himmler
 * Henry Ford
 * Heritage Front
 * Historical revisionism
 * History of anti-Semitism
 * History of gays during the Holocaust
 * David Hoggan
 * Holocaust
 * Holocaust (resources)
 * Holocaust denial
 * Holocaust denial examined
 * Horst Wessel
 * Host desecration
 * Human Branching
 * Human Genetic Branching
 * Houston Stewart Chamberlain
 * Ian Stuart Donaldson
 * Imperial Fascist League
 * Institute for Historical Review
 * International Third Position
 * Interracial couple
 * J. Philippe Rushton
 * Jasenovac concentration camp
 * Jean-Marie Le Pen
 * Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust
 * Jew
 * Jew Watch
 * Jewish ethnocentrism -- was deleted, should be a red link.
 * Joseph Goebbels
 * Josef Mengele
 * Judaism
 * Judeophobia
 * Julius Streicher
 * Ken McVay
 * Kevin B. MacDonald
 * Labor camp
 * Leo Frank
 * List of blood libels against Jews
 * List of German concentration camps
 * Lucy Davidowicz
 * Majdanek
 * Maly Trostenets extermination camp
 * Marc Lemire
 * Master race
 * Mein Kampf
 * Matt Koehl
 * Matthew Hale
 * Mel Mermelstein
 * Michèle Renouf
 * Miscegenation
 * Modern anti-Semitism
 * Mootstormfront
 * Moses
 * MultiCultural Aotearoa
 * Multiculturalism
 * National Alliance
 * National anarchism
 * National Democrats (UK)
 * National Socialist German Workers Party
 * National Socialist Party of America
 * National Vanguard (American organization)
 * Nationalist Party of Canada
 * Nazi concentration camp badges
 * Nazi concentration camps
 * Nazi Germany
 * Nazi mysticism
 * Nazi salute
 * Nazism
 * NDH
 * Neoconservatism (United States)
 * Neo-Nazism
 * New Zealand National Front
 * Nizkor Project
 * Ernst Nolte
 * Norman Finkelstein
 * NSM88
 * On the Jewish Question
 * Operation Reinhard
 * Pat Buchanan
 * Paul Fromm
 * Persecution of Jews
 * Primo Levi
 * Race
 * Race and intelligence
 * Race Traitor (disambiguation)
 * Race Traitor (term)
 * Race Traitor (publication)
 * Racial Holy War
 * Racial purity
 * Racial segregation
 * Racialism
 * Racism
 * RaHoWa (band)
 * Raul Hilberg
 * Redwatch
 * Reinhard Heydrich
 * Richard Lynn
 * Richard Girnt Butler
 * Robert Faurisson
 * Robert Jay Mathews
 * Schutzstaffel (SS)
 * Searchlight magazine
 * Siegfried Verbeke
 * Silent Holocaust
 * Simon Wiesenthal
 * Simon Wiesenthal Center
 * Skrewdriver
 * Sobibór extermination camp
 * Sonderkommando
 * Stormfront
 * Stormfront (website)
 * Sturmabteilung (SA)
 * South Africa
 * Swastika
 * T-4 Euthanasia Program
 * Timothy McVeigh
 * The Destruction of the European Jews
 * The Holocaust
 * The Holocaust Industry
 * The Lightning and the Sun
 * The Order (group)
 * The Posse Comitatus
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
 * The Turner Diaries
 * The War Against the Jews
 * Thomas W. Chittum
 * Thule Society
 * Treblinka extermination camp
 * Übermensch
 * United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
 * Untermensch
 * Ustaše
 * Vanguard News Network
 * Volksfront
 * Vonbluvens
 * Vril
 * Walid Shoebat
 * Wannsee conference
 * War children
 * Western Guard Party
 * White Aryan Resistance
 * White Australia policy
 * White Citizens' Council
 * White nationalism
 * White Patriot Party
 * White Power
 * White pride
 * White separatism
 * White supremacy
 * Whites
 * Wiedergutmachung
 * William Joyce
 * William Luther Pierce
 * Yellow badge
 * Zionism
 * Zionist Domination of Wikipedia
 * Zionist Occupied Government
 * Zionist Organization of America
 * Zionism and racism
 * Zyklon B


text:
2005 Six Nations Championship

The 2005 Six Nations Championship was the sixth Six Nations Championship played since the competition expanded in 2000 to include Italy. Including the Home Nations and Five Nations Championships, this was the 111th season of the tournament.

Wales won the Grand Slam, their first since 1978, and in doing so became the first team ever to win a Grand Slam playing more games away than at home.

Round 1
Notes:
 * This was Scotland's narrowest defeat at Stade de France in the Championship until 2017.
 * This was Yann Delaigue's first match in the Championship since 1995.

Notes:
 * This was Wales' first victory against England since 1999.
 * This was England's first defeat in the opening game in the Six Nations.
 * This was England's first defeat in the opening game in the Championship since 1998.
 * This was England's first defeat ever at Millennium Stadium.
 * Shane Williams scored his first try ever against England.

Round 2
Notes:
 * This was Italy's biggest defeat against Wales at Stadio Flaminio.

Notes:
 * This was England's first defeat against France at Twickenham Stadium since 1997.
 * This is England's narrowest defeat in the Championship.
 * Dimitri Yachvili scored 18 points beating Gérald Merceron's 14 points in 2001. This was the record against England until 2016.

Round 3
Notes:
 * This is the first time England lost the first three games in the Championship since 1987.

Round 4
Notes:
 * Mark Cueto scored the first hat-trick in the Six Nations since Jason Robinson against Italy in 2004.

Round 5
Notes:
 * This was Wales' first victory against Ireland since 2000.
 * This was Wales' first victory against Ireland at the Millennium Stadium.
 * This was Wales' first Grand Slam since 1978.
 * This was Wales' first Triple Crown since 1988.

title: 2005 Six Nations Championship


text:
Supremacy

Supremacy may refer to:

Law

 * Supremacy (European Union law), a European Union legal doctrine by which EU law has primacy of that of its member states
 * The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which establishes that the Constitution, Treaties and Federal statutes are the highest law in the U.S. legal system
 * Acts of Supremacy, 16th century laws in England concerning King Henry VIII and the church

Film

 * Supremacy (film), 2014, directed by Deon Taylor and written by Eric J. Adams
 * The Supremacy, a Mega-class Star Destroyer and personal flagship of Supreme Leader Snoke in Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi

Games

 * Supremacy: Your Will Be Done (called Overlord in USA), a computer game originally released in 1990 for Amiga and Atari ST, developed by Probe Software
 * The name given in the United Kingdom to the computer game Star Wars: Rebellion

Board

 * Supremacy (board game), a 1984 strategic board game

Music

 * "Supremacy" (song), the first track from the Muse album The 2nd Law, 2013

Albums

 * Supremacy (Hatebreed album), 2006
 * Supremacy (Elegy album), 1994

Other uses

 * Supremacy (horse), a racehorse
 * Supremacism, a philosophy that one is superior to others, or to dominate, control, or rule those who are not
 * Air supremacy, the aerial control of a battlefield by one side's air force
 * Petrine supremacy, in the Catholic church
 * Quantum supremacy, the question of whether a quantum computer can solve a problem that classical computers cannot

title: Supremacy


text:
John King Fairbank

John King Fairbank (May 24, 1907 – September 14, 1991) was an American historian of China and United States–China relations. He taught at Harvard University from 1936 until his retirement in 1977. He is credited with building the field of Sinology in the United States after World War II with his organizational ability, his mentorship of students, support of fellow scholars, and formulation of basic concepts to be tested.

The Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard is named after him. Among his most widely read books are The United States and China, first published in 1948 and revised editions in 1958, 1979, and 1983; East Asia: The Great Tradition (1960) and East Asia The Great Transformation (1965), co-authored with Edwin O. Reischauer; and his co-edited series, The Cambridge History of China.

Early life
Fairbank was born in Huron, South Dakota, in 1907. His father was Arthur Boyce Fairbank (1873–1936), a lawyer, and his mother was Lorena King Fairbank (1874–1979), who campaigned for women's suffrage. His paternal grandfather, John Barnard Fairbank, was "from the long 'J.B.' line, mainly of Congregational ministers, which stemmed from the Fairbank family that came to Massachusetts in 1633 [and] graduated... from Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1860." John K. Fairbank was educated at Sioux Falls High School, Phillips Exeter Academy, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Harvard College, and Oxford University (Balliol). As an undergraduate, he was advised by Charles Kingsley Webster, the distinguished British diplomatic historian who was then teaching at Harvard, to choose a relatively-undeveloped field of study. Webster suggested that since the Qing dynasty's archives were then being opened, China's foreign relations would be a prudent choice. Fairbank later admitted that he then knew nothing about China itself.

In 1929, when he graduated from Harvard summa cum laude, he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.

At Oxford, Fairbank began his study of the Chinese language and sought the counsel of H.B. Morse, retired from the Imperial Maritime Customs Service. On Webster's advice, he had read Morse's three-volume study of the Qing dynasty's foreign relations on the ship that was coming to England. Morse became his mentor. The ambitious young scholar decided to go to Beijing to do research in December 1931 and arrived in China in January 1932.

In Beijing, he studied at Tsinghua University under the direction of the prominent historian Tsiang Tingfu, who introduced him to the study of newly available diplomatic sources and the perspectives of Chinese scholarship, which balanced the British approaches he saw at Oxford.

Wilma Denio Cannon, a daughter of Walter Bradford Cannon and sister of Marian Cannon Schlesinger, came to China in 1932 to join Fairbank. They were married on June 29, 1932. Wilma had studied fine arts at Radcliffe College and had been an apprentice to the Mexican muralist Diego Rivera before she traveled to China. She began a career of her own in Chinese art history.

John and Wilma came to know a number of Chinese intellectuals. They became especially warm friends with Liang Sicheng, the son of the distinguished Chinese reformer Liang Qichao, and his wife, Lin Huiyin, whom they called Phyllis. The Lins introduced them to Jin Yuelin, a philosopher and originally a political scientist trained at Columbia University. Fairbank wrote later that he and Wilma began to sense through them that the Chinese problem was the "necessity to winnow the past and discriminate among things foreign, what to preserve and what to borrow...."

In 1936, Oxford awarded him a D.Phil. for his thesis, which he revised using further research and eventually published as Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842–1854 in 1953.

Early career
Fairbank returned to Harvard in 1936 to take up a position teaching Chinese history and was its first full-time specialist at Harvard. In 1941 he and Edwin O. Reischauer worked out a year-long introductory survey covering China and Japan, later adding Korea and Southeast Asia. The course was known as "Rice Paddies," and it became the basis for two influential texts: East Asia: The Great Tradition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960) and East Asia: The Modern Transformation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965).

Following the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941, Fairbank was enlisted for service in the Office of Strategic Services in Washington and the Office of War Information in Chongqing, the temporary capital of Nationalist China.

Development of field
When he returned to Harvard after the war, Fairbank inaugurated a master's degree program in area studies, one of several major universities in the United States to do so. That approach at Harvard was multi-disciplinary and aimed to train journalists, government officials, and others who did not want careers in academia. That broad approach, combined with Fairbank's experience in China during the war, shaped his United States and China (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, Foreign Policy Library, 1948). That survey went through new editions in 1958 and 1970, each synthesizing scholarship in the field for both students and the general public. In 1972, in preparation for Nixon's visit, the book was read by leaders on both sides.

Scholarship and influence
Fairbank taught at Harvard until he retired in 1977. He published a number of both academic and non-academic works on China, many of which would reach a wide audience outside academia. He also published an expanded revision of his doctoral dissertation as Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast in 1953. One of his students, Paul Cohen, noted that the approaches or stages in the development of China studies of the 1950s are sometimes referred to as "the Harvard 'school' of China studies."

Fairbank played a major role in developing Harvard as a leading American center for East Asian studies, including establishing the Center for East Asian Research, which was renamed the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies after his retirement. He was its director from 1955 to 1973.

Fairbank raised money to support fellowships for graduate students, trained influential China historians at Harvard, and placed them widely in universities and colleges in the US and overseas. He welcomed and funded researchers from all over the world to spend time in Cambridge and hosted a series of conferences, which brought scholars together and yielded publications, many of which Fairbank edited himself. He established the Harvard East Asian Series, which published monographs to enable students to publish dissertations, which was essential for achieving tenure. Fairbank and his colleagues at Harvard, Edwin O. Reischauer and Albert Craig, wrote a textbook on China and Japan, A History of East Asian Civilization. Fairbank established links to figures in government both by training journalists, government officials, and foundation executives and by giving his thoughts to the government on policy on China.

In 1966, Fairbank and the sinologist Denis C. Twitchett, then at Cambridge University, set in motion plans for The Cambridge History of China. Originally intended to cover the entire history of China in six volumes, the project grew until it reached a projected 15 volumes. Twitchett and Fairbank divided the history, with Fairbank editing volumes on modern (post-1800) China, and Twitchett and others took responsibility for the period from the Qin to the early Qing dynasties. Fairbank edited and wrote parts of Volumes 10 to 15, the last of which appeared in the year after his death. Martha Henderson Coolidge and Richard Smith completed and published Fairbank's biography of H. B. Morse.

Among his students were Albert Feuerwerker, Merle Goldman, Joseph Levenson, Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, Akira Iriye, Philip A. Kuhn, Kwang-ching Liu, Roderick MacFarquhar, Rhoads Murphey, David S. Nivison, Andrew Nathan, David Tod Roy, Benjamin I. Schwartz, Franz Schurmann, Teng Ssu-yu, James C. Thomson Jr., Theodore White, John E. Wills Jr., Alexander Woodside, Guy S. Alitto, Mary C. Wright.

Fairbank was an elected member of both the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.

Accusations of communist sympathies
In the late 1940s, Fairbank was among the so-called China Hands, who predicted the victory of Mao Zedong's Chinese Communist Party and advocated the establishment of relations with the new government. Although Fairbank argued that relations with the new China would be in the American national interest, the China Lobby and many other Americans accused the China Hands of selling out an ally, promoting the spread of communism, and being under Soviet influence. During an intensification of the Cold War in 1949, Fairbank was targeted for being "soft" on communism and was denied a visa to visit Japan. In 1952, he testified before the McCarran Committee, but his secure position at Harvard protected him. Ironically, many of Fairbank's Chinese friends and colleagues who returned to China after 1949, such as Fei Xiaotong, Ch'ien Tuan-sheng, and Chen Han-seng, would later be attacked for being "pro-American," as the Chinese Communist Party took on a stance that was increasingly anti-Western in the 1950s and the 1960s.

Critics in Taiwan charged that Fairbank was a communist tool. According to Chen Lifu, former Republic of China minister of education, Fairbank and his wife "spread rumors, attacked Chinese government officials, and provided false information to the United States government, which helped to produce incorrect policies that eventually benefited the communist forces".

Accusations of US imperialism
During the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, Fairbank, who had earlier been criticized as being pro-communist, came under fire from younger scholars and graduate students in the new Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, which he had helped form but then soon ended his participation.

The younger scholars charged that Fairbank and other leaders of the area studies movement had helped to justify American imperialism in Asia. By his grounding the study of Asia in modernization theory, Fairbank and other liberal scholars presented China as an irrational country, which needed American tutelage. Since Fairbank rejected revolution, he condoned imperialism. A further charge was that scholars of the Harvard School had put forth a "radical new version" of China's modern history that argued imperialism "was largely beneficial in China."

In December 1969, Howard Zinn and other members of the Radical Historians' Caucus attempted to persuade the American Historical Association to pass an anti-Vietnam War resolution. A later report said a "debacle unfolded as Harvard historian (and AHA president in 1968) John Fairbank literally wrestled the microphone from Zinn's hands", in what Fairbank called "our briefly-famous Struggle for the Mike."

Death
Fairbank finished the manuscript of his final book, China: A New History in the summer of 1991. On September 14, 1991, he delivered the manuscript to Harvard University Press, then returned home and suffered a fatal heart attack. He was survived by his wife, Wilma, and their two daughters, Laura Fairbank Haynes and Holly Fairbank Tuck.

Selected works
In a statistical overview derived from writings by and about John King Fairbank, OCLC/WorldCat encompasses roughly 600+ works in 1,500+ publications in 15 languages and 43,000+ library holdings.

 * -- The origin of the Chinese Maritime Customs Service, 1850-58. University of Oxford DPhil thesis, 1936.
 * -- The United States and China. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1st ed 1948; 4th, enl. ed. 1983. online 4th edition
 * -- Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842–1854. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953. online
 * -- "Patterns Behind the Tientsin Massacre." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 20, no. 3/4 (1957): 480–511.
 * -- Ch'ing Administration: Three Studies. (with Têng Ssu-yü) Harvard-Yenching Institute Studies, V. 19. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
 * -- China: The People's Middle Kingdom and the U.S.A (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967).
 * -- China Perceived; Images and Policies in Chinese-American Relations (New York: Knopf, 1974).
 * -- Chinese-American Interactions : A Historical Summary (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1975).
 * -- ''Chinabound: a fifty-year memoir. New York : Harper & Row, 1982. online
 * -- The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800–1985 (New York: Harper & Row, 1986). online
 * -- China Watch (Harvard University Press, 1987) online
 * -- China: A New History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. Enlarged Edition, with Merle Goldman, 1998; Second Enlarged Edition, 2006. Translated into Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Czech; OCLC 490612305 online

Collaborative works

 * John K. Fairbank, Kwang-Ching Liu, Modern China; a Bibliographical Guide to Chinese Works, 1898–1937 (Cambridge,: Harvard University Press, 1950).
 * Conrad Brandt, Benjamin Schwartz, John K. Fairbank, eds., A Documentary History of Chinese Communism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952). online
 * Ssu-yü Têng, John K. Fairbank Chaoying Fang and others. [Prepared in coöperation with the International Secretariat of the Institute of Pacific Relations] with E-tu Zen Sun, eds., China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839–1923 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954). online
 * John King Fairbank, Masataka Banno (坂野 正高 Banno Masataka), Japanese Studies of Modern China; a Bibliographical Guide to Historical and Social-Science Research on the 19th and 20th Centuries (Rutland, Vt.,: Published for the Harvard-Yenching Institute by C. E. Tuttle Co., 1955). online
 * Edwin O. Reischauer, John K. Fairbank Albert M. Craig, A History of East Asian Civilization (Boston,: Houghton Mifflin, 1960). revised as East Asia: Tradition and Transformation (1989) online
 * Noriko Kamachi, Ichiko Chuzo & John King Fairbank, Japanese Studies of Modern China since 1953: A Bibliographical Guide to Historical and Social Science Research on the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries : Supplementary Volume for 1953–1969 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University : distributed by Harvard University Press, 1975).
 * Denis Twitchett & John K. Fairbank (eds), The Cambridge History of China (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978-).
 * John King Fairbank, Martha Henderson Coolidge & Richard J. Smith, H. B. Morse, Customs Commissioner and Historian of China (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995).

Conference volumes

 * John King Fairbank, ed.,Chinese Thought and Institutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
 * John King Fairbank, The Chinese World Order; Traditional China's Foreign Relations (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968).
 * Frank Algerton Kierman, John King Fairbank, eds., Chinese Ways in Warfare (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974).
 * John King Fairbank, ed., The Missionary Enterprise in China and America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974). online
 * Suzanne Wilson Barnett John King Fairbank, ed., Christianity in China: Early Protestant Missionary Writings (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Published by the Committee on American-East Asian Relations of the Dept. of History in collaboration with the Council on East Asian Studies/Harvard University : Distributed by the Harvard University Press, 1985).
 * Ernest R. May, John King Fairbank, eds, America's China Trade in Historical Perspective: The Chinese and American Performance (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Committee on American-East Asian Relations of the Department of History in collaboration with Council on East Asian Studies distributed by Harvard University Press, 1986).

Edited letters and texts

 * John King Fairbank, Katherine Frost Bruner, et al., The I. G. In Peking Letters of Robert Hart, Chinese Maritime Customs, 1868-1907 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975).
 * Katherine Frost Bruner, John King Fairbank, et al., Entering China's Service: Robert Hart's Journals, 1854–1863 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Council on East Asian Studies Distributed by the Harvard University Press, 1986).
 * Richard J. Smith, John King Fairbank, et al., Robert Hart and China's Early Modernization: His Journals, 1863–1866 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Published by the Council on East Asian Studies Distributed by the Harvard University Press, 1991).

title: John King Fairbank


text:
Talk:Parsnip

weasel words etc
Don't you think someone has gone a little overboard here with the citation neededs, vagues, weasel words, etc.?

In Roman times parsnips were believed[weasel words] to be an aphrodisiac. how is were believed a weasel word? Doesn't In Roman times imply pretty directly that Romans in general believed this?

Seeds can be[vague] planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked. How exactly can this be clarified? Harvesting can[vague] begin in late fall after the first frost, Same here. How would you recommend this be clarified?

''Ironically,[weasel words] it is among the closest relatives of actual parsley,[citation needed] which actually[weasel words] can be bred to develop a very parsnip-like root.[citation needed]

I removed the ironically, Irony is the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, as such there's nothing ironic about the Parsnip being related to parsley, it's actually utterly appropriate- bbuddha

If Ironically and actually are weasel words, would it not be more productive to simply remove them than just attach warnings? Would it not be a better use of one's time to correct the errors in an article rather than fill it with warnings that make it unreadable? LeeWilson (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and I've removed all the tags. I left the "references need improvement" and "article tone needs fixing" templates at the top in case anybody is interested in working on it. –  j ak s mata  16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 "Parsnips can also be fried, or can be eaten raw, although raw parsnips are not frequently consumed." (??!) Isn't that a contradictory statement? Are they or aren't they eaten raw? Yes but no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.163.180 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that means "you can eat them raw, but that's not very popular". In my experience, it's more edible raw than potatoes, but certainly less edible than raw carrots. JöG (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. The sentence is a bit confusing, if not actually self-contradictory. I will make an effort at clarifying it. GodaiNoBaka (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Article suggestions
I have a suggestion. Is it possible for someone to photograph a Parsnip themselves, one actually growing in the ground and then one just being uprooted with all the attatchments etc ?

George Archer 11.04.08

Nutritional value
What does The parsnip has greater nutritional value than any vegetable except the potato mean? Calories? Surely peas & beans have more protein. Please make this more clear. --JBellis 20:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have left this in after a revision, but feel that it needs at least a reference to the source of this info.Dave 19:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rip-off?
I was looking for informations about parsnip and I found this page:. The two first paragraphs of the webpage are almost word-to-word copy of the wiki page... Is there a way to be sure there is no copyright infringement? Or maybe it's the other way around... --Lukeluke 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That site has copied/pasted from the wikipedia article. I remember putting the bit about potatoes replacing parsnips in cooking in myself This is OK. Dave 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Carrots That Old?
I thought carrots were created by American Scientists byt cross breeding two other different kind of roots vegetables. How can carrots be confused with parsnips when in Roman times they didn't even exist??24.83.178.11 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Ok, I looked up the Wikipedia article on carrots. Anyone reading this please ignore what I typed above!!24.83.178.11 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Erotic Parsnip photography
I think the title says it all. Interesting choice of photo. Halogenated 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do this kind of curiosity belongs to this article? Though I had a good chuckle -- if no one manifests against it -- I'll be removing the image in 7 days. SaintCahier (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to remove it as soon as it was added on the basis of being non-encyclopedic, but being unsure, I decided to leave it. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that's justification for putting obviously sexual material in articles that have nothing to do with sex.  The picture is amusing in a sense, and it may belong somewhere in Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here. –   j ak s mata  15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not get into a reversal-battle. People who think the image is relevant, please, be kind to expose their point of view here, otherwise it will seem like vandalism. SaintCahier (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image. Please do not reverse without further discussing the matter here, otherwise I'll report it as vandalism. Thank you. SaintCahier (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hybridisations
Has anyone come across any hybridisation of parsnips?

 * I can't think of any hybrids in the whole Apiaceae. Why do you ask? JöG (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you know if they have come up with any red parsnips yet?  I understand there are now red and blue carrots (take your pick), so why can't there be red parsnips?   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing parsnip and hemlock
"Poison hemlock contains volatile alkaloids that have been used as poisons since ancient times. The best way to differentiate it from parsnip are purple streaks and blotches on a smooth hairless stem."

This is a bit vague as to whether it is hemlock or parsnip that has this characteristic. Considering one is edible and the other is incredibly poisonous, it might be a good idea to make this entirely unambiguous Treeturtle81 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Purple streaks" are Conium. Actually, that whole parsnip/hemlock thing does not make sense, and I added another [citation needed]. I have a lot of experience with both in the wild, and they look nothing alike. This is also easy to confirm by looking at the pictures here. Hard to say what the author was trying to get at. Maybe there is some other poisonous Apiaceae in his/her region which does look like parsnip. Cicuta virosa comes to mind. JöG (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous "reference needed" Tag?
Undid revision 299247964 by 99.177.158.162 (talk) Removed "reference needed" tag

Undid addition of a "reference needed" tag about a statement inside quotation marks with a footnote. The reference was indeed there. Specifically, the tag had been added to a parenthetical assertion that in ancient times carrots were purple or white. This parenthetical assertion was a part of a quoted passage about the difficulty of distinguishing carrots from parsnips in classical writings; the passage was attributed to Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf. Jay L09 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no discussion of phototoxicity?
The branches/flowers of poison parsnip (another name for regular parsnip, I think) is pretty phototoxic. If you brush against it, it can get sap on your skin that reacts with sunlight to give you serious burns. This is how I learned about parsnip, and I'm surprised that there's nothing about it in the Wikipedia article. Like poison ivy, it's something people are supposed to watch out for at edges of clearings and stuff, especially the more it spreads. Why no mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.245.114 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Poison parsnip" is Cicuta, which has its own article. There is a bit about this plant giving skin burns, although it doesn't mention phototoxicity specifically. Feel free to expand on it if you'd like. –  j ak s mata  14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweeter???
The article claims "Parsnips resemble carrots, but are paler than most carrots and have a sweeter flavor."

Um... no. No they don't. Have you ever ate a parsnip? As far as I can say, it's like a carrot but without the flavor. It's certainly not sweeter. I'd call this claim spurious at best, and just plain wrong at worst.Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'd call this claim spurious at best, and just plain wrong at worst."

I could say the same about your claim. To me, and many of my relatives, parsnips are "sweet". Perhaps it has something to do with when and where it was cultivated. Are they sweeter than carrots? I suppose that depends on the person.

Instead of inflicting your opinion of taste (which I find is highly subject to the individual) on others, maybe you could state that you personally disagree with the author on this point and suggest a re-wording of his/her statement to it make more general....such as "some people find that the parsnip has a mild sweet taste, not unlike the carrot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.229.116 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 * There are, however, objective ways of extracting sugar.  You would need access to a laboratory, but I am sure it can be done.   And once you determine how many milligrams of sugar can be extracted from ten kilograms of pulped parsnips, you can have a pretty good idea how sweet the plant's root is.   If the sugar is dissolved in water you can use a spectrometer to get an even better idea how sweet it is.   The next question, here, is whether there is a practical way of distinguishing the sugar of the common parsnip from any of the other carbohydrates that can be extracted from it.   The main page of this article could be improved by discussing the nutrients (and sugars) of the common parsnip.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not richer in vitamins and minerals than carrots...
Carrots (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2384/2) have higher micronutrient levels than parsnips (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2515/2)... if nutritiondata.self.com is to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.226.70 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

history

--Stone (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Non good article review -- all are welcome
"Description" -- an apical meristem is not a "single central growing point," as meristms are areas of undifferentiated tissue, not points. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)) I've removed "single central growing point" and just left the link. Do you see any more problems with this section? Sasata (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the smooth root versus lateral roots sentence. The whole apical meristem sentence implies there is only one, yet parsnip is an umbel, plants with unique shoot apical meristems to produce their distinctive inflorescences. The technical description of the wild parsnip seems excessive, but also I worry it might be a copy vio. These parts could be written for understanding. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I wrote this part and was careful to reword carefully from the source, but would welcome any tweaks/deletions/additions that might help make it more accessible to the general reader. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take your word on this. Is there a separate article on wild parsnip? The description is more detailed than that for the cultivated plant. It would be better to descibe the cultivar then differentiate to reduce detail.
 * I see, it just appeared to be about wild parsnip. Good. I like less detail, but I think that is my personal taste on plant articles, so it is fine now.

What about its odor? The article seems to distinguish only the wild as having an odor, but that is not correct. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * This implication should be gone now (moved the preceding sentence about wild parsnip). Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect.

Cultivation --This entire section is written as if to help the reader grow parsnips. The section needs rewritten --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Agree, and will work on this. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.

Work on technical description
Parsnip is a biennial with a rosette of roughly hairy leaves that has a pungent odor when crushed.
 * Mention that a biennial grows only vegetative parts the first year; root vegetables are often planted as annuals because there is no need to allow the plant to put any energy into flowering.

The petioles are grooved and have sheathed bases. The leaves are once- or twice-pinnate with broad, ovate, sometimes lobed leaflets with toothed margins; they grow up to 40 cm (16 in) long.
 * Generally describe the leaf first (the plant form, rosette of leaves, leaf form, then details), because it is hard for the reader to jump back and forth. Botanists can tell plant description online that were written by amateurs and for Wikipedia (not a bad thing), because of this disorder that makes the descriptions hard to read. Biggest to smallest, then parts and details.

The flower stalk develops in the second year, growing to a height of 40 to 200 cm (20 to 80 in).
 * Mention again that the cultivated plant is/is not usually allowed to flower (I suspect not, just some longer growth).

It is hairy, grooved, hollow (except at the nodes), and sparsely branched.
 * Wikilink nodes.

It has a few stalkless, single-lobed leaves measuring 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long that are arranged in opposite pairs.
 * A little confusing, stalkless leaves on the stalk?

The yellow flowers are in a loose, compound umbel measuring 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) in diameter. There are 6–25 straight pedicels, each measuring 2–5 cm (1–2 in) that support the umbellets (secondary umbels). The umbels and umbellets usually have no upper or lower bracts. The flowers have tiny sepals or lack them entirely, and measure about 3.5 mm. They consist of five yellow petals that are curled inward, five stamens, and one pistil.
 * I would describe the umbel, The "yellow flowers grow loosely on a compound umbel," then move onto secondary umbels and the flowers. This is a little confusing.

The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4–8 mm long.[3]
 * I would probably say, "The fruits are oval and flat schizocarps with narrow wings and short, spreading styles.

Excellent choice of a source for a plant description section, by the way. The weed articles tend to be easier for the general reader to get for further information and easier for all readers and editors to understand. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Cultivation section
I regularly write plant articles, and find it difficult to understand precisely how to follow WP:NOTHOW while satisfying the requirements of readers. To a large extent it seems a matter of "tone", which is a somewhat subjective judgement. So please take these comments as discussion points.

Some issues I see in the current version are:

 * "a favorite with gardeners in areas with short growing seasons" – "favorite" strikes me as not quite the right phrasing for an encyclopedia. Does it mean that parsnips are more often grown in areas with short growing seasons? Or that they are particularly suited to areas with short growing seasons? These would be factual statements, verifiable by sources. "Favorite" feels subjective.

 * "Sandy, loamy soil is preferred; silty, clayey, and stony soils are unsuitable, as they produce short, forked roots." The words "preferred" and "unsuitable" again don't feel quite right to me. The facts are that parsnips produce longer roots in sandy, loamy soil and shorter forked roots in silty, clayey or stony soils. Which is good or bad isn't for Wikipedia to say; we merely report the facts.

 * "Parsnip seed significantly deteriorates in viability if stored for long, so using fresh seed each year will help ensure optimal yields." The first half of the sentence reports a fact. The second gives advice; NOTHOW is against giving advice.

 * "Seeds can be planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked to a fine tilth. Seed is sown 2 cm (0.8 in) deep in rows 30 cm (12 in) apart in the position where the plants are to grow. They are thinned to a distance of 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) depending on whether they are small or large cultivars. Alternatively, they can be station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals. A fast-growing crop such as radishes can be intersown between the stations and the parsnips can be thinned down to a single seedling at each after the radishes have been harvested." This is surely advice or could even be construed as a recipe. The part about radishes is especially inappropriate. The use of "can" throughout shows that this is not a description of parsnips or how they are grown either commercially or by home gardeners, but advice and instruction.

 * "... low soil temperatures enhance their flavor, as some of the carbohydrates stored in the roots get converted into sugars." The second part is a fact; the first is not. Personally I dislike parsnips, partly because I find them too sweet (along with sweet potatoes and pumpkins). So I would regard low soil temperatures as reducing their acceptability. All we should say in Wikipedia is something like "low soil temperatures cause some of the starches stored in the roots to be converted to sugars [sugars are carbohydrates], which causes them to taste sweeter."

Here's a possible rewrite. A purist would probably omit the part in green but it's ok by me.

The wild parsnip from which the modern cultivated varieties were derived is a plant of dry rough grassland and waste places, particularly on chalk and limestone. Parsnips are biennials, normally grown as annuals. They produce acceptable crops in areas with short growing seasons.[?] Silty, clayey, and stony soils produce short, forked roots compared to sandy, loamy soils. Parsnip seed significantly deteriorates in viability if stored for long. Seeds are usually planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked to a fine tilth. Seed is sown 2 cm deep in rows 30 cm apart in the position where the plants are to grow. They are thinned to a distance of 7 to 10 cm depending on whether they are small or large cultivars. Alternatively, they are station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals. Harvesting begins in late fall after the first frost, and continues through winter. To enable the crop to be lifted during frosty weather, it is recommended that the rows are protected, for example with straw. Low soil temperatures cause some of the starches stored in the roots to be converted into sugars, giving them a sweeter taste.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 * This would obviously be a thoughtful, more encyclopedic improvement considering WP:NOTHOW. Your green text might also be introduced with an "according to … seed is [normally? regularly? usually?] sown…", and one or more appropriate in-line citations, but it is tricky. Hamamelis (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I've used "According to" or "[Source] advises" intros in the past, but have wondered if they perhaps amount to gaming NOTHOW. I've taken Telopea speciosissima as a model of ideal style, though I can't claim to have matched it! The Australian FA articles are always worth studying. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Judging by your model example (especially the fourth paragraph, which is perhaps the closest at nudging up to WP:NOTHOW), it looks like such precision (e.g.: …sown 2 cm deep in rows 30 cm apart… ) would be out. Stating that they are "station sown with groups of three seeds sown at intervals" doesn't seem to cross the line to me. Noting that Telopea speciosissima has a lot of historical background, using historical references for cultivation techniques (traditional vs. modern vs. varying traditions, etc?), where/if they can be found, would be one good way to go, especially as parsnips are a food crop and have a long cultivation history. Hamamelis (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Old books for cultivation history
These are, in no particular order, some old books I found at Project Gutenberg which could possibly be used, but only for historical research for the article should any wish to:
 * John Evelyn, esq., Acetaria: A Discourse of Sallets (1937 reprint of the 1st edition from 1699): page 12.
 * William Salisbury, The Botanist's Companion, Vol. II (1816): No. 455 (as "Parsnep").
 * Maxwell T. Masters, Vegetable Teratology (1869)
 * Mostly included just for fun, but it does mention Pastinaca sativa.

 * Fearing Burr, Jr., The Field and Garden Vegetables of America (1863): Pages 46-51.
 * Potentially looks excellent.

 * unknown Courtois-Gérard, Manuel pratique de Jardinage, 7th Edition (1868)
 * In French.

 * Sutton and Sons, The Culture of Vegetables and Flowers From Seeds and Roots, 16th Edition (1921): page 68.

Should I become ambitious, I may try them myself. Hamamelis (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Health Benefits" should include getting Liver Cancer
The FDA noyes that Parsnip root is Hepatotoxic. Re sweetness, Parsnip is added to savory soups and stews to impart an aromatic flavor. 67.165.116.17 (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No picture of parsnip as a food?
I'm surprised this article passed GA. Parsnip is an important food, but there is no food picture here, only plant picture. Anyway, I tried adding one, but it got reverted for some reason. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I reverted the addition because it was blatant advertising for a restaurant. However, I have added two images of cooked parsnips, that I found on Commons, that do not come with advertising baggage.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't advertising - it was cited to a major metropolitan newspaper. I agree that it needed a photo of parsnip as a "main", but the dessert use could also be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph after paragraph of WP:OR
The article has existed since 2003, had a "citations needed"-type of article tag as early as 2008, but having such removed without attending to the issue, it has become yet another morass of "just trust me" editor's erudition—a lede, at least, of stated purported facts without citation anywhere—at least since May 2013. As for the in-body citations—added at end of paragraph, post hoc, or truly encompassing all the material preceding the citation? (For an initial glimpse into the lede problem, the tip of the proverbial faux-encyclopedic iceberg, search the phytoanatomical term "winged", and see its appearance just once, absent citation, in the lede. Then rinse and repeat.) This is just one of what has become far too many cases of such writing prevalent here, likewise, and shamefully, existing without any deserved warning to readers whatsoever (which, since the emergence of mobile as preeminent mode of access, is the institutional status quo for our articles). So, specifically, shame on the editor that removed the "refimprove", thus setting the stage for the article to expand for a decade in the direction of pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-encyclopedic content, and shame on editors that continue to add content sans sourcing. Et, bonne chance to the dedicated editor that will take the time to review each sentence, to see if all the material preceding the citations actually appears therein. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, try WP:GAR, or find a reference for the winged seeds. It's entirely clear what you are going for here. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, tip of the iceberg. Pick any of a variety of further terms, and as I said, repeat. And even if I believed in the scholarly validity of post hoc addition of possible citations to units of content (I do not, for book-length reasons I will let you contemplate unshared)—I am not in the habit of cleaning up the messes made by earnest masses of individuals that so thoroughly disrespect applicable WP guidelines and policy (other than my students, in any case); certainly not, at such a scale as this. No, this is an institutional problem, dear leader, and demands an institutional solution. (The carte blanche disappearance of issue tags from mobile platforms, and the clear trend toward superficially beautifying articles through tag removal without rectifying issues has convinced me it is worth only the effort to question individuals doing this on large scale.) Cheers, bonne chance with any efforts you make in the direction of WP as a reliable encyclopedia, one whose contributors consistently follow its stated rules. Perhaps begin with WP:GAR action, and placing the appropriate article tags; the issues are prima facie obvious. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the IP editor's specific example about the term winged, there does seem some confusion in the article between the use of fruits and seeds. The sentence in the lead states "The seeds are pale brown, flat, and winged", in the body it states "The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4 to 8 mm". The source that is used in the body states, "Fruits (schizocarps) oval, with a distinctive woody endocarp (Theobald 1971), splitting into two strongly flattened 'seeds' (mericarps) with flat sides adjacent, each seed rounded or oval in outline and narrowly winged, 4-8 mm  long, straw-coloured to light brown". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, PaleCloudedWhite, but am not knowledgeable enough to do something about that. IP, I'm not picking anything, nor am I about to fly to San Francisco or to VP to propose some institutional measure. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a botanist, so hesitate to make botanical assertions, though obviously any source should be represented accurately. In this instance, depending on the correctness of interchanging the terms mericarp and seed, the lead seems to fulfill that requirement, though the body perhaps doesn't. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

How they're sold
In US supermarkets, at least, parsnips are sold individually vs. carrots which are always sold in bundles. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parsnip