text:
Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 3

For earlier material see Talk:China/old

Hi, I've edited the China/Temp page:

 * restored the table per the WikiProject Countries page
 * put in a "disclaimer"
 * move the brief history of China into the section for history

Although I have rewritten some of the text, I think I have not really touched it's contents. Roadrunner, Fred, what do you think? Jeronimo 00:52 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

- It's less objectionable, but I still have a small problem with it. The basic problem is that is seems to imply the the PRC "owns" say the history of Tang Dynasty. Also, it doesn't really take into account current events. One of the things that the PRC government has been doing in the past year has been to "delink" the concept of the PRC from the concept of China. You can see this in the response to Chen Shuibian that was issued today where the PRC was went out of its way to avoid identifying the PRC with China.

I'll probably drop out of the discussion for a few days and let other people comment (as well as try to articulate better what still bothers me about the page).

-- User:Roadrunner

 * Ok, we're moving towards a solution, so that's good. As for the Tang dynasty (though I think you mean it more genral), I think that Taiwan did not form part of the Tang empire. Anyway, there's nothing against mentioning the Tang dynasty at Taiwan as well.

 * We may indeed specifically include (in the history? header? "disclaimer"?) that the PRC avoids linking its name to China. Then again, it may de-link it formally, but all those people around the world will continue to associate the two.

 * I'll await your remaining problems with the contents, confident we'll end up with an article that satisfies the both of us (and, hopefully, "everybody else"). Jeronimo 13:07 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)

- Guys, after reading this tedious list of conversation, my sugguestion of the best way out of the naming convention of China is using those by native speakers of Chinese. As a native speaker of several dialects of Chinese, I make the following table which should help:

Most Chinese, regardless of where they are from, care less about the naming convention but some Taiwanese (like my buddy who is gonna marry next month) DO NOT WANT Mainland China to annex Taiwan and had bad impression on Chen Shuibian.

KT2

 * Knowing what the Chinese call it is certainly interesting, but what is important is what the English-language people call it. Jeronimo

I'm with Jeronimo. I also thought all of this already had been resolved -- China should be the main article of the PRoC. It doesn't matter what they officially call it or want it to be called. English speakers call it China in overwhelming numbers. This is also the conventional short form used by the CIA and the UN and we have decided that that is what we will use for country names here. If we don't stick to that then we are expressly taking sides in political naming issues. The fact that the PRoC is currently trying to dissociate their government from "China" (which seems counter intuitive for a totalitarian regime..) is an interesting thing to mention in the article on the PRoC at China. If we change the name of the article to follow political correctness of the PRoC that is an express act of support for their policy. I for one say we defer such naming matters to higher authorities such as the CIA Factbook, the UN and especially what is most commonly used by English speakers. True they are POV institutions but transcribing what they use is a passive and not express act of POV. Wikipedia is not in the business to decide what the names of nations are -- other institutions are far better suited at this highly charged topic. I also think the disclaimer is way too long and bold should be replaced by italics. Any article on the PRoC should include any historical events that have occured within the PRoC's borders (real, not imagined or wanted borders). Any mention of Taiwan should be in relation to one or another government that has rulled the mainland. Any Taiwan specific history should be in that *gasp* nation's article and much of the current strife between the nations can be in the foreign relations sub-articles of both or in its own special article. When there are overwhelming numbers of people who use terms in one way and this is also what is used by the CIA factbook and the UN, we do not have to dance around any naming or content issues. No war will be fought over our reporting of the facts. --mav

Mav sez: "English speakers call it China in overwhelming numbers." Your pronoun contains the whole problem: English speakers call what China in overwhelming numbers? They certainly use the word "China" in overwhelming numbers, and it's safe to say that they use the word "China" to mean "China" in overwhelming numbers. Even the following must also be conceded: when referring to the vast modern state that rules over the ancient land known as China, people still use the word "China" (rather than People's Republic of China). But it seems that no one has noticed that glib pronouncements such as "English speakers call it China" simply do not entail that that is all that the word "China" means. The following two statements are converses, and as they are universal affirmative statements and as I just got done teaching intro logic, I'd like to point out that they are not logically equivalent:

 * Every time someone wants to refer to the PRC is a time they use the word "China." (Not actually true, of course.)
 * Every time someone uses the word "China" is a time they want to refer to the PRC. (Outrageously false.)

--Larry Sanger

Okay, I read some of the discussion and thought the issue still not yet resolved. Thus I wrote that table to help. IMO the discussion is more or less irrelevent since China, not Mainland China or else, is undisputably the right name. Period. Knowing how the other guys think about the naming convention was certainly interesting, however. -- KT2

Question for all: What is the standard here for choosing between Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in contributing? Contributor preference? -- voidvector

Most of us can't tell which is which even if our browsers read them. This is going to have to be established by someone like yourself who presumably does know. What is used on contemporary Chinese Websites? Fredbauder 13:27 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Most Chinese websites choose their local standard (TW & HK: Traditional; Mainland: Simplified) to display text. Popular websites has their pages in both standards. Most adult Chinese that I know can read commonly used Chinese character in both forms.

-- voidvector

Even highly educated young mainland Chinese people tend to have some difficulties with traditional (i.e. not simplified) characters for "everyday" words. Nevertheless, traditional characters are commonly used for names. Traditional characters are also widely used in Chinese communities outside of Greater China, for instance in Singapore. Therefore, my suggestion would be to use traditional characters for all names in the 'pedia. olivier 06:44 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

I take it back. Actually, in mainland China, traditional characters are common for persons' names, but not for places names. Maybe we should use both, just as we tend to indicate several transliterations. olivier 13:35 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

This thread is interesting but shouldn't be here and needs to be moved. There is already some talk on similar issues over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese). The people who have already contributed to that page are probably still watching it. --mav

Could somebody correct this page so that the table doesn't slip over into the right margin? I've never been able to figure out how to do that. -- Zoe

 * I don't see anything wrong with the table itself, but the map halfway down the article is so wide that it's probably stretching the page beyond your browser window. I'll scale it down... --Brion 01:23 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

My opinion: this article should be about China, not about the People's Republic of China. China is what "China" means--not some political entity. If we want an article about the PRC, then of course let's have one located at People's Republic of China. China, like Ireland, has a long unified history, a relatively unified culture and language, etc., etc.

The cases of China and Ireland are identical and should be solved the same way, viz.:

 * There should be huge articles covering every aspect of Chinese and Irish civilization (in summary, of course), at China and Ireland respectively.
 * There should be relatively specialized articles covering the modern states of People's Republic of China, Taiwan (or whatever we want to call it), Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. These might contain the respective histories of these states since they were created, information about modern political organization, demographics, and so forth--that is, precisely the sort of information that does not sit easily in the more general articles China and Ireland given that we do have articles about the modern states.

This seems pretty obvious to me. I'm not sure how we arrived at a different decision. It just seems ridiculous to me that we have articles only about the Republic of Ireland sitting on Ireland and only about the PRC at China. --Larry Sanger

I brought this issue up on Wikien-l. See http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-December/000235.html --Larry Sanger
 * I replied to Larry's comments on Wikien-l, and very much agree to his approach on this subject. The present situation is simplistic, and tries to put the whole subject into a neat little box where it doesn't fit.  There is some merit to using short names for countries, but not at the risk of creating situations that are misleading and confusing.  The person who equates China with the PRC might as well participate in a revisionism that says "In the 7th century the Tang Dynasty ruled the People's Republic of China."  The views of the majority (whether on Google or anywhere else) are only one consideration in arriving at a solution.  It all comes down to whether we are promoting accurate assessments of the circumstances, or interpretations to suit the convenience of a majority. Eclecticology 00:01 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

large portions of the Chinese population.
 * Despite this, the Chinese Communist Party has, through a series of subtle shifts in ideology, maintained support among

This statement in the article cannot be supported. The degree of support among the population of China for the dictatorship is simply not known even to the government. Information they do have are state secrets. Fred Bauder 16:26 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

As no one has come up with an objection backed by a verifiable source I have removed the language regarding the degree of support and done some editing on the rest of the paragraph. I started using a netscape browser and found the page too long too, so split it. Fred Bauder 18:28 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Someone had added 大漢族斯坦  and many non-NPOV statements in the article. It is a pity to see that Wikipedia is used as a place for political declaration.

I think Taiwan has abandoned any claim to be the legitimate government of China. Fred Bauder 01:10 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, unofficially. But they have not yet changed the constitution of Republic of China.

-- Encyclopedias refer to China as a "communist republic" in the intro. Ploemics refer to it as an "authoritarian regime". Please follow NPOV guidelines. 172

China is neither communist or is it a republic. It is a dictatorship. If one views the situation sympathetically, one might justify the role the Communist party plays, but viewed objectively and neutrally both nationally and locally the country is fairly described as authoritarian. Fred Bauder 15:41 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually China is a republic (i.e. it doesn't have a monarchical head of state). Also describing the system of government as authoritarian isn't terribly polemical, as the Chinese government itself would probably not strongly dispute the term.  User:Roadrunner

Moved authoritarian to politics. Also removed section on Chinese democracy movement. The Chinese democracy movement right now isn't a significant challenger to the CCP. The main threat to its rule right now is general labor unrest. User:Roadrunner

Look, even putting aside NPOV issues, it's simply not natural to include phrases like 'Communist Party-led republic' in an introductory sentence. As for NPOV, China is not a special case. There are no special cases. prat

-- The World Almanac and Book of Facts refers to China as a Communist-Party led state under government type. I don't understand the uproar over hidden points of view. This is the structure of the government for a single-party state. 172

The article pertaining to Cuba has a similar intro: "The Republic of Cuba is a Communist state located on the island of the same name in the northern Caribbean Sea. Its capital is Havana." 172

Besides the following arguments, what is being proposed is unnatural English. It's like introducing Australia as 'Australia is a Liberal-party led democracy', when in fact the 'liberal party' is a complex entity that exists within a unique governmental system requiring substantial elaboration. Except in specialist literature, the convention in English is to explain complex concepts as they are introduced. Matter-of-fact namedropping most frequently used with words such as 'communist', 'authoritarian', etc. only to transfer the hidden meanings of these value-laden words on to different subjects. (See: propaganda) There is no problem talking about the structure of Chinese government, or making NPOV statements on the concrete policies thereof, but it's inappropriate to say 'communist party led state' without discussing the 'communist party' (which now recruits capitalists as senior members!). 'Communist state' would have been fair enough a few years ago, but anyone that has been to China recently would agree that it's largely communist in name only, and in fact for all intents and purposes arguably more capitalist than America. Labelling vastly different and complex nations (Cuba, China) and their governmental structures as simply 'communist' strikes me as uninformative and perhaps even misleading. (see transferring value comment above). IMHO, Discussions of governmental structure should be in depth, NPOV and not as a single word or phrase in the introductory sentence for a country article. Particularly in this, one of the most complex cases. -- prat

You're way off. First, Australia is not a single party state. Second, it's common to introduce China as a Communist state with an official Marxist-Leninist state ideology. The Communist state is a definitive government-type with similar overlapping party and state institutions, a government type existing today in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea. Yes, the structure of the Laotian government, for instance, is closer to that of Cuba than that of its neighbors aside from Vietnam. Do you people understand what a Leninist state structure is? 172

Oh please, Prat. This argument is silly. Comparing a simple clearly understandable phrase about China being a communist state to 'Australia is a Liberal-party led democracy' is just plain nonsense. The term Communist state does not simply mean the political allegiance of the current governing elite, as is the case in somewhere like Australia. It means a system whereby government and party in a one party state are intertwined and interlinked in a way that is particularly unique to a communist party system. Everyone with an even elementary knowledge of political and governmental systems understands that. In liberal democracies, you can and must draw a distinction between the state and the politial elites that govern them. But in communist states, a fundamentally different concept of government-party relations applies. Using the word 'communist' in such a context is not simply a statement of the politics of the governmental elite; it is a description of the system of government and is used in encylopædias and sourcebooks worldwide and understandable by readers the world over. That does not mean that the political meaning of communism and the policies of the political elite are not changing, but they still operate within a narrow political governmental-political system called communism. It is not POV or propaganda to say that. But not to say it would be blatently propagandistic POV. Where terms are unclear or need clarification, that can be done through links. But to removed internationally accepted language for describing this particular party-governmental system and describe it as POV and propagandistic is way wide of the mark. ÉÍREman 03:52 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Great, now there's some discussion happening instead of silent changes! Firstly, I just want to point out that at no time did I mean to suggest that Australia is a single party state. Now with that off my chest:
 * 172...

 * 1) given the significant variation in communist governmental systems that you point out
 * 2) given that China, which is the first communist state to have openly accepted capitalists in to the fold, is the largest remaining 'communist' state, and ...
 * 3) given that the term communist is fairly loaded due to the significant information campaigns waged just a few decades ago,
 * can you not see the value in introducing the governmental structure of China in a detailed and informative manner, vs. simple name-dropping (which is probably misleading or 'suggestive' to an average reader?)
 * ÉÍREman...

In summary, I wholeheartedly agree that this article should have some pithy info on China's unique system of governance, but merely reject the proposed grammar (on the basis of it's oddity!) and the position/method of introducing the concept of 'communist', due to the word's historical meaning / current meaning with reference to china being a unique but very important dichotomy. Hopefully this clears things up. I was heading out the door when I wrote the above comment, and probably should have restructured it before posting. -- prat
 * 1) I was comparing the two statements on their grammatical points, not their semantics. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
 * 2) I did not argue that we shouldn't mention that China's official government allegiance is 'communist', but rather that : Discussions of governmental structure should be in depth, NPOV and not as a single word or phrase in the introductory sentence for a country article.

Prat, it seems to me that the use of the word "communist state" is similar to referring to the U.S. as a "democratic state". It's not talking about the party in power, it's talking about the current government structure is set up. Sure, a political party called the "Despots of America" could set up an totalitarian government in the United States, but they'd be seriously revamping the government. If China switched to democracy, it would not be like a Democrat following up George Bush. It would be like installing the American Fascist Party. At the very least, you'd have to scrap the Constitution. --cprompt

I agree with most of the above (CPrompt, JTD, 172) that the first sentence should introduce the character of the state constitutionally, and not based on which party runs the government (the distinction between state and government is useful and important in poli. sci.). BUT I disagree that it is proper to identify the PRC as a communist state. I disagree for three reasons.

1) Self definition of China: the constitution of Chine describes the Chinese state as a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The Chinese are clear that they expect the "socialist" phase to last a long time.

2) self definition of communism: many communists would argue that the claim that China is communist is a sham; that even the so-called communist party of China is relying on Marx and Lenin to legitimate themselves, but that in substance and in practce the Chinese state long ago departed from communism in theory or practice

3) the people who typically characterize China as communist are partisan opponents of China, e.g. the CIA or the US State Department

This is both an accuracy and an NPOV issue. The article should certain state that "some characterize China as a communist state" -- that is an accurate and NPOV statement. But to claim that China therefor is a communist state is POV and misleading.

I would begin the article by designating China as a socialist state, and later in the article discuss the differences between socialist state and CP domination, etc. Slrubenstein

PS 172 seems to be suggesting that the PRC is a one-party state (sorry if I am misunderstanding him/her) -- it is not; there are 8 non-communist parties. Of course, the one CP does dominate -- but just as it is wrong to call the US a "two-party state," is is wrong to call China a "one-party state." Slrubenstein

-

I know about the 8 non-Communist parties. Members of these parties hold some state posts, overseen by overlapping party posts.

 * My apologies. I think I was refering to JTDIRL's mistaken or confused claim that a "communist state" "means a system whereby government and party in a one party state are intertwined and interlinked in a way that is particularly unique to a communist party system."  I am sorry I named you by mistake.

You people are turning a non-issue into a heated partisan debate. We do not need to get into discussions over whether or not China has a socialist economy or whether or not communism is the opposite of democracy or a form of democracy. Am I being anti-China? No. I admit to being an admirer of the Chinese Communist Party since Deng Xiaoping.

 * Please stop taking everything so personally. It does notmatter whether you admire China or hate china.  The POV/NPOV issue is with the text.

China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba share a common government-type in which state and party institutions are intertwined. Party and state institutions, organs, committees, organizations are all based on Soviet-style structures. Sourcebooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias list the PRC as a Communist state, the United States as a federal republic, and the UK as a constitutional monarchy. 172

-- I removed references to the Chinese democracy movement in the introduction to Chinese politics. Although it has its place in the main article, having this in the intro exaggerates its influence in China. These movements are not significant threats domestically. China is far more concerned with the treat that these groups pose to Sino-US relations, and legislation like PNTR.

Also, Tiananmen Square was nearly 14 years ago. It's time to relegate that to the main articles on politics and history in favor of more current events, like the WTO, the recent party congress, or economic growth. The insistence on putting Tiananmen Square in the article is a sign of the Amero-centric bias that has been the center of so much debate on this site lately. For instance, the Russia article doesn't introduce Russian politics by going over Yeltsin's unconstitutional assult on the duma a decade ago, which was just as much of a political watershed in Russia, if not more, and perhaps just as deadly. Could this be due to the United States’ muted encouragement of that attack to derail political opponents of rapid economic reform?

The discussion of Taiwan's status also lacked the fact that the UN adheres to one-China and recognizes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China and Taiwan as a province of China. 172

Why, Fred, are you trying to POV this article by taking out factual information and slotting in POV stuff? Every sourcebook in existence talks about China being a communist state. The very term has specific meanings as regards a one-party state where the state and party are so interlinked that they are almost impossible to separate. Communist state means something totally different to non-communist state. A non-communist state usually operates a multi-party system in which the political elite is different from a governmental system. This is not the case in a communist state.

 * As 172 points out above, PRC is a multi-party state

That term has a particular meaning that is 100% correct in this case. Authoritarian state is something different. That degree of structural link does not exist constitutionally in an authoritarian state even if in practice they work close together. To some degree at least there is a difference. There is none in a communist state, hence the use of that term. Pinochet's Chile was an authoritarian state. Are you saying Pinochet's Chile had an identical form of government to China?

 * I would argue that 2003-China is a *lot* more similiar to Pinochet's Chile than it was to the Soviet Union.

That is an absurd suggestion. That isn't to say that it cannot be argued that China's system of government isn't authoritarian. But the system of government was and is 'Communist state'. That is the formal definitionary term used; used by encyclopædias, used by reference books, used even by the CIA. And why do you keep removing the factually accurate statement that the PROC is the recognised Chinese state by the UN. (also BTW by the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, South Africa, Australia, Chile, Zimbabwe, Israel etc etc etc.)

You may not agree with 172, but he is recognised on wiki as a competent capable historian. Debate factual issues by all means but don't continue with such blantently wrong distortions of contents. We had a similar row here before over how one formally describes a particular form of government. In the end their factually wrong doctorings were simply reverted on sight. If factually accurate encyclopædic material keeps being removed from this article and replaced by POV inaccuracies, the same thing will happen here, with all such changes simply being reverted. Every time. And if it continues, the page will have to be protected to stop POV additions and editing from taking place. ÉÍREman 04:32 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

The fact that the CIA sourcebooks or other Western encyclopedias call China a "communist state" is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to call China a communist state. There are two issues: NPOV, and accuracy. On NPOV grounds, the sourcebooks and encyclopedias are not necessarily -- and in this case, simply not -- neutral. Historians should look at sources and documents in their historical context: virtually all Western scholarship on countries such as the USSR and PRC were heavily biased during the Cold War. PRC never identified itself as a communist state, but since during the Cold War (and even before) the US was at war with communism, all sorts of enemies were classed as "communist" regardless of distinct ideologies or structures. One cannot take those sourcebooks and encyclopedias at face-value (no historian shoult take any historical source at face-value). Indeed, it is not accurate to call China a communist state when the constitution describes itself as a socialist state, and when 30% or more of the country's economy is in private hands. Even Western scholars, some still operating under Cold War assumptions or within Cold War models, are beginning to realize this and the most current literature on China (by sociologists and political scientists, at least) is moving away from describing China as a "communist state." Wikipedia should reflect current, accurate, NPOV scholarship -- not outdated, inaccurate, Cold War scholarship. Slrubenstein

-

One very important thing to point out is that the Chinese government would not describe itself as a communist state. In Marxist ideology, world communism is the final phase of history which no nation has ever achieved. In Marxist ideology, China is currently a *socialist* state and not a *communist* one as a communist state will only exist in the far off future. The definitional issues are made even more hairy by the fact that the Chinese definitions of socialism (and for that matter democracy) are *very* different from Western definitions.

Personally, I think that the definitional issues are so messy that I don't think that one should start an article with them.

-- User:Roadrunner

 * Roadrunner, you may be right that the article shouldn't lead with a definition. This is of course an issue facing many more controversial articles (where the very definition is something people disagree about).  It is true that there are different kinds of socialisms (as there are different kinds of democracies, different kinds of communisms, etc.)  If an article must begin with a definition, I just think it ought to begin with self-definition and later in the article discuss conflicts over definition.  That Western democracies typically understand "socialism" differently from people in communist movements or parties, however, does not mean that the Western definition is "right" or NPOV and the communist definition is "wrong." Slrubenstein

title: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 3


text:
Australian Academy of Science

The Australian Academy of Science was founded in 1954 by a group of distinguished Australians, including Australian Fellows of the Royal Society of London. The first president was Sir Mark Oliphant. The academy is modelled after the Royal Society and operates under a Royal charter; as such, it is an independent body, but it has government endorsement. The Academy Secretariat is in Canberra, at the Shine Dome.

The objectives of the academy are to promote science and science education through a wide range of activities. It has defined four major program areas:
 * Recognition of outstanding contributions to science
 * Education and public awareness
 * Science policy
 * International relations

The academy also runs the 22 National Committees for Science which provide a forum to discuss issues relevant to all the scientific disciplines in Australia.

Origins
The Australian National Research Council (ANRC) was established in 1919 for the purpose of representing Australia on the International Research Council. The Council ceased to exist in 1954, replaced by the Australian Academy of Science.

The Shine Dome

The Shine Dome (previously known as Becker House) is a well-known Canberra landmark, notable for its unusual structure, and colloquially referred to as "The Martian Embassy", an allusion to its shape and the fact that as the capital of Australia, Canberra is the home of foreign embassies. It was designed by architect Sir Roy Grounds, of Grounds, Romberg and Boyd. When completed in 1959 its 45.75-metre-diameter dome was the largest in Australia.

On 1 December 1956, the academy's building design committee met in Adelaide to look over plans submitted by six architects. The plan accepted involved a 710-tonne reinforced concrete dome, which had to be supported by 16 thin supports. The concrete is approximately 60 cm thick at the base supports, and 10 cm at the top. The dome supports itself, with no internal wall holding it up. It cost £200,000 to build. The foundation stone, laid on 2 May 1958 by Prime Minister of Australia, Robert Menzies, was originally part of the pier of the Great Melbourne Telescope constructed in 1869 under the supervision of the Royal Society and transferred to Mount Stromlo Observatory in the 1940s.

The building was named Becker House, for benefactor and Fellow of the Academy Sir Jack Ellerton Becker, in 1962. In 2000, it was renamed in honour of Fellow John Shine, who donated one million dollars to renovate the dome.

The interior contains three floors: on the ground level, the main auditorium, the Ian Wark Theatre, seats 156 people, the Jaeger Room for functions and meetings, the Becker Council Meeting Room and offices; the upper level includes a gallery to the theatre and the Adolf Basser Library; and the basement houses storage for historical records of science in Australia.

In 2016, the dome appeared in the television documentary series about Australian modernist architecture Streets of Your Town presented by Tim Ross.

On 20 January 2020 the Dome was seriously damaged by a hailstorm with smashed skylights and denting of the copper roof surface.

Education
Science education is a main commitment of Australian Academy of Science. Current activities include following projects:
 * Primary Connections
 * Science by Doing
 * Nova: science for curious minds
 * reSolve: Mathematics by Inquiry
 * Science booklets
 * Brain Box

Fellows
The Fellowship of the Australian Academy of Science is made up of around 500 leading Australian scientists. Scientists judged by their peers to have made an exceptional contribution to knowledge in their field may be elected to Fellowship of the academy. Twenty new Fellows may be elected every year.

No more than two Fellows may be elected every three years on the basis of distinguished contributions to science by means other than personal research. A small number of distinguished foreign scientists with substantial connections to Australian science are elected as Corresponding Members.

Fellows are denoted by the letters FAA (Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science) after their name.

Foundation Fellows
When the academy was founded in 1954 there were 24 members, known as the Foundation Fellows:

Presidents
Source:
 * Sir Mark Oliphant (1954–1957)
 * Sir John Eccles (1957–1961)
 * Sir Thomas Cherry (1961–1964)
 * Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet (1965–69)
 * Dr David Martyn (1969–1970)
 * Professor Dorothy Hill (1970)
 * Sir Rutherford Robertson (1970–1974)
 * Sir Geoffrey Badger (1974–1978)
 * Dr Lloyd Evans (1978–1982)
 * Professor Arthur Birch (1982–1986)
 * Professor David Curtis (1986–1990)
 * Professor David Craig (1990–1994)
 * Sir Gustav Nossal (1994–1998)
 * Professor Brian Anderson (1998–2002)
 * Dr Jim Peacock (2002–2006)
 * Professor Kurt Lambeck (2006–2010)
 * Professor Suzanne Cory (2010–2014)
 * Professor Andrew Holmes (2014–2018)
 * Professor John Shine (2018–2022)
 * Professor Chennupati Jagadish (2022–)

Awards
Early career awards:
 * Anton Hales Medal to recognise distinguished research in the Earth sciences;
 * Dorothy Hill Medal to recognise research in the Earth sciences by female researchers;
 * Fenner Medal, to recognise distinguished research in biology;
 * Gottschalk Medal, to recognise outstanding research in the medical sciences;
 * John Booker Medal, to recognise outstanding research in the sciences that underpin engineering;
 * Le Fèvre Medal, to recognise outstanding basic research in chemistry;
 * Pawsey Medal, to recognise outstanding research in physics;
 * Ruth Stephens Gani Medal, to recognise distinguished research in human genetics, including clinical, molecular, population and epidemiological genetics and cytogenetics.
 * Moran Medal to recognise outstanding research in one or more of the fields of applied probability, biometrics, mathematical genetics, psychometrics and statistics (awarded every two years).

Mid career awards:
 * Gustav Nossal Medal, to health researchers;
 * Jacques Miller Medal, to experimental biomedicine researchers;
 * Nancy Millis Medal for Women in Science.

Career awards recognising lifelong achievement:
 * David Craig Medal and Lecture, for researchers in chemistry;
 * Haddon King Medal, for researchers in earth science;
 * Hannan Medal, for researchers in mathematics;
 * Ian Wark Medal and Lecture;
 * Jaeger Medal, for researchers in earth science;
 * Thomas Ranken Lyle Medal, for researchers in mathematics or physics;
 * Macfarlane Burnet Medal and Lecture, for research in the biological sciences;
 * Matthew Flinders Medal and Lecture, for researchers in physical science;
 * Mawson Lecture and Medal, for researchers in earth science;
 * Ruby Payne-Scott Medal and Lecture, for women in science;
 * Suzanne Cory Medal, for research in the biological sciences.

Other awards include:
 * Academy Medal for outstanding contributions to science by means other than through scientific research;
 * Lloyd Rees Lecture, for lectures in chemical physics;
 * Selby Fellowship awarded to distinguished overseas scientists to visit Australia for public lecture/seminar tours.

Other learned Academies
There are three other learned Academies in Australia, those of Humanities (Australian Academy of the Humanities), Social Science (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia) and Technological Sciences and Engineering (Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering). The four Academies cooperate through the Australian Council of Learned Academies, formed in 2010.

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

title: Australian Academy of Science


text:
Creative Coalition

The Creative Coalition (TCC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy group consisting of members of the American entertainment industry. The organization was founded in 1989 by Ron Silver. Tim Daly serves as the organization's president. Members have included Christopher Reeve, Ron Reagan, Blair Brown, Michael J. Fuchs, Alec Baldwin, Joe Pantoliano, Stephen Collins, and Wayne Knight. The coalition addresses both industry-related issues and general social issues. The group educates leaders in the arts community on issues of public importance, specifically in the areas of First Amendment rights, arts advocacy and public education.

The group has sponsored benefit galas at both Democratic and Republican conventions, raising nearly $1.8 million during the 2004 presidential campaign. It does not contribute to political campaigns directly, instead employing lobbying firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates to advance its political interests.

title: Creative Coalition


text:
Template talk:Tech-stub

What about replacing the image on this template with Image:Icon-gears.png? -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * good idea, I think its appropriate, Paradiso 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Tech-stub


text:
Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 4

For earlier material see Talk:China/old Talk: China (Archive 1)

If you want self-definition, use Marxist-Leninist. The trouble with self-definition is that there are a *lot* of self described Marxist-Leninists that would object to the PRC being called a Marxist-Leninist state.

The trouble with not being clear with definitions is that it prevents communications. For example, what the Chinese call socialism looks and smells to most Westerners as capitalism, but there is a very good reason why Chinese don't call it capitalism.

-- User:Roadrunner

 * I am sorry, Roadrunner, I am not sure what your point is here -- are you saying we ought to identify the PRC as a "Marxist-Leninist" state because that is how they define it, or that we shouldn't define it that way because many Marxist-Leninists would not call China a Marxist Leninist state?

 * In any event, I am not sure how your proposal (to call/not call it a Marxist Leninist state) fits into the current discussion on this page. JTDIRL want to identify it as a "communist state" but their reason is not self-definition, they are following other encyclopedias and the CIA factbook.  I want to identify it as a socialist state, because this is how the constitution of the PRC defines the state (i.e. I support self-definition, but do not see where China defines itself as a "Marxist Leninist" state, they say "socialist") Slrubenstein

- - The fact that both of you insist on misinterpreting JTD's points is downright insulting. He is a competent academic and certainly aware of the information that you both are presenting to counter our position. You both are highly intelligent so I expect you to comprehend what I'm about to explain without further elaboration.

We are not arguing that China is a "communist" (lower-case "c") society in the Marxist sense, that is a state where the means of production are under common ownership. Whether or not China is a "socialist" society in Marxian terms, defined by state ownership of the means of production, is further irrelevant to this debate. In this context, the term "Communist state" (upper-case "C") strictly refers to the type of government in the same sense that "constitutional monarchy" describes the governments of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, that "federal republic" describes the government-types of the United States and Brazil, that "Islamic republic" describes the government-type of Iran, that "military government" describes the government of Myanmar, and finally that "absolute monarchy" would describe the government of Oman. The government is Communist, ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party.

Divergences between the development levels, levels of state ownership, and economic structures between the five Communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea or whether or not China is "capitalist" and has betrayed its Marxist-Leninist philosphy thus don't matter to this discussion (I personally think that they haven't and that they've finally found a workable model of socialism worth revisiting, but that doesn't matter either). The ruling Communist parties of these countries share roughly the same structure and share similarly intertwined state and party institutions and share roughly the same constitutional forms. They represent a common government-type based on the Leninist state and are bound by having to adapt to similar circumstances, that is (with the exception of Castro's Cuba which wasn't at first definitively Communist) supplanting or revamping existing state institutions to fit the mold of an underground revolutionary political party.

Furthermore, it is downright insulting and slanderous to accuse him of justifying his position just because he sees China described as "Communist" in "biased" periodicals and sourcebooks. He's merely pointing out that no political scientist would argue that China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea are not under Communist governments. That argument would be just as absurd as insisting that the page on Sweden not describe it as a "constitutional monarchy".

172

172

 * You are mistaken. As I have said, political scientists and others are moving away from designating the PRC as a "communist state," for the reasons (among others) I present.

 * Inter alia, I see I must repeat another point I make above: do not take things personally -- or, in this matter, present the conflict on this page as if it is about insulting JTDIRL personally. There is no insult, and nothing personal on my part, and it seems to me there is nothing personal, and no insult, on the part of others, although you continue to insist on taking things personally.

 * This is not "about" you or JTDIRL. Not all comments are about either of you.  In fact, some of my comments were directed at Roadrunner.  I did not take his comments to be directed specifically at you or JTDIRL or even me -- as with many talk pages, a Wikipedian was expressing a view s/he considered relevant or worth thinking about.  Don't insist on reducing everything here to being about you or (in this specific instance) JTDIRL.

 * This is a Wikipedia. A huge number of people are working on producing a text that has no "author" and which does not belong to any one person.  There is no room for personal investment in this project.  The question is the text, that is all.  I have not insulted anyone.  I questioned a word in the article.  I presented the reasons for my change, and my reasons for disagreeing with a revert.  This is how things are done. Slrubenstein

-- Did you even bother reading what I wrote. These observations by the political scientists you brought up don't matter. We're not referring to a “communist” economy or a "communist" society. Do you understand the difference?

 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not discussing the Chinese economy or society (although some political scientists include these issues in classifying the nature of states).  I am talking about the nature of the Chinese state.  I call it "socialist" because that is how the Chinese constitution identifies the Chinese state.  I am not doing it because of any marxist theory, I am doing it because of an official document that identifies the Chinese state as socialist.

 * By the way, it is in no way "insulting and slanderous to accuse him of justifying his position just because he sees China described as "Communist" in "biased" periodicals and sourcebooks." It is a fact that JTDIRL justifies his position at least in part by refering to other encyclopedias and the CIA factbook.  And there is nothing wrong with questioning the bias of those documents -- that is a major task of any historian, and certainly relevant to an encyclopedia dedicated to NPOV. Slrubenstein

I was also right to question the nature of your explanations. You were both trying to explain that China is not even a communist economy in Marxist terms, which he wasn't arguing. 172

- I’ve explained this concept to children who’ve had no problems understanding it. Do you have any basic understanding of the forms of government in Laos, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam? Maybe you should read up on them on Wikipedia and then reread what JTD and I have written so that you could understand it.

The Chinese government nominally adheres to a Communist ideology, which dictates that the state is now in the position of building socialism, the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Their ideology is Communist, and they claim that their state is in the early stages of building a socialist society from which a communist one would evolve. Iran in a similar sense is a theocracy and is organized according to the principles of Shiite Islam. China is a Marxist-Leninist state run by the Communist Party and organized according to those principles.

172

The Chinese constitution defines itself as a socialist state. I have also checked through the most recent issues of Modern China which is the, or one of the premiere journals of China studies in the West (maybe along with Modern China Quarterly) and the scholars there refer to the Chinese state as socialist. I realize that when you lecture to children you can claim a position of authority that is seldom questioned. But when you converse with other scholars, people will question you all the time. You need to learn that it is possible for you to make a mistake every now and again. Slrubenstein

A suggestion: you both seem to be talking around each other and describing different things. In very simplified terms: 172 is describing China as Communist because of its structure of government; Slrub is defining it as socialist because that is how the country defines itself in its constitution. I am leaving out the CIA Factbook, Britannica Jr. and the issue on China of Humpty Dumpty Magazine that I read in my dentist's office. (Modern China is another thing entirely). Perhaps a compromise is possible. How about, ''China is a country in Asia ... that describes itself as socialist. It has been ruled by the Communist Party (organized as a Leninist state, whatever) since 19xx". That way, both sides in this argument are stating facts which seem to me, the disinterested observer, to be essentially correct when describing different aspects of China. Danny

The trouble with that is that I would argue that the structure of the Chinese government is radically different from that of Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea. Unlike the other four, the Communist Party of China is subordinate to the state and does not have extra-legal powers and in at least one case I can think of this theoretical structure had a practical consequence. -- Roadrunner

- Absolutely not. The government-type is a Communist state. That’s why the government claims that the party is in the early stages of building socialism, the intermediate between capitalism and communism. China’s government-type is Communist just as Norway is a constitutional monarchy. We don’t need to get into Marxist-Leninist ideology on the intro of the China page just as the Norway page doesn’t not elaborate on something like the divine rights of kings. I’m not making appeals to authority either; I’m just frustrated that someone can fail to recognize objective reality.

We don’t want to make the intro confusing by getting into political theory. Libya, for instance, also claims to be a socialist republic, but is not organized according to the Communist party/government structures as China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea and is not a Marxist-Leninist state.

Roadrunner brings up a good point, but he's also confusing the issue. We're dealing with the official forms. Yes, much like Stalin, Kim and his father have subverted the party’s official power with their dictatorship. In the same respect, both Kuwait and Spain are constitutional monarchies despite how differently things work out in practice. I know.

 * I think I didn't make my point clear. My belief is that the party-state structure and constitutional theory in China is sufficiently different from the other obvious examples of Communist states to make it highly misleading to lump China in with the others.  The big difference is that since the early 1990's China has not formally subscribed to the doctrine of party supremacy over state structures and it does formally subscribe to the principle that the party is subordinate to the state and must obey the law.  This has a number of implications that makes party-state relations in China less like the Soviet Union and more like Francoist Spain.  --Roadrunner

172
 * 172, I appreeciate your saying that you are not making an argument form authority, but I think I can now more clearly explain my difference with your (and JTD's) position -- not that I am certain I will convince you. You state that "someone can fail to recognize objective reality," and I think hee we come to the crux: I do not believe that it is "objective reality" that China is a "communist state."  I believe that there is an objective reality that encompasses not only the structures that coordinate the access to and control over resources, and ideological claims, but yes, even political institutions.  But I do not believe that there is an "objective" reality to how we label these structures, ideologies, and institutions.  In fact, I believe that debates over how we (people in general, or scholars) label such things constitutes much of "theory."  And to be more to the point, identifying different political arrangements as "democracies," "parliamentary democracies," "republics," "authoritarian," "communist" etc. are matters of -- at best -- convention.  In other words, these words may refer to objectively real things, but are not in and of themselves "objectively real."  To give them such ontological status is precisely what scholars call "reification."

 * You believe that it is objectively real that China is a communist state. Not only do I not believe that that is objective reality, I believe that that is an unavoidably subjective claim.

 * Sometimes most subjects agree to such claims and the terms are conventional and uncontroversial (as with calling the UK a Constitutional Monarchy or a Parliamentary Democracy.) But I do not believe this is the case with "Communist China."  Not only does the Chinese constitution classify the state differently from you, many political scientists and political sociologists and historians do as well. Slrubenstein

If the US and China view the Chinese economy/government differently -- why not note that within the article? Shino Baku
 * Because it is not just a US versus China issue -- there are non-US citizens who call China a communist state, and there are also US government officials and scholars who do not. Slrubenstein

The point is that some people (mostly the Chinese government and allies) feel one way while some people (mostly the US government and allies) feel another way. Thus you shouldn't "define" China as such and such without entering a NPOV disclaimer that so and so feels differently. Shino Baku

-

The problem is that its not so clear cut. For example, take the description of China as a Marxist-Leninist state. There are supporters of the Chinese government who would agree with that statement, there are supporters of the Chinese government who would disagree with that statement. There are opponents that would agree. There are opponents who would disagree. The same goes true with just about any other statement, you will find people agreeing and disagreeing and the problem is that those agreements and disagreements don't often correspond to other political attributes. -- Roadrunner

-

FCOL Roadrunner, you keep missing the point, misunderstanding what its being said and misrepresenting it. We are talking about the categorisation of the system of government. That is all. There are a limited number of categories, into which each state worldwide is slotted. Stop going off on pointless tangents of the point at issue.

It, Sirub, is frankly irrelevant how the Chinese constitution described itself because constitutions regularly attach names to themselves (or sometimes no names) for internal political reasons. But internationally, wiki like all other encyclopædias and sourcebooks slots them in to a clearly defined list of categories that have general, widely understood meanings. Bunreacht na hÉireann nowhere describes Ireland as a republic. (That was debated in a review of the constitution recently and it was decided not to add in that word. It only exists in statute law passed long after the constitution was enacted, as a description not a name or definition.) Nowhere in Britain's unwritten constitution are the words "constitutional monarchy" featured. Nowhere in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act are the words constitutional monarchy" featured. In fact the word dominion is used, if I remember correctly. (Somewhere around my office I have a copy of the CACA but I can't lay my hand on it right now.) By your reading, wiki should not call Ireland a republic and we should not call Britain or Australia a constitutional monarchy. Yet all those terms are used on wiki and elsewhere, because that is what they are''. Wiki like other sourcebooks slots a state into the relevant category irrespective of the technical name a constitution uses, if it uses one for political purposes that has not a clear and unambiguous international usage and comprehension.

A socialist state is meaningless and not used by political scientists as a definition of the state. It may define the politics of the state, but that is a different thing entirely. When political scientists, historians and academics define the type of state China is, they invariably say a Communist State, because that has a specific meaning, relating to the constitutional structures, the dominant political movement, the existence of a one party state and the blurring of the state and party into an intertwined single entity that has no comparison within liberal democracies.

 * And I object to the description of China as a communist state *precisely* because it implies things

about the Chinese constitutional structure that *simply are not true*. The Communist Party and State are not blurry. They are quite distinct closely related structures that in quite frequently come into conflict with each other (particularly at the sub-national level where the party and state often are at each others throats). It is true that the Communist Party is a one party state, but so was the PRI in the 1950's and no one ever called Mexico a Communist state.

 * Unlike the constitutional theory of the classic communist state, Chinese constitutional theory since the early 1990's makes it clear that the party is private organization which is subordinate to the state and that the party has no extra-legal powers. The state can even order the Communist Party not to operate in certain areas of the country, as it has done in the case of Hong Kong.

 * You can list the characteristics of the classic communist state, but I'm pretty sure that almost none of them would apply in China-2003.

-- Roadrunner

Sweden during its long period of left wing government was sometimes called a socialist state, not in terms of its constitutional structures (which were of a constitutional monarchy with a liberal pluralist democracy) but it terms of its politics. Others called it a social democracy. But those terms did not refer to its governmental and constitutional identity. That remained a constitutional monarchy.

China's constitutional identity is unambiguously a Commmunist State (note the capitals).

 * No it is not. The constitutional structures of China are not peculiarly Communistic.

Within the article the issue of what the politics of the state are could be debated. But its category is 100% unambiguous. It is, as the world's encyclopædias, as political scientists the world over state when talking of its governmental identity, as the UN records, a Communist State. Anything else is factually incorrect and is unambiguously POV in trying to recategorise the state in a manner different to elseone else's.

There is no such internationally recognised category as a Socialist State. There is no such internationally recognised category as Marxist-Leninist State. There may be socialist political movements, marxist-leninist political movements, but they refer to politics, not state categorisation. States that use such definitions in their constitutions do so for declaratory purposes, but their categorisation is not used in reference books when describing a state. This is like the bad days of Daeron all over again, with people trying to make up categories that don't exist and accusing people putting in the internationally recognised category of being POV. ÉÍREman 22:41 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

First of all it isn't "China", it is the "People's Republic of China." "China" is a geographic and cultural entity that is millennia old - the PRC is a nation that is less than 100 years old. This article should be split (consensus on this issue is in the archive and the mailing list). Second; "communism" is both a loaded and ambiguous term. For Marxists it is the final stage (or goal if you like) of socialism in which all the means of production are owned and operated by the people and there is no longer any concept of individual ownership. But this term has been subverted by certain authoritarian socialistic nations to mean a socialistic dictatorship by a single party (totalitarian socialism). But under the Marxist definition there has never been a communist state and possibly there never will be due to their strict definition. We also very commonly call certain nations "communist" just as we call other nations "republics". At one time this was a very negative slur in the west but since the fall of the USSR this isn't really the case anymore. So what is a Wikipedian to do? I personally like Danny's idea for a compromise in which we state what I consider to be undisputed facts - that the PRC is a socialistic (purposely an adjective) state which is described as being a communistic (must also be an adjective) state. We can then go on to describe the specific differences between the PRC and other "communistic" states that Roadrunner pointed out. But this should be under the "Government" section of this article. PS the tone of several comments above is not in line with WikiLove - I suggest that those people who have taken an aggressive tone to reflect on the fact that we are all here because we want to learn and share what we know. Being combative and rude will only drive away other people who have these goals and they will be replaced by trolls and vandals. --mav

Mav, Communist State (note the capitals) is long used political science definition to describe a system of government, akin to other terms like Constitutional Monarchy, Popular Monarchy, Republic. Federal Republic. Confederation, etc (note all capitalised because they are state definitions). communism (small 'c') is a different thing, with a different meaning, alongside terms like authoritiarian, etc etc which can have a POV meaning. That is a description of the political culture of a state. But we are talking about a definition of the constitutional system and PROC has been called a Communist State in encylopædias for generations.

 * And most of these descriptions fail to take into account the constitutional changes that have occurred in the PRC in the 1990's. Since the early 1990's, it has been established that the state overrules the party, and as part of some constitutional changes which were formalized in 1998, the party no longer has any special role in the economy. -- Roadrunner

 * It is the standard definitionary term for the structure of the state, that highlights the nature of the regime, the existence of a single party political system where the party (calling itself 'Communist') and the institutions of the state are so intertwined they are like siamese twins, with the party owning the state, the state owning the party.

 * And this is *not* the case in China. The Party and state are two distinct entities which have a complicated relationship that is sometimes in direct conflict. Roadrunner

When Gorbachev moved the old Soviet Union in its last days away from that intertwining and allowed the appearance of different political system dominated but not owned by the CP, then the old Soviet Union ceased to be a standard Communist State. If and when that happens to the PROC, then a new definition of the state will have to be used. But as of now, the PROC meets all the characteristics of a Communist State. Other encyclopædias wouldn't see this as even a point of dispute, given that it is the standard definition used and has been for decades. ÉÍREman 22:53 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

--- Mav and Shino Baku: please read the dialog on this talk page before drawing your conclusions. The identification of China as a Communist state (note the upper-case "C") does not require a debate about political theory, contemporary Chinese political economy, or Chinese history. This is merely the classification of the structure of the Chinese government.

I'd lose my mind if I had to explain this most basic of concepts once again. So please just read one of the many explanations by JTD or myself on this talk page. 172

Disambiguation based on first capital is a very poor method - it is best to use the adjective "communistic" instead. I don't think that there is any dispute that the PRC government is communistic. "Communism" (note the captial becasue it is at the start of a sentence) is an ambiguous noun. --mav

 * Mav. It is a definition, not an adjective!!!

 * No - there are two different definitions for the same term. This is ambiguous - just like "football". --mav

Disambiguation based on first capital is a very poor method Shino Baku

'It is like groundhog day here. The facts regarding definitions are explained. Then people misunderstand or misrepresent them, go off on irrelevant tangents, so the facts are explained again, people come back, misunderstand them, misrepresent them, go off on tangents so the facts are explained again, people come back misrepresent them. . . . oh God, will someone please wake me up from this nightmare!!!' ÉÍREman 23:21 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (Monty Python should make a film of this page. It is surreal enough!)

As we have said, political scientists and others are moving away from designating the PRC as a "communist state," for the reasons (among others) I present, most notably that point by mav:

 * "Communism" is both a loaded and ambiguous term.

Shino Baku

title: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 4


text:
User talk:ZeeMan

I am a programmer. I like and recomend the following sites: http://pages.prodigy.net/daleharris http://www.activelock.com

title: User talk:ZeeMan


text:
Chiara Siracusa

Chiara Siracusa better known by her mononym Chiara (born 25 September 1976), is a Maltese singer. She represented her country in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1998, 2005, and 2009 and is with a second and a third place the third most successful participant who never won the contest (behind Germany's Katja Ebstein and Wind).

Eurovision 1998
In 1998, she won Malta's Song for Europe, the country's national final for Eurovision, with the song "The One That I Love", with which she then took part in Eurovision 1998 in Birmingham. She finished in 3rd place after a tense voting sequence, with the final voting country pushing her from joint 1st into 3rd, leaving her behind the victorious Dana International of Israel, and behind Imaani of the United Kingdom. That was Malta's best ever placing at the time, until the 1992 contest. Chiara told in a BBC interview two years later that she cried for several hours in the bathroom of her hotel suite after losing at Eurovision, but she came to see her high scoring as an achievement.

Eurovision 2005
In 2005, aiming for another chance at Eurovision, Chiara re-entered the Song for Europe festival, and along with 21 other entries reached the final on 19 February with the song Angel, another ballad which this time she wrote and composed herself. For the first time, Malta's Eurovision entry was selected solely by a public vote. Chiara won with 11,935 phone calls, 566 ahead of her nearest rival Olivia Lewis, and so represented Malta at the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Chiara had the distinction of joining an unusually extensive list of 2005 competitors who had competed previously in the contest, including Iceland's 1999 runner-up Selma, and Greece's Helena Paparizou, who in the 2001 contest was lead singer of third-placed Antique. Chiara came second in the Contest with 192 points, putting her ahead of Malta's only other Eurovision runner-up, Ira Losco and making "Angel" the most successful Maltese entry of all time. One scholarly study has claimed that, were it not for the effects of regional "bloc" voting, Chiara would have won the Contest.

After the result in 2005, Chiara had been working a lot around Malta and abroad, most notably in Greece and Cyprus.. She hosted the Malta Song for Europe in 2008.

Eurovision 2009
The loss of her father in 2008 became tough time for Chiara, but as a tribute to him she was even more determined to achieve further success. Chiara returned to the Malta Eurosong finals with a song composed by Belgian songwriters Gregory Bilsen and Marc Paelinck. On 7 February 2009, Chiara won the Maltese preselection for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. She represented Malta in the first semi-final in Moscow with her song What If We on 12 May. She qualified to the grand final, held on 16 May, and finished 22nd in the final vote.

2010–present
Siracusa was the spokesperson for Malta at the Eurovision Song Contest 2010, giving the points awarded from the Maltese voting in the final. In June 2010, she released the Official Malta Gay Pride Anthem, "Believe (We Are One)".

Discography

 * 1998: Shades Of One
 * 2000: What You Want
 * 2003: Covering Diversions
 * 2005: Here I Am
 * 2009: What If We

Eurovision entries

 * "The One That I Love"
 * "Angel"
 * "What If We"

title: Chiara Siracusa


text:
Jenner, California

Jenner, also known as Jenner-by-the-Sea, is a small coastal town and census-designated place (CDP) in Sonoma County, California, United States, with a population of 122 per the 2020 Census. It is located on the Pacific coast near the mouth of the Russian River. State Route 1 runs through the town and State Route 116 runs nearby, along the Russian River. Immediately south of Jenner is Goat Rock Beach, a unit within the Sonoma Coast State Beach. Directly north, the Jenner Headlands Preserve offers scenic overlooks of the Jenner Estuary and surrounding areas.

History
Historically, Jenner was part of the Rancho Muniz. The town’s namesake, Dr. Elijah K. Jenner, was a dentist and inventor from Vermont. When his son Charles K. was born in 1846, the family was living in Wisconsin. Elijah came west in 1850 and sought his fortune in the California goldfields. Working as a miner, he designed a pump that could raise water 100 ft high. His patent application included a model pump made of pure gold, which is the only golden model that the Patent Office has ever received.

Jenner’s family joined him in 1852. Traveling by ship from the Great Lakes to Panama, it crossed the Isthmus and sailed up the Pacific Coast. By 1854, the Jenners had settled near the mouth of the Russian River and built a house in what became known as Jenner Gulch, the site of the town. Charles K. Jenner would go on to be a prominent attorney in early Seattle, arguing several cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Stillwater Cove Regional Park, located 16 mi north of Jenner, features picnic facilities, beach access, and a historic one-room schoolhouse.

Jenner received media attention in 2004 after the bodies of Lindsay Cutshall and Jason S. Allen were discovered on Fish Head Beach just north of town. The incident became known as the Jenner, California double-murder of 2004.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP covers an area of 2.4 square miles (6.2 km2), 2.1 square miles (5.5 km2) of it land, and 0.3 square miles (0.7 km2) of it (12.00%) water.

2010
The 2010 United States Census reported that Jenner had a population of 136. The population density was 56.7 PD/sqmi. The racial makeup of the CDP was 91.9% White, 1.5% African American, 1.5% Asian, and 5.1% from two or more races. 5.9% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.

The Census reported that 100% of the population lived in households.

There were 80 households, out of which 6 (7.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 26 (32.5%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 6 (7.5%) had a female householder with no husband present, 2 (2.5%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 6 (7.5%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 2 (2.5%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 36 households (45.0%) were made up of individuals, and 9 (11.3%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.70. There were 34 families (42.5% of all households); the average family size was 2.24.

The population was spread out, with 7 people (5.1%) under the age of 18, 3 people (2.2%) aged 18 to 24, 15 people (11.0%) aged 25 to 44, 81 people (59.6%) aged 45 to 64, and 30 people (22.1%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 58.5 years. For every 100 females, there were 106.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 115.0 males.

There were 158 housing units at an average density of 65.9 /sqmi, of which 66.3% were owner-occupied and 33.8% were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.9%; the rental vacancy rate was 35.7%. 67.6% of the population lived in owner-occupied housing units and 32.4% lived in rental housing units.

2000
As of Census 2000, figures for Jenner's zip code showed that of the primary languages spoken in Jenner 94% spoke English while 6% did not; of those, 2% spoke French, 2% spoke Spanish, 1% spoke German, 1% spoke Urdu, and less than 1% spoke a Native American language.

Climate
Jenner experiences a cool summer Mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification Csb) typical of coastal areas of California. The wet season, typified by heavy rainfall, is from October to May. Summers are often overcast, the sun blocked by marine layer clouds that keep it cool, humid, and often drizzly in the night and morning hours.

title: Jenner, California