text:
American Eugenics Society

The American Eugenics Society (AES) was a pro-eugenics organization dedicated to "furthering the discussion, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge about biological and sociocultural forces which affect the structure and composition of human populations". It endorsed the study and practice of Eugenics in the United States. Its original name as the American Eugenics Society lasted from 1922 to 1973, but the group changed their name after open use of the term "eugenics" became disfavored; it was known as the Society for the Study of Social Biology from 1973-2008, and the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology from 2008–2019. The Society was disbanded in 2019.

History
Initially known as the American Eugenics Society, or AES, the Society formed after the success of the Second International Congress on Eugenics (New York, 1921). AES founders included Madison Grant, Harry H. Laughlin, Irving Fisher, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Charles Davenport and Henry Crampton. The organization started by promoting racial betterment, eugenic health, and genetic education through public lectures, exhibits at county fairs, etc.

To gain popularity with the public, the eugenics movement adopted “two faces,” a positive and negative face. The ‘positive’ side of this movement focused on emphasizing the urge for the “genetically gifted” to reproduce. The ‘negative’ face of the eugenics campaign involved efforts to prevent the “defective” individuals from reproducing. This negative side of the eugenics movement catalyzed anti-immigration movements of the early twentieth centuries because of the idea that non-whites and immigrants were “inferior” to “native-born white Americans” in terms of intelligence, physical condition, and moral stature.

The AES primarily used fitter family contests to help promote its mission. These fitter family contests took place in public festivals or fairs. Physical appearance, behavior, intelligence, and health were just a few of the qualities that the AES looks at while determining the fittest family. The AES would give out prizes, trophies, and medals to the winning families. Additionally, the AES would sponsor displays and exhibits that featured statistics on the births of "undesirable" or "desirable" children at the fairs and festivals. An example of such a display from the 1920s and 1930s statistics claimed as follows: Every sixteen seconds, a child is born in the United States. Out of those children, a capable, desirable child is born every seven and a half minutes, whereas an undesirable, feebleminded child is born every forty-eight seconds, and a future criminal is born every fifty seconds. To conclude, the display would argue that every fifteen seconds, a hundred dollars of taxpayers' money went towards supporting the mentally ill and undesirable.

These family contests also involved judgements. These “judgements” were taken from each participants’ medical records, occupation, education level, political affiliation, marital status, and religion. IQ tests were also taken to establish each participants intelligence level. Then, each family underwent “physical examinations” and “disease testing." Following all of these tests and examinations, each participant would receive a “score” and a “family level score." The participants who scored highly received a medal that read ‘Yea, I have a goodly heritage.' The demographic of these medal winners were predominantly white, married, wealthy, educated, and non-immigrant individuals which promoted the AES agenda of ideal and perfect traits for “positive eugenics."

There were numerous committees within the AES dedicated to different aspects of eugenic education. For example, there was a committee dedicated to crime prevention. These committees pressured local municipal and legal systems to push the AES beliefs and ideas.

The AES also sought to promote eugenic policies at the US state and federal level; in particular, Harry H. Laughlin promoted eugenic sterilization in the early twentieth century. By the late 1920s, eugenic sterilization laws were being enforced in multiple states (Sterilization law in the United States). By 1933, California had enforced eugenically sterilization laws on more people than any of the other US states combined, mainly affecting people of color and foreign immigrants. These laws led to court cases and lawsuits, such as Buck v. Bell (1927) and Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

In 1926, the society published a Eugenics Catechism, arguing that eugenics was supported by the Bible, and therefore ought to be promoted by Christians.

During the presidency of Henry Farnham Perkins from 1931 to 1933, the AES worked with the American Birth Control League. Margaret Sanger, a birth control activist, "was a member of the AES in 1956 and established the Birth Control League in 1921". Margaret Sanger, however, identified with broader issues of "health and fitness" during the 20th century eugenics movement, which were well-respected and popular amongst doctors, physicians, political leaders, and educators. Sanger continued to believe in and push for women's reproductive rights and encouraged those in political power to steer away from racially-motivated ideas or tactics involving the eugenics movement. For example, Sanger "vocally opposed" racial stereotyping which lead to the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924, "on the grounds that intelligence" and other characteristics vary by individual, not by group.

Under the direction of Frederick Osborn the Society began to place greater focus on issues of population control, genetics, and, later, medical genetics. In 1930, the Society included mostly prominent and wealthy individuals, and membership included many non-scientists. The demographics of the Society gradually changed, and by 1960, members of the Society were almost exclusively scientists and medical professionals. Consequentially, the Society focused more on genetics and less on class-based eugenics.

After the Roe v. Wade decision was released in 1973, the Society was reorganized and renamed The Society for the Study of Social Biology. Osborn said, "[t]he name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help."

The name was most recently changed to Society for Biodemography and Social Biology in 2008. The name inherited the name of two disciplines (biodemography and social biology) as a result of interactions between demography and biology throughout the last half of the twentieth century. The Society was then disbanded in 2019. The disbandment of the Society was ultimately due to limits on funding, member engagement, internal tensions, and public interest, or lack thereof, in eugenics. The Society initially began to struggle finding sufficient funding. The lack of funding issue began around 1937 but continued until its official disbandment. The moving of the AES head offices from New Haven to New York in the 1930s also incurred some financial difficulties. The issue of lack of finding was never fully resolved but was not substantial enough to end the AES. As time persisted, the eugenics belief and the Society’s history became increasingly unpopular amongst individuals and the Society received lots of backlash, ultimately causing its disbandment.

Journal
The Society's official journal was Biodemography and Social Biology, originally established in 1954 as Eugenics Quarterly. It was renamed to Social Biology in 1969 and to Biodemography and Social Biology in 2008. The Journal has continued to publish original research articles and short reports from Taylor and Francis.

American Eugenics Society (1922-1973)

 * Irving Fisher 1922–1926 (Political Economy, Yale University)
 * Roswell H. Johnson 1926–1927 (Cold Spring Harbor, Univ. of Pittsburgh)
 * Harry H. Laughlin 1927–1929 (Eugenics Record Office)
 * Clarence C. Little 1929 (Pres., University of Michigan)
 * Henry Pratt Fairchild 1929–1931 (Sociology, New York University)
 * Henry Farnham Perkins 1931–1934 (Zoology, University of Vermont)
 * Ellsworth Huntington 1934–1938 (Geography, Yale University)
 * Samuel Jackson Holmes 1938–1940 (Zoology, University of California)
 * Maurice Bigelow 1940–1945 (Columbia University)
 * Frederick Osborn 1946–1952 (Osborn-Dodge-Harriman RR connection)
 * Harry L. Shapiro 1956–1963 (American Museum of Natural History)
 * Clyde V. Kiser 1964–1968 (differential fertility, Milbank Memorial Fund)
 * Dudley Kirk 1969–1972 (Demography, Stanford University)
 * Bruce K. Eckland 1972–1975 (Sociology, University of North Carolina)

The Society for the Study of Social Biology (1973-2008)

 * Bruce K. Eckland 1972–1975 (Sociology, University of North Carolina)
 * L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling 1976–1978 (Genetic Psychiatry)
 * Gardner Lindzey 1979–1981 (Center for Advanced Study, Behavioral Sciences)
 * John L. Fuller 1982–1983 (Behavioral genetics)
 * Michael Teitelbaum 1985–1990 (US Congress staff; US population policy)
 * Robert Retherford 1991–1994 (East-West Institute, Hawaii; funded by AID)
 * Joseph Lee Rodgers 1994–1995 (Psychology, University of Oklahoma)

Society for Biodemography and Social Biology (2008-2019)

 * Hans-Peter Kohler, 2007–2012 (Demography, University of Pennsylvania)
 * Jason Boardman, 2012–2015 (University of Colorado Boulder)
 * Andrew J. Noymer, 2015-2019 (University of California, Irvine)

title: American Eugenics Society


text:
Category:Glaciers of the United States

Glaciers in the United States, current and former

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

title: Category:Glaciers of the United States


text:
Category:Glaciers of North America

Glaciers in North America.

title: Category:Glaciers of North America


text:
Lorsch Abbey

Lorsch Abbey, otherwise the Imperial Abbey of Lorsch (Reichsabtei Lorsch; Laureshamense Monasterium or Laurissa), is a former Imperial abbey in Lorsch, Germany, about 10 km east of Worms. It was one of the most important monasteries of the Carolingian Empire. Even in its ruined state, its remains are among the most important pre-Romanesque–Carolingian style buildings in Germany.

Its chronicle, entered in the Lorscher Codex compiled in the 1170s (now in the state archive at Würzburg), is a fundamental document for early medieval German history. Another famous document from the monastic library is the Codex Aureus of Lorsch.

In 1991 the ruined abbey was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site because of its architectural and historical importance. The significant remains visible today are the 9th-century Torhalle (gatehouse), part of the abbey church, some of the wall around the abbey, and other walls and parts of buildings adapted to modern use.

Founding
The abbey was founded in 764 by the Frankish Count Cancor and his widowed mother, Williswinda, as a proprietary church (Eigenkirche) and monastery on their estate, Laurissa. It was dedicated to Saint Peter and Saint Paul. The founders entrusted its government to Cancor's cousin, Chrodegang (Archbishop of Metz), who became its first abbot. The monastery was settled by Benedictines from Gorze Abbey near Metz.

The pious founders enriched the new abbey with further donations. To make the abbey popular as a shrine and a place of pilgrimage, Chrodegang obtained from Pope Paul I the body of Saint Nazarius, martyred at Rome with three companions under Diocletian.

On 11 July 765, the sacred relics arrived and with great solemnity were deposited in the basilica of the monastery. In 766 Chrodegang resigned from the office of abbot, in favour of his other duties as Archbishop of Metz. He then sent his brother Gundeland to Lorsch as his successor, with fourteen Benedictine monks.

That same year, there was a dispute about property rights between Gundeland and Cancor's son, and the abbey was moved to an Ice Age dune, a few hundred metres from its original location on a small island in the Weschnitz. In 772, Gundeland applied to the highest authority, Charlemagne, who found in his favour. Gundeland gave the abbey with all his properties to the king, turning it into a Royal abbey.

The abbey and basilica were then renamed in honour of Saint Nazarius: the main church of Saints Peter, Paul, and Nazarius was consecrated by the Archbishop of Mainz in September 774, in the presence of Charlemagne.

Influence
Many miracles were said to be wrought through the intercession of Saint Nazarius at Lorsch, and from all parts of Europe pilgrims in large numbers came to visit the shrine. In the course of the 9th century the library and scriptorium of Lorsch made it one of the cultural centres of Germany; its four surviving 9th-century catalogues show that it was rich in both Classical and Christian texts.

Few Carolingian manuscripts are better known than the Lorsch gospels, the Codex Aureus of Lorsch, now divided between the Vatican Library and the Batthyaneum Library in Alba Iulia, Romania; the carved ivory consular diptychs of Anastasius (consul 517) that were reused for its bindings are urbane classicising works of art in themselves, and embodiments of the classical tradition of Byzantium as it was transmitted to Lorsch in the time of Charlemagne.

In 876, shortly after the death of Ludwig der Deutsche (Louis the German), the abbey became the burial place for the first "German" king. His son, Ludwig der Jüngere (Louis the Younger, died 882), and his grandson Hugo (died 879) were also buried at Lorsch. The burial chapel (ecclesia varia) later continued to serve as a Royal burial ground, e.g. for Kunigunde (died after 915), wife of the first non-Carolingian king, Konrad I (Conrad I).

From 895–956, the abbey was not allowed to elect its own abbots: they were appointed by the king. Emperor Otto I restored this right to Lorsch. A confrontation between ruler and abbot about the construction of the castle of Starkenburg within view of the abbey resulted in abbot Udalrich confronting the king at Trebur with 1,200 armed riders.

Throughout the 11th century, the abbey flourished. Popes and emperors repeatedly favoured the abbey with privileges and estates ranging from the Alps to the North Sea, so that in a short time it became not only immensely rich, but also a seat of political influence. It was declared a reichsabtei (a sovereign principality in its own right, subject directly and solely to the emperor). In 1052, Pope Leo IX came to consecrate an altar in the burial chapel of the eastern Carolingians. By the end of the 11th century, Lorsch had been visited by kings/emperors around 2 times. In 1090, a fire ravaged the abbey, and an extensive rebuilding was conducted in the early 12th century.

The abbey, enjoying sovereign territorial rights, became implicated in several local feuds and in a number of wars. After 46 Benedictine abbots had governed the abbey, Conrad, the last of them, was deposed by Pope Gregory IX in 1226, and through the influence of Friedrich II (Frederick II), Lorsch came into the possession of Siegfried III, Archbishop of Mainz, in 1232, ending the period of Lorsch's cultural and political independence. From 1232–48, Lorsch was used by the Cistercians.

Later history
In 1248, Premonstratensian canons from Allerheiligen Abbey were given charge of the monastery with the sanction of Pope Celestine IV. In 1461, the abbey was mortgaged to the Electoral Palatinate. In 1556, Elector Palatine Otto Heinrich implemented the Protestant Reformation in his territories and dissolved the monasteries.

He removed the contents of the library to Heidelberg, forming the famous Bibliotheca Palatina, just prior to Lorsch's dissolution in 1557/1563. The remaining members of the abbey's religious community were pensioned off and sent away. In 1623, after the capture of Heidelberg, the Elector Maximilian of Bavaria presented the renowned library, 196 cases of manuscripts, to Pope Gregory XV. Leo Allatius was sent to superintend its removal to Rome, where it was incorporated into the Vatican library as the "Biblioteca Palatina".

In 2014, the University of Heidelberg created a website, Bibliotheca Laureshamensis reuniting the surviving Lorsch documents in a digital environment. The digitization project was envisioned in 2005 and launched in 2010 but at this point, many libraries and institutions had not yet photographed their manuscripts. Throughout the project, “…an immense change in the attitude towards the publication of digital facsimiles of medieval manuscripts could be noted. More and more cooperating libraries had set up their digitization studios or found commercial partners, the acceptance of international licenses and terms of use for digital images had increased and above all granting free access to digital data had become more common.” More than half of the 309 manuscripts were digitally reproduced by the holding libraries themselves.

As of 2015, the Vatican holds over a third of the surviving Lorsch manuscripts, while the rest are spread out over seventy two institutions in twelve countries.

Destruction of the abbey
During the Thirty Years' War Lorsch and its neighbourhood suffered greatly. In 1621, Spanish troops pillaged the abbey and most of the buildings at Lorsch were pulled down. After the Archbishopric of Mainz regained possession of it in 1623, the region was returned to the Catholic faith. However, the abbey remained a ruin and served as a source of building materials for the whole region.

The most depressed period for Lorsch was during the wars of Louis XIV of France in the late 17th century. Whole villages in the region were laid in ruins, the homes of the peasantry were burned, and the French soldiers torched the old abbey buildings. One portion, which was left intact, served as a tobacco warehouse in the years before World War I. The ancient gate house, the Königshalle or aula regia ("king's hall"), built in the 9th century by King Louis II, is the oldest largely intact monument of Carolingian architecture.

Historic names
The following historical names have been recorded:

 * In the 8th century: Laurisham
 * In the 9th century: Lorishaim
 * 9th and 11th centuries: Loresham
 * 9th–10th centuries: Laurishaim
 * 10th century: Laresham
 * 10th–12th centuries: Lareshaeim and Lauresheim
 * 11th–12th centuries: Lauresham
 * 11th century: Larsem, Loraszam, Lorozam, Lorisham
 * 12th century: Laurisca, Laurisham, Laureshan, Loressam, Lorisheym, Lorscheim, Lors

List of abbots
In 468 years, the monastery had 47 abbots..

title: Lorsch Abbey


text:
Greater Finland

[[Image:Suur-Suomen kartta.png|thumb|Modern-day Finland and lands lost to the Soviet Union from 1940–1944 appear in light blue.

Greater Finland includes some or all of previous Finnish territory. The image includes the borders of Finland according to the 1920 Treaty of Tartu and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties.

{{legend|#608eb2|East Karelia}} {{legend|#00669c|Estonia}} {{legend|#007570|Ingria}} {{legend|#6ec1eb|Finland}} {{legend|#b26091|Kola}} {{legend|#9693d7|Meänmaa}} {{legend|#1e9055|Ruija}} Greater Finland (Suur-Suomi; Suur-Soome; Storfinland), was an irredentist and nationalist idea that was a subset of Pan-Finnicism which emphasized the territorial expansion of Finland. The most common concept of Greater Finland saw the country as defined by natural borders encompassing the territories inhabited by Finns and Karelians, ranging from the White Sea to Lake Onega and along the Svir River and Neva River—or, more modestly, the Sestra River—to the Gulf of Finland. Some proponents also included the Torne Valley (in Sweden), Ingria, and Estonia.
 * 150px]]

The idea of a Greater Finland rapidly gained popularity after Finland became independent in December 1917. The idea has lost support after World War II (1939–1945).

Natural borders
The idea of the so-called three-isthmus border—defined by the White Isthmus, the Olonets Isthmus, and the Karelian Isthmus—is hundreds of years old, dating back to the period when Finland was part of Sweden. There was a disagreement between Sweden and Russia as to where the border between the two countries should be. The Swedish government considered a three-isthmus border to be the easiest to defend.

Although the term "Greater Finland" was not used in the early 19th century, the idea of Finland's natural geographical boundaries dates back to then. In 1837, the botanist Johan Ernst Adhemar Wirzén defined Finland's wild plant distribution area as the eastern border lines of the White Sea, Lake Onega, and the River Svir. The geologist Wilhelm Ramsay defined the bedrock concept of Fenno-Scandinavia at the beginning of the 19th century.

Karelianism
Karelianism was a national romantic hobby for artists, writers, and composers in which Karelian and Karelian-Finnish culture was used as a source of inspiration. Karelianism was most popular in the 1890s. For example, the author Ilmari Kianto, known as the "White friend", wrote about his travels to White Karelia in the 1918 book Finland at Its Largest: For the Liberation of White Karelia.

Other Nordic countries
The Kvens, a minority in Northern Norway, helped Finnish settlements spread, especially in the 1860s. The Academic Karelia Society and the Finnish Heritage Association worked actively with the Kvens from 1927 to 1934, and the Finnish media spread pan-Fennicist propaganda through various channels. Activity slowed down from 1931 to 1934.

In the early days of its independence, Finland wanted Finnish-speaking areas in Norrbotten, Sweden, to join Finland. This was a reaction to the effort by Finland's own Åland to join Sweden. The Finnish government set up a committee to expand Finnish national movements. Sweden, for its part, pushed for instruction in the Swedish language in its northern Finnish regions. Until the 1950s, many schoolchildren in Norrbotten were banned from using the Finnish language during breaks at school.

Heimosodat
The Greater Finland ideology gained strength from 1918 to 1920, during the Heimosodat, with the goal of combining all Finnic peoples into a single state. Similar ideas also spread in western East Karelia. Two Russian municipalities, Repola and Porajärvi, wanted to become part of Finland but could not under the strict conditions of the Treaty of Tartu. They declared themselves independent in 1919, but the border change was never officially confirmed, mainly because of the treaty, which was negotiated the following year. In the Treaty of Tartu negotiations in 1920, Finland demanded more of Eastern Karelia. Russia agreed to this but kept Repola and Porajärvi for itself, offering Finland Petsamo instead. President Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg of Finland agreed to the exchange.

Karelians in Uhtua (now Kalevala, Russia) wanted their own state, so they created the Republic of Uhtua. Ingrian Finns also created their own state, North Ingria, but with the intention of being incorporated into Finland. Both states ceased to exist in 1920.

The Greater Finland ideology inspired the Academic Karelia Society, the Lapua movement, and that movement's successor, the Patriotic People's Movement. The Mannerheim Sword Scabbard Declarations in 1918 and 1941 increased enthusiasm for the idea.

1920s and 1930s
Under the Treaty of Tartu, Soviet Russia agreed to give Eastern Karelia (known simply as Karelia in the later Soviet Union) political autonomy as a concession to Finnish sentiment. This was in line with the Bolshevik leadership's policy at the time of offering political autonomy to each of the national minorities within the new Soviet state. At the same time, the League of Nations solved the Åland crisis in Finland's favor.

After the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the Red Guards fled to Russia and rose to a leading position in Eastern Karelia. Led by Edvard Gylling, they helped establish the Karelian Workers' Commune. The Reds were also assigned to act as a bridgehead in the Finnish revolution. Finnish politicians in Karelia strengthened their base in 1923 with the establishment of the Karelian ASSR. Finnish nationalists helped some Karelians who were unhappy with the failure of the Karelian independence movement to organize an uprising, but it was unsuccessful, and a small number of Karelians fled to Finland.

After the civil war, a large number of left-wing Finnish refugees fled for the Karelian ASSR. These Finns—an urbanized, educated, and Bolshevik elite—tended to monopolize leadership positions within the new republic. The "Finnishness" of the area was enhanced by some migration of Ingrian Finns, and by the Great Depression. Gylling encouraged Finns in North America to flee to the Karelian ASSR, which was held up as a beacon of enlightened Soviet national policy and economic development.

Even by 1926, 96.6% of the population of the Karelian ASSR spoke Karelian as their mother tongue. No unified Karelian literary language existed, and the prospect of creating one was considered problematic because of the language's many dialects. The local Finnish leadership had a dim view of the potential of Karelian as a literary language and did not try to develop it. Gylling and the Red Finns may have considered Karelian to be a mere dialect of Finnish. They may also have hoped that, through the adoption of Finnish, they could unify Karelians and Finns into one Finnic people. All education of Karelians was conducted in Finnish, and all publications became Finnish (with the exception of some in Russian).

By contrast, the Karelians of Tver Oblast, who had gained a measure of political autonomy independent of Finnish influence, were able by 1931 to develop a literary Karelian based on the Latin alphabet. These Tver Karelians became hostile to what they saw as Finnish dominance of Karelia, as did some of the small, local Karelian intelligentsia. Reactions to the use of Finnish among the Karelians themselves were diverse. Some had difficulty understanding written Finnish. There was outright resistance to the language from residents of Olonets Karelia, while White Karelians had a more positive attitude toward it.

In the summer of 1930, "Finnification politics" became politically sensitive. The Leningrad party apparatus (the powerful southern neighbor of the Karelian Red Finns) began to protest Finnish chauvinism toward the Karelians in concert with the Tver Karelians. This coincided with increasing centralization under Joseph Stalin and the concurrent decline in power of many local minority elites. Gylling and Kustaa Rovio tried to expand the usage of Karelian in certain spheres, but this process was hardly begun before they were deposed. The academic Dmitri Bubrikh then developed a literary Karelian based on the Cyrillic alphabet, borrowing heavily from Russian.

The Central Committee of the Council of Nationalities and the Soviet Academy of Sciences protested the forced Finnification of Soviet Karelia. Bubrikh's Karelian language was adopted from 1937 to 1939, and Finnish was repressed. But the new language, based on an unfamiliar alphabet and with extensive usage of Russian vocabulary and grammar, was difficult for many Karelians to comprehend. By 1939, Bubrikh himself had been repressed, and all forms of Karelian were dropped in both the Karelian ASSR and Tver Oblast (where the Karelian National District was dissolved entirely).

The Great Purge
In Stalin's Great Purge in 1937, the remaining Red Finns in Soviet Karelia were accused of Trotskyist-bourgeois nationalism and purged entirely from the leadership of the Karelian ASSR. Most Finns in the area were executed or forcefully transferred to other parts of the Soviet Union. During this period, no official usage of Karelian was pursued, and the use of the Finnish language was repressed, relegating it to an extremely marginal role, making Russian the de facto official language of the republic. By this time, the economic development of the area had also attracted a growing number of internal migrants from other areas of the Soviet Union, who steadily diluted the "national" character of the Karelian ASSR.

The Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic (KFSSR) was founded by the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Winter War, and was led by the Terijoki government and Otto Wille Kuusinen. This new entity was created with an eye to absorbing a defeated Finland into one greater Finnic (and Soviet) state, and so the official language returned to Finnish. However, the Soviet military was unable to completely defeat Finland, and this idea came to nothing. Despite this, the KFSSR was maintained as a full Union Republic (on a par with Ukraine or Kazakhstan, for example) until the end of the Stalinist period, and Finnish was at least nominally an official language until 1956. The territory Finland was forced to cede under the Moscow Peace Treaty was incorporated partly into the KFSSR, but also into Leningrad Oblast to the south and Murmansk Oblast to the north.

During the Continuation War from 1941 to 1944, about 62,000 Ingrian Finns escaped to Finland from German-occupied areas, of whom 55,000 were returned to the Soviet Union and expelled to Siberia. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, they were permitted to settle within the KFSSR, although not in Ingria itself.

The Continuation War

During the civil war in 1918, when the military leader Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was in Antrea, he issued one of his famous Sword Scabbard Declarations, in which he said that he would not "sheath my sword before law and order reigns in the land, before all fortresses are in our hands, before the last soldier of Lenin is driven not only away from Finland, but from White Karelia as well". During the Continuation War, Mannerheim gave the second Sword Scabbard Declaration. In it, he mentioned "the Great Finland", which brought negative attention in political circles.

During the Continuation War, Finland occupied the most comprehensive area in its history. Many people elsewhere, as well as Finland's right-wing politicians, wanted to annex East Karelia to Finland. The grounds were not only ideological and political but also military, as the so-called three-isthmus line were considered easier to defend. On 20 July 1941, a celebration was held in Vuokkiniemi, where White and Olonets Karelia were declared to have joined Finland.

Russians and Karelians were treated differently in Finland, and the ethnic background of the country's Russian-speaking minority was studied to determine which of them were Karelian (i.e., "the national minority") and which were mostly Russian (i.e., "the un-national minority"). The Russian minority were taken to concentration camps so that they would be easier to move away.

In 1941, the government published a German edition of Finnlands Lebensraum, a book supporting the idea of Greater Finland, with the intention of annexing Eastern Karelia and Ingria.

Finland's eastern question
During the Continuation War's attack phase in 1941, when the Finns hoped for a German victory over the Soviet Union, Finland began to consider what areas it could get in a possible peace treaty with the Soviets. The German objective was to take over the Arkhangelsk–Astrakhan line, which would have allowed Finland to expand to the east. A 1941 book by professor Jalmari Jaakkola, titled Die Ostfrage Finnlands, sought to justify the occupation of East Karelia. The book was translated into English, Finnish, and French, and received criticism from Sweden and the United States.

The Finnish Ministry of Education established the Scientific Committee of East Karelia on 11 December 1941 to guide research in East Karelia. The first chairman of the commission was the rector of the University of Helsinki, Kaarlo Linkola, and the second chairman was Väinö Auer. Jurists worked to prepare international legal arguments for why Finland should get East Karelia.

Motivations
The rationales of the Greater Finland idea are a subject of disagreement. Some supported the idea out of a desire for wider cultural cooperation. Later, however, the ideology gained clearer imperialist characteristics. The main supporter of the idea, the Academic Karelia Society, was born as a cultural organization, but in its second year, it released a program that dealt with broader strategic, geographical, historical, and political arguments for Greater Finland.

The idea today
The Greater Finland idea is unpopular today, with those who wish for Finnish territorial expansion, such as the former Finns Party Youth and some others wishing for the re-annexation of Finnish Karelia instead.

title: Greater Finland


text:
Adelphi Genetics Forum

The Adelphi Genetics Forum is a non-profit learned society based in the United Kingdom. Its aims are "to promote the public understanding of human heredity and to facilitate informed debate about the ethical issues raised by advances in reproductive technology."

It was founded by Sybil Gotto in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society, with the aim of promoting the research and understanding of eugenics. Members came predominately from the professional class and included eminent scientists such as Francis Galton. The Society engaged in advocacy and research to further their eugenic goals, and members participated in activities such as lobbying Parliament, organizing lectures, and producing propaganda. It became the Eugenics Society in 1924 (often referred to as the British Eugenics Society to distinguish it from others). From 1909 to 1968 it published The Eugenics Review, a scientific journal dedicated to eugenics. Membership reached its peak during the 1930s.

The Society was renamed the Galton Institute in 1989. In 2021, it was renamed the Adelphi Genetics Forum. The organisation is currently based in Wandsworth, London.

Creation of the Eugenics Education Society
The Eugenics Education Society (EES) was founded in 1907 at the impetus of 21-year-old Sybil Gotto, a widowed social reformer. Inspired by Francis Galton's work on eugenics, Gotto began looking for supporters to start an organization aimed at educating the public about the benefits of eugenics. She was introduced to the lawyer Montague Crackanthorpe, who would become the second president of the EES, by James Slaughter, the Secretary of the Sociological Society. Crackanthorpe introduced Gotto to Galton, the statistician who coined the term "eugenics." Galton would go on to be Honorary President of the Society from 1907 to 1911. Gotto and Crackanthorpe presented their vision before a committee of the Moral Education League, requesting that the League change its name to the Eugenic and Moral Education League, but the committee decided that a new organization should be formed exclusively devoted to eugenics. The EES was located in Eccleston Square, London. The goals of Eugenics Education Society, as stated in first issue of the Eugenics Review were:

 * 1) “Persistently to set forth the National Importance of Eugenics in order to modify public opinion, and create a sense of responsibility in the respect of bringing all matters pertaining to human parenthood under the domination of Eugenic ideals.
 * 2) To spread a knowledge of the Laws of heredity so far as they are surely known, and so far as that knowledge might affect the improvement of the race.
 * 3) To further Eugenic Teaching at home, in the schools, and elsewhere."

Membership
The EES did not exist in isolation, but was rather a part of a large network of Victorian reform groups that existed in Britain at the turn of the twentieth century. Members of the Society were also involved in the National Association for the Care and Protection of the Feeble-minded, the Society for Inebrity, the Charity Organisation Society, and the Moral Education League. The British eugenics movement was a predominantly middle classand professional class phenomenon. Most members of the EES were educated and prominent in their fields – at one point all members were listed in professional directories., Two-thirds of the members were scientists, and the 1914 Council of the EES was dominated by professors and physicians. Women constituted a significant portion of the Society’s members, exceeding 50% in 1913 and 40% in 1937. While the majority of members came from the professional class, there were also a few members from the clergy and aristocracy, such as Reverend William Inge, the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, and the Earl and Countess of Limerick.

The Society underwent considerable growth in its early years. By 1911, the London headquarters was supplemented by branches in Cambridge, "Oxford, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton, Glasgow, and Belfast," as well as abroad in "Australia and New Zealand". The Society found support in leading academic institutions. Statistician R. A. Fisher was a founding member of the Cambridge University Branch, where Leonard Darwin, Reginald Punnett, and Reverend Inge lectured about the eugenic dangers a fertile working class posed to the educated middle class.

1907 to 1939
The main activities the Eugenics Education Society engaged in were research, propaganda, and legislative lobbying. Many campaigns were joint efforts with other social reform groups. The EES met with 59 other organizations between 1907 and 1935.

Shortly after the Society was founded, members protested the closing of London institutions housing alcoholic women. A resolution was drafted proposing that alcoholics be segregated to prevent their reproduction, as the EES held the eugenic belief that alcoholism was heritable. This resolution proved unsuccessful in Parliament in 1913.

In 1910, the Society's Committee on Poor Law Reform refuted both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, declaring their belief that poverty was rooted in the genetic deficiencies of the working class. This view was published in a special Poor Law issue of the Eugenics Review. The Committee suggested that paupers be detained in workhouses, under the authority of the Poor Law Guardians, to prevent their breeding. The same year, E. J. Lidbetter, EES member and former employee of the Poor Law Authority in London, attempted to prove the hereditary nature of poverty by compiling and studying the pedigrees of impoverished families. In 1912, President Leonard Darwin assembled a Research Committee to standardize the format and symbols used in pedigree studies. The members of the Committee were Edgar Schuster, Alexander M. Carr-Saunders, E. J. Lidbetter, Major Greenwood, Sybil Gotto, and A. F. Tredgold. The standardized pedigree they produced was published in the Eugenics Review and later adopted by Charles Davenport's Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor in the United States.

In 1912, a group of physicians from the EES met unsuccessfully with the President of the Local Government Board to advocate for the institutionalization of those infected with venereal disease. The Society’s interest in venereal disease continued during WWI, when the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases was formed with the inclusion of members of the EES.

In 1916, EES President Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, published a pamphlet entitled “Quality not Quantity,” encouraging members of the professional class to have more children. Darwin proposed a tax rebate for middle-class families in 1917, but the resolution was unsuccessful in Parliament. In 1919, Darwin stated his belief that fertility was inversely proportional to economic class before the Royal Commission on Income Tax. He feared the falling birth rate of the middle-class would result in a “national danger.” The Eugenics Education Society was renamed the Eugenics Society in 1924 to emphasize its commitment to scientific research extending beyond the role of public education. In the 1920s and 1930s, members of the Eugenics Society advocated for graded Family Allowances in which wealthier families would be given more funds for having more children, thus incentivizing fertility in the middle and upper classes. Statistician and EES member R. A. Fisher argued in 1932 that existing Family Allowances that only funded the poor were dysgenic, as they did not reward the breeding of individuals the EES viewed as eugenically desirable.

In 1930, the Eugenics Society formed a Committee for Legalising Sterilisation, producing propaganda pamphlets touting sterilisation as there solution for eliminating heritable feeblemindedness.

During this time period members of the Society such as Julian Huxley expressed support for eutelegenesis, a eugenic proposal to artificially inseminate women with the sperm of men deemed mentally and physically superior in an effort to better the race.

1942 to 1989
The Eugenics Society underwent a hiatus during the Second World War and did not reconvene until 1942, under the leadership of General Secretary Carlos Blacker. In the postwar period, the Society shifted its focus from class differences to marriage, fertility, and the changing racial makeup of the UK.

In 1944, R. C. Wofinden published an article in the Eugenics Review describing the features of "mentally deficient" working-class families and questioning whether mental deficiency led to poverty or vice versa. Blacker argued that poor heredity was the cause of poverty, but other members of the Society, such as Hilda Lewis, disagreed with this view.

Following WWII, British eugenicists concerned by rising divorce rates and falling birth rates attempted to promote marriages between "desirable" individuals while preventing marriages between those deemed eugenically unfit. The British Social Hygiene Council, a group with ties to the Eugenics Society, formed the Marriage Guidance Council, an organization that offered pre-marital counseling to young couples. In 1954, the Eugenics Society was referred to by the North Kensington Marriage Welfare Centre's pamphlet "Eugenic Guidance," as a source for consultation for couples worried about passing on their "weaknesses."

As a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, which enabled Commonwealth citizens to immigrate to the UK, postwar Britain saw an influx of non-white populations. The Eugenics Society became concerned with changes to the racial makeup of the country, exemplified by its publication of G. C. L. Bertram's 1958 broadsheet on immigration from the West Indies. Bertram claimed that races were biologically distinct due to their evolved adaptations to different environments, and that miscegenation should only be permitted between similar races.

In 1952, Blacker stepped down as Secretary of the Eugenics Society to become the administrative chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, or IPPF. The IPPF was sponsored in part by the Eugenics Society and headquartered within the Society's offices in London. Blacker's influence continued in 1962, when he published an article in the Eugenics Review defending voluntary sterilization as humanitarian effort beneficial to mothers and their existing children.

In 1957, Blacker addressed the dwindling membership of the Society (from 768 in 1932 to 456 in 1956) in "The Eugenics Society's Future". He recommended that the Society "pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics, which was apparently proving successful with the US Eugenics Society." In February 1960, the Council of the Society resolved that their "activities in crypto-eugenics should be pursued vigorously..." and to change its name to "The Galton Society".

The last volume of the Eugenics Review was published in 1968. It was succeeded by the Journal of Biosocial Science. Following the 1960s, the Eugenics Society experienced a loss of support and prestige and eventually shifted its focus from eugenics in Britain to biosocial issues such as fertility and population control in Third World countries. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Galton Institute in 1989, a reflection of the negative public sentiment towards eugenics following WWII.

"Crypto" (secret) Eugenics
In 1928, the Society published the first draft of its Sterilization Bill in the Eugenics Review. The following year a Parliamentary Committee for Legalising Eugenic Sterilization was established and, in July 1931, Archibald Church M.P. (a member of both the Committee and of the Eugenics Society) rose in the House of Commons to introduce a bill “to enable mental defectives to undergo sterilizing operations or sterilizing treatment upon their own application, or that of their spouses or parents or guardians.” In his speech, Church said that the bill was "... merely a first step in order that the community as a whole should be able to make an experiment on a small scale so that later on we may have the benefit of the results and experience gained in order to come to conclusions before bringing in a Bill for the compulsory sterilisation of the unfit." Nonetheless, it was defeated.

At this point, “three weighty organisations” joined the campaign and “a concerted petition for an official inquiry was submitted to the then Minister of Health.” This led to the formation of a Departmental Committee on Sterilization (the Brock Committee) in June 1932. The apparent groundswell of support for sterilisation was deceptive. According to John Mcnichol: “Blacker admitted in private that the lobbying technique of the [Eugenics] society was to make it appear as if the demand for an official enquiry emanated from these large bodies, whereas in fact it was the [Eugenics] society that was masterminding the campaign”. “Between June 1932 and January 1934 the Brock committee held thirty-six meetings and interviewed sixty witnesses. Dominated by its chairman, who pulled every string to assist the society in its campaign (thus flagrantly violating civil service neutrality), the committee’s report recommended the legalization of voluntary sterilization for three identifiable categories of patient — mental defectives of the mentally disordered, persons suffering from a transmissible physical disability (for example, hereditary blindness), or persons likely to transmit mental disorder or defect.” Brock also met secretly with Blacker to advise him on how to improve the wording of the society’s draft sterlization bill.

This practice of secrecy became official policy in 1960. In a 1957 memorandum to the Council of the Eugenics Society, Blacker made recommendations on how to promote the eugenic cause in the aftermath of the Second World War and how to fix the Society's dwindling membership (from 768 in 1932 to 456 in 1956). He suggested that they "pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics, which was apparently proving successful with the US Eugenics Society." In February 1960, the Council resolved that their "activities in crypto-eugenics should be pursued vigorously, and specifically that the Society should increase its monetary support of the FPA [Family Planning Association] and the IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Federation]" and to change its name to "The Galton Society".

The Society played an influential though hidden role in the campaign for the 1967 Abortion Act.

Position on eugenics
The website of the Adelphi Genetics Forum currently states that "The Adelphi Genetics Forum rejects outright the theoretical basis and practice of coercive eugenics, which it regards as having no place in modern life." Furthermore, "The Adelphi Genetics Forum wishes to state clearly and unequivocally that it deplores these outmoded and discredited ideas, which should play no part in society today," but also that "Galton's contribution to modern science deserves to be recognised and acknowledged." Former President Veronica van Heyningen has acknowledged that "Galton was a terrible racist," but she believes it is "reasonable to honour him by giving his name to institutions" due to his significant contribution to the field of genetics.

Prominent members

 * Leonard Arthur, tried for murder in 1981 but acquitted
 * Arthur Balfour
 * Florence Barrett
 * William Beveridge
 * Paul Blanshard
 * Walter Bodmer
 * Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain
 * Chris Brand
 * Cyril Burt
 * Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister (1937–1940)
 * Winston Churchill, Honorary Vice President
 * John Cockburn
 * David Coleman
 * James Herbert Curle
 * Charles D'Arcy
 * Charles Davenport, Vice President (1931)
 * Mary Dendy
 * Robert Geoffrey Edwards
 * Havelock Ellis
 * Hans Eysenck
 * Ronald Fisher
 * Edmund B Ford
 * Agnes Fry
 * Francis Galton, after whom the institute was eventually renamed
 * Charles Goethe
 * Ezra Gosney
 * Madison Grant
 * David Starr Jordan, Vice President (1916, 1931)
 * Franz Josef Kallmann
 * John Harvey Kellogg
 * John Maynard Keynes, Director (1937–1944), Vice President (1937)
 * Richard Lynn
 * James Meade
 * Peter Medawar
 * Naomi Mitchison
 * Sybil Neville-Rolfe, née Gotto, founder
 * Henry Fairfield Osborn
 * Frederick Osborn
 * Roger Pearson
 * Alfred Ploetz, Vice President (1916)
 * Margaret Pyke
 * Margaret Sanger
 * Eliot Slater
 * Marie Stopes
 * James Mourilyan Tanner
 * Richard Titmuss
 * Alice Vickery
 * Arnold Wilson
 * Frank Yates

Presidents
Eugenics Education Society (1911–1926) Eugenics Society (1926–1989) Galton Institute
 * James Crichton-Browne, President (1908–1909)
 * Montague Crackanthorpe, President (1909–1911)
 * Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, President (1911–1929)
 * Bernard Mallet, President (1929–1933)
 * Humphry Rolleston, President (1933–1935)
 * Thomas Horder, President (1935–1949)
 * Alexander Carr-Saunders, President (1949–1953)
 * Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of Charles Darwin, President (1953–1959)
 * Julian Huxley, Vice-president (1937–1944), President (1959–1962)
 * James Gray, President (1962–1965)
 * Robert Platt, President (1965–1968)
 * Alan Parkes, President (1968–1970)
 * P. R. Cox, President (1970–1972)
 * C. O. Carter, President (1972–1976)
 * Harry Armytage, President (1976–1982)
 * Bernard Benjamin, President (1982–1987)
 * Margaret Sutherland, President (1987–1993)
 * G. Ainsworth Harrison, President (1993–1994)
 * Peter Diggory, President (1994–1996)
 * Robert Peel, President (1996–1999)
 * John Timson, President (1999–2002)
 * Steve Jones, President (2002–2008)
 * Walter Bodmer, President (2008–2014)
 * Veronica van Heyningen, President (2014–2020)
 * Turi King, President (2020–2021)

Adelphi Genetics Forum (2021–present)
 * Turi King, President (2021–2023)
 * Nicholas Wood, President (2023–present)

title: Adelphi Genetics Forum


text:
User:Kurwenal~enwiki

Commons:User:Fafner

title: User:Kurwenal~enwiki


text:
Blue Frontier Campaign

The Blue Frontier Campaign is a United States marine conservation activist organization founded by David Helvarg in 2003.

The Campaign has established a nationwide network of grassroots (the marine conservation community or Blue Movement calls this 'seaweed') lobbyists. It is campaigning for an American Oceans Act to protect what the members call "our public seas" and is working to improve ocean policies in the 23 coastal states of the United States. Blue Frontier supports maritime community activists by distributing model policies and practices. Its other objectives include the creation of books, a TV documentary series, and other educational materials on ocean exploration and stewardship. The first such creation was the 2005 - 2006 Ocean and Coastal Conservation Guide. The Blue Vision Conference in Washington DC in July 2004 and Blue Vision Mid-Atlantic Conference at the National Aquarium in Baltimore in April 2005 were the start of a series of seminars to introduce seaweed activists to oceanographers, port officials, and other marine stakeholders. Annual awards called "The Breakers" are presented in ten categories: Art & Entertainment, Conservation Science, Marine Education, Best Business Practices, and Hero of the Seas.

Future plans for the Campaign include endowing a fellowship for investigative reporting on waste, fraud and abuse on America's Seas, working to include marine education in middle school and high school curricula, and developing a media campaign that highlights lessons from the past American frontier, and "applies these to our new blue one".

The directors of the Campaign represent other activist organizations including Clean Ocean Action, The Democracy Collaborative, EarthEcho International, Khaled Bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Reef Relief, and Save Our Shores. It also has a panel of over twenty advisors.

In 2007 two new Blue Frontier projects include Roz Savage's solo crossing of the Pacific Ocean, and a school program for the 50 Ways to Save the Ocean book.

Publications

 * Helvarg, David, 50 Ways to Save the Ocean, (Inner Ocean Publishing, 2006) ISBN 978-1-930722-66-8
 * Helvarg, David, Blue Frontier: Dispatches from America's Ocean Wilderness, (Sierra Club Books, 2006) ISBN 1-57805-157-6
 * Helvarg, David (ed.), Ocean and Coastal Conservation Guide 2005-2006: The Blue Movement Directory, (Island Press, 2005) ISBN 1-55963-859-1
 * Helvarg, David, Blue Frontier: Saving America's Living Seas, (W. H. Freeman, 2001) ISBN 978-0-7167-3715-5

title: Blue Frontier Campaign


text:
Matej Sternen

Matej Sternen (20 September 1870 – 28 June 1949) was a leading Slovene Impressionist painter.

Sternen was born in the Carniolan village of Verd—now part of the Municipality of Vrhnika, Slovenia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire—and baptized Matthæus Strnen. He attended the secondary school in Krško and attended technical school in Graz between 1888 and 1891. After finishing the school in Graz, he enrolled at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. In 1897 he left Vienna for Munich, where he studied at Anton Ažbe's private art school. He lived and worked in the Bavarian capital until Ažbe's death in 1905.

Sternen became acquainted with Impressionism already in Graz. In Vienna, he saw the original paintings of several French impressionists. In Munich he studied with fellow countrymen Rihard Jakopič and Matija Jama, two other representatives of Slovene impressionism. Unlike them, Sternen preferred figurative art, and his work consists mostly of portraits and female nudes.

He became known chiefly as a restorer and conservator of old paintings, and dedicated the majority of his later life to restoration. He partly restored and partly repainted the ceiling in the Franciscan church in Ljubljana, originally decorated by Matevž Langus in the mid 19th century, but badly damaged in the 1895 Ljubljana earthquake.

During World War II, Sternen did not take a political stance, although he was occasionally critical of the communist-led Liberation Front and its activities. In 1944 he painted a portrait of Home Guard General Leon Rupnik, who was the patron of his only solo exhibition in 1944. After the war, he was sent to a prison camp in the Kočevje area, but he was released after six months due to the intervention of prominent acquaintances. He died in Ljubljana on 28 June 1949 and was buried in Žale Cemetery.

Works

 * Rdeči parazol (The Red Parasol) (1904), National Gallery, Ljubljana
 * Ulica v Münchnu (A Street in Munich), National Gallery, Ljubljana
 * Pomladno sonce (Spring Sun), National Gallery, Ljubljana
 * Na divanu (On the Couch) (1909), National Gallery, Ljubljana
 * Frescos on ceiling of the Franciscan Church of the Annunciation (1935), In situ, Franciscan Church, Ljubljana

title: Matej Sternen


text:
Kamala Nehru

Kamala Nehru (née Kaul; ; 1 August 1899 – 28 February 1936) was an Indian independence activist and the wife of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India. Their daughter Indira Gandhi was the first female prime minister of India.

Early life and marriage
Kamala Kaul was born on 1 August 1899 to Rajpati and Jawahar Mull Atal-Kaul, who were from a Kashmiri Pandit family of Old Delhi. She was the eldest child and had two brothers, Chand Bahadur Kaul and the botanist, Kailas Nath Kaul, and a sister, Swaroop Kathju.

Kamala married Jawaharlal Nehru at the age of 16 at the historic Haskar Haveli in Sitaram Bazar. Her husband went to a trip in the Himalayas shortly after their marriage. In his autobiography, Jawaharlal Nehru, referring to his wife, stated "I almost overlooked her." Nehru gave birth to a girl in November 1917, Indira Priyadarshini, who later succeeded her father as prime minister and head of the Congress party.

Contribution to the Indian Independence Movement
Kamala was involved with the Nehrus in the national movement, that she emerged into the forefront. In the Non Cooperation movement of 1921, she organized groups of women in Allahabad and picketed shops selling foreign cloth and liquor. When her husband was arrested to prevent him delivering a "seditious" public speech, she decided to go in his place and read it out to a large crowd of onlookers (filled with her supporters). The colonial authorities soon realized the threat that Kamala Nehru posed to them and how popular she had become with women's groups all over India. She was arrested on two additional occasions for her involvement in Independence struggle activities, along with Sarojini Naidu, Kamala Nehru's mother, and many other women of the Indian independence struggle. During this period she started a dispensary in her house Swaraj Bhavan, converting few rooms into a Congress Dispensary to treat wounded activists, their families, and other residents of Allahabad(now Prayagraj). After her death, Mahatma Gandhi with the help of other prominent leaders converted this dispensary into a proper hospital known as Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital in her memory.

Kamala Nehru spent some time at Gandhi's ashram with Kasturba Gandhi where she built a close friendship with Prabhavati Devi – the wife of independence activist Jayaprakash Narayan.

Death
Kamala Nehru died from tuberculosis in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 28 February 1936, with her daughter and mother-in-law by her side. During her last few years, Kamala Nehru was frequently ill and taken to a sanatorium in Switzerland for treatment, though she returned to India as she got well. In early 1935, as Kamala Nehru's health again deteriorated, she was taken to Badenweiler in Germany by Subhash Chandra Bose and admitted to a sanatorium for treatment. Her husband Jawaharlal Nehru was in prison in India at that time. As her health worsened, Jawaharlal Nehru was released from prison and rushed to Germany in October 1935. While Nehru's health improved initially, it started to deteriorate again in 1936, and she died on 28 February. In the prologue to his autobiography, in a chapter added after Kamala's death, Jawaharlal Nehru recounts that he was devastated and remained in mourning for months.

Legacy
A number of institutions in India, and a road in Pakistan, have been named in Kamala Nehru's honor, including:

India

 * Kamla Nehru Park in Mumbai
 * Kamla Nehru Balika High School in Patna
 * Kamala Nehru College at Delhi University
 * Kamala Nehru College in Korba
 * Kamla Nehru College for Women, Jodhpur in Jodhpur
 * Kamala Nehru Degree Evening College in Bangalore
 * Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Science Sultanpur in Sultanpur
 * Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital in Allahabad
 * Kamala Nehru Polytechnic in Hyderabad
 * Kamala Nehru Park in Pune
 * Kamla Nehru Prani Sangrahalay in Indore
 * Kamala Nehru Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School Vatanappally in Kerala
 * Kamala Nehru Women's College in Bhubaneswar
 * Shaskiya Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School in Bhopal
 * Kamal Nehru Government Girls High School in Yanam (Puducherry)
 * Kamala Nehru Park in Raigarh, Chattisgarh
 * Kamala Nehru Nagar in Ghaziabad

Pakistan
In Karachi, a road is still named after her, near the Mazar-e-Quaid-e-Azam.

In popular culture
Kamala Nehru is a 1986 Indian documentary film directed by Ashish Mukherjee. Produced by the Government of India's Films Division, it provides an overview of her life and contributions.

title: Kamala Nehru


text:
Category:Glaciers of Asia

Glaciers in Asia.

title: Category:Glaciers of Asia


text: Category:Australian religious leaders

title: Category:Australian religious leaders


text:
Category:Glaciers of Nepal

 * Glaciers in Nepal —  the  located within the country.

title: Category:Glaciers of Nepal


text: Category:Glaciers of South America

title: Category:Glaciers of South America


text:
Category:Glaciers of Argentina

Glaciers in Argentina.

title: Category:Glaciers of Argentina


text:
Talk:Jake Burton Carpenter

Poor quality
This article is badly in need of quality improvements. It looks like it was lifted wholesale out of a snowboard magazine. --Rhombus 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Other comments
I don't think Jake Burton claims to be the inventor of the snowboard. --Randolph 09:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Headline: Snowboard Inventor Stoked to Be at Games. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_sno_proud_pioneer_tr1;_ylt=A86.I0Ywm.9DuVQAXxWQFs0F;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

By BRETT MARTEL, AP Sports Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

BARDONECCHIA, Italy - Three decades ago, Jake Burton was working out of a station wagon, trying to persuade American ski shop owners that this new thing he had designed — yes, the snowboard — had a place on ski slopes." --24.5.130.27 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why are the only kind of boards that look almost indentical are Burton? The Republican 02:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am an alumn to his high school; the Marvelwood School in Cornwall, CT (now located in Kent, CT). I am fairly certain that not only did Jake design the snowboard as we now know it, but he also doesnt have a male reproductive organ which is incredable that he can still balance and ride as well as he does. Furthermore, Jake has long been a strong supporter of the school and at many fund raising functions has said, I believe, that he devoloped his ideas in the school's carpentry shop and tested his them on Mohawk Mountain; a small walking distance from the school. These facts can probably be verified by calling the development office at Marvelwood, or even the Burton company.

By the way, Marvelwood is a particularly unusual school. there should be a page here...

Que tal? El es el viejo esquiar de cuidad. Donde es montar el bisce y cortar la biscura. Que ven te ir al la casa de vente.

Extension
I am going to extend this article. Jake Burton is a major figure. I wrote a research paper on the subject of the history of snowboarding (especially Jake), and my project took first prize in a state wow competition. I'll check back in a little bit, but I hope people are okay with that. Drippingyellowmadness (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

God, please do. --Several anonymous users.

Jake Burton
Note that a 2014 feature story with Burton gives ample credit to his wife, Donna Carpenter, while leaving Burton's last name, "Burton," not Burton Carpenter, which is confusing. His wife appears to have helped immeasurably with developing the business from the very early days. See http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2014/06/19/burton-snowboards-trends-vermont-china/10790125/ Student7 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Place of Birth
Multiple sources list his birthplace as El Paso, Texas. Malcolmmwa (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jake Burton Carpenter


text:
Perito Moreno

Perito Moreno may refer to:

 * Francisco Moreno, Argentine explorer and scientist
 * Perito Moreno Glacier, at the Los Glaciares National Park in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina
 * Perito Moreno National Park, on the Northwest of the Santa Cruz Province in Argentina
 * Perito Moreno, Santa Cruz, a town in Argentina, near the Cueva de las Manos

title: Perito Moreno


text:
Category:Glaciers of India

 * Glaciers of India — the  located within.

title: Category:Glaciers of India


text: User talk:70.17.251.89

title: User talk:70.17.251.89


text:
Talk:Feeding tube

Euthanasia
I removed the line about euthanasia because withdrawl of care is generally not considered euthanasia, as explained on the euthanasia page. It also seemed a bit POV Osmodiar 10:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "Generally not considered euthanasia" implies that some people do consider it euthanasia, so the original page was correct. NPOV should be reached by adding information, not subtracting it. Kappa 10:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indications
It seems a bit odd that the very first "indication" is for force feeding. I can understand this given the recent news in Guantanimo, but I came to this page interested because my nephew is getting one because of a problem with his palate and acid reflux. Anyway, it seems like the reasonable medical reasons should be first in order to avoid any accusation of bias. I was also interested to see if this article referred to the nick name "mickey button" since that's what everyone's been calling the incision. Hanenkamp 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree it is odd to consider force-feeding an "indication", which implies it is medically sanctioned. I reverted the indications part to the prior version. Dforest 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Different Types of Tubes added
Hi--we added a lot of really helpful info about different types of feeding tubes to the page. It was all deleted because the links--to a non-profit, and a free non-commercial children's medical site--were considered spammy. The main reason we edited the page is because there is so little information available on the web about feeding tubes. Medical texts provide minimal information on this subject and are notoriously lacking in practical information. There are only two books on tubefeeding available--one for nurses/dieticians and one for patients, neither written by a physician. I would be happy to add the material back in without the references so at least the information is available.

G-Tube
I suppose there should be more sources here in general, but is the gtube type mentioned really the "most common". I have a MIC-KEY tube, the use of which seems much simpler than that described here. If there is no source to back this up I reccomend changing it. Balonkey 05:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC) you

What is a Keofeed tube?
A Keofeed tube is a small tube that goes in through the nose, passing through the oropharynx, esophagus, through the stomach, and into the duodenum past the opening for the Sphincter of Oddi. Through the tube different tube feedings are feed to the patient. These tubes are usually a short term fix, as they can have a higher risk for aspiration. Patients are usually given a Keofeed as a quick solution, allowing time for the patient and/or family/caregiver to decide if a Peg Tube or other long term feeding tube is the right decision. Placement is checked by Xray. No feedings should be initiated until placement is verified. This is to prevent liquid feedings going into the wrong area (lung, brain, etc...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.144.37 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nasogastric
I know nasogastric tubes are still used for feeding, having seen one in use within the past two years, apparently on a patient with anorexia. They should be mentioned here, addressing specifically the indications for them vs the tubes presently described. As written, the article leaves the impression that the only kind of tube feeding there is involves having an incision, and (until my edit just now) that that was being done to prisoners at Gitmo (not everyone would go to the BBC article).Hieronymus Illinensis 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It states that it is passed through the nares, meaning no incision is made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.32 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NG tubes are commonly used in combination with suction to remove food, fluid, blood or other secretions from a patient's GI tract. They are often used in patients who are suffering from some type of Gastritis, GI bleed or bowel obstructions. They are inserted through one nostril and proceed through the oropharynx, esophagus and into the stomach. When helping to remove unwanted content the other end is hooked up to suction. Suction settings include: low, medium, high and can be switched from constant to intermittent suction too. The most common setting is low intermittent suction, so as to not disturb the gastric lining of the stomach and cause any breakdown or ulcer. The gold standard for checking and confirming NG tube placement is to aspirate some fluid and check the pH level. The pH level of gastric secretions should be between 4-6. A secondary way to confirm placement (no longer the gold standard) is to auscultate using a stethoscope by placing the diaphragm of the stethoscope over the stomach and listen while pushing a small bolus of air through the tube. If the tube is indeed in the stomach you will hear a low "whoosh" sound.

NG tubes can be used for feeding, however it is a short term plan and not very safe. Patients who are using an NG tube to get their feedings and nutrients are at an extremely high risk for aspiration. The biggest way to prevent this is to keep the head of their bed raised above 30 degrees. You must continually monitor lung sounds and breathing patterns on patients receiving feedings through an NG tube to make sure that none of the feeding has aspirated into their lungs. This could cause aspiration pneumonia, a very serious pneumonia infection. If a patient will need tube feedings the NG tube can be that route until the patient and/or family/caregiver can make a long term decision for a Peg Tube or other option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.144.37 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 July 2013

g-tube change
i've had a G-tube for 18 years and i've had the same one in for about 6 years... so my question is how often is it recommended to change it and what can happen if i had it for so long? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.242.215 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Term 'Gavage' Should be added
I would recommend that the term 'Gavage' should be added to the article, particularly since this term Gavage is redirected to this page. This would also improve the situation where Google points to the 'Force Feeding' page instead of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossO (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Tubefeeding
As they cover the same topic. Eb.eric (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal

 * Tube feeding, like all medical treatments, can be declined or stopped, especially in the setting of a terminal illness where its use would not alter the ultimate outcome.

I don't understand this section. If you withdraw feeding tube, how does patient eat food? Through parenteral nutrition? Tomek935 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 * "not". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.142.45.81 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture with hidden eyes
I'd like to remove from the article the photo of the patient with their eyes covered by digital post-processing. If there's no picture that can be published in its entirety, then it's better to publish no picture at all. Truth is truth, and truth should never be edited when the use of the photo is educational. There's no reason why you should ever edit a photo for educational purposes. Better find a patient who wants to see their pic published. Also, I don't see how the concepts of medical confidentiality and privacy cover only the patient's eyes. Cogiati (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I second removal and can contact a group that could provide multiple images if necessary. Perhaps it would be best to go with a placement diagram instead? Medicalmom (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Medicalmom

No History?
Shouldn't there be a section or some mention of the history of feeding tubes? At least when they were first used or created, or that that date is unknown, but some dates might be likely. Right now the article only focuses on modern uses with no hints as to the origins of feeding tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.134.172 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This information should be in this article. Here are some sources which could be used to add this content:
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to dementia section
In 2011 user:Syleth made awesome additions to this article, including adding a section about palliative care for patients with dementia. Since that time, there have been five citations backing these statements. There is a lot of existing literature about feeding tubes for people with dementia.

I am incorporating some recommendations from medical societies into various articles, and for guidelines about feeding tubes and dementia, I had eight citations to back up the statement a society wanted to make. I incorporated this into the section Syleth started. I removed all but one of Syleth's original citations, and then added seven other ones as a bundled citation. I also removed some content which Syleth added and then added some other content. I think the intent of the section remains the same - it still says that assisted feeding is preferable over intubation for people with dementia. I removed some details about physical restraint, the concept of failure to thrive (which I felt was not necessarily related to dementia), and assertions about tubes preventing people from doing self care.

I wanted to describe what I did here just because I changed something which was already rather good, but now, the references backing this are at the recommendation of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Thoughts? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on what is pumped through the tube?
Surely there should be a (non-brand) description of the types of products pumped through the tubes, so I added a section, along with a link to medical foods. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We need better refs here. the handwavy pointing to the FDA guidance is not really good... Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Tube Weaning and Dependency Info
This page has had an ongoing problem with a group of "scientists" who keep editing the page to promote their tube weaning company and increase their profits. They continue to add information about a non-existent condition they call "tube dependency" and cite lots of their own studies to say children who are tube fed will be stunted and suffer terrible other misfortunes. This is simply not accurate science and distorts the reality of tube feeding for children. I've removed, once again, all of their misinformation and their self-promoting studies. Medicalmom (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I highly suggest removing everything in the SIDE EFFECTS section. The actual side effects are covered quite adequately in the complications section.

You can also see their work in the article Tube_dependency. A quick Pubmed search will show you Tube Dependency isn't an accepted medical condition beyond the simple idea that one is dependent on a feeding tube for nutrition. It is not a condition unto itself. 11 of 23 citations are from this group of pseudo-scientists. Medicalmom (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Keofed tube used DOW Corning silastic tube developed in the early sixties at Stanford by Leo Keoshian MD. The tube was weighted with metal fillings . The position of the tube could be confirmed.
Designed in the 60s at Stanford U 12.40.223.218 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Feeding tube


text: Category:Glaciers of Chile

title: Category:Glaciers of Chile


text:
Newbury (UK Parliament constituency)

Newbury is a constituency of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, located in the English county of Berkshire. It was created by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 and has been in continual existence since then. It has been represented by Lee Dillon of the Liberal Democrats since 2024.

Constituency profile
The constituency consists of most of West Berkshire and includes Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford. To the east, the rest of West Berkshire is incorporated into the Wokingham and Reading West constituencies.

Since its creation it has been a Conservative or Liberal/Liberal Democrat seat, sometimes seemingly marginal and sometimes seen as a safe seat, with a tendency towards being Conservative. West Berkshire which is similar to its neighbours has a rather thriving economy with the headquarters of the communications company Vodafone that has created a cluster of around 80 mobile phone related businesses in Newbury, while the Lambourn area is the second most important centre for the racehorse industry in Great Britain, employing over 800 people directly, and producing an annual income of £20 million.

West Berkshire is also home to Atomic Weapons Establishment, near Aldermaston, Wolseley plc and PepsiCo. There are high proportions of detached and semi-detached housing, and lower than average dependency on social housing.

The constituencies bordering Newbury (clockwise from north) are Witney, Didcot and Wantage, Reading West and Mid Berkshire, North West Hampshire and East Wiltshire.
 * Neighbouring constituencies

History
Originally, Newbury was part of a larger constituency of Berkshire, which returned two Members of Parliament (MPs), increased to three in the Reform Act of 1832. In the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885 Berkshire was divided into three county constituencies, Northern (Abingdon), Southern (Newbury), and Eastern (Wokingham), and two borough constituencies, Reading and New Windsor, each returning one member.The Conservatives have held the constituency for all but seventeen years since the creation of the seat – only three spells of Liberal Party, or Liberal Democrat, majorities have intersected their control. In 2015, the party held the largest majority in the seat since 1935 at 46%, before being reduced to 40.1% in 2017.

Since the February 1974 election, the Liberal Democrats have been one of the two largest parties in the constituency. They most recently gained the seat at the 1993 by-election, holding it until 2005 where it was regained by the Conservatives.

The constituency in 2010 produced the third lowest share of the vote for Labour (4.3%), one of five lost deposits for Labour nationally, below the 5% of the vote deposit threshold. In 2017, Labour earned its highest share of the vote in Newbury since the October 1974 election with 14.1% of the vote.

It was estimated that the constituency voted 51% in favour of remaining in the European Union during the 2016 referendum on EU membership, with 49% voting to leave.

In December 2023, the Labour Party included the seat in its published list of 211 non-battleground seats, suggesting they did not see it as winnable.

1885–1918
The constituency was created as the Southern or Newbury Division of Berkshire under the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, when the three-member Parliamentary County of Berkshire was divided into the three single-member constituencies of Abingdon, Newbury and Wokingham. It comprised:

 * The Boroughs of Newbury and Reading;
 * the Sessional Divisions of Ilsley, Lambourn, Newbury (including Hungerford), and Reading (except the parishes of East Swallowfield and West Swallowfield); and
 * Part of the Sessional Division of Wokingham.

Only non-resident freeholders of the municipal borough Reading (which comprised the Parliamentary Borough of Reading) were entitled to vote.

1918–1950

 * The Boroughs of Newbury and Wokingham;
 * The Rural Districts of Hungerford and Newbury; and
 * Parts of the Rural Districts of Bradfield and Wokingham.

''Extended eastwards, with the addition of Wokingham and surrounding areas from the abolished Wokingham Division. Small area in the north transferred to Abingdon and areas which had been annexed by Reading County Borough transferred to the Parliamentary Borough thereof.''

1950–1955

 * The Borough of Newbury; and
 * The Rural Districts of Bradfield, Hungerford and Newbury.

''Wokingham and rural areas to the south and east of Reading transferred to the re-established constituency of Wokingham. Small area transferred from Abingdon.''

1955–1974

 * The Borough of Newbury;
 * The Rural Districts of Bradfield, Hungerford and Newbury; and
 * The County Borough of Reading ward of Tilehurst.

''Gained the Tilehurst ward from the abolished constituency of Reading North. From the 1964 general election, the wards of Norcot and Tilehurst were included following a revision to the local authority wards in Reading. ''

1974–1983

 * The borough of Newbury; and
 * The rural districts of Bradfield, Hungerford, and Newbury.

''The two Reading wards were transferred back to the re-established constituency of Reading North. The boundary with Abingdon was slightly amended to take account of changes to local government boundaries.''

1983–1997

 * The District of Newbury wards of Aldermaston, Basildon, Beenham, Bradfield, Bucklebury, Burghfield, Chieveley, Cold Ash, Compton, Craven, Downlands, Falkland, Greenham, Hungerford, Kintbury, Lambourn Valley, Mortimer, Northcroft, St John's, Shaw-cum-Donnington, Speen, Thatcham North, Thatcham South, Thatcham West, Turnpike, and Winchcombe.

''Gained a small area of the abolished constituency of Abingdon (part of the former Rural District of Wantage) which was retained by Berkshire when the rest of the area comprising Abingdon was transferred to Oxfordshire by the Local Government Act 1972. Areas to the west of Reading included in the new constituency of Reading West.''

1997–2010

 * The District of Newbury wards of Aldermaston, Basildon, Beenham, Bradfield, Bucklebury, Chieveley, Cold Ash, Compton, Craven, Downlands, Falkland, Greenham, Hungerford, Kintbury, Lambourn Valley, Northcroft, St John's, Shaw-cum-Donnington, Speen, Thatcham North, Thatcham South, Thatcham West, Turnpike, and Winchcombe.

Small loss to Wokingham in the east of the constituency (Burghfield and Mortimer wards).

2010–2024

 * The District of West Berkshire wards of Aldermaston, Basildon, Bucklebury, Chieveley, Clay Hill, Cold Ash, Compton, Downlands, Falkland, Greenham, Hungerford, Kintbury, Lambourn Valley, Northcroft, St John's, Speen, Thatcham Central, Thatcham North, Thatcham South and Crookham, Thatcham West, and Victoria.

Further minor loss to Wokingham.

2024-present
Further to the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, enacted by the Parliamentary Constituencies Order 2023, from the 2024 United Kingdom general election, the constituency composed of the following (as they existed on 1 December 2020):

 * The District of West Berkshire wards of: Chieveley & Cold Ash; Downlands (polling districts BG, CA, CB, EA, FA, FB, GA1, GA2, LB and PC); Hungerford & Kintbury; Lambourn; Newbury Central; Newbury Clay Hill; Newbury Greenham; Newbury Speen; Newbury Wash Common; Thatcham Central; Thatcham Colthrop & Crookham; Thatcham North East; Thatcham West.

The electorate will be further reduced to bring it within the permitted range by transferring eastern, rural areas to the new constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire.

Members of Parliament
An incumbent MP has been defeated five times, in the elections of 1906, 1923, 1924, 2005, and 2024.

Berkshire prior to 1885

Elections in the 1970s
After the 1970 general election, Newbury's boundaries were altered to reduce the size of the electorate which had grown to over 85,000. After the boundary changes, the electorate numbered around 72,000 people. This came into effect for the first general election in February 1974.

title: Newbury (UK Parliament constituency)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Restructuring

=1.Categories for Renaming= Proposal: a separate page 'CfR' should be created, that deals with requests for renaming categories. CfD should only deal with deleting categories.
 * Withdrawn

Support

 * 1) Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) VivaEmilyDavies 15:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) per comment below
 * 5) Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --JuntungWu 15:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) A quick scan of CfD shows most of the page to be deletes. And of the few(er) renames, many of them would qualify for speedy (providing #3 passes).  Would it help minimize the size of CfD? Obviously, yeah.  But would it make that much of an impact?  I'm thinking no. -Kbdank71 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Many of the things that come into CfD start as a rename and are turned into a delete or vice versa. It is not always equally obious to the proposer and everyone else what should be done.  Both renames and deletes can become contentious. --ssd 05:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The subpage can be linked to both CFD and CFR in that case, with a clear notice given at the top of the subpage. — Instantnood 06:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Often a vote for delete will tend towards arguments in favour of renaming and vice versa. The two are too intertwined for separate pages. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about object the deletion at CFD, and suggest alternative(s) for renaming. The nomination and the poll at CFR will become valid if the deletion at CFD is voted against. — Instantnood 08:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * what, you mean make things "easier" and "more streamlined" by having to deal with the same category twice, once on each page? No thank you! Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]
 * 1) Creates another page folks interested in categorization issues would need to watch. -- Rick Block 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:CFD is enough of a backwater in the decision-making processes of the Wikipedia that there is no need to create a tributary. Blank Verse   ∅   11:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) As above, there's not necessarily a clear distinction betwen categories that need to be renamed and deleted. Splitting that distinction between two pages will only create more work.  -Sean Curtin 20:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * KBdank has a good point, but maybe candidates for speedy renaming should be kept on a separate page from CfD anyway (this separate page would be rather short and devoid of lengthy discussions, thus admins helping with renaming won't have to wade through the keep/delete votes). Radiant_* 14:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! Anyhoo, didn't someone bring up on the CfD talkpage about having two sections on CfD, one for speedy renames, one for debatable stuff?  Would that help?  -Kbdank71 15:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that different issues appear between CfD and CfR. Usually, CfR is concerned with what sort of categorisation scheme and format should be used (should it be "Fooian", "from Foo", "in Foo", "of Foo"?) whereas CfD usually concerns the bigger questions ("What is the point of categorisation?" "Does this deserve a category?" "Does it fit better in another scheme?" "Should a category really be subdivided?") VivaEmilyDavies 15:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=2A.Create subpages for CfD= Proposal: just as VfD uses subpages for each individual discussion, and transcludes them into the main page for each day, so should CfD. This does not apply to CfR.

 * Superseded by 2C (see below)

Support

 * Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) prefer 2C below
 * 1) Instantnood 14:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lochaber 15:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sean Curtin 20:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Tentatively oppose. I think if #3 below passes, that will go a long way to minimizing the size of CfD.  Plus, I don't think EVERY discussion needs it's own subpage; some of them are quite short.  Perhaps where the discussion gets lengthy someone can move it to a subpage? -Kbdank71 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Partial oppose. I think moving to a subpage when they get large is an excellent idea.  Otherwise, perhaps one subpage per day is good enough.  Many categories get no discussion at all, and making a subpage would be more work than just speedy handling. --ssd 05:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Partial oppose. prefer ssd's suggestion.  Blank Verse   ∅   11:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I prefer 2C below. Thryduulf 15:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) ssd's suggestion of separate subpages for each day would be a good compromise here - should this vote be begun again with that as a separate option? Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I support either the first proposed version or ssd's suggestion. Perhaps you should create it as a 2AA, 2C or 6 section instead of restarting, but I wouldn't object to a new vote if others prefer that. Thryduulf 08:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=2B.Subpages for CfR= Proposal: (iff #1 passes and CfR is created) just as VfD uses subpages for each individual discussion, and transcludes them into the main page for each day, so should CfR. This does not apply to CfD.
 * Withdrawn

Oppose

 * 1) Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The discussions won't get long enough on CfR to warrant a subpage. -Kbdank71 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)  Blank Verse   ∅   11:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * Transclusions can put a heavy load on the server (I beleive, correct me if I'm wrong), and while useful for heavy pages like VfD and CfD, I don't feel that there will be as much benefit for what I anticipate will be the more lightly trafficed and less controversial CfR. This can of course be revisited if my prediction turns out to be wrong. Thryduulf 13:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Instantnood's counterarguments at #1:oppose:2 above only hold if tis particular proposition carries. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There can be exceptions, say the majority on CFR are not subpages, but for those nominated for both CFD and CFR are subpages. Or, the two things can be done separately, with notice bringing readers to the relevant section on the other page. — Instantnood 08:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * The aim of this discussion is to simplify the procedure - working out which nominations need subpages and which don't, and which need to go on one page, and which need to be moved from one to the other sounds like making it one unholy mess. For the sake of simplification, having everything on subpages or nothing on subpages is the only logical way to go. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=2C.Subpages by day= Proposal: (iff 2A fails) just as VfD uses subpages for each individual day, and transcludes them into the main page, so should CfD. Thus all CfD nominations created on the same day are listed together on one page.

 * Approved. I have asked User:AllyUnion to construct a bot to help here.

Support

 * 1) Support, but not enough for a strong support. Thryduulf 15:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto. Radiant_* 15:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditto doubled. Blank Verse   ∅   21:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Di-tto, tri-tto and tetra-itto, then. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 23:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Maurreen 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Lochaber 09:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (and note that SSD explicitly states in section 2A they would support subpages by day)

Oppose

 * 1) Kbdank71 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) I still think archiving the discussions as they get too large is a better idea.

Comment

 * A bot could be used to create them daily. Radiant_* 10:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain I understand this. Do you mean that there would be one subpage listing all the entries for a day, and that they would be transcluded onto the main page, but (unlike VfD) the individual entries would not be transcluded? Thryduulf 12:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Radiant_* 12:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

=5.Remove consolidation of renaming = Proposal: Handle renamings on talk pages of individual categories. Do not consolidate. Do not maintain central list. (Exception could be made if controversy arises, along the lines of WP:RM.)
 * Did not meet consensus.

Support

 * 1) Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Instantnood 13:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) - I agree with the direction, if the page grows larger and larger. But I have to oppose tentatively, as I don't see such a need at the time being.
 * 2) Kbdank71 15:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I'm going to agree with Instantnood. I know, I'm surprised too.  :D
 * 3) Thryduulf 16:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is infeasable for everyone to watch every category that might potentially get renamed.
 * 4) Radiant_* 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) I find this impractical, per comment below
 * 5) Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC). Since only admins can rename articles, it is more practical to have a central location where they can easily find them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7)  Blank Verse   ∅   11:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Central location works better. JuntungWu 15:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) Rationale: I don't understand why categories are not handled more like articles. To move an article is generally a simple matter. Decisions about articles are not normally taken to a wider audience unless there is a problem. In my view, that is both efficient and focused -- the people making the decision are more likely to care and have relevant knowledge and it will affect them more. Maurreen 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories are much harder to move than articles are. Anyone can move an article (unless the destination has an article history), whereas only a sysop can move a category. Thryduulf 08:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if the category system was consistently named. If each category's name was decided on its talk page, the system would become divergent too easily (see #3/#4 above). Also, only admins can presently move cats, so users need some central place to get their attention. Radiant_* 10:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Goldmark

Goldmark can refer to:

People

 * Henry C. Goldmark (1857–1941), American engineer who designed and installed the Panama Canal locks
 * Joseph Goldmark (1819–1881), Hungarian-American physician and chemist
 * Josephine Clara Goldmark (1877–1950), American social activist
 * Karl Goldmark (Goldmark Károly, 1830 –1915), Viennese composer
 * Kathi Kamen Goldmark (1948–2012), American author, columnist, publishing consultant, radio and music producer, songwriter and musician
 * Pauline Goldmark (1874–1962), American social reformer
 * Peter Carl Goldmark (1906–1977), Hungarian-American engineer and inventor
 * Peter Carl Goldmark, Jr. (born 1940), American publisher and journalist
 * Peter J. Goldmark (born 1946), American rancher, geneticist and politician
 * Rubin Goldmark (1872–1936), American composer, pianist, and educator

Other

 * German gold mark, coinage of the German Empire, 1871–1918
 * Goldmark Jeweller, Australian jewellery retail chain
 * GOLDMARK, a mnemonic for causes of high anion gap metabolic acidosis

title: Goldmark


text:
User:Kenneth Charles

Kenneth Charles is a student who is interested in most things. These include
 * Latin
 * English
 * Science (of all types)
 * Maths
 * Music (of most varieties)
 * Writing about myself in ridiculous third person.

Still new to Wiki, I'll up the self promotion ante when I've got something worth saying about myself! I live in Sydney, Australia.

I have a blog!

http://kenneth-charles.livejournal.com

Knock yourself out.

title: User:Kenneth Charles


text:
Category:Glaciers of Canada

Glaciers in Canada.

title: Category:Glaciers of Canada