text:
Middletown studies

The Middletown studies were sociological case studies of the white residents of the city of Muncie in Indiana initially conducted by Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, husband-and-wife sociologists. The Lynds' findings were detailed in Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture, published in 1929, and Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts, published in 1937. They wrote in their first book:

"The city will be called Middletown. A community as small as thirty-odd thousand ... [in which] the field staff was enabled to concentrate on cultural change ... the interplay of a relatively constant ... American stock and its changing environment."

The word middletown was meant to suggest the average or typical American small city. While there are many places in the U.S. actually named Middletown, the Lynds were interested in an idealized conceptual American type, and concealed the identity of the city by referring to it by this term. Sometime after publication, however, the residents of Muncie began to guess that their town had been the subject of the book.

The Lynds and a group of researchers conducted an in-depth field research study of the white residents of a small American urban center to discover key cultural norms and better understand social change. The first study was conducted during the prosperous 1920s, beginning in January 1924, while the second was written, with far less fieldwork, late in the Great Depression in the United States.

Overview of Middletown (1929)
Middletown: A Study in American Culture was primarily a look at changes in the white population of a typical American city between 1890 and 1925, a period of great economic change. The Lynds used the "approach of the cultural anthropologist" (see field research and social anthropology), existing documents, statistics, old newspapers, interviews, and surveys to accomplish this task. The stated goal of the study was to describe this small urban center as a unit which consists of "interwoven trends of behavior". Or put in more detail, "to present a dynamic, functional study of the contemporary life of this specific American community in the light of trends of changing behavior observable in it during the last thirty-five years." The book is written in an entirely descriptive tone, treating the white citizens of Middletown in much the same way as an anthropologist from an industrialized nation might describe a non-industrial culture.

Following anthropologist W. H. R. Rivers' classic Social Organization, the Lynds write that the study proceeded "under the assumption that all the things people do in this American city may be viewed as falling under one or another of the following six main-trunk activities:"
 * "Getting a living"
 * "Making a home"
 * "Training the young"
 * "Using leisure in various forms of play, art, and so on"
 * "Engaging in religious practices"
 * "Engaging in community activities"

Working
In the 1920s, the Lynds found a "division into the working class and business class that constitutes the outstanding cleavage in Middletown." They state:

"The mere fact of being born upon one or the other side of the watershed roughly formed by these two groups is the most significant single cultural factor tending to influence what one does all day long throughout one's life; whom one marries; when one gets up in the morning; whether one belongs to the Holy Roller or Presbyterian church; or drives a Ford or a Buick ..."

The study found that at least 70 percent of the population belonged to the working class. However, labor unions had been driven out of town because the city's elite saw them as anti-capitalist. Because of this, unemployment was seen among residents as an individual, not a social, problem.

The city government was run by the "business class", a conservative group of individuals in high-income professions. For example, this group threw its support behind Calvin Coolidge's administration.

Home and family
Eighty-six percent of the residents lived in at least a nuclear family arrangement. Because of innovations such as mortgages, even working-class families were able to own their own homes. Home ownership is considered the mark of a "respectable" family.

Compared to the 19th century, family sizes were smaller, divorce rates were up. However, women still, by and large, worked as housewives. Having children is considered a "moral obligation" of all couples. However, at the age of six, the socialization of these children is taken over by secondary institutions such as schools. Also, taboos against things such as dating have been reduced.

Families tend not to spend as much time together as before. Also, new technology such as supermarkets, refrigeration, and washing machines have contributed to a downswing in traditional skills such as cooking and food preservation.

Youth
Almost a third of all children at the time of the study planned to attend college. High school has become the hub of adolescent life, both social and otherwise. There has been a rise in vocational studies, strongly supported by the community. This is a major demographic shift from the 19th century, when few youth received any formal education.

While the community claims to value education, they tend to disdain academic learning. Teachers are tolerated but not welcomed into the civic life and governance of the city.

Leisure time
Although new technology has created more leisure time for all people, most of this new time is passed in "passive" (or nonconstructive) recreation.

The introduction of the radio and automobile are considered the largest changes. Listening to radio shows and taking drives are now the most popular leisure activities. Many working-class families formerly never strayed more than a few miles from town; with the automobile, they are able to take vacations across the United States.

With the rise of these activities, interest in such institutions as book discussion groups (and reading in general), public lectures, and the fine arts is in sharp decline. The introduction of movies has created another "passive leisure activity", but the most popular films concentrate on adventure and romance, while more serious topics are less popular.

About two-thirds of Middletown families now own cars. Owning a car, and the prestige it brings, is considered so important that some working-class families are willing to bypass necessities such as food and clothing to keep up with payments. A person's car indicates their social status, and the most "popular" teens own cars, much to the chagrin of local community leaders (one local preacher referred to the automobile as a "house of prostitution on wheels").

Overall, due to this new technology, community and family ties are breaking down. Friendship between neighbors and church attendance are down. However, more structured community organizations, such as the Rotary Club, are growing.

Religious activities
Middletown contained 42 churches, representing 28 denominations. The community as a whole has a strong Protestant tendency. A person's denomination is indicative of one's social status: the Methodist church is considered the most prestigious in these terms.

However, strong religious beliefs (i.e., ideas about heaven and hell) are dying out. While the vast majority of citizens profess a belief in God, they are increasingly cynical about organized religion. Also, many of the clergy tend to be politically progressive, and as such, are not welcomed into the city's governance.

The more fundamentalist Christian churches tend to be more political and down-to-earth in their approach to life and in sermons. This is in contrast to the mainline Protestant denominations, which tend to be more aloof and other-worldly. Overall, the city is becoming more secular. Youth are less inclined to attend church, but more likely to be involved with the YMCA and YWCA.

Government and community
The city's "business class" – and therefore most powerful class – is entirely Republican. Voter turnout, however, is down (46 percent in 1924), even considering the recent passage of women's suffrage.

The main reason for this appears to be increased cynicism towards politics, and politicians in general (politicians are considered by many to be no better than crooks). Moreover, the more skilled legal minds in town tend to work in the private sector, not the public sector.

Despite the good economic environment, there is always a small group of homeless. These people are considered the responsibility of churches and organizations such as the Salvation Army – charity is generally frowned upon.

Newspapers serve as the main medium of communication in town, both the morning and evening editions. Due to recent innovations such as the Associated Press, the papers are able to carry more news. Also, journalism tends to be more "objective", in contrast with the highly partisan papers of a few decades earlier.

Overall the city is highly, but invisibly, segregated. Although the Ku Klux Klan was recently kicked out of town, whites and blacks still live separately. However, the largest divide consists of social class lines. Businessmen, in particular, are required to be highly conformist in their political and social views.

Overview of Middletown in Transition (1937)
In 1935, the Lynds returned to Middletown to research the second book, Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts. They saw the Great Depression as an opportunity to see how the social structure of the town changed.

While the researchers found that there were some social changes, residents tended to go back to the way they were once economic hardship had ended. For example, the "business class", traditionally Republican, grudgingly supported the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and accepted the money the New Deal brought into town. However, once they felt the programs were not needed anymore, they withdrew their support.

The second study only used one-tenth of the number of researchers used in the first, and as a result, it is not considered as in-depth as the first one.

Also, the second study is not as neutral as the first. The authors openly attack the "business class" and cite theorists such as Thorstein Veblen. They criticize the consumerism displayed by the citizens. They end on a strongly negative note, fearing that a dictator such as Huey Long or Adolf Hitler could conceivably draw support from such a population.

Implications
The Middletown study is often quoted as an example of the adage "nothing really changes". Despite being conducted in 1925, the description of American culture and attitudes has remained largely unchanged. For example, even today, many news agencies, when trying to figure out what the "average American" believes, visit Muncie, Indiana. Pollsters do as well – the city has, for the most part, successfully predicted the election of US presidents.

This view was only furthered by the results of the second study – if the Great Depression was unable to cause major changes in the town's social structure, the implication is that nothing will.

While a growing number of sociologists and social critics (i.e., Robert D. Putnam) complain of less community involvement, their detractors point directly to the Middletown study. The argument is this: in 1925, observers were worried that new inventions such as the radio were destroying community ties, that morality was on the decline, and that the very fabric of American democracy was in danger. Supporters of the studies thus argue that every generation simply "reinvents" new problems without realizing that their ancestors had the same unfounded worries.

The Lynds tried carefully to avoid any ideological biases in the first study, offering it as a neutral set of observations. However, others have drawn different conclusions from the study. To name just a few examples:

 * Marxists point to the "business class" and its ideology as the reason why workers and labor unions have never gained power.
 * Conservatives (including sociologists who followed the structural functionalism school) saw the study as a confirmation that a lack of change is good for society.
 * Critics of American culture, such as H. L. Mencken and Sinclair Lewis, author of Babbitt, cited the Middletown studies as examples of the banality and shallowness of American life.

Criticism
The Lynds did not study the African-American population of Middletown. They justified this because this group comprised only five percent of the total population, and they were interested only in the norms of the majority culture.

Replications
The National Science Foundation funded a replication of the Lynds' original study in the late 1970s (known as Middletown III). The University of Minnesota Press published some of the results in two books: Middletown Families: Fifty Years of Change and Continuity (1982) and All Faithful People: Change and Continuity in Middletown's Religion (1983). A limited replication (known as Middletown IV) was done in 1999 for the PBS documentary The First Measured Century. Data from the Middletown III and IV replications is available from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research under study number 4604.

title: Middletown studies


text:
Talk:Joseph Bazalgette

Tone
I've tagged the "Sewer works" section for tone, as phrasing like "The basic premise of this expensive project was wrong, as so often happens, but the end result was much better than expected, which is a rare occurrence." and similar feels a bit chatty for an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why you would object to that sentence, but it seems to be gone, and the tone now seems fine to me. I'm going to remove the tag. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Joseph Bazalgette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217215803/http://www.dulwich.org.uk/client_files/doc_docs/MastersReport04-05.pdf to http://www.dulwich.org.uk/client_files/doc_docs/MastersReport04-05.pdf

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Rainfall records
In the 1870s, J.W Bazalgette lived at Spring Gardens, Westminster, and kept monthly rainfall records. These are now (Apr 2020) being digitized and studied by the Rainfall Rescue project. https://panoptes-uploads.zooniverse.org/production/subject_location/a914f098-1b5e-4b13-8055-0681a5eafc71.jpeg 78.144.95.84 (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible citogenesis
This is the source of a possible citogenesis, plus the sources that were added today. Reported by on the Teahouse.

Bazalgette's foresight may be seen in the diameter of the sewers. When planning the network he took the densest population, gave every person the most generous allowance of sewage production and came up with a diameter of pipe needed. He then said 'Well, we're only going to do this once and there's always the unforeseen' and doubled the diameter to be used. His foresight allowed for the unforeseen increase in population density with the introduction of the tower block; with the original, smaller pipe diameter the sewer would have overflowed in the 1960s, rather than coping until the present day as it has.

 TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  01:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I found this entry in The Concise Dictionary of National Biography from 1922, but still no dice on the quote nor the diameter issue.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  02:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , good find. The closest I have come to finding anything so far is this record from the House of Commons (link), which at least comes close to approaching the subject. However, it does not actually involve Bazalgette, but rather the MP and a Mr. Pilbrow discussing enlarging a particular pipe if the *population* were doubled, not the diameter of the pipe. I think it's just coincidence, and not actually related. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone reading this section after seeing the hidden note on the main page, here's a that contains the most detail about this issue
 * Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording leads to wrong interpretation?
I'm commenting here because I'm not familiar with the subject matter. The 'Early Life' first paragraph appears to say that Bazalgette's mother was the grandson ... which seems unlikely. The sentence probably needs rearranging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:B4C0:F100:600:1A60:24FF:FE9D:D8F4 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Fixed - good catch, thanks for pointing that out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Joseph Bazalgette


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Bird

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forrest Bird
Notable? Factual? DJ Clayworth 16:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Delete The JPS 16:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, replace with redir to forest bird (or just bird) as common (?) misspelling. Radiant_* 08:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Cleanup. I happened to see this on Recent changes, and it took very little searching to determine that the scientist (not misspelling) is indeed notable. Please note the external link I added to MIT for more information. - Dan Johnson 18:53, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Keep - borderline, but going by the MIT link seems notable enough to warrant an entry. -- Danny Yee 07:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep & Cleanup. -- 8^D gab 08:19, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Middletown studies

Created stub. Will expand into a full article as time allows. Also need a better title. --L. 16:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Core dump of info. Have decided to combine both books into one article because it is difficult to refer to "Middletown" without referring to both of these books. --L. 14:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a bibliographic reference. RJensen Rjensen 08:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I am adding some of the original language used by the Lynds in their first study Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture and some additional information based on what they said they were doing. Also a bit from the original intro by Clark Wissler, a very distinguished anthropologist.--samivel 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
While it's very important to have a criticism section, and no doubt much of what's here is valid, it's uncited, and if it doesn't get some citations soon the more tendentious parts probably need pruning. DavidOaks (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of Middletown ?
The article have to variants of "Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture" and "Middletown: A Study in American Culture" Libris (Swedish concatenated catalog se https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBRIS) has a third title: "Middletown : a study in contemporary American culture " (it also have the title "Middletown: A Study in American Culture") (http://libris.kb.se/hitlist?q=Lynd%2C+Robert+Staughton&r=;pers:(Lynd+Robert+Staughton)&p=1&f=simp&g=&s=r&t=v&m=50&d=libris) Some confusion? Seniorsag (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Middletown studies


text:
Talk:Virginia Pep Band

Untitled
Changed a segment at the end regarding current performances. Changed from "have perform recently at" to "perform regularly at" based on current activity patterns. 24.125.39.99 00:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was somewhat NPOV, and I have attempted to fix it as best I can. Some of the things I've changed are:
 * Use of unnecessarily flowery and/or sympathetic language
 * Failure to cite the University and athletic department's justification for banning the band
 * Linking to an op/ed article critical of the West Virginia governor and band opponents following the Tire Bowl controversy rather than the news article describing the events objectively

Also, the link to the Cavalier Marching Band should at the very least link to a stub, rather than to the University of Virginia main page. I'll see what I can do.

Dave 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I like the style changes, and your rewording is for the most part fine. I don't see the reasoning for linking the marching band's homepage on a Pep Band encyclopedia article. Maybe a separate article should be devoted to it. Unfortunately some of the changes are inaccurate, but I'll fix it. Thanks again. --ElmoHoo 22:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No prob. I see, I fix. In answer to your question: I linked the marching band because it is mentioned several times in the article, and is currently doing the job the Pep Band did. One other question: can we be sure that the AD and the bowl officials approved the exact show that was performed at the Tire Bowl? If this cannot be verified, there should be a qualifier, such as:

 * A show at the Continental Tire Bowl in 2002, which band members claim had been approved by both the University of Virginia athletic department and the bowl officials, prompted a request for an apology by the governor of West Virginia.

Along the same lines, I'm really unhappy with the clause, "but the neccessily unpredictable nature of student control proved problematic." What does that mean? It seems to imply that students changed the show at the last minute, so what was performed was not what was approved. If that is the case, then we need to say that, rather than intentionally leaving the point vague. I am guessing that you are/were a member of the band, but you can't word things to make it seem like the band didn't do anything against policy if they, in fact, did.

One more thing - please do not use "UVa" for "University of Virginia", as this type of abbreviation may not be clear to non-American readers. --Dave Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the AD approved the EXACT show performed, I should know, I was the Pep Band Show Committee Chair at the time and I was the one who had to send the scripts for approval and talk to the AD about changes. I understand the need for NPOV, and I thank you for helping make the article compliant. Sometimes it can be difficult to stay neutral in such a charged situation. As far as the unpredictability, I was trying to get at the idea that the AD was always plagued by the IDEA that we wouldn't stick to the script. It never happened to my knowledge (which really only extends to 1999), but Virginia athletics was becoming too important ($$$$$) to risk the liability. I guess the legend of the Pep Band outgrew the actual students. Anyway, I'm planning to add more history, including the Revolution of 1993 (the last time the AD tried to replace us with a faculty run band). Also, since the abbreviation UVa is mentioned in the first line of the University of Virginia article, shouldn't it be OK to use? Thanks again. --ElmoHoo 06:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I've de-NPOV'd the section, based on the information you've provided. One thing you want to avoid is rebutting an argument point-by-point, or in the middle of the argument. Therefore, I moved the fact that shows are vetted into the pro-Pep Band paragraph, rather than having the information in the paragraph representing the University's position. I would suggest that when discussing the "Revolution of 1993" you take the same approach, citing valid arguments by the university in one section and then the band perspective in another (or vice-versa). I would also strongly suggest using the term "Revolution of 1993" in scare quotes and only when discussing the band's perspective.

I'd also like to compliment you on being relatively objective, despite your obvious involvement in the issue.

--Dave Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and factual edits, May 03 2005
Please don't make me do this again. It is very important that you do not use language that is sympathetic to either side in a controversy - that is a general Wikipedia rule. Please see my explanation above. Also, I have edited out most of the quotes that are unattributable. If you are going to make statements about what was said, you must include a citation.

I understand many people here have strong feelings about what happened to the Pep Band, but the place for making your arguments is not here on Wikipedia.

Dave 15:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at your changes, and agree with all of them. For the record, most of the stuff you changed wasn't mine! --ElmoHoo 16:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments Regarding History:
Exactly how firm is the connection between the post-1973 Pep Band and the Lawn Chowder Societies? Having done a fair amount of informal historical inquiries of my own regarding the band, I have never heard that there was direct descent from these groups. Are the authors of this article claiming continuity between the Pep Band and all its possible musical predecessors, including the short-lived UVa marching band that lost all its equipment back in the 1940s? The impression I have from the article is that some kind of musical "apostolic succession" is at work here, and that was never my understanding during my time in the band (1998-2002).

Someone might want to explain how the 1973 band came to be. My understanding is that one of the founding members of the 1973 group, a graduate student who had come from Yale, suggested the Ivy League scramble style. That's all I know about it, presumably Elmo knows how to get in touch with people who would know more. Ron Kline and Steve Jacobs both added trombones to the 1975 band, which was still in its infancy but already scrambling.

As for the Sports Band of 1993, I was also under the impression that shortly after its inception the student members voted to quit and join the Pep Band. Again, Elmo, you know how to verify this.

Finally, there was significant post-1993 trouble with the AD in the 1995-1997 period (sparked by the infamous "Like Sherman Through Georgia" performance at the Peach Bowl). It is in this period that the band lost the microphone and was almost relegated to performing from the stands.

El Draque 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, the phrase "in an official capacity" could be misleading to those who do not know about the University of Virginia's Contracted Independent Organization (CIO) system. While the Pep Band at its inception really was an official organ of the University, the reason why it's no longer the "University of Virginia Pep Band" is because in the late '80s or early '90s the University required all its student organizations to become CIOs. I presume that this move was to reduce the University's liability for student misbehavior. In any case, although the band continued to receive funds from the University's Student Activities Fund and perhaps also from the Athletic Department, my understanding is that the band was more in the position of independent contractor for the University. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I seem to recall during my time there that both the Directors of the band and the Athletic Department were always anxious to point out the band's independent status.

El Draque

I think all these questions are answered acceptably in the history on the Pep Band Webpage, which is correct to all of my knowledge. Rather than fill this article, I'm just going to link the webpage, but if you think it should be included here, go ahead!

--ElmoHoo 07:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Elvis is Dead
What was the impact of the dogpile on Elvis during the 1992 Sugar Bowl that offended the Tennessee fans ("Now we really know that Elvis is dead")? Wasn't that one of the major events that caused the band to be suspended? Or was this event just one of many?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Virginia Pep Band 2002.jpg

title: Talk:Virginia Pep Band


text:
Philip Drinker

Philip Drinker (December 12, 1894 – October 19, 1972) was an American industrial hygienist. With Louis Agassiz Shaw, he invented the first widely used iron lung in 1928.

Family and early life
Drinker's father was railroad man and Lehigh University president Henry Sturgis Drinker; his siblings included lawyer and musicologist Henry Sandwith Drinker, Jr., pathologist Cecil Kent Drinker, businessman James Drinker, and biographer Catherine Drinker Bowen. After graduating from St. George's and Princeton in 1915, Philip Drinker trained as a chemical engineer at Lehigh for two years.

Drinker was hired to teach industrial illumination and ventilation at Harvard Medical School and soon joined his brother Cecil and colleagues Alice Hamilton and David L. Edsall on the faculty of the nascent Harvard School of Public Health in 1921 or 1923. He studied, taught, and wrote textbooks and scholarly works on a variety of topics in industrial hygiene; the iron lung itself was originally designed in response to an industrial hygiene problem—coal gas poisoning —though it would become best known as a life-preserving treatment for polio. Charles Momsen credited Drinker "and his friends" for their assistance with gas-mixture experiments that ultimately made possible the rescue of the survivors of the USS Squalus in 1939.

During World War II, Drinker directed the industrial hygiene program for the United States Maritime Commission. He also arranged and participated in a survey of four shipyards in 1945 to evaluate exposure to asbestos dust during the installation of asbestos-containing insulation. The study had many limitations: 1) The investigators used a non-standard means of collecting and quantitating asbestos dust, key details of which were not disclosed, and 2) Almost all of the shipyard insulators studied were recent hires, 95% had worked as insulators for less than 10 years, many for less than 5 years. Asbestosis, the disease they were concerned with, typically takes 15-20 years of exposure to asbestos dust to manifest. Despite these limitations, the key conclusion of the "Fleischer-Drinker" study was that "...pipe covering is not a dangerous occupation." This was probably the single biggest misstatement in occupational medicine and industrial hygiene history.

Thus, for the next twenty years the Navy failed to effectively protect its shipyard workers from asbestos, leading to tens of thousands of cases of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Only in the mid-1960s did the Navy and others start to repudiate this defective conclusion. Subsequently, this report has been used by many attorneys to argue that nobody could have known that asbestos insulation work was dangerous until further studies finally appeared in 1964-5.

After the war, Drinker advised the Atomic Energy Commission.

Drinker served as editor-in-chief of The Journal of Industrial Hygiene for over thirty years and, in 1942, as president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, to which he had belonged since its inception.

He retired from Harvard in 1960 or 1961. Drinker received the Donald E. Cummings Award from the American Industrial Hygiene Association in 1950. He was later inducted into the US National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2007. He and his wife Susan had a son, bioengineer Philip A. Drinker, and 2 daughters, Susan Drinker Moran (1926-2010), author, and Eliza Scudder, educator.

title: Philip Drinker


text: User talk:68.36.105.247

title: User talk:68.36.105.247


text: User talk:209.68.66.1

title: User talk:209.68.66.1


text:
Category:Landsmannschaften

Landsmannschaften are federations of Heimatvertriebene from former eastern territories of Germany and other Eastern European countries.

title: Category:Landsmannschaften


text:
Greg Adams

Greg Adams may refer to:

 * Greg Adams (ice hockey, born 1963), retired NHL player for the Vancouver Canucks
 * Greg Adams (ice hockey, born 1960), retired NHL player for the Washington Capitals
 * Greg Adams (writer) (born 1970), American music writer and reissue producer
 * Greg Adams (musician), trumpet player formerly with Tower of Power
 * Greg Adams (singer) (1948–2008), Canadian singer with a record produced by Jimmy Johnson
 * Greg L. Adams (born 1952), Nebraska legislator

title: Greg Adams


text:
Talk:Mahogany (color)

Standard mahogany color
I found various possible definitions at which appears to be about embroidery thread: Oddly enough none of them are displaying in my browser :-( I found another one here, and corrected my bad syntax for the template: --Phil | Talk 16:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

To whoever sees the above question, here is the response:

If you mix a color with white, it is called a tint. If you mix a color with black, it is called a shade. Among the colors above, the tints of the color are on top and the shades are towards the bottom. All of the articles red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and violet have the variant that is neither a tint nor a shade, and so I say this article should follow the same rule. Any objections?? Georgia guy 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections, but I can't figure out which one you are saying we should use :-) I'm assuming that last stand-alone, which seems more to do with the actual colour as opposed to various types of thread. --Phil | Talk 07:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
This article was moved to "colour" back in December, but the body of the text was not adapted. I moved it back to U.S. spelling since the article was originally written in that variation. Instead of changing the spelling in the article, which I would have done had the article not been originally written in an accepted variant, I just moved it back. --Stomme (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original move was improper and that moving it back was the correct action. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mahogany (color)


text:
Alt.atheism

alt.atheism is a Usenet newsgroup within the alt.* hierarchy that discusses atheism. The group was originally created on February 6, 1990 by a member of the alt.pagan newsgroup, to provide an alternative forum for the numerous discussions on atheism that were overwhelming the pagan group. A survey of usenet groups in 1994–1995 found that, among 70 groups discussing "consciousness, spirituality, and religion (broadly defined)", it was the group with the highest traffic volume. writes that "atheist and freethought newsgroups" including alt.atheism have "done much to remove the sense of isolation felt by many with antireligious opinions".

Discussion matter
According to the alt.atheism FAQ, the purpose of the group is to discuss atheism and atheist topics such as the following:

 * Whether it is reasonable to pretend to be religious in order to avoid upsetting your family
 * Prayer in schools
 * Discrimination against atheists
 * Sunday trading laws
 * The Satanic Child Abuse myth
 * Whether you should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
 * How religious societies prey on new college students
 * How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
 * Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
 * Why people become atheists

calls out another common discussion topic, the proper definition of atheism, as being "the thread that never dies on alt.atheism". The popularization of the "weak and strong atheism" terminology for different definitions of atheism has been credited to discussions on the alt.atheism newsgroup.

title: Alt.atheism


text:
User:Aure

About Me
I am a full time student living in the United States.

Current Work
Wiki articles I plan to start: Sta. Agnese

Wiki articles I plan to improve: Rococo

title: User:Aure


text:
Al-Bana

The al-Bana (البنا) rocket launcher is a weapon developed by Hamas's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades under the direction of Adnan al-Ghoul and Mohammed Deif. Made from raw material and equipment smuggled into the Gaza Strip using tunnels in Rafah, the al-Bana was the first example, during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, of Hamas' engineers capacity. It was to launch Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.

The shoulder-fired al-Bana was extensively used during Israeli Defense Forces incursions to fight against tanks and armored vehicles. The al-Bana was replaced, in 2003, by the more elaborated Batar and is no longer used by Hamas. Slightly modified versions of the al-Bana were made and used by other Palestinian militant groups. In 2004, Hamas engineers provided the group with a new and sophisticated shoulder-fired rocket launcher, the Yasin.

title: Al-Bana


text:
Talk:Point (typography)

Somewhat confusing
I find the history of the development of the point relevant. But right now the article does not "stick together". There is a reference to someone named Truchet, that appears to have been mentioned earlier but now he is nowhere to be found. Instead there is a Methusalem of a typographer named Neubauer. Perhaps someone can ask him because he seems to be alive for the next 67 years.

The article probably should be more chronological (it is anything but chronological), with alle the old definitions in a History-section and the current point sizes in another. I believe that there in fact are four current definitions of the typographical point. Two European-continental and two English-American. A few more has existed.

Maybe, just maybe, it should also mention the common names for various point-sizes used by non-English speaking. That is German and so on. They differ. In Danish e.g. we use (little) Sabon for 72 points. After all many tend to use the English Wikipedia as some sort of reference.

This article needs a complete work-through. Ditlev Petersen (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An article tying all the sizes together?
Please see Talk:Pixel about an article to tie all these sizes and DPI etc. together. - Omegatron 16:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon?
The usual description of the point was that the US and British inches were slightly different, one a bit larger than 25.4 mm/inch and one a bit smaller. This mattered because on a single page of newsprint there could be over a thousand points. In the nineteenth century, the standard was based on the centimetre, but not by a direct ratio, for both the US and Britain to have it be readily available to both domains.

In 1959, the International inch was settled upon, as that which the Australians had already chosen, and which had been suggested by many industries. The notes from French usage are appreciated, but no Commonwealth country, nor the US, calls it the "Anglo-Saxon" inch.

In the 1970's or so, the Germans wanted a metric basis, so their DIN chose 375 micrometres for their point. I wonder whether it caught on.

The main difference between the British/US and the Continental points is that other languages need extra room on top for all the diacritical marks on capital letters, e.g., É, Ö, Å... - so the point was a bit bigger for the Continental printers. Sobolewski 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating: "# Nelson C. Hawks, in 1879, used a printer’s foot of an Anglo-Saxon foot decreased by 0.375%." can't be right.

The definition of the foot has changed over the years. The ancient Anglo-Saxon foot dropped out of use centuries ago.

I've called it a statute foot in the article with a link to the Mendelhall Order, which is the most relevant explanation I've found on Wikipedia of the size of the foot over the relevant time period.

In 1959, the Imperial inch and US inch were both redefined in terms of the metre, so when the 375 micron point was invented in the 1970s, the point was already based on a metric standard. It just wasn't a nice round number of metric units.

(The Anglo-Saxons were a group of tribes that got their identity in first millennium AD England and lost their identity in the few hundred years after the 1066 AD invasion of England by the Normans (French!). You could (if feeling cheeky) argue that the modern English are every bit as much French as they are Anglo-Saxon.

The USA was inhabited by non-Europeans before the modern era, and then suffered massive immigration from many nations: centuries after the Anglo-Saxons vanished. More Irish (massive immigration in both the 18th and 19th centuries) and African people came over (the Africans mostly involuntarily as slaves) than English. And what about all those Spanish people?

So there's nothing remotely Anglo-Saxon about the USA. And even in England, the Anglo-Saxons are only of historical and archaeological relevance.)

86.152.255.29 (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Very Messy Article
This really needs to be cleaned up -- it needs to start with the basics of the American system, noting the transition from traditional measure to computer measure.

Then discuss the similar French system... simply.

It really doesn't need a lot about 19th Century meter-yard conversions -- you might refer to an article on that for those interested in calibrating atomic vibration to Helvetica printout.

Ciceros/French Points in Computer software?
What is the exact size used for ciceros in design software like Quark?

Also refer to the cicero article -- info there states a "standard" of 4.5mm for a cicero adopted in 1975 -- see talk section, and right sidebar with metrical equivalents.

Fraction
I find 15 625 / 83 118 difficult to read. Commas would make clearer that this is the quotient of two five-digit numbers. (Commas without spaces as in 15,625 / 83,118 are unambiguous.)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it might be a good idea to explain the reasoning behind metric measures being listed as fractional values. Apart from a couple of maths lessons at a young age, I don't think I've ever seen metric values listed as fractions. I have always understood that the main benefit of the various metric units is that they can be scaled up and down by factors of 1000 so that one can eventually find a useful measure of that unit, whether it be millimetres or megametres.

Listing these mearurements as effectively, for example, "fifteen-thousand, six-hundred-and-twenty-five eighty-three-thousand, one-hundred-and-eighteenths of a millimetre" rather than "0.188mm" seems willfully perverse to me, and unless there's some concrete historical/mathematical reason to show the measure in this way, they should probably be listed as something more standard. Frosty840 11:30, 01 August 2008 (BST)
 * Vulgar fractions are perfectly fine with metric units, though somewhat uncommon. In this case, i.e. defining non-metric measures, they are the best choice, because the definitions result in these exact numbers, whereas a number with decimal fraction would have to be rounded (or repeated parts would have to be indicated). — Christoph Päper 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So what part of a 12pt font is 12pts, in modern type systems?
The article doesn't seem to address this question. At least not clearly. —Pengo 08:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * That's because the answer is "no specific part of a 12 pt font is 12 pts, in modern type systems." Weird, but true. That's why the whole thing is hard to understand; when applied to digital fonts, the concept is non-obvious and odd. Thomas Phinney (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the main article recently contained this editorial question: "When measuring height, does this refer to the height of a capital letter or a lower-case letter (that is, is it the x-height or the cap-height)?"

The answer is "neither," and is covered in detail under [Em (typography)]. I deleted the editorial question from the body of the article. I'll go put in an explanation now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphinney (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Something is not right here. For example, I use a lot of 3/32" high text on architectural drawings. If 1 point =1/72"=0.013888889, then the 3/32" high text will be (3/32)/0.013888889=6.75 point font. In reallity, 3/32" high text looks more like a 12 point font instead of a 6.75 point font. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantingdesign (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can some one clear this up and explain it to me and others?

 * When you say you “3/32" high text” you need to define that. What part of the text measures 3/32"? Just for the sake of discussion, let's say it's the distance from baseline to cap height on a flat letter (like H, as opposed to a round letter like O). That distance is the cap height, but it is NOT the point size. The point size is the size of the em square, the imaginary design space the letter is designed in. In metal type it was the height of the piece of metal the letter was cast on. But in digital type, it has no physical meaning. I can tell you that on average the cap height is about 70% of the point size, but that's just an average. Sorry that it's complicated, but that doesn't mean "something is not right here."

 * Put another way, it's like looking at a sporting field of some sort, and trying to define the size of the grounds of the stadium that contains the field in terms of the size of the sports field inside it (could be football, soccer, whatever). Obviously the grounds need to be bigger than the field proper (or else the field won't function correctly), and there are doubtless some typical and roughly ideal relationships between them, but in most cases there's no set formula. This is despite the fact that all the parts within the field are clearly measurable....

 * Note also that the point size and em square are universal notions that "work" (in their weird way) equally well regardless of the writing system (Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Devanagari), and even for symbols and dingbats. Any notion based purely on, say the cap height would be quite ethnocentric. Thomas Phinney (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Another way of putting it, it's perfectly normal that when the font is, say, 12 pt, the cap height might be 8 pt. Thomas Phinney (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this entry redundant?
We had already had the following entry: Typographic unit.

Why was this added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taro Yamamoto (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one calls them typographic units. It should be merged here. — Llywelyn II   15:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

72/√8 ~= [in]/[mm]
Interestingly, 72/√8 = 72/(2*√2) or ca. 280/11 is quite close to 25.4, which is the ratio between inch and millimetre. So if one used a typographer's foot of about 305.47013 mm (ca. 456/455 ft) with 72 points to it or if one used a point of about 1/71.84205 in (ca. 19/1365 in) one had a metric relationship that fit nicely with the ratio between ISO paper sizes, the following series: 1 pt, 0.5 mm, 2 pt, 1 mm, ... With reasonable rounding this is of course also usable for 1 pt = 1/72 in. 134.130.1.181 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is origin of word or etymology?
Someone should ad a section for etymology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.231.254 (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You could be the person to add that section.--Aspro (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Berthold Point Size Source
I was just looking at a 1908 Berthold specimen which specifies 2660 points to 1 meter, which is not what the article says. It agrees instead with the Tschichold reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.16.75 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Neubauer
The section on Neubauer is dubious ... I can't find any references anywhere else, and the dates he lived are rather amusing. Jay Neubauer also doesn't sound much like the name of a French farmer from the 1600s. Nor does it explain why a farmer invented a point system. Myroundcar (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about American point system
The part of the article dealing with the American point system explains the adoption of the Johnson pica. And the value of 303.5808 mm for the traditional printer foot corresponds exactly indeed to 249/250 times 304.8 mm, with 304.8mm = 12 x 2.54cm = 12 in (1959 value). This makes the printer point exactly 0.3513666666... mm, but then the paragraph concludes with the 72.27pt to an inch approximation, which is Hawks' point, and the value 0.3515 mm, whereas if there are 72 times 12 pts in a printer foot, we should have here 0.35136 mm.

With the Johnson Pica, one computes that 1 inch contains 72+24/83=72.28915662.. printer points, because 12inches is 250/249 of a printer foot, hence 1inch contains 250/249 times 72 printer points. I came to the page hoping to understand the status of the 72.27 thing, and I am now utterly confused.

Gottfried59 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Standardisation dates
There's something odd about the claimed standardisation in the "late 1980s and early 1990s". When I was involved with the our school press between 1969-1974 we were categorically told that a point was 1/72". We set from cases onto compositing sticks and printed on ancient treadle powered jobbing presses, no H&S then!  Unfortunately I don't have any documentary evidence, not even the sheet we were given to learn the case layout from. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's odd is that you had a teacher that told you something that was simply untrue. Basically, he was rounding off the point. Obviously it was simpler this way... probably the same thinking that encouraged Warnock & Geschke to do the same thing for PostScript. But that doesn't mean it was true at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphinney (talk • contribs) 12:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Table
Ok. Finally found a thorough source. Will remove the alt names to Wiktionary and just leave the major present names. — Llywelyn II   10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolded names
The bolded text are the names of the various obsolete points which receive redirects here. The values of those points are entirely obsolete and don't deserve any bolding whatsoever.
 * Text

Now that there's more material, I bolded some of them to highlight the major English names, as opposed to the nearly unused ones such as American. Current criteria is OED entries or appearing in the EB, but probably better if there were an authoritative typographic guide that simply said "these are the major type body names prior to the pt system". — Llywelyn II   15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Table

Removed
Removed
 * The original types only used the middle values: great primer remained the largest type size in Britain as late as 1840.

which was presumably sourced to the offline Typographic Desk Reference and CJKV Information Processing as it's patently untrue. The OED includes citations including things like
 * 1629, Charles Butler, Oratoriæ:
 * Genera literarum... corporum proceritate distinguuntur: Primier, Pique, English: & supra hæc, Great Primier, Double Pique, Double English.

and
 * 1683, Joseph Moxon, Mechick Exercises; or, The Doctrine of Handy-Works. Applied to the Art of Printing, Vol. II., p. 13:
 * Most Printing-Houses have... Pearl, Nomparel, Brevier, Long-Primmer, Pica, English, Great-Primmer, Double-Pica, Two Lin'd English.

so sizes at least that large were already in use. — Llywelyn II   21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Engvar
Mixed usage before, but per an article on an American unit should employ American English. — Llywelyn II   10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge
Typographic unit should be merged here. They cover the exact same and this is the  name for the topic. — Llywelyn II   15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I see your point I have to disagree in the entirety of the Typographic unit nos no detail for any of the units and unless you are planning on merging ALL the units onto one page I think we should leave it as is. DamaniRD (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. We do not merge the article "Length" with "Yard" and "Meter". Point is a particular measure while there exist others like pica or mm. On the contrary I propose to move the section "Point-size names" into an independent article (the name is already occupied by the redirect, we can just copy the text there).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons stated by User:LlywelynII and Lüboslóv Yęzýkin.—Finell 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted the merge proposal for lack of support.—Finell 03:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

American points
I set up the "Confusing" template on the section. It may deserve the "Original research" template as well. It is very unclear and ambiguous, the persons who wrote that must have been not sure what they wanted to say. The section begins with the notion of the typographic foot which seems to be non-existent, then compares it with the international and survey feet. Then it goes to various points. After all said it remains totally unclear why the American points exist, while it is very simple. The basic measure was a pica which originally was 1/6 inch, but the novelty of Johnson was that he did not decimate it to recurring 0.1(6) inch but rounded to exactly 0.166 inch (4.2164 mm). If we make a basic computation it turns out that a point in this system is 0.166/12 inch or 0.3513(6) mm. Another computation gives us 996 points or 83 picas per 350 mm (actually 996 of these points is ≈349.9612 mm), or in other words 35/83 cm for a pica or 35/966 cm for a point. The latter seems to be the original definitions though I still could not find a relevant source. The TeX point of 72/72.27 inch looks like nothing more than another mathematical way of representing the same numbers.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 * About this very subject there is a study by Richard L. Hopkins: Origin of the American Point System for Printer's Type Measurement Hill & Dale Press,Terra Alta, West Virginia, 1976., a second (de luxe) edition was published in 1989.
 * Here you can find a very precise study, with a large bibliography of all relevant sources.
 * Note: the "American" Pica = .1660 inch does not differ a lot from the base for the Fournier Point.
 * Another note: On the European continent Monotype (UK) sold all wedges based on the Old English Pica = .1667 inch...
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've already rewritten that section (and the whole article, practically). I know about that book (I still can't access it, though).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 * You might look at www.used.addall.com... start the search-machine with: Richard Hopkins, and the title. Prices differ from 11$ to 149$ but the last offer is insane.
 * Did you know this site, it combines a lot of booksites, sort the books at the price, low prices first. It helps a lot for sure. And when it is not found here, it might be difficult indeed.
 * All the best
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks. I do not need this, everything I wanted to know I've found in open on-line sources, and frankly I do not like off-line sources which few can access and verify as this makes articles less verifiable.

Considering your recent addition, I haven't reverted it straight away hoping you provide us with an additional citation. Because your statement seems to be incorrect. There is a clear difference: one is 1/72 of the French inch, another is 1/72 of the American inch, one is ≈ 0.345 mm, another is ≈ 0.3515 mm. Yep, the difference is small, but as long as we're speaking about different points, we should consider even such trifles significant. I suppose you misread something in the original source.

One additional point to be taken: it seems it is the Didot and Fournier points that were supposed to be equal, because they both were defined through the particular foot, no matter whether we call it "royal" or "Parisian". Very doubtful that that foot had changed just in 20 years after Fournier. More likely typographers used for the reference not the foot but the Fournier scale printed in his book. This was the problem, this is why the Fournier point came to existence at all. No doubt this was not Fournier's intention and he didn't expect that. Didot just did what Fournier failed to do: stick to the particular measurement, not to a scale in a book. Probably, we might speak about the Fournier-Didot point after all.

And, please, why do we need a vague Dutch book from 1913 nobody can access to prove the statement that was covered by two English sources and by the primary source itself?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * What is the problem with a book as a source ? On the internet there is a lot of rubbish, fake-knowledge and the problem with internet is, also that sources can change...
 * Rich Hopkins made a serious study of all sources he could lay his hands on.
 * In this book the comparison with the Fournier system and the American Point system is mentioned in detail.
 * Why do you not accept this?
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely nothing against Rich Hopkins' work, moreover, I was going to add it myself, I didn't just because I have not got the book and can't verify myself. At least, other sources in the article refer to it, so I saw no problem in not mentioning the book directly.
 * I'm against Dutch (or any language) books that seem not to add anything new and substantial that already have not been mentioned in English sources. I know you're Dutch, but it does not mean one brings sources in his own language whenever one wants that. We're writing in English here after all. Moreover, you source is absolutely inaccessible. Don't tell me, please, that I can "easily" buy it or go to the Netherlands. Of course, this rule is not absolute. I've added some sources in German and French myself, but this is because: a) they are about the subject concerned (e.g. German books speaking about German points); b) they are easily accessible for verification, just one click; c) they are in the languages that are much more understood than, say, Dutch.
 * I was asking you where Hopkins literally had said "there is no difference". Please, provide us with the citation. I believe it is no more than a couple of sentences that you can clearly retype here. My second point: please, why of all the Hopkins' book this statement is important, and why we should include it here. This is absolutely clear for everybody that 0.0136 and 0.0138 are very close numbers. But whether it is "almost" or "not almost" identical, let the reader decide this. Practically all the points are "almost" identical, should we mention such trivialities for all of them? This article was cluttered with trivialities and nonsense before, let's not to bring this poor state again.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The problem was, that there were lots of different foots in use in 17th century France, all over France:
 * the Paris foot was one of these local foots, and the Kings- of Royal-foot, this was mentioned in the laws of France.
 * the Fournier system was based on the Paris foot,
 * But Didot was invited by the French government (at the moment the French king...)
 * When a printer those days would like to print something for the French government, than he was obliged to use Didot points. And kings... they live on bigger foots. That is for sure.
 * In a big country like France it was evident, that all kind of standards could help the economy, what other reason was there to establish a standard measurement for length like the meter ?
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Please, let us stick to the subject and not to turn to idle chatter how the French kings lived, or what they wanted, etc. I have known about different French measures, so there was no point in giving me the basics. There is absolutely one simple question: where is the proof that Fournier and Didot used different feet? Give us the proof. Literally, where this is said in a straightforward way, and give us a citation or a link. Fournier mentioned literally pied du roi (page 130, his book). Fournier and Didot lived not only in the same century, their inventions were 20 years apart. What might have changed in those 20 years? The royal foot and the Parisian foot seem to be the same thing, or prove I'm wrong about this (e.g. show me where they are listed separately and given two different values).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

source:
Here you will get your source: it is taken from a Dutch book, 1914/1915, L. Ronner, (director of the Amsterdam Graphical school) Van leerling tot zetter, NV Drukkerij De Nieuwe Tijd, Amsterdam:

Page 21:

...Het duurde geruime tijd voordat iemand den moed had met een vast omlijnd plan voor den dag te komen.

De jonge Parijse stempelsnijder en lettergieter Simon Pierre Fournier dorst het aa. Hij had het plan om alle lettertypen, benoodigd voor een volledige lettergieterij, te graveren. Maar nu stuitte hij op een moeilijkheid, n.l. op welke corpussen hij ze zou gieten, want elke drukkerij hield er zijn eigen op na.

Deze wantoestand betrof natuurlijk ook het wit, zoals spaties, pasjes, vierkanten, kwadraten enz. Die ordeloosheid was alleen te voorkomen als elk letttercorpus was ingedeeld op een vaste maat. In 1737 kwam hij met een vaste maat voor den dag.

Het spreeks haast van zelf, dat een Parijzenaar als Fournier was een maat zou nemen, welke te Parijs gebruikelijk was, n.l. de Fransche voet en die 12 duim bevatte. Hij verdeelde de duim in 12 strepem, en een streep in 6 punten. Deze punt nam hij als basis en maakte zijn lettersoorten op een veelvoud van 3 punten.

De maat die Fournier gekozen had als grondslag was een niet algemeen gebruikelijke in Frankrijk. De toen wettelijke maat was de koningsvoet.

Het was beter, dat de typografische maat in overeenstemming was met de wettelijke en daarom besloot de beroemde Parijsche typograaf Francois Ambroise Didot in 1770 het typografisch systeem te hervormen en te schoeien op de leest van de Franschen koningsvoet.

...

There are more sources in this matter, happy translating. Maybe google can help you.

The fact that Fournier mentions a "little bit" different in his papers, this might be a little thing to be within legal borders... I have found fournier sized type in the past, even Fournier sized Monotype-moulds, but using a pica-mould on Dutch height does give the same result...

The fact that the Didot system could prevale was, because the France goverment insisted that all printing for France was done in Didot-sizes.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Whenever your Dutch is not good enough, you might look for: The Monotype Recorder, 1931, nr. 241, page 13-17. Here the Fournier-point is mentioned as to be .0137 inch, and the Didot point to be .0148 inch. This comes with the Didot moulds here too: 12 point Didot = .1776 inch
 * Here I do cite:
 * "100 points Fournier is approximately 35 milimeters, and this coincidence had an influence in deciding the size of what is called the "American point", the standard now used by American and English typefounders."
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Dutch source adds absolutely nothing substantial and just repeats what has been said many times in various English sources. We already cite Fournier's book itself and two its English translations. What may be said more than that? So yours is a third-hand source at best which in turn needs translation, that makes it fourth-hand. So, please, waste neither your time nor mine nor other readers'/editors' giving such sources in lesser-known foreign languages. If you have English sources, you are always welcome to provide them, if not, then don't force others to use Google Translate. This is not something extremely unique, that we have to use non-English sources and can't get away with English ones. If you so eager to use Dutch sources, probably, you had better do it in Dutch Wikipedia. Something vaguely new I can see is in the last paragraphs. However, it is likely incorrect. The royal and Parisian feet are the very same thing. This is can be see here Why the Fournier point is smaller we may never know for sure. If you think it is because of a different foot measure, please, name it. Your Dutch source does not do this. The "French foot" (Fransche voet) is not the answer. You said yourself there were many local measures, and the "French foot" does not say anything, unless we mean by it the most known royal/Parisian of 0.3248 m. But this can't be the case, because what Fournier might have used had to be 0.35*72*12 = 302.4 mm. What was it? Just name it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your second citation. Actually I asked you to give me a citation from Hopkins. Some problems with understanding English? But alright. Yes, obviously if the point is "approximately" 0.35 mm, then 100 points are "approximately" 35 mm. Nothing new. Their claim that it "had an influence " is quite bold. Was it known to Hawks and other American typefounders, were they even aware of it at all? Very unlikely. If it was not used in Europe (except Belgium), why would Americans use it? Coincidence? Life is full of coincidences.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Fournier
Just to be clear what different sources give for the Fournier point:
 * 0.0136 in, that equals (my caclulation) exactly to 0.34544 mm, rounded 0.34544 mm;
 * 0.346 mm, that equals (my c.) ≈ 0.013622 in, rounded 0.0136 in;
 * 0.34875 mm exactly, that equals (my c.) to ≈ 0.013730 in, rounded 0.0137 in;
 * 0.349 mm ≈ 0.0137 in.

These all are still a couple of micrometers short from the 0.35+ mm points, or one or two ten-thousandths of an inch. This may seem very trivial, and effectively in practical applications these differences might have been ignored, I strongly believe that. But as long as we make the difference even for 0.1 micrometer (American and Japanese points), the Fournier point is on its own. Otherwise there is no sense in much of the article, because it is then "trivial" and does not deserve explaining.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The American point system is based on a measure of .1660 inch. Here where I live (the European continent) the wedges are based on the old-English-pica: .1667 inch. Here we have E-wedges, S5-12E.... When you look at the tables in the different manuals there are lots of differences. But this is all Monotype composition casting...
 * These micrometers were completely unimportant at all. Certainly not for old type prining. And on your computer-printer? What you see on your screen... is what you get ? That is a very big lie, indeed.
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

scan made of antique measuring rules

 * I made a scan of two antique measuring rules in my property:

 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typesystems_pica_fournier_didot.jpg

 * Here we can compare the three systems in full, could this end the arguing about the size of the foot on which Fournier based his system ?

 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Idealisation (OR)
In an ideal world, there are simple integer ratios relating any two European typographical points. The measured and used values would just be deviations from this ideal. Examples below. — Christoph Päper 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The real unneeded number of decimal figures ? Why are they there ? In practice typefounders could not reach an accuracy better than 1/1000 of an inch at all.
 * And with computers and printers it is not much better either.
 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Of all these three systems, Fournier, Pica and Didot, in the past I have been able to collect the phycical measuring strips. All these systems have been in use on several printshops on the European continent. Fournier was in use in old Belgium printshops up till the 1980-ties or even later. Comparing these metal strips gives the folowing results:

 * 40 * 12 points Fournier = 37 * 12 point Didot
 * 50 * 12 points Fournier = 49.5 * 12 point Pica

 * This makes it possible to estimate more precise the length of the Paris foot, the basis of the Fournier system: 37/40*32.48 = 30.04 cm

 * 12 point Fournier = (37/40)*12 = 11.1 point Didot
 * 12 point Fournier = (49.5/50)*12 = 11.88 point Pica

 * J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Table grouping
I don't really like what has done. I think a simple chronological order was better. Alright, it is true that Hawks came up with the idea that 6 picas made up one (American) inch, and that a pica could be further divided into 12 points (frankly, this idea does not look revolutionary to me, and likely he knew about Fournier and/or Didot). However, the rest of the story goes that the TFA accepted a pica, 6 of which make up 0.996 inch. On the other hand, what is called "DTP" is exactly what Hawks really wanted initially. Truchet, Fournier, Didot are all French. And the 0.25 mm point is left "unassigned".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally happy with the table either. It used to be sorted by size. No matter whether ascending or descending, I think this makes more sense than chronological order since some dates are dubious. Also, related points automatically group then and we don't have to fight over appropriate collective terms. In other words, I don't care all that much about the newly introduced first column. — Christoph Päper 08:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The dates are not that dubious. Yes, some may vary by a year or so, but this does not change the whole picture. As long as the article goes more or less in chronological order, it's better to treat the table the same way. Otherwise, we would have to list Q after Truchet, while they are absolutely unrelated and are about 300 years apart. Then the Japanese point would go before the American one, while it is obvious the Japanese got that from Americans. Etc. I think in fact we have only two groups: based on the French inch, and based on the American inch. A few are outsiders. But I have an idea how to fix it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The French 0.4-mm point, 1/4-mm Q and 3/8-mm "new" Didot point would then not really belong within the same group of Truchet, Fournier and Didot points. My criticism of the dates related mostly to the latter two of those, because 0.250 mm and 0.375 mm have been defined and used before the late 1990s. — Christoph Päper 13:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

«Bolssens, Belgian»
The «Various point definitions» table specifies a «Bolssens, Belgian» point, established in 2018 as 0,720 mm. Where does this data come from? I can't find any source except this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeple (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hoax/original research by an anonymous editor. Removed.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk)

The TeX definition(s)
Leaving this comment here for later. Firstly, the "nd" (New Didot) unit mentioned in the article is probably not in TeX itself, but only in extensions like pdfTeX, XeTeX, etc. (There used to be a reference to the source code which would have helped research this further, but someone's removed this for some reason.) Secondly, about the printer's point: Knuth's (published) log has some relevant comments on how these values were chosen (see entries for 30 Oct 1982, 1 Nov 1982, and 4 Nov 1982). The "NBS Circular 570" they refer to is probably this. The actual code is in section 458 (and indirectly 617) of the TeX program, and refers to "Bosshard in Technische Grundlagen zur Satzherstellung (Bern, 1980)". There are some (mixed quality) comments here and here. (Just leaving this comment here to dump this info, so that someone (or I) could improve this article later, making sense of all this info.) Shreevatsa (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't twip the truly smallest unit in typography?
The article asserts that, in typography, "the point is the smallest unit of measure", but what about the twip?

"Garamond (typography)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Garamond (typography). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blythwood (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Point (typography)


text:
Runt (disambiguation)

A runt is a smaller specimen in a group of animals, usually of offspring in a litter.

Runt or Runts may also refer to:

Fictional characters

 * Runt, of the duo Rita and Runt, in the TV series Animaniacs
 * Runt, in the video game Simon the Sorcerer II: The Lion, the Wizard and the Wardrobe
 * Runt, in the film Disco Pigs
 * Runts, characters in the video game Quadrun
 * The Runts, a gang in the film City of God
 * Runt, in the 2005 Disney film Chicken Little

Other arts and entertainment

 * Runt (album), a 1970 album by Todd Rundgren, originally credited to the band Runt
 * Runt. The Ballad of Todd Rundgren, a 1971 album by Todd Rundgren
 * Runt (novel), a 2002 children's novel by Marion Dane Bauer
 * Runt (film), a 2020 American thriller film

People

 * C. W. Bishop (1890–1971), U.S. Congressman from Illinois nicknamed "Runt"
 * Runt Marr (1891–1981), American baseball player, manager and scout
 * Runt Wolfe, pseudonym of Moe Berg (1902–1972), Major League Baseball Player and World War II Allied spy
 * Brother Runt or simply Runt, ringname of Matt Hyson (Spike Dudley), American professional wrestler

Science and technology

 * RUNT Linux, ResNet USB Network Tester, a Linux distro
 * Runt domain, an evolutionary conserved protein domain
 * Runt frame, an Ethernet frame shorter than the minimum of 64 bytes
 * The "Runt" device, a prototype hydrogen bomb detonated in the Castle Romeo test
 * Runt pulse, a narrow pulse that does not reach a valid high or low level

Other uses

 * Runt Distribution, a US record company
 * Runts, a brand of candy
 * Runt (typography), a very short ending to a paragraph occupying its own line that's mostly blank

title: Runt (disambiguation)


text:
Pier 21

Pier 21 is a former ocean liner terminal and immigration shed from 1928 to 1971 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Nearly one million immigrants came to Canada through Pier 21, and it is the last surviving seaport immigration facility in Canada. The facility is often compared to the landmark American immigration gateway Ellis Island. The former immigration facility is now occupied by the Canadian Museum of Immigration, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design as well as various retail and studio tenants.

Background
Halifax Harbour, along with Quebec City and Victoria, British Columbia were the major ports of entry for immigration to Canada in the steamship era. Pier 2 in Halifax's North End, also known as the "Deepwater Piers", was built in 1880 to process immigrants arriving on ocean liners. It also served as a major terminal for troopships and hospital ships in World War I. However, by 1913, the peak year of immigration in Canada, it was clear that the growing size of ocean liners and increase in immigration would require a larger facility. Plans were made for a new integrated ocean liner and railway facility in the South End of Halifax.

Construction
Construction was delayed by World War I and the Halifax Explosion. However, by 1928 the Halifax Harbour Commission oversaw the completion of ocean terminals, a large complex of freight piers, grain elevators, a new train station and a 600 ft, two-story shed that would be home to Pier 21. The shed had an area of 221,000 ft2 for freight, and was built of steel truss-work with brick walls and wood roofs. It was divided into Pier 20, 21, and 22, and faced a long sea wall which could handle the biggest ocean liners in operation. The immigration facility on the second floor of the shed at Pier 21 housed the assembly hall for immigrants, as well as medical and detention quarters. Adjacent to the Pier 21 shed was a two-story, brick annex building connected to the shed by an overhead walkway. The annex contained immigration offices, customs, a railway booking office and telegraph office as well as offices for immigration charities such as the Canadian Red Cross and a restaurant where immigrants could get meals before their long train journeys west. Railway passenger platforms on both sides of the annex served five long passenger and express tracks which served Pier 21. Special immigrant passenger trains, made up of dozens of colonist cars, would take passengers from Halifax to their new homes across Canada. A second overhead walkway crossed the tracks to connect the Pier 21 terminal to the Halifax, Nova Scotia railway station where more affluent travelers could board regularly scheduled trains such as the Ocean Limited.

History
Pier 21 opened on March 8, 1928, and the Holland America liner SS Nieuw Amsterdam (1905) became the first ship to bring immigrants to Canada through the new terminal. Pier 21 opened for business at the same time that Canada launched a fleet of ocean liners called "the Lady Boats" based at Pier 21 and operated by the Canadian National Steamship Line, introduced to the public at a special lunch, press conference and tour for travel agents hosted by RMS Lady Nelson at Pier 21 on November 27, 1928 where the immigration facility was acclaimed as "the finest on the continent" designed to give Canada a competitive presence in Atlantic travel routes.

Pier 21 would serve as a passenger terminal for trans-Atlantic Ocean liners from 1928 until 1971. The Pier was the primary point of entry for nearly one million immigrants and refugees from Europe and elsewhere, as well as the departure point for 496,000 military personnel Canadian troops during World War II. The facility became known informally as the 'Gateway to Canada.'

In its first years of operation, Pier 21 greeted many Dutch and English immigrants as well as workers sponsored by employers. However the Great Depression led to severe restrictions in immigration, and so arrival numbers fell. Pier 21 became a cruise ship destination during the Depression as giant liners were employed in summer recreational cruises from New York to Halifax, Nova Scotia during slack periods of Trans-Atlantic crossings. Pier 21 hosted the largest White Star liners such as RMS Olympic and RMS Majestic as well as the Cunard liners RMS Berengaria, RMS Mauretania (1906), RMS Aquitania and the Red Star Line's Belgenland.

World War II
The war almost completely halted immigration, but Pier 21 quickly became a major embarkation port for troop ships. Canadians and other Allied forces boarded hundreds of converted ocean liners ranging from the giants RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth to smaller liners such as RMS Ascania (1923). As the war continued, a special medical embarkation unit was established at Pier 21 to move wounded soldiers from hospital ships to special hospital trains as the hospital ships Lady Nelson and SS Letitia brought wounded Canadians home. Most of the over 90,000 aviators who came to Canada as part of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan landed at Pier 21. Over 2,000 child evacuees from the United Kingdom arrived at Pier 21 during the war, fleeing the Blitz. Princess Juliana and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands arrived at Pier 21 amidst ceremony aboard the Dutch cruiser HNLMS Sumatra (1920) in 1940 after the invasion of the Netherlands, en route to wartime refuge in Ottawa. Winston Churchill passed through Pier 21 four times, traveling in 1943 and 1944 to the Quebec Conference and the Washington Conference. During the latter trip he led a sing-along of "O Canada" and "The Maple Leaf Forever" at the Pier 21 railway platform where hundreds had gathered to see him. Enormous amounts of gold bullion were secretly shipped through Pier 21 during the war to banks in Ottawa and Montreal to safeguard currency reserves of beleaguered European nations. Britain alone shipped over 2.5 billion in gold reserves in 50 different shipments codenamed variously as "margarine" or "peanuts" from 1939 to 1941. At the war's end the Pier welcomed returning troops followed by war brides. A large fire heavily damaged Pier 21 on March 5, 1944 causing the central portion of the facility to be rebuilt in time to handle returning soldiers and war brides in 1945.

Postwar

Following the war brides, several major waves of immigrants arrived at Pier 21 beginning with the Displaced Person refugees from across Europe, including many Holocaust survivors. These refugees were followed by large numbers of post war economic immigrants from several European countries such as Britain, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. One of the smallest ships to ever come to Pier 21, the former minesweeper SS Walnut arrived in 1948 packed with 347 refugees from the Baltic, triggering a controversy about their admittance to Canada which help shaped Canada's postwar refugee policies. The 1950s marked the peak years of immigration arrivals, many of which were Italian-Canadians. A large two-story addition was built onto the immigration annex building in the 1950s to handle the heavy traffic of postwar European immigration. The Hungarian Uprising in 1956 brought another group of refugees to Pier 21, although some from this wave were now arriving by aircraft. The decline in ocean liner travel due to the rise of jet airliner travel during the 1960s caused immigration to shift to airports. With few ships calling at Pier 21, the terminal was used more often in its final years to handle overflow from airport immigration offices. The last major group of immigrants were 100 Cuban refugees from the Gander International Airport who were transferred to Pier 21 in 1970 to be accommodated while their refugee claims were processed. The last ship to bring immigrants to Pier 21 was the SS Cristoforo Colombo on March 30, 1971. Pier 21 closed its doors on March 31, 1971. A few other ships arrived in Halifax with immigrants after Pier 21 closed, but they were received by immigration officials working out of a downtown office.

Post-immigration use
From the 1970s until 1991, the former immigration facility at Pier 21 housed the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute, a training facility for professional mariners. During the 1990s, the space provided studio and workshop space for artists. The Immigration annex was used by customs officials and the Halifax port's police. The growth of the cruise ship industry in the 1980s led to the return of large passenger ships to the Pier 21 wharves, however only for short recreational visits. Some of the former immigration terminal areas in Shed 20 and 22 was converted in stages to cruise ship passenger reception and retail spaces. On September 22, 1997, the Pier 21 facility was designated a National Historic Site of Canada on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada because of the facility's major role in 20th century immigration in Canada and because it is the last surviving seaport immigration facility in Canada. The Pier 21 Society opened an interpretive centre in part of the former immigration facility in 1999. The society became the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in 2010, and occupied an expanded portion of the former immigration facility. The Nova Scotia College of Art and Design's seaport campus took over Pier 21's former medical, detention and accommodation wing in 2011. The Garrison brewing company leased a large portion of the immigration annex building in May 2006. A variety of retail shops as well as artists' and architects' studios and cultural organizations occupy the remainder of the immigration annex.

In late 2005, Pier 21's Carrie-Anne Smith and Vice Admiral Duncan "Dusty" Miller contributed wood from the building's rafters to the Six String Nation project. Part of that material now forms the X-brace on the interior of Voyageur, the guitar at the heart of the project.

title: Pier 21


text:
Kokoda

Kokoda is a station town in the Oro Province of Papua New Guinea. It is famous as the northern end of the Kokoda Track, site of the eponymous Kokoda Track campaign of World War II. In that campaign, it had strategic significance because it had the only airfield along the Track. In the decades preceding, it had been a foothills settlement near the gold fields.

Kokoda is located within the administrative divisions of Kokoda Rural LLG.

Establishment of the station town
The British colonial administration found that a base for the Papuan Native Constabulary and colonial control was required to subdue the region and the government station of Kokoda was founded in 1904.

World War II
An amphibious landing by Japanese forces to capture Port Moresby was postponed indefinitely after the Battle of Midway. The Japanese command believed there to be a road leading through the Owen-Stanleys from Kokoda to the south coast. An invasion force was landed on the north coast near Buna and Gona from 21 July 1942. Two battles were fought in and around the village during the opening stages of the Kokoda Track campaign. Kokoda was reoccupied by Australian forces on 2 November 1942, following the Japanese withdrawal back to the north coast.

The station is linked by a rough road and a two-hour journey to the provincial capital of Popondetta.

In August 2009 Kokoda airstrip was the destination for Airlines PNG Flight CG4684 that crashed whilst attempting to land. All 13 people on board were killed in the crash, including nine Australian passengers who were due to trek the Kokoda Track, a Japanese passenger, and three Papua New Guineans, including the two pilots.

Climate
Kokoda has a tropical rainforest climate with heavy to very heavy rainfall year-round.

title: Kokoda


text:
Catoctin Mountain Park

Catoctin Mountain Park, located in north-central Maryland, is part of the forested Catoctin Mountain ridge−range that forms the northeastern rampart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, in the Appalachian Mountains System.

Approximately 5120 acres or 8 sqmi in area, the park features sparkling streams and panoramic vistas of the Monocacy Valley.

Catoctin Mountain Park is managed by the National Park Service, and lies north of and directly adjacent to the similarly sized Cunningham Falls State Park.

History
In the 1930s, after years of making charcoal to fuel nearby iron furnaces, mountain farming, and harvesting of trees for timber, land was purchased to be transformed into a productive recreation area, helping to put people back to work during the Great Depression. Beginning in 1935, the Catoctin Recreational Demonstration Area was under construction by both the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. The northern portion of the park was transferred to the National Park Service on November 14, 1936, and renamed and reorganized on July 12, 1954, with the southern 5000 acre transferred to Maryland as Cunningham Falls State Park.

Bills were introduced in the United States Senate in 2003 and 2005 to re-designate the park as Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The bills passed the Senate, but were not taken up by the House, and therefore did not become law. The park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2014.

Originally planned to provide recreational camps for federal employees, one of the camps eventually became the home of the Presidential retreat, Camp David. The Presidential retreat is not open or accessible to the public; however, the eastern hardwood forest of Catoctin Mountain Park does have many other attractions for visitors, some of which include camping, picnicking, fishing, 25 mi of hiking trails, and scenic mountain vistas.

title: Catoctin Mountain Park


text:
Provitamin

A provitamin is a substance that may be converted within the body to a vitamin. The term previtamin is a synonym.

The term "provitamin" is used when it is desirable to label a substance with little or no vitamin activity, but which can be converted to an active form by normal metabolic processes.

Example
Some provitamins are:

 * "Provitamin A" is a name for β-carotene, which has only about 1/6 the biological activity of retinol (vitamin A); the body uses an enzyme to convert β-carotene to retinol. In other contexts, both β-carotene and retinol are simply considered to be different forms (vitamers) of vitamin A.
 * "Provitamin B5" is a name for panthenol, which may be converted in the body to vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid).
 * Menadione is a synthetic provitamin of vitamin K.
 * Provitamin D2 is ergosterol, and provitamin D3 is 7-dehydrocholesterol. They are converted by UV light into vitamin D. The human body produces provitamin D3 naturally; deficiency is usually caused by a lack of sun exposure, not a lack of the provitamin.

title: Provitamin


text:
User talk:Maim

Maim. it is a word that an mean many different things. Usually humans use it to descrigbe the way in which people hurt each other. It coualso be used to describe how one hurts anothers feelings. Many people never maim others in their whole lives. Unfortunately there are some who join gangs and maim others on a horrifyingly regular basis.

title: User talk:Maim


text:
A Day in the Death of Joe Egg

A Day in the Death of Joe Egg is a 1967 play by the English playwright Peter Nichols, first staged at the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow, Scotland, before transferring to the Comedy Theatre in London's West End.

Synopsis
The play centres on a British couple, Bri and Sheila, who are struggling to save their marriage whilst trying to raise their only child, a small girl named Josephine, who has cerebral palsy. She uses a wheelchair and is nonverbal, which her parents see as unable to communicate. Caring for her has occupied nearly every moment of her parents' lives since her birth, taking a heavy toll on their marriage. Sheila gives Josephine as much of a life as she can, while Bri wants the child institutionalised and has begun to entertain chilling fantasies of killing himself and Josephine.

Characters

 * Bri
 * Grace
 * Joe
 * Freddie
 * Pam
 * Sheila

Productions
After its premiere in Glasgow in 1967, A Day in the Death of Joe Egg opened in London's West End in 1967 then transferred to Broadway the next year. On Broadway, the play received four nominations for Tony Awards, including Best Play, Best Actor (Albert Finney), Best Featured Actress (Zena Walker) and Best Director (Michael Blakemore). Walker won the Tony for Best Featured Actress. The play was profiled in the William Goldman book The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway.

The Brunton Theatre Company, Musselburgh, produced the play under the direction of Sandy Neilson during its first season in 1979.

The play has been revived twice on Broadway. A 1985 revival staged at the Longacre Theatre ran for 93 performances. It was directed by Arvin Brown and the cast included Jim Dale, Stockard Channing, Joanna Gleason, Christina Pickles and Kate Wilkinson. The production won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Revival.

A revival in the West End opened in October 2001 at the New Ambassadors Theatre, starring Clive Owen and Victoria Hamilton and was directed by Laurence Boswell. This production transferred to the Comedy Theatre in December 2001, with Eddie Izzard replacing Owen. The same production opened on Broadway, produced by Roundabout Theatre, in March 2003 at the American Airlines Theatre and played for 69 performances. Directed by Lawrence Boswell, the play starred Eddie Izzard and Victoria Hamilton.

In October 2011 the Citizens Theatre again staged the play that premiered there in 1967, with a cast that included Miles Jupp, Sarah Tansey,  and Miriam Margolyes.

In May 2013 it received an off-off-Broadway production from Retro Productions in New York City.

In September 2019, the play had a West End revival at Trafalgar Studios, starring Claire Skinner and Toby Stephens, directed by Simon Evans.

Film adaptations
Nichols adapted A Day in the Death of Joe Egg for two films, first in 1970, and again in 2002. The 1970 adaptation, which was not released until 1972, was directed by Peter Medak, starring Alan Bates, Janet Suzman, Joan Hickson, Peter Bowles and Elizabeth Robillard. A 2002 television version was directed by Robin Lough, with stars Eddie Izzard, Victoria Hamilton, Prunella Scales, and Robin Weaver.

Awards and nominations

 * Awards
 * 1985 Drama Desk Award Outstanding Revival
 * 1985 Outer Critics Circle Awards Best Revival
 * 1985 Tony Award for Best Reproduction of a Play

 * Nominations
 * 1968 Tony Award for Best Play
 * 2003 Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play
 * 2003 Drama Desk Award Outstanding Revival of a Play

title: A Day in the Death of Joe Egg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openn

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Openn
Vanity "religion". CDC  (talk)  16:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-notable, delete. Fire Star 20:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openn