text:
Immunoprecipitation

Immunoprecipitation (IP) is the technique of precipitating a protein antigen out of solution using an antibody that specifically binds to that particular protein. This process can be used to isolate and concentrate a particular protein from a sample containing many thousands of different proteins. Immunoprecipitation requires that the antibody be coupled to a solid substrate at some point in the procedure.

Individual protein immunoprecipitation (IP)
Involves using an antibody that is specific for a known protein to isolate that particular protein out of a solution containing many different proteins. These solutions will often be in the form of a crude lysate of a plant or animal tissue. Other sample types could be body fluids or other samples of biological origin.

Protein complex immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)
Immunoprecipitation of intact protein complexes (i.e. antigen along with any proteins or ligands that are bound to it) is known as co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP). Co-IP works by selecting an antibody that targets a known protein that is believed to be a member of a larger complex of proteins. By targeting this known member with an antibody it may become possible to pull the entire protein complex out of solution and thereby identify unknown members of the complex.

This works when the proteins involved in the complex bind to each other tightly, making it possible to pull multiple members of the complex out of the solution by latching onto one member with an antibody. This concept of pulling protein complexes out of solution is sometimes referred to as a "pull-down". Co-IP is a powerful technique that is used regularly by molecular biologists to analyze protein–protein interactions.

 * A particular antibody often selects for a subpopulation of its target protein that has the epitope exposed, thus failing to identify any proteins in complexes that hide the epitope. This can be seen in that it is rarely possible to precipitate even half of a given protein from a sample with a single antibody, even when a large excess of antibody is used.
 * As successive rounds of targeting and immunoprecipitations take place, the number of identified proteins may continue to grow. The identified proteins may not ever exist in a single complex at a given time, but may instead represent a network of proteins interacting with one another at different times for different purposes.
 * Repeating the experiment by targeting different members of the protein complex allows the researcher to double-check the result. Each round of pull-downs should result in the recovery of both the original known protein as well as other previously identified members of the complex (and even new additional members). By repeating the immunoprecipitation in this way, the researcher verifies that each identified member of the protein complex was a valid identification.  If a particular protein can only be recovered by targeting one of the known members but not by targeting other of the known members then that protein's status as a member of the complex may be subject to question.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)
Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) is a method used to determine the location of DNA binding sites on the genome for a particular protein of interest. This technique gives a picture of the protein–DNA interactions that occur inside the nucleus of living cells or tissues. The in vivo nature of this method is in contrast to other approaches traditionally employed to answer the same questions.

The principle underpinning this assay is that DNA-binding proteins (including transcription factors and histones) in living cells can be cross-linked to the DNA that they are binding. By using an antibody that is specific to a putative DNA binding protein, one can immunoprecipitate the protein–DNA complex out of cellular lysates. The crosslinking is often accomplished by applying formaldehyde to the cells (or tissue), although it is sometimes advantageous to use a more defined and consistent crosslinker such as dimethyl 3,3′-dithiobispropionimidate-2 HCl (DTBP). Following crosslinking, the cells are lysed and the DNA is broken into pieces 0.2–1.0 kb in length by sonication. At this point the immunoprecipitation is performed resulting in the purification of protein–DNA complexes. The purified protein–DNA complexes are then heated to reverse the formaldehyde cross-linking of the protein and DNA complexes, allowing the DNA to be separated from the proteins. The identity and quantity of the DNA fragments isolated can then be determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The limitation of performing PCR on the isolated fragments is that one must have an idea which genomic region is being targeted in order to generate the correct PCR primers. Sometimes this limitation is circumvented simply by cloning the isolated genomic DNA into a plasmid vector and then using primers that are specific to the cloning region of that vector. Alternatively, when one wants to find where the protein binds on a genome-wide scale, ChIP-sequencing is used and has recently emerged as a standard technology that can localize protein binding sites in a high-throughput, cost-effective fashion, allowing also for the characterization of the cistrome. Previously, DNA microarray was also used (ChIP-on-chip or ChIP-chip).

RNP immunoprecipitation (RIP and CLIP)
RIP and CLIP both purify a specific RNA-binding protein in order to identify bound RNAs, thereby studying ribonucleoproteins (RNPs). In RIP, the co-purified RNAs are extracted and their enrichment is compared to control, which was originally done by microarray or RT-PCR. In CLIP, cells are UV crosslinked prior to lysis, followed by additional purification steps beyond standard immunoprecipitation, including partial RNA fragmentation, high-salt washing, SDS-PAGE separation and membrane transfer, and identification of direct RNA binding sites by cDNA sequencing.

Tagged proteins
One of the major technical hurdles with immunoprecipitation is the great difficulty in generating an antibody that specifically targets a single known protein. To get around this obstacle, many groups will engineer tags onto either the C- or N- terminal end of the protein of interest. The advantage here is that the same tag can be used time and again on many different proteins and the researcher can use the same antibody each time. The advantages with using tagged proteins are so great that this technique has become commonplace for all types of immunoprecipitation including all of the types of IP detailed above. Examples of tags in use are the green fluorescent protein (GFP) tag, glutathione-S-transferase (GST) tag and the FLAG-tag tag. While the use of a tag to enable pull-downs is convenient, it raises some concerns regarding biological relevance because the tag itself may either obscure native interactions or introduce new and unnatural interactions.

Methods
The two general methods for immunoprecipitation are the direct capture method and the indirect capture method.

Direct
Antibodies that are specific for a particular protein (or group of proteins) are immobilized on a solid-phase substrate such as superparamagnetic microbeads or on microscopic agarose (non-magnetic) beads. The beads with bound antibodies are then added to the protein mixture, and the proteins that are targeted by the antibodies are captured onto the beads via the antibodies; in other words, they become immunoprecipitated.

Indirect
Antibodies that are specific for a particular protein, or a group of proteins, are added directly to the mixture of protein. The antibodies have not been attached to a solid-phase support yet. The antibodies are free to float around the protein mixture and bind their targets. As time passes, beads coated in Protein A/G are added to the mixture of antibody and protein. At this point, the antibodies, which are now bound to their targets, will stick to the beads.

From this point on, the direct and indirect protocols converge because the samples now have the same ingredients. Both methods give the same end-result with the protein or protein complexes bound to the antibodies which themselves are immobilized onto the beads.

Selection
An indirect approach is sometimes preferred when the concentration of the protein target is low or when the specific affinity of the antibody for the protein is weak. The indirect method is also used when the binding kinetics of the antibody to the protein is slow for a variety of reasons. In most situations, the direct method is the default, and the preferred, choice.

Agarose
Historically the solid-phase support for immunoprecipitation used by the majority of scientists has been highly-porous agarose beads (also known as agarose resins or slurries). The advantage of this technology is a very high potential binding capacity, as virtually the entire sponge-like structure of the agarose particle (50 to 150 μm in size) is available for binding antibodies (which will in turn bind the target proteins) and the use of standard laboratory equipment for all aspects of the IP protocol without the need for any specialized equipment. The advantage of an extremely high binding capacity must be carefully balanced with the quantity of antibody that the researcher is prepared to use to coat the agarose beads. Because antibodies can be a cost-limiting factor, it is best to calculate backward from the amount of protein that needs to be captured (depending upon the analysis to be performed downstream), to the amount of antibody that is required to bind that quantity of protein (with a small excess added in order to account for inefficiencies of the system), and back still further to the quantity of agarose that is needed to bind that particular quantity of antibody. In cases where antibody saturation is not required, this technology is unmatched in its ability to capture extremely large quantities of captured target proteins. The caveat here is that the "high capacity advantage" can become a "high capacity disadvantage" that is manifested when the enormous binding capacity of the sepharose/agarose beads is not completely saturated with antibodies. It often happens that the amount of antibody available to the researcher for their immunoprecipitation experiment is less than sufficient to saturate the agarose beads to be used in the immunoprecipitation. In these cases the researcher can end up with agarose particles that are only partially coated with antibodies, and the portion of the binding capacity of the agarose beads that is not coated with antibody is then free to bind anything that will stick, resulting in an elevated background signal due to non-specific binding of lysate components to the beads, which can make data interpretation difficult. While some may argue that for these reasons it is prudent to match the quantity of agarose (in terms of binding capacity) to the quantity of antibody that one wishes to be bound for the immunoprecipitation, a simple way to reduce the issue of non-specific binding to agarose beads and increase specificity is to preclear the lysate, which for any immunoprecipitation is highly recommended.

Preclearing
Lysates are complex mixtures of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and nucleic acids, and one must assume that some amount of non-specific binding to the IP antibody, Protein A/G or the beaded support will occur and negatively affect the detection of the immunoprecipitated target(s). In most cases, preclearing the lysate at the start of each immunoprecipitation experiment (see step 2 in the "protocol" section below) is a way to remove potentially reactive components from the cell lysate prior to the immunoprecipitation to prevent the non-specific binding of these components to the IP beads or antibody. The basic preclearing procedure is described below, wherein the lysate is incubated with beads alone, which are then removed and discarded prior to the immunoprecipitation. This approach, though, does not account for non-specific binding to the IP antibody, which can be considerable. Therefore, an alternative method of preclearing is to incubate the protein mixture with exactly the same components that will be used in the immunoprecipitation, except that a non-target, irrelevant antibody of the same antibody subclass as the IP antibody is used instead of the IP antibody itself. This approach attempts to use as close to the exact IP conditions and components as the actual immunoprecipitation to remove any non-specific cell constituent without capturing the target protein (unless, of course, the target protein non-specifically binds to some other IP component, which should be properly controlled for by analyzing the discarded beads used to preclear the lysate). The target protein can then be immunoprecipitated with the reduced risk of non-specific binding interfering with data interpretation.

Superparamagnetic beads
While the vast majority of immunoprecipitations are performed with agarose beads, the use of superparamagnetic beads for immunoprecipitation is a newer approach that is gaining in popularity as an alternative to agarose beads for IP applications. Unlike agarose, magnetic beads are solid and can be spherical, depending on the type of bead, and antibody binding is limited to the surface of each bead. While these beads do not have the advantage of a porous center to increase the binding capacity, magnetic beads are significantly smaller than agarose beads (1 to 4 μm), and the greater number of magnetic beads per volume than agarose beads collectively gives magnetic beads an effective surface area-to-volume ratio for optimum antibody binding.

Commercially available magnetic beads can be separated based by size uniformity into monodisperse and polydisperse beads. Monodisperse beads, also called microbeads, exhibit exact uniformity, and therefore all beads exhibit identical physical characteristics, including the binding capacity and the level of attraction to magnets. Polydisperse beads, while similar in size to monodisperse beads, show a wide range in size variability (1 to 4 μm) that can influence their binding capacity and magnetic capture. Although both types of beads are commercially available for immunoprecipitation applications, the higher quality monodisperse superparamagnetic beads are more ideal for automatic protocols because of their consistent size, shape and performance. Monodisperse and polydisperse superparamagnetic beads are offered by many companies, including Invitrogen, Thermo Scientific, and Millipore.

Agarose vs. magnetic beads
Proponents of magnetic beads claim that the beads exhibit a faster rate of protein binding  over agarose beads for immunoprecipitation applications, although standard agarose bead-based immunoprecipitations have been performed in 1 hour. Claims have also been made that magnetic beads are better for immunoprecipitating extremely large protein complexes because of the complete lack of an upper size limit for such complexes, although there is no unbiased evidence stating this claim. The nature of magnetic bead technology does result in less sample handling due to the reduced physical stress on samples of magnetic separation versus repeated centrifugation when using agarose, which may contribute greatly to increasing the yield of labile (fragile) protein complexes. Additional factors, though, such as the binding capacity, cost of the reagent, the requirement of extra equipment and the capability to automate IP processes should be considered in the selection of an immunoprecipitation support.

Binding capacity
Proponents of both agarose and magnetic beads can argue whether the vast difference in the binding capacities of the two beads favors one particular type of bead. In a bead-to-bead comparison, agarose beads have significantly greater surface area and therefore a greater binding capacity than magnetic beads due to the large bead size and sponge-like structure. But the variable pore size of the agarose causes a potential upper size limit that may affect the binding of extremely large proteins or protein complexes to internal binding sites, and therefore magnetic beads may be better suited for immunoprecipitating large proteins or protein complexes than agarose beads, although there is a lack of independent comparative evidence that proves either case.

Some argue that the significantly greater binding capacity of agarose beads may be a disadvantage because of the larger capacity of non-specific binding. Others may argue for the use of magnetic beads because of the greater quantity of antibody required to saturate the total binding capacity of agarose beads, which would obviously be an economical disadvantage of using agarose. While these arguments are correct outside the context of their practical use, these lines of reasoning ignore two key aspects of the principle of immunoprecipitation that demonstrates that the decision to use agarose or magnetic beads is not simply determined by binding capacity.

First, non-specific binding is not limited to the antibody-binding sites on the immobilized support; any surface of the antibody or component of the immunoprecipitation reaction can bind to nonspecific lysate constituents, and therefore nonspecific binding will still occur even when completely saturated beads are used. This is why it is important to preclear the sample before the immunoprecipitation is performed.

Second, the ability to capture the target protein is directly dependent upon the amount of immobilized antibody used, and therefore, in a side-by-side comparison of agarose and magnetic bead immunoprecipitation, the most protein that either support can capture is limited by the amount of antibody added. So the decision to saturate any type of support depends on the amount of protein required, as described above in the Agarose section of this page.

Cost
The price of using either type of support is a key determining factor in using agarose or magnetic beads for immunoprecipitation applications. A typical first-glance calculation on the cost of magnetic beads compared to sepharose beads may make the sepharose beads appear less expensive. But magnetic beads may be competitively priced compared to agarose for analytical-scale immunoprecipitations depending on the IP method used and the volume of beads required per IP reaction.

Using the traditional batch method of immunoprecipitation as listed below, where all components are added to a tube during the IP reaction, the physical handling characteristics of agarose beads necessitate a minimum quantity of beads for each IP experiment (typically in the range of 25 to 50 μl beads per IP). This is because sepharose beads must be concentrated at the bottom of the tube by centrifugation and the supernatant removed after each incubation, wash, etc. This imposes absolute physical limitations on the process, as pellets of agarose beads less than 25 to 50 μl are difficult if not impossible to visually identify at the bottom of the tube. With magnetic beads, there is no minimum quantity of beads required due to magnetic handling, and therefore, depending on the target antigen and IP antibody, it is possible to use considerably less magnetic beads.

Conversely, spin columns may be employed instead of normal microfuge tubes to significantly reduce the amount of agarose beads required per reaction. Spin columns contain a filter that allows all IP components except the beads to flow through using a brief centrifugation and therefore provide a method to use significantly less agarose beads with minimal loss.

Equipment
As mentioned above, only standard laboratory equipment is required for the use of agarose beads in immunoprecipitation applications, while high-power magnets are required for magnetic bead-based IP reactions. While the magnetic capture equipment may be cost-prohibitive, the rapid completion of immunoprecipitations using magnetic beads may be a financially beneficial approach when grants are due, because a 30-minute protocol with magnetic beads compared to overnight incubation at 4 °C with agarose beads may result in more data generated in a shorter length of time.

Automation
An added benefit of using magnetic beads is that automated immunoprecipitation devices are becoming more readily available. These devices not only reduce the amount of work and time to perform an IP, but they can also be used for high-throughput applications.

Summary
While clear benefits of using magnetic beads include the increased reaction speed, more gentle sample handling and the potential for automation, the choice of using agarose or magnetic beads based on the binding capacity of the support medium and the cost of the product may depend on the protein of interest and the IP method used. As with all assays, empirical testing is required to determine which method is optimal for a given application.

Background
Once the solid substrate bead technology has been chosen, antibodies are coupled to the beads and the antibody-coated-beads can be added to the heterogeneous protein sample (e.g. homogenized tissue). At this point, antibodies that are immobilized to the beads will bind to the proteins that they specifically recognize. Once this has occurred the immunoprecipitation portion of the protocol is actually complete, as the specific proteins of interest are bound to the antibodies that are themselves immobilized to the beads. Separation of the immunocomplexes from the lysate is an extremely important series of steps, because the protein(s) must remain bound to each other (in the case of co-IP) and bound to the antibody during the wash steps to remove non-bound proteins and reduce background.

When working with agarose beads, the beads must be pelleted out of the sample by briefly spinning in a centrifuge with forces between 600–3,000 x g (times the standard gravitational force). This step may be performed in a standard microcentrifuge tube, but for faster separation, greater consistency and higher recoveries, the process is often performed in small spin columns with a pore size that allows liquid, but not agarose beads, to pass through. After centrifugation, the agarose beads will form a very loose fluffy pellet at the bottom of the tube. The supernatant containing contaminants can be carefully removed so as not to disturb the beads. The wash buffer can then be added to the beads and after mixing, the beads are again separated by centrifugation.

With superparamagnetic beads, the sample is placed in a magnetic field so that the beads can collect on the side of the tube. This procedure is generally complete in approximately 30 seconds, and the remaining (unwanted) liquid is pipetted away. Washes are accomplished by resuspending the beads (off the magnet) with the washing solution and then concentrating the beads back on the tube wall (by placing the tube back on the magnet). The washing is generally repeated several times to ensure adequate removal of contaminants. If the superparamagnetic beads are homogeneous in size and the magnet has been designed properly, the beads will concentrate uniformly on the side of the tube and the washing solution can be easily and completely removed.

After washing, the precipitated protein(s) are eluted and analyzed by gel electrophoresis, mass spectrometry, western blotting, or any number of other methods for identifying constituents in the complex. Protocol times for immunoprecipitation vary greatly due to a variety of factors, with protocol times increasing with the number of washes necessary or with the slower reaction kinetics of porous agarose beads.

Steps

 * 1) Lyse cells and prepare sample for immunoprecipitation.
 * 2) Pre-clear the sample by passing the sample over beads alone or bound to an irrelevant antibody to soak up any proteins that non-specifically bind to the IP components.
 * 3) Incubate solution with antibody against the protein of interest. Antibody can be attached to solid support before this step (direct method) or after this step (indirect method). Continue the incubation to allow antibody-antigen complexes to form.
 * 4) Precipitate the complex of interest, removing it from bulk solution.
 * 5) Wash precipitated complex several times. Spin each time between washes when using agarose beads or place tube on magnet when using superparamagnetic beads and then remove the supernatant. After the final wash, remove as much supernatant as possible.
 * 6) Elute proteins from the solid support using low-pH or SDS sample loading buffer.
 * 7) Analyze complexes or antigens of interest. This can be done in a variety of ways:
 * 8) SDS-PAGE (sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis) followed by gel staining.
 * 9) SDS-PAGE followed by: gel staining, cutting out individual stained protein bands, and sequencing the proteins in the bands by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometry.
 * 10) Transfer and Western blot using another antibody for proteins that were interacting with the antigen, followed by detection using a chemiluminescent or fluorescent secondary antibody.

title: Immunoprecipitation


text:
Luisa Fernanda Rudi

Luisa Fernanda Rudi Úbeda (born 14 December 1950 in Seville) is a Spanish politician currently serving as Senator from Teruel in Aragón since 2015. She served as the 175th president of the Congress of Deputies, being the first woman to hold the position in Spanish history. From 2011 to 2015 she served as president of the Government of Aragon.

Rudi was born in Seville. In the Spanish parliament she represented Zaragoza from 1986–1996 and from 2000 to 2004. She was a substitute for Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, substitute for the Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee.

She was a member of the Bureau of the European People's Party and sat on the European Parliament's Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

Between July 2011 and July 2015 she was President of the Government of Aragon. She became a is member of the Senate of Spain in 2015.

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

title: Luisa Fernanda Rudi


text:
Ludwig Devrient

Ludwig Devrient (15 December 1784 – 30 December 1832) was a German actor, noted for his playing in the works of Shakespeare and Schiller.

Devrient, who was born in Berlin, left a commercial career for the stage in 1804. He joined a travelling theatrical company, and made his first appearance on the stage at Gera as the messenger in Schiller's Braut von Messina. By the interest of Count Brühl, he appeared at Rudolstadt as Franz Moor in Schiller's Die Räuber, so successfully that he obtained a permanent engagement at the ducal theatre in Dessau, where he played until 1809. He then received a call to Breslau, where he remained for six years. Such was his success in the title-parts of several of Shakespeare's plays, that the leading actor August Wilhelm Iffland began to fear for his own reputation; yet that artist was generous enough to recommend the young actor as his only possible successor. On Iffland's death, Devrient was summoned to Berlin, where he was for fifteen years the popular idol. He died there in December 1832.

Ludwig Devrient was equally adept in comedy and tragedy. Falstaff, Franz Moor (in Die Räuber), Shylock, King Lear and Richard II were among his best parts. Karl von Holtei in his Reminiscences gave a graphic picture of him and the "demoniac fascination" of his acting. He also wrote several plays and a history of the German stage (1848–74) in five volumes. With his son, Otto, he published translations of Shakespeare's plays.

Devrient was a member of a notable theatrical family, his three nephews all being actors. Karl August Devrient (1797–1872) was popular in heroic and character roles such as Lear, Shylock, and Faust. Another nephew, Eduard Devrient (1801–1877), directed the Court Theatre, Dresden (1844–46), and the Karlsruhe Theatre (1852–70). Gustav Emil Devrient (1803–1872), was the youngest and most gifted of all three nephews of Ludwig Devrient.

title: Ludwig Devrient


text:
Anne Van Lancker

Anne Edward Marie Van Lancker (born 4 March 1954) is a Belgian politician and a former Member of the European Parliament (until 2009) for Belgium with the Socialistische Partij Anders (sp.a), part of the Socialist Group and sat on the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and its Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.

She was a substitute for the Committee on Development and a member of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Anne Van Lancker was the only Belgian MEP in the European Convention, that presented a draft constitution for the EU in 2003. Her work during that convention earned her the title 'tireless battler for a social Europe' from Financial Times journalist Peter Norman.

She also chairs zij-kant, the women's organisation of sp.a.

Education

 * She followed secondary education at the Sint-Lodewijkscollege in Lokeren.
 * 1978: Degree in sociology (sociology of work)
 * 1988: Postgraduate degree in social legislation

Career

 * 1978-1979: Academic researcher, HIVA (Institute for Labour Studies)
 * 1979-1984: Assistant at the faculty of work sociology, Catholic University of Leuven
 * 1984-1988: Member of staff of research department at SEVI (Emile Vandervelde Institute Research and Documentation Centre)
 * 1988-1989: Assistant, parliamentary SP group
 * 1989-1990: Deputy head, office of the Flemish Minister of Employment
 * 1990-1992: Head of office of the Flemish Minister of Employment
 * 1992-1994: Head of private office to the Flemish Minister of Employment and Social Affairs
 * since 1994: Member of the SP.A party bureau
 * since 1999: Member of the SP.A executive
 * since 1995: Member of party council, Ghent
 * Member of the East Flanders provincial executive
 * since 1999: Chairwoman of Zijkant
 * since 1994: Member of the European Parliament

title: Anne Van Lancker


text:
Scott Carrier

Scott Carrier is an American author, Peabody award-winning radio producer, and educator. He lives in Salt Lake City, Utah. His second book, Prisoner of Zion, was published in April 2013. He is a former assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Utah Valley University.

Written work

 * Prisoner of Zion: Muslims, Mormons and Other Misadventures (ISBN 978-1619021211)
 * Running After Antelope (ISBN 1-58243-179-5)
 * "Over There" from The Best American Travel Writing 2003 (ISBN 978-0618390748) originally featured in Harper's Magazine
 * "Rock the Junta" from The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007 (ISBN 978-0618902811) originally featured in Mother Jones

Radio work
Carrier's pieces have been featured on radio programs, including This American Life since 1996, The Savvy Traveler, Marketplace, Day to Day, All Things Considered, and NPR's Hearing Voices. In 2015, Carrier began producing a podcast entitled "Home of the Brave". The podcast combines original stories with work that previously aired on NPR and other radio shows.

Contributions to This American Life

 * Episode 12, segment The Moment Humans Stopped Being Animals, 1996 (rebroadcast in episode 49)
 * Episode 21, segment Religious Faction, 1996
 * Episode 35, Fall Clearance Stories, haiku stories, 1996
 * Episode 37, segment The Test, 1996 (rebroadcast in episode 181)
 * Episode 40, segment Swimming Lesson, 1996
 * Episode 42, segment Finding Amnesia, 1996
 * Episode 45, segment Whoring in Commercial Radio News, 1996 (rebroadcast as The Friendly Man in episode 181)
 * Episode 48, segment Kids, 1997
 * Episode 49, segment The Moment Humans Stopped Being Animals, 1997 (rebroadcast)
 * Episode 53, segment Parent and Child, 1997
 * Episode 64, segment On the Green River, 1997
 * Episode 77, segment Kings, 1997
 * Episode 80, segment Running After Antelope, 1997
 * Episode 96, segment Book of Job, 1998
 * Episode 113, segment Pot of Gold, 1998
 * Episode 141, segment More Powerful Than a Locomotive, 1999
 * Episode 146, segment Church of Latter Day Snakes, 1999
 * Episode 181, The Friendly Man, with segments The Test (rebroadcast), The Friendly Man (rebroadcast), Who Am I? What Am I Doing Here?, and The Day Mom and Dad Fell in Love, 2001. Entire show rebroadcast April 24, 2009.
 * Episode 191, segment Just Three Thousand More Miles to the Beach, 2001
 * Episode 195, segment Are You Ready?, 2001
 * Episode 241, segment No of Course I Know You, 2003
 * Episode 243, segment The Hiker and the Cowman Should be Friends, 2003
 * Episode 286, segment Invisible Girl, 2005
 * Episode 333, segment Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too., 2007
 * Episode 551, segment The Test., 2015

Awards
In 2006 Carrier won a Peabody Award for a story titled "Crossing Borders" which was aired on Hearing Voices on NPR.

In 2009 Carrier won a Fellow Award from United States Artists.

title: Scott Carrier


text:
User talk:Elricofimryr

Elricofimryr is actually spelled elric of imryr. I mixed it all up because of the lack of knowledge as of the underscore. Elric was a warrior. A darn good one, too. An albino he was, blood so thin that he stayed alive only due to potions and his deadly soul-eating sword. Yrcoon, my cousin, hate me and tries to kill me every chance he gets. His sister, Cymoril, love me and I love her. I plan to make her mine one day an to have her sit on the throne next to me in Melnibone, my kingdom's capital. Imryr is the land that we would rule together.

title: User talk:Elricofimryr


text:
Ludwig von Benedek

Ludwig August Ritter von Benedek (14 July 1804 – 27 April 1881), also known as Lajos Benedek, with the Hungarian form of Ludwig, was an Austro-Hungarian general (Feldzeugmeister), best known for commanding the imperial army in 1866 in their defeat at the Battle of Königgrätz against the Prussian Army, which ended his career.

Early years
Benedek was born in Sopron as the son of a physician. He was trained at the Theresiana Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt, from which he graduated seventh in his class. In 1822, he was assigned to the 27th infantry regiment of the Austrian Imperial Army. He was made a first lieutenant in 1833, and was assigned to the Quartermaster-General. In 1835, he was promoted to the rank of captain.

In 1840 Benedek was made a major and aide to the General Commander of Galicia. While still serving in Galicia he was again promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1843. For suppressing an uprising in the town of Gdow in 1846 he was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Order of Leopold as well as given the rank of colonel.

Commander in Italy
In August 1847, Benedek was entrusted with the command of the 33rd infantry regiment in Italy. On 5 April 1848 he took over the command of a newly formed brigade that consisted of two battalions. This brigade saw battle in the first Italian war of independence several times, notably at Curtatone in 1848. The following day, Benedek led his troops in the Battle of Goito.

Benedek was afterwards awarded the Commanders' Cross of the Order of Leopold, and the Knight's Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa. This officially made Benedek a knight (hence Ludwig, Ritter von Benedek). On 3 April 1849 he became major general and was appointed to the staff of the Chief of Quartermaster-General with the 2nd Army in Italy.

Hungarian revolution
In 1849, Benedek was sent to Hungary. Leading troops in the Battle of Győr, he was instrumental in striking down the rebellion. At another battle in Szőreg he was seriously wounded. He was given the Military Merit Cross and made regimental colonel. Benedek was made chief of staff to Radetzky in Italy.

He was promoted to Feldmarschallleutnant in 1852 and, when Radetzky retired in 1857, Benedek became the commander of the II Army Corps.

Battle of San Martino/Solferino
In early 1859, Benedek was commander general of the 8th army corps in the Second Italian War of Independence. On 27 May 1859, he was promoted to the rank of Feldzeugmeister, second in command of the entire Austrian Army. On 24 June, under the command of the young Emperor Franz Joseph I, he fought in the Battle of Solferino against the French troops of the Emperor Napoleon III.

Benedek was attacked on the right flank by the entire army of King Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont-Sardinia, just a few kilometers north of Solferino in the Battle of San Martino. The Austrian units threw the Piedmontese back at first and were able to hold their ground. In the meantime Franz Joseph was defeated at Solferino and Benedek aided his retreat to San Martino. Benedek received the Commander's Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa in 1859.

After the Austrian defeat, Benedek was appointed Chief of the General Quartermaster Staff on 31 January 1860, and to the governorship of Hungary in April.

On 20 October 1860 Benedek assumed command of the Austrian forces in Lombardy-Venetia, Carinthia, Carniola, the Tyrol and the Adriatic Coastland and was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Leopold with War Decoration on 14 January 1862.

Military and political philosophy
Benedek was a staunch believer in the concept that the army was the chief guardian of the Habsburg monarchy and needed to protect it from liberal and nationalist forces; loyalty to the dynasty and monarch were paramount and suspicion of the civilian professional and business classes followed. In a circular to his officers in March 1861 he warned against "international revolutionaries, lawyers and doctors without practices, ambitious and money-hungry journalists, dissatisfied professors and schoolteachers" as well as "debt-ridden nobles and cowardly magnates" who threatened the monarchy. A year later he further stated in Verona that the army's purpose was "to serve, fight, and if necessary die with honor for the emperor and supreme warlord." Benedek believed in a traditional concept of war where valor and courage were of chief importance, where "simple rules" were superior to "complicated calculations". Following in this vein, he opposed the notion of a national, Prussian-style general staff of officers selected for their education and intellect.

Battle of Königgrätz
At the outbreak of the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, Benedek was made the commander in chief of the Northern Army. He had previously declined the appointment three times, claiming that he knew neither the terrain in the north nor the enemy. Delaying his departure from Verona for nearly two months, he arrived in Vienna only on 12 May and did not establish his headquarters at Olmütz (Olomouc) until 26 May. Furthermore, his two chiefs of staff, Krismanic and Henikstein, encouraged his pessimism and reluctance to engage the enemy.

While the Prussians advanced against and defeated Austria's German allies (Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, and Saxony), Benedek remained in a defensive posture. Urged by Emperor Franz Joseph's emissary, Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich Beck, to advance, Benedek and his staff replied the army was still not ready. Concerning himself with issues of military dress and ceremony and emphasizing the importance of close combat in the coming battles (despite the superiority of the Prussians' needle guns), Benedek only deployed his troops at the end of June. Marching in three columns, they took up defensive positions near the fortress of Josefstadt and the Saxon and Silesian mountain passes.

When the Prussians crossed into Bohemia, Benedek failed to mass his forces against the separate enemy formations and suffered defeats across his front (except for a costly stand at Trautenau). Despite ordering a change of tactics and suddenly admitting the importance of artillery fire prior to the bayonet charge, morale among both the leadership and soldiers was shaken, and Benedek ordered his troops back to Olmütz. Stating that a "catastrophe" was at hand, he pleaded with the emperor to make peace with Prussia. When this was refused, he drew up his army in a defensive position against the Elbe between Sadowa and Königgrätz.

When, on 3 July 1866, the Prussians attacked, Benedek had a numerical advantage. Yet he expected to face only the Prussian First Army, and the arrival of the Prussian Second Army under Crown Prince Frederick William, attacking the Austrian flank at Chlum, disrupted the Austrian lines. Benedek ordered a retreat and crossed the river himself in the evening and informed the emperor that the catastrophe he had feared had indeed taken place. He offered to rally again at Olmütz but the retreat became a near rout. On 10 July Archduke Albrecht was appointed commander of all armies and established defenses around Vienna. However, the Prussians had achieved their objectives and were suffering a cholera outbreak while the Austrians were desperate for an end to the fight; an armistice was signed on 21 July.

Loss of command
This placed Emperor Franz Joseph I in a difficult position. There was extensive demand for the blame for the defeat to be placed on Benedek. He resigned as commander-in-chief at Pozsony (Bratislava) on 26 July 1866. The highest military law senate imposed a court martial against him and was to investigate of the battle. This was stopped by the instruction of the emperor.

Benedek was ordered never to speak about the circumstances of the defeat. When a scathing article in the Wiener Zeitung on 8 December 1866 blamed him alone for the catastrophe, he had no right to reply.

The former first soldier of the Empire lived for another fifteen years in quiet retirement at Graz, and died there on 27 April 1881.

title: Ludwig von Benedek


text:
User talk:StuSimms

''Comment below moved from your user page. Sorry, I screwed up and put these comments on the wrong page originally and only now discovered my mistake. Hopefully these comments aren't too late or redundant.'' --Calton | Talk 13:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading your images. I notice some of them currently don't have Image copyright tags. Could you add them to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) An extensive list of image tags can be found at Image copyright tags, if you're not sure. Thanks so much,

Images:
 * Image:Lightwater_Valley_Entrance.jpg
 * Image:Lightwater_Valley_Lake.jpg
 * Image:Lightwater_Valley_Toad_Hole.jpg
 * Image:Lightwater_Valley_Ultimate.jpg
 * Image:Lightwater_Valley_Ultimate_Station.jpg

Calton 01:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:StuSimms


text:
User talk:Sopiro~enwiki

Thanks for the message and by the way: Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

SteveW | Talk 13:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto
It looks as if your latest edit to this page has resulted in a lot of it being duplicated (this sometimes happens, for instance if you get a slow response and save your edits again thinking they have not already been saved). Yo might like to look at this and sort out which version you want to save. rossb 14:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sopiro. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sopiro~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sopiro~enwiki


text:
Talk:Pay It Forward (film)

"Pay It Forward" movement
I think something should be added about the "Pay It Forward" movement, which I relate to being much like the Free/Open Source Software movements -- where people just all make contributions to the community, and there's this underlying hope that those who benefit, will pass along the benefit to others. http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org/
 * There's a page devoted to the concept of Pay it Forward itself (rather than just the movie). The Pay it Forward Foundation would probably be better suited being mentioned there.  With the additional page about the concept, this page really should be more about the movie itself. --Forgottenlord 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like a Press Release
It describes characters as "chock-full of worries", "classic deadbeats" and "big-hearted", and describes plot events like "looking out the window of his lower-class Nevada home to see a bleak horizon".

These are all Hollywood buzzwords to make a movie seem more interesting. It is not actual information about the film. It also doesn't describe important plot events such as when Arlene and Eugene get together, and then Trevor finds out and says that it's now Eugene's turn to pay it forward. It prefers not to divulge anything juicy about the film, since if someone were to read it, then they wouldn't need to see the movie.

This article is meant to be a thorough description of the movie, including full plot and cast. It's not meant to boost home video sales. I'll be attempting to rehabilitate this article and make it genuinely informative.

 * I have now reverted the article to the last edit before it was vandalised into a press-release. I say 'vandalised' because it was definitely done by a vandal, the person who did it replaced the word 'pay' with 'kill' in the edit before. Abc30 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would someone do it soon? This blurb is boring and makes what was an intriguing movie seem like a made for TV mid afternoon drama ho hum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.212.84 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Line
Would a sort of family-tree of the Pay it Forward movement within this movie be useful? I.e. A did something nice for B, B for C, etc. Elizabennet 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this would be very helpful to the movie's plot. Wolfdog 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
This article and the one that describes the philosophy are distinguished only by capitalization. One or the other should be renamed, and disambiguation links added to the head of each. I've added the links, but leave it to consensus to decide which should be renamed. --Bdoserror 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Syney Rice
I've removed the section "Syney Rice" as it didn't seem to have a point relevant to the movie. Maybe a copyedit and proper placement would make it more relevant. Here's the orignial:

He was the Gangster in the movie Pay it Forward. He was a crip. After he claimed to be on his way to church and getting attacked by 5 bloods (he really was stealing a stereo and was being chased by the cops), A homeless lady came by in her car and helped him get away. After she told him about Paying it Forward he later on helped out someone else. After being stabbed by his sister he let someone else go first into the emergency. The girls father then pays it forward by giving away his brand new Jaguar to Chris and this is where it shows the movie started.

Trevor's Three

 * Who specifically were Trevor's three people who he chose to help? I am pretty sure it was Jerry, Mr. Simonet, and Adam. Is this true? Wolfdog 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No it was Jerry, Mr. Simonet and Arlene

Correction: I believe it was Jerry, Mr. Simonet and Adam on his original list. Trevor has a discussion with Mr. Simonet and tells him how he failed Adam. Immediately prior to that discussion, the scene opens to Trevor sitting on bleachers loking over his list. He crosses each out, believin he has failed each one. The list is a tree structure, with Trevor as the parent node, and Jerry, Mr. Simonet and Adam as child nodes.Surferpup 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PayItForward.jpg
Image:PayItForward.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good
I love this movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.129.202 (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing
This movie was a real tearjerker! Amazing story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropdeadleah (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Section
I think we need to add on a section about the films legacy - I know many teachers who use Pay It Forward as a teaching tool and last year I was assigned Trevor's assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.38.72 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

--and on the note of a legacy section, there should be some documentation. The main article talks about Syracuse's residence hall association, which can only be assumed as a band of college kids, using a 'pay it forward' theme. Although it's hardly worth mentioning, to lack anything backing it, maybe press clippings or anything at all, it makes it all the more pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.19.68 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea and term were the creation of Robert Heinlein - What about BEN?
The term was created by Robert Heinlein, the idea was first known to come from Benjamin Franklin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward#History

I'm requesting that this be noted within this article or for a word change in the sentence. If no one opposes, I will modify the line from being:

The idea and term were the creation of Robert Heinlein.

To being:

The idea was first known to come from Benjamin Franklin while the term 'Pay it forward' was the creation of Robert Heinlein.

--Sc0ttkclark (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, I will change the wording this weekend. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the change and added the reference as is shown in Pay_it_forward for Ben. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack
It turns out that the film's original soundtrack has made more waves, given that portions of it are often used (licensed for use) on television and radio, and that samples have found their way into numerous genre remixes. I have not seen and heard this happen as often with any other soundtrack music not meant as anything else than a movie soundtrack. -Mardus (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pay It Forward (film)


text:
John S. Battle High School

John S. Battle High School is a high school located in the Southwest portion of Virginia in Washington County. Built in 1959, the school was named after former Virginia Governor John S. Battle.

Baseball
John Battle won the state championships for baseball in 2000 and 2001.

Volleyball
John Battle won the state championships for volleyball in 1989 and 1991.

Tennis
The John Battle Girls' Tennis team won the 2008 state championship.

Softball
Both John S Battle's Junior Varsity and Varsity had an undefeated 2021 regular season.

Notable alumni

 * Jimmy Gobble, Kansas City Royals Pitcher
 * Mike Helton, NASCAR

title: John S. Battle High School


text:
Lucius Licinius Crassus

Lucius Licinius Crassus (140 – September 91 BC) was a Roman orator and statesman who was a Roman consul and censor and who is also one of the main speakers in Cicero's dramatic dialogue on the art of oratory De Oratore, set just before Crassus' death in 91 BC. He was considered the greatest orator of his day by his pupil Cicero.

Early life
Lucius Licinius Crassus was born in 140 BC. It is not known exactly which Licinius Crassus his father was, as there are a number of similarly named Licinii Crassi active in the mid-second century BC. However, prosopographical investigation by scholars has established that he must have been a grandson of Gaius Licinius Crassus, the consul of 168 who marched his army from Gallia Cisalpina to Macedonia against the will of the Senate. Lucius was, therefore, the child of one of this Gaius Crassus' sons.

Lucius was taught at a young age by the Roman historian and jurist Lucius Coelius Antipater. He also studied law under two eminent statesmen, both of whom were from branches of the Mucii Scaevolae gens: Publius Mucius Scaevola (the father of Crassus' colleague as consul, Quintus Mucius Scaevola 'Pontifex'); and Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur. The latter was still alive in the year of Crassus' death (91 BC), and appears alongside Crassus as a character in Cicero's De Oratore; he was also the father of Crassus' wife, Mucia.

Prosecution of C. Papirius Carbo
In 119 BC, when aged only 21, Crassus shot to fame for his prosecution of the proconsul Gaius Papirius Carbo, who committed suicide rather than face the inevitable guilty verdict. From this point on, Crassus was recognised as one of the foremost orators in Rome.

However, Crassus came to regret this celebrated prosecution because it brought him many political enemies. One such enemy was Carbo's son, Gaius Papirius Carbo Arvina, who followed Crassus to his province in 94 BC with the aim of gathering evidence for a revenge prosecution. Crassus was remembered by later Romans for his wise response to the younger Carbo; instead of sending him away from his camp, Crassus in fact invited Carbo into his closest circle of advisors so that he might win over his former enemy.

Other early activity
Little else is known of Crassus' political activities in the 110s BC. He is known to have supported the efforts of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus to create a citizen colony at Narbo Martius in 117 BC. At the age of twenty-seven, Crassus defended his relative Licinia, one of the Vestal Virgins who had been accused of breaking their vow of chastity that year. Crassus was successful during Licinia's first prosecution in front of the pontifices, and she was acquitted. However, she was prosecuted again by the special inquisitor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla in early 113. This time, Crassus was not successful, and Licinia was consequently buried alive.

Crassus served as quaestor sometime around the year 109 BC. He was appointed to the province of Asia Minor. On his return journey, he studied rhetoric at Athens, but departed after a dispute with the locals. Having missed the ceremony of the Eleusinian Mysteries by only two days, Crassus requested that the Athenians repeat the affair so that he too might be initiated. When the Athenians refused, he angrily left the city. It seems Crassus related this anecdote to the young Cicero, who recorded it many years later in the De Oratore.

Crassus served as tribune of the plebs in 107 BC at the age of 33. His tribunate was as an example of a notably "quiet" one: Cicero had not realised Crassus even served as tribune until he read about it by chance in a passage of Lucilius.

Crassus probably served as aedile in 100 BC. Alongside Scaevola Pontifex (his future colleague in the consulship), Crassus put on expensive games for the people, which were remembered decades afterwards for their extravagance.

Equestrian juries debate, 106 BC
As was common with many young politicians at the start of the cursus honorum, Crassus had employed popularis overtones in his prosecution of Carbo. But over time, he became an increasingly staunch defender of conservative values.

In 106 BC, Crassus gave a speech in which he defended the Lex Servilia, a law proposed by the consul Quintus Servilius Caepio which aimed to end the equestrian monopoly on juries. Since the legislative reforms of Gaius Gracchus, jurors for a number of important courts had been drawn only from the ranks of the equites. Crassus and the other conservative senators (the optimates) wanted mixed juries drawn from both senators and equestrians. He therefore attacked the equestrian courts in a speech, considered by Cicero (who preserves the following quotation from the speech) to be Crassus' finest moment:

"Save us from wretchedness, save us from the fangs of men whose cruelty can only be satisfied by our blood; do not let us be slaves to others, unless to you alone, the whole People, to whom we may and should be servants."

Crassus' oratory won the day, and the Lex Servilia was successfully passed. It was, however, to prove short-lived, as a few years later a law of Gaius Servilius Glaucia (passed either in 104 or 101 BC) restored the equestrian monopoly on the juries.

Regardless of the long-term outcome of the Lex Servilia, Crassus' speech was highly celebrated. It became a literal model of Roman eloquence, and was being studied in a textbook by the young Cicero a few years later. In the last year of his life, Crassus once again attacked the equestrian juries when he championed the legislation of Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger in 91 BC (see below).

When Quintus Servilius Caepio, the proposer of the jury law in question, was prosecuted in 103 BC by the tribune Gaius Norbanus for his catastrophic loss at the Battle of Arausio, Crassus defended him. Crassus lost the case, and Caepio was exiled.

When consul in 95 BC, Crassus successfully defended Caepio's son, Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger, from an unspecified charge. However, Cicero notes that in this instance Crassus' defence of the younger Caepio was rather half-hearted: "for its laudatory purpose, it was long enough; but as a whole oration it was very brief".

Consulship

Crassus had probably served as praetor by 98 BC. He was elected consul for 95 BC alongside his long-term ally Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex. It was during this consulship that Crassus defended the younger Caepio from an unspecified charge (see above).

Lex Licinia Mucia
The most notable act of Crassus and Scaevola's consulship was the Lex Licinia Mucia. This was an infamous law that targeted any foreigners who were illegally masquerading as Roman citizens. The law created an investigatory court (quaestio) tasked with forcing such individuals to revert to their former citizenships.

It was very unpopular, particularly among the non-Roman Italian allies. In fact, it was so controversial that later Roman commentators sometimes saw it as a main cause of the Social War (91–88 BC) that began several years later.

Gallic triumph
Crassus was granted Cisalpine Gaul as his proconsular province for 94 BC. Despite defeating a number of Gallic raiders, he failed to gain a triumph due to the veto of his consular colleague, Scaevola Pontifex.

Cicero later judged that Crassus had been in the wrong, remarking that 'Crassus almost ransacked the Alps with a probe, in order to find any pretext for a triumph in an area where there were no enemies'. But even if Crassus was acting unscrupulously, Scaevola's veto is still remarkable. Theodor Mommsen, for instance, could find no precedent for it whatsoever. The veto is particularly inexplicable given the former friendship between the two men: they had, after all, shared office at every stage of the cursus honorum, as Cicero points out, and there had been no signs of hostility during their consulship.

Causa Curiana
It was likely in 94 BC that Crassus won the so-called "Causa Curiana" – an infamous inheritance dispute between Manius Curius and the family of one Marcus Coponius. Crassus represented Curius in the case, while Scaevola Pontifex represented the Coponii family. Cicero refers to the dispute many times during his works.

Coponius had left an as-yet-unborn son as his chief heir, with Curius as the substitute heir until the son came of age. However, Coponius soon died and no son was born. The Coponii therefore claimed that the prerequisite conditions (i.e., the birth of a son) had never been fulfilled, meaning that the will should be rendered invalid. However Crassus successfully convinced the Centumviral Court that Curius was the rightful heir, thereby securing Marcus Coponius' considerable inheritance for Curius alone. Cicero considered Crassus' defence the perfect example of how to win a case through terminological niceties.

Censorship
In 92 BC Crassus was elected censor with Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. The two colleagues were well remembered by ancient sources for their petty disputes—for example, in exchanging insults over one another's luxurious mansions. Eventually, these public quarrels forced them to abdicate the position early, amid much scandal and controversy.

Schools of Latin Rhetoric
Crassus and Ahenobarbus did manage to agree on passing a famous edict, preserved for us in a later work by Suetonius, that banned the so-called 'schools of Latin rhetoric'. Instead of the usual Greek, these schools taught their students rhetoric in Latin. It seems this was considered immoral and un-Roman - Cicero called them 'schools of impudence' - and this might explain why Crassus and Ahenobarbus believed the edict necessary. However, some modern scholars have sought political reasons for the act as well.

91 BC
Crassus died suddenly in September 91 BC, but was politically active until the final days of his life. Alongside the princeps senatus Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Crassus was the main conservative champion of the radical tribune Marcus Livius Drusus, whose legislative package of reforms was planned as a means of reconciling the interests of the Senate, the equestrians, and the urban poor.

In particular, Crassus gave a memorable speech on the 13 September 91 BC defending Livius Drusus from the attacks of the consul Lucius Marcius Philippus. In the words of Cicero, 'this was literally Crassus' "swan song" ... for he fell sick and died a week later'.

Crassus' unexpected death robbed Drusus of one of his most influential supporters, and Philippus soon succeeded in his attempts to have all of Drusus' legislation abrogated on religious technicalities. Drusus was eventually assassinated by an unknown hand, an event commonly viewed by ancient sources as precipitating the outbreak of the Social War (91–88 BC).

Oratorical Skill
Cicero praises Crassus' oratorical skill at many points in his surviving texts. For example, in Cicero's history of oratory (a work known as the Brutus after its dedicatee Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger), Crassus is portrayed as the greatest Roman orator to have yet lived. Indeed, Cicero believes that the only two orators to come close to Crassus' skill were Crassus' contemporary Marcus Antonius Orator (grandfather of the famous Mark Antony) and Cicero himself. Cicero weighs up the relative skills of Antonius and Crassus with the following words:

"For my part, though I assign to Antonius all the virtues that have pointed out above, I still hold that nothing could have been more perfect than Crassus. He possessed great dignity, and combined with dignity a pleasantry and wit, not smart nor vulgar, but suited to the orator; his Latinity was careful and well chosen, but without affected preciseness; in presentation and argument his lucidity was admirable; in handling questions, whether of the civil law or of natural equity and justice, he was fertile in argument and fertile in analogies ... No one could surpass the resourcefulness of Crassus."

Cicero's admiration for Crassus and Antonius is also evident in the De Oratore, his treatise on the art of oratory. In this, they appear as the two central characters of the dialogue, debating the attributes of the ideal orator in the presence of a number of younger aspiring orators, including Gaius Aurelius Cotta, Publius Sulpicius Rufus, and Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo.

As well as the skills praised above, Crassus was said to have extensive knowledge of the Roman legal system. Cicero calls Crassus the 'ablest jurist in the ranks of orators', capable even of besting his (and Cicero's) former mentor, the great jurist Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur. Cicero also notes with admiration the intense preparation Crassus undertook before every case; this was all the more necessary because Roman orators very rarely came into court with more than a few written notes with them.

In terms of Crassus' oratorical style, he apparently kept the ideal line between extremes; neither too active nor too still, neither too impassioned nor too calm, witty and yet always dignified:

"No violent movements of the body, no sudden variation of voice, no walking up and down, no frequent stamping of the foot; his language vehement, sometimes angry and filled with righteous indignation; much wit but always dignified, and, what is most difficult, he was at once ornate and brief."

Cicero also notes that Crassus liked to break up his sentences into many short, sharp clauses, the effect being to create a simple style of speaking ('a natural complexion, free of make up').

It is also noted by Cicero in De Oratore that Licinius Crassus was a friend of the philosopher Marcus Vigellius.

Family
Licinius Crassus was married to a daughter of the Consul Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur (not to be confused with Crassus' consular colleague, Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex) and his wife Laelia, who was a daughter of Gaius Laelius Sapiens. He had two daughters. One married Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, the son of the consul of 111 BC. The other married Gaius Marius the Younger, the son of the general and seven-time consul Gaius Marius, probably in 94 or 93 BC.

Luxurious lifestyle
Crassus was somewhat infamous in later generations for his luxurious lifestyle. In particular, he was notably the first Roman to use columns made of imported marble, in this case from Mt. Hymettus in Greece. His contemporaries also mocked him for this luxury. A Marcus Brutus dubbed him the 'Palatine Venus' for the apparent effeminacy of the columns, and a serious dispute broke out between Crassus and his colleague as censor, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, over the marble.

Crassus also had a beloved pet eel, much to the bemusement of later Roman commentators. When Crassus held a funeral for the pet, the same Domitius Ahenobarbus snidely commented on the affair. Crassus retorted: "did you not bury three wives and not shed a tear?"

title: Lucius Licinius Crassus


text:
Lionel Cranfield, 1st Earl of Middlesex

Lionel Cranfield, 1st Earl of Middlesex (1575 – 6 August 1645) was an English merchant and politician. He sat in the House of Commons between 1614 and 1622 when he was raised to the peerage as Baron Cranfield.

Life
He was the second son of Thomas Cranfield, a mercer at London, and his wife Martha Randill, the daughter and heiress of Vincent Randill of Sutton-at-Hone, Kent. He was apprenticed to Richard Sheppard, a mercer in London and went into partnership with him in around 1599. He was introduced to King James I and VI of England and Scotland by Lord Northampton, and entered the Royal service in 1605.

Cranfield was appointed Receiver-General of rents and revenues from royal lands in Dorset and Somerset by letters patent in 1605. This included the manors in the jointure lands given to Anne of Denmark. Much of the work was done by Randolph Baron, Sheriff of Bath, who served as deputy collector, and by clerks employed in London. A part of the income was used to pay the keepers of Portland Castle and Sandsfoot Castle. Some of Cranfield's receivership papers survive.

In 1613, he was knighted and was appointed Surveyor-General of Customs. He was elected Member of Parliament for Hythe in 1614. In 1616 he became one of the Masters of Requests, briefly in 1618 Keeper of the Great Wardrobe and in 1619 Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries and Chief Commissioner of the Navy. As Keeper of the Wardrobe he supervised the spending of £20,000 on the funeral of Anne of Denmark and made an inventory of her jewels.

He was elected MP for Arundel in 1621. Cranfield was responsible for many economies in the public service, and his business acumen was very useful to the King. He took part in the attack on Lord St Alban in 1621, and although, contrary to general expectation, he did not succeed him as Lord Chancellor, he was created Baron Cranfield, of Cranfield in the County of Bedford, in July of that year. In 1621 also he became Lord High Treasurer and in September 1622 was created Earl of Middlesex.

Cranfield lost his positions and influence shortly afterwards because he opposed the projected war with Spain, and had incurred the hostility of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Buckingham. Impeached by the House of Commons for corruption, he was found guilty by the House of Lords in May 1624 and was sentenced to lose all his offices, to pay a heavy fine and to be imprisoned during the King's pleasure. However, he was released from prison in a few days, was pardoned in the following year, and was restored to his seat in the House of Lords in 1640. Middlesex died on 6 August 1645.

Cranfield's homes included Chelsea House, which he bought in 1619 and improved employing the services of Inigo Jones and Nicholas Stone, and Copthall in Essex. Furnishings were supplied by the upholsterers Oliver Browne and John Baker who also supplied the royal court and wardrobe, and painted and gilded by Thomas Capp. These included a suite of furnishings for Anne Brett's "lying-in" at Chelsea in 1621 with a cradle with a canopy of crimson damask for James Cranfield in 1621. Furniture from Copthall was taken to Knole in 1701.

Family

Cranfield married Richard Sheppard's daughter Elizabeth in 1599. His second wife was Anne Brett (died 1670), a cousin of Buckingham's mother, whom he married somewhat reluctantly in 1621 in order to ensure Buckingham's support.

He left with other issue a son, James Cranfield, 2nd Earl of Middlesex (1621–1651), who succeeded him as 2nd Earl and was a partisan of the parliamentary party during the English Civil War. The 2nd Earl was succeeded by his brother, Lionel, who died without issue in October 1674, thereafter the Earldom of Middlesex and Barony of Cranfield became extinct. The 1st Earl's youngest surviving daughter, Frances, married Lord Buckhurst, later 5th Earl of Dorset, and their eldest son, Charles, by then Lord Buckhurst, was created Earl of Middlesex in 1675. Two years later he succeeded as 6th Earl of Dorset, and this Earldom of Middlesex was held by the Earls and then Dukes of Dorset until 1843, when it became extinct.

Children by his first wife Elizabeth Sheppard (d. 1617):
 * Martha Cranfield, Countess of Monmouth (b. 1601)
 * Elizabeth Cranfield, Lady Sheffield Countess of Mulgrave (b. 1608)
 * Mary Cranfield (1610–1636)

Children by his second wife, Anne Brett (d. 1670):
 * James Cranfield, 2nd Earl of Middlesex (1621–1651)
 * Frances Cranfield, Countess of Dorset (1622–1687)
 * Lionel Cranfield, 3rd Earl of Middlesex (1625–1674)
 * Edward Cranfield (b. c. 1628)
 * Susanna Cranfield (c. 1631–1636)

Memorial
There is a memorial to him in the Chapel of St Benedict at Westminster Abbey.

title: Lionel Cranfield, 1st Earl of Middlesex


text:
Michigan Educational Assessment Program

The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) was a standardized test. The test was taken by all public school students in the U.S. state of Michigan from elementary school to middle/junior high school from the 1969–70 school year to the 2013–14 school year. For high school students the MEAP test was replaced in the 2006–07 school year by the Michigan Merit Exam.,.

The test was replaced in the 2014–15 school year by the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress, or M-STEP.

The tests have high content validity with respect to the subject specific curriculum for the particular grade level in the State of Michigan. The participation at MEAP testing sessions is mandatory for all public school students. (Journal of Vocational Behavior 60, 178–198 (2002)

History
The program was started by the State Board of Education and supported by then Governor William G. Millken. The MEAP tests were first administered during the 1969–70 school year for the purpose of determining at various points in a student's career, their progress compared to standards set by the State Board of Education. As of Spring 2015 the MEAP has been replaced with the M-STEP (Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress).

title: Michigan Educational Assessment Program


text:
LGBT rights in Austria

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Austria have advanced significantly in the 21st century, and are now considered generally progressive. Both male and female forms of same-sex sexual activity are legal in Austria. Registered partnerships were introduced in 2010, giving same-sex couples some of the rights of marriage. Stepchild adoption was legalised in 2013, while full joint adoption was legalised by the Constitutional Court of Austria in 2016. On 5 December 2017, the Austrian Constitutional Court decided to legalise same-sex marriage, and the ruling went into effect on 1 January 2019.

The country, while influenced by Roman Catholicism, has become more liberal with laws and social opinions concerning sexual orientation and gender identity over time. However, there are still many LGBT minorities who think that being different is a problem. In June 2019, Minister of Education, Science and Research Iris Eliisa Rauskala became the first government minister to come out as lesbian.

Law regarding same-sex sexual activity
In 1770, the Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana, the first unified criminal law for the Habsburg hereditary lands, criminalized various sexual acts, including sodomy. Offenders were subject to decapitation and burning, and sometimes branding. However, same-sex acts were not consistently pursued, and Maria Theresa had the authority to grant pardons.

In 1787, Joseph II reformed the law, introducing milder punishments. Although the death penalty for homosexuality was officially abolished, it was replaced with forced labor, including the brutal practice of ship pulling.

In 1803, a new criminal law abolished ship pulling for homosexuals, substituting it with imprisonment for six months to one year.

The criminal code underwent several amendments until 1852 when impropriety against nature was still punishable, with increased imprisonment from one to five years.

Legal interpretations evolved over time, initially exempting certain acts but later broadening the scope to include all immoral acts with a person of the same sex.

Following the "Anschluss," the attempt to establish consistent criminal legislation and incorporate National Socialist principles into Austrian law was unsuccessful, resulting in the retention of the 1852 Criminal Code. Thus, there was a difference in prosecution of homosexuals between Germany and Austria.

In 1971, an amendment to the Penal Code decriminalised non-commercial same-sex sexual acts between adults, while at the same time introducing a new provision (Section 209), which set the age of consent for gay male sex at 18, 4 years higher than the lesbian and heterosexual age of consent, which was instead set at 14.

On 10 July 2002, Parliament passed a law formally repealing Section 209, which had already been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by the Constitutional Court of Austria on 2 June 2002.

In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in S. L. v. Austria that setting an unequal age of consent was incompatible with the Convention; the case had been brought before the Court prior to the repeal of Paragraph 209.

Despite widespread support to set up an "expungement or compensation scheme" for old historical gay sex criminal records, as of July 2020, the government of Austria has not implemented it yet.

Recognition of same-sex relationships
Following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Karner v. Austria in 2003, cohabitating same-sex couples were given the same rights as cohabitating opposite-sex couples.

First planned in 2007, registered partnerships have been legal in Austria since 1 January 2010.

Before the Constitutional Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage, the Austrian Government had not legalised same-sex marriage due to opposition by the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP). The Greens had however introduced a bill in Parliament, and in 2015 a citizens' initiative "Ehe Gleich!" was set up to petition the Parliament to consider the legalisation of same-sex marriage. They also filed a lawsuit challenging the current law; however, it was dismissed by a lower court. A second lawsuit was heard on 21 March 2016 in Linz. On 15 April 2016, a court dismissed the case as well.

On 5 December 2017, the Constitutional Court struck down the ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The ruling would take effect on 1 January 2019, though the plaintiffs in the court case were allowed to marry prior to that date. In January 2018, the new ÖVP-Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, said on national television that his new Government will respect the ruling by the Constitutional Court. As legislators took no steps to legalise same-sex marriage before the deadline, same-sex marriage became legal on 1 January 2019.

Adoption and parenting
On 19 February 2013, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in X and Others v. Austria that a partner in a same-sex union has the right to adopt his or her partner's biological child. On 4 July 2013, the Austrian Parliament passed a government bill that allows stepchild adoption by same-sex couples. The law entered into force on 1 August 2013.

In January 2015, the Constitutional Court found the existing laws on adoption to be unconstitutional and ordered the laws to be changed by 31 December 2015 to allow joint adoption by same-sex couples. On 30 October 2015, the Justice Minister announced that the ban would no longer be enforced starting on 1 January 2016, thus allowing the Court's decision to automatically cancel the joint adoption ban.

Additionally, lesbian couples can get access to artificial insemination and IVF treatments.

In October 2018, in a case concerning adoption issues following the end of a relationship, the Austrian Constitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples must be treated the same way as opposite-sex couples. It decided that the non-biological mother should be fully recognized as a parent, through way of an adoption, and enjoy the same rights, treatment and obligations as a heterosexual father would, even if the couple has separated. The children's best interest must be taken and guaranteed in every adoption process, the court ruled.

Discrimination protections
The Equal Treatment Act (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) has included anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation in employment since 2004, to follow the implementation of EU legislation prohibiting discrimination on that ground. Gender identity and intersex status are not explicitly included, but are perceived as being covered under "gender". In January 2017, Lower Austria became the last Austrian state (Bundesland) to update its anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. Every other state had already established anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.

The 1993 Security Police Act (Sicherheitspolizeigesetz) requires the police to refrain from any actions that could create the impression of bias or that could be perceived as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In addition, the city of Bludenz adopted a symbolic non-discrimination declaration which includes sexual orientation in 1998. Although the Federal Constitution protects all citizens equally and prohibits discrimination, sexual orientation is not explicitly included.

In 2015, the Austrian Parliament approved amendments to the Criminal Code, making it an aggravating sentence to commit a crime on account of the victim's sexual orientation and banning hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation. The changes went into effect on 1 January 2016.

Gender identity and expression
Transgender people in Austria are allowed to change their legal gender and name so that they match their gender identity. They are not obliged to undergo sex reassignment surgery beforehand. The legal change of gender and name is bound to submission of psychiatric opinion though – so is the payment of sex-change treatment by public health insurance bound to submission of various psychiatric opinions.

Intersex rights
On 14 March 2018, the Constitutional Court preliminarily ruled that intersex people, who are biologically neither male nor female, can choose to have their entry in the birth registry left blank or changed to "inter", "other" or "X". In May 2019, as a result of the ruling, Austrian intersex activist Alex Jürgen was issued documents featuring a third gender option. The Court also ruled that intersex medical interventions are not constitutional and should be avoided as much as possible. It ruled that such medical interventions could only be justified in exceptional cases, such as in life-threatening cases. The final judgment was published on 29 June 2018, and entered into force immediately.

In July 2020, the first intersex birth certificate was legally recognised and issued to an individual person within Austria.

Military service
Austria permits LGBT people to serve openly in the Austrian Armed Forces.

As of 2014, Austria allowed transgender people to serve openly in its military forces. The policy of inclusion was reportedly still in effect in 2017.

Conversion therapy
In June and July 2018, LGBT association HOSI Salzburg criticised the ultra-conservative Christian association "TeenSTAR" for claiming that "Homosexuality is considered an identity problem and 'aberration'". The group offered minors conversion therapy classes by teaching them that sexual orientation was "changeable" through a combination of therapy, self-help groups and pastoral care, as reported by the Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper. Member of the National Council Mario Lindner (SPÖ) made a parliamentary request to former Minister of Education Heinz Faßmann on the allegations; another parliamentary question was launched by Member of the National Council Ewa Dziedzic (Greens). In October 2018, the Education Directorate Salzburg banned TeenSTAR workshops until the result of the review. Although the Ministry of Education announced a ban on the association, and a decree by Christmas 2018, as of February 2019, no decree had been published, and TeenSTAR continued to work in schools. In April, the association was finally banned.

In December 2018, a resolution calling for a ban on conversion therapy on minors was submitted to Parliament by SPÖ equal treatment spokesman Mario Lindner. A vote was initially prevented and delayed by the ruling ÖVP and FPÖ coalition. However, on 13 June 2019, in a preliminary vote, the National Council approved the resolution. The Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ), NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) JETZT – Pilz List (JETZT), the two independent members and the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) all voted for the resolution; with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) opposing. On 2 July 2019, the National Council approved the resolution in a final vote. In this vote, the FPÖ also agreed, on the grounds that children and adolescents should always be given priority protection. The resolution calls on the Government of Austria to "immediately submit to the Federal Council a government bill banning the use of conversion and reparative therapies on minors" by setting a deadline before summer.

Politics
In 1995, the International Human Rights Tribunal instigated the political discussion about the discrimination and persecution of LGBT persons in Austria. The first major parliamentary debates on that issue took place thereafter, initiated by the Liberal Forum (LIF) which was campaigning strongly against discrimination of homosexuals, which at that time existed through section 209 of the Austrian Penal Code, and for complete equality of treatment also including marriage and adoption. Section 209 set a higher age of consent for gay men, at 18 (4 years higher than the age of consent for heterosexuals and lesbians, which was set at 14). The Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the Green Party at that time showed support for the issue of equal treatment of same-sex couples.

After the LIF did not pass the four percent electoral threshold in the 1999 elections, the Social Democrats and the Green Party started to embrace this issue more. The SPÖ on its biannual Federal Party Convention made a decision on the issue of equal treatment of same-sex couples. They proposed a model of registered partnership ("Eingetragene Partnerschaft") including stepchild adoption. The Austrian Green Party proposed the civil pact ("Zivilpakt") as a somewhat similar model to that of the Social Democrats in 2004.

However, progress was visible to a limited extent. Since 1998, Austria has recognized the right not to testify against their partner if the partner is of the same sex, as amended in the Criminal Code. In June 2002, the Constitutional Court rescinded section 209 of the Criminal Code, which led to the introduction of section 207b as a substitute by the coalition of the conservative ÖVP and the right-wing FPÖ. Section 207b lowered the age of consent for all regardless of sexual orientation to 14 with a close in age exemption of 3 years. It also prohibits corrupting a minor under 16 to have sexual relations. Following the 2003 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Karner v Austria, cohabiting same-sex partners are entitled to the same rights as unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex partners. In 2005, the Green Party campaigned heavily for registered partnerships during the Vienna election campaign in 2005. On 26 July 2006, the first legal same-sex marriage was conducted, when Angelika Frasl, a transsexual woman with two children, was permitted by the Constitutional Court to change her legal gender to female while remaining married to her wife.

Karin Gastinger, the then Minister of Justice and a former member of the centre-right Alliance for the Future of Austria, had fought for gay and lesbian couples to get rights to partners' estates and medical care in December 2005. However, her case was ultimately unsuccessful.

It was not thought likely that the coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats formed in 2007 would result in major steps towards more equality quickly. Although the then Minister of Justice, Maria Berger, a Social Democrat, intended to improve the situation, she herself expected huge opposition by the conservative coalition partner ÖVP, most likely because her situation was similar to that of her predecessor Gastinger.

Furthermore, Maria Fekter, former chairperson of the parliamentary committee for the judiciary, and former Minister of the Interior, repeatedly announced her opposition to registered same-sex partnerships and that conservative values would prevail. Though, despite such opposition, partnerships were approved in December 2009.

Other, more conservative, political parties include the Austrian People's Party and the Freedom Party tend to oppose LGBT rights.

Openly LGBT politicians
Openly LGBT politicians in Austria include Ulrike Lunacek, former Greens leader and the Vice-President of the European Parliament. Lunacek was elected to the National Council in 1999, remaining a member until 2009. In 2009, she became the first openly lesbian MEP. She retired from politics in 2020. In 2017, Mario Lindner (SPÖ) became the first openly gay politician to be elected to the National Council. Gerald Grosz, member of the National Council between 2008 and 2013 and the party leader of the Alliance for the Future of Austria between 2013 and 2015, came out as gay in 2013 just before his retirement from politics in 2015. Member of the Federal Council Ewa Dziedzic (Greens) and member of the Gemeinderat and Landtag of Vienna Faika El-Nagashi (Greens) are both lesbians. In April 2019, Georg Djundja (SPÖ) was elected as the first openly gay mayor in Austria, of the city of Oberndorf bei Salzburg.

In June 2019, Minister of Education, Science and Research Iris Eliisa Rauskala came out as lesbian and announced that she is married to a woman, becoming the first openly LGBT minister in the Government of Austria.

Since the 2019 National Election seven politicians in the National Council are openly gay. With four politicians (Ewa Dziedzic, Faika El-Nagashi, David Stögmüller and Meri Disoski) the Green party has the highest number of LGBT representatives. Beside Yannik Shetty from the liberal party NEOS – Das Neue Österreich, there are also two openly gay politicians from the conservative Austrian People's Party: Nico Marchetti and Martina Kaufmann.

Controversies
Much speculation has been made about the sexual orientation of Jörg Haider, who took control of the right-wing Freedom Party in 1986 and then later created the more mainstream but still socially conservative Alliance for the Future of Austria. The controversy continued after Haider's death in an accident on 11 October 2008. In 2009, some Austrian publications were forbidden by a court injunction for "breach of personal and privacy rights of Dr Jörg Haider", and thus from making claims that Jörg Haider was not heterosexual.

Gay community
The gay community is developed in all larger cities, such as Vienna, Linz, Innsbruck, Salzburg and Graz. Every year, the Austrian capital hosts Vienna Gay Pride, which includes the Regenbogenparade, the "Rainbow Parade".

LGBT rights organisations
Major LGBT organisations include HOSI Wien, which was founded in 1979 and is Austria's oldest and largest gay, lesbian and bisexual association, The Austrian Lesbian and Gay Forum (ALGF), which was active throughout the 1990s, and Afro Rainbow Austria (ARA), the first organisation by and for LGBT migrants from Africa in Austria.

Public opinion
The 2023 Eurobarometer found that 65% of Austrians thought same-sex marriage should be allowed throughout Europe, and 66% agreed that "there is nothing wrong in a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex".

title: LGBT rights in Austria


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Li

 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

W. Li
Academic vanity page. No evidence of notability. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weidong Li is listed as an "assistant scientist" at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and that's that. Check related articles, contributed by the same author: Elfeki, Elfeki and Dekking (duplicate), Carle, and Markov chain geostatistics. Lupo 10:20, 27 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/W. Li