text:
Talk:Bombing of Chongqing

More sources
People”s Daily

“During the five and a half-year period between 1938 and August 1943, the Japanese air force bombarded Chongqing, then China's wartime capital, in more than 200 sorties, causing great casualties and property destruction.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200112/23/eng20011223_87312.shtml “Wartime Japanese Bomb Found in Chongqing” Dec. 23, 2001

Global Action on Aging

“Most of the evidence will be in the form of oral histories from people old enough to remember the war years, when the city experienced more than 200 Japanese air raids, according to the paper. About 11,900 Chongqing residents were killed in the raids, while 14,700 were injured, and 17,000 buildings were destroyed, the paper said. “

http://www.globalaging.org/armedconflict/countryreports/asiapacific/raid.htm “Chinese World War II Air Raid Victims Demand Compensation from Japan” July 19, 2004

Here is a Japanese source.

ZNET

The United States was not, of course, alone in indiscriminate bombing in the Pacific War. The Japanese Imperial Navy engaged in the first indiscriminate bombing in the Asia-Pacific region with the January 1932 attack on civilians on Shanghai. Thereafter, Japanese bombers targeted civilians in Nanjing, Wuhan, Chongqing and other cities. Chongqing, in particular, was targeted with more than 200 air raids over three years from the end of 1938, bringing the total death toll up to 12,000. Here, too, the Japanese were not targeting a military facility, but sought to destroy the Guomindang's centre of power and demoralize the civilians who supported this regime.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7868 Tanaka Yuki “Firebombing and Atom Bombing: an historical perspective on indiscriminate bombing. May 16, 2005

Originally appeared in “Japan Focus” http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/1582 May 16, 2005

Note: Yuki Tanaka is a research professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute and a coordinator of Japan Focus. His books include Hidden Horrors. Japanese War Crimes in World War II. He contributed this article to Japan Focus.

Malangthon 16:03 8, Oct. 2006
 * The bombing strategy of the U.S. was hardly 'indiscriminate' - it was a targeting to hit Japanese industry (which had shifted to homes to a great extent) and break the will of the aggressive Imperial Japanese to force them to surrender. 50.111.52.253 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sources
Discover Yangtze River

http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/the_bombing_of_chongqing.htm “The bombing of Chongqing”

People’s Daily

“From 1938 to August 1943, the Japanese air force flew more than 6,800 sorties, bombing Chongqing night and day, causing huge life and property losses to the local people.

“On June 5, 1941 alone, about 2,500 residents who had taken shelter from the bombing in a tunnel in downtown Chongqing were suffocated to death.

Photographers from China, Germany, France, the United States and some other countries filmed major scenes of the bombings. Japanese photographers also filmed the bombings to flaunt their " victories".

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200106/06/eng20010606_71881.html “Film of Japanese Bombings Discovered in Chongqing”

SINA English

“WWII Chongqing bombing victims sue Japanese govt

2006-03-30 03:28:06 Xinhua English

TOKYO, March 30(Xinhua)-- Forty Chinese victims or family members of victims of Chongqing bombings between 1938 and 1943 filed a damages suit against the Japanese government on Thursday in Tokyo.

The group of plaintiffs consists of 36 Chinese who were wounded or lost their family members during the more than five years of bombing in Chongqing of southwestern China and four victims or kin of victims of bombing in Leshan, Sichuan Province of southwestern China. They demanded the Japanese government apologize and each sought compensation of 10 million yen(about 84,900 U.S. dollars).

The Japanese army indiscriminately bombed Chongqing and nearby Leshan, Chengdu of the Sichuan province between 1938 and 1943. A recent study by a Chinese group shows that the bombings killed 23,600 people and wounded 37,700 people.” Enditem

http://english.sina.com/china/1/2006/0330/71259.html

CCTV

“When winter made way for spring the skies of foggy Chongqing finally cleared up. Chongqing without fog was a difficult period for the city. With the bright sun came dense fleets of Japanese bombers. [Graham]Peck had made quite a few sketches about the bombing of Chongqing. From Feb. 18, 1938 to Aug. 23, 1943, following orders from Emperor Hirohito and the supreme headquarters, the Japanese air force bombarded Chongqing for 5 years and a half. They called it “political bombing” or “strategic bombing”. One US journalist said that the bombing that was a horror to the atmospheric layer had slipped away from people’s memory. Yet the Japanese had invented a continuously escalating violence.”

http://www.cctv.com/lm/176/71/71838.html “Eyewitnesses to History (6) -- The Resistance War Period”

IEEE History Center

“BERT FUNG” An Interview Conducted by Frederik Nebeker IEEE History Center December 12, 2000 Interview #408 For the IEEE History Center (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inc.) and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

[excerpt] Fung: “But in the later years, the Japanese bombed Chongqing. Chongqing was a foggy city. Every morning by 10 am the fog lifted a little, the Japanese bombers would be coming in. We took classes at the crack of dawn, till about 9:30 or so, then we went to the dugouts. The University was on the banks of a big river, the Jialing River. The rocky banks were our natural dugouts. That’s where we spent most of our daytime.

Nebeker: How long did that period of Japanese bombing last?

Fung: About four years.

http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/oral_history/pdfs/Fung408.pdf#search=%22bombing%20of%20chongqing%22

Summation-

As for Imperial Japanese policy in China, you can refer to the wiki article “Three Alls Policy” and read Bix’s book, “Hirohito and the making of modern Japan.” The time for demands for Japanese acquiescence in these matters to establish credibility is long over. This is the same Nihonron nonsense we got with Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking" when the Japanese publisher insisted on writing their own denunciation in the book itself, in a country where the glories of the Great War are eulogized every time the PM goes to Yasukuni Shrine. Tell what ever Uyoku dantai is behind this demand for Japanese sources to take it somewhere else. Those guys threatened to firebomb any bookseller who sold the Japanese translation of the book. I was there when that happened.

The overwhelming majority of people in Japan either won’t tell the truth because they do not have to (if they know it) or are not aware they need to look at this again. After having lived nearly 2 decades in Japan, I am confident that very few Japanese are inclined to look for other accounts or are even aware that their official version of the events of the last century is even tainted much less totally fabricated. Start with Bix, work back. I have many books on these accounts that were written in the 40s and 50s so they are out of print but can be found in a good library. Chongqing is a small footnote now but may be further developed in future.

Malangthon 15:44 9, Oct., 2006

An opinion
This is peanuts compared to Allied strategic bombing. Would you characterize the devastation inflicted on Germany and Japan as horrific terror bombing on the part of the allies, or the assertion that they had legitimate military purposes as a blatant denial of responsibility for mass murder? Kensai Max 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM & WP:SOAPBOX - completely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.18.208 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Peanuts? the phrase "they sowed the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind" springs to mind Xyl 54 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Berlin article - Bombing of Berlin in World War II claims it was bombed 363 times
The Berlin article seems to state that it was bombed more times than Chongqing - can anyone clear this up? Megapixie 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

photo misuse
Having studied the rape of naking I instantly recognised the photo on this page entitled "Casualties of a mass-panic during a Japanese air raid in Chongqing in 1941" - however I have to inform you that the photo is being used widely to alledegly depict the rape and murder of chinese women and children; here is an example http://www.gendercide.org/case_nanking.html and this is by no means the only time i have seen it used for this purpose. Now what does the photo actually depict? who is right? --86.138.8.106 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This picture was taken in 1941 in Chongqing by photograph Carl Mydans for Time-Life. --Flying tiger 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Shouldn't there be an article called battle of Chongqing ?--69.157.65.49 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Unknown

The event was not a two- way battle between the Chinese and the Japanese, it was a one- sided terror campaign against the citizens of Chongqing.

Casualties
Does anyone have an overall figure for casualties? It seems to be missing from the article.Xyl 54 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PS and does it really need a list of Japanese aircraft types? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very non-neutral sentence in section "The raids"
"Thus the campaign was one made against a defenceless target, and remains, like other Japanese atrocities during the war such as the Nanjing Massacre, highly contentious to the present day." To be more exact, "like other Japanese atrocities" the Chongqing bombing was an atrocity? City bombing usually isn't referred to as "atrocity" on Wikipedia. Unless someone comes with an argument why that sentence should remain in the article, I will remove it. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Terror bombing
Shall we agree to describe all bombing campaigns directed primarily at civilian populations as terror bombing? The Germans described the Allied (English and American) attacks on their population centers as "terror attacks" (terrorangriff) and I believe the English doctrine of the time specifically designated civilians as the target of Bomber Command. Meanwhile, the Americans pretended that it was possible for the USAF to drop bombs from 20,000 feet and hit only factories and military personnel. On the other side of the world, were civilian deaths a concern at all during the American fire bomb raids on Japan in 1945? I believe the primary concern was winning the war. My point is that if we are going to accept the premise that the Japanese were aiming primarily at civilians when bombing Chongqing (Chungking) and describe the Japanese bombing campaign as "terror bombing" we must possess the intellectual honesty to decribe the Allied strategic bombing campaigns against German and Japanese civilians as terror bombing as well. Doing so does not "whitewash" Axis war crimes and crimes against humanity, but we Americans and English can't have it both ways. If targeting civilians is "terror bombing" then any nation that targets civilians commits "terror bombing" -- even if that nation is England or the United States. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree completely with you, good sir.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still listed as "terror bombing." Either edit to "strategic bombing" or edit the Bombing of Dresden and all of the like to be terror bombings as well. 165.134.208.176 (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's acres of stuff in the Bombing of Dresden article about "terror bombing"; If you think it needs more I suggest you take it up there. And there's plenty of angst on the Allied side about the morality of bombing civilian targets; what isn't to be whitewashed is who invented it. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of Plaintiffs
The source was vague (information on the web of Japan). --大和屋敷 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fact Checking
The second paragraph of the article gives a statistic for the amount of bombs dropped and sorties completed by the Japanese. There is no source so I question the truth behind the statement.
 * There was some dead site given which appears to not conform to WP:RS so I removed the paragraph. If somebody has a proper source feel free to add it again 8ya (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bombing of Chongqing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202181201/http://cqdhz.online.cq.cn:80/ to http://cqdhz.online.cq.cn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bombing of Chongqing


text:
Talk:Death for Life

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928082819/http://www.xxlyrics.com/D/Death_By_Stereo/Death_For_Life.htm to http://www.xxlyrics.com/D/Death_By_Stereo/Death_For_Life.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507074731/http://www.deathbystereo.com/ to http://www.deathbystereo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Death for Life


text:
Talk:Ibn al-Athir

Encyclopedia britanicca RS
Last time you deleted my EB citation i replied with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Britannica.com stating that it is totally reliable source

User:HistoryOfIran replied: “the most recent being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Is_Encyclopedia_Britannica_a_reliable_source?), yet you conveniently took the one that supported your revert the most.”

This is definitely not the most recent one it’s from 2012, Even the summary of the discussion you sent doesn’t even say that EB is unreliable source

The discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Britannica.com

Which is more recent (from 2019) says that it’s a totally reliable source

So what is your point from removing it’s citation ? It’s looks like that you remove it’s citation from everywhere on your own based on the claim you made up that EB not being RS Ikhnatoun (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled
 * I already said that I misread 2012 as 2022, as well that it doesn't change my point . I'm not sure if we are reading the same thread, since I see comments like "Consider a specialist source" and "I can give you an example where a globally blocked sockpuppet here managed to get his fringe views into Britannica." in that one. Where do you get the impression that the participants reached to the conclusion that it is reliable? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

“ Where do you get the impression that the participants reached to the conclusion that it is reliable?”

From the author who summarized the discussion he wrote:

I believe noone will object if I summarise the dispute as follows: whereas the EB articles authored by reputable scientists or scholars can be used as a source for Wikipedia in the absence of better sources, it would be desirable to replace them with references to reliable secondary sources when such possibility exists.--Paul Siebert

———————- So where did you get that EB is not RS ? He never said that

Nevertheless, the most recent one states that EB is totally relible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Britannica.com

So i wonder where does your point stand ? Ikhnatoun (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled
 * I am talking about the 2019 thread, which you kept mentioning. But now we are talking about the 2012 one? Right, Sieberts comment was one of many, and it didn't get any support as far as I can see. The thread ended up becoming stale, and thus closed. Also, if you do support his stance, then why you do insist on adding Britannica here when he literally said "I, however, do not support the idea to use EB in parallel with reliable mainstream secondary sources. When such sources are available, EB can and should be removed." That is literally the case right now, as there is already another source that supports the Arab origin of al-Athir. Also, have you by any chance made another account before? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s clear that the majority here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Britannica.com agree on EB reliability, perhaps only two or three users just stated that EB sometimes contain some errors, that’s all,

—-have you by any chance made another account before?

Yes i had one few years ago but i forgot it’s username and password since they were long ago Lol Ikhnatoun (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled
 * Not at all. And didn't you support Sieberts comment a moment ago? And that so? How unfortunate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And confirmed as a sock (Sockpuppet investigations/Amr.elmowaled). So much for that account that was made few years ago. I'm gonna cross his comments and revert his nationalistic edits. Other users can decide if those edits or at least parts of them should stay or not. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ibn al-Athir


text:
Sequoia National Forest

Sequoia National Forest is located in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains of California. The U.S. National Forest is named for the majestic Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) trees which populate 38 distinct groves within the boundaries of the forest.

The Giant Sequoia National Monument is located in the national forest. Other notable features include glacier-carved landscapes and impressive granite monoliths. The Needles are a series of granite spires atop a narrow ridge above the Kern River. Forest headquarters are located in Porterville, California. There are local ranger district offices in Dunlap, Kernville, Lake Isabella, and Springville.

Geography
The Sequoia National Forest covers 1,193,315 acre, and ranges in elevation from 1000 ft in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to over 12000 ft. Its giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) groves are part of its 196000 acre of old growth forests. Other tree species include:
 * Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi)
 * Red fir (Abies magnifica)
 * Coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii)
 * Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
 * White fir (Abies concolor)
 * Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)

The National Forest contains over 2500 mi of road and 850 mi of trails, and hosts a number of camping and recreational facilities. The forest is adjacent to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Wilderness areas
There are six wilderness areas within Sequoia NF that are part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Some of these extend into neighboring National Forests, as indicated. Two of them also extend into land that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
 * Domeland Wilderness (partly BLM)
 * Golden Trout Wilderness (mostly in Inyo NF)
 * Jennie Lakes Wilderness
 * Kiavah Wilderness (mostly BLM)
 * Monarch Wilderness (partly in Sierra NF)
 * South Sierra Wilderness (mostly in Inyo NF)

Giant Sequoia National Monument
On April 15, 2000, President Bill Clinton proclaimed 328000 acre of the Sequoia National Forest as the Giant Sequoia National Monument by Presidential Proclamation 7295, published in the Federal Register, Tuesday, April 25, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 80.

The monument is in two sections. The northern section surrounds General Grant Grove and other parts of Kings Canyon National Park and is administered by the Hume Lake Ranger District. The southern section is directly south of Sequoia National Park and is administered by the Western Divide Ranger District, surrounding the eastern half of the Tule River Indian Reservation.

The Needles
The Needles are a series of granite spires atop a narrow ridge above the Kern River.(36.1214°N, -118.5044°W)

History
Sequoia National Forest was established on July 1, 1908, from a portion of Sierra Forest Reserve. On March 2, 1909, Theodore Roosevelt added land by Presidential Proclamation. On July 1, 1910 1951191 acres was removed from the forest to create the Kern National Forest. This land was returned to Sequoia National Forest on July 1, 1915.

Fire impact
The Castle Fire in 2020 burned 131087 acres in the forest, with 13,600 acres of giant sequoia groves burned The fire swept through portions of the Dillonwood, Mountain Home, Alder Creek, Freeman Creek, McIntyre, and Wheel Meadow, Belknap, Burro Creek, Silver Creek, Middle Tule, Upper Tule, and Wishon Groves. The fire burned at high intensity in 6,000 acres of sequoia groves: high-intensity fire kills more than 90% of the giant sequoias in the area. The number of mature Sequoia Trees that died overall is estimated at over 7500–10,600 mature trees, or over 10-14% of the species' population.

The most intense previous fire in this area is dated to 1297 based on tree ring data. The McIntrye Grove, a short distance to the south from Cedar Slope, was heavily damaged. Near Sequoia Crest, one-third of the Alder Creek Grove of Giant Sequoia was severely damaged. The large Stagg Tree in Alder Creek Grove was not impacted. Other areas experienced "light fire" which is expected to be ecologically beneficial in the long run.

The following individual large Giant Sequoias in the forest have been reported to be damaged or destroyed in the Castle Fire:
 * Genesis tree (heavily damaged, previously the seventh-largest tree)
 * Great Bonsai tree
 * Summit Road tree (damaged, the 15th-largest tree)
 * Waterfall tree (previously the sequoia with the largest ground perimeter
 * Window tree
 * The Patriarch tree

The Windy Fire in 2021 burned over 97528 acres, including a large area in the forest. A number of groves were completely within the fire perimeter, including the Cunningham, Deer Creek, Long Meadow, Packsaddle, Peyrone, Redhill, South Peyrone, and Starvation Creek Groves. Over 3000 acres of groves were within the fire perimeter. Satellite image analysis showed that 50% of that area was burned at moderate or high intensity: over 1,000 giant sequoia were estimated to be destroyed in the forest. Only four mature giant sequoia survived the fire in the Starvation Creek Grove.

Giant sequoia groves

The Sequoia National Forest has 34 giant sequoia groves.
 * The 14 groves in the Kings River watershed are in the northern section of Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM), or in the Sequoia National Forest (SeNF), in southernmost Fresno County and Tulare County:
 * 1) Indian Basin Grove (GSNM) A mid-size grove, mostly logged. It can be accessed by paved roads. The grove contains many young sequoias approaching diameters of up to 10 ft.  36.8°N, -118.93333°W 1800–2000 m.
 * 2) Converse Basin Grove (GSNM). Once the second-largest grove, but much logged around 1890–1900; However, nearly 100 widely scattered old-growth Giant Sequoias remain (apparently bypassed by the loggers), also good regrowth of younger trees. Home of the Boole Tree, which the loggers spared as it was by far the largest tree in the grove and is now identified as the sixth-largest tree by volume.  Also home of the Chicago Stump, which is the remnant of the General Noble Tree that was cut for the 1893 World Columbian Exposition; the General Noble Tree was the second largest tree in the grove (after the Boole Tree) and it was the largest tree ever cut down.  Although not among the very largest Giant Sequoias, the General Noble Tree was perhaps among the top 30 largest Giant Sequoias before it was cut. 36.8°N, -118.96667°W 1800–2000 m.
 * 3) Lockwood Grove (GSNM). 36.8°N, -118.86667°W 1700–1800 m.
 * 4) Monarch Grove (GSNM).  Immediately north of the Agnew Grove, near Monarch Wilderness boundary.  On Forest Service GSNM map.
 * 5) Evans Grove (GSNM). Partially logged, before 1920. 36°48'N 118°49'30"W 2050–2250 m.
 * 6) Agnew & Deer Meadow Grove (GSNM). 36.78889°N, -118.77917°W 1950–2000 m.
 * 7) Cherry Gap Grove (GSNM). Logged. Located between Converse Basin Grove and General Grant Grove, near McGee Overlook (36.77778°N, -118.95833°W). 2070 m.  Cherry Gap Grove is a small sequoia grove of about thirty-five acres in Sequoia national forest; it was logged of all of its old growth sequoias.
 * 8) Abbott Creek Grove (GSNM). 36.76667°N, -118.96667°W 1900 m. Listed by Rundel and Flint; very small (largely logged); too few trees to qualify as a grove according to Willard.
 * 9) Kennedy Grove (GSNM). 36.76667°N, -118.82222°W 2050–2250 m. Contains the 13th largest giant sequoia in the world, The Ishi Giant.
 * 10) Little Boulder Creek Grove (GSNM). 36.75278°N, -118.81667°W 2000 m.
 * 11) Boulder Creek Grove (GSNM). 36.75°N, -118.81667°W 2050 m.
 * 12) Landslide Grove (GSNM). 36.75°N, -118.86389°W 2050–2250 m.
 * 13) Bearskin Grove (GSNM). 36.75°N, -118.91111°W 1850–1900 m.
 * 14) Big Stump Grove (KCNP/GSNM). 36.71667°N, -118.96667°W 1850 m.
 * One grove in the Kaweah River watershed:
 * 1) Redwood Mountain Grove (KCNP/GSNM). The largest grove, 1240 ha (3100 acres), with 15,800 sequoias 30 cm (one foot) or more in diameter at the base.

 * The 19 groves in the Tule River and Kern River watersheds are mostly in Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM); all in southern Tulare County.
 * 1) Upper Tule Grove (GSNM). Included on Forest Service GSNM map.
 * 2) Maggie Mountain Grove (GSNM).
 * 3) Silver Creek Grove (GSNM).
 * 4) Mountain Home Grove (CSF / GSNM). Home of the 'Genesis' tree, seventh largest by volume, this grove also contains the smaller Middle Tule Grove
 * 5) Burro Creek Grove (GSNM).
 * 6) Wishon Grove (GSNM). South of Silver Creek Grove. Included on Forest Service GSNM map.
 * 7) Alder Creek Grove (GSNM / private); also known as Hossack, Pixley, or Ross Creek Grove. Home of 'Alonzo Stagg', the fifth largest tree by volume.  Also home to the Waterfall tree, which has the largest circumference and diameter at ground level of any sequoia.
 * 8) McIntyre Grove (GSNM).
 * 9) Carr Wilson Grove(GSNM); also known as Bear Creek Grove.
 * 10) Freeman Creek Grove (GSNM).
 * 11) Black Mountain Grove (GSNM / TIR / private). Heavily logged in 1984, though mature sequoias were not cut.
 * 12) Red Hill Grove (GSNM / private).
 * 13) Peyrone Grove (GSNM / TIR).
 * 14) South Peyrone Grove (GSNM) New discovery by Willard in 1992.
 * 15) Long Meadow Grove (GSNM), Site of the Trail of 100 Giants and one tree of great size.
 * 16) Cunningham Grove (GSNM).
 * 17) Starvation Creek Grove (GSNM).
 * 18) Packsaddle Grove (GSNM).
 * 19) Deer Creek Grove (GSNM). The southernmost grove.

Cannabis cultivation
The forest has been the scene of extensive illegal marijuana cultivation with the involvement of Mexican drug cartels.

title: Sequoia National Forest


text:
The Garden of God

The Garden of God is a romance novel by Henry De Vere Stacpoole, first published in 1923. It is the first sequel to his best-selling novel The Blue Lagoon (1908) and continued (and concluded) with The Gates of Morning (1925). The Garden of God was adapted into the film Return to the Blue Lagoon, released in 1991.

Plot summary
The sequel picks up precisely where the first book left off, with Arthur Lestrange in the ship Raratonga discovering his son Dicky and niece Emmeline with their own child, lying in their fishing boat, which has drifted out to sea. While the last line of The Blue Lagoon states that they are not dead but sleeping, the first line of the sequel is "No, they are dead", and the reader is told that they have stopped breathing. The child is drowsy but alive and is picked up by the sailors.

Arthur is shaken but at the same time relieved. He can see that Dicky and Emmeline were healthy and that they must have lived in peace. He feels it is better that they died while still in a savage state and did not have to return to civilization. He has a dream vision of the pair; they ask him to come to Palm Tree, the island where they lived, and promise he will see them again.

Their child becomes quite popular with the Raratonga's crew. His favourite among the sailors is a rascally quasipirate called Jim Kearney. Because the child says "Dick" and "Em" while playing with the sailors, Kearney calls him Dick M.

Captain Stanistreet has been concerned for Arthur's sanity since they found Dicky and Emmeline, but he appears calm when they get to Palm Tree, investigating the things the couple left behind. Only when he enters the house and finds the flower decorations and neatly arranged supplies – unmistakably the work of Emmeline – does he break down in tears.

Arthur plans to stay on the island with Dick M, and the captain of the Raratonga asks for volunteers from among his crew to stay. Jim Kearney volunteers. The captain says they will return the following year, but the ship is promptly swallowed up in a storm out at sea. Arthur believes his dream vision is partly fulfilled when he looks at Dick and notices the characteristics of both Emmeline and Dicky in him. Kearney does most of the parenting for Dick.

Years pass; Arthur dies quietly while walking in the forest, and his body is never found. Kearney and Dick are left to their own devices until an intruder enters: a young woman named Katafa (her name means "Frigatebird"). She hails from the island of Karolin, 40 miles away, which is populated by Kanaka natives. It is a huge, almost treeless coral atoll, with no water source other than rain. Dicky and Emmeline were aware of the Kanaka's existence but never encountered them – for many reasons, they stay away from Palm Tree and believe it is haunted. Katafa is actually the daughter of a Spanish sea captain who was killed to prevent him from taking water from their wells during a drought. Raised by priestess Le Juan, and psychologically conditioned as a taminan untouchable, she can talk and interact with Karolin natives, but cannot touch or be touched by them. She is on Palm Tree only because a storm blew her fishing boat off course. She makes friends with Dick and teaches him her language, naming him Taori, but Kearney is suspicious of her, particularly when he finds she evades touch. She is likewise antagonistic toward him for having tried to touch her.

Her boat is destroyed by a volley from a passing ship, so she has to stay on Palm Tree until further notice. She lights a fire as a prayer to Nanawa, the ocean god, to return her to Karolin, but Kearney thinks she is trying to signal her people to attack the island. She gets back at Kearney by stealing his chewing gum, blunting his fish spears, and sabotaging his fishing lines. He comes to believe she is out to kill him and is about to return the favour when pursuing her into the lagoon, he is trapped and killed by a giant tentacled cephalopod.

Left to themselves, Dick and Katafa live somewhat as Dicky and Emmeline had done; Dick takes Katafa for granted unless he wants help or an audience. Katafa still wants to go home; she creates an image of Nan, the gentler of Karolin's two gods, out of a coconut shell, and puts it up on the reef on a pole, as a signal should any Karolin fishermen come close to the island. The god belongs only to Karolin's people and will show either that someone from Karolin lives on Palm Tree, or that Nan has been "kidnapped".

Sure enough, four Karolin fishermen arrive. Seeing their proprietary god on a reef with Dick (a foreigner) nearby, they attack him. He lashes out, killing one. Katafa is angry when she learns her people were that close, but she finds she cannot hate Dick; she's falling in love with him, to the point that she begins to desire to touch other living things. Dick wants to hug her, but she automatically evades him and hides in the forest, due to her psychological conditioning.

The narrative focus shifts to Karolin. The three remaining fishermen return with their terrible news. The fisherman Dick killed was the grandson of the island's king, Uta Matu, and the fishermen assume that where they saw one "foreigner", there must be dozens, maybe hundreds. Worst of all, Nan is there, seemingly stolen by the newcomers. Advised by Le Juan in one of her epileptic trances, the king declares war and all the men of Karolin assemble in their canoes, led by the king's son Laminai and his second son, Ma.

In the middle of the night, Dick pursues Katafa through the forest once more, carrying a spear in case of trouble, when he runs straight into the warriors. He kills Ma with the spear and is about to be killed by Laminai when Katafa leaps out of nowhere and attacks Laminai. The people have long believed Katafa to be dead, so the warriors flee, thinking she is a ghost. A sudden storm blows up, and in the darkness, noise, and confusion, the Kanaka kill each other.

Now able to hold and touch one another, Dick and Katafa become lovers. They stay together on Palm Tree but prepare to leave for Karolin. When a schooner of copra harvesters arrives, crewed by Melanesian slaves under the direction of two white men, Dick wants to speak to them but is attacked. He kills the leader, and the Melanesians stage an uprising and take over the island. Dick and Katafa escape to Karolin. By chance, Dick has picked up a large, beautifully decorated club left by the warriors. Katafa tells Dick that it is the sacred war club, and can be carried only by men of the royal family, so he must be the new king of Karolin, and indeed, when they get there, Uta Matu has died. The people – women, very young men, and little children – have turned against old priestess Le Juan, who has terrorized them for so many years and whose advice had sent all the warriors to die on Palm Tree. She drops dead of a stroke when she sees Katafa, seemingly returned from the dead, and the people proclaim Dick their new king.

title: The Garden of God


text:
User:Sophysduckling

No longer on Wikipedia.

title: User:Sophysduckling


text: User talk:69.196.169.165

title: User talk:69.196.169.165


text:
D major

D major (or the key of D) is a major scale based on D, consisting of the pitches D, E, F♯, G, A, B, and C♯. Its key signature has two sharps. The D major scale is: Its relative minor is B minor and its parallel minor is D minor.

Scale degree chords
The scale-degree chords of D major are:
 * Tonic – D major
 * Supertonic – E minor
 * Mediant – F-sharp minor
 * Subdominant – G major
 * Dominant – A major
 * Submediant – B minor
 * Leading-tone – C-sharp diminished

Characteristics
D major is well-suited to violin music because of the structure of the instrument, which is tuned G D A E. The open strings resonate sympathetically with the D string, producing a sound that is especially brilliant. This is also the case with all other orchestral strings.

Thus, it is no coincidence that many classical composers throughout the centuries have chosen to write violin concertos in D major, including those by Mozart (No. 2, 1775, No. 4, 1775); Ludwig van Beethoven (1806); Paganini (No. 1, 1817); Brahms (1878); Tchaikovsky (1878); Prokofiev (No. 1, 1917); Stravinsky (1931); and Korngold (1945).

The key is also appropriate for guitar music, with drop D tuning making two D's available as open strings. For some beginning wind instrument students, however, D major is not a very suitable key, since it transposes to E major on B♭ wind instruments, and beginning methods generally tend to avoid keys with more than three sharps.

Even so, the clarinet in B♭ is still often used for music in D major, and it is perhaps the sharpest key that is practical for the instrument. There are composers however who, in writing a piece in D minor with B♭ clarinets, will have them change to clarinets in A if the music switches to D major, two examples being Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in the fourth movement.

The vast majority of tin whistles are in D, since they are often used in music with fiddles. It is a common key for pub session playing.

History
In the Baroque period, D major was regarded as "the key of glory"; hence many trumpet concertos were in D major, such as those by Johann Friedrich Fasch, Gross, Molter (No. 2), Leopold Mozart, Telemann (No. 2), and Giuseppe Torelli. Many trumpet sonatas were in D major, too, such as those by Corelli, Petronio Franceschini, Purcell, and Torelli. "The Trumpet Shall Sound" and the "Hallelujah" chorus from Handel's Messiah, and his coronation anthem Zadok the Priest are in D major. In addition, Bach's Mass in B minor has D major as the relative major, and most of the major choruses in this key (Gloria, Cum Sancto Spiritu, Sanctus, Hosanna) make extensive use of trumpets.

23 of Haydn's 104 symphonies are in D major, making it the most-often used main key of his symphonies. The vast majority of Mozart's unnumbered symphonies are in D major, namely K. 66c, 81/73, 97/73m, 95/73n, 120/111a and 161/163/141a. The symphony evolved from the overture, and "D major was by far the most common key for overtures in the second half of the eighteenth century." This continued even into the Romantic Period, and was used for the "triumphant" final movements of several D minor symphonies, including Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, Robert Schumann's Fourth Symphony, the only symphony by César Franck, Sergei Rachmaninoff's First Symphony, and Felix Mendelssohn's Fifth Symphony.

Famous symphonies written in D major include Mozart's symphonies No. 31 (Paris) and No. 38 (Prague), Beethoven's No. 2 Op. 36, Brahms's No. 2 Op. 73, Sibelius's No. 2 Op. 43, and Prokofiev's No. 1 (Classical) Op. 25.

Notable compositions in D major

 * Antonio Vivaldi
 * Gloria RV 589
 * Johann Sebastian Bach
 * Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, BWV 1050
 * Cello Suite No. 6, BWV 1012
 * Orchestral Suite No. 3, BWV 1068
 * Orchestral Suite No. 4, BWV 1069
 * Magnificat, BWV 243
 * Partita No. 4, BWV 828
 * Johann Pachelbel
 * Canon in D
 * George Frideric Handel
 * Music for the Royal Fireworks, HWV 351
 * Joseph Haydn
 * Cello Concerto No. 2, Op. 101, Hob. VIIb/2
 * String Quartet No. 41, Hob.III:49 ("The Frog")
 * String Quartet No. 53, Hob.III:63 ("The Lark")
 * String Quartet No. 64, Hob.III:79 ("Largo")
 * Symphony No. 86, Hob.I:86
 * Symphony No. 96, Hob.I:96 ("The Miracle")
 * Symphony No. 101, Hob.I:101 ("The Clock")
 * Symphony No. 104, Hob.I:104 ("London")
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Symphony No. 8, KV 48
 * Symphony No. 20, KV 133
 * Symphony No. 30, KV 202
 * Symphony No. 31, KV 297 ("Paris")
 * Symphony No. 35, KV 385 ("Haffner")
 * Symphony No. 38, KV 504 ("Prague")
 * Piano Concerto No. 5, KV 175
 * Piano Concerto No. 16, KV 451
 * Piano Concerto No. 26, KV 537 ("Coronation")
 * String Quartet No. 20, KV 499 ("Hoffmeister")
 * String Quartet No. 21, KV 575
 * String Quintet No. 5, KV 593
 * Piano Sonata No. 6, KV 284 ("Dürnitz")
 * Piano Sonata No. 9, KV 311
 * Piano Sonata No. 18, KV 576
 * Sonata in D major for Two Pianos, KV 448
 * Ave verum corpus, KV 618
 * Ludwig van Beethoven
 * Kurfürsten Sonata No. 3 WoO 47/3
 * Sonata for piano four-hands, Op. 6
 * String Trio No. 2, Op. 8 (as well as the transcription for viola and piano, Op. 42)
 * String Trio No. 4, Op. 9/2
 * String Quartet No. 3, Op. 18 No. 3
 * Serenade for flute, violin and viola Op. 25 (as well as the transcription for flute and piano, Op. 41)
 * Violin Sonata No. 1 Op. 12/1
 * Piano Sonata No. 7, Op. 10/3
 * Piano Sonata No. 15, Op. 28 ("Pastoral")
 * Symphony No. 2, Op. 36
 * Violin Concerto, Op. 61
 * Piano Trio No. 5, Op. 70 No. 1 ("Ghost")
 * Variations on a Turkish March Op. 76
 * Cello Sonata No. 5, Op. 102/2
 * Missa Solemnis, Op. 123
 * Franz Schubert
 * Symphony No. 1, D. 82
 * Symphony No. 3, D. 200
 * Symphony No. 10, D 936A
 * String Quartet No. 6, D. 74
 * String Quartet No. 7, D. 94
 * Piano Sonata No. 17, D 850 "Gasteiner"
 * Felix Mendelssohn
 * Symphonies for string orchestra No. 2 and 8
 * Variations concertantes for cello and piano, Op. 17
 * Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage, Op. 27
 * String Quartet No. 3, Op. 44 No. 1
 * Cello Sonata No. 2, Op. 58
 * Organ Sonata No. 5, Op. 65 No. 5
 * Piano Sextet for piano, violin, two violas, cello and double bass, Op.post. 110
 * Frédéric Chopin
 * Mazurka, Op. 33 No. 2
 * Prelude No. 5, Op. 28 No. 5
 * Johannes Brahms
 * Hungarian Dance No. 6, WoO 21
 * Serenade No. 1, Op. 11
 * Symphony No. 2, Op. 73
 * Violin Concerto, Op. 77
 * Ballade No. 2 for piano solo, Op. 10/2
 * Two sets of variations for piano solo, Op. 21
 * Alexander Borodin
 * String Quartet No. 2
 * Émile Waldteufel
 * Estudiantina waltz, Op. 191
 * Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
 * String Quartet No. 1, Op. 11
 * Symphony No. 3, Op. 29 ("Polish")
 * Violin Concerto, Op. 35
 * Antonín Dvořák
 * String Quartet No. 3, B. 18
 * Piano Quartet No. 1, B. 53, Op. 23
 * Symphony No. 6, B 112 Op. 60
 * Mass in D major, B 153/175, Op. 86
 * Czech Suite, B 39 Op. 39
 * Slavonic Dance No. 6, B 83 Op. 46
 * Gustav Mahler
 * Symphony No. 1 "Titan"
 * Symphony No. 9 (ends in D-flat major)
 * Jean Sibelius
 * Symphony No. 2, Op. 43
 * The Oceanides, Op. 73
 * Ralph Vaughan Williams
 * Symphony No. 5 in D major
 * Sergei Prokofiev
 * Violin Concerto No. 1, Op. 19
 * Symphony No. 1, Op. 25 ("Classical")
 * Flute Sonata Op. 94 (and the transcription as the Violin Sonata No. 2 Op. 94bis)
 * Dmitri Shostakovich
 * String Quartet No. 4, Op. 83
 * Prelude No. 5, Op. 87 No. 5
 * Heitor Villa-Lobos
 * Étude No. 3 for guitar

title: D major


text:
Edmond Brodeur

Joseph Edmond Brodeur (July 5, 1898 in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec – May 19, 1988) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as a Liberal-Progressive from 1952 to 1958.

Brodeur was educated at St. Boniface College. He was a member of the Knights of Columbus, reaching the fourth degree by the mid-1950s. He was secretary-treasurer for the Rural Municipality of Ritchot. Brodeur ran an insurance agency and also operated a garage in partnership with his brother.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in a by-election held on January 21, 1952, in the rural constituency of La Verendrye. He was re-elected without difficulty in the 1953 provincial election, and was a backbench supporter of Douglas Campbell's government during his time in the legislature. He did not seek re-election in 1958.

Brodeur died in Winnipeg and was buried in St. Adolphe.

title: Edmond Brodeur


text:
Southern Television broadcast interruption

The Southern Television broadcast interruption was a broadcast signal intrusion that occurred on 26 November 1977 in parts of southern England in the United Kingdom. The audio of a Southern Television broadcast was replaced by a voice claiming to represent the 'Ashtar Galactic Command', delivering a message instructing humanity to abandon its weapons so it could participate in a 'future awakening' and 'achieve a higher state of evolution'. After six minutes, the broadcast returned to its scheduled programme.

Subsequent investigations showed that the Hannington transmitter of the Independent Broadcasting Authority had rebroadcast the signal from a small but nearby unauthorised transmitter, instead of the intended source at Rowridge transmitting station. The event prompted hundreds of telephone calls from concerned members of the public, and was widely reported in British and American newspapers. These are sometimes contradictory, including differing accounts of the name used by the speaker and the wording of their message.

Event
On Saturday 26 November 1977, at 5:10pm, as ITN's Andrew Gardner presented a news summary where he reported on clashes in then-Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) between security forces and Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the audio was replaced by a deep buzz, followed by a distorted voice delivering a message for almost six minutes. The speaker claimed to be Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command (Ashtar being a name associated with extraterrestrial communication since 1952). Reports of the incident vary, some calling the speaker "Vrillon" or "Gillon", and others "Asteron".

The interruption ceased shortly after the statement had been delivered, transmissions returning to normal shortly after the beginning of the 1947 Merrie Melodies cartoon The Goofy Gophers. Later in the evening, Southern Television apologised for what it described as "a breakthrough in sound" for some viewers. ITN also reported on the incident in its own late-evening Saturday bulletin.

Transcript
A complete transcript of the message reads:

This is the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. For many years you have seen us as lights in the skies. We speak to you now in peace and wisdom as we have done to your brothers and sisters all over this, your planet Earth. We come to warn you of the destiny of your race and your world so that you may communicate to your fellow beings the course you must take to avoid the disaster which threatens your world, and the beings on our worlds around you. This is in order that you may share in the great awakening, as the planet passes into the New Age of Aquarius. The New Age can be a time of great peace and evolution for your race, but only if your rulers are made aware of the evil forces that can overshadow their judgments. Be still now and listen, for your chance may not come again. All your weapons of evil must be removed. The time for conflict is now past and the race of which you are a part may proceed to the higher stages of its evolution if you show yourselves worthy to do this. You have but a short time to learn to live together in peace and goodwill. Small groups all over the planet are learning this, and exist to pass on the light of the dawning New Age to you all. You are free to accept or reject their teachings, but only those who learn to live in peace will pass to the higher realms of spiritual evolution. Hear now the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. Be aware also that there are many false prophets and guides at present operating on your world. They will suck your energy from you – the energy you call money and will put it to evil ends and give you worthless dross in return. Your inner divine self will protect you from this. You must learn to be sensitive to the voice within that can tell you what is truth, and what is confusion, chaos and untruth. Learn to listen to the voice of truth which is within you and you will lead yourselves onto the path of evolution. This is our message to our dear friends. We have watched you growing for many years as you too have watched our lights in your skies. You know now that we are here, and that there are more beings on and around your Earth than your scientists admit. We are deeply concerned about you and your path towards the light and will do all we can to help you. Have no fear, seek only to know yourselves, and live in harmony with the ways of your planet Earth. We here at the Ashtar Galactic Command thank you for your attention. We are now leaving the planes of your existence. May you be blessed by the supreme love and truth of the cosmos.

The Winter 1977 issue of Fortean Times (issue #24) magazine featured a transcript of what they described as the 'short message' that was broadcast:

This is the voice of Asteron. I am an authorised representative of the Intergalactic Mission, and I have a message for the planet Earth. We are beginning to enter the period of Aquarius and there are many corrections which have to be made by Earth people. All your weapons of evil must be destroyed. You have only a short time to learn to live together in peace. You must live in peace... or leave the galaxy.

Explanation
At that time, the Hannington television transmitter was unusual in being one of the few main transmitters which rebroadcast an off-air signal received from another transmitter, the IBA's Rowridge transmitter on the Isle of Wight, rather than being fed directly by a landline. As a consequence it was open to this kind of signal intrusion, as even a relatively low-powered transmission very close to the rebroadcast receiver could overwhelm its reception of the intended signal, resulting in the unauthorised transmission being amplified and rebroadcast across a far wider area. The IBA stated that to carry out such a hoax would take "a considerable amount of technical know-how" and a spokesman for Southern Television confirmed: "A hoaxer jammed our transmitter in the wilds of North Hampshire by taking another transmitter very close to it."

Public and media response
The incident caused some local alarm, with hundreds of worried viewers flooding Southern Television with telephone calls after the intrusion. In the next day's Sunday newspapers, the IBA announced the broadcast was a hoax, confirming it was the first time such a hoax transmission had been made. Reports of the event carried worldwide, with numerous American newspapers picking up the story from United Press International.

Speaking on British commercial radio on 6 December 1977, Sir John Whitmore also questioned newspaper reporting of the incident, referring to a recording of the complete broadcast which appeared to exist at the time.

The broadcast became a footnote in ufology as some chose to accept the supposed "alien" broadcast at face value, questioning the explanation of a transmitter hijack. Within two days of the incident's report in London Times, a letter to the editor published on 30 November 1977 asked, "[How] can the IBA – or anyone else – be sure that the broadcast was a hoax?" The editorial board of one American regional newspaper, the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard, commented, "Nobody seemed to consider that 'Asteron' may have been for real." By as late as 1985, the story had entered urban folklore, with suggestions there had never been any explanation of the broadcast.

A 1999 episode of children's television series It's a Mystery, produced by one of Southern's successors, Meridian Broadcasting, re-enacted the incident with faux news reports and viewers watching the incident play out at home.


text:
User:Humanscholar/Same-sex marriage in the United States

The push by some civil rights supporters to create legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States has been taking shape since the early 1970s. This effort did not reach widespread national attention until the 1990s, at which time a counter movement to protect "traditional" marriage formed in response.

Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses.

As of April 2005 only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognized legal same-sex marriages, while the states of Vermont, Connecticut, California, Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey offered benefits similar to marriage to same-sex partners with civil union, reciprocal benefits, or domestic partner laws. Eighteen states had constitutional provisions that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, while 24 other states had legislative statutes containing similar definitions.

Opponents
Advocates of same-sex marriage generally hold that lawful marriage and its benefits should not be denied to same-sex couples, and that such a denial infringes one or more of their rights as American citizens.

Critics of same-sex marriage reject this position, and generally hold that lawful marriage should be defined as only consisting of a union of one man and one woman, a so-called "traditional marriage," and that no rights exist that should compel a state to recognize any relationships to the contrary of that definition.

The most recent nationwide survey by the Boston Globe in May 2005 found that 46% favored legal recognition of same-sex marriages, while 50% were in opposition to legal recognition of these marriages. On the issue of personal approval 50% of Americans disapproved while 37% approved and 11% were neutral. Opposition correlated with level of religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation and residing in the southern states. Levels of support were higher among the young, non-church going, Democratic Party affiliated and those who lived in the Western states as well as New England.

In some states particularly in New England and the West majorities support same-sex marriage. A Massachusetts poll conducted in October 2003 estimated that 59 percent of registered voters believed that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to enter into civil marriage. Previous polls in Hawaii, California and New Jersey have shown majorities supporting same-sex marriage.

The national majority opinion to not recognize same-sex marriages does not extend to general support for amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. A 2004 poll conducted by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that while same-sex marriage was opposed by 60% to 31%, only 42% of respondents favored a federal constitutional amendment. Other national polls have tended to find a near 50/50 split on this issue.

Recognition issues
In the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor, as well as state and private benefits (family memberships, discounts, etc) denied same-sex couples by excluding them from participating in marriage. A legal denial of federal rights or benefits, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law: rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another.

In the 2003 case before the Supreme Court of the United States titled Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage believe that this ruling, especially when combined with the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia that eliminated anti-miscegenation laws, paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. This raises the possibility of a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed. This bill defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman," refuses federal recognition to same-sex marriages, and allows U.S. states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (currently only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) or other countries. Since then, various states have passed a law or to assert that they do not recognize same-sex unions, nor will they recognize such unions legally recognized in other states. These laws are sometimes referred to as "Mini-DOMAs."

Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal protection clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.

The amendment was debated in the United States Senate, but on July 14, 2004, a procedural motion to end debate failed by a wider-than-expected margin of 48 votes to 50. This effectively prevented the amendment from facing a full Senate vote.

Also in 2003, lesbian comedian Rosie O'Donnell's court case with ex-colleagues raised another new issue when O'Donnell's life partner, Kelli, was forced to testify against O'Donnell. Under United States law, spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other; but because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, they are denied this courtroom right, part of a long list of benefits of marriage in the United States. They married on February 26, 2004 in San Francisco.

Reciprocal benefits
Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is now legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all of the state-level rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil unions and domestic partnerships. These arrangements do not, however, provide the federal-level rights, benefits and protections that come with a civil marriage license, nor will they necessarily be recognized in States that have no such laws.

Hawaii and Maine's domestic partnership and reciprocal benefit laws provide similar benefits, but both stop short of full equality on a state level, much less marriage.

There are also bills in both chambers of the New York State legislature that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. These bills were introduced in early 2003 and are currently still in committee.

International concerns
The 2003-2004 interim legalization of same-sex marriages in seven Canadian provinces and one territory, and likely pending legalization of same sex-marriages across all of Canada (see same-sex marriage in Canada) has raised questions about U.S. law, due to Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.

Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples headed or planned to head to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.

1971 Minnesota
The Minnesota Supreme Court rules against the contention of plaintiffs Jack Baker and Mike McConnell that absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signified a legislative intent to recognize them. The court found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis".

1975 Arizona
Two men from Phoenix, Arizona are granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided the marriage. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

1975 Colorado
Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed, after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it.

1987 Washington, DC
The American Civil Liberties Union commits to eliminating legal barriers against same-sex marriage. 2,000 gay and lesbian couples are "married" in a mass mock wedding outside the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington.

1993-1998 Hawaii
1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii's Constitutional equal protection clause and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason. (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341)

1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only, rendering the equal protection clause moot.

1998 Alaska
February 27: The Alaska Superior Court judge Peter Michalski rules in favor of plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, saying that choosing a marital partner is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state without a compelling reason.

November 3: The state's voters amend their constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman.

1999-2000 Vermont
1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state's constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage.

2000: The legislature passes a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving them all rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law.

2003-2004 Massachusetts
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules 4 to 3 in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gives the state legislature 180 days to change the law. The court found that Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry" because of a clause in the state's constitution that forbids "the creation of second-class citizens."

February 4, 2004: The court reiterates that only equal treatment in both rights and terminology is required. This means that either marriage must be allowed for gay couples (as opposed to civil unions) or all couples must have civil unions, with no state recognition of marriages.

February 11, 2004: A constitutional convention is convened to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. After six weeks marked by intense debate, the state legislature narrowly passes an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. To take effect, the amendment will also need to be approved by the legislature in 2005, then pass a popular vote in 2006. (Boston Globe article)

May 17, 2004: The Supreme Court's ruling went into effect, 180 days after it was issued. The city of Cambridge began processing applications at one minute past midnight, cheered on by a crowd of five thousand gathered outside City Hall. The first license was issued to Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd. Massachusetts has a three-day waiting period after a marriage application has been issued, but couples can seek a judicial waiver of that requirement. (Boston Globe article) At least one marriage — that of Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish, of the Boston suburb of Malden — was finalized by 9:15 a.m. on May 17. (Boston Globe article)

2004 New Jersey
January 12: Governor James E. McGreevey signs New Jersey's domestic partnership law. It goes into effect July 10, 180 days after it was signed. The legislature passed the law in part to curtail a lawsuit seeking full marriage rights for gay people.

March 8: The Deputy Mayor of Asbury Park, New Jersey marries a same-sex couple who had a license issued by the town clerk. New Jersey has a 72-hour waiting period between issuing a license and performing a ceremony, and the original license was issued without fanfare on March 5.

March 9: Numerous same-sex couples converge on the clerk's office once it opens, determined to get their own licenses before a threatened injunction by State Attorney General Peter C. Harvey could halt the process. By the end of the day, no such injunction had been issued, although the attorney general had sent letters to Asbury Park officials warning them that they could face prosecution if they continued.

March 10: In response, the city council votes unanimously to freeze all 16 pending license applications, and sue the state to have those licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid.

2004 California
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California.

Between February 12 and March 11, 2004, California stepped into the national spotlight for this issue after Gavin Newsom, the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, California, ordered the county to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These licenses were later ruled void, but the events in California set the stage for national politics through the following year.

2004 New Mexico
February 20: Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, New Mexico, announces that she would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender. The first same-sex marriages in Sandoval County are performed later the same day. By the end of the day, however, New Mexico state attorney general Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law," and the Sandoval County clerk's office stops issuing them. In the interim, 26 such licenses had been issued.

2004-2005 New York
February 26: Jason West, mayor of the village of New Paltz, announces that the village would start performing same-sex civil weddings. Although the village would not attempt to issue licenses for such weddings, couples in New York State have six months from the wedding to seek such a license, and weddings are not invalid solely for not having a license.

February 27: John Shields, the mayor of Nyack, New York, announces that his city would recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

March 2: West is charged with 19 misdemeanor counts of "solemnizing marriages without a license" by Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams. West announces that he intends to continue performing same-sex ceremonies.

March 3: Shields announces that he will begin officiating at same-sex marriages, and that he and his fiancé would join other gay and lesbian New Yorkers in seeking marriage licenses from municipal clerks' offices.

March 3: The Office of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issues an "informal opinion" that clerks should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as the state legislature had not intended same-sex marriages to be covered by the domestic relations law. The same opinion states that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere were recognizable in New York state under a recent judicial decision recognizing the validity of a Vermont civil union as granting the benefits of marriage, Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 196 Misc. 2d 440 (N.Y. Misc., 2003).

March 5: New York state judge Vincent Bradley issues a temporary restraining order barring West from performing any such ceremonies for a month. West indicates that he will abide by the judicial order while evaluating his legal options.

March 15: Two Unitarian Universalist ministers who had been performing same-sex weddings in Mayor West's stead are charged with 13 counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license by District Attorney Williams.

March 20: Six Unitarian Universalist ministers — including one of the two ministers charged earlier — defy the District Attorney by performing 25 more same-sex marriage ceremonies in New Paltz.

March 22: Following an opinion requested in January from their attorney, the Rochester city council announces that Rochester will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Rochester is across Lake Ontario from Toronto, where same-sex marriages have been legal since 2003.

June 6: An Ulster County Supreme Court judge makes the temporary restraining order against Mayor West permanent.

June 10: A New Paltz Town Court Justice dismisses the charges against Mayor West, ruling that the district attorney had failed to show that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing the marriages, or that the law under which West was charged was constitutional. The district attorney said that he would appeal the ruling, and also indicated that he intended to continue forward with charges against the Unitarian Universalist ministers.

July 13: Another New Paltz Town Court Justice dismisses all of the charges against the Unitarian Universalist ministers, for essentially the same reasons.

Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson of Ithaca, New York, in conjunction with her city clerk, has planned to provoke a court hearing by sending marriage applications from five local gay couples to the New York State Department of Health, while offering the backing of Ithaca's legal resources if their applications are denied.

October 8: The state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, indicated in a letter to a state employee that the state retirement system will recognize same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere for the purposes of retirement benefits for New York state employees.

February 4, 2005: State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that New York City could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, based on the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. The order was stayed for 30 days, pending an appeal (the Supreme Court is a trial-level court in New York, and the decision could be appealed either to the Appellate Division or directly to the Court of Appeals).

2004 Oklahoma
May 13: A lesbian couple from Tulsa obtained a marriage application in the Cherokee tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation issues marriage applications, rather than licenses. Couples obtaining a license have it signed by the individual performing the ceremony before returning to tribal court to have the application certified.

Cherokee Principal Chief Chad 'Corntassel' Smith has stated that he believes that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Cherokee law. On the other hand, it is unclear whether a Cherokee marriage becomes official when the application is granted, or only when the tribal court certifies it. For the time being, a tribal judge has issued a moratorium on all same-sex marriage applications.

Although Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Oklahoma does recognize all Cherokee marriages. It is unclear how Oklahoma would react if the Cherokee tribal courts decide that this marriage is valid.

2004 Oregon

Marriage is defined in Oregon law as a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age," but does not state that one of each is required.

March 3: The Multnomah County government begins issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, pursuant to a legal opinion issued by its attorney deeming such marriages lawful.

On the first day, Multnomah county issued 422 marriage licenses, compared to 68 on an average day. Local businesses reported an up-tick in sales of flowers and other marriage-related services directly related to the beginning of same-sex marriages. Neighboring Washington and Clackamas counties initially announced that they are studying Multnomah County's legal opinion, but do not plan to immediately follow suit.

By the date of first legal hearing, on March 9, approximately 1,700 marriage licenses had been issued by the county; the 2000 US Census reported 3,242 same-sex couples living in the county. A later study by the Oregonian revealed that first weeks 2,026 individuals from Multnomah County had received licenses, about one third of the 2000 Census figure, about 900 other individuals came from other locations in Oregon, about 490 from the state of Washington, and 30 from other states.

March 9: At the first legal hearing, County Circuit Judge Dale Koch refuses to issue an injunction stopping the ceremonies.

March 10: The State Legislature's attorney Greg Chaimov issues an opinion stating that counties in Oregon cannot prohibit same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses.

March 12: Hardy Myers, Oregon attorney general, issued his office's opinion, after reviewing it with the governor. He concludes:

 * current Oregon laws prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples;
 * under current law, the legal status of being "married" carries with it legal rights, benefits, and obligations;
 * the Oregon Supreme Court likely would conclude that withholding from same-sex couples the legal rights, benefits, and obligations that — under current law — are automatically granted to married couples of the opposite sex likely violates Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution; but
 * because of the uncertainties about the Article I, Section 20 analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court would bring to bear on the question, it would be unwise to change current state practices until, and unless, a decision by the Supreme Court makes clear what, if any changes are required.

The attorney general stated that his office did not have the authority to order Multnomah County to cease issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.

March 15: After considering their options, Multnomah County announces that they will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

March 16: After holding public hearings, Benton County commissioners vote 2-1 to start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, beginning Wednesday, March 24.

March 22: After receiving two letters from the attorney general and a phone call threatening to arrest the county clerk, the Benton county commissioners reverse their decision and vote to issue no marriage licenses of any kind until a decision is reached by the Multnomah County Court.

Both sides agree to let three couples with venue sue the state of Oregon in Multnomah County Court to settle this issue.

April 16: Attorneys for the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon present arguments in favor of the couples, while attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice and Defense of Marriage Coalition argued against the County's actions before Justice Frank Bearden.

April 20: Judge Bearden orders the county to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, while simultaneously ordering the state of Oregon to recognize the 3,022 such licenses already issued. The Oregon state registrar had been holding the completed licenses, rather than entering them into the state's records system, pending a court decision as to their validity. Judge Bearden also finds that the Oregon state constitution would likely allow some form of marriage rights to same-sex couples, and directed the legislature to act on the issue within 90 days of the start of its next legislative session. Should they fail to successfully address the issue within that time, Multnomah County would be free to resume issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It is understood that both parties would appeal the decision, although they have not yet decided whether to attempt to move directly to the state Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.

May 21: The Defense of Marriage Coalition gets legal approval for the language of their proposed initiative to prohibit same-sex marriage. They begin to circulate petitions in churches, neighborhoods, and otherwise beyond public areas to obtain the 100,840 valid signatures needed by July 2 so it can submitted to a vote in the November general election.

July 9: The state Court of Appeals lifts a temporary ban blocking the registration of the marriage licenses already issued by Multnomah County, pending the case concerning their validity being heard by the state Supreme Court. Within hours, the state began processing the licenses, and expects to have the work done within a week.

November 2: Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

2004 Rhode Island
May 17: Attorney General Patrick Lynch issues an advisory opinion that Rhode Island would recognize any legal marriage performed in another state, as long as the marriage is not contrary to the "strong public policy" of Rhode Island. He said that the legislature and courts should decide which types of marriages fall within that category, while adding that same-sex marriages are not included among the types of marriages currently proscribed. While his opinion does not have the force of law, it appears to indicate that Rhode Island would, in fact, recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

2004 Washington
March 8: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels issues an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions for all city employees. He also proposes an ordinance to the City Council to require all city contractors to do the same for their employees.

March 8: Six same-sex couples file suit against King County, seeking to require it to issue marriage licenses for them. At the time, Washington state law gives counties exclusive authority to issue marriage licenses, but also strictly defines marriage as "a civil contract between a male and a female". Their suit is invited by King County Executive Ron Sims, who is named as a defendant.

March 11: The American Family Association files suit in King County Superior Court seeking to block Mayor Nickels's executive order.

April 1: The ACLU files suit in Thurston County Superior Court on behalf of eleven other same-sex couples from around the state.

August 4: King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing rules that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, finding for the plaintiffs in the March 8 lawsuit Andersen v. King County. The judge rules that restricting the institution of marriage to opposite sex couples "is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest." The ruling is stayed pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The appeal is scheduled to be heard March 8, 2005.Text of his ruling, .pdf format

2005 Ohio
March 24: Two judges rule that Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law cannot be used against unmarried heterosexual couples because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

2005 Nebraska
May 12: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. Distict Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, Section 29 of the state constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be overturned.

Bans
There are also many groups actively fighting for and against legal recognition of same-sex marriage, proponents including traditional LGBT groups such as HRC, Lambda Legal and NGLTF, as well as groups that have been created around this single issue, such as Marriage Equality and Freedom to Marry.

Politicians in several states have proposed new bans against the practice of same-sex marriage. Some states already had laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, though many are now mulling the possibility of adding new amendments to the state constitutions in an effort to prevent the laws from being ruled unconstitutional. Many states require constitutional amendments to be voted on in state referenda, meaning that a delay of several months to a year or more will take place before these proposals will have any effect.

In 2000, the state of Vermont began issuing same-sex civil union licenses. This union was intended to provide most of the state's legal benefits of marriage.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling demanding that the legislature pass a law authorizing same-sex marriages. The first licenses were issued in Cambridge on May 17, 2004.

For several weeks in early 2004 several local government officials, most notably in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The San Francisco licenses were later nullified by the California Supreme Court, which ruled they had been issued without legal authority. The Oregon licenses have not yet been ruled on.

On August 4, 2004 Missouri became the fifth state to amend its state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

On September 18, 2004 Louisiana passed a similar constitutional amendment; however, on October 5, Louisiana District Judge William Morvant ruled that the amendment was invalid due to structural flaws inherent in its wording. This ruling has been appealed to the State Supreme Court, which was set to hear the case in December of 2004.

Also on August 4, 2004, Washington State Judge William L. Downing ruled that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, finding for the plaintiffs in the March 8 lawsuit Andersen v. King County. The judge ruled that restricting the institution of marriage to opposite sex couples "is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest." As of October 3, 2004, the ruling is stayed pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Text of ruling in .pdf format

On March 5, 2004, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved, by a vote of 68-27, a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions, and to counter efforts elsewhere to legalize such partnerships. The same day, the Kansas House passed, by 88 votes to 36, a similar proposed amendment. A week later, on March 12, the Wisconsin State Senate also voted 20-13 to pass that state's amendment, which must still be passed again in next year's legislature, and be voted on in a state-wide referendum. The Kansas Legislature did not immediately agree on the precise language of their amendment, delaying it until the next legislative session. On February 2, 2005, however, they approved an amendment by a vote of 86-37; the measure was approved by about 70% of the state's voters on April 5, 2005.

On August 3, 2004 voters of the state of Missouri voted to pass a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, with the final returns being 70.7% in favor of the amendment and 29.3% opposed.

On November 2 (Election Day) 2004, the same-sex marriage movement suffered a severe setback, and the traditional marriage movement a major victory, when state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage were passed in eleven states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah (see: Utah Constitutional Amendment 3). The measures in Oregon, Mississippi, and Montana bar same-sex marriage only; those in the other states bar civil unions and domestic partnerships as well; and Ohio bars granting any benefits whatsoever to same-sex couples. Every state that had the "definition of marriage" amendment on the ballot passed the constitutional amendment.


text:
Talk:Blue laws

redirect
redirect inappropriate as the "blue laws" of connecticut are distinct from any one "blue law" in particular, and that "Blue Laws" now has its own page.

 * I don't think that's the most likely target, since there are more blue laws that Conn. so it is more likely some other law is meant than the set from Conneticut. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blue laws


text:
Activated alumina

Activated alumina is manufactured from aluminium hydroxide by dehydroxylating it in a way that produces a highly porous material; this material can have a surface area significantly over 200 m2/g. The compound is used as a desiccant (to keep things dry by adsorbing water from the air) and as a filter of fluoride, arsenic and selenium in drinking water. It is made of aluminium oxide (alumina; Al2O3). It has a very high surface-area-to-weight ratio, due to the many "tunnel like" pores that it has. Activated alumina in its phase composition can be represented only by metastable forms (gamma-Al2O3 etc.). Corundum (alpha-Al2O3), the only stable form of aluminum oxide, does not have such a chemically active surface and is not used as a sorbent.

Catalyst applications
Activated alumina is used for a wide range of adsorbent and catalyst applications including the adsorption of catalysts in polyethylene production, in hydrogen peroxide production, as a selective adsorbent for many chemicals including arsenic, fluoride, in sulfur removal from fluid streams (Claus Catalyst process).

Desiccant
Used as a desiccant, it works by a process called adsorption. The water in the air actually sticks to the alumina itself in between the tiny passages as the air passes through them. The water molecules become trapped so that the air is dried out as it passes through the filter. This process is reversible. If the alumina desiccant is heated to ~200 °C, it will release the trapped water. This process is called regenerating the desiccant.

Fluoride adsorbent
Activated alumina is also widely used to remove fluoride from drinking water. In the US, there are widespread programs to fluoridate drinking water. However, in certain regions, such as the Rajasthan region of India, there is enough fluoride in the water to cause fluorosis. A study from the Harvard school of Public Health found exposure to high levels of fluoride as a child correlated with lower IQ.

Activated alumina filters can easily reduce fluoride levels from 10 ppm to less than 1 ppm. The amount of fluoride leached from the water being filtered depends on how long the water is actually touching the alumina filter media. Basically, the more alumina in the filter, the less fluoride will be in the final, filtered water. Lower temperature water, and lower pH water (acidic water) are filtered more effectively too. Ideal pH for treatment is 5.5, which allows for up to a 95% removal rate.

As per researches conducted by V.K.Chhabra, Chief Chemist (retd.) P.H.E.D. Rajasthan, activated alumina, when used as a fluoride filter, under field conditions can best be regenerated by a solution of lye (sodium hydroxide; NaOH), sulfuric acid (H2SO4).

The fluoride uptake capacity (FUC) of commercial activated alumina can be up to 700 mg/kg. The FUC using V.K. Chhabra's method can be determined as follows:

Fluoride solution: Dissolve 22.1 g anhydrous NaF in distilled water and dilute to 1,000 mL. 1 mL = 10 mg fluoride. 10 mL/L = 100 mg/L fluoride.

Procedure:

To one litre of simulated distilled water containing 100 mg/L of fluoride, agitate at 100 rpm using the jar test machine. Add 10 g of the AA under test. After one hour, switch off the machine and take out the solution. After 5 minutes, carefully decant the supernatant solution and determine the fluoride. Calculate the difference between the original and treated water fluoride concentration. Multiply the difference by 100 to give the fluoride uptake capacity of AA in mg/kg.

Vacuum systems
In high vacuum applications, activated alumina is used as a charge material in fore-line traps to prevent oil generated by rotary vane pumps from back streaming into the system. A baffle of activated alumina can also replace the refrigerated trap often required for diffusion pumps, though this is rarely used.

Biomaterial
Its mechanical properties and non-reactivity in the biological environment allow it to be a suitable material used to cover surfaces in friction in body prostheses (e.g. hip or shoulder prostheses).

 Defluoridation

Defluoridation is the downward adjustment of the level of fluoride in drinking water. Activated Alumina process is one of the widely used adsorption methods for the defluoridation of drinking water.

title: Activated alumina


text:
User talk:Sandcityflyer

Hi Sandcityflyer, Thanks for bringing that up, I was always brought up calling any bird which makes a galahs screeching noise a galah. But far be it from me to say I know more than anyone who's a bird expert. Thanks for picking it up, and I'll hopefully get around to uploading a correctly named version soon. I say soon because right know I've got exams and unfortunately haven't much time for Wiki :-( --Fir0002 22:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sheila, a pet galah.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sheila, a pet galah.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Weatherman90 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sandcityflyer


text:
Symphony No. 7 (Bruckner)

Anton Bruckner's Symphony No. 7 in E major, WAB 107, is one of the composer's best-known symphonies. It was written between 1881 and 1883 and was revised in 1885. It is dedicated to Ludwig II of Bavaria. The premiere, given under Arthur Nikisch and the Gewandhaus Orchestra in the opera house at Leipzig on 30 December 1884, brought Bruckner the greatest success he had known in his life. The symphony is sometimes referred to as the "Lyric", though the appellation is not the composer's own, and is seldom used.

In the 2018 article "The 20 Greatest Symphonies of all time" from BBC Music Magazine, this symphony is placed at the 20th position. Bruckner also holds the 13th place with Symphony No. 8.

Description
The symphony has four movements: 1. Allegro moderato (E major)

2. Adagio: Sehr feierlich und sehr langsam (C♯ minor)

3. Scherzo: Sehr schnell (A minor) – Trio: Etwas langsamer (F major)

4. Finale: Bewegt, doch nicht schnell (E major)

First movement
The first movement starts with tremolo strings and the cellos presenting "a complete, divinely given melodic whole:"

Bruckner declared he heard it in a dream, played on a viola, and wrote it down on awakening, but the tune incorporates a quotation from the Credo of his D minor Mass (1864) which he was currently revising. The main theme is restated before the second theme group appears, with the oboes and clarinets carrying the first theme:

The third theme group is based on octaves, as is typical in Bruckner:

The development features many of the themes in inversion. Near the end of the movement, there is a long pedal point on E, sustained by the double basses and timpani.

Second movement
This movement was composed between January and April 1883. Bruckner began writing it in anticipation of the death of Richard Wagner, who was in poor health. The movement features four Wagner tubas, which was their first appearance in a symphony:

A contrabass tuba is also present. The second part of the movement, beginning in F♯ major, has a tune that Bruckner specialist Georg Tintner described as such: "If I could describe what makes Bruckner Bruckner to me, it is that tune. It is something which transcends ordinary sorts of feelings. You can't even say 'Is it jolly?' 'Is it sad?' 'Is it that?' 'Is it that?'. You can't say that with a late Beethoven tune either. It is above these things:"

Legend has it that Bruckner wrote the cymbal clash at the climax of this movement upon hearing the news that Wagner had died. By way of contrast, Williman Mann states that "at the climax of the slow movement Nikisch persuaded Bruckner to add a cymbal clash supported by a triangle; later this addition to the manuscript was marked 'invalid' – but not in the composer's hand, so who was the purist?"

This movement was played on Nazi German radio on 31 January 1943 following the German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad and, after music by Richard Wagner, preceding the announcement on 1 May 1945 of Hitler's death the day before.

Third movement
The scherzo is in A minor and opens with a rhythmic string figure and a melody with a leap of an octave played by a solo trumpet:

The Trio is in F major and is in a slower tempo:

Fourth movement
Unlike the Fifth and Eighth symphonies, where the Finale sums up the entire symphony, this Finale is not as expansive as the other movements. Georg Tintner compared this Finale to the finale of a Haydn symphony. Like the first movement, the fourth movement opens with tremolo strings:

The second theme group is in the distant key of A♭ major:

The third theme group is a characteristic "octave theme" given by the whole orchestra in A minor:

In the recapitulation, the subject groups are reversed in order – a form called "tragic sonata form" or "arch form".

1883 version
This was the version performed at the work's premiere. It survives only in one autograph copy which includes later changes by Bruckner and others, so the exact contents of this version are lost and it is unpublished.

Gutmann edition (published 1885)
Some changes were made after the 1884 premiere but before the first publication by Gutmann in 1885. It is widely accepted that Nikisch, Franz Schalk and Ferdinand Löwe had significant influence over this edition, but there is some debate over the extent to which these changes were authorized by Bruckner. These changes mostly affect tempo and orchestration.

Haas edition (published 1944)
Robert Haas attempted to remove the influence of Nikisch, Schalk and Löwe in order to retrieve Bruckner's original conception of the symphony. Haas used some material from the 1883 autograph but because this autograph also includes later changes much of his work was the product of conjecture. The most prominent feature of Haas's edition is the absence of cymbals, triangle and timpani in the slow movement: Haas asserted that Bruckner decided to omit the percussion, a claim scholar Benjamin Korstvedt deems "implausible".

Nowak edition (published 1954)
Leopold Nowak kept most of the changes in the 1885 Gutmann edition, including the percussion. He reprinted the tempo modifications from Gutmann but placed them in brackets. Some performances of this edition omit the cymbal crash at the climax of the slow movement, but it is included in the printed score.

Cohrs edition (published 2015)
Another edition has been issued by Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs for the Anton Bruckner Urtext Gesamtausgabe in 2015.

1921 chamber arrangement
An arrangement of this symphony for chamber ensemble (consisting of 2 violins, viola, cello, bass, clarinet, horn, piano 4-hands, and harmonium) was prepared in 1921 by students and associates of Arnold Schoenberg, for the Viennese "Society for Private Musical Performances": Hanns Eisler (1st and 3rd movements), Erwin Stein (2nd mvt.), and Karl Rankl (4th mvt.). The Society folded before the arrangement could be performed, and it was not premiered until more than 60 years later.

Instrumentation
The symphony requires the following orchestra:
 * woodwinds: two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets in A, two bassoons
 * brass: four horns in F, three trumpets in F, three trombones, four Wagner tubas (two tenors in B♭, two basses in F)1, one contrabass tuba
 * percussion2: timpani, cymbals, triangle
 * strings: violins 1, 2, violas, cellos, double basses

1Used in the 2nd and 4th movements only.

2Except for the third movement where the timpani figure prominently, use of percussion in the symphony is extremely limited. A timpani roll enters at the coda of the first movement. In some performance editions, the timpani re-enters along with cymbals and triangle together in the climax of the second movement (the only movement employing cymbals and triangle). Many conductors perform the second movement without percussion (as in the Haas edition), however; the decision is generally settled by the performers' preferences. In the last movement, the timpani rolls in brief climaxes before crescendoing with orchestral tutti in the final bars.

Discography
The first commercial recording was made by Oskar Fried with the Berlin State Opera Orchestra in 1924 for Polydor. Along with Symphony No. 4, the Seventh is the most popular Bruckner symphony both in the concert hall and on record.

Herbert von Karajan's last recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, 23 April 1989, three months before his death, on the Deutsche Grammophon label, of the Haas edition of the 1885 score, has been singled out by Norman Lebrecht as #80 in his list of the 100 best recordings, and described as "more human and vulnerable" than his earlier Berlin recording. In reviewing the 1999 recording by Kurt Sanderling, the critic David Hurwitz listed as reference (benchmark) recordings of Bruckner's Seventh those by Eugen Jochum in 1976, Bernard Haitink in 1978, Karajan in 1989, and Günter Wand in 1999. Stephen Johnson prefers Karl Böhm's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, saying that Böhm balances "clear-sighted formal understanding with a more fluid, supple approach to phrasing." The vast majority of modern recordings use vibrato for the strings, with Roger Norrington's recording with the Radio-Sinfonieorchester Stuttgart des SWR being a notable exception.

On BBC Radio 3 in December 2014, John Deathridge selected Bernard Haitink's Concertgebouw recording from 1966 as the 'First Choice' in the 'Building a Library' series. (Wilhelm Furtwangler's 1949 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic was chosen as the top 'Historic' recommendation.)

The chamber arrangement has been recorded, by among others, the Thomas Christian Ensemble, proving to one reviewer "beyond doubt that it simply takes more than 10 musicians, no matter how good they are, to play a Bruckner symphony."

title: Symphony No. 7 (Bruckner)