text:
Talk:Mainz

Untitled
I'm fascinated to learn that the Polish for Mainz is Moguncja, but does it have much to do with this article, or indeed with the distinctly Rheinland, nowhere-near-Poland-whatsoever, character of the city? And how does the Gdansk vote affect this at all? Alai 16:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The Gdansk vote says specifically, that the cross-naming affects any place that has a shared Polish-German history. In this case, there has been a large Polish diaspora there in the 19th century, also there were Polish troops stationed there during the Napoleonic Wars. The city was German, the troops were Polish - so the history is shared.

 * BTW, you might want to question this interpretation at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion Halibutt 16:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Halibutt. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * As to the rationale: for instance, in 1631 the town was occupied by Polish and Swedish forces. As to the name being mentioned in English language sources - google is your friend. Notify me on my talk page if you need any book sources as well. Halibutt 18:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Google mainly uses the name Mainz, so I don't accept Google as a reference that primarily uses the Polish name. Can you be more specific? Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Halibutt, this is a completely unreasonable argument. French troops occupied most of Poland under Napoleon - how would you feel is from French editor concluded that that was enough of a historical connection to add French names to all Polish pages? There are Polish people living in almost every major city in the entire world - is that enough of a Polish connection to require that we add the Polish names for those cities to all those articles? Etc, etc, etc. Noel (talk) 18:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite. The above search turns up around 200 hits, and they're exceptionally low-grade stuff. I'd like not merely book sources, but considerably more notable and authorative sources than, in either medium. Alai 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * But that link, http://www.moguncja.hotelsbedbreakfast.inn26.com/, is interesting, in that it is an international site, and it uses the Polish name. Oh, but wait: it uses the name Mainz as well. And http://www.mainz.hotelsbedbreakfast.inn26.com/ also exists, and uses "Mainz" twice, and "Moguncja" 0 times. Which makes "Mainz" the most common name there. Ah well... Eugene van der Pijll 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a clearly specious interpretation of Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Halibutt, you should be ashamed of yourself - this is really childish. I am happy to revisit that particular result of the poll to make it more specific, but this is absurd. john k 19:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Childish? I bet you could try to offend me in a more sophisticated way. Anyway, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling does not require any specific kind of source, it simply has to be a English language source, be it a fable, a fairytale, a tourist office ad... here you go then :) Halibutt 07:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * "It was printed by the Gutenberg from Moguncja, probably in 1454 year." That is not English. Eugene van der Pijll 08:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree it is not the best English I ever saw, but still it is English. And there is no rule saying that there can be no errors on the source that uses the name. Halibutt 15:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I can see value in including variant spellings, of any nationality, of a name (so the entry can be found by Google search, for example)—but listing them all at the front makes the article very hard to read (there could easily be as many entries as ther are languages). Can we not have them at the bottom, like 'see also' sections, etc.? Thans. mfc 14:33, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

 * That would be OK with me. But the name "Mayence" should stay in the first line of the article; not because it's the French name, but because it is an English name for this city. Nowadays a very rare name, but it used to be the most common name, so people could come across the name in older books, newspapers, etc. See for example this google search: "mayence -mainz", only English pages: almost 20,000 hits. Compare with ["moguncja -mainz"]: 31 hits. Eugene van der Pijll 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't have to list them all, only the French (by common sense) and Polish (by Talk:Gdansk rule. Whay exactly not? Why exactly is it against the rules? Halibutt 02:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * How, again, did Mainz "share a history" with Poland? Quit it, quit it, quit it. john k 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Being occupied by Polish forces twice in its history is not enough? Perhaps for you, gbut not for the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Halibutt 03:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Polish forces? No, that is not enough, especially since in neither case were those Polish forces national forces.  Once again, you are clearly purposefully ignoring the clear intent of the vote in order to make a point. Just stop it and do something constructive.  What on earth is the point of arguing a position you don't actually agree with? john k 03:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Holy Mary mother of God, John, just listen to yourself. What else do you need? If I post you a pic of Polish WWII troops entering the city under a Polish flag you'll ask me for an ethnic composition of the regiment chart? And then you'll call the number of ethnic Poles within the unit too small?

 * And what difference would it make for the letter of the voting results? I understand that your point of view is that I should provide a zillion of books that use the name and a proof that there was an army with more than 80% of Poles and flying the Polish banner there, but this is clearly absurd. And more importantly, this is not needed by the voting results.

 * If you don't like the voting results - change them. Or ask the ArbCom to change it. But do not change it yourself by demanding that some articles you like be applied the rules and others not. Who exactly gave you this right? Halibutt 03:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Another link, if the previous ones were not enough:, Halibutt

 * Halibutt, the fact that the Polish army on the western front entered the city at the end of World War II is simply absurd as a reason for putting the Polish name in. The basic fact is that everybody except you does not understand "shared history" to mean "at some point there was somebody Polish in this city."  This includes those of us who agree with you that the current rule is too vague.  "Sharing a history" was clearly meant to mean cities which have, at different points in history, been inhabited by both Poles and Germans, or which have been under the political control of both Poland and Germany or a German state, not any German city that a Pole has set foot in at some point in recorded history.  This is how everybody else has interpreted it, and this is how you intepreted it until a few days ago.  So please quit with this nonsense, which, so far as I can tell, is supported by nobody except you. john k 03:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * But this is incredibly pointless. The basic fact is that what is clearly an overwhelming majority do not believe that your interpretation of the vote is correct and that you have consistently and repeatedly failed to even acknowledge that this is a possible response to what you are doing.  Let me say it again: ''Everybody else who has weighed in on this does not agree with you interpretation of what "shared history" means.  As such, no matter what you think "shared history" means (and I assume you do not even really think it means this, but are just engaging in absurdity because you're irritated by how this has been applied on Polish pages - something which, I will again note, I agree with you about), you cannot continue to assert your interpretation as though it is undisputed fact.  So, again I say stop it! stop it! stop it!  All you are doing is making people less sympathetic to anything you say in the future on the subject. john k 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There already exists a page for lists of alternate city names: List of European cities with alternative names. DirectorStratton 18:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)--

 * Nevertheless, I thought the information on List of European cities with alternative names should also be included here; it is information about the city that might be useful -- if for noone else, at least for Poles who want to know where their name of the city comes from (apparently from the Latin name). So I added a new section. But as I said above: no other names in the first line but Mainz and Mayence, as these are (also) the English names. Eugene van der Pijll 21:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to change the following sentence in the article: The reparations were not paid and Germany preferred to wreck its economy through inflation than to pay them. This sentence is grammatically wrong and has a content that is controversial to say the least. I would not leave it there without a good citation. I disagree that Germany let its economy go down on purpose to avoid paying reparations. Seems like a very weird statement to me. Instead a note that the reparations where not fully payed and the claims where abandoned after WWII would be in order. Maybe one should mention the worldwide economical crisis in the 20s in that context ...

 * I think it needs to be said that Mayence was the most common ENGLISH, not just the French, name for Mainz until quite recently. In Victorian days, when the Rhine River was part of the Grand Tour for British and Americans, it was called Mayence. When Mainz fell out of mainstream travel, because of the world wars, the name fell out of usage.

 * Leaving out the information that Mayence is also the older English name will make it harder for people to find what they are looking for on the internet. Think Bombay/Mumbai or Ceylon/Sri Lanka. There are many older references on Google in English under the name Mayence, but most English-speakers won't look for it if they think they will find only information in French.

Evangeline (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: The ONLY English name of Mainz was Mayence until quite recently (ca 1933!). There is a good deal of information about the city in ENGLISH under the name Mayence. This needs to be part of the article so that people can use Mayence when Googling Mainz in English.

HOW will they know this without this information? I thought Wikipedia was about more, not less, information?

Please LEAVE IN. Evangeline (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of Mainz
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What is that
What are you doing Zindegi (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimhg
Bikbbgfdgiv Zindegi (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainz. 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/20110524083053/http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/index.php?id=329 to http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/index.php?id=329

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) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mainz. 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/20110928025606/http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/fileadmin/blick/images/30.08.0.1.full.jpg to http://www.landeshauptarchiv.de/fileadmin/blick/images/30.08.0.1.full.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308155830/http://images.google.com/hosted/life/a1fa68d50b8bc299.html to https://images.google.com/hosted/life/a1fa68d50b8bc299.html

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) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainz. 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/20160517040041/http://images.google.com/hosted/life/9efa86295e2009bb.html to https://images.google.com/hosted/life/9efa86295e2009bb.html

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) 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First bishop
About this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainz&diff=856258750&oldid=856240702 First Bishop in Mainz was by legend Crescenz around 80 AD; first verifiable Bishop of Mainz was Martinus in 343. In no way Boniface was first bishop in Mainz. First archbishop in Mainz was Boniface, he became archbishop pro hac vice in 732, and in 745 he was granted Mainz as metropolitan see. So he was actually not archishop of mainz, which was at that time not a regular archiepsicopal see until 781. So Boniface was first archbishop in  Mainz and Lullus became first archbishop of Mainz. I therefore revert the wrong version of "first bishop in Mainz, Boniface," which is wrong in many ways, back to "first archbishop in Mainz, Boniface". --mmg (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

[This copied from Mmg's talk page, and I acknowledge that points were already addressed though I didn't know about this post here, so much of this actually confirms the above and other points are already handled:], we're at an impasse here and I'm wondering if we're talking at cross-purposes (and I don't know what you mean with "See DS"). Sure, B. became "archbishop" in title, but you know that the first time he wasn't assigned a seat (732), and later he really was metropolitan bishop, initially and abortively of Cologne (which in ancient times had that status), and while he became assigned to Mainz, that didn't become an archdiocese until, what was it, 780. So the odd thing is that you can call him an archbishop, and you can even call him an archbishop in Mainz, but you can't really call him an archbishop of Mainz, since that obviously suggests Mainz was an archdiocese. I am unable to reach for my library now, but I'll drop you some quotes from Rudolf Schieffer (as yet unpublished--I'm working on it): "A move in this direction is confirmed by a document from 732 in which the new Pope, Gregory III, bestowed on Boniface the rank of archbishop and the pallium as its external symbol." "The synod [the Concilium 742] was attended solely by Archbishop Boniface and the five bishops recently appointed by him in the previous months (and like him still without a diocese), ..." "Moreover, he, the archbishop, had personally encountered insurmountable resistance on the occasion of his abortive installation in Cologne in 745." "The Frank Agilolf was appointed to the episcopal throne at Cologne, and in 746/47 Boniface had to be content with Mainz, which was, however, not raised to the rank of a metropolitan see and was only vacant because the bishop there, Gewilib, had been deposed due to manslaughter perpetrated in a blood feud."

Note how careful Schieffer is to never say "B. became archbishop of Mainz": we should be this careful too. And here--OK, I grabbed one book quickly--is Lutz von Padberg, the 2004 biography from Beck, the final timeline on p. 121: "746: Nach dem Scheitern der Pläne für Köln erhält Bonifatius das Bistum Mainz"--my emphasis. We simply cannot say "B. was the first archbishop of Mainz." Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I see now that you indeed reverted to "in", which is good; guess I should have looked closer. I think we need a note here to explain this, after Boniface and before mention of Lull (who should be mentioned) and others. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that "See DS"-note; bad habit from too much work on german WP:-) I guess, everything should be clarified with my in-between edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainz&diff=next&oldid=856358364 - Are you OK with that? --mmg (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * mmg, alles klar. Thanks. There is much more to do here--the German articles on this topic are still superior, and we can do with more sourcing, but that's for a later date. Thank you for your help and your comments: you were much more correct than I gave you credit for, and I owe you an apology, and myself possibly a new pair of glasses. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Two variants are given for the pronunciation of the name. But it is hard to see what the difference is. --Alazon (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Excessive citation needed tags
Dear user:Alexandermcnabb, I noticed you made recent edits, mostly to [//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127433476...1128560655 tag following lines with citation needed]. This is very excessive and you shouldn't tag every line in the paragraph, instead, just tag the end of the paragraph.

On the other hand, what you didn't like is actually common sense and needs a look on a map. What citation do we need, do you have eyes and could you see? I believe, some people on Wikipedia miss the point of referencing. It's like tagging the sentence, the sun rises from the east[citation needed]. We are not robots. The sentences you tagged are not controversial political arguments. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope you understand German as I cited that S8 trains and others take about 25 minutes! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Any factual statement should be referenced. Any unreferenced claim of fact is OR - Original Research. Just because you believe/'know' a thing to be fact doesn't mean it belongs in WP without a reference to a Reliable Source - WP:RS. Simple as that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ripuarian

 * "Mainz spoke a dialect termed Ripuarian."

--21:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That lacks the page.
 * ripuarisch/Ripuarisch only occurs on p. 73 in a totally unrelated context (and on p. 254 in the title of another work cited).
 * On p. 133 it is: "Da allerdings die Untersuchungsorte Wittlich und Mainz sprachsystemisch verschiedene n Großarealen zuzuordnen sind (moselfränkisches Wittlich vs. rheinfränkisches Mainz) [...]", i.e. Rhine Franconian Mainz.

Proposed merge of Free City Of Mainz into Mainz
Can be included in Mainz's history, unless substantial content is added to justify separate page Broc (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 * This is just a first draft, I am working on some edits on Notepad right now, Will reply soon,
 * Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @Broc,
 * I just re-wrote the article, I don't think it should be moved now because of how different this article's history of mainz is and the article is now, please check it just in case though!
 * Cheers und Danke  vielmals !, Arotparaarms (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Arotparaarms, how is your page different than Mainz, and why do you think it should have its separate page, given it has basically the same content?
 * On another note, does the foundational edit of the page you created consist of a copy of that chapter? Please have a look at Copying within Wikipedia: attribution always needs to be given, per Wikipedia's Creative Commons license.
 * My best suggestion: incorporate your edits into the main page, then turn Free City of Mainz into a redirect to Mainz. Broc (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * hmmm...... this really does needs to be discussed, I do think that you have a fair point... will look into it
 * Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to merging. The article Mainz should be written in WP:Summary style, with content about specific periods moved to sub-articles. —Kusma (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kusma's argument is valid, we should write Mainz in Summary style,
 * Cheers once again, Arotparaarms (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge – As linked in this discussion, the history section contains the same information. I think the argument about summary style should be visited separately and after merging (/dropping Free City Of Mainz). A split of Mainz into summation and themed subpages is much more work, and the current Free City Of Mainz article is not in the correct form for that either (too specific/narrow). Kissaki (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your argument is correct but instead of merging what we should do is improve the article instead of merging it all together. Arotparaarms (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'll strike through my Merge vote. Kissaki (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, don't merge. Free City of Mainz has an analogous article on de.wiki, Freie Stadt Mainz, which suggests that this is a rational subtopics. Comparing that de article makes clear that there is more than enough material for a separate article on Free City of Mainz. Furius (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree - That's what I'm talking about, We should keep it seperate
 * Arotparaarms (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, End of Discussion? With all due respect @Broc, I believe there is a strong majority against Merging, it's a 1:4 ratio as far as now, and, I purposefully didn't add to the discussion to check if its an an active issue or not I think the discuss should end and we should embrace Free City Of Mainz as an article and write Mainz AS WP:Summary, I will lend the discussion if there are no further comments after 2 days,
 * Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 12/Mar/24 - Tomorrow, 13/Mar, I will officially remove the 'Merge' banner on Free City Of Mainz, I think that the discussion has ended,
 * Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Side Note) I have moved the Merge Banner to the talk page of the article
 * Arotparaarms (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * CLOSED DISCUSSION
 * It's Over, It's over now....... By Over, I mean removing Every Reference to the merge in the ArticleArotparaarms (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still in the article. What are you talking about? - I will clean it up and conclude this discussion correctly too. Kissaki (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mainz


text:
Howard Davis (professor of architecture)

Howard Davis is an American writer and professor of architecture at the University of Oregon in Eugene. A native of New York City, he studied physics at Cooper Union and at Northwestern University and received a master's degree in architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked with Christopher Alexander. He has worked on projects in the Pacific Northwest, India, England, Mexico and Israel.

He is known for his research into vernacular architecture and building history, published in the book The Culture of Building (1999, reprinted in paperback 2006). He also collaborated with Christopher Alexander on The Production of Houses (1985), an account of an innovative housing project in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. His current research is concerned with urban buildings that combine commercial and residential uses; museums and memorials to war; housing; and American architectural education. His latest book is "Living Over the Store: Architecture and Local Urban Life." Davis was founding co-editor of Buildings & Landscapes, the journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum.

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture honored Davis with the ACSA Distinguished Professor Award in 2009.

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


text:
Wim Crouwel

Willem Hendrik "Wim" Crouwel (21 November 1928 – 19 September 2019) was a Dutch graphic designer, type designer, and typographer.

Early life and education
Between 1947 and 1949, he studied Fine Arts at Academie Minerva in Groningen, the Netherlands. After graduating from a traditional art school, he served for two years in the military. Fresh out of the military, he was hired by an exhibition company in Amsterdam. During an interview in 2011, Crouwel said that his traditional art training hadn't taught him anything about typography, and that he eventually learned it by attending night classes in typography at what is now the Gerrit Rietveld Academie in Amsterdam.

Career
Crouwel began his career in 1955 creating exhibition, graphic, and product designs along with Kho Liang Ie. In 1963, he was one of the founders of the design studio Total Design (currently named Total Identity). From 1964 onwards, Crouwel was responsible for the design of the posters, catalogues and exhibitions of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. In 1967 he designed the typeface New Alphabet, a design that embraces the limitations of the cathode ray tube technology used by early data display screens and phototypesetting equipment, thus only containing horizontal and vertical strokes. Other typefaces from his hand are Fodor and Gridnik. In 1970 he designed the Dutch pavilion for Expo '70 (Osaka, Japan). Later, Crouwel designed the Number Postage Stamps for the Dutch PTT, well known in the Netherlands during its circulation from 1976 to 2002.

In the years Crouwel worked for Total Design, he designed many geometric wordmarks, one of which is the wordmark for the Dutch Rabobank, designed in 1973. The lettershapes have been influenced by the fact that the wordmark had to be used as a 3D light box. After the 3D application was finalized, the 2D design for print was adapted.

According to Wim Crouwel, New Alphabet was ‘over-the-top and never meant to be really used’. However, as unreadable as it was, it made a comeback in 1988 when designer Brett Wickens used a version of the font on the sleeve of Substance by Joy Division.

In addition to his work as a graphic designer, he was also active in the educational field. In the 1950s he worked as a teacher at the Royal Academy for Art and Design in 's-Hertogenbosch (currently called Akademie Voor Kunst en Vormgeving St. Joost or AKV|St. Joost) and at the predecessor of what is now the Gerrit Rietveld Academie. Between 1965 and 1985 he was connected to the department of industrial design of the Delft University of Technology. From 1987 to 1993 he was extraordinary professor in the fields of History, Arts and Culture Studies at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. In the years 1985–1993 he was the director of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam.

Crouwel's graphic work is especially well known, and respected for the use of grid-based layouts and typography that is rooted in the International Typographic Style.

Awards

 * H. N. Werkman Prize (1958)
 * Frans Duwaer Prize (1965)
 * H. N. Werkman Prize (1966)
 * Piet Zwart Prize (1991)
 * Anton Stankowski Prize (1991)
 * Honorary doctorate TU Delft (1994)
 * BKVB Funds Oeuvre Award (2004)
 * Gerrit Noordzij Prize (2009)
 * Type Director Club's Medal (2019)

Literature

 * Frederike Huygen, Hugues Boekraad, Wim Crouwel: Mode en Module, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam (1997), (ISBN 90-6450-310-9), (Dutch).
 * Kees Broos, Wim Crouwel: Alphabets, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2003), (ISBN 90-6369-037-1), (English).
 * Catherine de Smet, Emmanuel Bérard, Wim Crouwel: Architectures Typographiques / Typographic Architectures, Editions F7, Paris (2007), (ISBN 978-2-916796-02-4), (French/English).
 * * Kerry William Purcell, "Wim Crouwel: Modern Method", Eye Magazine, No. 79, Spring, 2011.
 * Wim Crouwel 'in his own words' a selection of lectures and articles delivered by Wim Crouwel between 1973 and 2006, ISBN 978 94 90628024 Lauwen Books waysofthinking.nl
 * Frederike Huygen, Wim Crouwel Modernist, Lecturis, Eindhoven (2015), (ISBN 94-6226-147-4), (English).

title: Wim Crouwel


text:
Mind Playing Tricks on Me

"Mind Playing Tricks on Me" is a song by Geto Boys, featured on their 1991 album We Can't Be Stopped. The lyrics describe the mental anguish and exhaustion of life as a gangster, including dealing with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoia, suicidal ideation, and loneliness. It also samples "Hung Up on My Baby" by Isaac Hayes, from his 1974 film Tough Guys. At the song's peak, it reached 23 on the Billboard Hot 100, making it the highest-charting single by the Geto Boys.

Background
The song was originally intended for a Scarface solo album as he penned three of the song's four verses. However, the Geto Boys' label, Rap-A-Lot Records, decided that the record would be more valuable as a breakout single for the group.

On an episode of Yo! MTV Raps: Classic Cuts, Scarface and his grandmother spoke about how she inspired the track "Mind Playing Tricks on Me". Scarface's grandmother was reportedly mumbling to herself, and when asked, "'Mama, what you talkin' about?'" replied, "'Oh, nothing, my mind's just playing tricks on me'".

In 1994 Scarface recorded a new solo version of the song titled "Mind Playin' Tricks '94", for his album The Diary.

Reception and legacy
"Mind Playing Tricks on Me" has received critical praise since it was first released. In 2012, Rolling Stone Magazine ranked it the fifth greatest hip-hop song of all time and at No. 192 on their "Top 500 Best Songs of All Time". The song was ranked number 18 out of 100 Best Rap Songs Of All Time by LiveAbout. VH1 ranked the song 82 on its list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the 90's, and 45 on its list of the 100 Greatest Songs of Hip-Hop. Pitchfork Media ranked the song 45 on its Top 200 Tracks of the 1990s list, with reviewer Tom Breihan writing, "this track established the South as a serious force in the music, proving that these Texans could do dark better than anyone on either coast." The song was also included in The Pitchfork 500, a compilation book of the greatest 500 songs from 1976 to 2006.

On a 2019 episode of NPR's Morning Edition, Rodney Carmichael described the song as unique because at the time of its release it emphasized the trauma and vulnerability of life in the streets.

References and sampling
"Mind Playing Tricks on Me" has been referenced and sampled by numerous artists. The Kottonmouth Kings made a cover of the song for their 2001 album, Hidden Stash II: The Kream of the Krop. The Insane Clown Posse also covered the song with Anybody Killa (also known as ABK) and Lil Wyte on their 2012 album, Smothered, Covered & Chunked. Brazilian rapper, Gabriel o Pensador sampled "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" in his song, "Lavagem Cerebral", from the 1993 album, Gabriel o Pensador. Rapper Kodak Black sampled the song in his song, Transportin’.

"Mind Playing Tricks on Me" was referenced by Prodigy, in his single, "Mac 10 Handle". Ice Cube referenced the song in, "When Will They Shoot". Hip-hop duo, Clipse, referenced the Geto Boys song on "Nightmares", off of their 2006 album, Hell Hath No Fury. The Notorious B.I.G. interpolates "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" on the 1994 song, "One More Chance". In the Outkast song, "She Lives in My Lap", Andre 3000 samples Scarface's vocals from the track. The Game's track, "Walk in the Streets" references the song with the lines: "Must I remind you that Geto Boy track/Your mind is playin' tricks on you, you'll never go plat". The Game further references the Geto Boys' track in his 2010 song, "Big Money", with the hook, "I got big money, I drive big cars/Everybody know me/It's like I'm a movie star". Beanie Sigel's "Feel It In the Air" off of his 2005 album, "The B. Coming" samples Scarface's introduction to the song by rapping, "I sit alone in my four cornered room staring at hammers". Destiny's Child interpolates "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" in their 1998 song, "Illusion", featuring Wyclef and Pras, from their self-titled debut album. A vocal sample from "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" is used in Killer Mike's "Big Money, Big Cars" featuring Chamillionaire and Messy Marv released in 2008 on the album, I Pledge Allegiance to the Grind II. Additionally, rapper Jean Grae references Geto Boys' rapper, Bushwick Bill's dream sequence from "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" in her 2004 song, "Going Crazy".

Atom & His Package covered/parodied the song on his debut album Atom & His Package, also known as The First CD.

In a 2012 Complex Magazine interview, rapper Kid Cudi cited "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" as his "favourite song in the world". Kid Cudi further revealed that the song was the inspiration for his hit single, "Day 'n' Nite", saying, "I love it so much I wanted to make my own version of it. And then "Day 'n' Nite" came out of it". Kid Cudi later sampled the song on his third studio album, Indicud (2013), on the track "Beez" featuring Wu-Tang Clan member, RZA.

It was also featured on popular 2013 video game Grand Theft Auto V on fictional radio station West Coast Classics.

In the 2018 Netflix television miniseries, Maniac, "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" is featured in multiple episodes.

Hip-hop group Clipping's 2020 album Visions of Bodies Being Burned is titled after a lyric in the song.

On Atmosphere's 2021 song, "Something", Slug interpolates the line "It wasn't even close to Halloween" for their song.

Track listing

 * 1) "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" (Radio Version)
 * 2) "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" (Dirty Version)
 * 3) "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" (Club Version)
 * 4) "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" (Instrumental)

title: Mind Playing Tricks on Me


text:
Business.com

Business.com is a digital media company and B2B web destination which offers various performance marketing advertising, including lead generation products on a pay per lead and pay per click basis, directory listings, and display advertising. The site covers business industry news and trends for growth companies and the B2B community to stay up-to-date, and hosted more than 15,000 pieces of content as of November 2014. Business.com operates as a subsidiary of the Purch Group since being acquired in 2016.

Having sold their brands to Future, Purch's existing B2B assets later reorganised into Business.com.

History
Business.com, Inc. was founded in 1999 by Jake Winebaum, previously chairman of the Walt Disney Internet Group; and Sky Dayton, founder of Earthlink, Boingo Wireless, and Helio, among others. Around that time, the Business.com domain name was purchased from Marc Ostrofsky by Winebaum's eCompanies Ventures for $7.5 million. In addition to investment by eCompanies, early funding in the amount of $61 million was provided in 2000 by Pearson PLC, Reed Business Information, McGraw Hill, and others. In its initial form, Business.com aimed to be the Internet's leading search engine for small business and corporate information.

Business.com struggled through the Dot-com bubble years. The company retooled beginning in 2002 after massive layoffs and a new focus on developing a pay for performance ad network model. In April 2003, the company achieved profitability, and on November 8, 2004, the company secured an additional $10 million in venture capital funding from Benchmark Capital.

Having purchased the domain in 2001, Business.com launched Work.com on October 9, 2006. The site included business how-to guides contributed by the small business community. Work.com was sold in March 2012 and is now a corporate performance management platform owned by Salesforce.

Then on July 26, 2007, after beating out Dow Jones & Company, the New York Times Company, IAC/InterActiveCorp, and News Corp, print and interactive marketing company R.H. Donnelley Corporation announced plans to acquire Business.com in a deal valued at $345 million. The deal closed on August 23, 2007.

In June 2009, R.H. Donnelley filed for bankruptcy. The company emerged from Chapter 11 as Dex One Corporation on February 1, 2010. In February 2011, Resource Nation acquired the brand and associated assets of Business.com. JMI Equity provided funding in support of the transaction.

In January 2013, the appointment of Tony Uphoff as CEO was announced. In March 2013, Business.com launched a site refresh, new logo and new suite of products. New content management, analytics, and big data platforms were introduced in August 2014.

In June 2016, Business.com was acquired by Purch Group. When Future plc acquired Purch's consumer properties in 2018, Business.com was not included and was instead spun off as an independent company.

Content
Business.com produces daily content to help business owners plan, launch, manage, and grow their businesses. Staff reporters and market experts provide insight on the latest news and discussions around marketing, human resources, technology, entrepreneurship, sales, and finance.

Business.com also features objective reviews, roundups, and buying guides for business products to help business owners make purchasing decisions. The site also includes tools for calculating payroll deductions, stock options, and cash flow.

Products
Business.com serves advertisers looking to reach small and mid-sized business. Advertising customers include some of the largest B2B brands in B2B such as Intel, Salesforce, Marketo, ADP, Sprint as well as smaller brands. Its suite of digital marketing products include display advertising, pay per click, email marketing, content marketing demand generation, and lead generation for sales ready leads.

In December, 2014, the company launched LENS, a lead expansion and nurturing service, as part of their demand generation product set.

Awards and recognition
Business.com has been named as a Best Place to Work by the San Diego Business Journal in 2012, 2013, 2014. In October 2014, the website was ranked #1 on Inc.com's '50 Websites Your Startup Needs to Succeed'.

title: Business.com


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bardicledar

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bardicledar
Non notable. Zero Google hits. --TheParanoidOne 16:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Who wrote it? Are they local to the area? If they are then it's a valuable iece of local information. Perhaps merge it with a more general article though. It could be incorporated into the Charlton article possibly. Celestianpower 16:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, not verifiable, possible hoax/attack. -- BD2412 talk 19:05, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
 * Merge if true. Delete if false. Sonic Mew 20:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. --Tabor 20:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete whether true or not. Not even Wiktionary-worth, this is what some people call some other people's language?  How is that encylopedic content?  RickK 21:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete anything that has 0 google hits. -- Barfooz  (talk)  22:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty dodgy policy. Just because Google hasn't found it doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. ··gracefool |☺ 08:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep and merge. It is verifiable. Just not yet verified. ··gracefool |☺ 08:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Meadowlark

Meadowlarks are New World grassland birds belonging to genera Sturnella and Leistes.

This group includes seven species of largely insectivorous grassland birds. In all species the male at least has a black or brown back and extensively red or yellow underparts.

List of species
There is disagreement among authorities as to whether Lilian's meadowlark should be ranked as a full species or a subspecies.

Red-breasted species, predominantly South American
 * Red-breasted meadowlark (formerly red-breasted blackbird), Leistes militaris
 * White-browed meadowlark (formerly white-browed blackbird), Leistes superciliaris
 * Peruvian meadowlark, Leistes bellicosus
 * Pampas meadowlark, Leistes defilippii
 * Long-tailed meadowlark, Leistes loyca

Yellow-breasted species, predominantly North American
 * Eastern meadowlark, Sturnella magna
 * Chihuahuan meadowlark, Sturnella lilianae
 * Western meadowlark, Sturnella neglecta

Taxonomy
As a group, the meadowlarks have had a volatile taxonomic history. When Carl Linnaeus described the eastern meadowlark (the first of the meadowlarks to be scientifically described) in his epic 10th edition of Systema Naturae in 1758, he thought it was related to the Old World larks, and so put it in the genus Alauda with them. In the same work, he put the red-breasted meadowlark in the bunting genus Emberiza. Less than a decade later, he described the eastern meadowlark again, this time putting it into the starling genus Sturnus, which Juan Ignacio Molina also used when he first described the long-tailed meadowlark in 1782. In 1816, Louis Pierre Vieillot created the genus Sturnella, moving the meadowlarks into his new taxon. Most taxonomists accepted the new genus, and the western meadowlark, Peruvian meadowlark and Lilian's meadowlark were all placed in this taxon when they were later described. When Charles Lucien Bonaparte described the white-browed meadowlark and pampas meadowlark, however, he assigned them to another newly created genus — Trupialis, for what he called "ground-starlings"; he moved the red-breasted meadowlark into that now-defunct genus as well.

By the early 20th century, the meadowlarks were split again. Only the "yellow-breasted" meadowlarks (eastern and western meadowlarks, including Lilian's) remained in the genus Sturnella. The red-breasted and white-browed meadowlarks were moved to the genus Leistes, while the pampas meadowlark, Peruvian meadowlark and long-tailed meadowlark made up the genus Pezites, which was established by Cabanis in 1851. By the late 20th century, all meadowlarks were lumped again in the genus Sturnella. In 2017, all the red-breasted species were moved to the genus Leistes.

title: Meadowlark


text:
AHS Centaur

Australian Hospital Ship (AHS) Centaur was a hospital ship which was attacked and sunk by a Japanese submarine off the coast of Queensland, Australia, on 14 May 1943. Of the 332 medical personnel and civilian crew aboard, 268 died, including 63 of the 65 army personnel.

The Scottish-built vessel was launched in 1924 as a combination passenger liner and refrigerated cargo ship and operated a trade route between Western Australia and Singapore via the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), carrying passengers, cargo, and livestock. At the start of World War II, Centaur (like all British Merchant Navy vessels) was placed under British Admiralty control, but after being fitted with defensive equipment, was allowed to continue normal operations. In November 1941, the ship rescued German survivors of the engagement between Kormoran and HMAS Sydney. Centaur was relocated to Australia's east coast in October 1942, and used to transport materiel to New Guinea.

In January 1943, Centaur was handed over to the Australian military for conversion to a hospital ship, as her small size made her suitable for operating in Maritime Southeast Asia. The refit (including installation of medical facilities and repainting with Red Cross markings) was completed in March, and the ship undertook a trial voyage: transporting wounded from Townsville to Brisbane, then from Port Moresby to Brisbane. After replenishing in Sydney, Centaur embarked the 2/12th Field Ambulance for transport to New Guinea, and sailed on 12 May. Before dawn on 14 May 1943, during her second voyage, Centaur was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine off Moreton Island, Queensland. The majority of the 332 aboard died in the attack; the 64 survivors were discovered 36 hours later. The incident resulted in public outrage as attacking a hospital ship is considered a war crime under the 1907 Hague Convention. Protests were made by the Australian and British governments to Japan and efforts were made to discover the people responsible so they could be tried at a war crimes tribunal. In the 1970s the probable identity of the attacking submarine, I-177, became public.

The reason for the attack is unknown; there are theories that Centaur was in breach of the international conventions that should have protected her, that I-177's commander was unaware that Centaur was a hospital ship, or that the submarine commander, Hajime Nakagawa, knowingly attacked a protected vessel. The wreck of Centaur was found on 20 December 2009; a claimed discovery in 1995 has been proven to be a different shipwreck.

Original design
In early 1923, the Ocean Steamship Company (a subsidiary of Alfred Holt's Blue Funnel Line) decided that a new vessel would be required to replace the ageing Charon on the Western Australia to Singapore trade route. The vessel had to be capable of simultaneously transporting passengers, cargo, and livestock. She also had to be capable of resting on mud flats out of the water as the tidal variance in ports at the northern end of Western Australia was as great as 8 m.

Scotts Shipbuilding and Engineering Company in Greenock was chosen to build Centaur. The keel was laid on 16 November 1923, and the ship was ready for collection by 29 August 1924. Constructed at a cost of £146,750 sterling, Centaur was designed to carry 72 passengers and 450 cattle. Cargo was carried in four holds; the two decks within the hull were primarily for livestock, and could also be used as extra cargo space. The hull of the ship was a 'turret deck' design; decks below the waterline were wider than those above water, and a flat, reinforced hull allowed the ship to rest on the bottom. Centaur was among the first civilian vessels to be equipped with a diesel engine. One of the most visible characteristics was the 35 ft smokestack, the extreme size was more a concession to tradition than of practical advantage on a diesel-powered vessel. Her engine was 6-cylinder 4-stroke, single cycle single action diesel engine. It had cylinders of 24 $15/16$ inches (64 cm) diameter by 51 $3/16$ inches (135 cm) stroke. The engine was built by Burmeister & Wain, Copenhagen, Denmark. One of her holds was fitted with refrigeration equipment. The refrigerant was brine and the insulation was cork. The refrigerated hold had a capacity of 3000 cuft.

In December 1939, Centaur underwent a minor refit in Hong Kong, with a supercharger and a new propeller fitted to the engine. The supercharger broke down in April 1942, and could not be repaired because of equipment shortages and restricted dockyard access caused by World War II.

Hospital ship refit
At the beginning of 1943, Centaur was placed at the disposal of the Australian Department of Defence for conversion to a hospital ship. The conversion was performed by United Ship Services in Melbourne, Australia, and was initially estimated to cost AU£20,000.

The cost increased to almost AU£55,000, for a variety of reasons. It was originally intended for the ship to travel between ports in New Guinea and Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Increasing casualty numbers in the New Guinea campaign meant that the hospitals in Queensland would quickly become unable to deal with the quantity of the casualties and the nature of their injuries, so a longer voyage to Sydney was required. The Army demanded that more facilities and conversions be added to the original plans such as expanded bathing and washing facilities, hot water made available to all parts of the ship through installation of a calorifier, the rerouting of all steam pipes away from patient areas, and ventilation arrangements suitable for tropical conditions. The unions representing the ship's crew requested improved living and dining conditions, including new sinks in the food preparation areas and the replacement of flooring in the quarters and mess rooms.

When AHS Centaur was relaunched on 12 March 1943, she was equipped with an operating theatre, dispensary, two wards (located on the former cattle decks), and a dental surgery, along with quarters for seventy five crew and sixty five permanent Army medical staff. To maintain the ship's mean draught of 6.1 m, 900 tons of ironstone were distributed through the cargo holds as ballast. AHS Centaur was capable of voyages of 18 days before resupply and could carry just over 250 bedridden patients.

1924 to 1938
Centaur was allocated the United Kingdom Official Number 147275 and the Code Letters KHHC. Her port of registry was Liverpool. When Centaur entered service at the end of 1924, the Fremantle–Java– Singapore trade route was being serviced by two other Blue Funnel Line vessels; Gorgon (which remained in service until 1928) and Charon (which Centaur was replacing). Centaur's route ran from Fremantle up the Western Australian coast calling at Geraldton, Carnarvon, Onslow, Point Samson, Port Hedland, Broome, and Derby then to the Bali Strait, Surabaya, Semarang, Batavia, and Singapore. Centaur operated as a cross between a tramp steamer and a freight liner; she travelled a set route, but stops at ports along the route varied between journeys. From 1928 until sometime in the 1930s, Centaur remained alone on her route, but the increase in trade along this route prompted Blue Funnel Line to reassign Gorgon and assign the new Charon to work alongside Centaur.

Following the change in Code Letters in 1934, Centaur was allocated the Code Letters GMQP. A highlight of Centaur's pre-war career was the rescue of the 385 ton Japanese whale-chaser Kyo Maru II in November 1938. Kyo Maru II had developed boiler problems while returning from the Antarctic and was drifting towards the Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago, where she was in danger of being wrecked by the reefs in the area. Centaur responded to the distress signal and towed Kyo Maru II to Geraldton.

1939 to 1942
As a vessel of the British Merchant Navy, Centaur was affected by the British Parliament's 1939 outline of how the Merchant Navy would respond to the declaration of war, primarily submission to the Admiralty in all matters excluding the crewing and management of vessels. Following the outbreak of World War II on 3 September 1939, Centaur was equipped with a stern-mounted 4 in Mark IX naval gun and two .303 Vickers machine guns located on the bridge wings for protection against Axis warships and aircraft. She was also fitted with port and starboard paravanes and degaussing equipment for protection against naval mines. The weapons were removed during the hospital ship refit, although the anti-mine countermeasures remained. Centaur initially remained in service on her original trade route.

On 26 November 1941, a damaged lifeboat carrying 62 Kriegsmarine (German navy) sailors and officers was spotted by an aircraft looking for the missing Australian cruiser HMAS Sydney (1934); the aircraft directed Centaur to the lifeboat. Upon encountering the lifeboat, food was lowered to its occupants, and one person was allowed on board to explain the situation. Initially posing as a Norwegian merchant navy officer, the man quickly revealed that he was the first officer of the GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER Kormoran and that the lifeboat contained German survivors from Kormoran's battle with HMAS Sydney seven days earlier, including Captain Theodor Detmers.

Unwilling to leave the shipwrecked men at sea, but afraid of having his ship captured by the Germans, Centaur's master decided to take the lifeboat in tow, after allowing nine wounded men aboard. During the tow towards Carnarvon, Western Australia, the lifeboat was swamped and partially sunk by rough seas, so two of Centaur's lifeboats were lowered to carry the Germans. On arrival in Carnarvon, the Germans were relocated to the number one cargo hold, where they were joined by another hundred Kormoran survivors collected by other ships, plus forty Australian Army guards, which were then transported by Centaur to Fremantle.

Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the beginning of the Malayan Campaign on 7 December 1941, Centaur's run was curtailed to Broome, Western Australia. On 6 October 1942, Centaur was ordered to sail to Queensland, where she began runs between the east coast of Australia and New Guinea, carrying materiel.

1943
With the commencement of hostilities between Japan and the British Empire, it became clear that the three hospital ships currently serving Australia—Manunda, Wanganella, and Oranje—would not be able to operate in the shallow waters typical of Maritime Southeast Asia, so a new hospital ship was required. Of the Australian Merchant Navy vessels able to operate in this region, none were suitable for conversion to a hospital ship, and a request to the British Ministry of Shipping placed Centaur at the disposal of the Australian military on 4 January 1943. The conversion work began on 9 January and Centaur was commissioned as an Australian Hospital Ship on 1 March. During her conversion, Centaur was painted with the markings of a hospital ship as detailed in Article 5 of the tenth Hague Convention of 1907 ("Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention"); white hull with a green band interspersed by three red crosses on each flank of the hull, white superstructure, multiple large red crosses positioned so that the ship's status would be visible from both sea and air, and an identification number (for Centaur, 47) on her bows. At night, the markings were illuminated by a combination of internal and external lights. Data on the ship's markings and the layout of identifying structural features was provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross during the first week of February 1943, who passed this on to the Japanese on 5 February. This information was also circulated and promoted by the press and media.

Centaur entered operation as a hospital ship on 12 March 1943. The early stages of Centaur's first voyage as a hospital ship were test and transport runs; the initial run from Melbourne to Sydney resulted in the Master, Chief Engineer, and Chief Medical Officer composing a long list of defects requiring attention. Following repairs, she conducted a test run, transporting wounded servicemen from Townsville to Brisbane to ensure that she was capable of fulfilling the role of a medical vessel. Centaur was then tasked with delivering medical personnel to Port Moresby, New Guinea, and returning to Brisbane with Australian and American wounded along with a few wounded Japanese prisoners of war.

Arriving in Sydney on 8 May 1943, Centaur was re-provisioned at Darling Harbour, before departing for Cairns, Queensland on 12 May 1943. From there, her destination was again New Guinea. On board at the time were 74 civilian crew, 53 Australian Army Medical Corps personnel (including 8 officers), 12 female nurses from the Australian Army Nursing Service, 192 soldiers from the 2/12th Field Ambulance, and one Torres Strait ship pilot. Most of the female nurses had transferred from the hospital ship Oranje, and the male Army personnel assigned to the ship aboard were all medical staff. During the loading process, there was an incident when the ambulance drivers attached to the 2/12th attempted to bring their rifles and personal supplies of ammunition aboard. This was met with disapproval from Centaurs Master and Chief Medical Officer, and raised concerns amongst the crew and wharf labourers that Centaur would be transporting military supplies or commandos to New Guinea: the rifles were not allowed on board until Centaurs Master received official reassurance that the ambulance drivers were allowed to carry weapons under the 10th Hague Convention (specifically Article 8), as they were used "for the maintenance of order and the defence of the wounded." The remaining cargo was searched by the crew and labourers for other weapons and munitions.

Sinking
At approximately 4:10 am on 14 May 1943, while on her second run from Sydney to Port Moresby, Centaur was torpedoed by an unsighted submarine. The torpedo struck the portside oil fuel tank approximately 2 m below the waterline, creating a hole 8 to 10 m across, igniting the fuel, and setting the ship on fire from the bridge aft. Many of those on board were immediately killed by concussion or perished in the inferno. Centaur quickly took on water through the impact site, rolled to port, then sank bow-first, submerging completely in less than three minutes. The rapid sinking prevented the deployment of lifeboats, although two broke off from Centaur as she sank, along with several damaged liferafts.

According to the position extrapolated by Second Officer Gordon Rippon from the 4:00 am dead reckoning position, Centaur was attacked approximately 24 nmi east-northeast of Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island, Queensland. Doubts were initially cast on the accuracy of both the calculated point of sinking and the dead reckoning position, but the 2009 discovery of the wreck found both to be correct, Centaur located within 1 nmi of Rippon's coordinates.

Survivors
Of the 332 people on board, 64 were rescued. Most of the crew and passengers were asleep at the time of attack and had little chance to escape. It was estimated that up to 200 people may have been alive at the time Centaur submerged. Several who made it off the ship later died from shrapnel wounds or burns; others were unable to find support and drowned.

The survivors spent 36 hours in the water, using barrels, wreckage, and the two damaged lifeboats for flotation. During this time, they drifted approximately 19.6 nmi north east of Centaur's calculated point of sinking and spread out over an area of 2 nmi. The survivors saw at least four ships and several aircraft, but could not attract their attention.

At the time of rescue, the survivors were in two large and three small groups, with several more floating alone. Amongst those rescued were Sister Ellen Savage, the only surviving nurse from 12 aboard; Leslie Outridge, the only surviving doctor from 18 aboard; Gordon Rippon, second officer and most senior surviving crew member; and Richard Salt, the Torres Strait ship pilot. In 1944, Ellen Savage was presented with the George Medal for providing medical care, boosting morale, and displaying courage during the wait for rescue.

Rescue
On the morning of 15 May 1943, the American destroyer USS Mugford (DD-389) departed Brisbane to escort the 11,063 ton New Zealand freighter Sussex on the first stage of the latter's trans-Tasman voyage. At 2:00 pm, a lookout aboard Mugford reported an object on the horizon. Around the same time, a Royal Australian Air Force Avro Anson of No. 71 Squadron, flying ahead on anti-submarine watch, dived towards the object. The aircraft returned to the two ships and signalled that there were shipwreck survivors in the water requiring rescue. Mugford's commanding officer ordered Sussex to continue alone as Mugford collected the survivors. Marksmen were positioned around the ship to shoot sharks, and sailors stood ready to dive in and assist the wounded. Mugford's medics inspected each person as they came aboard and provided necessary medical care. The American crew learned from the first group of survivors that they were from the hospital ship Centaur.

At 2:14 pm, Mugford made contact with the Naval Officer-in-Charge in Brisbane, and announced that the ship was recovering survivors from Centaur at -27.05°N, 154.2°W, the first that anyone in Australia had knowledge of the attack on the hospital ship. The rescue of the 64 survivors took an hour and twenty minutes, although Mugford remained in the area until dark, searching an area of approximately 7 by for more survivors. After darkness fell, Mugford returned to Brisbane, arriving shortly before midnight. Further searches of the waters off North Stradbroke Island were made by USS Helm (DD-388) during the night of 15 May until 6:00 pm on 16 May, and by HMAS Lithgow (J206) and four motor torpedo boats from 16 to 21 May, neither search finding more survivors.

Identifying attacker
At the time of the attack, none aboard Centaur witnessed what had attacked the ship. Due to the ship's position, the distance from shore, and the depth, it was concluded that she was torpedoed by one of the Japanese submarines known to be operating off the Australian east coast. Several survivors later claimed to have heard the attacking submarine moving on the surface while they were adrift, and the submarine was seen by the ship's cook, Francis Martin, who was floating alone on a hatch cover, out of sight from the main cluster of survivors. Martin described the submarine to Naval Intelligence following the survivors' return to land; his description matched the profile of a KD7 type Kaidai-class submarine of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

At the time of the attack, three KD7 Kaidai were operating off Australia's east coast: I-177 under the command of Hajime Nakagawa, I-178 under Hidejiro Utsuki, and I-180 under Toshio Kusaka. None of these submarines survived the war; I-177 was sunk by USS Samuel S. Miles (DE-183) on 3 October 1944, I-178 by USS Patterson (DD-392) on 25 August 1943, and I-180 by USS Gilmore (DE-18) on 26 April 1944. Kusaka and Nakagawa were transferred to other submarines before the loss of I-180 and I-177 respectively, but Utsuki and I-178 were sunk while returning from the patrol off the coast of Australia.

In December 1943, following official protests, the Japanese government issued a statement formally denying responsibility for the sinking of Centaur. Records provided by the Japanese following the war also did not acknowledge responsibility. Although Centaur's sinking was a war crime, no one was tried for sinking the hospital ship. Investigations into the attack were conducted between 1944 and 1948, and included the interrogation of the commanders of the submarines operating in Australian waters at the time, their superiors, plus junior officers and crewmen from the submarines who had survived the war. Several of the investigators suspected that Nakagawa and I-177 were most likely responsible, but they were unable to establish this beyond reasonable doubt, and the Centaur case file was closed on 14 December 1948 without any charges laid.

Historians were divided on which submarine was responsible. In Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945, published in 1968 as part of the series detailing the Australian official history of World War II, George Hermon Gill concluded that either I-178 or I-180 was responsible; the former was more likely as she had served in Australian waters the longest of any Japanese submarine at the time, but had claimed no kills in the three-month period surrounding Centaur's sinking. In 1972, German military historian Jürgen Rohwer claimed in Chronology of the war at sea that I-177 torpedoed Centaur, based on a Japanese report stating that I-177 had attacked a ship on 14 May 1943 in the area the hospital ship had sunk. Japanese Rear Admiral Kaneyoshi Sakamoto, who had shown Rohwer the report, stated that Nakagawa and I-177 were responsible for the attack on Centaur in his 1979 book History of Submarine Warfare.

As an official history of the Japanese Navy, Sakamoto's work was considered to be official admission of the attacking submarine's identity. Subsequently, most sources assumed as fact Nakagawa's and I-177's role in the loss of Centaur. Nakagawa, who died in 1991, refused to speak about the attack on Centaur following the war crimes investigation at the end of World War II or even to defend himself or deny the claims made by Rohwer and Sakamoto.

Public reaction

The media were notified of Centaur's sinking on 17 May 1943, but were ordered not to release the news until it had been announced in the South West Pacific Area's General Headquarters dispatch at midday on 18 May, and in Parliament by Prime Minister John Curtin that afternoon. News of the attack made front pages throughout the world, including The Times of London, The New York Times, and the Montreal Gazette. In some newspapers, the news took precedence over the 'Dambuster' raids performed in Europe by No. 617 Squadron RAF.

The initial public reaction to the attack on Centaur was one of outrage, significantly different from that displayed following the loss of Australian warships or merchant vessels. As a hospital ship, the attack was a breach of the tenth Hague Convention of 1907, and as such was a war crime. The sinking of Centaur drew strong reactions from both Prime Minister Curtin and General Douglas MacArthur. Curtin stated that the sinking was "an entirely inexcusable act, undertaken in violation of the convention to which Japan is a party and of all the principles of common humanity". MacArthur reflected the common Australian view when he stated that the sinking was an example of Japanese "limitless savagery". Politicians urged the public to use their rage to fuel the war effort, and Centaur became a symbol of Australia's determination to defeat what appeared to be a brutal and uncompromising enemy. The Australian Government produced posters depicting the sinking, which called for Australians to "Avenge the Nurses" by working to produce materiel, purchasing war bonds, or enlisting in the armed forces.

People also expressed their sympathy towards the crew, and there were several efforts to fund a new hospital ship. The councillors of Caulfield, Victoria, organised a fund to replace the lost medical equipment, opening with a donation of AU£2,000. Those who worked on Centaur's conversion contributed money towards a replacement, and employees of Ansett Airways pledged to donate an hour's pay towards the fitting out of such a replacement.

With some people unable to believe that the Japanese would be so ruthless, rumours began to spread almost immediately after news of the attack was made public. The most common rumour was that Centaur had been carrying munitions or commandos at the time of her sinking, the Japanese being made aware of this before her departure. This stemmed from an incident involving the ambulance drivers' weapons during loading in Sydney.

Military reaction
The attack was universally condemned by Australian servicemen, who commonly believed that the attack on Centaur had been carried out deliberately and in full knowledge of her status. Similar reactions were expressed by other Allied personnel; United States Army Air Forces General George Kenney recalled having to talk a sergeant bombardier out of organising a retaliatory bombing run on a Japanese hospital ship known to be in their area.

Six days after the attack on Centaur, a request was made by the Australian Department of Defence that the identification markings and lights be removed from Australian hospital ship Manunda, weapons be installed, and that she begin to sail blacked out and under escort. The conversion was performed, although efforts by the Department of the Navy, the Admiralty, and authorities in New Zealand and the United States of America caused the completed conversion to be undone. The cost of the roundabout work came to £12,500, and kept Manunda out of service for three months. On 9 June 1943, communications between the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the subject of hospital ships contained a section referring to the Manunda incident as a response to the attack on Centaur, with the conclusion that the attack was the work of an irresponsible Japanese commander, and that it would be better to wait until further attacks had been made before considering the removal of hospital ship markings.

When the consideration was made that the ambulance drivers' weapons incident just before Centaur's voyage may have been partially responsible for the attack, it led to the tightening of rules regarding who was allowed to travel on a hospital ship. Quasi-medical staff, like repatriation teams, were no longer permitted on hospital ships. Ambulance drivers had to transfer from the regular Army to the Australian Army Medical Corps before they were allowed aboard, although they were still permitted to carry their unloaded weapons and ammunition.

Official protests
After consultation with the Australian armed forces, General MacArthur, the Admiralty, and the Australian Government, an official protest was sent. This was received by the Japanese Government on 29 May 1943. At around the same time, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent a protest on behalf of the major Allied Red Cross organisations to the Japanese Red Cross.

On 26 December 1943, a response to the Australian protest arrived. It stated that the Japanese Government had no information justifying the allegation made, and therefore took no responsibility for what happened. The reply counter-protested that nine Japanese hospital ships had been attacked by the Allies, although these claims were directed against the United States, not Australia. Although several later exchanges were made, the lack of progress saw the British Government inform the Australian Prime Minister on 14 November 1944 that no further communications would be made on the loss of Centaur.

Theories for attack
Torpedo attacks in Australian waters were common at this time, with 27 Japanese submarines operating in Australian waters between June 1942 and December 1944. These submarines attacked almost 50 merchant vessels, 20 ships confirmed to be sunk as result of a Japanese attack, plus 9 more unconfirmed. This was part of a concentrated effort to disrupt supply convoys from Australia to New Guinea.

Several actions on Centaur's part may have contributed to her demise. Centaur was under orders to sail well out to sea until reaching the Great Barrier Reef; her course keeping her between 50 and 150 nmi from shore. Centaur's Master, believing he had been given a route intended for a merchant vessel, set a course closer to land, but on the seaward side of 2000 m in depth. Also, Centaur was sailing completely illuminated, with the exception of the two bow floodlights, which had been switched off as they interfered with visibility from the bridge.

There are three main theories as to why Centaur was attacked:

Legitimate target
This theory stems from the rumours spreading after Centaur's sinking. If Centaur had been in breach of the Hague Convention of 1907, and someone had informed the Japanese of this, I-177 may have been under valid orders to attack. When Centaur left Sydney, her decks were packed with green-uniformed men, and as Field Ambulance uniforms were only distinguishable from other Army uniforms by badge insignia and the colouration of the cloth band ringing the hat, a distant observer could have concluded that the hospital ship was transporting soldiers. Those witnessing the loading in Sydney would have seen the ambulance drivers bring their weapons aboard, and could have come to a similar conclusion. If a spy or informant had passed this information to the Japanese, I-177 could have been lying in wait. The main flaw in this theory is the question of how Nakagawa and his crew were able to predict that Centaur was taking an alternative route and how they were able to determine the new route selected.

Similar but later rumours included that during her first voyage, Centaur had transported soldiers to New Guinea, or Japanese prisoners of war back to Australia for interrogation, and consequently had been marked as a legitimate target by the Japanese. Centaur had carried 10 prisoners of war on her return voyage from New Guinea, but as they were all wounded personnel, transporting them on a hospital ship was legal.

Mistaken target
This theory states that Nakagawa was unaware that the vessel he was attacking was a hospital ship, and that the sinking was an unfortunate accident. This view was supported by several Japanese officers, both before and after the revelation that Nakagawa was responsible. Amongst them was Lieutenant Commander Zenji Orita, who took command of I-177 after Nakagawa. Orita did not hear anything from the crew about having sunk a hospital ship, not even rumours, and believed that if I-177 had knowingly attacked Centaur, he would have learned this from the crew's gossip.

When compared to the other contemporary Australian hospital ships, Centaur was the smallest, approximately a third of the size of Manunda or Wanganella. Centaur was also slightly shorter than I-177. The observation of Centaur was made through a periscope, and submarine officers attest that at 1500 m, the optimum range of attack for World War II–era Japanese submarines, some officers would not be able to clearly identify a target ship's profile or hull markings. With Centaur's bow floodlights out, and with the observation of the target made through the periscope, there is a possibility Nakagawa would not have seen the hospital ship's markings if he had been in the wrong position. Apart from the two bow floodlights, Centaur was lit up brilliantly. To attack, I-177 would have had to approach from abeam of Centaur, which was illuminated by both its own lights and a full moon.

Intentional target
This theory states that Nakagawa was fully aware that his target was a hospital ship and decided to sink her regardless, either on his own initiative or on a poor interpretation of his orders. Researchers speculate that as Nakagawa was approaching the end of his tour in Australian waters, and had only sunk a single enemy vessel, the 8,742 ton freighter Limerick, he did not want to return with the disgrace of a single kill. Other claims include that Nakagawa may have been acting in vengeance for casualties inflicted by the Allies during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, or may have expected praise for the sinking of an enemy naval vessel.

In February 1944, while in command of I-37, Nakagawa ordered the machine-gunning of survivors from three British merchant vessels torpedoed by his submarine (SS British Chivalry, on 22 February; MV Sutlej, on 24 February; and MV Ascott, on 29 February). His defence, that he was acting under orders from Vice Admiral Shiro Takasu, was not accepted, and he was sentenced to four years imprisonment at Sugamo Prison as a Class B war criminal. These incidents showed that Nakagawa was willing to ignore the laws of war.

Shipwreck
Following World War II, several searches of the waters around North Stradbroke and Moreton Islands failed to reveal Centaur's location. It was believed that she had sunk off the edge of the continental shelf, to a depth at which the Royal Australian Navy did not have the capability to search for a vessel of Centaur's size. Some parties also believed that Rippon's calculated point of sinking was inaccurate, either intentionally or through error.

Several points were incorrectly identified as the location where Centaur sank. The first was in the War Diary Situation Report entry for the hospital ship's sinking, which gives -27.28333°N, 154.08333°W, 7 nmi east of Rippon's position. According to Milligan and Foley, this likely occurred because an estimated 50 nmi distance from Brisbane, included as a frame of reference, was interpreted literally. In 1974, two divers claimed to have found the ship approximately 40 nmi east of Brisbane, in 60 m of water, but did not disclose its exact location. Attempts to relocate the site between 1974 and 1992 were unsuccessful, an associate of the divers claiming that the Navy destroyed the wreck shortly after its discovery.

Dennis's claim
In 1995, it was announced that the shipwreck of Centaur had been located in waters 9 nmi from the lighthouse on Moreton Island, a significant distance from her believed last position. The finding was reported on A Current Affair, during which footage of the shipwreck, 170 m underwater, was shown. Discoverer Donald Dennis claimed the identity of the shipwreck had been confirmed by the Navy, the Queensland Maritime Museum, and the Australian War Memorial. A cursory search by the Navy confirmed the presence of a shipwreck at the given location, which was gazetted as a war grave and added to navigation charts by the Australian Hydrographic Office.

Over the next eight years, there was growing doubt about the position of Dennis' wreck, due to the distance from both Second Officer Rippon's calculation of the point of sinking and where USS Mugford found the survivors. During this time, Dennis had been convicted on two counts of deception and one of theft through scams. Two wreck divers, Trevor Jackson and Simon Mitchell, used the location for a four-hour world record dive on 14 May 2002, during which they examined the wreck and took measurements, claiming that the ship was too small to be Centaur. Jackson had been studying Centaur for some time, and believed that the wreck was actually another, much smaller ship, the 55 m MV Kyogle, a lime freighter purchased by the Royal Australian Air Force and sunk during bombing practice on 12 May 1951. The facts gathered on the dive were inconclusive, but the divers remained adamant it was not Centaur, and passed this information onto Nick Greenaway, producer of the newsmagazine show 60 Minutes.

On the 60th anniversary of the sinking, 60 Minutes ran a story demonstrating that the wreck was not Centaur. It was revealed that nobody at the Queensland Maritime Museum had yet seen Dennis' footage, and when it was shown to Museum president Rod McLeod and maritime historian John Foley, they stated that the shipwreck could not be Centaur due to physical inconsistencies, such as an incorrect rudder. Following this story, and others published around the same time in newspapers, the Navy sent three ships to inspect the site over a two-month period; HMA Ships HMAS Hawkesbury (M 83), HMAS Melville (A 246), and HMAS Yarra (M 87), before concluding that the shipwreck was incorrectly identified as Centaur. An amendment was made to the gazettal, and the Hydrographic Office began to remove the mark from charts.

Discovery
In April 2008, following the successful discovery of HMAS Sydney, several parties began calling for a dedicated search for Centaur. By the end of 2008, the Australian Federal and Queensland State governments had formed a joint committee and contributed A$2 million each towards a search, and tenders to supply equipment (including the search vessel, side-scan sonar systems, and a remotely operated inspection submersible) were opened in February 2009, and awarded during the year. The search, conducted from the Defence Maritime Services vessel Seahorse Spirit and overseen by shipwreck hunter David Mearns, commenced during the weekend of 12–13 December 2009. The initial search area off Cape Moreton covered 1365 km2, the search team being given 35 days to locate and film the wreck before funding was exhausted.

Six sonar targets with similar dimensions to Centaur were located between 15 and 18 December: as none of the contacts corresponded completely to the hospital ship, the search team opted to take advantage of favourable weather conditions and continue investigating the area before returning to each site and making a detailed inspection with a higher-resolution sonar. On the afternoon of 18 December, the sonar towfish separated from the cable, and was lost in 1800 m of water, forcing the use of the high-resolution sonar to complete the area search. After inspecting the potential targets, Mearns and the search team announced on 20 December that they had found Centaur that morning.

The wreck was found at -27.283°N, 153.987°W (30 nmi east of Moreton Island, and less than 1 nmi from Rippon's coordinates), resting 2059 m below sea level in a steep-walled gully, 150 m wide and 90 m deep. After returning to shore for Christmas and to install a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) aboard Seahorse Spirit, the search team commenced efforts to document the wreck, the first photographs being taken by the ROV in the early morning of 10 January 2010 confirming that the wreck is Centaur. Conditions for documenting the hospital ship were not optimal on the first ROV dive, and three more dives were made during 11 and 12 January. During the four dives, over 24 hours of footage were collected, along with several photographs: features identified during the operation include the Red Cross identification number, the hospital ship markings, and the ship's bell. The Centaur wreck site has been marked as a war grave and protected with a navigational exclusion zone under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976.

Memorials
In 1948, Queensland nurses established the "Centaur Memorial Fund for Nurses" which used the money raised to purchase an establishment and name it "Centaur House"; a facility supporting nurses by holding convivial meetings and providing inexpensive accommodation for out-of-town nurses. The original Centaur House was sold in 1971, a new building being purchased and renamed. The second Centaur House was sold in 1979 and although the fund still exists, it no longer owns a physical facility. On 15 September 1968, a cairn was unveiled at Caloundra, Queensland, erected by the local Rotary International Club. In 1990, a stained glass memorial window depicting Centaur, along with a plaque listing the names of those lost in the attack, was installed at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, at a cost of A$16,000. A display about Centaur was placed at the Australian War Memorial. The centrepiece of the display was a scale model of Centaur presented to the Memorial by Blue Funnel Line, and the display included items that were donated by the survivors, such as a lifejacket, a signal flare, and a medical kit. It was removed in 1992 to make way for a display related to the Vietnam War.

A memorial to Centaur was unveiled at Point Danger, Coolangatta, Queensland on 14 May 1993, the 50th anniversary of the sinking. It consists of a monumental stone topped with a cairn, surrounded by a tiled moat with memorial plaques explaining the commemoration. The memorial is surrounded by a park with a boardwalk, overlooking the sea, with plaques for other Merchant Navy and Royal Australian Navy vessels lost during World War II. The unveiling of the memorial was performed by Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator John Faulkner.

A memorial plaque was laid on the foredeck of Centaur on 12 January 2010, during the fourth and final ROV dive on the hospital ship. This would normally be a breach of the Historic Shipwrecks Act, but a special dispensation permitted the manoeuvre, as placing the plaque on the seabed next to the ship would have seen it sink into the sediment. Following the ship's discovery, a national memorial service at St John's Cathedral, Brisbane on 2 March 2010 was attended by over 600 people, including Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. A second ceremony for 300 relatives of the hospital ship's personnel was held aboard HMAS Manoora (L 52) on 24 September. During the service, which occurred over the wreck site, wreaths were laid and the ashes of three survivors were scattered.

title: AHS Centaur


text:
Sturnella

The genus Sturnella are North American grassland birds called meadowlarks. The genus was previously lumped with the South American meadowlarks now placed in the genus Leistes.

It includes two or three species of largely insectivorous grassland birds. In all species, the male has at least a black or brown back and extensively yellow underparts.

Taxonomy and list of species
The genus Sturnella was introduced in 1816 by the French ornithologist Louis Pierre Vieillot with the eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) as the type species. The name Sturnella is a diminutive of the Latin sturnus meaning "starling".

By the early 20th century, the meadowlarks were split. Only the "yellow-breasted" meadowlarks (eastern and western meadowlarks, including Lilian's) remained in the genus Sturnella. The red-breasted and white-browed meadowlarks were moved to the genus Leistes, while the pampas meadowlark, Peruvian meadowlark and long-tailed meadowlark made up the genus Pezites, which was established by Cabanis in 1851. By the late 20th century, all meadowlarks were lumped in the genus Sturnella. In 2017, all the red-breasted meadowlarks were merged into the genus Leistes.

The genus contains three species:

title: Sturnella


text:
User:Ugha

Dear Wikipedia members!

Conglatulate on Korean Wikipedia's 10000th article!

please see my korean page using interwiki button.

ko:%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90:Ugha

title: User:Ugha


text:
Niter kibbeh

Niter kibbeh, or niter qibe (ንጥር ቅቤ niṭer ḳibē), also called tesmi (in Tigrinya), is a seasoned, clarified butter used in Ethiopian and Eritrean cuisine. Its preparation is similar to that of ghee, but niter kibbeh is simmered with spices such as besobela (known as Ethiopian sacred basil), koseret,  fenugreek, cumin, coriander, turmeric, Ethiopian cardamom (korarima), cinnamon, or nutmeg before straining, imparting a distinct, spicy aroma. The version using vegetable oil instead of butter is called yeqimem zeyet.

title: Niter kibbeh


text:
The Culture of Building

The Culture of Building (Oxford University Press) is a 1999 book (reprinted in 2006) by Howard Davis, a professor of architecture at the University of Oregon. It describes how buildings throughout the ages and varied settings are products of a building culture – the "coordinated system of knowledge, rules, procedures, and habit that surrounds the building process in a given place and time". Davis suggests that this culture is a cross-global phenomenon in which thousands of buildings are produced through shared and predictable methods of working.

title: The Culture of Building


text:
Paul Gerson Unna

Paul Gerson Unna, (September 8, 1850, Hamburg – January 29, 1929, Hamburg) was a German physician specialized in dermatology and one of the pioneers in dermatopathology.

Biography
Paul Unna was born to German Jewish parents Moritz Adolph Unna, a physician from Hamburg. Unna was educated at the Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums and Ida Gerson, who descended from a long line of physicians. He began to study medicine at the University of Heidelberg, but had to interrupt it in order to fight in the Franco-Prussian war, where he was severely wounded. In 1871, he resumed his studies in Heidelberg and later went to the University of Leipzig, finally attaining a doctorate under Heinrich Wilhelm Waldeyer in Strasbourg. His doctoral work was on the subject of the histology and development of the epidermis, and was published in 1876. The thesis contained a set of new ideas and aspects that were met with hard criticism. They were accepted only after some corrections were made.

He went on to receive his training in dermatology in Vienna, where he worked in cooperation with Ferdinand von Hebra, Moritz Kaposi and Heinrich Auspitz, among others.

After his return to Hamburg, Unna started working in the clinical practice of his father, then in the Sankt Georg Hospital. Unna's main interest resided on dermatology: he opened his own practice for skin diseases in Hamburg in 1881, and later opened the Dermatologikum private dermatological hospital in Hamburg Eimsbüttel, so that he could concentrate entirely on the field, beginning in 1884. In that year, Unna published his first book, Histopathologie der Hautkrankheiten (Histopathology of Skin Diseases), which exposed the entire knowledge in the field at that time and which made him one of the most prominent dermatologists of his time. Besides describing all known skin diseases, Unna proposed new therapies. Among the innovations, in 1886 he proposed the use of ichthyol and resorcinol against skin diseases.

He coined the term acanthosis nigricans in 1889.

He investigated the biochemical processes of the skin and was the first to describe the stratum granulosum. In 1894 he introduced layer projection as a method for skin investigations.

In 1907 he received the title of professor from the Hamburg senate, and in the following year he became the chief physician of the Eppendorf hospital. In 1919 he became a professor at the University of Hamburg, receiving the first chair for dermatology.

In 1927 he described for the first time what was to be called Unna's disease, a chronic disease of the skin with seborrhea of the scalp and of the areas in the face and trunk that are rich in sebaceous follicles. Along with Arthur Thost, Unna–Thost syndrome is named after Unna; it is a rare hereditary skin disease affecting the soles and palms. Also, a compression gauze used to treat venous leg problems is named Unna's boot.

Legacy
For many years Unna cooperated closely with the pharmacist Paul Beiersdorf. The street in Hamburg where the Beiersdorf company is located is named Unnastrasse in his honor.

title: Paul Gerson Unna


text:
User:Meelar/Mlorrey evidence

April 27, 2005

 * 16:07, Apr 28, 2005
 * I undertake a huge rewrite of gun politics in the United States. Before I encountered it, it was a huge, POV mess (here's an example); it was highly biased, and was also probably the result of merging two other pages, seeing as how it covered many topics twice, neither time well.

 * 16:33, Apr 28, 2005
 * I finish up my massive reorganization of the article (diff). It is much less biased, and also much more coherent.

April 28-9, 2005

 * 20:40, Apr 28, 2005 - 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
 * User:Wodan and I engage in a productive back-and-forth over a few minor issues of wording (see history, as well as this version of the talk page, which documents the consensus we reached).

 * 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
 * I remove the tag; the first time this article hasn't needed cleanup since March 15.

May 6, 2005

 * 00:11 - 00:20, May 6, 2005
 * Mlorrey makes a series of POV edits to gun politics in the United States. I have documented the most POV of the changes below. The original context is presented; Mlorrey's additions are in italics.
 * Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical, ignoring the question of whether it is already tyrannical simply by being too large for the citizenry to bring under control if need be.
 * Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, while these same advocates tend to believe that their votes were ignored in the 2000 and/or 2004 presidential elections.
 * Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. This view is supported by a quotation of WWII Japanese Admiral Yamomoto to Togo, in advising against an invasion of the US mainland, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass," in referring to the popular and common ownership of firearms in the US.
 * Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. However, this claim is highly disputed, despite historical anecdotes such as the above as well as citations of other totalitarians who were deterred by armed populaces in Switzerland, Finland, etc.
 * All of these come from this edit.

May 12, 2005

 * 18:42, May 12, 2005
 * I revert Mlorrey's edits, with the edit summary "rv POV changes. You stop watching for one minute...". In retrospect, this is disrespectful and inappropriate; I wish to apologize for a momentary lapse of judgement.

May 15, 2005

 * 07:18, May 15, 2005
 * Mlorrey re-inserts his edits; he uses no edit summary.

 * 07:37, May 15, 2005
 * Mlorrey goes to the talk page. He makes several POV comments, using Wikipedia as a discussion forum, which it is not (reproduced below).
 * "Fine, have them point out valid, peer reviewed and reproduced studies proving their claims. They can't. Gun owners can and do, to which gun controllers stick their fingers in their ears and call out "neener neener, I'm not listening" or try to smear the authors with vile attacks which do not impugn the science in any way."
 * " The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas"
 * He also challenges on substantive grounds one of the facts in the article. The article originally said
 * The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, based on an interpretation of US v. Miller. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, including a different interpretation of US v Miller to support their arguments.

 * On the talk page, Mlorrey disputed this; he claimed that "Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both lifetime NRA members and stated on numerous occasions that they believed it was an individual right, as has frmr AG Ed Meese. The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas".

 * 08:24, May 15, 2005
 * On the talk page, I cite a source, namely a New York Times article. The article is only available from Lexis-Nexis or another paid database, but the lead says ":Reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms", essentially supporting my point. See the talk page for the details of the article if you wish to verify this yourselves.

 * 08:16, May 15, 2005
 * I start a discussion on talk. I politely state why I consider Mlorrey's version to be non-neutral, and point out the relevant policies.
 * Over the course of the next few days, Mlorrey and I discuss on the talk page, but are unable to come to a consensus. Mlorrey is uniformly hostile and provocative; I've reproduced some quotes below. I attempt to discuss with him and reach a consensus, but it is impossible, as he merely treats me as an enemy for not immediately agreeing with his biased version of the article.
 * "I hope you would reconsider this in light of the May 10th passage of the REAL ID Act. I don't think it is possible for anyone to objectively and neutrally claim the US isn't slipping into fascist tyranny rather quickly. The fact is that the other side IS ignoring this question entirely."
 * "Pointing out the flaws in the anti-gun argument, when other writers are only pointing out flaws in the pro-gun argument is, in aggregate, neutral. It is the neutrality of the consensus that matters, not the individual contributions of individual contributors"
 * All quotes come from this edit. Read the whole exchange at the talk page.

May 18, 2005

 * 23:24, May 18, 2005
 * Mlorrey issues a veiled personal attack, writing that "I will refrain from stating my opinion of anybody who looks to the New York Times as a paragon of fairness, truth, or accuracy in reporting. The fact is that Reagan and Bush I were both lifetime NRA members and believed gun ownership was an individual right." Note that the membership of Reagan and Bush I is not even at issue here; this is a clever attempt to change the subject of the dispute. He also reproduces several quotes from various Presidents purporting to show support for his position; however, on examination, none of them actually address the specific fact being disputed.

May 26, 2005

 * 01:59, May 26, 2005
 * After I reply, disputing Mlorrey's characterization of the facts, he says only "This is rich. The presidents opinion isn't policy?" (diff)

 * 17:37, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
 * This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.

 * There is a series of reversions of the article over the next week; see history.

 * 17:47, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Christopher Dodd as well (the son of Thomas J. Dodd; he writes that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America."

 * 17:49, May 26, 2005
 * I revert, with the edit summary "revert. Please follow NPOV".

 * 17:53, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey reverts; his edit summary is "Voting for expanding law originating in Nazi Germany is objectively and NPOV fascism. Having a NPOV does not mean you cannot call a spade a spade." I revert again, warning him of the 3RR, and the matter has been quiet (on this front) since then.

 * 18:03, May 26, 2005
 * I explain on talk why Mlorrey's version of Christopher Dodd is not neutral, writing that "It is only your opinion that gun control is fascism--it is not a fact. Therefore, it should not be included in the article." I also provide a warning of the 3RR rule.

 * 18:20, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey responds with a series of personal attacks; he claims that I am editing from what he calls a "moral relativist POV" and asks a series of rhetorical questions, including "Is grass green?", "Do tyrannical governments always impose gun control?", and "Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?".

 * 18:39, May 26, 2005
 * I start and certify Requests for comment/Mlorrey. I politely lay out again why I dispute his behavior, and

title: User:Meelar/Mlorrey evidence