text:
Bauhaus University, Weimar

The Bauhaus-Universität Weimar is a university located in Weimar, Germany, and specializes in the artistic and technical fields. Established in 1860 as the Great Ducal Saxon Art School, it gained collegiate status on 3 June 1910. In 1919 the school was renamed Bauhaus by its new director Walter Gropius and it received its present name in 1996. There are more than 4000 students enrolled, with the percentage of international students above the national average at around 27%. In 2010 the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar commemorated its 150th anniversary as an art school and college in Weimar.

In 2019 the university celebrated the centenary of the founding of the Bauhaus, together with partners all over the world.

Academic tradition in Weimar
Weimar boasts a long tradition of art education and instruction in the areas of fine art, handicrafts, music and architecture. In 1776 the Weimar Princely Free Zeichenschule was established, but gradually lost significance after the Grand Ducal Saxon Art School was founded in 1860. The Free Zeichenschule was discontinued in 1930. In 1829 the architect Clemens Wenzeslaus Coudray established the Free School of Trades (which later became the Grand Ducal Saxon Architectural Trade School, or State School of Architecture), which operated in the evenings and Sundays and supplemented the courses at the Free Zeichenschule. In 1926, the school was incorporated into the Gotha School of Architecture.

The Orchestra School, which opened in 1872, eventually became the College of Music Franz Liszt in Weimar.

Art School and School of Arts and Crafts
The history of the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar goes back to 1860 when Grand Duke Carl Alexander (Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach) founded the Grand Ducal Saxon Art School. Although it became a public institution in 1902, its ties with the ducal house remained strong for years. Students were instructed in a variety of artistic subjects, including landscape, historical, portrait and animal painting, and sculpting. In 1905 the Art School merged with the Weimar Sculpture School, which, although integrated into the educational system in a "cooperative relationship between high and applied art", was independently managed. The school was raised to college status in 1910 and was renamed the Grand Ducal Saxon College of Fine Arts. The development of the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar was also strongly influenced by the Grand Ducal Saxon School of Arts and Crafts which trained artisans in the handicrafts between 1907 and 1915. Both schools issued certificates of participation and conferred diplomas.

The names of renowned artists, instructors and students can be found in the historical documents and records of both schools.

Directors of the Art School

 * 1860 Stanislaus von Kalckreuth, painter
 * 1876 Theodor Hagen, painter
 * 1882 Albert Brendel, painter
 * 1885 Emil von Schlitz, sculptor
 * 1902 Hans Olde, painter
 * 1910 Fritz Mackensen, painter
 * 1916 Provisional administration
 * 1919 Incorporation into the State Bauhaus

Directors of the Sculpture School

 * 1905 Adolf Brütt, sculptor
 * 1910 Gottlieb Elster, sculptor
 * 1913 Richard Engelmann (sculptor)
 * 1919 Incorporation into the State Bauhaus

Directors of the School of Arts and Crafts

 * 1907–1915 Henry van de Velde, architect and designer
 * Discussed successor candidate Walter Gropius

Staatliches Bauhaus
In 1919 Walter Gropius merged the College of Fine Arts and the School of Arts and Crafts into the Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar. It was the making of a new type of art school, a pioneer of modernity, the legacy of which continues to influence the Bauhaus-University Weimar today. In 1923 Gropius summarized his vision with the radical formula "Art and Technology – A New Unity." His "concept of collaboration with the industry" was strongly opposed, not least of all because he was "determined from the very start to beat down any resistance toward this new kind of architecturally related art."

The increasing equalization of professors and workshop instructors and unbridgeable differences made it impossible "for art to develop freely, without purpose and with no connection to architecture at the Bauhaus." As a result, the State College of Fine Arts was founded in 1921, an institution at which academically traditional masters could work and teach, such as Richard Engelmann, Max Thedy, Walther Klemm, Alexander Olbricht and Hugo Gugg (Hedwig Holtz-Sommer instructor). The Bauhaus only remained in Weimar until spring 1925 when it was forced to relocate to Dessau for political reasons. There the Bauhaus began a new, important chapter as a college of art and design.

UNESCO designated the joint World Heritage Site titled the Bauhaus and its Sites in Weimar, Dessau and Bernau in December 1996. The Bauhaus sites in Weimar that are part of the World Heritage Site are the main building (formerly the Grand Ducal Saxon School of Fine Art) and the Van de Velde building (formerly the Grand Ducal Saxon School of Arts and Crafts) on the Bauhaus University campus, and the Haus am Horn.

Director

 * 1919–1925 Walter Gropius, architect

College of Trades and Architecture
The State College of Trades and Architecture, or College of Architecture for short, succeeded the Bauhaus in 1926, which, since the State School of Architecture had moved to Gotha, offered its own regular postgraduate courses in Architecture in the form both Van de Velde and Gropius had long envisioned. Although the College of Architecture continued to adhere to the idea of the Bauhaus, it offered a much more practical orientation. This corresponded to the "concept of a construction-based, productive working community," which represented one of the founding principles of this successor institution. The experimental and innovative focus of the Bauhaus fell somewhat to the wayside. In 1929 there were 88 students enrolled at the College of Architecture. After completing their education, graduates received a diploma in the Construction department and the title "Journeyman" or "Master" in their area of handicraft.

Paul Schultze-Naumburg rejected all phenomena of industrial, urban society. He strived to establish a new architectural style that exuded "Gemütlichkeit", or coziness. In his opinion, it was necessary to preserve the German styles typical of the region, so that people could find identification and orientation in times of rapid social and cultural upheaval. Graduates of the Architecture course received the title "Diplom-Architekt" (certified architect), while artists received a simple certificate and craftspeople received the title "Journeyman" or "Master".

The well-known artists and instructors of this period include: Hermann Giesler, Hans Seytter (e.g., Stiftskirche, Stuttgart), Walther Klemm, Alexander Olbricht and.

Director

 * 1930–1939 Paul Schultze-Naumburg, architect and art theorist

College of Architecture and Fine Arts
The institution officially attained college-level status in 1942. By this time, the School of Trades had been removed from the college, which now called itself the College of Architecture and Fine Arts. After World War II, the Soviet Military Administration of Thuringia oversaw the restructuring of the college to reflect antifascist-democratic principles. Under the aegis of the architect Hermann Henselmann, appointed director in 1946, the college focused its efforts to rebuild the country and pick up where the Bauhaus left off. Some even suggested changing the name of the college to "The Bauhaus – College of Architecture and Handicraft and Engineering Design."

Directors

 * 1940 Provisional administrator Rudolf Rogler
 * 1942 Gerhard Offenberg (1897–1987), architect (e.g., reconstruction planning in Nordhausen)
 * 1946 Hermann Henselmann, architect
 * 1950 Provisional administrator Friedrich August Finger (1885–1961), civil engineer and building materials engineer (e.g., construction supervisor of the Baghdad Railway)

College of Architecture and Civil Engineering
After the GDR was established and the East German university system was restructured, the college itself underwent major changes in 1951. The "Fine Arts" department, which had previously been chaired by the sculptor Siegfried Tschierschky, was dissolved. The new College of Architecture was placed under the control of the "Ministry of Reconstruction" with the objective to develop academic and research programs for a new technical college of civil engineering.

In 1954 the college received a rectorial constitution with two new faculties: "Civil Engineering" and "Building Materials Science and Technology". Otto Englberger, an architect, professor of "Residential and Community Building," and provisional director of the college since 1951, was appointed the first vice-chancellor of the new College of Architecture and Civil Engineering Weimar (HAB). In the following decades, the college became one of the leading academic institutions in the field of civil engineering, respected throughout East and West Germany alike.

Because the college was so integrated in the political system of the GDR, the direction of its instruction and research activities was largely dictated by the government for the purpose of carrying out the latest civil engineering tasks. The third higher education reform of 1968/69 modernized and reorganized the structure of the college based on business administration principles. The faculties were replaced by "sections", and the college was expanded to include the section of "Computer Technology and Data Processing." In 1976 research and reception of the Bauhaus was revived at the HAB Weimar. It represented the first step of an ongoing positive re-evaluation of the legacy of the college. Thanks to these research efforts, the college established relations with other institutions, including several in West Germany.

Ever since 1951, students in all disciplines were required by East German law to pass a basic study program in Marxist–Leninist philosophy. Later, academic staff, lecturers and professors were also required to complete training on a regular basis. The Institute for Marxism–Leninism, which offered these courses at the HAB, was closed in 1990.

The well-known artists and instructors of this period include: Walther Klemm and Anita Bach (born 1927, first female professor of architecture in the GDR).

Vice-chancellors

 * 1954 Otto Englberger (1905–1977), architect (e.g., tenement buildings at Buchenwaldplatz Weimar and the Franzberg School in Sondershausen)
 * 1957 Gustav Batereau (1908–1974), steel construction engineer and structural engineer (e.g., large coking plant in Lauchhammer)
 * 1963 Horst Matzke, physicist and mathematician
 * 1968 Armin Petzold, civil engineer
 * 1970 Karl-Albert Fuchs, civil engineer (vice-president of the German Civil Engineering Academy in Berlin)
 * 1983 Hans Glißmeyer (1936–2008), civil engineer
 * 1989 Hans Ulrich Mönnig (born 1943), civil engineer
 * 1992 Gerd Zimmermann (born 1946), architect and architectural theorist

Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
The political upheaval of 1989 initiated a radical process of restructuring at the college. The goal was to quickly adapt the college to the basic principles of freedom and democracy and integrate it into the international community of higher education institutions. Several changes were made to its overall structure; redundant departments were merged or dissolved. A new chapter began in 1993 with the establishment of the "Faculty of Art and Design" which reincorporated the artistic disciplines into the academic profile of the college. The establishment of the "Faculty of Media" in 1996 emphasized the college's dedication to progressive thinking. After changing its name to the "Bauhaus-Universität Weimar" in 1996, the university demonstrated its dedication to the spirit of the Bauhaus.

The well-known artists and instructors of this period include: Lucius Burckhardt, Werner Holzwarth and Wolfgang Ernst.

Former rectors

 * 1996 Gerd Zimmermann
 * 2001 Walter Bauer-Wabnegg (born 1954), theologian, linguist and literary scholar
 * 2004 Gerd Zimmermann
 * 2011 Karl Beucke (born 1951), civil engineer

Presidents

 * 2017 Winfried Speitkamp (born 1958), historian
 * 2022 Jutta Emes, Interim President (born 1969), economist
 * 2023 Peter Benz (born 1971), architect

Faculties
The university possesses a unique structure with four main faculties. It has fostered a diverse profile of instruction and research based on engineering and architectural disciplines. Today the university offers students a selection of approximately 40 degree programs. The term "Bauhaus" in its name stands for eagerness to experiment, openness, creativity, proximity to industrial practice and internationality.

Architecture and Urbanism
The Faculty of Architecture and Urban Studies sees itself as a universal space for thought and experimentation. The close connection between architecture and urban planning creates the special and contemporary profile.

The faculty stands for university-based research and experimental teaching, which imparts interface competencies of artistic and scientific methods in design and planning. It currently has 80 partner universities and is considered one of the most influential architecture faculties in Germany.

Student enrolment at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism: 1,155 (winter semester 2021/22)

Degree programs:
 * Architecture (bachelor's and master's)
 * Urbanism (bachelor's and master's)
 * Media Architecture (master's)
 * Integrated Urban Development and Design (master's)
 * European Urban Studies (master's)

Programs for young scientists:

 * European Doctoral Program "Urban Hist | 20th Century European Urbanism
 * DFG Research Training Group "Identity and Heritage
 * Junior Research Group "Social Housing in Growing Metropolises

The Faculty of Architecture and Urban Studies has its headquarters in the main building, which was designed by Van de Velde and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Seminar and studio spaces for students of the faculty are located here.

Reflection on heritage shapes the teaching and research of the three institutes at the faculty – even beyond the 100th anniversary of the Bauhaus in 2019:

 * Institute for European Urban Studies (IfEU)
 * Bauhaus Institute for the History and Theory of Architecture and Planning
 * bauhaus.institute for experimental architecture (bauhaus.ifex).

By researching space, city and architecture under changing social boundary conditions, the faculty contributes to the sustainable design of architecture, city and landscape. In exhibitions and symposia, it enters into an exchange with the public.

Civil Engineering
Founded in 1954, the Faculty of Civil Engineering today combines the disciplines of natural sciences and computer science, mechanics, construction, materials, environment and management under one roof. In addition to traditional and modern engineering methods, the faculty also draws from neighboring scientific fields such as law, economics and social sciences. This enables it to assume responsibility throughout the life cycle of the built environment and to participate in its further development.

In the area of research, the faculty focuses primarily on future-oriented new technologies such as BIM. The focus of teaching is on project studies. The research profile is largely determined by six institutes:

 * Bauhaus Institute for Future-Oriented Infrastructure Systems (b.is).
 * BuiltEnvironment-Management-Institute (B-M-I)
 * F.A. Finger Institute for Building Materials Science (FIB)
 * Institute for Building Informatics, Mathematics and Building Physics (IBMB)
 * Institute for Structural Engineering (IKI)
 * Institute for Structural Mechanics (ISM)

Student enrolment at the Faculty of Civil Engineering (incl. the Digital Engineering program): 998 (winter semester 2021/2022). Furthermore, 285 persons deepen their knowledge in offers of the central continuing education.

Degree programs:

 * Civil Engineering (bachelor's and master's)
 * Environmental Engineering (bachelor's and master's)
 * Management [Construction Real Estate Infrastructure] (bachelor's and master's)
 * Building Materials Engineering (master's)

International Degree Programs:

 * Natural Hazards and Risks in Structural Engineering (master's)
 * Digital Engineering (master's), together with the Faculty of Media

Part-time Master's programs:

 * Building Physics and Energy Optimization of Buildings (master's)
 * Water and Environment (master's)
 * Methods and materials for user-oriented building renovation (master's)
 * Project Management [Construction] (master's)
 * Environmental Engineering (master's)

Art and Design
The Faculty of Art and Design was founded in 1993. It is the university training center for designers and artists in the Free State of Thuringia. With its teaching concept, the "Weimar Model", it places the project at the center of studies and thus differs from the classical art academies and studies in fixed class systems. The content of teaching and research at the faculty is the project and design of human living spaces. The focus is on the recognition and promotion of creative forces and the search for possibilities of their practical implementation.

Student enrolment at the Faculty of Art and Design: 955 (winter semester 2021/22)

Degree programs:

 * Fine Art (Diplom)
 * Media Art/Media Design (bachelor's and master's)
 * Product Design (bachelor's and master's)
 * Visual Communication (bachelor's and master's)
 * Teacher training at secondary schools – double subject art education (1st state examination)
 * Teacher training at secondary schools – second subject art education (1st state examination)

International Degree Programs:

 * Public Art and New Artistic Strategies/Art in Public Spaces and New Artistic Strategies (master's)

PhD:

 * Doctoral program in Art and Design / Fine Art / Media Art (Doctor of Philosophy / PhD / Dr. phil.)

The Faculty of Art and Design has been using the studios and classrooms in the former School of Arts and Crafts (Van de Velde Building) since 1996. Following a renovation phase lasting two years, the Faculty of Art and Design returned to the Van de Velde Building in April 2010. In November 2013, the faculty celebrated its 20th anniversary with the festival week. For 23 years Jay Rutherford, a Canadian graphic designer, was the professor of Visual Communications.

Media
The Faculty of Media is the youngest of the four faculties at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar and is dedicated to researching media challenges of the digital present and future as well as the innovative shaping of media development. In teaching as well as in research, the faculty places humanities-literary culture with scientific-technical culture in a constructive, creative and critical dialogue. It promotes professional and human exchange across the disciplinary boundaries of technology, science and art. Research, research-oriented, project-based teaching and interdisciplinary cooperation characterize the faculty's self-image. It is significantly involved in the two university-wide research focuses Digital Engineering and Cultural Studies Media Research.

The Faculty of Media comprises three departments: Media Studies, Media Informatics and Media Management. The study program has a strong international orientation. Several degree programs are offered in English. In addition, the faculty has a German-French study program. Graduates are employed in the cultural and educational sectors, in IT, in media companies and in science and research.

Student enrolment at the Faculty of Media (incl. the Digital Engineering program): 758 (winter semester 2021/2022)

Degree programs:

Department of Media Informatics:

 * Computer Science (bachelor's), with majors in Media Informatics or Security and Data Science

International Degree Programs:

 * Computer Science for Digital Media (master's)
 * Human-Computer Interaction (master's)
 * Digital Engineering (Master of Science), together with the Faculty of Civil Engineering

Department of Media Studies:

 * Media Culture (bachelor's)
 * Media Studies (master's)

Department of Media Management:

 * Media Management (master's)

Study Programs:

 * Film Cultures – Extended Cinema (master's)

International Degree Programs:

 * European Media Culture (with Université Lyon Lumière 2: Bachelor of Arts, Licence en Information-Communication)

University library
Following German reunification, a vacated industrial facility in the vicinity of the historic center of Weimar near the Frauenplan and Goethe's house was chosen as the site of a new library and lecture hall for the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar.

Following an urban planning competition in 1991, the architects' office meck architekten (Munich) were commissioned to design the building. After a four-year construction phase costing 12 million euros, the new university library and an integrated main auditorium were officially opened in 2005, and in 2006, the building was awarded the Thuringian State Prize for Architecture and Urban Planning.

Notable alumni

 * Bruno Flierl, architect and city planner (1927-2023)
 * Heike Hanada (born 1964), architect
 * Günther Krause (born 1953), engineer, academic and politician
 * Max Liebermann (1847–1935), painter
 * Farkas Molnár (1897–1945) Hungarian architect, painter, essayist, and graphic artist
 * Karl Lorenz Rettich (1841–1904), painter
 * Friedrich Wachenhusen (1859–1925), painter

title: Bauhaus University, Weimar


text:
Ohio State Route 19

State Route 19 (SR 19) is a north–south route in northern and central Ohio. Its southern terminus is at U.S. Route 42 in the unincorporated village of Williamsport, and its northern terminus is at State Route 2 north of Oak Harbor.

History
The current State Route 19 was certified in 1932 and originally went from Galion to Oak Harbor, going through Fremont on State Street (U.S. Route 20) and Stone Street. The route was extended in the north to State Route 2 in 1938, and in the south to U.S. Route 42 in 1939. In 1960, State Route 19 was rerouted around Fremont along with U.S. Route 20, U.S. Route 6, and State Route 53 (Ohio) via a freeway bypass.

The route number 19 was used for the route of an original state highway that went from Columbus to the Pennsylvania state line. This route is now the eastern Ohio portion of U.S. Route 62. The route number was then given to the route of the former State Route 62, which the U.S. highway system had made defunct.

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

title: Ohio State Route 19


text:
Talk:Santa Monica City Council

[Untitled]
An excellent subsection at Santa Monica, California. A pointless orphan on its own like this. --Wetman 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Santa Monica City Council


text:
Rose Pastor Stokes

Rose Harriet Pastor Stokes (née Wieslander; July 18, 1879 – June 20, 1933) was an American socialist activist, writer, birth control advocate, and feminist. She was a figure of some public notoriety after her 1905 marriage to Episcopalian millionaire J. G. Phelps Stokes, a member of elite New York society, who supported the settlements in New York. Together they joined the Socialist Party. Pastor Stokes continued to be active in labor politics and women's issues, including promoting access to birth control, which was highly controversial at the time.

In 1919, Pastor Stokes was a founding member of the Communist Party of America and helped develop it into the 1930s. In addition to her writing on politics, she wrote poetry and plays; one was produced in 1916 by the Washington Square Players. She started her autobiography in 1924 but had not completed it at her death; it was published in 1992.

Early life
Rose Harriet Wieslander was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Augustów, in the Russian Empire (present-day Poland) on July 18, 1879, the daughter of Jacob and Hindl (later known as Anna) Wieslander. Her mother had loved a Catholic man, but her father refused to allow her to marry him. Rose's parents separated after she was born, and her father emigrated to the United States. In 1882 when Rose was three, her mother emigrated with her parents and child to London. There Anna married Israel Pastor, who gave his surname to his stepdaughter Rose, and had six more children with Anna. The family lived in the East End, a neighborhood of poor immigrants. Rose Pastor attended classes for a time at the Bell Lane Free School (Israel Zangwill was once a pupil there and later an instructor).

In 1891, when Pastor was twelve, her family emigrated to Cleveland, Ohio in the United States. In 1892, she took a job in a Cleveland cigar factory, where she worked as a cigar maker for the next eleven years. According to a 1910 New York Times article, her stepfather was reported as having died a few years after the family arrived in Cleveland. Pastor helped support her six siblings and mother.

Writing and activism
During this time, Pastor discovered her talent for writing. Responding to a solicitation from the Yidishes Tageblatt (Jewish Daily News) for letters from Jewish workers, she submitted a letter. When it was published, she was encouraged to write more. The paper continued to publish her letters, in which she expressed her ideas about the working class. The Jewish Daily News hired her and she moved to New York in 1903. She became a columnist in the English-language section, offering advice to other young women. She also wrote human interest features. The paper was published mostly in Yiddish. With a salary of $15 a week, after a couple of years, Pastor had saved enough to bring her mother and siblings from Cleveland to New York City.

In July 1903, Pastor was assigned to interview James Graham Phelps Stokes, known by friends as "Graham", a prominent, wealthy, upper-class businessman who supported a settlement house on the Lower East Side. He had gained media attention because of his high social status and his charitable work for the needy. Descended from families prominent since the colonial history of New England, Stokes was a railway president and prominent in high society. He gave up his mansion at 299 Madison Avenue to be closer to the work he found most satisfying, that of social projects. Stokes moved to the University Settlement on the Lower East Side, which ministered to the masses of new immigrants from Europe. It was near the Jewish Daily News. Pastor praised Stokes' ideals in her article.

Soon, Pastor also became active in work of University Settlement. Her friendship with Stokes deepened, and in early-1905, they announced their engagement. The couple was married on July 18, 1905—her 26th birthday—and joined the Socialist Party of America together soon thereafter. Stokes was an Episcopalian, she Jewish, but neither practiced their religions, instead devoting themselves to Socialism.

In September 1905, together with Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Clarence Darrow, and Florence Kelley, Graham Phelps Stokes helped found the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) to encourage study and discussion of socialism in colleges. Over the next decade, both Graham and Rose lectured frequently on socialist themes on behalf of the ISS on US college campuses.

In 1909, a few years after their marriage, the Stokeses moved to a house in Westport, Connecticut, where Rose was integrated into her husband's circle of intellectual socialists, including William English Walling, Anna Strunsky Walling and Helen Stokes. Both Graham and Rose Stokes continued their activities on behalf of the Socialist movement. She frequently traveled around the country to speak and debate about the cause and helped picket, strike and organize for specific events. She wrote regularly for the New York Call.

In 1909, Pastor Stokes took part in the Shirtwaist Strike, to show support for the 40,000 garment workers in New York. She attracted media attention because of her marriage to Graham Phelps Stokes, and reporters came to cover her appearance at the strike headquarters at Clinton Hall. She said, "My ideal is that we all be economically interdependent. We should not be independent like millionaires, nor dependent like laborers. My ideal is that we all be interdependent. And I'm not working in a losing cause."

In May and June 1912, Pastor Stokes helped lead a strike by the New York City restaurant and hotel workers. In the winter of 1913, she aided the New York garment workers in another "bitter strike." Graham began to devote more time to writing, but Rose continued her activism. She distributed birth control information, and frequently organized meetings with Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman, who led efforts for women to have birth control.

She also continued writing, contributing poetry to such publications as The Masses, Independent and The Century Magazine. During this period she also wrote several plays; The Woman Who Wouldn't (1916), about a labor leader, was produced by the Washington Square Players.

War and prosecution
In 1917, the Socialists denounced the American war program. But Graham Stokes withdrew from the party and joined the New York Army National Guard. At first Rose also left the Socialists, as she was disappointed with the party's official position on the war, endorsing "active interference with the war effort". She believed that Germany was a threat to democratic nations. Shortly she rejoined the Socialists, as she doubted whether President Woodrow Wilson's policies furthered international democracy. She became associated with the left wing of the Socialists. In 1919, she was among the founders of the American Communist Party.

Pastor Stokes began to travel throughout the United States, speaking and contributing articles to various newspapers. In 1918, after her comments following a speech in Kansas City were incorrectly reported, Pastor Stokes wrote a letter to the editor of the Kansas City Star in which she criticized US involvement in World War I. She accused the US government of being allied with profiteers. Controversy over the letter led to a federal indictment for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Pastor Stokes was tried and convicted in Kansas City, Missouri. This was one of several indictments of activist women during the World War I years. Their criticism of the war threatened the national power of the patriotic mothers.

After being sentenced to 10 years in Missouri State prison, Pastor Stokes and her attorney, Seymour Stedman of Chicago, Illinois, successfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Paul, Minnesota. In reaction to this, Pastor Stokes moved to the left in her political leanings. The government ultimately dismissed the case against her in 1920. Judge Walter H. Sanborn authored the opinion that overturned the decision, citing a bias by the District Judge. Despite tensions due to their differing positions on World War I, relations between Pastor Stokes and her husband were relatively congenial.

Graham had been embarrassed before World War I by her public activism related to birth control, not widely accepted, and labor politics. Some of his family were among those who were quite opposed to her politics. With increasing strain between them, in 1925 Graham brought a petition for divorce in Nyack, New York, on grounds of "misconduct by his wife". He won a decree. Pastor Stokes issued a statement denouncing New York's divorce laws, and saying that she and her husband had lived as "friendly enemies" for some time. She said she would cherish her freedom.

By 1929, Pastor Stokes had remarried. Her second husband was Jerome Isaac Romain, a Polish-Russian Jewish immigrant and a language teacher who was seventeen years younger than she. He was an active member of the Communist Party and became its cultural chief in New York. He later changed his name to Victor Jeremy Jerome, called V.J., serving as editor for decades for Political Affairs. The couple lived at 215 Second Avenue in the Lower East Side. But Pastor Stokes also kept her cottage in Westport, and frequently lived there.

Communist Party activity
After World War I, Pastor Stokes had left the Socialist Party again; in 1919, she became a founding member of the Communist Party of America and helped develop it into the 1930s. In 1922, she traveled to Moscow as an American delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International (Comintern). She served there as the reporter for the special Negro Commission at the Congress and adopted the pseudonym "Sasha". After returning to the United States, Stokes was elected to the Executive Committee of the newly formed Workers' Party.

She participated in strikes and made court appearances to support men and women arrested for picketing and/or demonstrating. Her activities were met by spirited anti-Communist opposition during the First Red Scare, such as a 1919 incident in Yonkers, New York, when a group of local men led by Rev. Francis T. Brown loudly sang the "Star-Spangled Banner" to drive her off the stage at a meeting of the Communist Council of America. In 1929 she was arrested for demonstrating during a garment workers' strike. Due to her years of working with activists of the Lower East Side, she was called "Rose of the Ghetto".

She was the most-mentioned woman in American newspapers from 1918 to 1921.

Death and legacy
Pastor Stokes was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1930. In 1933, she went to Germany for radiation therapy. In April 1933, friends collected funds for hospital expenses. Pastor Stokes entered Municipal Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany, on April 15, where she was operated on for cancer by Professor Vito Schmiden. While under treatment, she died in the hospital on June 20, 1933, aged 53. Her body was cremated and her ashes sent to New York, where a memorial service was held at Webster Hall.

At the time of death, Pastor Stokes was working on her autobiography, which she had started in 1924. Before her death, she had sent numerous documents related to her writing to her agents in the United States. She asked her friend Samuel Ornitz, also a communist and a writer, to complete it, sharing her views with him.

He finally abandoned the work in 1937. During the 1950s, he was among the Hollywood Ten, blacklisted after their refusal to testify to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the Joseph McCarthy era of a Red scare.

Her unfinished autobiography was published posthumously in 1992. Pastor Stokes' papers are held by New York University, where they are held at the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Archives, and at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Much of this material is also available on microfilm.

In 2020, author Adam Hochschild published a biography of Stokes: Rebel Cinderella: From Rags to Riches to Radical, the Epic Journey of Rose Pastor Stokes.

Works

 * Songs of Labor and Other Poems, by Morris Rosenfeld. Translated by Rose Pastor Stokes in collaboration with Helena Frank. Boston: Richard G. Badger, 1914.
 * The Woman Who Wouldn't New York/London: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1916, drama.
 * The Woman Who Wouldn't New York/London: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1916, drama.

title: Rose Pastor Stokes


text:
Tomorrow Hit Today

Tomorrow Hit Today is the fifth studio album by American rock band Mudhoney. It was released by Reprise Records on September 22, 1998 (see 1998 in music). Barely selling 11,000 copies on its release this would be the last album the band would release with Reprise as well as a major label. Although the band retains their grunge sound on the album, a noticeable garage and blues influence can be heard. The album title is a reference to a song, "When Tomorrow Hits", off of their eponymous debut. This is also the last album to feature bass player Matt Lukin. The album was released on CD through Reprise and on Vinyl through Superelectro Sound Recordings. The album also gained a cassette release on the Philippines. In 2018, the album was re-released on blue vinyl to celebrate its 20th anniversary.

In 2020, Tomorrow Hit Today was included in the 4CD box set Real Low Vibe: Reprise Recordings 1992-1998.

Track listing
Adapted from the album liner notes.

All tracks composed by Mudhoney, except where noted
 * 1) "A Thousand Forms of Mind" – 4:43
 * 2) "I Have to Laugh" – 3:29
 * 3) "Oblivion" – 3:26
 * 4) "Try to Be Kind" – 2:55
 * 5) "Poisoned Water" – 2:45
 * 6) "Real Low Vibe" – 2:55
 * 7) "This Is the Life" – 3:32
 * 8) "Night of the Hunted" – 3:05
 * 9) "Move with the Wind" – 3:49
 * 10) "Ghost" (Cheater Slicks) – 4:33
 * 11) "I Will Fight No More Forever" – 2:54
 * 12.1 "Beneath the Valley of the Underdog" – 5:16
 * 12.2 "Talkin' Randy Tate's Specter Blues" (hidden track) (Traditional, arranged by Mudhoney and Jim Dickinson) – 1:22

 * The hidden track at the end of track 12 (after 2 minutes of silence) is not listed in the track listing but is mentioned in the liner notes. Total length of track 12 is 8:39.

Personnel
Adapted from the album liner notes.

Mudhoney

 * Mark Arm - vocals, guitar, organ
 * Steve Turner - guitar
 * Matt Lukin - bass guitar
 * Dan Peters - drums, percussion

Additional personnel

 * Jim Dickinson – additional keyboards, producer.
 * Adam Kasper – engineer (Studio Litho)
 * Matt Bayles – assistant engineer (Studio Litho)
 * John Hampton – engineer (Ardent)
 * Pete Mathews – assistant engineer (Ardent)
 * David Bianco – mixing (at Royal Tone, Los Angeles, March 24-31, 1998, and at Track Record, North Hollywood, April 1-3, 1998)
 * Mudhoney (Mark, Steve and Dan) – mixing
 * Jeff Thomas – assistant mixing engineer (Royal Tone)
 * Mike Ainsworth – assistant mixing engineer (Track Record)
 * Hank Trotter – art direction
 * David Belisle – photography

title: Tomorrow Hit Today


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapssak

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rapssak
Vanity, term not found elsewhere Eclipsed 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete--DNicholls 08:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, zero google hits makes notability difficult to establish.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
 * Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapssak


text:
Yosri Fouda

Yosri Fouda (يسري فودة Yusrī Fūdah, ), is an Egyptian investigative reporter, author, and television host. He established Al Jazeera's office in London and was one of the star figures in the channel until he resigned in 2009. Fouda also worked as a television host at the Cairo-based ONTV Egyptian Channel. He co‑authored Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Attack The World Has Ever Seen, published in 2003 by Arcade Publishing.

Early life and education
Fouda was born in Manshyet Ganzour in Tanta, El Gharbia. He got his bachelor's degree in Mass Communication at Cairo University and was appointed as an Assistant lecturer after his graduation. He pursued his master's degree at the American University in Cairo and graduated in 1992. Shortly after his graduation he got a Diploma in TV production from the Netherlands.

In 1993, Fouda was granted a scholarship from the British Council to pursue his PhD in documentary at University of Strathclyde and University of Glasgow. His studies were interrupted after he was approached by the BBC, who were looking for reporters with fluency in Arabic language.

BBC, Associated Press and ANN
Fouda's short lived BBC career spanned between 1994 and 1996. He took part in establishing the BBC Arabic service in 1994, and later served as a roving reporter alongside veteran journalist Martin Bell. He covered the Bosnian independence war, and other important events in the Middle East and Africa. After only two years the services of the Arabic BBC subsidiary were suspended due to political reasons and Fouda joined the Associated Press Television News. He took part in establishing the Middle East desk at the news agency, as well as, setting up the London-based Arab News Network (ANN).

Al Jazeera
In 1996, he joined the newly formed Al Jazeera as a UK and Western Europe correspondent. A year later he helped in securing an independent production office for Al Jazeera, and established their office in London. He was later appointed as the bureau chief of the London Al Jazeera office. Fouda started his widely popular monthly program Top Secret (سري للغاية, Sirrī lil-Ġāyah) in 1998.

Sirri lil-Ghaya and Al Qaeda
His program was greatly received by critiques and viewers in the Arab world and won the second place at the 1998 Cairo Radio and Production Festival. In April 2002, Fouda interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted his involvement, along with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, in the September 11 attacks. Fouda does not consider his interview with the 9/11 orchestrators as a turning point in his career; instead he believes it introduced him to an international audience.

It has been suggested that Fouda gave away the hideaway location of bin al‑Shibh to Aljazeera's chairman Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, a cousin of the Emir of Qatar, and that CIA director George Tenet received the location tip-off from the Emir, resulting in bin al‑Shibh's capture.

In 2006, Fouda, in charge of Aljazeera's London bureau, broke the story on the "martyrdom video" by "9/11 hijackers" Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah.

Fouda resigned from Aljazeera in 2009, almost two years before the 2011 Egyptian revolution that toppled former president Hosni Mubarak. His resignation was driven by his disagreement with the inter-politics of the news agency, along with his feeling that an important event will soon take place in Egypt. Soon after his resignation, Fouda joined ONTV to host a talk show Last Words (اخر كلام).

ONTV
Fouda joined the politically independent Egyptian channel in 2010. Although he received numerous "tempting" offers from Aljazeera rivals, Fouda chose to return to Egypt. ONTV was still a new channel with a small budget, but he believed in the channels administration and founder Naguib Sawiris - a renowned Egyptian businessman.

2011 Egyptian revolution
Fouda supported the revolution from day one, and offered an uninterrupted coverage of the Tahrir Square protests. Although he did not join the protests in Tahrir, he believed that his role should be in reporting and broadcasting the events as they unfold. His show gained massive popularity in Egypt during and after the revolution, and was at the top of TV show ratings. Fouda had interesting thoughts about the post-revolution Egypt, where he stated in an interview with Stephen Sackur that very little had changed in Egypt since the revolution, and that the ex-regime is still around and it should be preserved.

Suspending his talk show
His show constantly criticized Egypt's former military rulers and in October 2011, Fouda suspended his show in protest of what he called the "efforts by the country's military rulers to stifle free expression". He said "This is my way of self-censorship, either to say the truth or to be silent". The show went off air for three weeks and was resumed on November 13, 2011. At the start of his episode Fouda stressed that he stopped his program for three weeks to "prove a stance", and that his allegiance is always to "right and truth". On May 17 Fouda stated on his Twitter account that he will end the show in six weeks, but he then decided to continue for another year. The show was suspended again in late June 2012. He did not offer a clear explanation of the reasons and chose to briefly tweet “I’ve stopped my show because I respect you, the details concern me alone. The only thing that matters for the viewer is my work”. The show resumed in September 2012.

Leaving Deutsche Welle
In September 2018, Fouda parted ways with German broadcaster Deutsche Welle in controversial circumstances that are now the subject of legal action.

Books
Yosri Fouda authored and co-authored a collection of three books. In May 2003, Fouda alongside Nick Fielding published Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist Attack the World Has Ever Seen. Almost a year and a half later he published Serri lel-Ghaya meaning Highly confidential, a seven part sequel, which includes a collection of carefully selected investigations. The sequel offers a deeper insight about various events discussed earlier in his show, and grants the reader access to secret reports, testimonies and evidences. This collection was published by the World Book Publishing in Beirut, and is only available in Arabic.

Capture or Kill: The Pursuit of the 9/11 Masterminds and the Killing of Osama bin Laden (updated edition 2012, Arcade Publishing, ISBN 161145400X) is Fouda's second collaboration with the British investigative journalist Nick Fielding. In 2015, Fouda authored In Harm's Way: From the Stronghold of al-Qaida to the Heart of ISIL book, it was published by Dar El Shourok in Cairo and is available in Arabic language. In 2016, he authored another book called The last words: A testimony of hope in the Egyptian Revolution.

Accident
On Sunday March 24, 2013 Fouda fractured his neck in a car accident near the Red Sea resort town of Hurghada. He was transported to the Gouna Hospital and his situation was reported to be stable.

Quotes
I do not really believe there is such a thing as al-Qaida, the organization; there is al-Qaida, the mind-set. —Yosri Fouda

The experience of freedom is in one way like the experience of death. You can visit death but you can't come back from it. —Yosri Fouda

Who benefited the most from September 11?...Of course the Arab regimes, both America and Al Qaeda lost, the moderates lost, I lost and you lost, but our regimes in a blink of an eye gave themselves the permission to fight and abuse the opposition and enforce new laws to tighten their grip in the name of security, God, ethics, and in the name of what they call war on terror. —Yosri Fouda

But when you ask Egypt’s people to defend Egypt’s army from Egypt’s people, we must tell you stop, who is responsible for that?. —Yosri Fouda

title: Yosri Fouda


text:
Talk:Prima facie

Unclear Wording
I find the second sentence here confusing:

If the prosecution were to fail to introduce such evidence, then its case would fail on grounds of "failure to make out a prima facie case," even without rebuttal by the defendant. This evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable, and evidence rebutting the case may not be considered.

What does "this evidence" refer to in the second sentence? The evidence that the prosecution "fails" to introduce? Why is the second sentence referring to "evidence rebutting the case", when the case already "failed"?

It would appear than some re-writing is needed here--and I don't have the expertise to do it.

128.175.13.136 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Can you have another look as I have tried to simplify the text? I didn't discuss it as hardly any discussion has happened for a while, so I just went ahead and did it. If you are still unhappy with it, then it still needs fixed. SimonTrew (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 * OK dunno why I bothered adding this really I was probablly in the middle of editing and didn't notice it was a class B anonymous IP. Which to continue a discussion is about as much use as a snake in a butt-kicking competition. SimonTrew (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there isn't a singular clear sentence on this page that gives a clear definiton. If you have a certain amount of prior knowledge it's okay, but if it is a clear and concise definiton you want, this page does little to help

I'd like to add to the chorus calling attention to the deplorable writing in this article. What on earth is a lay reader to make of these two sentences:

"It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

That is to say, appearances can be deceptive even to the objectively minded, and they can be subjectively interpreted (meaning that what amounts to a prima facie case for one judging individual would not do so for another). Just because a matter appears to be evident from a certain presentation of the facts it does not follow that that matter has any truthful validity - which would limit the common sensical utility of prima facie evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.78.133 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it worth adding a paragraph to the effect that in Commonwealth English this is pronounced prime-a face-y but that in the US it is pronounced pre-ma fas-sha? Avalon 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would not typically be information found in an encyclopedia. It would, however, be an excellent addition in Wiktionary and we should probably cross-link the two entries.  Rossami (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this word pronounced?
 * That would be an excellent question to look up in a dictionary. See prima facie for the answer (where, by the way, you will see that there are two approved pronunciations).  Rossami (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this word be used in the beginning of a sentence? Tapas
 * Prima Facie can be totally used at the beginning of a sentence. GoneAFK

Two alternate pronunciations are given at prima facie, which should both be replicated in this article for consistency and accuracy. —sroc (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Prima facie in non-legal situations
User:Radagast83 recently added the text below to the opening section of the article. On first reading, it does not appear to be directly relevant to the legal concept being described in this article. I'm bringing the content here temporarily so that we can more carefully consider where and how the content should be integrated into the article. (I did not copy over the first paragraph that Radagast83 added because it was redundant with content already in the opening section.) Rossami (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When applied to deontological philosophy, prima facie obligations are those obligations to society that require action, or at least a response on your part. For instance, the obligation to save a blind person from accidentally crossing a busy intersection, when you have the ability to stop the probable ensuing accident, should be a reason enough to act in such a way as to save the blind pedestrian.
 * In any given situation, any number of prima facie obligations may apply, and in the case of an ethical dilemma, they may even contradict one another. The maximization of good is only one of several prima facie obligations which play a role in determining the content of the moral ought (moral obligation) in any given case. W. D. Ross gives a list of other such obligations, which he does not claim is all-inclusive.

end copied content

Should This be added to Wikipedia?
I quickly typed this out. I didn't want to add it to the article straight away to avoid ruffling feathers - but I notice from the article history that other people seemed to have the same idea as me as relates to the whole smoking gun situation, and I thought that I should add this info :

Criticism of Prima facie evidence
It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter *appears* to be self-evident from the facts, that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit.

That is to say, appearances can be deceptive even to the objectively minded, and they can be subjectively interpreted (meaning that what amounts to a prima facie case for one judging individual would not do so for another). Just because a matter appears to be evident from a certain presentation of the facts it does not follow that that matter has any truthful validity - which would limit the common sensical utility of prima facie evidence.

As an example, consider the following:

Statement I : "John has been shot dead. Joe has been found near John with a smoking gun.  Therfore, this is prima facie evidence of Joe having shot John with a smoking gun." [the infamous shooting gun example]

Apparently, this (in an overly simplified manner) indicates that we have a prima facie case for arresting (and convicting) Joe for shooting John.

However, add the following piece of evidence to the Prima Facie case calculations :

Statement II : "Both Joe and John were within a shooting club at the time at which John was shot dead. "

This example indicates that it is far from clear that Joe actually shot John dead due to certain facts having been selectively highlighted and presented for the purposes of the prima facie case. That is to say, due to the fact that relevant circumstances are either omitted or illogically/irrationally presented for the purposes of the prima facie case - it appears as if the statement made amounts to a prima facie case. This is because sufficient evidence has apparently been presented for the purposes of the prima facie case, but necessary evidence has been omitted (a reasonable argument would be that as much evidence concerning the particulars of the case are presented within aprima facie case as possible).

Given our informal presentation of the prima facie case in Statement I, we have not contradicted any of the evidence by introducing the facts of Statement II (which, presumably, would mean that Statement I still holds as a Prima Facie basis for a case - despite the questionable basis upon which Statement I could be held as being a prima facie case).

However, it is clear that a reasonable man would find Statement I unpalatable as a Prima Facie case as it contains no information relating to the particulars of a case - and it seems clear that Statement II provides sufficient reason to throw out Statement I out as being a sufficient basis for a Prima Facie case on reasonable grounds.

These criticisms are conceptually inherent to the notion of a prima facie case or evidence. They do not relate to the example or the quality of the evidence. The situation arises due to the fact that all (or, at least, a reasonably water tight amount) of the relevant particulars of the case are not presented in an objective manner.

ConcernedScientist (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Wording/Example
"In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead"

This is not required in all murder cases, in many countries. And should be weasel-worded to "typically", "usually", or "almost always". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.88.158 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prima facie


text:
User talk:Inthecedarroom

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Inthecedarroom


text:
Talk:Gauss's lemma

Untitled
See talk:Gauss lemma

title: Talk:Gauss's lemma


text:
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research

Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) is one of India's premier nuclear research centres. It is the second largest establishment of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), next to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), located at Kalpakkam, 80 km south of Chennai, India. It was established in 1971 as an exclusive centre dedicated to the pursuit of fast reactor science and technology, due to the vision of Vikram Sarabhai. Originally, it was called Reactor Research Centre (RRC). It was renamed to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) by the then Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi in December 1985. The centre is engaged in broad-based multidisciplinary programme of scientific research and advanced engineering directed towards the development of fast breeder reactor technology in India.

History
The fast reactor related research in India, originated at BARC, Mumbai. Later, RRC was established at Kalpakkam with the same mandate. The Central Workshop, Safety Research Laboratory and Materials Sciences Laboratory were constructed in 1975–1976. Soon, the Radio-Chemistry Lab and Electronics and Instrumentation Lab were constructed.

The centre houses a Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), which attained its first criticality in October 1985.

A few years later, in 1994, SQUID, ASIC and Diamond Anvil Cells were developed. In the same year, High-Power Physics and Engineering Experiments were undertaken in the FBTR.

In 1996, KAMINI reactor reached criticality. State-of-the-art Neutronic Channels were commissioned for FBTR in 1999.

A Boron-Enrichment Plant was commissioned in April 2001.

A BARC Training School was started in 2006. In 2009, FBTR was operated at a maximum power level of 18.6 MWt with 55 sub-assemblies for 1732 hours.

List of directors
Director (1979 to 1985) Director (1985 to 1990) Director (1990 to November 1992) Director (December 1992 to October 2000) Director (November 2000 to April 2004) Director (November 2004 to April 2011) Director (May 2011 to Jan 2013) Director (Feb 2013 to August 2015) Director (September 2015 to June 2016) Director (July 2016 to September 2021) Director (October 2021 till date)
 * Shri Narayanan Srinivasan
 * Prof. Chokkanathapuram Venkataraman Sundaram
 * Shri Shrikant Ramakrishna Paranjpe
 * Dr. Placid Rodriguez
 * Shri Shivram Baburao Bhoje
 * Dr. Baldev Raj
 * Shri Subhash Chander Chetal
 * Dr. Polur RangaRao Vasudeva Rao
 * Dr. Srinivasula Ananta Venkata Satya Murty
 * Dr. Arun Kumar Bhaduri
 * Dr. B Venkatraman

Commercial reactors
The facility houses two PHWRs that generate 220MWe each that operate for commercial purposes. These are managed independently by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

Research reactors
There are three research reactors at IGCAR.

 * FBTR is a liquid metal cooled fast breeder test reactor, maintained by Reactor Operation and Maintenance Group (ROMG).
 * KAMINI 30 kWt reactor, starred in 1996, uses Uranium 233 fuel transformed from Thorium in the FBTR.
 * Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, a 500MWe fast breeder reactor using Mixed Oxide (Uranium oxide + Plutonium oxide) fuel based on the Sodium-cooled fast reactor design.

In addition, the Research Facility also built the 100MWe reactor for India's first nuclear submarine the Arihant class submarine project and operated it on land for testing purposes since it attained criticality in December 2004. The submarine launched on 26 July 2009 has this reactor.

Reprocessing plant
The Kalpakkam Atomic Reprocessing Plant [KARP] facility has been estimated to have a capacity to reprocess 100 tonnes of spent fuel plutonium per annum. It incorporates a number of innovative features such as hybrid maintenance concept in hot cells using servo-manipulators and engineered provisions for extending the life of the plant. This plant will cater to the needs of reprocessing fuels from MAPS as well as FBTR. It has mastered the technology of reprocessing highly irradiated mixed carbide fuel for the first time in the world.

Fast reactor fuel reprocessing at IGCAR
Reprocessing Development Laboratory was designed in early seventies and the commissioning of inactive facilities was carried out in 1976. The plutonium handling facilities were cleared for operation in 1980. The reprocessing of irradiated thorium rods which was carried out during the period 1989 to 1992 in the concrete shielded cells, was the first major radioactive operation. The U-233 recovered during the operation was used in fabricating the fuel for the KAlpakkam MINI reactor (KAMINI). U-233 was also useful for the fuel development programme for carrying out the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor test fuel irradiation experiments in Fast Breeder Test Reactor. Apart from this, the operation aided in validating the equipment and design of system as well as the manpower training. Later a hot cell facility for reprocessing of Fast Breeder Test Reactor fuel was conceived which had the necessary features for delivering the product with all the uncertainties in the dissolution of irradiated fuel and process flowsheet. Added to this was the need for the deployment of the yet to be proven designs of centrifuge and centrifugal extractors without which the success of the PUREX process for fast reactor fuel reprocessing would be doubtful. With these minimal inputs, the hot cell facility, Lead Mini Cell (LMC) was created, which was later rechristened as CORAL (COmpact Reprocessing facility for Advanced fuels in Lead cells). Based on the dissolution experiments carried out on unirradiated single pellets and systematic studies related to the third phase formation, the flow sheet, prepared earlier for the oxide fuel was modified.

Activities
Chemistry Group: Presently there are 4 subdivisions: Fuel Chemistry Division (FChD), Materials Chemistry Division (MCD), and Chemical Facilities Division (CFD). Facilities include Far-IR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer, Fluorimeter RF-5000, Impedance Spectrometer and Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS), Alpha Spectrometer, Liquid Scintillation Counter, High Purity Germanium Detector, Neutron Counter ED-XRF, HPLC, SFC, Ion Chromatography, Gas Chromatography, etc. Among various achievements of the Group, Radioisotope production for medicinal importance is the ongoing important projects and has societal impact.

Electronics, Instrumentation and Radiological Safety Group:

Electronics, Instrumentation and Radiological Safety Group consists of Instrumentation & Control Group and Radiological Safety & Environmental Group, Computer Division and Security Electronics Section.

Major activities of this group include: Engineering Services Group: Includes Central Workshop, Electrical Services and Civil Engineering Section.
 * Development of Full Scope, Replica type PFBR Operator Training Simulator, providing & management of Computing & Data Communication Facilities
 * Design & Development of Electronic Instrumentation & Control systems for Nuclear Reactors.
 * Design & Development of Innovative Instruments at low cost.
 * Carryout Research and Services in Radiological Safety, Quality Assurance and Environmental Safety

Fast Reactor Technology Group: Some activities include

Metallurgy and Materials Group: This group works consists of the
 * Operation of Large Component Test Rig for sodium testing of critical PFBR components such as Transfer Arm, Inclined Fuel Transfer Machine, Failed Fuel Location Modules and Absorber Rod Drive  Mechanisms (ARDMs).
 * Testing of 5.5MWt 19 tube model PFBR Steam Generator (SG)   in Steam generator test Facility  to optimise the design of Steam Generator for FBRs
 * Sodium water reaction studies in SOWART rig to assess  the  damage on SG materials on sodium water reaction, performance evaluation PFBR  of sodium leak detectors in LEENA facility,  Simulation of thermal transients and evaluation of  its effects  on critical  reactor components in  Thermal Shock Test Facility
 * Experiments in SADHANA facility simulating passive decay heat removal of PFBR SGDHR system.
 * Development and testing of fast reactor components in air, water and sodium
 * Carrying out experiments in water for design qualification and validation of thermal hydraulics codes
 * Hydraulic testing of Subassembly and Core components for FBR.
 * Vibration and noise analysis of fast reactor components
 * Design, development and Analysis of various types   of  Electromagnetic  devices  used in  FBR's
 * Development of High Flux Rod heaters and high watt density  immersion heaters  for liquid sodium heating
 * Testing of FFLM and core flow monitoring mechanisms
 * Design and development of Integrated Cold Trap and Integrated Plugging Indicator for future FBR's
 * Development and fabrication of sodium sensors for level, flow and leak detection
 * Development of Under Sodium Ultra Sonic scanner for under sodium viewing in FBR's
 * Process development of boron and separation technologies
 * Setting up of Ambient Temperature Electro Refiner (ATER) facility
 * Flow induced vibration testing of 7 Subassembly cluster

Materials Science Group: This group consists of
 * Material Physics Division
 * Surface and Nano-Science Division
 * Condensed Matter Physics Division
 * SQUID MEG Project

Nuclear & Safety Engineering Group: The objectives of the N&SEG are
 * To study the Radiological and Engineering Safety in Fast Breeder Reactor Systems and related Fuel Cycle Facilities
 * Radiological Monitoring and Health Physics Programme in different Radioactive Facilities at IGCAR
 * To carry out Industrial Safety Surveillance in all the facilities of the Centre
 * To study the Environmental Aspects

Reactor Engineering Group

Reactor Operation & Maintenance Group: The Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), the flagship of this centre and Kalpakkam Mini Reactor (KAMINI) come under this group. Reactor Operation and Maintenance Group consists of Reactor Operation Division (ROD), Reactor Maintenance Division (RMD), Technical Services Division (TSD) and Training & Human Resources Development Division (THRDD). Quality Assurance and Industrial Safety Section (QA&IS) and Liaison Cell are also coming under this group. Operation and maintenance of both FBTR & KAMINI reactors, planning and conducting irradiation programmes, reactor physics tests and engineering tests, manpower planning & training for FBTR and PFBR (BHAVINI), maintenance of chemical parameters of the coolants, periodic safety revaluation are carried out by ROMG.

Reprocessing Group: It is pursuing research and development of equipment and processes. It is also running a pilot plant for FBTR Fuel processing, constructing demo plant for FBTR and PFBR fuel reprocessing and designing the PFBR reprocessing plant.

Fast Reactor Fuel Cycle Facility

Strategic & Human Resources Planning Section

Staff
The centre has a staff strength of 2514 including 1243 Engineers and Scientists.

Budget
The annual outlay of the centre is around 8450 Million INR towards its Research & Development activities and plan.

Collaborations
The interaction with IIT-M started in 1995 through two collaborative projects, which were initiated with late Dr. R.S. Alwar, eminent professor in Applied Mechanics. The first project was on simulation of thermal shock on the control plug mockup and the second was on simulation of thermal striping in the core structure. An MoU was established on 19 July 1997 for the formation of ‘IGCAR- IITM Cell’ with Prof. R. Natarajan (then Director, IIT-M) as chairman and late Dr. Placid Rodriguez as co-chairman. Prof. K.V.S. Rama Rao was Dean, ICSR during that period. In the first cell meeting held on 26 February 1997, seven projects were identified. Based on the decisions taken in the meeting, four projects with a funding to the tune of eighty eight lakhs were sanctioned. In the past thirteen years, twenty five meetings of the IGCAR-IITM cell have been conducted. Already twenty nine projects have been completed with the funds to the tune of 40.5 million and fifteen projects are in progress with a funding of 34 million.

Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, has entered into a collaboration with the IIT Kharagpur to carry out research related to the design and development of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs). A dedicated IGCAR-IITKGP R&D cell has been set up in the premises of IIT Kharagpur under the Advanced Technology Development Centre's Structural Reliability Research Facility of IIT KGP.

Training school
IGCAR has a BARC Training School where young science post graduates and engineering graduates are trained in multiple disciplines for a period of one year.


text:
Talk:Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932)

captions

 * That Rama V's reforms saved Thailand from colonial rule is not an opinion but a fact recognised by every reference I have looked at
 * The map was based on reputable historical atlases. Adam 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You need to broaden your reading.;) I give you Siam Mapped by Thongchai Winichakul:

 * p. 102: the two major efforts which have been known to historians of Siam as measures of self-defense against the European threat- namely the reform of provincial administration and the expeditions to suppress the Ho disturbances in the Lao region. Both were in fact operations to resolve the ambiguity of the overlapping margins [between the Siamese and French spheres of influence].

 * p. 149: the conventional history of the loss of territories and provincial reform can exist only if the ideas of premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm are suspended or suppressed.

 * In the interests of being peacable I've neutered that one rather than reverting; there's no particular need for Chulalongkorn's caption to address nationalist mythology either way anyway.
 * I'm not quite sure what your second point is. If you're saying that the map is not derived from the 1935 map, then Thongchai traces the map which is widely reprinted in Thailand to that map.  If you are contending that there is a second line of maps, which has an independent source but which shows the same nationalist shibboleths, then you need to provide sources demonstrating an independent origin.   If you are suggesting that the map also appears in many recently published, non-Thai atlases, then I doubt it but I'll take your word for it and we can delete the word "Thai".  For the moment, I've added a citation for the only sourced information which we have. Mark1 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Map
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The map is not "replicated" from anywhere. I made it myself. Are you denying that these territories were lost under pressure from the British and French as the map shows?

 * Changed to "reproduces".  As you say, you copied it from other maps rather than through your own original research.   Certainly I would deny that the territories were "lost", although my own opinion is irrelevant; as I quoted before however, the conventional history of the loss of territories and provincial reform can exist only if the ideas of premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm are suspended or suppressed.  The idea of pre-1907 Siam as a nation state with borders and territories to "lose" is an anachronism. Mark1 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand the difference between a pre-modern polity and a modern state. But 19th century Siam was not a "nonbounded realm." Its boundaries to the west and south were set by the British and those to the east and north-east by the French. The map shows territories which the Kings of Siam were forced to ceded sovereignty over to the colonial powers, as both sides understood. This is the established ("conventional" if you like) history, which is what both the article and the map need to reflect. If you want to cite dissenting views, you should do in the text and we can then debate that. Adam 03:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I note that the text says: "All of these "lost territories" were on the fringes of the Siamese sphere of influence and had never been securely under their control, but being compelled to abandon all claim to them was a substantial humiliation to both king and country." I think that addresses the point you are making. Adam 03:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The article does not need to reflect conventional views of history. It needs to neutrally describe all reputable views. The idea that Siam had the territories to cede is far from non-disputed and should not be presented as fact. Mark1 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Then make an edit to the text and we can discuss it. The caption as you currently have it only serves to mystify readers. Adam 01:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, at the moment the text says: All of these "lost territories" were on the fringes of the Siamese sphere of influence and had never been securely under their control, but being compelled to abandon all claim to them was a substantial humiliation to both king and country... In the early 20th century these crises were adopted by the increasingly nationalist government as symbols of the need for the country to assert itself against the West and its neighbours. I'm not clear what that leaves unexplained about the caption. Mark1 02:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I wrote. I want to know what you think is the fact of the matter. At the moment the captions suggests that there were no lost territories at all, that this is just a fantasy of the Phibun regime. The caption must correspond to what is in the text. So either you write some text that explains and supports the caption, or I delete the caption. Adam 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There were abandoned claims; there were no lost territories.  I don't see any discrepancy between the text and the caption. Mark1 02:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The text says:

 * In 1893 the French authorities in Indochina used a minor border dispute to provoke a crisis. French gunboats appeared at Bangkok, and demanded the cession of Lao territories east of the Mekong. The King appealed to the British, but the British minister told the King to settle on whatever terms he could get, and he had no choice but to comply. Britain's only gesture was an agreement with France guaranteeing the integrity of the rest of Siam. In exchange, Siam had to give up its claim to the Tai-speaking Shan region of north-eastern Burma to the British.

 * The French, however, continued to pressure Siam, and in 1906–1907 they manufactured another crisis. This time Siam had to give up territory on the west bank of the Mekong opposite Luang Prabang and around Champasak in southern Laos, as well as western Cambodia. The British interceded to prevent more French bullying of Siam, but their price, in 1909, was the transfer to British Malaya of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu.

You apparently dispute that these events took place, and the caption you have given the map reflects that view. If that is the case, write some text stating your position. If you don't I will delete the caption. Adam 02:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Done- thanks for pointing those bits out. It would be nice to have an exploration of the evidence for the varying degrees of control which each power exercised over each territory at each time, but that would be beyond the scope of this overview article.  I think here it's wisest to neutral formulations rather than "A says, B says". Mark1 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The map again
Yes we have been over this several times, but I am returning to this issue. I am now reading Stuart-Fox's history of Laos preparatory to travelling there. He includes a detailed description of the French annexations of the territory which now comprises Laos in 1893 and 1904. It is quite clear from this that the position Markalexander has been taking in relation to the map is not correct. By 1893 the Siamese government no longer saw itself as a "premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm." It saw itself as a modern nation state and claimed the Lao lands as its territory. This perception was no doubt not entirely accurate, but that is not the point. The French actions of 1893 and 1904 were a straitforward territorial annexation under threat of force, analagous to the German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine. The Siamese did not see these events in pre-modern terms, and nor of course did the French.

I am therefore not prepared any longer to accept Markalexander's caption to the map, which I created, and which is not based on any Thai map of 1935, nor on any nationalist mythology of subsequent Thai regimes, but on my own reading of Thai and Lao history. The text explains clearly that Siamese sovereignty over some of these lands was at times only nominal. I agree that this was the case with the Shan states and with the Malay sultanates, but it was not true of the Lao lands by 1893, where the Siamese had done their best to establish a formal military and civil administration. The caption should describe the map for what it is - a map of lands which were transferred under duress from Siamese sovereignty to French or British sovereignty. Adam 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Can you live with my abandoned territorial claims proposal, which with a bit of luck is equally obnoxious to both of us? Mark1 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

But Siam/Thailand did not abandon its claims to these territories, as was shown in 1941 when Phibun retrieved some of them. The claims weren't abandoned until 1947, when Pridi did his deal with the Allies. I would accept "Territories claimed by Siam but occupied by France and Britain". Adam 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * They did abandon the claims in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as my proposed caption says (that's what the treaties said); Phibun revived them in the 30s and 40s. Revival of the claims belongs in a later section. Alternatively, how about "territorial concessions", which skips over the thorny question of exactly what rights were being conceded?  Mark1 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rama I
The section about Rama I is simply incorrect. This article is another attempt of 'farangs' who thought they knew something about Thai history; only that they don't. I appreciated your time but what your wrote is simply incorrect. This is another example of why Wikipedia should not be use as a reliable reference source.

 * 'His government was carried out by six great ministries headed by royal princes. Four of these administered particular territories: the Kalahom the south; the Mahatthai the north and east; the Phrakhlang the area immediately south of the capital; and the Krommueang the area around Bangkok. The other two were the ministry of lands (Krom Na) and the ministry of the royal court (Krom Wang).'

--There were only 4 ministries during the reign of Rama I which were Krom Weing, Krom Wang, Krom Krang (Phrakhlang), Krom na

 * 'The army was controlled by the King's deputy and brother, the Uparat.'

--There was NO Uparat title during the reign of Rama I

Also, in the Rama II and Rama III, there are many incorrect points.Dhanakorn 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So provide sources and fix it. Markyour words 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The parts of the article I wrote are largely based on Wyatt's History of Thailand. I don't have the book in front of me at present but I'm fairly confident I have paraphrased him correctly. So if you think it is wrong you will need to provide a better source that Wyatt. Adam 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
I am proposing a move of this article to the title Rattanakosin Kingdom, which currently redirects here. Thai studies on national history has traditionally divided and named the periods of Thai history after the Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Thonburi and Rattanakosin Kingdoms, the last of which spans from 1782 to the present (even if the name has been all but abandoned). Thonburi Kingdom already has its own article, so the corresponding section on this page should be moved there, and although today is still technically within the Rattanakosin Period, leaving the discussion in this article at 1932 as it currently does would remain appropriate in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Make it so. --rikker (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox former country unsuitable
I don't think is entirely suitable for use in this article, at least not the way it is currently done. The Rattanakosin Kingdom extends from 1782 up until now, and is the current historical period in Thailand. Unlike European former states which had specific borders and symbols during their time of existence, Rattanakosin's evolved over time, and it would be inappropriate to show a single flag, symbol or map in the infobox, as this would likely mislead the reader into thinking that those were representative of all the Kingdom's stages.

The article should be modified to clearly tell the reader that the Rattanakosin Kingdom did not end at 1932, but rather continues on until today, although the name did fall out of common usage and now mostly refers to the historical aspect of the period. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rattanakosin vs Ratanakosin?
Is there a reason why the spelling with two Ts are used instead of one that would follow RTGS? --Dara (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the spelling with two Ts is more prevalent. But the spelling with one does occur in articles, I got 22 in a search result, with one in an article name space. --Dara (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rattanakosin is the RTGS spelling. As the name is formed by samasa, it is pronounced [รัด-ตะ-นะ-โก-สิน], with ต being both the final consonant of the first syllable and the initial consonant of the second. The spelling of naval ship's names need not follow the RTGS, though it's not really clear what the Navy's preferred spelling is exactly. These navy websites don't use a consistent spelling.  --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope
The current mismatch between the article title (Rattanakosin Kingdom, which technically spans 1782 – the present) and its actual scope (1782–1932) appears to be causing confusion. Should the article be moved to something more specific, e.g. Rattanakosin Kingdom (pre-1932)? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late answer. I do not think that the scope of the article should be extended beyond 1932 until today, as this would be redundant to History of Thailand (1932–1973) and History of Thailand since 1973. In my perception, "Rattanakosin" is rarely used for the time after 1932, while technically you are right, it continues to the present. I do not have a problem with the title as-is, if the intro properly defined the scope of the article. Alternatively, History of Thailand (1782–1932), History of Siam (1782–1932) or Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932) would be accurate and unambiguous without being too clumsy. I do not have a strong preference for either title. --RJFF (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rattanakosin Kingdom. 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/20120229092046/http://www.seasite.niu.edu:85/Thai/Islam_in_Thailand/140_southern_thailand___the_problem_with_paramilitaries.pdf to http://www.seasite.niu.edu:85/Thai/Islam_in_Thailand/140_southern_thailand___the_problem_with_paramilitaries.pdf

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) 02:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Map of Siam (territorial cessions).svg (discussion)
 * Map of the Rattanakosin Kingdom.svg (discussion)

Infobox change?
Should the Rattanakosin Kingdom infobox be changed from a historical era to that of a country/former country, and mention the historical era there? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I think my above comments from 2009 still mostly apply, though I don't feel as strongly now about the issue. The problem with using Infobox former country is that it will say that the kingdom ended in 1932 and was replaced by Thailand, while traditional historiography holds that there has been no disruption in the continuity of the state since 1872 until now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I find it just a little annoying how the 1932 and 1973 History of Thailand articles feature the map in the infobox and this page doesn't, though that's just my own opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems more to me that those uses are incorrect, but there doesn't seem to be a standard for this kind of articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the flag
If I am not mistaken, the flag in the infobox is the first flag of the Rattanakosin Kingdom. I don't mind this present flag, but I'm trying to understand if the present flag is used to symbolize the era or not? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Section outline is confusing or too long.
I would suggest arrange them to be similar as Byzantine Empire article. (It has long more than 1,000 years..compare to this one)--Polyesterchips (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A second option would be to split the article into two (i.e. 1782-1851/55 and 1851/55 and 1932), but I prefer the single article for Rattanakosin if possible. The non history section needs a revamp. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've thought for some time that the coverage of the early (1st–3rd reigns) and middle (4th reign until 1932) Rattanakosin periods should be split across separate sub-articles, since they cover different trajectories. Since there's already History of Thailand as the main article, I'm not sure an overview for the entire Rattanakosin period is still needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Architecture section
I think this article needs an architecture section like the Ayutthaya article. The Rattanakosin period is just as influential (if not more so) in terms of cultural development of Thailand. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Map is somewhat off
I know that the current infobox map is taken right out of Wyatt's 2003 book, but even in the text, he only mentions of Siamese raids into Kengtung, seizing people and material, but never vassalizing the region. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

How come every section does not have any citation?
Please suggest how to solve this problem. Maybe we have to rewrite it all? Adding citations for this article would be really difficult for anyone, it is better to rewrite it. --Polyesterchips (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The bulk of the article content was probably created back in Wikipedia's early days, before citation requirements became established. It could use a complete rewriting, and while that is being considered, maybe reorganisation of content as mentioned above would be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)–

Are the Thai territorial losses overstated in Thai history?
This is my personal belief, also from this podcast https://newbooksnetwork.com/shane-strate-the-lost-territories-thailands-history-of-national-humiliation-u-of-hawaii-press-2015/ by New Books Network on the book "The Lost Territories: Thailand's History of National Humiliation". In the podcast, the author of the book, Shane Strate, kind of states that the territorial losses didn't really matter to Thai elites when those territories were actually ceded in the late 19th/early 20th century but were a product of 1930s/40s Thai nationalism, in which the idea of the "lost territories" were created. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue was first and most extensively explored by Thongchai Winichakul in Siam Mapped, which is cited in the article, but rather haphazardly, and not in regard to the specific topic. It's pretty much required reading for balancing out the traditional historiography, but the text itself isn't very accessible IMO. Many other recent works, including the one you mention, follow and/or expand on this line of thought, and yes, it needs to be worked into the article. (See also the topmost section of this talk page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(2 years later) Just an update that the article Territorial losses of Thailand has since been created that covers the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Separating this article into "Early" and "Late Rattanakosin"?
There's a lot of stuff on this article now that I think it might be better separating it into two separate articles or at least moving some of this into niche articles. There's a distinctive transformation between Early and Late Rattanakosin too historically as well, the Siam of 1782 was drastically different, demographically, culturally, and politically, from the Siam of 1910 and after, even and especially in Bangkok. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Too much content about demographics and not enough about history; Streamlining?
As much as I would like to imagine this kingdom as significant as the Byzantines were, I don't think it's worth dedicating all the stuff about the demographics and foreign relations on this main article. A possible idea is to separate this into their own specific pages and to therefore shorten this page? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is Kengtung shown as a part of Siam on the map?
In the Burmese Siamese War (1765-67) article, it mentions that the Siamese failed to take Kengtung. I also read that in Wyatt's book, in which states that the Siamese only seized captives from the region, never establishing a tributary. The Burmese also have quite reliable historical sources and that's where I assume that information was retrieved in 1765-67 article.

Wyatt mentions only slave raids, or the depopulation of the region, not vassalization. I personally assume the map to be some kind of error in his book. Neither Baker and Phongpaichit in "A History of Thailand" nor WAR Wood's "History of Siam" ever mention Siam vassalizing Kengtung during this period either. You can find Wood's book on Internet Archive. Yourlocallordandsavior 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "By 1802, he raided Keng Tung and carried off many families for resettlement farther south. (Wyatt 138)"

The book "The Emergence of Modern Southeast Asia: A New History" (pg. 101) also says the same (of whom Wyatt is also involved in the book) https://books.google.com/books?id=h5kBEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 * The map seems to be largely based on that from Wyatt's book, which in turn appears to have been influenced by the set of maps produced by the Royal Survey Department around 1935, which have since been widely popularized by Thongbai Taengnoi's student atlases (though Wyatt's excludes the Mon country).

 * Larry Sternstein (1964) says of the map:"[T]he Thai dominions are, as usual, overstated and under-differentiated. Tavoy and Mergui were under Thai suzerainty for only the two year interval A.D. 1791 to 1793, and never since; the northern Malay States could be considered vassals only in the sense that Thailand was a vassal of China; there appears to be no historical justification for the inclusion of the Southern Shan States; and Laos and Cambodia were vassals, not integral parts of the Kingdom." I think I made the argument somewhere above that the map is not an appropriate representation of the historical period covered by the article. Regardless of the accuracy issue, it unavoidably paints an inaccurate picture of the geopolitical relationships of the time period. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter?
@Vif12vf it doesn’t matter how much countries is listed, as long as that’s what that place is currently part of, whether it’s 8 or 10 current countries, it really doesn’t matter. Javyriv (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * The established standard for the today-section is no more than 4-5 countries. So yes, it does matter! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Anthems correct?
Are the link to the anthems correct? The first anthem links to God Saves the King, which is the anthem of the UK. The second anthem links to the current Thai Royal Anthem, and not "The Floating Moon on the Sky" or "Glory his Prestige". 223.24.167.158 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Article split
As has been raised earlier by Polyesterchips and Yourlocallordandsavior, there's a case to be made for splitting the coverage of Thai history from 1782 to 1932 into smaller articles, considering the distinct change in trajectory of the history the period. While the current text, contributed by NewFrontierHistoryEng, makes the split at watershed events in 1855 (Bowring treaty) and 1905 (abolition of corvée), the more traditional approach (that aligns better with sources) would be to follow the reign boundaries.

For the first three reigns, the term early Rattanakosin period is quite well attested, and I think that should be the natural choice for the article title. For the remainder, there seem to be various approaches. Some consider the period of modernisation to cover only the fourth and fifth reigns, though it would be more convenient to just cover the 1851–1932 period together (as there's not that much to cover between 1910 and 1932). While some sources use the term middle Rattanakosin period, they're much rarer than those for early. References to modernisation and reform are often used, but more as a description than a distinct term, so there doesn't seem to be an easy natural title here.

We could also fall back on the descriptive title History of Thailand (1851–1932), which would be consistent with succeeding articles. Or we could stick with the current format, and name the new articles Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1851) and Rattanakosin Kingdom (1851–1932) (though my preference is against this as I think the title should emphasise the fact that these are periodisations rather than distinct countries, a misconception that the kingdom terminology is bound to cause).

As for the remaining Rattanakosin Kingdom page, I think it should be converted to a disambiguation / set index page, which would require that incoming links be updated.

In summary, here's a breakdown of the options I see:

 * 1 Do nothing; leave the article as-is.
 * 2 Split the article into two periods, covering 1872–1851 and 1851–1932, titled:
 * A Early Rattanakosin period and Middle Rattanakosin period
 * B Early Rattanakosin period and History of Thailand (1851–1932)
 * C History of Thailand (1782–1851) and History of Thailand (1851–1932)
 * D Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1851) and Rattanakosin Kingdom (1851–1932)
 * E Something else
 * 3 Split using some other period divider.

Opinions and suggestions, please? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Early Rattanakosin period and History of Thailand (1851-1932). Might have nationalistic problems to do C if you claim that Thailand began in 1782 and that Ayutthaya wasn't Thai, etc... Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion, option E, most common divider for Thai narrative is the King Rama V reign (1868), similar to the Meiji period in Japan, but he centralized all regions to the Royal power. Polyesterchips (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fifth reign is often discussed by itself and could very well be its own stand-alone article, but I don't think it's a very useful approach to subdividing the Rattanakosin period, as you'd be left with four reigns before and another two after, which don't balance well. Lumping the fourth reign together with the first three also doesn't make much narrative sense, as the historical trajectory had already changed by then. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932)