text:
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is the first international treaty that focuses exclusively on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. It was signed at The Hague, Netherlands, on 14 May 1954 and entered into force on 7 August 1956. , it has been ratified by 133 states.

The provisions of the 1954 Convention were supplemented and clarified by two protocols concluded in 1954 and 1999. All three agreements are part of International Humanitarian Law, which, in the form of further agreements, primarily includes provisions defining the permissible means and methods of warfare and aiming at the widest possible protection of persons not involved in the fighting. In contrast to these parts of International Humanitarian Law, the agreements on the protection of cultural property were drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations (UN); the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is primarily responsible for the dissemination and monitoring of compliance. In addition to rules designed to ensure the protection and respect of cultural property during an armed conflict, these agreements also provide for security measures to be implemented in times of peace.

Blue Shield International, based in The Hague, is active in the field of international coordination with regard to military and civil structures for the protection of cultural assets.

The guiding principles of the Convention and the motivation for its conclusion, dissemination and respect are summarised in the preamble, which states, among other things:

"... that any damage to cultural property, irrespective of the people it belongs to, is a damage to the cultural heritage of all humanity, because every people contributes to the world's culture ..."

States parties
[[File:HagueConvention1954.svg|thumb|450px|

, 133 states are party to the treaty and there are 110 States Parties to the First Protocol, while the Second Protocol has 84 States Parties.

Cultural property
For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 'cultural property' shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;

(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a);

(c) centers containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as 'centers containing monuments'.

Cultural property is the manifestation and expression of the cultural heritage of a group of people or a society. It is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including the customs of a people, their practices, places, objects, artistic endeavours and values. The protection of cultural property during times of armed conflict or occupation is of great importance, because such property reflects the life, history and identity of communities; its preservation helps to rebuild communities, re-establish identities, and link people's past with their present and future.

Preceding conventions
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 preceded the Hague Convention of 1954. The multilateral agreement of 1899 and the slightly amended later version of 1907 contained in Article 27 the commandment for the attacking party to spare historical monuments, educational institutions and institutions of religious, not-for-profit, artistic or scientific significance as far as possible during sieges and bombardments. The party under attack is called upon to mark appropriate buildings. Article 56 also contained a general ban on the confiscation, destruction or damage of such facilities. However, during the First World War, acceptance of these first Hague Conventions was severely restricted by the so-called all-participation clause. It stated that, in the event of war or armed conflict, this Agreement should apply only if all States involved in that conflict are parties to the Convention.

The Russian lawyer, painter and writer Nicholas Roerich, who witnessed the destruction of cultural assets in Russia during the First World War and the October Revolution, initiated the development of an independent treaty at the beginning of the 1930s to protect cultural assets during armed conflicts. On his initiative, Georges Chklaver of the Institute for Higher International Studies at the University of Paris drew up a corresponding draft in 1929. This proposal was subsequently discussed by the International Museum Office of the League of Nations and at private conferences in Bruges in 1931 and 1932 and in Washington, D.C. in 1933. The seventh international conference of American states, which took place in Buenos Aires in 1933, recommended the adoption of the draft. The Board of the Pan-American Union subsequently presented a treaty "on the protection of artistic and scientific institutions and historical monuments", which was signed on 15 April 1935 in the White House by 21 states in North, Central and South America. Ten of the signatory states also became parties by ratification, the first of which was the United States on 13 July 1935 and the last of which was Colombia on 20 February 1937. The agreement, also known as the Roerich Pact after its initiator, entered into force on 26 August 1935.

The Roerich Pact contained eight articles and several significant innovations compared with the general provisions of Articles 27 and 56 of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. On the one hand, the treaty established the status of neutrality for historical monuments, museums, scientific and artistic institutions as well as educational and cultural institutions. This legal position, comparable to the neutrality of medical personnel and comparable institutions during a war, resulted in respect for these goods by all parties involved in a conflict and thus their protection. The Parties should send lists of monuments and sites for which they claimed protection under the Treaty to the Pan-American Union, which should forward them to all States Parties.

In addition, the Treaty defined a protection mark for the marking of cultural objects, consisting of three red dots in a red circle on a white background. Nicholas Roerich, who designed it with early symbolism in mind, described the significance of the three points as a symbol of art, science and religion as the three most important cultural activities of humanity, with the circle as the element that linked these three aspects in the past, present and future. The symbol was also called the "Banner of Peace", the movement based on the Roerich Pact under the name Pax Cultura in analogy to the Geneva Conventions as the "Red Cross of Culture".

However, the acceptance of the Roerich Pact was limited to the United States and the countries of Central and South America. Not a single country in Europe and Asia, the geopolitical focus of the Second World War that began a few years later, signed or ratified the treaty. Even though it remains valid in relations between the parties and the Organization of American States (OAS) and continues to act as a depositary in succession to the Pan-American Union, the Roerich Pact remained without significant practical relevance. As the USA is not party to the 1999 Second Protocol of the Hague Convention, the Roerich Pact is therefore still of importance as a contractual obligation in the area of cultural property protection. Nevertheless, with the establishment of a protective label and the administration of lists of cultural assets worthy of protection by a central international institution, this treaty introduced two important far-reaching principles in the area of the protection of cultural assets in armed conflicts that remain important today.

Only four years after the Roerich Pact was signed, the government of the Netherlands presented a draft for a new convention, in the drafting of which the International Museum Office of the League of Nations was also significantly involved. However, the start of the Second World War in the same year prevented all further steps to develop and implement this proposal. After the end of the war, in 1948 the Netherlands again submitted a proposal to UNESCO, which had been founded three years earlier. In 1951, the General Conference of UNESCO decided to set up a committee of governmental experts to draft a new convention. A year later, this committee submitted a draft to the General Conference, which forwarded it to the national governments for further discussion. From 21 April to 14 May 1954, an international conference was held in The Hague with the participation of 56 states, which drew up a final version and adopted it as the "Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict". The agreement entered into force on 7 August 1956. After the 1948 Genocide Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this was the second important agreement in the field of international humanitarian law to which the United Nations played a major role in its creation and implementation.

The Nazis and "degenerate art"
The Nazi Party headed by Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany in 1933 after the country's crippling defeat, and its socioeconomic distress during the years following World War I. World War II was aimed at reclaiming the glory of the once great Germanic state. Cultural property of many European nations and significant ethnic and social groups within them fell victim to Nazi Germany. The Nazi party, through the Third Reich, confiscated close to 20% of all Western European art during the war. By the end of the Second World War, the Nazi party had looted and collected thousands of objects, art works and artefacts from occupied nations, destroyed many, or stored them in secret.

With artists depicting the hardship of the German people after World War I, and further expressing the fear of anti-Semitism and fascism, the Nazi party and Hitler himself soon realised the dangerous power of art, and began to clamp down on artistic production and forcing both artists and the public alike to adhere to a Nazi-approved style.

Inherent within the Nazi's ideology was the idea of supremacy of the Aryan Race and all that it produced; as such the Nazi campaign's aims were to neutralize non-Germanic cultures and this was done through the destruction of culturally significant art and artefacts. This is illustrated greatest in the Jewish communities throughout Europe; by devising a series of laws that allowed them to justify and regulate the legal confiscation of cultural and personal property. Within Germany the looting of German Jewish cultural property began with the confiscation of non-Germanic artwork in the German state collection. Further, artists that were Jewish and artworks that did not match the Nazi ideology, or posed a threat to it, were stamped as degenerate art. Degenerate works of art, culminating in the infamous exhibition with the same name, were those whose subject, artist, or art was either Jewish or expressed Anti-Nazi sentiments, and was as such offensive to the Third Reich.

Jewish collections were looted the most throughout the war. German Jews were ordered to report their personal assets, which were then privatized by the country. Jewish owned art galleries were forced to sell the works of art they housed. The Nazis concentrated their efforts on ensuring that all art within Germany would be Aryan in nature, speaking to the might of the Germanic state rather than Jewish art which was deemed as a blight on society. In a feat to "purge" German museums and collections, confiscation committees seized approximately 16,000 items within Germany. The remaining unexploited art was destroyed in massive bonfires. As the war progressed, the Nazi party elite ordered the confiscation of cultural property throughout various European countries.

Nazi plunder in Eastern Europe
In the Soviet Union, Nazi plunder of cultural significant art is best illustrated in the Third Reich's pillage of the Catherine Palace near St Petersburg and its famous Amber Room dating to the early 1700s. In October 1941, the Nazis had occupied the western portion of the Soviet Union, and began removing art treasures to the west. The entirety of the Amber Room was removed to Königsberg and reconstructed there. In January 1945, with the Russian army advancing on the city, the Amber Room was ordered to be moved again but its fate is thereafter unclear. A post-war Russian report concluded that 'summarizing all the facts, we can say that the Amber Room was destroyed between 9 and 11 April 1945' during the battle to take the city. However, in the absence of definitive proof, other theories about its fate continue to be entertained to the present day. With financial assistance from German donors, Russian craftsmen reconstructed a new Amber Room during the 1990s. The new room was dedicated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the 300th anniversary of the city of Saint Petersburg.

After World War II
With the conclusion of the Second World War and the subsequent defeat of the Axis Powers, the atrocities which the Nazi leadership condoned, leading to the removal of culturally significant items and the destruction of numerous others could not be allowed to occur in future generations. This led the victorious Allied forces to create provisions to ensure safeguards for culturally significant items in times of war. As a result, following the signature of the Roerich Pact by the American States in 1935, attempts were undertaken to draft a more comprehensive convention for the protection of monuments and works of art in time of war. In 1939, a draft convention, elaborated under the auspices of the International Museums Office, was presented to governments by the Netherlands. Due to the onset of the Second World War the draft convention was shelved with no further steps being taken. With the conclusion of the war, a new proposal was submitted to UNESCO by the Netherlands in 1948. The General Conference of UNESCO in 1951 decided to convene a committee of government experts to draft a convention. This committee met in 1952 and thereafter submitted its drafts to the General Conference. The intergovernmental Conference, which drew up and adopted the Convention and the further Acts, took place at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954 where 56 States were represented. Following this international agreement The Hague Convention For the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict would come into force in 1956 in order to be an instrument of non derogation for the states bound by the document to stop the looting and destruction of cultural property.

The Hague Convention
The Hague Convention outlines various prohibitions and obligations which States Parties are expected to observe, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.

Broadly, the Hague Convention requires that States Parties adopt protection measures during peacetime for the safeguarding of cultural property. Such measures include the preparation of inventories, preparation for the removal of movable cultural property and the designation of competent authorities responsible for the safeguarding of cultural property.

States Parties undertake to respect cultural property, not only located within their own territory, but also within the territory of other States Parties, during times of conflict and occupation. In doing so, they agree to refrain from using cultural property and its immediate surroundings for purposes likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict. States Parties also agree to refrain from any act of hostility directed against such property.

The Convention also requires the establishment of special units within national military forces, to be charged with responsibility for the protection of cultural property. Furthermore, States Parties are required to implement criminal sanctions for breaches of the Convention, and to undertake promotion of the Convention to the general public, cultural heritage professionals, the military and law-enforcement agencies.

An example of the successful implementation of the Hague Convention was the Gulf War, in which many members of the coalition forces (who were either party to the Convention or who, in the instance of the US, were not party to the Convention) accepted the Convention's rules, most notably by creating a "no-fire target list" of places where cultural property was known to exist.

Safeguarding cultural property
The obligation of States Parties to safeguard cultural property in peacetime is outlined in Article 3. It stipulates:

'The High Contracting Parties undertake to prepare in time of peace for the safeguarding of cultural property situated within their own territory against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict, by taking such measures, as they consider appropriate.'

Respect for cultural property
The Hague Convention sets out a minimum level of respect which all States Parties must observe, both in relation to their own national heritage as well as the heritage of other States Parties. States are obliged not to attack cultural property, nor to remove or misappropriate movable property from its territory of origin. Only exceptional cases of 'military necessity' will excuse derogation from this obligation. However, a State Party is not entitled to ignore the Convention's rules by reason of another Party's failure to implement safeguarding measures alone.

This is set out in Article 4 of the Hague Convention:

"Article 4:

(1) The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property.

(2) The obligations mentioned in paragraph I of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.

(3) The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property. They shall, refrain from requisitioning movable cultural property situated in the territory of another High Contracting Party.

(4) They shall refrain from any act directed by way of reprisals against cultural property.

(5) No High Contracting Party may evade the obligations incumbent upon it under the present Article, in respect of another High Contracting Party, by reason of the fact that the latter has not applied the measures of safeguard referred to in Article 3.'"

Occupation
The rules set out in the Hague Convention also apply to States who are Occupying Powers of territory during conflict or otherwise. The Convention obliges Occupying Powers to respect the cultural property of the occupied territory, and to support local national authorities in its preservation and repair when necessary. This obligation is articulated in Article 5:

"Article 5:

(1) Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural property.

(2) Should it prove necessary to take measures to preserve cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by military operations, and should the competent national authorities be unable to take such measures, the Occupying Power shall, as far as possible, and in close co-operation with such authorities, take the most necessary measures of preservation.

(3) Any High Contracting Party whose government is considered their legitimate government by members of a resistance movement, shall, if possible, draw their attention to the obligation to comply with those provisions of the Conventions dealing with respect for cultural property."

Special protection
The Hague Convention establishes a 'special protection' regime, which obliges States Parties to ensure the immunity of cultural property under special protection from acts of hostility (Articles 8 and 9). Under Article 8, this protection may be granted to one of three categories of cultural property: (1) refuges intended to shelter movable cultural property in the event of armed conflict; (2) centers containing monuments; and (3) other immovable cultural property of very great importance. To receive special protection, cultural property must also be located an adequate distance from an industrial center or location which would render it vulnerable to attack, and must not be used for military purposes.

First Protocol to the Hague Convention
The First Protocol was adopted at the same time as the Hague Convention, on 14 May 1954. It specifically applies to movable cultural property only, and prohibits the export of movable property from occupied territory and also requires its return to its original territory at the conclusion of hostilities (Article 1). States Parties under the obligation to prevent the export of such property may be required to pay an indemnity to States whose property was removed during hostilities.

Second Protocol to the Hague Convention
Criminal acts committed against cultural property in the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s highlighted the deficiencies in the implementation of the Hague Convention and its First Protocol. As a result of the 'Boylan review' (a review of the Convention led by Professor Patrick Boylan), the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention was adopted at a diplomatic conference held at The Hague in March 1999. The Second Protocol seeks complement and expand upon the provisions of the Hague Convention, by including developments in international humanitarian law and cultural property protection which had emerged since 1954. It builds on the provisions contained in the Convention relating to the safeguarding of and respect for cultural property, as well as the conduct of hostilities; thereby providing greater protection for cultural property than that conferred by the Hague Convention and its First Protocol.

Enhanced protection
One of the most important features of the Second Protocol is the 'enhanced protection' regime it establishes. This new category of cultural property is outlined in Chapter Three of the Second Protocol. Enhanced protection status means that the relevant cultural property must remain immune from military attack, once it is inscribed on the List of Cultural Property Under Enhanced Protection. While the 1954 Hague Convention requires States not to make any cultural property the object of attack except for cases of 'military necessity', the Second Protocol stipulates that cultural property under enhanced protection must not be made a military target, even if it has (by its use) become a 'military objective'. An attack against cultural property which enjoys enhanced protection status is only excusable if such an attack is the 'only feasible means of terminating the use of property [in that way]' (Article 13).

To be granted enhanced protection, the cultural property in question must satisfy the three criteria stipulated in Article 10 of the Second Protocol. The three conditions are:

1. it is cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity;

2. it is protected by adequate domestic legal and administrative measures recognising its exceptional cultural and historic value and ensuring the highest level of protection; and

3. it is not used for military purposes or to shield military sites and a declaration has been made by the Party which has control over the cultural property, confirming that it will not be so used.

Currently there are 13 cultural properties from 8 States Parties inscribed on the Enhanced Protection List. These include sites in Azerbaijan, Belgium, Cambodia, Cyprus, Georgia, Italy, Lithuania, and Mali.

The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
Article 24 of the Second Protocol establishes a 12-member Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Its members are elected for a term of four years, and an equitable geographic representation is taken into account at the election of its members. The Committee meets once a year in ordinary session, and in extraordinary sessions if and when it deems necessary.

The Committee is responsible for the granting, suspension and cancellation of enhanced protection to cultural properties nominated by States Parties. It also receives and considers requests for international assistance which are submitted by States, as well as determining the use of the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Under Article 27 of the Second Protocol, the Committee also has a mandate to develop Guidelines for the implementation of the Second Protocol.

The Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
Article 29 of the Second Protocol establishes the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Its purpose is to provide financial or other assistance for 'preparatory or other measures to be taken in peacetime'. It also provides financial or other assistance in relation to 'emergency, provisional or other measures to protect cultural property during periods of armed conflict', or for recovery at the end of hostilities. The Fund consists of voluntary contributions from States Parties to the Second Protocol. In 2016, the sums of US$50,000 and US$40,000 were provided to Libya and Mali respectively from the Fund, in response to their requests for assistance in the installation of emergency and safeguarding measures.

Sanctions and individual criminal responsibility
Chapter Four of the Second Protocol specifies sanctions to be imposed for serious violations against cultural property, and defines the conditions in which individual criminal responsibility should apply. This reflects an increased effort to fight impunity through effective criminal prosecution since the adoption of the Hague Convention in 1954. The Second Protocol defines five 'serious violations' for which it establishes individual criminal responsibility (Article 15): States are obligated to adopt appropriate legislation to make these violations criminal offences under their domestic legislation, to stipulate appropriate penalties for these offences, and to establish jurisdiction over these offences (including universal jurisdiction for three of the five serious violations, as set out in Article 16(1)(c)).
 * 1) making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack;
 * 2) using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action;
 * 3) extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol;
 * 4) making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack; and
 * 5) theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.

An example of prosecution for crimes against cultural property is The Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi case, handed down by the International Criminal Court on 27 September 2016. Al Mahdi was charged with and pleaded guilty to the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against historic monuments and buildings dedicated to religion, and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Al Mahdi was a member of the Ansar Eddine group (a group associated with Al Qaeda), and a co-perpetrator of damaging and destroying nine mausoleums and one mosque in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012.

Military Manual
In 2016 UNESCO, in collaboration with the Sanremo International Institute of Humanitarian Law, published a manual titled 'Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual'. This manual outlines the rules and obligations contained in the Second Protocol, and provides practical guidance on how these rules should be implemented by military forces around the world. It also contains suggestions as to best military practices in relation to these obligations. It relates only to the international laws governing armed conflict, and does not discuss military assistance that is provided in connection with other circumstances such as natural disasters.

Punishment for infringements
The Rome Statute, adopted in July 1998 and entering into force four years later, as the legal basis of the International Criminal Court (ICC), defines in Article 8(2) deliberate attacks against buildings of a religious, educational, artistic, scientific or non-profit nature and against historical monuments as war crimes in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The International Criminal Court is thus authorised to prosecute such crimes if such an act was committed either by a national of a Contracting Party or on the territory of a Contracting Party. However, it only exercises its competence if the country concerned is unwilling or unable to ensure effective prosecution itself. Since September 2015, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi has been charged with the destruction of mausoleums in Timbuktu in the first trial before the ICC over the destruction of cultural assets.

Siege of Dubrovnik and the Mostar Bridge
Article 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia also contains provisions that allow the prosecution of violations of the fundamental principles of the Hague Convention of 1954. On the basis of this article, for the first time since the conclusion of the Convention, proceedings were brought in an international court for the destruction of cultural property during an armed conflict.

From the time of its establishment the city of Dubrovnik was under the protection of the Byzantine Empire; after the Fourth Crusade the city came under the sovereignty of Venice 1205–1358 CE, and by the Treaty of Zadar in 1358, it became part of the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom. Following the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the city was annexed by Austria and remained part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until the conclusion of the First World War. From 1918 to 1939 Dubrovnik was part of the Zetska Banovina District that established its Croatian connections. From 1945 to 1990 Croatia would become part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. One of the most striking features of the historic city of Dubrovnik, and that which gives its characteristic appearance are its intact medieval fortifications. Its historic city walls run uninterrupted encircling the Old-City. This complex structure of fortification is one of the most complete depictions of medieval construction in the Mediterranean, consisting of a series of forts, bastions, casemates, towers and detached forts. Within the Old City are many medieval churches, cathedrals, and palaces from the Baroque period, encircled by its fortified wall, which would ensure its listed place by UNESCO as a world heritage site in 1972. The Old Town is not only an architectural and urban ensemble of high quality, but it is also full of museums and libraries, such as the collection of the Ragusan masters in the Dominican Monastery, the Museum of the History of Dubrovnik, the Icon Museum, and the libraries of the Franciscan and Dominican Monasteries. It also houses the archives of Ragusa, which have been kept continuously since the 13th century and are a very important source for Mediterranean history. The archives hold materials created by the civil service in the Republic of Ragusa.

The Siege of Dubrovnik was a military engagement fought between the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and Croatian forces which defended the city of Dubrovnik and its surroundings during the Croatian War of Independence. The Old Town was specifically targeted by the JNA even though it served no military purpose to bomb this town. At the heart of the bombing efforts by the JNA elite was the complete eradication of the memory of the Croatian people and history by erasing their cultural heritage and destroying their cultural property. The court's convictions, which among other charges were also based on this article, were issued in February 2001 against Dario Kordić, a commander of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) during the war in Bosnia, against Miodrag Jokić, a senior commander in the navy of the Yugoslav People's Army during the Battle of Dubrovnik in 1991, and against Milan Martić, a politician and military leader of the internationally unrecognized Republic of Serbian Krajina. The attacks on the Herzegovinian city of Mostar, which in November 1993 led to the destruction of the Stari most bridge, internationally recognised as an outstanding cultural asset, led to the trial of six defendants before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in April 2006. Among them is the Croatian General Slobodan Praljak, who is suspected of having ordered the fire on the bridge.

The historic town of Mostar, spanning a deep valley of the Neretva River, developed in the 15th and 16th centuries as an Ottoman frontier town and during the Austro-Hungarian period in the 19th and 20th centuries. Mostar was mostly known for its old Turkish houses and specifically the Old Bridge; the Stari Mostar, after which it is named. In the 1990s conflict with the former Yugoslavia, however, most of the historic town and the Old Bridge were destroyed purposely by Croatian Army and their allies. This type of destruction was in step with that of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, where the aim was the eradication of the memory of the people that once occupied the land, an effort reminiscent of the Third Reich and the Nazi party. The attacks on the Herzegovinian city of Mostar, which in November 1993 led to the destruction of the Stari most bridge, internationally recognised as an outstanding cultural asset, led to the trial of six defendants before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in April 2006. Among them is the Croatian General Slobodan Praljak, who is suspected of having ordered the firing of the bridge.

Khmer Rouge Tribunal
The Khmer Rouge Tribunal, established by the United Nations together with the government of Cambodia in July 2006, has the possibility of prosecuting the destruction of cultural assets during the Khmer Rouge dictatorship from April 1975 to January 1979, with explicit reference to the Hague Convention of 1954, pursuant to Article 7 of the Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers. During this time, most of the more than 3,300 temples and 130 mosques in Cambodia were severely damaged by the Khmer Rouge. They also destroyed all 73 Catholic churches and many other sites of religious or cultural significance. The Hague Convention of 1954 can be applied in principle, since Cambodia became a party to the Convention in 1962, before the Khmer Rouge came to power, and because Article 19 of the Convention stipulates that even in non-international armed conflicts, each party to the conflict is bound at least by the provisions on respect for cultural property.

However, it is not yet known whether and to what extent trials will be instituted in the court which are based on the destruction of cultural property. A possible problem with the application of Article 7 and thus with the Hague Convention, is that it is a legal requirement to establish the existence of an armed conflict. This would then resemble the definition commonly used in international humanitarian law. Whether such an assessment of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship will be possible, cannot yet be predicted.

Destruction of cultural heritage by the Islamic State
Deliberate destruction and theft of cultural heritage has been conducted by the Islamic State (IS) since 2014 in Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent in Libya. The destruction targets various places of worship under IS control and ancient historical artifacts. In Iraq, between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and February 2015, ISIL has plundered and destroyed at least 28 historical religious buildings. The valuable items from some buildings were looted in order to smuggle and sell them to finance ISIL activities.

Although Libya, Syria and Iraq ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in 1957, 1958 and 1967 respectively, it has not been effectively enforced.

International acceptance and partnering organisations
As of June 2018, 131 states have become party to the Hague Convention of 1954 and 109 states to the first protocol. 77 states have become party to the Second Protocol of 1999.

Of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, France became a party in 1957. Russia is contracting party in legal succession of the Soviet Union, which also became party in 1957. the People's Republic of China ratified the convention in 2000 and the United States acceded in 2009. The United Kingdom signed the Agreement in 1954 and ratified the Convention and acceded to the Protocols in 2017.

The main reason for the long period between signature and ratification by the United States were the reservations of the US Department of Defense during the Cold War, that the Convention's obligations regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons could not be fulfilled. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, to which the commanders-in-chief of all units of the American armed forces belong, unanimously declared itself in 1995 in favour of voluntary compliance with the Convention. On 6 January 1999, then US President Bill Clinton recommended that the US Senate ratify both agreements. In his opinion, they were not only in accordance with the principles and methods of the American Armed Forces, but were even based on them in essential aspects. After the Senate approved accession in September 2008, the US Ambassador to UNESCO, Stephen Engelken, handed over the instrument of ratification to Kōichirō Matsuura, Secretary-General of UNESCO on 13 March 2009. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on 14 May 2004, the Government of the United Kingdom declared its intention to become a party to the Convention and the two Protocols. This was due to the conclusion of the Second Protocol of 1999, which, in the view of the British government, eliminated essential weaknesses and ambiguities of the 1954 Convention. A draft law containing ratification of the Convention, the two protocols and criminal law provisions was announced by the UK government in November 2006.

UNESCO
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a legally independent specialized agency of the United Nations based in Paris, working in the field of dissemination and implementation of the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts. It acts as depositary of the Hague Convention of 1954 and its two Protocols and administers the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection.

Blue Shield International
In addition, Blue Shield International (formerly the International Committee of the Blue Shield, ICBS; in French Comité International du Bouclier Bleu, CIBB) has existed since 1996. Its mission is to improve international cooperation in the field of cultural heritage protection and to support local and regional activities. The Second Protocol of 1999 explicitly mentions in Articles 11 and 27 the consultative role of the International Committee of the Blue Shield in the implementation of the Agreement. Since the International Committee was founded in 1996, national Blue Shield Committees have been established in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Curaçao, Denmark, France, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Madagascar, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Spain, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and the US, comparable to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The Association of the National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS) was established on September 28, 2006 as the umbrella organization for the national committees. ANCBS and ICBS merged in 2016, to become the Blue Shield. International activities are now represented by Blue Shield International, who also work to coordinate and support the work of the national committees.

While in many wars the freedom of movement of United Nations personnel is significantly restricted due to security concerns, Blue Shield is regarded as particularly suitable due to its structure to act flexibly and autonomously in armed conflicts. Despite the partial dissolution of state structures and the very unclear security situation resulting from the wars and unrest in Iraq, Syria, Mali, Egypt and Libya, the employees of Blue Shield and its national organizations then carried out very robust undertakings to protect the cultural assets there. This concerns in particular the collection of cultural assets to be protected, the compilation with local experts of "no-strike lists" (which preserve the coordinates of important cultural monuments), the linking of civil and military structures and the training of local military personnel with regard to the protection of cultural assets. From Blue Shield's point of view, it is not enough to develop and adopt international law norms such as the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict or the Doha Statement of the Conference of 'Ulamâ on Islam and Cultural Heritage'. It is necessary to implement these standards effectively on a global scale. This also concerns the prevention of the illicit trade in antiquities and stolen cultural assets to finance military conflicts. As a result of the destruction of cultural assets by armed conflict, war and unrest in Iraq, Syria, Mali or Afghanistan, but also by earthquakes such as in Haiti or Nepal, cooperation has developed between Blue-Shield and national armed forces such as the US Army or the British Army.

Other civil society structures
The "International League of National Societies for the Protection of Cultural Property", based in the Swiss city of Freiburg, was also established in May 1997 as an international umbrella organisation. Through the activities of these national and international organisations and associations, which also include the protection of cultural property against disasters in times of peace, civil society structures will play an increasing role in the field of cultural property protection and support the work of state and international institutions.

One example of international cooperation in the protection of cultural assets was the temporary storage of art treasures from the National Museum in Kabul, Afghanistan, in Switzerland. The art objects, which were severely threatened in the National Museum both by the Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) that lasted until 1995 and by the subsequent rule of the Taliban regime, were moved to a so-called "Afghanistan Museum in Exile" in the Swiss town of Bubendorf in 1999 with the consent of all parties to the conflict. The exhibition, which was supported primarily by the voluntary work of Swiss citizens and exiled Afghans, as well as by donations of around 1.5 million Swiss francs and supervised by the Swiss Afghanistan Institute based in Bubendorf, was open to the public from October 2000 to October 2006 and was visited by around 50,000 people during this time. In March 2007, the objects were returned to Kabul under the direction of UNESCO and with the support of the German Air Force. According to the spokesman of the Bubendorf Museum, this was the largest return of art objects since the end of the Second World War.

In contrast, the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad was heavily plundered and damaged from 8 to 12 April 2003, some three weeks after the start of the Iraq War. The museum was reopened only three years earlier on 28 April 2000, nine years after its closure as a result of the Second Gulf War. Later investigations carried out by a US commission in collaboration with museum staff found evidence of at least three independent incidents. According to the Commission's findings, the looting was sometimes spontaneous and indiscriminate. However, a number of indications also pointed out that the thieves had a good knowledge of the museum and expert knowledge of the cultural assets on display. Although particularly valuable objects were kept in the cellar of the museum in the run-up to the war, considerable losses were also incurred here. The Commission corrected initial estimates of some 170,000 stolen works of art to 11,000–15,000 stolen objects. By the time the study results were published in 2005, about 5,000 of them had been recovered in various ways.


text:
Norwegian royal family

Members of the Norwegian royal family are people related to King Harald V of Norway or former Norwegian monarchs. The current family who holds the throne are members of the House of Glücksburg who ascended to the Norwegian throne after the election of Prince Carl of Denmark as King of Norway (regnal name Haakon VII) during the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian union in 1905.

The Norwegian monarch holds the title King of Norway while his Royal consort is Queen of Norway with the style Majesty. The heir apparent to the Norwegian throne holds the title Crown Prince of Norway while his wife is Crown Princess of Norway with the style Royal Highness. The children of the reigning Monarch and the children of the heir apparent are granted the title Prince of Norway or Princess of Norway. Only the eldest child is Royal Highness, while the others are simply styled as Highnesses, such as Prince Sverre Magnus.

In Norway there is a distinction between the Royal House (kongehuset) and the royal family (kongelige familie). The Royal House includes only the monarch and their spouse, the heir apparent and their spouse, and the heir apparent's eldest child. The royal family includes all of the sovereign's children and their spouses, grandchildren, and siblings. The current royal family, and Royal House, maintains a high approval rating among the Norwegian people.

History
The Norwegian monarchy traces its history and origin back to the unification and founding of Norway, as well as Norway's first king, Harald I of the Fairhair dynasty. With the introduction of the Norwegian Law of Succession in 1163, the legal framework established that only one monarch and one royal family was, through succession, allowed to rule.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark had joint monarchs during the Kalmar Union in the late Middle Ages, and Norway remained in union with Denmark after Sweden left the union in 1523. Following the reformation a joint Danish-Norwegian state was established 1536–37, which was ruled from Copenhagen by the House of Oldenburg until Norway was ceded to Sweden at the Treaty of Kiel in 1814 following Denmark-Norway's defeat in the Napoleonic Wars. Norway was briefly independent with its own king in 1814, but forced into a new union with Sweden under the rule of the House of Bernadotte.

Upon becoming independent in 1905, Norway decided through a referendum to remain as a monarchy, with its first monarch being the Danish-born King Haakon VII, whose family consisted of the British Princess Maud and their son Olav. It is King Haakon's descendants that today make up the current royal family of Norway.

Through marriages and historical alliances, the Norwegian royal family is closely related to the Swedish and Danish royal families as well as being more distantly related to royal families of Greece and the United Kingdom.

The current king Harald V descends from all of the four kings belonging to the House of Bernadotte (1818–1905) that preceded the House of Glücksburg on the throne and is the first Norwegian monarch to be a descendant of all previous Norwegian monarchs since 1818.

Members
Members of the Royal House are:

 * King Harald V (The Monarch) Queen Sonja (The Consort)
 * Crown Prince Haakon (The Crown Prince (The King's son and heir apparent)) Crown Princess Mette-Marit (The Crown Princess (The King's daughter-in-law))
 * Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway (The King's granddaughter)

Members of the Royal Family (people who are in the royal bloodline or who have become a member of the family through marriage but are not in the Royal House) are:

 * Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway (The King's grandson)
 * Marius Borg Høiby (The King's step-grandson)
 * Princess Märtha Louise of Norway (The King's daughter)
 * Maud Angelica Behn (The King's granddaughter)
 * Leah Isadora Behn (The King's granddaughter)
 * Emma Tallulah Behn (The King's granddaughter)
 * Princess Astrid, Mrs. Ferner (The King's sister)

Deceased members of the Royal Family are:

 * Queen Maud (The King's grandmother; died in 1938)
 * Crown Princess Märtha (The King's mother; died in 1954)
 * King Haakon VII (The King's grandfather; died in 1957)
 * King Olav V (The King's father; died in 1991)
 * Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Lorentzen (The King's sister; died in 2012)
 * Johan Ferner (The King's brother-in-law; died in 2015)
 * Ari Behn (The King's former son-in-law, died in 2019)
 * Erling Lorentzen (The King's brother-in-law, died in 2021)

Family tree of members

* Member of the Royal House
 * Notes

Royal coat of arms
The coat of arms of Norway is one of the oldest in Europe and serves both as the coat of arms of the nation and of the Royal House. This is in keeping with its origin as the coat of arms of the kings of Norway during the Middle Ages.

Håkon the Old (1217–1263) used a shield with a lion. The earliest preserved reference to the colour of the arms is the King's Saga written down in 1220.

In 1280 King Eirik Magnusson added the crown and silver axe to the lion. The axe is the martyr axe of St. Olav, the weapon used to kill him in the battle of Stiklestad in 1030.

The specific rendering of the Norwegian arms has changed through the years, following changing heraldic fashions. In the late Middle Ages, the axe handle gradually grew longer and came to resemble a halberd. The handle was usually curved in order to fit the shape of shield preferred at the time, and also to match the shape of coins. The halberd was officially discarded and the shorter axe reintroduced by royal decree in 1844, when an authorized rendering was instituted for the first time. In 1905 the official design for royal and government arms was again changed, this time reverting to the medieval pattern, with a triangular shield and a more upright lion.

The coat of arms of the royal house as well as the Royal Standard uses the lion design from 1905. The earliest preserved depiction of the Royal Standard is on the seal of Duchess Ingebjørg from 1318. The rendering used as the official coat of arms of Norway is slightly different and was last approved by the king 20 May 1992.

When used as the royal coat of arms the shield features the insignias of the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav around it and is framed by a royal ermine robe, surmounted by the crown of Norway.

The royal coat of arms is not used frequently. Instead, the king's monogram is extensively used, for instance in military insignia and on coins.

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

title: Norwegian royal family


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jett

 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 --Allen3 talk 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Jett
Appears to be one of a set of vanity articles contributed by 80.225.196.26. See also Lucas McFadden, Ryan George, Todd Jones (rock musician), et cetera. Delete. Hall Monitor 21:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy. No assertion of notability per CSD A7. -Splash 23:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Carry On would appear very marginally keepable, so merge this to there. -Splash 23:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nominator. --Neigel von Teighen 23:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jaxl | talk 00:54, 31 August 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.


text: Template:I-26 aux

title: Template:I-26 aux


text: User talk:69.197.97.36

title: User talk:69.197.97.36


text:
Uakti (myth)

Uakti is a mythical musician described by the Tucano people of the Alto Rio Negro region of the Amazon. According to the legend, the creature had holes in his body such that they would produce sound when he ran or the wind blew through him. This music seduced the women of the tribe and so the other men burned and buried his body. The myth holds that out of Uakti's remains grew the palm trees from which the Tukanos' flutes are made. The women of the Tukano Indians are thus not allowed to play flutes.

The Brazilian instrumental group Uakti takes its name from this myth.

title: Uakti (myth)


text:
User:Joe1011010/temp1

These notes refer to a general clean up of the Manufacturing section of Wikipedia, on a navigation and structure level. The category tag structure is 'Fundamental / Culture / Technology / Manufacturing', so is quite high in the chain. I suggest a clean up of both the Articles, by adding better navigation, and the category structure, which would include the contents of the Technology tag.

I believe a 'signpost' article on Manufacturing, like the one below, should be added. The structure given in this article should then form the structure of categories and articles from that point onwards. This would need a great deal of agreement, or at least discussion. As I am new to this would it be better to produce a Project to cover this?

Initially, I would expect the changes to cover the navigation / categories with very little change to the articles. Secondly, many articles contain references to missing pages that should be created (as stubs) or the link format removed. The third step would be to change the articles.

I am willing to help, but have limited time and am a novice here. I do have a lot of experience in Manufacturing.

Manufacturing, overview

Manufacturing is the transformation of raw materials into finished goods for sale. This overview explains the scope of the main article.

Context

 * The economics and commercial management of a manufacturing company is covered in Business.
 * The classification of those Businesses is covered in Industry.
 * The economic decisions taken within this activity is covered in Production.
 * The law as applied to businesses in covered in Commercial Law.
 * The political impact of the development of industry is covered in Political economy.

History and Development

 * The beginings of manufacturing is covered in the Industrial Revolution.
 * The development of the manufacturing facility is covered in the Factory.
 * The development of the applied science behind manufacturing is covered in Industrial Processes.
 * The changing methods of Manufacturing are covered in Manufacturing Systems in the main article.

Manufacturing
The main article covers the elements that make up a manufacturing facility. This includes general management relating to it's performance.

Categories

 * Technology
 * Manufacturing
 * Production and manufacturing

title: User:Joe1011010/temp1


text:
Moscow Ring Road

The Moscow Automobile Ring Road (Московская кольцевая автомобильная дорога), or MKAD (МКАД), is a ring road running predominantly on the city border of Moscow with a length of 108.9 km (67.7 mi) and 35 exits (including ten interchanges). It was completed in 1962. The speed limit is 100 km/h.

History
The growth of traffic in and around Moscow in the 1950s made the city planners realise Russia's largest metropolis needed a bypass to redirect incoming traffic from major roads that run through the city. Opened in 1961, the MKAD had four lanes of asphalt running 108.9 kilometres along the city borders. Although not yet a freeway, it featured interchanges at major junctions, very few traffic lights, and a speed limit of 100 km/h.

For a long time the MKAD served as the administrative boundary of Moscow city, until in the 1980s Moscow started annexing territory outside the beltway. In December 2002 Bulvar Dmitriya Donskogo became the first Moscow Metro station that opened beyond the limits of MKAD.

In 1995–1999, the road was widened from the initial four to ten lanes, while all intersections became grade-separated, bridges were built to accommodate pedestrians, traffic lights were removed, and a solid concrete barrier was installed in the median. In 2001, all slow-moving vehicles were banned from entering the MKAD, and the renovated road received a freeway designation from the mayor's office.

title: Moscow Ring Road


text:
Morgan C. Hamilton

Morgan Calvin Hamilton (February 25, 1809 – November 21, 1893) was an American merchant, politician from Alabama and Texas, and brother of Andrew Jackson Hamilton. Both men were unusual as Unionists in Texas during the American Civil War.

Early life and education
Morgan Calvin Hamilton was born in Madison County, Alabama near Huntsville. His siblings included Andrew Jackson Hamilton.

He moved to Texas when it was still part of Mexico and worked there as a merchant. For six years, 1839–45, he served in the war department of the Republic of Texas, first as clerk and in 1844–45 as secretary of war. He settled in Austin.

One of the few Texan abolitionists, Hamilton fought for Union forces in the Civil War. During Reconstruction, he was elected by the Texas state legislature to the US Senate as a Radical Republican. He is buried in the Oakwood Cemetery in Austin, Texas.

title: Morgan C. Hamilton


text:
Atropisomer

Atropisomers are stereoisomers arising because of hindered rotation about a single bond, where energy differences due to steric strain or other contributors create a barrier to rotation that is high enough to allow for isolation of individual conformers. They occur naturally and are important in pharmaceutical design. When the substituents are achiral, these conformers are enantiomers (atropoenantiomers), showing axial chirality; otherwise they are diastereomers (atropodiastereomers).

Etymology and history
The word atropisomer (ἄτροπος, atropos, meaning "not to be turned") was coined in application to a theoretical concept by German biochemist Richard Kuhn for Karl Freudenberg's seminal Stereochemie volume in 1933. Atropisomerism was first experimentally detected in a tetra substituted biphenyl, a diacid, by George Christie and James Kenner in 1922. Michinori Ōki further refined the definition of atropisomers taking into account the temperature-dependence associated with the interconversion of conformers, specifying that atropisomers interconvert with a half-life of at least 1000 seconds at a given temperature, corresponding to an energy barrier of 93 kJ mol−1 (22 kcal mol −1) at 300 K (27 °C).

Energetics
The stability of individual atropisomers is conferred by the repulsive interactions that inhibit rotation. Both the steric bulk and, in principle, the length and rigidity of the bond connecting the two subunits contribute. Commonly, atropisomerism is studied by dynamic nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, since atropisomerism is a form of fluxionality. Inferences from theory and results of reaction outcomes and yields also contribute.

Atropisomers exhibit axial chirality (planar chirality). When the barrier to racemization is high, as illustrated by the BINAP ligands, the phenomenon becomes of practical value in asymmetric synthesis. Methaqualone, the anxiolytic and hypnotic-sedative, is a classical example of a drug molecule that exhibits the phenomenon of atropisomerism.

Stereochemical assignment
Determining the axial stereochemistry of biaryl atropisomers can be accomplished through the use of a Newman projection along the axis of hindered rotation. The ortho, and in some cases meta substituents are first assigned priority based on Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules. One scheme of nomenclature in based on envisioning the helicity defined by these groups. Starting with the substituent of highest priority in the closest ring and moving along the shortest path to the substituent of highest priority in the other ring, the absolute configuration is assigned P or Δ for clockwise and M or Λ for counterclockwise. Alternately, all four groups can be ranked by Cahn–Ingold–Prelog priority rules, with overall priority given to the groups on the "front" atom of the Newman projection. The two configurations are termed Ra and Sa in analogy to the traditional R/S for a traditional tetrahedral stereocenter.

Synthesis

Axially chiral biaryl compounds are prepared by coupling reactions, e.g., Ullmann coupling, Suzuki–Miyaura reaction, or palladium-catalyzed arylation of arenes. Subsequent to the synthesis, the racemic biaryl is resolved by classical methods. Diastereoselective coupling can be achieved through the use of a chiral bridge that links the two aryl groups or through the use of a chiral auxiliary at one of the positions proximal to axial bridge. Enantioselective coupling can be achieved through the use of a chiral leaving group on one of the biaryls or under oxidative conditions that utilize chiral amines to set the axial configuration.

Individual atropisomers can be isolated by seed-directed crystallization of racemates. Thus, 1,1'-Binaphthyl crystallizes from the melt as individual enantiomers.

Scope

In one application the asymmetry in an atropisomer is transferred in a chemical reaction to a new stereocenter. The atropisomer is an iodoaryl compound synthesised starting from (S)-valine and exists as the (M,S) isomer and the (P,S) isomer. The interconversion barrier between the two is 24.3 kcal/mol (101.7 kJ/mol). The (M,S) isomer can be obtained exclusively from this mixture by recrystallisation from hexanes. The iodine group is homolytically removed to form an aryl radical by a tributyltin hydride/triethylboron/oxygen mixture as in the Barton–McCombie reaction. Although the hindered rotation is now removed in the aryl radical, the intramolecular reaction with the alkene is so much faster than is rotation of the carbon–nitrogen bond that the stereochemistry is preserved. In this way the (M,S) isomer yields the (S,S) dihydroindolone.

The most important class of atropisomers are biaryls such as diphenic acid, which is a derivative of biphenyl with a complete set of ortho substituents. Heteroaromatic analogues of the biphenyl compounds also exist, where hindered rotation occurs about a carbon-nitrogen or a nitrogen-nitrogen bond. Others are dimers of naphthalene derivatives such as 1,1'-bi-2-naphthol. In a similar way, aliphatic ring systems like cyclohexanes linked through a single bond may display atropisomerism provided that bulky substituents are present. The use of axially chiral biaryl compounds such as BINAP, QUINAP and BINOL, have been found to be useful in the area of asymmetric catalysis as chiral ligands.

Their ability to provide stereoinduction has led to use in metal catalyzed hydrogenation, epoxidation, addition, and allylic alkylation reactions. Other reactions that can be catalyzed by the use of chiral biaryl compounds are the Grignard reaction, Ullmann reaction, and the Suzuki reaction. A recent example in the area of chiral biaryl asymmetric catalysis employs a five-membered imidazole as part of the atropisomer scaffold. This specific phosphorus, nitrogen-ligand has been shown to perform enantioselective A3-coupling.

Natural products, drug design
Many atropisomers occur in nature, and some have applications to drug design. The natural product mastigophorene A has been found to aid in nerve growth. Other examples of naturally occurring atropisomers include vancomycin isolated from an Actinobacterium, and knipholone, which is found in the roots of Kniphofia foliosa of the family Asphodelaceae. The structure complexity in vancomycin is significant because it can bind with peptides due to the complexity of its stereochemistry, which includes multiple stereocenters, two chiral planes in its stereogenic biaryl axis. Knipholone, with its axial chirality, occurs in nature and has been shown to offer good antimalarial and antitumor activities particularly in the M form.

The use of atropisomeric drugs provides an additional way for drugs to have stereochemical variations and specificity in design. One example is, a drug that was discovered to aid in chemotherapy cancer treatment.

Telenzepine is atropisomeric in the conformation of its central thienobenzodiazepine ring. The two enantiomers have been resolved, and it was found that the (+)-isomer which is about 500-fold more active than the (–)-isomer at muscarinic receptors in rat cerebral cortex. However, drug design is not always aided by atropisomerism. In some cases, making drugs from atropisomers is challenging because isomers may interconvert faster than expected. Atropisomers also might interact differently in the body, and as with other types of stereoisomers, it is important to examine these properties before administering drugs to patients.

title: Atropisomer


text:
Uakti (band)

Uakti (WAHK-chee) was a Brazilian instrumental musical group that was composed of Marco Antônio Guimarães, Artur Andrés Ribeiro, Paulo Sérgio Santos, and Décio Ramos. Uakti was known for using custom-made instruments, built by the group itself.

The name
The name of the group comes from a Tucano native South American legend. Uakti was a mythological being who lived on the banks of the Rio Negro. His body was full of holes, which, when the wind passed through them, produced sounds that bewitched the women of the tribe. The men hunted down Uakti and killed him. Palm trees sprouted up in the place where his body was buried, and the people used these to make flutes that made enchanting sounds like those produced by the body of Uakti.

History
The group's leader, Marco Antônio Guimarães, studied music at the Universidade Federal da Bahia in Salvador. There he met and took classes with Walter Smetak, who passed on to him his passion for constructing musical instruments. In the years following his training, Marco Antônio played cello with the São Paulo and Minas Gerais symphony orchestras. During the same period he constructed, in the basement of his house, various instruments out of PVC, wood, and metal. In order to have musicians to play these instruments, in 1978 Guimarães had the idea of bringing together some of his colleagues from the Orquestra Sinfônica de Belo Horizonte, to meet at the Foundation for Artistic Education of Belo Horizonte. Various musicians took part; among them were the percussionists Paulo Sérgio Santos and Décio de Souza Ramos, the flutist Artur Andrés Ribeiro, and the cellist Cláudio Luz do Val. These musicians learned how to play the instruments, and the group Uakti was formed. Marco Antônio Guimarães became the principal composer and arranger, although all the participants frequently contributed their own compositions.

The group's first recording was of their participation in the soundtrack of the 1979 film Cabaré Mineiro. The score was composed by Tavinho Moura. Through Tavinho, Uakti made contact with musicians in the Clube da Esquina movement. In 1980 they played on Milton Nascimento's album Sentinela and made their first public performance at the museum in Pampulha. Their first album, Uakti - Oficina Instrumental, appeared the following year, as a consequence of the popularity they had acquired through their performances with Nascimento. With the departure of the cellist Cláudio Luz, the guitarist Bento Menezes joined the group, staying until 1984, when they recorded their third album, Tudo e Todas as Coisas. Starting with this album, they began to use traditional instruments less and less frequently.

In the period between 1981 and 1987 they established themselves in Brazil and took part in another recording by Milton Nascimento, Ânima. Their first international tour took place in Spain. In 1987 they took part in the album Brazil with the US jazz vocal group The Manhattan Transfer. During a show in the United States, singer and songwriter Paul Simon got to know their music, and invited them to play on his 1989 album The Rhythm of the Saints. During this recording, US composer Philip Glass, who was in Brazil, went to visit Simon and heard Uakti play. This resulted in a contract to record five albums with his Point Music label. The fifth album, MAPA, released in 1992, was a homage to the music of Marco Antonio Pena Araújo, a friend of the members of the group who had died in 1986 (the name MAPA is an acronym of the letters in his name).

The international recognition that the group gained resulted in much more work: Uakti travelled to Japan and various countries in Europe. Grupo Corpo, the acclaimed Minas Gerais dance theatre group, commissioned several original compositions by Marco Antônio Guimarães: A lenda, recorded on MAPA, Bach, which he released as a solo effort, and I Ching and 21 which became Uakti albums in 1994 and 1997, respectively.

In 1993 Philip Glass was also commissioned by Grupo Corpo to produce a composition for a ballet. Glass then chose Uakti to perform his composition, Águas da Amazônia - Sete ou oito peças para um balé. The arrangement was done by Marco Antônio Guimarães, who adapted the work to Uakti's instruments; this was the first time that Glass's music was arranged by another composer. The recording of this music was released in 1999, under the contract with Point Music. In 2004 Glass invited Uakti to collaborate again, this time on the Orion project. The city of Athens, as part of the 2004 pre-Olympic celebrations, commissioned Glass to do a series of open-air shows. Uakti took part, playing Glass's compositions.

In 1994 Uakti joined Stewart Copeland as he headlined an international tour, "Stewart Copeland and the Rhythmatists", in support of an album and video based on Stewart's experience in Africa. The tour roster featured Stewart Copeland performing with a diverse group of international musicians including: Les Percussions de Guinée, a leading drum group from Africa; Vinx, who recently toured with Sting; and Ray Lema, an original performer on the Rhythmatist album and video.

Starting in 1998, Uakti recorded fewer original compositions and concentrated on adaptations of classical music and of Brazilian popular songs. The soundtrack of the 1998 film Kenoma, by Eliana Caffé, used mostly compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos. In 2000 they recorded an album of popular songs with the choral group Tabinha, from Minas Gerais. In 2002, they released the CD Clássicos, containing solely classical arrangements, and in 2005 they explored popular Brazilian themes in the CD Oiapok XUI, which, in addition to various popular Brazilian dance themes, contained four variations of Tom Jobim's Águas de Março.

Uakti frequently took part in projects with other artists. Besides the already-mentioned Milton Nascimento, Paul Simon and Manhattan Transfer, they worked with Ney Matogrosso, Maria Bethânia, and Zélia Duncan. They also performed in the show Dança das Marés, directed by Ivaldo Bertazzo, Ihú - Todos os Sons, which presented indigenous themes collected and adapted by Marlui Miranda. Their recording "Trilobita" was used in the closing credits of the Rush in Rio DVD.

Instruments
The original instruments constructed by Marco Antônio Guimarães are responsible for the group's sound. The list below describes some of these instruments.

Pans
All of these follow the same basic principle: PVC tubes of various lengths, assembled so that their ends are aligned. The tubes are struck with a rubber mallet or with the hands. Since each length of tubing produces a different note, these instruments are tuned and can play melodies or chords. Currently, they are used in two sizes: the large pan of bent tubing that allows a larger length and is used as a bass, and the shorter inclined pan, used for principal melodies.

Marimbas
These are idiophones consisting of keys struck with mallets with heads made of rubber or felt. They are played like a xylophone or vibraphone. The difference between Uakti's marimbas and these instruments is that the keys are located above two independent sound boxes that can be inverted or moved. This allows the playing of chords or sequences that would be quite difficult using the traditional design. Uakti uses two kinds of marimbas:
 * Marimba d'Angelim – made of wood used in everyday construction, or Angelim which gives it a rustic sound, since this wood possesses differences in density that produce a different timbre than normal xylophones.
 * Glass marimba – the keys are made of glass, which produce notes of greater resonance than those made of wood.

String instruments with bows
Played by Marco Antônio Guimarães in recordings, they are, in general, inspired by the cello or the viol.
 * Iarra - A type of cello, with two sets of strings that can be pressed simultaneously with the left hand. A bow is used to play the string.
 * Chori Smetano - an instrument created by Walter Smetak. Basically  it is a string instrument with a sound box for a head. According to its inventor, this instrument can simultaneously create opposing feelings, such as crying and laughing. This is the origin of the name "cho-ri" ("choro"="crying", "riso"="laughing" in Portuguese). Guimarães built his chori with the arm and bow length of the cello, so that any cellist can play it.
 * Torre (Tower) - A large PVC tube with a double bass ridge at one end and a handle at the other. Strings are stretched along the sides of the tube. Two musicians are needed to play it. One turns the tube on its axis with the handle. The other uses a bow composed of two rods, and a horsehair viola bow to rub the strings. Since the bow can play several strings at once, it can play chords. Changing the velocity and quantity of notes with the bow gives rise to harmonic variations. It is one of the most astonishing instruments to see in live performances because of the rich harmonics produced and the unusual method of playing. It is normally used as a harmonic base.

Drums
The membranophones are also an important part of Uakti's sound, principally the trilobyte, formed out of 10 tuned PVC tubes arranged on a frame, with drum skins over the top ends. Two musicians position themselves facing each other, holding the instrument between them, and use their fingers, drum sticks, or the palms of their hands to strike the skins, producing quite rapid melodies.

Traditional instruments
The group also uses some traditional instruments. They use various types of drums such as atabaques and floor toms, and also tablas, traditional (Asian) Indian drums. Occasionally they use string instruments such as the violin or piano, though they usually play them using drum sticks and other alternative techniques.

Flutes, played by Artur Andrés Ribeiro, are possibly the traditional instruments most used by the group. They can also be played with a Chinese mouthpiece, a common flute mouthpiece with a membrane that vibrates with the passage of air (somewhat resembling a kazoo), making the flute sound something like a reed instrument.

Discography

 * Uakti - Oficina Instrumental (1981)
 * Uakti 2 (1982)
 * Tudo e Todas as Coisas (1984)
 * Mapa (1989)
 * I Ching (1993)
 * 21 (1996)
 * Trilobyte (1997)
 * Águas da Amazônia (1999) (music by Philip Glass)
 * Mulungu do Cerrado (2001) (with Tabinha)
 * Clássicos (2003)
 * Uakti (DVD, 2003)
 * Oiapok Xui (2005)
 * Blindness - Soundtrack (2008)
 * Beatles (2012)

title: Uakti (band)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaskalus

 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 --Allen3 talk 16:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gaskalus
Delete as obvious hoax; zero total Google and Yahoo! hits for "Gaskalus", and the spelling strongly suggests a juvenile attempt to Latinize the name of someone the poster wants to tease. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Borders on speedy. -- BD2412 talk 23:01, 30 August 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.


text:
Talk:Interstate 26

Untitled
Old SR numbers are SR-81 (North Carolina to Erwin), SR-36 (US-19W south of Erwin to Johnson City) and SR-137 (Johnson City to Virginia). shows SR-137 just north of Johnson City. All primary of course. SR-137 may have once continued south from Johnson City? --SPUI (T - C) 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I lived in that area during the time when it was SR-137. All of the current I-26 between Johnson City and the Wilcox Drive (TN-36) exit in Kingsport were designated TN-137 prior to 1984. In that year, TN-137 was extended four miles, to the West Stone Drive exit in Kingsport, including the addition, was redesignated as US-23. It never extended south of Johnson City as TN-137. It became I-181 several years later, still following the same route, only with the northern terminus extended to the Virginia state line. Jsc1973 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More TN & SC shields needed
Does anybody want to make more Tennessee and South Carolina shields so they can be added to the exit lists here? DanTD 09:44, 18 October 2006 (EST)

Overhaul
I have overhauled the exit lists for all three states and conformed them to style. I still have some minor work to do on the NC exit list, mainly regarding correcting some of the roads/destinations. --Bdj95 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Control Cities
Does anyone have access to the latest list of control cities as published by the AASHTO? The only "free" list I could find is here, but it hasn't been updated since 2004. Specifically, we're looking to see if Kingsport and/or Johnson City in Tennessee are listed. Kingsport is a "terminating" city, and should be on the list, but we need confirmation. Also, Johnson City is listed on distance signs on I-26 north (west) of Asheville, but some of these signs predate I-26 to when it was solely designated as US 19-23. Furthermore, parts of the interstate between Asheville and Mars Hill are still not up to interstate standards and are still marked as "Future I-26," so the Johnson City control city distance signs may not be authoritative. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Free being the issue: the last time I looked, the list was published in a book that had to be ordered from AASHTO. Maybe we need to forward this onto the project; hopefully somebody is a student at an engineering school, and the civil engineering may have a copy of that book in the library. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That page was updated in 2004, yes, but the official list itself is from 2001. I have a copy of the Guide Sign Guidelines document from AASHTO.  As far as the correctness of that list for the official cities, it is right.  I put a screenshot online.  The control cities for I-26 are indeed only Asheville (which they spell wrong), Spartanburg, Columbia, and Charleston.  I however cannot find the PDF file itself on my computer right now...  -- M PD T / C 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it. It says a new list should be published every five years, but it's been seven, the last update taking eight.  So take what you will from the goverment. -- M PD T / C 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Elevations
Can anyone provide more information about the elevation where I-26 crosses the Eastern Continental Divide? Google Earth indicates that the elevation is 3,821 feet (plus or minus a bit) at the Flag Pond Road exit on the NC-TN border, which I think follows the divide. If this is the correct elevation, then this is (best I can tell) the highest point on an Interstate east of the Mississippi. The article on I-80 identifies it as having the highest such point, and there is a sign on the highway, but, unless I'm wrong by more than 1,500 feet, the I-80 sign and article are wrong.Rks13 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Between 2008 and 2009 I made a dozen or so trips up & down that part of I26, and still have GPS logs of a few. The waypoint with the highest elevation recorded by the GPS is near Sams Gap, less than 1000 ft south of the NC-TN state line and on the southbound carriageway. At 3840 ft, it seems within tolerable range of the Google Earth elevation. The waypoints either side of it come in at 3722 ft (south) and 3782 ft (north).
 * I cannot place the waypoint in relation to a "Continental Divide" sign, but I'm fairly confident that, right next to the NC state line sign, there's a sign which says that the elevation is 376x ft (not sure about the last digit).
 * The GPS is WAAS enabled and the elevation is calculated rather than obtained barometrically. I believe the data to be reliable for that time (May 09) but I cannot verify what the vertical accuracy actually was. --Twistlethrop (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I looked more carefully at the sign that I think is the source of the claim about I-80, and I'm pretty sure that it is intended to mark the point at which I-80 hits its highest point east of the Mississippi, not to make a claim that this is the highest point on any interstate highway east of the Mississippi. If it was worth noting (incorrectly) the highest point east of the Mississippi on the I-80 articles, does it make sense to add them here? I don't feel strongly either way, and I can't find a definitive source that correctly identifies I-26, although I'm pretty sure that's the answer. Rks13 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The Eastern Continental Divide on I-26 is at Exit 54, it's at 2,130 feet. However, I-40 is the higher at 2,880 ft at Black Mountain (near mile marker 67); only I-26 and I-40 cross the divide in North Carolina and they are signed. Keep in mind that the Eastern Continental Divide is a separation of water and not a ridge of high mountains. -WashuOtaku (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's right.  As you wrote, I-26 crosses the Divide to the south of Hendersonville NC, by the Crest Rd bridge and between tributaries of the French Broad and Green rivers. In Tennessee, the course of I26 reaches higher elevations but remains entirely west of the Divide. Thanks for pointing that out, Washuotaku.  An oversight on my part. Twistlethrop (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Breaking I-26 into three state articles
I see that there is a Interstate 26 in South Carolina article, but Tennessee and North Carolina are still together on the main article. Should we go ahead and separate the other two states or should South Carolina join back in the fold and simply have one article for all three states? --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Given that the exit tables are kind of line-heavy, it makes some sense to split off NC and TN. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to at this time. Generally, we wait until there's enough material to make a decently-sized article before we go ahead and split it out. --Rschen7754 04:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of doing the same thing. I do have to say your assumption is wrong. Even though this dates back to 2011 when there might not been a lot of info, now there's enough to create the article. But I do want permission and that will be given by Imazadi1976 preferably but any user will do fine.--Ncchild (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually started work on it a year or so ago, but then got off focus and worked on other pages instead. You can see what I did so far in my sandbox.  You don't really need permission to start on it, but because it's an interstate page you may want to use the sandbox (like I did then abandoned) to do a few drafts before posting. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, if you break-out North Carolina, someone gotta complete the job and do Tennessee too. I'm not saying you should do both, but you can't leave one hangin'.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently doing NC after receiving permission. Making like NC 133 (currently) but hopefully better. Will do Tennessee afterwards.--Ncchild (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done with the NC segment. Link Here->Interstate 26 in North Carolina--Ncchild (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I've wanted to redo the TN section and put it into the correct order N-S for some time; I had the chance, so went ahead and did it; I didn't intend to step on anybody's toes by doing so.Twistlethrop (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection Removal
Note that this article has been requested to have its protection removed due to low amounts of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.254.163 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Interstate 26 in South Carolina
The entire Interstate Highway is short enough that one article could sufficiently cover the route and not be too long. See Interstate 24 for precedent and WP:USRD/3STATE for guidance. –Fredddie™ 04:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * So we are reemerging all three articles again, granted I-26 in Tennessee uses US 23 instead. I really don't care if they are broken-out or not, but keep in mind the only reason they broke-out last time was because another editor came by and decided to create a stand-alone article for South Carolina. What will stop the next editor doing the same thing again? Also, I-26 map show as complete, when in fact a gap exists in North Carolina and is shown in NC map. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold too much stock in another editor coming by and breaking out a sub-article. An IP broke out the South Carolina article in 2011, so if it's sat this long nobody's going to miss it.  That's why I mentioned I-24.  It's been two years since I-24 was merged together and it's been stable. –Fredddie™ 14:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose -- Too much detail is available to merge each state-specific article, with the exception of Interstate 26 in Tennessee. Merging them would make the articles too long. I know, it seems pretty hypocritical for me to complain about long articles considering my work on US routes in Georgia and Florida, but I'd still like to keep the main I-26 article shorter, and put any state-specific details in those articles instead. -User:DanTD (talk)  03:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Main Route" of Interstate Highway System?
The description says that I-26 is a main route of the Interstate Highway System, but since when was it ever a "main route"? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Interstate 26


text:
Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas

The Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas (FK) contains a wide spectrum of information on prescribing and pharmacology, among others indications, side effects and costs of the prescription of all medication drugs available in the Netherlands. It was first published in 1982 and is now the most used drug reference by doctors, pharmacists and students in the Netherlands. It is published by the College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ).

In English, the name means pharmacotherapeutic compass.

title: Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas


text: User talk:68.173.42.177

title: User talk:68.173.42.177


text:
Talk:Billy Bailey

Untitled
There's not much out there regarding Bailey's birthdate, but this article from CNN published in 1996 suggests it's 1947. If anyone can find something more definitive saying he was born in 1946, please change it back. justsomechick · chat · stuff 21:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No references
No references, added tag.--FloNight 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Detail
Is it just me or does this go into, at times, almost lurid detail? Besides the question of "Do we really need to know?", I'd like to know exactly HOW whoever added that knew that. Comments? 68.39.174.238 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Who needs to know how many times his body rotated? Come on. 09:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The extended quote, presumably by the somewhat deranged sounding great-grandson, also seems a bit unneccesary. and completely bizarre.

 * This subject is of interest in the death penalty debate, especially as it was the last hanging in the United States. Comparing different methods is of strong relevance especially as the method of lethal injection has come under strong legal fire in the last few years. Of course, also keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not censored" is one of the main principles of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored StaticElectric (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

plagiarism
http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/bailey.html

I became suspicious after reading the line "six coil noose swaying in the night breeze". To me that sounds more like a piece of literary journalism rather than an encyclopedic entry. After entering the whole line in quotation marks on Google, the above listed web page comes up. It seems that the whole section on execution in this article was stolen from the above website.
 * This information has been released into the public domain by its author; see http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/bibliography.html 124.148.63.198 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Year of crimes
In what year did the crimes occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy Bailey. 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/20101020114550/http://doc.delaware.gov/information/deathrow_executions.shtml to http://doc.delaware.gov/information/deathrow_executions.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Billy Bailey


text:
Catchpole

Catchpole is an uncommon surname, being a type of tax collector in medieval England. The name is a combination of Old English (cace-, catch) and medieval Latin (pullus, a chick). It derives from the image that people who owed tax were as difficult to catch as farmyard hens. The Catchpole name is from Dorset, southern England.

At that time, tax-gathering was contracted out, a system called tax farming. The catchpole paid a lump sum to be authorised to collect taxes from a given area or population, and was then able to keep whatever he could extract, using almost any method he came up with.

Later, the duties of the 'catchpole' were those of a legal official, working for the bailiff. He was mainly responsible for collecting debts, using methods hardly more restrained than those of his tax gathering forebears.

The suggestion that the name derives from a long wooden pole with a noose or barbed fork on one end, used to apprehend those who owed money, is incorrect. However 'catchpole' is the name of such a tool, used still today, mostly by animal control officials to ensnare uncontrolled animals such as aggressive dogs.

Notable people with this surname

 * Brent Catchpole, New Zealand politician
 * Hugh Catchpole, academician and administrator
 * George Catchpole (born 1994), British rugby player
 * Henry Catchpole (disambiguation), multiple people
 * James Morrison Catchpole, birth name of English singer-songwriter James Morrison
 * Jordan Catchpole (born 1999), British Paralympic swimmer
 * Judith Catchpole, colonial American maidservant
 * Ken Catchpole (1939–2017), Australian rugby player
 * Kylie Catchpole, Australian solar energy researcher
 * Margaret Catchpole, British deportee to Australia
 * Thomas Catchpole (disambiguation), multiple people

In fiction

 * Eric Catchpole, character in the British series Lovejoy
 * Tristan Catchpole, character in the television series Starhunter

title: Catchpole


text:
Henning Kronstam

Henning Kronstam (June 29, 1934 – May 28, 1995) was a famous Danish ballet dancer, ballet master and company director.

Life and career
Born in Copenhagen, Denmark, he began training with the Royal Danish Ballet at the age of nine. He later joined the company as an apprentice at the age of sixteen and was promoted to solo dancer at the age of twenty one.

Kronstam dominated the Royal Danish Ballet's repertory for more than two decades, dancing over 120 roles, many of which were created, such as the role of Romeo in Sir Frederick Ashton's Romeo and Juliet (1955), the Husband in John Cranko's Secrets (1956), Nilas in Birgit Cullberg's Moon Reindeer (1958), and the Prince in Flemming Flindt's  The Nutcracker (1971).

He succeeded Flemming Flindt as ballet master of the Royal Danish Ballet in 1978 and was responsible for the planning and direction of the 1979 Bournonville Festival as well as for restoring Bournonville, and classical ballet generally, to the center of the company's repertory. He also was a noted teacher and coach. He retired as balletmaster in 1985 but continued to stage and rehearse ballets until 1994. He died suddenly, May 28, 1995, of a pulmonary embolism.

title: Henning Kronstam


text:
Abhyasi

An abhyasi is a spiritual seeker in the esoteric mystical traditions of Asia, notably Indian subcontinent. The word abhyasi means "one who practises" in Sanskrit.

Ram Chandra defined an abhyasi as an "aspirant", or "one who practices yoga in order to achieve union with God".

title: Abhyasi


text:
Talk:Catchpole

i'm a catchpole and my name is james i'm also a catchpole and my name is also james. greetings!

Catchpole name
I'm a Catchpole and was always told the name came from Catch Poultry and was nothing to do with the Catchpole instrument. There is an 18th Century book called The History of Margaret Catchpole about an apparently genuine Norfolk woman who was deported to Australia. (see Thomas Spencer Cobbold)

I've done a bit of research into the etymology and origin of the catchpole name. I'm a catchpole too. I first became interested in this when I was visiting the Tower of London and actually saw a Catchpole on the display. btw, I've seen both meanings for Catchpole, but the connections between the two make sense. I'll try to update the page eventually.

Famous Catchpoles
Us Catchpoles should think about including a list of our famous relatives!

Ted Catchpole: Australian rugby player James Catchpole (Morrison): UK singer Margaret Catchpole: famous jewel theif

Spoof
The page seems to contain spoof. The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says:

Catchpole, from ME cacchepol, fr. OE caecepol, fr. (assumed) ONF cachepol, lit., chicken chaser, fr. ONF cachier + pol chicken, fr. L pullus--more at catch, pullet. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

missing information in paragraph 2
Paragraph 2, entire:
 * A second source of the name, also dating from medieval England, mostly in Norfolk and Dorset, comes from the local tax collectors. It was often the case that smallholders were unable to pay cash for their local land-owners tax and hence collectors were sent round to take goods in lieu. When the tradition that one's surname was one's profession took hold and passed through the generations, the name became contracted to Catchpole.

What, precisely, "became contracted to Catchpole"? There's nothing in the text that could fill that slot. ISTM that this may have been sloppily copied and edited from some other source with the critical info left out... at least, that's the most generous explanation I can think of. --Thnidu (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Solid etymology
After the above concerns about the unreferenced claims in the article, and now its being mocked in the authoritative World Wide Words, it's time to cut the Gordian Knot. I've revised the etymology to that given by dictionaries and World Wide Words. And noted the false reference to catching tax-owers with a pole. I also removed the reference "mostly in Norfolk and Dorset", since that too was unreferenced. Onanoff (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The etymology is far from solid. No dictionaries are cited and the only source is of dubious authority. Plus "the etymology is wrong because it was mocked by some site, and the reason why that site is right is that that site mocked the etymology" is obviously circular reasoning. I'm amending that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.66.133 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Henry and Thomas
Clicking the links to both those names goes to people,who have exactly the same dats which seems odd.PortfolioMind (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow
What an interesting surname! Now, thanks to the article's summary, I've an idea of it stemming from some random tax collector from medieval England which makes the name all the more...unique. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Catchpole