text:
Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states/Archive 17

Military occupation redux
"The question is, however, if illegal annexation is considered as military occupation." The occupation was executed by military (over 400,000 not including forces already stationed on Baltic territory) and maintained by military presence. Are you implying any occupation must be "military," that means, militarily administered? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If your question is general, then the answer can be found in the above quote: military occupation is "effective control by some foreign power" that "does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory". The amount of troops has no relation to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that converting military occupation into permanent conquest combined with massive human rights violations is a war crime and has no legal effect. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where this article and discussion get into problems is discussion/application of sources which do not specifically deal with the Baltic states. It's enough work to fairly and accurately represent legalities and perceptions without adding perspectives that are not directly applicable.
 * @Paul, you now appear to advocate that any occupation maintaining foreign power in place of sovereign authority is a military occupation ipso facto, except if the invading power claims sovereignty. Asre you implying that such claim of permanent sovereignty dissolves occupation? Such an implication
 * is not relevant to the Baltic case; and
 * frankly, it would be a throwback to the 19th century.
 * So, let's commit to stick to sources explicitly discussing the case of the Baltic states. This is not the first time I've made this observation or asked that we strictly observe this simple ground rule. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, I do not advocate anything, I just follow what reliable sources say. I provided several sources, top quality reliable sources, that totally support this my statement that claim of permanent sovereignty dissolves occupation. With regard to the Baltic states, I provided a source written by a leading expert in the field which claims the same in the context of the Baltic states specifically. By contrast, you provided no sources that question validity of the sources provided by me, so your suggestion to "stick to sources" is just a filibustering.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, do you, or do you not, commit to discuss and create content based only on sources which specifically deal with the period in question regarding the Baltic states? A simple yes or no will do.
 * As for advocacy, you would not cite sources unless you advocate those sources are relevant to article content here and you have some idea of what that content might look like based on your choice(s) of aforesaid source(s), would you? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I must observe that other than appropriate inclusion among viewpoints, the notion that annexation terminates occupation died in the 19th century. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re " the notion that annexation terminates occupation died in the 19th century. " Source? I have several sources telling the opposite, therefore, your unsubstantiated statement is a soapboxing. I can agree with the notion that illegal annexation terminates occupation probably died in the 1949 (although different opinia exist on that account, and annexation of Goa is the opposite example).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Annexation as the act of an invading power legally assuming sovereign control (that is, annexation terminates occupation) died at the end of the 19th century in international law. Annexation subsequently confers no rights and therefore does not change fact of occupation, where the rightful sovereign authority is prevented from functioning. This has all been discussed in painful detail in the past with multitudes of sources on international law. Please read through all the past archive discussions before resurrecting old arguments. Finding a new source that says "X" does not invalidate prior discussion, causing it to start all over again. In that context, my recapping results of past discussions is not "soapboxing"--I'm not stating anything new.
 * Regarding article organization, I've indicated that different types of source regarding the occupation of the Baltic states should not be conflated. My editorial assessment is that (this is my understanding of your proposal...) your notion of presenting all viewpoints (legal, historical, social anthropologists, legalities, impressions, contentions,...) in a single section will reduce the article to a useless self-contradictory mish-mosh ultimately stating nothing at all. If anything, everything in the article from "Aftermath" likely needs finer granularity (more sections, not less) than now. I'd be glad to assist you and other editors with that to properly position reliable sources with respect to the issue of occupation.
 * Regarding Goa, do you have scholarship which compares it to Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania? That would be an interesting addition to the article--that is, application or not of the precedent of the occupation of the Baltic states in international law to subsequent occupations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not remember that during our past discussions we came to the conclusion you cite. Please, provide sources, otherwise your opinion will be ignored.
 * Re Goa, the sources is Quincy Wright. The Goa Incident. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1962), pp. 617-632. A source which compares it to the BS is Malksoo. He concluded that the precedent value of this case was limited. By the way, Malksoo cites O.M. Uhler. (Der völkerrechtliche Schutz der Bevölkerung eines besetzten Gebiets gegen Maßnahmen der Okkupationsmacht (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Genfer Zivilkonvention vom 12. August 1949). Zürich: Polygraphischer Verlag, 1950, pp. 34–5), who expresses the opinion that even few years after the WWII the annexation did terminate occupation, and the transfer of occupied territory was still possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Goa et al. following. Note I indicated past discussion, not necessarily discussion where you were directly involved, so go easy on the dismissiveness. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought new arguments. If those arguments had already been addressed during past discussions, please, provide needed links to the relevant pages. It is your burden to provide needed evidences to address my legitimate concern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I do not know who is really at fault here, but that long dispute about wording (and you are going in circles) looks very much as WP:DE or WP:TE (see the case of Brews ohare).My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have noticed that the subject of the discussion has changed: we do not discuss the wording, we discuss the change of the article's structure (as I proposed). I do not insist on the change of the title any more, provided that those changes will be implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The underlying motives
With or without change in the topic (from title to structural changes), I'm still baffled by the byzantine depth of the discussion, plus all the archived versions of it (often with the same contenders, and even with the same or parallel arguments).

I really have to wonder about the underlying motivations. Paul, why do you care so much about this particular topic? Why not the occupation of Goa, or the Austrian Anschluss, or the theory of occupation in general (see relevant articles)? You have spent so much time here that it is difficult not to think that you are motivated by reasons other than simply helping improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. Like Vecrumba, you seem to have emotions invested in it as well. Is that so? And, for all clarity, shouldn't both sides disclose what their motivations are? (Vecrumba does quite a good job on this topic in his user page.) --Pereru (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar corrections needed
I note certain parts of the article need attention from native speakers. The following paragraph:

Industrialization and immigration

The Soviets made large capital investments for energy resources and a manufacture of industrial and agricultural products. The purpose was to integrate the Baltic economies into the larger Soviet economic sphere.[36] In all three republics, manufacturing industry was developed at the expense of other sectors, notably agriculture and housing. The rural economy suffered from the lack of investments and the collectivization.[37] Baltic urban areas damaged during wartime and it took ten years to reachieved housing losses. New constructions were often poor quality and ethnic Russians immigrants were favored in housing.[38] Estonia and Latvia received large-scale immigration of industrial workers for other parts of the Soviet Union and changed the demographics changes dramatically. Lithuania also received immigration but in a smaller scale.[36]

contains several mistakes with articles ("a manufacture of", "manufacturing industry"), instances of missing verbs ("Baltic urban areas damaged during wartime and it took ten years to reachived housing losses."). I suspect there are other such paragraphs in the text. Perhaps someone should thoroughly re-read it? --Pereru (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I previously did some copyediting of this and some other Latvian articles, but eventually was put off by the continuous edit warring on this topic - and there's lots of other material that I can work on in my own backyard - South Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The article has been protected owing to edit warring over tagging. Once it's available to edit again, I'll do some clean up, it wasn't worth doing anything earlier. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012
A number of grammar corrections are required. Rather than request those piecemeal, is the article protection permanent or is it set to expire some time soon? If the latter, changes can simply wait, they are not critical. Otherwise I'll begin submitting.

VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a thirty-day full prot commencing 19 June 2012, so there's a little under two weeks for it to run. With that in mind, I've deactivated the - if this needs attention sooner, please change yes to no -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we can wait until expiration. Best, Peters VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing should be noted:
As far as I know, the Russian Federation between 1989 (when the secret protocols of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact were recognized by Moscow) and 2000 didn’t have the policy of claiming that the Baltics voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. This policy of accusing the Baltic nations of “Falsification of History” began when Vladimir Putin became leader of Russia.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I can't cite the source right now, but Boris Meissner has discussed the Russian views on the issue in 1990s (in the article Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa). Kozyrev et al repeatedly claimed that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the USSR. There hasn't been much change in this respect. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent States/Soviet-German treaties?
Why is there no mention of the creation of the new states through the defeat of the Russian Empire, revolution, German occupation, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk etc. At the moment the article does not, as far as I can see, mention that the "independent" states were created, and lost their independence 20 years later, through Soviet-German treaties.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a quite common misconcept (BTW, either conciously or not, shared by Vladimir Putin as heard here). Both Germany and Soviet Russia were opposed to the Estonian Declaration of Independence and the nationalist movements in Latvia and Lithuania. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not create any republics but simply seceded the Baltic territories to Germany. The latter created the United Baltic Duchy in April 1918, which Germany abolished due to the Armistice with Germany in November 1918. After that, the German troops withdrew without any recognition to the Baltic republics and the Soviet Russia broke into wars with them. How can anyone say these republics were created by a German-Russian treaty? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaan is correct. While the Great Powers were defeating Germany on Germany's western front, they were also enlisting Germany as their proxy against Russia on Germany's eastern front. There's no such animal as German-Russian treaties which initially giveth independence and then (purportedly merely restoring the status quo) taketh it away. That is a post-Soviet Russian-originated utter fiction. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Representation of Baltic birth places
Hello,

The issue we discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles has been discovered by WP:HOCKEY. Unfortunately, the argument there is rather technical and has few historical and legal considerations. I think the discussion could use the help of some of the editors involved on this page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, unfortunately that seems to have become a feeding frenzy of fresh meat for "the Baltics were (regardless of illegitimacy) part of the USSR" POV school of WP. Editors who are as unfamiliar with Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian history as they are familiar with player stats certainly are an inviting target for persuasion since some already accept "part of" as simple fact and denounce editorial opposition as nationalists. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how what you're doing is not nationalistic revisionism. Most ordinary Wikipedia readers want to know the facts on the ground: what sovereign power actually controlled the territory, rather than what was the separatist fantasy that took 51 years to materialize. What did their passports say, rather than what did they believe in their hearts (although I'm sure a fair amount of Baltic people weren't so unhappy about being associated with world superpower). Shrigley (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should he prove his deeds are not 'nationalistic revisionism'? The presumption of innocence no longer holds? And as for 'rather than what was the separatist fantasy that took 51 years to materialize', do you have any source for such an assumption (preferably other than Dyukov)?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Shrigley, why isn't it Russian revisionism when the Duma declares Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law? Really, you can do better than arrive brandishing your anti-nationalist dagger. My parents' Latvian passports issued in the 1950's said Latvia. By your logic, we should change the birthplace of everyone born in Czechoslovakia after the Nazi German occupation to "Germany." Those were the facts on the ground. You fail to consider the unintended consequences of your position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. You incorrectly conflate sovereign and control. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, to your request for an explanation, the Russian Duma maintains the Baltics joined legally according to international law. Soviet or Russian, the mantra is that Estonia, Latvia, and lithuania joined willingly and the Soviet Union couldn't occupy what belonged to it. What you call nationalistic revisionism is only setting the record straight after half a century of Soviet lies, followed by a little bit of Russian truth (treaty signed by the Russian republic with Lithuania recognizing the USSR violated its sovereignty, this prior to the collapse of the USSR), followed by Russian retrenchment into Soviet lies and restoring its most sinister figures, for example, restoring and returning the bust of Dzherzinsky, founder of the notorious Cheka, to the courtyard of the Moscow police (2005 I think it was). If Germany restored a monument of Himmler in the center of Berlin, there would be international outrage. The equivalent in Russia? Just another day. The "revisionist" paintbrush applies, but to today's official Russia attempting to proselytize an utterly fake version of history and passing laws that those who don't stick to that version can get tossed into jail. Hope this helps. When you truck out the "nationalist" label as you did, you're not likely to get a friendly reception. You've got a lot to learn about history. This is an encyclopedia, your contention that readers don't care about anything other than appearances at the surface disrespects both encyclopedia and readers. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Shrigley, you haven't explained how your apparent view isn't indistinguishable from the Russian patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) discourse and why it should be given more weight than due a minority POV. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall we mention that in the article. The accusation of nationalist (Baltic) revisionism blaspheming the Soviet Union is all too common, even so long after the USSR is dead and buried. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well apparently defence of the actions of the Soviet Union has been wrapped up in Russian nationalism, just recently Putin defended the Soviet attack on Finland as "correcting mistakes". There is a strong element of amnesia within Russian nationalist discourse, so it follows that anything contrary to that POV is viewed as "revisionism". --Nug (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked the original in Russian. Scary, to say the least. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Occupation?
The article should be re-named Soviet Annextion of the Baltic states, as they were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do the inhabitants of those areas refer to it as?  We likely should give substantial weight to their opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We should make sure that historical revisionism isn't at play, here. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IOW you are certain that the people there considered it an "occupation" and you wish to ignore their own judgements about it because of what, precisely? Sorry -- it looks like you do not wish to follow simple logic on this one. Collect (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't here, to right the wrongs done to people. Pushing a Baltic nationalist PoV, isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I am not remotely Baltic, nor a Baltic nationalist, nor "pushing a Baltic nationalist POV" I fear you are on the wrong planet on this one. I am suggesting the rational approach, and all you do is attack me for being something I am not, for doing something I am not doing, and for actually trying to follow Wikipedia policies.   I think you well ought to apologize to me at this point. Collect (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling you a Baltic nationalist nor accusing you of pushing such a PoV. The article itself already has a Baltic nationalist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah -- so you are saying that only Baltic nationalists could consider the Soviet treatment as being an "occupation"? And since we can not play into the hands of those "Batic nationalists" the only proper thing is to call it an "annexation"?  Collect (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is so 'messed up' on other fronts, it's not worth the bother. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiously, the whole world apart from present Russian government seem to be 'Baltic nationalists' then... It would help, if one familiarised himself with the topic he tries to treat first, not just seek new and new articles to have a vendetta against a couple of users he had a dispute with.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That Baltic revisionism is being pushed/accepted here & gradually on other articles, isn't surprising. Wikipedia is riddled with personal preferences across linguistics, politics & history topics. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. The Balts must have a HUGE conspiracy going on for years: they've even bribed mainstream scholars to support their views. Scary.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourselves to the archives of this article. This discussion has been repeated there couple of times. --Whiskey (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. I was just trying to ridicule Occupation deniers, no serious intent to engage with such people. . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are clearly looking for a topic ban to add to your other topic bans, as I don't see anything except stalking and stirring pots discussed long ago with zero demonstration that you've read any prior discussion, nor have you indicated any interest in any historical detail, which to me indicates you're just here to egg on other editors. Give it a rest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Waffen-SS
I don't know whether this question has been asked already, but why this article doesn't mention that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions, particularly in 1st Latvian, 2nd Latvian and 1st Estonian divisions. It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states. There is only not-so-closely-related sentence about it in "Russian historiography in the post-Soviet era section", and even than it's just a quote. And at the same time it mentions Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces. But Baltic nationals were also within the Nazi Germany forces! And not a tiny mention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There were no Lithuanians in the Waffen SS, while some 20,000 Estonians and 55,000 Latvians were conscripted into the Waffen SS, out of a population of approximately 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 respectively, which represents around ~0.025% of the population, so your premise "that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions" is disproved. As for the claim "It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states.", is not only nonsense, it also could be construed as an expression of Anti-Estonian sentiment. That said, you are welcomed to add mention Baltic nationals also being in German forces to the article. --Nug (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Quote:There were no Lithuanians in the Waffen SS

There were collaborators: Lithuanian_collaboration_during_World_War_II and Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force

Quote: ''while some 20,000 Estonians and 55,000 Latvians were conscripted into the Waffen SS, out of a population of approximately 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 respectively, which represents around ~0.025% of the population, so your premise "that considerable number of population of Baltic states served in Nazi's Waffen-SS divisions" is disproved. ''

First, I didn’t say most, I sad considerable. 20,000 and 55,000 are considerable numbers. I assume 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 figures are the numbers of males that could have been conscripted (That they exclude women, children and old persons). 20,000 of 1,000,000 is actually 2% and 55,000 of 2,000,000 is 2.75%. But the numbers are higher if we count all people that served in German forces. For Estonia they are 38,000 men or even 70,000. For Latvia - 100,000 men. Efraim Zuroff claims that there were 140,000 men. Anyhow these facts deserve to be mentioned in this article. If you still think that it’s a small number than yoг should remove this line from the article: “The estimated death toll among Lithuanian deportees between 1945 and 1958 was 20,000, including 5,000 children.[79]” since it is just “~0.025% of the population” according to your math.

Quote: ''As for the claim "It's a known fact, and the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states.", is not only nonsense, it also could be construed as an expression of Anti-Estonian sentiment. ''

Since you made such a strong accusation I will post several links to reliable sources and quotes from them. I had to make this message this big to prove my point of view, and that I’m not lying.

Some excerpts from the articles:

Annual Ceremony Divides Latvia: Waffen SS Veterans March Through Riga Nazi SS veterans march through Riga in event attended by right-wing party linked to Tories Latvian memorial sees Waffen SS as freedom fighters The Nazi Resurgence in Europe: The Waffen-SS Marches Again Latvian court allows march honouring Waffen SS forces 20th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Estonian) There are, of course more sources, but I chose those one that you can’t accuse of bias towards one side under any circumstances. Now I expect to hear your apologies for accusing me of a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Latvian veterans of Hitler's Waffen SS marched through Riga on Monday, defying a ban by officials. The annual march divides the country.
 * The march takes place each year…
 * On Monday, some 1,200 people gathered at the Freedom Monument…
 * The March 16 event has caused tensions every year since the veterans began to mark it soon after Latvia regained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
 * On March 16, 1944, Latvian Waffen SS fighters fought the Red Army at the Velikaya river. In 1998 the Latvian parliament declared the day an official day of commemoration, but the holiday was scrapped two years later. Veterans still treat March 16 as an informal holiday, however.
 * Latvia says many of the 100,000 men who fought in the ranks of the Latvian Legion were conscripted…
 * Veterans of the dreaded Nazi Waffen SS marched in freezing temperatures in the Latvian capital Riga today cheered by locals who view them as heroes.
 * men who once wore the double S-flashes of the Nazi party's elite combat unit were honoured among the 2,000 who took part as freedom fighters from Communism.
 * Efraim Zuroff, the world’s foremost Nazi hunter who was also in Riga for a Holocaust conference, pleaded for Latvians not to honour the memory of the 140,000 men who joined the Latvian Legion in 1943 to fight for the Third Reich.
 * But history is never so simple: included in the ranks of these young conscripts were at least 500 men who had participated in the liquidation of the 40,000 Jews of the Riga ghetto.
 * Supporters vastly outnumbered the handful of anti-legion protesters …
 * Latvian memorial sees Waffen SS as freedom fighters
 * "There have been attempts again and again to glorify former SS soldiers," said Efraim Zurof, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem, who believes Latvia is trying to disguise its role in the Holocaust. "Not a single collaborator has ever been hunted down or punished," he says. Latvia is regularly criticised in the centre's annual report for failing to hold any Holocaust perpetrators accountable, primarily due to what it argues is a lack of the requisite political will.
 * Historian Karlis Kangeris does not dispute that many people living in the Baltic states were happy when the Wehrmacht drove back the Red Army in 1941 and were also eager to sign up to the military.
 * This view is shared in neighbouring Estonia…
 * The authorities in Riga argue that the more than 100,000 volunteers in the Latvian Legion of the Waffen-SS fought only the Soviet Union which had previously occupied and annexed Latvia, and was not responsible for Holocaust. However, the Latvian security police were also involved while many Latvians also assisted in the mass murder of Jews, who were considered as co-conspirators and made scapegoats for Soviet crimes.
 * Numerous political parties and social movements have sprung up that support former and current Nazis and Nazi causes.
 * This March 16 will see the emergence of the worst of this onto the world stage. Since the mid-'90s, in Latvia, there have been organized and growing demonstrations celebrating the Latvians who served in German Waffen-SS legions.
 * On March 16, In Riga, there will be another set of demonstrations and marches by SS veterans, with supporters from Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania and elsewhere.
 * They plan to commemorate the some 140,000 Latvian men who fought against the Russians with the German military.
 * Hundreds of people met in the Latvian capital of Riga on Wednesday to remember World War II veterans who fought with Nazi Germany in the Waffen SS, after a court overturned a ban on the controversial annual gathering.
 * Most living veterans of the division belong to the 20th Estonian Waffen Grenadier Division Veterans Union. It was founded in 2000 and gatherings of veterans of the division are organised by the union on the anniversaries of the battle of the Tannenberg Line in the Sinimäed hills.
 * On 28 July 2007, a gathering of some 300 veterans of the 20th Waffen-Grenadier-Division and of other units of the Wehrmacht, including a few Waffen SS veterans from Austria and Norway, took place in Sinimäe, where the battle between the German and Soviet armies had been particularly fierce.
 * This gathering takes place every year and has seen veterans from Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Austria and Germany attending.[22]
 * You claimed "the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states", yet none of the links mentioned anything about about "wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on", in fact photos in the respective sources show old geriatric men in civilian clothes, so that claim is a lie. Nor is there anything about "they are officially recognized by those states" in the sources either. People all over the world commemorate their war dead, the Baltic states are no exception, that some people choose to politicise this for their own agenda is a fact. However a talk page is for discussion about improving the article, not engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. So unless you have some concrete improvements to discuss, it is pointless to continue. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * "You claimed the veterans of those divisions regularly march in Baltic states wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on, they are officially recognized by those states, yet none of the links mentioned anything about about "wearing Nazi uniforms, insignias, badges and so on", in fact photos in the respective sources show old geriatric men in civilian clothes, so that claim is a lie. "

The Latvian Legion (Latvian: Latviešu leģions) was a formation of the Waffen-SS during World War II created in 1943 and consisting primarily of ethnic Latvian conscripts. Honoring of Latvian Legion’s symbol Veterans: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8, Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11

"Nor is there anything about they are officially recognized by those states in the sources either. "

There was a mention: Besides, here’s what Wikipedia state: Latvian Legion Day Here’s the report of The Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance, in which it condemns Latvia’s Waffen SS Parades: [ECRI Report on Latvia (fourth monitoring cycle] "However a talk page is for discussion about improving the article, not engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. So unless you have some concrete improvements to discuss, it is pointless to continue. "
 * In 1998 the Latvian parliament declared the day an official day of commemoration, but the holiday was scrapped two years later. Veterans still treat March 16 as an informal holiday, however.
 * In 1993, MP Juris Dobelis of LNNK invited his colleagues to commemorate the anniversary of the Legion, supported by the Chairman of the Parliament, Anatolijs Gorbunovs.[1] It was set as an official remembrance day in 1998.[2] In 1998 the procession to lay flowers at the base of the Freedom Monument drew the attention of foreign media… In 2000 the Latvian government abolished the day as an official commemoration day due to the EU objections, however the day is still observed unofficially and has since evolved into a political fight between opposing to this date and Latvian nationalists.
 * All attempts to commemorate persons who fought in the Waffen SS and collaborated with the Nazis, should be condemned. Any gathering or march legitimising in any way Nazism should be banned. (p. 9)
 * 86. Further, ECRI expresses concern as regards the authorisation of certain public events to commemorate two incidents and the authorities’ reaction in this connection. As concerns the first incident, every year, on 16 March, a gathering commemorating soldiers who fought in a Latvian unit of the Waffen SS is held in the centre of Riga. In this connection, ECRI regrets that, in spring 2010, an administrative district court overruled a decision of the Riga City Council prohibiting this march.
 * Moreover, ECRI is concerned that the speaker of the Latvian Parliament allegedly publicly expressed regret for the formal prohibition  of this event and that certain MPs have voted for the restoration of March 16 as day of remembrance
 * Further, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs did not condemn the march, stating, on the contrary, that there was nothing wrong with former soldiers gathering together privately to remember their fallen comrades-in-arms and that any attempt to characterise this commemoration as the glorification of Nazism is unacceptable. ECRI understands that part of Latvian public opinion considers that: the legion did not fight for Nazism but to restore Latvian sovereignty (further to Soviet occupation); they did not commit atrocities against Jews; and that, although many individuals joined the legion willingly, many others were conscripted. However, ECRI cannot but express concern about any attempt to justify fighting in the Waffen SS and collaborating with the Nazis, as it risks fuelling racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance
 * As regards the second incident, ECRI, on the one hand, expresses its dismay at the authorisation by the competent courts of an event set to celebrate the Nazi occupation of Riga (on 1 July).

Right, I made some suggestions, but you started to tell that my arguments are nonsense, mentioned that they are Anti-Estonian sentiment, to which I replied. Now you’ve come up with another accusation of WP:ADVOCACY, which is nowhere to be found in my messages. So I will start again, my suggestions:
 * This article has the section “Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces” but doesn’t has “Baltic nationals within the Nazi forces”;
 * This new section should mention Waffen-SS, the number of Baltic nationals serving in Waffen-SS divisions, German security police, German battalions and German army;
 * It should also mention battles, in which they took part;
 * It should mention operations committed against Jews, Russians and other nationalities (for example Operation Winterzauber);
 * It should mention Baltic collaborationism;
 * It should mention casualties in the ranks of German army;
 * It should mention sentiments of locals when Germany entered Baltic states;
 * Article should have Modern controversy section, which describes annual marches, there is enough info in my above posted links. Or at least it should be expanded in other articles regarding Baltic legionaries. The ECRI Report on Latvia must also be mentioned here or in Latvian legionaries article;

I can try to implement some of my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you just suggest the text you want to add here on the talk page? Thank you! Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, there are a couple of points you seem to be missing. Your comments suggest the Baltic nationals within the Waffen SS were volunteers, which is false. Mentioning the battles they took part and the suffered losses would be fine - probably Battle of Narva (1944), Tartu Offensive, Riga offensive, and Tallinn Offensive articles have the best description of that. Regarding collaborationism, Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II has good overviews. Just bear in mind the definition of collaborationism being 'cooperation with enemy forces against one's country' that most counter-Soviet cooperation with the German authorities cannot be deemed as collaborationism as it was not directed against their own country. Modern controversies can well be a part of this article, as long as either sourced to mainstream scholarly research or, otherwise, attributing quotes. Good luck! Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you just suggest the text you want to add here on the talk page? Originally I just wanted to clarify why Baltic Waffen-SS divisions weren't mentioned in this article since it's a known fact (I didn't know whether this question had been answered, because there were more than a dozen pages of discussion, and I didn't have time to read them all). That's why I don't have a text to suggest. But during the discussion some suggestion came to my mind. So I posted them, and maybe someone can address them, mention it in the article. As I suggested maybe even I would implement some of them.Your comments suggest the Baltic nationals within the Waffen SS were volunteers, which is false. Articles in wikipedia and several above links I posted state that there were volunteers and conscripts. Besides, most members of Baltic SS divisions state, that they battled against the USSR intentionally. Nazi Germany had also been fighting the USSR, so in terms of fighting the Soviet Union the Baltic SS members' agenda and Nazi agenda were the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, none of the images you posted show veterans wearing Nazi uniforms. They are in fact wearing either the current Estonian or Latvian military uniform, or some other non-nazi military style outfit. As for insignia, they seem to be either Estonian or Latvian national insignia, for example this image shows insignia based upon the Cross of Liberty (Estonia) created in 1919, which is the same one used in the War of Independence Victory Column. Check out the insignia used today by the Finnish Satakunta Air Command. Finland also battled against the USSR intentionally, so you suggesting that the Finnish agenda was the same as Nazi agenda, and therefore when Finland commemorates their war dead they are in fact glorifying Nazism? Nonsense. Secondly, you stated "they are officially recognized by those states", however only Latvia officially recognised them for a couple of years before repealing that recognition over ten years ago, while Estonia and Lithuania never officially recognised them. As to your question why Baltic Waffen-SS divisions weren't mentioned in this article, no conspiracy, it's just a plain and simple oversight, feel free to add a "“Baltic nationals within the German forces”" section. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 * They are in fact wearing either the current Estonian or Latvian military uniform, or some other non-nazi military style outfit. How do the current uniforms look like? I've searched to no avail. As for insignia, they seem to be either Estonian or Latvian national insignia, for example this image... The wearing of SS runes on the collar was forbidden, and these formations began wearing national insignia instead. That was probably the same with Latvian SS divisions. Just to clarify, what are those insignias on his collar, shoulders and head wear image? Where can I read about them? And where I can read about those awards image? Really curious. Finland also battled against the USSR intentionally, so you suggesting that the Finnish agenda was the same as Nazi agenda, and therefore when Finland commemorates their war dead they are in fact glorifying Nazism? I don't know what the celebrate, but Finland was an ally of the Germany. ECRI views Latvian commemorations as Nazi commemoration. As for agenda, probably not the most appropriate word, sounds to global. The members of the Baltic SS divisions stated, that they had been fighting Bolshevism. Nazi Germany and its subdue forces had also been fighting Bolshevism among the other things. Waffen-SS division were subdued to Germany. Members of the Baltic legions willingly fought against the USSR (They state it). Waffen-SS division, in which Baltic nationals had been serving, were ordered to fight the Soviets. So there is no conflict between the Baltic national's idea of fighting the Soviets (Bolshevism) and Nazi's orders to fight them. Secondly, you stated "they are officially recognized by those states", however only Latvia officially recognised them for a couple of years before repealing that recognition over ten years ago, while Estonia and Lithuania never officially recognised them. Numerous officials (Presidents, minsters, etc.) endorsed them. One of the examples is in the ECRI report on Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Nazi Germany and Finland were not allies. They were co-belligerent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-belligerence <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)David

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kova Bolševizmui!.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Einsatzgruppen or their auxiliaries - Kovno 1942.jpg


text:
Stubbs' Gazette

Stubbs' Gazette is a publication that provides details of insolvencies and court actions taken against businesses and individuals in Ireland and Northern Ireland. First published in 1828, Stubbs' Gazette has been published continuously since 1836.

The events listed in the gazette include the administration of a company, its liquidation or similar. The publication also lists personal bankruptcies and sequestrations amongst other events. The name and address of debtors are listed along with the amounts of money involved in court actions.

The gazette is published weekly in the Republic of Ireland. In Northern Ireland it is published fortnightly. The gazette is available in PDF on Mondays and on paper on Fridays. Additionally, the publication maintains a searchable digital database. The publication is subscribed to by insolvency agencies and lawyers, debt and property management companies, credit and financial agencies, as well as local authorities, and others.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Stubbs' Gazette


text:
User:Anyi Holy

There's a place; the meeting point of the eyes and the mind, I'm programmed to express its activities in letters, visuals and melodies.

title: User:Anyi Holy


text:
Animateur

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) holiday representative, club representative, entertainer

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) holiday representative, club representative, entertainer
 * 2) presenter (of television or radio show)

title: Animateur


text:
File talk:Hell Creek Formation Fauna.png

A few comments

 * Avisaurus was... much bigger than that (see Fig. 15, the tarsometatarsus is significantly larger than that of Mirarce, which is estimated at being roughly turkey-sized). I'm not concrete on this but the size of the other birds look off as well
 * Why are Edmontonia and Denversaurus listed separately? There is only one species of nodosaurid known from the Hell Creek Formation, D./E. schlessmani.
 * Quetzalcoatlus and Mosasaurus per se are not known from the Hell Creek Formation (only smaller representatives of each clade are known), so it is misleading to put them here
 * A bunch of the silhouettes also seem to be taken from other, potentially non-free sources (the Acheroraptor and Struthiomimus are renders from the video game Saurian, the Ornithomimus originates here, and the Brodavis, "Potamornis", and Denversaurus originate from this blog) without credit

It looks like this image (and several of the user's other uploads) did not go through WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review, which may have caught trivial errors such as these. The image was last updated with the commentary "do not change this file", seemingly in reaction to a previous update by another user, implying the uploader does not want anyone else to edit the file. I can't help but note, however, that the user has done so themselves in the past, which seems a double standard. Demanding others to not edit one's own files is likely a violation of WP:OWN. Unless these can be fixed, and proper image review protocol is followed in the future, action may need to be taken. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have just realized that this talk page existed, my bad. Already making updated to the file and giving proper credit for the silhouettes. The "do not change this file" was intended for users to not change the diagram colors. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The silhouettes were questioned on the grounds of whether they're free for use, not just that they were credited.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 03:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


text:
Senator Larsen

Senator Larsen may refer to:

 * Allan Larsen (1919–2005), Idaho State Senate
 * Cliff Larsen (fl. 2000s–2010s), Montana State Senate
 * Oley Larsen (born 1964), North Dakota State Senate
 * Richard F. Larsen (born 1936), North Dakota State Senate
 * Sylvia Larsen (born 1949), New Hampshire State Senate

title: Senator Larsen


text:
List of Bugatti vehicles

This is a list of vehicles produced by Bugatti (under Ettore Bugatti), Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. and Bugatti Automobiles.

Production cars

 * 1910 Type 13
 * 1912–1914 Type 18
 * 1913–1914 Type 23/Brescia Tourer (roadster)
 * 1922–1934 Type 30/38/40/43/44/49 (touring car)
 * 1927–1933 Type 41 "Royale"
 * 1929–1939 Type 46/50/50T (touring car)
 * 1932–1935 Type 55 (roadster)
 * 1934–1940 Type 57/57S/Type 57SC (touring car)
 * 1951–1956 Type 101 (coupe)

Race cars

 * 1910–1914 Type 13/Type 15/17/22
 * 1912 Peugeot Bébé Built by Bugatti under license from Peugeot. Known as Bugatti Type 16/Peugeot Type 69 and BP1
 * 1922–1926 Type 29 "Cigare"
 * 1923 Type 32 "Tank"
 * 1924–1930 Type 35/35A/35B/35T/35C/37/39 "Grand Prix"
 * 1927–1930 Type 52 (electric racer for children)
 * 1936–1939 Type 57G "Tank"
 * 1937–1939 Type 50B
 * 1931–1936 Type 53
 * 1931–1936 Type 51/51A/54GP/59
 * 1955–1956 Type 251

Prototypes

 * 1899 Type 1
 * 1900–1901 Type 2
 * 1903 Type 5
 * 1908 Type 10 "Petit Pur Sang"
 * 1925 Type 36
 * 1929–1930 Type 45/47
 * Type 56 (electric car)
 * 1939 Type 64 (coupe)
 * 1939 Bugatti Model 100
 * 1943/1947 Type 73C
 * 1957–1962 Type 252 (2-seat sports convertible)

Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (1987–1995)

 * 1991–1995 Bugatti EB 110
 * 1993 Bugatti EB 112 (Concept)

Production cars

 * 2005–2015 Bugatti Veyron
 * 2016–2024 Bugatti Chiron
 * 2019–2021 Bugatti Divo
 * 2022 Bugatti Centodieci
 * 2024–present Bugatti Bolide
 * 2022–present Bugatti Mistral
 * 2026 Bugatti Tourbillon

Prototypes

 * 1998 Bugatti EB 118
 * 1999 Bugatti EB 218
 * 1999 Bugatti 18/3 Chiron
 * 2009 Bugatti 16C Galibier "Royale"
 * 2013 Bugatti Gangloff
 * 2015 Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo
 * 2019 Bugatti La Voiture Noire
 * 2020 Bugatti Vision

title: List of Bugatti vehicles


text:
Citations:democrator

 * 1909–1999: A UTHOR UNKNOWN, New Catholic World, p194
 * …that the disappearance of der … (“the Old One”) would adversely affect the next elections, because many vote the Christian Democratic ticket only because of their enthusiasm for the great “ democrator.”
 * 1979: University of Southern California School of Philosophy, The Personalist, p143
 * …and the Christ-democrator of the Philistine, in having for his supreme mission the lifting of the burden of the oppressed.
 * 2001: Alexander Chubarov, Russia’s Bitter Path to Modernity: A History of the Soviet and Post-Soviet Eras, Chapter Nineteen: The Yeltsin Era — “Democrator”, p219 (Continuum International Publishing Group; ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> (10), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>505 (13))
 * Like Gorbachev, there were two sides to Yeltsin: the radical reformer condemning the privileges and political corruption of the old nomenklatura and the apparatchik (i.e., a member of the Communist apparat) who was thoroughly imbued with the ethos of the old regime. These two sides were in constant tension. The tug-of-war between the democratic and the authoritarian aspects of his political personality has allowed Russian journalists to describe Yeltsin as a “ democrator,” a hybrid of democrat and dictator. This hybrid nature of his charisma and leadership in a distinctive way reflected the ambiguities of the country itself.
 * 2004: Yaacov Ro‛i, Democracy and Pluralism in Muslim Eurasia, §: “D EMOCRATURE  / D EMOCRATORSHIP ”, pp194–195 (Routledge; ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> (10), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>252 (13))
 * Western analysts have dubbed the post-Soviet regimes ‘democratorships’ or ‘élitist (nominal) democracies’ — systems where the possibilities for effective mass political participation are limited, but where competition is authorized at the élite level.20

title: Citations:democrator


text:
moche

Noun

 * 1) An imported package of spun silk.

Etymology
From, present indicative of. Also see.

Adjective

 * 1)  ugly
 * 2)  rubbish (UK) or trash (USA) (only as a negative description, not waste)
 * 1)  rubbish (UK) or trash (USA) (only as a negative description, not waste)
 * 1)  rubbish (UK) or trash (USA) (only as a negative description, not waste)

Etymology
See English.

Adverb

 * 1) much a lot, many

title: moche


text:
COVID-19 local lockdown regulations in England

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of lockdown regulations were enforced in England by way of statutory instrument. Most covered the whole country, but some focused on local areas of particular concern. Leicester was the first area to be subject to local restrictions, on 4 July 2020, and many other regions were added over the subsequent three months.

On 14 October 2020, all of the statutory instruments discussed below were revoked and replaced with a set of three new regulations implementing a national system of three tiers of restrictions across England.

Legal basis
The local regulations were all introduced by way of a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, using emergency powers available to him under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the stated legal basis being "the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in England". In each case, the Secretary of State used section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to enact the regulations without prior parliamentary consideration, subject to retrospective approval by resolution of each House of Parliament within twenty-eight days.

Initial regulations, in force 4 July 2020
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/685) were the first local lockdown regulations in England, coming into force on 4 July 2020 on the day that the nationwide regulations were relaxed by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 which allowed most retail businesses to re-open and allowed certain gatherings of up to 30 people. Those relaxations were disapplied to the City of Leicester and the surrounding area ("the protected area"), defined by a list of postcode districts.

In contrast to the rest of the country, all non-essential businesses in the protected area had to remain closed, apart from a few exceptions such as garden centres, vehicle showrooms and their outdoor areas. All leisure and recreational facilities (other than outdoor sports courts or amenities) also had to remain closed, with exceptions only for elite athletes. Food and drink establishments were not permitted to make sales for consumption on the premises. Places of worship could open for individual private prayer only.

Households of any size could form a "linked household" with no more than one other household containing exactly one adult and any number of children. The regulations prohibited anyone staying overnight without reasonable excuse within the protected area in a place other than the place where they lived, or where their linked household lived. Individuals living outside the protected area were prohibited without from staying overnight without reasonable excuse at any place within the protected area other than the place where their linked household was living. Certain indoor and outdoor gatherings were also banned.

Protected area narrowed, 18 July 2020
SI 2020/685 was amended on 18 July 2020, after 14 days, by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/754). These removed Blaby and Charnwood from the protected area, restricting it to the City of Leicester and the Borough of Oadby and Wigston.

Non-essential retail re-opened, 24 July 2020
SI 2020/685 was amended on 24 July 2020, after a further six days, by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/787). These permitted the re-opening of non-essential retail premises, indoor markets in community centres, betting shops, retail galleries, drive-in cinemas, auction houses, and outdoor areas of zoos, safari parks and aquariums.

Oadby and Wigston removed, 1 August 2020
SI 2020/685 was amended on 1 August 2020, after a further eight days, by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/823) which removed the Borough of Oadby and Wigston from the protected area, limiting it solely to the City of Leicester.

Rules on gatherings changed, 3 August 2020
Two days later, on 3 August 2020, all of the Leicester regulations were repealed and were replaced by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/824). These changed the rules on gatherings, restricting gatherings of more than two people within private dwellings (apart from linked households), but allowing up to 30 elsewhere. Some additional premises were permitted to re-open.

Close-contact venues re-opened, 19 August 2020
On 19 August 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/875) allowed the re-opening of outdoor swimming pools and outdoor facilities at water parks, nail bars and salons, tanning booths and salons, spas and beauty salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, and body and skin piercing services.

Swimming pools and gyms re-opened, 8 September 2020
On 8 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, Leicester, and North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/954) permitted the re-opening in Leicester of indoor swimming pools, gyms, sports facilities, and fitness and dance studios.

Play areas and conference centres re-opened, 15 September 2020
On 15 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI2020/987) permitted the re-opening in Leicester of casinos, indoor skating rinks, indoor play areas (including soft play areas), bowling alleys, conference centres and exhibition halls.

Oadby and Wigston added back, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020 the Borough of Oadby and Wigston, which had been removed from the protected area on 1 August, was added back.

Linked childcare households, 22 September 2020
The concept of 'linked childcare households' was introduced in Leicester and all the local lockdown areas on 22 September 2020. A household with at least one child aged 13 or under could link with another household who was providing informal childcare. In order to link, all adults in both households had to agree. Each household was allowed a single linked childcare household only, which could not be changed; multiple links were not permitted.

As a new exception to the restrictions on gatherings, a household was allowed to meet with its linked childcare household provided that the meeting was reasonably necessary for the provision of informal childcare. This was an additional exception specifically for informal childcare arrangements, not for Registered Childminders who had their own 'education' exception.

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Regulations, in force 25 July 2020
On 25 July 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/800) came into force in the town of Luton in Bedfordshire. The regulations exempted Luton from the relaxations that were coming into effect in most other areas of England on the same day, under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/788), maintaining tighter restrictions on gatherings and requiring more businesses to remain closed.

Revocation, 1 August 2020
The regulations in Luton remained in force for only seven days, and were revoked by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/822) on 1 August.

Initial regulations, in force 25 July 2020
On 24 July 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/800) came into force in the local authority area of Blackburn with Darwen in Lancashire. The regulations exempted Blackburn with Darwen from the relaxations that were coming into effect in most other areas of England on the same day, under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/788), maintaining tighter restrictions on gatherings and requiring more businesses to remain closed.

Replacement regulations, in force 1 August 2020
Eight days later, on 1 August, SI 2020/800 was revoked and was immediately re-enacted without amendment for Blackburn with Darwen as part of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/822). (The re-enactment had no effect in Blackburn with Darwen, simply replacing Luton with Bradford in the regulations).

Rules aligned with elsewhere, 5 August 2020
SI 2020/822 was amended on 5 August 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/828) to align the rules on gatherings in Blackburn with Darwen with those coming into force in other towns of Northern England.

Protected area narrowed, 26 August 2020
SI 2020/822 was amended on 26 August 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/898) to restrict the protected area within Blackburn with Darwen to certain specified wards only.

Certain venues re-opened, 8 September 2020
On 8 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, Leicester, and North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/954) permitted the re-opening in Blackburn with Darwen of conference centres, exhibition halls, casinos, and bowling alleys; as well as indoor skating rinks, swimming pools, play areas, fitness and dance studios, gyms, and sports facilities.

Area aligned with elsewhere, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020, following revocation of the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford Regulations (SI 2020/822) previously covering the area, Blackburn with Darwen was brought into the scope of the North of England Regulations.

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Initial regulations, in force 1 August 2020
On 1 August 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/822) came into force in the city of Bradford, West Yorkshire. These enforced in Bradford the same restrictions that had been imposed eight days earlier on Luton and on Blackburn with Darwen.

Area aligned with elsewhere, 5 August 2020
SI 2020/822 was amended on 5 August 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/828) to align the rules on gatherings in Bradford with those coming into force in other towns of Northern England.

Protected area narrowed, 2 and 3 September 2020
On 2 September and again on 3 September the protected area within Bradford was restricted to certain wards only by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/930) and The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/935).

Certain venues re-opened, 8 September 2020
On 8 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, Leicester, and North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/954) permitted the re-opening in Bradford of conference centres, exhibition halls, casinos, and bowling alleys; as well as indoor skating rinks, swimming pools, play areas, fitness and dance studios, gyms, and sports facilities.

Area aligned with elsewhere, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020, following revocation of the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford Regulations (SI 2020/822) previously covering the city, Bradford was brought into the scope of the North of England Regulations.

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Initial regulations, in force 5 August 2020
On 5 August 2020 the areas subject to further local restrictions on gatherings were significantly expanded by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/828) to include regions within Greater Manchester, Lancashire, and West Yorkshire. Specifically 'the protected area' of the regulations comprised the city, Metropolitan Borough and Borough Council areas of Bolton, Tameside, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Trafford, Wigan, Pendle, Hyndburn, Burnley, Rossendale, Calderdale and Kirklees.

With some exceptions (including linked households), the regulations prohibited two or more people from different households gathering in a private dwelling within the protected area; and people living in the area could not participate in any such gathering held outside the area. Gatherings outside private dwellings of more than 30 people were also restricted.

The regulations did not bring in any additional business closures, leaving that to be dealt with under the general rules for England set out in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/684), as amended.

Protected area extended, 8 August 2020
The protected area was expanded to include Preston on 8 August 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/846).

Businesses to remain closed, 15 August 2020
On 15 August 2020 the scope of SI 2020/828 was widened by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/865) to allow for the enforcement of new local business closures in addition to the regulation of gatherings. Casinos, indoor skating rinks, indoor play areas including soft play areas, and conference centres and exhibition halls were permitted to reopen elsewhere from 15 August by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/863), but had to remain closed within the 'North of England' protected area.

Protected area narrowed, 26 August 2020
SI 2020/828 was amended on 26 August 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/897) to remove Wigan and Rossendale from the protected area.

Protected area narrowed, 2 September 2020
On 2 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/931) removed from the protected area the towns of Stockport, Burnley and Hyndburn, as well as parts of Calderdale and Kirklees.

Certain venues re-opened, 8 September 2020
On 8 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, Leicester, and North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/954) permitted the re-opening in the protected area of conference centres, exhibition halls, casinos and bowling alleys; as well as indoor skating rinks and play areas. These facilities, however, had to remain closed within the area of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. On 10 September a new set of regulations (SI 2020/974) was introduced covering Bolton alone (see below).

Certain venues re-opened, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020, following revocation of the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford Regulations (SI 2020/822) previously covering the city, Bradford was brought into the scope of these regulations. Local restrictions were removed from Pendle and Preston, but re-imposed throughout the council areas of Calderdale and Kirklees where they had been partially relaxed on 1 September. Casinos, indoor skating rinks, indoor play areas, bowling alleys, conference centres and exhibition halls could re-open.

Linked childcare households, 22 September 2020
The concept of 'linked childcare households' was introduced in all the local lockdown areas on 22 September 2020, enabling two households to become linked for the purposes of informal childcare. (See Leicester for details).

Protected area extended, 26 September 2020
The protected area was expanded to include Stockport, Wigan and Leeds on 26 September 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Restriction on Businesses) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1041).

Consolidation with North West of England, 30 September 2020
On 30 September a number of areas in the North West that were subject to restrictions under the regulations relating to the North East and North West of England were transferred to the North of England regulations by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1057).

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Regulations, in force 29 August
On 29 August 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/921) came into effect, targeting not a geographical area but the workers for a specific company, namely Greencore Food to Go Ltd. Subject to a few exceptions, the regulations required anyone whose main place of work between 7 and 21 August was one of two specified Greencore premises in Northampton to self-isolate for a period of one and two weeks starting on 29 August. Members of workers' households were also required to self-isolate.

Expiry, 26 September 2020
The regulations expired after 28 days, on 26 September 2020.

Bolton
On 10 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Bolton) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/974) significantly increased restrictions within the area of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council.

Business closures and restricted opening hours
In addition to the existing closure of nightclubs, dance halls, sexual entertainment venues, conference centres, exhibition halls, casinos, bowling alleys, indoor skating rinks and play areas, the regulations required the closure once again of all restaurants, cafes, bars and pubs offering food and drink for consumption on the premises.

Most retail shops were required to close between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am, as were many public venues including cinemas, theatres, bingo halls, concert halls, museums and galleries, indoor visitor attractions and leisure centres, hairdressers, betting shops, nail bars, tanning and beauty salons, tattoo parlours, massage parlours, playgrounds, social clubs, zoos, adventure and theme parks. Some retail shops were excluded, including food retailers, newsagents and petrol stations.

Restrictions on gatherings
All gatherings (of two or more people) in a private dwelling or garden were prohibited unless the individuals were members of a common household or of a single linked household, or the gathering was reasonably necessary for certain permitted purposes such as work, education or child care. Two households could be permanently 'linked' for this purpose where one household consisted of exactly one adult (no more) plus any number of children; the second could consist of any number of adults and children.

Most other types of gathering (indoor and outdoor) of more than six people were also prohibited unless all the individuals were of a common or two linked households, or the gathering was reasonably necessary for certain permitted purposes such as work, education or child care. Also permitted were certain gatherings arranged by a company, charity or political body where a formal risk assessment had been carried out.

Linked childcare households, 22 September 2020
The concept of 'linked childcare households' was introduced in all the local lockdown areas on 22 September 2020, enabling two households to become linked for the purposes of informal childcare. (See Leicester for details).

Opening hours restricted, 26 September 2020
From 26 September 2020 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Restriction on Businesses) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1041) all food and drink takeaways (selling food and drink prepared on the premises for immediate consumption off the premises) had to close between 22:00 and 05:00, apart from supermarkets, convenience stores, pharmacists and petrol stations.

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Initial regulations, in force 15 September 2020
On 15 September 2020 further local restrictions were enforced by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020 (SI2020/988). These disapplied the standard Rule of six regulations that applied elsewhere in England and replaced them with more onerous restrictions within the areas of Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull.

Within the protected area, all gatherings (of two or more people) in a private dwelling or garden were prohibited unless the individuals were members of a common household or of a single linked household, or the gathering was reasonably necessary for certain permitted purposes such as work, education or child care. Two households could be permanently 'linked' for this purpose where one household consisted of exactly one adult (no more) plus any number of children; the second could consist of any number of adults and children.

Protected area extended, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020 Wolverhampton was added to the protected area.

Linked childcare households, 22 September 2020
The concept of 'linked childcare households' was introduced in all the local lockdown areas on 22 September 2020, enabling two households to become linked for the purposes of informal childcare. (See Leicester for details).

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Initial regulations, in force 18 September 2020
On 18 September 2020 further local restrictions were introduced across a wide area of North East England by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020 (SI 1010), and the follow-up Regulations SI 1012 which corrected some typographical errors. Specifically 'the protected area' of the regulations covered Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.

Business closures and restricted opening hours
Nightclubs, dance halls, discos and sexual entertainment venues had to remain closed. Certain businesses were subject to restricted opening hours, and were prohibited from opening between the hours of 10pm and 5am. These included businesses offering food and drink for consumption off the premises, restaurants, cafes, pubs, bars, social clubs, bowling alleys, cinemas, theatres, concert halls, indoor leisure facilities, funfairs, adventure parks, casinos and bingo halls. Where such businesses served food and drink for consumption on the premises during permitted opening hours they could serve only customers sitting at tables.

Restrictions on gatherings
All gatherings (of two or more people) in a private dwelling or garden were prohibited unless the individuals were members of a common household or of a single linked household, or the gathering was reasonably necessary for certain permitted purposes such as work, education or child care. Two households could be permanently 'linked' for this purpose where one household consisted of exactly one adult (no more) plus any number of children; the second could consist of any number of adults and children.

Protected area extended, 22 September 2020
On 22 September 2020, the following regions were added to or added back to the protected area: Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Halton, Hyndburn, Knowsley, Lancaster, Liverpool, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, Sefton, South Ribble, St Helens, Warrington, West Lancashire, Wirral and Wyre.

Following revocation of the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford Regulations (SI 2020/822) previously covering that area, Blackburn with Darwen was brought into the scope of these regulations.

Linked childcare households, 22 September 2020
The concept of 'linked childcare households' was introduced in all the local lockdown areas on 22 September 2020, enabling two households to become linked for the purposes of informal childcare. (See Leicester for details).

Protected area extended, 26 September 2020
The protected area was expanded to include Blackpool on 26 September 2020 by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Restriction on Businesses) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1041).

Consolidation with North of England and further restrictions, 30 September 2020
On 30 September a number of areas in the North West that were subject to restrictions under these regulations were transferred to the North of England regulations by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1057).

For those areas remaining as protected areas under these regulations, further restrictions were imposed on gatherings in private dwellings and indoor settings to prevent two or more persons from meeting in a private dwelling other than for certain specific reasons.

Amendments were made to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (Si 2020/1008) to ensure that the obligations placed on hospitality venues were aligned with the further restrictions on gatherings where located in protected areas subject to the North East and North West of England regulations.

Revocation, 14 October 2020
These local restrictions were revoked on 14 October 2020 and replaced with regulations implementing a new three-tier system across England.

Enforcement
Breaches of all the above regulations were offences and could be prosecuted or dealt with by fixed penalty notices. With effect from 24 September 2020, the penalties were doubled by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1029), starting from £200 for the first offence (halved to £100 for prompt payment), and increasing on a sliding scale to a maximum of £6,400 for a sixth or subsequent offence.

Ney report, August 2020
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned a rapid review of the work of the Leicester and Leicestershire councils during the local outbreak, in order to share good practices and identify scope for improvement, both locally and nationally. The review began on 5 August and a report by Dame Mary Ney was submitted on 21 August. Nine "learning points" and six areas of good practice were highlighted.


text:
1988 Lehigh Engineers football team

The 1988 Lehigh Engineers football team was an American football team that represented Lehigh University during the 1988 NCAA Division I-AA football season. Lehigh tied for third in the Colonial League.

In their third year under head coach Hank Small, the Engineers compiled a 6–5 record. Rich Curtis and Gregg Wolfson were the team captains.

The Engineers outscored opponents 351 to 300. Their 2–3 conference record placed Lehigh in a three-way tie for third (and for next-to-last) in the six-team Colonial League standings.

Lehigh played its first year of home games at Murray H. Goodman Stadium on the university's new Goodman Campus in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

title: 1988 Lehigh Engineers football team


text:
User:Rp8848/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * De Brazza's monkey (De Brazza's monkey)
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I was disappointed by the minimal information proposed on such a unique species. I was also surprised by the lack of information under the "Behaviour" section. Primates are very knowledgable animals that carry out a variety of complex behaviours. This article failed to provide insight on even some of the basic behaviours, such as the species reproduction methods. I am also very intrigued by primates meaning this evaluation sparked my interest.

Lead
The lead for this article could use some work. The introductory sentence was strong as it effectively introduced the species by stating the scientific name and the region where they can be found. The introduction sentence was not misleading, as it was very clear that the article would be specifically focused on De Brazza's monkeys. However, the lead failed to highlight key concepts that would be covered later in the article. For example, there was no indication that the species physical appearance would be discussed or that any of their behaviours would be stated. By reading the lead alone, one would have a difficult time determining the major sections that this article was going to cover. The lead could have been improved with a brief description of these major sections. For example, the species communication process was covered under the behaviour section, a simple description of this in the lead would have prepared the reader with what was to come. Overall, the lead was too concise but had an effective introductory sentence and did not include any information that was not present in the article.

Content
The content within this article is all relevant to the De Brazza's monkey which created unity to the piece. However, a lot of necessary content is missing. The article fails to discuss basic behaviours of the De Brazza's monkey such as their feeding processes, reproduction methods, defence mechanisms or any other unique social behaviours. Instead the content provided is very broad. For example, it discusses how the strongest male present is responsible for protecting other group members but does not provide details on how he goes about this protection.

The content in this article is not up-to-date. The newest information included in this piece comes from 2008, which is over a decade old at this point. Including recent studies and new information would make for a stronger article. Overall, the content lacks specific detail and has no recent information added.

Tone and Balance
Respectfully the article remained neutral throughout. There was no apparent bias or personal viewpoints. Most of the data provided was cited and factual. There was simply minimal opportunity for bias views and persuasion based on the data discussed. For example, it is difficult to be persuasive when directly stating the physical description of an animal or their typical lifespan.

Sources and References
Most of the information in this article is backed up by a reliable secondary source. However, the first paragraph under the description section is not obviously supported. It is difficult to determine if the citation at the end of this section is for all of the information covered or solely the last paragraph. In this specific example the writer should have included a citation at the end of both paragraphs. The sources used throughout this article are not completely up-to-date, most come from the early 2000s and are over a decade old. To improve the quality of this article, information and studies gathered more recently should be proposed. From a quick search on the scientific data base it is clear that multiple works surrounding De Brazza's monkeys have been published in the past few years. It may be possible to pull new information from these pieces to enhance the article.

The links present in the citation section are all working.

Organization

Overall, it seems as if the article is well-written. Although it is short and lacks a lot of necessary detail, there is no rambling. The text is both concise and easy to read. Words which may not be understood by the average person are linked to a definition. For example, under the description section the word "guenon" is linked to the wikipedia page which describes this term. No grammatical or spelling errors were observed. The organization of this article and the subtitles used were also effective, highlighting major topics. However, as previously stated some of these sections could have been more in-depth. Also, switching the location of the "Description" and "Etymology" may be effective as the description section seems to be more important and include more relevant information.

Images and Media

The use of media and images in this article was successful. The biggest section of this article involved the physical description of the De Brazza's monkey which is supported by the visuals presented. However, in the description section it speaks about the species being sexually dimorphic, a possible advancement would be including a photo that displays this difference between sexes. The second image present in the behaviour section is also effective as it displays an interaction between an adult De Brazza with a young. Both pictures were also very high quality which is appealing. The caption of the photos could be more descriptive, for example the first photo simply says "De Brazza's monkey". The writer should have included more detail such as the gender or the age of the individual. The first photo was properly cited while the second did not include an obvious citation.

Checking the talk page
No conversations are currently going on behind the scenes in the talk section of this specific article. However, it is a part of the Wikiproject Primates and is rated as a low-importance start-class.

Overall impressions

The overall status of this article is start-class. It could definitely use more detail as it seems underdeveloped. For example, the behaviour section is very simple and broad for such a complex animal. There was no information on important topics such as mating, reproduction, development, unique behaviours or defence mechanisms. Including these topics in the article would enhance it. More references could also be used as most of the information only came from a couple of sources. Some of the strengths of this article included the introductory sentence and the photographs used as well as the information being concise and to the point.

Optional activity

 * Link to feedback: Talk:De Brazza's monkey

title: User:Rp8848/Evaluate an Article


text:
Anna Melyukova

Anna Ivanovna Melyukova (Анна Ивановна Мелюкова; 14 December 1921 – 7 March 2004) was a Russian archaeologist and a pioneer in the field of Scythian archaeology. At her alma mater, Moscow State University, she held the position of professor of archaeology and eventually, became the head of its department of Scythology.

Biography
Anna Ivanovna Melyukova was born on 14 December 1921, the daughter of a sculptor and ornamentalist. She received an interest in art through her family.

Melyukova entered the Faculty of History at Moscow State University in 1939, from which she was graduated with distinction in 1945. Her dissertation was on the funerary constructions of Scythian royal mounds. She studied under the distinguished scholar, Boris Grakov. He became her mentor and she worked closely with him. They collaborated in researching and publishing material on the Scythians. She became a professor of archaeology at the university.

In 1950, Melyukova received her Ph.D. from the MSU Faculty of History after defending her thesis on the military equipment of the Scythians. Subsequently, her thesis became a reference work for all researchers on the weapons and military affairs of the peoples of the early Iron Age.

Upon the death of Grakov in 1970, Melyukova succeeded him as head of the department of Scythology at Moscow State University.

Melyukova died on 7 March 2004.

Selected bibliography

 * Вооружение, войско и военное искусство скифов, 1950
 * Об этнических и культурных различиях в степных и лесостепных областях европейской части СССР в скифское время, 1954
 * Скифия и фракийский мир, 1979
 * Степи европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время, 1989

title: Anna Melyukova


text:
Narayana Panicker Kochupillai

Narayana Panicker Kochupillai, popularly known as N. P. Kochupillai, is an Indian clinical endocrinologist, Professor Emeritus of the National Academy of Medical Sciences and a former head of the department of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, known to have contributed to the understanding of endemically prevalent endocrine and metabolic disorders. A winner of 2002 Dr. B. C. Roy Award, he was honoured by the Government of India in 2003 with Padma Shri, the fourth highest Indian civilian award.

Biography
Narayana Panicker Kochupillai was born in the South Indian state of Kerala on 10 February 1939. He graduated in science (BSc) from the University of Kerala and secured his graduate (MBBS) and masters (MD) medical degrees from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. His advanced residency on Immunoassay technology was completed at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York under Dr. Rosalyn S. Yalow. His career started at AIIMS as a member of faculty and as a consultant endocrinologist where he rose to become the head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism. An Emeritus Professor of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (NAMS), Kochupillai is a former president of the Endocrine Society of India and is the Director of Medical Research at M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru.

Kochupillai is reported to have over 35 years of research and teaching experience. He is considered by many as a tertiary care specialist and his researches on internal medicine and clinical endocrinology are known to have assisted the medical fraternity to have a better understanding of the endemically prevalent endocrine and metabolic disorders. His researches have been documented by way of over 145 medical research papers published in peer reviewed journals and he has mentored many masters and doctoral students in their studies. He has also conducted several medical conferences and has delivered keynote addresses.

Kochupillai, a Solomon A. Berson International Fellow, is an elected fellow of the Indian National Science Academy (FNA), Indian Academy of Sciences (FASc) and the National Academy of Medical Sciences (FAMS). He received the Ranbaxy International Award in 1999 followed by Dr. B. C. Roy Award, the highest Indian award in the medical category, in 2002. The Government of India honoured him again in 2003 with the civilian award of Padma Shri. He is a recipient of Andhra Pradesh Diabetes Association Medal in 2004, Endocrine Society of India Lifetime Achievement Award in 2005, FESTA Award of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences in 2005 and Shree Dhanwantari Prize of Indian National Science Academy in 2009. He has also delivered many award lectures such as Endocrine Society of India Annual Oration, Nutrition Society of India Srikantia Memorial Oration, ISCA Platinum Jubilee Lecture, ISCA Guha Memorial Oration and Uttar Pradesh Diabetes Association Sircar Oration.

title: Narayana Panicker Kochupillai


text:
Talk:Gallimimus

Diet
Shouldn't it be stated what these animals ate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world where we knew what they ate, yes. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it ate more on the lines of plants and bugs, and could have also mabe eaten some flowers, because it had lived in the Late Cretaceaus era, in where their had been evolving.(P.S. Did any of you by chance got to see it in the Jurassic Park films.)--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

By what I said above, I'm hinting at the fact that Gallimimus is a omnivour.--Dinonerd4489 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even though it did eat both plants and animals, it was stiil prone to attack. Galloimimus lived in Late Cretaceous Mongolia, which also meant that it had to deal with almost the most deadly dinosaurs that ever stalked the earth. A cousin of the T.rex, Tarbosaurus could have made an easy meal out of Gallimimus, even a pack of Velociraptors wouldn't have had a hard time at it. The clear evasive technique this omnivore uses is its speed. It is believed that this dinosaur was the fastest of them all.--Dinoexpert129848 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, just because an animal is a carnivore doesn't mean it doesn't have predators of its own. However Velociraptor did not coexist with Gallimimus, it lived several million years earlier. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Name
Gallimimus means "cock mimic" (from latin gallus and latin mimus) not "fowl mimic"-<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently chicken or rooster would also work. J. Spencer (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Gallus is masculine, so I'd assume that means Rooster, not chicken? Though I kinda forget how the Romans labelled things with undetermined gender. Interestingly, Gallus can also mean "of Gaul (ancient France, etc.)". Clearly that means this dinosaur imitates French people. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Don't let them hear that. The describers intended it to refer to "chicken", i.e. the species, not particularly the female members of said species.--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cladogram under Phylogeny
I'm thinking this section is a little stubby so a cladogram of Ornithomimosauridae or something would help. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Also, Beak is a little too specific- I think just Palaeobiology and Palaeoecology would do. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gallimimus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gallimimus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "XuQiupalong": From Ornithomimidae: Xu, et al. (2011). From Qiupalong:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gallimimus size
This talk is about the Larramendi book. The book suggests a length of 6 m, hip height of 2 m, mass of 500 kg for the specimen IGM 100/11. When compared to Paul's earlier estimate of 440 kg, a 60 kg mass difference wouldn't be a significant difference, especially when other dinosaur species have mass estimates which vary by more than tons based on a single specimen. Also I agree that the book's estimate is questionable when the specimens used for the estimate is fragmentary, but some are actually OK when the estimate is based on well-preserved, complete specimens (of course not all, as with the Velociraptor estimates of the book). I consider this estimate as acceptable, but I guess this needs proper examination, too. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This book has been discussed and concluded to be problematic as a source already, so further additions of it will be seen as disruptive. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why does so many articles (including featured ones) use this book? Junsik1223 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One reason is that one of the authors of the book has actually been adding it to articles, as you can see from a discussion I linked. And no one has time to check all articles for this,hence why you need to be more cooperative instead of just randomly adding stuff everywhere. In any case, as I already told you, Featured Articles have higher standards than other articles when it comes to citations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. But one question I always wanted the answer. How do you know which edit is made on the featured article so quick? Like honestly I'm surprised and actually amazed by how quick you guys fix errors or wrong edits, etc. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're on our watchlists. In this case, I wrote the article, hence it's on my watchlist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gallimimus