Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages.  One team's job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a "constructive" speech, because it is the speech when the first speaker positively, without rebuttal that has not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a "rebuttal", because this is the speech were each person tries to rebut (or refute) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to convince the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to convince the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to convince the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including the National Speech and Debate Association, National Association of Urban Debate Leagues, Catholic Forensic League, Stoa USA, and the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of National Debate Tournament (NDT) and the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the National Forensic Association (NFA)) on the collegiate level as well.

History
Academic debate had its origins in intra-collegiate debating societies, in which students would engage in invitational debates against their classmates. Wake Forest University's debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in the mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854. Many debating societies that were founded at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century are still active today, though they have generally shifted their focus to intercollegiate competitive debate. In addition to Wake Forest, the debate society at Northwestern University dates to 1855. Boston College's Fulton Debating Society, which was founded in 1868, continues to organize an annual "Fulton Prize Debate" between teams of its own students after the intercollegiate debate season has ended. Other universities continue similar traditions.

Intercollegiate debates have been held since at least as early as the 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from Wake Forest University and Trinity College (later Duke University) beginning in 1897. Additionally, a debate between students from Boston College and Georgetown University occurred on May 1, 1895, in Boston. Whitman College debated Washington State University, Willamette University, and the University of Idaho in the late 1890s. Southwestern claims that the first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College (which eventually became Wichita State University) but that debate could not have occurred prior to 1895, the year Fairmount College began classes.

By the mid-1970s, regular rules for lengths of speeches developed. Each side (Affirmative and Negative) was afforded two opening "constructive" speeches, and two closing "rebuttal" speeches, for a total of eight speeches each debate round. Each speaker was cross-examined by their opponent for a period following his or her constructive speech. Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped. Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards.

Style and delivery

Speed

Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In many tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. Speed reading or spreading is normal at the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments.

Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. In contrast, rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions.  Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences.

Flowing

Debaters have a specialized form of note taking, called flowing, to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, a debater's flow is divided into separate flows for each different macro-argument in the debate round (kritiks, disads, topicalities, case, etc.). There are multiple methods of flowing, but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech. The first constructive speech is flowed from the top of the sheet down in the first column, and the next constructive speech is flowed in the right column next to the first one.  Each speech is flowed in separate columns, alternating Affirmative and Negative.

Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary.

Theory

There are many accepted standards in policy debate, and there are several dominant speech argument styles. Sometimes debaters will debate about how policy debate should work. Those arguments are known as "theory debate" arguments, and they are most often brought up when one team believes the other team are unfair and therefore warrant a loss or other intervention by the judge.

Burdens of the affirmative
When the Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate (Inherency) that their plan should be adopted. They must prove that their plan is an example of the resolution (Topicality), and they must prove that the plan is a good idea (Solvency). The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo (Harms).

Stock issues

One traditional way to judge policy debate states that the affirmative team must win certain issues, called the stock issues. They are generally known as follows:
 Topicality: Does the plan fulfill the resolution?
 Inherency of the status quo: Is the plan an Intrinsic change?
What is the Status Quo? Is the affirmative's plan happening already, and if not, why?  Inherency promotes strength and originality in advocacy.
 Significance, or Harms of the status quo: Does the plan warrant change?
What is the problem in the status quo to justify adopting the plan? Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference?
 Solvency advantages: Does the plan deal with the issues presented adequately?
Will the plan solve any problems in the status quo? How much of an impact (positive effect, or Significance) will the plan have?

Is the plan an example of the resolution? Is the Affirmative Team's plan in line with the change advocated by the resolution?  Are those good reasons to affirm the resolution?

The standard "stock issues" presented as planks are Topicality, Inherency, Harms, and Solvency.

Advantages and disadvantages

Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages, which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that the affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the extinction of the human race or a global nuclear war.

Negation tactic
Negation Tactic, also known as Negation Theory, contends that the negative need only negate the affirmative instead of having to negate the resolution. The acceptance of all-inclusive negation, as opposed piecemeal, allows Negative teams to run full argumentation outlines such as topical counterplans with better Solvency that affirms the resolution but still negates the Affirmative's plan.

Negative strategy
After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include:
 Topicality: The Negative will attempt to argue that the Affirmative team does not fall under the rubric of the resolution and should be rejected immediately regardless of the merits or advantages of the plan. This is a type of "meta-debate" argument, as both sides then spend time defining various words or phrases in the resolution, laying down standards for why their definition(s) or interpretation(s) is superior. Most yearly topics have at least one or two commonly run Affirmative cases that are only arguably topical, so Topicality is often justified as a check or deterrent on and against such plans, which usually have quite strategic components. If run correctly, they are the strongest arguments against case.
 Disadvantages: The negative can claim that there are disadvantages, or adverse effects of the plan, which outweigh any advantages claimed. In order to outweigh any positive effects of the affirmative case, impacts must be arguably "larger" than those of the opposing team. The negative must say what is good now, and how the affirmative's plan causes the impact of their disadvantage.
 Counterplans: The negative can present a counter solution to the affirmative case's problem which does not have to affirm the resolution (The negative does not have to be topical in making a counterplan). This is generally accompanied by on-case arguments that the affirmative's plan does not solve, as well as disadvantages that link to the affirmative case but not the counterplan. Counterplans narrow down the on-case arguments to: advantages the counterplan can not borrow, the inherency, and the solvency. Upon the negative running a counterplan, most debates boil down to the solvency of the affirmative case, and the disadvantages. Counterplans must be competitive with the plan. That means that the counterplan must either be mutually exclusive with the affirmative (for example, one cannot both increase oil production (a hypothetical plan) and decrease oil production (a hypothetical counterplan) or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan (the negative must win that the inclusion of the plan would cause some form of harm that the counterplan alone would avoid).
 Kritiks: The negative can claim that the affirmative is guilty of a certain mindset or assumption that should be grounds for rejection or a different mutually exclusive alternative to the Affirmative's plan. Kritiks are sometimes a reason to reject the entire affirmative advocacy without evaluating its policy; other times, kritiks can be evaluated within the same strictures as the affirmative case as to who is hypocritical or irrelevant or prejudiced, etc. Examples of some areas of literature for kritiks include biopower, racism, centralized government, and anthropocentrism. Kritiks arose in the early 1990s, with the first kritiks based in deconstructionist philology about the ambiguity of the language used (diction) and were championed by debaters Shane Stafford and Bill Shanahan.
 Theory: Sometimes the subject matter of the affirmative's case will create uneven Grounds at the beginning. In these cases, the negative can object to the procedure or content of the affirmative case. These objections are part of a Grounds theory debate in that they try to delineate what has been disavailed from fouling Grounds in a debate round.

Evidence

Evidence in debates is organized into units called cards (because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been out of favor). Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the argument or evidence summary, the evidence that supports the argument, and the citation. The argument part, sometimes called the tag, is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The citation contains all relevant reference citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. The body is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the cite and the body.

Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech. If cards are not shared before the speech, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine evidence even while a speech is still going on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in cross-examination. It is generally accepted whichever team is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced.

After a round, judges often "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably National Catholic Forensic League nationals, and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for the purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner, and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published later.

Judging

A judge is an individual responsible for deciding the winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers.  Judges merit a good debate round and, ideally, avoid inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality.  Judges are also coaches who help debate teams improve.

Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important part of the activity of a debate club. Debaters in these circuits should be able to adapt their presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, as well as maintaining high standards of debate for judges who have themselves been debaters. This use of lay judges significantly alters delivery and argumentation, as the rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory arguments are frequently new to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters.

Speaker points
The judge is charged not only with selecting a winner, but also must allot points to each debater. "Speaker points" are numeric merit scores that the judge awards the debaters on their speaking skills. Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at the high school level. However, the method accepted by most national organizations such as the National Forensic League, Tournament of Champions, National Catholic Forensic League, Cross-Examination Debate Association, and National Debate Tournament, use values ranging from 1 to 30. In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where a perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance. Most tournaments accept half-point gradations, for example 28.5s, or even by tenths. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses, yet often correlate with a team's win/loss rate. In other words, the judge usually awards the winning team cumulatively higher speaker points than the losing team. If the judge does not, the decision is considered a "low-point win". Low-point wins simply mean that the team with better argumentation did not speak as well as their competitors, which is rare, because judges will vote for teams that speak better overall and award higher speaker points to teams who deliver a better debate.  The difference can be stated as so, "the low-point winning team are better debaters, and the high-point losing team provided a better debate round".

In some smaller jurisdictions, the judge ranks the speakers 1‑4 instead of awarding them speaker points. Either speaker-point calculation may be used to break ties among teams with like records. Some areas also use speaker rankings in addition to speaker points in order to differentiate between speakers awarded the same number of points.

At a majority of tournaments, debaters also receive "speaker awards", which are awarded to the debaters who received the greatest number of speaker points. Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges. The number of speaker awards given out varies based on the number of debaters competing at any given tournament. For instance, a small local tournament might only award trophies or plaques to the top three debaters, whereas a widely attended "national circuit" tournament might give out awards to the top ten or fifteen speakers.

Paradigms
Most debate judges (who were usually debaters in high school and/or college) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Depending on what mindset, or paradigm, the judge uses, the debate can be drastically different. Because there is no one view of debate agreed upon by everyone, many debaters question a judge about their paradigm and/or their feelings on specific arguments before the round.

Not every judge fits perfectly into one paradigm or another. A judge may say that they are "tabula rasa" or tab for short, or willing to listen to anything, but draw the line at arguments they consider to be offensive (such as arguments in favor of racism). Or, a judge might be a "policymaker", but still look at the debate in an offense/defense framework like a games-playing judge.

Examples of paradigms include:
 Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. These judges are more likely to dislike newer arguments such as critics and some theoretical points.
 Policymaker: At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 Tabula rasa: From the Latin for "blank slate", the judge attempts to come into the round with no predispositions. These judges typically expect debaters to "debate it out", which includes telling the judge what paradigm they should view the round in.
 Games player: Views debate as a game. Judges who use this paradigm tend to be concerned with whether or not each team has a fair chance at winning the debate. They usually view the debate flow as a game board, and look at arguments according to an offense/defense structure.
 Speaking skills/communications: This type of judge is concerned with good presentation and persuasion skills. They tend to vote for teams that are more articulate, and present arguments in the most appealing way. These judges usually disapprove of speed.
 Hypothesis tester: In order for the affirmative to win, they convince the judge to support the resolution. Conversely, the negative must convince the judge to negate the resolution.
 Kritikal: Judges who prefer kritik debates may look to who most effectively solves patriarchy, racism, orientalism, ocularcentrism, or other perceived oppressiveness.
 Stasis oratory: The judge gives the closure of the round. Judges who know stasis theory do not overexplain what it is and tend to be pedagogical, coaching debaters after the round to help improve debaters' appreciation of debate and oratory, by speaking on arguments and argumentation, strategy and tactics, rather than speaking on their personal judgment and analysis or judge's paradigm.  But these judges do judge and are not paradigm-based in their ballot voting.

Competition

Tournaments
Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Thousands of tournaments are held each year at high schools and certain colleges throughout the US.

A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' The championship of the national circuit is usually considered to be the Tournament of Champions, also called the TOC, at the University of Kentucky, which requires formal qualification in the form of two or more bids to the tournament. Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent. Debater partnerships with 2 bids are guaranteed a spot at the TOC, whereas debater teams with 1 bid (At-large teams) may be admitted if they consistently advance far in the elimination rounds or come close to winning a bid several other times.

Urban debate
Urban debate leagues give students in urban school districts an opportunity to participate in policy debate. There are currently urban debate leagues in 24 of the largest cities in the United States. In total, more than 500 high schools participate in the league and more than 40,000 students have competed in urban debate.

Rural debate
The Rural Debate Initiative ("RuDI") expands access to debate to secondary school students residing in rural America. RuDI partners with top college programs to provide weekly coaching sessions, internal debate tournaments and summer debate camps to rural students in a virtual format at no cost. RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills.

Championships

High school

There is some dispute over what constitutes the "national championship" in the United States per se, but two tournaments generally compete for the title:
The Tournament of Champions held at the University of Kentucky, and the National Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the National Forensic League (now known as the National Speech & Debate Association). For the highest level of competition, the Tournament of Champions is generally considered to be the more prestigious title to hold.
 Other national championships include:
 The Grand National Tournament of the National Catholic Forensic League.
 The National Championship of the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL).
 The National Debate Coaches' Association Championship (NDCA)
 The National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA)
 The National Invitational Tournament of Champions (NITOC) of Stoa USA
 The National Speech and Debate Association National Tournament (NSDA).

Texas Forensic Association Debate
In Texas, most debate occurs in Texas Forensic Association (TFA) tournaments. The other major debate organization is the University Interscholastic League (UIL).

College
There is no single unified national championship in college debate; though the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and the American Debate Association (ADA) all host national tournaments. The NDT committee issues a ranking report of the top 16 teams in the country ("first round bids") for automatic advancement to the NDT in early February. The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February.

Institutes and camps

While once attended by only highly competitive policy debaters, many high school students now attend debate institutes, which are typically held at colleges in the summer. Most institutes range from about two to seven weeks, with four weeks being the most common.

Many institutes divide students into work groups, or "labs", based on skill level and experience. Many even offer specialized "advanced" or "scholars" workshops, to which acceptance is highly limited.

These camps often set the tone for the upcoming season and produce much of the evidence used by debaters at the beginning of the year.

Resolutions
A resolution or topic is a statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. Most resolutions from the 1920s to 2005 have begun "Resolved: that The United States federal government should" although some variations from that template have been used both before the NDT-CEDA merger and with the 2006–2007 college policy debate topic, which limited the affirmative agent to the United States Supreme Court.

At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write "topic papers" discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Each school then gets one vote on the topic. The single topic area voted on then has a number of proposed topic wordings, one is chosen, and it is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season (standard academic school year).

At the high-school level, "topic papers" are also prepared but the voting procedure is different. Those papers are then presented to a topic selection committee which rewords each topic and eventually narrows down the number of topics to five topics. Then the five resolutions are put to a two-tiered voting system. State forensic associations, the National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League all vote on the five topics, narrowing it down to two. Then the two topics are again put to a vote, and one topic is selected.
 The 2010-2011 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
 The 2011–2012 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Mesosphere.
 The 2012–2013 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
 The 2013–2014 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.
 The 2014–2015 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.
 The 2015–2016 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.
 The 2016–2017 high school resolution was:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China.
 The 2017–2018 high school resolution was:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of primary and/or secondary education in the United States.
The 2018-2019 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.

 The 2019-2020 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

 The 2020-2021 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.

 The 2021-2022 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.

 The 2022-2023 high school resolution was:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its security cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in one or more of the following areas: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity.

 The 2023–2024 high school resolution is:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase fiscal redistribution in the United States by adopting a federal jobs guarantee, expanding Social Security, and/or providing a basic income.

Event structure

The times and speech order are generally as follows:

In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time," during a debate round.

See also
 Glossary of policy debate terms
 Inter-Collegiate policy debate
 Plan inclusive counterplan
 Resolved (film)
 List of policy debaters

References

Bibliography
 Cheshier, David. (2002). Drills to Improve your Debate Speaking. Rostrum. Retrieved December 30, 2005.

 Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "The Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting." National Forensic League. 22 June 2006
 Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "Post-Modern Critiques as Stratagems in the Policy Debate Discourse." National Forensic League. 2005
 Hahn, Allison; Taylor Ward Hahn; and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. (2013). Finding Your Voice: A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate. International Debate Education Association Press.
 Hanes, T. Russell. (2008). The "How to" of Debate. Lulu Press. ISBN 978-1329109322.
 NFL's Rostrum, policy debate archives
 U. Vermont's list of debate theory articles

External links
High school debate associations
 ALOUD
 National Association for Urban Debate Leagues
 National Catholic Forensics League
 National Christian Forensics and Communications Association
 Stoa USA Speech and Debate
 National Debate Coaches Association
 The organization that writes the HS topic: National Federation of High School Association
 National Forensic League

College debate websites
 National Debate Tournament
 Cross Examination Debate Association
 eDebate

Results/Tournaments
 Debate Results
 ForensicsTournament.net
 Joy of Tournaments
 Tabroom.com

Other
 DelegatePal
 Policy Debate, WikiBooks

Debate types

Policy debate


Dağılma dönemi Osmanlı sadrazamları listesi  Safranbolulu İzzet Mehmed Paşa'dan  Ahmed Tevfik Paşa'ya kadar, yani 1773-1922 döneminde, sadaret başlangıç tarihine göre sıralanmış Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesidir

Liste

Kaynakça

Ayrıca bakınız
 Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesi
 Kuruluş Dönemi Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesi
 Yükseliş Dönemi Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesi
 Duraklama Dönemi Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesi
 Gerileme Dönemi Osmanlı Sadrazamları listesi

Dış bağlantılar
 T.C. Devlet Arşivleri
 Osmanlı sadrazamları listesi
 Danişmend, İsmail Hâmi (1971), Osmanlı Devlet Erkânı,  İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi.
 Tektaş, Nâzım (2002), Sadrazamlar: Osmanlı'da ikinci adam saltanatı, İstanbul: Çatı Kitapları, 2002,
 Finkel, C. (2005), Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire, Basic Books

Sadrazam
&Dağılma dönemi, 1733-1922
Sadrazam
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'ndaki makam sahiplerinin listeleri


An Pterostylis stricta in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Stephen Chapman Clemesha ngan Bruce Gray. An Pterostylis stricta in nahilalakip ha genus nga Pterostylis, ngan familia nga Orchidaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Mga sumpay ha gawas

Pterostylis

Pterostylis stricta


Sucking in the Seventies es el cuarto álbum recopilatorio oficial de The Rolling Stones, lanzado en 1981. Puesto como el sucesor de Made in the Shade de 1975, abarca el material a partir de It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (1974) hasta Emotional Rescue (1980). Todas las pistas del álbum, excepto "Shattered", fueron remezcladas y re-editadas para esta versión; también se incluyó uno que otro material raro. "Everything Is Turning to Gold" fue lanzado como B-Side de "Shattered" a finales de 1978 en los EE. UU. "If I Was A Dancer (Dance Pt. 2)" tiene una mezcla y letra diferente con respecto a "Dance (Pt. 1)" el tema que abre Emotional Rescue que a pesar de haber sido publicado en 1980 fue incluido en el álbum. Finalmente presenta una versión en vivo de "When the Whip Comes Down" inédita hasta el momento, registrada en Detroit en la gira de 1978. Fue lanzado en la primavera de 1981, cuando se aproximaba la publicación de Tattoo You, Sucking in the Seventies alcanzó el puesto # 15 en los EE.UU y posteriormente se transformó en disco de oro; sin embargo, en las listas británicas no figuró. En el año 2005, Sucking in the Seventies fue remasterizado y reeditado por Virgin Records.

Lista de canciones
Todos los temas escritos por Mick Jagger y Keith Richards, excepto donde se indique.

"Shattered" – 3:46
de Some Girls
"Everything Is Turning to Gold" (Jagger, Richards, Ronnie Wood) – 4:06
B-side de "Shattered"
"Hot Stuff" – 3:30
de Black and Blue
"Time Waits for No One" – 4:25
de It's Only Rock 'n' Roll
"Fool to Cry" – 4:07
single version"Mannish Boy" (Ellas McDaniel, Mel London, McKinley Morganfield) – 4:38
de Love You Live"When the Whip Comes Down" (Live version) – 4:35
Grabada en vivo (Detroit el 6 de julio de 1978)
"If I Was a Dancer (Dance Pt. 2)" (Jagger, Richards, Wood) – 5:50
Inedito, de las sesiones de  Emotional Rescue"Crazy Mama" – 4:06
de Black and Blue"Beast of Burden " – 3:27
de Some Girls''

Enlaces externos

Álbumes recopilatorios de The Rolling Stones
Álbumes recopilatorios de 1981
Álbumes de Virgin Records
Álbumes de Rolling Stones Records

Sucking in the Seventies


Dafydd "David" Rhys Williams  (born May 16, 1954) is a Canadian physician, public speaker, author and retired CSA astronaut. Williams was a mission specialist on two Space Shuttle missions. His first spaceflight, STS-90 in 1998, was a 16-day mission aboard Space Shuttle Columbia dedicated to neuroscience research. His second flight, STS-118 in August 2007, was flown by Space Shuttle Endeavour to the International Space Station. During that mission he performed three spacewalks, becoming the third Canadian to perform a spacewalk and setting a Canadian record for total number of spacewalks. These spacewalks combined for a total duration of 17 hours and 47 minutes.

In 1998, Williams became the first non-American to hold a senior management position within NASA, when he held the position of Director of the Space and Life Sciences Directorate at the Johnson Space Center and Deputy Associate Administrator of the Office of Spaceflight at NASA Headquarters.

Education
Williams earned a Bachelor of Science in biology from McGill University in 1976, a Master of Science in physiology, and a Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery from McGill University in 1983. He completed a residency in family medicine at the University of Ottawa in 1985 and obtained fellowship in emergency medicine from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, following completion of a residency in emergency medicine at the University of Toronto in 1988.

Medical career
Williams received postgraduate training in advanced invertebrate physiology at the Friday Harbor Laboratories of the University of Washington. Subsequently, his interests switched to vertebrate neurophysiology when, for his master's thesis, he became involved in basic science research on the role of adrenal steroid hormones in modifying the activity of regions within the central nervous system involved in the regulation of sleep-wake cycles. While working in the Neurophysiological Laboratories at the Allan Memorial Institute for Psychiatry, he assisted in clinical studies of slow wave potentials within the central nervous system.

His clinical research in emergency medicine has included studies evaluating the initial training and skill retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills, patient survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the early identification of trauma patients at high risk, and the efficacy of tetanus immunization in the elderly.

In 1988, he became an emergency physician with the department of emergency services at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre as well as a lecturer with the Department of Surgery at the University of Toronto. He served as a member of the Air Ambulance Utilization Committee with the Ontario Ministry of Health both as an academic emergency physician and later as a representative of community emergency physicians. In addition, he has trained ambulance attendants, paramedics, nurses, residents, and practicing physicians in cardiac and trauma resuscitation as a course director in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) with the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation and in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) with the American College of Surgeons.

From 1989 to 1990, he served as an emergency physician with the Emergency Associates of Kitchener-Waterloo and as medical director of the Westmount Urgent Care Clinic. In 1990, he returned to Sunnybrook as medical director of the ACLS program and coordinator of postgraduate training in emergency medicine. Subsequently, he became the Director of the Department of Emergency Services at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Toronto, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Toronto.
He remains active in life science and space medicine research, both as a Principal Investigator and as a Co-Investigator.

In April 2008, Williams was recruited by McMaster University as a physician-scientist where he was the director for the new McMaster Centre for Medical Robotics at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.

On May 18, 2011, Williams became the new president and CEO of Southlake Regional Health Centre, the regional hospital in Newmarket, Ontario, to lead the facility into becoming a full-fledged teaching and research centre. He continued in this role until October 2017 when he left Southlake to work as a healthcare and aerospace consultant.

Astronaut career
Williams was selected by the Canadian Space Agency in June 1992. He completed basic training, and in May 1993 was appointed manager of the Missions and Space Medicine Group within the astronaut program. His collateral duty assignments have included supervising the implementation of operational space medicine activities within the astronaut program and the coordination of the Canadian Astronaut Program Space Unit Life Simulation (CAPSULS) Project. In February 1994 he participated in a 7-day space mission simulation. During this CAPSULS Project he was the Principal Investigator of a study to evaluate the initial training and retention of resuscitation skills by non-medical astronauts. He was also assigned as one of the crew members and acted as the crew medical officer. He announced his retirement as an astronaut on February 29, 2008, effective from March 1, 2008.

NASA experience

In January 1995, Williams was selected to join the 1995 international class of NASA mission specialist astronaut candidates. He reported to the Johnson Space Center in March 1995 and completed training and evaluation in May 1996. On completing basic training, he was assigned to work technical issues for the payloads/habitability branch of the astronaut office.

From July 1998 to November 2002, Williams served as Director of the Space and Life Sciences directorate with responsibility for research in both physical and biomedical space sciences at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). With this appointment, he became the first non-American to hold a senior management position within NASA.

Overall crew medical safety was one of his principal concerns, in addition to flight medical operations and JSC occupational and environmental health. His programs were directed toward protecting astronauts from the hazards of the space environment, including space radiation and microgravity, in addition to maintaining their medical, physical, and psychological well-being while aloft and on return to Earth. His other oversight responsibilities were in the fields of telemedicine, 3-D tissue culture/regeneration in microgravity, the curatorial management of extraterrestrial materials, and of qualifying humans for very long space journeys and ensuring their safe return to Earth.

Williams served as an aquanaut on the first NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) crew aboard the Aquarius underwater laboratory in October 2001.  During this mission, he was thrilled to shake hands underwater with Canadian underwater explorer Joe MacInnis.  Williams was originally scheduled to command NEEMO 7 in October 2004, but was replaced by back-up crewmember and fellow CSA astronaut Robert Thirsk due to Williams undergoing review of a temporary medical issue.  In April 2006, Williams commanded the NEEMO 9 mission.  During this eighteen-day mission, the six-person crew developed lunar surface exploration procedures and telemedical technology applications.

STS-90
Williams was on a mission specialist 3 on STS-90 Neurolab (April 17 to May 3, 1998). During the 16-day Spacelab flight, the seven-person crew aboard Space Shuttle Columbia served as both experiment subjects and operators for 26 individual life science experiments focusing on the effects of microgravity on the brain and nervous system. The STS-90 flight orbited the Earth 256 times, covered 6.3 million miles, and logged Williams over 381 hours in space.

STS-118
Williams was assigned to the crew of STS-118 (August 8 to 21, 2007), an assembly mission to the International Space Station. He completed three spacewalks during this mission, and set two new records during his final EVA on Saturday, August 18: he is the Canadian with the most spacewalks (3) and Williams ended Saturday's EVA with a total duration of 17 hours, 47 minutes of extravehicular time. He was the second Canadian to lead an EVA and is one of four  Canadian astronauts who have performed EVAs.

Awards and honours
Williams is a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Aerospace Medical Association, the Canadian Society for Aerospace Medicine, and the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute. Past affiliations include the Society for Neuroscience, the New York Academy of Science, and the Montreal Physiological Society.

Williams was awarded the Commonwealth Certificate of Thanks in 1973 and the Commonwealth Recognition Award (1975) for his contribution to the Royal Life Saving Society of Canada. Academic awards include the A.S. Hill Bursary, McGill University, in 1980; the Walter Hoare Bursary, McGill University, in 1981; and the J.W. McConnell Award, McGill University, from 1981 to 1983. He was named Faculty Scholar in 1982 and University Scholar in 1983 by the faculty of medicine at McGill University. In 1983, he also received the psychiatry prize and the Wood Gold Medal for clinical excellence from the Faculty of Medicine and was named on the dean's honor list by the physiology department, at McGill University, for his postgraduate research. He was twice awarded the second prize for his participation in the University of Toronto Emergency Medicine Research Papers Program, in 1986, and 1988, and received top honours in that competition in 1987.

Following STS-90, in 1999, he received the Melbourne W. Boynton Award from the American Astronautical Society and the Bronze Medal from the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). In 2000, he received the Individual Achievement Award from the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement and was made a patron of the International Life Saving Society in 2002. He was recognized with the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 2002, a JSC Space and Life Sciences Directorate Special Professional Achievement Award, and in 2004, a NASA Astronaut Office GEM Award and Langley Research Center Superior Accomplishment Award. With the crew of STS-118, in 2008, he received the Federation Aeronautique Internationale Medaille de la Vaulx Award and the V.M. Komarov Diploma followed by a NASA Exceptional Service Medal.

In 2012, Williams was inducted into the Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame. He received Queen Elizabeth II, Diamond Jubilee Medal, later that year and the following year Williams was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2013 for his work in space exploration. He received the Order of Ontario in 2015 and the Award of Excellence from the College of Family Physicians of Canada later that year.

Dr. David R. Williams Public School was selected as the name for a new elementary school in Oakville, Ontario, where Williams lived, in 2020.

Honorary degrees
Williams has received the following honorary degrees; Honorary Doctorate of Laws, University of Saskatchewan (2004), Honorary Doctorate of Science, McGill University (2007), Honorary Doctorate of Science, University of Wales (2007), Honorary Doctorate of Science, Queen's University 2009, Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Dalhousie University (2016).

Books

Personal life
Williams was born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and is married to Cathy Fraser of Pointe-Claire, Quebec. They have three children, Evan (born 1994) and Olivia (born 1997) and Theo (born 2003). He enjoys flying, scuba diving, hiking, sailing, kayaking, canoeing, downhill and cross-country skiing. He is of Welsh descent through his late father, Bill who was born in Aberbargoed. This was gleaned from an interview on S4C 16/11/20.

References

External links
 Official website

1954 births
Living people
Aquanauts
Canadian astronauts
Canadian medical researchers
Canadian hospital administrators
Canadian people of Welsh descent
Canadian underwater divers
McGill University Faculty of Science alumni
Academic staff of McMaster University
People from Saskatoon
Physician astronauts
University of Toronto alumni
People from Beaconsfield, Quebec
Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame inductees
Space Shuttle program astronauts
University of Ottawa alumni
McGill University Faculty of Medicine alumni
Spacewalkers
Members of the Order of Ontario
Officers of the Order of Canada

Dafydd Williams


Peter Riedel (August 1905 – November 6, 1998) was a German gliding champion, and was air attaché for the Nazi government in Washington, D.C., before and during World War II. Between 1977 and 1985 he published the definitive history of the German gliding movement prior to the war.

Riedel was born in Dehlitz, Saxony, his father a Lutheran pastor and his mother a professor of theology at the University of Halle. His father suffered bouts of mental illness, and his mother committed suicide, meaning that Riedel was raised for some time by an uncle.

In 1920, at the age of 15, Riedel attended the first gliding championship held at the Wasserkuppe, taking with him a half-built glider of his own design, which he completed and flew with the help of other attendees at the meet. From then on, he became a regular participant at the competitions. With the assistance of philanthropist , who had taken an interest in the gliding movement, Riedel was able to attend the Darmstadt University of Technology, where he studied engineering. After graduation, he trained as a commercial pilot, but could not find work, and instead spent six years working under  at the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug (DFS - German Research Institute for Sailplane Flight). In the meantime, he continued competitive gliding, setting a world distance record of  in 1933 and winning the Hindenburg Cup at the Wasserkuppe competition the same year. In 1934, he accompanied Professor Georgii on a tour of Brazil and Argentina to help promote the sport in Latin America, along with Wolf Hirth and Heini Dittmar. While in Argentina, Riedel set a record for long-distance soaring.  Hanna Reitsch also went, and the two became good friends.

Later that year, Riedel finally found work as a commercial pilot, and flew for Deutsche Luft Hansa for two years, then accepting a two-year contract with SCADTA, an airline from Colombia, not intending to return to Germany. In 1937, he competed in the Soaring Society of America's national competition. While in the U.S., he was approached by the German Military Attaché and offered a post in Washington, DC, which he accepted and took up in June 1938. His work involved gathering intelligence on U.S. air activities and reporting to Berlin. In time, he was made a commissioned officer of the Luftwaffe and given the official position of Air Attaché.

In July 1938, during the 9th Annual American Soaring Contest, Riedel -flying a two-place German sailplane of German make with Dr. Karl O. Lange, the contest director, as  his passenger- landed in Mohawk Flats near Utica, New York four hours after having taken off from Elmira, New York.

When the United States entered the war, Riedel was interned along with the rest of the German embassy staff. He was returned to Germany as part of a diplomatic exchange. His wife, Helen Klug, a native of Terre Haute, Indiana and a US citizen, agreed to join him. On his return, the Heinkel company employed him as an engineer, but he soon took up another diplomatic post as Air Attaché to Sweden. There, he became aware of the atrocities of the Nazi regime from reports in both the US and Soviet press. Horrified, he began to deal directly with the US Office of Strategic Services but was betrayed by a friend and recalled to Berlin. Guessing what fate might have awaited him there, he instead went into hiding in Sweden. After the war, he was arrested as an illegal alien but escaped after some time in custody and fled to Venezuela, where Helen eventually joined him.

Over the next few years, they lived and worked in Canada and South Africa, until they could finally return to settle in the U.S., where Riedel flew for TWA and Pan Am. For a while, they resided in Terre Haute, where he worked for the Reich Manufacturing Company.

In his retirement, Riedel wrote an extensive and detailed history, in three volumes, of the German gliding movement between 1911 and 1937, titled Erlebte Rhöngeschichte. Shortly before his death, German Air Attaché, a biography, was published. Riedel is interred at Calvary Cemetery in Terre Haute.

References

1905 births
1998 deaths
German aviators
Glider pilots
Glider flight record holders
Commercial aviators
German aviation record holders
German air attachés
20th-century German diplomats
Technische Universität Darmstadt alumni

Peter Riedel


Lichtenhain ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Gräfenthal im Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt in Thüringen.

Lage
Lichtenhain ist mit 650 Meter über NN der höchstgelegene Ortsteil von Gräfenthal. Er ist über die Landesstraße 1150 und eine serpentinenartige Zubringerstraße zu erreichen. Die Gemarkung liegt im Thüringer Schiefergebirge. Das Hochplateau mit der Flur des Ortsteils ist stark kupiert und mit Wald umschlossen. Der östliche Nachbarort ist die Stadt Ludwigsstadt mit ihrem Stadtteil Ebersdorf in Bayern.

Der Rennsteig verläuft nur wenige km östlich der Ortschaft. Die mittelalterliche Bergdorfkirche hat bis heute ihren ursprünglichen Charakter erhalten und ist durchaus sehenswert.

Geschichte

Lichtenhain wurde am 29. Juni 1414 erstmals urkundlich genannt.

Der Ort lag bis 1990 in unmittelbarer Nähe der innerdeutschen Grenze, im sogenannten 500-m-Schutzstreifen (5-km-Sperrgebiet im Grenzgebiet DDR zur BRD), und war Stationierungsort der 11. Grenzkompanie (3. Grenzbataillon) Grenzregiment 15 (Sonneberg) der Grenztruppen der DDR. Im Ort, zwischen den beiden Grenzzäunen der Sicherungsanlagen der DDR, befand sich in einem BT9 (Beobachtungsturm) die Führungsstelle mit der 1. Alarmgruppe. dazu noch ein BT11 auf dem sogenannten Vorfeld. Im Februar 1985 wurde das 15. Grenzregiment neu organisiert. Ab diesem Zeitpunkt war es die 7. Grenzkompanie im 2. Grenzbataillon des Grenzregiments 15.

Anmerkung: Der 500-m-Schutzstreifen war Teil des 5-km-Sperrgebiets an der innerdeutschen Grenze. Für den zeitweiligen und ständigen Aufenthalt in diesem Schutzstreifen galten zusätzliche Einschränkungen.

Im März 1976 wurde der Ortsteil Kleinlichtenhain an die Gemeinde Kleintettau im Landkreis Kronach (Bayern) abgetreten.

Am 9. April 1994 wurde die Gemeinde Lichtenhain bei Gräfenthal in die Stadt Gräfenthal eingegliedert.

Sehenswürdigkeiten
 Kirche St. Sebastian (Lichtenhain)

Wirtschaft und Tourismus
Forstwirtschaft und ökologische Landwirtschaft sind neben sanftem Tourismus Erwerbsquellen der 100 Einwohner im Dorf. Zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen sich Wanderungen, vor allem bei unseren holländischen Mitbürgern, zum nahe gelegenen Rennsteig und entlang der ehemaligen innerdeutschen Grenze zwischen Bayern und Thüringen, beispielsweise zum nahe gelegenen Ratzenberg mit der Thüringer Warte.

Weblinks

 Webseite Lichtenhain (Gräfenthal)

Einzelnachweise

Gräfenthal
Ort im Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt
Ehemalige Gemeinde (Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt)
Ersterwähnung 1414
Gemeindeauflösung 1994

Lichtenhain (Gräfenthal)


Eduardo José Gonçalves (Rio de Janeiro, 22 de janeiro de 1969) é um carnavalesco e figurinista brasileiro.

História
Sua carreira no carnaval começou quando, aos 19 anos, participou  do concurso para substituir o então falecido carnavalesco Fernando Pinto, na Mocidade Independente de Padre Miguel. Apesar de não ter conseguido assinar o carnaval da Mocidade por conta de sua idade, foi lá onde ele aprendeu o ofício de fazer carnaval com os aderecistas de barracão. Sua primeira oportunidade de assinar carnaval foi em 1992, na Unidos do Jacarezinho, com o enredo A visita do Jacarezinho ao Reino encantado de Maria Clara Machado. De lá pra cá, Edu exerce a sua criação artística desenhando os seus croquis, projetos cenográficos de alegorias e suas pesquisas de enredos, tendo obtido reconhecimento com cinco campeonatos em escolas como Lins Imperial (2007), Unidos do Jacarezinho (2008 e 2013), Paraíso do Tuiuti (2011), Unidos do Jacarezinho (2012) e Mocidade Unida do Santa Marta (2013). Como figurinista, cenógrafo e produtor executivo, sempre criou em cima de temáticas culturais que enfatiza o reaproveitamento de materiais reciclados, principalmente os alternativos e de menor custo e melhor solução visual.

No ano de 2019, ministrou, ao lado da carnavalesca Maria Augusta Rodrigues, o minicurso "Ressignificar o Brilho", na cidade de Mindelo, em Cabo Verde. O trabalho tinha como objetivo apresentar soluções alternativas e criativas com materiais recicláveis para os profissionais e artistas da cidade que realizam todo ano o desfile de Carnaval de Verão.

Desfiles assinados por Edu Gonçalves

Premiações

Naturais da cidade do Rio de Janeiro
Carnavalescos do estado do Rio de Janeiro
Figurinistas do estado do Rio de Janeiro
Carnavalescos da Unidos do Jacarezinho
Carnavalescos do Paraíso do Tuiuti
Carnavalescos do Império Serrano

Edu Gonçalves


Nijerya ya da resmî adı ile Nijerya Federal Cumhuriyeti, Afrika kıtasının batısında yer alan ülkedir. Ülkenin sınır komşularını (kuzeyden saat yönünde ilerlendiğinde) Nijer, Çad, Kamerun ve Benin oluştururken, ülkenin güneyinde Gine Körfezi içerisinde yer alan Benin Körfezi yer almaktadır. Ülkenin başkenti Abuja'dır.

Ülke ismi
Ülkenin ismi Nijer Nehri'nden gelmektedir. Nijer Nehri ifadesinin Tuareg dilinde karşılığı olan ghir n-igheren kelimesi nehirlerin nehri anlamına gelmekte olup, bu kelime Arapça'da Nahr al-anhur olarak Latincede ise Niger (Türkçe: siyah olan) olarak kullanılmıştır.

Coğrafya
Nijerya 923.768 km²'lik bir yüz ölçümüne sahip olup, kuzey-güney yönündeki genişliği 1.100 km, batı-güney yönündeki genişliği ise 1.200 km'dir. Ülkenin toplamda sahip olduğu 4.477 km'lik kara sınırından 809 km'si Benin, 1.975 km'si Kamerun, 1.608 km'si Nijer ve 85 km'si Çad ile oluşurken, ülkenin ayrıca Benin Körfezi'ne 853 km'lik sahil şeridi bulunmaktadır. Ülkenin en yüksek noktasını Chappal Waddi oluşturmakta olup, dağın zirvesi 2.419 m yüksekliktedir. Ülkenin deniz seviyesinden yüksekliği ortalama 380 m düzeyindedir.

Nijerya, esas olarak dört coğrafi bölgeye ayrılır: Kıyıdaki mangrovlı (Afrika'da bataklıklarda yetişen bir cins ağaç) bataklık bölgesi, tropikal ormanlık bölge, Savana bölgesi ve kuzeydeki yarı çöl bölge

Yaklaşık 100 km kadar iç bölgeye giren kıyı bölgesi, hemen hemen 36.000 km² lik geniş bir deltaya ve mangrov ağaçlarıyla dolu bataklıklara sahiptir. Bölgede yüzlerce nehir ve kolları mevcuttur. Nijerya toprakları, kıyılardan itibaren tedricen kesilmiş ve dağlık arazilerle kırılmış, hafif ondüleli bir yayla görünümündedir. Lagos'tan Kamerun sınırına kadar olan şerit, ekvatoral ormanlık araziyle örtülüdür.

Nijerya'nın ikinci ormanlık bölgesi, Savana bölgesidir. Ülkeyi baştan başa (yaklaşık 320 kilometreyi aşkın bir mesafede) kateden Nijer Nehri'nin batı bölgesi, dağlık bir arazidir. Bu yüksek dağlar arasında Adamawa Dağları yaklaşık 80 km uzunluğundadır.
Ülkenin güneydoğusunu ise Kamerun Dağları'nın batı yamaçları örter ve bütün güneydoğu sınırı boyunca uzanırlar. Bu dağlar, ortalama 1500 m yüksekliğinde olup, bazı yerleri 2000 metreye ulaşır.
Kuzey Nijerya ise nispeten yarı çöl olup Büyük Sahra Çölü'nün güneye doğru bir devamı şeklindedir.

İklim
Nijerya, tropikal iklimin tesirinde, yüksek sıcaklıkların olduğu bir ülkedir. Yıllık ortalama yağış miktarı, bölgeden bölgeye farklılıklar gösterir. Kıyıdan itibaren iç bölgelere doğru uzanan yeşillik ve ormanlık bölgeler, yılda ortalama olarak 1000 ila 1500 mm civarında yağış alır. Lagos civarında birkaç kilometre genişliğinde olan ekvatoral ormanlık arazi, doğu sınırına doğru 160 kilometreye kadar genişler. Bu bölge ve Nijer Nehri deltası, en güneyi yüzlerce tatlı ve tuzlu sularla beslenmiş, sert ve yumuşak tahtalı, kıymetli ağaç ceşitleriyle doludur. Kıyı bölgesinin nem miktarı yaklaşık % 75 civarında olup, en fazla yağışı mayıs ve haziran aylarında alır. Ortalama sıcaklık ise 29-30 °C civarındadır.

Savana bölgesiyse yılda ortalama olarak, en fazla ağustos ayında olmak üzere, 1000 mm yağış alır. Jos Yaylası'nda bu rakam, 1500 milimetreyi geçmektedir. Sıcaklık ise 28-33 °C arasında olup, mart-nisan aylarında 37 °C'ye kadar yükselebilmektedir.
Kuzey bölgelerde çöl iklimi mevcuttur. Kış aylarında Büyük Sahra Çölü'nden güneye doğru şiddetli esen rüzgarlar, beraberlerinde toz ve kum getirirler.

Demografi
Birleşmiş Milletler, Nijerya nüfusunun 2021 yılında 213.401.323 olduğunu, %51,7 kırsal ve %48,3 kentsel olarak dağıldığını ve nüfus yoğunluğunun kilometre kare başına 167,5 kişi olduğunu tahmin etmektedir. Nüfusun yaklaşık %42,5'i 14 yaş ve altında, %19,6'sı 15-24 yaş arasında, %30,7'si 25-54 yaş arasında, %4,0'ı 55-64 yaş arasında ve %3,1'i 65 yaş ve üzerindedir. Ortanca yaş 2017 yılında 18,4 idi. Nijerya dünyanın en kalabalık altıncı ülkesidir. Doğum oranı 2017 itibariyle 35,2 doğum/1.000 nüfus ve ölüm oranı 9,6 ölüm/1.000 nüfus iken, toplam doğurganlık oranı 5,07 doğan çocuk/kadındır. Nijerya'nın nüfusu 1990'dan 2008'e kadar 57 milyon artarak yirmi yıldan kısa bir sürede %60'lık bir büyüme oranına ulaşmıştır. Nijerya Afrika'nın en kalabalık ülkesidir ve 2017 itibariyle kıtanın toplam nüfusunun yaklaşık %17'sini oluşturmaktadır; ancak tam olarak ne kadar kalabalık olduğu bir spekülasyon konusudur.

Milyonlarca Nijeryalı ekonomik zorluk dönemlerinde başta Avrupa, Kuzey Amerika ve Avustralya olmak üzere göç etmiştir. Bir milyondan fazla Nijeryalının Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'ne göç ettiği ve Nijeryalı Amerikan nüfusunu oluşturduğu tahmin edilmektedir. Bu tür diasporik toplulukların birçoğundaki bireyler, Kuzey Amerika'daki Yoruba soyundan gelenlerin ulusal bir birliği olan "Egbe Omo Yoruba" topluluğuna katılmıştır. Nijerya'nın en büyük şehri Lagos'tur. Lagos nüfusu 1950 yılında yaklaşık 300.000 iken 2017 yılında tahmini 13,4 milyona ulaşmıştır.

Nijerya'da farklı dil ve geleneklere sahip 250'den fazla etnik grup bulunmakta ve bu da zengin etnik çeşitliliğe sahip bir ülke yaratmaktadır. En büyük üç etnik grup olan Hausa, Yoruba ve İgbo birlikte nüfusun %60'ından fazlasını oluştururken Edo, Ijaw, Fulɓe, Kanuri, Urhobo-Isoko, Ibibio, Ebira, Nupe, Gbagyi, Jukun, Igala, Idoma, Ogoni ve Tiv %35 ila 40'ını; diğer azınlıklar ise kalan %5'i oluşturmaktadır. Nijerya'nın Orta Kuşağı, Atyap, Berom, Goemai, Igala, Kofyar, Pyem ve Tiv gibi etnik grupların çeşitliliğiyle bilinmektedir. İngiliz, Amerikalı, Hintli, Çinli (tahmini 50.000), beyaz Zimbabveli, Japon, Yunan, Suriyeli ve Lübnanlı göçmenlerden oluşan küçük azınlıklar vardır. Göçmenler arasında diğer Batı Afrika ve Doğu Afrika ülkelerinden gelenler de bulunmaktadır.

Tarih
Nijerya topraklarında ilk yaşamın, MÖ 1500'de başlayan Nok uygarlığı sırasında geliştiği düşünülmektedir. Bu dönemde Nok uygarlığı, Sahra Altı Afrika'da bilinen en eski heykeller arasında olan toprak figürler üretmiştir. Kainji Barajı'nda yapılan kazılar ise MÖ 200'de bölgede demir işçiliği yapıldığını ortaya koymaktadır.

İslam'ın yayılmasıyla birlikte Bilad El Sudan olarak anılmaya başlanan bölgede, 1000'e kadar Kano'daki Hausa Sahelian şehir devleti etkisini sürdürmüştür. 1100'den itibaren İgbolar'ın Nri Krallığı güçlü bir hakimiyet kurmaya başlamıştır. Yorubalar ise daha bölgesel olan Ife Krallığı ve Oyo Krallığı'nı kurmuşlardır.

Kuzey Nijerya'nın tamamen İslam'ı benimsemesinden kısa bir süre sonra, Portekiz ve İngiltere'den denizciler, Avrupa sömürgeciliğini Nijerya'da yaymaya başlamışlardır. 20 milyona yakın Nijeryalı'nın esir olarak satıldığı tahmin edilen bu süreçte, Nijerya büyük bir köle ticaret merkezi olarak kullanılmıştır.

Bu sırada Kanem İmparatorluğu'nun çöküşü ve şehir devletleri arasındaki savaşlardan yararlanan Fulaniler, Nijerya'nın içlerine doğru ilerlemeye başlamıştır. Usman dan Fodio'nun şehir devletlerini yenilgiye uğratmasının ardından, Sokoto Halifeliği bölgedeki tek büyük güç olmuştur.

1800'den itibaren İngiltere, Nijerya'nın içişlerine giderek daha çok karışmaya başlamıştır. Lagos 1681'de koloni haline getirilmiş, Gine Körfezi'nin kıyısındaki bölge 1885'te İngiltere'nin kontrolü altına girmiştir. Nijerya bu tarihten itibaren iki himaye bölgesine ayrılmış ve tek valinin yönetimine bırakılmıştır. 1903'te Sokoto Halifeliği'nin bölünmesiyle Nijerya'nın tamamı, İngiltere'nin kolonisi haline gelmiştir. 1950'de idare gücü, merkezi otoriteyle üç ayrı bölgenin meclisleri arasında paylaştırılmıştır. 1954'te ilan edilen anayasa, ülkeyi güçlü bir merkezi hükûmete bağlayarak, halka kanuni haklarını vermiştir.

Ülkede yapılması planlanan seçimlerde İngiltere, bölge üzerindeki etkisini kaybetmemek amacıyla yönetime kendi çıkarlarını koruyacak bir hükûmet getirmeyi amaçlamıştır. 1959'da NPC (İngilizce: Northern People's Congress, Türkçe: Kuzey Halk Kongresi) iktidara gelmiş, Ebubekir Tafawa Balewa başbakan olmuştur. Müslümanlar'ın çoğunlukta olduğu bir yönetimin kurulmasıyla Nijerya, 1960 yılında bağımsızlığını elde etmiştir. 1963'te cumhuriyet ilan edilmiş ve 1965'te yeniden seçimler yapılmıştır.

1967'de ülkenin güneydoğusunda Biafra'nın bağımsızlığını ilan etmesi, Nijerya İç Savaşı'nın başlamasıyla sonuçlanmıştır. Çok geçmeden saldırıya geçen Nijerya, Mısır'ın da sağladığı hava desteğiyle Biafra'nın kuzeyindeki birçok kasabayı kontrolü altına almıştır. Biafra ise Nijer Nehri üzerinden kendi saldırısını başlatarak Ore'ye kadar ilerlemiştir. Ancak kuzeyde durumun giderek kötüleşmesi sonucunda birlikler geri çağırılmış ve direnişe dahil edilmiştir.

Enugu'yu ele geçirmelerinin savaşı kısa sürede bitireceğini planlayan Nijerya, bir ay süren bir çatışma sonucunda Enugu'yu işgal etmiştir. Ancak Biafra, başkentini Umuahia'ya taşıyarak savaşa devam etmiştir. Bu tarihten itibaren stratejisini Nijer Nehri'ni geçerek batıdan bir saldırı başlatma üzerine yoğunlaştıran Nijerya, Biafra'nın güçlü bir direniş göstermesi nedeniyle birkaç kez yenilgiye uğramıştır. Uçaklarla bölgenin günlerce bombalanması sonucunda Biafra'nın gösterdiği direniş kırılmıştır. Nijerya'nın Calabar ve Port Harcourt'u da işgal etmesiyle Biafra'nın yenilme ihtimali büyük ölçüde artmıştır. ABD, Birleşik Krallık ve Sovyetler Birliği'nin Nijerya'ya verdiği destek de Biafra açısından durumu iyice içerisinden çıkılmaz bir hale getirmiştir.

Bunun sonucunda rakiplerini suçlama yoluna giden Biafra başkanı Odumegwu Ojukwu, ordu içerisindeki birçok subayı öldürmüş ve daha otoriter bir yönetim kurmuştur. Ancak bu çabalar art arda alınan başarısızlıkları telafi edememiştir. 1969'dan itibaren Biafra'nın direnişi iyice güçsüzleşmiş, 1970'te Nijerya'nın zafer elde etmesiyle savaş sona ermiştir.

1975'te Murtala Muhammed yaptığı bir darbeyle yönetimi ele geçirmiştir. 1976'da başarısızlıkla sonuçlanan bir darbe girişimi gerçekleşmiş, ancak Murtala Muhammed öldürülmüş ve yardımcısı Olusegun Obasanjo iktidara gelmiştir. 1985'te yeni bir darbe daha olmuş, İbrahim Babangida ülkenin başına geçmiştir. Bu tarihten itibaren petrol gelirlerinin getirdiği refah sayesinde iç olayları önlemeye başlayan Nijerya, Afrika'nın en gelişmiş ülkelerinden biri haline gelmiştir. 1993'te ülke tekrar demokratik yönetime geçmiştir.

2021'de başlayan Orlu Krizi sırasında Biafra'nın yeniden bağımsızlığını ilan etme çabaları Nijerya tarafından engellenmiş, bölge üzerinde kontrol sağlanmıştır.

Doğal Kaynakları
Nijerya toprakları, kıyıdan itibaren kuzey sınırı Nijer'e kadar, ormanlarla kaplıdır. Kıyı bölgesindeki ekvator ormanları, kuzeydeki ormanlara nazaran daha sık ve geniştir. Kamerun sınırına doğru bu genişlik, 160 kilometreyi bulabilmektedir. Uzun otların ve karışık cins ağaçların bulunduğu savana bölgesindeki ormanlar ise 550 km genişliğine ulaşır. Bu ormanlarda genellikle sert ve yumuşak tahtalı ağaç türleri vardır. Doğu Nijerya'da ise, daha çok palmiye ağaçları yer alır. Dünyanın en uzun nehirlerinden biri olan Nijer Nehri boyları ve en güney uçta yer alan delta bölgesindeki ormanlar daha çok boz renkli palmiyeler, baobob, akasya ve salkım ağaçları ile doludur.

Nijer'den doğan Nijer Nehri, 4180 km uzunluğunda olup, ülkenin hayat kaynağıdır. Lakoja bölgesindeki ikinci büyük nehir olan Benue ile birleşir ve güneyde delta bölgesine kadar 280 km yol kateder. Delta bölgesinde ise yüzlerce irili ufaklı nehir mevcuttur. Nijer Nehri üzerinde kurulu Kainiji Barajı ile elektrik elde edilmektedir.

Nijerya topraklarının büyük bir kısmı yüksek demir ve alüminyum konsantrasyonu ihtiva eder. Yağmurlar sebebiyle de toprak kızıl renk almıştır. Dolayısıyla, sert örtü halindeki bu kızıl killi topraklar verimsizdir. Çad Gölü çevresinde ise toprak siyah renkli olup, ekime müsait değildir. Güney ormanları bölgesindeki topraklar kireç bakımından kifayetsizdir. Buna rağmen güneydeki bitki çeşidi ve yoğunluğu kuzeyden daha fazladır.

Nijerya ormanlarında çok çeşitli yırtıcı hayvan yetişir. Aslan, leopar bol bulunur. Bundan başka maymun, suaygırı, antilop, kuzeye doğru fil, zürafa ve gergedan da sık rastlanan hayvanlardandır.

Nüfus ve Sosyal Hayat
Dünyanın nüfus bakımından yedinci  ülkesi olan Nijerya, yaklaşık 206 000.000 nüfusuyla Afrika'nın en kalabalık ülkesidir. Nüfus artışının en yüksek olduğu ülkelerden biridir.

Halkın büyük bir bölümünü yerli kabileler teşkil eder. Ayrıca Avrupalı beyazlar da mevcuttur. Nüfus, birbirinden birçok bakımlardan farklı, yüzlerce çeşit gruplardan teşekkül eder. Bunların en güçlü ve geniş olanı Housa-Fulani kabileleridir. On dördüncü yüzyılda Müslüman olan bu insanlar idaresini ellerinde tutmaktadırlar. Ayrıca güneybatıda Yoruba, güneydoğuda İbo kabileleri de güçlüdür. Bundan başka Tıv, Iraw, İbibio, Efik veIfe kabileleri, sayıca kalabalık diğer kabilelerden birkaçıdır.

Kuzeyde bulunan ve ülke yönetiminde başrolü oynayan Hausa-Fulani kabileleri genellikle ticaret ve çiftçilikle uğraşırlar. Ülke idaresinde ve hayat tarzlarında, İslam kaidelerine bağlı kalırlar.
Nijerya nüfusunun yarıdan çoğu Müslümandır. Ülkede, genellikle Avrupalı olan bir miktar Hristiyan vardır. Bazı kabileler ise hala putperesttir. Ülke genelinde okuma-yazma oranı % 66.6'dır. Nijerya'da toplam 116 üniversite mevcuttur.
Nijerya'da, yüzlerce çeşit kabile gruplarının, yine yüzlerce çeşit dili vardır. Bugün için Afro-Asyatik ve Nijer-Kongo ailelerinden gelme 300'den fazla yerli dil tespit edilmiştir. Ülke, uzun yıllar İngiltere sömürgesi altında kaldığı için, resmi daireler ve okullarda İngilizce kullanılmış ve ülkenin resmi dili haline gelmiştir. Bundan başka Arapça da konuşulmaktadır. Yerli dillerinin en yaygın ve sosyal hayatta tesirli olanları Hausa, Yoruba ve İbo dilleridir.

Kabileler arasında adet, örf, dil, din ve yaşantı bakımından birçok farklılık varsa da, ekonomik hayatta nüfusun çoğunluğu tarım ve ticarette birleşir. Birçok köy ve klanların yönetim unsurunun temelini, büyük ölçüde genişlemiş ve poligami türde aileler meydana getirir. Bu aileler politik, sosyal ve ekonomik sistemler itibarıyla, aileye has bir organize ile, gıda üretiminde en güçlü olma amacındadır. Fakat bu aileler hiçbir zaman Avrupa'daki ayrıcalıklı zümreler halinde değildir ve aile reisleri veya klan başkanları bir Avrupa diktatörü şeklinde hareket etmezler.

Bugün için Nijerya, Afrika ülkelerine nazaran refah seviyesi yüksek olan bir ülkedir. Mevcut petrol yataklarından elde edilen gelirler, ülkedeki iç karışıklıkları önlediği gibi ülke insanlarına geniş iş imkanları sağlamıştır.
Nijerya'nın başkenti Abuja'dır. Önemli bir ticari limanı Lagos'tur. Oldukça modern binalarla doludur. Milletlerarası bir havaalanına sahiptir.
Ülkenin en büyük ve gelişmiş şehri İbadan'dır. Önemli bir endüstri merkezi olup, Afrika'nın açık pazar bölgesidir. Diğer önemli şehirleri ise Sokoto Nehri'nin doğusundaki Sokoto şehri, Kaduna Nehri üzerinde Kaduna şehri, Kano, Zaria, Port Harcourt, Jos Benin Nsukka, Oyo Yolo ve Mubi'dir.

Siyasi hayat
Nijerya federal bağımsız bir cumhuriyettir. Bir başkent yönetimi, federe devlet statüsündeki 36 eyalet ve bu eyaletlere bağlı 774 yerel birimden meydana gelir. Devlet başkanı seçimle başa gelir. Parlamento iki meclisten meydana gelir. Ayrıca her eyaletin bir hükûmeti ve eyalet başkanı olur. Eyalet başkanlarının ülke idaresindeki önemi çok büyüktür. Anayasaya göre devlet başkanı, eyaletlerin üçte ikisinin desteğini almak zorundadır. Millet Meclisi 360 sandalyeden meydana gelir. Senato 108 üyeden oluşur.

Nijerya, bağımsızlığından bu yana askerî darbelerin en çok yapıldığı ülkelerden olup günümüzde askeri rejim tarafından idare edilmektedir. 1992'de seçimler yapıldı. Sivil hükûmete geçiş olarak 27 Ağustos 1993 tarihi tespit edildi.

2015 yılında gerçekleştirilen devlet başkanlığı seçimlerinde Muhammadu Buhari, görevdeki başkan Goodluck Jonathan'ı mağlup ederek ülkenin yeni devlet başkanı olmuştur. 16 Şubat 2019 yılında yapılması planlanan devlet başkanı ve parlamento üyelerinin belirleneceği seçim bir hafta ertelenerek 23 Şubat tarihine alındı.

Ekonomi
Ekonomi daha çok tarıma dayanır. Yer fıstığı, pamuk, palmiye ağaçları, sebze ve meyve türleri, kakao, kauçuk, tahıl ürünleri, hurma ve yer fıstığı yağı, kereste ve kolacevizi bol miktarda üretilir. Kakao ve kauçuk üretiminde dünyanın altıncı ülkesidir. Ülke topraklarının % 25'i ekime müsaittir.

1960'lı yıllarda bulunan petrol, Nijerya ekonomisini geniş ölçüde ferahlattı. Afrika'da hemen hemen en istikrarlı ekonomiye sahip ülkelerden biri haline geldi. Güneyde delta bölgesi, petrol yatakları bakımından oldukça zengindir. Dünyanın yedinci büyük petrol üreticisi durumunda olan Nijerya'nın ihracatının büyük bir bölümünü, petrol ve yan ürünleri teşkil etmektedir. Ayrıca doğal gaz bakımından da oldukça zengindir. 1980 yılında petrokimya ve doğal gaz tesisleri tamamlanmış ve rafineri sayısı arttırılmıştır. Nijerya ham petrolden başka ayrıca kömür, kalay, kireçtaşı, kolimbit ve demir madenleri de üretmektedir.

Mevcut nehir sularından, hidroelektrik santralleri kurmak suretiyle, elektrik enerjisi üretilmektedir. Bunlardan en büyüğü Kainiji Barajı'dır.

İhracatının % 95'ini ham petrol teşkil eder. Çeşitli gıda maddeleri ve otomobil parça takımları, diğer önemli ihraç ürünleridir. Gıda maddeleri ihracatının büyük bir bölümünü kakao meydana getirir. Ayrıca tütün, palmiye ürünleri, yer fıstığı, pamuk ve soya diğer ihraç ürünlerini teşkil eder.

Nijerya, kereste, kauçuk ve hayvan derilerinden de büyük gelirler elde etmektedir. İhracatını daha çok İngiltere, Almanya ve Japonya'ya yapar. ABD, Almanya ve Hollanda'dan ise çeşitli makine, ilaç ve elektronik malzemeler ithal etmektedir.

Kişi başına düşen millî aylık gelir 370 dolardır. İş gücünün% 60'ı tarım,% 20'si ticaretle ilgilidir. Doğal gaz ve petrokimya endüstrisi yanında ormancılık, balıkçılık, tekstil, çimento ve sigara endüstrileri de önemlidir. OPEC üyesi olan Nijerya, büyük bir demir-çelik endüstrisine ve geniş bir inşaat sektörüne sahiptir.

Nijerya Merkez Bankası (CBN), 25 Ekim 2021 tarihinde hem ülke ekonomisi, hem de küresel ekonomi anlamında büyük bir adım atarak merkez bankası dijital parası olan "e-Naira"yı vatandaşlarının kullanımına sunmuştur.

Ulaşım
Ulaşımın geliştiği ülkede yollar genelde kuzey-güney istikametini takip eder. Uzunluğu yaklaşık 124.000 kilometreyi bulan karayolunun % 50'si asfalt kaplıdır. Demiryolu ulaşımı gelişmiş olup toplam uzunluğu 3805 kilometredir. Lagos ve Kano havaalanları en işlek uluslararası havalimanlarıdır.

Yönetim

İdari bölümler

Nijerya'nın üst düzey idari yapılanması 36 eyalet ve 1 federal başkent bölgesi (Abuja) şeklindedir.

Eyaletler:

Ayrıca bakınız
 2008 Jos Çatışmaları
 Nijerya'da din

Kaynakça

G15 ülkeleri
Federal cumhuriyetler
İngilizce konuşan ülkeler
Afrika kıtasındaki ülkeler
1960'ta kurulan bölgeler ve ülkeler
İngiliz Milletler Topluluğu üyesi ülkeler
Batı Afrika ülkeleri

Nijerya