Unisex public toilets (also referred to as gender-inclusive, gender-neutral, mixed-sex or all-gender, or without any prefix at all) are public toilets that are not separated by gender or sex.

Unisex public toilets take different forms. They may be single occupancy facilities where only one single room or enclosure is provided, or multi-user facilities which are open to all and where users may either share sinks in an open area or each have their own sink in their private cubicle, stall or room. Unisex public toilets may either replace single-sex toilets or may be an addition to single-sex toilets.

Unisex public toilets can be used by people of any sex or gender identity. Such toilet facilities can benefit transgender populations and people outside of the gender binary. Sex-separation in public toilets (also called sex segregation), as opposed to unisex toilets, is the separation of public toilets into male and female. This separation is sometimes enforced by local laws and building codes.  Key differences between male and female public toilets in most western countries include the presence of urinals for men and boys, and sanitary bins for the disposal of menstrual hygiene products for women and girls. Sanitary bins may easily be included in the setup of unisex public toilets.

The historical purposes of sex-separated toilets in the United States and Europe, as well as the timing of their appearance, are disputed amongst scholars. Safety from sexual harassment and privacy were likely two main goals of sex-separation of public toilets, and factors such as morality also played roles. Paternalism and resistance to women entering the workplace might have also played a role. Some women's groups hold that unisex public toilets will be less safe for women than public toilets that are separated by sex, however some experts say that with the appropriate design interventions, these spaces can improve the safety of all users and reduce the disproportionately long wait times females face in sex-separated public washrooms.

The push for gender neutral bathrooms is driven at least in part by the transgender community to protect against harassment and violence against this population. Unisex public toilets may benefit a range of people with or without special needs (e.g. people with disabilities, the elderly, and anyone who needs the help of someone of another gender or sex), as well as parents who need to help their infant or young child with using the toilet.

Terminology

Several alternative terms are in use for unisex public toilets. Some favor all-gender toilets, gender neutral toilets, gender free toilets or all-user toilets or just toilet.  The "Public Toilet Advocacy Toolkit" by the NGO Public Hygiene Lets Us Stay Human (PHLUSH) in Portland, Oregon (United States) from 2015 uses the term "all-gender".  More recently, they have changed to the term "all user".  However, some object to the term "gender-neutral" and similar terms, believing that neither the spaces nor the terms are truly neutral. They also object to the replacement of the word "sex" with the word "gender".  Such people often express a preference for the term "mixed-sex". But whatever one calls them, these are toilets which can (in theory) be used by anybody, regardless of sex, gender identity or presentation.

The opposite of unisex toilets is referred to as either "sex-separated" or "sex-segregated" toilets, or "conventional public toilets" (since sex separation is currently mostly the norm on the global level). In the United States some scholars have used the term "sex separation".

Designs

Types
Some unisex public toilets are designed to be used by people with disabilities and have either individual or gender-neutral facilities. They can accommodate people with disabilities, elderly people who may require assistance from a carer of another gender, or other cases where public sex-segregated facilities might lead to discomfort.  Toilet facilities for disabled people, especially those reliant on a wheelchair, may be either unisex or gender-specific.

Unisex public toilets are also common in cases where space is limited, such as in aircraft lavatories and passenger train toilets.

Several types can be distinguished:
 Single occupancy where only one room or enclosure is provided.  This room could be used by several people at once, e.g. a whole family, a carer helping a person needing help.
 Multi-user facilities which are open to all and where users may either share sinks in an open area or each have their own sink in their private cubicle, stall or room.
 The re-labelling of existing multi-cubicle public toilets, with no real change.  This approach was taken in one area at the Barbican Centre in the UK, where some toilets became shared.

Toilets
If more than one toilet fixture is available in a unisex public toilet, the toilet seats or squatting pans are installed in enclosed cubicles in the same way as in sex-segregated toilets. To ensure visual privacy, these may be provided with floor-to-ceiling walls.

Sinks
Sinks are commonly installed in open arrangement as in sex-segregated toilets and used collectively by people of all gender. One of the key design components supporting safety in multi-user facilities is the openness and visibility of the sink area from adjacent public corridors. This design intervention allows for passive surveillance of the space by relocating the shared sink area from the private to the public realm.  Alternatively, a sink can be provided in each cubicle or toilet room, e.g. where the unisex toilet is set up to be used by families and carers. The latter arrangement is more friendly to people needing to use the sink in a manner calling for a degree of privacy, or taking off items of dress typically worn in public. Examples are: emergency removal of menstrual blood stains from clothing; refreshing the upper body, face, or underarms over the sink; applying makeup; or combing and styling hair.

Urinals
The issue of urinals is creating somewhat of a conundrum for many unisex public toilet designers. In many public toilets, the widespread use of urinals for males means that there are more opportunities to meet their natural needs. There are often queues in front of the toilet rooms for females but not in front of the toilet rooms for males. While toilets are usually located in cubicles with lockable doors, urinals are usually installed freely in rows in sex-separated toilet rooms. This construction leads to a smaller space consumption and thus to more possibilities for water-efficient urination, while promoting more sanitary restroom conditions for men/boys at work/school and elsewhere.

Urinals have primarily been offered in public toilets for males with female urinals being only a niche product.  Abolishing all urinals would sacrifice resource advantages and convenience for male users without improving sanitation or wait time for females. Another possibility would be to offer separate male and female urinals or unisex urinals that can be used by males and females alike, which allows increased flexibility of use. Yet this would raise the problem of arrangement.  One option would be to continue to offer urinals in rows, with separation by screens. However, it is questionable whether the less private environment, compared to cubicle toilets, would be met with acceptance. Due to socio-cultural conventions, the concept of men/boys urinating with their backs visible to women/girls would possibly create awkwardness for both genders, and would currently seem strange and contrary to common morals and etiquette for many users.

There are other practical issues for females, such as women/girls needing toilet paper, having to lower their pants, and sometimes tending to their menstrual hygiene needs while going to the toilet for urination.  An alternative would be to accommodate urinals for both sexes in cubicles or to continue to offer them only in public toilets for males. However, this would at least limit the above-mentioned advantages of urinals.

Urinals arranged in cubicles have rarely been installed; the advantages over conventional toilets were not obvious because the same space would still be required in the new arrangement. With all things considered, many unisex public toilet designers are now creating plans in which urinals would be constructed in an isolated section or corner of the toilet room, so that they would not be directly visible to anyone in other areas of the public toilet.  This is seen by many  public toilet designers as the best possible solution that would balance efficiency with modesty.

Building-related advantages

Especially where space is limited, the double design of the sanitary facilities is not possible or only possible to a limited extent. Unisex toilets are often used in many public transport systems, such as rail vehicles or airplanes.

Unisex public toilets are less problematic to use by caretakers of dependents (who include very young children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled) to enter the toilet room together with their charge.

Women/girls often spend more time in toilet rooms than men/boys, both for physiological and cultural reasons. The requirement to use a cubicle rather than a urinal means that urination takes longer and sanitation is a far greater issue, often requiring more thorough hand washing. Females also make more visits to toilets. Urinary tract infections and incontinence are more common in females. Pregnancy, menstruation, breastfeeding, and diaper-changing increase usage.  The elderly, who are disproportionately female, due to men dying earlier in their old age than females, make longer and more frequent toilet visits. Unisex public toilets can alleviate this problem by providing equal sanitation space for all genders, eliminating the prospect of unused cubicles in the male toilets.

Some argue that a two-tier system is also generated via what they called the "toilet apartheid" by excluding women/girls from important social networking processes in male toilets. Important agreements and decisions by men/boys are sometimes made at the urinal where females are currently excluded.

Building-related disadvantages
The consolidation of previously gender-separated toilets or the construction of new unisex toilets is sometimes resisted due to administrative and building law difficulties.  Also, where public toilets are located are sometimes dictated by existing plumbing design. If the only way to build unisex public toilets is to locate them in isolated spaces a long way from people in charge of supervising the space, such a design may be objectionable on safety grounds. Some argue that laws requiring that women and men be treated the same in public toilet access is unfair.  Since the 1980s, "potty parity" activists campaigned for laws requiring more female-designated public toilets than male-designated public toilets in public buildings, based on the idea that women require more time to use the toilet and thus women's toilets tend to have longer lines.  California passed the first law of this kind in 1987, and as of 2009 twenty states in the US have passed similar legislation.

Locations

At private companies
Unless prohibited by law (and when required by law), private companies can  provide unisex toilets.

At educational institutions
The Stonewall Centre, an LGBTQ advocacy group, says that certain people feel threatened using facilities that do not adhere to their gender identity, and that this can become an issue when students are harassed by their peers. Advocates argue that forcing trans / non-binary students to use normative gendered  public toilets can stigmatize them daily by singling them out. Once again, the response of those opposing such spaces, or opposing them as the norm is safety and privacy for women.

United States

Many colleges and universities (such as Oberlin College in Ohio) have had unisex public toilets as early as 2000. Overwhelmingly, institutions that offer unisex spaces still also offer sex-separated spaces. The University of California at Los Angeles offers more than 160 unisex toilets on campus, but all are single stall. Other collegiate institutions have moved toward creating some unisex public toilets. According to a University of Massachusetts Amherst LGBTQ advocacy organization, The Stonewall Centre, there were more than 150 campuses in the US in 2014 with unisex public toilets.

In February 2016, South Dakota was the first state in the US to pass a bill that forces transgender students in public schools to use sanitation facilities that correspond with their 'chromosomes and anatomy' at birth.

The University of Oklahoma continually adds unisex toilets to their campus to accommodate students who may require use of a less excessively gendered public toilet. As of February 2014, the university had 13 unisex toilets.

There are over 150 college campuses across the US that are creating unisex public toilets. In March 2016, New York City private college Cooper Union moved to remove gender designations from campus toilets. In October 2016, University of California Berkeley converted several public toilets into unisex toilets.

In March 2017, Yelp announced that they will add a unisex public toilet finder feature on their app.  Yelp was one of over 50 companies that signed an amicus curiae brief in favor of a transgender high school student Gavin Grimm who claims that his school board denied him access to the boys' toilet in school and thereby violating Title IX.  HRC president Chad Griffin stated on the brief that "These companies are sending a powerful message to transgender children and their families that America's leading businesses have their backs."

United Kingdom
In 2015, unisex toilets were set to be introduced into every new school to be built in Scotland in a campaign to eradicate bullying.  All future primary and secondary schools will have non-sex-separated toilets. In March 2017, the Glasgow City Council announced that toilets in school will no longer be labeled as 'girls' and 'boys' but instead be labelled as unisex to help students who may be struggling with the issue of gender identity.  This will be implemented in three schools first.

In the United Kingdom, unisex public toilets are sometimes found on university campuses.  In early 2013, Brighton and Hove city council introduced unisex toilets.  British universities including Bradford Union, Sussex and Manchester, had already or were in the process of building unisex facilities in 2011.

Legislation and country examples

Canada
In April 2014, the Vancouver Park Board decided to install unisex toilets in public buildings, with different signs to identify them. Amongst the options discussed was the rainbow triangle (based on the pink triangle used during the Holocaust), an "all-inclusive" gender symbol, an icon representing a toilet or the phrases "washroom" or "gender-neutral washroom" placed on the entrances to the toilets. According to Global News, a Canadian online newspaper, many different regions across Canada offer unisex toilets and other gender-neutral facilities, but Vancouver was the first municipality to change building codes to require unisex toilets be built in public buildings. This movement, according to commissioner Trevor Loke, was aimed to make everyone feel welcomed and included: "We think that the recommendation of universal washrooms is a good idea [...] [w]e will be using more inclusive language based on the BC Human Rights Code." Some initiatives to make public toilets more diverse and inclusive have focused on language simply by using the phrases "toilet" or "gender-neutral toilet" in order to be inclusive of all genders and gender identities, or using specifically geared language such as "women and trans women" as opposed to just "women" (and vice versa for men and trans men).

China
Unisex toilets have appeared in China since before 2013 in Shenyang and Chengdu by 2015. In 2016, Shanghai opened its first public unisex toilet near the Zhangjiabin River in a park, in the Pudong district. Many of these toilets have opened in high-traffic areas for the convenience of all users, rather than specifically for the benefit of sexual minorities. In May 2016, a Beijing-based non-governmental organization launched an 'All Gender Toilets' campaign to bring awareness to this issue in China. This resulted in around 30 locations opening unisex public toilets.

India

In 2014, the Indian Supreme Court gave transgender people, also known as 'hijras', recognition with a third gender. This legislation included creating separate toilets for transgender people in public spaces where transgender people are often met with violence and hostility. The two-judge Supreme Court bench was led by Justice KS Radhakrishnan, who said, "The court order gives legal sanctity to the third gender. The judges said the government must make sure that they have access to medical care and other facilities like separate wards in hospitals and separate toilets". In 2017, The Union Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation sent out guidelines to the Swachh Bharat Mission decreeing that members who are part of the transgender community should be allowed to use the public toilet they are most comfortable with.

The central government has allowed transgender people to use the toilets of their choice in public and community toilets. This does not ensure safety from violence.

Japan

As of 2016, no laws were in place regarding the usage of public toilets in relation to gender identity.  There may, however, be occasional signs outside public toilets to indicate that the stall is "gender free".  The Tokyo city government was planning to install one unisex toilet in at least seven out of eleven of the buildings being used for the Olympic Games that were planned for 2020.

Nepal
MP Sunil Babu Pant used part of the Parliamentarian Development Fund to build the first two unisex toilets in Nepalganj, one of which is in Bageshwori Park.  Starting in 2014, The Nepal Country Report, A Participatory Review and Analysis of the Legal and Social Environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Persons and Civil Society recommended that in schools separate toilets or unisex toilets should be built for transgender students.

Thailand
The term "kathoeys" used to describe effeminate male-bodied people, for whom schools have started opening sex-separated toilets for since 2003.  After legislation passed, in 2004 a private vocational college in Chiang Mai Thailand gave 15 'kathoey' students the opportunity to use toilet facilities that were solely for them, referred to as 'pink lotus' public toilets. Alliance organizations in Thailand such as the Thai Transgender Alliance and the Transferral Association of Thailand were created to support kathoey people such as by helping create separate public toilet facilities.

United States

There are unisex toilets in some public spaces in the United States.  Cooper Union of New York City, New York was the first college in the country to de-gender all of their campus bathrooms in 2015.

Despite this, transgender and gender nonconforming people are still sometimes subject to visual or verbal scrutiny; this is reinforced by the architectural design and heteronormative gendered codes of conduct that are still present within the US.

On the federal level, the US Department of Labor is in charge of workplace toilets, which means setting state guidelines through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA Recommends that any workplace single-user toilet be made all-gender. For non-work related public toilet guidelines, the Department of Health and Human Services governs regulations.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has also played a role in interpreting federal statutes and enforcing them.  Two statutes relevant to public toilets are Title VII (nondiscrimination in the workplace) and Title IX (nondiscrimination in educational opportunity based on sex).

Building codes may be adopted by statute or regulation.  They may require sex-separation or they may require unisex toilets.  New building codes usually do not apply retroactively. Thus, building owners may choose not to update existing features because it allows them to continue following the older building codes that govern those older features.  These regulations are mostly based on the precedent created by original legislation.  They sometimes also work to eliminate the longer wait time females often face by creating a ratio of more female toilets than male toilets, and provide more inclusive environments for people requiring assistance in the restroom or people with children of a different gender. Various private businesses such as Target have publicly committed to maintaining all gender restrooms in stores nationwide even when not mandated by local or state ordinances.

US local ordinances
In most jurisdictions, local governments have the ability to pass ordinances, so long as they do not conflict with state law.  San Francisco (California), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Seattle (Washington), Washington (District of Columbia), Berkeley (California), Cathedral City (California), West Hollywood (California), Austin (Texas), Cleveland (Ohio), New York City, Denver (Colorado), and the US states of Vermont, New Mexico, New York State, Illinois, and California - have passed measures mandating that single-occupancy toilets in public spaces be labeled as unisex (or gender-neutral). In 2022, California enacted legislation allowing cities to build multi-stall gender-neutral bathrooms. Additionally, the 2021 edition of the International Plumbing Code (in use by 35 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC) will require the same as individual states adopt the new edition of the code.

Some examples for local or state ordinances regarding unisex public toilets (see also: bathroom bill):
 The city council of Portland, Oregon passed an ordinance for "all-user restrooms" in 2015 which directed city bureaus to convert "single-user gender-specific restrooms" into "all-user restrooms" within six months.
 On May 11, 2018, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed a bill requiring all single-user public toilets to be unisex, effective July 1, 2018.
 On September 29, 2022, California became the first state to allow cities to require multi-stall unisex restrooms in buildings which are either newly constructed or undergoing extensive renovation. This law was supported by the City Council of West Hollywood, California, which passed an ordinance to that effect on December 7, 2022.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, recommends that employers grant access, and use, to public toilets according to an employee's "full time gender presentation", and provides a list of recommendations on achieving this.

History of sex-separated toilets
There are competing theories regarding how and why public toilets (or "bathrooms" in the United States) first became separated by sex in the United States and Europe.

Western sex-separation as a modern development

Public toilets, part of the sanitation system of ancient Rome, were shared by many demographics. These latrines housed long benches with holes accommodating multiple simultaneous users. There was no privacy between users, as using the facilities was considered a social activity. This communal multi-seater typology continued until the 1800s.

By the Middle Ages, public toilets became uncommon. People had the legal right and social custom to urinate and defecate wherever they pleased.

Sociologist Dara Blumenthal notes changing bodily habits, attitudes, and practices regarding hygiene starting in the 16th century, which eventually led to a resurgence of public toilets in the 19th century. Civility increasingly required the removal of waste product from contact with others. New instruction manuals, schoolbooks, and court regulations dictated what was appropriate. Some scholars argue that with increasingly strict prohibitions on bodily display and the emergence of a rigid ideology of gender, visual privacy and spatial separation of the sexes were introduced into public toilet design. They say that it was not until the Victorian era, starting in Great Britain, that sex separation began in public toilets.

The earliest known example of a western sex-separated public toilet was a temporary installation that occurred in 1739 at a Parisian ball. This involved chamber boxes in separate rooms with attendants guiding visitors to the appropriate location. According to sociologist and author Sheila Cavanagh, this was seen by the guests as "sort of a novelty - something eccentric and fun." She argues that this was done to accentuate sexual difference, and project that difference onto public space.

George Jennings, the sanitary engineer, introduced public toilets, which he called "monkey closets", to the Crystal Palace for The Great Exhibition of 1851. They included separate amenities for men and women, and were the first flush toilet facilities to introduce sex-separation to the activity. London's first public toilet facility opened the next year with only provisions for men, although other facilities opened for women at other venues.

Some scholars say the practice of maintaining separate toilets coincides with early 19th century moral ideology regarding the appropriate role and place for women in society. According to historian Terry Kogan, this constructed women as "inherently vulnerable and in need of protection" and men as "inherently predatory." This sexist view was put forward as a "scientific" fact, to curb the emergent women's rights movement. Legislators and policymakers acted on protecting "weaker" women by limiting their work hours, requiring rest periods during the day, and prohibiting certain jobs. This also included architectural solutions to "protect" women such as separate toilet facilities with "fainting" couches.

In the United States, Massachusetts was the first state to pass a law mandating sex-separated toilet facilities in 1887. It was titled "An Act To Secure Proper Sanitary Provisions in Factories and Workshops". The act called for suitable and separate toilets for women in the workplace. By 1920, this was mandated in 43 states. This development is believed to be a reflection of women entering the workforce.

Under another view, offered by W. Burlette Carter, sex-separation has long been the standard in the U.S. and Great Britain and most of the world where women's well-being was valued. She argues that when people used chamber pots, sex-separation could be achieved by placing the pot in a separated space. In single-use privies and similar spaces, that separation was achieved by allowing only one "sex" to use the space at a time. In multi-use spaces, it was achieved either through the same means or by separate spaces for the sexes. Very likely, the primary reasons for establishing these sex-separated spaces were safety and privacy for women and children. Concerns over undesired pregnancy and procreation were additional considerations. Some of these were related to concerns about rape or about moral views about how and when women should become pregnant (e.g., objections to premarital sex). Evidence also suggest that, in earlier centuries, when people sought to create unisex spaces for those who wanted or needed them, authorities resisted.

Carter argues that toilet separation by sex preceded 1739, and that in fact sex separated toilets have been a feature in multi-use spaces since their beginnings.  Prior to the 1887 Massachusetts statute, across the United States and Europe at least, sex-separation was the norm already. For example, Massachusetts had statewide regulations that required sex-separation in particular venues such as schools before 1887. The earliest written reference to sex-separation in the United States may be from 1786. A traveler described bathers using a public spring called Healing Springs, in South Carolina. The bathers would hang Aprons from a tree to mark when the women were bathing and used Hats to mark when the men were bathing. Within the culture of that time, this practice was tantamount to hanging "women" and "men" signs. Furthermore, ancient evidence, including art-work, confirms widespread use of sex-separation (or sex segregation), especially in multi-use spaces - therefore not limiting the concept to public toilets. The exceptions were where the spaces were intended for amorous purposes by opposite sex couples, where safety was considered not to be at risk, or where women were not valued by society.

Primary rationales of sex-separation
One theory argues there were four primary rationales for sex-segregated toilets as detailed by state statutes and related literature in the nineteenth century: sanitation, women's privacy, the protection of women's bodies, which were seen as weaker, and to protect social morality especially as it pertained to the nineteenth century ideology of separate spheres. Subsequently, other states in the US created similar laws, often by amending existing protective labor legislation. Forty-three states had passed similar legislation by 1920. Others argue that safety and privacy were the two main goals of sex-separation (although factors such as morality also played roles).  In New York in 1886, for example, factory inspectors asked for separate toilets out of concerns of women who came to them complaining of sexual harassment. Others argued for complete space separation citing the pressure on women to engage in sexual behavior to keep their jobs. Authorities who cared about these issues were trying to respond to those concerns by mandating separation. Indeed, these laws were likely among the first anti-sexual harassment laws in the nation. Many victims in the workplace were afraid to press charges for fear of losing work.

Some scholars have tied toilet sex-separation to segregation based on race discrimination in the US. Advocates of this view argue that these approaches share a theme in which a warning is issued against the looming threats: violence and sexual assaults would increase. Some political activists have drawn on the commonality between public toilets being segregated formerly by race and still by sex. On the other hand, while all discrimination has commonalities, the sex-separation within racial groups, even going back to slavery, suggests that the parallel regarding toilets is historically flawed. For example, slave ships were usually separated by sex. This fact suggests that racial segregation in public toilets and sex separation in them may not be as comparable as some suggest.

In prior cases where restrooms were separated by race as well as gender, white women have traditionally been given more amenities because they were white. This denial was a sign of discrimination against others based on race and/or poverty, and not automatically a sign of society assigning a lesser value to women in general. Men also experienced different treatment, not based on class, but based on race, with black men having less favorable facilities.  There is evidence that when sexual minorities sought to create safe spaces that reimagined sex and gender lines their efforts were resisted.

Society and culture

Developing countries
In both developed and developing countries, many of the organizations active in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) provision have asserted that separate toilets for boys and girls at school are very important to make girls feel comfortable and safe using the sanitation facilities at schools. For example, in 2018, UNESCO stated that single-sex toilets are needed to overcome girls' barriers to education. This concern could potentially apply to boys as well, especially if open urinals are maintained. As an alternative, some argue that unisex school toilets could be provided at schools in addition to facilities that are separated by gender (which is often the case already in the case of toilets for people with disabilities).

WaterAid is researching options of appropriate unisex public toilets in developing countries. In 2017, they stated that those kinds of gender-neutral/mixed-sex toilets, where people can access all toilets irrespective of their gender, is not recommended in contexts where it may increase the risk of violence against women or transgender people, or where it is deemed culturally inappropriate. Many women, especially those who have been victims of sexual abuse in the past, have asserted the right to continue using all-female toilets to minimize the risk of any kind of sexual harassment in public toilets.

Some activists favor 'third gender' public toilets which would only be used by transgender people. The degree of agreement or disagreement on such issues is difficult to gauge. However, this is still being debated. Some advocates argue that it would reinforce stigma and result in people being banned from accessing the toilets of the gender they identify with. It has been argued that in some African countries where transgender people are being prosecuted, this option would likely bring no benefit at all to them.

In the case of India, it has been found that designing transgender-inclusive sanitation is more than just a technical issue: It requires a deeper examination of the role of caste, gender, and age within the transgender community. Using a toilet that explicitly broadcasts a transgender person's identity to others may not be desirable to all transgender persons.

Transgender and gender nonconforming people

Advocates argue that public toilets and sanitation facilities have historically not met the needs of the LGBTI communities. They maintain that this is an issue with respect to the human right to water and sanitation and also from the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goal 6, which aim for universal access to sanitation and their vision of gender equality. All-gender public toilets are intended to ensure that toilets are fully accessible to all members of society.

Transgender and gender non-conforming persons are at a high risk of violence without access to gender-neutral bathrooms (see: trans bashing). They are often be subject to embarrassment, harassment, even assault or arrest, by others offended by the presence of a person they interpret as being of a different sex than themselves. It has been argued that walking into a toilet separated by sex requires people to self-separate and that some transgender people report being challenged on what public toilet they choose to use and subsequently "do their best to forego use of public toilets altogether". Providing unisex toilets can eliminate discrimination and harassment for people who may be perceived to be in the "wrong" toilet.

A 2015 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 59% of transgender American avoided using public facilities for fear of confrontation. This landmark study, which included 27,715 respondents, found that 24% of respondents had their presence in the restroom questioned, 12% had experienced verbal harassment, physical assault, or sexual assault when attempting to use the restroom, and 9% were denied access entirely. Several studies have found that preventing transgender people from using public toilets has negative mental health impacts, leading to a higher risk of suicide. Without gender-neutral facilities, many people are unable to fulfill a basic need.

Hate crimes have taken place following transgender people using a bathroom. Alexa Negrón Luciano of Puerto Rico was shot and killed just hours after being reported to police for using a women's bathroom. Hate speech and gun shots can be heard in a video of the killing, causing investigators to treat this incident as motivated by transphobia. There are several news reports of transgender people being denied access, being forced to leave after appearing to have used the "wrong" bathroom, being made to use a bathroom that does not align with their identity, getting harassed, getting beaten, and getting arrested.

In the early twenty-first century, with increased coverage of the transgender community, there have been some initiatives calling for unisex public toilets, instead of only male and female ones, to better accommodate genderqueer individuals. Sex-separation of public toilets began gaining traction as a controversial issue in US politics in 2010. This has become an increasingly contentious issue, as shown in the battles over North Carolina's 2016 Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, among other bathroom bills. Several groups and organizations, whether in person or online, exist in order to combat attitudes and bills that oppose transgender individuals. For instance, the Transgender Law Center's "Peeing in Peace" is a pamphlet that serves as a resource guide full of information on harassment, safe public toilet campaigns and legal information.

While transgender public toilet usage has been labelled by many as a moral panic, the ongoing discourse continues to have significant impacts on this group.

Criticism
Some opponents of unisex public toilets argue that eliminating sex-separation entirely or identifying unisex spaces as the norm is not inclusive to women. They believe that women and children are more likely to be harassed and sexually assaulted there compared to sex-segregated public toilets. Safety in public toilets remains a serious issue for women. The recording of women in private spaces without their consent is also an issue.

Supporters of single-sex toilets point to the specific needs of women, such as menstrual hygiene, and argue that these require sex-segregation in public toilets, for reasons of personal comfort and privacy, and argue that this is especially true for teenage girls. Other concerns include that unisex toilets may be avoided by women, leading to both discomfort to women and wasting funds. Supporters of sex-segregated toilets argue that both males and females may feel "awkward" having to share a toilet with the opposite sex. A publication in 2018 argued that the scholarship on the history of sex-separation is flawed and places too much emphasis on the negative sides of sex separation in public toilets for women, ignoring aspects of safety for women from sexual harassment. It says these false narratives should be corrected and there is also a need for more innovative solutions.

Some women's groups, have opposed making unisex toilets the norm, based on safety concerns for most women and a need for safe spaces. Groups like WomansPlaceUK have led a charge to secure "safe" spaces for women, arguing that sexual harassment dangers would be increased for women.  They assert that they affirm the existence of transgender people and their right to protection but that women's rights, as they see them, must also be recognized. In this respect, debate has centred around UK proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act to change the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate to one of self-identification. Supporters of unisex spaces and access by self-declaration have rejected these claims. In the UK, trans people have for years been legally able to use the facilities that accord with their gender identity.

Statistics show no reports of transgender people attacking women. There has been no link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety. A study conducted by the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute found no significant change in the number of crimes since the passage of various laws that enable transgender public toilet usage.  However, the primary issue at stake with communal unisex restrooms is not about the presence of transgender people but about the discomfort and lack of safety that women and girls could experience in having to share these restrooms with cisgender males.

Some religious groups have opposed unisex public toilets on the basis of morality. In 2017, a conservative Christian faith group leader in Texas has compared the introduction of unisex toilets with the abolition of Bible reading in state schools. However, there is energy for and against new bathroom bills by various groups of Christians.

In Germany, a member of the German right-wing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) regards the unisex toilet as a danger for German women and relates it to sexual assaults by "criminal foreigners".

Protests and opposition
Backlash has sometimes occurred when unisex public toilets have been implemented without wide public embrace. After backlash, and complaints from women, the Barbican Centre in the UK was required to reconsider its original design. They later issued a statement promising that, in addition to unisex public toilets, they would keep sex-separated toilets as well. In Los Angeles in 2016, there were violent clashes between supporters and opponents of toilets. Students, who attended the school with unisex toilets, confronted the adult protestors who had been outside the school with signs and horns. In Germany in 2018, the newly installed unisex toilets at Bielefeld University have repeatedly been vandalized. In Toronto, also in 2018, people complained about a unisex washrooms in a mall. In May 2021, The Daily Telegraph reported that Robert Jenrick, the communities secretary, was planning to ban unisex toilets in public buildings in order to "maintain safeguards that protect women". In the UK, the group Resisters plastered stickers all over the UK to protest what they called the confiscation of women's spaces. The stickers were in the shape of a penis and stated, "Women Don't Have Penises." A number of local women's groups referred to the behaviour as insulting to transgender persons and hate speech.

See also
 Bathroom bill - legislation about public toilets in the United States
 Female urination device
 Gender apartheid
 Human right to water and sanitation
 Potty parity
 Sanitation

References

External links

 Directory of gender neutral toilets
 Searchable database of accessible restroom locations
 Queens University – Gender Neutral Washroom Policy
 Canoe.ca – UWO opens transgendered washrooms
 Canada.com – A revo-loo-tion on the UBC campus

Bathrooms
Building codes
Caregiving
Gender equality
Public toilets
Restrooms in the United States
Sex segregation
Transgender law

Unisex public toilet


Alford Everett Penn, OBE (14 April 1920 – 28 April 2009) was a British Virgin Islander politician and civil servant.  Mr Penn was arguably most notable as the first Deputy Governor of the British Virgin Islands, a post that he held from 1977 to 1983. From 1969 to 1977 he had served as Chief Secretary (as the predecessor office was formerly known prior to 1977).

Penn originally joined the Civil Service as Clerk to the Commissioner (as the Governor of the British Virgin Islands was formerly known).  After serving in that capacity for some time, he was transferred to Antigua.  From Antigua he served in the Pre-Federal Organisation and eventually went to Trinidad where the capital of
the West Indies Federation was situated, and where he served as Clerk of the Federal Legislative and Executive Council of the Leeward Islands.

He was uncle to Qwominer William Osborne.

Political offices

References

Deputy Governors of the British Virgin Islands
British Virgin Islands politicians
1920 births
2009 deaths

Alford Penn


Hemiarcha caliginosa is a moth in the family Gelechiidae. It was described by Alfred Jefferis Turner in 1919. It is found in Australia, where it has been recorded from Queensland.

The wingspan is about 11 mm. The forewings are ochreous-whitish with general but somewhat patchy fuscous suffusion. The discal dots are indistinct, the first before the middle, the plical shortly before the first discal and the second discal at two-thirds. The hindwings are pale-grey.

References

Hemiarcha
Moths described in 1919

Hemiarcha caliginosa


1776 is a 1972 American historical musical drama film directed by Peter H. Hunt and written by Peter Stone, based on his book for the 1969 Broadway musical of the same name, with music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards. Set in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776, it is a fictionalized account of the events leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The film stars William Daniels, Howard da Silva, Donald Madden, John Cullum, Ken Howard and Blythe Danner.

Portions of dialogue and some lyrics were taken directly from the letters and memoirs of the actual participants of the Second Continental Congress.

Plot

John Adams, representing Massachusetts in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, laments the body's refusal to debate his motion to declare the colonies' independence from Great Britain and instead to discuss more trivial matters. Disliked by most of his fellow Congressmen, he frequently seeks advice and comfort from his wife, Abigail. Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania suggests someone else propose the independence resolution. They get Richard Henry Lee of Virginia to agree and he rides home to get authorization from the state legislature to do so.

Lee returns, proposes the resolution and, over the objections of John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, leader of the faction seeking reconciliation with Britain, Congress agrees to debate the question. Caesar Rodney of Delaware, suffering from cancer, leaves during the debate, depriving Adams of Delaware's vote. Seeking to kill the motion, Dickinson successfully moves that an independence vote be unanimous. To salvage the motion, Adams asks for a postponement to draft a declaration of grievances. President of the Congress, John Hancock, breaks the tie vote in favor of a declaration and appoints Adams, Franklin, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia to a committee to write it. Jefferson, despite his determination to go home to his wife, Martha, reluctantly agrees to be the primary writer. After a full week passes without completing the task, Adams summons Martha, who charms both him and Franklin, to Philadelphia and Jefferson finishes the draft.

To convince Samuel Chase of Maryland to support independence, Adams agrees to accept General George Washington's invitation to visit the army encampment in New Brunswick, New Jersey, taking Franklin and Chase with him. After the members return to their lodgings, a military courier arrives and sadly tells Andrew McNair, the Congressional custodian, of how his best friend was killed in battle.

The Declaration is read to the full Congress, which begins accepting amendments. Jefferson agrees to all changes, but refuses to strike language related to slavery. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina leads the Southern members in walking out in protest just as Chase returns with Maryland's vote supporting independence. Frustrated at Adams' haughtiness and refusal to compromise, Franklin tells him to accept the fact that those with opinions contrary to his will be part of their new nation.

On the day of the vote, Adams and Jefferson agree to drop the slavery provision and Rutledge and the other Southern states vote for independence. With Delaware divided, Rodney is brought back to support independence by majority vote of its three representatives. Eventually, all states, except divided Pennsylvania and New York, whose remaining representative, Lewis Morris, has abstained throughout the proceedings, vote for independence. Franklin moves that his delegation be polled: he votes for independence and Dickinson votes against it, leaving the question up to James Wilson. Not wanting to be remembered as the sole representative who opposed American independence, he votes in favor. Dickinson resigns from Congress and vows to join the army to support the fight against the British, even though he believes it to be futile.

As the members prepare to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, Morris receives word that his estate has been destroyed and his family moved to safety. Despite not being authorized, he signs anyway. As McNair tolls the building's bell, one member per state signs, establishing the United States of America.

Cast
 Delegates
An asterisk (*) indicates an actor or actress who was also in the original Broadway cast.

 William Daniels as John Adams (MA)*
 David Ford as John Hancock (MA)*
 Ken Howard as Thomas Jefferson (VA)*
 Ron Holgate as Richard Henry Lee (VA)*
 Howard da Silva as Benjamin Franklin (PA)*
 Donald Madden as John Dickinson (PA)
 Emory Bass as James Wilson (PA)*
 John Cullum as Edward Rutledge (SC)*
 Jonathan Moore as Lyman Hall (GA)*
 Roy Poole as Stephen Hopkins (RI)*
 Howard Caine as Lewis Morris (NY)
 John Myhers as Robert Livingston (NY)
 Rex Robbins as Roger Sherman (CT)
 William Hansen as Caesar Rodney (DE)
 Ray Middleton as Thomas McKean (DE)
 Leo Leyden as George Read (DE)
 James Noble as Reverend John Witherspoon (NJ)
 Charles Rule as Joseph Hewes (NC)*
 Patrick Hines as Samuel Chase (MD)
 Daniel Keyes as Josiah Bartlett (NH)

 Others

 Blythe Danner as Martha Jefferson
 Virginia Vestoff as Abigail Adams*
 Ralston Hill as Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress*
 William Duell as Andrew McNair, Congressional custodian*
 Stephen Nathan as Courier

Musical numbers and soundtrack

 Overture – Orchestra
 "Sit Down, John" – John Adams, Congress
 "Piddle, Twiddle and Resolve" – John Adams
 "Till Then" – John and Abigail Adams
 "The Lees of Old Virginia" – Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams
 "But, Mr. Adams" – John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston
 "Yours, Yours, Yours" – John and Abigail Adams
 "He Plays the Violin" – Martha Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams
 "Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" – John Dickinson, John Hancock, The Conservatives
 "Momma Look Sharp" – Courier, Andrew McNair, Leather Apron
 "The Egg" – Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
 "Molasses to Rum" – Edward Rutledge
 "Compliments" – Abigail Adams
 "Is Anybody There?" – Charles Thomson, John Adams
 Finale – Orchestra

An original motion picture soundtrack album was released in 1972 by Columbia Records on vinyl LP records. It contains all the musical numbers, with the exception of "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" and "Compliments". The soundtrack also contains the edited versions of some of the musical numbers that were presented in full on the laserdisc and DVD releases. Although the Original Broadway Cast recording was released on CD in 1992, the film soundtrack was not.

Production
Jack L. Warner bought the film rights to the musical for $1.25 million.

Many members of the original Broadway cast, including William Daniels, Ken Howard, John Cullum, and Howard da Silva, reprised their roles for the film. Ralston Hill, Ron Holgate, David Ford, Charles Rule and others repeated their roles from the Broadway production, marking their only appearances in feature film. This was a decision Warner made himself after feeling he made a mistake by turning down Julie Andrews for the 1964 film adaptation of My Fair Lady in favor of Audrey Hepburn.

1776 was also the only film of Donald Madden, who was not in the original Broadway cast.

Exteriors were filmed at the Warner Ranch in Burbank, California, the former Columbia Pictures backlot, where they built an entire street of Colonial Philadelphia. Most of the Colonial sets were destroyed by a fire in the mid-1970s.

The water fountain seen during the musical number "The Lees of Old Virginia", with Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, became known to television viewers as the fountain seen during the beginning credits of the TV series Friends. This fountain still exists directly across the street from the Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie houses.

Interiors were shot at the old Columbia studio on Gower Street in Hollywood. 1776 was among the final films shot at Gower Studios before the Warner/Columbia merger in 1971.

"Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" was cut from the film prior to its release and not included on the soundtrack recording nor on the first VHS tapes and laserdiscs. The Los Angeles Times stated "The song 'Cool, Cool, Considerate Men' depicts Revolutionary War–era conservatives as power-hungry wheedlers focused on maintaining wealth." According to Jack L. Warner, the film's producer and a friend of President Richard Nixon, Nixon requested the song be removed. He apparently saw it as an insult, as it suggested that the conservatives were the ones who were hindering American independence as they danced a minuet singing the song that included the stanza,

The song is anachronistic, because the terms "right" and "left" in politics were not coined until the French Revolution.

Warner's attempt to comply with Nixon's demands had initially been rebuffed by director Hunt during production, only for the song to be removed in post-production while Hunt was on vacation. Warner also wanted the original negative of the song shredded, but the film's editor kept it in storage unaltered. (The footage, some of physically poor quality, was restored for the DVD and Blu-Ray releases.) Trailers had already been released in theaters with the "Considerate Men" number as its centerpiece; Warner had those trailers pulled and re-edited. In a 2015 interview, Hunt mentioned that Warner, on his deathbed in 1978, told a friend that he regretted editing the scene, believing that he had ruined the structure of the film as a result. It was only decades later that the song was restored to the film.

When the Broadway musical was about to be presented to Nixon at the White House in 1970, before the film was made, his staff pressed the producers to cut the song then; their request was denied.

Historical accuracy
According to The Columbia Companion to American History on Film, historical "[i]naccuracies pervade 1776, though few are very troubling." Because Congress was held in secrecy and there are no contemporary records on the debate over the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the play created the narrative based on later accounts and educated guesses, inventing scenes and dialogue as needed for storytelling purposes. Some of the dialogue was taken from words written, often years or even decades later, by the actual people involved, and rearranged for dramatic effect.

The film particularly omits the views of the mid-Atlantic Quaker population, represented by Dickinson. Although in the film Dickinson is portrayed as loyalist, and John Adams is seen making the points of objection about the tax abuses of George III of the United Kingdom, including regressive taxes and "taxation without representation", all to fund wars and the King's lifestyle, not to benefit the people, it was Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania that had originally made these points. A supposed physical fight between Dickinson and Adams is portrayed, in which Dickinson calls Adams a "lawyer" as an epithet, which makes little sense as Dickinson was a lawyer himself.

Despite the film's inclusion of Martha Jefferson and Abigail Adams, Dickinson's wife, Mary Norris Dickinson, was the only spouse actually present in Philadelphia during the convention. (Franklin's common law wife, Deborah Read, had died a year or so earlier. Martha Jefferson had just suffered a miscarriage and was dealing with complications of gestational diabetes in Virginia.)

Another departure from history is that the separation from Great Britain was accomplished in two steps: the actual vote for independence came on July 2 with the approval of Lee's resolution of independence. The wording of the Declaration of Independence—the statement to the world as to the reasons necessitating the split—was then debated for three days before being approved on July 4. The vote for independence did not hinge on passages being removed from the Declaration, since Congress had already voted in favor of independence. For the sake of drama, the play's authors combined the two events. In addition, some historians believe that the Declaration was not signed on July 4, but was instead signed on August 2, 1776. Others note that the final copy of the document was signed by the delegates over several weeks and months, commencing in July and not completed until as late as September.

The Liberty Bell in 1776 is shown being rung as the delegates were signing the Declaration on July 4; however, Independence Hall's wooden steeple was structurally unstable, and the Liberty Bell was silent, having been lowered into the upper chamber of the brick tower. A smaller bell, used to toll the hours, may have rung on July 8, for the public reading of the Declaration.

Many characters in 1776 differ from their historical counterparts. Central to the drama is the depiction of John Adams as "obnoxious and disliked." According to biographer David McCullough, Adams was one of the most respected members of Congress in 1776. Adams's often-quoted description of himself in Congress as "obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular" is from a letter written 46 years later in 1822, after his unpopular presidency had likely colored his view of the past. According to McCullough, no delegate described Adams as obnoxious in 1776. Historian Garry Wills earlier made a similar argument, writing that "historians relay John Adams's memories without sufficient skepticism", and that it was Dickinson, not Adams, who was advocating an unpopular position in 1776.

The Committee of Five appointed to write the Declaration of Independence were: Franklin, age 70 (Howard da Silva was 62 at the time of filming in 1971); Roger Sherman, 55 (Rex Robbins was 36); Adams, 41 (Daniels was 44); Jefferson 33 (Ken Howard was 27); and Livingston, 29 (John Myhers was 49). The lyrics of "But Mr. Adams" give the reason that Livingston can not write the Declaration is because "I've been presented with a new son by the noble stork", but Livingston actually had only two children, both daughters, and the elder was not born until 1780.

For practical and dramatic purposes, the work does not depict all of the more than 50 members of Congress who were present at the time. This version of John Adams is, in part, a composite character, combining the real Adams with his cousin Samuel Adams, who was in Congress at the time but is not depicted in the play. Although the play depicts Delaware's Caesar Rodney as an elderly man near death from skin cancer (which would eventually kill him), he was just 47 years old at the time and continued to be very active in the Revolution after signing the Declaration. He was not absent from the voting because of health; however, the play is accurate in having him arrive "in the nick of time", having ridden  the night before (an event depicted on Delaware's 1999 State Quarter) unaided, instead of with the help of another delegate. Further, Richard Henry Lee announces that he is returning to Virginia to serve as governor. He was never governor; his cousin Henry Lee (who is anachronistically called "General 'Lighthorse' Harry Lee", a rank and nickname earned later) did eventually become governor (and the father of Confederate general Robert E. Lee). John Adams was also depicted as disliking Richard Henry Lee, but according to McCullough, Adams expressed nothing but "respect and admiration for the tall, masterly Virginian." He did dislike Benjamin Franklin, contrary to what was portrayed.

Martha Jefferson never traveled to Philadelphia to be with her husband; she was extremely ill during the summer of 1776, having just endured a miscarriage. The play's authors invented the scene "to show something of the young Jefferson's life without destroying the unity of setting." Martha is also depicted as dancing a galop or polka with Franklin and Adams, dances not introduced until the 1800s.

James Wilson was not the indecisive milquetoast depicted in the play and the film. His patrician WASP accent in the film is misleading, since Wilson was a Scottish immigrant whose parents were farmers. The real Wilson, who was not yet a judge in 1776, had been cautious about supporting independence at an earlier date, but he supported the resolution of independence when it came up for a vote. Pennsylvania's deciding swing vote was actually cast by John Morton, who is not depicted in the musical.

The quote attributed to Edmund Burke by Dr. Lyman Hall in a key scene with Adams is a paraphrase of a real quote by Burke.

The song "Cool Considerate Men" is anachronistic; the terms "right" and "left" in politics were not in use until the French Revolution of 1789. John Dickinson, who is portrayed as an antagonist here, was motivated mainly by his Quaker roots and his respect for the British Constitution, having lived in England for 3 years in the 1750s. He was no wealthier than some members of the pro-Independence faction, and freed his slaves in 1777. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the revolution".

The film also misses the objection some had to the Declaration's stated basis in "rights of Man" based in "natural law" derived from a supernatural being. The Quaker-based population in the mid-Atlantic, represented by Dickinson, objected to this conception. Dickinson's objection to the Declaration had to do with this, as well as the fact he and his base preferred civil disobedience to war as the means, and a view that the colonies were too immature and the egalitarian mid-Atlantic culture would be overruled by the slavery of the South and the patriarchal Puritan attitudes of New England, represented by John Adams, in the foundation of the new country. The film also omits the fact that Dickinson, after refusing to sign the Declaration, set about drafting the Articles of Confederation, which he based on "rights of Person" with no reference to anything but law created by human beings and the only reference to "men" being in the context of mustering armies. This basis was then used when the Articles were converted to the Constitution but by then completely omitting the word "man" and only using the word "Person."

The musical also deviates from history in its portrayal of attitudes about slavery. In 1776, after a dramatic debate over slavery, the southern delegates walk out in protest of the Declaration's denunciation of the slave trade, and only support independence when that language was removed from the Declaration. The walkout is fictional, as the debate over the wording of the declaration took place after the vote for independence on July 2, and apparently most delegates, northern and southern, supported the deletion of the clause.

The musical depicts Edward Rutledge as the leader of the opposition to an anti-slavery clause in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration. However, while it is known that, according to Jefferson, the clause was opposed by South Carolina and Georgia, plus unspecified "northern brethren", that is all that is known about opposition to the clause. Rutledge was a delegate from South Carolina, but there is no historical evidence that he played any part—much less a leadership role—in the opposition to the clause. The musical does acknowledge the complexity of the Colonial attitudes toward slavery in the dramatic song "Molasses to Rum to Slaves", sung by the Rutledge character, which illustrates the hypocrisy in northern condemnations of slavery since northerners profited from the triangle trade.

The musical depicts Franklin as claiming that he is the founder of the first abolitionist organization in the New World; the real Franklin did not become an abolitionist until after the American Revolution, becoming president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1785. It was actually Dickinson who freed his slaves in 1776, conditionally at first, and fully by 1787 when the Constitution was ratified.

In both the play and the film, John Adams sarcastically predicts that Benjamin Franklin will receive from posterity too great a share of credit for the Revolution. "Franklin smote the ground and out sprang—George Washington. Fully grown, and on his horse. Franklin then electrified them with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them—Franklin, Washington, and the horse—conducted the entire Revolution all by themselves." Adams did make a similar comment about Franklin in April 1790, just after Franklin's death, although the mention of the horse was a humorous twist added by the authors of the musical.

James Wilson is portrayed as subordinating himself to Dickinson's opposition to independence, only changing his vote so that he would not be remembered unfavorably. In fact, Wilson was considered one of the leading thinkers behind the American cause, consistently supporting and arguing for independence, although he would not cast his vote until his district had been caucused.

The formula John Adams gives Abigail for making saltpeter—"By treating sodium nitrate with potassium chloride, of course!"—refers to various chemicals by their modern names, instead of the names used in the 1770s. A more historically accurate version might be "treating soda niter with potash." More accurate still would have been a detailed description of the process, involving ingredients such as manure or bat guano, but that probably would have been too long, and repulsive to audiences.

Abigail's request for pins in exchange is not frivolous. Electroplating had not been invented yet: The common pin was subject to rusting and breakage, and so required replacement. At the time, pins were necessary for a wide range of crafts, creating garments and headgear (including wigs), making lace, ribbon and other trimmings and textiles. They also served the roles now played by paperclips and staples. Women used them as closures or to anchor pieces of clothing. (Hooks and eyes existed, but like so many manufactured goods, they had to be imported. The hook-and-eye industry was not established in the United States until the early 19th century.) The real Abigail, if dressed as in this scene in the film, would have supported the front lacing of her gown by using pins to fasten the fabric to the stiffened bodice beneath.

Reception

Critical reception
Vincent Canby of The New York Times observed, "The music is resolutely unmemorable. The lyrics sound as if they'd been written by someone high on root beer, and the book is familiar history—compressed here, stretched there—that has been gagged up and paced to Broadway's not inspiring standards. Yet Peter H. Hunt's screen version of 1776 ... insists on being so entertaining and, at times, even moving, that you might as well stop resisting it. This reaction, I suspect, represents a clear triumph of emotional associations over material ... [It] is far from being a landmark of musical cinema, but it is the first film in my memory that comes close to treating seriously a magnificent chapter in the American history."

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave 1776 two stars and declared, "This is an insult to the real men who were Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest ... The performances trapped inside these roles, as you might expect, are fairly dreadful. There are good actors in the movie (especially William Daniels as Adams and Donald Madden as John Dickinson), but they're forced to strut and posture so much that you wonder if they ever scratched or spit or anything ... I can hardly bear to remember the songs, much less discuss them. Perhaps I shouldn't. It is just too damn bad this movie didn't take advantage of its right to the pursuit of happiness."

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 68% score, based on 19 reviews, with an average rating of 7.1/10.

Box office
The film was the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall in New York City and performed very well, grossing $1,743,978 in its first six weeks. It did not perform as well in its other opening engagements in Philadelphia, Boston and Washington. It returned to the Music Hall for two weeks starting June 3, 1976 in honor of the United States Bicentennial.

Accolades
The film was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy but lost to Cabaret. Harry Stradling Jr. was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography but lost to Geoffrey Unsworth for Cabaret.

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:
 2006: AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals – Nominated

Home media
The film was first released on videocassette, which runs 148 minutes, and on Laserdisc in the 1980s. The Laserdisc version runs 180 minutes and is rated PG.

The DVD, issued in 2002 as a "Restored Director's Cut", runs 165 minutes. It trims up some scenes and contains previously unreleased scenes, including the "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" musical number and accompanying dialogue. However, it excludes the previously released Overture (heard on laserdisc but not in cinemas).

The film was released on Blu-ray from a 4K-master on June 2, 2015. It contains two commentaries: an all-new commentary, with director Hunt, Daniels and Howard, and also the DVD commentary with Hunt and Peter Stone only. With two versions: the prior "Director's Cut", and a further "extended cut" (167 minutes), the release also includes two deleted and alternative scenes with filmmaker commentary, screen tests, and original theatrical trailers.

On May 31, 2022, Sony Pictures released a three-disc 50th anniversary Blu-ray. The release includes four different cuts: the two major 165-minute and 167-minute versions (from the 2015 DVD release), on 4K with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack, and on a third, bonus Blu-ray disc, the original 148-minute 1972 theatrical cut that was previously only available on VHS (now in HD with the original mono soundtrack) and the 180-minute 1992 LaserDisc release (in SD with stereo soundtrack) (both on Blu-ray for the first time).

Comic book adaptation
 Charlton Comics: 1776 (March 1973):

See also
 List of American films of 1972
 List of films about the American Revolution
 List of television series and miniseries about the American Revolution
 Founding Fathers of the United States

References

External links

1972 films
1972 comedy films
1972 drama films
1970s historical musical films
1970s musical comedy-drama films
1970s historical comedy-drama films
American musical comedy-drama films
1970s English-language films
Films directed by Peter H. Hunt
American Revolutionary War films
Films about presidents of the United States
Films set in Pennsylvania
Films set in Philadelphia
Films set in 1776
Independence Day (United States) films
Musical films based on actual events
United States Declaration of Independence
Columbia Pictures films
Cultural depictions of Thomas Jefferson
Cultural depictions of George Washington
Cultural depictions of Benjamin Franklin
Cultural depictions of John Adams
Cultural depictions of John Hancock
Films adapted into comics
Films based on musicals
1970s American films

1776 (film)


Steven Greenberg (born October 24, 1950) is an American musician, record producer and the owner of the independent label October Records.  He is best known for his band Lipps Inc.'s 1980 hit song "Funkytown" (which was also a hit for Australian band Pseudo Echo).

Career
Greenberg was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States. In his twenties, Greenberg was a multi-instrumentalist who played in several bands. He had been trying for some time to secure a production deal, and he drew the interest of the Casablanca label with a disco track called "Rock It," which became a hit locally.
Released nationally in late 1979, "Rock It" made it into the Top 20 on the Billboard Disco Charts. Casablanca asked Greenberg for a full album, so he gathered several session players, among them guitarists David Rivkin and Tom Riopelle; keyboardist Ivan Rafowitz; synth and vocoder programmer Roger Dumas (not to be confused with French actor Roger Dumas); and bassist Terry Grant. Most importantly, he recruited lead vocalist Cynthia Johnson, the 1976 Miss Black Minnesota, who had been performing with an early version of The Time.

The group's debut album, Mouth To Mouth, was released in November 1979. "Funkytown" was the first single, and it was an instant hit, climbing to No. 1 on May 31, 1980, and spending four weeks there. In the wake of that success, "Rock It" was re-released but it only made the Billboard Top 50. The six-song release Pucker Up followed, featuring a disco remake of the British pub rock group Ace's hit ballad "How Long." It earned gold and platinum records in many countries. Lipps Inc.'s full-length Designer Music was a huge success in Mexico and in Central and South America, and it made Top 10 on the Billboard Disco chart. Designer Music also earned gold and platinum elsewhere, including Mexico and Hong Kong, but no subsequent song matched the success of "Funkytown" in the United States.

Cynthia Johnson was already decreasing her involvement with the group, with Melanie Rosales and Margie Cox picking up some of the slack and later becoming lead vocalists. Johnson left for good in 1983, after three albums. Lipps Inc. released one more album before breaking up in 1985. Greenberg became a web designer in 1992 and stayed in that field through 2007.

Personal life
In 2005, his son Nile was featured on the MTV show Made, in which he wanted to become a rapper using the stage name Blizzard. Later, Nile became an architect.

Greenberg mentored his nephew John Fields, a producer/songwriter.

See also
 Music of Minnesota

References

External links
 The Official Funkytown web site
  – note: IMDB combines credits for Steven Greenberg and Steve Greenberg (record producer)
 Minnesota Historical Society article on Steven Greenberg

1950 births
Living people
Musicians from Saint Paul, Minnesota
Greenbeg, Steven
Greenbeg, Steven
21st-century American Jews

Steven Greenberg (musician)


Screening is a defensive security tactic in which a screening force consisting of a picket or outposts is used to hide the nature and strength of a military force, as well as provide early warning of enemy approach, impede and harass the enemy main body with indirect fire, and report on the activity of the enemy main body. While a screening force remains in contact with the enemy, may conduct patrols, establish outposts, and help destroy enemy reconnaissance units, it retains freedom of maneuver and does not become decisively engaged.

A screening mission seeks to destroy or repel enemy forces when possible, providing early warning in a defensive manner, deny enemy reconnaissance units close-in observation of the main body. An effective screen can conceal where an army begins and ends, making it hard to flank. In modern warfare, screening is performed by armoured cars, light tanks and air cavalry.

Screening force
Screening is often done by reconnaissance units such as cavalry, which operate within range of supporting artillery. In contrast to a guard force, a screening force may consist of a scout platoon rather than a task force or squadron; and its mission is less ambitious, focusing on early warning to the main body rather than preventing enemy observation and direct fire on the main body. Also, unlike a guard force, a screening force is deployed over an extended area, to the rear and flanks of the main force, rather than to the front. The screening force's minimal tasks enable it to have a wide frontage. The screen line describes the trace along which the protecting unit is providing security. Aerial assets are used when ground assets cannot keep pace with the main body.

A screening force normally uses direct fire only for self-defense and does not seek to become decisively engaged with enemy forces.

Examples

During the American Civil War, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Maj. Gen. John Buford set the conditions for Maj. Gen. George Meade's success by ensuring the Army of the Potomac occupied the high ground, which destroyed General Robert E. Lee's army when it attacked.

See also
Covering force

References

Force protection tactics

Screening (tactical)


Egungun, (egúngún with Yorùbá language tone marks) in the broadest sense is any Yoruba masquerade or masked, costumed figure. More specifically, it is a Yoruba masquerade for ancestor reverence, or the ancestors themselves as a collective force. Eégún is the reduced form (abbreviation through assimilation) of the word egúngún and has the same meaning.  There is a misconception that Egun or Eegun (eégún with Yorùbá tone marks) is the singular form, or that it represents the ancestors while egúngún is the masquerade or the plural form. This misconception is common in the Americas by Orisa devotees that do not speak Yorùbá language as a vernacular. Egungun is a visible manifestation of the spirits of departed ancestors who periodically revisit the human community for remembrance, celebration, and blessings.

Classification of Egungun types

The classification of Egun or Egungun types, might appear to be a fairly straightforward task, but in fact it is extremely complex deciphering the comprehension of indigenous taxonomies.

The difficulties include: the problem of distinguishing between personal Egun names and generic terms for types; the problem of determining "sets" where one masquerade may be regarded as several type of categories simultaneously; the practice of "layering," in which a masquerade wears one costume type over another and changes these during performance; and the variety of criteria used to classify Egungun as well as the range of variations within type of categories. Such factors demonstrate the complexity of the analysis of indigenous taxonomies and the classification of masquerade types. These same difficulties arise in the definition and use of the term Egungun itself. However, from cultural affinities, especially in the Yoruba land, Southwest, Nigeria, the following egungun names can be identified: Danafojura and Awodagbese in Ogbomoso, Alapansanpa in Ibadan, and Feleru in Ibobu, Osun State.

Role of the family
In the Yoruba religion, the annual ceremonies in honor of the dead serve as a means of assuring their ancestors a place among the living. They believe the ancestors have the responsibility to compel the living to uphold the ethical standards of the past generations of their clan, town or family. The Egungun are celebrated in festivals, known as Odun Egungun, and in family ritual through the masquerade custom.

In family situations, a family elder known either formally or informally as "Alagba" presides over ancestral rites.  He may or may not be initiated into the local Egungun society.  In matters that deal with whole communities, Egungun priests and initiates who are trained in ancestral communication, ancestral elevation and funerary rites are assigned to invoke and bring out the ancestors. They wear elaborate costumes as masquerades. Through drumming and dance, the Egungun robed performers are believed to become possessed by the spirits of the ancestors, as manifested as a single entity. The Egungun spiritually cleans the community; through the dramatic acting and miming of the robed priests, they demonstrate both ethical and amoral behavior that have occurred since their last visit.  In this way, they expose the strengths and weaknesses of the community to encourage behavior more befitting of their descendants. When this performance is completed, the performers as Egungun give messages, warnings and blessings to the assembled spectators.

Important Egungun include the Oloolu and Alapansanpa, both of Ibadanland.  Elewe of the Ìgbómìnà Yoruba clan, which is common in the towns of Òkè-Ìlá Òràngún, Ìlá Òràngún, and Arandun, is also of particular prominence.

In Brazil, the main cult of the Egungun is found on the island of Itaparica, in the State of Bahia.  Houses of worship dedicated to the Egungun also exist in other states.

Egungun ensembles

Cloth plays an important role in the world of the Yoruba. Their beliefs equate nakedness with infancy, insanity, or the lack of social responsibility. More elaborate dress reflects social power and prestige. In performances honoring ancestors, exquisite cloth is the major medium for the masker's transformation. An Egungun costume is composed of multiple layers of cloth lappets made from expensive and prestigious textiles, expressing the wealth and status of a family as well as the power of the ancestor.

The composition of an Egungun ensemble has several distinctive features. The layer worn closest to the masker's skin, the under sack, must be made of Aso-Oke, the indigo and white strip-cloth (Fig. 6). It closely resembles the shroud in which the dead are wrapped. This sack, along with the netting for the face and hands, must completely seal the masker's body. The netting effectively disguises facial and hand features that might disclose his identity.

On top of this base are placed the layers of lappets. As the masker whirls, the lappets are sent flying, creating a "breeze of blessing." The design of the costume is therefore closely related to the choreography of the performance. Henry Drewal hypothesizes that the breeze of blessing created by the Egungun may also relate to Oya, the wife of Shango, the deified fourth king of Oyo and the god of thunder. Oya is the whirlwind, considered a wind of blessing, that precedes Shango, the storm.

To make the costume beautiful, and thus powerful, the lappets are decorated with patchwork patterns, braids, sequins, tassels, and amulets. The amulets hold medicinal preparations which have performative power (ase), providing protection against enemies at a time when the transformed person is vulnerable. The main protective amulets, however, are on the inside of the costume, not the outside. Metallic objects are also sewn onto the garment. These catch the light as the wearer moves, creating flashes that suggest connection to the spirit world, orun.

The multiple hidden and visible layers of fabric used to create an Egungun costume signify the sacred and the worldly, respectively. The layers, used in combination, suggest the reunion of the departed and the living.

An ensemble is repaired and refurbished for use year after year, with layers of new lappets and amulets added to express remembrance and honour. Through divination, however, an ancestor might request a new costume altogether. The owner and the patron, the priest of divination, the tailor, the herbalist who prepares the packets of medicines, and the entire lineage collaborate in creating the ensemble. Depending upon its wealth, a family may own several types of Egungun costumes, which may represent specific or collective ancestors of the lineage.

The Egungun ensemble acts as the medium for the masker's transformation into his ancestors. An Egungun society is composed of men and women whose lineages have the right to present the masquerade. Men do the masking. Women never wear the costume, although they participate in the chorus that sings the oriki praise poems and histories of the families. Elder women of high title also perform invocations, prayers, and offerings. At annual festivals, each of the numerous lineages is given a separate day to perform. The masker is kept at a distance from the surrounding crowd with the help of attendants dressed in masquerade costumes of different types. After all the Egungun have danced, the ensembles are stored until the next performance.

Festival
Egungun Festival is a festival that is celebrated amongst the Yoruba people, which is celebrated annually and has been passed successively down to generations. "The ensuing festival goes on for several days and strengthens the bonds that unite families and communities with departed ancestors." It is believed to help develop trade and commerce and generally bond the people of Yorubaland together regardless of their religious beliefs. Members of the society dance to marketplaces, wearing their masks to represent the deceased spirits of their ancestors, the spirit to be worshipped is solely decided by Ifa Oracle.

Women's role in Egungun
Egungun masquerades are male-dominated within the performance aspect and only males are allowed to connect with the spirits in Egungun by transforming into the masked figure. Women are prevalent in creating the materials, dramatizing the performance, singing, dancing and watching. Elders say that separation is necessary because of the dangers of women power.

According to the Ifa corpus, women were once in control of Egungun. The ritual originates from women's religious experience in Yoruba. It is also argued that women were the sustainers of Egungun and according to the Odu Irantegbe chapter of the Ifa corpus, they were tricked by men and their powers over the Egungun cult were taken away.

References

Film and video
An Egungun masquerade performance at the palace of HRM The Alafin, Oyo, Oyo State, Nigeria, this being video footage that was filmed in August, 1999: Egungun Energized to Dance

External links
http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/yor/yor07.htm
Iwi Egungun Oludare Olajubu
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41026019

 Portuguese
Alapini Mestre Didi Asipa
Egungun no Candomblé

Traditional African religions
Afro-American religion
Yoruba culture
Masquerade ceremonies in Africa

Egungun


Louis George Alexander (15 January 1932 – 17 June 2002) (commonly referred to as L. G. Alexander) was a British teacher and the author of numerous EFL course books, including New Concept English.

In 1977, he sold 4.7m books, which was recorded in the Guinness Book of Records as the greatest number of copies sold by an individual author in one year (1977).

Biography
Louis Alexander was born Elias George Ftyaras in London. His father, George Ftyaras, was Greek and his mother, Mary Ftyaras née Manolas, was an Australian of Greek ancestry – "so he spoke perfect English and perfect Greek".

During much of World War II he was with his mother in Australia, later they  returned to Britain, where was educated at Godalming Grammar School and the University of London. From 1954 to 1956 he was on national service in the British Army Germany (1954–56), where he had his first experience as an educator, teaching A-level English as an Educational Corps instructor.

He taught English in Germany (1954–56) and Greece (1956–65) where he was head of English at the Protypon Lykeion, Athens (what is now the Scholi Moraïti).

In the 1960s he started being published with Longmans. In 1962 his first book, Sixty Steps to Précis, was published and became a bestseller. His second book, A First Book in Comprehension, was published in 1964. New Concept English, his first major book series, was published in 1967. With Longman he also published such series as: Look Listen and Learn (1968–71), Target (1972–74), Mainline (1973–81).

Louis was a member of the Council of Europe Committee on Modern Language Teaching (1973–78), and one of the authors of The Threshold Level (1975) and Waystage (1977), works developed for the Council of Europe that have been the bases of many communicative language courses and forms the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. He served on the Committee of Management of the Society of Authors (1980–83).

In the 1980s Alexander wrote reference books such as Longman English Grammar (1988; practice book 1990) and Longman Advanced Grammar (1993).

In the late 1980s he worked for UNESCO on Junior English for China course. He created the blueprint for the Survive self-study series (1980–83, reissued 1989) for modern languages and published courses in the field of computer-assisted language learning.

In 1986-88 he was adviser to the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate for the Cambridge Certificate in English for International Communication.

He was a writer of EFL course materials from the 1960s onwards. Alexander consistently supported the cause of the relatively untrained non-native speaking teacher of English.

Louis Alexander died of leukemia on 17 June 2002 in Chambéry, Savoie, France.

Legacy
Tim Rix, former chairman of the Longman Group, praised Alexander as having "particular abilities and knowledge", combined with a "use of linguistics", which "meshed perfectly well with the requirements of ELT [English language teaching]" in his time.

Alexander had an immense influence on English language teaching in China. In recognition of this, a statue was raised in his honour in the grounds of the "Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press..., one of China's largest schoolbook publishers". The statue bears the following inscription: "...the man who cracked the linguistic code of the English language and made it learnable for millions of students worldwide through New Concept English and many other course books".

Personal life
Louis Alexander married Athina Voyatsis in Athens in 1956. They had had a daughter, Marianna (born 1961) and a son George (born 1963). Athina died in 1979. Louis married Julia née Mendus in 1980.

Bibliography
His publications include:

Books
 Sixty Steps to Precis (1962)
 Poetry and Prose Appreciation (1963)
 A First Book in Comprehension (1964)
 Essays and Letter Writing (1965)
 A First Book in Comprehension (1965)
 New Concept English (1967)
 For and Against (1968)
 Look, Listen and Learn! (1968–71)
 Operation Mastermind (1971)
 Target (1972–74)
 Mainline (1973–81)
 Follow Me (1979–80)
 Excel (for Egyptian Secondary Schools, 1985)
 Plain English (1987–88)
 Longman English Grammar (1988)
 Longman English Grammar Practice (1990)
 Step by Step 1-3 (1991)
 Longman Advanced Grammar (1993)
 Right Word, Wrong Word (1994)
 K's First Case Good Morning, Mexico Dangerous Game (2000)Note: Many other books by Alexander are listed in his For and Against (1968).

Articles
 "Fads and fashions in English language teaching", English Today, 21: 35-56, 1990.

References

Further reading
 Barry Tomalin, "Seeking the philosopher's stone" (interview transcript), English Today, 7: 17-18, 1986.
 Tom McArthur, "Louis Alexander: We looked, listened and learned", English Today, 72: 3-7, 2002.
 P.-Y. Li, W. Ethridge, X. Yang, and Julia Alexander, "L.G. Alexander: a statue in Beijing", English Today'', 78: 20-25, 2004.

External links
 Louis Alexander on the history of English language teaching in the 20th century (audio recording in ELT Archive, University of Warwick)

1932 births
2002 deaths
Schoolteachers from London
Greek schoolteachers
Writing teachers
Alumni of the University of London
People educated at Godalming Grammar School
Teachers of English as a second or foreign language
People from London

Louis George Alexander


Yakutsk Time (YAKT) is a time zone in Russia which is nine hours ahead of UTC, and six hours ahead of Moscow Time (MSK).

The time zone covers Sakha Republic (western part), Amur Oblast and Zabaykalsky Krai.

On 27 March 2011, Russia moved to year-round daylight saving time.  Instead of switching between UTC+09:00 in winter and UTC+10:00 in summer, Yakutsk Time became fixed at UTC+10:00 until 2014, when it was reset back to UTC+09:00 year-round.

See also
Time in Russia

References

Time zones
Time in Russia

Yakutsk Time


Val Saint Lambert is a Belgian crystal glassware manufacturer, founded in 1826 and based in Seraing. It has the royal warrant of King Albert II.

Pre-history – Vonêche glassworks
In 1795 during the War of the First Coalition which brought about the fall of the Dutch Republic, France had annexed what was then termed the Southern   Netherlands, now known as Belgium. During the period of the Napoleonic Wars, in 1802 Napoleon Bonaparte asked French industrialist Henri D'Artigues to leave the noted French crystal maker Saint-Louis to buy the dilapidated glassworks at Vonêche. Like Saint-Louis, Vonêche produced lead crystal glass, and within ten years had become the most important crystal  producer in the French  empire. Two of the key workers in the plant's success were chemist François Kemlin and engineer Auguste Lelièvre. In 1815 following Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo, the Southern Netherlands was re-united  within the new United Kingdom of the Netherlands. As a result of newly imposed import duties, the Vonêche factory immediately lost most of its French market. In  1816, D'Artigues negotiated with King Louis XVIII of France to buy the Verrerie de St Anne glassworks in the town of Baccarat, and renamed it  the Verrerie  de  Vonêche  à Baccarat – a name it kept until 1843. The Belgian Revolution of 1830 meant that the Vonêche glassworks also lost most of its Southern Holland market, and hence closed soon afterwards.

History
In  1825  Kemlin  and  Lelièvre bought the site of the former Val-Saint-Lambert Abbey in Seraing  near  Liège on the river Meuse. There they founded a new glassworks (still in operation to this day, originally focused on heavy lead crystal), which initially employed some of the key workers from the former Vonêche glassworks. The two founders initially built two houses for themselves, and block accommodation for the acquired former Vonêche workers. Like similar highly religious employers, this policy of complete lifestyle development eventually led to the company building over 200 houses on the site to house workers, in what became a self-service village which also had a general store, school and post office; the local Roman Catholic church was also expanded to accommodate additional worshippers.

Due to the quality of its designs and manufacturing process, the company developed a well known brand and expanded. Aside from its home territory of Belgium and the Netherlands, the largest export market was to then Tsarist-ruled Russia. In 1876 the company opened a distribution base in New York, and in 1889 the company's CEO visited the store, and toured locally based competitor East Coast factories. As a result, on his return to Belgium the CEO noted in his report the then superior quality of American glass and the skill of its crystal cutters, which the company responded to by developing its own "bright" ranges and superior quality cutting. The resulting "bright period" expanded the companies reputation and market especially in North America, and hence today it is well known and collected there for its Art Nouveau and Art Deco pieces. In 1894 at the world exhibition in Antwerp, the company manufactured an over 2 metres high vase consisting of 82 parts and weighing 200 kilograms, which is still intact and now on display at the Curtius Museum in Liège. As the company became more successful - at its height in the period 1900–1914, it employed over 5,000 workers creating 120,000 pieces of glass per day - the company contracted out work to other factories, latterly either buying them or opening new factories, including: Jemeppe (1883 to  1952); two near Namur (1879 to 1935); and Jambes (1880 to 1931, producing oil glass lamps).

The company stopped producing during World War I, and post-war after the Russian Revolution the market in Russia totally collapsed, resulting in financial difficulties and contraction. Exports to North America saved the company, but again it suffered difficulties with the collapse of that market post the Wall Street Crash of 1929. The company hence closed the Jambes and two Namur factories, and was stable by the time of World War II, during which like most of Belgium the factory was bombed by both the Nazi Luftwaffe and the Allied Air Forces of the RAF and USAAF. Production resumed initially in the less bomb-damaged Jemeppe factory until the production lines could be restored at Seraing, which resulted in the closure of the Jemeppe factory in the 1950s. Whilst many of the buildings at Seraing were restored, a large part of the site remained as was post-WW2 until the early 2000s, when these derelict 19th century buildings were cleared to create the modern steel-framed factory, visitor centre and small factory shop which exist today, together with the original restored 19th century factory offices.

References

External links

Belgian brands
Belgian Royal Warrant holders
Val Saint Lambertl
Glass trademarks and brands
1826 establishments in the Netherlands
Seraing
Companies based in Liège Province

Val Saint Lambert


Seyfert galaxies are named after Carl Seyfert who first described them in 1943.

These galaxies are one of the two main types of active galaxies. The other large group are quasars. Seyfert galaxies have quasar-like nuclei: they are very distant luminous  sources of electromagnetic radiation. Their very high surface brightness has spectra with strong, high-ionisation emission lines. However, unlike quasars, their host galaxies are clearly visible.

Seyfert galaxies are about 10% of all galaxies, and are some of the most intensely studied objects in astronomy. They are thought to be powered by the same phenomena as quasars, although they are closer and less luminous than quasars. These galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centers which are surrounded by accretion discs of in-falling material. The accretion discs are believed to be the source of the observed ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet emission lines and absorption lines are the best way to analyse the surrounding material.

Seen in visible light, most Seyfert galaxies look like normal spiral galaxies. However, when studied under other wavelengths, it becomes clear that the luminosity of their cores is as big as the luminosity of whole galaxies the size of the Milky Way.

Examples

Here are some notable examples of Seyfert galaxies:
 Circinus galaxy has rings of gas ejected from its center
 Centaurus A, apparently the brightest Seyfert galaxy as seen from Earth. It is a giant elliptical galaxy: a radio galaxy notable for its relativistic jet spanning more than a million light years in length.
 Messier 51a (NGC 5194), the Whirlpool Galaxy, one of the best known galaxies in the sky.
 Messier 81 (NGC 3031), a popular target for amateur astronomy and the second brightest Seyfert galaxy in the sky after Centaurus A
 Messier 87 (NGC 4486), central galaxy of the Virgo Cluster and the biggest galaxy in the Local Supercluster. It is a radio galaxy notable for its 4,400 light-year long relativistic jet powered by an immense supermassive black hole with the mass of (3.5 ± 0.2)-6.3 billion solar masses
 NGC 1672 has a nucleus engulfed by intense starburst regions

References

Galaxies

Seyfert galaxy


The Alcazar (later Alcazar d'Hiver) was a Café-concert which opened in 1858, located at 10 Rue du Faubourg Poissonière in Paris, and closed in 1902.

This café-concert was first directed by Joseph Mayer, then by Arsène Goubert who attracted the singer Thérésa (Emma Valladon) from her position at the Eldorado. She sang for the first time as a comic actress and gained a triumph, becoming the first true star of the café-concert.

Goubert acquired another establishment, on the Champs-Elysées, which he called "Alcazar d'Été", logically renaming the "Alcazar" to "Alcazar d'Hiver". On the departure of Thérésa, the place often changed names and proprietors.  It was demolished in 1902 to be replaced by offices.

Principal artists featured

 Thérésa (Emma Valladon)
 Jeanne Bloch
 La Goulue
 Eugénie Buffet
 Anna Thibaud

Notes

References

François Caradec & Alan Weill, Le Café-Concert, Fayard, 2007 (in French)

Buildings and structures demolished in 1902
Cabarets in Paris
Entertainment venues in Paris
Former theatres in Paris

Alcazar (Paris)