Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2395d5e5e273cd0

Jump to content

Template:Excerpt/testcases3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Test cases 1 Test cases 2 Test cases 3

Sections

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Science|Branches}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[5] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[6] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 

{{Excerpt| Science | Branches }}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[7] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[8] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[9] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[10] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 

{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating|30 CFR 11}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
3M 6200 with magenta 'Dust-Fume-Mist Radionuclides Asbestos' (30 CFR HEPA) markings on the filters

Prior to the approval of 42 CFR 84, MSHA and NIOSH approved respirators under 30 CFR 11. Non-powered respirator filters were classified based on their design against a contaminant, including substances like Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos. Dust/Mist was usually tested with silica, and Fume was usually tested with lead fume. The most popular respirator filters were often referred to as DM (Dust/Mist) or DFM (Dust/Fume/Mist) in CDC and NIOSH literature as shorthand.[11] Non-powered filters were also classified under the HEPA specification, if applicable.[12]

Only 30 CFR 11 HEPA filters were permitted by NIOSH for the prevention of tuberculosis[C3] and asbestos-related diseases.[CF1]

NIOSH was concerned about users choosing inappropriate respirators, like confusion over choosing DM or DFM respirators with regards to particle penetration, so proposed Part 84 rules in 1994 dropped the contaminant/HEPA classification for most respirators in favor of three specifications, Type A, B and C, each representing filtration of 99.97%, 99%, and 95% respectively, with Type A proposed to be used in place of HEPA for non-powered respirators.[C1][12]

In 1973, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) recommended NIOSH use NaCl aerosol to test DM and DFM filters. Results from those tests showed significant leakage, with efficiency levels measured at around 75% to 90%.[13] LANL noted that lead fume would plug the tested filters, increasing the apparent filtration efficiency of the filter.[14]

(OBSOLETE) 30 CFR 11 efficiency levels[12][15]
Particulate Respirator
approval		 Maximum
dust penetration		 Minimum
efficiency level		 Permitted for
TB		 Permitted for
asbestos
158.4 mg silica
7.92 m3 (280 ft3) air		 Single-use Dust/Mist filters 1.8 mg 98.86% No No
158.4 mg, usually silica
7.92 m3 (280 ft3) air		 Replaceable Dust/Mist filters 1.5 mg 99.05% No No
0.3 micron DOP
0.05 mg per cubic meter air for particles		 HEPA (includes
Dust/Mist approval)[ND3]		 N/A 99.97% Yes Yes
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
3M 6200 with magenta 'Dust-Fume-Mist Radionuclides Asbestos' (30 CFR HEPA) markings on the filters

Prior to the approval of 42 CFR 84, MSHA and NIOSH approved respirators under 30 CFR 11. Non-powered respirator filters were classified based on their design against a contaminant, including substances like Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos. Dust/Mist was usually tested with silica, and Fume was usually tested with lead fume. The most popular respirator filters were often referred to as DM (Dust/Mist) or DFM (Dust/Fume/Mist) in CDC and NIOSH literature as shorthand.[16] Non-powered filters were also classified under the HEPA specification, if applicable.[12]

Only 30 CFR 11 HEPA filters were permitted by NIOSH for the prevention of tuberculosis[C3] and asbestos-related diseases.[CF1]

NIOSH was concerned about users choosing inappropriate respirators, like confusion over choosing DM or DFM respirators with regards to particle penetration, so proposed Part 84 rules in 1994 dropped the contaminant/HEPA classification for most respirators in favor of three specifications, Type A, B and C, each representing filtration of 99.97%, 99%, and 95% respectively, with Type A proposed to be used in place of HEPA for non-powered respirators.[C1][12]

In 1973, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) recommended NIOSH use NaCl aerosol to test DM and DFM filters. Results from those tests showed significant leakage, with efficiency levels measured at around 75% to 90%.[17] LANL noted that lead fume would plug the tested filters, increasing the apparent filtration efficiency of the filter.[18]

(OBSOLETE) 30 CFR 11 efficiency levels[12][19]
Particulate Respirator
approval		 Maximum
dust penetration		 Minimum
efficiency level		 Permitted for
TB		 Permitted for
asbestos
158.4 mg silica
7.92 m3 (280 ft3) air		 Single-use Dust/Mist filters 1.8 mg 98.86% No No
158.4 mg, usually silica
7.92 m3 (280 ft3) air		 Replaceable Dust/Mist filters 1.5 mg 99.05% No No
0.3 micron DOP
0.05 mg per cubic meter air for particles		 HEPA (includes
Dust/Mist approval)[ND3]		 N/A 99.97% Yes Yes
{{Excerpt|Science#Branches}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[20] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[21] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[22] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[23] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 

{{Excerpt| Science # Branches }}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[24] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[25] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[26] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[27] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]: 3–26 

{{Excerpt|Holodomor in modern politics|Recognition|references=no}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Holodomor in modern politics § Recognition.[edit]
Recognition of the Holodomor by country

Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has run campaigns and lobbied the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide internationally.[28] The governments of various countries have issued statements recognizing the Holodomor as genocide including Ukraine since 2006,[29] and 13 other countries as of 2015.[30]

In November 2022, the Belarusian opposition in exile recognised the Holodomor as a genocide,[31] and Pope Francis compared the Russian war in Ukraine with its targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure to the "terrible Holodomor Genocide", during an address at St. Peter's Square.[32] As of January 2026, 33 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide.

Countries whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide:

Countries whose legislatures have partially passed a resolution recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide:

Other political bodies whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing Holodomor as a genocide:


Many countries have signed declarations in statements at the United Nations General Assembly affirming that the Holodomor was as a "national tragedy of the Ukrainian people" caused by the "cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime".[a] Similar statements were passed as resolutions by international organizations[b] such as the European Parliament,[c] the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),[d] the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).[a]

Countries to have signed declarations for the United Nations on the Holodomor[e][f] include Albania,[g] Argentina, Australia,[g] Austria,[g] Azerbaijan,[g] Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, and the United States.
This section is an excerpt from Holodomor in modern politics § Recognition.[edit]
Recognition of the Holodomor by country

Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has run campaigns and lobbied the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide internationally.[28] The governments of various countries have issued statements recognizing the Holodomor as genocide including Ukraine since 2006,[29] and 13 other countries as of 2015.[30]

In November 2022, the Belarusian opposition in exile recognised the Holodomor as a genocide,[73] and Pope Francis compared the Russian war in Ukraine with its targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure to the "terrible Holodomor Genocide", during an address at St. Peter's Square.[74] As of January 2026, 33 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide.

Countries whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide:

Countries whose legislatures have partially passed a resolution recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide:

Other political bodies whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing Holodomor as a genocide:


Many countries have signed declarations in statements at the United Nations General Assembly affirming that the Holodomor was as a "national tragedy of the Ukrainian people" caused by the "cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime".[a] Similar statements were passed as resolutions by international organizations[h] such as the European Parliament,[i] the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),[j] the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).[a]

Countries to have signed declarations for the United Nations on the Holodomor[k][f] include Albania,[g] Argentina, Australia,[g] Austria,[g] Azerbaijan,[g] Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, and the United States.

Subsections

[edit]
{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating|42 CFR 84|subsections=yes}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[CF2][110][N2] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[111]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[CF2]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level		 Permitted for
TB		 Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[112][C1] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[113][CF1][S2] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[N2] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[114]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[115][116][117]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[N2] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[N2] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[118]

2020 powered air-purifying respirator update

[edit]
PAPR
A person wearing a powered air-purifying respirator

Template loop detected: Template:Excerpt
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[CF2][119][N2] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[120]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[CF2]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level		 Permitted for
TB		 Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[112][C1] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[113][CF1][S2] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[N2] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[114]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[115][121][122]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[N2] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[N2] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[123]

2020 powered air-purifying respirator update

[edit]
PAPR
A person wearing a powered air-purifying respirator
This section is an excerpt from Powered air-purifying respirator § 42 CFR 84.[edit]

42 CFR 84, from 1995 to 2020, copies 30 CFR 11 rules for PAPRs.[N2]

The following table lists the air flow requirements for NIOSH-approved PAPRs under Part 84.175. Tight-fitting PAPRs may be fit tested with the facepiece unpowered and in negative-pressure (under 29 CFR 1910.134) while loose-fitting PAPR fit test protocols have not been changed from 30 CFR 11.[CF2]

Part 84 air flow requirements
Facepiece Air flow in
liters/minute
Tight-fitting 115
Loose-fitting 170

The following table lists the ratings for particulate ratings for Part 84 PAPRs.[CF2] PAPR100 ratings were added in 2020.[CF3]

NIOSH particulate classes for powered air-purifying respirators
Particulate Respirator
class		 Minimum
efficiency level		 Permitted for
TB		 Permitted for
asbestos[CF1]
0.3 micron DOP HEPA or HE 99.97% Yes Yes
0.075 to 1.86 micron NaCl PAPR100-N Rating
discontinued		 Not yet
defined
0.075 to 1.86 micron DOP PAPR100-P

PAPR100-N is not designed to filter oil particulates, and the official color-coding for all three respirator types is magenta.[CF2]

A study has demonstrated that users carrying out physical work at intensities 80-85% VO2 max "over-breathe" loose-fitting PAPRs and has recommended an increase of air flow to 400 lpm, an approximately two-fold increase over NIOSH-approved values.[124]

{{Excerpt|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)|subsections=yes}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page).[edit]


Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top)

Move requests:

Other discussions:

Concluded

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page).[edit]


Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top)

Move requests:

Other discussions:

Concluded

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30|Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in [[Mountain State University]]?}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30 § Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in Mountain State University?.[edit]

Can someone please look into the recent edit history of Mountain State University? An unregistered editor is insisting that "The Academy" is a proper noun and refuses to discuss the issue in Talk so it would be helpful to have the opinion of another editor. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's the same as "the university". The sub-institution is question has had proper names of: the Academy at Mountain State University, and later Mountain State Academy. But per WP:THE and MOS:THECAPS we should not even render the former as The Academy at Mountain State University. A possible exception: I have noticed over time that we've been ignoring this rule for cases in which the official acronym of the entity in question includes a capital-T for The in it. I recently codified this exception in the relevant section, to better reflect actual practice. TICA (which is never known as ICA) can properly be referred to as The International Cat Association, and it is also a case in which WP:THE would not be applied to remove the The from the article title. But almost every US college and university pretentiously capitalizes the leading "The" in front of their names in their own materials, while using acronyms that do not start with T for The. So, it's the University of Where-ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30 § Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in Mountain State University?.[edit]

Can someone please look into the recent edit history of Mountain State University? An unregistered editor is insisting that "The Academy" is a proper noun and refuses to discuss the issue in Talk so it would be helpful to have the opinion of another editor. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's the same as "the university". The sub-institution is question has had proper names of: the Academy at Mountain State University, and later Mountain State Academy. But per WP:THE and MOS:THECAPS we should not even render the former as The Academy at Mountain State University. A possible exception: I have noticed over time that we've been ignoring this rule for cases in which the official acronym of the entity in question includes a capital-T for The in it. I recently codified this exception in the relevant section, to better reflect actual practice. TICA (which is never known as ICA) can properly be referred to as The International Cat Association, and it is also a case in which WP:THE would not be applied to remove the The from the article title. But almost every US college and university pretentiously capitalizes the leading "The" in front of their names in their own materials, while using acronyms that do not start with T for The. So, it's the University of Where-ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Files

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Philosophy|only=file}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This file is an excerpt from Philosophy.[edit]
Photo of Auguste Rodin's statue The Thinker
The statue The Thinker by Auguste Rodin is a symbol of philosophical thought.[125]
This file is an excerpt from Philosophy.[edit]
Photo of Auguste Rodin's statue The Thinker
The statue The Thinker by Auguste Rodin is a symbol of philosophical thought.[126]
{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating#30 CFR 11|only=file}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This file is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
This file is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
{{Excerpt|Science|files=0}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science.[edit]

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[127]: 49–71 [128] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two – or three – major branches:[1] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[129][130] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[131][132][133][134] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[135][136][137]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[138]: 12 [139]: 1–26 [140][141][138]: 163–192 

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[138]: 193–224, 225–253 [142] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[143] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[138]: 357–368 [139]: 274–322  The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[144][145] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[146]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[147][148] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[149] government agencies,[138]: 163–192  and companies.[150] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.
This section is an excerpt from Science.[edit]

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[151]: 49–71 [128] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two – or three – major branches:[1] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[129][130] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[131][152][133][153] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[154][155][137]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[138]: 12 [139]: 1–26 [156][157][138]: 163–192 

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[138]: 193–224, 225–253 [158] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[159] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[138]: 357–368 [139]: 274–322  The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[160][161] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[162]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[163][164] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[165] government agencies,[138]: 163–192  and companies.[166] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle}}
Non-free image
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle.[edit]

The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by ISRO to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[167] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[168][169] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[170] ISRO did not have sufficient funds for both the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle programme and the ASLV programme at the same time and the ASLV programme was terminated after the initial developmental flights.[168] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[170]
This section is an excerpt from Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle.[edit]

The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by ISRO to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[171] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[168][169] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[170] ISRO did not have sufficient funds for both the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle programme and the ASLV programme at the same time and the ASLV programme was terminated after the initial developmental flights.[168] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[170]

{{Excerpt|U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking}}
Non-free image in infobox
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking.[edit]

U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking is an annual set of rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, which was first published by U.S. News & World Report in 1983. It has been described as the most influential institutional ranking in the country.

The Best Colleges rankings have raised controversy, and they have been denounced by several education experts.[172] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[173][174][175][176] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[177] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[178] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[179] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[180]
This section is an excerpt from U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking.[edit]

U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking is an annual set of rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, which was first published by U.S. News & World Report in 1983. It has been described as the most influential institutional ranking in the country.

The Best Colleges rankings have raised controversy, and they have been denounced by several education experts.[172] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[173][174][175][176] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[177] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[178] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[179] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[180]

Notes

[edit]
  1. 1 2 3 4 See the United Nations for a list of resolutions with references.
  2. ↑ See United Nations section for details and references.
  3. ↑ See European Parliament section for text and references for European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine.
  4. ↑ See Council of Europe for details and references.
  5. ↑ For details on recognition, see National recognition.
  6. 1 2 Referenced are a list of nations which were co-author sponsors of the United Nations Declaration on 85th anniversary of Holodomor.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nation has signed the United Nations Declaration on the Eighty-Fifth Anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.
  8. ↑ See United Nations section for details and references.
  9. ↑ See European Parliament section for text and references for European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine.
  10. ↑ See Council of Europe for details and references.
  11. ↑ For details on recognition, see National recognition.

References

[edit]
  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cohen, Eliel (2021). "The boundary lens: theorising academic activity". The University and its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  2. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  3. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. "A survey of some fundamental problems". The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7.
  5. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  6. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  7. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  8. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  9. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  10. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  11. ↑ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spelce, David; Rehak, Timothy R; Meltzer, Richard W; Johnson, James S (2019). "History of U.S. Respirator Approval (Continued) Particulate Respirators". J Int Soc Respir Prot. 36 (2): 37–55. PMC 7307331. PMID 32572305.
  13. ↑ A Performance Evaluation of DM and DFM Filter Respirators Certified for Protection Against Toxic Dusts, Fumes, and Mists WORKING DRAFT. CDC NIOSH. 1992. pp. 62–63.
  14. ↑ "...the lead oxide fume particulate load into a respirator filter is quite large and causes significant plugging of the filter..."[S4]
  15. ↑ "Dust, Mist (DM) respirators are labeled as "permissible respirator for dusts and mists or approved for respiratory protection against dust and mists having a time-weighted average not less than 0.05 milligram per cubic meter or 2 million particles per cubic foot".[ND3]
  16. ↑ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
  17. ↑ A Performance Evaluation of DM and DFM Filter Respirators Certified for Protection Against Toxic Dusts, Fumes, and Mists WORKING DRAFT. CDC NIOSH. 1992. pp. 62–63.
  18. ↑ "...the lead oxide fume particulate load into a respirator filter is quite large and causes significant plugging of the filter..."[S4]
  19. ↑ "Dust, Mist (DM) respirators are labeled as "permissible respirator for dusts and mists or approved for respiratory protection against dust and mists having a time-weighted average not less than 0.05 milligram per cubic meter or 2 million particles per cubic foot".[ND3]
  20. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  21. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  22. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  23. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  24. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  25. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  26. ↑ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  27. ↑ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  28. 1 2 Andriewsky 2015, p. 21: "On 28 November 2006, the Parliament of Ukraine, with the president's support and in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, voted to recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932–33 as a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people ("Zakon Ukrainy pro Holodomor"). A vigorous international campaign was subsequently initiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and other governments do the same."
  29. 1 2 3 4 "ZAKON UKRAYINY: Pro Holodomor 1932–1933 rokiv v Ukrayini" ЗАКОН УКРАЇНИ: Про Голодомор 1932–1933 років в Україні [LAW OF UKRAINE: About the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine]. rada.gov.ua (in Ukrainian). 28 November 2006. Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 6 May 2015.
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 "International Recognition of the Holodomor". Holodomor Education. Archived from the original on 31 December 2015. Retrieved 26 December 2015.
  31. ↑ "Romania and Belarus' opposition recognized Holodomor as a genocide of Ukrainians". The New Voice of Ukraine. Yahoo! News. 24 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  32. ↑ Pianigiani, Gaia (23 November 2022). "Pope Francis compares Russia's war against Ukraine to a devastating Stalin-era famine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 24 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  33. ↑ "Belgium's House of Representatives recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainians". Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
  34. ↑ "Bulgarian parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". The Kyiv Independent. 1 February 2023. Archived from the original on 30 May 2023. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
  35. ↑ "Bulgaria's National Assembly declares the Holodomor In Ukraine a genocide". 1 February 2023. Archived from the original on 3 February 2023. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
  36. 1 2 "Croatian government supports recognition of Holodomor as genocide". Kyiv Independent. 15 June 2023. Archived from the original on 30 June 2023. Retrieved 15 June 2023.
  37. ↑ Thomas, Mark (28 June 2023). "Croatian Parliament Unanimously Recognizes Holodomor as Genocide against the Ukrainian People". Dubrovnik Times. Archived from the original on 1 July 2023.
  38. ↑ "The Czech Republic recognized the Holodomor of 1932–1933 as genocide in Ukraine". Archived from the original on 25 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  39. ↑ "Riigikogu 20. oktoobri 1993. a avaldus" [Statement by Riigikogu on 20 October 1993] (in Estonian). 20 October 1993. Retrieved 28 July 2023.
  40. 1 2 "France recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians". The Kyiv Independent. 28 March 2023. Archived from the original on 29 March 2023. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
  41. ↑ "Reconnaissance et condamnation de la grande famine de 1932–1933, connue sous le nom d'Holodomor, comme génocide" [Recognition and condemnation of the great famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor, as genocide]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 30 March 2023.
  42. ↑ "French Senate recognizes 1932–1933 Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrinform. 17 May 2023. Archived from the original on 21 May 2023.
  43. ↑ Sitnikova, Iryna (30 November 2022). "Німеччина визнала Голодомор геноцидом українського народу" [Germany recognized the Holodomor with the genocide of the Ukrainian people] (in Ukrainian). Archived from the original on 30 November 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
  44. ↑ "Segja hungursneyð í Úkraínu hafa verið hópmorð" [Say the famine in Ukraine was mass murder]. Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). 23 March 2023. Retrieved 23 March 2023.
  45. ↑ "Iceland recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians". The Kyiv Independent. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
  46. ↑ "Iceland recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". 23 March 2023. Archived from the original on 30 May 2023. Retrieved 23 March 2023.
  47. ↑ "Italian Senate recognizes Holodomor as genocide". The Kyiv Independent. 26 July 2023. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
  48. ↑ "Luxembourg's parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians". Ukrinform. 14 June 2023. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023.
  49. ↑ "Luxembourg Parliament recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". MSN. Ukrainska Pravda. 13 June 2023. Archived from the original on 14 July 2023.
  50. ↑ "Romania, Moldova, Ireland recognize Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". 24 November 2022. Archived from the original on 21 December 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
  51. ↑ "Dutch House of Representatives recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrainska Pravda. 7 July 2023. Archived from the original on 7 July 2023.
  52. ↑ Vaniyan, Roman (7 July 2023). "The Netherlands recognizes Holodomor as a genocide of the Ukrainian people". Ukrainian News. Archived from the original on 7 July 2023. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
  53. ↑ "Parlamento de Portugal reconheceu a Holodomor de 1932–1933 na Ucrânia como Genocídio contra o povo Ucraniano" [Parliament of Portugal recognized the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine as Genocide against the Ukrainian people] (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 1 April 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  54. ↑ "Romania recognizes Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine as genocide". 24 November 2022. Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
  55. 1 2 "Návrh skupiny poslancov Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky na prijatie uznesenia Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky k uznaniu hladomoru na Ukrajine v rokoch 1932–1933 za genocídu (tlač 1734). Hlasovanie o návrhu uznesenia" [Proposal of a group of deputies of the National Council of the Slovak Republic to adopt a resolution of the National Council of the Slovak Republic to recognize the famine in Ukraine in the years 1932–1933 as genocide (print 1734). Voting on the draft resolution]. National Council of the Slovak Republic website (in Slovak). 20 June 2023. Retrieved 2 July 2023.
  56. ↑ "Slovakian parliament recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrainska Pravda. 20 June 2023. Archived from the original on 29 June 2023. Retrieved 20 June 2023.
  57. ↑ Angleški, S. T. A. (23 May 2023). "Slovenia recognizes Holodomor as genocide". Slovenia Times. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2023.
  58. ↑ "Slovenija gladomor priznala za genocid, Zelenski se zahvaljuje poslancem" [Slovenia recognized the famine as genocide, Zelenski thanks the MPs]. 24ur.com (in Slovenian). 23 May 2023. Archived from the original on 29 May 2023. Retrieved 23 May 2023.
  59. ↑ "Swiss House of Representatives recognises Holodomor famine as genocide". SwissInfo. 24 September 2024.
  60. ↑ "Ukrainian Holodomor: Debated on Thursday 25 May 2023". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 25 May 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
  61. ↑ "The Parliament of Wales recognized the Holodomor as genocide of the Ukrainian people". European Pravda. Retrieved 25 October 2023.
  62. ↑
  63. 1 2
  64. ↑ "Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine". skrobach.com. 2007. Archived from the original on 30 June 2007.
  65. ↑ "The upper house of the Brazilian parliament has recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide". Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  66. ↑ "Aprovado reconhecimento do Holodomor como genocídio contra ucranianos" [Approved recognition of Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians]. Senado Federal (in Brazilian Portuguese). Archived from the original on 3 May 2022. Retrieved 14 December 2022.
  67. ↑
  68. ↑ "European Parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". Ukrinform. Archived from the original on 24 December 2022. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
  69. 1 2 Dahm, Julia (15 December 2022). "EU parliament votes to recognise 'Holodomor' famine as genocide". Euractiv. Archived from the original on 15 December 2022. Retrieved 20 December 2022.
  70. ↑ "PACE recognises Holodomor as genocide". Ukrainska Pravda. 12 October 2023.
  71. ↑ "O priznanii Golodomora 1932 — 1933 godov v Ukraine aktom genotsida ukrainskogo naroda" О признании Голодомора 1932 — 1933 годов в Украине актом геноцида украинского народа [On the Recognition of the Holodomor]. chechen-government.com (in Russian). Retrieved 19 April 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  72. ↑ The New Voice of Ukraine (18 October 2022). "Ukraine recognizes the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Yahoo! News.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  73. ↑ "Romania and Belarus' opposition recognized Holodomor as a genocide of Ukrainians". The New Voice of Ukraine. Yahoo! News. 24 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  74. ↑ Pianigiani, Gaia (23 November 2022). "Pope Francis compares Russia's war against Ukraine to a devastating Stalin-era famine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 24 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  75. ↑ "Belgium's House of Representatives recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainians". Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
  76. ↑ "Bulgarian parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". The Kyiv Independent. 1 February 2023. Archived from the original on 30 May 2023. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
  77. ↑ "Bulgaria's National Assembly declares the Holodomor In Ukraine a genocide". 1 February 2023. Archived from the original on 3 February 2023. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
  78. ↑ Thomas, Mark (28 June 2023). "Croatian Parliament Unanimously Recognizes Holodomor as Genocide against the Ukrainian People". Dubrovnik Times. Archived from the original on 1 July 2023.
  79. ↑ "The Czech Republic recognized the Holodomor of 1932–1933 as genocide in Ukraine". Archived from the original on 25 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  80. ↑ "Riigikogu 20. oktoobri 1993. a avaldus" [Statement by Riigikogu on 20 October 1993] (in Estonian). 20 October 1993. Retrieved 28 July 2023.
  81. ↑ "Reconnaissance et condamnation de la grande famine de 1932–1933, connue sous le nom d'Holodomor, comme génocide" [Recognition and condemnation of the great famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor, as genocide]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 30 March 2023.
  82. ↑ "French Senate recognizes 1932–1933 Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrinform. 17 May 2023. Archived from the original on 21 May 2023.
  83. ↑ Sitnikova, Iryna (30 November 2022). "Німеччина визнала Голодомор геноцидом українського народу" [Germany recognized the Holodomor with the genocide of the Ukrainian people] (in Ukrainian). Archived from the original on 30 November 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
  84. ↑ "Segja hungursneyð í Úkraínu hafa verið hópmorð" [Say the famine in Ukraine was mass murder]. Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). 23 March 2023. Retrieved 23 March 2023.
  85. ↑ "Iceland recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians". The Kyiv Independent. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 28 March 2023.
  86. ↑ "Iceland recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". 23 March 2023. Archived from the original on 30 May 2023. Retrieved 23 March 2023.
  87. ↑ "Italian Senate recognizes Holodomor as genocide". The Kyiv Independent. 26 July 2023. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
  88. ↑ "Luxembourg's parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians". Ukrinform. 14 June 2023. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023.
  89. ↑ "Luxembourg Parliament recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". MSN. Ukrainska Pravda. 13 June 2023. Archived from the original on 14 July 2023.
  90. ↑ "Romania, Moldova, Ireland recognize Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". 24 November 2022. Archived from the original on 21 December 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
  91. ↑ "Dutch House of Representatives recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrainska Pravda. 7 July 2023. Archived from the original on 7 July 2023.
  92. ↑ Vaniyan, Roman (7 July 2023). "The Netherlands recognizes Holodomor as a genocide of the Ukrainian people". Ukrainian News. Archived from the original on 7 July 2023. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
  93. ↑ "Parlamento de Portugal reconheceu a Holodomor de 1932–1933 na Ucrânia como Genocídio contra o povo Ucraniano" [Parliament of Portugal recognized the Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine as Genocide against the Ukrainian people] (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 1 April 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  94. ↑ "Romania recognizes Holodomor of 1932–1933 in Ukraine as genocide". 24 November 2022. Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
  95. ↑ "Slovakian parliament recognises Holodomor as genocide of Ukrainian people". Ukrainska Pravda. 20 June 2023. Archived from the original on 29 June 2023. Retrieved 20 June 2023.
  96. ↑ Angleški, S. T. A. (23 May 2023). "Slovenia recognizes Holodomor as genocide". Slovenia Times. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2023.
  97. ↑ "Slovenija gladomor priznala za genocid, Zelenski se zahvaljuje poslancem" [Slovenia recognized the famine as genocide, Zelenski thanks the MPs]. 24ur.com (in Slovenian). 23 May 2023. Archived from the original on 29 May 2023. Retrieved 23 May 2023.
  98. ↑ "Swiss House of Representatives recognises Holodomor famine as genocide". SwissInfo. 24 September 2024.
  99. ↑ "Ukrainian Holodomor: Debated on Thursday 25 May 2023". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 25 May 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
  100. ↑ "The Parliament of Wales recognized the Holodomor as genocide of the Ukrainian people". European Pravda. Retrieved 25 October 2023.
  101. ↑
  102. ↑ "Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine". skrobach.com. 2007. Archived from the original on 30 June 2007.
  103. ↑ "The upper house of the Brazilian parliament has recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide". Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  104. ↑ "Aprovado reconhecimento do Holodomor como genocídio contra ucranianos" [Approved recognition of Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians]. Senado Federal (in Brazilian Portuguese). Archived from the original on 3 May 2022. Retrieved 14 December 2022.
  105. ↑
  106. ↑ "European Parliament recognizes Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainian people". Ukrinform. Archived from the original on 24 December 2022. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
  107. ↑ "PACE recognises Holodomor as genocide". Ukrainska Pravda. 12 October 2023.
  108. ↑ "O priznanii Golodomora 1932 — 1933 godov v Ukraine aktom genotsida ukrainskogo naroda" О признании Голодомора 1932 — 1933 годов в Украине актом геноцида украинского народа [On the Recognition of the Holodomor]. chechen-government.com (in Russian). Retrieved 19 April 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  109. ↑ The New Voice of Ukraine (18 October 2022). "Ukraine recognizes the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". Yahoo! News.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  110. ↑ "Respirator Trusted-Source Information Section 1: NIOSH-Approved Respirators". The National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. January 29, 2018. Archived from the original on 16 June 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  111. ↑ "OSHA Technical Manual Section 8VII: Chapter 2 Respiratory Protection Appendix 2-4". OSHA (TED 01-00-015 ed.). Archived from the original on 28 September 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  112. 1 2 "TB Respiratory Protection Program In Health Care Facilities Administrator's Guide" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. September 1999. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB99143. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 October 2022. Retrieved 14 June 2024.
  113. 1 2 "NIOSH Pocket Guide - Asbestos". CDC. Archived from the original on 20 June 2024. Retrieved 20 June 2024.
  114. 1 2 Herring Jr., Ronald N. (1997). "42 CFR Part 84: It's time to change respirators... but how?". Engineer's Digest. pp. 14–23.
  115. 1 2 "Considerations for Optimizing the Supply of Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs)". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020-04-19. Archived from the original on 6 January 2023. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
  116. ↑ Vanessa, Roberts (Fall 2014). "To PAPR or Not to PAPR?". Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy. 50 (3): 87–90. PMC 4456839. PMID 26078617.
  117. ↑ "Understanding Respiratory Protection Against SARS". U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2020-04-09. Archived from the original on 6 December 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
  118. ↑ Lee, Byung Uk; Yermakov, Mikhail; Grinshpun, Sergey A. (2005). "Filtering Efficiency of N95- and R95-Type Facepiece Respirators, Dust-Mist Facepiece Respirators, and Surgical Masks Operating in Unipolarly Ionized Indoor Air Environments" (PDF). Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 5 (1): 25–38. doi:10.4209/aaqr.2005.06.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.
  119. ↑ "Respirator Trusted-Source Information Section 1: NIOSH-Approved Respirators". The National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. January 29, 2018. Archived from the original on 16 June 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  120. ↑ "OSHA Technical Manual Section 8VII: Chapter 2 Respiratory Protection Appendix 2-4". OSHA (TED 01-00-015 ed.). Archived from the original on 28 September 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  121. ↑ Vanessa, Roberts (Fall 2014). "To PAPR or Not to PAPR?". Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy. 50 (3): 87–90. PMC 4456839. PMID 26078617.
  122. ↑ "Understanding Respiratory Protection Against SARS". U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2020-04-09. Archived from the original on 6 December 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
  123. ↑ Lee, Byung Uk; Yermakov, Mikhail; Grinshpun, Sergey A. (2005). "Filtering Efficiency of N95- and R95-Type Facepiece Respirators, Dust-Mist Facepiece Respirators, and Surgical Masks Operating in Unipolarly Ionized Indoor Air Environments" (PDF). Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 5 (1): 25–38. doi:10.4209/aaqr.2005.06.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.
  124. ↑ Mackey, Katherine (2004). "Over Breathing a Loose-Fitting PAPR". Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection. 22. doi:10.3320/1.2758117.
  125. ↑
  126. ↑
  127. ↑ Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  128. 1 2 Heilbron, J. L.; et al. (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–x. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. ...modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions.
  129. 1 2 Colander, David C.; Hunt, Elgin F. (2019). "Social science and its methods". Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society (17th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
  130. 1 2 Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (16 October 2020). "Social Science". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  131. 1 2 Bishop, Alan (1991). "Environmental activities and mathematical culture". Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-7923-1270-3. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
  132. ↑ Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  133. 1 2 Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of computer-based systems". Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines. Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
  134. ↑ Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  135. ↑ Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  136. ↑ Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  137. 1 2 Bunge, M. (1966). "Technology as Applied Science". In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_2. ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5. S2CID 110332727.
  138. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lindberg, David C. (2007). The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  139. 1 2 3 4 Grant, Edward (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  140. ↑ Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  141. ↑ Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  142. ↑ Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  143. ↑ Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  144. ↑ Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  145. ↑ Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  146. ↑ Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  147. ↑ MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  148. ↑ Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  149. ↑ de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  150. ↑ Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  151. ↑ Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  152. ↑ Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  153. ↑ Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  154. ↑ Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  155. ↑ Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  156. ↑ Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  157. ↑ Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  158. ↑ Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  159. ↑ Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  160. ↑ Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  161. ↑ Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  162. ↑ Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  163. ↑ MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  164. ↑ Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  165. ↑ de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  166. ↑ Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  167. ↑ "ASLV". Archived from the original on 27 December 2014. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
  168. 1 2 3 4 "Space Launch Vehicles - ASLV". Archived from the original on 2009-08-29. Retrieved 2009-07-19.
  169. 1 2 Menon, Amarnath (15 April 1987). "Setback in the sky". India Today. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
  170. 1 2 3 4 "ASLV". Archived from the original on June 28, 2002.
  171. ↑ "ASLV". Archived from the original on 27 December 2014. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
  172. 1 2 Jaschik, Scott (April 11, 2022). "'Breaking Ranks' is a new book that attacks 'U.S. News'". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 7 May 2022.
  173. 1 2 Elsen-Rooney, Michael (2022-03-06). "Columbia math professor questions numbers behind university's #2 ranking on U.S. News list". nydailynews.com. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  174. 1 2 Lukpat, Alyssa (2021-11-30). "Former Temple U. Dean Found Guilty of Faking Data for National Rankings". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  175. 1 2 Jaschik, Scott (2019-05-28). "University of Oklahoma stripped of 'U.S. News' ranking for supplying false information". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  176. 1 2 Jaschik, Scott (2018-02-19). "False 'U.S. News' rankings data discovered for three more universities". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  177. 1 2 Breslow, Samuel (26 September 2014). "The Case Against Being (Ranked) the Best". The Student Life. Archived from the original on 25 February 2017. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  178. 1 2 Strauss, Valerie (2018-09-12). "U.S. News changed the way it ranks colleges. It's still ridiculous". The Washington Post. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  179. 1 2 Jaschik, Scott (10 September 2018). "'U.S. News' says it has shifted rankings to focus on social mobility, but has it?". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  180. 1 2 Gladwell, Malcolm (7 February 2011). "The Trouble with College Rankings". The New Yorker. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Excerpt/testcases3&oldid=1281988038"