Template:Excerpt/testcases3
 | This is the template test cases page for the sandbox of Template:Excerpt. to update the examples. If there are many examples of a complicated template, later ones may break due to limits in MediaWiki; see the HTML comment "NewPP limit report" in the rendered page. You can also use Special:ExpandTemplates to examine the results of template uses. You can test how this page looks in the different skins and parsers with these links: |
Sections
[edit]| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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] |
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] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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] |
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] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
  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.Cite error: There are 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][1] 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%.[2] LANL noted that lead fume would plug the tested filters, increasing the apparent filtration efficiency of the filter.[3]
|
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.Cite error: There are 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][1] 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%.[2] LANL noted that lead fume would plug the tested filters, increasing the apparent filtration efficiency of the filter.[3]
|
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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] |
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] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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] |
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] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
 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.[1] The governments of various countries have issued statements recognizing the Holodomor as genocide including Ukraine since 2006,[2] and 13 other countries as of 2015[update].[3] In November 2022, the Belarusian opposition in exile recognised the Holodomor as a genocide,[4] 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.[5] As of October 2023[update], 34 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. Countries whose legislatures have 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. |
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.[1] The governments of various countries have issued statements recognizing the Holodomor as genocide including Ukraine since 2006,[2] and 13 other countries as of 2015[update].[3] In November 2022, the Belarusian opposition in exile recognised the Holodomor as a genocide,[4] 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.[5] As of October 2023[update], 34 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. Countries whose legislatures have 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}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
  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][1][N2] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[2]
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.
All respirator types are permitted for TB.[3][C1] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[4][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.[5] 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.[6][7][8] 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.[9] 2020 powered air-purifying respirator update[edit] Template loop detected: Template:Excerpt |
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][1][N2] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[2]
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.
All respirator types are permitted for TB.[3][C1] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[4][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.[5] 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.[6][7][8] 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.[9] 2020 powered air-purifying respirator update[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]
The following table lists the ratings for particulate ratings for Part 84 PAPRs.[CF2] PAPR100 ratings were added in 2020.[CF3]
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.[10] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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:
Pretty stale but not "concluded":
Concluded[edit]
|
Current[edit](newest on top)
Other discussions:
Pretty stale but not "concluded":
Concluded[edit]
|
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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)
|
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)
|
Files
[edit]| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
_2014-04-10.JPG?lang=en) |
|
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; and the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies.[4][5] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[6][7][8] While sometimes referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science (which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules)[9][10] are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[11][12][13][14] 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, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India.[15]: 12 [16][17][18] Scientific research deteriorated in these regions after the fall of the Western Roman Empire during the Early Middle Ages (400–1000 CE), but in the Medieval renaissances (Carolingian Renaissance, Ottonian Renaissance and the Renaissance of the 12th century) scholarship flourished again. Some Greek manuscripts lost in Western Europe were preserved and expanded upon in the Middle East during the Islamic Golden Age,[19] Later, Byzantine Greek scholars contributed to their transmission by bringing Greek manuscripts from the declining Byzantine Empire to Western Europe at the beginning of the Renaissance. The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th centuries revived natural philosophy,[20][21][22] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[23] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[24][25] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and in the 19th century many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[26][27] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[28] New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[29][30] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[31] government agencies,[19] and companies.[32] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritising the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection. |
Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; and the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies.[4][5] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[6][7][8] While sometimes referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science (which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules)[9][10] are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[11][12][13][14] 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, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India.[15]: 12 [16][17][18] Scientific research deteriorated in these regions after the fall of the Western Roman Empire during the Early Middle Ages (400–1000 CE), but in the Medieval renaissances (Carolingian Renaissance, Ottonian Renaissance and the Renaissance of the 12th century) scholarship flourished again. Some Greek manuscripts lost in Western Europe were preserved and expanded upon in the Middle East during the Islamic Golden Age,[19] Later, Byzantine Greek scholars contributed to their transmission by bringing Greek manuscripts from the declining Byzantine Empire to Western Europe at the beginning of the Renaissance. The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th centuries revived natural philosophy,[20][21][22] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[23] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[24][25] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and in the 19th century many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[26][27] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[28] New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[29][30] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[31] government agencies,[19] and companies.[32] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritising the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection. |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle or Advanced Satellite Launch Vehicle (also known as ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[1] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[2][3] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[4] 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.[2] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[4] |
The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle or Advanced Satellite Launch Vehicle (also known as ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[1] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[2][3] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[4] 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.[2] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[4] |
| {{Excerpt}} | {{Excerpt/sandbox}} |
|---|---|
|
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.[1] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[2][3][4][5] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[6] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[7] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[8] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[9] In 2022, Columbia University was lowered from second to 18th in the rankings[10] after a report by Columbia University mathematics professor Michael Thaddeus, which revealed that Columbia University misreported data to U.S. News & World Report. The remaining "national universities" were not renumbered.[11] |
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.[1] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[2][3][4][5] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[6] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[7] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[8] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[9] In 2022, Columbia University was lowered from second to 18th in the rankings[10] after a report by Columbia University mathematics professor Michael Thaddeus, which revealed that Columbia University misreported data to U.S. News & World Report. The remaining "national universities" were not renumbered.[11] |
Notes
[edit]- ^ a b c d See the United Nations for a list of resolutions with references.
- ^ See United Nations section for details and references.
- ^ 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.
- ^ See Council of Europe for details and references.
- ^ For details on recognition, see National recognition.
- ^ a b Referenced are a list of nations which were co-author sponsors of the United Nations Declaration on 85th anniversary of Holodomor.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Nation has signed the United Nations Declaration on the Eighty-Fifth Anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.
- ^ See United Nations section for details and references.
- ^ 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.
- ^ See Council of Europe for details and references.
- ^ For details on recognition, see National recognition.