document_title: Two-nation theory

question_text: who said india is not one but two nation

text: Two-nation theory

text: History[edit]

text: In general, the British-run government and British commentators made "it a point of speaking of Indians as the people of India and avoid speaking of an Indian nation."[16] This was cited as a key reason for British control of the country: since Indians were not a nation, they were not capable of national self-government.[17] While some Indian leaders insisted that Indians were one nation, others agreed that Indians were not yet a nation but there was "no reason why in the course of time they should not grow into a nation."[16]

text: Similar debates on national identity existed within India at the linguistic, provincial and religious levels. While some argued that Indian Muslims were one nation, others argued they were not. Some, such as Liaquat Ali Khan (later prime minister of Pakistan) argued that Indian Muslims were not yet a nation, but could be forged into one.[16]

text: According to the Pakistan studies curriculum[which?], Muhammad bin Qasim is often referred to as the first Pakistani.[18] While Prakash K. Singh attributes the arrival of Muhammad bin Qasim as the first step towards the creation of Pakistan.[19] Muhammad Ali Jinnah considered the Pakistan movement to have started when the first Muslim put a foot in the Gateway of Islam.[20][unreliable source?]

text: Start of Muslim self-awakening and identity movement (19th century–1940s)[edit]

text: The movement for Muslim self-awakening and identity was started by the Muslim modernist and reformer Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–1898). Many Pakistanis describe him as the architect of the two-nation theory.

text: The poet philosopher Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938) provided the philosophical exposition and Barrister Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1871–1948) translated it into the political reality of a nation-state.[21][page needed] Allama Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League on 29 December 1930 is seen by some as the first exposition of the two-nation theory in support of what would ultimately become Pakistan.[21][page needed]

text: The scholar Al-Biruni (973–1048) had observed, at the beginning of the eleventh century, that Hindus and Muslims differed in all matters and habits.[21][page needed] On 23 March 1940, Jinnah made a speech in Lahore which was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature, with no intermarriage and based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life was different and despite 1000 years of history, the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality.[21][page needed]

text: In 1948, Jinnah said:

text: Islam has taught us this and I think you will agree with me, for whatever you may be and wherever you are, you are a Muslim. You belong to a nation now. You have carved out a territory, a vast territory, it is all yours; it does not belong to a Punjabi or a Sindhi or a Pathan or a Bengali, it is yours.

text: The All-India Muslim League, in attempting to represent Indian Muslims, felt that the Muslims of the subcontinent were a distinct and separate nation from the Hindus. At first they demanded separate electorates, but when they came to the conclusion that Muslims would not be safe in a Hindu-dominated India, they began to demand a separate state. The League demanded self-determination for Muslim-majority areas in the form of a sovereign state promising minorities equal rights and safeguards in these Muslim majority areas.[21][page needed]

text: Aspects of the theory[edit]

text: The theory asserted that India was not a nation. It also asserted that  Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were each a nation, despite great variations in language, culture and ethnicity within each of those groups.[22] To counter critics who said that a community of radically varying ethnicities and languages who were territorially intertwined with other communities could not be a nation, the theory said that the concept of nation in the East was different from that in the West. In the East, religion was "a complete social order which affects all the activities in life" and "where the allegiance of people is divided on the basis of religion, the idea of territorial nationalism has never succeeded."[23][24]

text: It asserted that "a Muslim of one country has far more sympathies with a Muslim living in another country than with a non-Muslim living in the same country."[23] Therefore, "the conception of Indian Muslims as a nation may not be ethnically correct, but socially it is correct."[24]

text: Muhammad Iqbal had also championed the notion of pan-Islamic nationhood (see: Ummah) and strongly condemned the concept of a territory-based nation as anti-Islamic: "In tāzah xudā'ōⁿ mēⁿ, baṙā sab sē; waṭan hai: Jō pairahan is kā hai; woh maẕhab kā, kafan hai... (Of all these new [false] gods, the biggest; is the motherland (waṭan): Its garment; is [actually] the death-shroud, of religion...)"[25] He had stated the dissolution of ethnic nationalities into a unified Muslim society (or millat) as the ultimate goal: "Butān-e raⁿŋg ō-xūⁿ kō tōṙ kar millat mēⁿ gum hō jā; Nah Tūrānī rahē bāqī, nah Īrānī, nah Afġānī (Destroy the idols of color and blood ties, and merge into the Muslim society; Let no Turanians remain, neither Iranians, nor Afghans)".[26]

text: Pakistan, or The Partition of India (1945)[edit]

text: In his 1945 book Pakistan, or The Partition of India, Indian statesman and Buddhist Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar wrote a sub-chapter titled "If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted". He asserted that, if the Muslims were bent on the creation of Pakistan, the demand should be conceded in the interest of the safety of India. He asks whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India in the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion. "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?" he questioned. According to him, the assumption that Hindus and Muslims could live under one state if they were distinct nations was but "an empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree".[27]

text: Justifications by Muslim leaders[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Muhammad Iqbal's statement explaining the attitude of Muslim delegates to the London round-table conference issued in December 1933 was a rejoinder to Jawaharlal Nehru's statement. Nehru had said that the attitude of the Muslim delegation was based on "reactionarism". Iqbal concluded his rejoinder with:

text: In conclusion, I must put a straight question to Pandit Jawaharlal, how is India's problem to be solved if the majority community will neither concede the minimum safeguards necessary for the protection of a minority of 80 million people, nor accept the award of a third party; but continue to talk of a kind of nationalism which works out only to its own benefit? This position can admit of only two alternatives. Either the Indian majority community will have to accept for itself the permanent position of an agent of British imperialism in the East, or the country will have to be redistributed on a basis of religious, historical and cultural affinities so as to do away with the question of electorates and the communal problem in its present form.

text: In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on 22 March 1940, he explained:

text: It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.

text: In 1944, Jinnah said:

text: We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life.

text: In an interview with the British journalist Beverley Nichols, he said in 1943:

text: Islam is not only a religious doctrine but also a realistic code of conduct in terms of every day and everything important in life: our history, our laws and our jurisprudence. In all these things, our outlook is not only fundamentally different but also opposed to Hindus. There is nothing in life that links us together. Our names, clothes, food, festivals, and rituals, all are different. Our economic life, our educational ideas, treatment of women, attitude towards animals, and humanitarian considerations, all are very different.

text: In May 1947, he had an entirely different emphasis when he told Mountbatten, who was in charge of British India's transition to independence:

text: Your Excellency doesn't understand that the Punjab is a nation. Bengal is a nation. A man is a Punjabi or a Bengali first before he is a Hindu or a Muslim. If you give us those provinces you must, under no condition, partition them. You will destroy their viability and cause endless bloodshed and trouble.

text: Mountbatten replied:

text: Yes, of course. A man is not only a Punjabi or a Bengali before he is a Muslim or Hindu, but he is an Indian before all else. What you're saying is the perfect, absolute answer I've been looking for. You've presented me the arguments to keep India united.

text: Savarkar's ideas on "two nations"[edit]

text: The Hindu Maha Sabha under the presidency of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, discussed the idea of Hindus and Muslims being two separate nations 16 years before Jinnah did.[30][31][32]

text: However, Savarkar's idea of "two nations" did not translate into two separate countries. B. R. Ambedkar summarised Savarkar's position thus:

text: Mr. Savarkar... insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution;... In the struggle for political power between the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims, such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population.[27]

text: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's opposition to the partition of India[edit]

text: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as "Frontier Gandhi" or "Sarhadi Gandhi", was not convinced by the two-nation theory and wanted a single united India as home for both Hindus and Muslims. He was from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, in present-day Pakistan. He believed that the partition would be harmful to the Muslims of the subcontinent. Post partition, Ghaffar Khan was a strong advocate of the Pashtunistan movement.

text: Gandhi's View[edit]

text: Gandhi was against the division of India on the basis of religion. He once wrote:

text: I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from the parent stock.[33][34][35][36][37]

text: View of the Ulama[edit]

text: The two nation theory was opposed by the Deobandi scholars, a departure from the position of their predecessors Shah Waliullah, Syed Ahmed and Muhammad Ismail. The principal of Darul Ulum Deoband, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, not only opposed the two nation theory but sought to redefine Indian Muslim nationhood. He advocated Indian nationalism, believing that nations in modern times were formed on the basis of land, culture, and history.[38]  He and other leading Deobandi ulama endorsed territorial nationalism, arguing that Islam permitted it.[39] Despite opposition from most Deobandi scholars, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi instead opted to justify the two nation theory and concept of Pakistan.[40][41] Likewise, the Barelwi ulama supporting the Muslim League and its Pakistan demand, argued that befriending 'unbelievers' was forbidden in Islam.[39]

text: Post-partition debate[edit]

text: Since the partition, the theory has been subjected to animated debates and different interpretations on several grounds. In his memoirs entitled Pathway to Pakistan (1961), Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the first president of the Pakistan Muslim League, has written: "The two-nation theory, which we had used in the fight for Pakistan, had created not only bad blood against the Muslims of the minority provinces, but also an ideological wedge, between them and the Hindus of India.".[42] He further wrote: "He (Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy) doubted the utility of the two-nation theory, which to my mind also had never paid any dividends to us, but after the partition, it proved positively injurious to the Muslims of India, and on a long-view basis for Muslims everywhere."[43]

text: According to Khaliquzzaman, on 1 August 1947, Jinnah invited the Muslim League members of India's constituent assembly to a farewell meeting at his Delhi house.

text: Mr. Rizwanullah put some awkward questions concerning the position of Muslims, who would be left over in India, their status and their future. I had never before found Mr. Jinnah so disconcerted as on that occasion, probably because he was realizing then quite vividly what was immediately in store for the Muslims. Finding the situation awkward, I asked my friends and colleagues to the end the discussion. I believe as a result of our farewell meeting, Mr. Jinnah took the earliest opportunity to bid goodbye to his two-nation theory in his speech on 11 August 1947 as the governor general-designate and President of the constituent assembly of Pakistan.

text: In his 11 August 1947 speech, Jinnah had spoken of composite Pakistani nationalism, effectively negating the faith-based nationalism that he had advocated in his speech of 22 March 1940. In his 11 August speech, he said that non-Muslims would be equal citizens of Pakistan and that there would be no discrimination against them. "You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state."

text: The theory has faced scepticism because Muslims did not entirely separate from Hindus and about one-third of all Muslims continued to live in post-partition India as Indian citizens alongside a much larger Hindu majority.[45][46] The subsequent partition of Pakistan itself into the present-day nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh was cited as proof both that Muslims did not constitute one nation and that religion alone was not a defining factor for nationhood.[45][46][47][48][49]

text: Some historians have claimed that the theory was a creation of a few Muslim intellectuals.[50] Prominent Pakistani politician Altaf Hussain of Muttahida Qaumi Movement believes history has proved the two-nation theory wrong.[51] He contended, "The idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims (in Muslim-minority areas of India) chose to stay back after partition, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971".[52] Canadian writer Tarek Fatah termed the two-nation theory as "absurd".[53]

text: Ethnic and provincial groups in Pakistan[edit]

text: Several ethnic and provincial leaders in Pakistan also began to use the term "nation" to describe their provinces and argued that their very existence was threatened by the concept of amalgamation into a Pakistani nation on the basis that Muslims were one nation.[54][55] It has also been alleged that the idea that Islam is the basis of nationhood embroils Pakistan too deeply in the affairs of other predominantly Muslim states and regions, prevents the emergence of a unique sense of Pakistani nationhood that is independent of reference to India, and encourages the growth of a fundamentalist culture in the country.[56][57][58]

text: Also, because partition divided Indian Muslims into three groups (of roughly 150 million people each in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) instead of forming a single community inside a united India that would have numbered about 450 million people in 2010 and potentially exercised great influence over the entire subcontinent, the two-nation theory is sometimes alleged to have ultimately weakened the position of Muslims on the subcontinent and resulted in large-scale territorial shrinkage or skewing for cultural aspects that became associated with Muslims (e.g., the decline of Urdu language in India).[59][60]

text: This criticism has received a mixed response in Pakistan. A poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan in 2011 shows that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis held the view that separation from India was justified in 1947.[61] Pakistani commentators have contended that two nations did not necessarily imply two states, and the fact that Bangladesh did not merge into India after separating from Pakistan supports the two nation theory.[62][63]

text: Others have stated that the theory is still valid despite the still-extant Muslim minority in India, and asserted variously that Indian Muslims have been "Hinduized" (i.e., lost much of their Muslim identity due to assimilation into Hindu culture), or that they are treated as an excluded or alien group by an allegedly Hindu-dominated India.[64] Factors such as lower literacy and education levels among Indian Muslims as compared to Indian Hindus, longstanding cultural differences, and outbreaks of religious violence such as those occurring during the 2002 Gujarat riots in India are cited.[2]

text: Pan-Islamic identity[edit]

text: The emergence of a sense of identity that is pan-Islamic rather than Pakistani has been defended as consistent with the founding ideology of Pakistan and the concept that "Islam itself is a nationality," despite the commonly held notion of "nationality, to Muslims, is like idol worship."[65][66] While some have emphasised that promoting the primacy of a pan-Islamic identity (over all other identities) is essential to maintaining a distinctiveness from India and preventing national "collapse", others have argued that the Two Nation Theory has served its purpose in "midwifing" Pakistan into existence and should now be discarded to allow Pakistan to emerge as a normal nation-state.[57][67]

text: Prominent political commentator Irfan Husain, in his column in Dawn, observed that it has now become an "impossible and exceedingly boring task of defending a defunct theory".[68] However some Pakistanis, including a retired Pakistani brigadier, Shaukat Qadir, believe that the theory could only be disproved with the reunification of independent Bangladesh, and Republic of India.[63]

text: According to Sharif al Mujahid, arguably the preeminent authority on Jinnah in Pakistan, the two-nation theory was relevant only in the pre-1947 subcontinental context.[69][full citation needed] He is of the opinion that the creation of Pakistan rendered it obsolete because the two nations had transformed themselves into Indian and Pakistani nations.[70][full citation needed] The columnist Muqtida Mansoor has quoted Farooq Sattar, a prominent leader of the MQM, as saying that his party did not accept the two-nation theory. "Even if there was such a theory, it has sunk in the Bay of Bengal."[71][full citation needed]

text: Post-partition perspectives in India[edit]

text: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In post-independence India, the two-nation theory has helped advance the cause of groups seeking to identify a "Hindu national culture" as the core identification of an Indian.[citation needed] This allows the acknowledgement of the common ethnicity of Hindus and Muslims while requiring that all adopt a Hindu identity to be truly Indian. From the Hindu nationalist perspective, this concedes the ethnic reality that Indian Muslims are "flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood" but still presses for an officially recognized equation of national and religious identity, i.e., that "an Indian is a Hindu."[72]

text: The theory and the very existence of Pakistan has caused Indian far-right extremist groups to allege that Indian Muslims "cannot be loyal citizens of India" or any other non-Muslim nation, and are "always capable and ready to perform traitorous acts".[73][74] Constitutionally, India rejects the two-nation theory and regards Indian Muslims as equal citizens.[75] From the official Indian perspective, the partition is regarded as a tactical necessity to rid the subcontinent of British rule rather than denoting acceptance of the theory.[75][76]


document_title: Rock Dog

question_text: who is the singing voice of bodi in rock dog

root

text: Rock Dog

text: Plot[edit]

text: Bodi (Luke Wilson) is a young Tibetan Mastiff who is expected to be the next guard of the village of Snow Mountain, succeeding his father Khampa (J. K. Simmons) after the latter has driven out a pack of gangster grey wolves led by the villainous Linnux (Lewis Black) years ago, but is sure they will return. Khampa has some of the local sheep dressed up as Mastiffs to give the illusion the village is being guarded by multiple Mastiffs to keep the wolves at bay, but Bodi has trouble perfecting his father's signature move the Iron Paw which projects a powerful blast that as Khampa states can only happen if Bodi "finds the fire." Khampa has also forbade music in the village since Bodi got distracted from his duties when he was younger.

tag: p

text: After a disastrous training session, Bodi accidentally causes a nearby flying plane to drop a package. Among the items that fell out, Bodi becomes interested in a red radio and listens to some of the music on the stations, with his favorite being rock music and idolizes British rock legend Angus Scattergood. Bodi steals a traditional dramyin from a den of locked up instruments, adds additional strings to make it a conventional Western guitar, and begins neglecting his guard duties in favor of playing music, which puts him at odds with his father, especially since Bodi told him that he has decided to be a musician.

text: After Khampa and some of the guard sheep accidentally cause Bodi to unleash a false alarm on the village while dressed as wolves escalating into some fireworks being set off, the village elder Fleetwood Yak (Sam Elliott) convinces Khampa to let Bodi follow his dream and gives him a bus ticket to give to Bodi that will take him to a nearby city. Khampa gives Bodi the ticket, but makes him promise to give up music if his trip doesn't work out and the villagers say goodbye to him after he leaves with his guitar. At the bus station, Bodi is discovered by two of Linnux's henchman, the short and comical Riff (Kenan Thompson) and the tall and silent Skozz. Riff informs Linnux of Bodi's departure and Linnux orders them to kidnap Bodi reasoning that Bodi is his chance to take over Snow Mountain.

text: When Bodi makes to the city, he heads to Rock and Roll Park since it's where Scattergood began his career. He attempts to join a band consisting of the down-to-earth fox Darma (Mae Whitman) and an eccentric goat drummer named Germur (Jorge Garcia), who are the only members and therefore don't have an audience. However, Bodi is humiliated after losing a guitar contest to an arrogant snow leopard guitarist named Trey (Matt Dillon), who is amused with Bodi. Trey, discovering his idolization for Scattergood, manipulates Bodi into convincing Scattergood (Eddie Izzard) to give him some guitar lessons at his mansion, though he knows a little secret about Angus' security set-up. At Scattergood's mansion, he is revealed to be a white Persian cat who wears black sunglasses all the time and has a serious case of songwriter's block as he has three days to unleash a new song or his career will go down. His only companion is his robot butler Ozzie.

text: When Bodi tries to meet Scattergood, the latter is put off by Bodi's fanboy attitude and tries to evade him. Eventually, Bodi and Scattergood get lost in a back alley and Bodi decides to play music at Rock and Roll Park to get money for Scattergood to get back to his mansion. However, Riff and Skozz mistakenly kidnap Scattergood after they see Bodi at the park just when Bodi tries to convince a disbelieving Darma and Germur that he is with Scattergood. After Riff and Skozz realize their mistake, Linnux angrily sends them off to find Bodi again and they drop Scattergood off at his home. After Scattergood thinks that his career is over since he has less than a day to write a new song, he hears Bodi playing on his guitar and decides to use Bodi to create a new song. He invites Bodi into his home with the facade of a "guitar lesson" and together they create a new song called "Glorious".

text: Bodi later realizes that he was used after hearing Scattergood take full credit for the song via a radio, which saddens him. Soon afterward, Bodi finally gets captured by Linnux's henchmen and he accidentally reveals the fake Mastiff guards when Linnux interrogates him for information. Linnux and his gang head off to Snow Mountain while Bodi is put into a boxing match at Linnux's Fight Club, but Bodi cleverly has his opponent break the cage surrounding them so he can escape.

text: Meanwhile, Scattergood, after being guilt-tripped by Ozzie for exploiting Bodi for his own self-serving goals (Ozzie only needed to be recharged), uses his old tour bus to find Bodi and give him his old acoustic guitar with his autograph as a sign of gratitude. At Rock and Roll Park, Scattergood, along with Darma and Germur, discover that Bodi's been captured when they see his guitar covered in tranquilizer darts shot by Linnux's henchmen. Scattergood, with a change of heart, forgoes sending in his new song to rescue Bodi. After meeting with Bodi outside of Linnux's hideout, they take him to Snow Mountain to stop Linnux.

text: Linnux and his gang overpower Khampa and the whole village and attempt to devour the villagers, but Bodi appears. After a climatic chase, Bodi subdues the wolves by "finding the fire" by playing Scattergood's guitar and making the wolves, the villagers, and his friends levitate. Khampa banishes Linnux with his Iron Paw and accepts Bodi's ambition to play rock music.

text: At the city, Scattergood gives full credit of the song "Glorious" to Bodi as Scattergood makes amends with him. Bodi, Darma and Germur form a band as Bodi and his friends (including Darma, Angus and Germur backed by Fleetwood and the sheeps) sing and play "Glorious" to the city, the Snow Mountain villagers, Khampa, and most of the redeemed wolves (including Riff and Skozz) at Linnux's old Fight Palace. Scattergood recommends Bodi's band (along with his band members Darma and Germur) to Ian as Bodi shows the audience his blue energy wave.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Luke Wilson as Bodi,[9] a young Tibetan Mastiff who is eternally optimistic and wants nothing more than to play rock music. Conflicted between his sense of duty at home and pursuing his dream in the city, Bodi is determined to be in a rock band and make his dad proud.
Eddie Izzard[9] as Angus Scattergood, a British Persian cat who is a rock legend suffering from a serious case of songwriter’s block. With enormous pressure from his record label to release a new hit single, he hides away in his grandiose mansion with Ozzie, his robot butler as his only companion.
J. K. Simmons[9] as Khampa, Bodi's father, an elder Tibetan Mastiff who takes his duties as the village guard extremely seriously and despises music. Although he may be too militaristic or overly suspicious of outside threat, he’s motivated by his love for the villagers and his son.
Lewis Black[9] as Linnux, the CEO of Linnux Industries, alpha male wolf of a sinister wolf gang, and club owner of the Fight Palace.
Kenan Thompson[9] as Riff, the smallest henchman with the biggest ego in the wolf pack. He tries to take on jobs bigger than himself just to impress his boss Linnux, but they almost always result in epic failure due to the lack of unity between him and his absentminded partner, Skozz.
Mae Whitman[9] as Darma, a red fox who has been playing her bass guitar at Rock n’ Roll Park for years, knowing that persistence and hardwork will get her somewhere.
Jorge Garcia[9] as Germur, the most mellow goat around that can wail on a drum set like no other. Although he is often forgetful or mentally checked-out, he can get along with just about anybody.
Matt Dillon[9] as Trey, a snow leopard who is arrogant, egotistic and finds pleasure in humiliating any opposition he has. Like the best schoolyard basketball players, his great talent on the electric guitar is overshadowed by his inability to play well with others.
Sam Elliott[9] as Fleetwood Yak, a cool and wise elder yak with many stories to tell. Having left the city life long ago, he has found peace living in Snow Mountain among the happy band of sheep, Bodi, and his old friend Khampa.
Liza Richardson as Radio DJ, she is heard on the radio that plays.
Ash Brannon as Ian, Scattergood's agent who is only heard when he talks to Scattergood on the phone.
Will Finn as Floyd, a sheep barber.

Will Finn also voices Carl, a rabbit.

tag: ul

text: Additional voices provided by Julie Craig, Deng Feng, Kellen Goff, Jennifer Hale, and Matthew W. Taylor.

text: Production[edit]

text: The film was animated by Reel FX, which produced Free Birds (2013) and The Book of Life (2014).[6]

text: The film cost $60 million to make, and thus making it the most expensive Chinese-financed animated productions.[10] Rock Dog is based on a graphic novel, written and illustrated by Chinese rockstar Zheng Jun.[10]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film premiered at the Shanghai International Film Festival, which took place between June 11 and June 19, 2016.[2] It was released in China on July 8, 2016.[6] In the United States, the film was theatrically released on February 24, 2017, by Lionsgate through its Summit Premiere label.[10]

text: Home media[edit]

text: Rock Dog was released on Digital HD on May 9, 2017, and on DVD and Blu-ray on May 23, 2017.[11]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Rock Dog grossed $9.4 million in the United States and $11.4 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $20.8 million, against a production budget of $60 million.[5]

text: In the United States, Rock Dog was released alongside Collide and Get Out, and was expected to gross $6–7 million from 2,077 theaters in its opening weekend.[12] It ended up grossing just $3.7 million, finishing 11th at the box office and marking one of the worst-ever debuts for a film playing in over 2,000 theaters.[13]

text: Earning $5.7 million,[6] the film was a box office failure in China.[14] It was suggested that the largest Chinese theater chain, Wanda Cinema Line, attempted to limit the number of screens the film would be shown on. The film was shown only on seven of Wanda's screens—0.3 percent of all its screens in China. Huayi Bros., the film's production company and an owner of a competing theater chain, poached Wanda's executive Jerry Ye a few months before the film's release and made him CEO of its film division.[6]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 46% based on 52 reviews, with an average rating of 5.3/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Rock Dog is amiable enough, but its second-tier animation and uninspired story add up to a movie whose meager charms are likely to escape all but the youngest and least demanding viewers."[15] On Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average to reviews, the film has a score 48 out of 100, based on 16 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[16] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.[17][18]


document_title: One Day in Your Life (Michael Jackson song)

question_text: who wrote the song one day in your life

question_tokens: who wrote the song one day in your life

text:
"One Day in Your Life"

Single by Michael Jackson

from the album Forever, Michael and One Day in Your Life

B-side
"Take Me Back"

Released
March 25, 1981

Format

7" single
12" single

Recorded
October – December 1974

Genre

Pop
soul
R&B

Length
4:15

Label
Motown Records

Songwriter(s)

Sam Brown III
Renée Armand

Producer(s)
Sam Brown

Michael Jackson singles chronology

"Night Time Lover"
(1980)
"One Day in Your Life"
(1981)
"The Girl Is Mine"
(1982)

"Night Time Lover"
(1980)
"One Day in Your Life"
(1981)
"The Girl Is Mine"
(1982)

Audio sample

file
help

tag: table

text: "One Day in Your Life" is a song recorded by Michael Jackson for his 1975 album, Forever, Michael. Written by Sam Brown III and composed by Renée Armand, it was later released in 1981 as a single off the compilation album One Day in Your Life due to the commercial interest that generated from the sales of Jackson's hit 1979 album Off the Wall, even though Jackson released that album on a different label. Jackson and Whitney Houston rehearsed and were meant to perform the song during the 2001 Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Special concerts, but for unknown reasons the song was not performed.

text: While a modest US hit, it was a bigger hit in the UK, where it became Jackson's first solo recording to hit No. 1 on the UK Singles Chart. It was number one in the UK for two weeks in June and July 1981.[1] It also topped the Irish Singles Chart, and also featured strongly on the South African singles charts. It was released on the Motown label. It went on to become the sixth best-selling single of 1981 in the UK. Robert Christgau called this song a romantic ballad that is as credible on its "own terms as the rockers."[2][3]

text: Charts[edit]

text:
Chart (1981)
Peak
position

Australian Singles Chart
9

Dutch Singles Chart
1

Irish Singles Chart
1

UK Singles Chart[1]
1

US Billboard Hot 100
55

Chart (2009)
Peak
position

UK Singles Chart[4]
94


document_title: Bantu Education Act, 1953

question_text: when was bantu education act passed and why

text: Bantu Education Act, 1953

text:
Bantu Education Act, 1953

Act to provide for the transfer of the administration and control of native education from the several provincial administrations to the Government of the Union, and for matters incidental thereto.

Citation
Act No. 47 of 1953

Enacted by
Parliament of South Africa

Date of Royal Assent
5 October 1986

Date commenced
1 January 1954

Date repealed
1 January 1980

Administered by
Minister of Native Affairs

Repealing legislation

Education and Training Act, 1979

Status: Repealed

text: The Bantu Education Act, 1953 (Act No. 47 of 1953; later renamed the Black Education Act, 1953) was a South African segregation law which legalised several aspects of the apartheid system. Its major provision was enforcing racially separated educational facilities.[1] Even universities were made "tribal", and all but three missionary schools chose to close down when the government no longer would help support their schools. Very few authorities continued using their own finances to support education for native Africans.[2] In 1959, this type of education was extended to "non white" universities and colleges with the Extension of University Education Act, and the internationally prestigious University College of Fort Hare was taken over by the government and degraded to being part of the Bantu education system.[3] It is often argued that the policy of Bantu (African) education was aimed to direct black or non-white youth to the unskilled labour market,[4] although Hendrik Verwoerd, at the time Minister of Native Affairs, claimed that the aim was to solve South Africa's "ethnic problems" by creating complementary economic and political units for different ethnic groups.

text: The national authorities of the time is often said to have viewed education as having a rather pivotal position in their goal of eventually separating South Africa from the Bantustans entirely. The Minister of Native Affairs at the time, the "Architect of Apartheid" Hendrik Verwoerd, stated that:[2]

text: "There is no place for [the Bantu] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour ... What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice?"

text: The introduction of Bantu Education led to a substantial increase of government funding to the learning institutions of black Africans, but it did not keep up with population increase.[5] The law forced institutions under the direct control of the state. The National Party now had the power to employ and train teachers as they saw fit. Black teachers' salaries in 1953 were extremely low and resulted in a dramatic drop of trainee teachers. Only one third of the black teachers were qualified.[2]

text: The schools reserved for the country's white children were of Western standards. 30% of the black schools did not have electricity, 25% no running water and less than half had plumbing. The education for Blacks, Indians and Coloureds was subtantially cheaper but not free.[2] In the 70s, the per capita governmental spending on black education was one-tenth of the spending on white.[4]

text: In 1976, the Afrikaans Medium Decree of 1974, which forced all black schools to use both Afrikaans and English as languages of instruction beginning with the last year of primary school, led to the Soweto Uprising in which more than 575 people died, at least 134 of them under the age of eighteen.[4][6]

text: The act was repealed in 1979 by the Education and Training Act, 1979, which continued the system of racially segregated education, while also eliminating both discrimination in tuition fees and the segregated Department of Bantu Education and allowing the both use of native tongue education up to the fourth grade and limited attendance at private schools as well.[7] Segregation became unconstitutional after the introduction of the Interim Constitution in 1994, and most sections of the Education and Training Act were repealed by the South African Schools Act, 1996.


document_title: Continuing patent application

question_text: when can a continuation patent application be filed

text: Continuing patent application

text: Early history[edit]

text: From 1838 to 1861, inventors could file patent applications on improvements to their inventions. These were published as "additional improvement patents" and were given numbers preceded by "A.I.". About 300 of these patents were issued.[1]

text: Current law in the U.S.[edit]

text: Under the law in the U.S., inventors may file several different types of patent applications to cover new improvements to their inventions or to cover different aspects of their inventions. These types of patent applications include "continuation", "divisional", "continuation in part", and "reissue".

text: Continuation[edit]

text: A "continuation application" is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the "parent" application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims the priority based on the filing date of the parent, and must name at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. This type of application is useful when a patent examiner allowed some, but rejected other claims in an application, or where an applicant may not have exhausted all useful ways of claiming different embodiments of the invention.[2]

text: During the prosecution of a continuation application, the applicant may not add additional disclosure to the specification. If the inventor needs to supplement the disclosure of the earlier parent application, he has to file a continuation-in-part application.[3]

text: Request for continued examination[edit]

text: In the typical case, a patent examiner will examine patent claims and amendments in an original patent application for two rounds of "office actions" before ending examination. However, often two office actions are not enough to resolve all of the issues in the patent prosecution.

text: A request for continued examination (RCE) is a request by an applicant for continued prosecution after the patent office has issued a "final" rejection or after prosecution "on the merits" has been closed (for example by a Notice of Allowance (NOA)). An RCE is not considered a continuing patent application - rather, prosecution of the pending application is reopened.[4] The inventor pays an additional filing fee and continues to argue his case with the patent examiner. No RCE was allowed prior to June 8, 1995. See 37 CFR 1.114.

text: QPIDS Program[edit]

text: In light of the frequency of last-minute RCEs caused by new prior art being found, and the additional burden these RCEs impose on examination, the USPTO has started the Quick Path IDS consideration pilot program.[5] The program allows for a "conditional RCE" and IDS to be submitted along with a petition. If the examiner feels that the references on the IDS are material, the RCE is executed and examination is reopened. The QPIDS pilot program has been extended to run through September 30, 2016.

text: Divisional[edit]

text: A divisional application also claims priority based on the filing date of the parent application, but differs from a continuation application in that a divisional application claims a distinct or independent invention "carved out" of the parent application. A divisional application must share at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. A divisional application is often filed after the examiner issued a "restriction requirement", because a patent can only claim a single invention (cf. unity of invention).

text: Continuation-in-part[edit]

text: A "continuation-in-part" application ("CIP" or "CIP application") is one in which the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent, but repeats substantial portion of the parent's specification, and shares at least one inventor with the parent application. The CIP application is a convenient way to claim enhancements developed after the parent application was filed. It is the successor to the earlier "additional improvement" patents mentioned above. For a continuation-in-part application, claims to subject matter that was also disclosed in the parent are entitled to the parent’s priority date, while claims to the additional subject matter are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application.[6]

text: Reissue[edit]

text: If an issued patent is found to be defective, then the patent owner can surrender the patent and refile the original application to correct the defect. One example is when an inventor was forgotten on the application forms. Another such defect occurs when the issued patent fails to claim the full scope of the disclosed invention, potentially resulting in a rare "broadening reissue". Thus, an inventor can submit the patent application again with broader claims and attempt to get the full coverage to which he or she is entitled. The inventor is not, however, allowed to add new features to the disclosure.

text: A reissue application which attempts to get broader coverage than the originally issued patent must be filed within two years from the grant date of the said originally issued patent.[7]

text: Controversy around attempted changes by USPTO to continuation practice[edit]

text: In 2007, USPTO announced new regulations under 37 CFR (published August 21, 2007) that would significantly alter procedures regarding continuation application before the USPTO. Previously, USPTO rules allowed an inventor to file as many continuations as necessary to get desired breadth of claims. The procedure was criticized for creating uncertainty as to what is covered or could be covered by a given patent application. An inventor, for example, could have sought to get claims with limited scope approved early, and then continue to file continuations over many years seeking broader coverage. For example, inventor Jerome H. Lemelson filed a series of continuations over thirty years to get a very broad patent on bar code readers. This patent was issued in 1984, long after bar code readers had become an integral part of the U.S. economy. Jerome Lemelson was then able to collect over a billion dollars in license fees from large companies using bar code readers. (Note however that the Lemelson optical recognition patents followed the old 17-year rule. For patents filed 8-June-1995 or later under the TRIPS agreement, continuation patents expire 20 years from the date of filing of the parent patent application. Thus, Lemelson's "submarine patents" strategy is no longer possible.)

text: To minimize this alleged abuse of the patent system, the USPTO proposed several changes to the rules as to the number of continuations an applicant can file. The proposed changes were announced on January 3, 2006, and were published in final form on August 21, 2007, after various modifications were made pursuant to input received as public notice and comment (during which the public was invited to comment on the proposed rule changes[8]). Many of the provisions in the new rules went into effect November 1, 2007; however, certain additional exemptions apply for continuation applications filed before the publication date of August 21, 2007, even after November 1, 2007.

text: The proposed rules would have limited an inventor to filing two continuation applications for each type of invention disclosed in an original patent application, unless the applicant can show "good cause" for filing additional continuations. Furthermore, applicants could file only one RCE for each "family" of applications (that is, the group of applications including original applications and each of the continuation applications claiming the benefit of priority of the original application) unless the USPTO granted the applicant permission upon showing "good cause."[9]

text: The proposed changes were generally opposed by patent agents and attorneys,[10] manufacturing companies,[11] biotechnology companies,[12] and independent inventors.[13] There was concern that the rule changes failed to consider the difficulties commonly encountered in getting a patent, and that the changes would result in inventors failing to get the full range of patent protection to which they are entitled. The groups also maintained that the rule changes were not consistent with the current regulations on continuations.

text: The rule changes were generally favored by software companies,[14] electronics companies[15] and US government agencies[16] for the reasons given above. Those that favored the rule changes felt that said changes were consistent with the laws governing continuation practice.

text: On August 22, 2007, inventor Dr. Triantafyllos Tafas sued the USPTO in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia on the ground that the rule changes were in violation of the U.S. patent law and therefore are invalid.[17] On October 9, 2007, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline filed a similar suit seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the new rules.[18] The court consolidated the two cases and scheduled a hearing on GlaxoSmithKline's motion for October 31, one day before the rules were to go into effect.[19] On October 31, the court granted a preliminary injunction which prohibits the USPTO from enforcing the patent rules on continuations and claims which were to come into effect the following day.[20] On April 1, 2008, the injunction was made permanent,[21] but in March 2009, it was overturned by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.[22]

text: In October 2009, USPTO withdrew proposed changes to continuation rules.[23]


document_title: Standard of Ur

question_text: the standard of ur illustrates the common mesopotamian representation of

text: Standard of Ur

text: History[edit]

text: The artifact was found in one of the largest royal tombs in Ur, tomb PG 779, associated with Ur-Pabilsag, a king who died around 2550 BC.[1] Sir Leonard Woolley's excavations in Mesopotamia in 1927–28 uncovered the artifact in the corner of a chamber, lying close to the shoulder of a man who may have held it on a pole.[2] For this reason, Woolley interpreted it as a standard, giving the object its popular name, although subsequent investigation has failed to confirm this assumption.[3] The discovery was quite unexpected, as the tomb in which it occurred had been thoroughly plundered by robbers in ancient times. As one corner of the last chamber was being cleared, a workman spotted a piece of shell inlay. Woolley later recalled that "the next minute the foreman's hand, carefully brushing away the earth, laid bare the corner of a mosaic in lapis lazuli and shell."[4]

text: The Standard of Ur survived in only a fragmentary condition. The ravages of time over more than four thousand years caused the decay of the wooden frame and bitumen glue which had cemented the mosaics in place. The soil's weight crushed the object, fragmenting it and breaking its end panels.[2] This made excavating the Standard a challenging task. Woolley's excavators were instructed to look for hollows in the ground created by decayed objects and to fill them with plaster or wax to record the shape of the objects that had once filled them, rather like the famous plaster casts of the victims of Pompeii.[5] When the remains of the Standard were discovered by the excavators, they found that the mosaic pieces had kept their form in the soil, while their wooden frame had disintegrated. They carefully uncovered small sections measuring about 3 square centimetres (0.47 sq in) and covered them with wax, enabling the mosaics to be lifted while maintaining their original designs.[6]

text: Description[edit]

text: The present form of the artifact is a reconstruction, presenting a best guess of its original appearance.[2] It has been interpreted as a hollow wooden box measuring 21.59 centimetres (8.50 in) wide by 49.53 centimetres (19.50 in) long, inlaid with a mosaic of shell, red limestone and lapis lazuli. The box has an irregular shape with end pieces in the shape of truncated triangles, making it wider at the bottom than at the top, along the lines of a Toblerone bar.[3]

text: Inlaid mosaic panels cover each long side of the Standard. Each presents a series of scenes displayed in three registers, upper, middle and bottom. The two mosaics have been dubbed "War" and "Peace" for their subject matter, respectively a representation of a military campaign and scenes from a banquet. The panels at each end originally showed fantastical animals but they suffered significant damage while buried, though they have since been restored.

text: Mosaic scenes[edit]

text: "War" is one of the earliest representations of a Sumerian army, engaged in what is believed to be a border skirmish and its aftermath. The "War" panel shows the king in the middle of the top register, standing taller than any other figure, with his head projecting out of the frame to emphasize his supreme status – a device also used on the other panel. He stands in front of his bodyguard and a four-wheeled chariot, drawn by a team of some sort of equids (possibly onagers or domestic asses;[7] horses were only introduced in the 2nd millennium BC after being imported from Central Asia[8]). He faces a row of prisoners, all of whom are portrayed as naked, bound and injured with large, bleeding gashes on their chests and thighs – a device indicating defeat and debasement.[3] In the middle register, eight virtually identically depicted soldiers give way to a battle scene, followed by a depiction of enemies being captured and led away. The soldiers are shown wearing leather cloaks and helmets; actual examples of the sort of helmet depicted in the mosaic were found in the same tomb.[5] The nudity of the captive and dead enemies was probably not meant to depict literally how they appeared in real life, but was more likely to have been symbolic and associated with a Mesopotamian belief that linked death with nakedness.[9]

text: The lower register shows four chariots, each carrying a charioteer and a warrior (carrying either a spear or an axe) and drawn by a team of four equids. The chariots are depicted in considerable detail; each has solid wheels (spoked wheels were not invented until about 1800 BC) and carries spare spears in a container at the front. The arrangement of the equids' reins is also shown in detail, illustrating how the Sumerians harnessed them without using bits, which were only introduced a millennium later.[5] The chariot scene evolves from left to right in a way that emphasizes motion and action through changes in the depiction of the animals' gait. The first chariot team is shown walking, the second cantering, the third galloping and the fourth rearing. Trampled enemies are shown lying under the hooves of the latter three groups, symbolizing the potency of a chariot attack.[3]

text: "Peace" portrays a banquet scene. The king again appears in the upper register, sitting on a carved stool on the left-hand side. He is faced by six other seated participants, each holding a cup raised in his right hand. They are attended by various other figures including a long-haired individual, possibly a singer, who accompanies a lyrist. In the middle register, bald-headed figures wearing skirts with fringes parade animals, fish and other goods, perhaps bringing them to the feast. The bottom register shows a series of figures dressed and coiffed in a different way from those above, carrying produce in shoulder bags or backpacks, or leading equids by ropes attached to nose rings.[3]

text: Interpretations[edit]

text: The original function of the Standard of Ur is not conclusively understood. Woolley's suggestion that it represented a standard is now thought unlikely. It has also been speculated that it was the soundbox of a musical instrument.[2] Paola Villani suggests that it was used as a chest to store funds for warfare or civil and religious works.[10] It is, however, impossible to say for sure, as there is no inscription on the artifact to provide any background context.

text: Although the side mosaics are usually referred to as the "war side" and "peace side", they may in fact be a single narrative – a battle followed by a victory celebration. This would be a visual parallel with the literary device of merism, used by the Sumerians, in which the totality of a situation was described through the pairing of opposite concepts.[11][12] A Sumerian ruler was considered to have a dual role as a lugal (literally "big man" or war leader) and an en or civic/religious leader, responsible for mediating with the gods and maintaining the fecundity of the land. The Standard of Ur may have been intended to depict these two complementary concepts of Sumerian kingship.[3]

text:
External media

Audio

 The Standard of Ur programme as part of the BBC's 'A History of the World in 100 Objects'

Video

 The Standard of Ur, Smarthistory[13]

text: The scenes depicted in the mosaics were reflected in the tombs where the "Standard" was found. The skeletons of attendants and musicians were found accompanying the remains of the kings, as was equipment used in both the "War" and "Peace" scenes of the mosaics. Unlike ancient Egyptian tombs, the dead were not buried with provisions of food and serving equipment; instead, they were found with the remains of meals, such as empty food vessels and animal bones. They may have participated in one last ritual feast, the remains of which were buried alongside them, before being put to death (possibly by poisoning) to accompany their master in the afterlife.[14]


document_title: Climate of Antarctica

question_text: what is the hottest temperature ever recorded in antarctica

text: Climate of Antarctica

text: Temperature[edit]

text: The lowest reliably measured temperature of a continuously occupied station on Earth of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) was on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[4][5] For comparison, this is 10.7 °C (19.3 °F) colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The altitude of the location is 3,900 meters (12,800 feet).

text: The lowest recorded temperature of any location on Earth's surface at 81°48′S 63°30′E / 81.8°S 63.5°E / -81.8; 63.5 was revised with new data in 2018 in nearly 100 locations, ranging from −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F)[6] to −98 °C (−144.4 °F).[7] This unnamed part of the Antarctic plateau, between Dome A and Dome F, was measured on August 10, 2010, and the temperature was deduced from radiance measured by the Landsat 8 and other satellites, and discovered during a National Snow and Ice Data Center review of stored data in December, 2013[8] but revice by researcher on June 25 2018.[9][10] This temperature is not directly comparable to the -89.2 quoted above, since it is a skin temperature deduced from satellite-measured upwelling radiance, rather than a thermometer-measured temperature of the air 1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the ground surface.

text: The highest temperature ever recorded on the Antarctic continent was 17.5 °C (63.5 °F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[11] A higher temperature of 19.8 °C (67.6 °F) at Signy Research Station on 30 January 1982 is the record for the Antarctic region encompassing all land and ice south of 60S.[12]

text:
The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 °C (−70.6 °F). The coast is warmer; on the coast Antarctic average temperatures are around -10°C (in the warmest parts of Antarctica) and in the elevated inland they average about -55°C in Vostok.
[13]
[14].
Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 °C (−14.8 °F) in August to −3 °C (26.6 °F) in January.[15]
At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) on 25 December 2011.[16] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 °C (59 °F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 °C (32 °F) most of the time. Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation.[citation needed] The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.

text: Precipitation[edit]

text: The total precipitation on Antarctica, averaged over the entire continent, is about 166 millimetres (6.5 inches) per year (Vaughan et al., J Climate, 1999). The actual rates vary widely, from high values over the Peninsula (15 to 25 inches a year) to very low values (as little as 50 millimetres (2.0 inches) in the high interior (Bromwich, Reviews of Geophysics, 1988). Areas that receive less than 250 millimetres (9.8 inches) of precipitation per year are classified as deserts. Almost all Antarctic precipitation falls as snow.[17] Rainfall is rare and mainly occurs during the summer in coastal areas and surrounding islands.[17] Note that the quoted precipitation is a measure of its equivalence to water, rather than being the actual depth of snow. The air in Antarctica is also very dry. The low temperatures result in a very low absolute humidity, which means that dry skin and cracked lips are a continual problem for scientists and expeditioners working in the continent.

text: Weather condition classification[edit]

text: The weather in Antarctica can be highly variable, and the weather conditions can often change dramatically in short periods of time. There are various classifications for describing weather conditions in Antarctica; restrictions given to workers during the different conditions vary by station and nation.

text:
[18]
[19]
[20]

text: Ice cover[edit]

text:
Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by a sheet of ice that is, on average, a mile thick or more (1.6 km). Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres (200 feet).[21] This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Higher temperatures are expected to lead to more precipitation, which takes the form of snow. This would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans.[22]
During a recent decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year.[23] For the contribution of Antarctica to present and future sea level change, see sea level rise. Because ice flows, albeit slowly, the ice within the ice sheet is younger than the age of the sheet itself.

text:
Morphometric data for Antarctica (from Drewry, 1983)

Surface

Area  (km²)

Percent

Mean ice thickness  (m)

Volume  (km³)

Percent

Inland ice sheet

11,965,700

85.97

2,450

29,324,700

97.00

Ice shelves

1,541,710

11.08

475

731,900

2.43

Ice rises

78,970

.57

670

53,100

.18

Glacier ice (total)

13,586,380

2,160

30,109,800¹

Rock outcrop

331,690

2.38

Antarctica (total)

13,918,070

100.00

2,160

30,109,800¹

100.00

¹The total ice volume is different from the sum of the component parts because individual figures have been rounded.

text:
Regional ice data (from Drewry and others, 1982; Drewry, 1983)

Region

Area  (km²)

Mean icethickness  (m)

Volume  (km³)

East Antarctica

Inland ice

9,855,570

2,630

25,920,100

Ice shelves

293,510

400

117,400

Ice rises

4,090

400

1,600

West Antarctica (excluding Antarctic Peninsula)

Inland ice sheet

1,809,760

1,780

3,221,400

Ice shelves

104,860

375

39,300

Ice rises

3,550

375

1,300

Antarctic Peninsula

Inland ice sheet

300,380

610

183,200

Ice shelves

144,750

300

43,400

Ice rises

1,570

300

500

Ross Ice Shelf

Ice shelf

525,840

427

224,500

Ice rises

10,320

500

5,100

Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf

Ice shelf

472,760

650

307,300

Ice rises

59,440

750

44,600

text: Ice shelves[edit]

text: This section needs attention from an expert in glaciers. The specific problem is: unintelligible English and lack of clarity. WikiProject Glaciers may be able to help recruit an expert. (April 2017)

text:
About 75% of the coastline of Antarctica is ice shelves. The utmost parts consist of floating ice until the grounding line of land based glaciers is reached, which is determined through affords such as Operation IceBridge. Ice shelves lose mass through iceberg breakup (calving), or basal melting due to warm ocean water under the ice [24]
. Melting or breakup of floating shelf ice does not directly affect global sea levels; however, ice shelves have a buttressing effect on the ice flow behind them. If ice shelves break up, the ice flow behind them may accelerate, resulting in increasing melt of the Antarctic ice sheet and an increasing contribution to sea level.

text: Known changes in coastline ice:

text:
Around the Antarctic Peninsula:
1936–1989: Wordie Ice Shelf significantly reduced in size.
1995: Ice in the Prince Gustav Channel disintegrated.
Parts of the Larsen Ice Shelf broke up in recent decades.
1995: The Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated in January 1995.
2001: 3,250 square kilometres (1,250 square miles) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in February 2001. It had been gradually retreating before the breakup event.
2015: A study concluded that the remaining Larsen B ice-shelf will disintegrate by the end of the decade, based on observations of faster flow and rapid thinning of glaciers in the area.[25]

text: The George VI Ice Shelf, which may be on the brink of instability,[26] has probably existed for approximately 8,000 years, after melting 1,500 years earlier.[27] Warm ocean currents may have been the cause of the melting.[28] Not only the ice sheets are losing mass, but they are losing mass at an accelerating rate.[29]

text: Global warming[edit]

text:
The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05 °C/decade since 1957.[30][31][32][33]
The West Antarctic ice sheet has warmed by more than 0.1 °C/decade in the last 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring.  Although this is partly offset by fall cooling in East Antarctica, this effect is restricted to the 1980s and 1990s.[30][31][32]

text: Research published in 2009 found that overall the continent had become warmer since the 1950s, a finding consistent with the influence of man-made climate change:

text: The British Antarctic Survey, which has undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research in the area, stated in 2009:[35]

text:
West Antarctic ice loss could contribute to 1.4 metres (4 feet 7 inches) sea level rise
Antarctica predicted to warm by around 3 °C (5.4 °F) over this century
10% increase in sea ice around the Antarctic
Rapid ice loss in parts of the Antarctic
Warming of the Southern Ocean will cause changes in Antarctic ecosystem
Hole in ozone layer, which has shielded most of Antarctica from global warming

text: The area of strongest cooling appears at the South Pole, and the region of strongest warming lies along the Antarctic Peninsula. A possible explanation is that loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving into the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.[36]

text: In their latest study (20 September 2007) NASA researchers have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica's largest ice shelf.[37]

text: There is also evidence for widespread glacier retreat around the Antarctic Peninsula.[38]

text: Researchers reported on 21 December 2012 in Nature Geoscience that from 1958 to 2010, the average temperature at the mile-high Byrd Station rose by 2.4 °C (4.3 °F), with warming fastest in its winter and spring.  The spot which is in the heart of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth. In 2015, the temperature showed changes but in a stable manner and the only months that have drastic change in that year are August and September. It also did show that the temperature was very stable throughout the year.[39][40][41][42]