text:
Tito Ortiz

Jacob Christopher "Tito" Ortiz (born January 23, 1975) is a retired American mixed martial artist and a former politician. Ortiz is best known for his stints with the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where he is a former UFC Light Heavyweight Champion, having held the title from April 14, 2000, to September 26, 2003. Along with fighters like Randy Couture and Chuck Liddell, he was one of the sport's early stars. Ortiz ultimately became the biggest pay-per-view draw of 2006 for his fights with Liddell, Forrest Griffin, and Ken Shamrock.

Ortiz is the CEO of Punishment Athletics MMA equipment and clothing line, which is located in his hometown of Huntington Beach, California.

On July 7, 2012, Ortiz became the ninth inductee into the UFC Hall of Fame.

On November 5, 2020, Ortiz was announced as one of the winners of the Huntington Beach City Council election, becoming Mayor pro tempore. Sworn into office on December 7, 2020, he resigned from the city council less than six months later on June 1, 2021.

Ortiz made his professional boxing debut on September 11, 2021, in a round one loss to fellow former UFC champion Anderson Silva.

Early life and education
Ortiz is of Mexican descent. At the age of nineteen, Ortiz met Paul Herrera, an assistant wrestling coach at Golden West College. Herrera encouraged Ortiz to attend Golden West, where he was a California junior college state champion and All-American for two consecutive years before transferring to California State University, Bakersfield, where he continued wrestling but was never a full-time starter. Ortiz also trained with UFC fighter and fellow collegiate wrestler, Tank Abbott.

Ultimate Fighting Championship
Ortiz's mixed martial arts debut was at UFC 13 in 1997. Still in college, Ortiz competed as an amateur for no prize money or contracts. He beat Wes Albritton in an alternate bout by referee stoppage at 0:31 of the first round. He was selected to face Guy Mezger in the Light Heavyweight final after Enson Inoue could not continue due to injury. Despite dominating Mezger at first, Ortiz lost the fight at 2:00 in the first round by a guillotine choke submission. After returning with a TKO victory over Jeremy Screeton at West Coast NHB Championships 1, Ortiz fought top ranked fighter and UFC 12 Light Heavyweight Tournament Champion Jerry Bohlander at UFC 18. Ortiz dominated the fight and won via TKO due to cut stoppage. Ortiz then avenged his loss to Mezger at UFC 19 by TKO. Ortiz's post fight antics towards Mezger and the Lion's Den led to his long-running rivalry with the team's leader Ken Shamrock.

Ortiz has credited UFC Heavyweight Champion Bas Rutten for inspiration during his early days. Ortiz said; "I looked up to Bas Rutten. Bas was my idol. People were just so scared of fighting him, he was like the man. I thought that was what I need to do now. If I train as hard as he does then one day I'll be as good as him and two years later look where I am, I'm on top of the world. I've got to say thanks to him, (Bas) for helping me out by making me believe in dreams."

In 1999, Ortiz fought Frank Shamrock for what is now known as the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship at UFC 22. Despite controlling Shamrock for the majority of the fight, Ortiz ended up losing via submission due to strikes. Following the victory, Shamrock retired and vacated the championship. The Middleweight division was then officially renamed the Light Heavyweight (205 lb) division and Ortiz was chosen, along with Wanderlei Silva, as a top contender. Ortiz defeated Silva for the vacant Light Heavyweight Championship at UFC 25 via unanimous decision. He went on to defend the Light Heavyweight Championship a then-record five times in the following three years, defeating Yuki Kondo, Evan Tanner, Elvis Sinosic, Vladimir Matyushenko and Lion's Den head Ken Shamrock.

At UFC 44, after a near year-long layoff from the sport, Ortiz fought the new Interim Light Heavyweight Champion Randy Couture, who had defeated Chuck Liddell for the interim title at UFC 43 in September 2003. Couture defeated Ortiz via unanimous decision. The loss ended Ortiz's near three-and-a-half-year title reign, which was the longest Light Heavyweight Championship reign until Jon Jones successfully defended the Light Heavyweight Championship for the sixth time on September 21, 2013. Following his loss to Couture, Ortiz faced Chuck Liddell at UFC 47, losing by TKO in the second round. After six months off, Ortiz returned and took a unanimous decision victory over newcomer Patrick Côté at UFC 50 and a split decision over Vitor Belfort at UFC 51.

In February 2005, Ortiz took time away from the UFC and was offered deals with several promotions, including PRIDE Fighting Championships and the Don King-backed World Fighting Alliance. Ortiz and fellow fighter Fabiano Iha even hired investment banker Stan Medley to take a new league, The Xtreme Fighting Championship, public. But none of these endeavors came to fruition. Ortiz opted to try his hand at professional wrestling, signing with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling as a guest referee.

In November 2005, UFC president Dana White announced Ortiz and Ken Shamrock would coach The Ultimate Fighter 3 reality TV series on Spike TV, which premiered in April 2006. Ortiz's first fight in his return occurred at UFC 59 on April 15, 2006, against previous The Ultimate Fighter 1 winner Forrest Griffin. Ortiz won via split decision (30–27, 28–29, and 29–27). His next fight was against UFC Hall of Famer Ken Shamrock at UFC 61 on July 8, 2006, a match which was to conclude a main rivalry on The Ultimate Fighter 3. Shamrock lost in the first round by TKO due to strikes (elbows) by Ortiz. On August 25, 2006, at the UFC 62 weigh-ins, Dana White announced a rematch between Ortiz and Shamrock for October 10, 2006, on Spike TV, as the main event of Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3: The Final Chapter. Ortiz beat Shamrock for the third time in this fight, which was stopped in the first round due to strikes. On December 30, 2006, at UFC 66, Ortiz's rematch with Chuck Liddell (for the UFC Light Heavyweight championship) ended in defeat via referee stoppage in the third round.

He then fought against undefeated The Ultimate Fighter 2 winner Rashad Evans on July 7, 2007, at UFC 73. Ortiz took charge of the fight from the outset, taking Evans down and controlling him. In the second round Ortiz once again took control and nearly submitted Evans before the culmination of the round. The fight ended in a draw after Ortiz was penalized for grabbing the fence. Ortiz's last fight on his contract with the UFC was a unanimous decision loss to the then undefeated Lyoto Machida at UFC 84 on May 24, 2008. All three judges scored the fight 30–27 to Machida. Ortiz came close to submitting Machida in the third round with a triangle choke before transitioning to an armbar. However, Machida managed to escape and survived the round, winning a unanimous judges' decision. The fight concluded Ortiz's stay with the promotion as he chose not to re-sign, citing his frustration with UFC president Dana White as a major factor in the decision.

Outside the UFC
After leaving the UFC, Ortiz was approached by multiple promotions, including the now defunct Elite Xtreme Combat, Affliction and the American Fight League. However, a clause in his old UFC contract forbade him from signing with or fighting for any other organization until approximately April–June 2009. Until his return to the UFC, Ortiz was considered the biggest free agent on the market.

On October 6, 2008, Ortiz underwent back surgery in Las Vegas, Nevada. According to his website, he had been experiencing back pain since his fight with Randy Couture.

On Wednesday, December 17, 2008, Affliction Entertainment announced that Ortiz would be part of the broadcast team for the Affliction: Day of Reckoning. Ortiz had said he would fight again in August 2009, but this did not occur.

Return to the UFC
As part of his comeback to the UFC, Ortiz began training with his original Brazilian jiu-jitsu and Judo instructor Cleber Luciano (a student of Royler Gracie). Ortiz originally briefly trained with Luciano back in 1997, when he was still a student at Golden West College.

On July 17, 2009, both Ortiz and Dana White stated that the pair had made amends. One week later, White announced that he re-signed Tito. Ortiz stated he is returning for a six-fight deal he and White have worked out. White officially announced Ortiz's return in a conference call on July 31, 2009. White mentioned that "everyone wants to see Tito fight" and "Tito will retire in the UFC." Mark Coleman was named as Ortiz's opponent for his return to the octagon at UFC 106. However, Coleman pulled out of this bout due to a second-degree tear of his MCL, and was replaced by Forrest Griffin.

Due to an illness to UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar, Ortiz's fight with Griffin was promoted to the headliner of UFC 106. Griffin won the fight via split decision, showing superior striking ability. Whilst Ortiz was able to secure takedowns in the first and second rounds, Griffin showed considerable improvement since their first fight and kept the fight standing throughout the third, leading to the split decision victory.

On December 5, it was announced Ortiz would coach the 11th season of The Ultimate Fighter, with the opposing coach being Chuck Liddell. He was scheduled to fight Liddell again for the third time at the end of the season and later pulled out of the bout. On April 7, 2010, UFC president Dana White said Liddell vs. Ortiz 3 was scheduled to be the main event for UFC 115. However, on April 12, 2010, the UFC confirmed the main event for the card was Liddell vs. Rich Franklin.

Ortiz fought Matt Hamill on October 23, 2010, at UFC 121. Hamill was Ortiz's first overall pick during Season 3 of the Ultimate Fighter. Ortiz lost the fight via unanimous decision.

UFC President Dana White hinted at Tito Ortiz's possible release from the UFC in a post-fight interview after UFC 121 stating that 'We all know what happens when guys lose four fights in the UFC'. There had been no official statement to confirm this, however. On November 7, in a response to a fan via his Twitter, Ortiz stated that he would again fight in the UFC.

Ortiz was expected to face Antônio Rogério Nogueira on March 26, 2011, at UFC Fight Night 24. UFC president Dana White said that he had expected to cut Ortiz loose from the UFC after his loss to Hamill, but decided to give him one last chance against Nogueira. Ortiz received a cut above his eye and a concussion while training for his fight with Nogueira and was forced to withdraw. He was replaced by Phil Davis.

Ortiz took on Ryan Bader on July 2, 2011, at UFC 132. Coming in as a heavy underdog, with his UFC career on the line (despite stating that in his previous 5 fights, he'd been plagued by injury), Ortiz dropped Bader with strikes and submitted him using a guillotine choke at 1:56 of the first round, thus securing his first victory since 2006 and saving his UFC career. The victory earned him "Submission of the Night" honors.

In a rematch against Rashad Evans on August 6, 2011, at UFC 133, in which he replaced an injured Phil Davis on two weeks' notice, Ortiz lost in the second round by TKO via strikes, despite nearly finishing Evans in round one with a guillotine.

Ortiz faced Antônio Rogério Nogueira on December 10, 2011, at UFC 140. He lost the fight via TKO in the first round. He would state after the fight that he had suffered a neck injury before the fight, but decided to fight anyway in the hope of bringing the fans a victory.

Ortiz then stated he would retire after his next fight, the last of his contract, against Forrest Griffin at UFC 148.

Ortiz faced Forrest Griffin for a third time on July 7, 2012, at UFC 148. Ortiz was inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame prior to his final bout. He lost in a Fight of the Night winning performance (despite landing 2 knockdowns and 2 takedowns to Griffin's zero). Griffin once again was able to out strike Ortiz for the victory.

Brief retirement
Following his loss to Griffin, Ortiz retired from MMA and started up a management company, Primetime 360 Entertainment & Sports Management Inc. The management team would pick up Cristiane "Cyborg" Justino as its first high-profile client. He came out of retirement to fight in Bellator MMA.

On February 14, 2014, Tito Ortiz stepped down as manager for Cristiane "Cyborg" Justino.

Bellator MMA
On July 31, 2013, it was announced that Ortiz would come out of retirement to face former training partner and fellow former UFC Light heavyweight Champion Quinton Jackson on November 2, 2013, at Bellator 106. However, on October 25, it was announced that Ortiz suffered a neck injury and had to pull out of his fight with Jackson. Despite having to deal with another injury, Ortiz said that he would still focus on a return to the cage and then Bellator President Bjorn Rebney said that they still wanted to see Ortiz compete in their organization.

Ortiz faced Bellator Middleweight champion Alexander Shlemenko, in a match up at Light Heavyweight, in his Bellator debut on May 17, 2014, at Bellator 120. He won via first round arm-triangle choke submission. In his victory speech, he was dismissive of the UFC for the company's attempts to remove him from their history, calling it "bullshit" and stated that he will "live in the MMA memory forever".

Ortiz faced fellow UFC Hall of Famer Stephan Bonnar on November 15, 2014, at Bellator 131. He won via split decision.

On June 19, 2015, it was announced that Ortiz would face Liam McGeary for the Bellator Light Heavyweight Championship. The match eventually took place on September 19, 2015, at Bellator 142: Dynamite 1. Ortiz lost the fight via inverted triangle choke in the first round.

In his fourth fight for the promotion, Ortiz faced fellow UFC veteran Chael Sonnen on January 21, 2017, in the main event at Bellator 170. Before the fight Ortiz announced this would be his last mixed martial arts fight. He won via rear-naked choke in first round.

Third bout against Chuck Liddell
In August 2018, it was announced by Golden Boy Promotions that Ortiz would be coming out of retirement to face his rival Chuck Liddell in a third fight. The fight took place on November 24, 2018, at The Forum in Inglewood, California. Ortiz won the fight by knockout in the first round.

Combate Americas
In April 2019, it was announced the Ortiz had signed a multi-fight agreement with the Combate Americas promotion. Later, Ortiz revealed that the contract covers three fights and two years. The time of his promotional debut was set for the fall of 2019. On July 9, 2019, it was announced that Ortiz's debut opponent would be former WWE Champion and Combate Americas President Alberto El Patrón in a 210-pound Catchweight bout at Combate Americas event in Hidalgo, Texas on December 7, 2019. Ortiz won the fight via rear-naked choke submission in the first round. On February 26, 2020, it was announced that the result had been temporarily overturned to a no decision by the Texas State Athletic Commission for reasons that have not yet been disclosed. However, on February 28, it was announced that Ortiz consumed muscle relaxers, so the issue had been resolved and the result was turned back to a win for Ortiz.

Sporadic appearances (2005)
In May 2005, Ortiz made an appearance for the professional wrestling promotion Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA). On May 15, 2005, at Hard Justice Ortiz served as special guest referee in the NWA World Heavyweight Championship title match between champion Jeff Jarrett and challenger A.J. Styles at the behest of Director of Authority Dusty Rhodes. The conclusion of the match saw Ortiz knock out Jarrett with a right hook after Jarrett shoved him, which allowed Styles to hit his "Spiral Tap" for the pinfall victory and claim the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Ortiz returned to TNA on the edition of October 1 of TNA Impact! and the following week he was revealed as the special guest referee for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship match between Jeff Jarrett and Kevin Nash at the Bound for Glory pay-per-view, in a segment, where he grabbed the number one contender Nash in a rear naked choke in order to prevent him from brawling with Jarrett. On October 23 at Bound for Glory Ortiz refereed the match for the title between Jarrett and Rhino, a last minute replacement for Nash. The matched ended with Ortiz knocking out America's Most Wanted (Chris Harris and James Storm), two of Jarrett's associates who attempted to interfere in the match, and then counted the pinfall for Rhino to crown him the new NWA World Heavyweight Champion.

Return and Aces & Eights (2013)
Ortiz returned to TNA on August 1, 2013, revealing himself as the man behind the cryptic #August1Warning tweets and YouTube videos and staring down the Aces & Eights and The Main Event Mafia, which included his Bellator 106 opponent Quinton Jackson. The following week, Ortiz returned to explain his reason for being in TNA, but he was interrupted by Kurt Angle who declared his respect for Ortiz, and later Bully Ray who declared his disrespect for both men. On August 15 at Impact Wrestling: Hardcore Justice, Ortiz was picked by Jackson to sub for Angle in the Main Event Mafia to take on Aces & Eights, which Ortiz left up in the air before he was again interrupted and insulted by Bully Ray. During the main event of the evening, Ortiz turned on Jackson by hitting him with a hammer and allowed Ray to win the TNA World Heavyweight Championship from Chris Sabin. The following week, Ortiz officially joined Aces & Eights. However, on Impact Wrestling: No Surrender, it was announced that Bellator MMA had pulled Ortiz from TNA programming due to his upcoming PPV fight with Rampage Jackson, thus removing him from Aces & Eights. Ortiz has since parted ways with TNA.

Boxing
Ortiz made his professional boxing debut against former UFC Middleweight Champion Anderson Silva on September 11, 2021. He lost via knockout in the first round.

Acting
Ortiz made a cameo in the 2008 comedy Zombie Strippers as the bouncer of the Rhino. In addition, he has a cameo in Jet Li's Cradle 2 the Grave, as well as co-starring in The Crow: Wicked Prayer. Ortiz was a playable character in the 2000 video game Razor Freestyle Scooter. Tito also played a minor role in Turkish film Valley of the Wolves: Iraq, and briefly appeared in Korn's music video "Got the Life", as well as portraying American symbol Uncle Sam in the band Seether's music video for the song "Truth." He portrayed Det. Pierce in Trauma Center.

He also appeared on Hell's Kitchen where he sat at the chef's table. He also appeared on MADtv. Tito played an MMA fighter named Derek Petrov on an episode of CSI: NY titled "Clean Sweep", which aired on January 6, 2012, on CBS. In 2017, Ortiz co-starred in the film Boo 2! A Madea Halloween.

Election
In 2020, Ortiz ran for a city council seat in his hometown of Huntington Beach, with the intention of eventually becoming the mayor. (Huntington Beach does not elect mayors directly, but the mayor is chosen from among city councilmembers.) On November 5, 2020, Ortiz was elected as one of the winners of the open seats. On December 7, 2020, Ortiz was sworn in as Mayor Pro Tempore of Huntington Beach.

Tenure
On November 30, 2020, Ortiz led a "curfew breaker" protest against COVID-19 regulations on the Huntington Beach pier.

In May 2021, it surfaced that Ortiz had filed for unemployment in February 2021 despite not being unemployed or underemployed.

Ortiz resigned from the city council on June 1, 2021 after less than six months in office.

Political positions
Ortiz is a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump. As a tribute to Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again", Ortiz chose "Make Huntington Beach Safe Again" as his campaign slogan for the 2020 election. Ortiz has stated his skepticism to COVID-19, calling it "the flu," and a form of "population control." He has also declared his support for law enforcement, legal immigration and the second amendment.

In January 2021, Ortiz was refused service at a TK Burgers restaurant for not wearing a mask, and posted his experience on Instagram. Ortiz has since apologized, saying "We understand that this is a small business and we don't want to ruin our business."

Relationships and children
Ortiz was married to his first wife, Kristin, for five years, and they divorced in 2005. They have a son. In 2006, he began dating former adult film star Jenna Jameson.

Ortiz announced in August 2008 that he and Jameson were expecting twins in April 2009. On March 16, 2009, Jameson gave birth to twin boys. Jameson and Ortiz split up in March 2013. Ortiz was granted full custody of the twins.

In 2014, Ortiz began dating model Amber Nichole Miller. The two had worked together in the UFC as a fighter and Octagon Girl respectively.

Legal issues
Ortiz was arrested on DUI charges in Los Angeles on January 6, 2014. He was sentenced to three years probation, an undisclosed fine, and an obligation to enroll in an alcohol education program.

Poker
While Ortiz describes his poker playing as a hobby, and in March 2017, he placed 22nd in the $5,300 No Limit Hold'em PokerStars Championship Main Event in Panama. Additionally, he has appeared on Shark Cage, Live at the Bike, and a number of private tournaments.

Mixed martial arts

 * Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * UFC Hall of Fame (Pioneer Wing, Class of 2012)
 * UFC Light Heavyweight Championship (One time)
 * Five successful title defenses
 * Second most championship fights in the Light Heavyweight division (9)
 * Second most championship rounds fought on Light Heavyweight division (28)
 * Second most successful Light Heavyweight title defenses in UFC history (5)
 * Second most consecutive successful Light Heavyweight title defenses in UFC history (5)
 * Second most wins in UFC Light Heavyweight division championship fights (6)
 * UFC 13 Light Heavyweight Tournament Runner-Up
 * Knockout of the Night (One time)
 * Submission of the Night (One time)
 * Fight of the Night (Four times)
 * 2006 Fight of the Year vs. Forrest Griffin on April 15
 * 2011 Upset of the Year vs. Ryan Bader
 * Tied (Ryan Bader) for third most wins in UFC Light Heavyweight division history (15) (including pre-modern era)
 * Most control time in UFC Light Heavyweight division history (1:22:51)
 * Second most top control time in UFC Light Heavyweight division history (1:05:02)
 * Fifth most significant strikes landed in UFC Light Heavyweight division history (1241)
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * 1999 Fight of the Year vs. Frank Shamrock on September 24
 * Sherdog
 * Mixed Martial Arts Hall of Fame
 * Fighting Spirit Magazine
 * 2006 Fight of the Year vs. Forrest Griffin on April 15
 * fightmatrix.com
 * 2014 Comeback Fighter Of The Year

Professional wrestling

 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * Worst Gimmick (2013) Aces & Eights

Submission grappling

 * Abu Dhabi Combat Club
 * 2000 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championships −99 kg bronze medalist

Amateur wrestling

 * California Community College Athletic Association
 * CCCAA State Champion (1995, 1996)
 * CCCAA All-American (1995, 1996)
 * CCCAA All-State Selection (1995, 1996)
 * California Interscholastic Federation
 * CIF All-State Selection (1993)

Submission grappling record

 * For the bronze medal (3rd place).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tito Ortiz


text:
Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 4

Don't get me wrong. I know that you genuinely take the genocide theory. I respect that. But as a historian, before making such a serious charge, there has to be evidence. 150 years have seen plenty of theories, claims, conspiracies, but nothing remotely indicating INTENT TO DESTROY, which are the three key words that must be fulfilled to justify a claim of genocide. If the intent was not there, then you can call it a hell of a lot of things, but not genocide. JTD 05:08 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) _____

Are you trying to tar someone with a label? By power of what faculty do you 'know' that I genuinely take the genocide theory. (sic)( Ed. presumably '...seriously,'). Whatever on Earth that was ment to mean.

These are exerpts fom my posts:

 * I don't think the topic of genocide need nessessarily be broached in the   :article. Just the facts. I think that a npov article might be able to be written :without mentioning it at all. But I could be absolutely wrong about that.

and again:

 * I think this might might help us figure out if the shoe fits. And again let me :state my belief that it may be possible to write this article with out :mentioning the word genocide.

I then quote extensively from genocide. An article with plenty of cavets on its own. So that we all could be prepared to work on the article. I have been working hard to grasp what neutral point of view might write.

Unless I know what definition of genocide is used, why should i care what the numbers are. Get us the numbers and the definitions and we will have something to look at.

And again

 * Let me make it perfectly clear that we do not need to use the word :geocide only with a strictly International Law definition. We are not a court :of International Law.

You then go ahead write (and SHout) 'but nothing remotely indicating INTENT TO DESTROY, which are the three key words that must be fulfilled to justify a claim of genocide. "

Why on Earth are you selectively quoting three words when the text is only one button away  for every reader?Even if nobodyelse  was editing,  wouldn't you half  expect me to do the background reading that I went to the trouble of  editing  and  placing on the talk page.

In Article  2 of  the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide   genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Its meaning is very different from what your sentence would give the unprepared reader. We can apply this criteria to the famine article and see if the shoe fits. If anyone can proivide details on what definitions of genocide are used by various historians and also hard data. links any comments would be greatly appreciated. Two16 08:03 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * "Don't get me wrong. I know that you genuinely take the genocide theory. I respect that. But as a historian, before making such a serious charge, there has to be evidence."

The above quote is by JTD, the below is by Ronald Regan, The first artist to become president, though his science was somwhat lacking...

 * "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

If you dont see the point Im making, think first before reverting to retorting reactionarily, or to revisit revisionism. -Sv

If you look at the above article you've just quoted, it says it in explicit detail. The three key words in the definition (and you've quoted it twice in black and white without unstanding it) are 'intent to destroy'. As it says, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy. That is the definitionary term in the opening clause, the central requirement through which the subsections must be analysed. If 'intent to destroy' applies in any one of the following, or all of the following, or a bit of one of the following, it is genocide. If 'intent' was not there, then it is irrelevant how many subclauses describe what happened, it is not genocide. Any lawyer will tell you what that article means, how it works and what is the central definitionary term. To use a relevant parallel, if you deliberately kill someone with the intent to kill them, that is murder. If you kill someone without the intent (ie, by accident, etc) that is manslaughter. Article 2 explicitly follows that rule. Intent, resulting in one of the following = genocide. Lack of that intent, even if they following subclauses describe the results is not genocide. The Article could not be more clearcut. It is defined as intent leading to one or all of the following.

Yes, Wiki doesn't have to apply legal standards, but if you are going to take one of the biggest events in Irish history, the Famine, and use to to make the most serious charge you can ever make, genocide, against a state and its leaders, you better have a damn good standard of proof. A couple of dodgy websites and politically motivated propaganda (which is the standard of proof a lot of people outside Ireland seem to apply) isn't good enough; not good enough for Ireland, for history, for the memory of those who died and certainly not good enough for Wiki's reputation as a good source of information. The above Article 2 is a perfect definition to apply, and is used by historians as their definition. And the overwhelming opinion of historians, archivists, researchers, etc is there was not the intent. Therefore, under Article 2, which is the logical standard to apply on such a serious issue, no genocide. Something different.

The only reason why I put it the genocide mention at all (and I never intended originally to put it in) is because I was asked to, by people who insist that genocide did take place. It doesn't matter how much historical research says to the contrary, what all the archives and primary documents say, they insist that genocide DID take place, and got highly abusive to me when in an earlier draft it wasn't there. (One threatened to keep reverting the article, dumping all changes, until it was mentioned.) I'd be quite happy to dump the genocide bit, but you'd then get some people bewailing its absence and accusing you and me in of being 'british apologists', 'covering up' for them. I thought it safer, rather than have a reverting war with some people (though I've been told some people on Wiki would ban certain individuals from Wiki if they kept trying to wreck the page) to put it in there and explain why the vast majority of historians dismiss the claim. (And believe me, I was toning down what the vast majority historians do say about the genocide theory and its proponents. Irish historians frequently compare 'genocidists' with 'holocaust deniers', ie, people who use history to push an agenda, not to establish genuine facts. Others compare them to the 'flat-earthers' and a lot worse.) That isn't to under-estimate the scale of the disaster that hit Ireland, only to point out that the necessary motivation that would be required to meet the basic standard of proof on genocide, namely intent, was not there. Incompetence, stupidity, ignorance, fundamental flaws in the economy and in the political system governing Ireland were there and cost the lives of vast numbers. JTD 11:14 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) --

Sv please do not revert the text. I will be retreiving portions of post from the archieve because of issues never fully addressed.

My objection was to this paragraph:

Critics have observed how during this time, Irish and Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. However such arguments mis-understand the nature of the famine economy, where many estates were only kept afloat and so were able to avoid mass evictions, provide local famine relief or were able to reduce rents, through the grain exports income. Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown; without the income, estates would have gone bust, leading to mass evictions, the laying off of estate staff, the resultant closure of local shops, businesses and industry all of which were reliant on income from the estates, and the spreading of the economic hardship and devastation throughout all of Ireland, including those parts to that point not heavily hit by the early stages of the famine, notably in east and north of the island. It was the classic 'no win' situation faced by many economies hit by famine.

Am I misunderstanding the famine economy if I don't particularly think that an island with a food surplus should be exporting food in a time of famine? I don't think that if the estates went bust and exclusive fishing rights returned to the locals that people would have starved. The worst sentence  is:
 * Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could
 * have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown;

Which implies that someone had a choice to continue or not continue. That is sloppy work. If that is not the cases this sentence must be rewritten. The worst phrase is 'famine economy'. It sounds repugnant. It sure sounds like it could be twisted around by all those sort of fanatics you claim are lurking on the internet. Why not be helpful: respond to my request for links. Doing that would take as much time  as one of those 'overwhelming majority' sentences would take to write.

Raving about Americans who support   bombers, murderers, and alot worse is not helpful here: Take it to the meta-pedia. Stop the displaced ad hominin attacks. They don't really help dispell the darkness  that writing a NPOV article might do that.

I have raised objections to this one paragraph on the talk page. The response on this page has been dismissive and the detrimental in the article.
 * We should probably tread lightly where geocide is concerned and remove the ironic(?) quotation in the subheading 'removed'
 * those italicised someread as dirision. npov violation 'italics removed'
 * I think that every exclaimation mark in an enclclopedia article should have to work hard to defend itself. still in article

The tone in parts of the article needs work: most obviously the subsection currently entitled. 'The Genocide Claim'. That section could use a more sensitive title and table a table or two. Facts :Figures, that sort of thing. The sort thing found in an enclyclopedia. So much of what is there really belong in a sociological text in meta.

Do you think that if you heap enough scorn on an idea that it will go away? It won't. Or, do you think that an encyclopida should present the facts when there is a persistant  meme amongst radical Irish and amongst Irish Famine refugees decended Americans.

Any truth is better than make believe.

If you are going to archieve material from a discussion, it is best to summarise the arguement. or better yet wait until discussion is over.

Please retain a link if you are going to refer to it in a later post. That you were still refering to it meant  that it was still relevant. You also remove a careful culling of relevant paragraphs.I am reposting the ones that most need to be recognised

Also retreived from the archive from Genocide

Common usage also sometimes equates genocide with state-sponsored mass murder, but genocide as defined above does not imply mass murder (or any murder) nor is every instance of mass-murder necessarily genocide. Neither is the involvement of a government required.

The word genocide is also sometimes used in a much broader sense, as in "slavery was genocide", but this usage is clearly incorrect from a legal standpoint.

Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish, since intent of destruction has to be proved. Cultural genocide refers to the deliberate destruction of a culture, without necessarily fulfilling the criteria of genocide. This term has been criticized as trying to benefit from the emotionally charged nature of "genocide".

Don't you think we need to look at the defintions and facts. I'd rather have one good link than 15,000 senteces like "overwhelming majority of academics, researchers, writers, people working with the primary documents" Lets deal with it bit by bit. Starting with that first paragraph I objected to. 216.129.198.41

If you mean the paragraph on the famine economy, it is the consensus view of respected historians. To give a personal example, a local landlord in my area provided soup kitchens, medical care and other help for his starving tenants, as well as reducing rents by 40%. The only way he could do that was through income from corn exports. Without that income, his estate would have gone bankrupt and 187 tenants would have been evicted. If the estate had gone broke, many of the local shops in two local towns, from whom the estate bought most of its supplies, would also have gone under. A local study published recently reckoned that, taking into account tenants, families, farm workers and labourers, shop shop staff, millers, confectioners and others, up to 2300 jobs would have gone, with the overwhelming majority left destitute. Without the impact of his rates, the local Poor Law Union would have had to cut back on its support for the starving, increasing deaths.

The conclusion of that report (and other similar ones carried out) is that by stopping exports, the results on that community would have been far more severe than in maintaining them, with the resulting destitution that would have occured trebling the local death rate. Furthermore, keeping the corn at home in the local area would had little benefit because there was only one local mill that could have processed it, but the amount of corn involved was way beyond its capacity. The estate did go broke in 1851; it was bought by property speculators who promptly evicted all the tenants and cut back severely on its dealings with the local towns, causing massive job losses. In 1851, however, no one starved as there was food available by then. Had those evictions and urban job losses occured in 1847 or 1848, many of those who lost their homes and jobs in 1851 would have lost their lives. The idea that you simply have kept the grain at home and hey presto the problems would have been solved and everyone would have food is ludicrous, ill-informed nonsense that shows no understanding of the complicated nature of the Irish rural economy in the late 1840s. Simplistic theories are simply that. Simplistic. The problem in Ireland was much more complicated than some people seem to grasp. It involved a delicate balancing act that tried unsuccessfully to feed the starving without causing an economic meltdown that would have increased the number of destitute people and the numbers of people dying. You may indeed object to the paragraph, but historians who have read it don't and have told me it conveys the complexity, as indeed does the article in the view of professional historians who are experts in studying the famine era, and who read it. JTD 22:49 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC) --

I made very specific comments about the language used in one paragraph. Would you please address my comments here. If you think that those sentences are fine as they are written:including tone and diction, please state that unequivically here. Or make comments here and we can talk about it. I do not want you to make another general statement about genocide and general concensus; I want your comments about a very small subset of this article. How many times do can you refuse my first request, before the history of this page shows you to be a uncooperative crank.?

Two16 23:29 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)~

I have no problem with the language. No-one else but you and one other person has made a complaint. One person wrote 'bravo' about the page, another wrote 'excellent page. I have a series of emails congratulating me on the page. So as of now, you are a small minority. If you have a problem with history hat is simply your problem, not mine. Wiki is built on a consensus, and that consensus disagrees with you. I've spent more than enough time dealing with your 'complaints'. And if all you can contribute apart from ignorance of historic facts is personal abuse, then this conversation is at an end. JTD 23:57 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 4


text:
Object (computer science)

In computer science, an object is a programming element that has state, has associated operations and is accessed via an identifier.

Object is a categorization into which many programming concepts fall. For example, an object can be a programming language variable, data structure, function, or method.

In object-oriented programming (OOP), an object is an abstract data type with the addition of polymorphism and inheritance. An object-oriented system integrates code and data as objects that each have state (data) and behavior (code). Any language that supports a construct with state and behavior is classified as object-based. In a class-based language, an object is an also known as an instance of a class. In the relational model of database management, aspects such as table and column may act as objects.

Distributed objects
The object-oriented approach is not just a programming model. It can be used equally well as an interface definition language for distributed systems. The objects in a distributed computing model tend to be larger grained, longer lasting, and more service-oriented than programming objects.

A standard method to package distributed objects is via an Interface Definition Language (IDL). An IDL shields the client of all of the details of the distributed server object. Details such as which computer the object resides on, what programming language it uses, what operating system, and other platform-specific issues. The IDL is also usually part of a distributed environment that provides services such as transactions and persistence to all objects in a uniform manner. Two of the most popular standards for distributed objects are the Object Management Group's CORBA standard and Microsoft's DCOM.

In addition to distributed objects, a number of other extensions to the basic concept of an object have been proposed to enable distributed computing:
 * Protocol objects are components of a protocol stack that enclose network communication within an object-oriented interface.
 * Replicated objects are groups of distributed objects (called replicas) that run a distributed multi-party protocol to achieve high consistency between their internal states, and that respond to requests in a coordinated way. Examples include fault-tolerant CORBA objects.
 * Live distributed objects (or simply live objects) generalize the replicated object concept to groups of replicas that might internally use any distributed protocol, perhaps resulting in only a weak consistency between their local states.

Some of these extensions, such as distributed objects and protocol objects, are domain-specific terms for special types of "ordinary" objects used in a certain context (such as remote method invocation or protocol composition). Others, such as replicated objects and live distributed objects, are more non-standard, in that they abandon the usual case that an object resides in a single location at a time, and apply the concept to groups of entities (replicas) that might span across multiple locations, might have only weakly consistent state, and whose membership might dynamically change.

The Semantic Web
The Semantic Web is essentially a distributed-objects framework. Two key technologies in the Semantic Web are the Web Ontology Language (WOL) and the Resource Description Framework (RDF). RDF provides the capability to define basic objects—names, properties, attributes, relations—that are accessible via the Internet. OWL adds a richer object model, based on set theory, that provides additional modeling capabilities such as multiple inheritance.

OWL objects are not like standard large-grained distributed objects accessed via an Interface Definition Language. Such an approach would not be appropriate for the Internet because the Internet is constantly evolving and standardization on one set of interfaces is difficult to achieve. OWL objects tend to be similar to the kinds of objects used to define application domain models in programming languages such as Java and C++.

However, there are important distinctions between OWL objects and traditional object-oriented programming objects. Traditional objects get compiled into static hierarchies usually with single inheritance, but OWL objects are dynamic. An OWL object can change its structure at run time and can become an instance of new or different classes.

Another critical difference is the way the model treats information that is currently not in the system. Programming objects and most database systems use the "closed-world assumption". If a fact is not known to the system that fact is assumed to be false. Semantic Web objects use the open-world assumption, a statement is only considered false if there is actual relevant information that it is false, otherwise it is assumed to be unknown, neither true nor false.

OWL objects are actually most like objects in artificial intelligence frame languages such as KL-ONE and Loom.

The following table contrasts traditional objects from Object-Oriented programming languages such as Java or C++ with Semantic Web Objects:

title: Object (computer science)