text:
Talk:Auschwitz (disambiguation)

Disambiguate?
I wonder if this should be a disambiguation page. Martin 00:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lots of pages are linking here, most in an offhand manner ("Auschwitz survivor"... etc). Maybe this shouldn't be a disambig. I tried to fix some of the links, but there are just too many. Habsburg was actually referring to the town, but the vast majority of links are referring to the concentration camp. Neckro 07:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because of the large numbers of refering pages that mean the concentration camp, this should be IMO about the camp, with a small disambig leading to the city's page and Austerlitz shouldn't be mentioned at all. (if I were uneducated enough to mistake, for example, Leonardo DiCaprio for Leonardo Da Vinci, would that justify a disambig page?) Alensha 22:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This confusion happens :: my brother received a letter from a friend who had visited Poland; the letter included "Austerlitz was very traumatic"; the friend had visited Auschwitz but not Austerlitz. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Auschwitz III
Auschwitz III (Monowitz concentration camp) has a separate article, so that link should normally be listed on this disambiguation page. Auschwitz II (Birkenau) does not have a separate article: it is included in the Auschwitz concentration camp article currently, so that should be clear from the intro, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The new sentences in the rubric Auschwitz (disambiguation) proposed by Francis Schonken made no sense for the introductory rubric in the article Auschwitz concentration camp. On the other hand the main article has clear summaries for that lede and for the main subsections on Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II, Auschwitz III, subcamps, etc. The main article radiates from the more specialised sections and subarticles like a tree—an arborescence.

 * We cannot really exaggerate how significant this kind of article is and what it represents. It's not something to play around without serious thought. There are interests and concerns for many different types of readers and from all backgrounds. (Unfortunately there are also considerable numbers of vandals active.) There is even a special portion of the infobox which documents the "UNESCO World Heritage Site" and Birkenau-Auschwitz II: an image for Primo Levi (from Auschwitz III) also appears further up in the infobox.

 * Changing the main article in a radical way would almost certainly not be possible at this juncture and is unlikely to have any consensus. It could possibly be explained to administrators like SlimVirgin, Acroterion, Diannaa, Ealdgyth and any other editors, what kind of modifications you might envisage for the main article and the two initial types of ambiguation on Auschwitz and Birkenau. In this particular case, however, it seems that the infobox is being used as the driving force for the article, rather than what usually happens in the opposite direction. The article Auschwitz concentration camp and its talk page need to be discussed directly with experienced administrators and editors. The infobox should no be running the article, here or elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of links
and, can you explain why you keep removing links? Even if you want to remove the links to Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II (both subsections), Auschwitz III and List of subcamps of Auschwitz are stand-alone articles. Why can't they be included? SarahSV (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this is a disambiguation page that helps readers to navigate articles. If a reader is interested in Auschwitz the concentration camp, s/he can navigate to the main article, which, in its lead paragraph and the body of the article, signposts well the other related articles that are available. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the response. Why do you prefer that readers click on another article to find the one they might be looking for here? If there's a guideline to that effect, please link to it. There's a lot of confusion and ignorance about Auschwitz, so it would be helpful if this page could be comprehensive and precise. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello It's because a disambiguation page "Foo (disambiguation)" has a primary topic "Foo" (at the top) and lists other uses of the term "Foo", e.g. a film, a book, and a place. If a reader types "Foo" into the search box (or navigates directly to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo) they'll end up at the "Foo" primary topic article. If that's not what they want (say they want the film), a hatnote might take them to the disambiguation page, which helps them navigate to the page they want. The disambiguation page is not the place to clear up confusion and ignorance about the primary topic: the primary topic article is.  In this case there's a primary topic redirect (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) from Auschwitz to Auschwitz concentration camp.  It's highly likely that a searcher looking for information about Auschwitz is going to start at the primary topic article, and not the disambiguation page. There's guidance on disambiguation generally at WP:DAB, and style at MOS:DAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The question could be reversed: can you explain why you put article content on a non-article navigation page. Disambiguation pages are for resolving ambiguity in article titles, a workaround to the technical problem where two articles on Wikipedia can't have the same title. Article content is for imparting information (such as resolving confusion and ignorance). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Auschwitz (disambiguation)


text:
Mount Si

Mount Si (pronounced ;, ) is a mountain in the northwest United States, east of Seattle, Washington. It lies on the western margin of the Cascade Range just above the coastal plains around Puget Sound, and towers over the nearby town of North Bend. Mount Si and neighboring mountain Little Si were named after local homesteader Josiah "Uncle Si" Merritt. The mountain became nationally familiar in the early 1990s with the television series Twin Peaks, which was filmed in North Bend.

Only about a 45-minute drive from Seattle, the mountain is a favorite outdoor destination for residents of Puget Sound. Between 80,000 and 100,000 hikers visit the mountain annually. The land is owned by the state of Washington and has been designated a Natural Resources Conservation Area.

The 4 mi Mount Si trail vertically climbs 3500 ft to the summit ridge. Its summit is reached by an exposed scramble,, up the north side of the summit block, which is known as the "Haystack".

The peak can be accessed by two trails. The Old Mount Si trail is accessed by the Little Si parking lot and the Boulder Garden Loop. It is 0.6 mi shorter, 270 ft steeper in elevation gain, and less crowded than the main trail. The Mount Si trail is accessed by the Mount Si parking lot.

Oceanic plate volcano

Mount Si is a remnant of an oceanic plate volcano and the rocks are highly metamorphosed. The rock deposits are a melange including metagabbro, and are Jurassic-Cretaceous in age.

In Snoqualmie culture
Mount Si features prominently in a Prometheus story from the Snoqualmie people. According to Snoqualmie tradition, Mount Si is the fallen body of, or Moon, who is the paramount god in Snoqualmie traditional religion. Moon had ordered that a rope of cedar bark be stretched between the Earth and the sky. (Coyote) and (Blue Jay) went up the rope, with Blue Jay pecking a hole in the sky for Coyote to crawl through, where he found himself at the bottom of a lake. He transformed into a beaver, but got trapped in a beaver trap set by Moon. Coyote played dead to trick Moon and was brought back to his house, where he was skinned by Moon and his carcass thrown away in the corner, where he waited paitently.

When Moon had fallen asleep, Coyote re-applied his skin and explored the house of Moon, finding great forests, fire, the sun, and a contraption that made daylight among his possessions. Coyote then stole them, transforming back to his regular form and descending back down the rope to distribute what he had stolen across the earth. Awakening to find his possessions stolen, Moon chased Coyote down the cedar rope in anger, but it broke and he fell to his death, forming the mountain. Moon's face is visible on the rocks near the summit.

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

title: Mount Si


text:
Talk:Separation of church and state

The concept "originated"
with Baptists in Early America? It clearly had ancient and Medieval origins, as briefly discussed in this article. This article also seems to present a caricature of Medieval Europe as a theocracy, an erroneous view that Medievalists have worked hard to correct. Here's some research discussing the European origins of this idea which was inspired primarily by the Bible. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Section about Islam
The section that deals with the separation of church and state in Islam, states that the separation of church and state happened very early in islam. This is then substantiated by a reference to how scholars were allowed and able to operate independently from the state and were critical of its leaders, and a brief mention of the Constition of Medina. I do not think, however, that these two points do in fact substantiate the claim that there is and was a separation of church and state in islam. Independence of scholars does not automatically mean that the state within which they operate(d), is secular. As for the Constitution of Medina: the current text does not make it clear in what way this document is an "early form of secular governance" nor does it elaborate upon the discussions it refers to. The mere existence of the document and the fact that it, as stated, granted equal rights to different religious groups, does not automatically imply a separation between church and state. At the same time, it's clear from the information on the relevant page here on this Wiki, that the first Caliphate, as founded by Muhammad and continued by his successors, was governed with islam as basis. In other historic states ruled by islamic rulers or governments, islam similarly is intertwined with the affairs of the state. I would therefore suggest a review of this paragraph to clarify whether or not there is a separation of church and state from the perspective of islam and its application in practice. 144.43.250.53 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Separation of church and state


text:
Talk:Nurse uniform

My addition "However, student nurses are more likely to wear practical and durable "scrubs", eschewing the old-fashioned cap and ruffles these days" was deleted.

Not sure who did it, or why. Explanations, theories?

 * I don't know; look in the article history. If you reinforce your addition with a reference, it most likely will resist deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

 * This whole wiki page needs updating - it's so out dated. Mwnt888 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we put more stuff? Thief Lord 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do they employ student nurses? Thief Lord 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In Woking Hospital.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)AJ REDDSON

Shouldn't this page be deleted? What exactly does it add?! --John24601 07:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is useful to know how the whites developed historically.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Andering J. REDDSON

Don't delete it! I have updated the page with links and a short history of nursing uniforms. I'm from the Netherlands and Engelish is my second language, so their could be any errors in grammar or words. (I'm active on the dutch wikipedia) Cheers! Oesermaatra0069

I don't feel that this article accurately describes Nursing attire - it gives a description of old, and out of date dress. Being a male student nurse, I do not wear a cap, pinny etc and no one has done so since the 1980's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.16.128 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, this article does not give an accurate description of the current state of uniforms in nursing. I am a male [Master of Nursing] degree student and I wear a white knee-length lab coat (with college and degree info embroidered over breast) with navy blue scrubs (also embroidered with the college info and "MN") or wear the lab coat over street casual dress street clothes, whichever is most appropriate. I do not nor have I ever worn "a white tunic with epaulettes in the colour of their grade" (the closest to that was my dress uniform when I was an MP (Military Police) in the U.S. Army). I wouldn't delete it but this article certainly needs some serious work. I'll try to remember to edit the article when I am not so busy with school and clinic. Oh, my wife thinks I'm pretty darn sexy in my lab and scrubs (with stethoscope hanging over the shoulders); just thought I'd add that little tid-bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Although the traditional nursing whites is rarely, if ever, worn outside of "dress enviroments" (most of questionable medical nessesity), it is useful to know how the whites developed historically. For example, the militry's Female Combination Cover devloped from the nurse's cap, linking current ladies in uniform to the nun's of old- Even if the lady in question is, say, an inftantryman in Iraq, or a bomber pilot over Afghanistan.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Andy REDDSON

I have modified the page and added more information, hopefully now you will find it more useful and informative. --DR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.34.255 (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As soon as my "probationary period" of four days is up, I will add pics of the mentioned Female Combo Covers. I have an army enlisted and naval officcer's combo covers litterally waiting in the wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the pics now, however it would be better if they were side-by-side, ratehr one on top of the other as they are now; I don't know how to do it correctly. It would be more respectful to show them side-by-side.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)AJ REDDSON

WP:NURSE priority review
As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per WikiProject Nursing/Assessment. I have also added start class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Cheers, Basie (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nurse uniform"
I've never heard it called a "nurse uniform"—nor have I ever heard "doctor scrubs" or "soldier helmet." That's just now how such things are typically expressed. "Nurse's uniform" is the usual term (as it appears in one of the subheadings). That locution should be used in the title and throughout the article. Would the author care to make the changes? KC 09:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Nurse uniform


text:
Talk:Church of Norway

Untitled
Is it the state church? If so that needs to be said. FearÉIREANN 19:22 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I think it is.

Norwegian Fishermans’ Church, Liverpool
Does any one know what the relationship is to say Norwegian Fishermans’ Church, Liverpool.--84.9.194.90 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * See: Norwegian Church Abroad Inge 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Attendance
The article claims 10% of the population attends services on a regular basis, whereas the article it claims as source only has 3%.

I presume the source is correct, and changed the percentage in the article.--Sparviere 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Credo in communion-part of lityrgy?
I'm sitting here with the CoN's book of worship (Gudstjenesteboken), and I can't find any opening for the credo in the liturgy of communion. There is: Sursum corda, Prefatio, Sanctus, a prayer, Our lord, Verba, (room for second part of "a prayer"), Agnus Dei. No room for credo. There are neither any Credo in the test-liturgy (http://kirken.no/?event=showArticle&FamID=35648) from NFG ("Nemd For Gudstjenesteliv", = the Liturgy-Reform). Credo comes in the baptismal part, or after the second reading (according to the book from -86), or after the sermon (according to some test-liturgies from NFG). I will therefore correct the liturgy-part. --A-moll9 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, thanks for fixing ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:National churches vs. Category:State churches (Christian)
Category:State churches (Christian) is itself a category within Category:National churches. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:State churches (Christian) vs. Category:Church of Norway
Category:Church of Norway is itself a category within Category:State churches (Christian). — Robert Greer (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dissent from conservatives
The article should really consider looking into whether there has ever been any doctrinal dissent from conservatives within the Church of Norway, who might feel alienated about decisions surrounding the ordination of women or the blessing of same-sex marriages. It is possible to imagine that if this dissent were not healed, many of these conservatives would consider forming their own ecclesial community, which might be tempted to reunite with the Catholic Church, such as recently seen with the Traditional Anglican Communion. ADM (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Church has new name and inclusion
This article should be completely reworked. The name of the church has changed, and its Lutheran exclusivity was changed by legislation in May 2012. It is still the state church is some ways (payment of clergy and property, schools, organizations), so to say it is not the state church has only limited veracity.
 * What do you mean by Lutheran exclusivity? The church is still Evangelical Lutheran, as established by the Constitution. Per Weo (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed separation of church and state
The idea that church and state should be separated is only supported by the small Socialist Left Party. The government Labour Party and Centre Party have explicitly decided against this proposal and decided to retain the state church ("the state church is retained. Neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state", Trond Giske, Minister of Church Affairs, ). However, all parties voted for the 2008 compromise (finally implemented from 2012), which meant that the state church was retained, as pointed out, for example, by the state Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and the Norwegian Humanist Association. The fact that the wording "official religion of the State" is replaced by "Norway's people's church" in the constitution doesn't affect the church's status as a state church (it has never been designated "state church" in the constitution, and "Norway's people's church" obviously means state church no less than the previous wording), and what makes it a state church isn't the wording in the constitution, but rather the fact that all clergy are state employees and the church fully state-funded, the Church of Norway being legally privileged by having its own church law and a special status in the constitution, the Church of Norway being integrated in the state administration, an obligation for the King to be a member, and much more. Per Weo (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For a more in-depth article on the state church system of Norway from 2012 onwards, see http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_nye_statskirkeordningen_(2008) (The New State Church System), the name of the agreement reached by all Storting parties and implemented in 2012. Per Weo (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * there isnt a state church in norway anymore by order of the government.
 * I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Norway has a state church, and the government is in no position to make any "orders" in this respect; such issues are decided by the Parliament, the Storting, and in the recent, so-called state-church compromise (statskirkeforliket), the Parliament voted to retain the state church, while adopting some minor changes which didn't affect its status as a state church and while rewording the constitution to adopt a state church provision with a more modern and less confusing wording based on the Danish state church provision in the Constitution of Denmark. Per Weo (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Compared to other Nordic state churches
The Constitution of Norway now (from 2012) says that "den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk Kirke, forbliver Norges Folkekirke og understøttes som saadan af Staten" ("the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such"). The provision is directly based on the provisions for the Danish and Iceland state churches (Church of Denmark and Church of Iceland respectively) in the Danish and Icelandic constitutions. The term people's church (folkekirke) was introduced with the Danish 1848 constitution, where § 4 says that "Den evangelisk-lutherske kirke er den danske folkekirke og understøttes som sådan af staten" ("The Evangelical-Lutheran Church is the Danish people's church and is supported as such by the State"). The Icelandic constitution contains a similar provision based on the Danish constitution. Per Weo (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the wording would imply that it's not a state religion but a national church (people's church). --Pudeo' 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not state church since 2012
Church of Norway was until 2012 an integral part of the Norwegian government apparatus, along with tax offices, police, school etc. The clergy were civil servants appointed by the King, and the King was kind of archbishop. In 2012 there was a soft break from the state, the church is now a self-governing body. It is a national church although not a state church (in Norwegian the word "state" is synonymous with "government"). --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed ad nauseam, and as has been demonstrated (e.g. above), the view that the state church should be abolished is a minority view of only one small party (SV) that was not adopted by the Storting. Both Labour and the Centre Party (then in government) and all the other parties except SV explicitly decided in favour of retaining the state church (see e.g. ) As then-Minister of Church affairs Trond Giske said when the most recent amendments of the constitution were proposed, "the state church is retained" ("Statskirkeordningen føres videre. Verken Ap eller Sp hadde mandat til å gå med på å skille stat og kirke"). The recent constitutional amendments were mostly of limited importance and did not at all affect the church's status as a state church; the only somewhat important change was that authority to appoint bishops was transferred to church bodies, but this was really only the last stage of a process that had been going on for decades and part of the same process that gave e.g. universities the right to hire professors themselves, they don't have to be appointed by the government any longer either. This, of course, doesn't make the University of Oslo any less of a state university. Per Weo (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Norwegian sources says that it is no longer a state church for instance or the church itself. Christianity was the official religion in Norway since 1024, and the church was governed by the king since 1536, priests and bishops were civil servants, the church was in effect the government department of religion. This is no longer the case, the church is self-governed. What remains is funding, but all religious organizations are supported financially by the state (this is also mentioned in the revised constitution). The church of Norway is no longer part of the government apparatus. Trond Giske's remark is a political statement not a factual statement. Human-Etisk forbund also claims that is still a "state church", but too is a political statement because they dont want any relation between state and church. So the church of Norway is a national church but not a state church. And evangelical christianity is no longer the official religion of Norway. The label state church is removed from Norwegian WP. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Norwegian sources, as seen above, say it is a state church; even the Minister of Church Affairs said so explicitly when presenting the changes in question, leaving no doubt as to what the official situation is. It also fullfills any meaningful definition of a state church for the reasons mentioned above; eg. it has a special provision in the constitution (unlike any other religion/church) where it is mentioned as the "people's church" (a traditional term for state church; also the provision is an almost verbatim copy of the similar Danish provision for the Danish state church), it has its own law, its employees are state employees (contrary to what you claim), the King is required to be a member, its regional and central bodies form part of the state administration, it is bound e.g. by forvaltningsloven and other laws regulating public bodies, the municipalities are required by law to support its activities, the municipalities are represented in local church bodies and so on. The view that is is not a state church despite all these facts which clearly demonstrate that it is, is a (rather frivolous) minority view, not held by any of the parties which voted for the recent constitutional amendments (not even SV, the only party which in theory would prefer to separate it from the state). The reason why it is a state church can be readily found in current Norwegian legislation. A good overview is presented here. Per Weo (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "fritanke.no" is the publication of Human-etisk forbund, they are very critical to any relation between church and government and they mean that the changes are not sufficient, so it is in their interest to frame the situation. The departemental web pages says that there is no state church. There are some details of the reform not in place, for instance creating the church as a legal entity is not yet in place, but this is a question of practicalities and not principle. There is already a new association, KA, in place for church employers. You are right that some legal details are still not in place. In any case there is no doubt the reform was the most important change in the relation between church and government since 1536, it is clearly misleading to suggest that the church of Norway is the same as 20 or 50 years ago. As we can not agree about the term "state church", the article should mention the specifics in the relation between government and church, including the changes i 2012. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 * It is the privilege of the Storting and no one else to determine the status of the state church, and the Storting has not abolished any state church, and this was made perfectly clear by the Storting and by the goverment when these changes were adopted. The Minister of Church Affairs said: "The state church is retained." The most recent amendments are mostly rather insignificant changes, and other reforms of the postwar era were far more important, e.g. female priests. The reform 25 years ago was also at the very least of equal importance. There is only one single party in Norway, the small SV party, which is in favour of abolishing the state church. Per Weo (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Also, the two sentence-text that you linked to does not say there is no state church. That would have been rather strange since the government's policy is to retain the state church (both the former Labour government, as they made very clear, and the current one; after Labour decided in favour of the state church a couple of years ago, there is hardly any support for abolishing it). For example, any public university or college, or the state's broadcasting company NRK, are separate legal entities, the church being a separate legal entity doesn't make it less of a state church. There is no requirement that a state church must be fully identical with the regular state administration; a state church is by definition a church that has a privileged position in a state, e.g. in its constitution and/or public life. More important is the fact that it has a special provision in the constitution as "Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" (a very clear wording meaning state church), with the provision being a deliberate copy of the long-standing Danish provision for the Danish state church, having its own law and all the other characteristics of being a state church. If it was not to be a state church, the Constitution of Norway would have to be changed and the current state church provision removed. Per Weo (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 * «The departemental web pages says that there is no state church.» No it dont. What is outspoken political intention of government in office: is intentions, not facts. this timeline shows the work in progress. Andrez1 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No consensus
There is no consesus to use the term "state church". Some sources (opinion pieces mostly) says that it is still a state church, other sources (the church itself, the ministry, news reports) says that is not. The term "state church" is more controversial then not using the term at all. NO-WP avoids the term and instead describes the specific changes and the specific relations between state and church (for instance no official religion, but priests are still civil servants). It is not our job to draw inferences from facts. When facts are not clear (for instance the term "state church") WP must reflect this state of affairs, for instance by avoiding the topic or by quoting diverging positions. --Erik den yngre (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is, and furthermore, it is the official position of the Norwegian government, and of the Norwegian constitution. The opinion that it should not be a state church is just a minority, fringe personal opinion. We have the Storting parties saying explicitly that the state church is retained, we have the Minister of Church Affairs saying "the state church is retained" for Christ's sake. Also, it doesn't really matter which words are used in Norway, I recommend that you read the introduction of the article state religion (which is where state church redirects, and which is synonymous with state church) to get an idea of what the term means in the English language (for example: "State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state.") By this definition, the Norwegian state church is even more of a state church than what is really required to be called a state church in the English language; it is one of the most quintessential examples of a state church in the European tradition today, and this (the Church of Norway remaining a state church) was also what the Storting and government said they intended when they adopted the most recent changes. From both the legal/constitutional and scholarly point of view, there is absolutely no question that the Church of Norway has been a state church since the Reformation until this day, regardless of the wish by some of its opponents, a small minority, to change this situation (an agenda they will first and foremost have to pursue by convincing the political parties represented in the Storting to change the Norwegian constitution as well as other laws giving the Church of Norway a special role, although it seems extremely unlikely that the Storting will do that in the near future). Per Weo (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 * There is no consensus that the Church of Norway is a state church. The sourced used to support the statement are selective or opinions.It is not our job to reach a conclusion, NO-WP is much more accurate as the term is avoided, instead the various remaining ties to the government are specified.. Even NOU 2006:2 said clearly that "state church" is not a clear concept. Please leave the disputed-tag until this is resolved. --— Erik Jr. 22:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputed "disputed" tag
This matter is resolved and there is no evidence that supports such a tag. Your personal opinion that the church shouldn't be a state church is not acceptable evidence. Please familiarize yourself with what the term state church means in the English language (per above) before making edits here. Per Weo (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This matter is not resolved. You can not just remove the disputed tag at will. The same discussion was going on in Norwegian WP. There the notion "state church" is avoided because it is not entirely clear. Dont you think Norwegian WP is more accurate in this matter than EN WP? Regards --— Erik Jr. 22:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, on the contrary. This article is vastly superior, and other (poorly sourced and biased) Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources. We have been through this material again and again and again, and you refuse to take sources into account, ignore all previous debate and insist on your own theory which is not supported by sources. That's not enough for a tag. English Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not personal opinions. This article is not the right venue for campaigning against the Church of Norway and/or its special constitutional role in Norway. The Minister of Church Affairs and the Norwegian Parliament say Norway's state church is retained (and it obviously meets the definition of the term in the English language as well), while you have an entirely different opinion. That's ok, but not in the article. Per Weo (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the disputed tag. This is disputed because sources are not clear. And we are two editors that do not agree, that is the definition of disputed. I am campaigning for accuracy, nothing else. --— Erik Jr. 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Andrez1 didn't agree with your interpretation either. I'm sorry, but there are no sources that demonstrate that both the government/Minister of Church Affairs and the parliament were wrong when they explicitly decided to retain the state church, as demonstrated by several sources. The Norwegian Wikipedia, which you are so fond of, even has an article called "the new state church arrangement," as the 2008/2012 amendment is known as: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_nye_statskirkeordningen_(2008) Per Weo (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, stop removing the disputed tag. You had the same argument on Norwegian WP. I have left the word "state church", but added accuracy by specifying below. Please do not reverse the specification of the new church organization. There is no need to repeat the word "state church" when already mentioned in the firs paragraph. --— Erik Jr. 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC).

 * There is only one user (you) who disagrees that it is a state church, based on your own personal opinion rather than sources, while the Parliament and Government of Norway (as explained by the Minister of Chuch Affairs Trond Giske at the time) explicitly hold the opinion that it is a state church (per above). That is not enough to add a tag, which qualifies as frivolous at this point and in view of the very clear sources. You cannot add a disputed tag after the description "American" in Obama's biography either, even though there are people who claim that he's an Indonesian Muslim or something like that. You seem to refuse to even read the article state church to get an idea of what the term means in the English language, instead insisting on your own definition which is unrelated to both English language usage and official Norwegian definitions. There was only a single, small party (SV) which advocated the abolition of the state church at the time (per above), and this article is not the right venue to continue that campaign. Per Weo (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a dispute resolution. Please pause editing. See my comment below: a disupte is among editors and there are only two editors at work, one of them can not unilaterally claim that the matter is resolved, that is not how WP works. Please stop saying that it is my personal opinion. We are not here to analyse the concept of state church, we are here to quote what reliable sources say about the matter. I am not insisting on my own definition. The Church itself and the Ministry said that what was once "state church" is now "state and church". Newspaper reports also said "end of state church". Giske has opinions and a political position to defend, so his claim is also an opinion not a clear fact. Fritanke.no is the magazine of the Humanist association that is very critical to any link between state and religion. When reliable sources diverge we as editors can not make our concluisons. The Gjønnes commission pointed out that the concept of state church is not clear cut (and mentioned several elements that together create a state church), that is one reason why the NO-WP does not use the term. — Erik Jr. 13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian Wikipedia does indeed use the term ("the new state church arrangement") (although other Wikipedia articles in foreign languages do not count as sources here). Trond Giske was the Minister of Church Affairs, it was not his personal opinion. Not a single party in the Storting claimed it was an abolition of the state church either. The term state church in the English language is actually well defined and no serious person can claim that the state Church of Norway does not meet the definition when it's one of the most quintessential examples of a state church, fullfilling and even overfullfilling the definition of the term in the English language. Once again you are making your own definition instead of listening to what I tell you about the term in the English language. Per Weo (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The disputed-tag does not relate to disputes in public, but disputes among editors. Please observe the policies of WP. --— Erik Jr. 00:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Tag again
Dispute is not resolved. I reinsert "disputed" tag to notify readers that "state church" is an disputed term in this case. — Erik Jr. 11:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please leave tag until dispute is resolved. --— Erik Jr. 13:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
(and other interested editors) Reliable sources are inconsistent with regard to the label "state church". For instance the church council says that "the church of Norway can no longer be labeled state church" ("I 2012 endret Stortinget grunnloven slik at Norge ikke lenger har noen offentlig religion. Den norske kirke kan derfor ikke lenger betegnes «statskirken»."). So there is no basis for opening, unambiguous statement that it is a state church. Instead, I propose to remove this claim and avoid labeling the church of Norway as state church or not-state church. The article should instead Because the matter is not clear, it is not the task of WP editors to analyze the concept of state church and draw conclusions in the case of Norway - that would be original research (WP:SYNTH). Regards — Erik Jr. 11:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * describe the 2012 changes that relaxed ties between state/government and church
 * describe the remaining ties (funding, legislation, priests as civil servants)
 * describe the main views about the label "state church" with the current church legislation
 * There are not yet any responses to this proposal. I will wait a few more days, then change as indicated. Regards --— Erik Jr. 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The concept of state church, as the term is understood in the English language, is relevant to the description of the Church of Norway, and it is flatly wrong that "reliable sources are inconsistent with regard to the label "state church"", it's the other way round. I have actually not seen a single reliable source which is inconsistent with the English language term "state church". The article should certainly describe the 2012 changes, but not misrepresent them as some drastic change of the church's status, or be based on an editor's own analysis and views on a constitutional amendment which was explicitly not an abolition of any state church and which introduced comparatively moderate changes, which were actually seen as a reinforcement and strengthening of the state church by its opponents in Norway. Per Weo (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I propose that we instead follow English language usage and the established meaning of the term in the English language, an issue you have avoided during this entire discussion. Per Weo (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You were invited to join a discussion on dispute resolution noticeboard, but you did not respond. The mediator there advised: "I would suggest that discussion can continue on the talk page, but should focus on the wording of the lede, rather than tagging, which is merely a first step to calling for the need for discussion." I suggest as a compromise that the very broad claim "state church" is removed from the introduction, instead a new section can discuss the relation between state and church including the diverging views about the current status. In this way we avoiding using the disputed label "state church" as a clear fact. Then you can use the label "state church" as a description according to some sources, but not according to others. This is the way forward when sources (and editors) disagree. Please help out finding a constructive solution instead of repeating the same arguments. Best regards, — Erik Jr. 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite ages of debate, you seem to refuse to listen to what other editors tell you, and not a single user has agreed with your views in this discussion, so this seems more like an attempt to exhaust others by simply ignoring discussion, arguments and sources. You have not proposed a real compromise, and not even a specific wording or anything like it; the only contested issue (which is only contested by you) is the inclusion of the reliably sourced description of the Church of Norway as a state church in the opening sentence, so your suggested "compromise" is really that you have it your way by removing a reliably sourced description because one editor doesn't like it. There is no disagreement that we can also have a detailed description of the exact ties between the church and the state, and even a discussion of the views of those who think there should be no such ties, somewhere below. What you seem to fail to accept and understand is that reliable sources clearly demonstrate that the Church of Norway is a state church today according to the definition of the term in the English language ("a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"). Removing the description would clearly be a bold change indeed, and there are no credible sources to support such a change, on the contrary there are solid sources that demonstrate that such a change would be factually wrong. Per Weo (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop attributing intentions and opinions, please assume good faith. You were invited to join a dispute resolution, which is a normal procedure in situations like these, but you did not respond. So I am trying to be constructive without the help of volunteer mediators. Some reliable sources say that it is a state church, others say that it is not. We don't have the option of being selective to create clarity. My suggested compromise is quite clear: Remove the word "state church" from the opening sentence (because it is contested and ambiguous). This leaves the issue open, so instead a new section can be inserted describing the various perspectives on the issue. --— Erik Jr. 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that support your assertion that the Church of Norway is not "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"? Despite numerous reminders, you have not replied to this question. How is the Church of Norway not officially endorsed by the state in your opinion, when it's even mentioned as the country's people's church in the constitution? This is a question of the English language descriptive term state religion/state church. This is not a Norwegian language project, so it's even possible that the meaning of the English language term may be different from usage in other langugages such as Norwegian. Per Weo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Accurcary
I have no added more accurcay (mostly to intro) regarding ties between state and church. Please help improve accuracy. --— Erik Jr. 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

§ 2
Some background info: The original § 2 of Norway's constitution stated that "evangelical-lutheranism remains the public religion of the state". The constitiotin no longer mentions a public religion, instead the constitution mentions the "people's church" funded by the state (§ 16). It should however be noted that all religious organizations obtains funds from the government. Article 16 (§ 16) explicitly states all religions should be treated on equal terms. The difference is that the clergy within the church of Norway are civil servants and are paid by the governement. --— Erik Jr. 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * This is very biased and misleading as "background info". As pointed out repeatedly, it is completely irrelevant whether the constitution uses the old-fashioned and somewhat unclear 1814 term "public religion of the state" or the more modern "Norway's people's church". Both terms are understood to mean what is known as a state church in English language usage. The new provision, which gives the state Church of Norway a special constitutional role as a state church, actually reinforces its status as a state church even more than before (as pointed out by e.g. Kristin Mile here: ), and the provision is a near-verbatim copy of the similar provision for the Danish state church in the constitution of Denmark. Furthermore, the state Church of Norway continues to have all other common characteristics of a state church (and even more), e.g.: all clergy are state employees and the church is fully state-funded, the Church of Norway is legally privileged by having its own church law and a special status in the constitution, the Church of Norway is integrated in the state administration, there is a constitutional obligation for the King to be a member, there is a legal requirement for municipalities to support its activities, and so on. In sum: Only one smaller political party in Norway, the Socialist Left Party, wants to deprive the Church of Norway of its status as a state church, while all other parties, including the then-governing Labour Party and Centre Party, have explicitly decided to "retain the state church" as the Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske said when the constitutional amendment was presented. Per Weo (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I merely quoted Article 2 and 16 constitution. Whatever we believe is the definition of a state church, we can not ignore the fact the ties to the government (state) has been relaxed: The Norwegian state does no longer have a public religion, the clergy is appointed by the church itself (its governing bodies) and the cabinet/parliament does not have a say in doctrinal issues.

 * You claim that "people's church" = "public religion". This is a conclusion (synthesis), a kind of original research, and not accepted in WP. It is not our task to analyse these terms and reach a conclusion. You further analyse the components of Norway's church to reach the conclusion that is a state church, this is also original research and not accepted. What I have done is merely to describe (specify) these components, but do not try to reach a conclusion - let us leave that to the reader. --— Erik Jr. 22:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You cite Giske and Mile, that is OK, but these are also biased (they are not neutral observers describing facts). — Erik Jr. 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you're the one who's presenting synthesis and original research. You want to introduce a drastic change in this article: The Norwegian state church (which has been in existence since the 16th century) has suddenly been abolished! Without any credible sources, based on your own (inaccurate) interpretation of a relatively minor (maybe the 5th most important church reform of the last century) constitutional amendment which is officially known in Norway as, and called "the new state church arrangement" (Den nye statskirkeordningen) by the Norwegian Wikipedia, and despite the fact that the parties represented in parliament and even the Minister of Church Affairs clarified that "the state church is retained", because in fact, all parties except SV had decided in favour of retaining the state church ("neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state" as Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske said, with the governing Centre Party jubilant about the continued state church). But you want to overrule them, you want to overrule the Norwegian parliament, and simply enforce SV's minority position, which was not adopted by the parliament. Not even the Church of Norway's arch-nemesis, the Human-Ethical Association, considers the state church to have been abolished, rather the opposite (per above).

 * "Public religion" is just one random wording; your theory that this particular 19th century wording must be in the constitution for a state church to be called a state church is completely unsourced, and frankly, ludicrous. The constitution of Norway has never used the term "state church", which is for our purposes a descriptive term in the English language for "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state". Many state churches are not mentioned in constitutions at all, and if the particular wording of Norway's 1814 constitution had to be in a constitution for a church to be a state church, Norway would have boasted the only state church in world history. The state church of Norway actually existed for centuries before this wording was adopted, and without being mentioned in a constitution. Per Weo (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 * If we remove the term "state church" from the introduction we don't necessarily conclude the opposite: "not state church". We merely leave the issue open. This is not a drastic change of the article, it is only a small change to reflect the ambiguity (vague or relaxed ties) introduced through the constitutional amendment. This is the opposite of a conclusion (synthesis), it is a non-conclusion.

 * Even if I hade a particular theory about the relation between "public religion" and "state church", that would be irrelevant. I merely observe that the parliament, through a long lasting political process, deliberately removed the words "public religion" from the constitution. We can't just dismiss that change as "random wording". As editors of WP we are not in the position to say what these words "actually" mean. Regards, — Erik Jr. 13:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What is a state church (or state religion) in the English language?
As the lead section of the article on state religion/state church explains, it is "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state [...] State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state."

By this common definition, the state Church of Norway is one of the more stringent state churches of the world. Even churches with far looser ties to the state are considered state churches/religions according to the definition of the term in the English language. The key element in the definition of a state church/religion is the endorsement by the state of a particular religion, whether officially or in practice. Norway both endorses (alone sufficient to be considered a state church) and even organises a particular church, which has a special constitutional, legal and administrative position. The priests are even direct employees of the state. Norway, unlike many other states with state churches/religions, has a constitution that describes the country's dominant and officially sanctioned church as "Norway's people's church", a strikingly clear designation as the country's state church. The provision is a near-verbatim copy of the Danish constitutional provision for the Danish state church, and noone disputes the Danish state church's status as a state church. Per Weo (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Structure of article
Relations between state and church is covered under both "organization" and "legal status", these sections should be consolidated. --— Erik Jr. 13:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of sourced and relevant content
Per Weo again removed this paragraph: The church itself explained that: "In 2012 the Parliament changed the constitution such that Norway no longer has a public religion. The Church of Norway can accordingly no longer be labeled as state church." Please stop removing sourced and relevant content. It is a quote from a reliable source. The paragrap clearly states that this a statement by the church itself, it is not presented as a clear fact. It is however a fact that the Church itself issued the statement. Per Weo can not dismiss this statement as low quality anonymous source. These deletions are disruptive and not helpful. Regards --— Erik Jr. 09:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Church of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DEb3MkkC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcnyheter.no%2Fnyheter%2F080410%2Flosere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke to http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714085413/http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276 to http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150427102546/http://m.k-s.no/artikkel/article/116910 to http://m.k-s.no/artikkel/article/116910
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DEb3MkkC?url=http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke to http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042914/https://kirken.no/nb-NO/konfirmasjon/sporsmal-og-svar/om-kirken/er-det-statskirke-i-norge/ to https://kirken.no/nb-NO/konfirmasjon/sporsmal-og-svar/om-kirken/er-det-statskirke-i-norge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Norwegian Lutheran priests has been nominated for discussion
Category:Norwegian Lutheran priests has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Church of Norway


text:
Schtonk!

Schtonk! (subtitled Der Film zum Buch vom Führer; "The film accompanying the Führer's book") is a 1992 German satirical film which retells the story of the 1983 Hitler Diaries hoax. It was written and directed by Helmut Dietl.

Background
In 1983, the German magazine Stern began to publish the purported Hitler diaries with great fanfare. They were soon proven to be fake using basic analysis techniques.

Co-writer and director Helmut Dietl researched the scandal for two years and was quoted as having to leave out several real events from the film because they were too outrageous. The title is a bow to Charlie Chaplin's classic The Great Dictator, in which the Tomainian dictator Adenoid Hynkel repeatedly uses "Schtonk!" as an expression of disgust – the word has no meaning in German.

Plot
Fritz Knobel (the film's alter-ego of real-life forger Konrad Kujau) supports himself by faking and selling Nazi memorabilia. He sells a portrait of Eva Braun and one volume of Hitler's alleged diaries to factory owner Karl Lenz. Lenz presents this to his guests during a "birthday party for the Führer", among whom is sleazy journalist Hermann Willié. Willié works for the magazine "HH press", which links to Hamburg (as a licence plate abbreviation), where the Stern magazine is located and also to the common abbreviation for "Heil Hitler" among neo-Nazis. Knobel writes the subsequent diaries based on what happens around him; after he meets Martha and she becomes his lover beside his wife Biggi, she also becomes his inspiration for Eva Braun in the diaries. The rumors about his work cause a major Nazi craze among the high society, allowing former Nazi officials to use openly their Nazi ranks (e.g. Obergruppenführer). Willié becomes even more obsessed buying the old yacht Carin II of Hermann Göring and starting an affair with his (fictional) grandniece Freya von Hepp, based on Hermann Göring's daughter Edda Göring.

Towards the end, the plot has developed its own dynamics, putting more and more pressure on Knobel to deliver the remaining volumes while permanently fearing the uncovering of the forgery. The volumes are convincing enough to fool the enthusiastic journalists, who are willing to overlook some oddities, especially a false monogram "FH" instead of "AH" on one of the volumes. They even invent alternative facts for their explanation (the term "Führerhauptquartier" instead of "Adolf Hitler" for instance). Later Knobel manages to manipulate a forensic graphoanalysis to his advantage but it seems only a matter of time until the truth is discovered. The constant fear and the struggle with a too close identification with the person he is writing about make Knobel collapse. His two spouses take over the initiative forcing him to pull himself out of the forgery business just in time, while the others fall, similar to the end of World War II, more or less hard according to their personal level of belief.

Cast

 * Götz George – Hermann Willié (journalist; fictional equivalent of Gerd Heidemann)
 * Uwe Ochsenknecht – Fritz Knobel (forger Konrad Kujau)
 * Christiane Hörbiger – Freya von Hepp (Hermann Göring's grandniece, Willié's/Heidemann's noble girl friend)
 * Dagmar Manzel – Biggi
 * Veronica Ferres – Martha
 * Ulrich Mühe – Dr. Wieland
 * Harald Juhnke – Pit Kummer
 * Hermann Lause – Kurt Glück
 * Martin Benrath – Uwe Esser
 * Rosemarie Fendel – Mrs. Lentz

Reception
The film was a huge hit in Germany but performed badly in many other territories. It was the second highest grossing German film of the year with 1.9 million admissions, behind Otto: Der Liebesfilm.

Awards
In 1992, Schtonk! won three awards at the German Film Awards in the categories "Outstanding Feature Film", "Outstanding Individual Achievement: Actor" (Götz George) and "Outstanding Individual Achievement: Direction" (Helmut Dietl), as well as the Best Screenplay Award at the Tokyo International Film Festival (Helmut Dietl, Ulrich Limmer).

In 1993, Harald Juhnke won the Ernst Lubitsch Award for his role as Pit Kummer.

Schtonk! was nominated for an Academy Award and a Golden Globe in the category of "Best Foreign Language Film" in 1993, losing to the French film Indochine in both cases.

title: Schtonk!


text:
Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest

The Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington is a National Forest extending more than 140 mi along the western slopes of the Cascade Range from the Canada–US border to the northern boundary of Mount Rainier National Park. Administered by the United States Forest Service, the forest is headquartered in Everett. There are local ranger district offices in North Bend and Skykomish.

History
Mount Baker National Forest was established as the Washington Forest Reserve on February 22, 1897, with 3594240 acre. It became a national forest on March 4, 1907, and was renamed Mount Baker National Forest on January 21, 1924. Snoqualmie National Forest was established from land in Washington NF on 1 July 1908 with 961,120 acres (3,889.52 km2). A part of Rainier National Forest was added on October 19, 1933. The two were administratively combined in 1974.

The 1935 version of The Call of the Wild with Clark Gable, Loretta Young and Jack Oakie was filmed on location in Mount Baker National Forest because Twentieth Century Pictures felt it was remote enough to guarantee lack of interruption from skiers and other forest visitors. Paramount Pictures later also filmed The Barrier at Mount Baker Lodge.

Visitation
The Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest covers (in descending order of forestland area) portions of Snohomish, Whatcom, Skagit, King, Pierce, and Kittitas counties. It has a total area of 1724229 acre. The forest consists of four ranger districts. The following are listed geographically from north to south: the Mount Baker District has two ranger stations located in Glacier and Sedro-Woolley; the Darrington Ranger District has two ranger stations located in Darrington and Verlot; the Skykomish Ranger District has one ranger station located in Skykomish; and the Snoqualmie Ranger District has two ranger stations located in North Bend and Enumclaw.

Together with the other central Puget Sound counties, 62% (3.63 million people) of the state's population lives within a 70 mi drive of the forest. Another 1.5 million in the Vancouver metropolitan area are also within easy reach of the northern part of the forest. The large population factor, coupled with easy road access, makes the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest the most visited national forest in the country.

Mountains
The Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest contains many scenic and historical points of interest. Mountain tops gradually rise from 5000 to 6000 ft on the south end of the forest to 7000 to 8000 ft in the north. Two tall volcanoes, Mount Baker and Glacier Peak, tower thousands of feet above the adjacent ridges.

Glaciers
The forest is home to more glaciers and snow fields than any other national forest outside Alaska. , the largest glaciers—with surface areas greater than 2.5 km2—are: The number of glaciers in the forest has decreased from 295 in 1971 to fewer than 287 in 1998. This is a part of the global phenomenon of glacier retreat. Forest glaciers have lost between 20 and 40% of their volume between 1984 and 2006. This is due to continued warm conditions and negative mass balance. White Chuck Glacier (Glacier Peak) is no longer on the list of large glaciers, above. It shrank from 3.1 to 0.9 km2 from 1958 to 2002. With the shrinking of the glaciers, summer glacial runoff has been reduced by 65 to 80%. This reduces streamflow and sediment and increases water temperature. Salmon and many other species are adversely affected by such changes.
 * Mount Baker
 * Roosevelt
 * Mazama
 * Park
 * Boulder
 * Easton
 * Deming
 * Coleman
 * Sentinel Peak
 * South Cascade Glacier
 * Glacier Peak
 * Suiattle
 * Honeycomb
 * White Chuck

Conservation
The north and east portions of the forest are exceptionally rugged and scenic. In 1968, part of the forest was transferred to the National Park Service to be within North Cascades National Park. A 1993 Forest Service study estimated that the extent of old growth in the forest was 643500 acre. In addition, Congressional action since 1964 has established the following wilderness areas, which comprise 827101 acre—almost half of the forest's area: These pristine areas provide clean water, solitude, and permanent protection to old-growth forests across 42% of the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest.
 * Alpine Lakes Wilderness (mostly in Wenatchee NF)
 * Boulder River Wilderness
 * Clearwater Wilderness
 * Glacier Peak Wilderness (mostly in Wenatchee NF)
 * Henry M. Jackson Wilderness (partly in Wenatchee NF)
 * Mount Baker Wilderness
 * Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
 * Norse Peak Wilderness
 * Pasayten Wilderness (mostly in Okanogan NF)
 * Wild Sky Wilderness

Congress also established the Skagit Wild and Scenic River System in 1978. Its 125 mi of rivers on the Skagit, Cascade, Sauk, and Suiattle rivers provide important wildlife habitat and recreation. The Skagit River System is home to one of the largest winter populations of bald eagles in the United States.

The Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest encompasses much of the North Cascades ecoregion, a Level III North American Ecoregion. It includes the following level IV ecoregions:
 * Western Hemlock Ecoregion
 * Silver Fir Ecoregion
 * Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Ecoregion
 * Alpine Ecoregion

title: Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest


text:
Talk:Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Re: "utilitarianism" vs. "pragmatism" (see page history) -- it's true that "utilitarianism" is an ethical theory, but it's also a more common english word; one could speak of "utilitarian design principles," for example, and be referring to architectural and/or interior design, not ethics. And "pragmatism" isn't really a better choice, because "pragmatism" is also an ethical theory, most notably espoused by William James. --Delirium 19:25 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If only English were that easy. :) "Utilitarianism" is pretty much only an ethical theory.  "utility" and "utilitarian" (as an adjective) are broader, so you'll see that I left those alone on the page.  Now that you point it out, of course, I realize that "pragmatism" is also wrong.  "Pragmatic" is a better word, so perhaps more changes are necessary to cover that.  I certainly grant that many people use the word "utilitarianism" wrongly.  --Tb 20:43 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There, I've just tweaked a bit that I think avoids the difficulty well. I left "utility", but I changed "pragmatic and utilitarian" into just "pragmatic" (the synonym wasn't doing any work anyhow, given that the page already explains so well just what is meant by this). I changed "pragmatism" to "practicality". --Tb 20:49 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neuro-Linguistic Programming


text:
Private Express Statutes

The Private Express Statutes (PES) are a group of United States federal civil and criminal laws placing various restrictions on the carriage and delivery of letters by all organizations other than the United States Postal Service.

History
The United States Congress originally passed the PES in 1792, under powers granted it in the United States Constitution to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads." The PES granted the government the power for the carriage and delivery of letter mail. Today the USPS is empowered to suspend the PES, if it believes such a private postal service would be in the interests of the general public.

The PES consists of and, implemented under 39 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 310 and 320. These restrict the carriage and delivery of letter mail by private organizations, except as described in the next section. The PES only cover "letters" and not other mailable items such as parcels or periodicals.

"Extremely urgent" letters
In 1979 the Postal Service authorized the delivery of extremely urgent letters outside the USPS; this has given rise to delivery services such as Federal Express and UPS's express mail services. Records of pick up and delivery must be maintained for Postal Service inspection if the time sensitive exception is being used.

Lawful private carriage
It is possible to set up a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage" if the USPS postage is paid in addition to any private postage fee that is collected. Records must be maintained that such postage has been paid, and it must be affixed to the letter cover by U.S. stamps, meter imprints or through another method approved by the USPS; the postage must be canceled by the sender in ink; the date of mailing must be affixed in ink to the cover (either by sender or carrier); and the letter cannot be removed without defacing the cover from the envelope or other container in which the letter is sent. An agreement must be entered into with the Postal Service to conduct volume private carriage through the Pricing and Classification Service Center.

Occasional private mail delivery
One does not need to establish a private mail delivery service for the occasional commercial transport of a letter outside the mails so long as the rate which would have been due to the USPS is affixed in stamps, the stamps are cancelled in ink, and the date of receipt by the carrier or the transport of the letter, are noted thereon. All these privately carried letters can bear a private cancellation if the cancellation is done in ink; private cancellations are different from private overprints on postage stamps.

Special messenger services
There are limited exceptions for special messenger services which deliver less than twenty-five letters for an individual or company per occasion. In such case no postage need be paid or affixed to the letters; pick up and delivery can be from private residences and commercial businesses.

Free delivery
The delivery of letters without compensation and without the affixation or payment of any postage is allowed under 39 CFR 310.3(c) by third parties, and under 39 CFR 310.3(b) for one's own letters which includes regular employees only delivering company mail. Thus, it is not a violation of the PES if one delivers a letter of one's friend even without affixation of postage or if a company has one of its regular employees deliver mail that originates from the company to its customers. Compensation is considered to include barter and goodwill. Thus an individual or business who receives a benefit for the delivery of letters does not fall under such a free carriage exception. For example, buying a friend dinner in exchange for having him deliver a letter is not considered without compensation; in such a case one would be required to affix and cancel a sufficient amount of postage to the letter. Another example not falling under this exception would be a business that is carrying letters "free of charge" in the hopes of building business or incidental to some other delivery as an accommodation for its customer; this use would also require the affixation and cancellation of a sufficient amount of postage to be in compliance with the PES.

Cargo delivery
There is an exception for the delivery of what otherwise would be considered a letter if it is sent with cargo and the letter is somehow incidental to the ordering, delivery or shipping of the cargo [39 CFR 310.3(a)].

Other exceptions
Other exceptions to the PES include:
 * Letters that at some point during their pick-up or delivery had previously entered into the USPS mailstream, unless the letters are consolidated.
 * Letters addressed to specific persons that fall outside the purview of the PES.
 * Certain documents and objects that are not considered letters, even though containing a message.

title: Private Express Statutes


text:
Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war

Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and unarmed soldiers.

The historiography of the events has been revisited by the New Historians, starting in the 1980s as well as by Palestinian scholars.

Background
After about 30 years of conflict in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Arabs, the British authorities and Palestinian Jews, the British decided in February 1947 to terminate the Mandate and, on 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II) recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan of partition of Palestine.

The vote was rejected by the Arab parties, and was immediately followed by a civil war between Palestinian Arabs who were supported by the Arab Liberation Army against the Palestinian Jews, while the region was still fully under British rule. The day after the vote, Arabs launched attacks against the Jews, killing 126 of them during the first two weeks and 75 were massacred in a refugee camp in Aden as a retaliation. In Jerusalem, attacks targeted Jewish businesses and residents of Jewish neighborhoods, some of whom were stabbed in the street or murdered on buses. Jews were also attacked in Arab neighborhoods. In the Kibbutz of Gvulot, six Jewish teenage girls were murdered. In major cities, snipers (including mercenaries) fired at Jewish pedestrians and traffic. The Carmel Market was also attacked and grenades were thrown in the Jewish quarters. Across the country, Jewish cars were the target of stone throwing, while the consulates of Poland and Sweden, which voted in favor of partition, were attacked. In December 1947, one of the striking images remains the attack on the new Mamilla Mall. Jewish civilians were killed in many localities.

On 15 May 1948, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day, the armies of a number of Arab countries invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, turning the conflict into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The yishuv ( now officially called Israel) suffered between 5,700 and 5,800 casualties. The death toll on the Arab side is unclear, but according to Benny Morris, it might have been slightly higher or much higher than the Jewish one. In his book, Morris mentions an estimate of 12,000 provided by Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1950. These numbers amount to around 1 percent of the population of each side.

Massacres
According to several historians, between 10 and 70 massacres occurred during the 1948 war. According to Benny Morris the Yishuv (or later Israeli) soldiers killed roughly 800 Arab civilians and prisoners of war in 24 massacres. Aryeh Yizthaki list 10 major massacres with more than 50 victims each. Palestinian researcher Salman Abu-Sitta lists 33 massacres, half of them occurring during the civil war period. Saleh Abdel Jawad lists 68 villages where acts of indiscriminate killing of prisoners, and civilians took place, where no threat was posed to Yishuv or Israeli soldiers.

The main massacres and attacks against Jewish civilians were the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre where 39 Jews were killed by Arab workers after Irgun members had thrown a bomb into the crowd and the Kfar Etzion massacre where around 120-150 residents and defenders were killed by Arab irregulars, according to some accounts with the participation of Arab Legion soldiers. The Hadassah medical convoy massacre, with 80 deaths, included the mass killing of medical personnel by Arabs.

According to Rosemarie Esber, both Israeli archives and Palestinian testimonies confirm killings occurred in numerous Arab villages. Most of these killings occurred as villages were overrun and captured during the Second phase of the Civil War, Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav. Morris said that the "worst cases" were the Saliha massacre with 60 to 70 killed, the Deir Yassin massacre with around 112, the Lydda massacre with around 250, the Tantura massacre with between 40–200+, and the Abu Shusha massacre with 60–70. In Al-Dawayima, accounts of the death toll vary. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports 100-200 casualties, Morris has estimated "hundreds" and also reports the IDF investigation which concluded 100 villagers had been killed. David Ben-Gurion gave the figure of 70–80. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports on the village's mukhtar account that 455 people were missing following the al-Dawayima massacre, including 170 women and children.

Bombing attacks
At the beginning of the Civil War, Jewish militias organized several bombing attacks against civilians and military Arab targets. On 12 December 1947, the Irgun placed a car bomb opposite the Damascus Gate, the main entrance to the Old City of Jerusalem, killing 20 people. On 4 January 1948, the Lehi detonated a lorry bomb against the headquarters of the paramilitary al-Najjada located in Jaffa's Town Hall, killing 15 Arabs and injuring 80.

During the night between 5 and 6 January, in Jerusalem, the Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel that had been reported to hide Arab militiamen, killing 24 people. The next day, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing 20. Another Irgun bomb went off in the Ramla market on 18 February, killing 7 residents and injuring 45. On 28 February, the Palmach organised a bombing attack against a garage in Haifa, killing 30 people.

From 1 February 1948, supporters of Amin al-Husseini organised, with the help of British deserters, three attacks against the Jewish community in Jerusalem. Using car bombs aimed at the headquarters of the Palestine Post, the Ben Yehuda Street market and the backyard of the Jewish Agency's offices, killing 22, 53 and 13 Jewish people respectively.

During the first months of 1948, the railway between Cairo and Haifa was often targeted. On 31 March, it was mined near Binyamina, a Jewish settlement in the neighborhood of Caesarea, killing 40 persons and wounding 60. The casualties were all civilians, mostly Arabs. Although there were some soldiers on the train, none were injured. The Palestine Post and the New York Times attributed the attack to Lehi.

Consequences
According to historians, whether deliberate or otherwise, the massacres did have a strong impact on the exodus of the Palestinian Arab population. For example, the Deir Yassin massacre is considered to have generated more panic among the Arab population than all other previous operations together and to have caused a mass flight of Palestinians in numerous areas, partly because the actual events at Deir Yassin were greatly embellished by the media.

Additionally, the Deir Yassin massacre became a strong argument for the Arab states to intervene against Israel. Arab League chief Azzam Pasha stated that 'The massacre of Deir Yassin was to a great extent the cause of the wrath of the Arab nations and the most important factor for sending [in] the Arab armies'.

New historian perspectives
Starting in the 1980s a group of revisionist Israeli historians have challenged the Israeli historical narrative. Israeli New Historians have pointed at accounts of killings and massacres.

Arab warnings and threats of massacres against Jews of Palestine
After the Partition vote, some Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine. For example, they spoke of "driving the Jews into the sea" or ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".

According to the Israeli traditional historiography, these statements reflected the Arab intentions. While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews, he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won. Gelber, on the other hand, regards these public statements as 'meaningless' and judges that the 'actions [of their armies] imply that the aims of the Arab invasion were decidedly limited and focused mainly on saving Arab Palestine from total Jewish domination'.

"Purity of arms"
During the conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine before the war, the criterion of "purity of arms" was used to distinguish between the respective attitudes of the Irgun and Haganah towards Arabs, with the latter priding itself on its adherence to this principle. Generally speaking, this precept requires that "weapons remain pure [and that] they are employed only in self-defence and [never] against innocent civilians and defenceless people". But if it "remained a central value in education" it was "rather vague and intentionally blurred" at the practical level.

In 1946, at a meeting held between the heads of the Haganah, Ben-Gurion predicted a confrontation between the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab states. Concerning the "principle of purity of arms", he stressed that: "The end does not justify all means. Our war is based on moral grounds" and during the 1948 War, the Mapam, the political party affiliated to Palmach, asked for "a strict observance of the Jewish Purity of arms to secure the moral character of [the] war".

When he was criticized by Mapam members for his attitude concerning the Arab refugee problem, Ben-Gurion reminded them the events of Lydda and Ramla and the fact Palmach officers had been responsible for the "outrage that had encouraged the Arabs' flight made the party uncomfortable."

According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of 'the conventional Zionist account or old history' whose 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war' is 'taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'. Morris adds that '[t]he Israelis' collective memory of fighters characterized by "purity of arms" is also undermined by the evidence of [the dozen case] of rapes committed in conquered towns and villages.' According to him, 'after the war, the Israelis tended to hail the "purity of arms" of its militiamen and soldiers to contrast this with Arab barbarism, which on occasion expressed itself in the mutilation of captured Jewish corpses.' According to him, 'this reinforced the Israelis' positive self-image and helped them "sell" the new state abroad and (...) demonized the enemy'.

Causes of massacres
The causes of the massacres are a matter of controversy among New Historians. Morris considers that the killings and massacres occurred "[l]ike [in] most wars involving built-up areas." According to Ilan Pappé, these took place in the context of an ethnic cleansing that "carr[ied] with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchering of thousands of Palestinians were killed ruthlessly and savagely by Israeli troops of all backgrounds, ranks and ages."

During the Civil War, the Haganah operatives had been cautioned against harming women and children but the Irgun and Lehi were less observing this distinction, while "Palestinian Arab militias often deliberately targeted civilians." Due to the fact the British Mandate was not yet over, neither side could set up regular Prisoner of War camps and therefore take prisoners. During the Arab-Israeli War, the fighting armies were more or less disciplined and "the killings of civilians and prisoners of war almost stopped, except for the series of atrocities committed by the IDF forces".

Morris also said that despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisoners took place when circumstances might have allowed them to happen, as when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the villages of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzanim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden. On 28 May, when the inhabitants and fighters of the Old City surrendered, in fear for their lives, the Transjordanian Arab Legion protected them from the mob and even wounded or shot dead other Arabs. In contrast to Morris, the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City were expelled and 600 of them were killed, while the Jewish villages were evacuated by the inhabitants before being destroyed. Atrocities committed by the Arab armies includes women being dismembered in Nitzanim in June, 14 Jewish civilians killed while supplying an orphanage in Ben Shemen and Arab fighters parading with the heads of two Israeli soldiers impaled on stakes in Eilabun. Jewish combatants captured by Arab militias, were frequently tortured and mutilated in particularly violent ways. Pregnant women have also been found disembowelled.

With regard to massacres perpetrated by the IDF at the end of the war and particularly during Operation Hiram, Morris and Yoav Gelber consider that lack of discipline cannot explain the violence. Gelber points out the "hard feelings [of the soldiers] towards the Palestinians" and the fact that the Palestinians had not fled like in former operations. Benny Morris thinks that they were related to a "general vengefulness and a desire by local commanders to precipitate a civilian exodus".

To explain the difference in the number of killings and massacres, Morris speculates that "[t]his was probably due to the circumstance that the victorious Israelis captured some four hundred Arab villages and towns during April–November 1948, whereas the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab Liberation Army failed to take any settlements and the Arab armies that invaded in mid-May overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements". He considers too that belligerents behaved reasonably well and that the "1948 [war] is noteworthy for the relatively small number of civilian casualties both in the battles themselves and in the atrocities that accompanied them" in comparison, for example, "with the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s or the Sudanese civil wars of the past fifty years".

Events of Tantura
There was a controversy among historians concerning the events of Tantura. On the night between 22 and 23 May 1948, soldiers of the Alexandroni brigade attacked the village. The fighting caused the deaths of a few dozen Arabs and 14 Israeli soldiers.

According to the analysis of Gelber, based on a counting of the inhabitants, the refugees, the POW's and the deaths, there were no people missing and therefore no massacre could have occurred.

Morris's analysis concludes that the documentation and the interviews do not prove that a massacre occurred but that the hypothesis cannot be simply dismissed. Ilan Pappé considers that the testimonies of former Alexandroni soldiers and Palestinian refugees prove, on the contrary, that at least 200 unarmed Tantura villagers were killed, whether in revenge for the death of Israeli soldiers due to sniper shots or later when they were unjustifiably accused of hiding weapons.

Palestinian perspectives
Nadine Picaudou, author of The Historiography of the 1948 Wars, studied the evolution of Palestinian historiography on the 1948 war. She argues that the Deir Yassin massacre long remained the only one discussed 'as if it sufficed to summarize the tragedy of Palestinian victims'. She thinks that during the period for which 'collective memory conflated with Palestinian nationalist mobilization, one exemplary event sufficed to express the tragedy'. Referring to the study performed in 2007 by Saleh Abd al-Jawad, Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War, she writes that the massacres engaged Palestinian historians' concerns relatively late, but that when "Palestinians began to write their history, the issue of massacres inevitably became one of the relevant factors in accounting for the mass exodus."

Picaudou underlines that "Palestinian historiography has retained the nakba paradigm, which reduces the Palestinians to the status of passive victims of Israeli policies, as [illustrated by] the limited attention accorded by researchers to the 1947–48 battles (...)".

"Battles" or "massacres"
In the context of the 1948 war, several historians pointed out the nuance, sometimes polemically, that can exist between a "battle" and a "massacre".

Deir Yassin
The village of Deir Yassin was located west of Jerusalem, but its strategic importance was debatable and its inhabitants had not participated in the war until one week before the attack. On 9 April, around 120 men from the Irgun and the Lehi attacked the village in the context of the Operation Nachshon. The poorly armed inhabitants showed unexpected resistance to the attack by fighting back. The assailants suffered four dead. Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Red Cross delegation in Palestine, visited Deir Yassin on April 11, 1948, and observed "a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children." After the fighting, some villagers were executed after being exhibited in the streets of Jerusalem. A group of prisoners were executed in a nearby quarry and others at Sheikh Bader. Historians estimate today the total number of deaths at 100 to 120.

In 2007, Israeli military historian Uri Milstein published a controversial book, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, in which he claims that the events of Deir Yassin were the result of a battle and not of a massacre. Moreover, he goes further and rejects the reality of the atrocities that followed the attack on the village. Nadine Picadou also nuances the events and considers that in the Palestinian historiography, "the massacre of Deir Yassin eclipsed the battle of Deir Yassin". Morris considers that the capture of the village, insignificant on the military point of view, can hardly be considered as a "battle".

Hadassah medical convoy
In 1948, Hadassah hospital was located in the enclave of the Mount Scopus, at Jerusalem from where it dominated several Arab quarters. On 14 April, a convoy carrying medical personnel, some injured fighters, munitions and some reinforcement troops, that was protected by Haganah soldiers and armoured cars, tried to reach the enclave. Arab fighters had been informed by an Australian officer that the convoy's mission was to use the enclave to attack Arab quarters and cut off the road to Ramallah. A large Arab force then ambushed the convoy, and, in the fight, several vehicles were shot up, and couldn't withdraw. The battle raged for seven hours and British intervention was late in coming. 79 people from the convoy were killed, mainly civilians. Following the incident, Jacques de Reynier urged that in future all convoys be relieved of military escorts and placed under Red Cross protection. This was quickly agreed to. He also asked that the enclave be demilitarised under similar conditions, but this was refused by the Zionist authorities.

While the whole event is usually seen as a massacre, Morris considers it to have been, rather, a battle, given that there was shooting between Arab and Haganah militia and targeted a supply convoy headed for Mount Scopus. He points out however that the death toll incurred by medical personal, who were unarmed, was massive and that seventy-eight people were "slaughtered".

Lydda
In July 1948, the Israelis launched the Operation Danny to conquer the cities of Lydda and Ramle. The first attack on Lydda occurred on the afternoon of 11 July when the 89th battalion mounted on armoured cars and jeeps raided the city "spraying machine-gun fire at anything that moved". "Dozens of Arabs (perhaps as many as 200)" were killed. According to Morris, the description of this raid written by one of the soldiers "combine[s] elements of a battle and a massacre".

Later, Israeli troops entered the city and took up position in the town center. The only resistance came from the police fort that was held by some Arab Legionnaires and irregulars. Detention compounds were arranged in the mosques and the churches for adult males and 300–400 Israeli soldiers garrisoned the town. In the morning of 12 July, the situation was calm but around 11:30 an incident occurred; two or three armored cars entered the town and a firefight erupted. The skirmish made Lydda's townspeople believe that the Arab Legion was counter-attacking and probably a few dozen snipers fired against the occupying troops. Israeli soldiers felt threatened, vulnerable because they were isolated among thousands of hostile townspeople and 'angry [because] they had understood that the town had surrendered'. '[They] were told to shoot 'at any clear target' or, alternatively, at anyone 'seen on the streets'. The Arab inhabitants panicked. Many rushed in the streets and were killed.

There is controversy among historians about the events that followed. According to Morris, at the Dahmash mosque some prisoners tried to break out and escape, probably fearing to be massacred. IDF threw grenades and fired rockets at the compound and several dozens Arabs were shot and killed. The Palestinian historiography describes the events differently. According to it, it was civilians that had taken refuge in the mosque, thinking that the Israelis would not dare to profane the sanctuary. The Israelis killed all the people there making 93 to 176 dead. Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela write that there is a confusion between two mosques. According to them, detainees were only gathered around the Great Mosque, where no incident occurred and it is a group of 50-60 armed Arabs who barricaded in the Dahmash mosque. Its storming resulted in the death of 30 Arab militiamen and civilians, including elderly, women and children.

The deaths of July 12 are regarded in the Arab world and by several historians as a massacre. Walid Khalidi calls it "an orgy of indiscriminate killing." Morris writes that the "jittery Palmahniks massacr[ed] detainees in a mosque compound." According to Gelber, it was a "bloodier massacre" than at Deir Yassin. Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela write that it was "an intense battle where the demarcation between civilians, irregular combatants and regular army units hardly existed."

List
Here is a non-exhaustive list of killings and massacres that took place during the war:


text:
User talk:Anthere/Archives 2021/Eyes

...are this your Eyes?! Fantasy ;-)

Absolutely. Real me :-) The last picture at the bottom was taken by my husband last february, and was not touched at all except for resizing. The other ones came from a picture I took myself a couple of days after we bought the camera. They were reworked on photoshop by my husband one evening, with a couple of beers :-)

 * It took me a day to think of a "worthy" reply. Maybe Brilliant_pictures (visible) can tell you, what I think of your Eyes ;-) Fantasy

I really like the last one. It is beautiful. —Noldoaran (Talk) 02:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anthere/Archives 2021/Eyes


text:
Merrill C. Meigs

Merrill Church Meigs (November 25, 1883 – January 26, 1968) was the publisher of the Chicago Herald and Examiner in the 1920s. Inspired to become a pilot by Charles Lindbergh's solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean, he became a booster of Chicago as a world center of aviation. He gave flying lessons to President Harry S. Truman.

Life and career
Meigs was born in Poweshiek County, Iowa, the son of Church Paddleford Meigs and Julianna S. (Burrell) Meigs. He grew up on a farm near Malcom, Iowa, where he was more interested in the mechanical devices used to raise crops than actually farming. In 1901, he took a job as a salesman for the J.I. Case Threshing Machine Company in Racine, Wisconsin. Within a year, he was in charge of the company's sales for South America. Despite not having graduated from high school, Meigs was allowed to enroll at the University of Chicago, where he played football under Amos Alonzo Stagg and also played baseball and water polo. He was the starting left guard of the 1905 University of Chicago national championship team. While at the college, he would also be the campus correspondent for the Chicago Herald and Examiner, of which he would become the executive later in his life. During World War II, Meigs served on the Office of Production Management as the aircraft expert.

In time Meigs would become a senior vice president of the Hearst Corporation, publisher of the old Chicago American newspaper as well as becoming the head of the Chicago Aero Commission. Meigs insisted that in addition to Midway Airport (then called Municipal Airport) and O'Hare Field (then called Orchard-Douglas), the city needed an airfield within ten minutes of the Loop. It opened in December 1948 and was renamed Meigs Field in his honor the following year. Fifty-five years after the renaming, Meigs Field was demolished by order of then-Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley.

Meigs retired in 1962 and became a consultant to the newspaper industry. He died at age 84.

title: Merrill C. Meigs