text:
Bible in Basic English

The Bible In Basic English (also known as the BBE) is a translation of the Bible into Basic English. The BBE was translated by Professor S. H. Hooke using the standard 850 Basic English words. 100 words that were helpful to understand poetry were added along with 50 "Bible" words for a total of 1,000 words. This version is effective in communicating the Bible to those with limited education or where English is a second language. The New Testament was released in 1941 and the Old Testament was released in 1949.

The 1965 printing of the Bible was published by Cambridge Press in England without any copyright notice and distributed in the US, falling into the Public Domain according to the UCC convention of that time.

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

title: Bible in Basic English


text:
Tyranny (The Generators album)

Tyranny is an album by alternative/punk rock band The Generators, released in 2001.

Critical reception
Exclaim! called the album "a keeper," writing that "melodic elements sneak into songs like 'Coming Down.'"

Track listing
All tracks are written by Doug Dagger; co-writers are noted.

Credits

 * Doug Dagger - vocals
 * Sir Doosky - lead and rhythm guitars, backup vocals
 * Mike Snow - lead and rhythm guitars, backup vocals
 * Dirty Ernie - drums, backup vocals
 * Don Osterberg - bass, backup vocals
 * Rich Mouser - backup vocals
 * Bryant Ortega - bass on "All Night Long" and "Dead At 16"

title: Tyranny (The Generators album)


text:
PEP

PEP may refer to:

Computing

 * Packetized Ensemble Protocol, used by Telebit modems
 * pretty Easy privacy (pEp), encryption project
 * Python Enhancement Proposal, for the Python programming language
 * Packet Exchange Protocol in Xerox Network Systems
 * Performance-enhancing proxy, mechanisms to improve end-to-end TCP performance
 * Policy Enforcement Point in XACML

Organizations

 * Political and Economic Planning, a British think tank formed in 1931
 * Priority Enforcement Program, in US immigration enforcement
 * Promoting Enduring Peace, a UN organization
 * Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, a journal
 * Provincial Emergency Program (British Columbia), the former name of Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

Biology and medicine

 * Polyestradiol phosphate, an estrogen used to treat prostate cancer
 * Polymorphic eruption of pregnancy or pruritic urticarial papules and plaques of pregnancy
 * Post-exposure prophylaxis, preventive medical treatment
 * post-ERCP pancreatitis, a complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
 * Phosphoenolpyruvic acid, a biochemical compound

Physics and Technology

 * Pep reaction, proton–electron–proton reaction
 * Peak envelope power of a transmitter

Other uses

 * Pairwise error probability in digital communications
 * Passaporte Electrónico Português, Portuguese electronic passport
 * PEP, a studio album by musician Lights
 * New York Stock Exchange symbol for PepsiCo
 * Personal equity plan, a former UK account type
 * Philippine Entertainment Portal, a website operated by GMA New Media
 * Politically exposed person, a financial classification
 * Positron-Electron Projects at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
 * Post – eCommerce – Parcel, Divisions of Deutsche Post
 * Primary Entry Point, a station of the US Emergency Alert System
 * Primate Equilibrium Platform, used in animal experimentation
 * Progressive except Palestine, a pro-Palestinian political phrase
 * Prototype Electro-Pneumatic family of trains, British Rail Classes 445 and 446
 * Pulsed energy projectile, a non-lethal weapon

title: PEP


text:
Chewing gum

Chewing gum is a soft, cohesive substance designed to be chewed without being swallowed. Modern chewing gum is composed of gum base, sweeteners, softeners/plasticizers, flavors, colors, and, typically, a hard or powdered polyol coating. Its texture is reminiscent of rubber because of the physical-chemical properties of its polymer, plasticizer, and resin components, which contribute to its elastic-plastic, sticky, chewy characteristics.

History
The cultural tradition of chewing gum seems to have developed through a convergent evolution process, as traces of this habit have arisen separately in many early civilizations. Each early precursor to chewing gum was derived from natural growths local to the region and was chewed purely out of the instinctual desire to masticate. Early chewers did not necessarily desire to derive nutritional benefits from their chewable substances but at times sought taste stimuli and teeth cleaning or breath-freshening capabilities.

Chewing gum in many forms has existed since the Neolithic period. 5,000-year-old chewing gum made from birch bark tar, with tooth imprints, has been found in Kierikki in Finland. The tar from which the gums were made is believed to have antiseptic properties and other medicinal benefits. It is chemically similar to petroleum tar and is in this way different from most other early gum. The Mayans and Aztecs were the first to exploit the positive properties of gum; they used chicle, a natural tree gum, as a base for making a gum-like substance and to stick objects together in everyday use. Forms of chewing gum were also chewed in Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greeks chewed mastic gum, made from the resin of the mastic tree. Mastic gum, like birch bark tar, has antiseptic properties and is believed to have been used to maintain oral health. Both chicle and mastic are tree resins. Many other cultures have chewed gum-like substances made from plants, grasses, and resins.

Although chewing gum can be traced back to civilizations worldwide, the modernization and commercialization of this product mainly took place in the United States. The American Indians chewed resin made from the sap of spruce trees. The New England settlers picked up this practice, and in 1848, John B. Curtis developed and sold the first commercial chewing gum called The State of Maine Pure Spruce Gum. In this way, the industrializing West, having forgotten about tree gums, rediscovered chewing gum through the First Americans. Around 1850 a gum made from paraffin wax, a petroleum product, was developed and soon exceeded the spruce gum in popularity. To sweeten these early gums, the chewer would often make use of a plate of powdered sugar, which they would repeatedly dip the gum in to maintain sweetness. William F. Semple, a dentist from Mount Vernon, Ohio, filed an early patent on chewing gum, patent number 98,304, on 28 December 1869. Semple's gum was intended to clean the teeth and strengthen the chewer's jaw. It was not a sweet treat; ingredients included chalk and powdered licorice root. Charcoal was also suggested as a "suitable" ingredient in the patent.

The first flavored chewing gum was created in the 1860s by John Colgan, a Louisville, Kentucky, pharmacist. Colgan mixed with powdered sugar the aromatic flavoring tolu, a powder obtained from an extract of the balsam tree (Myroxylon), creating small sticks of flavored chewing gum he named "Taffy Tolu". Colgan also led the way in the manufacturing and packaging of chicle-based chewing gum, derived from Manilkara chicle, a tropical evergreen tree. He licensed a patent for automatically cutting chips of chewing gum from larger sticks: US 966,160 "Chewing Gum Chip Forming Machine" 2 August 1910 and a patent for automatically cutting wrappers for sticks of chewing gum: US 913,352 "Web-cutting attachment for wrapping-machines" 23 February 1909 from Louisville, Kentucky, inventor James Henry Brady, an employee of the Colgan Gum Company.

Modern chewing gum was first developed in the 1860s when chicle was brought from Mexico by the former president, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, to New York, where he gave it to Thomas Adams for use as a rubber substitute. Chicle did not succeed as a replacement for rubber, but as a gum cut into strips and marketed as Adams New York Chewing Gum in 1871. Black Jack (1884), which is flavored with licorice, Chiclets (1899), and Wrigley's Spearmint Gum were early popular gums that quickly dominated the market and are all still around today. Chewing gum gained worldwide popularity through American GIs in WWII, who were supplied chewing gum as a ration and traded it with locals. Synthetic gums were first introduced to the U.S. after chicle no longer satisfied the needs of making good chewing gum. By the 1960s, US manufacturers had switched to butadiene-based synthetic rubber, as it was cheaper to manufacture. In the United States, chewing gum experienced a decline in popularity in the early 21st century, as it lost its association with counterculture and teenage rebelliousness. Others blamed smartphones reducing impulse purchases at the checkout.

Demand for chewing gum also declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, as people were less concerned about bad breath and impulse purchases also declined. U.S. sales of gum fell about 30 percent, and while demand was back up to the pre-pandemic level in 2023 in dollar terms, this was the result of inflation as the average price of a pack increased $1.01 from 2018 to $2.71 in 2023. Globally, sales were down 10 percent from 2018.

Ingredient composition
Gum base composition is considered proprietary information known by select individuals within each gum-manufacturing company. Information about the other components of chewing gum are more accessible to the public and they are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Common ingredients in the formulation of modern chewing gum

Gum base
Gum base is made of polymers, plasticizers, and resins. Polymers, including elastomers, are responsible for the stretchy and sticky nature of chewing gum. Plasticizers improve flexibility and reduce brittleness, contributing to the plastic and elastic nature of gum. The interactions of plasticizers within gum base are governed by solubility parameters, molecular weight, and chemical structure. Resins compose the hydrophobic portion of the gum base, responsible for its chewiness. Although the exact ingredients and proportions used in each brand's gum base are trade secrets within the gum industry, Table 3 lists all of the natural and synthetic gum base components approved for use in the United States, demonstrating some examples of key gum base components.

Table 3: Gum base ingredients approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2016)

Manufacturing process
First, gum base is previously prepared through a melting and straining or filtering process. The formulation for gum base is proprietary information known to few individuals within each gum-producing company. Next, other ingredients such as nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners and flavors are added to the gum base until the warm mixture thickens like dough. The gum base mixture is heated during this mixing process to increase the entropy of the polymers to achieve a more uniform dispersion of ingredients. Then, extrusion technology is implemented to smooth, form, and shape the gum. Next, the gum goes through a shaping process that is determined by gum type and consumer demand. For example, cut and wrap (chunk or cube) pieces are severed straight out of the extruder using a vertical cutter. Sheeting is a technique often used for stick, slab and tab gums. Next, gum is either conditioned by being sprinkled with a powdered polyol or coated via the application of subsequent layers of coating using temperature controlled coating basins before it is sent to packaging.

Product varieties
Chewing gum can come in a variety of formats ranging from 1.4 to 6.9 grams per piece, and products can be differentiated by the consumers' intent to form bubbles or the sugar/sugarless dichotomy.

Chewing gum typically comes in three formats: tablets, coated pellets, and sticks/ slabs. Bubble gum typically come in three formats as well: tablets, hollow balls, and cubes or chunks. Stick, slab, and tab gums typically come in packs of about five to 17 sticks or more, and their medium size allows for softer texture. Pellet gums, or dragée gums, are pillow shaped pieces that are almost always coated. Packaging of pellet gums can vary from boxes to bottles to blister packs. The coating of pellet gum allows for the opportunity for multiple flavor sensations, since coating is done in a layering process and different flavor attributes can be added to various layers. Cube or chunk gums, which are typically intended for bubble blowing, are called cut and wrap gums as they are typically severed from continuous strands of extruded gum and packaged directly.

Quality and safety
Chewing gum is rather shelf stable because of its non-reactive nature and low moisture content. The water activity of chewing gum ranges from 0.40 to 0.65. The moisture content of chewing gum ranges from three to six percent. In fact, chewing gum retains its quality for so long that, in most countries, it is not required by law to be labeled with an expiration date. If chewing gum remains in a stable environment, over time the gum may become brittle or lose some of its flavor, but it will never be unsafe to eat. If chewing gum is exposed to moisture, over time water migration may occur, making the gum soggy. In lollipops with a gum center, water migration can lead to the end of the product's shelf life, as it causes the exterior hard candy shell to soften and the interior gum center to harden.

Physical and chemical characteristics
The physical and chemical properties of chewing gum impact all aspects of this product, from manufacturing to sensory perception during mastication.

Chewiness
The polymers that make up the main component of chewing gum base are hydrophobic. This property is essential because it allows for retention of physical properties throughout the mastication process. Because the polymers of gum repel water, the water-based saliva system in a consumer's mouth will dissolve the sugars and flavorings in chewing gum, but not the gum base itself. This allows for gum to be chewed for a long time without breaking down in the mouth like conventional foods. Chewing gum can be classified as a product containing a liquid phase and a crystalline phase, providing gum with its characteristic balance of plastic and elastic properties.

Stickiness
While hydrophobic polymers beneficially repel water and contribute to chewiness, they also detrimentally attract oil. The stickiness of gum results from this hydrophobic nature, as gum can form bonds and stick when it makes contact with oily surfaces such as sidewalks, skin, hair, or the sole of one's shoe. To make matters worse, unsticking the gum is a challenge because the long polymers of the gum base stretch, rather than break. The sticky characteristic of gum may be problematic during processing if the gum sticks to any machinery or packaging materials during processing, impeding the flow of product. Aside from ensuring that the machinery is free from lipid-based residues, this issue can be combatted by the conditioning and coating of gum toward the end of the process. By adding either a powder or a coating to the exterior of the gum product, the hydrophobic gum base binds to the added substance instead of various surfaces with which it may come in contact.

Bubble-blowing capability
Bubblegum bubbles are formed when the tension and elasticity of gum polymers acts against the constant and equally dispersed pressure of air being directed into the gum bolus. Bubble gum bubbles are circular because pressure from the focused air being directed into the bolus acts equally on all of the interior surfaces of the gum cud, uniformly pushing outward on all surfaces as the polymers extend. As the bubble expands, the polymers of the gum base stretch and the surface of the bubble begins to thin. When the force of the air being blown into the bubble exceeds the force that the polymers can withstand, the polymers overextend and the bubble pops. Due to the elastic attributes of chewing gum, the deflated bubble recoils and the wad of gum is ready to continue being chewed.

Gum bases with higher molecular weights are typically used in gums intended to meet bubble-forming expectations. Higher molecular weight gum bases include longer polymers that are able to stretch further, and thus are able to form larger bubbles that retain their shape for a longer time.

Flavor release
Flavor delivery is extended throughout the mastication process by timed release of different flavor components due to the physical-chemical properties of many of chewing gum's ingredients. During the first three to four minutes of the chew, bulking agents such as sugar or sorbitol and maltitol have the highest solubility and, therefore, are chewed out first. As these components dissolve in the consumers' saliva and slide down the esophagus, they are no longer retained in the gum base or perceived by the chewer. During the next phase of the chew in the four to six-minute range, intense sweeteners and some acids are dissolved and chewed out. These components last slightly longer than the bulking agents because they have a slightly lower solubility. Next, encapsulated flavors are released during either 10–15 minutes into the chew or after 30–45 minutes. Encapsulated flavors remain incorporated in the gum base longer because the molecules that they are encapsulated in are more easily held within the gum matrix. Finally, during the last phase of the chew, softeners such as corn syrup and glycerin and other textural modifiers are dissolved, resulting in a firming up of the gum and the end of the chew.

Studies have shown that gum flavor is perceived better in the presence of sweetener. Companies have started to create chemical systems in gum so that the sweetener and flavor release together in a controlled manner during chewing.

Cooling sensation
A cooling sensation is achieved through the chemical phenomenon of the negative enthalpy of dissolution that occurs with bulk sweeteners, such as the sugar alcohols. The enthalpy of dissolution refers to the overall amount of heat that is absorbed or released in the dissolving process. Because the bulk sweeteners absorb heat as they dissolve and have a negative enthalpy, they yield a cooling sensation as they are dissolved in a consumer's saliva.

Brain function
A review about the cognitive advantages of chewing gum by Onyper et al. (2011) found strong evidence of improvement for the following cognitive domains: working memory, episodic memory and speed of perception. However the improvements were only evident when chewing took place prior to cognitive testing. The precise mechanism by which gum chewing improves cognitive functioning is however not well understood. The researchers did also note that chewing-induced arousal could be masked by the distracting nature of chewing itself, which they named "dual-process theory", which in turn could explain some of the contradictory findings by previous studies. They also noticed the similarity between mild physical exercise such as pedaling a stationary bike and chewing gum. It has been demonstrated that mild physical exercise leads to little cognitive impairment during the physical task accompanied by enhanced cognitive functioning afterwards. Furthermore, the researchers noted that no improvement could be found for verbal fluency, which is in accordance with previous studies. This finding suggests that the effect of chewing gum is domain specific. The cognitive improvements after a period of chewing gum have been demonstrated to last for 15–20 minutes and decline afterwards.

Dental health
Sugar-free gum sweetened with xylitol has been shown to reduce cavities and plaque. The sweetener sorbitol has the same benefit, but is only about one-third as effective as xylitol. Other sugar substitutes, such as maltitol, aspartame and acesulfame K, have also been found to not cause tooth decay. Xylitol is specific in its inhibition of Streptococcus mutans, bacteria that are significant contributors to tooth decay. Xylitol inhibits Streptococcus mutans in the presence of other sugars, with the exception of fructose. Xylitol is a safe sweetener that benefits teeth and saliva production because, unlike most sugars, it is not fermented to acid. Daily doses of xylitol below 3.44 grams are ineffective and doses above 10.32 grams show no additional benefit. Other active ingredients in chewing gum include fluoride, which strengthens tooth enamel, and p-chlorbenzyl-4-methylbenzylpiperazine, which prevents travel sickness. Chewing gum also increases saliva production.

Food and sucrose have a demineralizing effect upon enamel that has been reduced by adding calcium lactate to food. Calcium lactate added to toothpaste has reduced calculus formation. One study has shown that calcium lactate enhances enamel remineralization when added to xylitol-containing gum, but another study showed no additional remineralization benefit from calcium lactate or other calcium compounds in chewing-gum.

Other studies indicated that the caries preventive effect of chewing sugar-free gum is related to the chewing process itself rather than being an effect of gum sweeteners or additives, such as polyols and carbamide. A study investigating the in situ effect of casein phosphopeptide–amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP–ACP) found that its incorporation into a sugar-free gum increases the remineralization / protection of eroded enamel surface significantly.

Gum chewing is regarded as a helpful way to cure halitosis (bad breath). Chewing gum not only helps to add freshness to breath but can aid in removing food particles and bacteria associated with bad breath from teeth. It does this by stimulating saliva, which essentially washes out the mouth. Chewing sugar-free gum for 20 minutes after a meal helps prevent tooth decay, according to the American Dental Association, because the act of chewing the sugar-free gum produces saliva to wash away bacteria, which protects teeth. Chewing gum can also help with the lack of saliva or xerostomia since it naturally stimulates saliva production. Saliva can also promote enamel remineralization as long as it does not become too acidic.

Masumoto et al. looked at the effects of chewing gum after meals following an orthodontic procedure, to see if chewing exercises caused subjects pain or discomfort, or helped maintain a large occlusal contact area. 35 adult volunteers chewed gum for 10 to 15 minutes before or after three meals each day for 4 weeks. 90% of those questioned said that the gum felt "quite hard", and half reported no discomfort.

Use in surgery
Several randomized controlled studies have investigated the use of chewing gum in reducing the duration of post-operative ileus following abdominal and specifically gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic review of these suggests gum chewing, as a form of "sham feeding", is a useful treatment therapy in open abdominal or pelvic surgery, although the benefit is less clear when laparoscopic surgical techniques are used.

Chewing gum after a colon surgery helps the patient recover sooner. If the patient chews gum for fifteen minutes for at least four times per day, it will reduce their recovery time by a day and a half. The average patient took 0.66 fewer days to pass gas and 1.10 fewer days to have a bowel movement. Saliva flow and production is stimulated when gum is chewed. Gum also gets digestive juices flowing and is considered "sham feeding". Sham feeding is the role of the central nervous system in the regulation of gastric secretion.

Use in cardiovascular disease
Chewing gum has been shown to be effective in relieving the symptom of thirst in patients living with heart failure.

Stomach
Chewing gum is used as a novel approach for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). One hypothesis is that chewing gum stimulates the production of more bicarbonate-containing saliva and increases the rate of swallowing. After the saliva is swallowed, it neutralizes acid in the esophagus. In effect, chewing gum exaggerates one of the normal processes that neutralize acid in the esophagus. However, chewing gum is sometimes considered to contribute to the development of stomach ulcers. It stimulates the stomach to secrete acid and the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes that aren't required. In some cases, when consuming large quantities of gum containing sorbitol, gas and/or diarrhea may occur.

Classification as food
Controversy arises as to health concerns surrounding the questionable classification of gum as food, particularly in regard to some alternative uses for gum base ingredients. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), chewing gum is considered a food, as the term "food" means "a raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption, or chewing gum". Chewing gum is defined as a food of minimal nutritional value. However, many of the ingredients in gum base have uses in inedible products, which raises concern in some consumers. Polyethylene, one of the most popular components of gum base, belongs to a common group of plastics and is used in products from plastic bags to hula hoops. Polyvinyl acetate is a sticky polymer found in white glue. Butyl rubber is typically used in caulking and the lining of car tires, in addition to its role in gum base. Paraffin wax is a byproduct of refined petroleum.

Possible carcinogens
Concern has arisen about the possible carcinogenicity of the vinyl acetate (acetic acid ethenyl ester) used by some manufacturers in their gum bases. Currently, the ingredient can be hidden in the catch-all term "gum base". The Canadian government at one point classified the ingredient as a "potentially high hazard substance." However, on 31 January 2010, the Government of Canada's final assessment concluded that exposure to vinyl acetate is not considered to be harmful to human health. This decision under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was based on new information received during the public comment period, as well as more recent information from the risk assessment conducted by the European Union.

Choking and excretion of swallowed gum
Various myths hold that swallowed gum will remain in a human's stomach for up to seven years, as it is not digestible. According to several medical opinions, there seems to be little truth behind the tale. In most cases, swallowed gum will pass through the system as quickly as any other food.

There have been cases where swallowing gum has resulted in complications in young children requiring medical attention. A 1998 paper describes a four-year-old boy being referred with a two-year history of constipation. The boy was found to have "always swallowed his gum after chewing five to seven pieces each day", being given the gum as a reward for good behavior, and the build-up resulted in a solid mass which could not leave the body. A 1½-year-old girl required medical attention when she swallowed her gum and four coins, which got stuck together in her esophagus. A bezoar is formed in the stomach when food or other foreign objects stick to gum and build up, causing intestinal blockage. As long as the mass of gum is small enough to pass out of the stomach, it will likely pass out of the body easily, but it is recommended that gum not be swallowed or given to young children who do not understand not to swallow it.

Adults have choked to death on chewing gum in rare cases. A 2012 report describes a 42-year-old woman who fell on the stairs while chewing gum. Due to the impact, the gum fell into the pharynx and was inhaled into the larynx, causing complete blockage and resulting in the woman's death by asphyxiation.

Environmental effects
Chewing gum is not water-soluble and unlike other confectionery is not fully consumed. There has been much effort at public education and investment aimed at encouraging responsible disposal. Despite this it is commonly found stuck underneath benches, tables, handrails and escalators. It is extremely difficult and expensive to remove once "walked in" and dried. Gum bonds strongly to asphalt and rubber shoe soles because they are all made from polymeric hydrocarbons. It also bonds strongly with concrete paving. Removal is generally achieved by steam jet and scraper but the process is slow and labour-intensive.

Most external urban areas with high pedestrian traffic show high incidence of casual chewing gum discard. In 2000 a study on Oxford Street, one of London's busiest shopping streets, showed that a quarter of a million black or white blobs of chewing gum were stuck to its pavement. Gum removal from city streets, or even famous landmarks, can be a costly effort; in Rome, 15,000 pieces of chewed gum are discarded on a daily basis and the removal of each piece costs the city one euro. However, likely as a consequence of Singapore's ban, Singapore's pavements are, perhaps uniquely amongst modern cities, free of gum.

Various teams of researchers have developed gum that is less adhesive and degrades within days or weeks. One example, Rev7 Gum, was briefly for sale from 2010 to 2012.

Bans
Many schools do not allow chewing gum because students often dispose of it inappropriately (leaving it under desks and chairs, behind vending machines, etc.). The chewing may also pose a distraction to class, and the gum might carry diseases or bacteria from other students.

The Singapore government outlawed chewing gum in 1992 citing the danger of discarded gum being wedged in the sliding doors of underground trains and general cleanliness. However, in 2004 the government allowed sugarless gum to be sold in pharmacies if a doctor or dentist prescribed it due to the Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement.

Recycling
In 2018, the BBC published a news article on British designer Anna Bullus, who created a method of collecting and recycling chewing gum into plastic, noting that litter from chewing gum is the second most common form of litter, second only to cigarette litter. She uses a Worcester recycling plant to make old chewing gum into plastic. She then uses that plastic at a plastic moulding specialist, Amber Valley, in Leicester to make plastic objects. Known objects made are collection containers for more chewing gum, shoe soles, rubber boots, and plastic cups. Her company advertises itself as the "first company in the world to recycle and process chewing gum into a range of new compounds that can be used in the rubber and plastics industry". The company is called Gum-tec, and the collection containers are dubbed "gumdrops". Advertised products on the website are pencils, coffee mugs, guitar picks, a "bicycle spoke", rulers, sports cones, frisbees, boomerangs, door stops, "meal mates", lunch-boxes, and combs.

title: Chewing gum


text:
NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps (informally the NOAA Corps) is one of eight federal uniformed services of the United States, and operates under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a scientific agency overseen by the Department of Commerce. The NOAA Corps is made up of scientifically and technically trained officers. The NOAA Corps and the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps are the only U.S. uniformed services that consist only of commissioned officers, with no enlisted or warrant officer ranks. The NOAA Corps' primary mission is to monitor oceanic conditions, support major waterways, and monitor atmospheric conditions.

The NOAA Corps traces its origins to the establishment of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps on May 22, 1917, which the service recognizes as its official date of establishment. The Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps became the Environmental Science Services Administration Corps in 1965, which in turn became the NOAA Corps in 1970.

Mission
The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the eight uniformed services of the United States government. It has over 300 commissioned officers, but no enlisted or warrant officer personnel. The NOAA Corps today employs professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines. NOAA Corps officers operate NOAA ships, fly NOAA aircraft, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA, as well as in positions in the United States Merchant Marine, the United States Department of Defense, the United States Coast Guard, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the United States Department of State. Like its predecessors, the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps and the ESSA Corps, the NOAA Corps provides a source of technically skilled officers which can be incorporated into the U.S. Armed Forces in times of war, and in peacetime supports defense requirements in addition to its non-military scientific projects. Should it be called into active duty, it would be a department of one of the six branches of the United States Armed Forces.

Early history
The NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps traces its roots to the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. The Coast and Geodetic Survey was founded as the United States Survey of the Coast under President Thomas Jefferson in 1807 and renamed the United States Coast Survey in 1836. Until the American Civil War (1861–1865), the Coast Survey was staffed by civilian personnel working with United States Army and United States Navy officers. During the American Civil War, Army officers were withdrawn from Coast Survey duty, never to return, while all but two Navy officers also were withdrawn from Coast Survey service for the duration of the war. Since most men of the Survey had Union sympathies, most stayed on with the Survey rather than resigning to serve the Confederate States of America; their work shifted in emphasis to support of the United States Navy and Union Army, and these Coast Surveyors are the professional ancestors of today's NOAA Corps. Those Coast Surveyors supporting the Union Army were given assimilated military rank while attached to a specific command, but those supporting the U.S. Navy operated as civilians and ran the risk of being executed as spies if captured by the Confederates while working in support of Union forces. After the war, U.S. Navy officers returned to duty with the Coast Survey, which was given authority over geodetic activities in the interior of the United States in 1871 and was subsequently renamed the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1878.

With the outbreak of the Spanish–American War in April 1898, the U.S. Navy again withdrew all of its officers from Coast and Geodetic Survey assignments. They returned after the war ended in August 1898, but the system of U.S. Navy officers and men crewing the Survey's ships that had prevailed for most of the 19th century came to an end when the appropriation law approved on June 6, 1900, provided for "all necessary employees to man and equip the vessels," instead of U.S. Navy personnel. The law took effect on July 1, 1900; at that point, all U.S. Navy personnel assigned to the Survey's ships remained aboard until the first call at each ship's home port, where they transferred off, with the Survey reimbursing the Navy for their pay accrued after July 1, 1900. From July 1900, the Coast and Geodetic Survey continued as an entirely civilian-run organization until after the United States entered World War I in April 1917.

Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps
To avoid the dangers that Coast Survey personnel had faced during the Civil War of being executed as spies if captured by the enemy, the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps was established on 22 May 1917, giving Coast and Geodetic Survey officers a commissioned status so that under the laws of war, they could not be executed as spies if they were captured while serving as surveyors on a battlefield during World War I. The creation of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps also ensured that in wartime a set of officers with technical skills in surveying could be assimilated rapidly into the United States armed forces so that their skills could be employed in military and naval work essential to the war effort. Before World War I ended in November 1918, over half of all Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps officers had served in the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, or United States Marine Corps, performing duty as artillery orienteering officers, as minelaying officers in the North Sea (where they were involved in the laying of the North Sea Mine Barrage), as navigators aboard troop transports, as intelligence officers, and as officers on the staff of American Expeditionary Force commanding officer General John "Black Jack" Pershing.

The Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps returned to peacetime scientific pursuits after the war. Its first flag officer was Rear Admiral Raymond S. Patton, who was promoted from captain to rear admiral in 1936.

When the United States entered World War II in December 1941, the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps again suspended its peacetime activities to support the war effort, often seeing front-line service. Over half of all Coast and Geodetic Survey officers were transferred to the U.S. Army, the United States Army Air Forces, the U.S. Navy, or the U.S. Marine Corps, and deployed in North Africa, Europe, the Pacific, and the defense of North America as artillery surveyors, hydrographers, amphibious engineers, beachmasters (i.e., directors of disembarkation), instructors at service schools, and in a wide variety of technical positions. They also served as reconnaissance surveyors for a worldwide aeronautical charting effort, and a Coast and Geodetic Survey officer was the first commanding officer of the Army Air Forces Aeronautical Chart Plant at St. Louis, Missouri. Three officers who remained in Coast and Geodetic Survey service were killed during the war, as were eleven other Survey personnel.

After the war ended in August 1945, the Coast and Geodetic Survey again returned to peacetime scientific duties, although a significant amount of its work in the succeeding years was related to support of military and naval requirements during the Cold War.

ESSA Corps
When the Coast and Geodetic Survey was transferred to the newly established Environmental Science Services Administration on July 13, 1965, control of the corps was transferred from the Coast and Geodetic Survey to ESSA itself, and accordingly, the corps was redesignated the Environmental Science Services Administration Corps, known informally as the ESSA Corps. The ESSA Corps retained the responsibility of providing commissioned officers to operate Coast and Geodetic Survey ships and of providing a set of officers with technical skills in surveying for incorporation into the U.S. armed forces during wartime.

Following the establishment of the ESSA, Rear Admiral H. Arnold Karo was promoted to vice admiral to help lead the agency. He served as the first Deputy Administrator of ESSA and was the first vice admiral, and at the time the highest-ranking officer, in the combined history of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps and ESSA Corps. Rear Admiral James C. Tison Jr. was the first director of the ESSA Corps.

NOAA Corps
The ESSA was reorganized and expanded to become the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on October 3, 1970. As a result, the ESSA Corps was redesignated the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, known informally as the NOAA Corps. Rear Admiral Harley D. Nygren was appointed as the first director of the new NOAA Corps.

In 1972, the NOAA Corps became the first uniformed service of the U.S. Government to recruit women on the same basis as men. On June 1, 2012, the NOAA research vessel RV Gloria Michelle, a boat crewed by two NOAA Corps personnel, became the first vessel in the history of NOAA (or its ancestor organizations) to have an all-female crew.

On January 2, 2014, Michael S. Devany was promoted to vice admiral upon assuming duties as Deputy Under Secretary for Operations at NOAA, becoming only the second vice admiral in the combined history of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps, ESSA Corps, and NOAA Corps, and the first since the promotion of Vice Admiral Karo in 1965.

Ranks and insignia
The NOAA Corps uses the same naval commissioned officer ranks as the United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, and United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. While the grade of admiral has been established as a rank in the NOAA Corps, the rank has not been authorized for use by the United States Congress. Current NOAA Corps ranks rise from ensign to vice admiral, pay grades O-1 through O-9, respectively, although the rank of vice admiral has been used only rarely in the history of the NOAA Corps and its predecessors.

Unless already on active duty as a commissioned officer in any of the other U.S. military services and transferring their commission from that service, new NOAA Corps officers are appointed via direct commission and must complete a 19-week basic officer training class (BOTC) at the United States Coast Guard Officer Candidate School at the United States Coast Guard Academy before entering active duty.

NOAA Corps officers receive the same pay as other members of the uniformed services. They cannot hold a dual commission with another U.S. military service but, as previously indicated, inter-service transfers are sometimes permitted from other services via.

Unlike their United States Armed Forces counterparts, NOAA Corps officers do not require their rank appointments and promotions to be confirmed by the United States Senate, and only require approval from the president.

Rank flags
NOAA Corps flag officers are authorized the use of rank flags.

Militarization
NOAA Corps officers can be militarized by the President of the United States under the provisions of, which states:

"The President may, whenever in the judgment of the President a sufficient national emergency exists, transfer to the service and jurisdiction of a military department such vessels, equipment, stations, and officers of the Administration as the President considers to be in the best interest of the country. An officer of the Administration transferred under this section, shall, while under the jurisdiction of a military department, have proper military status and shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders for the government of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, as the case may be, insofar as the same may be applicable to persons whose retention permanently in the military service of the United States is not contemplated by law."

Uniforms
For formal service uniforms, the NOAA Corps wears the same Service Dress Blues and Service Dress Whites as the U.S. Navy, but with NOAA Corps insignia in place of U.S. Navy insignia. For daily work uniforms, the NOAA Corps wears the same Operational Dress Uniform (ODU) as the U.S. Coast Guard, but with NOAA Corps insignia in place of U.S. Coast Guard insignia.

Flag
Although the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and ESSA had their own flags, neither the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps or ESSA Corps did. The NOAA Corps adopted its flag on 7 March 2002, the last of the then-seven uniformed services of the United States to have its own distinctive flag.

The flag has a navy blue background. Centered on the background is a white circle inscribed with "NOAA COMMISSIONED CORPS" and "1917", the latter referring to the year of the founding of the NOAA Corps's original ancestor, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps. A red triangle symbolizing the discipline of triangulation used in hydrographic surveying — as a similar triangle does in the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, ESSA, and NOAA flags and the commission pennants flown by Coast and Geodetic Survey and NOAA vessels — lies within the circle, and the NOAA Corps insignia is set within the triangle. The flag is displayed in accordance with the customs and traditions of the uniformed services of the United States.

Official song
In 1988, the NOAA Corps adopted a march, "Forward with NOAA," as its first official service song. In 2017 it adopted a sea chanty, "Into the Oceans and the Air," as its new official service song.

title: NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps


text:
Talk:Demarchy

Suggestion for "Demarchy in Fiction"
Would this be apropriate?

"An extreme form of demarchy is the focus of one episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5. In the episode an alien race is thrown into chaos when a constitutionally required period of demarchy is reached. During this period, every community is expected to randomly sort themselves into equal numbers of "greens" and "purples" who then fight a revolutionary civil war against each other. The victors become members of a new and dominant political party until the following revolutionary period begins." anonymous
 * That doesn´t seem to be what demarchy is about to me...  . regards Sean Heron 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupy Wall street Movement's "Consensus Process" as a variation on Demarchy. Demarchy is random, the "Consensus Process" as used by the Occupy Movement may, or may not be random. Tim Kasey on Oct. 17th, 2011. If you can find an earlier citation, I would be willing to concede my credit for this discovery. The "Occupy Wall street" movement may be too new to find anything newer on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.214.100 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

General Discussion
The examples here are good, but broader than just "Demarchy", which AFAIK is a fairly specific proposal for a political structure. Idealy this page should be split into "Demarchy" and "Sortition" pages which reference each other, the more general stuff ending up under "Sortition". -- pm67nz

OK, sortition now exists, but I didn't find a convenient home for the old Consensus Conference text from this page:

To organize a Consensus Conference around a particular topic, advertisements are made, seeking local "lay volunteer participants" who are chosen to reflect the demographic makeup of the community and who lack significant prior knowledge or involvement in the topic at hand. The final panel might consist of about 15 people, including homemakers, office and factory workers, and university-educated professionals. The participants engage in a process of study, discussion, and consultation with technical experts that culminates in a public forum and the production of a report summarizing the panel's conclusions about the topic at hand.

"Not only are laypeople elevated to positions of preeminence, but a carefully planned program of reading and discussion culminating in a forum open to the public ensures that they become well-informed prior to rendering judgment,” says Loka Institute director Richard Sclove. "Both the forum and the subsequent judgment, written up in a formal report, become a focus of intense national attention - usually at a time when the issue at hand is due to come before Parliament. Though consensus conferences are hardly meant to dictate public policy, they do give legislators some sense of where the people who elected them might stand on important questions. They can also help industry steer clear of new products or processes that are likely to spark public opposition." -- pm67nz

To my knowledge no other person has come up with the term "Klerostocracy" except myself. If I am the first, then I release the copyright of the term to the public domain. One Salient Oversight 05:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see accountability addressed. In a representative democracy, the representatives (supposedly) are accountable. In a direct democracy, the people are accountable to themselves. In a demarchy, how would a random selection be accountable? Just curious. :) -- Stevietheman 23:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess for the answer to that, we should look at examples of how accountability actually exists in both existing representative democracies and in existing demarchies. What does it mean, for example, to say that George W. Bush or Bill Clinton is "accountable"? Does it mean that there is much chance they will be punished for misdeeds in office? Not likely. Lower-level government functionaries are sometimes held accountable for their misdeeds, but even there it doesn't happen all that often, and in fact rewards and punishments are often meted out according to some standard other than "accountability to the public." In the U.S., for example, politicians are typically much more beholden to and responsive to the demands of large corporations and major donors than they are to everyday citizens. So "accountability" really isn't all that perfect in existing representative democracies. As for demarchy, the U.S. jury system is an example of demarchy at work. Jurors are chosen at random from a pool of the general population and are expected to give up a few days of their time to pass judgment on people who have been accused of violating the law. After they issue their verdict, they go home. It's not a perfect system either, but it works reasonably well, and most jurors deliberate in good faith. There are some cases in which individual jurors have been bribed or corrupted in other ways, but I think those sorts of manipulations are the exception rather than the rule, and overall I think juries are less likely to be corrupted by money than the professional politicians who rely on campaign donors in representative democracy.

 * On the other hand, no one has ever tried to run an entire government based on demarchy, so it is impossible to say whether such a system would be as susceptible to corruption as traditional democracy. --Sheldon Rampton 00:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Accountability is never perfect and it never will be. It's also not just about punishing people.  It's also about guiding politicians into "doing the right thing" by shining light on their activities (so it's very relatable to transparence).  It's also about determining who is responsible for doing what and how they can be accessed.

 * Transgressions aren't always punishable; for instance, a politician might get "slapped" by unfavorable news coverage, or their popularity may decrease. These are not punishments as much as they are signals to the politician to change their course.

 * Your response didn't include any information about how randomly selected groups can be accountable. At least one can say that representatives are somewhat accountable, while groups like juries essentially lose accountability once they leave the courtroom. -- Stevietheman 00:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It's true that juries lose accountability once they leave the courtroom, but that is precisely what enables them to function as disinterested parties while also acting as a representative of the broader community. Do you think juries would render better decisions if they could be pressured by financial threats and rewards or by getting "slapped" by unfavorable news coverage, or if they had to worry about getting voted off the jury (some of the mechanisms by which accountability is achieved in electoral politics)?

 * "Accountability" is really another way of saying "representativeness." When we say that an elected official is held accountable to the voters, what we mean is that he or she must be perceived as representing their interests or get voted out of office. (Of course, public officials are also accountable to their financial patrons and to opinion-shapers like the media who influence the electorate.) The idea of demarchy is that representativeness is achieved the same way it is achieved in opinion polls: through random selection aimed at creating a deliberative body that is a representative sample of the community. Outside of juries, however, this approach has mostly been used to create advisory bodies rather than bodies with actual enforceable authority. --Sheldon Rampton 02:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitions
Klerostocracy isn't exactly the same as Demarchy -- Klerostocracy would mean that decisions are made randomly (who decides the list is another matter), whereas demarchy means that the decisions are made by randomly chosen people. User:Cagliost 30-08-2004

Problems on the implementation of demarcy
I'm not happy with the current state of the section titled "problems on the implementation of demarchy," but rather than simply delete the problematic sections, I think I should first annotate it here to explain what I find objectionable. The section in question is as follows:

 * Perhaps the most difficult part of Demarchy is amending a nation's constitution in order to allow for this form of government. Nations based upon federalism usually have a bicameral system that allows smaller entities to have the power to veto any changes. Should representatives in both houses be selected randomly?

 * For starters, I'm inclined to question the formulation, "perhaps the most difficult part..." It uses weasel language ("perhaps") to soften a bold claim, for which there is scant evidence. Why is amending a nation's constitution the most difficult part of demarchy? Since no one has ever tried to amend a nation's constitution in this fashion, it's really impossible to know how difficult it would be. One could argue with equal justification that the "most difficult part" would be devising a scheme for selecting members of policy juries that is both random and representative of the population as a whole. Or perhaps the "most difficult part" would be getting people to actually volunteer to serve on decision-making panels. (In the U.S. system, a fair number of people go out of their way to avoid jury duty.)

 * In addition, it isn't necessarily the case that amending a nation's constitution would be necessary to introduce demarchy. In the U.S., we already have a system of demarchy that makes decisions in criminal trials. The jury that acquitted Michael Jackson, for example, was an example of demarchy. Most political systems in practice are a hybrid of different systems of governance, and demarchy could operate at some levels of government while other processes operate at other levels. Amending a constitution to achieve "pure" demarchy would undoubtedly be a challenge, but so would amending a constitution to achieve pure democracy, or pure monarchy for that matter.

 * Finally, the paragraph above discusses a problem in implementing demarchy under very specific conditions: nations based upon federalism with a bicameral system. However, not all nations operate under these particular rules. In the U.S. there is a link between bicameralism and federalism, with each state being assigned the same number of senators regardless of that state's population. This system is supposed to ensure that small states are not overwhelmed by the power of large states, but it also obviously is at odds with one of the principles of democracy, namely that each citizen has an equal voice in shaping government. Under the U.S. system, people from sparsely populated states actually have more individual power than people from heavily populated states. And in a number of countries, such as Japan or France, bicameralism is not linked with federalism at all. The passage above seems to carry an unexamined point of view which assumes that the U.S. is the norm against which a novel concept such as demarchy must be judged.

 * One of the greatest problems of this process would be the acquiescence of a majority of political parties to essentially give up their power. Politicians and political parties (both major and minor) stand to lose a great deal if Demarchy is to be introduced. It would be very difficult to convince politicians in the short term to even consider the idea.

 * The above paragraph really says nothing specific about demarchy at all. It's certainly true that any type of change is bound to encounter resistance from those who benefit from the existing status quo. For that matter, monarchies and dictatorships have not easily given up their power when confronted with demands for democracy, and furthermore democracies have almost never been transformed into monarchies. But does this mean that an article about democracy should have a section titled "problems of implementation" which argues that "one of the greatest problems" of democracy is that it is hard to convince monarchs to adopt it?

 * Another problem arises when Demarchy is applied to the Judicial and Executive branches of the government. Should a president be elected by the people? Or should he or she be elected by randomly selected electors? In this situation, what would a person need to do in order to be recognised as a potential Presidential candidate by such electors?

 * This paragraph above really only discusses an alleged problem with the executive branch and not with the judicial. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. (and other countries based on Anglo-American common law) actually already has a judicial system that implements elements of demarchy. As for how the executive branch would be chosen, one can only speculate, but there's no reason to expect that it would involve "randomly selected electors." As for the executive branch, perhaps a governmental system based primarily on demarchy wouldn't need an executive branch at all; or, perhaps the executive branch would still be democratically elected, while other branches would be selected through demarchy. In any case, this is likely to be more of a dilemma in countries like the U.S., where the executive branch is clearly separate from the legislative branch, than in countries like England where the prime minister and cabinet actually sit in parliament.

In short, the passage above seems to make a number of speculative assertions, based on fairly arbitrary assumptions about the type of existing political system in which someone might attempt to implement demarchy. I think it would be good for this article to include some discussion of potential problems with demarchy, but the "problems of implementation" section in its current form doesn't seem to do the job. --Sheldon Rampton 06:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just rewritten this section, but it's still unreferenced. -- Beland 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

BC example and general comments
I reworded the BC Citizen's Assembly example to remove the claim that it "used Demarchy". The article has just finished defining demarchy as a "political system without the states or bureaucracies" and "democracy without elections". A group chosen by the government specifically (and solely) to recommend changes to (not the elimination of) elections does not seem to be demarchy, regardless as to whether the group itself may have been chosen by sortition!

Also, some of the later sections of the article seem to be written more as an essay on demarchy, not an encyclopedic article. "Demarchy could also replace...", "An alternative...might be...", "Many politicians make decisions...for their own political gain". A tonal rewrite is probably in order. - David Oberst 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Klerostocracy" from first sentence
As I have noted above, the word "Klerostocracy" was probably invented by myself. As such, there is actually no other reference to this word that I know of outside this article. Since that is the case, I have decided to remove the word from the first sentence of the opening paragraph. I still think the word is valid and the second section of the article about the word should be included. --One Salient Oversight 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Direct Democracy/Demarchy
It would seem that many of the criticisms of direct demo. are shared by demarchy. A synopsis of or link to criticisms of direct democracy would help address the lack of content in criticism of demarchy.

Sortition vs. Demarchy
What exactly is the difference? Should the two articles be combined in some way?
 * Sortition is the process of selection of jurors. Demarchy is a theoretical system of government that runs on sortition. For example, you can have sortition without demarchy, but not demarchy without sortition. I think they are two different things, and should remain two separate articles. Jiminezwaldorf 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sortition is selection by lottery - it has nothing to do with juries as such. Apart from that, I agree that sortition and demarchy are different subjects - although the article on sortition has some content that looks more appropriate for the demarchy article. -207.6.224.49 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have sent a merger to Demarchy from Sortition. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sortition and demarchy should be kept separate. Sortition is a general mechanism for selecting decision makers of some kind, or rather, a mechanism for selecting them from a larger, pre-selected pool. Demarchy is an application, a form of government based on a particular kind of sortition: top-level decision makers selected from a relatively comprehensive pool of citizens. This indicates that the sortition and demarchy articles should be distinct, and suggests that any extended discussions of historical and theoretical applications of sortition to demarchy per se (for example, in Greece) might best be placed in the demarchy article, with only a brief summary here. 66.127.54.23 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sortition is larger than demarchy. This article does a disservice by conflating the two. "Demarchy" is a specific use of sortition. John Burnheim was the one to popularize 'demarchy' and he meant it in a special, limited sense -- citizen juries or commissions. / The whole article 'demarchy' should be much diminished to speak only of that proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedianMale (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally. The article on demarchy can stay but there should be minimal content on random selection (sortition) within it. Just reference the sortition page. Mikedonovan2011 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Text Battle
There seems to be a battle going on. Some users keep pulling the text down, leaving this big wide open white space on the page, and some users (or user) keeps pulling it back up. I think it looks fine the way it is (right now) with the text pulled up. If you want to pull it down again, note your reasons/make your suggestion on this discussion page. Otherwise leave it the way it is. Jiminezwaldorf 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

POV
As it currently stands this article reads like a promotional piece for Demarchy, and runs afoul of WP:NPOV. The electionering section has line that assert opinions as facts and list the many unproven benefits of Demarchy. I was tempted to remove most of the first three sections because of POV statements, but I thought it would be best to bring it to the talk page for discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely don't just remove all of those sections. The article on demarchy should describe the beliefs of demarchy's proponents for the same reason that an article on Roman Catholicism should describe the beliefs of Catholics. If you want to rework the language in some fashion to make it more clear that these are the beliefs of demarchy theorists and not the point of view of Wikipedia itself, feel free to do so, but don't just delete the information. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe my above language was a little too bold, I agree with you that there should be a section for the beliefs of Demarchy theorists, it should be just that a section about their beliefs and not state it as fact, and it should be sourced. I believe the Roman Catholicism article does this in a excellent way, and I would love to see this article do this and I will begin reworking the language. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portmanteau?
I don't think it is, except in a trivial sense. Burnheim wrote: Democracy is possible only if the decision-makers are a representative sample of the people concerned. I shall call a polity based on this principle a demarchy. “Demarchy” is an archaic word which Hayek used to describe the view he advocated in Law, Legislation and Liberty (3 vols., London, Routledge   and Kegan Paul: 1973, 1976, 1979). How ever, since he did not employ it persistently, it has not passed into current use and I feel justified in attempting to appropriate it.

In addition to anarchy there is monarchy, oligarchy, matriarchy etc. Demarchy literally means "people-rule", more or less the same as democracy, and would have that meaning even if the word anarchy didn't exist. Anocracy on the other hand, would mean something quite different ("no-power"?). In short demarchy is derived from dem- and -archy, rather than democracy and anarchy.

Unless of course anyone can come up with a relevant citation from either Burnheim or Hayek. Pm67nz (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * OED has references for 'demarchy' back to 1642. And defines it as "the office of a demarch; a popular government.  The municipal body of a modern Greek commune." (Sortition back to 1597) -- Mindstalk (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging parts of Sortition article with Demarchy article
I have noticed that the Sortition article has taken a life of its own and is now pretty much an article on Demarchy. Just to reiterate:

1. Sortition is a process of random selection.

2. Demarchy is a system of government whereby representatives are selected by sortition.

In other words, sortition can be applied beyond the world of politics (eg lotto) while Demarchy is a form of politics based upon sortition. Much of the Sortition article needs to be moved over to the Demarchy article.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 * As can be seen above, Sortition was broken out of Demarchy in the first place. Seems odd to merge them.  And I don't think they should be merged: sortition is a procedure, while one definition of demarchy is an application of that procedure.  But demarchy has other meanings, such as direct democracy. -- Mindstalk (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I can't quite agree with your definitions, or at least I draw the line between them in a different place. Sure the word "Sortition" has a wider meaning outside of political science (covered in Wikipedia under names like Random selection), but it is also the term most often used to label the concept described on the Sortition page: the random selection of individual people empowered to make some decision(s) on behalf of the population from which they were sampled.  The most notable current meaning of the word "Demarchy" is the particular system of bottom-up government proposed by John Burnheim, with meanings of secondary importance derived from SciFi.  If anything it is the Demarchy page which has "taken on a life of its own" and should be pruned back to its topic.  I suppose my position is summed up by the Examples section on the Sortition page, where Demarchy is just one amongst many, and by no means the most significant.  Pm67nz (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (the original Demarchy/Sortition splitter)

 * I agree with Pm67nz. --Drono (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the intro a little to first, aim for some neutrality and secondly to distance demarchy from a system of voting for representation with a system designed to overcome problems inherent in democracy. As a system it is either that practices in the past, or an unimplemented theory.

I don't think sortition should be merged with demarchy. Sortition is used in functions outside of national or regional government.

The article needs some serious cleaning. It is littered with personal opinion, wild theory and almost no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mindstalk, Pm67nz, Shabidoo, and 207.6.224.49. I find that I made the same points independently above, and I am (boldly) removing the proposed-merger templates. 66.127.54.23 (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal (again) [december 2012]
I would like to again propose to merge the two articles. Demarchy seems to have been coined by Hayek for something totally unrelated to what this article is about. Later, Burnheim used it for his proposal which includes the dissolution of the state, sortition and many other components. Again not what this article mainly about. At the time I found this article the only places where the term was used to describe "any political system which uses sortition as its main selection mechanism", was the website of Newid (now unfortunately owned by cybersquatters). All other sources using the term this way, as far as I can tell, were either inspired by this wikipedia article or by Newid (let me know if you know otherwise). What is more important, there is quite a bit of reasearch about what in this article is called demarchy (see for example ), but nobody ever uses this term, other than very rarely to refer to Burnheims proposal.

Even if we wanted to accept the definition, which I'm convinced is a mistake, it is enough to look at the two articles to see they are really covering the same ground. I suggest to try to create e new article out of the two and naming the result sortition. If it is then discovered that it would really become too long, we can always decide to put some section of it in their own article. I think the reason sortition got initially taken out was that it is a much more well understood concept, so certainly deserves its own article, only probably it just have been renamed. fela (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Interesting suggestion. I'd disagree because sortition focusses on the historical practice while demarchy focuses on a political theory that involves the practice as well as modern ideas like deliberative democracy, deliberative opinion polls, etc.  In particular, I'd focus on making readers more aware that both articles exist, like by referring the history section of demarchy to sortition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.247.242 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I agree with Winkelmolen. Not because I've read and understood the contents, history or nuances of the Philosophical origins and historical practices of the two but because I hate looking at those messages at the top of Wiki pages. Rpm2004 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The article on demarchy should focus on Burnheim's influential work (small state, reduced bureaucracies, implementation of lottery/sortion), and other historical and present uses of the term demarchy. This article should have minimal content on random selection of decision makers and related topics; this all belongs in the article of sortition. Antoine Vergne’s survey of the literature (in "A Brief Survey of the Literature of Sortition." Delannoi, Gil and Oliver Dowlen. Sortition:Theory and Practice. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2010. 69-87.) found that since 1956, there have been at least 199 texts up to 2008 that give active mention to the subject of sortition, and more than 350 writings when counting reprints, translations, etc. Let's not elevate Burnheim's work to the same level as this body of work on sortition. Mikedonovan2011 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that they should be merged. The Demarchy has almost no original content and is a weak shadow of the Sortation article. Right now there is poor interlinking between them and we might as well keep the articles together until they grow large enough to need splitting. However, I think Sortation should be merged into Demarchy - it's a more descriptive name (type of government) and fits in to government templates better. Vagary (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I've reviewed the articles, and the commentary on merging them. There seems to be consensus on the revived merger proposal, and it is clear to me that it is bad to leave the Merger header on year after year, so I've stepped forward and did the merger.  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

primary sources and original research
I agree with the comments of TonyBallioni and Shabidoo. I've added the "primary sources" template, since most or all of the references come from proponents, rather than what Wikipedia is based on - secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY).

I also moved the "original research" template to the top, since much of the article is unreferenced, not just the section that had it, and it is an article-scope template. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Athenian democracy
The third paragraph ends "Candidates were almost always male, Greek, educated citizens holding a minimum of wealth and status." but it's not clear whether these citizens were generally those holding *the* minimum of wealth and status (i.e. least wealthy and of lowest status) or those holding at least a minimum of wealth and status (i.e. some group consisting of the most wealthy and those of highest status). The latter seems more likely, but that's all the more reason to mention it if it really is the former. Lordandmaker (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Songs of Distant Earth

 * In Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke, the futuristic society on Thalassa is ruled by demarchy.

...not so sure about this. As I recall, the government was described as having a technologically advanced form of direct democracy - a situation in which the figurehead President becomes ultimately somewhat irrelevant, so they opted for a random choice. Thoughts? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging with "Stochocracy"
I knew this system under the name stochocracy. (As a side note, this is in fact in my view real democracy, as opposed to our theoretical system actually beeing aristocracy, government by elites, best & elected people --but this is another story.)

The point is that both terms are mostly synonym,as mentionned in the other article, thus why do both articles exist? Also note that en. article "demarchy" in fact correlates with "stochocracy" in other languages such as fr (stochocratie). What about merging the 2 article into "demarchy" (as the article is more developped and the term seems better known --or less unknown-- in en.), and redirect from "stochocracy"?

denis 'spir' (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 * We probably want separate articles for these different theoretical democracy models that get tightly linked together, along wiht stuff like deliberative democracy. If there is enough, then many demarchy could be a general page on the subject, and the different theories like stochocracy and practices like sortition could be linked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.247.242 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Sortition complete
There wasn't anything remotely close to a consensus on this (two are for and two are against). Why was a pop decision like this made? Very bad call here. I would have voted against if I knew there was a heads up. --Shabidoo | Talk 20:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy of my response to you on my user talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nealmcb#Sortition.2Fdemarchy_merger
 * I'm sorry you didn't get your opinion in earlier. But it was not a hasty decision - the proposal has been out there for years, and something needed to be done.  There was significant activity in 2014 which seemed to be enough consensus to me, especially after some more investigation.  There were four votes to merge (fela Winkelmolen, Rpm2004, vagary (who preferred to merge the other way), and nealmcb, and two opposed (Mikedonovan2011 and 138.251).  It was a bit confusing since Rpm2004 agreed with "winkelmolen", which is a different name for fela.  It seems clear that the term "demarchy" is ill-defined, whereas sortition has a long, clearer history.  Most of the links to Demarchy that I reviewed were about sortition.  We clearly needed some sort of change since having a Merge proposal up on both pages, which are mostly duplication, for years doesn't help the encyclopedia.  I doubt that today an article that tried to focus on just Demarchy (i.e. the various divergent meanings of it from Hayek, Burnheim etc) without the more well-established material on random selection as a general procedure for a variety of decision-making circumstances, it wouldn't be considered notable, but someone could try.  But having two articles both talking about random selection clearly seems wrong to me.  Mostly it seemed to me that no one had taken the time to dig in and do the merge. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo, I see that you made a lot of changes to Demarchy over the last 6 months, i.e. most of these: as well as earlier work, so I understand where you're coming from better now.  I certainly didn't mean to dismiss your work on the topic.  If there are sections there that could have been merged better, please feel free to do so, or to propose another direction forward.  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a disgrace you merged this. It's like merging democracy with election, mixing system with metod, noone will do that. Another step in deleting useful information... 09:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.147.139 (talk)

title: Talk:Demarchy


text:
USS Sand Lance (SSN-660)

USS Sand Lance (SSN-660), a Sturgeon-class attack submarine, was the second ship and the second submarine of the United States Navy to be named for the sand lance, a member of the family Ammodytidae.

Construction and commissioning
The contract to build Sand Lance was awarded to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard at Kittery, Maine, on 24 October 1963 and her keel was laid down there on 15 January 1965. She was launched on 11 November 1969, sponsored by Mrs. Thomas J. McIntyre, and commissioned on 25 September 1971. Sand Lance was the last ship to be constructed for the Navy at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Service history
On the day of her commissioning, Sand Lance's home port was changed from Portsmouth to Charleston, South Carolina. She spent the remainder of 1971 on shakedown. She operated in the Charleston area for the whole of 1972, then, in February 1973, stood out of Charleston for special operations. She returned to Charleston on 21 April 1973, remained in port until 11 June 1973, and then departed again on special operations. She completed these operations in August 1973 and put in at Faslane Naval Base, Scotland, on 13 August 1973. Sand Lance left Faslane on 20 August 1973 and arrived in Charleston on 5 September 1973. Sand Lance was sent to the Mediterranean to monitor shipping going through the Straits of Gibraltar during the Yom Kippur War. She then operated out of Charleston in the western Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea through at least June 1974. She went through overhaul at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in 1975 and 1976 (15 months).

In 1987, Sand Lance completed Law Enforcement Operations in the Caribbean Sea and was transferred to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine for a refueling overhaul, replacement of propeller (screw), and upgrades to hull coatings. She underwent sea trials in 1990 and returned to active service out of Charleston, SC.

In 1991, Sand Lance was deployed for six months as part of the UNITAS task force around South America. She traveled through the Panama Canal and around the southernmost tip of South America.

From October 1993 to March 1994 Sand Lance was on a Mediterranean Sea Deployment and called on ports at Naples, Italy; Monte Carlo, Monaco; U.S. Naval Support Activity Base Santo Stefano Island, Italy; Toulon, France, and Gibraltar.

In 1994 Sand Lance, while moored at Charleston – almost sank next to the pier ahead of one of her sister ships, the attack submarine USS Grayling (SSN-646), due to flooding in the engine room's lower level when a main seawater hull valve was being removed for maintenance. Plates, called blanks, had been placed over her hull penetrations by divers to avoid flooding during removal of the valve but had been placed over the wrong main seawater openings. The flooding was stopped, but not before most of the engine room's lower level was flooded.

In 1995, Sand Lance left Charleston and relocated to a new homeport in Groton, Connecticut, where she became a member of Submarine Squadron 2.

In 1996, Sand Lance was sent on a patrol to the Arctic Circle. While there, the submarine surfaced through the polar ice cap at the North Pole on 12 July.

Decommissioning and disposal
Sand Lance was decommissioned on 7 August 1998 and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register the same day. Her scrapping via the Nuclear-Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, began on 1 April 1998 and was completed on 30 August 1999.

Sand Lance's Maneuvering Room Consoles, which were used to control the engines, electrical systems and nuclear reactor were displayed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., and are now stored there in the event of future exhibits involving nuclear submarines.

title: USS Sand Lance (SSN-660)


text:
User talk:Ranjran

 * Hello there Ranjran welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump or my talk page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

 * Hello Ranjran, welcome to Wikipedia! Nice edit on Zakir Hussain -- it's wonderful to have someone who knows something about Indian music. If you have any questions, let me know!  I actually had a few questions for you, please don't feel obligated to answer them.  Thanks! Chadloder 04:25, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about Islamic music such as Qawaali or Khyal? If so, there are some artists mentioned on the Radio Kabul article that I would like to know more about...
 * Is the phrase Ustad a title of respect? What does it mean (e.g. Ustad Alla Rakha or Ustad Farida Mahwash)?
 * Would you consider trying to improve the articles on Indian music and Indian classical music? I think there are many more schools and forms of music which should be explained...the history and development of the different schools should be addressed, there needs to mention of things like Khyal, Dhrupad (the articles exist but are not mentioned), and more information about different instruments and artists!

If you had to consolidate all the Cocos (Keeling) Islands subpages into one article, did you have to do it when I was halfway through updating them? —Paul A 09:45, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello - I think you probably want to adjust the Zakir Hussain link on your home page to point to Zakir Hussain (musician), as plain old Zakir Hussain is now a disambiguation page. Anyway, that's not what I'm here for. On the tabla page, it has separate "Famous players" entries for "Ustad" and "alla Rakha", but this has (I assume) got to be a mistake for Ustad Alla Rakha, where someone first tried to link separately to Ustad (as a title), and someone else who didn't know his name thought they were two separate entries. If I'm in error her, please correct me! Thank you. Noel (talk) 18:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board
Hi. I would like you to be an active member of Indian wikipedians' notice board. utcursch 07:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi
Greetings.

I have been doing some copy-editing on the Hindu faith Ayyavazhi. The material could use some expert cleaning, someone aware of the Hindu faith. The pages are several, and the stories are many: Steven McCrary 19:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gandhigram Rural Institute
A tag has been placed on Gandhigram Rural Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bvlax2005 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ranjran


text:
Tivaevae

Tivaevae or tivaivai (tīvaevae) in the Cook Islands, tifaifai in French Polynesia, is a form of artistic quilting traditionally done by Polynesian women. The word literally means "patches", in reference to the pieces of material sewn together. The tivaevae are either made by one woman or can be created in groups of women called vainetini. The vainetini use this time together to bond, sing and catch up on village news.

Traditional uses
Tivaevae are often given on very special occasions either to important visitors, as birthday and wedding gifts or used to cover the body of a loved one who has died. They are often displayed during important events like the traditional boys' hair-cutting ceremonies, birthdays and weddings.

By custom, a tivaevae is not measured by monetary value nor production cost. Its value is said to be reflected by the love and patience that the creator(s) have put into making a stunning work of art. Cook Islands women often described their tivaevae as being "something from the heart". Artist Vereara Maeva-Taripo has described tivaevae as central to the identity of Cook Islands women.

Tivaevae are rarely seen for sale on the islands. The Atiu Fibre Arts Studio on Atiu is the only place in the Cook Islands where they are commercially produced and available for purchase.

History
The tivaevae's origins are uncertain. Rongokea (1992) believes it to be an imported art form, and cites two sets of Christian missionaries in the 19th century as possible origins. While it is known that these female missionaries taught the indigenous women how to sew, it is not certain that they taught them the craft of quilting or making bed coverlets. The appliqué style of tivaevae quilting appears to have been influence by Pennsylvanian German scherenschnitte or Victorian folded paper-cutting traditions. Multiple origins and influences thus seem likely.

As an art form, tivaevae replaced barkcloth production in Tahiti and the Cook Islands by the late 19th century: the function and nature of barkcloth production was transferred to tivaevae. Vereara Maeva-Taripo and Tungane Broadbent are important tivaevae artists of today from the Cook Islands, and both artists have been displayed in Queensland Art Gallery and are in the collection in Cook Islands National Museum and Queensland Art Gallery, as well as Christchurch Art Gallery.

title: Tivaevae


text:
Peak envelope power

Peak envelope power (PEP) is the average power over a single radio frequency cycle at the crest of the modulation. This is a Federal Communications Commission definition. PEP is normally considered the occasional or continuously repeating crest of the modulation envelope under normal operating conditions. The United States FCC uses PEP to set maximum power standards for radio transmitters.

AM PEP
Assuming linear, perfectly symmetrical, 100% modulation of a carrier, PEP output of an AM transmitter is four times its carrier PEP; in other words, a typical modern 100-watt amateur transceiver is usually rated for no more than, and often less than, 25 watts carrier output when operating in AM.

PEP vs. average power
PEP is equal to steady carrier power, or radiotelegraph dot or dash average power, in a properly-formed CW transmission. PEP is also equal to average power in a steady FM, FSK, or RTTY transmission.

Although average power is the same as PEP for complex modulation forms, such as FSK, the peak envelope power bears no particular ratio or mathematical relationship to longer-term average power in distorted envelopes, such as a CW waveform with power overshoot, or with amplitude modulated waveforms, such as SSB or AM voice transmissions. Typical average power of a SSB voice transmission, for example, is 10-20% of PEP. The percentage of longer term average power to PEP increases with processing, and commonly reaches ~50% with extreme speech processing.

PEP level control
Most modern amateur transceivers sample PEP to adjust power, using an ALC (automatic level control) system. Time delay in the ALC system and finite time of RF signals passing through multiple stages, in particular narrow filters, often gives rise to unusual envelope distortion. This distortion commonly appears as envelope power overshoot on leading edges, and sometimes causes negative carrier shift on AM. Some more poorly designed transceivers have a short term envelope power overshoot several times the steady-state PEP setting. This envelope overshoot further complicates definitions of PEP and average power.

PEP was often used in non-broadcast AM applications because it most accurately described the potential of mobile transmitters to interfere with each other. Its use is now somewhat deprecated, with the average transmitter power output (or sometimes average effective radiated power) now typically being preferred.

title: Peak envelope power