text:
Theophanes the Confessor

Theophanes the Confessor (Θεοφάνης Ὁμολογητής; c. 758/760 – 12 March 817/818) was a member of the Byzantine aristocracy who became a monk and chronicler. He served in the court of Emperor Leo IV the Khazar before taking up the religious life. Theophanes attended the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and resisted the iconoclasm of Leo V the Armenian, for which he was imprisoned. He died shortly after his release.

Theophanes the Confessor, venerated on 12 March in both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches, should not be confused with Theophanes of Nicaea, whose feast is commemorated on 11 October.

Biography
Theophanes was born in Constantinople of wealthy and noble iconodule parents: Isaac, governor of the islands of the Aegean Sea, and Theodora, of whose family nothing is known. His father died when Theophanes was three years old, and the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V (740–775) subsequently saw to the boy's education and upbringing at the imperial court. Theophanes would hold several offices under Leo IV the Khazar.

He was married at the age of eighteen, but convinced his wife to lead a life of virginity. In 779, after the death of his father-in-law, they separated with mutual consent to embrace the religious life. She chose a convent on an island near Constantinople, while he entered the Polychronius Monastery, located in the district of Sigiane (Sigriano), near Cyzicus on the Asian side of the Sea of Marmara. Later, he built a monastery on his own lands on the island of Calonymus (now Calomio), where he acquired a high degree of skill in transcribing manuscripts.

After six years he returned to Sigriano, where he founded an abbey known by the name "of the big settlement" and governed it as abbot. In this position of leadership, he was present at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and signed its decrees in defense of the veneration of icons. When Emperor Leo V the Armenian (813–820) resumed his iconoclastic warfare, he ordered Theophanes brought to Constantinople. The Emperor tried in vain to induce him to condemn the same veneration of icons that had been sanctioned by the council. Theophanes was cast into prison and for two years suffered cruel treatment. After his release, he was banished to Samothrace in 817, where overwhelmed with afflictions, he lived only seventeen days. He is credited with many miracles that occurred after his death, which most likely took place on 12 March, the day he is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology.

Chronicle
At the urgent request of his friend George Syncellus, Theophanes undertook the continuation of Syncellus' Chronicle (Χρονογραφία, Chronographia), during the years 810 to 815. The language used occupies a place midway between the stiff ecclesiastical and the vernacular Greek. He made use of three main sources: first, material already prepared by Syncellus; second, he probably made the use of a set of extracts made by Theodore Lector from the works of Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, and Theodoret; and third, the city chronicle of Constantinople. Cyril Mango has argued that Theophanes contributed but little to the chronicle that bears his name, and that the vast bulk of its contents are the work of Syncellus; on this model, Theophanes' main contribution was to cast Syncellus' rough materials together in a unified form.

Theophanes' part of the chronicle covered events from the accession of Diocletian in 284 (which is the point where the chronicle of George Syncellus ends) to the downfall of Michael I Rhangabes in 813. This part of the chronicle is valuable for having preserved the accounts of lost authorities on Byzantine history for the seventh and eighth centuries that would be otherwise have been lost.

The work consists of two parts, wherein the first provides a chronological history arranged per annum, and the second contains chronological tables that are regrettably full of inaccuracies. It seems that Theophanes had only prepared the tables, leaving vacant spaces for the proper dates, but that these had been filled out by someone else (Hugo von Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris I, Innsbruck, 1903, 735). In the chronological first part, in addition to reckoning by the years of the world and the Christian era, Theophanes introduces in tabular form the regnal years of the Roman emperors, of the Persian kings and Arab caliphs, and of the five ecumenical patriarchs, a complex system which sometimes leads to considerable confusion.

The first part, though lacking in critical insight and chronological accuracy, greatly surpasses the majority of Byzantine chronicles. Theophanes's Chronicle is particularly valuable beginning with the reign of Justin II (565), as in his work, he then drew upon sources that have not survived his times

Theophanes' Chronicle was much used by succeeding chroniclers, and in 873–875 a Latin compilation was made  by the papal librarian Anastasius from the chronicles of Nicephorus, George Syncellus, and Theophanes for the use of a deacon named Johannes in the second half of the ninth century and thus was known to Western Europe.

There also survives a further continuation, in six books, of the Chronicle down to the year 961 written by a number of mostly anonymous writers (called Theophanes Continuatus or Scriptores post Theophanem), who undertook the work at the instructions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

Theophanes was the first to claim that the Prophet of the Islamic religion Muhammad had epilepsy.

title: Theophanes the Confessor


text:
America West Express

America West Express was the brand name for America West Airlines commuter and regional flights operated by Mesa Air Group's Mesa Airlines under a code share agreement. Today Mesa Airlines operates for American Eagle.

Mesa Airlines operated America West Express from hubs at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona and Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada to regional destinations.

Chautauqua Airlines also operated America West Express regional jet service via a code sharing agreement in support of the America West hub in Columbus, Ohio.

America West Express fleet consisted of 61 turboprop and regional jet aircraft.

History
America West Express started as a regional carrier in association with America West Airlines with a hub at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. The name "America West Express" was taken from the old America West Airlines cargo service which had begun in 1985. America West initially operated de Havilland Canada DHC-8 Dash 8 turboprop aircraft with its own flight crews; however, on November 30, 1992, America West signed a codeshare agreement with Mesa Airlines to operate America West Airlines' regional and commuter services as America West Express. In the mid-1990s, with the opening of the America West Airlines hub at Port Columbus International Airport in Columbus, Ohio, America West Airlines used Mesa Air first with CRJ 200 for 8 years with a crew base of pilots and flight attendants and then both Chautauqua Airlines to provide Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet service to feed the hub. When the Columbus hub was shut down, the Chautauqua Airlines code share was discontinued, leaving Mesa as the sole operator of AW Express services.

In 2003, America West greatly increased the size of its express operation by starting new routes operated by regional jets from its hub at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada.

In 2007, America West Express was branded as US Airways Express following the merger of America West with US Airways.

Historical regional jet fleet
The America West Express brand, through its various regional and commuter airline partners, operated other twinjet aircraft over the years besides the Bombardier (Canadair) regional jet aircraft including the following types:

 * Embraer ERJ-145
 * Fokker 70

Historical turboprop fleet
The America West Express brand, through its various regional and commuter airline partners, operated a variety of twin turboprop aircraft over the years including the following types:

 * Beechcraft 1900D
 * Bombardier Q200
 * Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia

Services
America West Express operated all of its fleet in a single coach class configuration. However, the CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s did offer dual class service at one point with separate first and coach class cabins. This dual class service was then subsequently dropped when it was determined that customers were not willing to pay extra for limited first class amenities on these short flights. Increasing the number of coach seats thus resulted in increased revenue.

Identifying codes
Since these were code share flights, the America West Airlines codes were used for customer purposes. HPX indicates America West Express flights. However, the flights were actually operated under the Mesa Airlines codes.

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

title: America West Express


text:
User talk:Audin

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 04:01 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How does one edit a page
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

Hi. Next time, don't hesitate to leave a note on my, or any other admins, talk page if you require anything. (In reference to the NASA move deletion thing) The chances that your request will be seen are much higher that way. --snoyes 02:05, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nice spot in Oort cloud. The Öpik date made me wonder, and I had to check the Edwin Hubble article for when the idea of external galaxies were established: only 8 years before! - Jeandré, 2003-12-01t12:37z

Hi - maybe you'd like to also put your name to WikiProject Space Missions? I've suggested that the project adopts your data table for launch vehicles as a standard. I hope to add it to the Vostok rocket Voskhod rocket Soyuz rocket and forthcoming Saturn I rocket pages. --Rlandmann 07:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another couple of suggestions for the launch vehicle data table: --Rlandmann 03:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * most wikipedia data tables use a background colour for headings - see Messerschmitt Me 262 as an example straight off the top of my head. I encourage you to pick a colour for the standard :)
 * Launch vehicles are all tall and skinny... Just a wild idea at the moment, but maybe photos could be places alongside tables rather than above them? I might play with this and see how it goes...

 * I'm going to check if we can use a background image... Seems to be a starry sky background for the title would be most appropriate. Audin 04:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Okay, there's an example at User:Audin now. However, it is not a long-term solution as the background image is being served from my own webserver.  If anyone likes the effect we can ask a developer to put the background image on the wikipedia server somewhere...  Incidently, i suspect it is a bug in wiki that I am able to link to that image.

 * You can upload images to Wiki, ni? Why not upload the image and avoid the external link? Elf 21:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on rocket table
The ragged left (right-aligned) is harder to visually scan than left-aligned, and having empty cells between the stages seems to imply that there's missing info. How about something like this--clearer to scan visually, and markup is much easier to work with for a new table. (And BTW I also used "!" for table header rows :-) and used width=50% on first column in case you really want to bring data closer to labels ). Something to think about, anyway, if you haven't already considered this strategy. Elf 21:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't have major complaints about either format. The right-alignedness of my suggestion was originally brought about as an experiment. In the end I liked the denseness (seems wrong to have several whole lines of each table taken up with the largly useless 'Stage X' wording), closeness of label to associated data (true not most efficient for scanning, but probably most efficient for reading, as the eye doesn't have to try to scroll to the right and hope to line up with the associated data), reuse of the 'Stages' header, and general uniqueness of the table. I've added background colors (your color choice, though it might be an idea to use the stars there as well) to my example above to more clearly denote the sections.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by empty cells. None of them are meant to be empty, assuming the data is available. The Engines cell should have the number and type of engines used by that stage.

I didn't use ! for headers in my example because at the time I put it together the ! handling was buggy and wouldn't handle a combo header + data row.

As to the background image: you can upload and link to images in mediawiki, but not, as far as I know, as backgrounds. So my plan, if people liked the stars (which they now seem to) is to ask that some kind developer add a 'space-table' class to the css file which would like to the image.

Audin 00:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Empty cells--I meant overlapping--trying to describe the stage cells that feel as if they're floating. Although it's nice to save space, it's better to make your info very clear, so you're not wasting space with subheads--you're making better use of the space to convey the info more quickly because the reader doesn't have to interpret the unfamiliar layout.

Any color for subheads will work (I just shoved one in); I suppose the star background, too, but try printing the page--often background images don't print (yes! people still want to print! ) and white text then vanishes on the paper. I kinda like the star background, even given the possible issue with printing. Distinctive.

When I said "visual scan" I really meant "it's harder to read." :-)  Think about your eyes as they move down the table--they jumping left and right looking for where the line begins.  It's possible that it might be a bit more readable with a large cellpadding, but I still think readers will find it easier left-just.  I understand the experiment, yeah, it's hard to read across large spans of white space (that's why I tried the 50% thing) but there might be other ways to fix that than right-just'g the text.

(I've studied & implemented usability for acquiring written info for years, but you can also verify it by decomposing how someone's eyes and thought pattern might work as they view the table. Different people see things differently (duh!)--and so when people don't like how info is presented, I try to understand why and then adjust the format to accommodate. (Once had a discussion w/an engineer who thought a diagram was useless--until I figured out that he was interpreting it differently than intended. Redesign, and it's much better for both of us.)  Dang, I'm taking up all this space on your page! But it's fun playing with layout formats, so here I is.

And I didn't know about the earlier table markup bug--guess I'm lucky and got here late enough. Anyway, I'd be glad to give feedback on other stuff you try and if you want to do the same thing for the Rocks & Minerals one I'm trying to sort out, I'd be delighted. Elf 01:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You asked "why'd you drop the last three sentences from Big dumb booster?" No burning reason. It just struck me as redundant. The content above concise and factual. But if you think the article flows better or if it adds to content in a way that I didn't see, go ahead and add it back. Rossami 02:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On another page, I was planning on making a link to Delta rockets (as an example of parallel staging), but I notice that Wikipedia is rather scattered on this topic. There are pages for Delta II rocket, Delta rocket, a couple of redirect pages, and "missing pages" which people link to: Delta (rocket) (looks like you've prepared that one) and Delta (rocket family). Got any idea on how this should be cleaned up? Mackerm 05:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: the Moron you're reverting
This person you're reverting isn't a moron. He's just a noob to Wikipedia. At least, I think he is. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hrm, I'm not sure I agree. If he left such a comment in only one place i wouldn't have commented. but since he left similar comments in multiple places... Audin 01:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Titan (rocket family)
I found the following statement about the Titan ICBMs in the article By 2005 the Titans will likely be extinct.

and I asked myself, well, are they? --Deelkar (talk) 17:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non-orbital mission infobox
Hello, please see this question I posted on at WikiProject Unmanned space missions. Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Launch vehicles
In an effort to reinvigorate the project, I've begun the process of discussing the current WP:LV standards, which I think are deficient in a number of ways. See WikiProject Launch vehicles/Standards discussion. Ingoolemo talk 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal
It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project. Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Annular-Aerospike.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Annular-Aerospike.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (India)
Hi Dude

I have read this article in details today and it contains overwhleming amount of very dubvious claims with minimal amount of reliable resources.

Being a knowledgable person in this area, could you please have a look this - as in my opinion such articles seriously undermine Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedic resource.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image problem or source flakiness
A tag has been placed on Image:NACA-Logo.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is not like the image at the source cited http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001539.html

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Space missions WikiProject
Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Space missions WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Pioneer 5.jpg
Image:Pioneer 5.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Pioneer-5.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force - ESA
Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of space exploration. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Sputnik 1.png
Thanks for uploading File:Sputnik 1.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Skylab I Logo.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skylab I Logo.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Mercury Capsule.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mercury Capsule.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject activity
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight at 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Rocketry activity check
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

File:Mercury monument.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mercury monument.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Annular-Aerospike.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Annular-Aerospike.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Annular-Aerospike.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Annular-Aerospike.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Audin


text:
Manuel Estrada Cabrera

Manuel José Estrada Cabrera (21 November 1857 – 24 September 1924) was the President of Guatemala from 1898 to 1920. A lawyer with no military background, he modernised the country's industry and transportation infrastructure, but only via granting concessions to the American-owned United Fruit Company, whose influence on the government was deeply unpopular among the population. Estrada Cabrera ruled as an dictator who used increasingly brutal methods to assert his authority, including armed strike-breaking, and he effectively controlled general elections. He retained power for 22 years through controlled elections in 1904, 1910, and 1916, and was eventually removed from office when the national assembly declared him mentally incompetent, and he was jailed for corruption. As such, he was the longest-serving leader of Guatemala.

Background
Estrada Cabrera was a lawyer. He studied at the Universidad Nacional and thanks to his work he reached the position of "First Designated for the Presidency" when José María Reina Barrios was elected to his second term as president. He was also the Secretary of Interior for most of Reina Barrios regime. When the Reina Barrios cabinet members were announced in 1892, a newspaper article that accompanied the images said: "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, who is this gentleman?" By 1920, when Estrada Cabrera was finally deposed, the writer got his answer.

Interim President (1898)

After the assassination of Reina Barrios on February 8, 1898, the Guatemalan cabinet called an emergency meeting to appoint a new successor, but declined to invite Estrada Cabrera to the meeting, even though he was the First Designated to the Presidency. There are two versions on how he was able to get the Presidency: (a) Estrada Cabrera entered "with pistol drawn" to assert his entitlement to the presidency and (b) Estrada Cabrera showed up to the meeting and demanded to be given the presidency as he was the First Designated".

The first Guatemalan head of state from civilian life in over 50 years, Estrada Cabrera overcame resistance to his regime by August 1898 and called for September elections, which he won handily. At that time, Estrada Cabrera was 44 years old; he was stocky, of medium height, and broad-shouldered. The mustache gave him a plebeian appearance. Black and dark eyes, metallic sounding voice and was rather sullen and brooding. At the same time, he already showed his courage and character. This was demonstrated on the night of the death of Reina Barrios when he stood in front of the ministers meeting in the government palace to choose a successor, and said: "Gentlemen, let me please sign this decree. As First Designated, you must hand me the Presidency". His first decree was a general amnesty and the second was to reopen all the elementary schools closed by Reyna Barrios, both administrative and political measures aimed at winning over public opinion. Estrada Cabrera was almost unknown in the political circles of the capital and one could not foresee the features of his government or his intentions.

Cabinet

 * Interior and Justice: Francisco Anguiano
 * Promotion: Antonio Barrios
 * Finance: Rafael Salazar
 * Public Instruction: Domingo Morales
 * War: Salvador Toledo (replaced after a few months by Gregorio Contreras)
 * Head of the Judiciary: José Pinto
 * First appointed to the chair: Feliciano Aguilar
 * Second appointed to the chair: Felipe Cruz

Call for Elections
"From the pen of the writers of 'The Liberal Idea', especially that of Enrique Gómez Carrillo, these phrases out support for the first election of Manuel Estrada Cabrera:"

 * "(Estrada Cabrera) is a sincere man. He is also a committed man of good will and full of faith. Has strong ideas to fight for and for the sake of which would be sacrificed if necessary. He is a man."
 * "His lips form a contrast with his eyes. The eyes always bright, always calm, reveal the inner strength and mastery of his own soul. The lips are kind and sentimental. The forehead is broad and without crease, a studious man forehead which reflects intellectual robustness"

And when the election was getting close:

 * "Two months ago, our candidate was a hope; today he is a reality. Two months ago we encouraged confidence in his principles, in his heart and in his talent. Today is his behavior that enhances and strengthens our confidence. So, after having a candidate for the Liberal Party, today we have a candidate for the Homeland. It was what we needed. Tomorrow, finally, every patriot will see to the best liberal patriotism and every nuance is that his liberalism."

In 1898 the legislature convened for the election of President Estrada Cabrera, who triumphed thanks to the large number of soldiers and policemen who went to vote in civilian clothes and to the large number of illiterate family members that they brought with them to the polls. Also, the effective propaganda that was written in the official newspaper "the Liberal Idea ', run by the poet Joaquin Mendez. Among the writers were Enrique Gómez Carrillo, Rafael Spinola, Máximo Soto Hall and Juan Manuel Mendoza, and others.

Gómez Carrillo received as a reward for his work as political propagandist an appointment as general consul in Paris, with 250 gold pesos monthly salary, and immediately went back to Europe

The other candidates were:

 * José Luis Castillo de Leon, who had 5 castillistas clubs in the capital and in 70 municipalities, and who was the strongest candidate.
 * Francisco Fuentes, who had most of his supporters in Quetzaltenango.
 * Feliz Morales, former Minister of Reyna Barrios.

First term: United Fruit Company
One of Estrada Cabrera's most famous and most bitter legacies was the entry of the United Fruit Company into the Guatemalan economical and political arena. As a member of the Liberal Party, he sought to encourage development of the nation's infrastructure of highways, railroads, and sea ports for the sake of expanding the export economy. When Estrada Cabrera assumed the presidency, there had been repeated efforts to construct a railroad from the major port of Puerto Barrios to the capital, Guatemala City. Yet, due to lack of funding exacerbated by the collapse of the internal coffee industry, the railway fell sixty miles short of its goal. Estrada Cabrera decided, without consulting the legislature or judiciary, that striking a deal with the United Fruit Company was the only way to finish the railway. Cabrera signed a contract with UFC's Minor Cooper Keith in 1904 that gave the company tax-exemptions, land grants, and control of all railroads on the Atlantic side.

Estrada Cabrera often employed brutal methods to assert his authority, as was the fashion in Guatemala at the time. Like him, presidents Rafael Carrera y Turcios and Justo Rufino Barrios had led tyrannical governments in the country. Right at the beginning of his first presidential period, he started prosecuting his political rivals and soon established a well-organized web of spies.

One American Minister returned to the United States after he learned the dictator had given orders to poison him. Former President Manuel Barillas was stabbed to death in Mexico City, on a street outside of the Mexican presidential residence on Cabrera's orders; the street now bears the name of Calle Guatemala. Also, Estrada Cabrera responded violently to workers' strikes against UFC. In one incident, when UFC went directly to Estrada Cabrera to resolve a strike (after the armed forces refused to respond), the president ordered an armed unit to enter the workers' compound. The forces "arrived in the night, firing indiscriminately into the workers' sleeping quarters, wounding and killing an unspecified number."

In 1906 Estrada faced serious revolts against his rule; the rebels were supported by the governments of some of the other Central American nations, but Estrada succeeded in putting them down. Elections were held by the people against the will of Estrada Cabrera and thus he had the president-elect murdered in retaliation.

Second term (1905–1911)

Presidential elections were held on August 7, 1904, and Estrada Cabrera was again the winner. In December 1908 there was a measles epidemic all over the country, but it was efficiently controlled by the doctors of his regime.

Cabinet members:

 * Infrastructure Secretary: Joaquín Méndez
 * War Secretary: Luis Molina
 * Secretary of Foreign Relations: Juan Barrios M.
 * Secretary of the Interior: José María Reina Andrade
 * Secretary of Education: Angel M. Bocanegra
 * National Assembly:
 * President: Arturo Ubico Urruela
 * Secretary: José A. Beteta
 * Secretary: Francisco C. Castañeda
 * Cotzumalguapa representative: Carlos Herrera
 * Flores, Petén representative: Adrián Vidaurre, who would also serve as War Auditor.
 * United States Ambassadors:
 * Joseph W. J. Lee (19 March 1907 – 17 January 1908)
 * General George W. Davis (17 January 1908 – 9 October 1909)
 * Willam F. Sands (9 October 1909 – 1 October 1910)
 * Robert Stockton Renolds Hitt (1 October 1910 – 1911)

"The Bomb" assassination attempt
In early 1907, lawyer Enrique Ávila Echeverría and his brother, physician Jorge Ávila Echeverría, along with Dr. Julio Valdés Blanco and electrical engineer Baltasar Rodil, planned a bombing attack on the president of Guatemala, Estrada Cabrera, which took place on April 29, 1907, and is generally known in Guatemala as "The Bomb". The Echeverría brothers and their confederates were members of the elite class and had studied abroad, but when they returned to Guatemala, they objected to the government's extreme abuse of power and determined on assassinating the president. They decided on explosives. They prepared everything meticulously: the explosives, the detonators, the day and the exact time; even the president's driver—Patrocinio Monterroso—was part of the conspiracy.

On the day planned for the attack, April 29, the president was traveling in the capital in his chariot along with his 13-year-old son, Joaquin, and his Chief of Staff, general José María Orellana. Around 10 a.m., the president and his retinue were traveling on 7th S. Avenue, between the 16th and 17th W streets when the bomb detonated. The explosion failed to injure Estrada Cabrera or those that were with him. Only the driver and one of the horses died.

On May 2, 1907, Emilio Ubico, brother of Arturo Ubico Urruela—president of Congress—and uncle of Jorge Ubico Castañeda—political chief of Verapaz, was appointed Chief of Police, in charge of the investigations, along the Secretary of the Interior, Reina Andrade. A few days later, Congress issued Decree 737, by which any explosive-related import was prohibited, unless previously authorized by the Secretary of War.

Over the next twenty-two days, the four conspirators fled through the small streets and little holes that they could find, trying to escape from Guatemala City, but the government surrounded the city and slowly tightened the perimeter while combing every inch of terrain. The conspirators' families were incarcerated and prosecuted. Others conspirators, brothers Juan and Adolfo Viteri and Francisco Valladares, were arrested when they attempted to flee disguised as women in Guastatoya. Others, like Felipe and Rafael Prado Romaña, tried to flee to El Salvador, but were captured when someone informed on them. The Romaña brothers remained imprisoned until their death. Only the Colombian Rafael Madriñán escaped the country on a bicycle. The mother of the Romaña brothers took the Mexican Ambassador, Federico Camboa, to the house where the Avila Echeverría brothers and his friends were hiding, who, knowing that they had only days to live, gave him all their valuables and begged him to pass them on to their relatives.

At last, after several days of uncertainty, Rufina Roca de Monzón gave them shelter in the second floor of her home, # 29 Judío Place in Guatemala City, but a spy learned about it. On May 20, 1907, at 3 a.m. the house was surrounded by a platoon of soldiers. The troop broke down the door and tried to reach the second floor, but at that moment gunfight began. By 6 a.m. the conspirators were out of ammo and exhausted and decided to kill themselves before becoming prisoners of the regime. The Diario de Centro América, then a semi-official newspaper owned by Estrada Cabrera, went as far as to publish the conspirators autopsy details.

"The cadets" assassination attempt

By 1908, Santo Domingo Church members had modified the path of its centennial and traditional Good Friday procession, such that now it passed in front of Estrada Cabrera's house on the 7th S. Avenue in Guatemala City. That year, several Military Academy cadets, after noticing that the procession uniforms completely covered the face of the penitents, decided to disguise themselves and blend in with the procession and by the time it passed in front of the president's house, they would storm in and take him prisoner. However, the extremely efficient spy system that Estrada Cabrera had in place allowed him to thwart the kidnapping attempt. As soon as he learned about this, Estrada Cabrera prohibited the procession from passing in front of his house, placed a fence in front of it and prohibited the use of masks for the Holy Week processions.

On April 20, 1908, during the official reception of the new United States Ambassador in the National Palace, Military Academy cadet Víctor Manuel Vega, in revenge for what happened to his classmates and teachers, shot Estrada Cabrera point blank, but only managed to hurt him on his pinky finger. A flag from the official escort kept the bullet from reaching the president. Enraged, and in order to set a precedent, Estrada Cabrera ordered the shooting death of all Vega's Military Academy unit, except two, Rogelio Girón and Manuel Hurtarte, who were taken prisoners without any legal document. Vega had died on the spot where he tried to attack the president, killed instantly by his bodyguards. The president also ordered the Military Academy to be closed, its building demolished and that salt would be spread on the field. Several military officers were sent to prison, including some loyal to the president.

Conditions in the Penitentiary were cruel and foul. Political offenses were tortured daily and their screams could be heard all over the Penitentiary. Prisoners regularly died under these conditions since political crimes had no pardon.

It has been suggested that the extreme despotic characteristics of the man did not emerge until after an attempt on his life in 1907.

Suicide of his children

In 1910 both his wife, Desideria Ocampo, and his firstborn child, Diego Estrada, died of tuberculosis. Desideria Ocampo died in Nice, France after Estrada Cabrera sent her there for treatment. Diego had contracted a venereal disease while he was studying in the United States. The treatment of this, and his previous excesses led to tuberculosis; unable to cope with it, he killed himself. On November 8, 1912, Francisco Estrada, who had just returned to Guatemala from Europe where he was learning agricultural technology in Paris, found himself in a 4000 dollar debt after courting a French lady older than himself. When Estrada Cabrera found out about this, he put the receipt under his son's dinner plate and waited for his reaction. When Francisco came down for dinner, he saw the receipt and turned pale. Without saying a word, he left the dining room and shot himself in his room.

New military academy

Estrada Cabrera established a military academy in the Army Artillery Fort in 1915. The building, constructed in 1907, suffered severe damage during the 1917–1918 earthquakes, and was not open again until the end of 1919.

Social structure

In 1920, prince Wilhelm of Sweden visited Guatemala and made a very objective description of both Guatemalan society and Estrada Cabrera government in his book Between two continents, notes from a journey in Central America, 1920. The prince explained the dynamics of Guatemalan society at the time pointing out that even though it called itself a "Republic", Guatemala had three sharply defined classes:

 * 1) Criollos: a minority comprised originally by ancient families descendants of the Spaniards that conquered Central America and that by 1920 comprised both political parties in the country.  By 1920, they were mixed to a large extent with foreigners and the great majority were of Indian descent. They led the country both politically and intellectually partly because their education, although poor by European standards of the time, was enormously superior to the rest of the people of the country, partly because only criollos were allowed in the main political parties and also because their families controlled and for the most part owned the cultivated parts of the country.
 * 2) Ladinos: middle class.  Formed of people born of the cross between natives, blacks and criollos. They held almost no political power in 1920 and comprised the bulk of artisans, storekeepers, tradesmen and minor officials. In the eastern part of the country they were usually agricultural laborers.
 * 3) Indians: the majority conformed by a mass of natives.  Slow of wit, uneducated and disinclined to all forms of change, they had furnished excellent soldiers for the Army and often rose, as soldiers, to positions of considerable trust given their disinclination for independent political activity and their inherent respect for government and officialdom. They made the main element in the working agricultural population.  There were three categories within them:
 * 4) "Mozos colonos": settled on the plantations. Were given a small piece of land to cultivate on their own account, in return for work in the plantations for  many months of the year.
 * 5) "Mozos jornaleros": day-laborers who were contracted to work for certain periods of time. They were paid a daily wage. In theory, each "mozo" was free to dispose of his labor as he or she pleased, but they were bound to the property by economical ties.  They could not leave until they had paid off their debt to the owner, and they were victim of those owners, who encouraged the "mozos" to get into debt beyond their power to free themselves by granting credit or lending cash.  If the mozos ran away, the owner could have them pursued and imprisoned by the authorities, with all the cost incurred in the process charged to the ever increasing debt of the mozo.  If one of them refused to work, he or she was put in prison on the spot. Finally, the wages were extremely low. The work was done by contract, but since every "mozo" starts with a large debt, the usual advance on engagement, they became servants to the owner.
 * 6) Independent tillers: living in the most remote provinces, survived by growing crops of maize, wheat or beans, sufficient to meet their own needs and leave a small margin for disposal in the market places of the towns and often carried their goods on their back for up to twenty five miles a day.

Country condition

Prince Wilhelm also described how the country was after two decades of government of Estrada Cabrera. Guatemala was naturally rich:
 * On the Pacific coast one found sugar, coffee, spices and cocoa in great quantities; the plantations gave a splendid yield, and the productiveness of the soil in proportion to area was unique.
 * On the east coast, there were enormous banana plantations.
 * And on the highlands, maize, wheat and corn were grown, and fine coffee grew as far up as 1600 m above sea level.
 * Minerals such as gold, copper, tin and quicksilver were abundant but they were not exploited because the natives kept their whereabouts closely concealed.

But the means of communication were poorly developed; aside from the railway that ran from shore to shore going through Guatemala City and was run by the United Fruit Company, there were only paths and tracks, marked on the maps as highways, but in reality just narrow mule-roads.

Guatemala was placed in a tough spot, after the previous president known as Jose Maria Reyna Barrios (1854-1898) started to introduce a new type of paper currency. Due to the input of these new dollars known as the Guatemalan Quetzal, their value would slowly start to decrease in value, resulting in inflation within the economy. However, Jose Maria Barrios was assassinated before he was able to complete this transition between paper currencies. As a result, Manuel Estrada Cabrera inherited a country with a huge economic problem. Unfortunately, he was unable to succeed instantly, for to keep his government afloat, plus improve on the countries educational system. He had to temporarily increase again the production of the quetzal, thus increasing inflation. To solve this growing issue, Cabrera called for the assistance of the well-known economist, Edwin W. Kremmerer in 1919. Kremmerer was able to restructure Guatemala’s monetary system, plus give a few tips on how to better improve it, unfortunately, none of these were applied for Estrada was overthrown before they could be implemented. Fortunately, he succeeded in making education easily obtainable for some of the most rural parts of Guatemala.

Besides being oppressed by brutal and dishonest officials and landowners, the natives were suffering of an endemic alcoholism problem. There were drinking places everything – as the government derived a certain revenue from the proceeds – with low quality spirits that had terrible effects. Both men and women got drunk regularly and changed their normally peaceful demeanor into an alcohol induced rage that results in mutilations and murder.

By the fourth term of Estrada Cabrera, despotism prevailed. Universal suffrage was the rule, but presidential elections were a farce as only the President himself was allowed to figure on the ballot papers and opposition was forbidden as any rival candidate was looked after by the police, and detained at best if not killed outright. Besides, anyone declining to vote was a suspect at once, and each plantation received a list of how many "mozos" are to vote in the elections.

The president's ministers were simply his advisors and the state revenues had made its way to the presidential pocket: following the rule established by his predecessors managed to lay aside a fortune of 150 million, in spite of earning only US$1000 a year. The President chose the ministers from among his most faithful adherents, and they had no voice whatsoever in the final decision of affairs; and Congress was not much better, as no laws were ever passed without previous approval from the highest quarter. Finally, the courts of law were complete pledged to the presidential interests.

Throughout the entire administration prevailed rampant corruption. In the case of the president and ministers they procured additional revenues for themselves by granting concessions and the like; lower officials get money as they saw fit. All these issues were rarely known as everyone feared for their own life and keep silent.

Armed forces
There was a universal conscription law, but almost any one could obtain exemption by payment and in reality only "mozos" were recruited. If there was ever a need for additional recruits, they were gathered by force. The pay of the army went only as far as the generals; the rank and file went about in rags and beg; proper uniform and army boots was non-existent with the soldiers going around barefoot. There was one general for each 100 men and they were the only ones that had dilapidated half boots.

The soldiers, like the general population, were uneducated as it was in the interest of the authorities to keep them as ignorant as possible in order that the masses might be more easily led.

1917–1918 earthquakes
The seismic activity started on 17 November 1917 and ruined several settlements around Amatitlán. On December 25 and 29 of the same year, and on January 3 and 24 of the next, there were stronger earthquakes felt on the rest of the country, which destroyed a number of buildings and homes in both Guatemala City and Antigua Guatemala.

The Diario de Centro América, a semi-official newspaper owned in part by President Estrada Cabrera, spent more than two months issuing two numbers a day reporting on the damage, but after a while, started criticizing the central government after the slow and inefficient recovery efforts. In one of its articles, it went as far as to tell that some holy Jesus sculptures from the City had been saved because they had been taken away from their churches after the first earthquake as they "did not want to stay anymore in a city where excessive luxury, impunity and terror were rampant". Likewise, the newspaper complained that the National Assembly was issuing "excellent" laws, but nobody was "going by the law". Finally, on its front page of May 1918, it complained that there was "still debris all over the city". The Diario de Centro América itself was print in the rubble, in spite of which it was able to issue its two daily numbers.

El Guatemalteco, the official newspaper, showed the impact of the disaster: its regular publication was interrupted from 22 December 1917 to 21 January 1918; when it reappeared, it was in a much smaller format.

Unionist Party and end of Cabrera's regime

Opposition to his regime started after the 1917–1918 earthquakes as it was evident that the President was incapable of leading the recovery efforts. Bishop of Facelli, Piñol y Batres from the Aycinena family, began preaching against the government policies in the San Francisco Church in 1919, instructed by his cousin, Manuel Cobos Batres. For the first time, the Catholic Church opposed the President. Additionally, Cobos Batres was able to inflame the nationality sentiment of conservative leaders José Azmitia, Tácito Molina, Eduardo Camacho, Julio Bianchi and Emilio Escamilla into forming a Central America Unionist party and oppose the strong regime of Estrada Cabrera. The Unionist party began its activities with the support of several sectors of the Guatemala City society, among them the Universidad Estrada Cabrera students and the labor associations, who under the leadership of Silverio Ortiz founded the Patriotic Labor Committee.

The new party was called "Unionist", to differentiate it from both the Liberal and Conservative parties and therefore be able to appeal all "good willing, freedom and democracy loving" men who "dreamed of the Central America Union". The headquarters of the new party were in a house belonging to the Escamilla family which soon was known as "People's House". Tácito Molina wrote a founding Act for the party, which was signed by fifty one citizens on 25 December 1919 and was later known as the "Three-fold Act" because it had to be folded in three when it was distributed to the citizens of the city. The document was distributed in Guatemala City until January 1, 1920.

Estrada Cabrera was forced to accept the new party due to the internal and international pressure. On March 1, 1920, the National Assembly officially accepted the new party. Since then, Estrada Cabrera publicly admitted his willingness to accept the international opinion on opening spaces for political rivals, but kept arresting Unionist sympathizers. On 11 March 1920, the new party organized a large demonstration against the government, but the army fired into the crowd, fomenting more resentment and anger which further united the Guatemalan people against the President.

The National Assembly, whose president then was Adrián Vidaurre, former Secretary of War and one of the most important members of Cabrera's cabinet, declared the President unable to continue and designated Carlos Herrera y Luna as interim president. Cabrera resisted this designation and settled for a fight from his residence in "La Palma", until he was defeated in April, following the "Tragic Week" during which Guatemala was in a state of revolution against the regime, and armed Unionists fought Cabrera's soldiers in the streets. Estrada Cabrera finally surrendered on April 14, 1920, along with his loyal friend, Peruvian poet José Santos Chocano.

Estrada Cabrera’s downfall had quite a unique conclusion without the involvement of the United States. Overall, American interests where no longer considering Estrada Cabrera as a suitable patron, especially American companies such as The United Fruit Company. It was unusual at the time to see The United States turn their back on Estrada Cabrera, for U.S. representation would usually act as a “kingmaker,” as put in the words of James R Handysource?.

It was believed that one of the reasons that led to Estrada Cabrera not receiving any support from the U.S. was due to Guatemala's lack of involvement during the First World War. The U.S. requested that the Estrada Government restrict the large German-Guatemalan population, which held several assets connected to coffee as explained by Ralph Lee Woodward. Cabrera did very little when it came down to seizing these German-owned businesses and reselling them to American companies. One of the German-owned businesses to have been seized was the Empresa Eléctrica del Sur, which was later sold to an American business called Henry W. Catlin’s Electric Lighting Company in 1885.

Death

Estrada Cabrera was sent to prison for life after he was deposed. He died after a few years, in 1924, and was laid to rest in Quetzaltenango.

Minerva celebrations
Estrada's most curious legacy was his attempt to foster a cult of Minerva in Guatemala: Early in his reign he indicated interest in education and in 1899 he initiated feasts of Minerva, celebrating accomplishments of students and teachers based on an idea of his Secretary of Infrastructure, Rafael Spinola. Estrada Cabrera ordered the construction of a Hellenic style "Temples of Minerva" in Guatemala City, and a few years later all major cities of the country had their own, sponsored by the local tax payers. In the temples, Estrada Cabrera celebrated the "Fiestas Minervalias" for studious youth.

He extended roads, and the long-delayed railway from the Atlantic coast to Guatemala City was completed in 1908, although his achievements were overshadowed by growing repression and blatant graft, including bribes for the president. The lot of native workers was little better than peonage, and everywhere there was surveillance to report subversive activities.

In fiction
Estrada Cabrera was immortalized in the dictator novel El Señor Presidente (1946), written by Nobel laureate Miguel Ángel Asturias. Although the most famous, this is not the only book written about him: Rafael Arevalo Martinez wrote a book on his life, government and overthrow called Ecce Pericles, and Oscar Wyld Ospina wrote El Autócrata, a bitter biography of the president.

The role that UFCO played in Guatemala during the Estrada Cabrera and Jorge Ubico regimes is described in three novels from Miguel Ángel Asturias called The Banana Trilogy: Viento Fuerte, El Papa Verde, and Los Ojos de los Enterrados.

title: Manuel Estrada Cabrera


text:
Talk:DMOZ/Archive 1

''Current work on this article is taking place at Open Directory Project/Temp. A mediated discussion of that work is at Talk:Open Directory Project/Temp.''

A lot of text was changed/removed by NetEsq between versions 14:58 Mar 10, 2003 and the earlier. Why? // Liftarn

 * Because he is abusing and harming the spirit of Wikipedia by bringing in his personally and biased opinions about the ODP for kicking him (also likely for abusing).

 * I agree, but what can be done about the problem? // Liftarn

This article began with:
 * The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL.

It was revised to read:
 * The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL in the same way Wikipedia is owned by Bomis.

I reverted the introduction to the original version because the assertion equating Wikipedia with ODP is a highly biased and misleading assertion which is (at best) irrelevant. To wit, Wikipedia is not a Web directory, and ODP is not run by Open Source software. -- NetEsq 21:28 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

The relation of ownership AOL - ODP and Wikipedia - Bomis is the same. The projects are different in what they are (web directory vs encyclopedia) but the type of ownership is the same. ODP's software isn't open source, but the content is still open content. The system of editors at ODP makes it somewhat more simmilar to Nupedia. // Liftarn 09:38 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that you assign the copyright of your material to the ODP, while it grants you a license to use that work in other contexts. This is radically different than the relationship between Wikipedia and Bomis. -- Stephen Gilbert 19:35 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

The licence is different. I was basicly talking about who pays the bills. There the relationship is the same. ODP is hosted and administered by Netscape Communication Corporation. Wikipedia is hosted and administered by Boomis. // Liftarn

 * I dispute that. License and copyright are not the same thing. For Wikipedia, Bomis owns the server(s) and the domain names. The contributors own the copyright on their work, which they license under the GFDL; thus, Bomis does not own the content. However, ODP contributors forfit their copyright, and so AOL also own the content of the ODP. This is a very different arrangement. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:49 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

The ownership of Wikipedia -- which is currently in the process of becoming a non-profit corporation -- is totally irrelevant to this article. However, I have inserted a blurb regarding the ownership of the now defunct Go directory (by Disney) and Zeal (acquired by Looksmart), both of them being Web directories that are or were maintained by volunteers and are or were owned by public corporations. -- NetEsq 15:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Btw, why shouldn't Open Directory Project License be mentioned? // Liftarn 11:37 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

"...requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page of a Web site that uses the data."

This is pretty misleading, I'd write "requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page that uses the data.", since it does not require ad on pages which don't use the data. -- grin 08:18 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * I find it missleading since it's really a link back and not an ad. The licence also requires that you state if you have changed the data. // Liftarn

Moved from my NetEsq user page:

ODP and NPOV
Netesq, Now, I'm not exactly a fan of a lot of the ODP's policies. Some, both past and present, to me, seem unfair and unwise. But that's not the point. I don't like seeing clearly biased stuff on an encyclopedia such as this, where it's presented as fact. You know, and I know, this is biased. I try to stay as neutral as I can on this. I certainly haven't edited a lot of the criticism of the ODP, and I've left in a sentence accusing the project dearest to me (not ODP) of not having gone anywhere much - because it is in its early stages, and though it's annoying, it's the darn truth.

Now, I'd like to work out a bit of a compromise on this. Something that's acceptable to you, but doesn't read like a rant. Or alternatively, I can just keep reverting it to my own neutral version - which I'll keep doing as long as I have to. I'd much rather the former, but it's your choice.

Ambivalenthysteria 14:34 9 Jul, 2003 (UTC)

 * *shrugs* The point stands, wherever you put the question. Ambivalenthysteria

From Current disputes over articles:

Open Directory Project
User:Netesq has been waging his own personal vendetta against the ODP for years, and the state of this article has been a result of this. I cleaned it up, merging prior revisions from two other users who had tried to make it NPOV. However, in trying to make this article more neutral, this is turning into an edit-revert war. I'm not the first to try and change it and have it reverted by User:Netesq. ambivalenthysteria 07:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Given the close proximity of editing activity and IP addresses, I (NetEsq) assume that this anonymous comment was made by Ambivalenthysteria:

 * ". 22:03 8 Jul 2003 . . 210.50.10.2 (One has to wonder why certain people have nothing better to do than repeatedly try to readd POV violations clearly against Wiki rules.)

From NPOV dispute:

 * "Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints. Sanitizing an article by removing criticism and/or opposing viewpoints is antithetical to this policy. NetEsq 15:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * "Given the close proximity of editing activity and IP addresses, I (NetEsq) assume that this anonymous comment was made by Ambivalenthysteria"

And you would be right there. As I've stated, I'm not the biggest fan of the ODP's policies. But I also believe in giving both sides of the story, no matter what the issue. Particularly in an encyclopedia, this is vital. This is why I'm perfectly happy to leave in phrases like "none of these has yet to achieve noteworthy success" when it is referring to my pet project. Why? Because, as much as I would prefer it wasn't, it's true. I don't try to sanitize things. It runs against my sense of ethics.

Yet, it seems to me - and you're welcome to prove me wrong here - that the very paragraph you have quoted is the one you have gone against. You've revised and edited out neutral changes by liftarn and angela. It seems to me that you've written an anti-ODP article, as opposed to one that gives credence to both sides of the issue. Feel free to show me that this isn't the case. Ambivalenthysteria

 *  << Feel free to show me that this isn't the case. >>

When someone accuses me of being on a personal vendetta, I find it hard to believe that he or she is going to give me an opportunity to present my viewpoint. Accordingly, the only way for you and I to resolve our differences is by the involvement of other Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Ultimately, an NPOV article *MUST* present viewpoints that are critical of ODP, viewpoints with which you and other ODP editors will almost certainly disagree. -- NetEsq 15:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I give people a chance to state their case and will listen, regardless of how I feel about them personally. I used to be quite sympathetic to your story, but that's another story, and irrelevant to this. Feel free to get others involved. Could be the best way of solving this. Or, like I offered before, feel free to work with me in coming up with something that appeases both of us. Maybe we can get something that works. I only want to see a nice, neutral article, and then I'll disappear off into the sunset.

 * Of course an NPOV article must present viewpoints that are critical of ODP. I'm certainly not arguing that - there's plenty to be critical of. You'll find I'm hardly the strongest follower of the ODP cause. The question is whether the article gives both sides of the story, or just the anti-ODP side. I'm simply trying to get an article in there that gives both the pro and anti sides. Ambivalenthysteria

 * << Feel free to get others involved. >>

You've already done that. In any event, the problem here is that you are trying to remove criticism of ODP rather than respond to it; responding to opposing viewpoints is the essence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- NetEsq 15:54 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm not here to remove criticism of ODP. I'm here to try and make a more neutral article of one with NPOV problems. I believe with what I took from the previous revisings of liftarn and angela, I've addressed both sides fairly. Feel free to convince me otherwise. Ambivalenthysteria

 * As I've stated previously, the only way for you and I to resolve our differences is by the involvement of other Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I say this as someone who has been involved in several NPOV disputes.  Since both liftarn and angela have been actively involved in editing this article, they would not be good arbiters.  Perhaps Stephen Gilbert or Lee Daniel Crocker would be better choices. -- NetEsq 16:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I wasn't suggesting that they be arbiters, I was simply mentioning that I'd based what I wrote off what they wrote in previous attemps to solve neutrality issues. Otherwise, fine with me. :) Ambivalenthysteria

 * I fully agree that I would not make a good arbiter on this, but here's my comments anyway. Obviously Netesq's experience of the ODP is different to what is supposed to happen (ie- editors are supposed to be given warnings about their impending removal), but I don't know how often that occurs. Rather than focus on one person's experiences, it would seem more encyclopdic to report what can be established as fact. That editors are supposed to be told is fact. Another point is that editor removal (IMO) should not be the focus of this article. The title should reflect the content, and a lot of the content is not on the ODP itself, but on the removal of editors. I think this could be moved to another page - Open Directory Project Policies perhaps? Angela 16:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 *  << Rather than focus on one person's experiences, it would seem more encyclopdic to report what can be established as fact. >>

The problem here is that the facts are in dispute. It is a fact -- confirmed in ODP's official guidelines -- that ODP editors will lose their editing privileges for telling tales out of school, but take a look at the XODP Yahoo eGroup, and you will find a current membership of some 160 members and over 2,000 posts narrating an ongoing saga of "He Said/She Said." This is not my story; it is the story of tens of thousands of people who are currently claimed as ODP editors but do not in fact have editing privileges -- a fact that is not in dispute -- and some 9,000 or so current editors who claim that the the other 40-50,000 people (real or imagined) are lying. The only way to present such a factual dispute in NPOV fashion is to say, "ODP's official position is . . ., but John Smith (former ODP editor) says . . ."

IMHO, the article was fine as it was, but it could easily be expanded to include more information. In any event, I see no reason to create an additional article, at least not at this time. -- NetEsq 17:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I've left this for a couple of days to see if anyone else was going to have any input, as they're not, let me look at the two drafts for a second, and the parts that are in dispute.

 * "However, most of these search engines have stopped updating their ODP data, and successful ports of the ODP RDF dump have become less and less frequent".
 * The ODP did have RDF problems at one time, but these have now been fixed, and this is no longer an issue. Why is this still being added in?

 * In regards to the paragraph concerning emails with submitters, would something like "ODP now has approximately one million unreviewed site submissions, in large part due to spam and incorrectly submitted sites, making the average processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months, depending on the category involved. Moreover, due to concerns about being abused by submitters, ODP's volunteer editors are recommended to simply ignore emails from site submitters. This, however, leaves many submitters to wonder whether their sies have been accepted or rejected." be acceptable?

 * Now, to the editor numbers. Firstly, why is the link to the editing guidelines constantly being removed? Secondly, the bit about reapplication, it seems to me, shouldn't stand unless there's some evidence of it. Feel free to show some.

 * Editor removals paragraphs. The "editors who dissent typically find themselves removed" is sheer POV writing. I'm sure this can be rewritten in a not-so-POV way. But there's probably legitimate reason here for points about the risk of editors getting fired. I sense a little bit of self-promotion here, also. Also, why is all mention of legitimate removals being removed? You know as well as I do that as well as sometime dubious removals, there are plenty of editors who get fired for blatant corruption. Thirdly, whether or not this happened in your case, I believe editors are *supposed* to get warnings before they are removed. Your version makes it seem like all editors are fired out of the blue.

 * Why is the Resource Zone paragraph being removed? One point above stated that submitters were left not knowing the status of their submission, and you're deleting a paragraph giving them to chance to find out that status.

 * Why are you changing the paragraph concerning ChefMoz, MusicMoz and Open-Site? I've tried to clarify the circumstances concerning their link to DMOZ, but you've consistently undone these. - Ambivalenthysteria 04:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * << The ODP did have RDF problems at one time, but these have now been fixed, and this is no longer an issue. >>

I am frequently consulted by people who are seeking to use ODP RDF dumps, and I can honestly say that I do not remember the last time an ODP RDF dump was an accurate representation of the information displayed to the public on the ODP Web site. Moreover, even a "successful" port of the RDF dump does not include editor Bookmarks (which were once included), much less the login-protected "Test" categories, editor notes, etc., etc., etc.

 * << [T]he bit about reapplication, it seems to me, shouldn't stand unless there's some evidence of it. Feel free to show some. >>

Wikipedia’s NPOV policy does not demand evidence of a factual claim; it only requires a good faith assertion made by a noteworthy person or group of people. In any event, among the over 2,000 posts at the XODP eGroup, you will find several former editors who claim that they have re-applied to ODP after being removed by the powers that be and are currently editing. (E.g., XODP Editor wlauzon, aka ???) You will also find several former editors who assert that they have re-applied in good faith after their editor logins have timed out. (E.g., XODP Editor aarongross, aka XODP Editor aaron1728, aka XODP Editor aarond144, aka XODP Editor aarondgross.) Add to this the people who surreptitiously re-apply under a pseudonym and are quietly removed by the powers that be once their double identities have been outed. (E.g., XODP Editor imajes99, aka XODP Editor fallen, aka XODP Editor ???)

 * << I sense a little bit of self-promotion here. . . . >>

Actually, I sense a bit of self-promotion when an ODP editor, such as yourself, joins Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing an article entitled Open Directory Project. Why not spend some of your time editing one of the many other Wikipedia articles that desperately need some attention? I'll make sure that this one stays current. -- NetEsq 06:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * << [W]hy is all mention of legitimate removals being removed? You know as well as I do that as well as sometime dubious removals, there are plenty of editors who get fired for blatant corruption.>>

And where is the evidence for this very dubious claim? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. -- NetEsq 06:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This has turned into basically an anti-ODP rant. Reverting to last non-Netesq version, until someone has time to integrate some of the stuff in a NPOV fashion. --Delirium 08:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not 100% happy with the current revision either -- it seems to lean a bit too much to the pro-ODP side, especially in the ordering of its arguments (it always ends with an answer from the pro-ODP folks for the anti-ODP arguments. But it's at least closer in not containing entire paragraphs (or multiple paragraphs) espousing solely one viewpoint.  In any case, someone who knows about ODP but is neither pro- nor anti- really needs to take a stab at this.  --Delirium 09:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * In no manner, way, shape, or form is this article an anti-ODP rant, although an uninformed observer might see it that way. Rather, like all controversial issues, there are two or more opposing viewpoints that need to be presented.  In any event, each and every unflattering factual assertion that I have made about ODP is either undisputed or is a good faith belief held by a large group of former ODP editors. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's largely why I'm trying to bring it up here, and work out an acceptable compromise between all involved. I was afraid I might have been a bit too strong in my changes.

Before I get into responding to what Netesq did say, I want to get into what he didn't respond to, in the hope of agreeing on at least some things. :)

 * - is my revision to the site submission paragraph above acceptable to you, if not, what would you rather as a compromise?

 * Take a look at the new version, and make whatever changes you think might be appropriate. That's how things work. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * - the link to the editing guidelines. It's not a big thing, but why is it being removed?

 * I didn't see a link to the editing guidelines. If it was in the text, it should be footnoted and moved to the references, or simply included in the ODP links section. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * - the ResourceZone paragraph being removed, when it provides an answer to some of the concerns raised earlier in the article

 * I mentioned and footnoted the ResourceZone in the text where I felt it was appropriate; if you feel that it deserves additional treatment, expand it. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * - the ChefMoz, MusicMoz and Open Site paragraph

Could we at least agree on this, fairly minor stuff (more concerned with providing general fact than being anti or pro-ODP)?

 * Feel free to modify this; I assumed that you would. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Now, the other things.

What do you mean by "the last time it was an accurate representation"? I'm afraid I don't understand.

 * If you worked with the ODP RDF dump, I think you'd quickly realize that it is very problematic. The data is often corrupted. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On re-application: Fair enough, I'm satisified with that. However, perhaps "the norm" could be changed to "often" or something similar - I'm sure not all fired editors reapply!

 * Fair enough. Put it in. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't join Wikipedia to edit this article, believe it or not. I knew of it months ago, but only lately did I start browsing around here for research/learning purposes. Once I started fixing minor errors, etc, I decided I may as well join up, then I decided to tackle this while I'm here.

Finally, surely you're not suggesting that every editor is fired out for dubious reasons, and none for say, adding their own site and deleting all their competitors?

--Ambivalenthysteria

I can name on one hand the number of people who were justifiably removed from ODP for abusive editing practices. Even then, there were alternatives to removal that were never considered, such as restricting an editor to his or her bookmarks and/or restricting his or her forum posting privileges. And it is indeed rare that an editor is given the courtesy of a pink slip when his or her editing privileges have been removed -- I know of one case where this has happened.

Most of the former ODP editors whom I encounter are people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, but they see no point in going public with their stories. In any event, the vast majority of ODP editors simply allow their ODP logins to time out. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this article is still frankly not even remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia. There are fully two pages of anti-ODP ranting, including quite a few controversial statements listed as fact with no sources or annotation that these are statements believed by some, or note of ODP's response to charges against them. --Delirium 06:55 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly disagree. This article is an accurate representation of both sides of the ODP controversy, and every controversial statement that does not represent an undisputed fact is fully supported by references to supporting authority.  Moreover, there are several ODP meta editors who are members of the XODP Yahoo! eGroup.  They are well aware of the charges that have been made against ODP, and they have had every opportunity to respond.  However, official ODP policy prevents them from doing so.  If you doubt this, feel free to post an inquiry on the XODP Yahoo! eGroup or contact the powers that be at ODP directly. -- NetEsq 07:08 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, upon further consideration, I don't have much desire to get involved in a long drawn-out discussion here, so I'll let other people deal with it. I do think the article needs to take on a structure other than "Moreover, here is something else people don't like about ODP.  Furthermore, here is one more thing several people (noteworthy among them, myself) dislike" and so on. --Delirium 07:03 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey! Why the sabotage? I have been trying to get some structure in the article and I really don't need someone to use it as a base for his personal vendetta. // Liftarn

 * Because NetEsq is always reverting to his last version and then partly reapplies the changes (most often modified to included false and biased content). Also he isn't able to correctly structure the document, using h3 as a descendant of a h1.

 * That would explain it. Not using the header sizes correctly is an error I probably have done myself so that can be excused. // Liftarn

 * No you used h2 (==) and NetEsq readded it as h3 (===).

I do think the breakup into sections is useful, so not sure why Netesq is reverting that. Generally sections are good for any lengthy article. --Delirium 16:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that breaking up this article into sections was a good idea, which is why I included section titles in my most recent version of the article. The things that I reverted and left reverted were the huge omissions of the more controversial sections and the POV statements made by Liftarn and his invisible friend at IP address 212.202.3.21. To wit:

 * Disgrunted ex-editors may often spend a lot of time on badmouthing ODP at their websites, in wikis, online forums and mailing lists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of POV commentary has no place in a Wikipedia article. -- NetEsq 17:09 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, you are wrong. It does belong and it's hardly POV. // Liftarn

 * Read the comments of changes you've reverted...

 * The POV statement was unintentionally reimported by me, but isn't any more POV than various of your additions (like implying that all editors are kicked without warning). Nonethless this statement shouldn't be there. -- The "Invisible Friend".

--- Hm. Edit war. This ain't good. Guys, please work this out without destroying the usefulness of this article's history. --mav

 * As evidenced in the discussion above, I suggested to Ambivalenthysteria that a mediator such as Stephen Gilbert or Lee Daniel Crocker would be the best way to resolve our differences. Shortly thereafter, Ambivalenthysteria took on a more conciliatory tone, and we began a rational dialogue.  However, Ambivalenthysteria has apparently moved on to edit other Wikipedia articles,  leaving Liftarn and his invisible friend to pick up their own gauntlets.

 * The most productive way to move forward with the editing of a controversial article is to avoid drastic and controversial changes to the current text. When such changes are introduced, a revert is the only way to maintain the status quo.  Contrariwise, it is incumbent upon those who seek to introduce radical changes to an article to justify such changes. -- NetEsq 18:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Again, dude, read the comments and also read through this discussion....

Analyzing your changes, you are reverting:
 * Structure corrections
 * h3 (===) is used for separating subsections of h2 (==) sections, see How_does_one_edit_a_page.
 * "ODP was originally known as Gnuhoo[...]" is part of the history and belongs there.
 * "The original motivation for forming Gnuhoo[...]" is also history.
 * Error corrections
 * ODP is owned by Netscape (take a look at the license). AOL only indirectly owns the ODP since they own Netscape. If AOL would decide to sell Netscape they would sell ODP together with it unless they explicitly exclude it.
 * Clarification of Spinoffs origin. ChefMoz by Staff, the others by the ODP Community.
 * Clarification of ODP license, which required also a notice if the data has been altered.
 * "However, none of ODP's own spinoffs has yet to achieve noteworthy success." Hmm, none has to archive a noteworthy success?
 * ODP was founded as 'Gnuhoo and not as Newhoo
 * NPOVing
 * A counting is always a claim, it is unnecessary to mention that. If the counting is wrong (which could be proven due to the RDF dump) this would be noteworthy to list otherwise this should be taken as fact. That the editors counting is not fully correct is already mentioned in next sentence.
 * Removal of implication that editors are not even supposed to receive warnings before kicking. I'm not saying all get, but you are implying that it isn't even intended that they get a warning.
 * Removal of implication that Netscape Search, AOL Search, Google, Lycos, and HotBot aren't using the ODP data anymore. HotBot is Lycos.
 * That editor removal procedures are controversial is a claim which should be mentioned, but only as a claim.
 * Login protected data is not included in the RDF dumps as it wouldn't be login protected if it would be included.
 * "Becoming an Editor" said that there are many restriction while showing only few. Also first part only duplicates text from above.
 * Simply additions
 * A link to a related article under Related Links.

Likely there was more. -- The "Invisible Friend"

 * It looks quite complete to me. Anyway, it would be interesting to know why Netesq find it so necessary to remove these improvements to the article. // Liftarn

 * I believe there is still room for much improvement and additional content in areas like details about the founders, the scope of the topical areas covered, the Kids and Teens area (which is a separate directory in some ways), etc. However, that said, I think the version recently posted by 212.202.3.5 is far better than earlier versions, and the one that netesq has reverted to. -- Alpdpedia

 * Good point. I've added a bit about the founders in the history section. // Liftarn

 * I would also suggest that also following is mentioned
 * Absence of new RDF dumps for 6 month (was it longer?)
 * ODP's RDF not following RDF Recommendation for long time (is it still?)
 * ODP reaching it's limits and for the first time getting new resources since being aquired by Netscape.
 * -- The "Invisible Friend"

 * <>

There is no longer a corporation known as Netscape, just as there is no longer a corporation known as AOL. Both are now part of the AOL Time Warner corporation. Try to find the name of Netscape's corporate president, or the names of the people who sit on Netscape's corporate board of directors, and you will quickly find that these people do not exist because the Netscape corporation does not exist. Rather, the late, great Netscape is simply a brand name, commonly referred to as a "fictitious business name," and all of ODP's paid staff are on the payroll for AOL Time Warner. I know this because I have corresponded with Kent Walker, Esq., legal counsel for AOL Time Warner, regarding ODP licensing issues and various other legal issues that have arisen because of the questionable conduct of various ODP meta editors. -- NetEsq 22:08 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * There is no entity being called AOL since they merged with Time Warner. Netscape on the other hand was bought and is now a department (like Sega's AM Teams) or a subsidiary of AOL. Whatever you would call it, there must be an entity (which could be sold) that is "Netscape" as othererwise a "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" isn't possible (Just owning a name isn't enough to use that as a copyright holder).

 * OK, this could need to be discussed, but why havn't you taken your time to "justify" your change back, like I have done for my change to it? -- The "Invisible Friend"

 * <<[T]here must be an entity (which could be sold) that is "Netscape" as othererwise a "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" isn't possible (Just owning a name isn't enough to use that as a copyright holder).>>

As I stated above, Netscape is a fictitious business name which AOL Time Warner has registered with the State of California. Having done so, AOL Time Warner can use said fictitious business name to claim and/or register copyrights; I have done the same thing for various Web-based businesses that I own and operate under various fictitious business names. -- NetEsq 22:04 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, where to start? There is so much... I can't honestly say that I beleive Netesq has the intention to do NPOV editing, or that his reason to work on Wikipedia is anything else than just another step in his ongoing vendetta against ODP [1]. Hopefully, with enough people watching him, I think it could be made to work anyway.

Ok, let's see...

" owned by AOL Time Warner " is probably just an attempt to cash in on anti-AOL feelings. At http://dmoz.org/ it says "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" and at http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html "The ODP is hosted and administered by Netscape Communication Corporation." also dmoz.org runs in Netscape netblock [2]. Also the history of Netscape can be seen on that page.

" after they had grown tired of link rot and slow processing of submissions to Yahoo!. " seems to have been dropped from the history section. I think it's important to keep the reason behind the project.

"The original motivation for forming Gnuhoo/Newhoo/ODP was the frustration that many people experienced in getting their sites listed on Yahoo! However, Yahoo! has since implemented a paid submission service for timely consideration of Web site submissions, making free site submissions the primary advantage of ODP to submitters." seems to have gone.

"making the processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP anything between a few minutes to approximately six months." was changed to just "making the processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months."

"which requires link back to ODP" was changed to "which requires an advertisement". It's an attrobution and a link back, not an advertisment.

"as well as a notice if the data has been altered" was dropped. It is also a requirement.

There is also the question about who uses/used ODP data and if they still do. That some search services first switched from purchased directory (for instance Looksmart) to free (ODP) and then back to Looksmart because Looksmart started paying sites to use their data.

"major competitor"? Sounds odd.

"ODPs policy is that ODP is made for searchers, not submitters." was removed. Why?

"leaving many submitters to wonder whether and when their site has been considered and rejected for inclusion in ODP. In response to ongoing criticism of this policy, ODP editors have set up a public forum where queries about site submission status can be posted." should be changed to pased tense, perhaps even moved to history.

"high level editing access at ODP in an effort to boost the link count" was changed to "high level editing access at ODP". Again the reason was removed.

"volunteer editors who openly dissent often find their editing priveleges removed" is simply not true. It's also interesting that Netesq quotes himself as source.

"changes in ODP's copyright policies that was made due to threats from Nintendo" was changed to "changes in ODP's copyright policies". Again the reason was removed.

"the number of editors contributing to ODP is often claimed to be exaggerated" was changed to "the number of editors contributing to ODP is exaggerated".

"an inactive period of four months" was changed to "an inactive period of three months"

"some former editors simply try reapply under an assumed identity, which may lead to even greater exagerration" was changed to "many former editors simply reapply under an assumed identity, leading to even greater exagerration"

"are by malcontents often claimed to be controversial" was changed to "are very controversial"

"removed for abusive editing practices or inability to work in a team" was changed to "removed for abusive editing practices"

"are at risk of losing their editing privileges are supposed to be contacted regarding this, but some ex-editors claim that this did not happen" was changed to "who are at risk of losing their editing privileges may not be given any notice that such proceedings are taking place, much less notice of an adverse decision"

"In the case of "good faith" abuse the editor is also told to watch it." was removed.

"prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the specific reasons for specific editor removals" was changed to "prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the reasons for specific editor removals"

"former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges often claim to wonder" was changed to "former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges are often left to wonder"

"There are some other restrictions" was changed to "In addition to the secrecy associated with ODP's editor removal procedures and ODP's internal forums, there are many other restrictions".

"editing privileges for each additional ODP category" was changed to "editing privileges in specific ODP categories"

Under the "Software" heading the reason ODP software isn't Open Source should be stated, i.e. that it's mixed with propietary softare from third parties.

Some changed was done under the "Spinoffs" heading that needs to be NPOVed.

* Open Directory Project and Digital Libraries - Article by Shaney Crawford. under the "External links" heading was removed.

title: Talk:DMOZ/Archive 1