text:
Antakya

Antakya (Local Turkish: Anteke ), modern form of Antioch (Ἀντιόχεια; Անտիոք; Antiochia), is a municipality and the capital district of Hatay Province, Turkey. Its area is 703 km2, and its population is 399,045 (2022). It is the capital of Hatay Province, the southernmost province of Turkey. The city is located in a well-watered and fertile valley on the Orontes River, about 20 km from the Levantine Sea.

Today's city stands partly on the site of the ancient Antiochia (Ἀντιόχεια,, also known as "Antioch on the Orontes"), which was founded in the fourth century BC by the Seleucid Empire. Antioch later became one of the Roman Empire's largest cities, and was made the capital of the provinces of Syria and Coele-Syria. It was also an influential early center of Christianity; the New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch. The city gained much ecclesiastical importance in the Byzantine Empire. Captured by Umar ibn al-Khattab in the seventh century, the medieval Antakiyah (أنطاكية, ) was conquered or re-conquered several times: by the Byzantines in 969, the Seljuks in 1084, the Crusaders in 1098, the Mamluks in 1268, and eventually the Ottomans in 1517, who would integrate it to the Aleppo Eyalet then to the Aleppo Vilayet. The city joined the Hatay State under the French Mandate before joining the Turkish Republic.

On 6 February 2023, the city was heavily damaged by two powerful earthquakes with their epicentre in Kahramanmaraş. Some of the historical sites, including the Church of St Paul, have been destroyed. The earthquakes destroyed several neighbourhoods in the city and left thousands homeless. The death toll in Hatay Province, which includes Antakya, was estimated at over 20,000.

Antiquity
Humans have occupied the area of Antioch since the Chalcolithic era (6th millennium BC), as revealed by archaeological excavations of the mound of Tell-Açana, among others.

The Macedonian King Alexander the Great, after defeating the Persians in the Battle of Issus in 333 BC, followed the Orontes south into Syria and occupied the area. The city of Antioch was founded in 300 BC, after the death of Alexander, by the Hellenistic Seleucid King Seleucus I Nicator. It played an important role as one of the largest cities in the Hellenistic Seleucid Kingdom, in the Roman Empire, and in the Byzantine Empire. The city swapped hands between the Byzantines and the Persian Sassanids in the 3rd century and was the battleground for the siege of Antioch where Shapur I defeated the Roman army, and a later Battle of Antioch (613) where the Persians were successful at capturing the city for the last time. It was a key city during the early history of Christianity, in particular that of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Maronite Catholic Church, as well as during the rise of Islam and the Crusades.

Biblical era
From "The Acts of the Apostles", Chapter 11 Verse 26

''“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”''

Rashidun period

In 637, during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, Antioch was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate during the Battle of the Iron Bridge. The city became known in Arabic as أنطاكية. Since the Umayyad Caliphate was unable to penetrate the Anatolian plateau, Antioch found itself on the frontline of the conflicts between two hostile empires during the next 350 years, so that the city went into a precipitous decline. After the demise of Umayyad rule, Antioch became part of the Abbasid empire (except for a brief rule of the Tulunids ), Ikhshidids and Hamdanids.

In 969, the city was reconquered for the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas by Michael Bourtzes and the stratopedarches Peter. It soon became the seat of a dux, who commanded the forces of the local themes and was the most important officer on the Empire's eastern border, held by such men as Nikephoros Ouranos. In 1078, Philaretos Brachamios, an Armenian hero, seized power. He held the city until the Seljuk Turks captured it from him in 1084. The Sultanate of Rum held it only fourteen years before the Crusaders arrived.

Crusader era

The Crusaders' Siege of Antioch between October 1097 and June 1098 during the First Crusade resulted in its fall. The Crusaders caused significant damage, including a massacre of its population, both Christian and Muslim. Following the defeat of Seljuk forces arriving with the aim to break the siege only four days after its capture by the crusaders, Bohemond I became its overlord. It remained the capital of the Latin Principality of Antioch for nearly two centuries.

In 1268 it fell to the Egyptian Mamluk Sultan Baybars after another siege. Baibars proceeded to massacre the Christian population. In addition to suffering the ravages of war, the city lost its commercial importance because trade routes to East Asia moved north following the 13th-century Mongol conquests. Antioch never recovered as a major city, with much of its former role falling to the port city of Alexandretta (İskenderun). An account of both cities as they were in 1675 appears in the diary of the English naval chaplain Henry Teonge.

Ottoman city
The city was initially the centre of the Sanjak of Antakya, part of the Damascus Eyalet. It was laterly centre of Sanjak of Antakya in Aleppo Eyalet. It was finally kaza centre in Sanjak of Aleppo, part of Aleppo Vilayet.

In 1822 (and again in 1872), Antakya was hit by an earthquake and damaged. When Egyptian general Ibrahim Pasha established his headquarters in the city in 1835, it had only some 5,000 inhabitants. Supporters hoped the city might develop thanks to the Euphrates Valley Railway, which was supposed to link it to the port of Sueida (now Samandağı), but this plan never came to fruition. This scheme is the subject of Letitia Elizabeth Landon's poem (1836) in which she reflects of the superiority of trade and commerce over war and conflict. The city suffered repeated outbreaks of cholera due to inadequate infrastructure for sanitation. Later the city developed and rapidly resumed much of its old importance when a railway was built along the lower Orontes Valley.

French Mandate and Turkish annexation
Antioch was part of the Sanjak of Alexandretta during the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, until it was made the Hatay State in 1938, after Turkish pressure. An Arab nationalist newspaper in the city, run by Zaki al-Arsuzi, was shut down by the Turks. The annexation of the Hatay State by Turkey in 1939, creating the Hatay Province, caused an exodus of Christians and Alawites from Antioch east to the French Mandate.

The district Antakya was created in 2013 from part of the former central district of Hatay.

Language
A British traveller visiting Antakya in 1798 reported that generally, Turkish was spoken, while, by contrast, the prevalent language in Aleppo at the time was Arabic. Most Alawites and Armenians spoke Turkish as a second language.

Religion
In 1935, Turkish and Arab Muslims made more than 80% of the population.

Antakya was home to one of the most ancient Jewish communities for over 2,200 years.

Recent history

Mount Habib-i Neccar (Habib An-Najar in Sura al-Yassin 36:13) and the city walls which climb the hillsides symbolise Antakya, making the city a formidable fortress built on a series of hills running north-east to south-west. Antakya was originally centred on the east bank of the river. Since the 19th century, the city has expanded with new neighbourhoods built on the plains across the river to the south-west, and four bridges connect the old and new cities. Many of the buildings of the last two decades are styled as concrete blocks, and Antakya has lost much of its classic beauty. The narrow streets of the old city can become clogged with traffic.

Antakya is a provincial capital of considerable importance as the centre of a large district. The draining of Lake Amik and development of land have caused the region's economy to grow in wealth and productivity. The town is a lively shopping and business centre with many restaurants, cinemas and other amenities. This district is centred on a large park opposite the governor's building and the central avenue Kurtuluş Caddesı. The tea gardens, cafes and restaurants in the neighbourhood of Harbiye are popular destinations, particularly for the variety of meze in the restaurants. The Orontes River can be malodorous when water is low in summer. Rather than formal nightlife, in the summer heat, people will stay outside until late at the night to walk with their families and friends, and munch on snacks.

Its location near the Syrian border makes Antakya more cosmopolitan than many cities in Turkey. It did not attract the mass immigration of people from eastern Anatolia in the 1980s and 1990s that radically swelled the populations of Mediterranean cities such as Adana and Mersin. Both Turkish and Arabic are still widely spoken in Antakya, although written Arabic is rarely used. A mixed community of faiths and denominations co-exist peacefully here. While almost all the inhabitants are Muslim, a substantial proportion adhere to the Alevi and Alawite traditions, in 'Harbiye' there is a place to honour the saint Hızır. Numerous tombs of saints, of both Sunni and Alawite, are located throughout the city. Several small Christian communities are active in the city, with the largest church being St. Peter and St. Paul on Hürriyet Avenue. With its long history of spiritual and religious movements, Antakya is a place of pilgrimage for Christians. The Jewish community of Antakya had shrunk to 14 members in 2014. In 2023, the last Jew in the city announced that he was leaving the city after a devastating earthquake.

It has a reputation in Turkey as a place for spells, fortune telling, miracles and spirits.

Local crafts include a soap scented with the oil of bay tree.

2023 earthquakes
On 6 February 2023, Antakya suffered heavy damage as a result of a major earthquake. Many parts of the city were totally destroyed. As of 7 February, the BBC reported that at least 1,200 buildings in the city center and the districts of Kırıkhan and İskenderun were razed. Officials said "almost all" houses in the Cebrail District had collapsed. Many historical sites, including churches and mosques, were destroyed, St. Paul's Church being one of them. The historic Antakya Synagogue and Hatay State Assembly Building were also destroyed.

In the aftermath, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised to an immediate reconstruction of the affected areas. During a visit to the city in September 2023, The New York Times reported that heavily buildings were still being demolished and no large-scale reconstruction works were observed. Many damaged buildings remained standing but abandoned while survivors continue to live in tents. Hatay's mayor, Lutfu Savas, said only half of the estimated 38,000 buildings registered to be dismantled had been fulfilled. In Gülderen, there were ongoing works to build 2,300 apartment units in 122 blocks.

Geography
Antakya is located on the banks of the Orontes River (Asi Nehri), approximately 22 km inland from the Mediterranean coast. The city is in a valley surrounded by mountains, the Nur Mountains (ancient Amanos) to the northwest and Mount Keldağ (Jebel Akra) to the south, with the 440 m high Mount Habib-i Neccar (the ancient Mount Silpius) forming its eastern limits. The mountains are a source of a green marble. Antakya is at the northern edge of the Dead Sea Rift and vulnerable to earthquakes.

The plain of Amik to the north-east of the city is fertile soil watered by the Orontes, the Karasu and the Afrin rivers; the lake in the plain was drained in 1980 by a French company. At the same time channels were built to widen the Orontes and let it pass neatly through the city centre. The Orontes is joined in Antakya by the Hacı Kürüş stream to the north-east of the city near the church of St Peter, and the Hamşen which runs down from Habib-i Neccar to the south-west, under Memekli Bridge near the army barracks. Flora includes the bay trees and myrtle.

Composition
There are 95 neighbourhoods in Antakya District:

 * Açıkdere
 * Akasya
 * Akçaova
 * Akcurun
 * Akevler
 * Akhisar
 * Aksaray
 * Alaattin
 * Alahan
 * Alazı
 * Altınçay
 * Anayazı
 * Apaydın
 * Arpahan
 * Aşağıoba
 * Avsuyu
 * Aydınlıkevler
 * Bağrıyanık
 * Barbaros
 * Biniciler
 * Bitiren
 * Boşin
 * Bozhüyük
 * Büyükdalyan
 * Cebrail
 * Cumhuriyet
 * Demirköprü
 * Derince
 * Dikmece
 * Doğanköy
 * Dutdibi
 * Ekinci
 * Emek
 * Esenlik
 * Esentepe
 * Fevziçakmak
 * Gazi
 * Gazipaşa
 * General Şükrü Kanatlı
 * Gökçegöz
 * Gülderen
 * Güllübahçe
 * Günyazı
 * Güzelburç
 * Habib-i Neccar
 * Hacı Ömer Alpagot
 * Haraparası
 * Hasanlı
 * Havuzlar
 * İplik Pazarı
 * Kantara
 * Karaali
 * Karaalibölüğü
 * Kardeşler
 * Karlısu
 * Kisecik
 * Kışla Saray
 * Kocaabdi
 * Küçükdalyan
 * Kuruyer
 * Kuyulu
 * Kuzeytepe
 * Madenboyu
 * Mansurlu
 * Maraşboğazı
 * Maşuklu
 * Melekli
 * Meydan
 * Narlıca
 * Odabaşı
 * Oğlakören
 * Orhanlı
 * Ovakent
 * Paşaköy
 * Saçaklı
 * Saraycık
 * Saraykent
 * Şehitler
 * Serinyol
 * Şeyhali
 * Şirince
 * Sofular
 * Suvatlı
 * Tahtaköprü
 * Tanışma
 * Üçgedik
 * Ulucami
 * Ürgenpaşa
 * Üzümdalı
 * Uzunaliç
 * Yaylacık
 * Yenicami
 * Yeşilova
 * Zenginler
 * Zülüflühan

Climate
Antakya's climate is classified as hot-summer Mediterranean (Köppen: Csa) or dry-summer humid subtropical (Trewartha: Cf or wet Cs). The city experiences hot, dry summers, and mild, wet winters; though its higher altitude allows for lower temperatures than the coast.

Highest recorded temperature:45.2 C on 13 August 2023 Lowest recorded temperature:-11.8 C on 14 January 1950

Education
Mustafa Kemal University, abbreviated as MKU, has several faculties including Engineering and Medicine, while having a campus called Tayfur Sökmen located in Serinyol district 15 km, north of Antakya (centrum). Established in 1992, currently more than 32,000 students enrolled at the university.

Besides the campus in Serinyol, MKU has its faculties spread out in all main districts of the province including Altınözü, Antakya, Belen, Dörtyol, Erzin, Hassa, İskenderun, Kırıkhan, Reyhanlı, Samandağ and Yayladağı.

Main sights

The long and varied history has created many architectural sites of interest. There is much for visitors to see in Antakya, although many buildings have been lost in the rapid growth and redevelopment of the city in recent decades.

 * Hatay Archaeology Museum has the second largest collection of Roman mosaics in the world.
 * The rock-carved Church of St Peter, with its network of refuges and tunnels carved out of the rock, a site of Christian pilgrimage. There are also tombs cut into the rock face at various places along the Orontes valley.
 * Old market district: It offers plenty of traditional shops, where you can explore what you have not seen before. It is exactly in the city centre, you are in when you see the sign Uzun Çarşı Caddesi.
 * The seedy Gündüz cinema in the city centre was once used as parliament building of the Republic of Hatay.
 * The waterfalls at the Harbiye / Daphne promenade.
 * The Ottoman Habib'i Neccar Mosque, the oldest mosque in Antakya and one of the oldest in Anatolia.
 * The labyrinth of narrow streets and old Antakya houses. This district is the oldtown in fact.
 * Vespasianus Titus Tunnel-Samandagı. It is approximately 35 km. far from the centre.
 * Beşikli Cave and Graves (the antique city of Seleukeia Pierria)
 * St. Simon Monastery
 * Bagras (Bakras) Castle, which was built in antiquity and restored many times in later centuries (particularly during the Crusades, when it was a stronghold of the Knights Templar), served as a watchtower on the 27 km mountain road from İskenderun (Alexandretta) to Antakya (Antioch).
 * The panoramic view of the city from the heights of Mount Habib-i Neccar
 * St. Paul Orthodox Church

With its rich architectural heritage, Antakya is a member of the Norwich-based European Association of Historic Towns and Regions. The Roman bridge (thought to date from the era of Diocletian) was destroyed in 1972 during the widening and channelling of the Orontes.

Transport
The city is served from Hatay Airport.

Sports
Antakya has one male professional football club, Hatayspor, who play in the Süper Lig. There is also a female professional team called Hatay Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Hatay Büyükşehir Belediyespor, a woman's basketball team, is also present, and plays in the Turkish Women's Basketball League.

Cuisine
The cuisine of Antakya is renowned. Its cuisine is considered Levantine rather than Turkish. The cuisine offers plenty of meals, where beef and lamb are mainly used. Popular dishes include the typical Turkish kebab, served with spices and onions in flat unleavened bread, with yoghurt as ali nazik kebab, oruk, kaytaz böreği and katıklı ekmek. Hot, spicy food is a feature of this part of Turkey, along with Turkish coffee and local specialties. Here are some savoury foods:

 * İçli köfte and other oruk varieties: varieties of the Arabic kibbeh, deep-fried balls of bulgur wheat stuffed with minced meat; or baked in ovens in cylinder-cone shape. Saç oruğu is made of the same ingredients, however in circular shape.
 * Kaytaz böreği: It is patty that is made of wheat, beef, tomato and onion.
 * Katıklı ekmek: Ingredients in Katıklı Ekmek usually consist of wheat, traditional pepper (paste), spices such as sesame and theme, çökelek or cheese. It looks like an ancestor of pizza. Not a lot of restaurants serve it, however it can be found in old-market that is located in the centre and Harbiye.
 * Pomegranate syrup, used as a salad dressing, called debes ramman, a traditional Levantine Arabic dressing.
 * Semirsek, a thin bread with hot pepper, minced meat or spinach filling
 * Spicy chicken, a specialty of Harbiye
 * Za'atar (Zahter) a traditional Levantine Arabic paste of spiced thyme, oregano, and sesame seeds, mixed with olive oil, spread on flat (called pide or in English pita) bread.
 * Fresh chick peas, munched as a snack.
 * Hirise, boiled and pounded wheat meal.
 * Aşur, meat mixed with crushed wheat, chickpea, cumin, onion, pepper and walnut

 * Meze
 * Hummus - the chick-pea dip
 * pureed fava beans
 * Patlıcan salatası: Patlıcan salatası or babaganoush, made of baked and sliced aubergines that mixed with pepper and tomato. It is usually served with pomegranate syrup.
 * Taratur: Known also as Tarator, made of walnuts, 'tahin', yoghurt and garlic.
 * Süzme yoğurt: A type of yoghurt that its water content is removed with traditional methods.
 * Ezme biber: It is made of pepper and walnuts.
 * Surke - dried curds served in spicy olive oil
 * Çökelek - the spicy sun-dried cheese
 * Eels from the Orontes, spiced and fried in olive oil

 * Sweets/desserts
 * Künefe - a hot cheese, kadaif-based sweet. Antakya is Turkey's künefe capital; the pastry shops in the centre compete to claim being kings kral of the pastry.
 * Müşebbek - rings of deep fried pastry.
 * Peynirli irmik helvası - Peynirli İrmik Helvası is a dessert that is made of semolina, sugar and traditional cheese that is the same as used in künefe. It is served warm, especially in restaurants in the region Harbiye, rather than künefe shops that are located in the centre.

Twin towns
Antakya is twinned with:

 * 🇩🇪 Aalen, Germany (since 1995).

Notable people

 * Alexandros (1st century BC) Greek sculptor
 * George of Antioch
 * Ignatius of Antioch, Patriarch of Antioch
 * John Chrysostom (349–407) Patriarch of Constantinople
 * Saint Luke, first century AD, Christian evangelist and author of the Gospel of St. Luke and Acts of the Apostles
 * Yağısıyan, Seljukid governor of the city up to its capture by the Crusaders
 * Selâhattin Ülkümen - Righteous among the nations
 * Tayfur Sökmen - The president of the Republic of Hatay during its existence between the years 1938 and 1939.

title: Antakya


text:
Jacques Sylla

Jacques Hugues Sylla (22 July 1946 – 26 December 2009) was a Malagasy politician. He was the Prime Minister of Madagascar under President Marc Ravalomanana from February 2002 to January 2007. He subsequently served as the President of the National Assembly of Madagascar from October 2007 to March 2009.

Life and career
Sylla was born on the island of Sainte-Marie, Analanjirofo, off the east coast of Madagascar. He was the son of Albert Sylla, who served as Foreign Minister under Madagascar's first President, Philibert Tsiranana, until being killed in a plane crash in July 1967. He served as Foreign Minister himself from 1993 to 1996, under President Albert Zafy. He was an opponent of President Didier Ratsiraka and was one of the lawyers advising Marc Ravalomanana when he was elected Mayor of Antananarivo in 1999. Sylla was also a founder of the Toamasina section of the National Committee for the Observation of Elections.

Sylla backed Ravalomanana in the crisis that followed the December 2001 presidential election and argued Ravalomanana's case before the High Constitutional Court. On February 26, 2002, in the midst of the crisis, Ravalomanana named Sylla as Prime Minister, a few days after Ravalomanana declared himself president. After Ravalomanana was sworn in for a second time in early May, Sylla was reappointed as Prime Minister on May 9.

Later in 2002, Sylla became the Secretary General of the ruling Tiako I Madagasikara (TIM) party; this marked the first time that he had ever been a member of a political party.

Sylla resigned as Prime Minister on 19 January 2007, at the end of Ravalomanana's first term; his resignation was accepted by Ravalomanana, who appointed Charles Rabemananjara as Prime Minister on 20 January.

In the September 2007 parliamentary election, Sylla stood as a TIM candidate in the Sainte-Marie constituency, winning with 51.04% of the vote according to provisional results. When the new session of the National Assembly began, Sylla was elected as President of the National Assembly on October 23, 2007; he was the only candidate and received 123 votes from the 124 deputies present, with one blank vote.

As President of the National Assembly, Sylla was an ex officio member of the national political bureau of TIM and therefore remained on the political bureau at TIM's May 2008 congress.

Sylla was a Catholic, a Côtier, and had dual Malagasy and French nationality.

Role in 2009 political crisis
During the 2009 Malagasy political crisis, Sylla participated in negotiations between President Ravalomanana and opposition leader Andry Rajoelina on February 24, 2009. Subsequently, at an opposition rally on March 14, 2009, Sylla announced that he was joining the opposition and said that Ravalomanana should resign; according to Sylla, that was the only solution and "as President of the National Assembly, I have to recognise reality."

Rajoelina appointed Sylla as President of the Transitional Congress on 8 September 2009; he also appointed a new government on the same date. He ostensibly did so in the spirit of the Maputo agreement between Malagasy political leaders, which called for the creation of a national unity government, but the opposition denounced Rajoelina's appointments, and Sylla was considered to have completely broken with Ravalomanana.

Sylla died on 26 December 2009 at the age of 63 after a long illness.

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

title: Jacques Sylla


text:
Wireless gateway

A wireless gateway routes packets from a wireless LAN to another network, wired or wireless WAN. It may be implemented as software or hardware or a combination of both. Wireless gateways combine the functions of a wireless access point, a router, and often provide firewall functions as well. They provide network address translation (NAT) functionality, so multiple users can use the internet with a single public IP. It also acts like a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) to assign IPs automatically to devices connected to the network.

There are two kinds of wireless gateways. The simpler kind must be connected to a DSL modem or cable modem to connect to the internet via the internet service provider (ISP). The more complex kind has a built-in modem to connect to the internet without needing another device. This converged device saves desk space and simplifies wiring by replacing two electronic packages with one. It has a wired connection to the ISP, at least one jack port for the LAN (usually four jacks), and an antenna for wireless users. The wireless gateway could support wireless 802.11b and 802.11g with speed up to 56 Mbit/s, 802.11n with speed up to 300Mps and recently the 802.11ac with speed up to 1200 Mbit/s. The LAN interface may support 100 Mbit/s (Fast) or 1000 Mbit/s (Gigabit) Ethernet.

All wireless gateways have the ability to protect the wireless network using security encryption methods such as WEP, WPA, and WPS. WPA2 with WPS disabled is the most secure method. There are many wireless gateway brands with models offering different features and quality. They can differ on the wireless range and speed, a number of LAN ports, speed, and extra functionality. Some available brands in the market are Motorola, Netgear, and Linksys. However, most internet providers offer a free wireless gateway with their services, thus limiting the user's choice. On the other hand, the device provided by the ISP has the advantage that it comes pre-configured and ready to be installed. Another advantage of using these devices is the ability of the company to troubleshoot and fix any problem via remote access, which is very convenient for most users.

title: Wireless gateway


text:
Ahmed Mohamed ag Hamani

Ahmed Mohamed ag Hamani (born 1942 ) was the prime minister of Mali from 2002 to 2004.

Life and career
Hamani was born in Goundam, and is an ethnic Tuareg. He became a technical advisor to the Minister of Planning in 1975 before entering the government on January 7, 1978, as Minister for the Supervision of Companies and State Enterprises. He then became Minister of Information and Telecommunications in the government named on June 28, 1979 and Minister of Planning in the government named on August 2, 1980; in the latter position, he became the second ranking person in the government after Moussa Traoré, who was President and Minister of Defense. He subsequently became Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture on December 31, 1984, and then Minister of Transport and Public Works on June 6, 1986. He left the government on January 20, 1987 and became High Commissioner of the Organization for the Development of the Senegal River, in which post he remained until 1992. In 1993, he was named Ambassador to Morocco by President Alpha Oumar Konaré; after six years in that post, he became Ambassador to Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, and the European Union.

He served there until he was named Prime Minister by Amadou Toumani Touré on June 9, 2002, after Touré took office following his victory in that year's presidential election, and his government was named on June 14. His initial appointment was regarded as being on a temporary basis extending through the period of the July 2002 parliamentary election. After the election, he was reappointed on October 12, 2002, with a new government being named on October 16. At Touré's request, he submitted his government's resignation on April 28, 2004, and Ousmane Issoufi Maïga was appointed as Prime Minister on April 29.

title: Ahmed Mohamed ag Hamani


text:
Estrées-Deniécourt

Estrées-Deniécourt (Picard: Étrée-Dgnincourt) is a commune in the Somme department in Hauts-de-France in northern France.

Geography
The commune lies on the national highway N29, at the junction with the A1 autoroute, west of the river Somme and 28 mi east of Amiens. It has the remains of a Roman road, the Chaussée Brunehaut passing through the village.

History
It is one of many villages in the north of France bearing the name Estrées. The etymology of the name is from strata (cognate of English "street"), the word for the stone-layered Roman roads in the area (some of which turned into modern highways). Hence Estreti, village on the road which developed into Estrées.

It was the scene of heavy fighting during the Battle of the Somme. The probable (unmarked) burial site of Raynal Bolling, the first U.S. officer of high rank to fall in combat.

The Estrées-Deniécourt Military Cemetery, is located at the west end of the village and the German Cemetery is located on the way to the commune of Fay.

Miscellaneous
The commune holds an annual brocante (flea-market) each June.

title: Estrées-Deniécourt


text:
Talk:George Brown (Canadian politician)

Request
Can somebody validate this information and include it somewhere in this page? I feel that if I do it, I will be persecuted by Angelique.lol

On October 27, 1864, after the signing of the confederative pact, George Brown, founder of the Toronto Globe and one of the Fathers of the Confederation, wrote a note to his wife while packing his things before leaving for Toronto: "All right... Constitution adopted - a most creditable document - a complete reform of all the excesses and injustice we have complained of: Is it not wonderful? French Canadianism entirely extinguished." -- Mathieugp 19:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * PAC, George Brown Papers, George Brown to Anne Brown, 27 October, 1864. Cited in:
 * The Transatlantic Persuasion, p. 381
 * The Lawmakers, p. 321
 * Dixie & the Dominion, p. 124-125
 * Constitutional Odyssey, p. 33
 * Federalism in Canada and Australia, p. 145
 * The Road to Confederation, p. 182
 * etc.
 * It would seem this quote is found to be interesting not only to francophone Quebecers... -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem this quote is found to be interesting not only to francophone Quebecers... -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * : It is one of those quotes when, taken out of context, can be used to mean more than it seems. It is referred to also in Richard Gwyn's recent biography of John A. Macdonald (p. 319).  Gwyn explains it as "(He meant by this that French Quebecers would no longer be able to intervene in the politics of English Ontarians.)"  Gwyn doesn't deny that Brown was generally "anti-French-Canadian"  and gives numerous examples of Brown's anti-French-Canadian stances.  As the population of Canada West grew and surpassed the population of Canada East, Brown (and other Reformers) felt that the then current constitutional structure giving equal representation to each section of the province was 'unfair' (although there hadn't been complaints when it had worked to advantage Canada West before) as the French speaking representatives from Canada East often held a balance of power and could influence political decisions.  This sense of being "controlled" by the French-Canadian element in the legislature really rankled Brown, whereas Macdonald seems to have simply accepted it as a fact of political life in Canada, and relied heavily on support from Canada East in order to govern.  An earlier editorial in the Globe (Brown's newspaper) had called for the division of the colony into its two parts, to benefit "Ontario" obviously, by detaching it from  Canadien control, but also to satisfy "Quebec" as it would then have "a position of comparative independence".  So it may be that Gwyn is correct in thinking that Brown's quote had more to do with getting Ontario free of Quebec influence rather than thinking that it meant that he actually thought that Confederation had "extinguished" French Canadians. Including the quote in the article without a heap of context might do the article a disservice.  On the other hand, there should be some mention of George Brown's positions regarding the influence of French Canadians on the affairs of Canada West, as they were pertinent and are verifiable.  The article as written is a bit too sweet on Brown, who was an important but complex figure who held some opinions (anti-Catholic; anti-French-influence) that should be discussed.  The article also doesn't mention his wife, Anne, who has been called the "mother of Confederation".    Gwyn notes her influence in toning down Brown's more extreme views after they met in 1862(p. 272)  which allowed him to join the Macdonald-Cartier coalition, bringing his Reformer and Grit supporters into the mix.  If they hadn't met and she hadn't persuaded him to stop ranting about 'French domination', Confederation might never have been possible. Corlyon (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did also read the passage where Gwyn claims that Brown meant that "French Quebecers would no longer be able to intervene in the politics of English Ontarians". However, I do not know on what this assertion is founded. Maybe something else in his correspondence, but I cannot say. I am willing to let myself be convinced upon reading whatever evidence might be the cause of this conclusion. I must however admit that it seems unlikely to me... Why would he mean only Ontario? The Province of Canada was then ruled based on the principle of the double majority which precisely prevented Quebecers from interfering in Ontarian affairs and vice versa. The new constitution was concerned with the whole of British North America, not just the former Canadas. It is true on the other hand that parties where intermingling and winning elections involved considering the public opinion of both provinces. This is where the annoying influence of the Catholic clergy might have come in. ;-) --Mathieugp (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Gwyn's assertion is given without a lot of back up. I suspect that if one read Brown's correspondence in its entirety, or combed through the newspapers of the era, a more precise meaning of the term 'French-Canadianism' might be discernible which would be helpfu.  If he meant what Gwyn believes he meant, then it would be an unhappy injustice to him to use the quote to support an idea that he really didn't intend.  (Not that he wasn't obviously anti-French-Canadian, which makes the whole thing the more confusing).  As far as the double majority goes, wasn't part of the problem precisely that to get anything through one needed the 'double majority' of a majority of the members of the section affected AND a majority of the members overall?  Perhaps I'm mistaken as my understanding of 'Canadian' politics of the era isn't profound.  I did find this quote from a book by Jeremy Webber "Reimagining Canada":  "Laws were often limited to one of the former colonies, and when enacted, were frequently submitted to a double majority (a majority of members of the legislature and of all members from constitutencies in the unit affected)" p. 203   And I found this on the Encyclopédie canadienne:  "Au Parlement, les Canadiens français votent en faveur de projets de lois élargissant les droits des écoles catholiques subventionnées par l'État dans le Canada-Ouest."  which would have been something that would have made Protestant Brown very, very mad.  : ).  But as I am no expert on Brown or on politics of this era, I will look to see if I can find something more definitive.  I do think the article may be a bit of puff piece as written and a more critical examination of this gentleman is needed. Corlyon (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Height
This link says he was only 6'4", so I have removed the height edit saying he was 6'7" until this can be reconciled or resolved. Fawcett5 23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Could Brown have stayed in government?
Was it at all possibe for Brown to some way stay in government???

-G
 * If Confederation hadn't happened, then the trend of Canada West electing more reformers might have occurred. In that case, there might have been a situation in which they could form a coalition with the Rouges. But as it was, he and Dorian didn't command enough of a majority to maintain a government. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved Comment from Aritcle
Moved this comment by 24.235.58.152 from article to here:

"George Brown did indeed die on may 10 1880 and NOT on may 9." KenWalker | Talk 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Brown in favour of an elected or appointed Senate ?
The Paragraph on the Quebec Conference doesn't make sense. The first sentence says "Brown argued strongly in favour of an elected Senate.", but later it says "He believed that Canada's system of government should adhere to the British 'mixed government' model where the appointed Senate could be a check on the democratically elected House of Commons." It looks to me like the first sentence is just wrong, but I'm no historian... 216.23.136.226 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Brown was against electing the Senate (see: Careless)-- he basically thought that Upper Houses are elitist by nature and ought to be dignified, not effective. Stevecudmore 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody validate this information and include it somewhere in this page? I feel that if I do it, I will be persecuted by Angelique.

On October 27, 1864, after the signing of the confederative pact, George Brown, founder of the Toronto Globe and one of the Fathers of the Confederation, wrote a note to his wife while packing his things before leaving for Toronto: "All right... Constitution adopted - a most creditable document - a complete reform of all the excesses and injustice we have complained of: Is it not wonderful? French Canadianism entirely extinguished." -- Mathieugp 19:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Height
This link says he was only 6'4", so I have removed the height edit saying he was 6'7" until this can be reconciled or resolved. Fawcett5 23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Could Brown have stayed in government?
Was it at all possibe for Brown to some way stay in government???

-G

Death
Why dont they mention that he was shot by a disgruntled worker and killed?

New Brunswick Connection
I have an article suggesting that George Brown was originially born in New Brunswick (Back Bay/Mascarene, NB). His father was John Brown, who was born in Conn. The family was of scottish roots. How much truth is there in this article? I will post a link to the actual article shortly. Jhazon (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's George Wilson?
Did I miss something? In the section about the grave of George Brown's wife, it says her grave also commemorates George Wilson. WTF? Peter Jedicke (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What impacts did he have on canada?
I really do not know I'm doing research Popo1w3 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:George Brown (Canadian politician)


text:
User talk:Viajero/Leumi

Norman Finkelstein
Theresa Knott proposed a very reasonable solution to this particular conflict on the talk page for The Holocaust Industry; consensus (so far) is to go with that version of the "anti-Semitism" attack on Finkelstein. If Leumi won't agree to that solution, then we have a problem: "Some Jewish groups" and "Some American Jews" both imply that the Finkelstein-bashing goes beyond one set of tendentious allegations from a group that, whatever its influence on public opinion, is not renowned for objectivity or fairness.

To put it another way: Whether Finkelstein's book actually contributes to anti-Semitism is unknown -- some Holocaust deniers have waved him around triumphantly, but any effect beyond this small gang of crackpots is unproven, and who cares what they think anyway? Nobody, but for the ADL and some fringe groups ("Israel Campus Watch"), made the attacks on Finkelstein, as far as I can tell, so it's not fair to imply otherwise.

General principle: If, say, I were to add stuff I "researched" from Holy Blood, Holy Grail and similar nonsense, to Merovingian, Jesus Christ, or Mary Magdalene, while saying "Some scholars think (crackpot idea)", without making the idea's source absolutely clear, that would be deeply misleading: it would equate lunatic conspiracy theories with serious scholarly works on the subject. The same standard applies here, I think.

The issue of From Time Immemorial
What's needed here is, I think, more information about the book itself (though such an article will probably spawn its own hideous edit war :-/): if you just cite something to a book without further information, that implies some sort of sound footing; if you do the same, but also provide a link to an article showing the book to be the propagandistic fraud that it is, then anything referenced to that book is suddenly seen in a very different light, eh? More of the same principles.

So if everyone really wants to resolve this conflict constructively, not just to score points, I suggest finding some general principle that we can all agree on (as, I hope, what I've suggested here is) and applying it to all controversial edits. Everyone should understand their own views before blindly insisting that they're right. --MIRV 19:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stuff copied from conflicts between users

 * I have come to know User:Leumi in a different sense. I have found him to be a voice of reason in talk page discussion, even while he is being trolled. Perhaps the regular attacks against him (see Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair for example) have gotten the better of him at times, but he is a new user, and considering his civil tone, deserves a great deal of accommodation. The impression I have gotten is that he has made a remarkably unfortunate choice in screen names (see Irgun for info) and thus has attracted heated opposition from the other side of these contentious issues. I have suggested he might want to try other pages in order to avoid the trolls, but these subjects are where his interests (and skills) lie. In conclusion, I argue that he brings a great deal of value to the wiki, not the least of which is a responsive attitude to polite and reasonable conversation. JackLynch 20:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Nobody has disputed that Leumi has been unfailingly polite and reasonable in discussions, and his handle is a non-issue dragged in by some obnoxious git as a pointless cheap shot; what's at issue is his sometimes-nakedly-biased editing on articles (which is a problem, I agree). (Do note that in some of the cases Viajero has documented, he is not the only one to have edited in such a manner.) --MIRV 20:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * and I am not saying he is the perfect editor yet, but I think he has loads of potential. I havn't been here long, and I learned fast, but the first week or so I had very little idea of how things worked, or how best to handle a dispute over edits dear to my heart. Anyways, I think this is a very complicated situation, and a new user with lots to add, both intellectually and socially (a bit of polite discussion goes a long way, w me) JackLynch 20:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree, it can sometimes be difficult dealing with newbies, and some new users are quicker to learn the wikipedia way than others, we never the less should be more patient. theresa knott 22:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm quite surprised such a large stir has been caused here. It seems the schoolday is the time where most edits occur, so I unfortunately must resort to playing catch-up for a while. I certainly have no wish to hurt the NPOV format of this work, which I respect and value as much as you do. Before I begin, I'd like to thank those of you who have spoken up for me here, as well as those who have criticized in a reasonable and constructive manner. I value both very much. As for my edits, I think that while they represent one perspective, they do not take away from the NPOV manner. I include in my edits information on how something is viewed in a manner other than portrayed. I don't portray my views as fact, or as anything more than another way of seeing things. I agree that we all have a responsibility to make things neutral, and because of that we should all add the varying perspectives surrounding an issue, focusing on those we know best. Then by others contributing to what we write with an opposing viewpoint, in addition as opposed to instead, we can add balance and in addition to the facts of the issue, show the facts about how it's percieved. That's what I've seen in the format many sysops have proposed and as such I've adopted it for my own. Like you I am committed to neutrality, and I hope we can move forward in these issues with representing alll the facts and views on the issues, instead of censoring those that some do not like. We all have good intentions here, and I know that we can eventually reach some sort of progress with them. After all, we are all comrades in working for the same concepts of neutrality and balance, not enemies and as such, how can we fail to reach some sort of balance? Hopefully we'll arrive at something satisfactory to all of us.Leumi 23:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Several additional points in response to Jack and the others:

 * Social skills for me are equally important and I appreciate when people are gracious online, but the point is that we are compiling an encyclopedia, not having a tea party. Socials skills are a means to that end.  As you will have noted above, I wasn't questioning Leumi's social skills; my problem is that he says one thing (very politely) while doing another.  And doing it over and over and over again.  Either he is extremely naïve or extremely calculated.

 * I completely agree that we have to be patient with newcomers. However, Leumi has been here for two weeks, made many hundreds of edits to various articles, and yet he is still unable or unwilling to adopt our policy of editorial neutrality.  I spent five hours last night going over and over again the problems with his edits and at the end of it I didn't feel I got ANYWHERE.  NPOV is not rocket science; it is pretty easy to learn here.  You watch how more experienced users edit your pieces, and if you are open to it you catch on pretty quickly.  However, you edit Leumi's texts for neutrality and he goes right back and reinserts his pro-Israel bias over and over again.  He doesn't learn; it is a closed system.

 * If we were dealing with, say, ancient Roman battles or Victorian literature, a little POV wouldn't matter. Not that I would condone it, it is just not that important.  But we are dealing with the most contentious, bitterly divisive issue in world politics.  Our articles on the Middle East have to be scrupulously non-partisan, without a hint of pro-Israeli or pro-Arab leanings.  It is completely unacceptable to reference the highly partisan sources Leumi proposes, such as Daniel Pipers, whom the mainstream media describes as "the most rabid islamophobe in the US", or the ADL, which Chomsky describes as "one of the main pillars of Israeli propaganda in the US".  We include this stuff in our articles and no one will take us seriously, least of all in the Arab world.  Look at it this way, what would happen if we referenced extremist Arab leaders in our articles?  We would be considered a bunch of kooks.  As for Leumi's knowledge, another user Zero, a Middle East historian, said to me, he "wouldn't be so bad if he actually knew some history."

 * I am all for cutting some slack for new users and being extra patient with Leumi because he has Asperger's, but I am adamantly opposed to extending this to tolerating his insertion of pro-Israeli bias in our articles, for whatever reason. I spent many hours this afternoon documenting his highly POV edits so as to alert this community to the problems he is causing.  Being "a little more patient" with him, won't at this point, IMO, solve the fundamental issue of his lack of neutrality.  As we all know, neutrality is key to the success of this project; we lose it and we are hosed.

 * -- Viajero 00:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Viajero, first by no means should you ever cut me any slack because of my medical condition. I know you have good intentions there, but in all honesty, I'd rather be treated equally and don't expect or want anything less than what you would give to someone who is neurotypical. Having said that I do want to take issue with your characterizing my edits as non-NPOV and claiming I don't understand the nature of the concept. I am not inserting "a pro-Israeli bias in our articles", I am simply providing an opposing point of view where there is previously not one. Furthermore, I am very well acquainted with Middle Eastern History, and I respectfully ask you or Zero to point out any historical errors that that statement implies I've made. Should you point out somewhere I have erred I am always willing to correct my errors and learn from them, something that I hope we all are able to do. Second, Daniel Pipes, while controversial, is certainly less so than Noam Chomsky (who is by no means whatsoever mainstream), and furthermore he has been nominated by the President, who despite the problems you (and though you may not believe it I) have with him, he is by definition representing mainstream opinion in the country. Third, the ADL is a respected, mainstream organization whose positions you may not agree but that does by no means make them illegitimate or inaccurate. Fourth, as for your "closed system" analogy, I respectfully ask you to consider your own role in this as well. As you have well admitted you too have strong views on the topic, and I think you have made the mistake of creating non-NPOV language on the side of the palestinians, especially by refusing to allow other points of view. I recognize that within your social and ideological circles some of the opposing viewpoints I brought up may be in your mind illegitimate, but yours is not the only recognized perspective, and you shouldn't bias the encyclopedia by acting as if it is so. Once again, I express my wishes that we can come to a mutually acceptable conclusion on this. I recognize the legitimacy of your perspective, and I ask that you afford views not fitting within your select set of opinions the same dignity.Leumi 04:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I looked at a bunch of Leumi's changes. I tell you, I just don't see the big POV problem. Conversely, Chomsky is known to be one of the most partisan authors on the subject, so it makes me suspicious when someone quotes him as if he were an objective authority. I also note that Viajero is saying things to Leumi like "you don't have the foggiest idea what neutrality is", which is really pushing it ad hominem-wise. So I'm more inclined to look sharply at Viajero than at Leumi in this dispute. Stan 01:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * One more thought for Viajero: maybe you didn't get anywhere with Leumi because he's right and you're wrong about the POV? A good scholar should always be willing to examine his/her own position skeptically, but you seem awfully convinced that it can't be you that's mistaken. Stan 01:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Stan, I don't claim to be impartial. My point of view might best be summed up as simple indignation over what Israel is doing in Palestine, but not only for the impact on its Arab neighbors but also for the dehumanizing effect on Israeli society itself.  I am neither anti-Israel nor pro-Arab (both silly concepts); I am anti-state and pro-people.  As an American citizen I am embarassed the US's actions in the Middle East; they are not only harming Arab culture, they are also dehumanizing American society.  The only thing I assert here and now is my dedication to editorial impartiality. I defy you to find a biased statement in anything I have written here on the Middle East, but it won't be easy because there isn't a lot; this isn't a subject for which I feel a profound affinity.  That being said, when I see someone like Leumi entering weasel language, and citing discredited scholarship and highly partisan actors, an alarm bell rings, just as it would if the topic were, say, Venzuela.

 * Now, I'd like to know where you stand on the following: "refugees that claim they were driven" or "refugees that were driven"? -- Viajero 04:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm happy to tell you where I stand. To me the word "claim" has connotations. When I read "So and So claims such and such" I mentally add "But I the author, don't believe them". The word "said" for me is neutral. "refugees said that they were driven" or "witnesses have said that they saw refugees driven" is quite acceptable IMO. theresa knott 09:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Theresa, to me, this is still backtracking. Is it simplistic to assert that by definition refugees are forced to leave their homes? What is the difference whether one has a gun pointed to one's head or one is threatend by an impending invasion or one is hungry? Is there a case in modern history where refugees voluntarily left their homes? This is not a rhetorical question; I don't know, maybe there is. But it runs counter to my intuition. Look, let me draw an analogy that I used in a message to Ed the other day. Here in Holland where I live, when the water gets too high and the dikes are threatened, they evacuate people from the low-lying lands. People don't leave because they are standing in water up to their necks and are about to drown; they do so because of a perceived danger. And they don't report in the newspapers that people "claimed" or "said" they were forced to leave. It would be preposterous! There is a clear agent involved, an obvious cause and effect. Is this any different with refugees? When we write about American history now, do we couch Indian Removal in such terms as "they were allegedly driven from their homes"? Of course not. If indeed the situation in Palestine in the 1940s is radically more complex then this (which I doubt), than by all means, let's incorporate nuances, but let's cite unbiased scholarly historical resources, not anti-Palestinian revisionist screeds of the kind Leumi refers to. Since my knowledge of this topic is limited, I try to be as flexible as possible about what kind of information gets included in such articles; where I get intransigent is when I suspect that this kind of language is used not to reflect complexity but to dilute or mask the truth; it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. -- Viajero 12:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The trouble is -how do you know the truth? I know that you are suspicious of leumi's motives, and perhaps i am being naive in trusting him, but i can't help thinking that there is a way of sortng this out with the right wording. How about "they had to flee" or they "fled for their lives" or "they were driven out by fear" or "they had to take refuge". I suspect that either yourself or lemi will dislike at least some of these, but with enough bashing away at it I really believe that we can work together, get somw wording that everyone can live with, and create a better article. Let me strike up a different point. Leumi is probably the first of many, let's get the articles in question so good, so fair, so NPOV that no one can fault them. I don't know, perhaps it's all doomed to failure, but I don't want to give up hope yet.theresa knott 15:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Someone around here once said (Jimbo?) that at times the most realistic goal one can hope for is an article to which nobody has any major objections. I can live with that more modest ambition. (We are never going to achieve perfect balance on this topic.) I can also live with toying with the phrasing along the lines you suggest. Zero left a comment just now on the article Talk page with regard to the refugees, which we can use as a point of departure. I haven't given up hope yet either. -- Viajero 15:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * "refugees said that they were driven" seems like a reasonable version to me. You're right Theresa "claim" does have some connotations, although it may be semantically correct. As such, I agree with that proposal, to use "said" instead of "claim". Viajero, while "forced" might be (arguably) technically correct for leaving out of fear, you must admit that it carries some connotations and the average reader will not read it as "out of fear" but see it as "gun to the head". Fled, by definition, implies out of fear, and as such encompasses that definition. If we're too avoid the connotation problems that Theresa pointed out, we can't only be semantically correct, and even that is questionable when only saying "forced", but also practically impartial, so that the reader sees a balanced version, as opposed to one that gives him the wrong idea. I'm glad we're making some progress here, and I know that we can come up with something soon.Leumi 17:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * You cited a Chomsky statement above as support for your assertion that the ADL is a "highly partisan source", but Chomsky is himself known to be highly partisan, so it doesn't reflect well on you to use his remark uncritically. I've read some of the hefty books in this area, plus read both Israeli and Arab online newspapers daily for over a year (before Wikipediholism), and all I know is that one can hardly find a single claim that hasn't had oceans of blood and ink spilled over it. To take your specific example, it's certain that the refugees claim they were driven from their homes, but the truth of the claim has been a matter of the most intense debate for years. I don't have an opinion on its truth, nor can the encyclopedia. (I could write an article I suppose, but I do WP for fun, and anyway there are a million uncontested facts that are not getting written down when we have debates over the contested ones.) Stan 05:29, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I would have preferred to avoid a discussion about Chomsky here, but since I brought him into the discourse I guess I have no choice. ;-) I am sure you are acquainted with his writing, but indulge me a moment for my take on the man and then I will return to the subject at hand:

Chomsky is a pariah in the US, but in other parts of the world, such as in Latin America, he is revered as a great moral voice on par with individuals like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. Even in Israel, he has more access to the mainstream media than in the US. In Europe, when he speaks, he is treated almost like a rock star; his anti-imperialist discourse finds a lot of resonance here.

As you probably know, Chomsky is above all a critic of state power. In particular that of the US government but also that of Israel. He is indeed highly critical of the Israeli government, but this does not imply he is an Arab apologist; he does not in any way, shape or form condone Arab terrorism. If he criticizes the Israeli state more than the PLO, it is because the former is so extensively supported by the US.

You wrote above:

 * Conversely, Chomsky is known to be one of the most partisan authors on the subject, so it makes me suspicious when someone quotes him as if he were an objective authority.

and

 * but Chomsky is himself known to be highly partisan,

This perplexes me. According to the AHD, partisan means "a fervent, sometimes militant supporter of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea". Does Chomsky take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? No, he is against what he calls "Israeli state terrorism" but this does not mean he is sympathetic to the PLO. Is he the "militant support" of any cause? If any, it would be non-miltarism -- hardly an institution in this world! Ok, that makes him not the person for objective evaluation of military strategy. So, he is highly critical of the ADL, indeed, but in what way do his personal interests interfere with his perceptions? What disqualifies him from being considered objective? One may disagree with his assertion that mining the harbor of Managua by the Reaganites in the 1980s was a terrorist act but how is he impartial about this? Chomsky is not the leader or spokesperson of the Communist Party or any other movement seeking power. He is not an ideologue beyond being anti-statist in a vague kind of way. If he supports (as I believe he does) a single state solution, this is because he believes it is most practical solution at the moment, not necessarily the ideal one. There is no such thing as Chomskyism. He is basically a loner who writes articles and books and gives speeches critical of American foreign policy.

Hence, If I quote Chomsky approvingly, as I did, it cannot be inferred, I maintain, that I am suddenly partisan in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am and remain anti-war. That's it.

It was out of sheer laziness that I used his quote about the ADL; I found it in the middle of the article on the ADL here, in the course of the discussion with Leumi, and looked no further. You are absolutely right to point out that casts me in a certain light. I accept that there are strong associations connected with his name.

Now, hypothetically speaking, suppose that you and I were editing that or a similar article. I add the quote (or something like it). You say, sorry, but that is a marginal viewpoint. You'd have a point; I might accept that and look for another. Or I could insist, saying this is a good quote; reflects exactly what I think needs to be said. You say, ok then we label it as the POV of someone who reflects a a very small minority. I could say, well, Chomsky's ideas may not show up on the radar of US political discourse but look here at this poll from Eurobarometer from last month which showed that support for Israel in Europe was very low, 10 to 15% (this is true; it was listed on Current Events awhile back). Hence, in the US it might not the the case, but his opinions surely do reflect the beliefs of an overwhelming majority of Europeans. At this point, perhaps we would agree, perhaps not, but at least we would have a rational basis for discussion.

Back to Leumi. In view of the issues I have raised above, how have I compromised my neutrality for demanding comparable neutrality from him? Leumi won't accept that his sources (Daniel Pipes, ADL for example) are extremist and won't accept them being labeled as such. (See this edit of his: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Norman_Finkelstein&oldid=1910085 (''Removed non-neutral phrasing. ADL is not a pro-Israel advocacy group.'').) I have no difficulty with Chomsky being labelled a radical critic; I may share his ideas but I have no illusion that they reflect the beliefs of more than a small minority of Americans; I do my very best to be aware of my own POV. I spent a lot of time on Alberto Fujimori, a politician I consider a shameless crook, but at the same time I know that he was popular during his two terms in office and 15% of Peruvians would vote for him tomorrow if they could. (Every once in awhile a Fujimorista shows up and hassles me on details.) It would be intellectually dishonest to have have an anti-Fujimori diatribe for an article. Why am I being impartial for likewise insisting that Leumi acknowledge and take into consideration his own particular perspective? Or to put in terms you used earlier, how am I pushing my POV here?

I too contribute to Wikipedia for my enjoyment, and I would rather be devoting the time I spend here on other things, like dead opera singers, but I also feel that those of us born into privilege are obliged to do something for the oppressed and downtrodden of the world.

 * -- Viajero 13:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The mere use of the phrase "Israeli state terrorism" gives one away - that is a phrase invented to justify Palestinian actions that would be met with shock and revulsion if they occurred in the center of Paris. The Noam Chomsky article makes it clear that his focus has been on advocacy rather than research; the advocacy may go over big in Europe (unsurprisingly, since anti-Americanism has been growing for years, just look at any random European's Talk: comments), but it's still advocacy. If the ADL is extremist, the WP article sure doesn't make the case; surely there must be lots of quotes from respected authorities saying so in different ways, and yet there is only the Chomsky quote. In fact, in that article, Chomsky comes off as kind of a kook, because the objective facts in the article run counter to his claim.

 * So I think you're starting from a non-neutral position but arguing that because you consider it to be neutral, people who take a different view must be non-neutral. When you say "Leumi won't accept that his sources are extremist", you're trying to discredit him by assuming a contested claim as factual. That's pushing POV just as much as anybody else. Stan 15:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I only just noticed Leumi's name on the Problem Users page, which I hadn't visited before a couple days ago, and belatedly would like to weigh in. I worked with him at Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair, both trading edits and discussing things on the talk page. Several times it occurred to me that he was viewing the issues with less than perfect disinterest (a rare skill that somehow only I of all people seem to possess ;)), but whenever someone pointed to an instance and gave a good reason for thinking it biased, he seemed perfectly able to perceive it and eager to fix it. I think we need to be cautious judging people from disussions that bear on Israel and the Palestineans. Everybody knows these are hopelessly impassioned issues. We can hardly blame anybody for arriving with a POV, and we should not expect adversaries in these discussions to paint perfectly objective portraits of each other's behavior. 168... 08:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viajero/Leumi


text:
Eddie Fenech Adami

Edoardo "Eddie" Fenech Adami (born 7 February 1934) is a Maltese politician and Nationalist politician who served as the prime minister of Malta from 1987 until 1996, and again from 1998 until 2004. Subsequently, he was the seventh president of Malta from 2004 to 2009. He led his party to win four general elections, in 1987, 1992, 1998 and 2003, as well as the majority of votes in 1981. Staunchly pro-European, Fenech Adami was fundamental for Malta's accession to the European Union.

Originally a lawyer, Fenech Adami was co-opted Member of Parliament (MP) in 1969. He served in a number of senior party positions, including president of the Administrative and General Councils, and was elected to succeed Dr Giorgio Borġ Olivier as party leader. From April 1977 onwards, Fenech Adami led the Nationalist opposition in a campaign of civil disobedience against the Mintoff and Mifsud Bonnici administrations of the late seventies and eighties, focusing on a message of respect for democratic principles and human rights.

Upon moving into Auberge de Castille in 1987, Fenech Adami began a policy of national reconciliation, initiating a series of political and economic reforms intended to open up the economy, reverse high unemployment and the islands' problems following sixteen years of socialist policies. His political ideology and economic policies highlighted deregulation, more flexible labour markets, the overhaul of the country's physical infrastructure and the privatisation of state-owned companies. The legal and business structures were also overhauled and trade liberalised. The communications, financial services and banking sectors were deregulated or privatised. Malta also began a period of integration with the EU, formally applying for membership in 1990.

Fenech Adami was re-elected with a modest majority in 1992; his popularity, however, wavered during his second term of office amid further economic reforms, particularly the introduction of VAT, and the re-branding of the main opposition party with a new and more dynamic leader, Alfred Sant. Losing power in 1996, Fenech Adami was returned as prime minister within twenty-two months, after the Labour government's decision to call a snap election backfired. Reversing the unpopular economic policies of the Labour Party, Fenech Adami reactivated Malta's EU membership application and initiated further economic reforms.

He successfully led the pro-EU movement in the 2003 EU membership referendum campaign and won the successive election. He signed Malta's Accession Treaty with the European Union and represented Malta in various EU Summits and Commonwealth meetings. Fenech Adami resigned as Leader of the Nationalist Party in February 2004, resigning his premiership and giving up his parliamentary seat in March 2004. He became the seventh President of Malta in April 2004.

Education and professional career
Edward (Edoardo) Fenech Adami was born in Birkirkara, British Malta, the son of Josephine Fenech Adami, née Pace, and Luigi Fenech Adami, a customs officer. The fourth boy in a family of five children, his early childhood was marked by the air raids and deprivation in Malta during the Second World War.

He began his education at St Aloysius' College in Birkirkara, continuing his studies there until sitting for his matriculation exams. He attended the Royal University of Malta, studying economics, classics, and then law. He was called to the bar in 1959, and started his career in the law courts. He was married to Mary née Sciberras, who died in 2011. The couple had five children – John, Beppe (a Nationalist MP), Michael (a Nationalist Local Councillor for Birkirkara), Maria and Luigi.

Early political career
Fenech Adami joined the Nationalist Party in the early sixties, first as a constituency official, then as president of the Administrative and General Councils, assistant secretary general, and editor of its newspaper Il-Poplu (English: The People). He contested two unsuccessful campaigns in 1962 and 1966, becoming a Member of Parliament in 1969 following a by-election for the newly vacant seat of Ġorġ Caruana. Prime Minister Borġ Olivier was instrumental in picking Fenech Adami for this co-option to Parliament.

Believing that the Borġ Olivier administration ought to seize the initiative, Fenech Adami pleaded with Borġ Olivier to reshuffle the cabinet, and call early elections in 1970 when the British were negotiating the renewal of the islands' financial and defence agreement. The Nationalist Party was returned to the Opposition in 1971, with the Party's clubs being in the islands' villages and towns being vandalised or destroyed – a trend which continued right up to the late eighties. Fenech Adami served as spokesman for the Opposition on labour relations and social services. His political frailty peaked with his agreement with Mintoff to declare a Maltese republic in 1974, without consulting the electorate; at the time, Guido de Marco called this "an unacceptable act of betrayal." Borġ Olivier's growing weakness led to a successive electoral defeat in 1976. Fenech Adami resisted strongly the Party's proposal to abolish income tax as not being credible. Ultimately, the loss of two successive elections brought about Borġ Olivier's downfall and opened up the Nationalist Party for the choice of a new leader, and modernisation. This only happened following a 1977 Opposition parliamentary group meeting in de Marco's Ħamrun home, which forced Borġ Olivier to accept a designate-leader in his stead.

Leader of the Nationalist Party
A relative newcomer to the Party, Fenech Adami contested the party leadership election against two other established MPs, Ċensu Tabone and de Marco in 1977. Fenech Adami swept the leadership contest in April 1977 with a two-thirds majority; upon his election, Fenech Adami chose to keep his two contenders in highly visible roles. Taking the lead from Borġ Olivier in 1978, Fenech Adami immediately set out to reform the Nationalist Party, adapting to the needs of a more socially aware electorate. This modernisation process attracted a new, and younger party membership.

On 15 October 1979, following hearsay about an attempt on the life of Dom Mintoff, a large group of thugs attacked and burnt down the premises and printing presses of the independent conservative newspaper, The Times of Malta.  The thugs proceeded to ransack various Nationalist Party clubs and the private residence of Fenech Adami in Birkirkara.   Fenech Adami's neighbours locked themselves in their homes as soon as they heard the commotion. Approaching her house from mass, Mary Fenech Adami was shocked at the mayhem: the front door was wide open, with ten men inside ransacking valuables and stealing heirlooms, smashing glass doors and shutters, hurling books and furniture outside onto the street. The thugs had wooden clubs, which appeared to be solid sawn-off table legs. The six rooms forming the ground floor of the Fenech Adami residence were completely wrecked. Mary Fenech Adami was attacked and slammed against a wall. Her earrings were ripped off, and she was punched on her chest and face. She was then kicked and pushed onto the street. Mary Fenech Adami, her four sons and her mother-in-law only escaped by going up to the third storey of their house and jumping onto a neighbour's house. These incidents marked an escalation of violence in the islands, and came to be known as Black Monday. The attack consolidated Fenech Adami's leadership, with a mass meeting held outside Fenech Adami's residence attracting one of the largest crowds ever, signalling the changing mood in the country.

The Nationalist Party's support grew enough to attract the majority of votes in the controversial 1981 elections, but failed to gain a majority of seats. This was caused by heavily gerrymandered districts, which ensured Labour would retain the Constitutionally required majority of seats in Parliament. The election led to years of bitter struggles against an entrenched Labour government. Fenech Adami led a successful campaign of civil disobedience, boycotting Parliament repeatedly from 1981 to 1983. An upsurge in political violence against the Nationalist Party began, with Fenech Adami pushing for democratic renewal in the nation. The Nationalist Party instructed supporters to boycott government-friendly businesses, bringing prominent Labour supporters to their knees thus forcing Labour to acknowledge the anomalous situation. In March 1983, the Nationalist opposition returned to their seats in Parliament on the basis of starting negotiations to enact constitutional amendments to prevent perverse results in future general elections.

On 30 November 1986, Nationalist Party supporters gathered on the Tal-Barrani road to walk towards Żejtun, where Fenech Adami was to address a mass meeting. This was only allowed after the Party challenged its right to do so in the Constitutional Court. The crowd found that the road to Żejtun was blocked by boulders, poles and burning tyres. A group of Labour supporters, some wearing balaclavas, began to assault the crowd. The situation precipitated with the arrival on site of the police's Special Mobile Unit, which fired tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets on the Nationalist Party supporters. Twenty-three people were injured, with many treated at an improvised emergency clinic at the Party headquarters in Tal-Pietà. This incident was followed a month later by the murder of Raymond Caruana, who was killed by a stray bullet fired through the door of a Nationalist Party club in Gudja by unknown Labour activists. In Parliament, Fenech Adami uses his allotted Budget reply to denounce the crime, and the subsequent arrest of Pietru Pawl Busuttil, who was a Nationalist Party activist framed for the murder by the police. Fenech Adami held that the Budget was irrelevant for the Maltese people, in that the defence of liberty and democracy is what the Maltese people shall vote for. The parliamentary session and Fenech Adami's speech were interrupted by animated Labour MPs, led by ministers Wistin Abela and Lorry Sant, who almost assault him.

Prime Minister (1987–1996)

Following a set of constitutional changes, the party winning an absolute majority of votes would be guaranteed a parliamentary majority. In 1987, following a two-month-long campaign and thousands of workers employed with governmental agencies, parastatal and state-owned enterprises, the Nationalist Party won the general elections with a majority of 5,000 votes.

Between 1987 and 1992, Fenech Adami ushered a major period of change in Malta. Foreign relations were expanded, with Malta starting its transition towards a modern European democracy. Under Fenech Adami, the islands steered a more pro-Western course. Malta maintained its economic and political ties with Libya, diplomatic ties it built under the socialist administration, but the friendship treaty between the two countries was renegotiated. Fenech Adami widened Malta's political distance with Gaddafi, eliminating military obligations on both sides. Fenech Adami also severed Malta's air links with Libya, and honoured the UN embargo on the country.

The country's physical infrastructure was completely overhauled, with many roads reconstructed, a new airport, reverse osmosis plants and power station built, as well as the removal of import licenses and quotas. Telecommunications, financial services and the banking sectors were deregulated or privatised. By the early nineties, Fenech Adami started to direct his economic and governmental policies to integrate Malta into the European Economic Community. This included the gradual removal of local import and customs duties. As prime minister he asked for a number of presidential pardons including one for Joseph Fenech, who was a well known criminal. The pardon was proffered on the basis of Joseph Fenech acting as a star witness in a trial for the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana, then personal assistant to prime minister Fenech Adami.

Fenech Adami was reconfirmed as Prime Minister in the February 1992 elections, with a modest majority. The gradual decrease in income taxes, and the reduction in levies on trade with EEC countries led to a worrying decrease in government revenues. In order to ensure sustainable public finances, the Nationalist government introduced a value-added tax (VAT) to counterbalance the loss in tariff income. VAT proved to be very unpopular, with the new leader of the Labour Party, Alfred Sant, riding a wave of popular dissatisfaction at the pace and depth of the reforms intended to allow Malta to join the European Union. Disgruntled businesses, vocal minority groups (such as hunters and trappers) and the newly found dynamism of the Labour Party led to the loss of the 1996 general elections, with the Nationalist Party gaining only 47.8% of cast votes.

Leader of the Opposition (1996–1998)
Between 1996 and 1998, Fenech Adami served as Leader of the Opposition. The Labour government held a one-seat majority, which led to a period of severe political instability. Labour introduced several economic policies, fulfilling its pledge to remove VAT by replacing it with a complex customs and excise tax system (CET), the introduction of further taxes to counter the shortfall in revenues, and increased utility bills. The delicate situation, which saw the resignation of the finance minister, and other prominent members of the party and government, was further complicated with the actions of Dom Mintoff.

The latter, who was a backbencher in the Sant government, rose against his own government. Unable to contain Mintoff's protests against the austere 1997 Budget, and a waterfront redevelopment project in Cottonera, the Labour government called snap elections. Fenech Adami reclaimed the floating vote, winning a 13,000 vote majority, with his Party returned to office in September 1998.

Prime Minister (1998–2004)

Malta's European Union application, which was put on hold by the previous Labour government, was reactivated and negotiations were concluded by December 2002. Fenech Adami successfully led the pro-EU movement in the 2003 EU membership referendum campaign, and won the successive election. He signed Malta's Accession Treaty with the European Union on 16 April 2003, and represented Malta in various EU Summits and Commonwealth meetings. In December 2003, he received the European of the Year 2003 Award from the influential Brussels-based newspaper European Voice in recognition of his unfaltering efforts to bring Malta into the European Union. Fenech Adami resigned as Leader of the Nationalist Party in February 2004, resigning his premiership and giving up his parliamentary seat on 23 March 2004, thus becoming the longest serving Prime Minister since Malta's independence.

President of Malta
Following his resignation as Prime Minister, Fenech Adami was appointed President of Malta on 4 April 2004. He served a five-year term, leaving office on 4 April 2009, when he was succeeded by George Abela.

Maltese honours

 * MLT_National_Order_of_Merit_BAR.svg Companion of Honour of the National Order of Merit (1990) by right as a Prime Minister, later President of Malta

Foreign honours

 * PRT_Order_of_Prince_Henry_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png Grand-Cross of the Order of Prince Henry, Portugal (09.11.1994)
 * LVA_Order_of_the_Three_Stars_-_Knight_BAR.png Commander Grand-Cross of the Order of the Three Stars, Latvia (2004)
 * Order of the Star of Romania - Ribbon bar.svg Grand Cross with Chain of the Order of the Star of Romania (2004)
 * ITA_OMRI_2001_GC-GCord_BAR.svg Knight Grand-Cross with Grand Cordon of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (2005)
 * Order_of_the_Bath_(ribbon).svg Honorary Knight Grand-Cross of the Order of the Bath, United Kingdom (2005)
 * Ribbon_of_an_order_of_king_Tomislav.png Knight Grand-Cross of the Grand Order of King Tomislav, Croatia (2006)
 * HUN Order of Merit of the Hungarian Rep 1class Collar BAR.svg Grand Cross with Chain of the Order of Merit of Hungary (2007)
 * PRT_Order_of_Prince_Henry_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png Grand-Collar of the Order of Prince Henry, Portugal (11.12.2008)
 * POL_Order_Or%C5%82a_Bia%C5%82ego_BAR.svg Knight of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland (2009)
 * Legion_Honneur_Commandeur_ribbon.svg Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, France (2010)

Other
Fenech Adami is an Honorary Member of the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation.

title: Eddie Fenech Adami