text:
Joe Adonis

Joseph Anthony Doto (born Giuseppe Antonio Doto, ; November 22, 1902 – November 26, 1971), known as Joe Adonis, was an Italian-American mobster who was an important participant in the formation of the modern Cosa Nostra crime families in New York City and the National Crime Syndicate. Doto became a powerful caporegime in the Luciano crime family.

Early life
Adonis was born Giuseppe Antonio Doto on November 22, 1902, in the small town of Montemarano, Province of Avellino, Italy, to Michele Doto and Maria De Vito. He had three brothers, Antonio, Ettore and Genesio Doto.

In 1909, Adonis and his family immigrated to the United States, in New York City. As a young man, Adonis supported himself by stealing and picking pockets. While working on the streets, Adonis became friends with future mob boss Charles "Lucky" Luciano and mobster Settimo Accardi, who were involved in illegal gambling. Adonis developed a loyalty to Luciano that lasted for decades.

At the beginning of Prohibition, Luciano, Adonis, Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel started a bootlegging operation in Brooklyn. This operation soon began supplying large amounts of alcohol to the show business community along Broadway in Manhattan. Doto soon assumed the role of a gentleman bootlegger, socializing with the theater elite.

In the early 1920s, Doto started calling himself "Joe Adonis" (Adonis was the Greek god of beauty and desire). It is uncertain as to what inspired his nickname. One story states that Adonis received this nickname from a Ziegfeld Follies chorus girl who was dating him. Another story says that Adonis adopted the name after reading a magazine article on Greek mythology.

Extremely vain, Adonis spent a great deal of time in personal grooming. On one occasion, Lucky Luciano saw Adonis combing his thick, dark hair in front of a mirror and asked him, "Who do you think you are, Rudolph Valentino?" Adonis replied, "For looks, that guy's a bum!". Adonis was a cousin of Luciano crime family capo Alan Bono, who supervised Adonis's operations in Greenwich Village, Manhattan.

Adonis married Jean Montemorano, and he had four children; Joseph Michael Doto, Jr., Maria Dolores Olmo, Ann Marie Arietta, and Elizabeth Doto. His son Joseph Doto, Jr., became a made member of the Genovese family and operated criminal rackets in Bergen county, New Jersey.

Castellammarese War
In the 1920s, Adonis became an enforcer for Frankie Yale, the boss of some rackets in Brooklyn. While working for Yale, Adonis briefly met future Chicago Outfit boss Al Capone, who was also working for Yale. Meanwhile, Luciano became an enforcer for Giuseppe "Joe the Boss" Masseria.

Masseria soon became embroiled in the vicious Castellammarese War with his archrival, Salvatore Maranzano. Maranzano represented the Sicilian clans, most of which came from Castellammare del Golfo, Sicily. As the war progressed, both bosses started recruiting more soldiers. By 1930, Adonis had joined the Masseria faction. As the war turned against Masseria, Luciano secretly contacted Maranzano about switching sides. When Masseria heard about Luciano's betrayal, he approached Adonis about killing Luciano. However, Adonis instead warned Luciano about the murder plot.

On April 15, 1931, Adonis allegedly participated in Masseria's murder. Luciano had lured Masseria to a meeting at a Coney Island, Brooklyn, restaurant. During the meal, Luciano excused himself to go to the restroom. As soon as Luciano was gone, Adonis, Vito Genovese, Albert Anastasia, and Bugsy Siegel rushed into the dining room and shot Masseria to death. No one was ever indicted in the Masseria murder.

With the death of Masseria, the war ended, and Maranzano was the victor. To avoid any future wars, Maranzano reorganized all the Italian American gangs into the Five Families and anointed himself as capo di tutti capi ("boss of all bosses"). Luciano and his loyalists quickly became dissatisfied with Maranzano's power grab. When Luciano discovered that the suspicious Maranzano had ordered his murder, Luciano struck first. On September 10, 1931, several gunmen attacked and killed Maranzano in his Manhattan office.

Criminal empire
Adonis and Luciano soon controlled bootlegging in Broadway and Midtown Manhattan. At its height, the operation grossed $12 million in one year and employed 100 workers. Adonis also bought car dealerships in New Jersey. When customers bought cars from his dealerships, the salesmen would intimidate them into buying "protection insurance" for the vehicle. Adonis soon moved into cigarette distribution, buying up vending machines by the hundreds and stocking them with stolen cigarettes. Adonis ran his criminal empire from Joe's Italian Kitchen, a restaurant that he owned in Brooklyn. By 1932, Adonis was also a major criminal power in Brooklyn. Despite his wealth, Adonis still participated in jewelry robberies, a throwback to his early criminal career on the streets.

In 1932, Adonis allegedly participated in the kidnapping and brutal beating in Brooklyn of Isidore Juffe and Issac Wapinsky. In 1931, Adonis had lent the two men money for investment and kidnapped them in 1932 after deciding that he should be receiving a higher profit. Two days after the kidnappings, Adonis released Juffe and Wapinsky after receiving a $5,000 ransom payment. A month later, Wapinsky died of internal injuries from being assaulted.

Adonis placed many politicians and high-ranking police officers on his payroll. Adonis used his political influence to assist members of the Luciano crime family, such as Luciano and Genovese, and mob associates such as Meyer Lansky and Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, the head of Murder, Inc.

As a syndicate board member, Adonis, along with Buchalter, may have been responsible for assigning some murder contracts to Murder Inc.

Government scrutiny
In 1936, prosecutors convicted Luciano on pandering charges and sent him to state prison for 30 years. Underboss Vito Genovese remained in charge of the family until he fled to Italy in 1937 to avoid a murder prosecution. Luciano now left Frank Costello, an Adonis ally, in charge of the Luciano family and Adonis in charge of the Syndicate.

On April 27, 1940, Adonis was indicted in Brooklyn on charges of kidnapping, extortion, and assault in the 1932 Juffe/Wapinsky case. However, on February 24, 1941, the prosecutor requested a dismissal for lack of evidence.

In the 1940s, Adonis moved his gambling rackets to New Jersey. New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's campaign against illegal gambling had made it too difficult to do business in New York. Adonis also moved his family to a luxurious house in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Adonis set up a casino in Lodi, New Jersey, and provided limousine service there from New York City. During the same period, Adonis became partners with Meyer Lansky in an illegal casino in Hallandale Beach, Florida.

On February 10, 1946, after being escorted from prison to a ship in Brooklyn harbor, Luciano was deported to Italy. In December 1946, Adonis and Luciano met at the famous Havana Conference of US organized crime bosses in Cuba. It was Luciano's goal at the conference to regain his mob influence, using Cuba as a base. Being a loyal supporter, Adonis willingly agreed to turn over his power in the syndicate to Luciano. However, the US government soon discovered Luciano's presence in Havana and pressured the Cuban government to expel him. On February 24, 1947, Luciano was placed on a ship by Cuban authorities for deportation back to Italy.

On December 12, 1950, Adonis was summoned before the US Senate Kefauver Commission on organized crime. Adonis repeatedly refused to testify, citing his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although Adonis escaped contempt charges, he suffered undesirable national exposure as a mobster.

In late May 1951, Adonis and several associates pleaded no contest to charges of operating three gambling rooms in Lodi, New Jersey, and Fort Lee, New Jersey. On May 28, 1951, Adonis was sentenced in Hackensack, New Jersey, to two to three years in state prison.

Deportation and death
On August 6, 1953, at a hearing in Adonis's prison, the US Department of Justice ordered Adonis's deportation to Italy. The government claimed that Adonis was an illegal alien. Adonis fought deportation, claiming that he was a native-born American citizen. On August 9, 1953, Adonis was released from prison in New Jersey.

On January 3, 1956, Adonis voluntarily left New York City on an ocean liner for Naples, Italy. His wife and children stayed behind in New Jersey.

Once in Italy, Adonis moved into a luxurious apartment in the center of Milan. Adonis may have met with Luciano in Naples, but there is no proof of it. Over time, the financially struggling Luciano grew angry at the wealthy Adonis for not helping him. On January 26, 1962, Luciano died of a heart attack in Naples at age 64. Adonis attended the funeral service in Naples, bringing a huge floral wreath with the words, "So Long, Pal".

In June 1971, the Italian government forced Adonis to leave his Milan residence and move to Serra de' Conti, a small town near the Adriatic Sea. Adonis was one of 115 suspected mobsters relocated to Serra de' Conti after the assassination in May of Pietro Scaglione, the public prosecutor of Palermo, Sicily. In late November 1971, Italian police forces transported Adonis to a small hillside shack near Ancona, Italy, for interrogation. During the lengthy questioning and some abusive treatment, Adonis suffered a heart attack. He was taken to a regional hospital in Ancona, where he died several days later on November 26, 1971.

Burial
The U.S. government allowed Adonis's family to bring his body back to the United States for burial. Adonis' funeral Mass was held at the Church of the Epiphany in Cliffside Park, New Jersey, attended only by his immediate family. He is buried in Madonna Cemetery in Fort Lee, New Jersey under his family name of Joseph Antonio Doto.

In popular culture

 * Adonis is mentioned in The Valachi Papers (1972), starring Charles Bronson.
 * Adonis is portrayed by James Purcell in the film Gangster Wars (1981) and in 1981 TV Series The Gangster Chronicles.
 * In Bugsy (1991), Adonis is portrayed by Lewis Van Bergen.
 * Adonis is portrayed in the television movie Lansky (1999) by Sal Landi, and Casey McFadden as Young Adonis.
 * Adonis is featured in the television documentary series American Justice, which aired on A&E, and The Making of the Mob: New York (2015), which aired on AMC.

title: Joe Adonis


text:
Luitgard (Frankish queen)

Luitgard (born around 776, died 4 June 800) was the last wife of Charlemagne.

Luitgard was the daughter of Luitfrid II of Sundgau, an Alamannian count, and Hiltrude of Wormsgau. She married Charlemagne in 794, when he was around 50 years old.

Little is known of her, except that the king found in her a calm and virtuous woman; at court, she was even appreciated by his children. Alcuin praises Luitgarde's love of letters: of her he says, “The queen loves to converse with learned and learned men; after his devotional exercises, it is his dearest pastime. She is full of complaisance for the king, pious, blameless and worthy of all the love of such a husband." She also accompanied Charlemagne on the great hunt each year.

Luitgard died of an unknown illness on 4 June 800 at the monastery of Saint-Martin de Tours, during a tour with Charlemagne in Neustria, preceding his trip to Rome where, just over six months later, he was crowned Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans"). She was buried there, and although the location of her tomb is not precisely known, reportedly it is under the Charlemagne Tower associated with Basilica of Saint Martin, Tours. She and Charlemagne had no children, and he did not remarry again.

According to 15th century chronicles from Oxford University, Luitgard had a sister, Redburga/Redburh, who met Ecgberht, later to be King of Wessex, while he was exiled in West Francia by Beorhtric of Wessex and Offa of Mercia; the two later married.

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

title: Luitgard (Frankish queen)


text:
User:Dan83

Yo dude - Grant

title: User:Dan83


text:
Congregational Holiness Church

The Congregational Holiness Church is a Holiness Pentecostal Christian denomination that was formed in 1921.

History
The Congregational Holiness Church shares the early history of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, from which it withdrew. In 1920 a schism came into the Pentecostal Holiness Church over the relation of divine healing and the use of medicine. Some pastors believed Christians had the right to use medicine and doctors, while the majority of the church believed in trusting God for healing without the use of medicine and doctors. The minority withdrew and formed the Congregational Holiness Church. Led by Reverends Watson Sorrow and Hugh Bowling, a delegation from 12 churches met on January 29, 1921 at the church in High Shoals, Georgia to organize. The church was chartered in 1925 as the Southeastern Association of the Congregational Holiness Church and changed in 1965 to the Congregational Holiness Church, Inc..

The early leaders of the CHC attempted to democratize church government, preferring congregational rule over the Pentecostal Holiness Church's episcopal polity. In its beginning, the church had no officially elected leaders, and a General Conference was held every two years. In 1935, the structure of the denomination was changed. The church was divided into three districts, and in 1938 the office of General Superintendent was added. Foreign mission work began in the early 1950s.

Recent history
Offices are located in Griffin, Georgia. In addition to the United States, the Congregational Holiness Church has congregations in 34 countries including, but not limited to the following continents: Africa, Asia, North America, and South America. The Church now has eight districts: North Alabama, South Alabama, East Carolina, West Carolina, Central Georgia, North Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and a Hispanic Conference. USA Membership in 2013 was an estimated 29,000 in 275 churches. Partnership with the larger Pentecostal and evangelical communities is maintained through membership in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Pentecostal World Fellowship.

Beliefs
Those who organized the new church believed that, although divine healing was a part of Christ's atonement, God had given the gift of medicine to mankind as well. Otherwise, the faith and practice of the Congregational Holiness Church is quite similar to the parent body. Doctrine includes belief in the Trinity; the inspiration of the Scriptures; the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues; the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ; the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and His imminent, personal, premillennial second coming. They hold three church ordinances, water baptism, the Lord's supper, and feet washing, as well as the operation of nine gifts of the Spirit.

Articles of faith

 * There is but One Living and True God, the Great Creator, and there are three persons in the Godhead. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.   Genesis 1:1-27; Matthew 28:19; I John 5:7.
 * We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired Word of God. II Timothy 3:16; II Peter 1:20-21.
 * We believe we are justified when we repent of our sins, and believe in Jesus Christ. Mark 1:15; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 5:1.
 * We believe Sanctification to be a definite work of Grace, subsequent to Salvation. John 15:2; 17:16-17; Ephesians 5:25-27; I John 1:9.
 * We believe in the baptism with the Holy Ghost, and speaking with other tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance to be the initiatory evidence of this experience. Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6.
 * We believe in divine healing for the body. Acts 3:2-12; 9:32-43; 5:15-16; James 5:14. We do not condemn medical science.
 * We believe every blessing we receive from God including Divine healing, comes through the merits of the atonement. Romans 5:11; James 1:16-17.
 * We believe in the operation of the nine gifts of the Spirit and encourage our people to so live that these gifts may be manifested in their lives. I Corinthians 12:1-12.
 * We believe in the imminent rapture of the church, and the personal, pre-millennial Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 1:10-11; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 1:7.
 * We, as a church, believe in the eternal redemption of all saints who are faithful to the end. Matthew 24:13; Revelation 2:10. But we reject the theory of "Once in grace always in grace" regardless of conduct. I Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 5:4.
 * We believe all who die out of Christ will be punished eternally, but those who die in Him shall share His glory forever. Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:46; John 5:29; Jude 7.
 * We believe the Bride of Christ is composed of the entire Spiritual Church. I Corinthians 12:25; II Corinthians 11:2; Galatians 3:28-29; Ephesians 4:16; 5:23-33; Revelation 19:7-8.
 * We believe in the sacredness of marriage between one man and one woman. We promote commitment to strong family values. Ephesians 5:31-33; 6:1-4; Hebrews 13:4; Matthew 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 2:24.
 * We require all our ministers to speak the same thing, and that there be no division among us in doctrine concerning our Articles of Faith. I Corinthians 1:10.

Structure
The CHC’s form of government is congregational. The highest governing body is the General Conference, which meets every four years. The General Conference elects the General Superintendent, which along with two Assistant General Superintendents, General Secretary, General Treasurer, and World Missions Superintendent. The following full-time officers, General Superintendent, World Missions Superintendent, and the appointed Mission USA Administrator, manage the day-to-day operations of the church. The nine districts elect five member presbyteries. The presbyters along with the general church officers form the General Committee. This committee handles the major business of the church between General Conferences.

title: Congregational Holiness Church


text:
Túpac Katari

Túpac Katari or Catari (also Túpaj Katari) (c. 1750 – November 13, 1781), born Julián Apasa Nina, was the indigenous Aymara leader of a major insurrection in colonial-era Upper Peru (now Bolivia), laying siege to La Paz for six months. His wife Bartolina Sisa and his sister Gregoria Apaza participated in the rebellion by his side. The rebellion was ultimately put down by Spanish loyalists and Katari was executed by quartering.

Biography
Katari was born Julián Apasa in the jurisdiction of Sicasica and later moved to the nearby town of Ayoayo. He was born a peasant and worked as a trader of coca and baize.

A member of the Aymara, Apasa took the name "Tupac Katari" to honor two earlier rebel leaders: Tomás Katari, and Túpac Amaru, executed by the Spanish in 1572. Katari's uprising was simultaneous with the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II, whose cacique leader claimed to be a descendant of the earlier Túpac Amaru. Túpac Katari had no traditional claim to leadership similar to that of Túpac Amaru II, which may well have prompted Katari to associate himself with earlier leaders. Katari claimed authority from Túpac Amaru and proclaimed himself viceroy of the region. (Katari means "serpent, large snake" in Aymara; Amaru means the same in Quechua, the language of Tupac Amaru. Tupac means "brilliant, resplendent" in both languages.)

He raised an army of some 40,000 and laid siege to the city of La Paz in 1781. Katari and his wife Bartolina Sisa set up court in El Alto and maintained the siege from March to June and from August to October. Sisa was a commander of the siege, and played the crucial role following Katari's capture in April. The siege was broken by the Spanish colonial troops who advanced from Lima and Buenos Aires. During the siege, 20,000 people died.

Katari laid siege again later in the year, this time joined by Andrés Túpac Amaru, nephew of Túpac Amaru II, but Katari lacked adequate forces to be successful.

By August 5th, Túpac Katari and his forces had besieged the city, and a few weeks later they were joined by forces led by Andrés Túpac Amaru. In mid-September, another cousin of the Inca rebel leader, Miguel Bastidas Túpac Amaru, arrived to help prosecute the siege before it was finally broken by Spanish loyalists led by Josef Reseguín on October 17, 1781. As the royalist noose tightened, Túpac Katari was captured and was executed on November 13. Diego Cristóbal Túpac Amaru was captured at Marcapata in Quispicanchis on March 15, 1782. Having no alternatives to survive, Miguel Bastidas Túpac Amaru obtained a pardon by assisting the Spanish in suppressing what was left of the rebellion.

Katari had a reputation as a fierce and often violent leader. Other leaders in the rebel camps testified to his "homicides and enormous violence"; he was known not only for violence toward his enemies but also those who fought on his side, executing people for having "spoken against him, stolen his property, acted in an overweening fashion, challenged his authority, or humiliated him".

On his death on November 15, 1781, Katari's final words were, according to oral tradition, "Nayawa jiwtxa nayjarusti waranqa waranqanakawa kutanipxa." This is translated from Aymara as "I die but will return tomorrow as thousand thousands".

Rebellion
As part of the uprising, Túpac Katari formed an army of forty thousand men and surrounded twice for a time, in 1781 the Spanish city of La Paz. The two attempts, however, ended in failure due to political and military maneuvers by the Spanish, as well as alliances with indigenous leaders against Túpac Katari. Eventually all the leaders of the rebellion were arrested and executed, including Túpac Katari's wife, Bartolina Sisa, and his sister, Gregoria Apaza.

This indigenous uprising at the end of the 18th century was the largest geographically and with the most support. It took the affected viceroyalties two years to suffocate it.

The rebels besieged the city of La Paz from March 13, 1781, for one hundred and nine days without success, due to resistance and the support of troops sent from Buenos Aires. In this context, Viceroy Agustín de Jáuregui took advantage of the low morale of the rebels to offer amnesty to those who surrendered, which gave many fruits, including some leaders of the movement. Túpac Katari, who had not accepted the amnesty and went to Achacachi to reorganize his dispersed forces, was betrayed by some of his followers and was captured by the Spanish on the night of November 9, 1781.

During the second siege, Andrés Túpac Amaru, a nephew of Túpac Amaru II and romantically linked to Gregoria Apaza, Túpac Katari's younger sister, joined the Tupac Katari rebels.

As a moral reward for the efforts and sacrifices that the Spanish of the city of La Paz had to endure, through the royal decree of May 20, 1784, the city of La Paz was awarded the title of "noble, courageous and faithful" (faithful to the king of Spain, it is understood).

Legacy
For his effort, his betrayal, defeat, torture and brutal execution, Túpac Katari is remembered as a hero by modern indigenous movements in Bolivia, who call their political philosophy Katarismo. A Bolivian guerrilla group, the Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army, also bears his name.

In Bolivia, on July 15, 2005, former President Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze declared (through Law No. 3102) "National Aymara Hero and Heroine to Julián Apaza and Bartolina Sisa."

In Argentina, as part of the Bicentennial celebrations, a Gallery of South American Patriots was inaugurated on May 25, 2010, in which Bolivia is represented by portraits of Túpac Katari, Pedro Domingo Murillo and Bartolina Sisa. The pictorial sample is located in the so-called "Hall of the Bicentennial Heroes", in the Casa Rosada.

The first Bolivian telecommunications satellite, Túpac Katari 1, whose purpose is to support educational initiatives and maintain state security, bears his name.

Since 2019, his appearance has been incorporated into the new design of the 200 Bolivian banknote.

title: Túpac Katari


text:
Talk:Tobin tax

{| width=100% cellspacing=10 style="background:none;" ! style="border:1px solid #bfd7ff; background-color:#e1edff; padding:0.2em 0.4em; font-size:100%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; "|

Untitled
In addition to the above key Wikipedia policies, you may find the following Wikipedia guidelines particularly useful in this controversial article:

Controversial articles, Criticism, Avoid thread mode, Pro and con lists, Words to avoid, Avoid weasel words
 * }
 * }

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tobin tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120123144102/http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/ecojustice/news-list/news/archive/2010/04/browse/1/article/an-idea-whose-time-has-come-adopt-a-financial-transactions-tax/?tx_ttnews to http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/ecojustice/news-list/news/archive/2010/04/browse/1/article/an-idea-whose-time-has-come-adopt-a-financial-transactions-tax/?tx_ttnews
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028003917/http://www.ronpaullibrary.org:80/document.php?id=451 to http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=451

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tobin tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512094546/http://www.europolitics.info/economy-monetary-affairs/lowering-contributions-possible-even-under-enhanced-cooperation-art342321-30.html to http://www.europolitics.info/economy-monetary-affairs/lowering-contributions-possible-even-under-enhanced-cooperation-art342321-30.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920065633/http://www.ifri.org/files/policy_briefs/policy_2_fougier_ang.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/files/policy_briefs/policy_2_fougier_ang.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622005912/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8184/ to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8184/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tobin tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414015049/http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/soros.html to http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/soros.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091206100227/http://www.newint.org/issue320/tobin.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue320/tobin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127163524/http://robinhoodtax.org/latest/robin-hood-gets-go-ahead-europe to http://robinhoodtax.org/latest/robin-hood-gets-go-ahead-europe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327092433/http://www.bportugal.pt/publish/bolecon/docs/2003_2_3_e.pdf to http://www.bportugal.pt/publish/bolecon/docs/2003_2_3_e.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tobin tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.vita.it/news/view/3853
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220065121/http://www.oxera.com/main.aspx?id=5938 to http://www.oxera.com/main.aspx?id=5938

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

is there an echo in here

 * Even though the tax on fixed-income securities was much lower than that on equities, the impact on market trading was much more dramatic. During the first week of the tax, the volume of bond trading fell by 85%, even though the tax rate on five-year bonds was only 0.003%. The volume of futures trading fell by 98% and the options trading market disappeared. On 15 April 1990, the tax on fixed-income securities was abolished. In January 1991 the rates on the remaining taxes were cut in half and by the end of the year they were abolished completely.  Once the taxes were eliminated, trading volumes returned and grew substantially in the 1990s.

This passage is repeated verbatim, except that one of the two adds … and 2000s and a footnote. In case anyone hadn't noticed. —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tobin tax


text:
Surplus

Surplus may refer to:

 * Economic surplus, one of various supplementary values
 * Excess supply, a situation in which the quantity of a good or service supplied is more than the quantity demanded, and the price is above the equilibrium level determined by supply and demand
 * Surplus: Terrorized into Being Consumers, a documentary film
 * Surplus value, surplus labour, surplus product in Marxian economics
 * "The Surplus", a 2008 episode of The Office
 * Surplus (graph theory)

title: Surplus


text:
Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora

The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora is a set of environmental protection measures which were accepted at the third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Brussels in 1964. The Agreed Measures were formally in force as part of the Antarctic Treaty System from 1982 to 2011, when they were withdrawn as the principles were now entirely superseded by later agreements such as the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Agreed Measures were adopted in order to further international collaboration within the administration of the Antarctic Treaty System and promote the protection of natural Antarctic ecological systems while enabling scientific study and exploration.

The Agreed Measures were the first attempts under the Treaty to prioritise wildlife conservation and environmental protection. This was needed due to increasing human interest in exploration, science, and fishing, which had put pressure on natural flora and fauna. They proved successful, and led the way for more stringent environmental protection in future.

History
Antarctic interests in the late 1940s were increasing, with nations fighting over territory in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Fear of open conflict from these nations, as well as fear of Antarctica becoming involved in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, led to the first discussions of Antarctic diplomacy and treaties. This led to the negotiations of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 in which the International Geophysical Year Antarctic Program met to discuss scientific papers from 12 participating nations, regarding Antarctic science and research. The 12 nations in attendance were also members of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) which was founded one year prior in 1958. SCAR was formulated as an international association of biologists and other scientists interested in Antarctic research, and included Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, and USSR. The formation of SCAR and the Antarctic Treaty enabled scientists to advocate for conservation efforts and policy in Antarctica, leading to the first discussions of establishing the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.

The International Geophysical Year Antarctic Program was the beginning of concerns for Antarctic wildlife, as the geophysical scientists' efforts to explore Antarctica proved to be inadvertently harming Antarctic flora and fauna. Biologists were calling for awareness that Antarctica was not a lifeless tundra, but in fact had wildlife that was extremely vulnerable to human interference. SCAR secretary Gordon Robin published a paper for fellow scientist Robert Carrick in the SCAR Bulletin to bring further awareness to the requirement of conservation in Antarctica. Carrick, along with other prominent scientists, William J. L. Sladen, Robert Falla, Carl Eklund, Jean Prevost and Robert Cushman Murphy to name a few, were among the loudest contributors to SCAR's position of conservation.

As these scientists had all specialised in the area of birds, their first action towards Antarctic conservation occurred at the 1960 International Council for Bird Preservation in which they called specifically for protection of Antarctic birds. After this, SCAR continued to have a large voice in advocating Antarctic conservation, with Robert Carrick speaking at the Fourth SCAR meeting in 1960 to address specific reasons why conservation was necessary as well as providing recommendations for legislation. Following these meetings, SCAR supplied the parties of the Antarctic Treaty with their report, and it was from there that the first talks of the Agreed Measures began amongst Antarctic Treaty System members.

Negotiations
In January 1960, the U.S. representative for the Antarctic Treaty, Paul Daniels, asked that conservation be formally discussed at the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. After this, US participation declined, and the British government was the only strong advocate for conservation. Brian Roberts from the Foreign Office began calling for a separate Convention for Antarctic conservation. At the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at Canberra in 1961, parties agreed that some form of conservation effort was required, and implemented Recommendation I-VIII; a very broad set of interim guidelines which incorporated much of the SCAR report. Following this meeting, Roberts continued pushing for a formal agreement and drafted a full Convention to present to the other parties. On 6 June 1963 all the parties convened to discuss three position papers for conservation: the British draft, and the responses to said draft by Chile and the Soviet Union. In September 1963, the US representatives released their own draft titled the "Agreed Measures" rather than a Convention, and incorporated the preamble from the Soviets and much of the British draft with small changes in specific terminology. The US argued that a Measures would be better than a separate Convention as the Measures would fall under the authority of the Antarctic Treaty and share the same administrations.

At the third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at Brussels in June 1964, the Agreed Measures were passed as Recommendation VIII. Despite this, it took 18 years before they were effective in 1982 after Japan was the final country to sign them. The 12 countries required to sign for the measures to be effective, were the same 12 who had formulated SCAR; Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union. During the 18 years interim, parties behaved as though the measures were in force, with all of Antarctica being considered a "Special Conservation Area".

Summary of the Agreed Measures
The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora consisted of fourteen articles, of which four were simply formalities. The Measures applied to land areas south of latitude 60°S which fell under the jurisdiction of the Antarctic Treaty. In Article I it was explicitly stated that this was with the exception of high seas areas which remain under international law. The first article also included provisions to ensure all Annexes to the Agreed Measures were considered a part of the measures themselves. A participating government could only be exempt from these Measures in "extreme circumstances", such as involving the potential loss of human life or an event which may jeopardise the welfare of large vessels such as ships and aircraft. The Agreed Measures strictly prohibited attempted killing, harming, or capturing of native mammals or birds without permit in Article VI, and in Article VIII it prohibited driving of vehicles and collecting native flora without permit. In both cases, a permit would only be supplied with "compelling scientific purpose" and assurance that ecology would not be endangered by these actions. The permits for these activities had specific terms and were only provided to a participating government in the case of limited food quantities for humans or dogs, for scientific research or to provide specimens for education. Article VI also instructed that permits had to be restricted in number by participating governments to ensure that native species were not killed more than can be compensated naturally in the year.

The Agreed Measures also set out to prevent harmful interference of native conditions in Article VII, and provided a detailed list of activities deemed harmful. These activities included eliciting loud sounds near wildlife, flying aircraft too close to wildlife, allowing dogs to run free, and excessive human disturbance during breeding periods. Article VI also stated that participating governments must take appropriate actions to prevent pollution of waters. Most notably, the Agreed Measures designated all applied areas as "Specially Protected Areas" in Article VIII, to emphasise the vulnerability of native Antarctic flora and fauna. In addition, the introduction of non-indigenous flora and fauna was prohibited in Article IX unless supported by a permit and was a species approved by Annex C. This did not include flora and fauna imported for the use of food, as long as it did not threaten Antarctic ecosystems. This section also highlighted the role of each participating government in preventing introduction of disease, with Annex D citing a list of precautions to prevent this. The Agreed Measures also established a framework for participating governments to communicate and share data on native Antarctic bird and mammal species in Article XII. This included information on how many numbers of each species had been killed or captured annually under a permit for use as food, or scientific study. This communication ensured transparency and allowed participating governments to determine the level of protection each native species required to protect and preserve Antarctic flora and fauna.

Ratification
The convention was ratified both by members whose ratification was required for entry into force as by others. A list is shown:

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, only covered land areas south of latitude 60°S, and thus there was no measure in place for protection on the sea or floating ice. This was despite the efforts of Robert Carrick and the Australian party, who advocated strongly for this to be included in the Agreed Measures, to protect animals who spend most of their lives on pack ice or in the seas surrounding Antarctica. This issue was rectified by the signing of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals in 1972, and was the first treaty in the wake of the Agreed Measures.

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
In 1975 at the Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, they adopted Recommendation VIII-10 to protect marine life, which were excluded from the scope of the Agreed Measures. This issue had become increasingly urgent due to extensive fishing practices and overfishing of Antarctic krill which had become popular in the late 1960s to mid-1970s. In 1978 they held a Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources which resulted in the signing of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in 1980. This was the world's first conservation agreement which protected the ecosystem (marine life) rather than an individual species such as seals.

Bilateral Treaties
Many updated measures were put in to place addressing similar issues of the Agreed Measures at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings such as Article 3.2 and The Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Protocol, otherwise known as the "Madrid Protocol" was set into effect in 1998, and prohibited mining or mineral resource activity in Antarctica. Article 3.2 is similar to the Agreed Measures as it prevents harm to natural Antarctic wildlife. Annex II also relates to the Agreed Measures by banning harmful interference and introduction of parasites or foreign species without permit as well as defining Specially Protected Areas and Species. Annex V of the Environmental Protocol followed that of the Agreed Measures, by designating "Specially Protected Areas" in Antarctica, and was adopted separately in 1991 and in force from 2002 onwards. In contrast to the Agreed Measures, Annex V also designated marine areas to be included within the scope of "Antarctic Specially Protected Areas". In fact, Annex V added several different layers of protection for Antarctic land areas, by introducing "Antarctic Specially Protected Areas", "Antarctic Specially Managed Areas" and "Historic Sites and Monuments". As with the Agreed Measures, "Antarctic Specially Protected Areas", was defined by Annex V of the Environmental Protocol as an area protected to maintain ecological, scientific, historic and aesthetic features and requires a permit to enter. "Antarctic Specially Managed Area" was defined as an area in which activities may be conducted and does not require a permit to enter, however parties must continue to minimise their ecological impact and avoid conflicts between participating governments. Lastly, Antarctic "Historic Sites and Monuments" were defined as areas of significant historic relevance and can be proposed by any participating government.

The Agreed Measures also focused significantly on prohibiting harmful human interference, and since then several other treaties were adopted to manage human disturbance. This includes the 1994 Recommendation XVIII-1: Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic as well as the 2004 Guidelines for the Operation of Aircraft Near Concentrations of Birds in Antarctica. Recommendation XVIII-1 provided the main regulations for tourists and expeditions to the Antarctic and required report submissions for their visits. The Recommendation explicitly stated prohibited activities for tourists in order to prevent harmful interference with wildlife, as well as guidelines for respecting protected areas, and scientific research facilities and equipment. The guidelines also included provisions to prevent human waste, pollution and defacement of property including engraving or painting on natural rocks. The Guidelines for the Operation of Aircraft Near Concentrations of Birds in Antarctica followed the legislation provided by the Agreed Measures in terms of prohibiting aircraft near natural wildlife to prevent disruption. The Guidelines were adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties in 2004, and listed specific regulations to protect wildlife by discouraging aircraft from flying below 610 m above ground level, landing within 930 m of bird colonies, hovering or making repeated passes over wildlife and flying less than 460 m from the coastline.


text:
JRA

JRA is a three-letter abbreviation for:

 * Japan Racing Association - horse-racing
 * Japanese Red Army
 * Jeff Reine-Adélaïde, French footballer
 * Jewish Relief Agency
 * Joint Replacement Aircraft
 * Johannesburg Roads Agency, South African based road agency
 * The Journal of Roman Archaeology
 * Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis
 * Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration
 * Juvenile Restoration Act
 * Jamtland Republican Army - the name of the independence movement of the Republic of Jamtland

title: JRA


text:
AIIB (disambiguation)

AIIB may refer to:
 * Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a development bank for the Asia-Pacific region
 * Japanese Red Army, also known as the Anti-Imperialist International Brigade
 * Quorum-quenching N-acyl-homoserine lactonase, an enzyme also known as AiiB

title: AIIB (disambiguation)


text:
Shall the Dust Praise Thee?

"Shall the Dust Praise Thee?" is a science fiction short story by American writer Damon Knight. It was first published in the anthology Dangerous Visions (1967). His agent refused to publish it and suggested the Atheist Journal in Moscow might buy it, but no one else would. The title comes from Psalm 30:9 in the Bible.

Summary
God arrives on Earth, ready to inflict the Day of Wrath on humankind, but finds that all life has already disappeared. The angels tell God that there has been a great war between England, Russia, China, and America which has wiped out all life on earth, and that the true end of days had already occurred through nuclear warfare. No living creatures, no water, no grass, nothing but dust and brittle stone remain on the world. All that remains of humanity is the phrase left by the last humans as a message to God, saying, "WE WERE HERE. WHERE WERE YOU?"

title: Shall the Dust Praise Thee?


text:
Talk:Hanukkah

How Exactly Do We Know This Was A Miracle?
Has it been determined how much oil is actually needed to keep a lamp burning for one day?

What makes olive oil "holy"?

Could this have just been reality? There actually being enough oil in the sealed vessel to keep the particular lamp in question lit for eight days? What kind of lamp; not a menorah with candles clearly.

Any links or sources where actual of-the-day lamps were lit, and oil consumed measured? Just how much oil was actually in the sealed vessel? What was the vessel size back then? Some of the amphoras recovered from ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks stand five feet tall.

Seriously, the lamps stayed lit for eight nights, why might they not simply have been efficient lamps fueled by a sufficient quantity of oil?

I'd like to see some real information in this article.

edit: I looked up oil consumption and found these:

"It is the experience with this lamp that taught me many things about myself. No matter what quality of oil etc., if I am back- sliding the lamp will not stay lit for more than a couple of hours. Under the same physical conditions however it would burn for up to 4 days over a long festal week-end if I were attending to "the one thing needful.""

Which ironically was posted by an Orthodox Jew about celebrating Hanukkah. He got a small amount of olive oil to burn in a lamp for FOUR days. Maybe the the oil lamps were attended to more closely when it was known the oil supply was limited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:0:abe7:803a:2544:5006:d0c5 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2017

More actual experiences:

"We use antique glass lamps when the power goes out, we have kerosene in some and parafin in others. We've used them for eight hours after filling and the 'oil' level has only gone down about a 1/4 inch."

"One of the lamps we used to use would go through about half a reservoir (a quart or so) in a week but we had babies when we were camping and left the lamp burning overnight on a very low setting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:0:abe7:803a:2544:5006:d0c5 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2017

- Answer: I'll expand the question: You can ask the same question about basically every miracle recorded in the Bible. The response is that if you believe in the G-d of the Torah, then you ought to believe in His miracles. (Why you should believe in Him is because 3 million people simultaneously witnessed His giving the 10 commandments. If someone made that up, they would not be able to answer the obvious question: "well, where are your 3 million witnesses?" (Unlike Christianity and Islam, who claim that one person on their own got a revelation...))

- Answer 2: The sources discussing this miracle indicate that finding the vial of oil was in itself remarkable, because all others had been rendered impure by the Greeks. And the sources record that it was small, sufficing only for one day. This one still had the Kohen Gadol's seal on it, indicating it hadn't been tampered with. So again, if you accept the sources that discuss Hanukkah in the first place, you ought to accept that they could measure volume and know how much oil was used daily. (Incidentally, the kohanim would set new wicks/oil daily (as described in the korbanot, "hatavat hamesh nerot kodemet... hatavat shtei nerot ... etc), so it's not about x amount of oil burning continually for 8 days, but x amount of oil filling 8x the volume of Menorah lamps.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.163.100 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2017

Answers via an employee at http://www.JudaicaWebstore.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.163.100 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2017

Spelling
Is there a reason why the lede uses the spelling "Chanukah" while the title and rest of the article use the "Hanukkah" spelling? Jessintime (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead now uses Hanukkah as the primary title, and I scoured the rest of the article to consistently change it to Hanukkah, as there were still quite a few instances of Chanukah sprinkled throughout the text. However, since 1/3 of the cited sources in the article use the Chanukah spelling, and footnotes aren't terribly accessible (especially on mobile), I added that spelling as a parenthetical alternative per MOS:LEADALT. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Reverted edits by ElephantElephant2
Creating this section in case there needs to be discussion of this revert I just performed. I don't feel the link provided supports the language used in this insertion. -- Zim Zala Bim  talk 02:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hanukkah


text:
USS Blueback (SS-581)

USS Blueback (SS-581) is a Barbel-class submarine that served in the United States Navy from 1959 to 1990, and subsequently was made into an exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. She was the second Navy submarine to bear the name.

Blueback was laid down by Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation of Pascagoula, Mississippi on 15 April 1957. She was launched on 16 May 1959 sponsored by Virginia McManes, wife of Rear Admiral Kenmore M. McManes, and commissioned on 15 October 1959, Lieutenant Commander Robert H. Gautier in command. She was the last non-nuclear submarine to join the United States Navy and was the final conventionally powered combat capable submarine to be decommissioned, which left the United States Navy with a fully nuclear submarine fleet, with the exception of the research submarine USS Dolphin (AGSS-555) which served until 2007.

Origin of the name
Sources differ on the origin of Blueback's name. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entry for Blueback states that she is named after a "form of the rainbow or steelhead trout found only in Lake Crescent on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state. The fish lives in deep water and is bluish black along its upper sides and whitish underneath."

Other sources state that she is named after the "most numerous of west coast salmon species. The blueback salmon ... is colored a bright blue with silver sides."

1960s
After fitting out, Blueback got underway in January 1960 for a series of acceptance trials in the Gulf of Mexico. She completed that mission and departed Pascagoula on 11 June, bound for the Pacific. She transited the Panama Canal on 7 July and continued on to her home port, Naval Station San Diego. There she was assigned to Submarine Squadron 3 (SUBRON 3), Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet. Blueback then carried out torpedo tube acceptance trials at Keyport, Washington, and underwent a post-shakedown availability at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard. On 23 November 1960, the submarine was accepted for service.

Type training in the San Diego area kept her busy into February 1961. On 11 February, she commenced a two-week availability at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Blueback got underway on 28 March for a deployment to the western Pacific during which she participated in 7th Fleet operations and exercises. The submarine left Yokosuka, Japan, on 3 September and sailed submerged to San Diego, arriving there on 25 September.

After leave and upkeep, Blueback began type training exercises out of San Diego on 14 October. Four days later, she participated in a fleet exercise off the southern California coast conducted under the auspices of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). During the next eight months, the submarine took part in several fleet exercises and visited San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washington. In July 1962, Blueback entered the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for her first major overhaul.

Upon completion of the overhaul in January 1963, the submarine made port calls at Seattle and at Vancouver, British Columbia. She then left the west coast and proceeded to her new home port, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. There, the submarine was assigned to Submarine Division 13 (SUBDIV 13). Blueback was involved in local operations from February to early April. On 11 April, the submarine got underway for operations in WestPac. Blueback sailed to Australia to participate in the annual celebration of the anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea and visited Brisbane, Melbourne, and Perth. She then continued on to Subic Bay in the Philippines for operations with the 7th Fleet. While on her deployment, Blueback also called at Naha, Okinawa; and at Sasebo, Kobe, and Yokosuka, Japan, before returning to Pearl Harbor on 26 October.

Blueback resumed her former routine in Hawaiian waters and continued local operations into 1964. In March, she suffered damage when a crane toppled over onto her while changing her propeller, necessitating a drydocking for repairs. In the fall and early winter, the submarine made two trips to the vicinity of Wake Island to take part in the evaluations of the SUBROC missile system and Permit-class submarines. In each test, Blueback served as a target ship.

On 17 February 1965, Blueback began her second deployment to the Far East. During the cruise, she made port calls at Naha, Hong Kong, Subic Bay, and Yokosuka, and also was involved in supporting American operations in Vietnam. She returned to Pearl Harbor in June, where she carried out local operations until 7 September. She got underway for Bremerton, Washington, on that day and entered the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 18 days later for overhaul.

The yard work ended on 26 September 1966, and the submarine commenced sound trials and weapons tests in Puget Sound. She also provided services for a research and development project conducted near Nanoose, Canada. After a four-day visit to Vancouver, she set sail for Pearl Harbor, where she arrived early in November and began refresher training.

Following three months of preparations and training, Blueback embarked on another tour of duty in the western Pacific on 17 February 1967. During the seven-month assignment, she punctuated periods at sea training and supporting the American efforts in the Vietnam War with port calls at Hong Kong and in Japan at Yokosuka and Sasebo. The submarine returned to Oahu early that fall, arriving in Pearl Harbor on 20 September. After a month of leave and upkeep, she resumed operations in Hawaiian waters. On 19 December, she entered the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard for a restricted availability.

In mid-January 1968, the submarine helped prospective commanding officers to prepare for their new assignments at the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force's school. She then acted as a target for several surface ships and aircraft to practice ASW techniques, and engaged in type training and weapons exercises. On 8 July, she began a five-month deployment to the Far East which, in addition to two special operations, also included much time spent in upkeep at Yokosuka. Blueback returned to Pearl Harbor on 3 December.

1970s
Very early in 1969, she voyaged to Bremerton, and entered the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on 17 January for an overhaul. During her subsequent sea trials and training, the submarine visited Nanaimo, British Columbia, and Port Angeles, Washington, before returning to Hawaii early in December. After intensive training during the first three months of 1970, Blueback set sail on her fifth deployment to the western Pacific on 10 April. She carried out lengthy special operations; made brief visits to Yokosuka, Hong Kong, and Guam; and spent time in the Vietnam war zone. The warship ended the cruise at Pearl Harbor on 1 October and began a period of local operations and upkeep. On 12 February 1971, she entered the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard for a restricted availability which concluded in late March with trials at sea. Early in April, she took part in SUBASWEX 1-71 in the Pearl Harbor area. After conducting torpedo firing exercises, Blueback entered upkeep at Pearl Harbor.

She began another Far eastern assignment on 25 June and arrived at Yokosuka on 12 July for a week of upkeep before beginning a month of operational training at sea. The submarine next visited Sasebo for 10 days and then continued on to Hong Kong for a liberty period. Blueback traveled south to the Vietnam war zone to render training services to destroyer units of the 7th Fleet and then returned to Japan for upkeep at Yokosuka. On 11 October, the submarine got underway for more training at sea. She paused once again at Yokosuka before sailing for Hawaii on 29 November. She arrived back in her home port on 14 December.

Local operations occupied her during the first 10 weeks of 1972; then, the submarine began a lengthy overhaul at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on 29 March. Nearly a year later early in March 1973, she finished the yard work, commenced local operations and trained in preparation for deployment. She sailed for the Orient on 8 August and, while there, participated in several operations with other American warships as well as with naval forces from Korea and Taiwan. Among the ports she visited were Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan; Chinhae and Pusan, Korea; Buckner Bay, Okinawa; Hong Kong; and Subic Bay in the Philippines. On 5 January 1974, Blueback left Subic Bay and visited Keelung, Taiwan, for two days before heading back to Hawaii.

The submarine arrived in Pearl Harbor on 31 January 1974 and commenced a leave and upkeep period. During the remainder of the year, Blueback took part in numerous training operations and exercises. She provided services to surface ships and aircraft, conducted torpedo firing drills, and did another tour preparing prospective commanding officers for the new jobs.

During the first two months of 1975, the submarine continued local operations. In March, she participated in Exercise "RIMPAC 75", which included ships from the navies of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Upon completion of this operation, Blueback commenced a restricted availability. Early in June, she resumed local operations including a series of torpedo firing tests, type training, and services to surface and air units. The warship closed out the year in upkeep at Pearl Harbor.

She held sea trials and weapons exercises in January 1976 and began another long overhaul at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in February. She did not complete those repairs until 1 December. Blueback commenced refresher training 12 days later. In February 1977, she took part in Exercise "RIMPAC 77", then conducted torpedo trials. After a brief period of upkeep, the submarine departed Pearl Harbor on 28 March and proceeded to her new home port, San Diego, arriving there on 8 April. After an inspection and services to aircraft, she set out for San Francisco on 27 May, made a brief visit, and returned to San Diego on 1 June to prepare for duty overseas. On 21 June, the submarine got underway for Santa Marta, Colombia. Upon arriving there on 7 August, she joined Task Force 138 to participate in UNITAS XVIII. The task force also included USS Mahan (DDG-42), USS Capodanno (FF-1093), and USS Vreeland (FF-1068). During the deployment, Blueback visited ports in Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile. She departed Talcahuano, Chile, on 27 September and headed back to San Diego. She stopped at Rodman in the Panama Canal Zone, and made a four-day liberty call at Acapulco, Mexico, before reaching San Diego on 11 November.

The submarine began 1978 in upkeep. She got underway on 13 February for a short visit to San Francisco, returned to San Diego on the 21st, and provided services to ships and aircraft in the San Diego area. From 23 April to 23 May, she underwent a battery replacement in preparation for an upcoming deployment. The ship sailed on 30 May for Portland, Oregon, where she represented the Submarine Force at that city's Rose Festival. She then continued north along the coast to conduct an exercise with Canadian forces off Esquimalt, British Columbia. Following this operation, Blueback arrived at Seattle on 23 June for a two-day liberty call before returning to San Diego.

The submarine began a restricted availability on 17 July and, on 8 August, began final preparations for deployment. On 11 September, she got underway for her eighth western Pacific cruise. She touched at Pearl Harbor on the 22nd, but soon pressed on for Japan, and arrived at Yokosuka on 7 October. She next made a run to Chinhae, Korea, for two weeks of joint special warfare and ASW exercises with units of the South Korean Navy. On 5 November, Blueback arrived in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, to participate in ASW exercises with the Taiwanese Navy. From 14 to 24 November, she took part in a 7th Fleet exercise and then proceeded to Sasebo for a leave and upkeep period. Blueback then spent five days at Hong Kong from 6 to 11 December before heading on to Subic Bay where she arrived on 13 December to close out the year in upkeep.

Blueback got underway on 5 January 1979 to provide target services for ships of the 7th Fleet undergoing ASW training. She then took part in special warfare exercises with Army Special Forces troops. On 22 January, the submarine arrived at Subic Bay for upkeep. Nine days later, she set out on a submerged voyage back to the United States and reached San Diego on 1 March.

After a few weeks of leave and upkeep, the submarine took up local operations again and continued so engaged until beginning a tender availability on 14 May. She resumed local operations again on 12 June. Blueback sailed north on 18 August to visit Astoria, Oregon, and Seattle, Wash., returning to her home port early in September. Following a minelaying exercise off the southern California coast between 17 and 20 September, the submarine entered drydock on 1 October. She began sea trials on 27 November and then provided ASW services before closing the year in a holiday leave and upkeep status.

1980s
Blueback spent the first three and a half months of 1980 in local operations and exercises in preparation for overseas movement. Blueback departed San Diego on 15 April and completed her submerged transit of the Pacific at Okinawa on 11 May. The submarine then took part in ASW exercises in the Philippine Sea. She began upkeep at Yokosuka on 18 May and then got underway for special operations. Blueback began the month of June in upkeep at Sasebo but soon returned to sea to participate in joint exercises with South Korean forces. After another period of upkeep and liberty at Sasebo, she got underway on the 22nd for ASW operations in cooperation with the Japanese submarine Isoshio. At the conclusion of the exercise, Blueback visited Beppu, Japan, before heading for Subic Bay, where she arrived on 8 July. After upkeep, the submarine participated in an ASW exercise in the South China Sea with several ships of the 7th Fleet.

On 22 July, Blueback began a six-day journey to Chinhae to take part in extensive exercises with the South Korean Navy. Early in August, the submarine visited Sasebo and Subic Bay. She conducted special warfare operations from 18 to 21 August and then entered port at San Fernando on northern Luzon. She got underway on 25 August for ASW operations with ships of the Royal Navy. After a final call at Subic Bay, the submarine began her voyage back to home port on 15 September. She entered San Diego on 15 October and began post-deployment leave and upkeep. Then came several days of type training in nearby waters followed by holiday leave and upkeep to close out the year.

 * [1980-1990]

Decommissioning and status

Blueback was decommissioned on 1 October 1990 and laid up in the Pacific Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, Washington. She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 30 October 1990. With her removal from service, the last warship that was a diesel-electric submarine of the United States Navy had left the fleet, leaving the research submarine USS Dolphin (AGSS-555) as the last diesel submarine of the US fleet.

In February 1994 the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) towed Blueback to Portland, Oregon, where she now rests as an interactive part of the museum and a memorial. Her propeller was removed and installed outside the museum as a National Submarine Memorial. OMSI offers short guided tours of the submarine several times a day and three-hour technical tours twice a month. The vessel was added to the National Register of Historic Places in September 2008.

The radio room has been restored by the USS Blueback Radio Club with both historic military radios and operational modern amateur radio gear which use the original military HF and VHF antennas. The submarine's radio call sign is now W7SUB.

Honors and awards

 * Vietnam Service Medal with two campaign stars for Vietnam War service

Popular culture
Blueback appeared in the episode "Samurai" of the 1970s television series Hawaii Five-O.

Blueback appeared in the 1990 movie The Hunt for Red October, although she did not perform the famous stunt of an emergency main ballast tank blow during an emergency surfacing procedure seen in the film. A film crew was allowed on board to film a torpedo room scene and some of her crew were paid $50 (USD) each to have their hair cut and to put on Soviet Navy uniforms for the scene, but the scene was not included in the film.

title: USS Blueback (SS-581)


text:
USS Blueback (SS-326)

USS Blueback (SS-326), a Balao-class submarine in commission from 1944 to 1948, was the first submarine of the United States Navy to be named for the blueback salmon, also known as the sockeye salmon. She completed three war patrols in the South China Sea and Java Sea during World War II. She sank a 300-displacement ton submarine chaser as well as eight smaller vessels.

After her U.S. Navy service, the submarine was transferred to Turkey, and was in commission in the Turkish Naval Forces from 1948 to 1973 as TCG İkinci Inönü (D-12) (also written TCG 2. Inönü (D-2)), later renumbered S-18 and S 331.

Construction and commissioning
Blueback's keel was laid down on 29 July 1943 by the Electric Boat Company at Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 7 May 1944, sponsored by Mrs. William Brent Young, wife of Rear Admiral William Brent Young, and commissioned on 28 August 1944.

August–December 1944
Following shakedown training off New London, Connecticut, and Newport, Rhode Island, Blueback got underway on 2 October 1944 for Key West, Florida. Upon her arrival there, she began making sound training runs for ships undergoing antisubmarine warfare training at the Fleet Sound School. She departed Key West for the Panama Canal Zone on 20 October 1944, transited the Panama Canal on 24 October, and engaged in further training at Balboa in the Panama Canal Zone before continuing on to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where she arrived on 22 November 1944. She then underwent repairs and another two weeks of training in the waters of the Hawaiian Islands.

First war patrol
On 16 December 1944, Blueback departed Pearl Harbor to commence her first war patrol in company with the submarine USS Puffer (SS-268). The submarine USS Sea Fox (SS-402) joined them at sea on 23 December. The three submarines formed a coordinated attack group which was patrolling north of Saipan in the Mariana Islands on 27 December 1944 when a United States Army Air Forces B-24 Liberator bomber crashed into the sea a few thousand yards [meters] away from the American submarines, and Blueback rescued four of the bomber's crewmen. She put in at Saipan that same afternoon to drop them off and then resumed her patrol on 29 December 1944. On 2 January 1945, she reached the area off Tori-shima in the Izu Islands, where she patrolled for the next 24 days. She transmitted regular weather reports as part of the lengthy preparations for U.S. invasion of Okinawa (scheduled to begin on 1 April 1945), occasionally dived to avoid Japanese planes, and searched for Japanese ships. On 26 January 1945, she left the area and headed southwest into the South China Sea to patrol off Camranh Bay on the coast of Japanese-occupied French Indochina.

On 4 February 1945, Blueback spotted a Japanese convoy heading south toward Camranh Bay and immediately tried to close for an attack but was unable to get near enough to fire her torpedoes. She encountered the same convoy again on 5 February, but once more failed to close the range for an attack. She began lifeguard duties in support of Allied airstrikes on 7 February, taking station 200 nmi to the southeast of Camranh Bay on the Hong Kong-to-Singapore sea route. This duty ended on 8 February, and she set a course for Fremantle, Australia. Over the next three days, she took part in a search for a Japanese battleship task force headed north from Singapore but never detected it. On 14 February 1945, she received orders changing her destination from Fremantle to Subic Bay on Luzon in the Philippine Islands, and she arrived there on 15 February 1945, concluding her patrol.

At Subic Bay, Blueback moored alongside the submarine tender USS Griffin (AS-13) for a refit. She got underway a few days later for exercises in the waters of the Philippine Islands.

Second war patrol
Operating in a coordinated attack group with the submarines USS Bergall (SS-320), USS Blackfin (SS-322), USS Hawkbill (SS-366), and USS Flasher (SS-249), Blueback began her second war patrol on 4 March 1945 and headed for the area in the South China Sea off the coast of French Indochina. In the early morning of 12 March 1945, a Japanese patrol boat opened fire on her while she was running on the surface. Going deep immediately to evade her attacker, Blueback escaped with only superficial damage. Later that day, she opened fire with her deck guns on a Japanese sailing vessel and sank it. Thereafter, her patrol passed uneventfully until 22 March 1945, when she sank another small Japanese sailing ship with gunfire. Her next action occurred on 26 March, when she fired five torpedoes from her stern torpedo tubes at a Japanese escort destroyer in a convoy, but all five missed. During her attempt to leave the area, she endured a heavy depth-charge barrage before losing her pursuers.

On 27 March 1945, an Allied search plane reported a Japanese convoy to the south of Blueback's coordinated attack group. On 28 March, Blueback sighted the ships and began tracking them. At 10:58, she brought her stern torpedo tubes to bear and fired a three-torpedo spread at a Japanese destroyer. One broached and the rest ran wide of the mark. Again, she weathered a depth-charge attack before getting clear of the area. On 30 March 1945, she attacked three Japanese sailboats with her deck guns and sent two of them to the bottom.

On 3 April 1945, Blueback set a course for the Java Sea. She patrolled off Sumbawa and Lombok in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies until 12 April without making any contacts and then headed for Australia. She concluded her patrol at Fremantle, Australia, on 17 April 1945 and commenced a refit alongside the submarine tender USS Clytie (AS-26).

Third war patrol
After a series of post-refit training exercises, Blueback embarked on her third war patrol on 12 May 1945. She entered Lombok Strait on 17 May and spotted her first target, a Japanese sailboat, on 21 May. She opened fire with her 5 in gun but inflicted only minor damage on the sailboat. On 28 May, she sighted a Japanese submarine chaser and maneuvered into position for an attack. She fired five torpedoes from her bow torpedo tubes at the submarine chaser and then swung her stern tubes to bear for two more. The submarine chaser sustained no damage and returned remarkably accurate fire with her guns. Blueback then departed the area and set a course for the Sunda Strait.

Blueback later sighted several Japanese vessels that were not worth attacking before zeroing in on a Japanese convoy of two large cargo ships with three escorts on 2 June 1945. She fired three torpedoes at the nearest cargo ship and heard one hit. However, loss of depth control prevented her from pursuing the attack. She came to rest on the ocean bottom while undergoing a depth-charge barrage and remained there for almost two hours before surfacing.

On 3 June 1945, Blueback sank a small Japanese boat with her deck guns. Thereafter, her patrol passed uneventfully until 9 June 1945, when she launched a lone torpedo at a Japanese merchant ship. Once again the shot missed. Blueback then shaped a course for Fremantle, where she arrived on 14 June 1945. In addition to a refit, she took up investigations into torpedo accuracy problems. She completed this work on 20 June and resumed her patrol on 21 June 1945.

On 26 June 1945, Blueback entered Lombok Strait and received a contact report on Japanese ships sighted north of Bali. At 01:50 on 27 June, she fired five torpedoes. One hit a few minutes later and stopped the Japanese ship dead in the water. Another hit the victim amidships, causing her to disappear from sight.

Blueback attacked a Japanese sailboat to the east of the Thousand Islands without success on 9 July 1945. On 13 July, while patrolling north of the Thousand Islands, she spotted five small coastal cargo ships. Although she launched three torpedoes at one of the ships, all missed the target. Blueback set course for the Philippine Islands on 15 July and arrived in Subic Bay on 20 July 1945. During her upkeep and training at Subic Bay, World War II came to an end on 15 August 1945 with the cessation of hostilities with Japan.

Later operations
During the period from 16 December 1944 to 20 July 1945 Blueback completed three war patrols in the South China Sea and Java Sea. She sank a 300-displacement ton submarine chaser as well as eight smaller vessels and inserted a Z Special Unit operative on the north coast of Java in Operation Binatang. She arrived at Subic Bay, Luzon, Philippines, from her third and last war patrol on 20 July 1945.

On 10 July 1945, while in the Java Sea, Ensign John Thomas Beahan, a gunnery officer, was inspecting a .50-caliber gun on the deck of the USS Blueback (SS 326) when it unexpectedly fired two rounds, fatally striking him in the chest. Beahan was buried at sea two days later. Beahan was only Blueback's non-combat casualty.

Post-World War II
On 31 August 1945, Blueback got underway from Subic Bay bound for Guam in the Mariana Islands, where she arrived on 4 September 1945. She was assigned to Submarine Squadron 36 and conducted daily underway training. On 28 November 1945, she left Guam in company with Submarine Squadron 3 for a training cruise to the Caroline Islands and Admiralty Islands. The submarines returned to Guam on 15 December 1945.

Blueback departed Guam on 12 January 1946 bound for San Diego, California. She conducted operations locally from San Diego unti1 12 August 1946, when she embarked upon a cruise to the Far East. Her ports of call included Pearl Harbor, Truk in the Caroline Islands, Subic Bay, and Tsingtao and Shanghai in China. She returned to San Diego on 29 November 1946 and resumed local operations. On 17 February 1947, she set out on a training voyage to Pearl Harbor. After several weeks of operations in Hawaiian waters, she returned to San Diego on 4 April 1947 and resumed local operations and training along the coast of California, which she continued until March 1948.

On 4 March 1948, Blueback departed San Diego and, after a stop at Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut, proceeded across the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea to İzmir, Turkey, where she arrived on 11 May 1948. She was decommissioned and transferred to Turkey on 23 May 1948. She was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 28 May 1948.

Honors and awards

 * Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with two battle stars for World War II service
 * World War II Victory Medal ribbon.svg World War II Victory Medal
 * China Service Medal ribbon.svg China Service Medal

Turkish Naval Forces
On 25 May 1948, the submarine was commissioned in the Turkish Naval Forces as TCG İkinci Inönü (D-2) (also written TCG 2. Inönü (D-2), English "Second Inönü"), the second of three Turkish submarines named for the Second Battle of İnönü, fought from 23 March to 1 April 1921 during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, a part of the larger Turkish War of Independence. İkinci Inönü received the new pennant number S-18 in 1955, and in 1959 was renumbered S 331 in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pennant system.

After long service in the Turkish Naval Forces, İkinci Inönü was decommissioned and transferred back to the United States on 30 November 1973. She then was renamed TCG Ceryan Botu-2 (Y-1241) and it was used to charge the batteries of other submarines until 1975. She subsequently was transferred back to the United States and sold for scrapping.

title: USS Blueback (SS-326)


text:
USS Blueback

Two submarines of the United States Navy have been named USS Blueback, after a type of trout.

 * USS Blueback (SS-326), served during World War II and then was sold to Turkey.
 * USS Blueback (SS-581), was the last non-nuclear submarine to join the United States Navy.

title: USS Blueback


text:
Hethum I

Hethum I (Armenian: Հեթում Ա; 1213 – 21 October 1270) ruled the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (also known as "Little Armenia") from 1226 to 1270. He was the son of Constantine of Baberon (d. 1263) and Princess Alix Pahlavouni of Lampron (a third-cousin of Leo I) and was the founder of the dynasty which bears his name: the Hethumids also known as the House of Lampron. Having accepted the suzerainty of the Mongol Empire, Hethum himself traveled to the Mongol court in Karakorum, Mongolia, a famous account of which is given by Hethum's companion, the historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi, in his History of Armenia. He allied with the Mongols to fight against the Muslim Mamluks and also encouraged other Crusader states to do the same.

Family
Hethum's father Constantine had been regent for the young Isabella, Queen of Armenia. Isabella originally married Philip (1222–1225), son of Bohemond IV of Antioch. However, Constantine had Philip disposed of, and instead forced Isabella to marry his own son, Hethum, on June 14, 1226, to make Isabella and Hethum co-rulers. The couple had six children:
 * 1) Leo II (died 1289)
 * 2) Thoros (died at the Battle of Mari in 1266 fighting the Mamluks) - Thoros had one child: Melkum.
 * 3) Sibylla (died 1290), who married Bohemond VI of Antioch
 * 4) Euphemie (died 1309), who married to Julian Grenier, Lord of Sidon
 * 5) Rita of Armenia, married Constantine of Servantikar
 * 6) Maria, who married Guy of Ibelin, son of Baldwin of Ibelin, Seneschal of Cyprus
 * 7) Rouben
 * 8) Vasak.

Armenian-Mongol relations

Hethum was a major player in the political struggles and shifting alliances around the Crusader states, as the Armenians had ties with all sides. They were primarily aligned with the Europeans, but during Hethum's reign, the rapidly expanding Mongol Empire became a concern. When the Mongol commander Baiju attacked the Sultanate of Rum, the Seljuq sultan Kaykhusraw II called on Hethum to come to his aid. Faced with internal disagreements about the war and likely sensing that the Mongols were the greater threat, Hethum delayed and Kaykhusraw's army left without the Armenians. After the Mongols inflicted a crushing defeat on the Seljuqs at Kösedağ and approached the borders of Cappadocia and Cilicia, King Hethum made a strategic decision to submit to Mongol suzerainty. He sent his brother Sempad to the Mongol court in Karakorum. There, Sempad met Great Khan Güyük, and made a formal agreement in 1247 in which Cilician Armenia would be considered a vassal state of the Mongol Empire.

In 1245, Cilicia was attacked by the Sultanate of Rum, prompted by Hethum's decision to hand over Sultan Kaykhusraw's wife and daughter (who had found refuge at his court after Kösedağ) to Baiju. The Seljuks were aided by Hethum's disloyal vassal, Constantine of Lampron. Kaykhusraw was only able to seize a few forts which the Mongols forced him to return a few years later, while Constantine was captured and executed in 1250.

In 1254, Hethum himself traveled through Central Asia to Mongolia to renew the agreement, passing through the Turkish states of eastern Asia Minor, the Mongol camp at Kars in Greater Armenia, the Iron Gates of Derbent at the western shore of the Caspian Sea, and from there across Asia to Karakorum. He brought many sumptuous presents, and met with Möngke Khan (Güyük's cousin). An account of his travels was recorded by a member of his suite, Kirakos Gandzaketsi as "Travels of Haithon, the Pious King of the Armenians, to Batu and Mangu Khans", the 58th chapter of Gandzaketsi's History of Armenia. The Journey of Hethoum was later translated into Russian, French, English, and Chinese. The narrative is important for its observations of Mongol, Buddhist, and Chinese culture, geography, and wildlife.

On his way back from Karakorum, Hethum passed through Samarkand and northern Persia, also visiting the Mongol leader Baiju, where he was present in his camp to witness Baiju's victory in Asia Minor against the Seljuq Turks.

Hethum strongly encouraged other Frankish rulers to follow his example and submit to Mongol suzerainty, but the only one who did so was Hethum's son-in-law, Bohemond VI of Antioch, who submitted around 1259. Armenian troops were with the Mongol army that captured Baghdad in 1258, and both Armenians and Antiochenes Crusaders fought in the Mongol Army under Hulagu at the Siege of Aleppo and Fall of Damascus in 1260. Historical accounts, quoting from the writings of the medieval historian Templar of Tyre, often give a dramatic account of the three Christian rulers (Hethum, Bohemond, and the Mongol general Kitbuqa) entering the city of Damascus together in triumph, though modern historians have questioned this story as apocryphal.

Despite the Mongols' territorial gains, in September 1260, the Egyptian Mamluks rallied, defeating the Mongols at the historic Battle of Ain Jalut and driving them back across the Euphrates River. The Mongols would not again capture Syria until 1299–1300, when again they would hold it only for a few months.

Retirement
During the last years of Hethum's reign, largely as a result of Hethum's active support of the Mongols, the kingdom came under increasing attack by the Mamluks under Baybars, who invaded in 1266. The heavily outnumbered Armenians were unable to hold off the Mamluks at the Disaster of Mari, during which one of Hethum's sons, Thoros, was killed and another son, Leo, was captured and imprisoned. Following this defeat, the cities of Adana, Tarsus, and Ayas were assaulted and the capital of Sis was sacked and burnt. Thousands of Armenians were massacred and 40,000 taken captive. Hethum was able to ransom his son by conceding territory to the Egyptians. In May 1268, the allied Principality of Antioch was overrun by the Egyptians who, under Baybars, captured it and massacred its inhabitants and destroyed all its churches.

Hethum abdicated in 1270 in favor of his son Leo, and lived out the rest of his life in a monastery, as a monk.

title: Hethum I


text:
Capital ship

The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; they are generally the larger ships when compared to other warships in their respective fleet. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet.

Strategic implications
There is usually no formal criterion for the classification, but it is a useful concept in naval strategy; for example, it permits comparisons between relative naval strengths in a theatre of operations without the need for considering specific details of tonnage or gun diameters.

A notable example of this is the Mahanian doctrine, which was applied in the planning of the defence of Singapore in World War II, where the Royal Navy had to decide the allocation of its battleships and battlecruisers between the Atlantic and Pacific theatres. The Mahanian doctrine was also applied by the Imperial Japanese Navy, leading to its preventive move to attack Pearl Harbor and the battleships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The naval nature of the Pacific Theater of Operations, more commonly referred to as the Pacific War, necessitated the United States Navy mostly deploying its battleships and aircraft carriers in the Pacific. The war in Europe was primarily a land war; consequently, Germany's surface fleet was small, and the escort ships used in the Battle of the Atlantic were mostly destroyers and destroyer escorts to counter the U-boat threat.

Age of Sail
Before the advent of the all-steel navy in the late 19th century, a capital ship during the Age of Sail was generally understood as a ship that conformed to the Royal Navy's rating system of a ship of the line as being of the first, second, third or fourth rates:
 * First rate: 100 or more guns, typically carried on three or four decks. Four-deckers suffered in rough seas, and the lowest deck could seldom fire except in calm conditions.
 * Second rate: 90–98 guns.
 * Third rate: 64 to 80 guns (although 64-gun third-raters were small and not very numerous in any era).
 * Fourth rate: 46 to 60 guns. By 1756, these ships were acknowledged to be too weak to stand in the line of battle and were relegated to ancillary duties, although they also served in the shallow North Sea and American littorals where larger ships of the line could not sail.

Frigates were ships of the fifth rate; sixth rates comprised small frigates and corvettes. Towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars and into the late 19th century, some larger and more powerful frigates were classified as fourth rates.

Battleship / battlecruiser
The term "capital ship" was coined in 1909 and formally defined in the limitation treaties of the 1920s and 1930s, in the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, 1930 London Naval Treaty, and 1936 Second London Naval Treaty. This applied mainly to ships resulting from the dreadnought revolution; dreadnought battleships (also known first as dreadnoughts and later as battleships) and battlecruisers. The term is defined in the 1936 Montreux Convention as well.

In the 20th century, especially in World Wars I and II, typical capital ships would be battleships and battlecruisers. All of the above ships were close to 20,000 tons displacement or heavier, with large caliber guns and heavy armor protection. Cruisers, despite being important ships, were not considered capital ships. An exception to the above in World War II was the Deutschland-class cruiser. Though this class was technically similar to a heavy cruiser, albeit slower but with considerably heavier guns, they were regarded by some as capital ships (hence the British label "Pocket battleship") since they were one of the few heavy surface units of the Kriegsmarine. The American Alaska-class cruiser, Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser and the Japanese Design B-65 cruiser, planned specifically to counter the heavy cruisers being built by their naval rivals, have been described as "super cruisers", "large cruisers" or even "unrestricted cruisers", with some advocating that they even be considered battlecruisers; however, they were never classified as capital ships.

During the Cold War, a Soviet Kirov-class battlecruiser large missile cruiser had a displacement great enough to rival World War II-era battleships and battlecruisers, perhaps defining a new capital ship for that era. In regard to technical design, however, the Kirov is simply a supersized guided-missile cruiser with nuclear propulsion.

Aircraft carrier

It took until late 1942 for aircraft carriers to be universally considered capital ships. Only full-size fleet carriers (whether purpose built, or converted from battleship/battlecruiser hulls) were regarded as capital ships, while light carriers (often using cruiser hulls) and escort carriers (often using merchant ship hulls) were not. The U.S. Navy was forced  to rely primarily on its aircraft carriers after the attack on Pearl Harbor sank or damaged eight of its Pacific-fleet battleships.

In the 21st century, the aircraft carrier is the last remaining capital ship, with capability defined in decks available and aircraft per deck rather than in guns and calibers. The United States possesses supremacy in both contemporary categories of aircraft carriers, possessing 11 active duty supercarriers each capable of carrying and launching nearly 100 tactical aircraft, and nine amphibious assault ships which are equivalent in the "Sea Control Ship" configuration to the light VSTOL carriers operated by other nations.

Nuclear submarines
Nuclear submarines, while important ships and similar in tonnage to early battleships, are usually counted as part of a nation's nuclear deterrent force and do not share the sea control mission of traditional capital ships. Nevertheless, many navies, including the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, consider these ships to be capital ships and have given some of them names previously used for battleships, e.g. Dreadnought and Vanguard, Oklahoma and Iowa.

Naming
Some navies reserve specific names for their capital ships. Names reserved for capital ships include chiefs of state (e.g. GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck), important places, historically important naval officers or admiralty (e.g. HNLMS De Ruyter), historical events or objects (e.g. USS Constitution), and traditional names (e.g. HMS Ark Royal). However, there are some exceptions to the rule.

Beginning with USS Texas (1892) (the first U.S. battleship), U.S. capital ships were traditionally named after U.S. states. Cruisers are typically named after U.S. territories (e.g. Alaska-class cruisers just before and during World War II) or U.S. cities. Prior to and during World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy also followed the practice of naming battleships after provinces (e.g. JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Yamato).

Despite their significance to modern fleets, the U.S. Navy has never named aircraft carriers after U.S. states. Today, U.S. aircraft carriers are usually named after politicians and other individuals notable in US naval history such as Gerald R. Ford and Chester W. Nimitz except Enterprise.

Beginning with the first class of Trident-equipped ballistic missile submarines (i.e. the Ohio-class submarine), state names have been applied to U.S. nuclear submarines. Previous ballistic missile submarines (e.g. Poseidon missile-equipped submarines) had not been named for states. After the completion of the last Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, state names were also applied to attack submarines (e.g. Virginia-class submarine). Earlier attack submarines had usually been named for marine animals or, commencing with the Los Angeles-class submarine, cities and towns.

title: Capital ship


text:
Talk:Bishop Asbury Cottage

America
America is a disambiguation page. Links should not deliberately connect to disambiguation pages. He was either a American Methodist Bishop, a North American Methodist Bishop or a American Methodist Bishop. Maybe a American Methodist Bishop depending on the exact timing you want to reference. I'm pretty sure his geographic range was just the US but if you don't think I'm fixing the link correctly then change it to the one you like. Just please stop reverting the link to the disambiguation page. That adds no value to anyone. Rossami 05:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * We don't refer to Neil Armstrong as " the first man on the Mare Tranquillitatis "! Andy Mabbett 09:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The problem is not so much that the term "America" is ambiguous in this context, but that the link is ambiguous. I believe that links should take readers to someplace useful and relevant, not to disambiguation pages. Rossami

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bishop Asbury Cottage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208130747/http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk:80/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/ to http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208130747/http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk:80/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/ to http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bishop Asbury Cottage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208130747/http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/ to http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/museums-and-galleries/our-museums/bishop-asbury-cottage/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bishop Asbury Cottage