text:
Church of Christ, Instrumental

The Church of Christ, Instrumental, also known as Kelleyites, are a baptistic body of Christians based in central Arkansas.

Names
In the only book written about this group they are called the Church of Christ, Instrumental or Kelleyites. Elder E. J. Lambert, a Primitive Baptist minister who was raised among this body, and whose father was a minister of the Church of Christ, Instrumental, in his autobiography consistently refers to them as the Church of Christ (Kelly Division of Missionary Baptists). They are referred to as Kelleyites in official documents of the Works Progress Administration in the 1940s.

History
The Kelleyites owe their name and origin to Samuel Kelley. Kelley was born in 1817 in what is now Pike County, Arkansas, but in early adulthood he moved to Illinois. In Illinois, he first connected himself to the Methodists, but later joined the Baptists and was ordained by them in 1838. Shortly after this he returned to Arkansas. A difference in practice between the Baptists with whom he was connected in Illinois and the Baptists in Arkansas was evidently a contributing factor to the rise of the Kelley division of the missionary Baptist church. Among other things, the Baptists in Illinois received Samuel Kelley on his Methodist baptism, which was foreign to the practice of Arkansas Baptists.

Kelley was a prominent and successful citizen by the standards of his day. He lived in Pike County and later in Howard County. He was elected to at least one term in the State Legislature. His church was a member of the Red River Baptist Association. In 1856, Kelley was invited to preach at the meeting of the Caddo River Baptist Association. In this sermon, he preached the doctrine of apostasy, or falling from grace. The next morning the Caddo River Association passed resolutions against Elder Kelley, his doctrine of apostasy, the fact he had not been baptized by a Baptist, and also withdrew fellowship from the Red River Association. The next year the Red River Association excluded Samuel Kelley and his followers. Kelley evidently preached between 1857 and 1870 wherever he could. In 1870, Kelley convinced the Philippi Baptist Church to adopt open communion and change their name to the Philippi Church of Christ. The only change to "Church of Christ" would simply mean dropping the Baptist name from the common practice of that day (i.e., Philippi Baptist Church of Christ becomes Philippi Church of Christ). This church withdrew from the Caddo River Association that year, and the Caddo River Association also withdrew from them. This can be considered the official date of the division of the Kelleyites from the Baptists (although persons such as Elder Lambert still considered them to be Missionary Baptists). Other churches were organized and existing churches adopted the doctrine and practice of the Kelleyites, and this movement grew for a time. Later the movement would decline, and now (2003) survives with 5 churches - 4 in Hot Spring County, Arkansas and 1 in Clark County, Arkansas. Membership is estimated at 400 in the 5 congregations. Perhaps the ecumenical nature of the church's doctrine, rather than lack of evangelization, has led to the decline in churches and membership.

Doctrine and practice
After their separation from the Caddo River and Red River Associations, the Kelleyites formed The Council of the Church of Christ. This council is fashioned on the order of a Baptist association and meets annually. Rules are similar and they preserve the autonomy of the local church. The council has no authority to act on local church matters, nor even to advise unless the church asks them to do so.

The major differences doctrinally between the Kelleyites and the missionary Baptists of Arkansas at the time of division was that the Kelleyites held final apostasy (or falling from grace), open communion, and alien baptism. The Kelleyite theology is somewhat of a mixture of old time Methodist and Baptist doctrine. They are similar in doctrine and practice to the Free Will Baptists, but have evidently never had any connection with them. In addition to baptism and the Lord's supper, they also hold feet washing as an ordinance. This is an issue that would separate them from most present-day missionary Baptists in Arkansas, but would have been of little consequence in the mid-19th century. The church has three offices: pastor, elder, and deacon. The Kelleyites preserve their links to the Baptists by using the Sunday School literature of the American Baptist Association.

The church doctrine is ecumenical in nature, but article 14 (adopted in 1952) of their constitution states, "No minister, except regular ordained ministers of the Church of Christ, shall be permitted to preach or conduct services in any individual church without special permission from the pastor and members of that particular church. (Exceptions being made for funerals.)" This article reveals an interest in self-preservation - though they desire fellowship with other Christians, they also seek to preserve what they feel in their unique heritage.

The churches often label their church signs as Church of Christ, Instrumental to differentiate them from the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) movement of Alexander Campbell and others.

title: Church of Christ, Instrumental


text:
Texas Bowl

The Texas Bowl is an annual postseason NCAA-sanctioned Division I FBS college football bowl game first held in 2006 in Houston, Texas. Each edition of the bowl has been played at NRG Stadium, previously known as Reliant Stadium. The bowl replaced the defunct Houston Bowl, which was played annually from 2000 to 2005, and before that the Bluebonnet Bowl, the first bowl game in Houston, played from 1959 through 1987.

Since the 2021 edition, the bowl has been sponsored by the tax preparation software company TaxAct and officially known as the TaxAct Texas Bowl.

Replacing the Houston Bowl
Speculation surfaced questioning the long-term survival of the former Houston Bowl. The three-year contract with EV1.net expired on December 31, 2005, leaving the bowl game without a title sponsor. A college football official told the Houston Chronicle that the bowl was in danger of ceasing operations, as a result of the game losing its title sponsor and because the Houston Bowl still owed roughly $600,000 to the Big 12 and Mountain West conferences following the 2005 game. However, the NCAA approved Lone Star Sports & Entertainment, a division of the Houston Texans, who also play in Reliant Stadium, to take over game management. In July 2006, the NFL Network acquired TV rights and naming rights to the bowl.

Texas Bowl introduction
The Texas Bowl name and logo were officially unveiled on August 10, 2006, at a press conference along with conference affiliations for the bowl spots. The Big 12, Big East and Conference USA will be affiliated with the game, as well as Texas Christian University of the Mountain West. The 2006 matchup featured teams from the Big 12 and Big East Conferences.

On December 3, 2006, Rutgers accepted an invitation to play Kansas State in the inaugural Texas Bowl. "We're ecstatic about having Rutgers," Texas Bowl director David Brady said. "This is a top-15 team that was three yards away from a BCS game. We couldn't be happier to have them here."

2010 marked the eleventh consecutive year a bowl game has played in Houston, and the 40th year overall with a bowl game there (the Bluebonnet Bowl lasted 29 years). It was also announced on December 30, 2009, that ESPN Events would take over as part owner and operator of the game, while Lone Star Sports and Entertainment will maintain a stake in the bowl, and would be carried on ESPN.

Sponsors
On April 12, 2011, ESPN announced Meineke Car Care signed a three-year title sponsorship deal beginning in 2011, changing name of the bowl to the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas.

On February 12, 2014, it was announced that AdvoCare will be the title sponsor for the bowl game. That sponsorship concluded after the 2016 game.

On November 15, 2017, Academy Sports + Outdoors became the new title sponsor of the bowl. That sponsorship concluded after the 2019 game.

On December 14, 2020, Mercari was announced as the new title sponsor of the game. The 2020 game was later canceled due to COVID-19 issues.

On November 24, 2021, TaxAct was named as the new title sponsor of both the Texas Bowl and the Camellia Bowl.

Conference tie-ins
On May 17, 2007, it was announced Conference USA would have a team in the 2007 Texas Bowl. The Texas Bowl has a rotating commitment with the Big East Conference and Conference USA for 2006–09 while the Big 12 Conference will have a team in all four of those games. In 2007, TCU took the place of the Big 12 team when Kansas and Oklahoma were put into the BCS, and Houston, a "home team," represented C-USA. The conferences would receive $612,500 each as per the rules of the agreements as usually, the Big East (or Big 12) would have received $750,000 for playing and C-USA would have received a $500,000 stipend for their team playing.

Issues
According to Sports Illustrated, in 2008 the bowl required Western Michigan University to purchase 11,000 tickets at full price in order to accept the invitation to play in the bowl. The university was only able to sell 548 tickets at that price, forcing it to accept a $462,535 loss, before travel expenses, to pay for the privilege of playing in the bowl.

The 2020 edition, slated for December 31 between TCU and Arkansas, was cancelled on December 29 due to COVID-19 issues within the TCU program.

Game results
Rankings are based on the AP Poll prior to the game being played. Source: † LSU's win in the 2015 edition was vacated in 2023 by the NCAA for a booster-related violation.

MVPs
Source:

Most appearances
Updated through the December 2023 edition (17 games, 34 total appearances).

LSU's win in the 2015 edition was vacated by the NCAA in 2023.
 * Teams with multiple appearances

Won (7): Arkansas, Illinois, Navy, Rice, Rutgers, Syracuse, TCU Lost (5): Houston, Northwestern, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Western Michigan
 * Teams with a single appearance

Appearances by conference
Updated through the December 2023 edition (17 games, 34 total appearances).

LSU's vacated victory following the 2015 season is excluded from the SEC's win–loss totals and winning percentage.

 * Games marked with an asterisk (*) were played in January of the following calendar year.
 * Rutgers appeared in 2006 as a member of the Big East; the American Athletic Conference (The American) retains the conference charter following the 2013 split of the original Big East along football lines.
 * Independent appearances: Navy (2009)

Media coverage
The first three editions of the bowl were televised by NFL Network. Since 2009, it has been carried by ESPN.

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

title: Texas Bowl


text:
Momordica charantia

Momordica charantia (commonly called bitter melon, cerassee, goya, bitter apple, bitter gourd, bitter squash, balsam-pear, karavila and many more names listed below) is a tropical and subtropical vine of the family Cucurbitaceae, widely grown in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean for its edible fruit. Its many varieties differ substantially in the shape and bitterness of the fruit.

Bitter melon originated in Africa, where it was a dry-season staple food of ǃKung hunter-gatherers. Wild or semi-domesticated variants spread across Asia in prehistory, and it was likely fully domesticated in Southeast Asia. It is widely used in the cuisines of East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

Description
This herbaceous, tendril-bearing vine grows up to 5 m in length. It bears simple, alternate leaves 4–12 cm across, with three to seven deeply separated lobes. Each plant bears separate yellow male and female flowers. In the Northern Hemisphere, flowering occurs during June to July and fruiting during September to November. It is a frost-tender annual in the temperate zone and a perennial in the tropics. It grows best in the USDA zones 9 to 11.

The fruit has a distinctive warty exterior and an oblong shape. It is hollow in cross-section, with a relatively thin layer of flesh surrounding a central seed cavity filled with large, flat seeds and pith. The fruit is most often eaten green, or as it is beginning to turn yellow. At this stage, the fruit's flesh is crunchy and watery in texture, similar to cucumber, chayote, or green bell pepper, but bitter. The skin is tender and edible. Seeds and pith appear white in unripe fruits; they are not intensely bitter and can be removed before cooking.

Some sources claim the flesh (rind) becomes somewhat tougher and more bitter with age, but other sources claim that at least for the common Chinese variety the skin does not change and bitterness decreases with age. The Chinese variety is best harvested light green possibly with a slight yellow tinge or just before. The pith becomes sweet and intensely red; it can be eaten uncooked in this state, and is a popular ingredient in some Southeast Asian salads.

When the fruit is fully ripe, it turns orange and soft, and splits into segments which curl back to expose seeds covered in bright red pulp.

Varieties
Bitter melon comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. The cultivar common in China is 20–30 cm long, oblong with bluntly tapering ends and pale green in colour, with a gently undulating, warty surface. The bitter melon more typical of India has a narrower shape with pointed ends, and a surface covered with jagged, triangular "teeth" and ridges. It is green to white in colour. Between these two extremes are any number of intermediate forms. Some bear miniature fruit of only 6–10 cm in length, which may be served individually as stuffed vegetables. These miniature fruits are popular in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and other countries in South Asia. The sub-continent variety is most popular in Bangladesh and India.

Pests
M. charantia is one of the main hosts of Bactrocera tau, a fly known to prefer Cucurbitaceae.

Cooking

Bitter melon is generally consumed cooked in the green or early yellowing stage. The young shoots and leaves of the bitter melon may also be eaten as greens. The fruit is bitter raw and can be soaked in cold water and drained to remove some of those strong flavours.

China
In Chinese cuisine, bitter melon is used in stir-fries (often with pork and douchi), soups, dim sum, and herbal teas (gohyah tea). It has also been used in place of hops as the bittering ingredient in some beers in China and Okinawa.

India
Bitter gourd is commonly eaten throughout India. In North Indian cuisine, it is often served with yogurt on the side to offset the bitterness, used in curry such as sabzi, or stuffed with spices and then cooked in oil.

In South Indian cuisine, it is used in numerous dishes such as thoran / thuvaran (mixed with grated coconut), pavaikka mezhukkupuratti (stir-fried with spices), theeyal (cooked with roasted coconut), and pachadi (which is considered a medicinal food for diabetics), making it vital in Malayali's diet. Other popular recipes include preparations with curry, deep-frying with peanuts or other ground nuts, and Kakara kaya pulusu (కాకర కాయ పులుసు) in Telugu, a tamarind-based soup with mini shallots or fried onions and other spices, thickened with chickpea flour. In Karnataka, bitter melon is known as hāgalakāyi (ಹಾಗಲಕಾಯಿ) in Kannada; in Tamil Nadu it is known as paagarkaai or pavakai (பாகற்காய்) in Tamil. In these regions, a special preparation called pagarkai pitla, a kind of sour koottu, is common. Also commonly seen is kattu pagarkkai, a curry in which bitter melons are stuffed with onions, cooked lentil, and grated coconut mix, then tied with thread and fried in oil. In the Konkan region of Maharashtra, salt is added to finely chopped bitter gourd, known as karle (कारले) in Marathi, and then it is squeezed, removing its bitter juice to some extent. After frying this with different spices, the less bitter and crispy preparation is served with grated coconut. Bitter melon is known as karate in Goa where it is used widely in Goan cuisine. In Bengal, where it is known as korola (করলা) or ucche (উচ্ছে) in Bengali, bitter melon is often simply eaten boiled and mashed with salt, mustard oil, sliced thinly and deep fried, added to lentils to make "tetor" dal (bitter lentils), and is a key ingredient of the Shukto, a Bengali vegetable medley that is a mixture of several vegetables like raw banana, drumstick stems, bori, and sweet potato. In northern India and Nepal, bitter melon, known as tite karela (तीते करेला) in Nepali, is prepared as a fresh pickle. For this, the vegetable is cut into cubes or slices, and sautéed with oil and a sprinkle of water. When it is softened and reduced, it is crushed in a mortar with a few cloves of garlic, salt, and a red or green pepper. It is also eaten sautéed to golden-brown, stuffed, or as a curry on its own or with potatoes.

Myanmar
In Burmese cuisine, bitter melon is sauteéd with garlic, tomatoes, spices, and dried shrimp and is served as an accompaniment to other dishes. Such a dish is available at street stalls and deli counters throughout the country.

Sri Lanka
It is called (කරවිල) in Sri Lanka and it is an ingredient in many different curry dishes (e.g., karawila curry and karawila sambol) which are served mainly with rice in a main meal. Sometimes large grated coconut pieces are added, which is more common in rural areas. Karawila juice is also sometimes served there.

Japan
Bitter melon, known as gōyā (ゴーヤー) in Okinawan, and nigauri (苦瓜) in Japanese (although the Okinawan word gōyā is also used), is a significant ingredient in Okinawan cuisine, and is increasingly used in Japanese cuisine beyond that island.

Pakistan
In Pakistan, where it is known as karela (کریلا) in Urdu-speaking areas, bitter melon is often cooked with onions, red chili powder, turmeric powder, salt, coriander powder, and a pinch of cumin seeds. Another dish in Pakistan calls for whole, unpeeled bitter melon to be boiled and then stuffed with cooked minced beef, served with either hot tandoori bread, naan, chappati, or with khichri (a mixture of lentils and rice).

Indonesia
In Indonesian cuisine, bitter melon, known as pare in Javanese and Indonesian (also paria), is prepared in various dishes, such as gado-gado, and also stir-fried, cooked in coconut milk, or steamed. In Christian areas in Eastern Indonesia it is cooked with pork and chilli, the sweetness of the pork balancing against the bitterness of the vegetable.

Vietnam
In Vietnamese cuisine, raw bitter melon slices known as mướp đắng or khổ qua in Vietnamese, eaten with dried meat floss and bitter melon soup with shrimp, are common dishes. Bitter melons stuffed with ground pork are commonly served as a summer soup in the south. It is also used as the main ingredient of stewed bitter melon. This dish is usually cooked for the Tết holiday, where its "bitter" name is taken as a reminder of the bitter living conditions experienced in the past.

Thailand
In Thai cuisine, the Chinese variety of green bitter melon, mara (มะระ) in Thai, is prepared stuffed with minced pork and garlic, in a clear broth. It is also served sliced, stir-fried with garlic and fish sauce until just tender. Varieties found in Thailand range from large fruit to small fruit. The smallest fruit variety (mara khii nok) is generally not cultivated, but is occasionally found in the wild and is considered the most nutritious variety.

Philippines
In the cuisine of the Philippines, bitter melon, known as Ampalaya in Filipino and Paria in Ilokano, may be stir-fried with ground beef and oyster sauce, or with eggs and diced tomato. The dish pinakbet, popular in the Ilocos region of Luzon, consists mainly of bitter melons, eggplant, okra, string beans, tomatoes, lima beans, and other various regional vegetables all stewed together with a little bagoong-based stock.

The name of the fruit is rooted in the bitterness of its taste, (Filipino: Ampait) which means bitter. In pre-colonial Spanish in Ilocandia, the name is locally translated to Amparia and Ampalaya in the Filipino language.

Trinidad and Tobago
In Trinidad and Tobago, bitter melons, known as caraille or carilley, are usually sautéed with onion, garlic, and scotch bonnet pepper until almost crisp.

Africa
In Mauritius, bitter melons are known as margose or margoze.

Herbal medicine
Bitter melon has been used in various Asian and African herbal medicine systems. In the traditional medicine of India, different parts of the plant are used.

Research
There is little evidence that Momordica charantia has uses against cancer, diabetes, fever, HIV and AIDS, or infections. While it has shown some potential clinical activity in laboratory experiments, "further studies are required to recommend its use". For fever reduction and relief of menstrual problems, there is no scientific research to back these claims.

Momordica charantia does not significantly decrease fasting blood glucose levels or A1c, indicators of blood glucose control, when taken in capsule or tablet form. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center concludes that bitter melon "cannot be recommended as a replacement therapy for insulin or hypoglycemic drugs".

Adverse effects
A possible side effect is gastrointestinal discomfort.

Pregnancy
Bitter melon is contraindicated in pregnant women because it can induce bleeding, contractions, and miscarriage.

Bitter melon tea
Bitter melon tea, also known as gohyah (goya) tea, is an herbal tea made from an infusion of dried slices of the bitter melon. It is sold as a medicinal tea, and a culinary vegetable.

Gohyah is not listed in the Grieve's herbal database, the MPNA database at University of Michigan (Medicinal Plants of Native America, see Native American ethnobotany), or in the Phytochemical Database of the USDA – Agricultural Research Service (ARS) – National Plant Germplasm System NGRL

Subspecies
The plant has one subspecies and four varieties:

 * Momordica charantia var. abbreviata
 * Momordica charantia var. charantia
 * Momordica charantia ssp. macroloba
 * Momordica charantia L. var. muricata
 * Momordica charantia var. pavel

''M. charantia var. charantia and pavel are the long-fruited varieties, whereas M. charantia var. muricata, macroloba and abbreviata'' feature smaller fruits.

title: Momordica charantia


text:
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim

Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (سید عبد العزيز الحكيم; 1952 – 26 August 2009) was an Iraqi theologian, politician and the leader of Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a party that has approximately 5% support in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. He also served as the President of the Governing Council of Iraq (40th Prime Minister of Iraq)

He was a member of the United States-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. Brother of the Shia leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, he succeeded him as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when Mohammed Baqir was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf.

Family tree
Sayyid Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was a member of the Hakim family of Shiite scholars.

Early life
He was born in 1952, the son of Grand Ayatollah Muhsin Al-Hakim. He was raised in Najaf and then received his theological education through the religious school there, known as the Hawza. He was married to the daughter of Mohammed Hadi al-Sadr and he was the father of two girls and two boys. His son Muhsin Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was a political adviser to him, and his other son Ammar al-Hakim became the Secretary General of Al-Mihrab Martyr Foundation. Seven of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's brothers were killed, six of them on the orders of Saddam Hussein.

Iran and SCIRI

Al-Hakim played a leading role in the 'Safar Intifada' in Iraq in 1977 and was imprisoned by the Iraqi government in 1972, 1977 and 1979. He went into exile in Iran in 1980, where he was a founding member in 1982 of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a group set up under Iran's auspices to bring Islamic revolution to Iraq. The group was led by Al-Hakim's brother, Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim. SCIRI would later change its name to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Badr Brigades
Within SCIRI, al-Hakim headed its military wing, the Badr Brigades. Badr was officered by Iranians and its troops fought on Iran's side during the Iran–Iraq War.

Iraq
With the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 with the US-led invasion, Al-Hakim and SCIRI returned to Iraq where they have been major players in Iraq's politics. SCIRI's leader, Mohammed Baqir Al-Hakim, was assassinated on 29 August 2003, when a massive car bomb exploded as he left the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Following the murder, Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim became SCIRI's head.

Al-Hakim was the top candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005 but did not seek a government post because the Alliance had decided not to include theologians in the government.

Interior Ministry
Under Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, SCIRI controlled Iraq's Interior Ministry. In 2006 according to the United Nations human rights chief in Iraq, John Pace, said that every month hundreds of Iraqis were being tortured to death or executed by the Interior Ministry under SCIRI's control. According to a 2006 report by the Independent newspaper: 'Mr Pace said the Ministry of the Interior was "acting as a rogue element within the government". It is controlled by the main Shia party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri); the Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr, is a former leader of Sciri's Badr Brigade militia, which is one of the main groups accused of carrying out sectarian killings. Another is the Mehdi Army of the young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who is part of the Shia coalition seeking to form a government after winning the mid-December election. Many of the 110,000 policemen and police commandos under the ministry's control are suspected of being former members of the Badr Brigade. Not only counter-insurgency units such as the Wolf Brigade, the Scorpions and the Tigers, but the commandos and even the highway patrol police have been accused of acting as death squads.

The paramilitary commandos, dressed in garish camouflage uniforms and driving around in pick-up trucks, are dreaded in Sunni neighbourhoods. People whom they have openly arrested have frequently been found dead several days later, with their bodies bearing obvious marks of torture.'

U.S. visits
On 4 December 2006, al-Hakim met with George W. Bush and made a commitment to help end violence, We have gone a long way to establish a democratic and pluralistic society in Iraq ... We ... [believe in] a government that deals and will deal with all the sources of terrorism regardless where they come from.

Al-Hakim also gave his assessment of the situation in Iraq: The Iraqi situation has been subjected to a great deal of defamation, and the true picture is not being presented in order to show a dark side of what's happening in Iraq. We see the attempts to defame and distort the situation in Iraq not taking into consideration the democratic steps that that country has taken, writing the constitution and establishing a state that depends heavily on the constitution, that it is unified and that it is strong. There are attempts to show the sectarian strife in an attempt to weaken the position in Iraq.

On 5 December 2006, on behalf of The Catholic University of America and American University's Center for Global Peace, he spoke at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center. The title of his speech was "Freedom and Tolerance in Shi'a Islam and the Future of Iraq". Notable guests at this event included Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Rabbi Professor Ephraim Isaac from the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, New Jersey.

Illness and death
On 16 May 2007 he flew to Houston for medical treatment. Reportedly he had lung cancer. On 20 May 2007, Hakim left the U.S. for Iran, in order to receive chemotherapy treatment. On 26 August 2009, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim died of lung cancer in a Tehran hospital. He was buried in Najaf on 29 August, on the same day and month as his brother, who was killed exactly six years earlier. Hasan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanese Shia resistance group Hizbollah issued an emotional statement regarding the death of Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim. The statement spoke of the "struggle" of Al-Hakim to "rescue" and "uplift the Iraqi people." This drew criticism and calls of sectarianism from political commentator Asad Abukhalil due to the role of Abdul Aziz Al Hakim in the US occupation of Iraq.

title: Abdul Aziz al-Hakim


text:
User talk:Hklevjer~enwiki

can i just talk here?

 * This page is for communicating with other users. If you have any question or comment to a specific user you should go to the talk page of that user, thus if anyone has a question about something you did here s/he will ask you here. Same as it has a talk page associated with every article to discuss any problems with the article. For other questions you can also look if it isn't already covered in Help, or ask in the Village pump. Oh, BTW, welcome. Have fun editing here. andy 14:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Hklevjer. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hklevjer~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hklevjer~enwiki


text:
Massimo Salvadori

Massimo Salvadori, or Max William Salvadori Paleotti (16 June 1908, in London – 6 August 1992) was a British-Italian historian and an anti-Fascist.

Salvadori was educated at the University of Geneva and the University of Rome. He was involved in the anti-Fascist movement in Italy before World War II. Imprisoned from 1931-32 as a result of his political activities, Salvadori fled Italy for Switzerland. In 1943 he joined the British army and after participating in landings at Salerno and Anzio, parachuted into Italy to organize resistance. As agent of the British Special Operations Executive, Salvadori played a central role in providing weapons supplies for partisan formations and in pushing the Action Party to cooperate with the Italian Monarchy after the "svolta di Salerno" (1944). For this service, he was awarded the Military Cross and Distinguished Service Order. He served on the faculty of Smith College from 1945 until his retirement in 1973, with two notable breaks: in 1948-49 he was director of the Division of Political Science of UNESCO in France and in 1952 he worked as a political analyst for the Information Service of the Secretariat of NATO.

title: Massimo Salvadori


text:
Talk:San Serriffe

Review
I've linked the contributions so far, on this talk page, to the article and its revisions. Click on the date/time to see the article as it then was. Same as on history pages. (It puzzles me that these links are not set up automatically. They seem obviously necessary.  Without context, how can past talk contributions be taken seriously?  And if we don't take them seriously why do we keep them? )  What I want to do next is to review / collate contributors' opinions, and explore consensus on an article which clearly kicks up interesting questions about policies, and/or about how policies apply to it. SquisherDa (talk) SquisherDa (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fictional
Very funny! This is totally fictional - the part about ocean islands moving(!) is a giveaway. I suspect there's a good story behind the The Guardian reporting this as if it were real - somebody lost a bet? Say the name out loud, comes out as sans serif... Stan

I submit that this is actually worth of an article. The original hoax is a very famous one. I'll make a stub and see what people think. DJ Clayworth

 * Your word "hoax" seems to admirably indicate where it should be located. Moriori

Actually, I think my original version does rather better than the current purely factual stub: it (a) makes it perfectly clear that it is a hoax (b) gives proper references to the source (and to some of the secondary literature that has developed around it) (c) gives some idea of the flavour of the original (d) is funny. So I'm going to revert to it. seglea

April fool
We're on dangerous ground here. Actually I quite like the idea of having a little April Fool article in Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that if we leave it everybody and his dog will use it as an excuse to add anything to WP claiming "it's an April Fool". What's the criterian for adding stuff here? Does it have to be stuff that the Guardian published in the original, or does anything go? What do others think? DJ Clayworth

 * There's certainly a place for famous April Fool's jokes (no list of hoaxes that includes kremvax, Piltdown Man, etc?), but being fundamentally a dry factual source that sucks the humor out of everything, Wikipedia mustn't present any hoax as if it were real; people not familiar with English, geography, etc, could easily take this as real, tell friends about it, then get humiliated and hate Wikipedia for being misleading. I think a good compromise would be to lead with "is a hoax", then have the body describe in detail. Many of the Tolkien articles do this; see Thangorodrim for instance, which first says "is fictional", then describes it as if it were real, but also shifts to meta-comments to talk about how it was composed. For San Serriffe, non-English speakers will appreciate explanations of what the names are making fun of ("Lower Caise" -> "lower case", etc). In general, the bar should be pretty high for "famous" hoaxes, but size of audience seems like a useful guide - say, at least 10,000 people must have seen it or heard about it. Stan

 * I'll make a start on it Dysprosia

Sorry to be a downer, but I don't think this (well-written, funny) article actually belongs in the encyclopedia. Considering that 1) the place is fictional, 2) it's not a particularly famous fictional place (only referenced in one hoax article), and 3) it's flirting with copyright violation (not much commentary, mostly a recapitulation of the article content), I'd think it should probably be moved to the San Serriffe hoax, and reduced to maybe one paragraph (describe the hoax, give some highlights, describe reaction, link to article). There's not much information on how the hoax was accepted, either. I guess I'm just thinking: the original was funny, and this article is mostly worthwhile because it rips off the original. Why, then, should we have this article? --ESP

 * Recent revision now makes this an article about the hoax, which includes a description of the fictional nation as a sidebar. I vote to keep this article, as a prime example of "how to incorporate" stuff like thise. --Uncle Ed

As the resident party pooper, I have to point out that the material needs to be better integrated. "Fictional material follows" is not an acceptable solution.—Eloquence

 * I'm inclined to disagree — I think this article should stay. The hoax is reprised to some extent in most April Fool's Day editions of The Guardian and is somewhat renowned amongst regular readers. — OwenBlacker

As a Reichstag climbing patroller, I feel it's my moral duty to ensure that no one is thinking about Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to prove their point, in clear violation of the official policy explained elaborately at WP:NCR. This article is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Just because some people may have a poor sense of humor, which may cause them to feel an urge to climb the Reichstag to prove their point, it is certainly not allowed at all on Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. --Puellanivis

Alternative name
San Serriffe is an island nation, also known as Hoaxe...

The last bit I suppose is itself an attempted hoax. Unless anyone can source it? Flapdragon

 * Still no source for the assertion that the island is also known as Hoaxe. Unlikely.  It would hardly be a very subtle joke and no typographical pun that I can see.  Have removed. Flapdragon (talk)

Style
The article is primariliy written in an in-universe style. I would add the template thingy, but i'm a wikinoob --Gigitrix (talk)

 * A pity that no mention is made of just how clever the whole supplement was. Famous brands were persuaded to take out advertising space including Guinness who touted the locally brewed version of their drink which had a white body and a black hesd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.48.20 (talk)

Adze?
How is "Adze" a synonym for "Latin Alphabet" to which it links? Other than being made up of letters, but then again all the words are. If that is correct, it at least needs some explanation from someone who gets the joke. Długosz (talk)

Read it as such: "A D  Z  E," starting slowly and progressing more quickly... it becomes "A to Z" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.249.201.3 (talk)

Criticism of this entry is entirely silly
The Guardian once came up with brilliant joke,

I am an American, not from the north east or California,

and I don't understand it.

Therefore it should be removed from the 'pedia.

For ***'s sake educate yourself. It's what the 'pedia's for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.43.248 (talk)
 * Do you have a point?  DRosenbach  ( Talk
 * OK, Kamala Harris's husband is Douglas Emhoff - Errantius (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Drift?
The nation is reportly drifting in the Indian Ocean from left to right, but other sentences make it clear that a lot of the population are Arabs. Wouldn't THEIR part of the country drift from right to left? Can wikipedia send one of its many teams of surveyors to the islands to get the truth of this?69.86.126.190 (talk)   Christopher L. Simpson

title: Talk:San Serriffe


text:
Talk:Chinese unification

A section on HK and Macau
I propose a section "Pre-1997 HK", "1997-2047", and "Post-2047", to reflect the 50 years of "One country, two systems." My reasoning is that "Handover" was planned out 20 years ahead of 1997, and during the 50 year period, assimilation of customs territory, political systems, economic platforms, etc... is a step-by-step process, rather than one single event...You might also want to make a distinction between reunified in name only "ie. Hong Kong, China", but HK runs on a completely different governing and economic system than Mainland...and full scale reunification German style...

 * Whilst I can understand the rationale behind it, this is about reunifying the PRC and ROC. The One country, two systems has been adpoted by Hong Kong and Macau, also been proposed as a solution for the ROC/PRC refunication question, of which is mentioned, along with HK and Macau in the current proposals section. Hong Kong and Macau are SARs of the PRC, I'm not sure they need to be mentioned any more than they already are, though people are free to disagree, and I'm not sure how the 2047 and post-2047 would work, like 36 years into the future. -- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why 'reunification'?
I don't understand why the article is called 'Chinese reunification'. The Chinese term is more neutral and just means 'unification', as far as I can judge that (not a native speaker here). Shouldn't the English title reflect that instead of interpreting it from the POV of the PRC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.45.54 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, this sentence tries to explain the issue but I think it is misleading: "Many object to the term "reunification" as it implies that Taiwan is part of China" - it merely implies that Taiwan was a part of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.45.54 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reunification" does not imply that Taiwan was part of China - it implies that mainland China was part of the Republic of China.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also not clear that "Reunification" is accurate since Taiwan was never under the PRC's authority. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's essentially PRC propaganda terminology, so slightly inappropriate for this Wikipedia article unless it is explicitly described as such. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, though it was under the control of the KMT-led ROC from 1945 to 1996 (though, arguably, not under the ROC's sovereignty), and, prior to that, parts of the island were under Qing administration for over 200 years. The PRC inherited the ROC's seat of "China" at the United Nations (UN), so the UN officially agrees that the PRC is the successor state to the ROC, meaning the UN agrees that the PRC inherits the ROC's historical territorial claims. However, I'm not sure whether the UN ever even historically recognised Taiwan as being part of the ROC in the first place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia
The ROC still claims Mongolia, there is no discussion of this in the article. Charles Essie (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ROC doesn't still claim Mongolia. One may argue that the claim is in the ROC Constitution, but it doesn't list or define the national territories. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Name of article --> Unification of China?
Why is the article named Cross-Strait Unification, when "Cross-Strait" is a term that is mostly used in the Chinese language context, and meaningful only for people of China and Taiwan themselves? Outside of that context for both parties, I believe the concept is just called "Chinese unification" or "Unification of China". Also I think "Unification of China" is better so it's clear we're talking about the political entities rather than culturally or the Chinese diaspora. It would be better that "Cross-Strait unification" be a redirect than article title, "Unification of China", with a hatnote for "Unification of China (disambiguation)". Mistakefinder (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with the move to "Chinese Unification" and created "Chinese unification (disambiguation). If anyone sees any issues with this, let me know. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The move from "Chinese reunification" to "Cross-strait unification" was a partisan and undiscussed move by User:Uaat, and I was originally planning to move it back to "Chinese reunification" where it originally was located. If Uaat does not like the current title, he should start a WP:RM instead of making sudden controversial changes. The previous title had been in use for many years, and any proposed change needs proper consensus-building first. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reunification" is a better term than "unification", German unification and German reunification are 2 different articles because they're completely different, "Chinese unification" would probably be better fit for the Qin dynasty unifying all of the Chinese nations into a single state.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been a decision made on the naming without consensus here. I would vote for 'Chinese reunification' as noted, which seems to be the logical naming.  Mountain cirque 10:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chinese Unification. 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/20060711213903/http://www.noticias.info:80/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm to http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm

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 10:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reunification under ROC
There is no section on the third major option - reunification under the ROC. Why not? This was the policy of the ROC, and essentially the option supported by the UN, until after 1972?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese unification. 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/20041211125957/http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianstudiesDept/china-taiwan.html to http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-taiwan.html

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) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese unification → Cross-Strait unification – Per WP:PRECISION and WP:NDESC (Chinese unification (disambiguation)). Szqecs (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's more than one strait in the world. Stick to a meaningful and recognizable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's more than one channel in the world, yet the Channel Tunnel is still called that, as is Cross-Strait relations. Szqecs (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose Both title means the same,so I don't see the significance of the move.And this is an unnecessary move and will cause confusion.Cross-Strait relations is the name used because it is the official expression of the both governments.The Channel Tunnel is called that because this WP is written in English so readers normally understand its meaning.However in Chinese WP it is called 英法海底隧道,literally British-French undersea tunnel .The proposed move will cause more confusion because few English WP users know 'Cross-Strait unification' means.--113.128.150.82 (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of topics that the average reader doesn't know what it means. That's what WP is for, to inform. There is no Wikipedia policy of naming articles based on your assumption of what people know or not know. The average reader probably doesn't know China 'is not unified'. For those more educated, Chinese unification may refer to Han unification. There is however a policy of precise naming and we should follow it. Szqecs (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose Per WP:PRECISION which advocates for the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. "Cross-Strait" can mean anywhere, "Chinese" is instantly clear. And no, "Channel Tunnel" is not a suitable comparison, as "Cross-Strait unification" is not the English WP:COMMONNAME.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The change would make the article title less understandable to a reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"enduring pro-Japan sentiment"?
The lede (par. 3) names "enduring pro-Japan sentiment" as a reason for Taiwanese to oppose Chinese unification. While the footnoted articles establish that Taiwan and Japan are allies, and that there is substantial pro-Japan sentiment among ordinary Taiwanese, none of these sources allege that this in any way accounts for popular opposition to PRC overtures. It seems to me that the alliance with Japan (as with the USA) is largely a response to the threat of Chinese unification, rather than a reason for disliking the idea. Also, much if not most pro-Japan sentiment in Taiwan has not "lingered" from the colonial period, but is the result of popular cultural influences in the last few decades (similar to pro-South Korean sentiment, which is also strong here). Being pro-Japan would not rule out being pro-China, unless China insists that it is an either-or. Anyway, I propose that this phrase simply be stricken from the lede. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.61.249 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * and DONE. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:1004:1653:A9A2:841A:C9E:5262 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

mainland China vs China in the lede
CA, the MOS is clear here Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. We are to use China and Taiwan, this does not fall under the acceptable use cases for mainland China because HK and Macao are explicitly included in mainland China in this context (talk about muddying the waters). Also not sure what you mean by NPOV, can you clarify your point? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To keep the current wording we would have to add the confusing (including Hong Kong and Macao) after mainland China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * China and Taiwan is explicitly non-NPOV, and this is one of the contexts where, per the MOS, In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China", applies. I would be open to using the formulation with the formal wording, however.
 * As HK and Macao are mentioned only in passing vis-a-vis One Country, Two Systems, whereas this article has cited Xinhua as a proxy for PRC policy that "Chinese (re-)unification" is specifically about Taiwan. Per, MOS:LEDE, the lede should reflect the body's overwhelming focus away from HK and Macao. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, so we have consensus to use People’s Republic of China instead of mainland China? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does reflect what is proposed post-Macao handover. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, I will make that minor change immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation
" is the potential formation of a political union of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (controlled by the Republic of China)."

That's not true, at least very imprecise. Both the English and the Chinese terms listed refer to a unification of the mainland and Taiwan, that doesn't mean it has to involve PRC or ROC. In fact, in the original meaning of the term from 100-50 years ago, it was mainly used as to mean the unification under ROC only. Also, it could mean that Taiwan isn't controlled by ROC anymore.

If I don't hear any arguments and objections against I'll correct it as per my understanding. EnTerbury (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think our problem is that Chinese unification has both a specific definition in the context of the cross straits relationship and a general definition in the context of Chinese nationalism/revanchism. It is my understanding that this page is only for the first of those two concepts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's still not the same. For example, around the turn of the century proposals were floated by the PRC as to the formation of a "new" political entity compromising both sides of the strait, notably mentioned by Jiang Zemin. This is different to the wording of the original introduction. And as I understand your comment, it too is different to "Chinese nationalism/revanchism" as per this wouldnt directly include a claim to e.g. Mongolian territory. Obviously, the Taiwan movement and CCP sabre-rattling has led the talking to another direction. Still, this is my understand of what "Chinese unification" in this context, in this article actually means. I've edited, but am very much open to hear more arguments.EnTerbury (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ROC Executive Yuan Logo.svg
 * ROC Judicial Yuan Logo.svg
 * ROC Legislative Yuan Seal.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Control Yuan.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Pacific Forum International
Not sure if the following links will be helpful for this article or a section of this article. Or someone may be able create a new article based on this. It is a Pacific Forum International study about the impact on the world after a successful invasion of Taiwan. I have a couple of reliable sources and one primary source:, ,. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese unification


text:
Duke's Mayo Bowl

The Duke’s Mayo Bowl is an annual college football bowl game that has been played at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, since 2002. Originally commissioned as the Queen City Bowl, it has undergone many name changes due to sponsorship rights. The game currently features a matchup between a team from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and a team from the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the Big Ten Conference or the Big 12 Conference.

History
A new college football bowl game in Charlotte, North Carolina, was established in 2002 by Raycom Sports (now a part of Gray Television). The game was certified by the NCAA as the Queen City Bowl, which became the Continental Tire Bowl (2002–2004), Meineke Car Care Bowl (2005–2010), and Belk Bowl (2011–2019) prior to its current name.

The game previously featured a matchup between the No. 5 selected Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) team and the No. 3 selected American Athletic Conference (AAC). Originally, the bowl selected a team from the Big East Conference, until that conference's breakup in 2013.

In 2011, Charlotte-based department store chain Belk acquired the title sponsorship for a three-year period through 2013. After the initial period, Belk extended its sponsorship for six years, through 2019. As of 2014, the bowl featured the second pooled selection from the ACC paired against the second pooled selection from the Southeastern Conference (SEC), after selection of the College Football Playoff (CFP) teams.

On November 20, 2019, Belk informed bowl officials that the company would not be renewing its sponsorship after the 2019 season. In June 2020, Duke's Mayonnaise was announced as the new title sponsor for the bowl. As part of their sponsorship arrangement, in a take on the Gatorade shower, the head coach of the winning team gets a giant jar of mayonnaise dumped on his head.

In 2020, the ACC's opponent in the bowl is scheduled to begin alternating between the Big Ten Conference and SEC through 2025, with a Big Ten team playing in even-numbered years and an SEC team playing in odd-numbered years. The conference not sending a team to this bowl will send a team to the Las Vegas Bowl.

The 2020 game received notable social media coverage following the game as the quarterback of the winning team, Graham Mertz of Wisconsin, accidentally broke the glass trophy.

Game results
Rankings are based on the AP Poll prior to the game being played. Source:

Most appearances
Updated through the December 2023 edition (22 games, 44 total appearances).

 * Teams with multiple appearances

Won (5): Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, Wisconsin Lost (6): Arkansas, Clemson, Connecticut, Duke, Navy, Texas A&M
 * Teams with a single appearance

, within the ACC's 14 football members, 10 have appeared in the game: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest. Members that have yet to appear include Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami and Syracuse. Both of Pittsburgh's appearances, and one appearance each by Boston College and Louisville, came while those schools were members of the Big East Conference.

Among former Big East Conference football members, Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pitt, South Florida, Virginia Tech and West Virginia have appeared in the game, while Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse and Temple have not. Virginia Tech's appearances came as a member of the ACC.

Appearances by conference
Updated through the December 2023 edition (22 games, 44 total appearances).

 * The American's record includes appearances of the Big East Conference, as The American retains the charter of the original Big East, following its 2013 realignment. Teams representing the Big East appeared in 10 games, compiling a 5–5 record.
 * Independents: Navy (2006)

Game records
Source:

Media coverage
The bowl was televised by ESPN2 from 2002 through 2005; since 2006, the bowl has been televised by ESPN.

title: Duke's Mayo Bowl


text:
Casas del Castañar

Casas del Castañar is a municipality in the province of Cáceres in Spain, near the Sierra de Gredos mountain range.

title: Casas del Castañar