text:
Basilides

Basilides (Greek: Βασιλείδης) was an early Christian Gnostic religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt who taught from 117 to 138 AD, and claimed to have inherited his teachings from the apostle Saint Matthias. He was a pupil of either the Simonian teacher Menander, or a supposed disciple of Peter named Glaucias. The Acts of the Disputation with Manes state that for a time he taught among the Persians. According to Agapius of Hierapolis he appeared in the 15th year of Trajan reign (113 AD). He is believed to have written over two dozen books of commentary on the Christian Gospel (now all lost) entitled Exegetica, making him one of the earliest Gospel commentators.

The followers of Basilides, the Basilideans, formed a movement that persisted for at least two centuries after him – Epiphanius of Salamis, at the end of the 4th century, recognized a persistent Basilidian presence over the Nile Delta in Egypt. It is probable, however, that the school melded into the mainstream of Gnosticism by the latter half of the 2nd century.

Doctrine
The diverse and sometimes contradictory descriptions of Basilides' system by primary sources pose challenges. St. Irenæus portrayed Basilides as a dualist and emanationist in his Adversus Haereses, while Hippolytus painted him in his Philosophumena as a pantheistic evolutionist.

From Irenaeus' perspective, Basilides proposed a hierarchy of emanations from an Unborn Father (Abraxas), resulting in multiple heavenly realms and angelic powers, with the Jewish God identified as one of these angels. He introduced Christ as a savior from the angelic rule, implying a replacement of Christ with Simon of Cyrene during the crucifixion.

Epiphanius and Pseudo-Tertullian contribute to this portrayal by associating Basilides with the mystical name Abraxas and contempt for material reality. They indicate that Basilides considered suffering and martyrdom as meaningless and attached to the physical world.

On the other hand, Hippolytus presented Basilides' teachings as proposing a state of nonexistence prior to creation, brought into existence by a desireless and passionless Not-Being God, who generated the seed of the world. Basilides negated both emanation and the eternity of matter, associating creation with a divine command rather than material processes.

In this view, Basilides described three Filiations within the world seed, representing different elements of existence, each striving towards the Not-Being God through different means. He envisaged a divine hierarchy with Archons ruling different heavenly spheres, with the highest being Abraxas.

In the context of Christian history, Basilides constructed an elaborate metaphysical system which, among other features, attributed distinct eras to varying Archons, or rulers of the cosmos. These Archons, according to Basilides, each had dominion over specific epochs. This chronology culminated in what Basilides referred to as the reign of the Gospel, a period where spiritual enlightenment through the teachings of Jesus Christ becomes paramount, marking a significant shift from the previously held dominion of the Archons.

Redemption, as conceived by Basilides, constitutes a return to the primordial state of being, a reversion to the original state of existence before the creation of the world. In this process, each constituent part of existence reverts to its original condition. Material elements, which Basilides associated with the physical world and its inherent imperfections, return to a state of primal chaos. The psychic element, linked with the soul and consciousness, returns to the Hebdomad, a term that in Basilides' system may refer to the realm governed by the second Archon.

The spiritual element, seen as the highest form of existence, is believed to return to what Basilides cryptically referred to as the Not-Being God, a divine entity that, paradoxically, exists beyond existence itself. This spiritual return signifies a transcendence beyond the physical and psychic realms, a reunification with absolute divinity.

The final state in Basilides' metaphysical system is known as the Restoration of all things. In this state, Basilides envisions a divine blissful Ignorance being poured over all existence. This doesn't denote ignorance in the common understanding as a lack of knowledge or understanding, but rather, a state of divine tranquility and peace, an absence of desire or striving. This state signifies an end to the dualistic conflicts and the cessation of all suffering, a state of perfect unity and harmony. Basilides' idea of a divine blissful Ignorance, thus, suggests a kind of heavenly serenity, marking the final stage of the cosmic journey towards ultimate redemption.

Ethically, Basilides seems to have assigned faith as a natural trait rather than a conscious choice, and viewed sin and suffering as intrinsic to existence. He conceived evil as an inherent principle, making even Christ a sinful man.

Later interpretations criticized Basilides' system for potential immorality, though it's likely that these accusations did not apply to Basilides himself. Nevertheless, it's clear that some forms of Gnosticism, including Basilidianism, led to morally questionable practices over time. Extracts from Basilides' son and successor suggest indulgence in sensual desires for spiritual peace, possibly corroborating accusations of immorality among Gnostics.

Isidore, the son of Basilides, played a crucial role in the continuation and elaboration of Basilidian Gnosticism. He maintained his father's core ideas while also introducing additional elements, some of which seem to have derived from Stoic philosophy and popular superstition. Isidore purportedly developed a more ethically balanced approach, emphasizing the need to abstain from worldly desires in order to achieve the purifying knowledge (Gnosis).

The Basilidian tradition is believed to have survived until the fourth century AD, primarily in Egypt, before eventually fading out due to a combination of external pressure and internal conflicts. The establishment of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD heavily marginalized Gnostic sects, including Basilidianism.

However, the influence of Basilides' teachings has permeated through history and has been rekindled in the modern era due to increased interest in Gnostic texts. The recovery of the Nag Hammadi library in the mid-20th century, a collection of Gnostic texts, has offered new insights into Gnosticism, including potentially Basilidian beliefs. Despite its demise, Basilidianism has left a lasting impact on religious thought, particularly in terms of its challenge to orthodoxy and its innovative approach to issues of the divine, the cosmos, and the nature of humanity.

While interpreting these historical sources, we must bear in mind that most of these accounts were written by individuals who were opposed to Gnosticism, and therefore, their portrayals might not be completely objective. Interpretations of Basilides' philosophy are thus subject to ongoing debate among scholars.

Creation
His view of creation, according to the orthodox heresiologists, was likely similar to that of Valentinus, whom he rivaled, being based on a doctrine of emanations proceeding from an uncreated, ineffable Pleroma. Like his rival, Basilides taught that matter, and the material universe, are evil, and that the God of the Old Testament, who was responsible for creation, is a misguided archon or lesser deity.

Historians, such as Philip Shaff, have the opinion that: "Irenaeus described a form of Basilideanism which was not the original, but a later corruption of the system. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and Hippolytus, in the fuller account of his Philosophumena, probably drew their knowledge of the system directly from Basilides' own work, the Exegetica, and hence represent the form of doctrine taught by Basilides himself".

Faith and Election
Like other gnostics, Basilides taught that salvation comes through knowledge and not faith. This knowledge, or gnosis, was considered esoteric, a revelation to human beings by the divine being, Jesus Christ. Faith played no part in salvation. Indeed, Basilides believed faith was merely "an assent of the soul to any of the things which do not excite sensation, because they are not present". He also believed faith was a matter of "nature," not of conscious choice, so that men would "discover doctrines without demonstration by an intellective apprehension". Basilides also appears to have accumulated forms of dignity in accordance with ones' faith.

Because Basilides believed faith was a matter of nature, doubtlessly he pushed election so far as to sever a portion of mankind from the rest, as alone entitled by Divine decree to receive a higher enlightenment. In this sense it must have been that he called "the elect a stranger to the world, as being by nature supermundane".

Biblical canon
The canon of Basilides had its own Gospel alongside the Gospel of John, rejected the Epistle of Titus and selectively included only specific writings from the Pauline epistles. This canon also contained other unique texts, which are believed to have been penned by Basilides himself or his immediate followers, including the Interpretations of the Gospels and the Exegetica. Unlike the standard Christian canon, it did not include the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—as these were considered inconsistent with the Gnostic perspective. Basilides further eschewed mainstream Christian works he perceived as failing to reflect his Gnostic interpretation of Christianity, viewing such texts as distorting the true nature of the divine. As such, the canon of Basilides provides a distinct example of early Christian diversity and the varied textual traditions that existed within the nascent Christian community.

Metempsychosis
Basilides likewise brought in the notion of sin in a past stage of existence suffering its penalty here, "the elect soul" suffering "honourably through martyrdom, and the soul of another kind being cleansed by an appropriate punishment." To this doctrine of metempsychosis the Basilidians are likewise said to have referred the language of the Lord about requital to the third and fourth generations; Origen states that Basilides himself interpreted in this sense, "The Apostle said, 'I lived without a law once,' that is, before I came into this body, I lived in such a form of body as was not under a law, that of a beast namely, or a bird."

However, if there be any who suffers without previous sin, it will not be "by the design of an [adverse] power", but as suffers the babe who appears to have committed no sin. The infant is said to receive a benefit when it is subjected to suffering, "gaining" many hardships.

Hell
Origen complained that Basilides deprived men of a salutary fear by teaching that transmigrations are the only punishments after death.

Martyrdom
Because Basilides held to a fatalistic view of metempsychosis, he believed the Christian martyrs were being punished not for being Christians, but for sins they had committed in the past. This is why Origen says that he depreciated the martyrs.

Passions
The Basilideans were accustomed to call the passions Appendages, stating that these are certain spirits that append (προσηρτημένα) themselves to rational souls in a certain primitive turmoil and confusion. Then, they imitate the actions of those they are appended to, and not only acquire the impulses of the irrational animals, but even imitate the movements and beauties of plants. These Appendages can also have characteristics of habit [derived from stones], as the hardness of a diamond.

It is impossible to determine the precise origin of this singular theory, but it was probably connected with the doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to find support in Plato's Timaeus. St. Clement of Alexandria stated that the plurality of souls makes the body a Trojan horse.

Marriage
Reciting the views of different heretics on marriage, Clement gives specimens of the teaching of Basilides and his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the immorality of the later Basilidians. He first reports the exposition of (or a similar evangelic passage), in which there is nothing specially to note except the interpretation of the last class of eunuchs as those who remain in celibacy to avoid the distracting cares of providing a livelihood. He goes on to the paraphrase of, interposing in the midst an illustrative sentence from Isidore, and transcribes the language used about the class above mentioned. "But suppose a young man either poor or depressed, and in accordance with the word [in the Gospel] unwilling to marry, let him not separate from his brother; let him say 'I have entered into the holy place, nothing can befall me'; but if he have a suspicion, let him say, 'Brother, lay thy hand on me, that I may sin not,' and he shall receive help both to mind and to senses; let him only have the will to carry out completely what is good, and he shall succeed. But sometimes we say with the lips, 'We will not sin,' while our thoughts are turned towards sinning: such as one abstains by reason of fear from doing what he wills, lest the punishment be reckoned to his account. But the estate of mankind has only certain things at once necessary and natural, clothing being necessary and natural, but sexual intercourse natural, yet not necessary."

Epiphany
Although we have no evidence that Basilides, like some others, regarded Jesus's Baptism as the time when a Divine being first was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it seems clear that he attached some unusual significance to the event. St. Hippolytus of Rome implied that Basilides regarded the Baptism as the occasion when Jesus received "the Gospel" by a Divine illumination.

"They of Basilides," says Clement, "celebrate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary night-service of [Scripture] readings." The Venice MS. states that the Basilideans celebrated the night before the Epiphany singing and flute-playing in a heathen temple at Alexandria: so that probably the Basilidian rite was a modification of an old local custom.

Meat offered to idols and apostasy
Eusebius of Caesarea is quoting Agrippa Castor, when he states that Basilides: "taught also that the eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference". However, from St. Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, it appears that Agrippa Castor misunderstood the purpose of Basilides's argument, partly from the actual doctrine and practices of later Basilidians; but it may also have had some justification in incidental words which have not been preserved. It appears as if Basilides was actually saying that the eating of meat offered to idols and apostasy weren't condemned for immorality, but were punishments because of immorality.

Silence
According to Agrippa Castor, Basilides "in Pythagorean fashion" prescribed a silence of five years to his disciples.

Prophets
Agrippa Castor stated that Basilides "invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, and others that had no existence". The alleged prophecies apparently belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature popular with various Gnostics.

Traditions of Matthias
According to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias spoke to them mystical doctrines which he heard in private teaching from the Saviour. Origen also and after him Eusebius refer to a "Gospel" of or according to Matthias. The true name was apparently the Traditions of Matthias.

Acts of the Disputation with Manes
The writer of Acts held Basilides responsible for dualism, yet his language on this point is loose, as if he were not sure of his ground; and the quotation which he gives by no means bears him out. It is quite conceivable that his understanding of Basilides came from the dualistic Basilidians of his day, who have given a wrong interpretation to genuine words of their master. Indeed the description of evil as a supervenient nature without root, reads almost as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides's comparison of pain and fear to the rust of iron as natural accidents.

The identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the Alexandrian has been denied by Gieseler with some show of reason. It is at least strange that our Basilides should be described simply as a "preacher among the Persians," a character in which he is otherwise unknown; and all the more since he has been previously mentioned with Marcion and Valentinus as a heretic of familiar name. On the other hand, it has been justly urged that the two passages are addressed to different persons. The correspondence is likewise remarkable between the "treatises" in at least thirteen books, with an interpretation of a parable among their contents, and the "twenty-four books on the Gospel" mentioned by Agrippa Castor, called Exegetica by Clement. Thus the evidence for the identity of the two writers may on the whole be treated as preponderating. But the ambiguity of interpretation remains; and it would be impossible to rank Basilides confidently among dualists, even if the passage in the Acts stood alone: much more to use it as a standard by which to force a dualistic interpretation upon other clearer statements of his doctrine.

Isidorus
Hippolytus couples with Basilides "his true child and disciple" Isidore. He is there referring to the use which they made of the Traditions of Matthias; but in the next sentence he treats them as jointly responsible for the doctrines which he recites. Our only other authority respecting Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who calls him in like manner "at once son and disciple" of Basilides.

Expositions of the Prophet Parchor
Isidore's Expositions of the Prophet Parchor taught the higher thoughts of heathen philosophers and mythologers were derived from Jewish sources. So, by quoting the philosopher Pherecydes, who had probably a peculiar interest for Isidore as the earliest promulgator of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to tradition, Isidore was proving his validity as a descendant of the prophets.

Isidore's allegation that Pherecydes followed "the prophecy of Ham" was also used to claim that the apocryphal Zoroastrian books had quasi-biblical sanctity as proceeding from Zoroaster, a son of Noah; so Isidore gladly accepted the theory as evidence for his argument.

On an Adherent Soul
In his book On an Adherent Soul, Isidore appears to have argued against his father's teaching on "Appendages". He insists on the unity of the soul, and maintains that bad men will find "no common excuse" in the violence of the "appendages" for pleading that their evil acts were involuntary: "our duty is", he says, "by overcoming the inferior creation within us through the reasoning faculty, to show ourselves to have the mastery".

Ethics
A passage from Isidore's Ethics says: "Abstain, then, from a quarrelsome woman lest you are distracted from the grace of God. But when you have rejected the fire of the seed, then pray with an undisturbed conscience. And when your prayer of thanksgiving," he says, "descends to a prayer of request, and your request is not that in future you may do right, but that you may do no wrong, then marry."

Legacy
Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and Basilides superadded an eclecticism of his own. Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and the Christian faith and Scriptures all exercised a powerful and immediate influence over his mind. It is evident at a glance that his system is far removed from any known form of Syrian or original Gnosticism. Like that of Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a Greek spirit, but much more completely.

Ancient writers usually name Basilides before Valentinus; but there is little doubt that they were at least approximately contemporaries, and it is not unlikely that Valentinus was best known personally from his sojourn at Rome, which was probably the last of the recorded stages of his life. There is at all events no serious chronological difficulty in supposing that the Valentinian system was the starting-point from which Basilides proceeded to construct by contrast his own theory, and this is the view which a comparison of doctrines suggests.

In no point, unless it be the retention of the widely spread term archon, is Basilides nearer than Valentinus to the older Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic forms or ideas which he discards or even repudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such are descent from above, putting forth or pullulation, syzygies of male and female powers, and the deposition of faith to a lower level than knowledge. Further, the unique name given by Basilides to the Holy Spirit, "the Limitary (μεθόριον) Spirit," together with the place assigned to it, can hardly be anything else than a transformation of the strange Valentinian "Limit".

The same softening of oppositions which retain much of their force even with Valentinus shows itself in other instances, as of matter and spirit, creation and redemption, the Jewish age and the Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly elements in the Person of Jesus. The strongest impulse in this direction probably came from Christian ideas.

An antecedent matter was expressly repudiated, the words of eagerly appropriated, and a Divine counsel represented as foreordaining all future growths and processes; yet the chaotic nullity out of which the developed universe was to spring was attributed with equal boldness to its Maker: Creator and creation were not confused, but they melted away in the distance together. Nature was accepted not only as prescribing the conditions of the lower life, but as practically the supreme and permanent arbiter of destiny. Thus though faith regained its rights, it remained an energy of the understanding, confined to those who had the requisite inborn capacity; while the dealings of God with man were shut up within the lines of mechanical justice.

Popularity
Basilides had to all appearance no eminent disciple except his own son. Although Basilides is mentioned by all the Church Fathers as one of the chiefs of Gnosticism, the system of Valentinus seems to have been much more popular and wider spread, as was also Marcionism.

Influence
20th-century psychoanalyst Carl Jung wrote his Seven Sermons to the Dead and attributed them to Basilides. The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges was interested in Irenaeus' account of Basilides' Gnostic doctrine and wrote an essay on the subject: "A Vindication of the False Basilides" (1932). Basilides' Gnostic Gospel is one of the books mentioned in Borges's short story "The Library of Babel" (1941). Basilides also appears in Borges' "Three Versions of Judas" (1944), which opens with the striking passage: "In Asia Minor or in Alexandria, in the second century of our faith, when Basilides published that the Cosmos was a reckless or evil improvisation by deficient angels...".

Church Fathers
Historians know of Basilides and his teachings mainly through the writings of his detractors, and it is impossible to determine how reliable these accounts are. The oldest refutation of the teachings of Basilides, by Agrippa Castor, is lost, and we are dependent upon the later accounts of:
 * Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter vii, written around the 4th century.
 * St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I, Chapter xxi; Book II, Chapters vi, viii, and xx; Book IV, Chapters xi, xii, and xxv; Book V, Chapter I, etc., written between 208 and 210, and the so-called Excerpta ex Theodoto perhaps from the same hand.
 * St. Hippolytus of Rome, Philosophumena, Book VII, written about 225.
 * Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies, a little treatise usually attached to Tertullian's De Praescriptionibus, but really by another hand, perhaps by Victorinus of Pettau, written about 240 and based upon a non-extant "Compendium" of St. Hippolytus.
 * St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, Book I, Sect xxiv.
 * Theodoret of Cyrus, Compendium of Heretical Accounts, Book I, Chapter iv.

Writings of Basilides
Nearly everything Basilides wrote has been lost, but the names of three of his works and fragments are available in the present day:
 * Fragments of the Exegetica are available from St. Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 12, and from Archelaus in his Acts of the Disputation with Manes, Chapter 55, and probably also from Origen in his Commentary on Romans V, Book I.
 * Origen states that "Basilides had even the audacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides", and both St. Jerome and St. Ambrose repeat Origen. Yet no trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere; and it is possible either that Origen misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or that the Gospel was known under another name.
 * Origen in a note on Job, xxi, 1 sqq., speaks of "Odes" of Basilides.

Other works
Some fragments are known through the work of Clement of Alexandria:
 * The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
 * The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
 * Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
 * The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
 * The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
 * Reincarnation (Fragment F)
 * Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
 * Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

A book called Acts of the Disputation with Manes, which was written during the close of the 3rd century or later, speaks about the Basilidean origins of Manichaeism.

Artifacts

 * Artistic remains of Gnosticism such as Abrasax gems, and literary remains like the Pistis Sophia, the latter part of which probably dates back to the end of the 2nd century and, though not strictly Basilidian, yet illustrates early Alexandrian Gnosticism.

title: Basilides


text:
Werner Sombart

Werner Sombart (19 January 1863 – 18 May 1941) was a German economist, historian and sociologist. Head of the "Youngest Historical School," he was one of the leading Continental European social scientists during the first quarter of the 20th century. The term late capitalism is accredited to him. The concept of creative destruction associated with capitalism is also of his coinage. His magnum opus was Der moderne Kapitalismus. It was published in 3 volumes from 1902 through 1927. In Kapitalismus he described four stages in the development of capitalism from its earliest iteration as it evolved out of feudalism, which he called proto-capitalism to early, high and, finally, late capitalism —Spätkapitalismus— in the post World War I period.

Early career, socialism and economics
Werner Sombart was born in Ermsleben, Harz, the son of a wealthy liberal politician, industrialist, and estate-owner, Anton Ludwig Sombart. He studied law and economics at the universities of Pisa, Berlin, and Rome. In 1888, he received his Ph.D. from Berlin under the direction of Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner, then the most eminent German economists.

As an economist and especially as a social activist, Sombart was then seen as radically left-wing, and so only received — after some practical work as head lawyer of the Bremen Chamber of Commerce — a junior professorship at the out-of-the-way University of Breslau. Although faculties at such eminent universities as Heidelberg and Freiburg called him to chairs, the respective governments always vetoed this. Sombart, at that time, was an important Marxian, someone who used and interpreted Karl Marx — to the point that Friedrich Engels said he was the only German professor who understood Das Kapital. Sombart called himself a "convinced Marxist," but later wrote that "It had to be admitted in the end that Marx had made mistakes on many points of importance."

As one of the German academics concerned with contemporary social policy, Sombart also joined the Verein für Socialpolitik (Social Policy Association) around 1888, together with his friend and colleague Max Weber. This was then a new professional association of German economists affiliated with the historical school, who saw the role of economics primarily as finding solutions to the social problems of the age and who pioneered large scale statistical studies of economic issues.

Sombart was not the first sociologist to devote an entire book to the concept of social movement as he did in his Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung, published in 1896. His understanding of social movements was inspired by Marx and by a book on social movements by Lorenz von Stein. For him, the rising worker's movement was a result of the inherent contradictions of capitalism. The proletarian situation created a "love for the masses", which, together with the tendency "to a communistic way of life" in social production, was a prime feature of the social movement.

Sombart's magnum opus, Der moderne Kapitalismus (Historisch-systematische Darstellung des gesamteuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart) is a systematic history of economics and economic development through the centuries and very much a work of the Historical School. The development of capitalism is divided into three stages. The first volume of Der moderne Kapitalismus published in 1902, deals with proto-capitalism, the origins and transition to capitalism from feudal society, and the period he called early capitalism —Frühkapitalismus— which ended before the Industrial Revolution. In his second volume, which he published in 1916, he described the period that began c. 1760, as high capitalism —Hochkapitalismus. The last book, published in 1927, treats conditions in the 20th century. He called this stage late capitalism —Spätkapitalismus, which began with World War I. The three volumes were split into semi-volumes which totaled six books.

Although later much disparaged by neo-classical economists, and much criticized in specific points, Der moderne Kapitalismus is still today a standard work with important ramifications for, e.g., the Annales school (Fernand Braudel). His work was criticised by Rosa Luxemburg, who attributed to it "the express intention of driving a wedge between the trade unions and the social democracy in Germany, and of enticing the trade unions over to the bourgeois position."

In 1903 Sombart accepted a position as associate editor of the Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare, where he worked with his colleagues Edgar Jaffé and Max Weber.

In 1906, Sombart accepted a call to a full professorship at the Berlin School of Commerce, an inferior institution to Breslau but closer to political "action" than Breslau. Here, inter alia, companion volumes to Modern Capitalism dealing with luxury, fashion, and war as economic paradigms appeared; the former two were the key works on the subject until now. Also in 1906 his Why is there no Socialism in the United States? appeared. The book is a famous work on American exceptionalism in this respect to this day.

Sombart's 1911 book, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (The Jews and Modern Capitalism), is an addition to Max Weber's historic study of the connection between Protestantism (especially Calvinism) and Capitalism, with Sombart documenting Jewish involvement in historic capitalist development. He argued that Jewish traders and manufacturers, excluded from the guilds, developed a distinctive antipathy to the fundamentals of medieval commerce, which they saw as primitive and unprogressive: the desire for 'just' (and fixed) wages and prices; for an equitable system in which shares of the market were agreed and unchanging; profits and livelihoods modest but guaranteed; and limits placed on production. Excluded from the system, Sombart argued, the Jews broke it up and replaced it with modern capitalism, in which competition was unlimited and the only law was pleasing the customer. Paul Johnson, who considers the work "a remarkable book", notes that Sombart left out some inconvenient truths, and ignored the powerful mystical elements of Judaism. Sombart refused to recognize, as Weber did, that wherever these religious systems, including Judaism, were at their most powerful and authoritarian, commerce did not flourish. Jewish businessmen, like Calvinist ones, tended to operate most successfully when they had left their traditional religious environment and moved on to fresher pastures.

In his somewhat eclectic 1913 book Der Bourgeois (translated as The quintessence of capitalism), Sombart endeavoured to provide a psychological and sociological portrait of the modern businessman, and to explain the origins of the capitalist spirit. The book begins with "the greed for gold", the roots of private enterprise, and the types of entrepreneurs. Subsequent chapters discuss "the middle class outlook" and various factors shaping the capitalist spirit - national psychology, racial factors, biological factors, religion, migrations, technology, and "the influence of capitalism itself."

In a work published in 1915, a "war book" with the title Händler und Helden Sombart welcomed the "German War" as the "inevitable conflict between the English commercial civilisation and the heroic culture of Germany". In this book, according to Friedrich Hayek, Sombart revealed an unlimited contempt for the "commercial views of the English people" who had lost all warlike instincts, as well as contempt for "the universal striving for the happiness of the individual". To Sombart, in this work, the highest ideal is the "German idea of the State. As formulated by Fichte, Lassalle, and Rodbertus, the state is neither founded nor formed by individuals, nor an aggregate of individuals, nor is its purpose to serve any interests of individuals. It is a 'Volksgemeinschaft' (people's community) in which the individual has no rights but only duties. Claims of the individual are always an outcome of the commercial spirit. The 'ideas of 1789' – Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity – are characteristically commercial ideals which have no other purpose but to secure certain advantages to individuals." Sombart further claims that the war had helped the Germans to rediscover their "glorious heroic past as a warrior people"; that all economic activities are subordinated to military ends; and that to regard war as inhuman and senseless is a product of commercial views. There is a life higher than the individual life, the life of the people and the life of the state, and it is the purpose of the individual to sacrifice himself for that higher life. War against England was therefore also a war against the opposite ideal – the "commercial ideal of individual freedom".

Middle career and sociology
At last, in 1917, Sombart became professor at the Friedrich Wilhelm University, succeeding his mentor Adolph Wagner. He remained on the chair until 1931 but continued teaching until 1940. During that period he was also one of the most renowned sociologists alive, more prominent a contemporary than even his friend Max Weber. Sombart's insistence on Sociology as a part of the Humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) — necessarily so because it dealt with human beings and therefore required inside, empathic "Verstehen" rather than the outside, objectivizing "Begreifen" (both German words translate as "understanding" into English) — became extremely unpopular already during his lifetime. It was seen as the opposite of the "scientification" of the social sciences, in the tradition of Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber — (although this is a misunderstanding since Weber largely shared Sombart's views in these matters) — which became fashionable during this time and has more or less remained so until today. However, because Sombart's approach has much in common with Hans-Georg Gadamer's Hermeneutics, which likewise is a Verstehen-based approach to understanding the world, he is coming back in some sociological and even philosophical circles that are sympathetic to that approach and critical towards the scientification of the world. Sombart's key sociological essays are collected in his posthumous 1956 work, Noo-Soziologie.

Late career and Nazism
During the Weimar Republic, Sombart moved toward nationalism.

In 1934 he published Deutscher Sozialismus where he claimed a "new spirit" was beginning to "rule mankind". The age of capitalism and proletarian socialism was over, with "German socialism" (National-Socialism) taking over. This German socialism puts the "welfare of the whole above the welfare of the individual". German socialism must effect a "total ordering of life" with a "planned economy in accordance with state regulations". The new legal system will confer on individuals "no rights but only duties", and "the state should never evaluate individual persons as such, but only the group which represents these persons". German socialism is accompanied by the Volksgeist (national spirit) which is not racial in the biological sense but metaphysical: "the German spirit in a Negro is quite as much within the realm of possibility as the Negro spirit in a German". The antithesis of the German spirit is the Jewish spirit, which is not a matter of being born Jewish or believing in Judaism but is a capitalistic spirit. The English people possess the Jewish spirit and the "chief task" of the German people and National Socialism is to destroy the Jewish spirit."

One of Sombart's daughters, Clara, was married to Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt, who first described the Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

Legacy
Sombart's legacy today is difficult to ascertain because his Nazi affiliations have made an objective reevaluation difficult (while his earlier socialist ones harmed him with the more bourgeois circles), especially in Germany. As has been stated, in economic history, his "Modern Capitalism" is regarded as a milestone and inspiration, although many details have been questioned. Key insights from his economic work concern the emergence of double-entry accounting as a key precondition for Capitalism (a similar thesis was also discussed by Oswald Spengler) and the interdisciplinary study of the City in the sense of urban studies. Like Weber, Sombart makes double-entry bookkeeping system an important component of modern capitalism. He wrote in "Medieval and Modern Commercial Enterprise" that "The very concept of capital is derived from this way of looking at things; one can say that capital, as a category, did not exist before double-entry bookkeeping. Capital can be defined as that amount of wealth which is used in making profits and which enters into the accounts." He also coined the term and concept of creative destruction which is a key ingredient of Joseph Schumpeter's theory of innovation (Schumpeter actually borrowed heavily from Sombart, not always with proper reference to the original work by Sombart). In sociology, mainstream proponents still regard Sombart as a 'minor figure' and his sociological theory an oddity; today it is more philosophical sociologists and culturologists who, together with heterodox economists, use his work.

One of the reasons of a lack of reception in the United States is that most of his works were for a long time not translated into English - in spite of, and excluding, as far as the reception is concerned, the classic study on Why there is no Socialism in America.

However, in recent years sociologists have shown renewed interest in Sombart's work.

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

title: Werner Sombart


text:
Mark McClellan

Mark Barr McClellan (born June 26, 1963) is the director of the Robert J Margolis Center for Health Policy and the Margolis Professor of Business, Medicine and Health Policy at Duke University. Formerly, he was a senior fellow and director of the Health Care Innovation and Value Initiative at the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at The Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. McClellan served as commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration under President George W. Bush from 2002 through 2004, and subsequently as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2004 through 2006.

Education
After graduating from the University of Texas in 1985 majoring in English, Biology, and Plan II, he earned his M.D. degree from the Harvard–MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology in 1992 and his Ph.D. in economics from MIT in 1993. He also earned a Master of Public Administration degree from Harvard Kennedy School in 1991. He completed his residency training in internal medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and he is board-certified in internal medicine. McClellan's research studies have addressed measuring and improving the quality of health care, the economic and policy factors influencing medical treatment decisions and health outcomes, estimating the effects of medical treatments, technological change in health care and its consequences for health and medical expenditures, and the relationship between health and economic well-being. He has twice received the Arrow Award for Outstanding Research in Health Economics.

In government
From 1998 to 1999, McClellan served as deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, where he supervised economic analysis and policy development on a wide range of domestic policy issues.

During 2001 and 2002, McClellan served in the White House. He was a member of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, where he advised on domestic economic issues. He also served during this time as a senior policy director for health care and related economic issues for the White House.

McClellan served as commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) beginning November 14, 2002, becoming the first economist to hold that position. Originally from Austin, Texas, he is the brother of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and the son of Texas comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and attorney Barr McClellan.

He was administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the United States Department of Health and Human Services from 2004 to 2006. In this position, he was responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit program engendered by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.

Following the resignation of Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson in 2004, McClellan was mentioned as a possible replacement, but President Bush ultimately nominated former Utah governor Mike Leavitt. On September 5, 2006, McClellan announced his resignation from his post in the department. He told The Associated Press he would be leaving the agency in about five weeks and would probably work for a think tank where he could write about improving health care in the United States.

In 2007, he was appointed as the chair of the Reagan-Udall Foundation, a public-private partnership between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and industry.

In academia
Previously, McClellan was associate professor of economics at Stanford University, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine, a practicing internist, and director of the Program on Health Outcomes Research at Stanford University. He was also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Additionally, he was a member of the National Cancer Policy Board of the National Academy of Sciences, associate editor of the Journal of Health Economics, and co-principal investigator of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a longitudinal study of the health and economic well-being of older Americans.

Publications
==== Hospital Reimbursement Incentives: An Empirical Analysis ==== Published in 1997 in the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, McClellan's paper serves as a review and analysis of provider payment incentives resulting from the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS). Implemented in the 1980s, PPS was intended to incentivize hospitals to drive down costs by limiting the use of costly technologies that added little benefit. The hallmark of the program is the use of fixed payments via diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in a prospective manner based on diagnosis at the time of admission. McClellan suggests that PPS may not optimally incentivize cost sharing among insurers and health providers due to the income effect by which hospitals may seek out particular diagnoses with higher reimbursement rates, akin to skimming in the insurance arena. Conversely, retrospective cost sharing allows for possible supply induced demand, minimizing the hospital's incentive to decrease resource utilization and costs in more complicated cases. This paper presents an econometric model to summarize these reimbursement incentives, present information on cost sharing and generosity in the PPS model, and discuss the implications of these findings. McClellan points out repeatedly that the PPS has increasingly permitted more retrospective adjustments to the payments. This has been primarily driven through outliers and treatment-driven DRG's developed during the admission, rather than diagnosis-driven DRG's identified at the time of admission. Outlier payments allow for supplemental payments for unusually lengthy or expensive admissions and make up no more than 5% of all hospital admissions. The author considers the increase in case mix index, a measure of the intensity of care delivered, to have the most important influence on overall PPS payments. He adds that these retrospective adjustments may be hampering the program's effectiveness in implementing cost sharing. McClellan's model allows individual aspects of PPS to be evaluated for their contribution to cost sharing rates and reimbursement variance. He used linear regression to approximate how the cost sharing reimbursement is derived, using fixed and variable components. Lower costs equaled lower reimbursement; however, higher costs led to higher reimbursements only if the costs were driven by a procedure. This was most true for men aged 65 to 69 with surgery requiring ICU care and an increased length of stay. Generosity estimates indicate that virtually all hospitals do some cost sharing. Higher generosity is usually associated with greater retrospective limits on cost sharing. In the 1990s, high-tech hospitals saw more generous reimbursements and were more likely to survive, whereas for-profit hospitals were more likely to exit the market.

In summary, the Medicare "Prospective" Payment System has multiple retrospective factors that limited cost sharing in 1990. McClellan's review serves as a harbinger of current attempts to model a health care reimbursement program focused on pay for performance criteria such as penalties for readmissions and incentives for value-based purchasing. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act continues to drive home the message of cost sharing by reducing reimbursements in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System.

Role in Center for Reproductive Rights lawsuit
During McClellan's tenure as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the makers of Plan B emergency contraception applied for over-the-counter status.

In May 2004, FDA commissioner Steven Galson rejected over-the-counter status for Plan B. The Center for Reproductive Rights then filed a lawsuit, and deposed Dr John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs. Jenkins alleges that he learned in early 2004 that McClellan, then Commissioner of the FDA, had decided against approval even before the staff could complete their analysis. "I think many of us were very concerned that there were policy or political issues that came to play in the decision," Jenkins stated. He later said he did not know if anyone outside FDA influenced the decision.

McClellan said in his deposition that he was not involved in the decision to reject the initial Plan B application for non-prescription sales; he left the FDA in February 2004 to head the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid. He also said that he was never told by anyone higher up in the Bush administration what to do about the application, although he did say that he "briefed" two White House domestic-policy advisors. The litigation is ongoing; no finding has been made for either side.

title: Mark McClellan


text:
ISO 3166-2:NG

ISO 3166-2:NG is the entry for Nigeria in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Nigeria, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 1 capital territory and 36 states. The Federal Capital Territory contains the capital of the country Abuja and has special status equal to the states.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is NG, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Nigeria. The second part is two letters.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced in newsletters by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998:

title: ISO 3166-2:NG


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton

(transferred from Conflicts between users) User:Richardchilton has admitted these are all the same person

 * From Richardchilton's user page: "VeryVerily's detective work and accusations are going to matter a lot less now, what are you going to do about someone changing his IP every few minutes? Frankly, I have been a lot less restrained in the past few days. Before I would qualify and modify things I thought were POV. Now I just delete them wholesale and - most of the time no one stops me. I felt the need to go by the NPOV before, but now I don't, and I am a lot more successful in modifying Wikipedia now." This looks bad to me:
 * Declaration of unwillingness to accept NPOV policy
 * Declaration of use of subterfuge, including technical means, to get round blocks
 * On the face of it, this looks like a "declaration of war" from this user. -- The Anome 14:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I've got your man! His name is VeryVerily. Shorne 04:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For reference, I'm adding a list of all accounts which are believed by me to be his:

 * Lancemurdoch
 * JohnWoolsey
 * HectorRodriguez
 * Richardchilton
 * VeryVeripee (to mock me)
 * Halifax
 * Venceremos
 * Hanpuk
 * Capital punishment (added by anon user, believable but not imho proven)
 * Eco (added by anon user)
 * Oyecomova (V V 23:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Shhlomo (V V 23:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * User:Shorne (added by anon user)
 * Ruy Lopez (Very Verily 03:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) - admittedly not 100% sure )

-- VV 20:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * What the hell is my name doing on this list? Can't even face my accuser: an "anon user" made the accusation! Rig up the dunking chair, or is it the guillotine? Another good old-timey witch hunt by our beloved right-wing imperialist censors and part-time deities.

 * For that matter, why does this list exist at all? Is this anything but an attempt to round up the entire opposition and turn it into one mean red guy with horns, a barbed tail, and a pitchfork?

 * I demand a retraction and an apology. Shorne 04:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I do not think you belong on the above list of sockpuppets. But there is nothing wrong with (an anon) posting one's suspicions.  At any rate, you do a good imitation nonetheless, and bring the same problems. Very Verily  07:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think anybody belongs on that list. In fact, I don't think that the list should have been produced at all, let alone publicly posted. It is nothing but gossip. I call for its deletion. Shorne 08:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page appears to be turning into a list of every left-leaning user with who appears on this site, with scant association with "Richardchilton," complied by a single person. (This smacks of a witch hunt.) And even if all these accounts are used by the same user who edited with the "Richardchilton" account, what's the point? Not a single user on the list is banned. This page ought to be deleted. 172 01:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, every left-leaning user, of whom there are only fourteen. Because you leftists are so persecuted on Wikipedia.  "Witch hunt" - whatever; I know what I'm talking about, even if you don't.  And their collective actions need to be treated as a unit, especially now that I may be in arbitration with this sockpuppet army.  Identifying them comes before banning, not after, duh. Very Verily  01:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see sufficient evidence suggesting that we're dealing with the same editor, other than their socialist leanings. 172 01:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That is fine, as long as you are clear that it is only that you fail to see evidence. Very Verily 01:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see the evidence either. Maybe you should submit your story to the tabloid press. You probably meet their, er, standards. Shorne 01:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't on here for more than a couple of days before people started "suspecting" or even asserting that I was this, that, or the other user masquerading as Shorne. Typical of rightists. They don't want to discuss facts; they only want to discuss personalities and innuendo. Shorne 01:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Blah blah blah. Very Verily 05:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It's fact. And I call for your immediate banning, but I guess in life one doesn't always get one's wishes. Very Verily  08:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I consider it slanderous that VeryVerily continually accuses me, on pages there is a dispute over, of being a "sock puppet" or having a "sock puppet" or whatever. I see this as simply a method of diverting attention away from the article onto ad hominem attacks.  What proof does VeryVerily have to back up this accusation?  Absolutely none.  He is just using it to try to poison the well against me.  VeryVerily has been temp-banned for having an edit war with another user - I have never been disciplined as such, nor has, as far as I can tell, this user who he claims I am a "sock puppet" of.  VeryVerily is the one the Wikipedia community chose to temp ban after a Quickpoll, yet he throws mud at me, goes through my (and many other peoples) edit histories and reverts everything they write, tries to poison other users with his mindset of non-cooperation and so forth.  If everyone on Wikipedia acted like he did, it would be a complete mess.  What proof does he have for his accusations?  Absolutely none.  He can accuse me of things he conjures in his mind all he wants, I can state the FACT that the Wikipedia chose to temp ban him for his abusive revert war with another user and that his behavior is usually abusive and non-cooperative, not just with me but with other users as well. Hanpuk 18:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It is obvious to virtually everyone who works with you who you are. Even 172 probably wouldn't deny your identity; he just likes your politics. -- VV 20:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

However, he has announced on RfA and also on IRC his waning interest in this "crappy old" Wiki, so maybe the communist POV, vandalism, revert wars, and personal attacks may finally wind down a bit. See User:Richardchilton for his latest statement of intent (to continue attacking Wikipedia, but not as much). -- VV 05:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * RickK and User:VeryVerily (added by me in protest of this page) I'm sick of this page's existence - it belongs on the VFD. This user isn't unreasonable, a troll, or vandal. Instead, he's been put on the defensive by a small clique of right wing users committed to driving him off Wikipedia. Sure, he's provocative at times. But it's tough communicating on WP when you have several users following you around at all times, bickering over who had the right to revert what article and when, and then going ahead and reverting your work. Unlike the people habitually vilifying him, I'm one of the few users who's bothered to talk with him by e-mail or on the talk pages without arguing over bullshit, such as the typical who reverted whom first trivialities. We weren't discussing specific articles, but rather his impressions of Wikipedia as a project. He seems engaging and easygoing. I bet he'd rather write about chess than participate in edit wars. Unlike his virulent critics, he knows that he's biased, admits that he's biased, and holds nothing personally against users who think differently. IMO, he has a much more reasonable attitude about his critics than his critics have of him. He knows that they're playing the very same game that he's playing. However, his critics have never/can hever do any wrong in their own eyes. The overblown personal feud isn't the fault of Lance/Hector/Richard/etc., but of the users responsible for this asinine "Requests for comment/Richardchilton" witch hunt. 172 07:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: Hanpuk explicitly denied being one of the above; he appears to have conceded his identity since (User:Maximus_Rex/asdf).
 * This is a non-issue. Not a single user mentioned was a banned vandal. It doesn't make one difference whether or not Hanpuk was Richard, Hector, Lance, whatever. 172 18:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course it's an issue. The fact that banning has not been enforced does not mean he is not a vandal.  He has even admitted to his "guerrilla" activities on his own user pages. -- VV 20:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Removing "list of all his known accounts"
-- VV 05:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Removing the list. 172 14:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))

This is NOT how you deal with users who create sock puppets. You need far more evidence than your hunch and intuition. I have some firsthand knowledge of this matter. I supported the enforcement of a hard ban on a user with numerous accounts in August 2003. Note that I say "enforcement." There is nothing on record suggesting that any the accounts listed above has been banned.

User:Evercat knows the policies and procedures for sufficiently demonstrating that multiple sock puppets are the same user. He knows better than I do, so why not ask him about all this if my statements aren't enough.

From my knowledge, you have to bring forward extensive internal evidence, such as similar interests, habits, and prose. A habit of posting a quick series of multiple small edits, without using the preview button, e.g., is noted by comparing the UserContributions of the users in question. Another habit could be, e.g., evidence of similar tendency towards excessive use of headers and sub-headers.

Tacit admissions by the user of the practice are brought forward, requiring evidence in the form of http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:… links suggesting a pattern. Evidence of physical location seems to carry the most weight. For this you need evidence of the IP address.

Statistical evidence has been brought forward in these kinds of cases as well. Users with backgrounds in computer programming have created lists of pages edited by the user in question and the series of alleged sock puppet accounts. Control figures are also necessary. A user known NOT to be any of the users in questions is used as a "control" who is known not to be the creator of the sock puppets. This was done in the 8/03 case that I mentioned, posing doubts as to whether this was even statistically useful. It only seemed to confirmed a shared interest in a single topic. Statistics from Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits are used as well. Evidence of usage level correlations can be seen if this inquiry is done right. Users have also searched for patterns among edits to pages by the user in question.

User:Evercat backs up his conclusions with no bullshit hard evidence. I'm not saying that I believe or disbelieve the claims made by VeryVerily regarding this "one Communist user." It's obvious, however, that he has failed to meet the usual scientific standards necessary for making these kinds of claims on WP in the past. 172 14:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a comments page, and I don't see why I am not entitled to state my take on what this user is doing. You are welcome to state your skepticism here, but to require scientific proof before people can even talk about their suspicions obviously will assure that no such proof is ever sought.  As for your last paragraph, I have been vindicated by time in these cases, so far as I can tell every single time. -- VV 21:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Careful, people don't like being misrepresented. I didn't say that I was skeptical of these claims. I said that there were no grounds presenting the list as a matter-of-fact. This time, you attribute the list to your beliefs. This is fine:

 * For reference, I'm adding a list of all accounts which are believed by me to be his: 172 11:55, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Lancemurdoch
This user is making useful contributions to some articles, but also is making clearly wrong and destructive edits. For a clearcut case, consider this one. Also obvious is POV is added, such as in this case, which came initially with the mere edit summary "reworded", and which I have had to revert twice. Many of his edits, including his erasure of accounts of communist atrocities and really weird ones, have been reverted by others as well as myself; some have not as of now (e.g., Pol Pot). As another example, his changes to Wilhelm Reich promote the crackpot theory of "Orgone Energy" from "mystic pseudoscience" to a "scientific study" (with a parenthetical about some dissenters). So I feel this user's good contributions are somewhat negated by the need for policing, and that, troublingly, the potentially good contributions will need to be fact-checked (and corrected, as was done in Socialism by others). -- VV 00:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * "mystic pseudoscience"... I inform you that there is nothing in common between "pseudoscience" and mysticism. Optim 00:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Lance should be put on display somewhere as the last living example of the unapologetic oldtime Communist - he is almost admirable in his adherence to the Party line, when there isn't even a Party any longer to write it for him. He obviously misses not being able to write for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia so he has come here. He needs to learn that bourgeois encyclopaedias have slightly different standards - like not writing total rubbish and not abusing everyone else as agents of imperialism. Adam 01:36, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Someone on the IRC channel said Lance was "the last of the Old Bolsheviks" and it seems as though they were right! Insists on putting hopelessly POV stuff into articles - a vandal of the worst kind so i vote for hardban. PMA 02:25, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to people being banned for political reasons. Secretlondon 20:54, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Secretlondon. Strongly opposed to political bans. Optim 00:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Excuse me? No one has proposed a political ban; the issue is "writing total rubbish" and "putting hopelessly POV stuff into articles" and being "a vandal of the worst kind". -- VV 00:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding HectorRodriguez
User:HectorRodriguez is deleting every single occurrence of the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" from every single article surrounding the 9/11 attacks. His anti-US rants on Talk pages make all of his edits suspect. RickK 06:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He is clearly a vandal. See this. -- VV 07:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Is having an anti-US POV necessarily a bad thing? I guess it is if you have a pro-US POV. Personally I like the balance. Secretlondon 10:50, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, perhaps, but the articles need to be NPOV. This notwithstanding, our not being allowed to use the word 'terrorist' is really politically correct nonsense. Arno 11:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Secretlondon, are you serious? Are you defending with a straight face temporary -> tacky?  Anyway, there's plenty of anti-US POV here already, more than "balance", but not all of it takes the form of vandalism. -- VV 17:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * VeryVerily modified my changes on the 9/11 page. What that means is now, all those links point to nowhere.  Then RickK came on my talk page and said that all the pages I editted are now pointing nowhere, which perhaps was my intention, even though VeryVerily made the edit which pointed them to nowhere.  Another thing is I am mainly erasing the word terror from titles as I don't think POV and edit wars should be done within the titles as that leads to chaos.  And people seem to agree with me - the majority of people voted to keep the word terror out of the 9/11 title, although of course, VeryVerily didn't.  Thus, insofar as the main page, VeryVerily is in the minority of opinion on this matter.  As far as the pages, I have never erased sentences like "The US has designated so-and-so as a terrorist group".  I have removed the word terrorist from a page when given from an omniscient standpoint, as if it were a "fact" someone was terrorist in the same manner that the sky is blue.  Anyhow, the page itself is less important to me than the titles, which are what I am primarily concerned with removing POV from.  And any misdirections are due to halfway done reversions, not due to my fault - all the links off the 9/11 page worked before VeryVerily did his half-assed attempt at reverting my title edits.  The word terror should be taken out of the title and put on the page (and in my opinion it should be stated who accuses them of being terrorist - the US, the EU, or whoever).  Otherwise it just leads to edit wars, and with the titles, not the pages, which just makes chaos.  The vote on the September 11, 2001 attacks discussion page shows that, at least for that main page, my opinion is in the majority, and VeryVerily's vote in there, is in the minority opinion. -- HectorRodriguez 15:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RickK's behavior has been appalling. Hector is a new user who needs to be briefed on policy and receive friendly advice for avoiding flame wars on controversial subjects. Instead, RickK has been browbeating him for his supposed political beliefs. In some instances, RickK did revert inappropriate edits by Hector, such as the paragraph on the 9/11/73 coup in Chile, which was filled with loaded language and perhaps off-topic. But in the process, he was browbeating, calling him "anti-American, pro-Soviet, and pro-al Qaeda vanal," among other choice insults, and harassing him for supposedly holding these views. Instead, RickK, as an admin, should have explained why loaded language and going off topic are violations of policy. More disturbingly, RickK was harassing Hector and automatically reverting his changes even when Hector opted for formal, encyclopedic definition in the intro paragraph of the East Germany country page. See my comments on the talk page for more details.

IMHO, the only RickK reason is able to get away with such gross abuse (singling out a new user for harassment and auto-revert because he disagrees with him) is the unpopularity of Hector's views. This spectacle makes it patently clear that all Wiki lacks adequate safeguards to protect dissenting users, even when they're acting within the realm of policy constraints.

Hector does need to work on NPOV, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt as a new user prone to make innocuous mistakes. Perhaps Angela, who's probably the polite and professional admin I can think of, could be the one to council him? It certainly can't be RickK. 172 18:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe Hector is a new user; he knows the ropes far too well. His behavior is clearly that of a vandal, as my example above showed. He is also blanking 9/11 redirect pages now. RickK made the right call, and also Hector's views are far from unpopular round these parts. -- VV 22:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hector is getting to be a real problem. The vote that he refers above to was in regard to the existance of the word "terrorist" in the title, rather than in the article. Furthermore, he seems intent on blanking out articles like September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Misinformation and rumors, presumably because they carry that verbotten word "Terrorist". He did this to the misinformation page the other day, and I thought it an accident. Now I am not so certain. Arno 07:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Right, that's what I mean by blanking redirects. That's the third one I've had to restore.  This is no accident.  -- VV 07:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently I'd underestimated the extent of the problem. I'm up to seventeen redirects I've had to unblank.  Is there any doubt now? -- VV 08:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Seventeen! Furthermore, he has made his anti-terrorist views clear on his user page. This needs action, sysops. It really does. Arno 07:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that you all have allowed HectorRodgriquez to claim that the attacks on September 11 were not terrorism, he's now going on to whitewash the entire history of every Communist movement. Apparently the deaths of millions of Cambodians were caused by the West, and not by the Khmer Rouge (excuse me, to him, they're the Communist Party of Cambodia, and only the capitalist press ever called them the Khmer Rouge.) He has attempted to make every reference to the Viet Cong change to National Liberation Front of Vietnam. He has engaged in several revert wars today, which have required the protection of several pages. RickK 00:46, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Is the naming issue being discussed anywhere? -- ChrisO 01:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of nonsense that I was dreading. Politically correct modifications of articles. When's it going to stop? And when are the sysops goinf to take action? They certainly did not hesitate when Alexandros made his controversial contributions? (as mentioned above). Arno 06:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It isn't up to sysops. They are only there to carry technical things like page protections, not to solve editing disputes. And this is in no way comparable to what Alexandros did to me. Angela. 07:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hector is adding blatantly POV additions to such articles as Panama and Manuel Noriega, and my attempts at reverting them were sabotaged by Wik, who is now stalking me instead of Anthony DiPierro. RickK 04:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * On the French Communist Party page I noted that PCF was once France's largest political party. VeryVerily, who goes through my edit history and then just reverts everything I write, reverted it (along with everything else I'd done the day before).  I went in and re-reverted everything.  So then RickK comes in and re-re-reverts everything as VV had done. Above he notes that his attempts at reverting my "blatantly POV additions" are being sabotaged or whatnot.  So I guess noting such things on the PCF page such as that it was once the largest political party in France is incredibly POV.  Then he notes my edits on the Manuel Noriega page are "blatantly POV".  If he wants to see blatant POV, he should have read the Noriega page before I editted it.  The US pouring in millions of dollars to fund Noriega's opponents, Noriega's foreign policy shifts in the 1980s, the USs troop buildups in the canal zone, The US military's incursions into sovereign Panama, the looming 1/1/90 Panama Canal control handover from the US to Panama - these are all issues whose mention is "blatantly POV".  In the RickK world, Noreiga supported Cuba (of course we shouldn't mention support of democratically elected governments like Nicaragua).  He also declares war out of the blue against the US, which makes perfect sense since he obviously had a good chance of defeating the US, and starts killing American soldiers (who are "stationed in Panama City" - that's odd, Panama has an army but for some reason US marines are stationed in sovereign Panama).  And on and on and on.  Of course VeryVerily, RickK and the like do not want this information known to people, they don't even want to discuss it, they just see someone post some facts they don't like others to see and start screaming "vandal!" and revert everything those people write.  Then people like Wik or 172 or whoever revert it back and it becomes a conspiracy of "vandals".  Ho-hum HectorRodriguez 07:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:Richardchilton
I'm pretty convinced that the set {Richardchilton, Lancemurdoch, HectorRodriguez} has cardinality less than three, and possibly one. Their obsessions seem identical: e.g., ,   ,  , even  . It seemed pretty clear to me that neither Hector nor Richard were new users upon their putative arrival, and now Richard has started a move war on Khmer Rouge that has resulted in that page being protected, as well as numerous other POV additions. -- VV 20:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Or these: . -- VV 22:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think this person denies using more than one account. I also don't think that using more than one account is against any policy in itself.  Perhaps you can correct me?  Morwen 22:11, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried to solve the underlying political dispute? Secretlondon 20:53, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Many users have tried talking to him/them. Look at the histories of the articles and talk pages in question if you believe your seeming implication that it is just me. I'm guessing that you haven't, based on this question. -- VV 21:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why do you presume they are all the same person? I *know* you have very strong opinions on a lot of US topics - and so do they. They also seem to feel victimised, and I know that some users from your side of the fence *also* feel victimised. Some see a conservative bias, some see a "liberal" (as in US liberal) bias. I'm annoyed to see new users with strong POV instantly put on this page, by others with equally strong (but opposite POV). My way of dealing with is it not to edit pages relating to US politics. That may be cowardice on my part. We need to find a way of working through this which means that *all sides* need to compromise. Secretlondon 22:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your not-totally-negative tone, but you don't seem to give me much credit. I presented my evidence.  Rebut it if you can, but keep my POV out of it.  (You seem to be the perennial skeptic, ignoring similar clear evidence of Hector's intentions.)  -- VV 06:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, they have an identical editing style, they have made exactly the same points on the same articles. LM was active until 16 Jan.  Hector appeared Feb 8, then disappeared feb 20.   Richard's first edit was feb 20, some hours after Hector vanished.   Now, you could maybe give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think assuming they are the same person isn't as unreasonable as you are making it out to be.  Note there is no policy against using multiple usernames, anyway, so its sort of hard to see what this complaint is about - even if it is true, so what?  Morwen 22:34, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * To answer your question: The complaint is the move wars, despite having policies explained to each account, and repeated POV additions.  Add to that all the complaints against Hector and Lance, and you have a pretty big case. -- VV 06:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * This is one hypothesis. Here is another hypothesis: VeryVerily editted me so I went through his edit history and began re-reverting his unfair edits of myself and others - in other words, doing the same thing VeryVerily does all the time.  I'm not sure why he hasn't accused me of being Kevehs or some other users he seems to be having a continual edit war with.  Anyhow, VeryVerily can go on imagining these vast conspiracies directed against him (see the anarcho-capitalism discussion page - "Richardchilton above is almost certainly a sock puppet for HectorRodriguez and Lancemurdoch, who has a well-known agenda against me"), I have better things to do.  It seems most of the people aside from VeryVerily who I have been arguing with have said I am not in accordance with the Naming conventions (common names) rule, so I have started a discussion on that page's discussion page (which I linked to from Village Pump).  VeryVerily can go on a witchhunt and try to throw fuel on the Wikipedia fire, I'm going to try to come to a consensus agreement to this in one place instead of going off on investigations, witchhunts and multiple edit wars against multiple people on multiple pages.  I'm waiting for a consensus to develop on editorial policy from that discussion page before making any subsequent edits on any pages regarding group names, so VeryVerily can rest knowing he's "won" as I won't be editting any pages for group names until consensus develops regarding this policy. -- Richardchilton 23:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you also or previously known as Richardchilton, Lancemurdoch and/or HectorRodriguez? VV isn't the only person who thought so (several people in IRC were of that opinion as well), so it's not simply a case of one user against another. Jamesday 00:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * He'll deny it and that will be grounds for doubt during proceedings because some people don't understand that trolls are born liars. He has the same New York ISP, the same ideology, the same interests and the same vendettas. He has announced his intention to engage in protracted edit wars, and admitted that he has been active on Wikipedia before this identity. See User:Tim Starling/Richardchilton IRC log. -- Tim Starling 00:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for posting the IRC logs! It does clarify a lot.  I especially like the "I consider VeryVerily my main enemy" part.  It's hard not to be flattered. -- VV 06:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer to ask the leading questions, though. Subsequent events in IRC made things more clear than that log, with the you can't stop me baiting style. Ah well, one more reason to agree with Jimbo that blocking proxies like those he was using is worth doing. Jamesday 02:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Richardchilton isn't a vandal/banned user
Even if Richard is Lance and Hector, so what!!!???? Lance and Hector weren't banned users. Behind the façade of all this bickering, Richard is being singled out for holding some beliefs that users who keep hounding him despise. I respect most of his critics (VV, e.g., is fair-minded and committed to NPOV), and I do believe that they're sincerely trying to act fairly. However, they need to be altered to the fact that they have a starkly different worldview that makes cooperating and communicating with this user a special challenge.

Mediators need to promote mutual understanding here, rather than continuing to chase this ideological outcast away. We need to have a greater appreciation of democratic pluralism in both rhetoric and action. Only when the persecution of this user stops, will he have the incentives to play by the rules of Wiki. If someone can foster constructive dialogue for a change, Hector has the potential to become an especially valuable contributor. He'd bring to the forefront of attention subjects that are customarily overlooked on Wiki (e.g., Sans-culottes). He'd introduce a fresh take on things and would broaden the horizons of the community of users as a whole. We should welcome the fact that this user brings a starkly different perspective to the site. We ought to welcome diversity of ideas and a multiplicity of perspectives. After all, this is the only way to write a world as diverse as it is. So please, try talking with him for a change, rather than rushing to the House Un-American Activities Committee (I mean the Conflicts between users users page). 172 02:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, don't accuse me of a leftist agenda. Go to the October 2003 mailing lists, e.g., and note my ardent opposition to banning User:RK and my use of the same reasoning. Recently, I also remarked to User:G-Man that we desperately lack elderly contributors (giving us Gen-X and Baby Boom biases). Furthermore, I also noted the need to promote more non-Western admins a while ago. I'd also like to mediate an accord pledging mutual respect of differences of thought between Richard and his critics (VV, Jamesday, RickK, Robert Merkel, Tim Starling, and Ed Poor). 172 02:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You can unblock him if you like, it won't make any difference. Now that his identity is revealed, he says he's going to change identities and use anonymous proxies. This makes things easy, because anonymous proxies can be blocked without debate, by Jimbo's decree. -- Tim Starling 02:35, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked him. See my message below. 172 04:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't care about his politics. I saw his attention-getting trolling in IRC and took a look, saw how he'd been using that approach in the Joseph Stalin article and merged in the edits which seemed to make sense during the time from before he started trolling to after the fighting he'd started ended with the proxy he was using being blocked. I agree that the article needs more work - but not by someone who's doing it with the expressed intent opf causing problems. That's why I told you I'd do more work on the article tomorrow, since it does need some significant work, IMO. Meanwhile, if you'd like the later IRC logs, please do accept my offer to send them to you privately - I'll use email if you prefer that route. I've no strong views on VV but I'm not particularly keen on edits like this one "people getting the flu, people getting cancer (which was Stalin's fault), old people getting really old and dying of old age" to the Joseph Stalin article by VV. Jamesday 02:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that users are deliberately targeting Lance/Hector/Richard due to his ideology. I'm saying that because Lance/Hector/Richard has a frame of reference and perspective starkly different from the vast majority of users with whom he interacts, conflict is likely due to the sheer difficulties of communication and reaching common ground. Hence, let's stop labeling Richardchilton a "vandal." He's only guilty of being an outcast, which makes following the informal norms and customs of users' community so problematic. Moreover, chasing him away has failed repeatedly. Instead, try attacking the root of the problem. We can do so by treating him as "one of us" - a welcomed user and member of the community. Doing so entails approaching him with an open mind, attempting to civilly discuss things with him on the talk pages. That way, he can work from within the rules, regulations, norms, and customs of Wiki to make his desired changes. This is a far more productive strategy than calling him a "Communist whitewasher," as many users have, and hysterically traversing all the problem user pages to lodge complaints. Despite the good intentions of Robert Merkel, Jamesday, PMA, Very Verily, RickK, Ed Poor, and Tim Starling, their approach to this user is confounding the problem. So let's try "constructive engagement." 172 04:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That wasn't VeryVerily, but an obvious troll using a juvenile mockery of his username (VeryVeripee. --67.71.78.115 03:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I assumed that 172 was referring to a person with initials VV in relation to the JS article, since that's the only combination of 172, me and VV that I'm aware of. That not-VeryVerily VV initialed person did one of the edits I in the sequence I undid over in the JS article. My sympathies to VeryVerily if there's a troll doing annoying things and apologies to 172 if 172 intended someone other than the only VV which seemed to make sense in the context here. Jamesday 03:12, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I was referring to User:Very Verily, who is a critic of Lance, Hector, and now Richard. Very Verily is a competent user dedicated to NPOV. If the admins make the effort, perhaps we can facilitate a dialogue between him and Lance/Hector/Richard so that they can avoid edit wars. 172 04:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * i hope for everyone's sake that your belief in "constructive engagement" proves right and we don't all get taken for a ride and made to look fools. After his behaviour in Wiki and IRC, i can't be blamed for having a "healthy scepticism". PMA 04:26, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ban of User:Richardchilton and incarnations
Based on everything, a hard ban of Lance/Richard/Hector seems to me to be in order. We now have plenty of evidence based on behavior and the IRC logs of his trolling and baiting. Furthermore, he left a long manifesto on User:Richardchilton declaring his intentions to switch IP addresses constantly, delete text from Wikipedia he doesn't like, and create new user names to avoid detection; in fact, he states he has been successful at this. He says, "I felt the need to go by the NPOV before, but now I don't, and I am a lot more successful in modifying Wikipedia now", and refers to the managers of Wikipedia as "the enemy", and admins as "commissars". He clearly does not intend to partake in the project as intended, and states that his mass deletions are being reverted, but not consistently. Implementing a hard ban would authorize anyone to block/revert him at any time. In the event that someone such as 172 succeeds in the below-noted hope of rehabilitating him, L/R/H can do what Lir did and state his intentions privately to Jimbo or whoever. For now, I think the course is clear. A suspicious "new user", Venceremos, has appeared with a short edit history but a lot of knowledge of Wikipedia, and there may be others. It's not proven yet he's the same person, of course, but note that nearly all his edits (most initially deletions of large sections of articles) have been reverted by someone. -- VV 08:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC), added (most...) 08:43

 * I wonder who's behind this.... http://www.geocities.com/progressivepix/wikiwatch/ (archived here VV 18:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)) -- VV 10:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


text:
Andro

Andro may refer to:

 * Andro (name)
 * Andro (album), a 2020 album by Tommy Lee
 * Andro, Imphal East, a town in Manipur, India
 * A slang word for anabolic steroids
 * Androstenedione, a steroid, often called andro or andros for short
 * An Dro, folk dance from Brittany
 * A dialect of the Chakpa language

title: Andro


text:
User:Venturi~enwiki

To do: Edit this page. ;)

title: User:Venturi~enwiki


text:
Dave Hansen (politician)

Dave Hansen (born December 18, 1947) is an American Democratic politician and former state legislator. He was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate from 2001 through 2021, representing the 30th senatorial district.

Early life and education
Hansen was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay in 1971, marrying Jane Dessart the same year; the couple has three children.

Early career
Before being elected to public office, Hansen was a school teacher, a Teamster's Union steward, and also a truck driver for the City of Green Bay. He served on the Board of Supervisors for Brown County from 1996 to 2002.

Wisconsin State Senate
Hansen was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate in November 2000. He defeated incumbent Republican Senator Gary Drzewiecki. He was re-elected in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016. He served as the Assistant Democratic Leader from 2003 until 2016.

2011 Act 10 protests
On February 20, 2011 Hansen, along with the 13 other Democratic State Senators, fled the state to deny the State Senate a quorum on Governor Scott Walker's legislation, which, among other things, limited collective bargaining benefits for most municipal and state employees.

2011 Recall effort
Hansen was the target of a recall effort as a result of his leaving the state in an attempt to prevent the Senate from being able to vote on Act 10. On July 19, however, he handily defeated his challenger and retained his seat.

A chronology of the recall effort:

 * February 25: The committee "Recall Dave Hansen" officially registered with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. 13,582 signatures were required by April 26, 2011 to force a recall election. He was considered to be one of the three potentially vulnerable Democratic senators.
 * April 21: Recall supporters filed about 18,872 signatures with Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board.
 * June 10: Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board certified the recall election.
 * July 19: Hansen defeated his recall challenger, Republican David VanderLeest, receiving 66% of the vote.

Committees

 * Committee on Agriculture, Small Business and Tourism
 * Committee on Senate Organization
 * Committee on Transportation and Veterans Affairs
 * Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges
 * Joint Committee on Legislative Organization

Decision to retire
On January 9, 2020, Hansen announced he would retire after his term ended in January 2021. He cited the desire to spend more time with his wife, young grandchildren and older grandchildren as they start their careers. Hansen said he raised the possibility of retirement during a family get together over the Christmas holiday. He says his family was very supportive of the decision. Hansen said he was proud of bipartisan cooperation to pass legislation covering senior care and the Silver Alert system. But he also lamented the declining trend away from bipartisanship.

Senator Hansen's nephew, De Pere alderman Jonathon Hansen, ran in his uncle's senate district following his retirement.

title: Dave Hansen (politician)


text:
ISO 3166-2:PL

ISO 3166-2:PL is the entry for Poland in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.

Currently for Poland, ISO 3166-2 codes are defined for 16 voivodeships.

Each code consists of two parts, separated by a hyphen. The first part is PL, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of Poland. The second part is two digits.

Current codes
Subdivision names are listed as in the ISO 3166-2 standard published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166/MA).

Subdivision names are sorted in Polish alphabetical order: a, ą, b-c, ć, d-e, ę, f-l, ł, m-n, ń, o, ó, p-s, ś, t-z, ź, ż.

Click on the button in the header to sort each column.

 * Notes

Changes
The following changes to the entry have been announced by the ISO 3166/MA since the first publication of ISO 3166-2 in 1998. ISO stopped issuing newsletters in 2013.

title: ISO 3166-2:PL