text:
Fourth Brazilian Republic

The Fourth Brazilian Republic, also known as the "Populist Republic" or as the "Republic of 46", is the period of Brazilian history between 1946 and 1964. It was marked by political instability and the military's pressure on civilian politicians which ended with the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état and the establishment of the Brazilian military dictatorship.

This period was marked by often tumultuous presidencies of Eurico Gaspar Dutra, Getúlio Vargas, Café Filho, Juscelino Kubitschek, Jânio Quadros and João Goulart. In 1945, president Getúlio Vargas was deposed by a bloodless military coup, but his influence in Brazilian politics remained until the end of the Fourth Republic. During this period, three parties dominated national politics. Two of them were pro-Vargas — the Brazilian Labour Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro, PTB) to the left and the Social Democratic Party (Partido Social Democrático, PSD) in the center — and another anti-Vargas party, the rightist National Democratic Union (União Democrática Nacional, UDN).

End of the Estado Novo, 1945
As the Second World War ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, then president Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luís Carlos Prestes.

He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.

The Estado Novo ended when two of his most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Eurico Gaspar Dutra, and Army Chief-of-Staff Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro led a military coup on 29 October 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Court, José Linhares, was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections and Vargas was forced into retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president.

Dutra, 1946–1951
On 18 September 1946, the fifth constitution of Brazil was adopted, marking the country's return to democratic rule. That same year, the government created the Social Service of Industry (SESI) and Social Service of Commerce (SESC), and the General Staff, the future General Staff of the Armed Forces (EMFA).

In 1946, Dutra ordered the closing of casinos and prohibited "gambling" in the country. In 1947, he appointed Osvaldo Aranha as representative of Brazil to the United Nations, outlawed the Brazilian Communist Party, ended diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and organized the Inter-American Conference of Peacekeeping and Security of the Continent in Petrópolis, which was attended by U.S. president Harry Truman. In October 1948, his government set up the Superior School of War (ESG), with American support. Closer relations with the United States were displayed by the formation of the Joint Commission of Brazil-United States, known as Abbink Mission, headed by John Abbink and Minister Octavio Gouveia de Bouillon.

The development strategy of the government included the "Salte Plan", which put emphasis on health, food, transportation and energy. Proposed in 1947, the plan aimed at better management of public spending and investment in key sectors in the country but only began to receive funding from the budget in 1949, being forgotten in 1951. During this period, measurements of the country's economic growth by calculating the Gross Domestic Product were first regularly published. The average annual growth of the Brazilian economy during the Dutra administration was 7.6%.

On 6 August 1947 the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) was founded, but remained minor at the time.

In 1950, Brazil hosted 1950 FIFA World Cup for which the famous Maracanã Stadium was built.

During the Dutra government, construction of the hydroelectric plant of Paulo Afonso, in Bahia, and the Presidente Dutra highway, linking Rio to São Paulo, was initiated.

Vargas, 1951–1954
In 1950, Vargas was elected president and returned to national politics. The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil enterprise.

By 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the UDN and the military. The murder of major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of "Rua Tonelero", led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation.

After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, Vargas declared "he would only leave the Catete (Presidential Palace) dead". Acknowledging that the chances that a democratic government would succeed him were none, and that another military coup was coming, with probably worse results than 1950s one, Vargas kept his word and shot himself in the heart on 24 August 1954, after writing a letter blaming "international groups" and "revolted national groups" for the current situation. The results were immediate: opposition newspapers were closed, the people took to the streets and in a last shown of political force and popularity, Vargas postponed the military dictatorship by 10 years.

Collapse of Brazilian populism
Vargas' ever-shifting populist dictatorship helped to rein in the agrarian oligarchs, paving the way for the democratization of the 1950s and 1960s which was ended by the right-wing 1964 military coup. But the state still maintained a loose variation of Getúlio Vargas' populism and economic nationalism. Between 1930 and 1964, as Brazilian populism itself guided changes in the structure of Brazil's economy (Vargas' policies promoted industrial growth), Vargas and his successors were forced to shift the makeup of particular kinds of class alliances reconciled by the state.

After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s. Each of these contributed to the crisis that gripped Brazil and resulted in the authoritarian regime after 1964.

Thus, as the historical context shifted, so did the ideology of Brazilian populism. Between 1934 and 1945, Brazilian populism was a reactionary phenomenon, exhibiting parallels to European fascism. In contrast, under the presidency of João Goulart (1961–64) — a protégé of Getúlio Vargas and another gaúcho from Rio Grande do Sul, the closeness of the government to the historically disenfranchised working class and peasantry and even to the Communist Party led by Luís Carlos Prestes was remarkable.

Goulart appeared to have been co-opting the Communist movement in a manner reminiscent of Vargas' co-optation of the Integralists shortly — and not coincidentally — before his ouster by reactionary forces. Eventually, the 1964 junta and the ensuing military dictatorship proved that the establishment forces that ushered Goulart's mentor into power in the first place, and the bourgeoisie that Vargas helped rear found the left-leaning turn of Brazilian populism intolerable.

Interim Presidents, 1954–1956
After the suicide of Vargas, Vice President Café Filho assumed the Presidency of the Republic from August 24, 1954 until November 8, 1955 when, due to illness, he transferred his powers to the President of the Chamber of Deputies. Acting President Carlos Luz (November 8 - 11) was quickly removed by the National Congress under pressure of the Minister of the Army. Vice President of the Federal Senate Nereu Ramos took over as Interim President until 31 January 1956, when President-elect Juscelino Kubitschek was inaugurated.

Kubitschek, 1956–1961
Kubitschek's presidency was marked by a time of political optimism. Campaigning on a platform of "fifty years [of progress] in five" he presented a plan of national development that had 31 goals distributed in six large groups: energy, transport, food, base industries, education and the main goal: the construction of new capital city Brasília. This plan sought to stimulate the diversification and expansion of the Brazilian economy, based on industrial growth and closer integration of the country's territory. Kubitschek promoted the development of the automobile industry, naval industry, heavy industry, and the construction of hydro-electric power plants. With the exception of the hydro-electric industry, Kubitschek practically created an economy without state-owned companies.

Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and land donations. However, the exemption was made only if the foreign capital was associated with the national capital ("associated capital"). This influx of foreign capital threatened domestic industry, which was unable to compete with efficiency and expertise of foreign companies. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, become managers or partners of the multinational companies. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning phase.

In 1958, Brazil won the 1958 FIFA World Cup.

By the end of his term, the foreign debt had grown from 87 million dollars to 297 million dollars. The inflation and wealth inequality had grown larger, with the occurrence of rural-zone strikes that expanded to the urban areas.

Quadros, 1961
Jânio Quadros was elected president of Brazil by a landslide in 1960, running as the candidate of the National Labor Party (PTN). When Quadros took office, on 31 January 1961, it was the first time since Brazil became a republic in 1889 that an incumbent government peacefully transferred power to an elected member of the opposition. It was also the first time in 31 years that the presidency was not held by an heir to the legacy of Getúlio Vargas.

Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so he was left with no real power.

Resignation crisis
Quadros resigned on 25 August 1961, citing foreign and "terrible forces" in his resignation letter. His resignation is commonly thought to have been a move to increase his own power, as he expected to return to the presidency by the acclamation of the Brazilian people or by the request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by Congress, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president, João Goulart, came back from his trip to Communist China.

Goulart, 1961–1964
Goulart faced strong opposition from conservative politicians and military officers in his bid to assume the presidency, triggering the Legality Campaign. The crisis was solved by the "parliamentarian solution" – an arrangement that decreased his powers as president by creating a new post of Prime Minister, which was filled by Tancredo Neves, and instituting a Parliamentary republic. Goulart finally assumed office on 7 September 1961.

Brazil returned to a presidential government in 1963 after a referendum and, as Goulart's powers grew, it became evident that he would seek to implement his "base reforms", such as land reform and nationalization of enterprises in various economic sectors, regardless of assent from established institutions such as Congress. Goulart had low parliamentarian support, due to the fact that his centrist attempts to win support from both sides of the spectrum gradually came to alienate both.

On 1 April 1964, after a night of conspiracy, rebel troops made their way to Rio de Janeiro, considered a loyalist bastion. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro's generals were convinced to join the coup. To prevent a civil war, and knowing that the U.S. would openly support the army, Goulart fled first to Rio Grande do Sul, and then went into exile in Uruguay.

title: Fourth Brazilian Republic


text:
Talk:Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

Very Biased
This article is definitely does not follow the guideline: "neutral point of view". Note that most *every* subsection of "Controversy"--which somehow fills up most of the article--is either mostly or, usually, all one-sided; i.e., not "neutral point of view". The one exception is "Peer review and scholarly credentials". Stores about people are also mostly one-sided. 219.69.16.112 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)grego

-=-=-= How is Southerton an expert, what does he have to do with FARMS? Well, his work was raked over the coals by them, so it would give him a reason to speak out. Is his quote "factual"? Is his quote balanced by a FARM response to his work, or by someone who has reason to respond to it? No. Conclusion: not neutral point of view.

-=-=-= Is the webpost by Benson (at exmormon.org!--even if by a "reporter"), or more especially the quote by Maxwell, supported? One look will show that the entire thrust of the post is to purposefully show a negative, one-sided view, often based on personal opinion, of the LDS Church and its leaders. Is there an official quote from FARMS or the LDS Church or BYU to counter his imbalance, or to respond? No. Conclusion: not neutral point of view.

-=-=-= "Critics declare that FARMS sometimes uses circular logic in their arguments. Similarly, some critics have suggested that FARMS' reasoning is backwards from usual scientific of scholarly practices: FARMS arrives at their faith-based conclusion first, then afterwards seeks out supporting evidence." This is interesting, as many critics use circular logic in *their* arguments, and please, how many Bible-believing critics use "usual scientific scholarly practices" as mentioned? Not many. Is there a reference for the "circular logic" claim? No. Conclusion: not neutral point of view. Where is there mention that some FARMS papers (and books) have been peer-reviewed and/or presented at scholarly conferences, symposia, etc.? There isn't any in this section--just in the previous one. Conclusion: not neutral point of view; perhaps combining the two subsections would improve the neutral point of view.

-=-=-= Five negative reviews is "mean-spirited polemics"? Is there a reason for that? Why are there no links to the five negative reviews, so that readers can easily see for themselves? Did Palmer mislead and lie in his book, or is that not "mean-spirited" enough? Is there a balance to this part? No. Conclusion: not neutral point of view.

-=-=-= Where is there mention of the hundreds (literally) of ad hominem attacks against Peterson and Hamblin and others, made by both diverse critics at all levels? (Many of them are expletive, degrading, dirty, and completely irresponsible and unfounded.) Is there any mention at all? Actually, there is one example in the article; but then this article infers that the attack was not really ad hominem, because in fact Peterson really was lying. At least it ended like this: "In response FARMS has published rebuttals to the film.[15]" Conclusion: not quite neutral point of view.

-=-=-= "FARMS has also been accused of labeling someone an "anti-Mormon", and then discounting their works as biased, based largely on this pronouncement.[12]" Not necessarily so. What is often done, is someone basically labels a critic an "anti-Mormon" to counter the critic's claim of being unbiased, faithful (yet condemning and unbelieving at the same time--impossible), etc. Is the claim factual? Perhaps, but it needs more support. Conclusion: not neutral point of view.

-=-=-= "A prominent example of this trend is the work FARMS has produced supporting a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon: suggesting that the events chronicled in the Book of Mormon occurred in a much smaller region than the traditional understanding, which argues the same events occurred across the entire Western hemisphere. Supporters of this limited geography idea--including some high-ranking church leaders--believe this model is consistent with anthropological, archaeological and genetic findings about ancient American peoples, as well as with the Book of Mormon text.[20]" The person writing this seems to be unfamiliar with actual responses to this claim by Mormon apologists themselves. This is not factual, as the "limited geography model" is not a new point of view. However, the statement this example was backing up: "This trend is committed to the literal reality of Mormon faith claims, but is simultaneously willing to rethink traditional understandings of those claims."--is true. It just needs a new example or two to support it.

-=-=-= Conclusion: this article is in need of serious rewriting to conform to Wikipedia's standards. 219.69.16.112 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)grego

Re-direct
FARMS should redirect to Foundation for Ancient Research in Mormon Studies, not vice versa. —B|Talk 20:02, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Relevance of being a Bishop
"Former LDS Bishop (head of a local congregation) Simon G. Southerton" How is the fact that he was previously a Bishop relevant? Did he make the statement as a Bishop? I am deleting the phrase "former LDS Bishop"; the Church of Jesus Christ uses a lay clergy, so the fact that someone was once a Bishop really should be irrelevant. The Jade Knight 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that he was a Bishop does add weight to his statement. Imagine if, instead, he was some Jack Mormon who drank coffee, never went on his mission and didn't tithe.  Would his comments mean as much, then? Alienus 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Alienus - I'm not following you around, you've just edited a couple of pages on my watch list.

 * I agree it is irrelevant. In the LDS CHurch, becuase it is a lay ministry, a bishop has not additional wieght on doctrinal matters or other issues than does the primary president or a sunday school teacher. All have different responsibilities and are eventually released and go on to other callings. The last bishop I knew that was released became a nursery leader and a cub scout leader. If you want to include that he was an active mormon prior to his statement, that is just as relevant.

 * Now if he made the statement as a bishop and part of his congregation left with him, that would be relevant. But because of the lay structure of the church, callings are irrelevant, unless the person it trying to show credibility to those outside, in my opinion. I was once an Elders president, a priesthood group leader, a teachers president, but those are irrelevant to my "knowledge" about the church and its doctrines and history. -Visorstuff 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Mentioning that he had been a bishop would support his motives, but wouldn't necessarily count as much in the way of credentials for disputing FARMS on a historical matter. Fortunately, I remembered that I'd seen his name before and a quick Google confirmed that he had a book out, and some scientific credentials to back up his DNA-based conclusions.  I think the new entry is much clearer. Alienus 06:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit is much cleaner. I'm still not sure why he is commenting on FARMS though. in any case, it looks better. -Visorstuff 06:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The answer to that may be found in the citations. Alienus 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of his expertness on FARMS
Sorry for not being clearer. I understand why he is commenting, I just think that he is a silly source to use as an "expert" on FARMS. just my two cents, as I think I can criticize or praise FARMS just as well and have as much credibility as he does. That's my point. -Visorstuff 16:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm of your opinion, myself. The Jade Knight 20:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The day I publish a book showing how an analysis of DNA disproves BoM's claims about the origins of Native Americans, I'm sure someone will put my quotes up here as relevant! Alienus 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How does having published a book critical of the Book of Mormon make him an "expert" on FARMS? That's akin to writing a book criticising the Eucharist and then being considered an expert on the Pope.  The Jade Knight 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of FARMS

 * Last time I checked, FARMS is dedicated to supporting the truth of the Mormon view of history. One standard claim is that American Indians are descended from the Israelites.  This guy, who is a biologist, wrote about genetic studies that show otherwise.  In other words, his knowledge of biology is what makes him an expert on interpreting data on genetics, and the contradiction between what he found and what FARMS claims makes him relevant to this article.  I would think this is quite obvious. Alienus 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Too funny. I agree, Jade Knight. This was my earlier point.

And yet from his quote you'd think FARMS is the correlation committeee of the Church. Yes, FARMS is not consistent in what is written, any more than a University is consistent in its all of its research findings. UC Berkely is not consistent on physics research. There are multiple people having multiple opinions about matters of faith, theory and belief. Of course they differ. Research tends to differ. If it didn't there wouldn't be a need to do research. Southernton's point in not only lame, is not relevant, and he is no more an expert on FARMS as the next author. But it is not up to me to censor it out. It is just an opinion of an author. My opinion, as an author, is that he shouldn't make what I consider a stupid statement. -Visorstuff 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I explained part of this above. I'm unclear as to why you think FARMS is somehow independent of the church.  Moreover, I don't believe his complaint was that one bit of FARMS research contradicts another bit, but that the genetic evidence contradicts any FARMS research that supports the BoM in suggesting that American Indians descended from the Israelites. Once again, this seems quite obvious.  Did you happen to read the links? Alienus 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have also read the links. Would you consider FARMS to be an expert on Simon G. Southerton?  They've published scholarship that contradicts his positions.  Truly, your logic is dizzying.  The Jade Knight 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read the links. Have you? Or did you take just the point that agreed with the point you are trying to make? The quote you used discusses the "current location of the Lamanites" as being or not being in Missouri. Not genetics. That is a different part of the "testimony" altogether. He felt that FARMS discounted research that supported the theory that Lamanites were north americans. He discounted statements from Smith about his excitement of archaeological research in Guatamala, or in Chile, or even SMith's comments about the "limited geography theory." But instead tried to place the Lamanites in North America. That is fine. He is irrelevant to this article IMHO. But please understand the "testimony" or even research you are quoting, if you intend to quote it. At least the context.

It is people that don't read ALL of the research that perpetuate mis-information. People who miss that Nephi and Lehi taught the gospel to people on their arabian journey when they read in the D&C (33). OR people who miss that there were more "ites" than Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites Zoramites, Mulekites, Lamanites, Lemuelites and Ismaeilites and all manner of ites - (gee who's left)? Or that the Nephites and Mulekites were the minority of people (Mosiah 25) or that ALL who fight against the seed of Nephi (including Lamanites AND others) would be marked in some way) Alma 3 and more. Or that there were multiple languages and civilizations they came in contact with (Enos; Omni; Mosiah 1, 8, 9, 24, 28; 3 Nephi 5; Mormon 9, Moroni 10. There is plenty of evidence that there were others here besides the Lehites, Mulekites and Jaredites. In fact, the people of Zarahemla, and the People of Limhi were not suprized when outsiders came in contact with their civilations - they were interested to know if they were descendants of Israel when they came in contact with new groups, for obvious reasons. Those are the ones who are includes - Mulek (and "those who cam with him") was significant for this reason, whereas, Coriantumr barely gets a mention, aside from the secret combinations and the written pronouncement of God that they were a promised people - a mirror that even mosiah and alma tried to hide from the people so they wouldn't do the same. There are multiple other examples. The difference is that the Lamanites are the most important of them - or "principal" (not primary) ancestors of native americans. Anyway, you already know all this, I'm sure. Southerton did, but he doesn't discuss it in any of his research. He only addresses Mormon cultural views, rather than the scholarly views and primary documents and brethren statements in his work. I'm not sure why. FARMS research discusses much of it, is more well-rounded, and like BH Roberts, states what is still probelmatic and needs to be researched.

You wrote: "I'm unclear as to why you think FARMS is somehow independent of the church."

Umm, cause it isn't run or overseen by church authorities, correlation or other branch of the church - it is semi-independant of the university. This is like saying that my research at BYU was controlled by the Church because I was at BYU. It is an uneducated comment. You need to become more familiar with FARMS and its history and purpose apparently. I think you misunderstand FARMS and its role at BYU. It is not a church-sanctioned apologetic organization. It is a foundation for ancient research and mormon studies. It is a publishing house to research by scholars on various topics. In fact, some research coming out of farms has challenged the "Mormon view of history." You should read the mission of FARMS sometime.

Part of it states: Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) encourages and supports scholarly work on Latter-day Saint scriptures and on selected subjects dealing with various aspects of the ancient Middle East and Mesoamerica. It publishes periodicals and books dealing with these topics, geared for a Latter-day Saint readership, while also working with scholars to get the results of their research published by various university presses aimed at academic audiences.

People call those who are TBM "blindly obedient" to church leaders and "their version of history." I think that Antis in general are "blindly obedient" to the antis - very few actually do their own research, but tend to believe what others write - like some of the recent archaeological edits in the LDSM articles. They write without knowing the latest research on teh matter, and just place their own stereotypes on native americans. Its racism. I have done my own research. I am a believer. I feel i've been able to satisfy and find answers to my questions. I know what I know, and I know there are many things I don't know, and I know that Mormon culture claims more than we really do know. So does catholic culture and American culture and Islamic culture. Have you read any primary documents? If not, the FARMS web site and mission statement would be a good place to start if you are commenting on its purpose. The next would be the Book of Mormon itself. -Visorstuff 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well put, Visorstuff. Thank you for that.  I'm tempted to change the term "apologetics" on the front page to "scholarship". The Jade Knight 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you sure do write a lot of words. Alienus

 * Yes my posts tend to be longer and more wordy, but I am trying to help give the context and sources around my edits. You do not.

 * Jade Knight, your point is a good one. We should probably get more imput. -Visorstuff 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename Article
This article might as well be renamed 'Criticisms of FARMS," since more than half of the article is nothing but that. Spaceplumber (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I'm going to make the controversies section much smaller.  EJNOGARB  01:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Ignoring the Obvious POV issues with the current version of Mormon apologetics, that page really says nothing that isn't already in Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies or on there respective pages. It seems to me that the "Mormon apologetics" is a problematic Content fork for FARMS. Mormon apologetics cites no references or sources since November 2010. This page can easily be merged into FARMS.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is rather biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.66.239 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Metcalfe Section
After reading the section about William Hamblin's acrostic, which never reached publication, I am left wondering how this is really significant enough to merit its own section, and whether it is sufficiently significant to be included in this article at all. This section, in particular, screams "biased." I recommend removal of this section, or at least a shorter notice folded into "controversies."Tsluke (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, it seems far too trivial to be in this article. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I third the suggestion. Too trivial, old, unneeded in an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum for nursing or perpetuating old feuds. MacamemeandCheese (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Battles should not be waged here, but they should probably be mentioned when notable. I agree that the length of the coverage in the past gave undue weight to a short-lived flub that wasn't central to explaining FARMS.  But maybe we shouldn't scrub it from the article, since at the time it was specifically covered by an AP story printed in the Deseret News (text, scan), and the Tanners' newspaper, and in Sunstone (pg.79).  It's still brought up in the lore of FARMS and Mormon apologetics: SHIELDS, Sunstone (2004, p. 26), Sunstone (2008, p. 42), Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (p. 352), Metcalfe interview on Mormon Stories (2014), Metcalfe's response online, countless web forum posts.  I've seen speculation that this reflects the maturity of FARMS or Mormon apologetics in general, but the facts are that this happened, is generally known, and was reported on.  It probably deserves a short mention, like in the Hamblin article.  FARMS may prefer this be dismissed, and Metcalfe may want to escalate it, but WP seeks neutrality.
 * (As an aside, and this may be a small point, I've seen claims that the acrostic was removed before publications were circulated, and I've heard Metcalfe claim that some were already circulated and failed to be recalled. Mormon book collector Curt Bench displayed a copy at the 2007 A. Dean Larsen Book Collecting Conference at the BYU Library, repeating the estimate [from FARMS] that only 10 copies may still exist. See booklet, pg. 29) ——Rich jj (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 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/20080908081008/http://farms.byu.edu//about/farms.php to http://farms.byu.edu/about/farms.php

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 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 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/20141216012348/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp to http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp

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) 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 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/20060319065200/http://byunews.byu.edu/archive06-Mar-maxwell.aspx to http://byunews.byu.edu/archive06-Mar-maxwell.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328090254/http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/announcing-the-new-mormon-studies-review-2/ to http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/announcing-the-new-mormon-studies-review-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622115240/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=598 to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=598
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070417205912/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=581 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=581
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406204355/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=536 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=536
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404201855/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=367 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=367&table=review
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003144833/https://lib.byu.edu/byuorg/index.php/Neal_A._Maxwell_Institute_for_Religious_Scholarship to https://lib.byu.edu/byuorg/index.php/Neal_A._Maxwell_Institute_for_Religious_Scholarship

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) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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


text:
Pierre Antoine Delalande

Pierre Antoine Delalande (27 March 1787 – 27 June 1823) was a French naturalist, taxidermist, explorer and painter.

Life
Pierre Antoine Delalande was the son of a taxidermist in the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. He was employed at the museum from a young age, where he became an assistant of the naturalist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. He took painting classes from the Flemish animal painter Jean-Baptiste Berré, who was an official painter at the Jardin des Plantes and exhibited landscapes and animal paintings in the Salons of Paris.

Delalande was employed by the National Museum of Natural History to collect natural history specimens. He accompanied the botanist Augustin Saint-Hilaire in 1808 on a zoological collecting trip to Portugal, and was sent to the coast of Provence in 1813 to collect fishes and molluscs. He traveled to Brazil in 1816 to collect specimens for the museum.

In 1818 he began an expedition to South Africa with his nephew Jules Verreaux, who was around 12 years old at the time, to collect specimens. Delalande and Verreaux travelled and collected in South Africa for three years. On their return in 1821, they took back an astounding 131,405 specimens, mostly plant material. Their collection included 288 mammals, 2205 birds, 322 reptiles, 265 fish, 3875 shellfish, and various human skulls and skeletons from a Cape Town cemetery and from the 22 April 1819 Battle of Grahamstown between the British forces under Colonel Willshire and the Xhosa under Nxele.

He is honoured in the specific names of the butterfly, Papilio delalandei ; the birds, Corythopis delalandi, Coua delalandei, and Stephanoxis lalandi ; the frog, Tomopterna delalandii ; the lizards, Chioninia delalandii, Nucras lalandii, and Tarentola delalandii ; and the blindsnake, Rhinotyphlops lalandei.

title: Pierre Antoine Delalande


text:
Love Me Tender (film)

Love Me Tender is a 1956 American musical Western film directed by Robert D. Webb, and released by 20th Century Fox on November 15, 1956. The film, named after the song, stars Richard Egan, Debra Paget, and Elvis Presley in his acting debut. It was the only time in his acting career that he did not receive top billing.

Love Me Tender was originally to be titled The Reno Brothers, but when advanced sales of Presley's "Love Me Tender" single passed one million—a first for a single—the film's title was changed to match. Love Me Tender was the first of three films in which he played an historical figure. The others were Frankie & Johnny (which takes place in the 1890s) and The Trouble With Girls (which takes place in 1927).

Plot
Presley plays Clint Reno, the youngest of the four Reno brothers, who stays home to take care of his mother and the family farm as older brothers Vance, Brett and Ray fight in the American Civil War for the Confederate Army. The family is mistakenly informed that eldest brother Vance has been killed on the battlefield. After four years of war, the brothers return home and find that Vance's former girlfriend Cathy has married Clint. Although Vance accepts this wholeheartedly, the family has to struggle to reach stability with this issue. It is clear from the outset upon the Reno brothers' return home that Cathy still loves Vance, although she is true to the younger Clint. Honor prevails for Vance, but jealousy leads Clint into irrational rivalry for Cathy's love.

In the film's opening scenes, the three Reno brothers, serving as Confederate cavalrymen, attack a Union train carrying a federal payroll of $12,000, not knowing that the war had ended only a day before. The Confederates come to a decision to keep the money as spoils of war. A conflict of interest ensues when Vance tries to return the money against the wishes of some of his fellow Confederates, all of whom are being sought by the U.S. Government for robbery. The film reaches its tragic climax with Clint's death during a final shootout. In the end, the money is returned, the Reno brothers are released, the other three ex-Confederates are arrested, and Clint is laid to rest at the family farm.

Cast

 * Richard Egan as Vance Reno, oldest of the four Reno brothers
 * Debra Paget as Cathy Reno, Clint's wife
 * Elvis Presley as Clint, youngest of the brothers
 * Mildred Dunnock as Martha Reno, the brothers' mother
 * William Campbell as Brett, second oldest of the brothers
 * James Drury as Ray, second youngest of the brothers
 * Neville Brand as Mike Gavin, Vance's war buddy
 * Russ Conway as Ed Galt, Vance's war buddy
 * L. Q. Jones as Pardee Fleming, Vance's war buddy (uncredited)
 * Robert Middleton as Mr. Siringo
 * Bruce Bennett as Major Kincaid
 * Ken Clark as Mr. Kelso
 * Barry Coe as Mr. Davis
 * Paul E. Burns as Jethro (uncredited)
 * Dick Sargent as Confederate Soldier (uncredited)

Development
The film was originally called The Reno Brothers based on a story by Maurice Geraghty. Fox bought the screen rights in August 1952 and assigned Robert L. Jacks to produce.

The film was not put into production immediately. A somewhat more realistic film telling the story of the Reno Brothers, Rage at Dawn starring Randolph Scott, had been released by RKO Radio Pictures in 1955.

Robert Buckner wrote a script and David Weisbart became a producer with Robert D. Webb to direct. In August 1956, Richard Egan signed to play the lead. Debra Paget was also signed before Presley.

Producer Weisbert said "we signed Elvis later for the younger brother (at $100,000) when we heard he was available."

Casting Presley
Presley had shown interest in becoming an actor before achieving major success as a singer. His first No. 1 hit single, "Heartbreak Hotel", topped Billboard's Top 100 chart in April 1956, a few weeks after his screen test for this film. He had worked as a cinema usher in his youth and would often watch his screen idols James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Tony Curtis during shifts, studying their acting and learning lines from their movies. When he first met his future manager, Colonel Tom Parker, he expressed an interest in acting in film.

In interviews during his rise to fame, Presley would often talk about his hopes of attending somewhere like the Actors Studio. He also insisted that he would not like to sing in any of his movies because he wished to be taken seriously as a film star. However, Parker had a plan to cross-promote Presley's films with his music and this led to soundtracks being as important, if not moreso, than the scripts.

Presley screen-tested for Hal Wallis on March 26, 1956 at Paramount Studios. The test lasted three days and included Presley performing two scenes from The Rainmaker, and lip-syncing to Blue Suede Shoes.

Wallis' partner, Joe Hazen, commented: "As a straight actor, the guy has great potentialities." His first screen test, a scene from the William Inge play The Girls of Summer, resulted in drama coach Charlotte Clary declaring to her class of students, "Now that is a natural born actor".

On April 2, Wallis offered Presley a contract for one motion picture, with options on six more. The contract was finalized on April 25, and also stipulated that Presley was free to make at least one picture a year for other studios.

Wallis, who had produced classics such as Casablanca, Little Caesar, and The Maltese Falcon, had promised Presley that he would look for dramatic roles to let the singer take his acting career seriously.

Wallis considered Presley for a role in The Rat Race, a film about a "naive, innocent boy" who was struggling to make it as a musician in Manhattan, but he decided against it after another studio executive said, "Elvis Presley just doesn't look like that". The film was eventually made in 1960 with Tony Curtis in the lead role. Another possiblity Wallis mulled over was to pair Presley with Jerry Lewis. Lewis had just separated from his comedy partner Dean Martin after a successful run of seventeen movies together, but again the idea was shelved.

On April 10, Presley confidently announced during a radio interview that his debut feature would be The Rainmaker with Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn. However, despite this belief, and due to Wallis being unable to find a project "good enough for the debut of Elvis Presley", he was loaned out to 20th Century Fox on August 13 and began work on Love Me Tender on August 22.

Presley's role had originally been turned down by both Jeffrey Hunter and Robert Wagner because the part was too small. According to Presley's then girlfriend, June Juanico, he was reluctant to take the role after realizing that his character died at the end, but he was persuaded to do it after she told him that the characters audiences were most likely to remember were the ones who had a tragic fate.

By August 17 Fox announced the four brothers would be played by James Drury, Cameron Mitchell, Presley and Egan. The New York Times called Presley's casting "somewhere between fantasy and drama" and said his next film would be for Paramount, The Lonesome Cowboy. William Campbell played another brother. Cameron Mitchell eventually turned down his role and was replaced by Neville Brand.

The moment Presley's casting was announced, Fox was deluged with queries about the film from Presley's fans. It was decided to expand his part and give him some songs to sing.

Filming
Presley arrived for filming with all of his lines learned, as well as the lines for all the other parts. He found filming quite taxing, once commenting to a friend that he had spent a whole day "behind a team of mules". In little more than a month Presley had recorded all the songs for the film and had finished filming his scenes.

Filming of the movie's climactic sequence, including the death scene for Presley's character, took place at the Bell Moving Picture Ranch in the Santa Susana Mountains west of the San Fernando Valley on the outskirts of Los Angeles. The exact filming location, sometimes referred to among historians as the "Rocky Hill", remained elusive for almost 60 years, until the site was discovered on an expedition by filming location researchers in early 2015. The party was able to locate the site by combining details from Love Me Tender and the Victor Mature movie Escort West, which also filmed on the "Rocky Hill."

Weibsart said during the shoot Presley was "humble, polite, solicitous... He was co operative with us, never late, and very serious about acting. This was another kind of career for him."

When Presley appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show during a break in filming the movie, on September 9, he performed "Love Me Tender" for the first time. Two weeks later RCA confirmed that advanced sales of the single had resulted in it going Gold before even being released—an industry first. (It sold one million copies pre ordered and ultimately ended up selling two million copies. )

On 2 September, Fox announced the film's title would be changed from The Reno Brothers to Love Me Tender.

"I think he provides tremendous additional value in the role", said Weisbart. "He will surprise a lot of people who go to see him because his presence is just a gimmick. Actually he plays an acting part in a legitimate story and he does it very well. He sings but the script is so constructed that the situations are logical... when the family is together after the war.... [or] at a bazar and picnic. These are folk tunes or hoedowns that – except for the title piece, a ballad – have Elvis' rhythms. With his long brown hair and sideburns he looks legitimate too in terms of the period."

Previews and reshoots
Test screenings of the film resulted in people being upset at the death of Presley's character. Attempting to reach a compromise between the death and pleasing his fans, Presley filmed an extra scene and recorded an extra verse to the title track to be played over the end credits.

Release
Love Me Tender premiered on November 15, 1956, at the Paramount Theatre in New York City, and was released nationally on November 21. Though studios typically released were only 200-300 prints, 20th Century Fox released a record-breaking 575 prints. On November 20 Presley attended a private screening at Loew's State Theater in Memphis, during which his mother, Gladys, cried over the death of her son's character. Presley responded by insisting that his characters never die on screen again.

Box office
The film grossed $540,000 in its first week of release, claiming the No. 2 at the box office and earning back the money it cost the studio to produce it. Giant, starring James Dean, earned the No. 1 spot. Within weeks Love Me Tender had recouped the costs of the negatives and, despite being released in November, was the 23rd highest-grossing film of the year.

Critical reception
Many critics gave the film a lukewarm reception, though some viewed it in a positive light. The Los Angeles Times wrote: "Elvis can act. S'help me the boy's real good, even when he isn't singing."

Presley would later express regret at making the film and disappointment that the additions of songs helped shape his Hollywood career.

In his book Me And A Guy Named Elvis, Jerry Schilling recounts the atmosphere inside Loew's State Theater in Memphis during the premiere screening: "The screams of the girls around me made it just about impossible to follow the story. This was the first time I'd seen  an audience treat a film like it was a live concert, loudly responding to every move made and word uttered by their favorite star."

Presley would later tell his friend Cliff Gleaves that he found this type of reaction from his moviegoing fans embarrassing, and that it prevented him from being viewed as a serious actor.

Soundtrack
The movie has four Elvis Presley songs: "Love Me Tender", "Let Me", "Poor Boy" and "We're Gonna Move."

Home media
The film was released on videocassette by Key Video in February 1985 as part of the release of 11 videos to mark the 50th anniversary of Presley's birth. In the summer of 2006, the film was released on DVD in a special 50th anniversary issue. It was featured in a slipcase, and included a set of 4 lobby card reproductions. The disc contains the movie in its original widescreen letterbox format, plus audio commentary by noted Elvis historian, and Memphis Mafia member, Jerry Schilling. The disc includes three featurettes: "Elvis Hits Hollywood", "The Colonel & The King", and "Love Me Tender: The Birth & Boom of the Elvis Hit". Also part of the disc are original trailers for Love Me Tender, Flaming Star and Wild in the Country.

Movie reviews

 * Review by Janet Branagan at Apollo Movie Guide.

DVD reviews

 * Review by Brett Cullum at DVD Verdict, March 30, 2006.
 * Review by Mark Zimmer at digitallyOBSESSED!, August 18, 2002.

title: Love Me Tender (film)


text:
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) is a continuously updated catalog of human genes and genetic disorders and traits, with a particular focus on the gene-phenotype relationship. , approximately 9,000 of the over 25,000 entries in OMIM represented phenotypes; the rest represented genes, many of which were related to known phenotypes.

Versions and history
OMIM is the online continuation of Victor A. McKusick's Mendelian Inheritance in Man (MIM), which was published in 12 editions between 1966 and 1998. Nearly all of the 1,486 entries in the first edition of MIM discussed phenotypes.

MIM/OMIM is produced and curated at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (JHUSOM). OMIM became available on the internet in 1987 under the direction of the Welch Medical Library at JHUSOM with financial support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. From 1995 to 2010, OMIM was available on the World Wide Web with informatics and financial support from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The current OMIM website (OMIM.org), which was developed with funding from JHUSOM, is maintained by Johns Hopkins University with financial support from the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Collection process and use
The content of MIM/OMIM is based on selection and review of the published peer-reviewed biomedical literature. Updating of content is performed by a team of science writers and curators under the direction of Ada Hamosh at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine of Johns Hopkins University. While OMIM is freely available to the public, it is designed for use primarily by physicians and other health care professionals concerned with genetic disorders, by genetics researchers, and by advanced students in science and medicine.

The database may be used as a resource for locating literature relevant to inherited conditions, and its numbering system is widely used in the medical literature to provide a unified index for genetic diseases.

OMIM numbers
Each OMIM entry is given a unique six-digit identifier as summarized below:
 * 100000–299999: Autosomal loci or phenotypes (entries created before May 15, 1994)
 * 300000–399999: X-linked loci or phenotypes
 * 400000–499999: Y-linked loci or phenotypes
 * 500000–599999: Mitochondrial loci or phenotypes
 * 600000 and above: Autosomal loci or phenotypes (entries created after May 15, 1994)

In cases of allelic heterogeneity, the MIM number of the entry is followed by a decimal point and a unique 4-digit number specifying the variant. For example, allelic variants in the HBB gene (141900) are numbered 141900.0001 through 141900.0538.

Because OMIM has responsibility for the classification and naming of genetic disorders, these numbers are stable identifiers of the disorders.

Symbols preceding MIM numbers
Symbols preceding MIM numbers indicate the entry category:
 * An asterisk (*) before an entry number indicates a gene.
 * A number symbol (#) before an entry number indicates that it is a descriptive entry, usually of a phenotype, and does not represent a unique locus. The reason for the use of the number symbol is given in the first paragraph of the entry. Discussion of any gene(s) related to the phenotype resides in another entry (or entries) as described in the first paragraph.
 * A plus sign (+) before an entry number indicates that the entry contains the description of a gene of known sequence and a phenotype.
 * A percent sign (%) before an entry number indicates that the entry describes a confirmed Mendelian phenotype or phenotypic locus for which the underlying molecular basis is not known.
 * No symbol before an entry number generally indicates a description of a phenotype for which the Mendelian basis, although suspected, has not been clearly established or that the separateness of this phenotype from that in another entry is unclear.
 * A caret (^) before an entry number means the entry no longer exists because it was removed from the database or moved to another entry as indicated.

title: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 07

John Kenney and Daeron
Hello, I'd like to request mediation with respect to articles regarding the western half of New Guinea. Specifically Papua (Indonesian province), but other pages as well. Daeron and I (and Wik) have been revert warring and arguing about this stuff on talk pages for some time. At this point, I think both of us are so fed up with each other that the intervention of some third party is necessary for any progress to be made. As it is now, we seem to be simply going in circles with one another. I have no particular preference as to mediator. john 04:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Initial contact by sannse (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Daeron has declined mediation at this time. -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Where did he do this? john 22:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Im sorry, I should have said: via e-mail. However Daeron has since replied again and I'm not quite clear on his meaning.  I will update here as soon as possible.  -- sannse (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Daeron has clarified (again by e-mail) that my initial understanding was correct and he does decline to participate in mediation -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch and Zestauferov
There has been a long-running feud between the both us, the details I will not recount here because I don't see how Mediation would resolve matters. However, there appears to be a development that Mediation might help with. Zestauferov wrote the following at Talk:David Rohl:

 * Well maybe (but any brief look at the biography I wrote 08:11, 27 Dec 2003 will answer best whether I know anything about his life or not), and perhaps you should read what people actually write in their messages and deal with those issues instead of angling the subject slightly. Whoever made you a mediator? For both of Our own healths Llywrch I recommend that neither of us actually make any direct comments to each other ever again. Please notice that I did not direct my last messages towards you, so why do you feel the need to direct any messages to me? If you don't reply to this posting I will take it you agree on a permanent cease-fire. Thankyou.

While I would like to accept this offer of a cease-fire (I have no problem with ignoring anything he writes), I feel there are couple of points that Zestauferov did not consider that would make any such cease-fire ineffective: uestioned the motives of what I had wrote in the article David Rohl, making accusations I felt I must need answer. Because of this, I feel accepting this offer of a cease-fire implies that I must never respond to any criticism he makes of what I write, which is an unfair restriction on me -- as it would be on him. We need to find a point where both of us can hold the other blameless.
 * 1) As an examination of the context of his post will show, he q
 * 1) And lastly, & perhaps most importantly, is the fact each will end up editting articles that the other has contributed to. Unless some way for us to work together is found, then this cease-fire will not work.

Undoubtedly there are other practical points that need working out, but the fact there is some kind of common ground here leads me to suspect that Mediation may work in this case. -- llywrch 23:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I have left a message for Zestauferov asking if he is prepared to accept mediation. Angela. 09:30, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Replied. Follow-up by sannse (talk) 20:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Religious Controversy on Japanese and English Wikipedia
Hello, My name is K.M. I am attacked by many people who has traditional religion. In Japanese Wikipedia, I'm stigmatized by Japanese administrators because I doubted to violate Japanese Copyrights Law, and I am blocked for a month. Added to this, they delated all of my contributions with no discussion. Now, I can't comment on these, and anti-Jehovah's Witnesses write slander of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think these are one-sided and I want to appeal Japanese Wikipedia to Japanese Court about them. And I think that all of the articles about Christianity in Japanese are POV. Please advise. K.M. 13:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I state his statement is based on misunderstanding from three reasons.

 * 1) The direct reason of his brocking on ja.wiki was his reverting on discussion pages. He tried to erase others' comments opposed to him.
 * 2) No one accused his faith. Anyone except him joining to discussion admit this is matter of transferrence of copyrighted product without permission.
 * 3) At least two contributors who accuse his copyright violation claim they belong to the same denomination of him, and the materials they refer are available to the member of this inner group. KIZU 21:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of KM's claim, this is not the place to do it. The Japanese Wikipedia needs to be able to solve its own problems through discussion, consensus, relentless edit-warring and flaming.  This doesn't really need mediation, though, it needs a consensus on how to work with Japanese copyright law. Tuf-Kat 21:45, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I posted the consensus of Japanese Wikipedia. KIZU 18:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't say at your discretion. Mr.KIZU tells a lie. K.M. 06:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if I am a liar, not depending on it, here is not a place to mediate Japanese version issues. Go back to the bulletine board of Japanese Wikipedia: you can talk with others there and try to make concensuses. KIZU 11:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

User:GrazingshipIV, User:Hcheney
I am requesting mediation with this user do to accusations made by him against me. He has made baseless accusations that I engaged in inapproriate behavior regarding an admin vote. I request Bcorr as mediator. GrazingshipIV 01:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * GrazingshipIV, thank you for your faith in me as a mediator. I should note that I'm going to be in California from May 13 through May 22, and will have less accessibility to Wikipedia than usual. However, if Hcheney accepts and GrazingshipIV still wants me to act as mediator, I will be willing to serve as mediator. Also, I did a quick check of both talk pages, but didn't see what is at issue. It would be very helpful if either or both of you could please add a few links so I can see what has been happening, and then I can propose a way to move forward. Thanks again, BCorr | Брайен 02:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I accept mediation, but would have preferred to have handled this bilaterally outside of Wikipedia. I feel Bcorr will be a very acceptable mediator. --"D ICK " C HENEY 12:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is the source of the conflict Bcorr X GrazingshipIV 02:24, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict. I propose that I create a topic (thread) on the mediation message board, and if there is no objection, I will get things going this evening. You can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 13:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have created the topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board here. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 23:47, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Issue of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling
The arbitration committee has decided to refer the issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee. See Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro for details. Martin 00:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Initial contact by sannse (talk) 21:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) at User talk:Anthony DiPierro and the talk pages of those who commenting at Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Any other interested parties are also welcome to comment here.

 * I agree to mediation on these issues subject to approval of the mediator, the method of mediation, and a more detailed specification of the subject of the mediation. anthony (see warning)

 * Thank you Anthony. I've waited before responding in the hope that someone else would come forward to act as the other party in this mediation, but so far that's not happened.  It seems the mediation committee needs to discuss if and how we can fulfil the arbitration committee's request in this situation.  Sorry for the delay -- sannse (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Kingturtle about being the other party? He was the one collecting most of the evidence. I don't know how much of the community considers this to be a current problem (well, I'm sure Wik still thinks Anthony is a troll). But I would say that many of us have learned to work with Anthony, as well as him learning to work with us. Anyway, to the extent that I might be a party (since I had a couple disagreements with Anthony), I consider those issues satisfactorily resolved and see no need for mediation. --Michael Snow 18:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Michael, I've left a message at User talk:Kingturtle -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Statement from the Mediation Committee

Concerning the mediation requested by the Arbitration Committee regarding User:Anthony DiPierro and a number of other users:

Although the members of the Mediation Committee have been willing to conduct a mediation and have solicited possible participants, to date no one has stepped forward to be a second party. As it has been the committee's experience that attempting to conduct a mediation discussion with only one party has not been successful, it seems best to wait until there are additional parties willing to participate. Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.

The Mediation Committee is more than willing to mediate this case if and when anyone comes forward with specific concerns.

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs On behalf of the Mediation Committee Copied to User talk:Anthony DiPierro and Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

Radicalsubversiv, Neutrality, and various anonymous users over Democratic Underground
In the hopes of avoiding a return to full-out edit war, I am seeking mediation over Democratic Underground. I stumbled upon the article a few weeks ago and noticed that there were a number of anonymous users repeatedly vandalizing the article and insert POV comments of various sorts. I requested protection for the page, and then attempted to propose compromise text. Upon the page being unprotected, I did my best to NPOV it, changes which Neutrality (who I strongly believe to be one of the previous participants in the conflict) and an anonymous user apparently find unacceptable; however, neither makes serious use of edit summaries or the talk page, limiting opportunities for dialogue. I have requested comment from the community, but there has been no interest. For the record, I don't have any experience with the site or the arguments under dispute, but I'm aware that it's a popular one and think we should have an NPOV article on it. RadicalSubversiv E 04:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Angela has left a message at User talk:Neutrality asking if he accepts mediation. 23:55 20 May 2004.

I accept. Neutrality 00:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Do either of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There are is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee -- sannse (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It should've occurred to me when making the request that I'm traveling for two weeks beginning tomorrow (May 23) and am unlikely to be around. So this will have to wait. The dispute has been narrowed down to a couple of sentences at least, and I will post a revised RFC in the hopes of attracting more attention from the community. RadicalSubversiv E 02:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, Please let us know when you get back if you still want assistance with this. -- sannse (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Transwoman
I find myself locked in an argument with two people about the sexual orientation of transwomen. I have edited the article in question to what I feel is a NPOV, describing the two commonly held beliefs. AlexR insists that one belief is unfounded and refuses to accept any resolution that does not agree with his POV. References which support the "unfounded" position are provided in the article. I have repeatedly requested that he provide any evidence that his position has any merit at all; he has not. Help would be appreciated. -- User:Eequor

 * That is one way of putting it, but not quite how I understand the debate. Also, it was two people agreeing with me, that makes three, not two. Not to mention that I provided ample reference, and the articles cited do not support the "number equal to that of ciswomen" position, either. I did make an RFC yesterday, on the same issue. Given the fact that these topics don't seem to generate many comments, though, I do agree to mediation, because obviously nothing whatever can be gained from further debate. I also suggested several times now to simply remove any reference to the ratio of lesbian and straight transwomen, since there can be no agreement reached. For me, that would be far more acceptable then what is in the article now. The reasons for that can be found in the debate. -- AlexR 16:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Do either of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There are is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I do not have any particular preferences, since I do not know any of the mediators; except that Angela once helped out during an edit war on Heteronormativity. On #wikipedia Anthere was suggested because "Anthere is normally OK with gender-related stuff". (I asked there because I have never been on mediation before, and I hang out on #de.wikipedia all day, anyway.) However, as I said, I have no particular preference or more facts than that to develop one.

 * I do however request something from the mediator: Namely that s/he, whoever it is, does not feel particularly uncomfortable when talking about transgender or transsexual matters, or about lesbians. (I don't think gay will come up, but by now I am prepared for about everything. We already had UFOs.)

 * I also suggest to everybody interested (or stuck) with mediating this dispute to read Talk:List of transgender-related topics, points 3 JulieADriver and 4 Transsexed/Intersexed are not trans* or transgender!. That's sort of a prelude to the current debate; it was User:JulieADriver who started putting the debated sentence into the article, and the TS "vs." TG debate might be an underlying theme in the current debate. It often is ... -- AlexR 02:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks AlexR. Eequor, do you have any views on who the mediator should be? -- sannse (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a preference. --Eequor 07:43, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Anthere is not available until at least next week, but might be later (but that is dependant on other commitments). Perhaps better would be a mediator who is available sooner.  User:Cimon avaro is available and willing to mediate.  Will you both accept him as mediator?  -- sannse (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * He's fine with me. -- AlexR 21:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay with me as well. --Eequor 18:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks both, Cimon avaro will be in contact with you shortly to discuss this further. -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Sannse mentionned to me your disagreement. I will unfortunately not be available at all for the next two days, and little till saturday. You might feel the issue is pressing, or you may consider that a couple of days might help cool down spirits... that is really up to you :-) I think I have no set opinion on the topic and am not unconfortable talking about sex issues. However, I am sure Cimon will be able to help you anyway. I might hang around the topic next week if you still didnot find a solution :-) My best. SweetLittleFluffyThing

RickK, Sam Spade
Rick has called me a troll on multiple occasions, and when requested to stop, deleted my comment. I request relief. Sam [Spade] 05:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, could you provide links to pages and/or diffs where Rick has called you a troll? I am also leaving him a note asking him if he will accept mediation with you. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 12:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * RickK has declined mediation with a message left on my talk page. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 21:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP: Between User:Tannin and User:Ta bu shi da yu
Hi, could we get mediation for the NPOV and factual accuracy tags? The issue is that I don't believe their is much non-NPOV material on the page and there is no factual inaccuracy that I can see. User Tannin will not allow any of us to remove the tags from the top of the article. His issue is that he believes that the User Interface section is apologising for Microsoft and that only criticisms should be shown in the criticisms section. He won't let anyone place the opposing view and this gives the article a very anti-Microsoft slant. I have modified this slightly to try to rectify this, but this is apparently not good enough. He also has stated that there is factual inaccuracy in the page because: "(a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems." Quoting from last revision in talk 02:21, 6 Jul 2004 in Talk:Windows_XP.

Also (and I'm not sure if I should put this in here) I object to the way that he has characterised me as a troll - he said I am engaged in "trolling bullshit" - and that I'm am performing a "syncophantic whitewash". See Talk:Windows_XP I dislike his personal attacks over an issue as silly as a dispute about an operating system! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue has been listed at Requests for comment.

User:Sparky and User:172, User:Dominick, and User:Gazpacho
The Ronald Reagan page. I'm tired of constantly stating — April 1, 1991 - The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times report that Selene Walters had verified her claim that then SAG President Ronald Reagan raped her in her home in 1952 — is not gossip. Gazpacho has passive-agressively made rather odd comments on my Talk page. I believe I am seeing Sysop Abuse from 172. - Sparky 18:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue has been listed at Requests for comment after discussion with User:Sparky.

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles
I am Gilgamesh. Mustafaa and I have been having charged conflicts with IZAK over the articles concerning Canaanite languages and Hebrew language. In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it, and has tried to eliminate "Category:Canaanite languages" altogether. The relevant articles are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, Biblical Hebrew language, Hebrew alphabet, and the categories "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language". Edit histories are available for those articles, and most of the discussion is at User_talk:IZAK, apparently recently mirrored at Talk:Modern Hebrew language. - Gilgamesh 08:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi, I am IZAK, recently I was reading freshly re-written articles by Gilgamesh and Mustafaa on the above topics. Firstly: I am NOT trying to "to eliminate Category:Canaanite languages altogether". On the contrary, I agree that it should be there. I have no problem with it. My problem is that this category is attempting to encompass the totality of the Hebrew language, including Modern Hebrew language even as spoken in modern-day Israel. No-one associates the Hebrew language with anything "Canaanite" except for a few obscure linguists. For most general scholars and laymen Hebrew has always been classified as a Semitic language, without reference to a dubious "Canaanite" sub-group. The position/s put forward by Mustafaa and Gilgamesh is that there were more than one "Hebrew" language and hence more than one "Hebrew" people. This runs counter to the teachings of Judaism that the ancient Hebrews are the ancestors and direct progenitors of today's Jews. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh want to have it both ways: They seek to impose their own dichotomies and theories about the BIBLICAL Hebrew Language and the BIBLICAL Hebrews aka the Children of Israel, yet when one wants to refer to the contents of that self-same primary source as a framework for discussion they switch-and-bait and declare that now it is all a case of "imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". If they do not accept the "historicity" of the Hebrew language in its original then they are in effect rejecting 99.99% of all information about the Hebrew people and language as their sources about "Ammonites", "Edomites", "Moabites", and "Cananites" are almost exclusively provided in the Hebrew Bible itself. It is NOT a case of: "In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". On the contrary, I am asking for MORE inclusivity by calling for recognition that there are hundred of millions of people, not just Jews, who believe in the truth of the Hebrew Bible in its original language. And, it is in that context that note must be taken that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "several" Hebrew people with several Hebrew "languages". Thus, it is ONLY one group that spoke Hebrew and one group that held onto it for millenia and that is the Jewish people as they are known today. If anything, they and their language should be classified as Semitic, they most definitely do NOT belong in Category:Canaanite languages as the Hebrew language is its OWN unique sub-group. Thank you. IZAK 09:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You do not understand my arguments at all... Though conversely I may have also misunderstood many of your points.  I believe Mustafaa and I are correct, as the Canaanite linguistic classification of Hebrew languages in ancient Canaan is attested in linguistics books and academic websites such as Ethnologue and Linguist List.  The very historicity of the Hebrews itself is disputed, though I believe in them.  But I think the sticking points here are (1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan".  Oh, and I truly resent being accused of "bait-and-switch".  I'm just a bookworm and an editor, and malice is unethical as well as a sin.  I do not understand the vehement opposition to what is valid concensus in the linguistics field, and I don't see how it can be contrary to the Torah beliefs either (see Eber and Hebrew and the believed genealogies of Ammon, Moab, Edom and Israel).  What on earth did I do to warrant such attacks?  I don't believe the Hebrews were Canaanites, nor that the Canaanites were Hebrews; that established, what is so offensive about the idea of Biblical Hebrew being an adopted Canaanite language?  I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here. - Gilgamesh 09:21, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

You will note that it is Abraham who is the original Hebrew as regards the origins of the Hebrew people. You are again injecting your own speculations about Eber for whatever reasons.
 * Firstly, please calm down as this is only an academic, albeit vigorous, debate.
 * You must see:Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"?: "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side."

"(1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan"."
 * With regards to your "points":

 * Number (3) I answered above showing you the correct path of interpretation as far as Jewish scholraship goes.

 * As I said before, it is a theological issue, and is open to opinion and interpretation. The various Jewish interpretations is disputable, just as the various Christian, Islamic and atheist interpretations are also disputable. - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

 * With number (2) it is sheer speculation on anyone's part to place Hebrew as a "Canaanite" language. The Book of Genesis records that in Abraham's time there were TEN nations living in Canaan, and they were enemies of Abraham. Were they also "Hebrews" and "Hebrew-speakers" by dint of living in Canaan, or is Abraham and independent and wholy new "Hebrew" who brings his own language with him. Amon, Moab and Edom are all derived from groups that moved AWAY from Abraham route and developed as their people and cultures, whatever they spoke has no relation to the later Hebrew language as presented in the written Bible/Torah that Jewsx had refered to as Lashon HaKodesh the "Holy Tongue (Language)" suitable for their religious rites and holy studies.

 * They are academically Canaanite. See, ,  - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

 * And (1)You tell me who considers the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to be "Hebrews" no different to the Hebrews who became the Children of Israel ? IZAK 10:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, though I believe the Torah says they were different in that they split and became different and went on different paths. See these articles' discussions on Eber and Hebrews. , ,  - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this should resume, if at all, on Talk:Hebrew language. I did not envision the argument to resume here when this place (that we're cluttering) could be reserved for more mediation requests. It's partially my fault for always responding when and where something is said. - Gilgamesh 11:28, 7 July 2004 (UTC)


text:
Helly family

In combinatorics, a Helly family of order $k$ is a family of sets in which every minimal subfamily with an empty intersection has $k$ or fewer sets in it. Equivalently, every finite subfamily such that every $k$-fold intersection is non-empty has non-empty total intersection. The $k$-Helly property is the property of being a Helly family of order $k$.

The number $k$ is frequently omitted from these names in the case that $k = 2$. Thus, a set-family has the Helly property if, for every $n$ sets $$s_1,\ldots,s_n$$ in the family, if $$\forall i,j\in[n]: s_i \cap s_j \neq\emptyset $$, then $$s_1 \cap \cdots \cap s_n \neq\emptyset $$.

These concepts are named after Eduard Helly (1884–1943); Helly's theorem on convex sets, which gave rise to this notion, states that convex sets in Euclidean space of dimension $n$ are a Helly family of order $n + 1$.

Examples

 * In the family of all subsets of the set {a,b,c,d}, the subfamily {{ a,b,c}, {a,b,d}, {a,c,d}, {b,c,d }} has an empty intersection, but removing any set from this subfamily causes it to have a nonempty intersection. Therefore, it is a minimal subfamily with an empty intersection. It has four sets in it, and is the largest possible minimal subfamily with an empty intersection, so the family of all subsets of the set {a,b,c,d} is a Helly family of order 4.
 * Let I be a finite set of closed intervals of the real line with an empty intersection. Let A be the interval whose left endpoint a is as large as possible, and let B be the interval whose right endpoint b is as small as possible. Then, if a were less than or equal to b, all numbers in the range [a,b] would belong to all intervals of I, violating the assumption that the intersection of I is empty, so it must be the case that a > b. Thus, the two-interval subfamily {A,B} has an empty intersection, and the family I cannot be minimal unless I = {A,B}. Therefore, all minimal families of intervals with empty intersections have two or fewer intervals in them, showing that the set of all intervals is a Helly family of order 2.
 * The family of infinite arithmetic progressions of integers also has the 2-Helly property. That is, whenever a finite collection of progressions has the property that no two of them are disjoint, then there exists an integer that belongs to all of them; this is the Chinese remainder theorem.

Formal definition
More formally, a Helly family of order k is a set system (V, E), with E a collection of subsets of V, such that, for every finite G ⊆ E with

 * $$\bigcap_{X\in G} X=\varnothing,$$

we can find H ⊆ G such that

 * $$\bigcap_{X\in H} X=\varnothing$$

and

 * $$\left|H\right|\le k.$$

In some cases, the same definition holds for every subcollection G, regardless of finiteness. However, this is a more restrictive condition. For instance, the open intervals of the real line satisfy the Helly property for finite subcollections, but not for infinite subcollections: the intervals (0,1/i) (for i = 0, 1, 2, ...) have pairwise nonempty intersections, but have an empty overall intersection.

Helly dimension
If a family of sets is a Helly family of order k, that family is said to have Helly number k. The Helly dimension of a metric space is one less than the Helly number of the family of metric balls in that space; Helly's theorem implies that the Helly dimension of a Euclidean space equals its dimension as a real vector space.

The Helly dimension of a subset S of a Euclidean space, such as a polyhedron, is one less than the Helly number of the family of translates of S. For instance, the Helly dimension of any hypercube is 1, even though such a shape may belong to a Euclidean space of much higher dimension.

Helly dimension has also been applied to other mathematical objects. For instance defines the Helly dimension of a group (an algebraic structure formed by an invertible and associative binary operation) to be one less than the Helly number of the family of left cosets of the group.

The Helly property
If a family of nonempty sets has an empty intersection, its Helly number must be at least two, so the smallest k for which the k-Helly property is nontrivial is k = 2. The 2-Helly property is also known as the Helly property. A 2-Helly family is also known as a Helly family.

A convex metric space in which the closed balls have the 2-Helly property (that is, a space with Helly dimension 1, in the stronger variant of Helly dimension for infinite subcollections) is called injective or hyperconvex. The existence of the tight span allows any metric space to be embedded isometrically into a space with Helly dimension 1.

The Helly property in hypergraphs
A hypergraph is equivalent to a set-family. In hypergraphs terms, a hypergraph H = (V, E) has the Helly property if for every n hyperedges $$e_1,\ldots,e_n$$ in E, if $$\forall i,j\in[n]: e_i \cap e_j \neq\emptyset $$, then $$e_1 \cap \cdots \cap e_n \neq\emptyset $$. For every hypergraph H, the following are equivalent:

 * H has the Helly property, and the intersection graph of H (the simple graph in which the vertices are E and two elements of E are linked iff they intersect) is a perfect graph.
 * Every partial hypergraph of H (i.e., a hypergraph derived from H by deleting some hyperedges) has the Konig property, i.e., its maximum-matching size equals its minimum-transversal size.
 * Every partial hypergraph of H has the property that its maximum degree equals its minimum edge coloring number.

title: Helly family


text:
List of Portuguese comedians

This is a list of Portuguese comedians sorted by last name:

 * David Cristina
 * Marco Horácio
 * Herman José
 * Nuno Markl
 * Bruno Nogueira
 * Ricardo Araújo Pereira
 * Fernando Rocha
 * Raúl Solnado

title: List of Portuguese comedians


text:
Trans-Tasman

Trans-Tasman is an adjective used primarily to signify the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. The term refers to the Tasman Sea, which lies between the two countries. For example, trans-Tasman commerce refers to commerce between these two countries.

 * A trans-Tasman flight is a flight between Australia and New Zealand.
 * The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand allowing their citizens free movement between the two countries.
 * The Trans-Tasman Trophy is a Test cricket trophy.

Trans-Tasman events

 * 18 February 1876 - The first trans-Tasman submarine communications cable is completed, allowing telegraph communications with the rest of the world.
 * 3 February 1908 - first trans-Tasman radio transmission (via HMS Powerful in Tasman Sea).
 * 10 January 1928 - Moncrieff and Hood vanish without trace during the first trans-Tasman flight attempt.
 * 10 September 1928 - Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and his three-man crew complete the first successful trans-Tasman flight.
 * 7 January 1931 - Guy Menzies flies the first solo non-stop trans-Tasman flight (from Australia to New Zealand) in 11 hours and 45 minutes, crash-landing on New Zealand's west coast.
 * 1969. Anders Svedlund attempted a Crossing from New Zealand to Australia; however, he was over-turned five days after leaving from Auckland's Manukau Harbour and returned to New Zealand.
 * 1977 - Colin Quincey, an England-born New Zealander, made the first successful human-powered trans-Tasman crossing. He took 63 days 7 hours to row his Yorkshire Dory row-boat from Hokianga, New Zealand to Marcus Beach on the Sunshine Coast of Australia.
 * 24 February 2000 - Dick Smith crossed the Tasman Sea in a hot air balloon. The flight was from Kaitaia on the northern tip of New Zealand to Ten Mile Beach in northern New South Wales, Australia. 2167 km were covered in a 55-hour and 12-minute flight.
 * 30 December 2007 - Four Australians, led by Steven Gates, departed from Hokianga, New Zealand on 29 November. They rowed to and arrived in Sydney Harbour on 30 December at 8:15 am, having taken 31 days to make the crossing.
 * 13 January 2008 - crossing of the Tasman by kayak completed by Justin Jones and James Castrission; expedition named Crossing the Ditch.
 * March 2010 - Shaun Quincey completed the solo row from Australia to New Zealand in March 2010. Shaun is the son of Colin Quincey, who completed the reverse journey in 1977.
 * July 2018 - Scott Donaldson completes the first kayak solo row from Coffs Harbour, Australia to New Plymouth, New Zealand.

Trans-Tasman relations
Trans-Tasman relations refers to the historical, cultural, political, economic, and social relations between countries within the Trans-Tasman region, namely Australia and New Zealand. The two nations share joint histories and similar cultures, such that there are significant numbers of both populations who embody a transnational identity.

Union community
There is a shift in the largest union communities Australian Council of Trade Unions and New Zealand Federation of Labour towards a global solidarity. This shift can be seen through the cultural recognition of a Trans-Tasman world of work.

Arts and culture
Cultural relations in the Trans-Tasman support a cooperative relationship with the sharing of art between Australian and New Zealand galleries. However, the two become competitors when seeking to secure international blockbuster exhibitions and audiences.

Food standards
The harmonization of trans-Tasman food standards led to lower compliance costs for industry, fewer regulatory barriers, and more consumer choice.

Economic relations
The New Zealand and Australian economies are deeply enmeshed as both nation's economic traffic receive flow from a single economic market. Prime Minister Fraser from Australia and Prime Minister Muldoon from New Zealand committed themselves to a liberalisation of the economy for goods from both countries and proposed tax reductions. Since then, future prime ministers have reflected this trade liberalisation. The Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement signed in 1983 has been used to guide trade between Australia and New Zealand.

The two nations have an economic power imbalance however, as Australia plays a more important role in the New Zealand economy than New Zealand does for Australia. Australia in comparison will conduct more trade with North and East Asia. As such their bilateral relationship can be uneven and relies on the consulting and weighing of concerns.

Memorandum of Understanding 1992
In 1996, Australia and New Zealand agreed to create a single market for air transport that was distinct from the previous agreements which were more restrictive. Some notable changes that affect Trans-Tasman travel include allowing Australia and New Zealand to operate in each other's domestic markets.

This was followed by an endorsement of the open skies agreement under the International Civil Aviation Organization in 2007 which further allowed Australia and New Zealand's international flights to operate in each other's domains beyond to third countries without restriction.

Defence and security
The two countries defence forces are complementary, and co-operate closely on the international scale, and in maintaining Trans-Tasman security. The equipment is often shared to defend the borders of the nations in the south pacific given the common security purpose of the nations.

Trans-Tasman crossing
The modes of transport for crossing the Trans-Tasman Sea include by sea and by flight.

By sea
The Trans-Tasman crossing can be undertaken by sailing ships, passenger liners and smaller vessels. There are a range of cruise ships including those from companies Princess Cruises, Royal Caribbean Group, Holland America, Silversea and Oceania Cruises. Private vessels are also allowed to cross this Sea.

By flight
Flights across the Tasman have been made by a range of aircraft including winged aircraft, airships, and balloons. Flight are available with airlines Qantas, Air New Zealand, Jetstar and Virgin Australia.

The aviation market in the Trans-Tasman region has experienced growth since the introduction of low-cost carriers, specifically Jetstar. Low fares are an important factor for the patronage of flights, alongside check in procedures and airport features. Air transport can significantly affect the economy of the Trans-Tasman through its impact on the tourism, logistics and high value-added manufacturing sectors.

Trans-Tasman migration
There has been significant migration between New Zealand and Australia since the 20th century. Economic and social history between the two countries during early colonial time was influenced by the sealing and whaling industry which saw Trans-Tasman migration. In the 21st century the movement is enabled by the Trans-Tasman travel arrangement which governs the regulatory frameworks and supports high international mobility across the Tasman. There has been a cyclical movement between the two countries, but a strong net movement towards Australia since the late 1960s. Many migrants between the countries have reported a sense of transnationalism where they are able to feel at home in both Australia and New Zealand.

This migration is attributable to economic development driven by globalisation, technological change, business cycles, demographic dynamics, and perceptions. Migration specifically from New Zealand to Australia can be attributable to dissatisfaction and desire for change or a sense of newness. However, 15% of people have stated their migration to Australia was because of temporary travel, and then a decision to stay.

However, there are differences in culture, strategic outlook and governance between the nations that contribute to the distinct differences of the two nations and play a role in migration. Evident differences include topography and geography, both of which influence culture, seasonality, and trade. Australia's population size and proximity to Asia contribute to its greater presence in international trade whilst New Zealand's landscape and natural surroundings have contributed to the nation's political and governance decisions.

Trans-Tasman travel bubble

Trans-Tasman bubble refers to the proposed quarantine free travel bubble for the Trans-Tasman region during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also known as the COVID-safe travel zone. The travel bubble allows entry across the other country's borders. During 2020, there were also plans to extend Australia and NZ's planned COVID-safe travel zone to Pacific island countries to mediate the effects of the pandemic on the economy of the Pacific island countries.

In June 2021, the Marine Industry has also raised the potential for a sea bubble for superyachts and cruises to travel across the Tasman.

Trans-Tasman legal proceedings
There has been historically a legal connection between the case law of the two countries. As such the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 was created to streamline the process of managing both civil and criminal proceedings with elements spanning across Australia and New Zealand. This act has provisions regarding service of Australian documents in New Zealand, the granting of interim relief for civil proceedings commencing in the other country, the service of subpoenas, remote appearances, and enforcement of judgments in the other country. This Act concerns largely administrative law and governs the procedural practice across these two countries. Problem solving courts within this region are evolving to better capture Trans-Tasman relations.

Trans-Tasman sports
Sports is popular across both Australia and New Zealand, and both countries participate together in a range of sporting competitions. The nations share an interest in sports law and the governing rules of leagues for sports they compete together on, and those which they compete in separately. Legislators across the nations have taken to addressing legal concerns cooperatively and independently. An instance of influence across the Trans-Tasman for sports law is New Zealand's adoption of anti-doping regulations similar to Australia.

History
Sporting contacts between Australia and New Zealand began shortly before the federation of the Australian colonies in 1901. These contacts embodied a shared sporting culture influenced by Trans-Tasman migration, the induction of Trans-Tasman governing bodies and the sharing of sportsmen for competing in international competitions.

The role of sport has influenced the relationship between the two nations, and history has seen poor sportsmanship have a dampening effect in the Trans-Tasman space. An instance is the 1981 cricket series between Australia and New Zealand where the under-arm bowling incident struck controversy between the nations.

Sport holds a particular importance for New Zealand, and is described by academics as one of their greatest soft powers in the context of politics and diplomatic relations. It has a considerable influence across the Trans-Tasman for its function at the intersection of culture, tourism, economics and health.

Sporting competitions
Australia-New Zealand Sports rivalries exist across a range of sports, most prominently cricket, rugby league, netball and rugby union. The Bledisloe Cup is a Rugby Union competition which has particular notoriety for sparking Trans-Tasman rivalry. Other major sporting trophies between the countries include the Trans-Tasman Trophy in test cricket, the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy in One Day International cricket, the ANZAC Test in rugby league and the Constellation Cup in netball. The two nationals also share a strong soccer rivalry and formerly played for the Trans-Tasman Cup.

title: Trans-Tasman