text:
Gebhart v. Belton

Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144, 87 A.2d 862 (Del. Ch. 1952), aff'd, 91 A.2d 137 (Del. 1952), was a case decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery in 1952 and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in the same year. Gebhart was one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found unconstitutional racial segregation in United States public schools.

Gebhart is unique among the five Brown cases in that the state trial court ordered that black children be admitted to the state's segregated whites-only schools, and the state Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. In the remaining Brown cases, all of which were filed in federal rather than state court, federal district courts all found continued segregation constitutional, though some judges questioned its effects on black students, and instead ordered some lesser remedy.

Background
The unusual status of Gebhart arose in large part because of Delaware's unique legal and historical position. At the time of the litigation, Delaware was one of 17 states with a segregated school system. Delaware is considered a Southern state by the US Census Bureau yet was a border state that remained part of the Union during the Civil War. It nonetheless was both de facto and de jure segregated; Jim Crow laws persisted in the state well into the 1960s, and its educational system was segregated by operation of law. In fact, Delaware's segregation was written into the state constitution, which, while providing at Article X, Section 2, that "no distinction shall be made on account of race or color", nonetheless required that "separate schools for white and colored children shall be maintained." Furthermore, a 1935 state education law required:

"The schools provided shall be of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. The schools for white children shall be free for all white children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, inclusive; and the schools for colored children shall be free to all colored children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, inclusive. ... The State Board of Education shall establish schools for children of people called Moors or Indians."

Despite this optimistic language, black schools in Delaware were generally decrepit, with poor facilities, substandard curricula, and shoddy construction. Without substantial financial support provided by Wilmington's Du Pont family of chemical fame, segregated schools would likely have been in even worse shape.

At the same time, as a remnant of its days as one of the original thirteen former British colonies, Delaware had developed a judicial system which included a separate Court of Chancery, hearing matters arising in equity rather than in law. As opposed to legal remedies, which usually involve awarding money as damages, equity— as expressed in the maxims of equity, "regards as done that which ought to be done." As a result, cases brought in equity generally seek relief which cannot be awarded as a sum of money, but rather "that which ought to be done".

The disputes
Gebhart involved two separate actions which were consolidated for the purposes of trial.

Belton v. Gebhart
Belton v. Gebhart was brought by Ethel Louise Belton and six other parents of eight black high school students who lived in Claymont, Delaware. Despite the existence of a well-maintained, spacious high school in Claymont, segregation forced the parents to send their children on a public bus to attend the run-down Howard High School in downtown Wilmington. Howard High School was Delaware's sole business and college-preparatory school for black students and served the entire state of Delaware. Related concerns involved class size, teacher qualifications, and curriculum; indeed, Howard students interested in vocational training were required to walk several blocks to a nearby annex to attend classes offered only after the conclusion of the normal school day.

Bulah v. Gebhart
Bulah v. Gebhart was brought by Sarah Bulah, a resident of the rural town of Hockessin, Delaware. Mrs. Bulah's daughter, Shirley, had been denied admission to the modern, whites-only Hockessin School No. 29, and instead was compelled to attend a one-room "colored" school, Hockessin School No. 107, which, though very near School No. 29, had vastly inferior facilities and construction. Moreover, Shirley Bulah was required to walk to school every day, even though a school bus serving the nearby whites-only school passed by her house every day. Mrs. Bulah had attempted to obtain transportation for Shirley on that bus, but she was told they would never transport a black student.

The trial
Gebhart was filed in 1951 in the Delaware Court of Chancery by lawyers Jack Greenberg and Louis L. Redding under a strategy formulated by Robert L. Carter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Redding was the first black attorney in the history of Delaware and had developed a notable civil-rights practice in his years before the bar. Frequently, he would be sought out by families unable to afford his services, offering his assistance anyway. Over the years, Redding had developed a reputation as a skilled advocate for racial equality, most notably in Parker v. University of Delaware, 75 A.2d 225 (Del. Ch. 1950), which resulted in a ruling from the Court of Chancery that segregation at the University of Delaware was unconstitutional. The prospect of Southern-style segregation being adjudicated by a court of equity which had previously expressed an opinion prohibiting racial segregation was clearly attractive to Greenberg and Redding.

Presiding over the Gebhart trial was Chancellor Collins J. Seitz, who had issued the Parker opinion the prior year. In 1946, at the age of 35, Seitz had been appointed to the Court of Chancery, making him the youngest judge in the history of Delaware. Just prior to the Gebhart litigation, Seitz had given a graduation speech at a local Catholic boys' high school, in which he discussed the courage that would be required to address "a subject that was one of Delaware's great taboos -- the subjugated state of its Negroes. How can we say that we deeply revere the principles of our Declaration [of Independence] and our Constitution and yet refuse to recognize these principles when they are applied to the American Negro in a down-to-earth fashion?"

The plaintiffs presented evidence throughout the course of the trial demonstrating the patently inferior conditions of the Wilmington and Hockessin schools, consisting of testimony and documentary evidence of the schools' infrastructures. In addition, the plaintiffs offered expert testimony from psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, and sociologists—none of which was rebutted by the defense—demonstrating that the inadequate educational facilities and curricula found in segregated schools were harmful to the mental health of black children.

Dramatically illustrating the disparate conditions in the schools were fire insurance valuations prepared by the State of Delaware in 1941, which featured photographs of all Delaware public schools as well as their assessed value. For example, the "colored" school in Hockessin was valued at only $6,250.00, while the whites-only Hockessin school was valued almost seven times higher. The most powerful evidence, however, probably came from the plaintiffs themselves, who described the conditions in their segregated schools and the hardship they were forced to endure to attend those schools in lieu of the much nicer, and more convenient, whites-only schools.

In summary, the plaintiffs argued that:
 * Segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in that they did not offer black children equal protection of the law; but, if not, then:
 * The separate facilities and educational opportunities offered to black children were not equal to those furnished to white children similarly situated.

The decision
Initially, Chancellor Seitz noted that the separate but equal law had already been adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson and that he did not feel able, as a judge of an inferior court, to "reject a principle of United States constitutional law which has been adopted by fair implication by the highest court of the land." For this reason, the Court refused to find that the segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but not by any means on the merits of the system; as the Court observed, "I believe the 'separate but equal' doctrine in education should be rejected, but I also believe its rejection must come from [the U.S. Supreme] [C]ourt."

That, however, did not end the Court's analysis. The Court found that the separate "colored" facilities were in no way equal to the whites-only facilities, and, exercising the broad powers of a court of equity, ordered that black students be immediately integrated.

Chancellor Seitz decried the unequal conditions of the plaintiffs' schools in strong terms:

"I now consider whether the facilities of the [Claymont and Howard] institutions are separate but equal, within the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are the separate facilities and educational opportunities offered to these Negro plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, 'equal' in the constitutional sense, to those available at Claymont High to white children, similarly situated? The answer to this question is often much more difficult than appears, because many of the factors to be compared are just not susceptible of mathematical evaluation, e. g., aesthetic considerations. Moreover, and of real importance, the United States Supreme Court has not decided what should be done if a Negro school being compared with a white school is inferior in some respects and superior in others. It is easy, as some courts do, to talk about the necessity for finding substantial equality. But, under this approach, how is one to deal with a situation where, as here, the mental and physical health services at the Negro school are superior to those offered at the white school while the teacher load at the Negro school is not only substantially heavier than that at the white school, but often exceeds the State announced educationally desirable maximum teacher-pupil ratio. The answer, it seems to me is this: Where the facilities or educational opportunities available to the Negro are, as to any substantial factor, inferior to those available to white children similarly situated, the constitutional principle of 'separate but equal' is violated, even though the State may point to other factors as to which the Negro school is superior. I reach this conclusion because I do not believe a court can say that the substantial factor as to which the Negro school is inferior will not adversely affect the educational progress of at least some of those concerned. Moreover, evaluating unlike factors is unrealistic. If this be a harsh test, then I answer that a State which divides its citizens should pay the price."

With regard to the Hockessin schools at issue in Bulah, the Court noted similar disparities demonstrating a lack of equal treatment:

Another factor connected with these two schools demands separate attention, because it is a consequence of segregation so outlandish that the Attorney General, with commendable candor, has in effect refused to defend it. I refer to the fact that school bus transportation is provided those attending No. 29 who, except for color, are in the same situation as this infant plaintiff. Yet neither school bus transportation, nor its equivalent is provided this plaintiff even to attend No. 107. In fact, the State Board of Education refused to authorize the transportation of this then seven-year-old plaintiff to the Negro school, even though the bus for white children went right past her home, and even though the two schools are no more than a mile apart. Moreover, there is no public transportation available from or near plaintiff's home to or near the Negro school. The State Board ruled that because of the State constitutional provision for separate schools, a Negro child may not ride in a bus serving a white school. If we assume that this is so, then this practice in and of itself, is another reason why the facilities offered this plaintiff at No. 107 are inferior to those provided at No. 29. To suggest, under the facts here presented, that there are not enough Negroes to warrant the cost of a school bus for them is only another way of saying that they are not entitled to equal services because they are Negroes. Such an excuse will not do here.

I conclude that the facilities and educational opportunities at No. 107 are substantially inferior in a constitutional sense, to those at No. 29. For the reasons stated in connection with Claymont I do not believe the relief should merely be an order to make equal. An injunction will issue preventing the defendants and their agents from refusing these plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, admission to School No. 29 because of their color.

On August 28, 1952, the Supreme Court of Delaware unanimously affirmed the Chancery Court's ruling. Despite this, the two schools of Hockessin Elementary and Claymont High School did not integrate in 1952 because the State Board of Education did not give these schools an official mandate to do so. The Claymont High Board of Education met on September 3, 1952, and decided they would enroll the black students even without a mandate. At the last minute the State Board of Education called and gave a verbal mandate for the children to attend. On the morning of September 4, 1952, eleven black students got on their bus and came to Claymont High School and there were no incidents. The next day, Delaware Attorney Young called and told Claymont Superintendent Stahl to "send the children home" because the cases were being appealed and eventually became part of the Brown v. Board case. Superintendent Stahl and the School Board refused to send the children home, because they wanted the school to be integrated and had worked hard to have integration occur through the court systems. Even the high school teachers signed a letter stating that they wanted the students to remain. Claymont administrators were willing to defy the state. After many meetings, the State School Board agreed to allow the students remain in Claymont, Hockessin and Arden. Arden had an elementary school which fed into the Claymont High School. Recently moved into Ardencroft was a family that had three students which were now attending Claymont High School and three children that were elementary school aged. Arden had voted to allow these younger children to attend their school. The State Board of Education decided to allow these children to remain in Arden.

The State Board of Education declared that no other public schools in Delaware were permitted to integrate until after the Brown v. Board decision was decided.

The aftermath
The State Attorney General appealed Chancellor Seitz' decision in Gebhart to the Delaware Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, believing the Court of Chancery had not gone far enough in overturning the concept of "separate but equal", cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision in a relatively short opinion, relying on Plessy to reject arguments that segregation per se was unconstitutional, while ordering integration and leaving open the possibility of resegregation in the future. From there, the school-district defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the consolidation with Brown occurred.

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown affirmed the Supreme Court of Delaware's order to allow black students to enrolled in previously all-white schools. This was the only case the Supreme Court affirmed in part. The Supreme Court then reversed the Delaware Supreme Court on the constitutional issues and remanded the cases for further proceedings. After the Brown ruling, a sea change occurred in American and Delaware politics and society. The result of this ruling was that Delaware became fully integrated, albeit with time and much effort. The state Department of Public Instruction agreed to integrate all Delaware schools in light of the Supreme Court's order. In Northern and Central Delaware, most were willing to accept the Brown ruling, but there was much opposition from white residents in the southern portion of the state.

The white supremacist Bryant Bowles raised $6,000 and founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) to oppose the ruling. Bowles briefly attracted nationwide attention for leading a pro-segregation boycott of previously all-white Milford High School. On September 27, 1954, as eleven black students were preparing to enroll at the school, unrest from angry townspeople was feared to be imminent. In response, Louis Redding issued an urgent telegram to Delaware Governor J. Caleb Boggs requesting the presence of state police officers "adequate to assure personal safety of eleven children whose admittance to that school last night was confirmed by state board of education." Redding closed his telegram with an optimistic line: "Hope also no occasion for powers of the police will arise." A mass meeting in Milford held in October of that year attracted a crowd of 3,000 people. Bowles encouraged a boycott to protest the integration of Delaware schools. Only 456 out of 1562 Milford High School students attended the next day, and the movement gained traction in the nearby town of Lincoln, where 116 of the 146 pupils in the local elementary school boycotted in solidarity. Mass protests continued in Milford; the school board eventually ceded to the protestors, expelling the black students. Several weeks later, Bowles was arrested for "conspiring to violate the state education law by leading a boycott at Milford’s integrated high school". The Attorney General later took action to revoke the NAAWP's corporate charter in September 1955. However, the ensuing unrest, which included cross burnings, rallies, and pro-segregation demonstrations, contributed to desegregation in most of Southern Delaware being delayed for another ten years. School segregation in the state would not end until 1967.

Some argue that while the state of race relations was dramatically improving post-Brown, any progress was destroyed in the wake of the rioting that broke out in Wilmington in April 1968 in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis. Delaware's response to the Wilmington riots was heavy-handed in the opinion of some, involving the virtual occupation of the city for over one year by the Delaware National Guard.

For his efforts in defeating segregation, Louis Redding was honored with a life-size bronze statue of him embracing a young black schoolboy and a young white schoolgirl outside the City-County government complex in downtown Wilmington, which is also named for him. Redding was also honored by the naming of Louis Redding Middle School in Middletown, New Castle County.

title: Gebhart v. Belton


text:
Lease

A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the user (referred to as the lessee) to pay the owner (referred to as the lessor) for the use of an asset. Property, buildings and vehicles are common assets that are leased. Industrial or business equipment are also leased. Basically a lease agreement is a contract between two parties: the lessor and the lessee. The lessor is the legal owner of the asset, while the lessee obtains the right to use the asset in return for regular rental payments. The lessee also agrees to abide by various conditions regarding their use of the property or equipment. For example, a person leasing a car may agree to the condition that the car will only be used for personal use.

The term rental agreement can refer to two kinds of leases:

 * A lease in which the asset is tangible property. Here, the user rents the asset (e.g. land or goods) let out or rented out by the owner (the verb to lease is less precise because it can refer to either of these actions). Examples of a lease for intangible property include use of a computer program (similar to a license, but with different provisions), or use of a radio frequency (such as a contract with a cell-phone provider).
 * A periodic lease agreement (most often a month-to-month lease) internationally and in some regions of the United States.

General terms
A lease is a legal contract, and thus enforceable by all parties under the contract law of the applicable jurisdiction.

In the United States, since it also represents a conveyance of possessory rights to real estate, it is a hybrid sort of contract that involves qualities of a deed.

Some kinds of leases may have specific clauses required by statute depending upon the property being leased, the jurisdiction in which the agreement was signed, and the residence of the parties.

Common elements of a lease agreement include:
 * Names of the parties of the agreement.
 * The starting date and duration of the agreement.
 * Identifies the specific object (by street address, VIN, or make/model, serial number) being leased.
 * Provides conditions for renewal or non-renewal.
 * Has a specific consideration (a lump sum, or periodic payments) for granting the use of this object.
 * Has provisions for a security deposit and terms for its return.
 * May have a specific list of conditions which are therein described as Default Conditions and specific Remedies.
 * May have other specific conditions placed upon the parties such as:
 * Need to provide insurance for loss.
 * Restrictive use.
 * Which party is responsible for maintenance.
 * Termination clause (describing what will happen if the contract is ended early or cancelled by either of the parties, stating the rights of parties to terminate the lease, and their obligations)

All kinds of personal property (e.g. cars and furniture) or real property (e.g. raw land, apartments, single family homes, and business property, which includes wholesale and retail) may be leased. As a result of the lease, the owner (lessor) grants the use of the stated property to the lessee.

Leases of land
The narrower term 'tenancy' describes a lease in which the tangible property is land (including at any vertical section such as airspace, storey of building or mine). A premium is an amount paid by the tenant for the lease to be granted or to secure the former tenant's lease, often in order to secure a low rent, in long leases termed a ground rent. For parts of buildings it is most common for users to pay also by collateral contract, or by the same contract, a service charge which is normally an express list of services in a lease to minimize disputes over service charges. A gross lease or tenancy stipulates a rent that is for the global amount due including all service charges.

A cancelable lease (UK: determinable/breakable lease) is a lease that may be terminated (formally determined) solely by the lessee or solely by the lessor without penalty. A mutually determinable lease can be determined by either. A non-cancelable lease is a lease that cannot be so terminated. Commonly, "lease" may imply a non-cancelable lease, whereas "rental agreement" may connote a cancelable lease.

Influenced by land registration, commonly tenancies initially granted for more than a year are referred to more simply as leases.

The lease will either provide specific provisions regarding the responsibilities and rights of the lessee and lessor, or there will be automatic provisions as a result of local law. In general, by paying the negotiated fee to the lessor, the lessee (also called a tenant) has possession and use (the rental) of the leased property to the exclusion of the lessor and all others except with the invitation of the tenant. The most common form of real property lease is a residential rental agreement between landlord and tenant. As the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is called a tenancy, this term generally is also used for informal and shorter leases. The right to possession by the tenant is sometimes called a leasehold interest. A lease can be for a fixed period of time (called the term of the lease). A lease may be terminated sooner than its end date by:
 * Break/cancellation (this depends upon the terms of the lease)
 * A negotiated deed of surrender or yielding-up.
 * Forfeiture
 * By operation of statute (rare)

A lease should be contrasted with a license, which may entitle a person (called a licensee) to use property, but which is subject to termination at the will of the owner of the property (called the licensor). An example of a licensor/licensee relationship is a parking lot owner and a person who parks a vehicle in the parking lot. A license may be seen in the form of a ticket to a baseball game or a verbal permission to sleep a few days on a sofa. The difference is that if there is a term (end time), a degree of privacy suggestive of exclusive possession of a clearly defined part, practised ongoing, recurrent payments, a lack of right to terminate save for misconduct or nonpayment, these factors tend toward a lease; by contrast, a one-time entrance onto someone else's property is probably a license. The seminal difference between a lease and a license is that a lease generally provides for regular periodic payments during its term and a specific ending date. If a contract has no ending date then it may be in the form of a perpetual license and still not be a lease.

Under normal circumstances, owners of property are at liberty to do what they want with their property (for a lawful purpose), including dealing with it or handing over possession of the property to a tenant for a limited period of time. If an owner has granted possession to another (i.e., the tenant) then any interference with the quiet enjoyment of the property by the tenant in lawful possession is itself unlawful.

Similar principles apply to real property as well as to personal property, though the terminology differs. The right to sub-lease may or may not be permitted to a tenant. Where it is permitted, the lease granted directly by the owner is called a "headlease", or sometimes a "master lease". Headlease tenants and their tenants who may in turn also sublet are termed mesne landlords from the old French for middle. The headlease tenant has no right to grant a sublease which extends beyond the end of the headlease.

To circumvent privity of estate which is the general principle flowing from privity of contract, laws exist in several jurisdictions to bind subtenants to some of the restrictive covenants (terms) of the headlease, for instance in England and Wales those which have been held by courts to touch and concern the land.

A transfer of a remaining interest in a lease, assignment, is a type of (alienation) is often possible and an implied rights to assign exist by compulsory law or as a default position in some jurisdictions. Sharing or parting with possession can be a breach of certain leases resulting in action for forfeiture.

Enfranchisement is the obtaining of the landlord's title and is most commonly negotiated with the landlord where a tenant pays only a ground rent. Merger is where the landlord and tenant happen to be the same and can terminate a lease where there are no subtenants in certain jurisdictions.

In the United States a lessee may negotiate a right of first refusal clause into their land or property lease giving them the right to make a purchase offer on the property before the lessor can negotiate with third-party buyers. This gives tenants the ability to commit to a piece of property before any other potential buyers have the opportunity.

History of leases of land
Over the centuries, leases have served many purposes and the nature of legal regulation has varied according to those purposes and the social and economic conditions of the times. Leases, for example, were mainly used for agricultural purposes until the late 18th century and early 19th century when the growth of cities in industrialized countries made leases an important form of landholding in urban areas.

The modern law of landlord and tenant in common law jurisdictions retains the influence of the common law and, particularly, the laissez-faire philosophy that dominated the law of contract and property law in the 19th century. With the growth of consumerism, consumer protection legislation recognized that common law principles, which assume equal bargaining power between the contracting parties, create hardships when that assumption is inaccurate. Consequently, reformers have emphasized the need to assess residential tenancy laws in terms of protection they provide to tenants. Legislation to protect tenants is now common. Consequently, Common law has treated Lease as not similar or equivalent to a common commercial contract, especially in regard to the question of whether a Lease Agreement can be terminated by notice, in the same way and manner as a usual commercial contract.

Fixed-term tenancy or tenancy for years
A fixed-term tenancy or tenancy for years lasts for some fixed period of time. It has a definite beginning date and a definite ending date. Despite the name "tenancy for years", such a tenancy can last for any period of time—even a tenancy for one week may be called a tenancy for years. At common law the duration did not need to be certain, but could be conditioned upon the happening of some event, (e.g., "until the crops are ready for harvest" or "until the war is over"). In many jurisdictions that possibility has been partially or totally abolished.

A fixed term tenancy comes to an end automatically when the fixed term runs out or, in the case of a tenancy that ends on the happening of an event, when the event occurs. If a holdover tenant remains on the property after the termination of the lease, s/he may become a tenant at sufferance because the lessor/landlord has suffered (or allowed) the tenant to remain as a tenant instead of evicting him or her. Such a tenancy is generally "at will," meaning the tenant or the landlord may terminate it at any time, upon the providing of proper statutory notice.

Periodic tenancy
A periodic tenancy, also known as a tenancy from year to year, month to month, or week to week, is an estate that exists for some period of time determined by the term of the payment of rent. An oral lease for a tenancy of years that violates the Statute of Frauds (by committing to a lease of more than one year—depending on the jurisdiction—without being in writing) may actually create a periodic tenancy, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction where the leased premises are located. In many jurisdictions the "default" tenancy, where the parties have not explicitly specified a different arrangement, and where none is presumed under local or business custom, is a month-to-month tenancy.

Either the landlord or the tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy when the period or term is nearing completion, by giving notice to the other party as required by statute or case law in the jurisdiction. Neither landlord nor tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy before the period has ended, without incurring an obligation to pay for the months remaining on the lease. Either party must give notice if it intends to terminate a tenancy from year to year, and the amount of notice is either specified by the lease or by state statute. Notice is usually, but not always, at least one month, especially for the year-to-year periodic tenancy. Durations of less than a year must typically receive notice equal to the period of the tenancy—for example, the landlord must give a month's notice to terminate a tenancy from month to month. However, many jurisdictions have increased these required notice periods, and some have reduced the capacity of a landlord to use them drastically. For jurisdictions that have local rent control laws, a landlord's ability to terminate a residential tenancy is substantially reduced. For example, in California, the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Francisco, and Oakland have "rent stabilization ordinances" that limit a landlord's ability to terminate a periodic tenancy, among other restrictions.

The notice must also state the effective date of termination, which, in some jurisdictions, must be on the last day of the payment period. In other words, if a month-to-month tenancy began on the 15th of the month, in a jurisdiction with a last day requirement the termination could not be effective on the 20th of the following month, even though this would give the tenant more than the required one month's notice.

Tenancy at will
A tenancy at will is a tenancy which either the landlord or the tenant may terminate at any time by giving reasonable notice. Unlike a periodic tenancy, it isn't associated with a time period. It may last for many years, but it could be ended at any time by either the lessor or the lessee for any reason, or for no reason at all. Proper notice, as always with landlord/tenant law, must be given, as set forth in the state's statutes. If there is no formal lease, the tenancy at will is the one that usually exists. In rare cases it may occur where the tenancy is not for consideration. Under the modern common law, a tenancy at will without compensation is very rare, partly because it comes about only if the parties expressly agree that the tenancy is for no rent, commonly where a family member is allowed to live in a home (a nominal consideration may be required) without any formal arrangements. In most residential tenancies for a fixed term, for consideration, the tenant may not be removed except for cause, even if there is no written lease. (However, an oral lease for more than 12 months is not enforceable if the statute of frauds in the jurisdiction includes leases of more than 12 months.) Many residential leases convert to "at will" tenancy subject to 30 days' notice. Alternatively, a tenancy at will (without a specific time limit) may exist for a temporary period where a tenant wishes to take possession of a property and the landlord agrees, but there is insufficient time in which to negotiate and complete a new lease. In this case, the tenancy at will is terminated as soon as a new lease is negotiated and signed. The parties may also agree on the basis that if the parties fail to enter into a new lease within a reasonable time period, then the tenant must vacate the premises.

If a lease exists at the sole discretion of the landlord, the law of the jurisdiction may imply that the tenant is granted, by operation of law, a reciprocal right to terminate the lease at will. However, a lease that explicitly exists at the will of the tenant (e.g. "for as long as the tenant desires to live on this land") generally does not imply that the landlord may terminate the lease; rather, such language may be interpreted as granting the tenant a life estate or even a fee simple.

A tenancy at will is broken, again by operation of law, if the:
 * Tenant commits waste against the property;
 * Tenant attempts to assign the tenancy;
 * Tenant uses the property to operate a criminal enterprise;
 * Landlord transfers his/her interest in the property;
 * Landlord leases the property to another person;
 * Tenant or landlord dies.

The specifics of these rules differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Subject to any notice required by law, a tenancy at will also comes to an end when either the landlord or the tenant acts inconsistently with a tenancy. For example, the changing of locks by the landlord is an indication of the end of the tenancy, as is the vacation of the premises by the tenant. However, in some jurisdictions, such as California, a landlord is prohibited from using a "self help" remedy, such as changing the locks, to terminate a tenancy, particularly a residential tenancy. Doing so may constitute a "constructive eviction" and expose the landlord to civil and criminal liability.

Tenancy at sufferance
A tenancy at sufferance (sometimes called a holdover tenancy) exists when a tenant remains in possession of a property after the expiration of a lease, and until the landlord acts to eject the tenant from the property. Although the tenant is technically a trespasser at this point, and possession of this type is not a true estate in land, authorities recognize the condition in order to hold the tenant liable for rent. The landlord may evict such a tenant at any time, and without notice.

The landlord may also impose a new lease on the holdover tenant. For a residential tenancy, this new tenancy is month to month. For a commercial tenancy of more than a year, the new tenancy is year to year; otherwise it is the same period as the period before the original lease expired. In either case, the landlord can raise the rent, so long as the landlord has told the tenant of the higher rent before the expiration of the original lease.

Formalities
Formal requirements for a lease are determined by the law and custom of the jurisdiction in which real property is located. In the case of personal property, it is determined by the law and custom of the jurisdiction in which the rental agreement is made.

A tenancy for a duration greater than one year must be in writing in order to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.

Term
The term of the lease may be fixed, periodic or of indefinite duration. If it is for a specified period of time, the term ends automatically when the period expires, and no notice needs to be given, in the absence of legal requirements. The term's duration may be conditional, in which case it lasts until a specified event occurs, such as the death of a specified individual. A periodic tenancy is one which is renewed automatically, usually on a monthly or weekly basis. A tenancy at will lasts only as long as the parties wish it to, and may be terminated by either party without penalty.

It is common for a lease to be extended on a "holding over" basis, which normally converts the tenancy to a periodic tenancy on a month by month basis. It is also possible for a tenant, either expressly or impliedly, to give up the tenancy to the landlord. This process is known as a "surrender" of the lease.

There have been recent restrictions and limitations in New York City regarding lease terms. One limitation in particular stated that units can not be leased for a period of less than two weeks and any unit leased for less than 90 days may not allow guests or pets in the unit.

Transparency and fine print
As stated by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), 2013, a lack of transparency regarding a term in a standard-form consumer contract may cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations.

A term is considered transparent if it is:
 * expressed in reasonably plain language
 * legible
 * presented clearly
 * readily available to any party affected by the term

Terms that may not be considered transparent include terms that are hidden in fine print or schedules or phrased in complex or technical language.

Rent
Rent is a requirement of leases in some common law jurisdictions, but not in civil law jurisdictions. In England and Wales it was held in the case of Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold that rent was not a requirement for there to be a lease, however the court will more often construe a licence where no rent is paid as it is seen as evidence for no intention to create legal relations. There is no requirement for the rent to be a commercial amount; a peppercorn or rent of some nominal amount is sufficient for this requirement.

Exclusive possession
A sharing arrangement with much of a landlord's property or, for no specific room of a building for instance, may defeat a finding of a lease, however this common requirement of a lease is interpreted differently in many jurisdictions.

Provisions specific to car rental
In addition to the above, a car rental agreement may include various restrictions on the way a renter can use a car, and the condition in which it must be returned. For example, some rentals cannot be driven off-road, or out of the country, or towing a trailer, without specific permission. In New Zealand you may have to specifically endorse a promise that the car will not be driven onto Ninety-Mile Beach (because of the hazardous tides).

There will certainly be a requirement to show a driver's license, and only those drivers appearing on the contract may be authorized to drive. It may include an option to purchase auto insurance (UK: motor insurance), if the renter does not already have a policy to cover rentals—another important consideration for multiple drivers. Some agencies may even require a bond payable if the car is not returned in order, often held in the form of a credit-card authorization—voided if the car is returned per agreement. A renter should be advised that he or she will be responsible for any tolls, parking or traffic violations incurred upon the vehicle during the rental period. There should also be advice on handling thefts, accidents, break-downs, and towing.

Further terms may include added fees for late returns, drop-off at a different location, or failure to top up the petrol immediately before the return.

Finally, there may be provisions for making a non-refundable deposit with a booking, terms for payment of the initial period (with discounts, vouchers, etc.), extended periods, and any damages or other fees that accrue prior to the return.

Leasing property
A rental agreement is often called a lease, especially when real estate is rented. Real estate rentals are initiated by a rental application which is used to build the terms of the lease. In addition to the basics of a rental (who, what, when, how much), a real estate rental may go into much more detail on these and other issues. The real estate may be rented for housing, parking vehicles, storage, business, agricultural, institutional, or government use, or other reasons.
 * Who: The parties involved in the contract, the lessor (sometimes called the owner or landlord) and the lessee (sometimes called the renter or tenant) are identified in the contract. A housing lease may specify whether the renter is living alone, with family, children, roommate, visitors. A rental may delineate the rights and obligations of each of these. For example, a "sub-let" to a stranger might not be permitted without permission of the landlord. This also applies to whether or not pets may be kept by the renter. On the other hand, the renter may also have specific rights against intrusions by the landlord (or other tenants), except under emergency circumstances. A renter is in possession of the property, and a landlord would be trespassing upon the renter's rights if entry is made without proper notice and authority (e.g., 24 hours' notice, daytime, knock first, except for emergency repairs, in case of fire, flood, etc.).
 * What: Rented real estate may include all or part of almost any real property, such as an apartment, house, building, business offices or suite, land, farm, or merely an inside or outside space to park a vehicle, or store things. The premises rented may include not only specific rooms, but also access to other common areas such as off-street parking, basement or attic storage, laundry facility, pool, roof-deck, balconies, etc. The agreement may specify how and when these places may be used, and by whom. There may be detailed description of the current condition of the premises, for comparison with the condition at the time the premises are surrendered.
 * When: the term of the rental may be for a night (e.g., a hotel room), weeks, months, or years. There may be statutory provisions requiring registration of any rental that could extend for more than a specified number of years (e.g., seven) in order to be enforceable against a new landlord.

 * A typical rental is either annual or month-to-month, and the amount of rent may be different for long-term renters (because of lower turnover costs). Leaving a long-term lease before its expiration could result in penalties, or even the cost of the entire agreed period (if the landlord is unable to find a suitable replacement tenant, after diligent pursuit). If a tenant stays beyond the end of a lease for a term of years (one or more), then the parties may agree that the lease will be automatically renewed, or it may simply convert to a tenancy at will (month-to-month) at the pro-rated monthly cost of the previous annual lease. If a tenant at will is given notice to quit the premises, and refuses to do so, the landlord then begins eviction proceedings. In many places it is completely illegal to change locks on doors, or remove personal belongings, let alone forcibly eject a person, without a court order of eviction. There may be strict rules of procedure, and stiff penalties (triple damages, plus attorneys' fees) for violations.

 * How much: Rent may be payable monthly, annually, or in advance, or as otherwise agreed. A typical arrangement for tenancy at will is "first and last month's rent" plus a security deposit. The "last month's rent" is rent that has yet to be earned by the landlord.

Deposit
The security deposit is often handled as an escrow deposit, owned by the tenant, but held by the landlord until the premises are surrendered in good condition (ordinary wear and tear excepted). In some states, the landlord must provide the tenant with the name and account number of the bank where the security deposit is held, and pay annual interest to the tenant. Other regulations may require the landlord to submit a list of pre-existing damage to the property, or forfeit the security deposit immediately (because there is no way to determine whether a prior tenant was responsible). In UK the government has introduced deposit protection scheme leading to several property inventory services which can optionally be used to carry out an inventory.

Insurance
In order to rent (alternatively called lease) in many apartment buildings, a renter (lessee) is often required to provide proof of renters insurance before signing the rental agreement. There is a special type of the homeowners insurance in the United States specifically for renters—HO-4. This is commonly referred to as renter's insurance or renter's coverage. Similar to condominium coverage, referred to as a HO-6 policy, a renter's insurance policy covers those aspects of the apartment and its contents not specifically covered in the blanket policy written for the complex. This policy can also cover liabilities arising from accidents and intentional injuries for guests as well as passers-by up to 150' of the domicile. Renter's policies provide "named peril" coverage, meaning the policy states specifically what you are insured against. Common coverage areas are:
 * Accidental discharge of water
 * Fire or lightning
 * Smoke
 * Theft
 * Vandalism or malicious mischief
 * Windstorm

Additional events including riot, aircraft, explosion, hail, falling objects, volcanic eruption, snow, sleet, and weight of ice may also be covered.

Sublease
In real estate law, sublease (or, less formally, sublet) is the name given to an arrangement in which the lessee (e.g. tenant) in a lease assigns the lease to a third party, thereby making the old lessee the sublessor, and the new lessee the sublessee, or subtenant. This means they are not only leasing the property, but also subleasing it simultaneously. For example, if a company leases an office space directly from a landlord, the lessor, and subsequently outgrows the office, then the company can sublease the smaller office space to another company, the subtenant, and enter into a new lease for a larger office space, thereby hedging their real estate exposure.

The sublessor remains liable to the original lessor in accordance with the initial lease, including all remaining rent payments, including operating expenses and all other original lease terms. In a down-market, the original lessee may require a lower rent payment from the sublessee than what he or she may have originally paid, leaving the remaining rent owed to the lessor to be paid by the original lessee. However, if market prices have increased since the original lease was signed, the sublessor might be able to secure a higher rent price than what is owed the original lessor. However, many commercial leases stipulate that any overages in rent be shared with the landlord, the lessor.

In residential real estate, it is sometimes illegal to charge the subtenant more than the original amount in the sublessee's contract (for instance, in a rent control situation where the rental amount is controlled by law). Subletting of social housing is generally illegal, whatever the rent charged to the subtenant; in the UK it is officially described as a category of housing fraud. In New York the subletting of Mitchell-Lama cooperatives is illegal. Mitchell-Lama residents must maintain a primary residence to remain in their cooperative.

A sublease can also apply to vehicles as an alternate type of car rental. In a vehicle sublease, a lessee or vehicle owner can assign a lease to a third party and by way of contractual agreement for specific dates. Although this arrangement is not popular, it is a growing trend in the travel industry as a less expensive alternative for travelers and locals.

Equipment leasing
Leasing is also used as a form of financing to acquire equipment for use and purchase. Many organizations and companies use lease financing for the acquisition and use of many types of equipment, including manufacturing and mining machinery, vessels and containers, construction and off-road equipment, medical technology and equipment, agricultural equipment, aircraft, rail cars and rolling stock, trucks and transportation equipment, business, retail and office equipment, IT equipment and software.

Lease financing for equipment is generally provided by banks, captives and independent finance companies.

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

title: Lease


text:
User:Satori

Satori was born on June 11,1975 in Willoughby, Ohio. He currently resides in Winchester, Nevada in the Las Vegas Valley. His handle, which he has used on the Internet since 1992, originally was a reference to a song by Bauhaus. Although he briefly studied Zen Buddhism in 2001 and 2002, he has never achieved Satori. Despite the existence of this page, Satori is, in fact, non-notable.

Vocations and Avocations

 * Computer Programmer
 * C++ and C#
 * PHP
 * Clipper
 * FoxPro
 * Disc Jockey, mostly in the genres of Gothic Rock and Industrial music
 * Musician, especially synthesizers
 * Political activist in progressive electoral politics

Interests

 * Music
 * Gothic
 * Progressive Rock
 * Baroque and Early music
 * World Music
 * Wine
 * History
 * Political science
 * Open Source
 * Linux
 * FreeBSD
 * MySQL
 * Agile software development
 * Astronomy
 * Games
 * Chess
 * Poker

Contributions

I tend to be a bit of a WikiGnome, spending a lot of time patrolling New Pages: adding stubs, wikifying, tagging obvious speedies. I've also worked with projects such as User:Sietse Snel/Fix common mistakes and Disambiguation pages with links.

I have made some significant edits as well, including contributions to Biodiesel, various Las Vegas, Nevada related articles, and others. I created the article for the Sisters of Mercy album Floodland. One day I fixed a red link by creating Diane Warren - which has grown to quite a large list of songs by that prolific writer of adult contemporary songs that I hated when I was a radio DJ in that format :).

I also enjoy contributing to the WP project through Votes for deletion, and will make occasional votes on Requests for adminship and Featured article candidates. I believe strongly in Consensus decision-making, and try to facilitate Consensus.

I also contributed the Celestial bodies capitalization section to Manual of Style, and there was a flurry of minor edits in late 2004 as I began to standardize articles accordingly.

Wikipedia philosophy
I consider myself a pragmatic inclusionist. Wikipedia is not paper, and I don't support deletion of an article for reasons of the type, "We can't have an article on every one of [class], can we?". In general, I feel that an article should pass three primary tests: verifiability, no original research, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Of course, it's also important to remember that Wikipedia is not infinite. In the case of projects such as WP:MUSIC that have notability guidelines worked out by consensus, I try to follow those guidelines.

I also love the ability of the Wikipedia community to write articles about subjects that would never be found in a paper encyclopedia. Heavy metal umlaut was probably the article most responsible for my interest in this project.

In general, to the question "what's more important, the product or the process" (i.e., quality articles vs. consensus and the WP community), my answer is "Yes!". But maybe that's because I'm a Gemini.

New pages patrol: a pleasant distraction
As editing Wikipedia requires being at a computer, and I rarely am at a computer when I don't have something else I should be doing (programming, writing a paper, etc.), I often use the New Pages page as a pleasant distraction, almost a game. The game is simple. Go to New Pages, and click on the top link. If there are no grammar, style, or wikification problems, and it doesn't meet a critereon for speedy deletion, go back to New Pages and click on the next link. Repeat this process until you find an article that needs an edit, then return to working until your mind again gets restless. What a nice way to break up long tasks at the computer, while making small improvements to the newest additions to the Wiki.

title: User:Satori


text:
Tint (disambiguation)

In color theory, a tint is the mixture of a color with white. Tint or TINT may also refer to:
 * Tint (magazine), a women's magazine from Detroit, Michigan
 * T.I.N.T. (mixtape), a mixtape by Efya
 * Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology
 * Tint (name)
 * "Tints" (song), 2018 single by Anderson .Paak

title: Tint (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Doctors' plot

Untitled
I have nothing against the Poles but why is this link relevant here: Polish minority in Soviet Union? --Humus sapiens|Talk 23:27, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Pasted discussion from my talk page
Link to Polish minority shows that Stalin intended to do with Jews in 1953 the same what he actually has done with Poles 20 years before. What can make you possibly to add a new article History of anti-Polonism. As far as I am concerned Poles earned bitter enemies the moment they become a nation. First chronic writer Thietmar clearly suffered from anti-Polonism. Any association with your History of Anti-Semitism? Cautious 22:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Go ahead, create it if you feel it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. I am against ANY persecutions based on ethnic/religious grounds. Regarding the Doctors' plot, there was nothing specific about Poles there, correct? --Humus sapiens|Talk 22:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I see that any discussion with you must be done open text: I think your concept of Roman anti-Semitism is equaly non-sense to concept of Thietmar anti-Polonism. More over, Stalin alleged anti-Semitism is also non-sense. Jews, Poles and Russians served the monster, the only difference was that Jews had a chance to serve Stalin for 20 years more then Poles. (I hope you understand, that the people Stalin intended to be victims of the purges were involved in the Stalin crimes before. Of course, Stalin punished always family members and members of ethnic groups, who were mostly innocent) If there is no link to Poland in Doctor's plot it must have been mistake. In 1953 Poland was ruled by the group of mostly Jewish communists. The plan was to replace them with ethnic Polish communists and make Stalin liberator of Poland again. Jewish communists resorted to play with liberal communism on condition nobody would be punished for Stalin-time crimes. This should be clearly linked with Doctor's plot. Cautious 22:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Fascinating conspiracy theory. If you so insist, name some Poles linked to the Doc's plot. --Humus sapiens|Talk 00:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Poland

"The Polish Communists were divided into two informal factions, named "Natolin" and "Pulawy" after governmental building (Palace of Natolin near Warsaw) and Pulawska street in Warsaw where they had their meetings. Natolin consisted previously of ethnic Poles of peasant origin and had a nationalist tendency of a peculiar Communist sort. Pulawy included Jewish Communists as well as old communist intelligentsia and after 1956 was more liberal." (...) "Gomulka returned to the Party leadership in October 1956, after some tough bargaining with Khrushchev, who came to Warsaw to oversee the transfer of power. Hardline Stalinists such as Berman were removed from power, but almost no-one was put on trial for the crimes of the Bierut period. The Pulawy faction argued that mass trials of Stalin era criminals, most of them of Jewish origins, would incite animosity against Jews. Rokossovski and other Soviet advisors were sent home, and Polish Communism took on a more independent orientation. But Gomulka knew that the Soviets would never allow Poland to leave the Soviet orbit, because of its strategic position between the Soviet Union and Germany. He agreed that Soviet troops could remain in Poland, and that no overt anti-Soviet outbursts would be allowed. In this way Poland avoided the risk of the kind of Soviet armed intervention that crushed the revolution in Hungary in the same month. " http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/ECE/gluchowski.pdf (Go and see what Berman said May 5, 1956 about Popov actions in 1953!) The classical book was "Chamy i Zydy" by Witold Jedlicki Cautious 07:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, maybe I'll have more time to read it later. So far I don't see any relation to the subject. Do you have a solid answer to my question above, other than Stalin didn't like the Jews, but he also didn't like the Poles? --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Read the pdf, you will find a plenty of relations. Do you think, that Doctor's plot was supposed to limit itself to SU? Do you think, when Stalin planned the Doctor's plot? My guess, 1945. To answer your question: Stalin worked with Polish communists 26-38, 12 years. Stalin worked with Jewish communists 26-53, 27 years. Do you still claim that Stalin didn't like them? He liked them when it suite his cause. Cautious 09:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Anything more specific than "read the pdf"? Your conspiracy theories were proven wrong far too many times. I'm going to move this discussion to the talk:DP page. Objections? --Humus sapiens|Talk 17:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalin was in the business way before 1926.
 * 2) he killed whomever he wanted to before 1941. Same with population transfer. I suspect you don't realize the amount of power he had.
 * 3) there is plenty of evidence of A-S in his private life.
 * 4) if he planned it all in 45, why did he vote for the establishment of the State of Israel two years later?

Mistranslation
"Every Jew is a nationalist and potential agent of the American intelligence"

- Stalin did not actually say this. This is a mistranslation, and should read "Every Zionist is a nationalist, etc." --Charm Quark 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You are wrong: here's a proof . I do remember I used some Russian language source, will try to recall which one. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You both are wrong. Stalin used the expression "evrei-natsionalisty" - "Jewish nationalists". The main difference is that he did not claim that every Jew is a nationalist.--85.140.130.68 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed this clause from first paragraph

 * "and the State of Israel allying with the West"

This has no relevance to the situation of 1948 -- in the late 1940's, the Soviet Union strongly supported the coming into existence of Israel (in order to diminish British influence in the mideast, rather than out of any sympathy with Jewish aspirations, it's true), and the Soviet-Arab aligment didn't really exist until a few years into the 1950's. Similarly, Israel couldn't be said to have "allied with the West" in any very meaningful sense until the mid-50's or so (in the late 1940's, Israel actually got most of its heavy arms from Czechoslovakia!). AnonMoos 13:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Let's make this chronological: the USSR supported the establishment of Israel and the Soviet WW2 weapons were supplied via Czechoslovakia (to dodge the embargo). By the end of 1948, the USSR switched sides and aligned with the Arabs against Israel. I wasn't there but I remember reading Paul Johnson and others (including post-Soviet historians) about this. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Switch sides" would probably be too dramatic if you're confining yourself to 1948. It seems to me that Stalin was pretty much flailing around trying to do whatever would most diminish British influence, but he wasn't yet entirely sure what that was (and perhaps hadn't yet fully grasped that the US was now the main opponent).  I don't think there was a real steady Soviet-Arab alliance until the period of the Bandung Conference, the wrangling over the sponsorship of the Aswan dam, the run-up to the Suez crisis, the ruckus over the Baghdad Pact, etc. AnonMoos 12:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarity with earlier trial
There was a large doctors' component in the 1938 phoney trial in Moscow. The 1938 trial was the last one in Moscow before 1953. Stalin regarded the 1938 trial as a success. He probably wanted to duplicate this success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.1.27 (talk • contribs)

 * Please see WP:OR and WP:RS. I find the statement above dubious. E.g. The 1938 trial was the last one in Moscow before 1953 doesn't seem to be true (there were show trials, secret tribunals, etc). BTW, all Stalinist trials were successful, and the cases where the accused asked for death sentence were not uncommon. Oh, and the DP never got to the trial phase. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a medical component in the Slansky trial, mentioned in the main article.

Possible deaths
One or two doctors were not released after Stalin's death as they seem to have died under torture.
 * See the article on Yakov Etinger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.103.141 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Good source ? Biophys (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Timashuk's name is sometimes spelled Timashchuk.

A "Kruschev" appears in the text. Is this a mistake?
 * Yes, surely, I fixed it and thanks for pointing that out. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Semitism and Zionism
This campaing in the article is called "anti-semitic", however, it is not true, it is "anti-zionist", which is different. I'm changing the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.91.153 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish communists, such as the legendary founder of the Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinsky" Since when Dzierżyński is considered a Jew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.127.29.194 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jews and the purges
"the major landmarks of Soviet state anti-semitism were the massive purged of the 1930s" and "toward the end fo the war the party's anti-Semitic policy became more intense" It is not right to think that Jews were singled out in Stalin's purges; Lots of other nationalities can make the same claim. Many of the old Bolsheviks were Jews, so you think they were purged because they were Jewish and not because they were political rivals? This is the author's view and it should be attributed to him.

"Stalin had said to him: `Purge the ministry of Jews’ " "Absurdly denying any anti-semitism on the part of Stalin, Molotov held that this purge was designed to bring more ethnic Russians into top positions" All of your sources for this also state that it was a move in foreign policy for better relations with Nazi Germany. The title of the source you quote from even proves this... Look at the article on Litvinov. So the reason should stay since it shows that it was likely a political decision and not just primitive anti-Semetism.

 * -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Flow
The article does not flow well at all.

Can we do something to make it a little more readable? No.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
Many of the articles linked to are far less emphatic (polemic?). 68.49.23.150 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Planned deportation of Jews
I can't check all sources here, but let's WP:AGF. Do I understand correctly the following:
 * 1) There is a clear majority view that deportations of Jews to Siberia were actually planned, as reflected in the article in Encyclopedia Britannica. I checked a couple of books (by Figes and Radzinsky), and indeed, they did tell about the planned deportation as something generally established, with references to other sources.
 * 2) Several big labor camps were indeed (as a fact) built in Siberia, but remained unused after the death of Stalin (Radzinsky tells about this too).
 * 3) There is a minoriry opinion represented by Russian historian Gennady Kostyrchenko that deportations were not planned (this is clearly a minority opinion because I do not see others modern historians telling the same).
 * 4) Here is the argument by Kostyrchenko: there is no any paper/archive evidence of the planned deportations. Others do not consider this a serious argument because: (a) other similar operations (e.g Caucasus) were conducted based on oral orders from Stalin, and the paper work appeared only later; (b) KGB archives are closed and a lot of documents are destroyed.

Did I miss something really important? My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the new source I added. The full text is available online.
 * It looks to me that most serious historians don't support the idea that the deportation was planned. Is Radzinsky even a historian? -YMB29 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you tell that there is also a book by Zhores Medvedev who tells that plan did not exist because: (a) there are no supporting documents from archives (same point as one made by Kostrychenko), (b) it would be difficult to arrest so many Jews in Moscow; (c) Soviet people would not support such arrests; and (d) the arrest would be damaging for Soviet economy and culture.

(Russian text: Таких документов в архивах никто никогда не находил. Массовая депортация евреев даже только из Москвы была невозможна по чисто практическим причинам. В Москве в 1953 году проживало около 400 тысяч евреев, большинство которых было полностью ассимилировано в советском обществе. Для них родным был именно русский язык. Для большей части советских евреев в 1953 году был характерен советский, а не израильский патриотизм. Психология «советского», а не узко этнического сознания была в послевоенный период особенно сильна. Общественное сознание народа не было подготовлено к столь грандиозной «Этнической чистке». Массовая депортация евреев, будь она осуществлена, вызвала бы сильное разрушительное действие на большое число важных сфер жизни общества, прежде всего на систему здравоохранения, просвещения и образования, на науку, культуру, книгоиздательство, прессу и множество других.)

Of course one could make the points (b-d) about any campaign of arrests that was actually conducted by Stalin (so probably that's why other researchers do not take them seriously). Thanks, I got it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't know about other campaigns, but most researchers don't take theories that are based on just rumor seriously... -YMB29 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Two English language books I checked (one by Russian historian and another by British historian) and apparently Encyclopedia Britannica did not describe this as something based on rumors, but rather as an established historical fact; and even camps in Siberia were actually built. Two Russian authors you mentioned happened to disagree. This is understandable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't just disagree; they explain that there is no evidence for the deportation. I am not sure what the sources you mentioned say, but historical facts are based on actual evidence. -YMB29 (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comrads, stop. At Stalin was founded JEWISH AUTONOMOUS OBLAST (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast). What anti-semitism you talking about!? Stalin supported jew and gave them autonomous territory. (Sorry for my english, i'm from Russia and bad speak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.34.128 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The way this article presents the alleged planned deportation of Jews, the doctors' plot is merely the tip of the iceberg and the plan to deport the Soviet Union's entire Jewish population to remote parts of the country and then to systematically exterminate them surely must be the main subject. I would suggest that the planned deportation of Jews should be the title of an article, of which the doctors' plot is a mere detail.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can have both. Bith subjects are large and notable enough. - Altenmann >talk 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, doesn't look like there is such an article, or at least this article doesn't have a link to it. Which makes this whole theory look questionable. If you want this theory to sound believable, there has to be an article devoted to it. Imagine that the Holocaust was just a section in the Kristallnacht article, rather than an article in its own right...--Exjerusalemite (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the operational words in my answer are "you can". The theory does exist, but no documents, only various memoirs. That's what our article says. And your comparison is incorrect: holocaust was not a thery. - Altenmann >talk 05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Please keep in mind that wikipedia talk pages are not internet forums (see WP:NOT). They are to discuss improvements of our articles basing on information found in reputable sources. If you do not have specific suggestions on what to add/delete/change, then please look for internet forums which discuss the issue. - Altenmann >talk 06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The explosion in Tel-Aviv as a provocation by the Soviet Union itself
At http://www.sovsekretno.ru/articles/id/3151/ there is an article by Vladimir Voronov that states that on 3/Feb/1953 the writer Ilya Erenburg has sent a letter to Stalin in which he refers to the project of "The letter to Pravda", which he should sign with other prominent Jews. In that letter he condemns the explosion, which did not even occur by then!!!

That and other clues may directly lead to understanding that the explosion in the Soviet embassy was part of the bigger plot by the Soviet Union itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirovsky (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Brezhnev
User:Zhanghao1987 is wanting to include the following sentences at the end of the "Khrushchev's statements" section:
 * in 1971，Stalin got some high praises by Brezhnev. But Mikhail Gorbachev denounced Stalin again in the late 1980s.

and there are three refs for this. Grammar aside (that's easily fixable), I think this is kind of getting off track from the proper scope of this article. It may belong somewhere but not here in this article. Not wishing to edit war over this, I invite the editor to here state his case for including these sentences in the article. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Catalyst?
First paragraph: The doctors' plot was to be the catalyst of Stalin's campaigns against Soviet Jews Shouldn't this be 'climax'? Stalin hardly needed a catalyst for any of his actions. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this are the reason why many people don't treat Wikipedia as a serious source of information
I hope you will not think of me as of an anti-Semite if I say that I personally don't like how Jews try to gain credits on the tragedies in their history, how they claim that their sufferings were more important that those of other nations (who cares of Soviet, Poles, Chinese etc citizens (most of whom were civilians) who died during the Second World War, except themselves?) and how they try to find anti-Semitism in any tragic event where a single Jewish surname was mentioned.

So, about this article. It's basically a single version of the plot, possibly original content, which doesn't have hard proofs, described as if it actually were that way. It's not encyclopedic at all, this article should be completely rewritten with other versions mentioned, and generally with some try to explain what really happened. It has a fair share of mistakes (if not direct lie) too, consider this:

>The Kremlin doctors were arrested, but they were all Russian. To keep the conspiracy as Zionist, Ryumin and Semyon Ignatyev, who had succeeded Abakumov as head of the MGB, had the Jewish doctors Etinger supposedly specified also arrested;

You can easily check that Etinger was arrested years before those Kremlin doctors, it was basically vice versa. So, what kind of anti-Semitic plot it is when you firstly arrest a Jew and then, not a few other Jewish doctors which were quite common in Soviet Russia, but a bunch of Russians? IMO the more plausible version it's Stalin was preparing yet another series of repressions vs some people in his entourage, possibly even vs Beria. He already did the same trick when he executed Yagoda, who supposedly used two doctors to kill Gorky. There are other versions too.

Also you probably didn't read that Russian comment in the thread, that person explained that this supposed mass deportation of Jews would be nearly economically impossible, and disregard what you may think of Stalin he, unlike Pol Pot etc communist leaders, didn't do things which could actually ruin the economics of the country, Soviet Union became a super power after all. 217.118.64.53 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing Zhukov
I has a very distinct recollection that this historian was discussed in talk page. I see not. Maybe it was elsewhere. Anyway, my two objections to removal this ref. Therefore please lets review the disputed text piecewise. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref removal left some text unreferenced.
 * I don't see how POV of the author influence the plain coverage of plain facts.
 * I agree that his deductions may be removed without harm.

 * Zhukov was described as an obvious antisemitic writer, for example here. According to the publication, Zhukov "borrowed" his ideas from Andrey Dikiy. Most statements were actually sourced to other publications, so there is no need to use Zhukov in most cases. I think that paragraph that starts from "According to Russian historian Yuri Zhukov..." should be removed because the meaning of the text is completely unclear. "According to Russian historian Yuri Zhukov, neither Malenkov nor Beria needed the plot to have an anti-Semitic character, but the secretary of ideology, N. Mikhailov, did not specify to newspapers and magazines what exactly was expected of them or pursued his own interests, and, after the initial Pravda article, the media emphasized Jewish names and a Zionist conspiracy. Mikhailov and the heads of agitprop had to soon intervene." What does it mean??? My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I wrote: we don't need his opinions. So no problemo to delete this piece. But the fact "of 9 there were 6 Jews" must be verified if ref removed. And so on. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Doctors' plot. 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/20110721015425/http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/SU/EncJudaica_doktorverschwoerung-1953-ENGL.html to http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/SU/EncJudaica_doktorverschwoerung-1953-ENGL.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Doctors' plot. 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/20051113132512/http://www.mk.ru/numbers/1806/article60646.htm to http://www.mk.ru/numbers/1806/article60646.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610144956/http://www.sovross.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57738 to http://sovross.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57738
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217214758/http://forum.grani.ru/jews/articles/eak/ to http://forum.grani.ru/jews/articles/eak/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Consistent capitalisation
The article text writes its title variously "Doctors' Plot", "doctors' plot", and "Doctors' plot". I don't have an opinion as to which we should use, but we should be consistent. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Stick to the article title. - Altenmann >talk 05:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Censoring
The opinions of significant academics of soviet history like Ian Grey and Zhores Medvedev and the lesser known albeit notable Brent and Noumov are hardly poor sources, in fact they are excellent sources. They are so excellent that Medvedev, Brent and Noumov are cited all thoughout the article. However by cheer coincidence (sarcasm) one editor only wants to remove the parts of the article that is sourced to them in which the view that Stalin fabricated the plot is challenged.

There is clearly scholarly debate on this topic and that shouldn't be censored.95.153.48.2 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
is making controversial changes without having discussed them. Pinging. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
Jamez42 not all of it is changing words, most of it is source information and nothing else. What is wrong with those additions?110.74.199.28 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doctors' plot, Polin museum.jpg

Counterfactual and conjectural statement about WW3
I saw a quote saying that the doctor's plot was going to happen as a prelude to a purge taking place before a hypothetical third world war, and the source is a Russian popular historian. Why is his conjecture in the first 5 paragraphs? I am planning on removing it. Jpegthebitmap (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yakov Etinger Death date inconsistent
This page says March 2, but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Gilyarievich_Etinger says March 8 24.193.182.39 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this. The article on Etinger was wrong. Source in Russian doesn't say March 8. He died on March 2. I've already fixed it in that article.--Brandonobaza (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doctors' plot


text:
User:Decumanus/project7

The Lehigh Navigation (also called the Lehigh Navigation Canal or the Lehigh Canal) was a canal and series of locks along the Lehigh River in eastern Pennsylvania in the United States. It was built in the 1830s primarily to transport anthracite coal from Lehigh Valley to the Delaware River, and thence to the burgeoning urban centers of Philadelphia and New York City.

History
The discovery in 1791 of anthracite near Summit Valley, Pennsylvania had led to the formation of Lehigh Coal Mine Company which had successfully transported coal down the Lehigh to its mouth at Easton and thence down the Delaware to Philadelphia. The transport of large loads was rendered difficult by the turbulent waters of both rivers, especially along the upper Lehigh. The difficulty in navigation led to the construction in 1820 by the Lehigh Navigation Company of a series of hydrostatic locks along the Lehigh downstream from Jim Thorpe (then called Mauch Chunk). The "bear trap" locks, which had been invented by Josiah White, increased the depth of the river by creating artificial floods, allowing easier navigation through what had formerly been turbulent stretches of the river.

The following year in 1821, the Lehigh Coal Mine Company and Lehigh Navigation Company merged to form the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company. By 1825, four years later, the combined company was shipping 30,000 tons ( metric tons) of anthracite annually downstream to Philadelphia.

, which led to the development of coal mining in the region over the next several decades. By 1820

title: User:Decumanus/project7


text:
Talk:Loaded words

Content moved to Talk:Loaded (language) in preparation for a merge & redirect.

title: Talk:Loaded words


text:
Pali Hill

Pali Hill is an affluent residential area spread across the adjoined suburbs of Bandra and Khar in Mumbai, India (sharing postal codes 400050 and 400052 respectively).

Geography
Pali Hill lies on the western side of Mumbai. It runs parallel to Naushad Ali Road (previously Carter Road), a popular sea-front and promenade that stretches from Jogger's Park, Bandra to the Khar Danda fishing village in Khar.

Situated mainly on rolling hills with alternate steep and shallow sides, it garnered the name Pali Hill, although more than one hill is present. The main route of the road was smoothed and paved. The buildings and bungalows are set within the "valleys" and "crests" of the hills. Nearby localities include Pali Village and Pali Naka.

History
Until the 1950s, the area was mainly forested with dense undergrowth. Over the years, it was converted to grow fruits and crops. At one time, the sea was plainly visible from the foothills.

A few buildings were constructed by entrepreneurs and builders. However, most people lived in cottages or bungalows. Construction of apartment buildings commenced in the mid to late 1960s, including Nibbana Apartments.

Cottage dwellers slowly sold their homes to real estate developers and Pali Hill grew into an affluent neighbourhood.

K. Street Pali Hill (2004–2006), a thriller television soap on StarPlus, produced by Ekta Kapoor (Balaji Telefilms) was set in the suburb.

Flora and fauna
Pali Hill has an expanse of trees that form arches over the roads. Originally an area of orchards, fields and untamed forests, from 1980 to 2020 it was deforested and made suitable for residential habitation. A few giant trees remain in building compounds, bungalow gardens and on the roads. The most widely seen tree is the gulmohar tree. Large (and rare in Mumbai) banyan trees, peepul trees, mango trees, ashoka trees, wild almond trees, wild neem trees as well as a variety of shrubs, grasses, bamboos and trees, like those of the papaya, jackfruit, custard-apple and guava are abundant.

Flowering shrubs are cultivated and sometimes grow wild. Most abundant are bougainvillea, jasmines, birds of paradise flowers and another wild, indigenous varieties.

Pali Hill is frequented by migratory birds, present during different seasons. Although the native species are sparrows, Asian koels, cuckoos, wrens, pigeons, crows and ravens; rare birds (from other parts of Mumbai/India) are present. Bai Avabai Framji Petit Girls High School sees egrets, storks, owls and other rare birds. Ashy Dorus, kites, kestrels, hummingbirds, woodpeckers as well as seagulls and kingfishers (both – the small blue kingfisher as well as the more colourful variant) are present. Ornithologist Salim Ali was known to walk around Pali Hill with his binoculars and a notebook taking notes and listening to or making bird calls.

Mammals such as dogs (from street strays to pedigrees), cats and small bats are abundant.

Landmarks
Pali Hill's landmarks are its buildings and bungalows. At the southern end is Rajendra Kumar Junction (Chowk). Its four roads lead west to Carter Road (via Pali Mala Road), north to Pali Hill, east to Pali Naka and south to the Auxilium Convent High School. At the northern end in Khar is Union Park, another crossing and the area around it. Candies eatery is another local landmark.

The road diverges downhill on the East side – the Zig Zag Road (named after its steep incline and acute curves). At this junction was the Anand Bungalow (owned by Dev Anand). Also at this junction is the bungalow of the Narangs, hoteliers, and owners of the Croissants patisserie and the Ambassador Flight kitchen. On Nargis Dutt road, further down on the west side is the House Of Sushil Kumar Shinde (former Chief Minister of Maharashtra & former Home Minister Of The Govt of India). On the other side residence of the late Rajni Patel ( Rajni Patel was a lawyer, trade union leader and politician – and much more – who dominated the political landscape of Bombay in the 1970s. He was a close associate and adviser of Indira Gandhi. A Cambridge-educated lawyer, he had been on the watch list of British authorities during his days in Britain and upon his return to India, got involved in cooperative movements and public life in general. His legal battles in the courts are legendary)Rajni Patel's widow Bakul Patel was a former Sheriff of Mumbai. More down the road on the hill is BSES Niwas, a property now being developed for and by Reliance ADAGnow Adnani. lying adjacent is the Reservoir at 'The Top Of The Hill' holding and supplying Water to the residents of both sides of the Hill. Further down the southern slopes of the hill resided the Late Nargis Dutt and her husband the late Sunil Dutt, the two besides been thespians were also connected politically Mr. Sunil Dutt, a politician, after he joined the Indian National Congress party, he had the unique distinction of getting elected to the Parliament of India for five terms from the Mumbai North West constituency. On the bend is the Residence of the famous Dilip Kumar whose thespian wife Saira Banu lives therein.

Down towards Union Park & Golf Links at the North Khar end of the hill is the residence of the former chief minister of Maharashtra Mr. Narayan Rane. The Golf Course today is no more, it is filed by high rise buildings overseeing the nets of The "Danda' fishing Village.

Other landmarks include Kangaroo Kids Nursery and Playschool, Juice Salon, Sundaram Stores, cozy home apartments. At Union Park lies Bai Avabai Framji Petit Girls' High School. down the slope on the eastern side is the Pali Market, now under reconstruction. In the 19th century, Pali Hill was called Pakhari HIll.

Notable residents

 * Vijay Lazarus - President of The Indian Music Industry & Phonographic Performance Ltd. and Ex-Chairman of Polygram Music Ltd. and Universal Music India
 * Kripashankar Singh Former Home Minister of Maharashtra, Presidents of Mumbai Congress, & MLA From Kalina
 * Kumar Gaurav
 * Rajendranath Zutshi
 * Aamir Khan
 * Lara Dutta and Mahesh Bhupathi
 * Dj Aqeel (DJ and music composer)
 * Gulzar, poet, lyricist, writer, at his bungalow Boskiyana
 * Gulshan Bawra, lyricist
 * Rishi Kapoor and Neetu Kapoor
 * Ranbir Kapoor
 * Narayan Rane
 * Sanjeev Kumar
 * Kunal Kohli
 * Prem Chopra, Moushmi Chatterjee and Vinod Mehra
 * Anil Dhawan
 * Amjad Khan and his family
 * Actor Pran
 * Mahesh Bhatt and Pooja Bhatt
 * Models Tapur Chatterjee and Kirat Bhattal
 * Anna Singh, fashion designer
 * Emraan Hashmi, Bollywood Actor
 * Asha Sachdev
 * A.M. Naik, CEO, Executive Chairman and Managing Director of Larsen & Toubro Limited
 * Playback Singer Kunal Ganjawalla, his wife, singer Gayatri Ganjawala
 * Bharat Bhushan (actor)
 * Meena Kumari (actress)
 * Meghna Gulzar
 * Kangana Ranaut
 * Actor

title: Pali Hill


text:
User:ChickenMerengo

Well, I suppose I prefer to remain semi-anonymous until I've got to know a place.

Anyway, I'll certainly make some mini-contributions from time to time :)  ...if I can find anything that hasn't already been written about!

title: User:ChickenMerengo


text:
Christa Miller

Christa Miller (born May 28, 1964) is an American actress known for her roles in television comedies. Her foremost roles include Kate O'Brien in the ABC sitcom The Drew Carey Show, Jordan Sullivan in the NBC/ABC comedy series Scrubs, Liz in the Apple TV+ comedy drama Shrinking, and voicing Cleopatra "Cleo" Smith and Candide Sampson in Clone High. She has also appeared in Seinfeld, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and CSI: Miami. From 2009 to 2015, she starred in the ABC/TBS sitcom Cougar Town.

Early life
Miller's days as a child model were curtailed after an operation for a benign bone tumor. After attending Convent of the Sacred Heart, she returned briefly to modeling, but soon took acting lessons, and gave up modeling when she moved to Los Angeles in 1990.

Career
Miller's first role on television was in Kate & Allie, which starred her real-life aunt, Susan Saint James. She then appeared in episodes of Northern Exposure, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and Party of Five. She had a small role in the horror film Stepfather III (1992) with Priscilla Barnes.

She later appeared twice on Seinfeld, as two different characters. In the 1993 episode "The Sniffing Accountant", she played the prospective boss of George Costanza. She had intended to be a dramatic actress, and this role proved to be a turning point for Miller, who realized how much she enjoyed comedy. Two years later, she returned to Seinfeld in "The Doodle" to play George's girlfriend, Paula. This episode proved to be a boon to her career, as she convinced co-creator Larry David to provide her with a rough-cut video of the still-unaired episode when she auditioned for The Drew Carey Show, whose producers had initially thought she was too inexperienced. David's support helped Miller win over the producers of The Drew Carey Show, who cast her as Kate O'Brien, whom she played from 1995 to 2002.

In 2001, Miller's husband, writer-producer Bill Lawrence, conceived a new comedy drama, Scrubs. Miller was given a guest role as Dr. Cox's (John C. McGinley) acerbic ex-wife Jordan Sullivan. Originally, the character was intended to appear in only one episode; in season 2, the role became recurring. When her young cousin Teddy Ebersol, son of Susan St. James and Dick Ebersol, died in a plane crash in 2004, Scrubs dedicated the season 4 episode "My Lucky Charm" to him. Miller also was the voice of Cleopatra in the short-lived animated show Clone High. She had a leading role in the 2008 two-part TV miniseries The Andromeda Strain. She also appeared in the CSI: Miami episode Divorce Party.

In 2009, Miller began starring on Cougar Town, a sitcom created and produced by her husband and starring Courteney Cox, with whom Miller worked in a three-part story-arc of season 8 of Scrubs.

Personal life
Miller married Bill Lawrence in 1999. They have three children; Charlotte, William, and Henry. Her aunt is actress Susan Saint James.

title: Christa Miller


text:
2578 Saint-Exupéry

2578 Saint-Exupéry, provisional designation, is an Eoan asteroid from the outer region of the asteroid belt, approximately 17 kilometers in diameter. It was discovered by Russian astronomer Tamara Smirnova at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory in Nauchnyj on 2 November 1975, and named after French aviator and writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

Classification and orbit
Saint-Exupéry is a member the Eos family (606), the largest asteroid family of the outer main belt consisting of nearly 10,000 known members. The asteroid orbits the Sun at a distance of 2.7–3.3 AU once every 5 years and 2 months (1,900 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.10 and an inclination of 11° with respect to the ecliptic.

The asteroid's was first identified as at McDonald Observatory in Texas. One month later, it was also observed at the Palomar Observatory in May 1952. Its observation arc begins by 23 years prior to its official discovery observation at Nauchnyj.

Physical characteristics
According to the survey carried out by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission, Saint-Exupéry measures 17.0 kilometers in diameter and its surface has an albedo of 0.168. Based on its absolute magnitude of 11.5, its generic diameter is between 13 and 30 kilometers, assuming an albedo in the range of 0.05 to 0.25.

As of 2017, Saint-Exupéry's effective composition, rotation period and shape remain unknown.

Naming
The minor planet was named in honour of French aviator and writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900–1944). The name also alludes to Saint-Exupéry's best-known character, The Little Prince, who lives on an asteroid.

In the book, the prince's asteroid also has a unique code: B612 (which does not match this minor planet's provisional designation). However, there is another asteroid called 46610 Bésixdouze, which is French for "B-six-twelve" (B612 in hexadecimal notation equals 46610).

The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 11 July 1987 (M.P.C. 12012).

title: 2578 Saint-Exupéry


text:
Talk:Vasily Chuikov

Rewrite
this article will be rewritten when i get to it in my Marshal of the Soviet Union series, unless someone wants to do it first. Adam 00:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

64th or 62nd
Did Chuikov command the Russian 62nd Army or the Russian 64th Army? I know both fought viciously for Stalingrad, but I think it was the 62nd that Chuikov commanded. I'll re-check that in my primary sources (Enemy at the Gates, by William Craig and Stalingrad, memories and reassessments by another guy who's name escapes me.) Cam 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You may well have already located the answer, however Chuikov commanded the 62nd army; responsible for the defence of Stalingrad proper. I believe he was the deputy commander of the 64th just prior to his appointment by the front commander Yeremenko. It was Shumilov who had the 64th. Hope that clarifies things a bit! If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943 LondonIce 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article through, it contains the answers to these questions!Malcolm535 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"First Russian marshal" buried outside Moscow?
Removed this statement. Apparently, the author of removed phrase meant Soviet (pre-1917 Russian field marshals, quite obviously, were buried elsewhere: Kamensky in his estate in Oryol governorate, Suvorov in St. Petersburg etc.). But then what about five Soviet marshals executed in Stalin's time? Marshal Kulik, it appears, was executed in Samara. He was downgraded to a general, true, but he was a marshal for quite a while. So the phrase should probably be reduced to First of Soviet marshals buried with military honors outside of Moscow, quite confusing, isn't it? NVO (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbolic intro paragraph is more opinion
The intro paragraph really needs cleaning up. It uses the qualifier "great" twice to describe the subject and reads like the the conclusion of an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.235.205 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

When did Zhukov get re-named "Chuikov"?
I was wondering while reading this entry, "How did I never hear of this great "Marshal Chuikov"? But of course, I had; his name was Marshal Zhukov. Changing names long in use in the West to unfamiliar ones in use elsewhere is done only to confuse people, the opposite of educating them. 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Chuikov and Zhukov were two completely different people.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why does the article cite the same man under both names? (See "In popular culture.") 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are reffering to his depiction in The Great Commander Georgy Zhukov, that's because he is depicted in it, NOT because he is depicted as Zhukov (the main character). Василий Иванович Чуйков and Георгий Константинович Жуков were different people. They held different ranks at different times, commanded different positions, lived in different places, etc. Just because you haven't heard of Chuikov and he has some cursory similarities to Zhukov doesn't make them the same person. Please take your arrogance and ignorance somewhere else. Group photo containing both Zhukov and Chuikov Again--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Chuikov Interview Quotes
Hey fellow Wikipedians! I noticed that all of the direct quotes from Marshal Chuikov needed citation, and was able to find the citations within Dr. Jochen Hellbeck's Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich, taken from Soviet archives (I believe). I am a new Wikipedia editor, so if someone can review these citations for errors, and offer any constructive feedback, I'd be grateful. Honored to have contributed even in the smallest way towards remembering such an important historical figure. Gimmethecreeps (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vasily Chuikov