text:
Talk:Immigration to the United States

Suggest splitting this article
Hello,

This article is over 300,000 bytes. The splitting guidelines suggest to split an article when it reaches or surpasses 100,000 bytes. Therefore, I think it is a good idea to split it at this time. If you oppose this, please add a comment with your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, so I support the split. deisenbe (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i think we should split it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.81.85 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the proposal as presently described on the article page:
 * "It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Demographics of immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration to the United States, Legal issues of immigration to the United States, Public opinion of immigration to the United States and United States immigration policy."

 * I agree that the present article is cumbersome and could benefit from being divided. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to keep law and policy in a single article, as law and policy intersect. I also wonder if effects and public opinion should be kept within a single article. Arllaw (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Arllaw: Sorry for my late response. If effects and public opinion are to be in a single article, what should that article's title be? "Effects and public opinion of immigration to the United States"? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to state them; this goes for anyone else as well. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something simpler, like "Impact of Immigration to the United States". Arllaw (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Arllaw: It might be necessary to do without conciseness in favour of clarity. I'm not sure if "impact" communicates the intended message, and I'm also concerned that it could be a colloquialism in this context. I'd like to hear what others think about this, though – perhaps there's a better title someone else could come up with, or perhaps the title you suggested is fine and I'm just overthinking it. I posted about this split discussion on the United States wikiproject talk page once before, but that didn't seem to attract much attention. Do you have any suggestions for how we can get more input here? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Impact of..." seems to be a common approach to titling articles, but you may find other common approaches. Even though less specific, a concise title can provide advantages to end-users over a "more precise" title that is excessively long. Arllaw (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Arllaw: We can go with that then. So what is the list of proposed sub-articles now? I'll update the template on the article page accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about just "Effects of immigration"? Public opinion to it would be a section. deisenbe (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Deisenbe: That was my first suggestion. Depending on the merit of the points for and against such titles, and any other options that exist, we can decide which to use. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that's gonna do anything, the public opinion part is barely much to change, the article would still be too long to navigate comfortably. I suggest an alternative message: This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Cleter (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As anybody who's ever tried it knows, splitting an article is not as simple as it sounds. X-References may fail, so notes have to be copied and pasted. Plus there need to be new links associating the new articles. All the links to the present article—there are hundreds—need to be revised multiple times. To which new articles would the existing illustrations be moved? What new illustrations are available for the new articles? There is also the question of whether everything in the current article would properly fit into one of the new articles, and what to do if some of it doesn't. And there is also the not insignificant question of who would do what, and who would coordinate things. In my view, there has to be one person at least keeping track of all the parts of each revision.

Perhaps someone could explain to me what section(s) of the present article would properly be turned into an article on "United Ststes Immigration Policy", as suggested above. The history?

On looking at the existing article, it says absolutely nothing, and says that it is saying nothing, about the forced immigration of enslaved Africans until 1808, and clandestinely afterwards. They were not being counted as immigrants at the time, but in every sense I can think of, they were still immigrants. They came from foreign countries to the United States, where almost all of them remained. They were immigrants. And their numbers were substantial. They belong in the statistics. deisenbe (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been dormant for several months, so I've begun the process of splitting the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The opinion about the topic is a component of the topic itself and belongs within the primary article. Also, this proposal was made almost a year ago and should now be settled one way or the other. Keystone18 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

American Council of Learned Societies
Why do editors keep citing the ACLS results as the final word on the 1790 population? Scholars have determined ACLS data inaccurate and unreliable for many decades now. There are other sources that have revised these estimates. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Section repeats, same text
There is repeating text under the heading "Exclusion Era" Calliope777 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023
Contemporary immigration numbers of lawful permanent residents should be updated with data from 2021 and 2022. 2021 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/2022_0405_plcy_lawful_permanent_residents_fy2021v2.pdf 2022 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration (there's a xlsx file that contains statistics for all 4 quarters of 2022. Abramprice87 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023
Change table titled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2021:" to include 2022 data released on 03/08/2023. That data can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end Abramprice87 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: Abramprice87, may I suggest you copy the existing table over to your own userspace and update it yourself? Then when you're finished, reopen the edit request and point whoever answers to the updated table. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi there! finally got the updated table put together (pasted below). please change the table entitled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015-2021" to include 2022 data posted here ( https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end). Note that the top 15 countries for 2022 have changed. Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala are now in the Top 15 and South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria are not. I have retrieved the 2015-2021 data for Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala and removed the rows for South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!+ colspan="9" | Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2022: ! scope="col" style="width:120px;"|Country ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2015 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2016 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2017 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2018 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2019 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2020 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2021 ! scope="col" style="width:80px;"|2022
 * 🇲🇽 Mexico
 * 158,619
 * 174,534
 * 170,581
 * 161,858
 * 156,052
 * 100,325
 * 107,230
 * 138,723
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * 64,116
 * 64,687
 * 60,394
 * 59,821
 * 54,495
 * 46,363
 * 93,450
 * 125,130
 * 🇨🇳 China
 * 74,558
 * 81,772
 * 71,565
 * 65,214
 * 62,248
 * 41,483
 * 49,847
 * 68,100
 * 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic
 * 50,610
 * 61,161
 * 58,520
 * 57,413
 * 49,911
 * 30,005
 * 24,553
 * 39,472
 * 🇵🇭 Philippines
 * 56,478
 * 53,287
 * 49,147
 * 47,258
 * 45,920
 * 25,491
 * 27,511
 * 36,313
 * 🇨🇺 Cuba
 * 54,396
 * 66,516
 * 65,028
 * 76,486
 * 41,641
 * 16,367
 * 23,077
 * 31,347
 * 🇸🇻 El Salvador
 * 19,487
 * 23,449
 * 25,109
 * 28,326
 * 27,656
 * 17,907
 * 18,668
 * 30,478
 * Vietnam
 * 30,832
 * 41,451
 * 38,231
 * 33,834
 * 39,712
 * 29,995
 * 16,312
 * 23,804
 * 🇧🇷 Brazil
 * 11,424
 * 13,812
 * 14,989
 * 15,394
 * 19,825
 * 16,746
 * 18,351
 * 23,596
 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * 17,316
 * 18,610
 * 17,956
 * 17,545
 * 19,841
 * 11,989
 * 15,293
 * 21,433
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela
 * 9,144
 * 10,772
 * 11,809
 * 11,762
 * 15,720
 * 12,136
 * 14,412
 * 19,956
 * 🇨🇦 Canada
 * 19,309
 * 19,349
 * 18,469
 * 14,337
 * 14,723
 * 11,297
 * 12,053
 * 19,313
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras
 * 9,071
 * 12,996
 * 12,792
 * 13,492
 * 15,901
 * 7,843
 * 9,425
 * 16,936
 * 11,297
 * 12,053
 * 19,313
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras
 * 9,071
 * 12,996
 * 12,792
 * 13,492
 * 15,901
 * 7,843
 * 9,425
 * 16,936
 * 16,936

 * 🇬🇹 Guatemala
 * 11,466
 * 12,547
 * 11,147
 * 15,172
 * 13,111
 * 7,369
 * 8,199
 * 16,814
 * 🇯🇲 Jamaica
 * 17,642
 * 23,350
 * 21,905
 * 20,347
 * 21,689
 * 12,826
 * 13,357
 * 16,300
 * 🇰🇷 South Korea
 * 17,138
 * 21,801
 * 19,194
 * 17,676
 * 18,479
 * 16,244
 * 12,351
 * 16,058
 * Total
 * 1,051,031
 * 1,183,505
 * 1,127,167
 * 1,096,611
 * 1,031,765
 * 707,362
 * 740,002
 * 1,018,004
 * }
 * Abramprice87 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1,018,004
 * }
 * Abramprice87 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Table markup edited so that table displays as I believe Abramprice87 intended. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article splitting template
The debate has gone nowhere these past years since July 2021. On resolving the issue, in accordance to rule number 8 on when to remove the template, it clearly states (ahem):

"You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;"

Unless anyone has anything to say or anyone to introduce into the discussion, I will be bold and remove the template within 2 weeks. Thank you. Cleter (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Also number 4
 * "When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);" Cleter (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be true to my word. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Flagcruft
Flags are excessively overused in this article. A lot of the immigrants left their original countries because they want to disassociate themselves with the regimes associated with those flags in the first place, and using those flags to represent them is not only inappropriate, but can be offensive. Furthermore, a lot of those flags are anachronistic, representing regimes or countries that didn't exist at the time the immigrants left. DHN (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and removed them. DHN (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice
— Assignment last updated by Nathan.brenn (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024
Under Legal issues, add "In Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. Supreme court opined that U.S. citizens do not have a fundamental liberty to admit their foreign spouses" 207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Geardona (talk to me?) 00:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session24
— Assignment last updated by A1iciaF (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Immigration to the United States


text:
Nangan, Lienchiang

Nangan Township is a rural township in the Matsu Islands and the county seat of Lienchiang County, Fujian.

There is an airport in Nangan. The highest point is Yuntai Mountain, at 248 m above sea level.

Name
Nangan Township is named for Nangan Island (Nankan Island ), the main island in the township. Nangan was also known Nangantang (南竿塘; Nàng-găng-dòng). Because Lin Moniang's (who later became the Goddess Mazu) bodily relic was claimed to be washed ashore here, Nangan was also known as Matsu Island / Ma-tsu Island / Matsu Shan / Matsu-Shan (Matsoo / Matsoo shan ) (馬祖島; Mā-cū-dō̤). In Song and Ming records, Nangan Island (Matsu Island) was called Shanggantang/Shanggantangshan (上竿塘/上干塘/上竿塘山) as opposed to Beigan Island, which was called Xiagantang/Xiagantangshan (下竿塘/下干塘/下竿塘山).

History
In 1935, a baojia was created including Nangan Island.

In 1949, ROC forces were stationed on Nangan Island.

At 3 AM on January 9, 1966, three seamen from the PRC defected to the ROC at Nangan (Nankan) Island. They were ambushed and killed in transit to Taipei.

In 2000, as part of the Three Links, transportation between Nangan Island's Fuao and Mawei District in Fuzhou was established.

In 2003, Nangan Airport was opened.

On the morning of May 4, 2016, Jiaonan Village (in Tailu, Lianjiang County, Fuzhou, Fujian, China (PRC)) Branch Chinese Communist Party Secretary Liu Wenjian (刘文件) and Niujiao Community Assistant Manager Tsao Erh-Chang (曹爾章) met in Nangan Township and signed a memorandum of mutual exchange and cooperation. Others present included the Magistrate of Lienchiang County, ROC Liu Cheng-ying, Tailu Party Secretary Huang Duanming (黄端明), Nangan Township Mayor Chen Chen-Ko (陳振國) and others.

Geography
The island of Nangan is not only the largest island of its township, but also the largest island of Matsu. Nangan Township is also the largest township in Lienchiang County, with a population of about 4,000. The highest point of the island is the Mount Yuntai peak at 248 meters. Nangan's climate is classified as subtropical, with distinct seasons. The average year-round temperature is 20C, with July and August reaching 34C and January temperatures as low as 1.8C. There is an intense fog period during March and April which often affects the scheduled flights at Nangan Airport. Other islets in Nangan Township include Huangguan Yu (黃官嶼), Xie Jiao (鞋礁), Beiquan Jiao (北泉礁), and Liuquan Jiao (劉泉礁).

Administrative divisions
There are 10 villages on Nangan. At the eastern end of the island is Jieshou (介壽村), the seat of the county government and the largest village. Following the coastal road west from Jieshou, there are Fuxing (復興村), Fuao (福澳村), Qingshui (清水村), Zhuluo (珠螺村) and Mazu (馬祖村). Following the mountain road west, there are Meishi (梅石村), Renai (仁愛村) and Jinsha (津沙聚落), before once again reaching Mazu. Located to the north of Mazu is Siwei (四維村). In addition to these, there are two smaller villages or clusters of homes. These are Furen (夫人村) and Ketiao (科蹄澳), they are located near Siwei.

Many villages on Nangan have two names. In some cases, this was the result of politics, as one is the traditional name and the second has a political connotation. These instances are paired as follows with the traditional name first: Shanlong (山隴): Jieshou (介壽), Niujiao (牛角(聚落)): Fuxing (復興), Tieban (鐵板): Renai (仁愛), and Fuao (福澳): Jingze (經澤). These names are often used interchangeably by residents, except for Jingze. Residents objected to this latter name, and so it never came into popular use. The reference to Shanlong is also important as there is a neighborhood there called Zhonglong (中隴). Mazu is also referred to as Magang (馬港) and Siwei as Xiwei (西尾). As for Mazu and Magang, Magang is the preferred name. This could be in order to distinguish the village and its harbor from Mazu (媽祖), the goddess, and Mazu (馬祖) the island chain. Xiwei was derived from the local Fuzhou dialect's pronunciation of Siwei.

The nine rural villages of Nangan Township are:

 * Jieshou (Chiehshou; ) literally, "Longevity for Chiang Kai-shek "
 * Jinsha (Chinsha; ) "Sand of Seaport"
 * Cingshuei / Qingshui (Chingshui; ) "Pure Water"
 * Jhuluo (Chuluo; ) "Pearl and Snail"
 * Fusing / Fuxing (Fuhsing; ) "Revive Prosperity"
 * Fuwo "Auspicious Fertility": Jingze Village (經澤)
 * Ren-ai (Jenai; ) "Humanity and Love": Tieban (鐵板 "Iron Plate") until 1955.
 * Matsu "Matsu"
 * Sihwei / Siwei (Szuwei; ) "Four Virtues"

Government institutions

 * Lienchiang County Government
 * Lienchiang County Council

Mayors

 * Appointed mayors
 * 1) Li Chun-Hua (李春華) (to Nov. 2, 1959)
 * 2) Nieh Ko-Tung (聶國棟) (Nov. 2, 1959-Nov. 15, 1960)
 * 3) Pan Fu (潘輔) (Nov. 15, 1960-Feb. 10, 1962), later mayor of Beigan
 * 4) Yu Te-Chu (尤德渠) (Feb. 10, 1962-Apr. 1, 1962), also mayor of Beigan
 * 5) Hsueh Chih-Lien (薛繼廉) (Apr. 1, 1962-Feb. 25, 1965), later mayor of Juguang
 * 6) Pan Fu (second term, 潘輔) (Feb. 25, 1965-Dec. 7, 1973)
 * 7) Chen I-Peng (陳一鵬) (Dec. 7, 1973-Jan. 1, 1978), former mayor of Beigan and Juguang
 * Elected mayors
 * 1) Yeh Chin-Fu (葉金福) (Jan. 1, 1978-Mar. 1, 1982)
 * 2) Chang Hsiang-Shou (張祥壽) (Mar. 1, 1982-Mar. 1, 1986)
 * 3) Chiu Ying-Piao (邱英鑣) (Mar. 1, 1986-Mar. 1, 1990)
 * 4) Chen Shu-Li (陳書禮) (Mar. 1, 1990-Mar. 1, 1998)
 * 5) Chen Hsiu-Hua (陳秀華) (Mar. 1, 1998-Mar. 1, 2002)
 * 6) Lin Shu-Ching (林樹清) (Mar. 1, 2002-Mar. 1, 2006)
 * 7) Chu Hsiu-Ping (朱秀平) (Mar. 1, 2006-Dec. 12, 2014)
 * 8) Chen Chen-Ko (陳振國) (2014–present) (KMT), in 2018 received nearly four-thousand votes

Tourism
The Palace of Heavenly Empress (天后宮) in Matsu Village contains the coffin of Lin Moniang. The temple also contains statues of the guards, Thousand-li Eye (千里眼) and Wind-following Ear (順風耳). There is an annual celebration on March 3.

Matsu Distillery on Wujiao Hill (午角嶺) in Fusing Village produces daqu wine (大麴酒) and sorghum wine (高梁酒).

Shengli Water Reservoir (勝利水庫 "Victory") and a museum are located in Cingshuei village. The museum contains four cannons from Jyuguang which were used to guide boats. Another museum is the Matsu Blue Tears Ecological Museum, Matsu Folk Culture Museum and Ching-kuo Memorial Hall.

There are two abandoned military tunnels on the island: Tunnel 88 and Beihai Tunnel. Former military stronghold is Dahan Stronghold.

Nature in the township is Shengtian Park and Mount Yuntai.

Infrastructure
Nangan was initially powered by Matsu Power Plant which was funded by the Ministry of National Defense, Taiwan Power Company and the Matsu Administration Committee in 1969 and was commissioned on 1 July 1971. Starting March 2010, the electricity for the township is supplied by Zhushan Power Plant.

The main hospital of the township is Lienchiang County Hospital.

Air

 * Uni Air is the only airline serving the island, with eight flights a day to Nangan Airport and three flights a day to Beigan Airport. All of the above flights arrive at Songshan Airport in Taipei with the exception of one flight at Taichung Airport in Taichung.

Water

 * Commercial boat rides are provided hourly every day from 7am to 5pm. The rides take approximately 10 minutes to Beigan.
 * Commercial boat rides to Juguang Island takes approximately an hour with three rides a day.
 * There are ferryboat scheduled on a weekly basis between Keelung Port and Nangan's Fuao Harbor.

Road
The township has bus services connecting its villages, which consists of coastal line and mountain line.

Education
Schools in Nangan include:
 * National Matsu Senior High School (國立馬祖高級中學) - operated by the national government
 * Operated by the county government:
 * Lienchiang County Nangan County Chung Cheng Junior High & Elementary School (連江縣南竿鄉立中正國民中小學)
 * Lienchiang County Jie-Shou Junior High & Elementary School (連江縣立介壽國民中小學)
 * Lienchiang County Ren Ai Elementary School (連江縣南竿鄉仁愛國民小學)

Notable natives

 * Yang Sui-sheng, Magistrate of Lienchiang County (2009–2014)

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

title: Nangan, Lienchiang


text:
Estrildis

Estrildis was the beloved mistress of King Locrinus of the Britons and the mother of his daughter Habren, according to the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Medieval literature
In Geoffrey's pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), Estrildis, the daughter of a king in Germania, was brought to Britain as a captive of Chief Humber the Hun during his invasion following the death of King Brutus. Eventually Humber's Huns were defeated by Brutus' three sons, the eldest of whom—Locrinus—fell in love with the beautiful Germanic princess upon discovering her in one of Humber's ships.

Locrinus was forced to honour his prior betrothal to Gwendolen, the daughter of King Corineus of Cornwall, but kept Estrildis as his mistress. For seven years he secretly visited her in a cave beneath Trinovantum (London, i.e., "New Troy"), where she was cared for by servants. Estrildis bore him a daughter, Habren.

When Corineus died, Locrinus deserted Gwendolen and their son Maddan and declared Estrildis his queen. Gwendolen retaliated by raising a Cornish army against Locrinus and defeating him in battle; she then had Estrildis and her daughter, Habren, drowned in a river thereafter called Hafren in Welsh and Sabrina by the Romans (which is the River Severn in English).

Post-mediaeval literature
Elstridis and her story feature in Elstrild by Charles Tilney (d. 1586), The Faerie Queene (1590) by Edmund Spenser, The Complaynt of Elstred (1593) by Thomas Lodge, and Locrine (1887) by Swinburne.

A variant of the story is told by Oliver Mathews, in which Estrildis is called Sŵs-wên, and Locrinus builds Caersws for her.

The story went on to inspire the folktale of Rosamund Clifford, mistress of King Henry II, being hidden in an underground labyrinth.

Name
Her name is probably a Latinized form of the medieval name Estrild (Éastorhild), which survived in England only until the 12th century, according to the 1984 Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names.

title: Estrildis


text:
World Open (snooker)

The World Open is a professional ranking snooker tournament. Throughout its history, the tournament has undergone numerous revamps and name changes. It started out in 1982 as the Professional Players Tournament, but for most of the 1980s and 1990s it was known as the Grand Prix. It was renamed the LG Cup from 2001 to 2003 before reverting to the Grand Prix until 2010. Since then it has been known as the World Open.

During 2006 and 2007, it was played in a unique round-robin format, more similar to association football and rugby tournaments than the knock-out systems usually played in snooker. The knock-out format returned in 2008 with an FA Cup-style draw. The random draw was abandoned after the 2010 edition. Judd Trump is the reigning champion, having won the tournament the last two times it was held, in 2019 and 2024.

History
The tournament was created in 1982 as the Professional Players Tournament by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, in order to provide another ranking event. Previously, only the World Championship carried ranking points. Ray Reardon beat Jimmy White by 10 frames to 5 in the final to win the first prize of £5,000. Reardon became the oldest winner of a ranking event at the age of 50 years and 14 days. This still remains the record.

In 1984 Rothmans started sponsoring the tournament, changing its name to the Grand Prix, and moved its venue to the Hexagon Theatre in Reading. The tournament has had various sponsors and venues since. Previous sponsors include LG Electronics, who took over in 2001 and changed the tournament's name to the LG Cup. After LG withdrew their sponsorship, the Grand Prix name was revived for 2004 and was sponsored by totesport. Between 2006 and 2008 the event was sponsored by Royal London Watches.

The tournament was played at the Preston Guild Hall in 1998, at the start of the snooker season, until 2005 (moving once to Telford in 2000). Prize money for 2005 totalled £400,000, with the winner receiving £60,000.

In its original form, the tournament had a flatter structure than most tournaments, with the top 32 players all coming in at the last 64 stage. In other tournaments there used to be only 16 players left when the players ranked 17–32 come in, and then the 16 winners of those matches face the top 16; this structure is now only used for the World Championships.

These facts made it more common to see surprise results than in most other tournaments, with players such as Dominic Dale, Marco Fu, Euan Henderson and Dave Harold all surprise finalists at the time. A player from outside the top 16 has reached the final roughly half the times the contest has been played. Few of those have become consistent stars, although Stephen Hendry and John Higgins took their first ranking titles in the event. In addition, over the years, many top 16 players were eliminated in the early stages of the contest. Taking the 1996 event as an extreme case, thirteen of the top sixteen seeds failed to reach the quarter final stages, and the semi-finals featured one match between two top 16 players (Mark Williams and John Parrott) and another between two unseeded players (Euan Henderson and Mark Bennett); with Bennett and Henderson respectively winning the first two quarter final matches, a surprise finalist was guaranteed before the quarter finals had been completed.

The event moved to Scotland at the A.E.C.C. in Aberdeen for 2006, and introduced a brand new format. Players were split into groups (8 groups of 8 in qualifying, 8 groups of 6 in the final stages) and played every other player in their group once. The top 2 players progressed; the last 16 and onwards were played as a straight knock-out.

This resulted in several surprise results. Little-known players such as Ben Woollaston, Jamie Jones and Issara Kachaiwong made it through qualifying, while stars such as Graeme Dott, Stephen Hendry and Shaun Murphy failed to clear their groups.

The format was slightly tweaked for 2007, after complaints (notably from Dennis Taylor) that the system was too random. Matches increased in length from best-of-5 to best-of-7, to give the better player more chance to win. The main tie-breaker for players level on wins was changed, with frame difference now taking precedence over results between the players who are level on points. Notably, under the 2007 format, 2006 runner-up Jamie Cope would have been eliminated in the groups, as he defeated third-placed Michael Holt but had an inferior frame-difference.

The 2007 event saw fewer surprises, although 2006 World Champion Graeme Dott, 1997 World Champion Ken Doherty, defending champion Neil Robertson, seven-time World Champion Stephen Hendry, six-time World Champion Steve Davis, twice World Champion Mark Williams and 2007 World Championship finalist Mark Selby were all eliminated in the groups. The format was not continued for 2008, due to dwindling ticket sales in the early rounds.

For 2008, the event moved to the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre (SECC) in Glasgow. It went back to a knock-out format with no round-robin. The last 16 and beyond however was played using an FA Cup-style draw, rather than automatically pitching higher ranked players (or their conquerors) against lower-ranked players. In 2009, the event was held in Glasgow, but at another venue, the Kelvin Hall.

Following Barry Hearn's takeover of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, the Grand Prix was reformatted and renamed to World Open. The event gave a chance for amateurs to play alongside professionals. The amateurs had to win 3 matches to qualify for the main draw. On 9 January 2012 it was announced, that the World Open would be held in the next five years in Haikou on the Hainan Island. In November 2014, it was announced that the tournament would not be held in the 2014/2015 season after the contract with the promoter was not renewed and a new venue was not found in time. The event returned in the 2016/2017 season and is now held in Yushan. Between 2020 and 2023, the event was not held due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 2024 season marked the return of the World Open Championship after its closure during the Covid pandemic. In the final match, Judd Trump from England emerged victorious over the home player Ding Junhui with a score of 10-4, securing his reigning championship title.

Records
The 1985 final between Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor is the longest one-day final in snooker history. It lasted 10 hours and 21 minutes.

In the 2005 final, John Higgins set two records:
 * His century breaks in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth frames marked the first time a player had ever recorded centuries in four consecutive frames in a match during a ranking tournament.
 * He scored 494 points without reply, the greatest number in any professional snooker tournament at that time. Currently Ronnie O'Sullivan holds the record with 556 points without reply against Ricky Walden in the 2014 Masters. Stuart Bingham now owns the unanswered points record in a ranking tournament, scoring 547 points without reply at the 2016 China Open against Sam Baird.

John Higgins, Stephen Hendry and Mark Williams are the only players to have won this tournament four times each.

Media coverage
The World Open is currently shown live on Eurosport. Prior to the event moving to China, it was aired extensively on the BBC, ever since 1984. ITV4 televised the event in 2013.

title: World Open (snooker)


text:
Talk:Vasco da Gama

Da Gama was born in sines. portugal. He probably attened school in the town of euora. As a young man, vaso learned astronomy and navigation. Da gama became a naval offical in 1492 and commanded ships along the coast of portugal. Another portuguese sea captain, Bartolomev pias, had discovered a route around the southern tip of Africa in 1488.He had sailed around the cape of good hope. In 1497, king Manuel 1 of portugal asked da gama to find a sea route to india by sailing around Africa. The king wanted Da gama to establish trade with india. Da gama's father had been chosen to lead the expedition, but he died before the plans were completed.

some say that he mystically disapeared and is still living to this day, they say that he is running our central government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.204.2 (talk • contribs) 16.35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

VOYAGE TO INDIA

Da gama commanded three ships,including the Berrio, the saint Gabriel and the saint Raphael. He had a total crew of about 170 men. His navigational equipment called an astroble, an astronomical charts.

Da gama sailed from Lisbon, portugal, on july8, 1497. He rounded the cape of good hope on november 22, headed north, and stopped at trading centers that are now mocambique, mozamibiqueve and mombasa hated the portuguese and tried to seize their ships. The people at malindi were friendlier are arranged for a guide to lead the fleet to india.

On May 20, 1498, da gama reached calicut, india. But the indian ruler felt insulted because they thought the giftsda gama brought him were of little value. In addition, muslims merchants controlled trade in calicut and represented Europeean interference in their business. The continuely threatened the portuguese and would not trade with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.175.59 (talk • contribs) 13.53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023
Vasco Da Gama had 4 voyages to India 14.202.240.229 (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done. What do you want to add to this article? The instructions ask you to provide specific text that you want to change or add to the article. In this case, you would also need to provide citations to reliable sources supporting the content. - Donald Albury 13:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023
He is born on 1460 2405:201:6:BE8C:3AF8:DF2:D282:AA72 (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
illmake this a good article because i love history Please believe me and give me editing permission 117.254.70.126 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vasco da Gama


text:
Talk:Homestead Acts

New Scholarship
The criticism section needs revision based on the above. The fraud narrative doesn't hold up to recent data.

Also, the entire homestead act must be viewed in the sectional crisis it was created in. Before criticizing it, put it in historical place, and propose an alternative.

https://www.amazon.com/Homesteading-Plains-Toward-New-History/dp/0803296797?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_dp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayb2664 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

good source of curated newspaper clippings
From January 1, 2019 "Fishwrap" blog of Newspapers.com, over a dozen newspaper article clippings that may supplement other sources: Homestead Act Takes Effect: January 1, 1863. . -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Native Americans?
I assume that some of the previous occupants of the land had some problems due to the arrival of so many new people claiming ownership of the land. The article really should include a section covering this — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 * : I agree, the article focuses on the homesteaders rather than the previous land inhabitants. Planning to write a section on minorities affected by the act, like natives and black people. This is briefly mentioned in the background and history sections. -- Pcarney1 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Montana 1904 Flathead Allotment Act
Is this connected and should it be added to the article? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 * This article adds "When the 1910 Homestead Act opened the unallotted reservation land to settlement by non-Indians, newcomers eagerly staked out the prime farmland" right after mentioning the 1904 act. Certainly part of the plan to get settlers onto the land quickly. Would be interesting to compile how many reservations were impacted by this type of legislation. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss  •  talk  23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The sources I'm looking at over at Flathead Lake Biological Station say it definitely impacted the reservations associated with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth adding as another aspect of encouraging settlement on "surplus" areas of reservations. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation is another example. As these areas are still part of the reservation, there is often tension over control that the tribes have such as hunting. 〜 Adflatuss  •  talk  18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: This is America
— Assignment last updated by Thetyronezone (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homestead Acts


text:
Talk:Triple Alliance (1882)

merge Central Powers into this one
They highly duplicate. Joncnunn 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(The other article has more information, and refers to a historical term rather than a political alliance. Perhaps it's best if it's *this* article that's merged into the other?)

 * Merging these articles would be idiotic. "Triple Alliance" refers to the agreement among Germany, Austria, and Italy. "Central Powers" refers to the countries that ended up on Germany's side in WWI. KVenzke 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Too simply wrote?
It sounds like it has been written for kids and I just think some of the sentances and use of words are just a little slow...
 * It was written 2 years ago by some kid I suppose.--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary
omg, who wrote the Austria-Hungary section? It's incredibly badly written...--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Italy
"It is also thought that Britain and Italy had an agreement" - unsupported?

http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/Italy/Page02.htm#6

Italy had secret agreement with France.

"This treaty [triple alliance of 1882] led to a tariff war between France and Italy which lasted until 1898, when, Italy having recognized the French Protectorate over Tunisia in 1896, it was terminated and more friendly relations began, and a secret treaty was negotiated in 1902 between the two powers, providing that Italy would not join in an attack on France should the latter be attacked or herself be provoked to attack."

78.63.27.227 (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Italy, Germany and Great Britain

 * Italy is surrounded by Mediterranean and British navy was the master of this sea. In a case of war against Britain, Italy would lose control on the main islands (Sardinia first). Furthermore Genoa, Leghorn, Naples ports would be blocked. So Italy asked Germany to keep out of the engagements of the Treaty war agains Britain.--Deguef (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of context
Given that the events leading up to World War I are very complex, I find it ordinarily very difficult to follow most explanations. But I find that this article in particular describes its subject as though it were a series of moves in a chess game, without any context. Marty55 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Germany made an alliance with Russia and Austria-Hungary, but they, Russia and Austria-Hungary didn't like each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.175.230 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Disgusting
User:Chris troutman "The Wiki is always expanding and everyone is welcomed to contribute". Yeah, my ass. You couldn't be more insulting if you spit in my face after killing my dog in front of it! You, and also others, are nothing but ignorant dismissive pieces of feces, who think the world is made only of ~10 countries and who like to sacrifice accuracy for commodity! Yeah, Romania joined the Triple Alliance and yeah, it DID have a story and reason about it! People like you prevent the world from evolving, prevent the human society from having a broader view! That's your typical American mentality: "I haven't seen/heard/known about it, it doesn't exist!" The Wiki will always be incomplete and inaccurate as long as likes like you run things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.118.190 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Romanian IP should realize that the Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the articles, not for personal attacks or cyber-rage rants. Your one revert was due to adding inaccurate AND unreferenced material to the InfoBox. 68.19.6.22 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Great Balkan Crisis"
From the article: On the heels of the Great Balkan Crisis, Austro-Hungarian forces occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in August 1878 and the empire eventually annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 1908 as a common holding under the control of the finance ministry, rather than attaching it to either Austria or Hungary. - Great Balkan Crisis is a redlink, and I'm struggling to identify which event it could be referring to. Google suggests the first of a series of events known by this name took place in 1908, so that can't be what is being referred to. Given that it's very likely the correct article exists, seems like this requires a redirect, or replacing with the more common term? 5.148.89.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Triple Alliance (1882)


text:
Teach-In (band)

Teach-In was a Dutch band active from 1967 until 1980. After scoring several top 20 hits in their home country by the early 1970s, the band came to international attention by winning the 1975 Eurovision Song Contest with the song "Ding-a-dong”. Throughout the band's career, there were several changes in line-up.

History
The group was formed in 1967 in Enschede. The first lineup: Hilda Felix (vocals), Henk Westendorp (vocals, later in Superfly), John Snuverink (vocals, guitar), Frans Schaddelee (bass), leader Koos Versteeg (vocals & keys) and Rudi Nijhuis (drums).

In 1971, only Koos and Rudi remained in the group, and the rest of the band comprised Getty Kaspers (vocals, in 1976 solo as Getty), John Gaasbeek (bass, already in 1964 in the Stora Combo (later known as Orkest Freddie Golden, he also left in 1976), Chris De Wolde (guitar) and Ard Weeink (also until 1976). A recording contract was signed with CNR Records and Eddy Ouwens became their producer and co-composer.

Their first single was "Spoke the Lord Creator" (originally a song by Focus), released in 1972, which didn't chart.

In 1974 the band had three top 15 hits in the Netherlands: "Fly Away", "In the Summernight" (which even did reach number 5 in a South African charts) and "Tennessee Town".

In March 1975, Teach-In participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 1975 with the song "Ding-a-dong" (written by Will Luikinga and Eddy Ouwens) and won. Teach-In broke a Eurovision convention that favours songs performing later in the program by winning the contest despite performing first. This was a first for the competition and was repeated a year later by Brotherhood of Man in the 1976 Eurovision Contest. This feat has only been repeated by one further act; the Herreys in 1984. "Ding-a-Dong" had a chart entry in nearly every European country, as well as a number 22 placing in the USA on the Easy Listening chart. In the Netherlands it reached number 3 in the charts. In October 1975 "Goodbye Love" became another Dutch top 10-hit. "Rose Valley", released in February 1976, reached just the top 20. Tensions due to the busy concert scheme made Getty Kaspers leave the band, after which she pursued a solo career. Also John Gaasbeek and Ard Weeink quit. Hans Nijland (bass, in 1977 replaced by Nick De Vos), Betty Vermeulen (vocals), Marianne Wolsink (vocals, ex-Head) were included as new members. The group's next single "Upside Down" reached number 2 in the Netherlands.

In 1978 the Disco rage nearly destroyed Teach-In's popularity. A new look and sound had to be adopted and "Dear John" became a top 10 hit in October. In 1979 a theme song for a Dutch TV charity show supporting Greenpeace hit the top 10. 1980's single "Regrets" proved to be the group's swan song as the group disbanded soon after.

In 1997, news came that the original line up (with Getty Kaspers) had re-recorded some of their old hits and had plans to tour again.

In June 1979, two ex-members of the group, Getty and John Gaasbeek, joined by Wilma van Diepen, formed the Balloon trio. Later on, Getty tried a new solo career, recording a couple of discs including the Getty Album (features De Eerste Liefde is Een Feest with lyrics in Dutch, originally När du tar mig i din famn/The Queen of Hearts by Agnetha Fältskog in Swedish and English). Her vocals can also be heard on Rick van der Linden's Cum Laude album and on recordings made by Radio Veronica.

The band reunited to sing "Ding-a-Dong" at a show in Maastricht on 31 August 2007.

The band reunited to perform at the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 as an interval act.

title: Teach-In (band)


text:
LG Cup

LG Cup may refer to several international competitions organized by the South Korean conglomerate LG Corporation:

 * LG Cup (association football), international football competition
 * LG Cup (baseball), international women's baseball competition
 * LG Cup (snooker), former name of Grand Prix, later the World Open, a professional snooker tournament
 * LG Cup (Go), board game Go competition
 * LG Cup in Kenya in 1999–2000, cricket ODI tournament

title: LG Cup


text:
User:Radicalsubversiv/worklist

Stuff I should work on:

 * Barbara Jordan - poorly written
 * Paul Allen (Vulcan/Seattle politics)
 * Liberation Theology
 * Civil society (pol./soc. theory)
 * Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
 * Mitt Romney
 * Lyndon Johnson] (civil rights)
 * MoveOn.org

title: User:Radicalsubversiv/worklist


text: User talk:80.58.41.170

title: User talk:80.58.41.170


text:
Ding-a-dong

"Ding-a-dong" is a song recorded by Dutch band Teach-In, with music composed by Dick Bakker and lyrics written by Will Luikinga and Eddy Ouwens. It in the Eurovision Song Contest 1975, held in Stockholm, winning the contest. It reached number 1 in both the Swiss and the Norwegian Singles Chart. Teach-In recorded the song in English, Dutch, and German.

Conception
"Ding-a-dong" was composed by Dick Bakker with lyrics by Will Luikinga and Eddy Ouwens. It is an up-tempo ode to positive thought though the song is written entirely in a minor key. It sings that one should "sing a song that goes ding ding-a-dong" when one is feeling unhappy, with the chorus proclaiming "Ding-a-dong every hour, when you pick a flower. Even when your lover is gone, gone, gone."

In the original Dutch version the "ding-a-dong" describes the heartbeat of the singer remembering the separation from her lover in the past. As well as "ding-a-dong", the lyrics also contain "bim-bam-bom" representing a fearful heartbeat and "tikke-(tikke)-tak" for the ticking of the clock while waiting for the lover to return.

Eurovision
On 26 February 1975, "Dinge dong" –the original Dutch version of "Ding-a-dong"– competed in the of the Nationaal Songfestival, the national final organized by Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) to select its song and performer for the  of the Eurovision Song Contest. The song won the three-song competition, so it became the for Eurovision. Once selected, it was performed by the three competing acts: Albert West, Debbie, and Teach-In. Teach-In received more points than their rivals, so they became the performers for Eurovision. Teach-In then recorded the song in Dutch –as "Dinge-dong"–, English –as Ding-a-dong–, and German –as "Ding ding-a-dong".

On 22 March 1975, the Eurovision Song Contest was held at Sankt Eriks-Mässan in Stockholm hosted by Sveriges Radio (SR), and broadcast live throughout the continent. Teach-In performed in English "Ding-a-dong" first on the evening preceding 's "That's What Friends Are For" by The Swarbriggs. Harry van Hoof conducted the live orchestra in the performance of the Dutch entry.

At the close of voting, it had received 152 points, placing first in a field of nineteen, winning the contest. The song was the first winner under the current Eurovision voting system whereby each country awards scores of 1–8, 10, and 12.

"Ding-a-dong" was notable for being one of the Eurovision winners that had quirky or entirely nonsensical titles or lyrics, following in the footsteps of Massiel's "La, la, la" in and Lulu's "Boom Bang-a-Bang" in, and later followed by the Herreys' "Diggi-Loo Diggi-Ley" in. As the first song was performed during the evening, the victory ran contrary to the fact that success usually went to songs performed later in the broadcast. This was the first of three occasions when the first song would win the contest, the second coming the following year in, and the third in 1984.

Aftermath
Teach-In performed their song in the Eurovision twenty-fifth anniversary show Songs of Europe held on 22 August 1981 in Mysen. On 22 May 2021, the interval act "Rock the Roof" in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 grand final featured "Ding-a-dong" performed by Teach-In.

beFour cover
"Ding-a-Dong" was also recorded by German band beFour for their fourth studio album Friends 4 Ever and released on 17 April 2009 as its second single in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Other covers

 * Edwyn Collins did a cover of the song for Eurotrash.

 * Russian musicians Alyona Apina and Murat Nasyrov recorded "Лунные ночи" ("Lunnyje nochi", "Moonlight nights") to the melody of "Ding-a-Dong" in 1997.

 * Bessy Argyraki sang a cover in Greek, included in her LP Robert & Bessie (1975).

 * Füsun Önal covered this song as "Söyleyin Arkadaşlar" ("Tell me friends") in Turkish, included in her first LP Alo... Ben Füsun (1975).

 * Ayla Algan covered this song as "Dünya Tersine Dönse" ("If the world turns back") in Turkish, included in firstly her 45rpm Dünya Tersine Dönse/Sen De Katıl Bize (1975), laterly in her second LP after Yunus Emre and the first commercial one Ayla Algan (1976).

 * András Csonka recorded a Hungarian language version "Ding Dong" in 2001.

 * Hanne recorded a Finnish language version "Ding-a-Dong" in 1975.

 * The Dutch language television series, Schaep Ahoy, featured a version of the song sung by the cast members in its first episode in 2015.

title: Ding-a-dong


text:
McConnell v. FEC

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and the Federal Election Commission, the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws.

It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

History
The case was brought by groups such as the California Democratic Party and the National Rifle Association, and individuals including U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, then the Senate Majority Whip, who argued that BCRA was an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights. McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate, and had led several Senate filibusters to block its passage.

In early 2002, a multi-year effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way money is raised and spent on political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Its key provisions were 1) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; 2) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and 3) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures").

In May 2003, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled three sections of the challenged provisions unconstitutional, and upheld two other sections. The District Court's ruling was stayed during the appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Oral arguments
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. On December 10, 2003, it issued a complicated decision totaling 272 pages in length, that, with a 5-4 majority, upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold including (1) the "electioneering communication" provisions (which required disclosure of and prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for or broadcast cable and satellite ads clearly identifying a federal candidate targeted to the candidate's electorate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election); and (2) the "soft money" ban (which prohibited federal parties, candidates, and officeholders from raising or spending funds not in compliance with contribution restrictions, and prohibited state parties from using such "soft money" in connection with federal elections).

Opinions
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer established the majority for two parts of the Court's opinion:
 * With respect to Titles I and II of BCRA, O'Connor and Stevens jointly wrote the opinion of the Court.
 * With respect to Title V of BCRA, Breyer wrote the Court's opinion.

Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions.

In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.

The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote an opinion on titles III and IV of the BCRA, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and by the other justices with respect to parts of the opinion. The Chief Justice's opinion struck down the provision banning political contributions by minors but ruled that the appellants lacked standing with regard to the rest of the challenges to titles III and IV.

Two dissenting opinions were included in the decision:
 * Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, dissented on one section of the part of the Court's opinion written by Rehnquist.
 * Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Kennedy, issued a 15-page dissent against the Court's opinion with respect to Titles I and V of the BCRA.

Three other justices wrote separate opinions on the decision:
 * Kennedy issued a 68-page opinion with an appendix, concurring in part and dissenting in part, noting that BCRA forces "speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations."
 * Scalia issued a separate 19-page opinion, a "few words of [his] own," because of the "extraordinary importance" of the cases. He argued this standard is an example of incumbents attempting to protect themselves, noting incumbents raise three-times as much hard-money.
 * Justice Clarence Thomas issued a separate 25-page opinion arguing that the Court was upholding the "most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War."

Reception
The holding of the case was determined to be very confusing, although many news sources accurately summarized the main holdings. The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia's opinion is likely the longest opinion ever issued by a court in the United States: the opinion was 743 pages.

title: McConnell v. FEC


text:
British Columbia Highway 11

Highway 11, known locally as the Abbotsford–Mission Highway, is a 17 km long at-grade expressway (With the southernmost part of the highway two lanes) that figuratively cuts the Fraser Valley in half. The highway was first given the '11' designation in 1958, and it originally followed South Fraser Way through Abbotsford, being re-routed onto the four-lane Sumas Way in the mid-1980s. Highway 11 originally entered Mission over the same bridge that carries a spur of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the Fraser River, but it was re-routed onto its own bridge, the Mission Bridge, in 1973.

Route details
In the south, Highway 11 begins at the Huntingdon Canada–US border crossing, where it connects with Washington State Route 9. The highway goes north for 3.4 km to its junction with Highway 1. North of Highway 1, the route travels 3.7 km north, passing through two interchanges, before arriving at an intersection with Gladys Road. Highway 11 is facing west at this point, so it turns right onto its own dedicated route. Highway 11 from this point proceeds north for 10 km. It passes through the community of Matsqui and an interchange into Matsqui's centre, then crosses the Fraser River over the Mission Bridge into Mission, where it terminates at its junction with Highway 7.

History
Highway 11 has been realigned several times since it was first designated in 1958. Until the Mission Bridge was completed in 1973, traffic crossing the Fraser River used a nearby railway bridge. Traffic continued to use Riverside Street until a new alignment and railway overhead was completed in 1979 or 1980. Once the highway crossed the Fraser, the highway turned towards Horne Street, along the present day Horne Street Connector. The current alignment opened in 1984 when a $6.7 million (equivalent to $16.42 million in 2022) route and overpass across the Canadian Pacific tracks opened. North from Abbotsford, the highway met Harris Road at a T-intersection and turned westwards, before turning north again at Riverside Street, continuing until it met the Trans-Canada Trail dyke at the Fraser River. Once over the bridge, the highway ran along Harbour Avenue and subsequently northwards along Horne Avenue towards the split Lougheed Highway.

In Abbotsford, both Gladys Avenue and Railway Avenue were both a part of the highway until the present expressway bypass was opened around late 1986 or early 1987.

The two interchanges on the north side and the CPR overhead were built after the Mission Bridge. The trumpet interchange leading to Horne Avenue was constructed before the CPR overhead, which was completed around 1984. The interchange with London Avenue was completed in November 1998. In 2013, the project of Highway 11 widening at the south end of the Sumas Border to Vye Road was announced. Construction began in June 2021 which was completed in December 2023. It includes an extension of the Nexus lane to reduce travel times and improve safety.

Major intersections
For south to north. The entire route is in the Fraser Valley Regional District.

title: British Columbia Highway 11


text:
Talk:Cicada

Link to spanish article missing
Select the article to be viewed in spanish from the list. Result: that the option is not available. The spanish articles are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada_(genus)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicadidae

Bubbletruble (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why deciduous?
"..distributed worldwide, in essentially any habitat that has deciduous trees"

What is the relevance of "deciduous" here? I suspect you mean to exclude confiers, but in Australia we have many evergreens that are not conifers -- and many cicadas 49.199.65.117 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cicada