text:
Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan)

Jamaat-e-Islami (Urdu:, English: Islamic Party; abbreviated JI), or Jamaat as it is commonly known, is an Islamist political party based in Pakistan and founded by Abul Ala Maududi. It is the Pakistani successor to Jamaat-e-Islami, which was founded in colonial India in 1941. Its objective is the transformation of Pakistan into an Islamic state, governed by Sharia law, through a gradual legal and political process. JI strongly opposes capitalism, communism, liberalism, and secularism as well as economic practices such as offering bank interest. JI is a 'vanguard party', whose members are intended to be leaders spreading party beliefs and influence. Supporters not thought qualified to be members may become 'affiliates', and beneath them are 'sympathizers'. The party leader is called an 'ameer'. Although it does not have a large popular following, the party is quite influential and considered one of the major Islamic movements in Pakistan, along with Deobandi and Barelvi (represented by Jamiat Ulema-e Islam political party and Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan party respectively).

Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in Lahore, British India in 1941 by the Muslim theologian and socio-political philosopher, Abul Ala Maududi, who was widely influenced by the Sharia based reign of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. At the time of the Indian independence movement, Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami actively worked to oppose the partition of India. In 1947, following the partition of India, the Jamaat split into two organisations, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (the Indian wing). Other wings of Jamaat include Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir, founded in 1953, Jamaat-e-Islami Azad Kashmir founded in 1974, and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, founded in 1975.

Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan came under severe government repression in 1948, 1953, and 1963. During the early years of the regime of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Jamaat-e-Islami's position improved and it became seen as the "regime's ideological and political arm", with party members at times holding cabinet portfolios of information and broadcasting, production, and water, power and natural resources. In 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, JI opposed the independence of Bangladesh. However, in 1975, it established Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh with Abbas Ali Khan (Joypurhat) as the first ameer. Since the early 1980s, it has also developed close links with Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir and acted as the vanguard of the armed insurgency in that province.

Syed Abul A'la Maududi (1941–1972)
Jamaat-e-Islami's founder and leader until 1972 was Abul A'la Maududi, a widely read Islamist philosopher and political commentator, who wrote about the role of Islam in South Asia. His thought was influenced by many factors including the Khilafat Movement; Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's ascension at the end of the Ottoman Caliphate; and the impact of Indian Nationalism, the Indian National Congress and Hinduism on Muslims in India. He supported what he called "Islamization from above", through an Islamic state in which sovereignty would be exercised in the name of Allah and Islamic law (sharia) would be implemented. Maududi believed politics was "an integral, inseparable part of the Islamic faith, and that the Islamic state that Muslim political action seeks to build" would not only be an act of piety but would also solve the many (seemingly non-religious) social and economic problems that Muslims faced. Maududi opposed British rule but also opposed the Muslim nationalist movement (nationalism being un-Islamic) and their plan for a circumscribed "Muslim state". Maududi agitating instead for an "Islamic state" covering the whole of India – this despite the fact Muslims made up only about one quarter of India's population.

Jamaat-e-Islami thus actively opposed the partition of India, with its leader Maulana Abul A'la Maududi arguing that concept violated the Islamic doctrine of the ummah. The Jamaat-e-Islami saw the partition as creating a temporal border that would divide Muslims from one another.

Founding of JI in colonial India
Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in colonial India on 26 August 1941, at Islamia Park in the city of Lahore, before the Partition of India. JI began as an Islamist social and political movement. Seventy-five people attended the first meeting and became the first members of the movement. Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, Maulana Naeem Siddiqui, Maulana Muhammad Manzoor Naumanai and Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi (although he left after a few years) were among the founders of Jamat e Islami along with Syed Abul Ala Maududi.

Maududi saw his group as a vanguard of Islamic revolution following the footsteps of early Muslims who gathered in Medina to found an Islamic state. JI was and is strictly and hierarchically organised in a pyramid-like structure, working toward the common goal of establishing an ideological Islamic society, particularly though educational and social work, under the leadership of its emirs (commanders or leaders). As a vanguard party, its fully-fledged members (arkan) are intended to be leaders and devoted to the party, but there is also a category of much more numerous sympathizers and workers (karkun).

The emir is obliged by the party constitution to consult an assembly called the shura. The JI also developed sub-organisations, such as those for women and students. JI began by volunteering in refugee camps; performing social work; opening hospitals and medical clinics and by gathering the skins of animals sacrificed for Eid-ul-Azha.

JI had a number of unique features. All members, including its founder Mawdudi, uttered the shahadah – the traditional act of converts to Islam – when they joined. This was a symbolic gesture of conversion to a new Islamic perspective, but to some implied that "the Jamaat stood before Muslim society as Islam before jahiliyah", (pre-Islamic ignorance). After Pakistan was formed, it forbade Pakistanis to take an oath of allegiance to the state until it became Islamic, arguing that a Muslim could in clear conscience render allegiance only to God.

Pakistan
Following the Partition of India, Maududi and JI migrated from East Punjab to Lahore in Pakistan. There they volunteered to help the thousands of refugees pouring into the country from India – performing social work; opening hospitals and medical clinics; and by gathering the skins of animals sacrificed for Eid-ul-Azha.
 * Creation and early years

During the prime-ministership of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (September 1956 – October 1957), JI argued for a separate voting system for different religious communities. Suhrawardy convened a session of the National Assembly at Dhaka and through an alliance with Republicans, his party passed a bill for a mixed voting system.

In 1951, it ran candidates for office, but did not do well. JI found it was more successful in promoting its cause in the streets. The election also occasioned a split in the party with the JI shura passing a resolution in support of the party withdrawing from politics but Maududi arguing for continued involvement. Maududi prevailed and several senior JI leaders resigned in protest. All this strengthened Maududi's position still further and "a cult of personality began to grow up around him."

In 1953, JI led "direct action" against the Ahmadiyya, who the JI believed should be declared non-Muslims. In March 1953, riots in Lahore started leading to looting, arson and the killing of at least 200 Ahmadis and the declaration of selective martial law. The military leader, Azam Khan had Maududi arrested and Rahimuddin Khan sentenced him to death for sedition (writing anti-Ahmadiyya pamphlets). Many JI supporters were imprisoned during this time.

The 1956 Constitution was adopted after accommodating many of the demands of the JI. Maududi endorsed the constitution and claimed it a victory for Islam. In 1958, JI formed an alliance with Abdul Qayyum Khan (Muslim League) and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (Nizam-e-Islam Party). The alliance destabilised the presidency of Iskander Mirza (1956–1958), and Pakistan returned to martial law. The military ruler, the president Muhammad Ayub Khan (1958–1964), had a modernising agenda and opposed the encroachment of religion into politics. He banned political parties and warned Maududi against continued religio-political activism. JI offices were closed down, funds were confiscated and Maududi was imprisoned in 1964 and 1967.

JI supported the opposition party, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM). In the 1964–1965 presidential elections, JI supported the opposition leader, Fatima Jinnah, despite its opposition to women in politics.

In 1965, during the Indo-Pakistani war, JI supported the government's call for jihad, presenting patriotic speeches on Radio Pakistan and seeking support from Arab and Central Asian countries. The group resisted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Maulana Bhashani's socialist program of the time.

By the end of 1969, the Jamaat-e-Islami was spearheading a major "campaign for the protection of ideology of Pakistan," which it believed was under threat from atheistic socialists and secularists.

JI participated in the 1970 general election. Its political platform advocated political freedom of the provinces and Islamic law based on the Quran and Sunnah. There would be separation of the powers (judiciary and legislature); basic rights for minorities (such as equal employment opportunities and the Bonus Share Scheme allowing factory workers to own shares in their employers' companies); and a policy of strong relationships with the Muslim world. Just prior to the election, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan left the alliance leaving JI to run against the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Awami League. The party had a disappointing showing when it won only four seats in the National Assembly and four in the provincial assemblies after fielding 151 candidates.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto won the 1970 election campaign and was strongly opposed by JI who believed he and his socialist ideology were a threat to Islam.

JI opposed the Awami League East Pakistani separatist movement. Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba organised the Al-Badar to fight the Mukti Bahini (Bengali liberation forces). In 1971, during the Bangladesh liberation war, JI members may have collaborated with the Pakistani army.
 * Division

In 1968, Maulana Maududi took leave from Emarat of the Jamaat and Maulana Naeem Siddiqui became the Ameer of Jamat e Islami for one year. In 1969, Maulana took Charge of the Jamaat again. In 1972, Maududi resigned citing poor health, and Maulana Naeem Siddiqui refused to become the Ameer of the Jamaat due to his research activities. Thus, in October 1972, the Majlis-e-Shoura (council) elected Mian Tufail Mohammad (1914–2009) as the new leader of JI. Naeeem Siddiqui was chosen as the general secretary.

Mian Tufail Mohammad (1972–1987)
After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1973–1977) was elected, the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami (Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba) burned effigies of him in Lahore and declared his election a "black day". In early 1973, the amir, of the JI even appealed to the army to overthrow Bhutto's government because of "its inherent moral corruption."

JI "spearheaded" the anti-Bhutto political movement under the religious banner of Nizam-i-Mustafa (Order of the Prophet). Bhutto attempted to suppress JI through the imprisonment of JI and Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba members. There were electoral irregularities at the 1975 elections with JI members being arrested in order to prevent them from lodging their nomination papers. However, by 1976, JI had 2 million registrants.

In the 1977 election, JI won nine of the 36 seats won by the opposition Pakistan National Alliance. The opposition considered the election rigged (Bhutto's PPP won 155 out of 200 seats) and Maududi, who had been arrested, called on Islamist parties to commence a campaign of civil disobedience. The Sunni-led government of Saudi Arabia intervened to secure Maududi's release from prison warning of revolution in Pakistan. JI assisted the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) to oust Bhutto and met with Zia-ul-Haq for ninety minutes on the night before Bhutto was hanged.

Initially, JI supported General Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1987). In turn, Zia's use of Islamist rhetoric gave JI importance in public life beyond the size of its membership. According to journalist Owen Bennett-Jones, JI was the "only political party" to offer Zia "consistent support" and was rewarded with jobs for "tens of thousands of Jamaat activists and sympathisers", giving Zia's Islamic agenda power "long after he died."

However, Zia failed to deliver timely elections and distanced himself from the JI. When Zia banned student unions, Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba and pro-JI labour unions protested. However, JI did not participate in the Pakistan Peoples Party's Movement for the Restoration of Democracy. JI also supported Zia's Jihad against the Soviet–Afghan War and its sister party Jamiat-e Islami led by Burhanuddin Rabbani became part of the Peshawar Seven that received aid from Saudi Arabia, United States and other jihad supporters. Such conundrums caused tension in JI based on conflict between ideology and politics.

In 1987, Mian Tufail declined further service as head of JI for health reasons and Qazi Hussain Ahmad was elected.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad (1987–2008)
In 1987, when Zia died, the Pakistan Muslim League formed the right-wing alliance, Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI). In 1990 when Nawaz Sharif came to power, JI boycotted the cabinet on the basis that the Pakistan Peoples' Party and the Pakistan Muslim League were problematic to equal degrees.

In the election of 1993, JI won three seats. In this year, JI was a member of the newly formed All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) which promotes the independence of Jammu and Kashmir from India. Prior to this, JI had allegedly set up the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, a Kashmir liberation militia to oppose the Kashmir Liberation Front which fights for the complete independence of the Kashmir region.

Ahmad left his position in the Senate in protest against corruption.

Successful long march against Bhutto's government
On 20 July 1996, Qazi Hussain Ahmed announced to start protests against government alleging corruption. Qazi Hussain resigned from the Senate on 27 September and announced the start of a long march against Benazir Bhutto's government. The protest started on 27 October 1996 by Jamaat-e-Islami and opposition parties. On 4 November 1996, Bhutto's government was dismissed by President Leghari primarily because of corruption. JI then boycotted the 1997 election, and therefore, lost representation in Parliament. However, the party remained politically active, for example, protesting the arrival of the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in Lahore.

In 1999, Pervez Musharraf took power in a military coup. JI, at first, welcomed the general but then objected when Musharraf began to make secular reforms and then again in 2001, when Pakistan joined the war on terror, alleging Musharraf had betrayed the Taliban. JI condemned the events of 11 September 2001, but equally condemned the US when Afghanistan was invaded. Some members of Al-Qaeda, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were arrested in Pakistan.

In the 2002 election, JI made an alliance of religious parties called Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) (lit. 'United Council of Action') and won 53 seats, including most of those representing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. JI continued its opposition to the War on terrorism, particularly the presence of American troops and agencies in Pakistan. JI also called for restoration of judiciary.

In 2006, JI opposed the Women's Protection Bill saying it did not need to be scrapped but instead, be applied in a fairer way and be more clearly understood by judges. Ahmed said,
 * "Those who oppose [these] laws are only trying to run away from Islam. ... These laws do not affect women adversely. Our system wants to protect women from unnecessary worry and save them the trouble of appearing in court."

Samia Raheel Qazi, MP and daughter of Ahmed stated,
 * "We have been against the bill from the start. The Hudood Ordinance was devised by a highly qualified group of Ulema, and is beyond question".

At least during the time of Ahmad, the position of JI on revolutionary action was that it was not ready to turn to extra-legal action but that its objectives are definite (qat'i) but its methods are "open to interpretation and adaptation (ijtihadi)" based on the "exigencies of the moment".

On 23 July 2007, Qazi Hussain Ahmad tendered his resignation from the National Assembly to protest against the Army operation at Lal Masjid.

Sayyed Munawer Hassan (2008–2014)
In 2008, JI and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf again boycotted the elections. Ahmad declined to stand for re-election due to health issues, and Syed Munawar Hassan was elected as the ameer.

Siraj-ul-Haq (2014–2024)
On 30 March 2014, Siraj-ul-Haq, serving as senior minister in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government and the party's deputy chief, was elected as the new ameer. He replaced the incumbent Munawer Hasan and the party's general secretary, Liaqat Baloch. 25,533 office bearers of the party out of a total of 31,311 voted in these elections. It was the first time that the party had voted out an ameer after just one term. He, therefore, resigned from his role as senior minister. This coincided with a drone attack on a madrassa in Bajaur Agency.

In 2016, Siraj-ul-Haq led funeral prayers for Mumtaz Qadri, who had been executed for assassinating Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer while serving as his bodyguard. Siraj-ul-Haq called for nationwide protests against the execution of Qadri.

Hafiz Naeem Ur Rehman (2024-Present)
Hafiz Naeem Ur Rehman was elected the Ameer of Jamaat e Islami on 4 April 2024.

Organisations
JI provides unions for doctors, teachers, lawyers, farmers, workers and women, for example, Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT), Jamiat Talaba Arabia and Islami Jamaat-e-Talibaat (its female branch) a Students' union and JI Youth Pakistan, a youth group.

The party has a number of publications from affiliated agencies such as Idara Marif-e-Islami, Lahore, the Islamic Research Academy, Karachi, Idara Taleemi Tehqeeq, Lahore, the Mehran Academy, and the Institute of Regional Studies. Its print media publications number 22, including the daily Jasarat, weekly Friday Special, weekly Asia, monthly Tarjumanul Quran and fortnightly Jihad-e-Kashmir, with Jasarat in particular having a circulation of 50,000.

The Islami Nizamat-e-Taleem, led by Abdul Ghafoor Ahmed, is an educational body that includes 63 Baithak schools. Rabita-ul-Madaris Al-Islamia supports 164 JI madrasas. JI also operates the Hira Schools (Pakistan) Project and Al Ghazali Trust. The foundation administers schools, women's vocational centres, adult literacy programs, hospitals and mobile chemists and other welfare programs. In this respect, JI interacts with the general market.

In total, there are around 1000 registered madrasas affiliated with the JeI in Pakistan, the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa having most of them, with some 245 or nearly a quarter of the total.

Jamaat-e-Islami Azad Kashmir
An independent wing of Jamaat-e-Islami in Azad Kashmir was started in 1974. According to journalist Arif Jamal, it was done to slow the spread of secular ideas in Azad Kashmir. It had its own amir, Maulana Abdul Bari, who had previously participated in the First Kashmir War (1947) as well as the Operation Gibraltar (1965).

The main activity of the Azad Kashmir wing is noted as the sponsorship of jihad in Indian-administered Kashmir. Bari said that he was called for a meeting with President Zia ul-Haq in 1980, and asked to make preparations. He travelled to the Kashmir Valley and eventually persuaded the leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir. However, despite having several groups of Islamist youth trained in militancy, the Kashmiri Jamaat was hesitant to take the plunge. Pakistan's ISI then used the pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) to initiate operations in July 1988. A year later, Jamaat-e-Islami Azad Kashmir sent operatives to Indian-administered Kashmir to bring all the Islamist groups under an umbrella group called Hizbul Mujahideen as a counter to the JKLF. Jointly with Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, it also persuaded the Kashmiri Jamaat to take charge of Hizbul Mujahideen by June 1990, and a Jamaat leader called Syed Salahuddin was appointed as its chief.

Jamaat-e-Islami Azad Kashmir also has a student wing called Islami Jamiat-i-Tulaba (IJT). It gained popularity after the founding of Hizbul Mujahideen. Many of its members are said to join the ranks of Hizbul Mujahideen in due course.

Connections with terrorism
Jama'ati was said to had close links to many banned outfits of Pakistan. The most notable connection was with the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. This militant organisation grew as an offshoot of Jammat e Islami and was founded by Sufi Muhammad in 1992 after he left Jamaat-e-Islami. When the founder was imprisoned on 15 January 2002, Maulana Fazlullah, his son-in-law, assumed leadership of the group. In the aftermath of the 2007 siege of Lal Masjid, Fazlullah's forces and Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) formed an alliance. Fazlullah and his army reportedly received orders from Mehsud. After the death of Hakimullah Mehsud in a drone attack, Fazlullah was appointed as the new "Amir" (Chief) of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan on 7 November 2013. In a May 2010 interview, U.S. Gen. David Petraeus described the TTP's relationship with other militant groups as difficult to decipher: "There is clearly a symbiotic relationship between all of these different organizations: al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, TNSM [Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi]. And it's very difficult to parse and to try to distinguish between them. They support each other, they coordinate with each other, sometimes they compete with each other, [and] sometimes they even fight each other. But at the end of the day, there is quite a relationship between them."

According to another source, TNSM and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) seem to have been locked in a turf war in the Malakand District of Pakistan, and the Jamaat-Ulema-e-Islam, JI, and TNSM are in conflict with each other in the tribal areas for power and influence.

Leaders

 * Abul A'la Maududi (1940–1972)
 * Naeem Siddiqui
 * Mian Tufail Mohammad (1972–1987)
 * Qazi Hussain Ahmad (1987–2008)
 * Muhammad Athar Qureshi
 * Syed Munawar Hassan (2008–2014)
 * Siraj-ul-Haq (2014–2024)
 * Mushtaq Ahmad Khan
 * Muhammad Ibrahim Khan
 * Khurram Murad
 * Liaqat Baloch
 * Khurshid Ahmad
 * Abdul Ghaffar Aziz
 * Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman (2024–present)
 * Naimatullah Khan

title: Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan)


text:
Atlanta Motor Speedway

Atlanta Motor Speedway (formerly known as the Atlanta International Raceway from 1960 to 1990) is a 1.540 mi quad-oval intermediate speedway in Hampton, Georgia. The track has hosted a variety of sanctioning bodies since its inaugural season of racing in 1960, including NASCAR and IndyCar. The track has been owned by Speedway Motorsports, LLC (SMI) since 1990, with Brandon Hutchison currently serving as the track's general manager. Atlanta Motor Speedway is served by the nearby concurrent U.S. Route 41 and U.S. Route 19, along with Georgia State Route 20.

The track has a capacity of 71,000 as of 2015, down from its peak of 124,000 in 2010. It features numerous amenities, including a nine-story condominium complex, a 1/4 mi oval on the track's frontstretch, and a 2.5 mi roval road course layout upon 850 acres of land. Plans to expand to the facility throughout its lifespan, including original plans to construct a dragstrip and recent plans to construct a casino complex have been made but were either scrapped or came to a standstill.

In the late 1950s, plans were made by the First Georgia Securities Corporation to build a facility that rivaled the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. After a months-long delay, the first races were held in 1960. The track faced heavy financial troubles throughout the late 1960s, having to enter Chapter 10 bankruptcy in 1971. Under periods of stability directed by Stacey Cotton and Walt Nix, the facility was bought out by motorsports mogul Bruton Smith in 1990, with Smith and his company, SMI, directing the facility's expansion and renovation under longtime general manager Ed Clark. The track has since gone through two major reconfigurations since Smith's purchase: one in 1997 that changed the layout of the track, and one in 2021 that changed the style of racing to produce pack racing seen at superspeedways.

Configurations
The track in its current form is measured at 1.54 mi, with 28 degrees of banking in the turns and five degrees of banking in the straightaways. The racing surface width varies, with a recorded 52 feet on the frontstretch, 42 feet on the backstretch, and 40 feet in the turns. From 1997 to 2021, the racing surface was at a recorded 55 feet with 24 degrees of banking in the turns. When the track first opened as a true oval, it was advertised to be banked at 24 degrees in the turns, with the straightaways being "banked slightly".

In 1992, developers added a 2.5 mi road course layout that combined the main oval with a specialized infield portion to create a "roval". As part of the 1997 reconfiguration, developers added a 1/4 mi oval on the track's frontstretch to accommodate legends car racing.

Amenities
Atlanta Motor Speedway is next to the concurrent U.S. Route 41 and U.S. Route 19, along with Georgia State Route 20. As of 2015, the track had a reported capacity of 71,000, with recent estimates being unknown due to the track's parent company, SMI, refusing to release capacity statistics as late as 2021. At its peak, the facility held a maximum of 124,000 according to a 2010 report by the Atlanta Magazine. The facility also covers around 850 acres of land. The track complex hosts a nine-story condominium complex called Tara Place. It was completed in 1994 and features 46 units along with a ballroom.

Planning and construction
On April 8, 1958, The Atlanta Constitution reported that the First Georgia Securities Corporation, led by president Richard W. King, announced plans to build a $1 million (adjusted for inflation, $), 50,000-seat, 400-acre racing facility 20 mi south of Atlanta along a location near U.S. Route 41. Atlanta International Raceway, Inc. (AIR) was formed to head the project. Two months later, King and racing promoter of the nearby Lakewood Speedway, Carl Queen, opened a stock sale to the general public, with 479,550 shares being offered at $4 each; along with the announcement, the duo stated hopes of hosting NASCAR and United States Auto Club (USAC)-sanctioned races. King later stated hopes of expanding the facility's uses to include "almost any conceivable outdoor show", with developers hoping to host four major races annually. With the announcements, it was slated to become the second-biggest racing facility in the United States at the time, only behind the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

The stock sale stagnated, with only $40,000 worth of shares being sold by the end of July. In August, drivers Curtis Turner and Joe Weatherly were announced by King as racing directors within the track's leadership, replacing Queen and Ernie Troutman, whose stock in the company was bought by track directors. With Queen sacked, he and King entered into a dispute over future race dates between Lakewood Speedway and Atlanta International Raceway, with both stating that they weren't willing to give up dates if they happened to run races on the same day. Groundbreaking occurred on September 17 at 1 PM EST, with King stating plans to host the first races at the facility "sometime in 1959"; actual work on the facility, however, did not start until late November.

Delays and postponements
By February 1959, Turner and Weatherly both threatened to resign from their positions and file lawsuits against the company, with Weatherly stating that they did not pay them enough for stock sold at meetings, a claim which King refuted. In addition, Weatherly claimed that he only hired to promote and did not want to be involved with selling stock, but was later forced to; he also implied that the financial situation and opening date of the track was unstable, stating, "They painted us a pretty picture... that picture isn't so pretty anymore". Four months later, although stock sales saw further stagnation, the project was able to secure a $400,000 loan, with King claiming that construction progressed enough that construction crews started building the grandstands. The number of flagship races for the track later decreased to three.

A NASCAR-sanctioned race for November 22, 1959, was set in late August, with NASCAR executive director Pat Purcell stating that he thought that the facility would be completed within the next 60 days. In its USAC ventures, however, Indianapolis Motor Speedway superintendent Clarence Cagle recommended changes to the track to increase safety for it to have a better chance at receiving a USAC date. Construction hit its first snag when road building was delayed due to fears of explosive hazards in August. In October, 20 days of rain plagued the track's construction, with construction being left half complete. As a result, track leaders decided to postpone the race, hoping to reschedule it in December or January 1960. The race was eventually postponed to March 27, the same day as a major race for Lakewood Speedway; however, with the track still being constructed by February, leaders opted to postpone the race indefinitely.

Four months later, Art Lester replaced King as president of the facility after he obtained over $1 million in financial aid. In addition, the track was able to reschedule the NASCAR race for a July 31 date along with the addition of another unscheduled NASCAR race within the year, signing a $636,000 contract with the E. Jack Smith Construction Company to build the remainder of the track. USAC, despite encouraging words from USAC director of competition Henry Banks, reportedly refused to race at the facility unless "changes are made in the banking of the track", with USAC claiming they found "one dip especially awkward". By the end of June, while NASCAR founder Bill France Sr. was confident that the track would be ready for racing by July 31, he stated that developers had "a heck of a lot of work to do". On July 3, Furman Bisher, a writer for The Atlanta Journal, remarked that while he was able to confirm that the facility would open on time, he wrote that the facility had only built "necessary conveniences", had costed $1.8 million, and that most of its original leadership abandoned the project by its completion.

First years
The first tests on the facility were ran by Jack Smith on July 10, with Smith being told to sandbag the session. The facility officially opened to teams on July 25 for pre-race activities for the 1960 Dixie 300; however, the track saw immediate problems. Purcell ordered the fixing of a seven-foot flaw "between the straightaway and the pits" the same day, with no protective guardrails were installed. Rain plagued the track on the 28th, with "a bad bump in the middle groove of the first turn" being reported by drivers. To run the race, track executive Alf Lester hired 17 high school football players for a week. The race itself did not produce any major problems in the track, with a crowd of 25,000 witnessing Edwin "Fireball" Roberts winning the inaugural race. The victory was disputed by numerous drivers, most notably runner-up Cotton Owens who accused NASCAR officials of a scoring error. Bisher later criticized the facility, stating that "[nothing] was ready, there was dirt everywhere. It was like a county fair in the boondocks". Two weeks later, another annual NASCAR-sanctioned race, the Atlanta 500, was confirmed to be run in late October.

On the same day, a attempt to overthrow Lester by an opposing stockholder group led by T. Walker Jackson and A. E. Deermont was formed because they felt that "Lester is not doing a good job". Lester, who was facing his second attempt to overthrow him during his tenure, angrily stated that if he was overthrown, leadership would have to pay off an insurmountable $562,000 mortgage payment. A vote was scheduled for September 10, with Jackson claiming that their group had enough votes to sack Lester, unlike the first attempt. A lawsuit was filed on September 1 by 15 stockholders who supported Lester against five opposing stockholders who claimed that they wanted to hold a special stockholders' meeting to oust the current leadership, leading to the "endanger[ment of] the corporation's financial structure". A second lawsuit, filed by director I. C. Mitchell for libel, was made nine days later against Deermont and four other stockholders that claimed his reputation was damaged in a letter sent to 800 stockholders, which allegedly stated that Mitchell stole $100,000 in gate revenue. Although Lester was able to garner enough support by election day to retain the current administration, he decided to resign from his position, handing it to Nelson Weaver.

Renovations were steadily made during the first years. A guardrail was eventually installed by late October in time for the 1960 Atlanta 500, but parts of the track still remained unpaved. A new scoreboard, touted as the "world's most modern" by The Atlanta Journal, was installed nearly two years later. By mid-1963, after further renovations, Weaver announced that the facility was able to make $179,046 (adjusted for inflation, $) in profit for the year, displaying financial success. In 1965, Weaver announced preliminary plans to build a $500,000 dragstrip. In 1967, rumors about the potential sale of AIR to various prospective buyers were reported, including driver and businessman Curtis Turner and then-Atlanta Braves owner William Bartholomay. Weaver later died on February 16, 1968. The day before his death, Weaver appointed Jack Black to replace his position as president of AIR.

American Raceways merger, financial troubles
Throughout the facility's first few years, most of its NASCAR-sanctioned races were plagued by rain delays, leading to financial troubles. In addition, according to Macon News writer John Krueger, AIR leadership was plagued by "power struggles for several years" along with "too many chiefs and not enough Indians". NASCAR personalities, including Junior Johnson and Buddy Arrington, also stated displeasure with the facility, with a poor track surface, heavy mismanagement, and traffic concerns being key issues. Before Weaver died, he used his own finances to keep the track afloat; the stability went away after his death. Under Black's leadership, in December 1968, AIR merged with the Lawrence LoPatin-owned Michigan International Speedway, which was built in the same year. With the deal, AIR announced an investment of $1 million worth of renovations for the facility, which covered a repave, a new dragstrip, seating expansion, and amenity improvements. The merger was approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 1969.

By late 1969, after LoPatin expanded the company and a rebranded it to American Raceways, the company fell into financial trouble after their director of operations, Les Richter, left the company. In response, American Raceways merged with the STP Corporation. The next year, AIR directors attempted to stop LoPatin from purchasing controlling interest of the facility; by this point, LoPatin was seen as a self-centered dictator who had virtually no practical experience with racing within local Atlanta media. In June, AIR directors initiated plans to sever ties from American Raceways after numerous executives, including Black, were removed from active roles or resigned due to LoPatin's leadership and the company's financial troubles. However, by mid-July, American Raceways was able to purchase complete control over AIR. LoPatin was reportedly ousted shortly after from his position, with Charlotte Motor Speedway president Richard Howard deciding to assist the track so it could run the 1970 Dixie 500. Furman Bisher later recalled, "it was run like a 10-year-old boy would run a candy store. People who knew nothing about racing were trying to run races. Stockholders who knew nothing about a race track were trying to tell people who did how a race track ought to be run."

By the running of the Dixie 500 in August, American Raceways oversaw numerous major executive changes. The race itself was under threat of being cancelled when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanded they pay $35,000 as a partial payment on their delinquent taxes, which totaled over $58,000. As part of a last-ditch effort to save the facility from filing bankruptcy, they hoped to merge companies with the Charlotte Motor Speedway, led by track president Richard Howard. A deal with Charlotte was officially confirmed in December; an announcement that American Raceways had left the track's management was also made. However, a month later, Charlotte backed out of the merger, with Howard claiming that "many factors", including a local 5% "amusement tax" on gate receipts, misleading debt figures, and an increase of ad-valorem tax by fourfold had made him back out of the deal, essentially sealing the facility's fate of bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy
Atlanta International Raceway officially filed for Chapter 10 bankruptcy on January 19, 1971, becoming a ward under the orders of United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia judge Sidney Oslin Smith Jr. The court later appointed attorney R. Neal Batson to run the track as trustee. The bankruptcy itself was also seen as a key point that put the stability of stock car racing into question; superspeedways like Atlanta across the Southeast had found themselves in economic trouble, with car manufacturers withdrawing financial support from it. At the time of the filing, the facility found itself with around $1,400,000 in debt. With the move, the facility was able to hold the 1971 Atlanta 500, securing a loan from the First National Bank of Atlanta. Five board members also pledged to raise $175,000–200,000 for the race to run. The race later found itself to be crucial to AIR's survival; with a crowd of 65,000 or more being claimed for the minimum number needed for its survival, former general manager Hal Hamrick stated, "If the fans don't turnout for this one, it is the end of major league auto racing in Atlanta and the end of AIR".

The 1971 Atlanta 500 saw a crowd of around 57,000. While below the number that was claimed to be needed, Batson viewed it optimistically, although warning that "we're not out of the woods". After the race, three groups displayed interest in buying the track, including Howard. In May, Batson was replaced by lawyer Stacy Cotton as trustee, with Walter Nix later being appointed as general manager. Within the first year of bankruptcy, AIR made around $188,000, showing optimistic progress. In the 1972 Atlanta 500, a storm plagued the track, destroying numerous amenities, including concession stands and parts of grandstands. However, despite the storm, the race was able to make a profit. The next year, while making around $750,000 in profit, Cotton approved a reorganization plan that would allow Jim Baker and Walter Nix to own controlling interest of the track for $500,000, with the duo planning to use $350,000 of the money to buy stocks. The plan caused some outrage among minority stockholders, who felt that the value of their stock had decreased massively with the deal.

Bankruptcy judge W. H. Drake recommended the reorganization plan in June. The next month, North Carolina Motor Speedway president L. G. DeWitt joined Baker and Nix in their bid to own the track. The reorganization plan was rejected by AIR stockholders; in response, Drake made modifications to appease the opposing stockholders. By the end of the year, Smith awarded the three ownership and placed Larry Hogan and Bob Latford to run AIR. However, in April 1974, leading stockholder James Price challenged the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as stockholders voted again to reject the plan. Price claimed that if the three bought the track, the stock would lose five-sixths of its value. The court denied Price's bid in January 1975, essentially setting up control for the three. Price later appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in May, who rejected to hear his appeal. The initial phase of reorganization that included debt payments began in July of that year. By January 1976, the second phase started, which gave creditors options for their stock. Two months later, on March 10, the track was officially turned over to a five-man board of directors, ending five years of bankruptcy. With the deal, the three owned around 52% of AIR.

Post-bankruptcy under Walter Nix and L. G. DeWitt
In 1978, AIR underwent a repave which was completed by June of that year. By the end of the year, Hogan resigned from his position as general manager. The next year, during the 1979 Atlanta 500, the first fatality at AIR occurred when Dennis Wade, an 18-year-old mechanic for Dave Watson, was hit by Watson after he spun on pit road, killing Wade. Within the year, Winston-Salem Journal writer Mike Mulhurn reported that a group directed by Hogan tried to oust DeWitt from his leadership at both North Carolina Motor Speedway and AIR. However, the takeover of both facilities failed. In 1984, a crash including driver Terry Schoonover claimed the life of the first racer at the facility during the 1984 Atlanta Journal 500. Partly as a result of Schoonover's death, then-general manager Mike Helton announced the construction of new walls. In January 1986, Helton announced $3 million in renovations ahead of the 1986 The Winston. Two years later, the facility went through its second repave in 10 years; the repave was meant to be done the next year, but Nix decided otherwise. In September 1989, The Charlotte Observer reported that motorsports businessman Roger Penske offered to purchase the facility from DeWitt and Nix at an unspecified amount. However, on the 22nd, the duo was reported to have rejected Penske's offer.

Bruton Smith era
On February 22, 1990, both Charlotte and Atlanta local media reported that negotiations between Nix and a prospective buyer looking to purchase AIR, Charlotte Motor Speedway owner Bruton Smith, began. Although the facility was expected to have been sold within the month, by the next day, both men denied that the sale had gone through; Smith reported delays in the sale due to "small snags", and Nix outright denied a closed deal. Four days later, Charlotte Observer writer Tom Higgins reported that a sale was imminent, which Nix again denied. In early March, Smith claimed that he was waiting for Nix to agree to the deal. Two months later, although his earlier offer stalled, Smith stated renewed hope at purchasing AIR. After another two months passed, AIR released a press statement that declared that Smith's second offer was most likely going to be accepted by AIR's directors. By mid-October, Winston-Salem Journal writer Mike Mulhurn wrote that Smith had begun planning his first promotions at the track, unofficially confirming his purchase.

Smith's purchase was officially confirmed on October 24, paying $19.8 million for the facility. Bob Marcum, the manager at the Speedway Club at Charlotte Motor Speedway, was appointed as general manager. With the purchase, Smith announced a plan that sought to invest $75 million worth of renovations to the track. The facility was also renamed to Atlanta Motor Speedway. Within the first year of Smith's ownership, he announced the construction of a new 21,000-seat grandstand along with traffic flow improvements, which had been a major issue with the facility since the track's inception. The improvements were completed by November 1991. A month later, he announced the construction of a 2.5 mi road course layout that utilized both the oval and specialized infield portions, creating a "roval"; the road course held its first races in September 1992. That same year, Marcum resigned from his position, with vice president of events at Charlotte Motor Speedway, Ed Clark, replacing him. In 1993, Clark announced a three-year plan to expand capacity to 180,000. Along with the announcement, plans for a new condominium complex, totaling 112 units, were made. Groundbreaking on the complex, named Tara Place, started on June 1, and although it saw initial poor sales, the $25 million facility partially opened by March 1994.

1997 repave
Within 1994, Clark announced further renovations that were scheduled to be completed by 2000. Among said renovations were the addition of 68,000 seats, expansion of luxury boxes, and the reconfiguration of the track to become a quad-oval. Tara Place was fully completed in November of that year, with 32 of the 46 condos being sold. In August 1995, a new grandstand was constructed, adding 21,000 permanent seats. The reconfiguration started a year and a half later, turning the track from a 1.52 mi true oval into a 1.54 mi quad-oval. The decision at the time drew criticism from drivers, including Dale Earnhardt, John Andretti, and Johnny Benson Jr. The renovation itself cost $30 million and added 37,000 seats, a 1/4 mi oval for legends car racing within the track's frontstretch, 44 luxury suites, and upgraded garages. The first tire tests on the new surface were run in September by Bill Elliott, and it held its first races in November. In July 2005, a F2 tornado caused by the remnants of Hurricane Cindy hit the facility, causing an estimated $40 million in damage to the facility's grandstands, condominium complex, and other amenities. The racing surface, however, was not affected, and cars were able to test on the facility in early August. The next year, developers demolished the backstretch Weaver Grandstands, converting it to a motorhome parking lot. To replace it, developers built a new portion of grandstands on the frontstretch, adding new suites on top of the newly-built Winners Grandstand. With the addition, seating was expanded to 113,000. Four years later, the track lost one of its NASCAR Cup Series race weekends to Kentucky Speedway, another track that Bruton Smith owned. Throughout the 2010s, AMS made gradual decreases to capacity; by 2015, capacity decreased to 71,000 according to NBC Sports. Further decreases were made in early 2018, when an unspecified number of seats were torn down in order to construct a hospitality area. Later that year, Clark stepped down from his position as general manager, handing it over to assistant general manager Brandon Hutchison.

Entertainment complex proposal, 2021 repave
In late 2019, Clark announced a proposal to build a $1 billion entertainment complex if the state of Georgia legalized gambling. A hearing in the Georgia House of Representatives was scheduled in January 2020, with the Henry County Board of Commissioners later voting in favor a statement of approval for a statewide referendum on the issue on the 21st. However, the bill, now titled Senate Resolution 841, was viewed as a long shot; SR 841 needed a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Georgia General Assembly along with a popular vote, with Georgia historically holding a hardline stance on anti-gambling due to religious influence. In March 2021, the proposal saw revived support when Georgia saw increased support for online sports betting, with Clark now campaigning to legalize gambling. However, by 2022, although Hutchison and Clark maintained they were still campaigning for the legalization of gambling and were still in support of building the complex, support for it essentially stagnated.

Clark announced his retirement from his position of president in December 2019 which took effect in March 2020, ending a 27-year reign and giving complete control to Hutchison. After Clark's retirement, SMI CEO Marcus Smith hinted an upcoming repave and possible reconfiguration back to the original oval configuration if the entertainment complex proposal passed. On July 6, 2021, a repave and subsequent reconfiguration was officially announced; the first repave since 1997. Banking was increased in the turns by four degrees to a total of 28 degrees, and the racing surface was narrowed to produce a style of racing similar to superspeedway pack racing. The decision was met with criticism from drivers such as Denny Hamlin, Kevin Harvick, and Kyle Busch; particularly on accusations of a lack of driver input from SMI leadership. The repave was completed in late December, and the first tire tests took place the next month.

NASCAR
Since the track's inaugural season of racing in 1960, the facility has held two annual NASCAR Cup Series weekends per year for most of its history: the Ambetter Health 400 and the Quaker State 400. The former, traditionally called the Dixie 500, was initially a 300 mi race that was scheduled to first run in late 1959. However, after bad weather plagued the track's construction, the first race was delayed until June 1960. The next year, the race distance increased to 400 mi. In 1966, it was again increased, this time to 500 mi. Until 2009, the race was held sometime in the fall; that year, it was moved to Labor Day weekend. Six years later, it was moved to the spring. In 2023, the distance was reduced back to 400 miles.

The latter, traditionally called the Atlanta 500, was first run in 1960. The race ran annually in the spring until 2011, when the race was moved to the Bruton Smith-owned Kentucky Speedway. Ten years later, the second race was reinstated to the schedule, this time taking a race weekend in the month of July. Along with its Cup Series races, the track also hosts lower-tier NASCAR Xfinity Series and NASCAR Truck Series races.

In 1986, the facility held a one-off iteration of The Winston (now known as the NASCAR All-Star Race), which had originally meant to be a race that rotated facilities annually. However, after lackluster attendance, the race became stationary at its main home, the Charlotte Motor Speedway.

IndyCar
In January 1961, the track confirmed dates for a USAC-sanctioned race in July with Indianapolis-style cars. However, after a frightened Eddie Sachs performed tire tests that saw average lap speeds over 150 mph, USAC decided to cancel the race, with Henry Banks claiming that modifications to the track to accommodate USAC cars had not been made and that asphalt surface readings were at unsafe temperatures; up to 140 F. Track president at the time, Nelson Weaver, later questioned the authenticity of Sachs' fears and put out a statement that criticized USAC officials. Four years later, Weaver began renewed talks with USAC to host a race; this time, USAC awarded a race weekend in September. The race ran again the next year. In the 1970s and 1980s, Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART) also raced at the facility.

In 1997, the Indy Racing League (IRL) announced plans to race a 500 km race at the facility, starting in 1998. The race lasted for four years; the race was removed from the IRL schedule by the 2002 season.

Other events and uses
The facility on numerous occasions has been used as an evacuee center in the event of hurricanes, including Hurricane Irma in 2017, Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael in 2018, Hurricane Dorian in 2019, Hurricane Ian in 2022, and Hurricane Idalia in 2023.

In 2021, the Atlanta Marathon ran a one-off event at the facility due to COVID-19 restrictions. That same year, America's Got Talent: Extreme filmed its first season at the facility.

Movie production
The facility has been used in the production of numerous films. It was first used for movie production in 1962 movie Thundering Wheels, with driver Jack Smith being featured in the movie. Since, the facility has been used for the 1980 film Smokey and the Bandit II, the 1982 Daniel Petrie-directed Six Pack, and the 1983 Hal Needham-directed Stroker Ace. In recent years, the 2017 film Logan Lucky used the facility as a stand-in for the Charlotte Motor Speedway.

Lap records
As of February 2024, the fastest official race lap records at the Atlanta Motor Speedway are listed as:

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

title: Atlanta Motor Speedway


text:
Uniquely colorable graph

In graph theory, a uniquely colorable graph is a $k$-chromatic graph that has only one possible (proper) $k$-coloring up to permutation of the colors. Equivalently, there is only one way to partition its vertices into $k$ independent sets and there is no way to partition them into $k − 1$ independent sets.

Examples
A complete graph is uniquely colorable, because the only proper coloring is one that assigns each vertex a different color.

Every k-tree is uniquely (k + 1)-colorable. The uniquely 4-colorable planar graphs are known to be exactly the Apollonian networks, that is, the planar 3-trees.

Every connected bipartite graph is uniquely 2-colorable. Its 2-coloring can be obtained by choosing a starting vertex arbitrarily, coloring the vertices at even distance from the starting vertex with one color, and coloring the vertices at odd distance from the starting vertex with the other color.

Properties
Some properties of a uniquely k-colorable graph G with n vertices and m edges:
 * 1) m ≥ (k - 1) n - k(k-1)/2.

Minimal imperfection
A minimal imperfect graph is a graph in which every subgraph is perfect. The deletion of any vertex from a minimal imperfect graph leaves a uniquely colorable subgraph.

Unique edge colorability
A uniquely edge-colorable graph is a k-edge-chromatic graph that has only one possible (proper) k-edge-coloring up to permutation of the colors. The only uniquely 2-edge-colorable graphs are the paths and the cycles. For any k, the stars K1,k are uniquely k-edge-colorable. Moreover, conjectured and  proved that, when k ≥ 4, they are also the only members in this family. However, there exist uniquely 3-edge-colorable graphs that do not fit into this classification, such as the graph of the triangular pyramid.

If a cubic graph is uniquely 3-edge-colorable, it must have exactly three Hamiltonian cycles, formed by the edges with two of its three colors, but some cubic graphs with only three Hamiltonian cycles are not uniquely 3-edge-colorable. Every simple planar cubic graph that is uniquely 3-edge-colorable contains a triangle, but observed that  the generalized Petersen graph G(9,2) is non-planar, triangle-free, and uniquely 3-edge-colorable. For many years it was the only known such graph, and it had been conjectured to be the only such graph but now infinitely many triangle-free non-planar cubic uniquely 3-edge-colorable graphs are known.

Unique total colorability
A uniquely total colorable graph is a k-total-chromatic graph that has only one possible (proper) k-total-coloring up to permutation of the colors.

Empty graphs, paths, and cycles of length divisible by 3 are uniquely total colorable graphs. conjectured that they are also the only members in this family.

Some properties of a uniquely k-total-colorable graph G with n vertices: Here χ″(G) is the total chromatic number; Δ(G) is the maximum degree; and δ(G) is the minimum degree.
 * 1) χ″(G) = Δ(G) + 1 unless G = K2.
 * 2) Δ(G) ≤ 2 δ(G).
 * 3) Δ(G) ≤ n/2 + 1.

title: Uniquely colorable graph


text:
Zhongzheng District

Zhongzheng District (also Jhongjheng District ) is a district in Taipei, Taiwan. Taipei Main Station is located in the district. It is home to most of the national government buildings of Taiwan.

Overview
The district is named after former President of Taiwan Chiang Kai-shek. This district has many cultural and educational sites including the Taipei Botanical Garden, the National Taiwan Museum, the National Museum of History, the National Central Library, National Theater and Concert Hall and the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute. Other museums include the Chunghwa Postal Museum, the Taipei City Traffic Museum for Children, and the Taipei Museum of Drinking Water. Much of the Qing-era city of Taipeh lies within this district.

High School and college students frequent the area immediately south of the Taipei Main Station. This area has a high concentration of bookstores, cram schools, learning centers, private tutoring centers and test-prep centers.

History
The district was formed in 1990 after the merging of Chengzhong District (城中區) and Guting District (古亭區).

Cultural institutions and museums

 * Evergreen Maritime Museum
 * Guling Street Avant-garde Theatre
 * Insect Science Museum
 * Mayor's Residence Art Salon
 * Museum of Drinking Water
 * Museum of Medical Humanities
 * Nanhai Academy
 * National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall
 * National Central Library
 * National Museum of History
 * National Taiwan Museum
 * National Theater and Concert Hall
 * Republic of China Armed Forces Museum
 * Republic of China Presidential Museum
 * Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute
 * Wellspring Theater

Government institutions

 * Presidential Office Building
 * Executive Yuan
 * Legislative Yuan
 * Judicial Yuan
 * Control Yuan
 * Ministry of Culture
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 * Ministry of the Interior
 * Ministry of Economic Affairs
 * Ministry of Finance
 * Ministry of Education
 * Ministry of Transportation and Communications
 * Ministry of Justice
 * Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
 * Supreme Court of the Republic of China
 * Taiwan High Court
 * Youth Development Administration
 * Central Weather Bureau
 * National Immigration Agency
 * National Police Agency
 * National Development Council
 * Bureau of Audiovisual and Music Industry Development
 * Bureau of Foreign Trade
 * Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection
 * Centers for Disease Control
 * Consumer Protection Committee
 * Political Warfare Bureau
 * Forestry Bureau
 * Agriculture and Food Agency
 * Taiwan Forestry Research Institute
 * Taiwan Railways Administration

Historic sites

 * Taipei City Walls
 * Zhongshan Hall
 * Taipei Post Office Building
 * Taiwan Education Association Building
 * 228 Peace Memorial Park
 * Taipei Guest House
 * National Taiwan Museum
 * Monopoly Bureau Building
 * Bank of Taiwan Building
 * Treasure Hill
 * Qidong Street Japanese Houses (Taipei Qin Hall)
 * Remains of Taipei prison walls
 * Shandao Temple
 * Taiwan Provincial City God Temple
 * Taipei Cultural Mosque
 * Huashan 1914 Creative Park
 * Cafe Astoria
 * Qing Dynasty Taiwan Provincial Administration Hall
 * Li Kwoh-ting's Residence
 * Sun Yun-suan Memorial Museum
 * Thome Courtyard

Universities and colleges

 * University of Taipei
 * National Taiwan University School of Law and School of Medicine
 * National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Peimen Campus
 * Soochow University Downtown Campus (Soochow University School of Law)
 * Chinese Culture University Bo'ai Campus
 * Chung Hua University Taipei Campus
 * National Taipei College of Business

Primary and secondary schools
High schools:
 * Taipei Municipal Jianguo High School
 * Cheng Kung Senior High School
 * Taipei First Girls' High School
 * Morrison Academy

Elementary schools:
 * Affiliated Experimental Elementary School of the University of Taipei (ESUT; 臺北市立大學附設實驗國民小學)

Other educational institutions

 * Taipei Ricci Institute
 * Taipei Language Institute
 * Mandarin Daily News
 * Taipei Language Institute

Transportation
Zhongzheng District has the best transportation links of any district in Taipei. It contains Taipei Main Station, a major bus and rail hub. Taipei Main Station is a major stop on the Taiwan Railway Administration's Western Line, and the Taiwan High Speed Rail. The Red Line, Blue Line, Orange Line, Green Line of the Taipei Metro and the Airport MRT connect the district, eleven stations are located in the district: Zhongxiao Xinsheng, Shandao Temple, Taipei Main Station, Ximen, Xiaonanmen, National Taiwan University Hospital, Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, Dongmen, Guting, Taipower Building and Gongguan.

Hospitals
Two notable hospitals are in this district. One is the National Taiwan University Hospital. The other is the Taipei Municipal Heping (Hoping) Hospital, which was quarantined for being the center of the SARS outbreak in Taiwan.

Economy
Chunghwa Telecom, and A.mart (Far Eastern Ai Mai) have their headquarters in the district. Pxmart previously had its headquarters in the district.

Markets
Several bazaars and traditional markets are scattered throughout the district. This includes streets and alleys associated either as a camera and photography bazaar, clothing bazaar, and traditional produce markets such as the Dongmen Market and the Nanmen Market. The Gongguan Night Market caters to the students of the National Taiwan University. Shopping malls in the district are Guang Hua Digital Plaza and Syntrend Creative Park.

title: Zhongzheng District


text:
Petrov Affair

The Petrov Affair was a Cold War spy incident in Australia, concerning the defection of Vladimir Petrov, a KGB officer, from the Soviet embassy in Canberra in 1954. The defection led to a Royal Commission and the resulting controversy contributed to the Australian Labor Party split of 1955.

Background
Petrov, despite his relatively junior diplomatic status, was a colonel in (what became in 1954) the KGB, the Soviet secret police, and his wife was an officer at the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). The Petrovs had been sent to the Canberra embassy in 1951 by the Soviet security chief, Lavrentiy Beria. After Joseph Stalin's death in March 1953, Beria had been arrested and shot by Khrushchevites, and Vladimir Petrov evidently feared that, if he returned to the Soviet Union, he would be purged as a "Beria man".

Defection
Petrov made contact with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and offered to provide evidence of Soviet espionage in exchange for political asylum. The defection was arranged by Michael Bialoguski, a Polish doctor and musician, and part-time ASIO agent, who had cultivated Petrov for nearly two years, befriending him and taking him to visit prostitutes in Sydney's King's Cross area. Bialoguski introduced Petrov to a senior ASIO officer, Ron Richards, who offered Petrov asylum plus £5,000 in exchange for all the documents he could bring with him from the embassy. Planning for Petrov's defection was codenamed Operation Cabin 12, after a briefer period of being designated Operation Cabin 11, following the standard practice of referring to potential defectors as "Cabin Candidates". Petrov defected on 3 April 1954.

Evdokia Petrova
Petrov did not tell his wife Evdokia of his intentions; apparently he planned to defect without her. After falsely claiming that Australian authorities had kidnapped Petrov, the MVD sent two couriers to Australia to fetch Evdokia Petrova. Word of this leaked out and on 19 April there were violent anti-Communist demonstrations at Sydney Airport as Evdokia Petrova was escorted by the KGB men to the aircraft. On the plane, on radioed instructions from Prime Minister Robert Menzies, a flight attendant asked her if she was happy being escorted back to the USSR, but she did not give a clear answer, as she was racked with indecision – defection could have severe consequences for her family in the USSR. Menzies decided that he could not allow her to be removed in this way, and when the aircraft stopped for refuelling at Darwin Airport, she was seized from the MVD men by ASIO officials. (In order to separate Petrova from the MVD, the ASIO officials confronted them on the grounds that they were carrying arms, which it was illegal to do on an aircraft.) The ASIO officials offered Petrova asylum, which she accepted, after speaking to her husband by phone. By now it was the early hours of 20 April 1954.

These dramatic events were flashed around the world giving immediate sense to a world public of the real life drama that was at pitch and occurring. The photos of Evdokia Petrova being rough-handled by KGB agents at Sydney Airport and her agonised last-moment decision to defect with her husband, made at Darwin Airport, have become iconic Australian images of the 1950s.

Royal Commission
The affair grew more dramatic when Menzies told the House of Representatives that Petrov had brought with him documents concerning Soviet espionage in Australia. He announced that a Royal Commission would investigate the matter, the Royal Commission on Espionage. Petrov's documents were shown to the commission members, though they were never made public. The documents were alleged to provide evidence of an extensive Soviet spy ring in Australia, and named (among many others), two staff members of the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Dr. H. V. Evatt, during proceedings. Evatt, a former justice of the High Court of Australia and the third President of the United Nations General Assembly, appeared before the Royal Commission as counsel for his staff members. His cross-examination of a key ASIO operative transformed the commission's hearings and greatly perturbed the government. Almost immediately, the Royal Commission simply withdrew Evatt's leave to appear. Evatt alleged that the judges of the commission were biased towards the Menzies' government in the wake of this unprecedented denial of his right to appear.

Another person who was questioned at length (over a week) about his activities and associations was Ric Throssell, a diplomat and former adviser to Evatt. His mother, the writer Katharine Susannah Prichard, was a committed Communist, and it was strongly suggested he had at least inadvertently, if not wittingly, given her classified information, as well as actively spying for the Soviet Union. The final report did not uphold these charges, but his career from then on was blighted by these suspicions.

Aftermath and legacy
As a result of the defections, the Australian embassy staff in Moscow was expelled and the USSR embassy staff in Canberra recalled. Diplomatic relations were not re-established until 13 March 1959.

Political repercussions
The defections came shortly before the 1954 federal election. Evatt accused Menzies of having arranged the defections to coincide with the election, for the benefit of the incumbent Liberal Party.

According to some, partly as a result of the Petrov Affair, Menzies was successful at the election, which Labor had been widely expected to win. The Royal Commission continued for the rest of 1954 and uncovered some evidence of espionage for the Soviet Union by some members and supporters of the Communist Party of Australia during and immediately after World War II, but no-one was ever charged with an offence as a result of the commission's work and no major spy ring was uncovered. (No one was charged for various reasons: one was given immunity from prosecution, others who had handled documents had not technically broken the law, one was in Prague and remained there, and evidence against others could not be presented because it would reveal that Western intelligence services had broken Soviet codes).

Evatt's loss of the election and his belief that Menzies had conspired with ASIO to contrive Petrov's defection led to criticism within the Labor Party of his decision to appear before the Royal Commission. He compounded this by writing to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, asking if allegations of Soviet espionage in Australia were true. When Molotov replied, denying the allegations, Evatt read the letter out in Parliament, inviting amazement and ridicule from his opponents.

Evatt's actions aroused the anger of the right wing of the Labor Party, influenced by the Catholic anti-Communism of B. A. Santamaria and his clandestine "Movement". Evatt came to believe that the Movement was also part of the conspiracy against him, and publicly denounced Santamaria and his supporters in October 1954, leading to a major split in the Labor Party, which did not win office again until 1972.

Fate of the Petrovs
The Petrovs, having been given political asylum, were eventually settled in suburban Melbourne under the names Sven and Anna Allyson, and given a pension. Prior to this, they spent an 18-month period in a safe house in Palm Beach, Sydney, with the then ASIO officer Michael Thwaites, who ghost-wrote their memoirs, published in 1956 as Empire of Fear.

They lived in relative obscurity for the rest of their lives. The press was formally requested by the Department of Defence, by way of a D-Notice, not to reveal their identities or whereabouts, but this was not always honoured. Vladimir died in 1991 and Evdokia in 2002.

Retrospection
The belief that there had been a "Petrov conspiracy" became an article of faith in the Labor Party and on the left generally for many years, although even pro-Labor historians acknowledged that Evatt's eccentric conduct had contributed greatly to the Labor split. The "left" version of the Petrov story was given in 1974 in Nest of Traitors: The Petrov Affair, by Nicholas Whitlam (son of Gough Whitlam, who was Labor Prime Minister at the time of publication) and John Stubbs. This book was written without access to classified documents.

Menzies always denied that he had had advance knowledge of Petrov's defection, although he did not deny that he had exploited it and Cold War anti-Communist sentiment. Colonel Charles Spry, head of ASIO at the time, when interviewed after his retirement, maintained that, although it had taken some months of negotiations to bring about Petrov's defection, he had not told Menzies about these negotiations and that the timing of the defection had no connection to the elections.

In 1984, the ASIO files on Petrov and the records of the Royal Commission were made available to historians. In 1987, the historian Robert Manne published The Petrov Affair: Politics and Espionage, which gave the first full account of the affair. He showed that Evatt's suspicions were unfounded, that Menzies and Spry had been telling the truth, that there had been no conspiracy, and that Evatt's own conduct had been mainly responsible for subsequent political events.

But Manne also showed that although there had been some Soviet espionage in Australia, there was no major Soviet spy ring, and that most of the documents given by Petrov to ASIO contained little more than political gossip which could have been compiled by any journalist. This included the notorious "Document J", which had been written by Rupert Lockwood, a member of the Communist Party of Australia expressing his beliefs on the matter. Page 35 of the document sourced the information to Evatt's staffers, Fergan O’Sullivan, Albert Grundeman, and Allan Dalziel. Evatt insisted that page 35 was misinformation added specifically to damage the Australian Labor Party. He managed to prove that his staff had not authored the document. The Royal Commission concluded that Document J was entirely Lockwood's work.

Fictional works
The Petrov Affair has inspired a number of fictional works, many of which have won awards.
 * The Hunted One (1954) - radio serial
 * The Case of Colonel Petrov (1956) - episode of American series Armstrong Circle Theatre
 * Defection! The Case of Colonel Petrov (1968) - a British television play
 * The Petrov Affair, a 1987 television mini-series.
 * True Believers (1988) - Australian mini series that touches on the Affair
 * The Red Shoe, a novel by Ursula Dubosarsky, which won the New South Wales Premier's Literary Award and the Queensland Premier's Literary Award in 2006.
 * Mrs Petrov's Shoe, a play by Noelle Janaczewska, which won the Queensland Premier's Literary Award for drama in 2006.
 * The Safe House, an animation by Lee Whitmore, narrated by Noni Hazlehurst, which won Best Animation at the Sydney Film Festival 2006.
 * Document Z, a novel by Andrew Croome, which won the Australian/Vogel Literary Award in 2008.
 * The Petrov Poems, a 2013 verse-novel by Lesley Lebkowicz. This book was shortlisted for the 2014 ACT Book of the Year Award and won the 2014 ACT Writing and Publishing Awards: Poetry Book Category.

title: Petrov Affair


text:
Wikipedia talk:GFDL upgrade

I moved this talk page from Wikipedia talk:Creative commons migration since that one didn't have an article with it and this one didn't have a talk page with it, and because the discussion below on being compatible with the CC is related to moving to a new version of the GFDL. The discussion started on the Village pump. Angela. 14:26, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Orginal post
Okay, new Creative Commons migration plan. No horrendous programming involved. For a list of reasons why I think migrating toward dual liscensing under both the Creative Commons and the GFDL is a Good Thing, please visit my user page.

Then:
 * 1) Proceed with the getting permission phase. For those just tuning in, this consists of:
 * 2) Changing the submission copyright notice so new, post-changeover material will be released under both Creative Commons and GFDL.
 * 3) Presenting registered users with a dialog box at their next login asking for permission to release pre-changeover submitted material under the Creative Commons (in addition to the GFDL).
 * 4) The Wikimedia Foundation agrees to release material contributed by it under the Creative Commons.
 * 5) Mark in the page histories which versions were submitted by dual-licensers, and which were submitted GFDL-only. The CC and GFDL (or GNU) logos would be a good marker.
 * 6) Also mark all versions before the first GFDL-only version with a “This version is licensed in its entirety under both the Creative Commons and GFDL.” notice.
 * 7) Mark all versions after the first GFDL-only version and before the first “liberated” version with a “This version may contain material that is only available under the GFDL.” notice.
 * 8) If an article has never had a GFDL-only submission, have a copyright notice in the article saying “This article is available under both the Creative Commons and the GFDL” or something to that effect.
 * 9) Wait a month or so to give time for registered users to give their permission.
 * 1) If an article has had a GFDL-only submission in its history, have a link in the article saying “Portions of this article maybe available under the Creative Commons. Click here for a Creative Commons compatible version.”
 * 2) The Creative Commons compatible page will be “seeded” with the last version of the article that hasn't been tainted by a GFDL-only submission.
 * 3) If the first version of the article was GFDL-only, the page will start off blank.
 * 4) This will effectively fork the article.
 * 5) In addition to the usual submission copyright notice, add a line like this: “This submission contains no material that is licensed solely under the GFDL.”
 * 6) Users can then manually add CC-licensed material from later versions of the article.
 * 7) When the Creative Commons compatible version is just as good as the original version, replace the original article with the CC version.
 * 8) Since the exact moment when the CC version is just as good as the original is a matter of opinion, I suggest that registered users should report candidates to the sysops, who will then do the actual replacing.
 * 9) Mark this version and all later versions in the page history with the “This version is licensed in its entirety...” note.
 * 10) Have a "This version is available under both the Creative..." notice in the now liberated article.

Does anybody see any problems with this plan?

Crazyeddie 00:58, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Cyrius

 * I may be reading this wrong, but doesn't it mean we have to start over from scratch? -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:16, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm now regretting not putting in a bit more of an introduction. I left off a lot of intro material in the interets of brevity. Anyway... Starting over from scratch is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. This plan would fork articles that might contain GFDL-only material into a regular (GFDL only) and Creative Commons + GFDL versions until they could be combined. Crazyeddie 01:49, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * You realize that "articles that might contain GFDL-only material" is nearly synonymous with "every article on the entire site", right? -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:23, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, brother, am I ever. The CC fork would be reverted back to the first version that would be CC compatiable. By what I mean by CC compatiable, read down. Crazyeddie 02:34, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Dori

 * It's not going to happen, many users have just plainly left. What about anons? What about permissions already obtained from other sites? Dori | Talk 01:19, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Anons and registered users who haven't yet give permission, or users that have refused permission would be considered "GFDL-onlies" whose submissions would have to be worked around. I'm not sure what you mean by permissions already obtained from other sites. If it helps, a user who has submitted GFDL material that's copyrighted by someone else would have to refuse permission. In theory, they could give permission for each individual permission, but I think it would be better to just count them out entirely. Crazyeddie 01:58, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * I believe Dori is speaking about the materials brought from outside with permission to use them under the terms of GFDL. They will remain GFDL, not dual licensed, unless someone contact the original copyright holder and get a new permission. Tomos 00:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

RikK
Several objections:
 * Presenting registered users with a dialog box at their next login asking for permission to release pre-changeover submitted material under the Creative Commons (in addition to the GFDL).
 * Some people, such as myself, don't ever log out, so would never see this unless their cookie was somehow damaged.

 * The Wikimedia Foundation agrees to release material contributed by it under the Creative Commons.
 * Why would they do that?

 * Mark in the page histories which versions were submitted by dual-licensers, and which were submitted GFDL-only. The CC and GFDL (or GNU) logos would be a good marker
 * How do you plan on doing that? Manually?  And what if the "version" consists of a one-character minor change?

 * Also mark all versions before the first GFDL-only version with a “This version is licensed in its entirety under both the Creative Commons and GFDL.” notice.
 * What is the first GFDL-only version? The current Wikipedia, as we speak, is GFDL.  There is no first version.

 * Mark all versions after the first GFDL-only version and before the first “liberated” version with a “This version may contain material that is only available under the GFDL.” notice.
 * What does "liberated" mean? And what if the article is GFDL only?  Do you somehow make it unviewable?  And why would you do that?

 * If an article has had a GFDL-only submission in its history, have a link in the article saying “Portions of this article maybe available under the Creative Commons. Click here for a Creative Commons compatible version.”
 * I still don't see how you plan on splitting the different edits out.

 * The Creative Commons compatible page will be “seeded” with the last version of the article that hasn't been tainted by a GFDL-only submission.
 * I find the use of the term "tainted" highly offensive, and suggest you re-think not only your terminology, but your entire idea as to why you think this entire, man-hours intensive project is a good idea.

 * If the first version of the article was GFDL-only, the page will start off blank.
 * STRONGLY oppose. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not the "Creative Commons Wikipedia."

 * Since the exact moment when the CC version is just as good as the original is a matter of opinion, I suggest that registered users should report candidates to the sysops, who will then do the actual replacing.
 * Nice of you to volunteer the immense amount of work involved for us sysops to do.

As you may see from my above comments, I see no good coming of this project and must ask once again, just WHY do you think this is needed? RickK 01:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Crazyeddie's Reply to RikK

 * Okay.... You bring up a number of good points, but I guess I better start out with a general declaration of principles. First off, I believe that the entire reason that the Wikipedia didn't start out under the Creative Commons from Day 1 is that it simply wasn't invented yet. The GFDL was simply the best available at the time. I have nothing against GFDL myself, but I'm told that if a outside agency wishes to use a Wikipedia article under the GFDL, they would have to attach 12 pages of legalese along with a 1-2 page article.

 * The new wikis that have been inspired by the Wikipedia have looked at the copyright choices, and by and large, have chosen Creative Commons, even though this means they have to work completely from scratch! For example, the LQwiki, which I contribute to, is having to write an article on Richard Stallman from scratch, even though there is a mature, multi-page Wikipedia article, whose creators, in all likely-hood, would love for us to use. (This initative is not sponsered by the LQwiki BTW, it's all my stupid idea.)

 * Essentially, I feel that the Creative Commons better reflects the spirit and intent of the average Wikipedian than the GFDL, and that the sole reason for the use of the GFDL is historical. Further, if the Wikipedia doesn't migrate toward Creative Commons, than the Wikipedia's work will have to be reduplicated from scratch. There is even the possibility that the Wikipedia may fork. Almost any thing will be less work than having to make the Wikipedia all over again. Crazyeddie 02:08, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * Now on to your individual points:

 * Presenting registered users with a dialog box at their next login asking for permission to release pre-changeover submitted material under the Creative Commons (in addition to the GFDL). Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * Some people, such as myself, don't ever log out, so would never see this unless their cookie was somehow damaged. RickK

 * This is a minor technical difficulty. Is there anyway to force users to logoff? (Sorry if this seems dismissive. It's just that I think that it's too early to worry much about questions like this while big ones like "Why are we doing this again?" Still need to be answered.) Crazyeddie

 * The Wikimedia Foundation agrees to release material contributed by it under the Creative Commons. Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * Why would they do that? RickK

 * Maybe I should expand this a mite: "The Wikimedia Foundation agrees to release Wikipedia content that it created itself into the Creative Commons." By this I mean such things as the US city articles created by Rambot. (I'm assuming that Rambot was created by the Wikimedia people.) The main reason why the Wikipedia has not already migrated to Creative Commons is that the individual contributors, not the Wikimedia Foundation, holds copyright. All this means is that they agree to release whatever content that they hold copyright into the Creative Commons. If they don't wish to agree to a simple thing like that, then this whole plan is moot. As for why they would want to do this, see the "general declaration of principles". Crazyeddie

 * The Rambot data was added by Ram-Man. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't own a significant amount of intellectual property. It owns Jimbo's edits, probably Larry Sanger's edits, and perhaps some of Tim Shell's. -- Tim Starling 04:30, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also mark all versions before the first GFDL-only version with a “This version is licensed in its entirety under both the Creative Commons and GFDL.” notice. Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * What is the first GFDL-only version? The current Wikipedia, as we speak, is GFDL. There is no first version. RickK

 * By first GFDL-only version, I mean "the first (by first, I mean by earliest date of submission) version of an article that was submitted by someone not in the CC-permission database and was submitted before the CC changeover date. Every version after that, until the remerging with the CC fork could contain material that is liscensed only under the GFDL. Crazyeddie

Cyrius

 * Which means we have to start over to achieve dual licensing. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:50, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I think this fork method will work. I'm just trying to iron out the bugs.Crazyeddie 02:57, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * If you have to "fork" all the way back to the first non-GFDL-only version, you're going back to a blank page for nearly all of the pages in Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:01, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * This forking would start sometime after the inital phase of the changeover. (I said a month.) By this time, most registered users who are going to do so would have given permission for their previously submitted work to be released under the Creative Commons. So the only versions that are GFDL-only would have been submitted by anons, or users who have not given permission or have refused permission. I believe that a majority of versions by that point will be CC+GFDL. So most articles in the fork would have something in them, but it would be a very earlier version of the article.Crazyeddie 03:12, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * My experience looking at page histories says that we'd have to throw away an enormous amount of work to go all the way back to before anon edits. It just won't work. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:16, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * From where I sit, either we fork the articles or we fork the project. Manually copy and pasting already existing, CC+GFDL material is less work then creating the same material from scratch. And this work would be done mainly by those who need the material under the CC. Unless the lawyers work out away for GFDL material to be released under CC, I'll keep trying to think of a way to make this as easy as possible. Crazyeddie 03:29, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Crazyeddie's reply continued

 * Mark all versions after the first GFDL-only version and before the first “liberated” version with a “This version may contain material that is only available under the GFDL.” notice. Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * What does "liberated" mean? And what if the article is GFDL only? Do you somehow make it unviewable? And why would you do that? RickK

 * By liberated, I mean the first version where the CC+GFDL fork remerges with the orginal GFDL-only fork. The GFDL-only versions will still be visible, even after the remerging (through the page histories). All this messages means is that you can't use material from this particular version of the article under the Creative Commons. You can still use it under the GFDL. Crazyeddie

 * If an article has had a GFDL-only submission in its history, have a link in the article saying “Portions of this article maybe available under the Creative Commons. Click here for a Creative Commons compatible version.” Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * I still don't see how you plan on splitting the different edits out. RickK

 * Hmmm, that should be "if a version of an article has had a previous GFDL-only submission,...." The link would go to a seperate wiki page- the CC+GFDL fork. I guess a good place to put it would be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC_GFDL_fork/ This fork page, at first, would be the first version of the article before the GFDL-only material was submitted. Users then could add CC+GFDL material from later versions manually. I hope that explains it. Crazyeddie

 * If the first version of the article was GFDL-only, the page will start off blank. Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * STRONGLY oppose. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not the "Creative Commons Wikipedia." RickK

 * The only reason I can see for you to get this angry is if you think I mean that the main, regular, GFDL-only article would be blanked. I'm only talking about the forked CC+GFDL article which most people will never see. Crazyeddie

Cyrius

 * You mean the start-from-(almost-)scratch CC+GFDL article. This is looking like a worse and worse idea. Even if you got the majority of active logged-in users to retroactively agree, and even if you wrote software to handle chopping out the singly-licensed bits, you would still have to go through 90+% of articles manually to rewrite them back into a coherent state. It simply will not work. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:45, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * The only thing I can say in defense, is that it's the only way I've come up with to get wikipedia content released into the Creative Commons besides waiting for the FSF and CC lawyers to solve it, which I'm not sure can be done. Crazyeddie 03:54, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * The only way that this idea would work would be if a version of the GFDL were to come out which explicitly cited the CC license as an equivalent license. (And what license would it be, anyway?) That would allow the cross-licensing to occur legally. Otherwise, it's a violation of the GFDL, and just too much trouble to manage the fork, with too much immediate chaos, for too little gain. And I'm unconvinced that the CC license is better suited to Wikipedia - the GFDL is really the revolutionary license. Others just followed along. Snowspinner 03:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've long wondered, if a version of the GFDL came out that was compatable with the CC, would older versions still be compatabile with the new GFDL? That's one reason I'm not willing to wait for the lawyers. Crazyeddie 03:54, 2004 May 24 (UTC)~

 * In defense of this incarnation of the forking idea, the ones who would be doing the grunt labor (manually readding CC+GFDL material) would be the ones who need the CC material. Of course, managing the damn thing would be a royal hairball in and of itself. My main purpose at this point is not to suggest any single solution, but to at least get people thinking about reliscensing. Crazyeddie 04:15, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

 * The difference between the two liscenses is really too subtle for me. The only reason I care is because the difference is just enough to seriously impact other wikis' work. I agree the GFDL, since it came first, was truly revolutionary. However, isn't it possible that later liscenses, following in the GFDL's path, might have done a better job? Crazyeddie 04:19, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Crazyeddie's Reply continued

 * Since the exact moment when the CC version is just as good as the original is a matter of opinion, I suggest that registered users should report candidates to the sysops, who will then do the actual replacing. Crazyeddie's orginal post

 * Nice of you to volunteer the immense amount of work involved for us sysops to do. RickK

 * I do apologize for that. It does seem to be the nature of sysops for work to be dumped on them, doesn't it. This was only one alternative among several that occured to me. The problem is that remerging the two forks will not be a simple decision to be taken lightly. If it's done too soon, somebody will revert to a previous, GFDL-only version, or inject GFDL-only material. However, like the "some people don't logoff" problem though, the exact solution to this problem can wait until the bigger issues of this project are settled. Crazyeddie 03:54, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Well that's the best I can do for now. Crazyeddie 03:54, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

I've added sections and indicated who was talking where in my rather massive reply. I'm going to take one last look over, then go off to recover from this. Crazyeddie 04:09, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

You'll forgive me thinking that perhaps the cure is worse than the disease. After all, Wikipedia has no invariant sections, front cover texts or back cover texts, so the freedom of redistribution is not limited in that sense. It's true that distributing a paper copy of a single article would require the 5-page license to be attached. But compared to what you're proposing, printing GFDL licenses seems pretty trivial. -- Tim Starling 04:59, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the only realistic way to do this is to work with the FSF and try to get a more compatible future version of the GFDL; preferably one which doesn't require a copy of the license with every page, but just a link to it. Wiping the majority of our articles because they are not dual licensed is certainly not an acceptable solution. Angela. 16:11, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

It might be worth building List of dual-licencing Wikipedians so that we have a minimal list of people who go for this if this if it ever happened. That list current consists of at the very least AxelBoldt (public domain), Jamesday (lots of licences) and me (cc-sa). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There's one at Guide to the CC dual-license. Angela. 00:39, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I recently said on WikiEN-l:

What we really need is a GNU FDL 2.0 with a clause stating something to the effect of "Any documents licensed under the GNU FDL 2.0 or any later version with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts can also be licensed under the GNU Free Content License."

The GNU Free Content License would in turn be made to be compatible with a future version of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike License and would have no provision for the evil Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts (although those could still be added by transferring FCL content back to the FDL, but once that is done, that version would be locked into the FDL).

If we had a hand in drafting the GNU FCL, then we could ensure that it could be friendly to all content and more lax in what needs to be done in order to comply (requiring pretty much what we require for compliance - which happens to be a *very* liberal interpretation of the GNU FDL in order to make is practical for people to copy us).

The GNU FDL is a complicated mess. The sooner we can be free of it, the better. IMO.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

It is simply not possible to have the many thousands of people who have contributed to this project all agree to dual license their work. Most of those people we simply cannot contact (esp anons) and many others will not care to go through the bother. Even attempting to seriously do this would cause great harm to the project: We simply could not mix GNU FDL only text with dual licensed text in any article so we would have to start a project fork with the old Wikipedia being one prong and the tiny number of dual licensed articles being the other. Work would have to stop on the GFDL-only Wikipedia.

We could also only import dual licensed text into the project and downstream users would have to choose to use one, and only one, license when they copy our text (that is how licenses work). Thus we would be in the very odd situation of not being able to re-incorporate any improvements made outside of Wikipedia unless those improvements are also dual licensed in the same way. Kinda counter the the whole idea of free content if you ask me.

It is simply not at all possible to get out the GNU FDL any other way than to take advantage of the "or later version" clause of our license. That allows us the ability to work with the FSF to make a GNU FDL 2.0 with an out clause - possibly to a license better suited to our needs. --mav 06:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * People who release under "1.2 or later versions" have a (moral, at least) right to expect that any later versions would be substantially similar. Because we would be restricting attention to the "no invariants" body of work, it is just possible that the FSF might see a licence like you propose as a "substantially similar". Are there any formal plans afoot to lobby them? I guess Jimbo's input is important as he has the relationship with RMS. Do we know that he wants to see something like this? We must know what the FSF thinks, and the sooner the better, even we have to risk having the door slammed shut. That would be better than having a door that's slightly ajar letting in a chink of light that we can't go through. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems there are plans. Jimbo said on IRC earlier this month: "It is planned for me to meet with Larry Lessig in Berlin to try to work on that issue... Well, what I am seeking is a few changes to GNU FDL 2.0 which will simplify things and resolve some compatibility issues... RMS has made general friendly noises about that."
 * Angela. 15:53, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds like very good news, time to make a What the ideal GFDL 2.0 would do for us for Jimbo to have in mind when he goes to Berlin? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Having the license changed is part of my platform. --mav

 * Well it is nice to have several strong candidates in an election (sadly it is often quite the opposite here in governmental politics!). Tomos has already asked you to expand on your FCL idea on your questions page, which is what I went there to ask! I agree with the broad brush of your approach, though I think I disagree with how much you want to water down the history section. If I give away my work freely, and one of the five principal authors of an article, I would like to be listed as an author ON the mirrored webpage, not through a backlink to Wikipedia and from there to the history page. Five authors should be one line of text, so it is not an undue burden. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:GFDL upgrade


text:
Crazy Woman Creek

Crazy Woman Creek is a creek in the United States, in Johnson County, Wyoming.

There are several legends about the name. It was the site of a trading post and the site of battles in the American Indian Wars. It was also a locale of the Johnson County War.

An FAA-operated VOR navigation beacon, named after this area, is located about seven miles (12 km) southeast of the creek. Crazy Woman VOR's FAA three-letter station designator is CZI.

The creek that winds and twists for a long distance is large enough that it is broken into three sections, an upper, middle and lower section.

External links and references

 * travel-to-wyoming.com on Crazy Woman Creek
 * More on the battle
 * crazywomantradingco.com

Specific

title: Crazy Woman Creek