text:
Jean François Hamtramck

Jean-François Hamtramck (sometimes called John Francis Hamtramck) (1756–1803) was a New France-born man who served as an officer in the US Army during the American Revolutionary War and the Northwest Indian War. In the Revolution, he participated in the Invasion of Quebec, the Sullivan Expedition, and the Siege of Yorktown. In the history of United States expansion into the Northwest Territory, Hamtramck is connected to 18th century forts at modern Midwest cities such as Steubenville, Vincennes, Fort Wayne, and Detroit. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is named for him.

Life and career
Hamtramck was born in Montreal, Canada (then part of New France). He was the son of Charles David Hamtramck, a barber who had immigrated from Trier, Germany (born in Luxembourg), and Canadian Marie Anne Bertin. Hamtramck was baptized in the Catholic Church in August 1756. By the time the American Revolution came to Canada, he was fluent in French, English, German, and Latin.

Canada
When General Montgomery's forces invaded Canada, the 1st Canadian Regiment under James Livingston was formed. Hamtramck, age 19, joined on 15 September 1775 and was appointed as regimental commissary. He worked closely with Livingston to supply the new regiment, and was with them when Fort Chambly was captured.

As the regiment moved into Quebec, Hamtramck remained in Montreal to gather supplies, and was appointed by Montgomery to deputy commissary in the Continental Army. The United States was defeated and Montgomery killed at the Battle of Quebec, however. Hamtramck helped raise 26 new recruits and was appointed as their captain. However, Moses Hazen filled other units with his recruits and reduced Hamtramck to lieutenant, leading 10 French Canadians in a New Hampshire regiment under Colonel Timothy Bedel.

In this regiment, Hamtramck participated in the Battle of the Cedars. On 19 May 1776, Hamtramck was captured after Lieutenant Isaac Butterfield surrendered to British Captain George Forster. Iroquois warriors with Forster entered the barracks and killed three men, then stole the belongings of the rest. Captain Forster considered the French Canadians to be traitors and ordered them put in irons. Hamtramck protested that he be treated as an officer. Forster released Hamtramck from his shackles, but refused to return his clothing or release the enlisted men. After capturing more prisoners the next day, Forster had them held on the Island of Montreal. In early June, however, Forster was threatened by American forces under Benedict Arnold, and he marched his company and prisoners to Lake St. Lawrence. Finding no room for the prisoners on the boats there, Forster abandoned them on the shore. They soon broke free from their shackles, and Hamtramck led his unclothed men on a 4 day trek to Montreal, arriving on 8 June, as Arnold was evacuating. Hamtramck located Colonel Hazen, who dismissed the French Canadians to return to their homes.

Hamtramck was warned that he would be considered a traitor if captured, so he travelled to the United States with the defeated army. In July 1776, he travelled to Philadelphia to testify before a Congressional committee investigating the losses in Canada. Hamtramck submitted a four page letter describing his experience, in French, to Congress. On 10 August, Congress passed a resolution that both granted "John Hamptrenk" $350 for his services in Canada and recognized his rank as Captain.

New York
Captain Hamtramck settled briefly with other French Canadian refugees in Esopus, New York. When the new 5th New York Regiment was created under Colonel Lewis DuBois, Hamtramck appealed for one of the open company commands. He also received the endorsements of Colonel Livingston and Colonel Peter Gansevoort, among others. On 17 March 1777, the New Nork Committee of Arrangements gave him command of 7th Company, 5th New York Regiment, dated from 21 November 1776. He reported to Fort Montgomery, where Colonel Hazen found him and charged "Lieut. John Hamtramck" of desertion in the Canadian campaign. Hamtramck demanded a court-martial. The charges were reviewed by General Horatio Gates, who found so many inconsistencies in Hazen's charges that he dismissed them and ordered Hamtramck to report to Colonel Dubois.

Hamtramck reported again to Fort Montgomery, then under the command of General George Clinton. The enlisted stationed at Fort Montgomery challenged him as a young, French speaking officer, but he quickly earned a reputation as a strict disciplinarian, which earned him the respect of General (soon Governor) Clinton. That October, he escaped from Fort Montgomery when it was overrun by the British, swinging a broken musket to clear his path. Half the regiment had been captured, however, leaving Hamtramck again without a unit. He found Colonel Dubois and travelled with other escapees to warn Governor Clinton. That November, following British General Burgoyne's surrender, Hamtramck worked to reorganize and supply 7th Company at New Windsor.

In March 1778, Hamtramck was called as a witness in the courts-martial investigations of Generals Putnam and Clinton. That Spring, the regiment was ordered to White Plains. Although Hamtramck remained with his company, he was too ill to report for duty until September. That Winter he distributed a portion of his company supplies to aid survivors of the Cherry Valley massacre.

In 1779, Hamtramck led his depleted company in the Sullivan Expedition. On 29 August, Hamtramck fought in the Battle of Newtown, charging with the 5th New York Regiment to relieve Colonel George Reid's 2nd New Hampshire Regiment. That Winter, Hamtramck encamped at Morristown with the rest of the Continental Army. In February 1780, he signed a petition with 65 New York officers, regarding the depreciation of currency. It asked that either their pay be increased, or their resignations accepted. Washington acknowledged their situation but refused to accept their resignations. By May, Hamtramck was the senior officer in the 5th New York Regiment, which had only 10 officers remaining. They petitioned Congress to keep the Regiment together.

In response to movements by Wilhelm von Knyphausen, the New York Brigade under General James Clinton marched North to defend the Hudson Valley. The 5th New York Regiment, part of the brigade, established their defense in the area surrounding Fonda, New York. In late June they regiments consolidated at West Point, where the 5th Regiment received a new commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Marinus Willett. At the end of July, the regiment moved to Peekskill, New York, where they were reorganized into a light infantry regiment in a new Division under command of General Lafayette. In this new role they marched the rest of the Summer throughout New York and New Jersey, always with bayonets fixed. In October, the regiment was sent to reinforce West Point again; by this time General Arnold's treason had been discovered.

The New York Brigade was consolidated into two regiments. Colonel Philip Van Cortlandt was given command of the 2nd New York Regiment and selected to keep Captain Hamtramck while excess officers were dismissed. In February 1781, a woodcutting party from Hamtramck's company was attacked by a scouting party under Joseph Brant outside Fort Schuyler, killing Private William Moffet and capturing the others.

That May, Fort Schuyler caught fire, destroying the barracks and most of the fort. Hamtramck was appointed to investigate the fire, No sign of arson was found, but the fort had to be abandoned, so the regiment regarrisoned at Fort Herkimer.

Yorktown and the End of the War

That July, Hamtramck's company was marched to Dobbs Ferry, New York and incorporated into a light infantry battalion commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton. They were marched to the Siege of Yorktown, where Hamtramck's company was the first to occupy an American trench parallel to the British defenses. Under Major Nicholas Fish, Hamtramck led his company in Hamilton's assault on Redoubt 10. That November, Hamtramck's company returned North, escorting prisoners from Yorktown. They wintered at Pompton, New Jersey, unaware that for them, the war was effectively over.

In order to alleviate boredom that Winter, Hamtramck submitted a plan to capture a nearby British post on Bergen Neck. The plan made it all the way to General Washington, who wrote to Hamtramck, disapproving the plan but offering his compliments. Washington and his wife visited the encamped Soldiers that March. General von Steuben inspected the battalion in April and was delighted with their performance.

That Autumn 1782, Hamtramck's company was at full strength, and ordered to the Peekskills to establish a screen against possible British movements. They spent that Winter at New Windsor, New York. He completed his final muster and dismissed his company on 21 May 1783. Without a home in the United States, Hamtramck remained at New Windsor, and unsuccessfully petitioned to remain in the Army. Hamtramck served until 3 June 1783. He was brevet promoted to major at the time of his discharge. That same year, he was among the original members of the New York State Society of the Cincinnati.

Hamtramck petitioned Thomas Mifflin, then the president of Congress, for a position in the newly suggested "Peace Establishment," since he could not return to his home in Canada. His name was among the officers recommended by Washington for this force.

First American Regiment
On 12 April 1785, with recommendations from three New York generals as well as George Washington, Hamtramck was again appointed as a Captain. This time he served in the First American Regiment, the only standing army remaining from the Continental Army of the American Revolution. In 1786, he was sent from Fort Pitt in command of 160 Soldiers to protect surveyors and remove illegal settlers at Mingo Bottom. That October, he was promoted to major. Hamtramck had Fort Steuben constructed here to aid in the dual mission, completing the fort in early 1787. He had each of the three companies under his command construct one blockhouse in a competition where the first to complete construction would be issued six gallons of whiskey, while the last to complete would dig the ditches. The fort later became the site of Steubenville, Ohio. During this period of initial fort building, Hamtramck wrote that the small army depended on "Providence which by the way, can be depended on more than the Contractor."

Vincennes
In 1787, Hamtramck travelled with the newly promoted General Josiah Harmar to Vincennes in the Illinois Country. The U.S. officers made a treaty with local Native American tribes. Harmar then continued west, leaving Major Hamtramck in command of 95 Soldiers at Fort Patrick Henry. Hamtramck constructed a new fort, which Harmar later wrote and directed to be named Fort Knox, after United States Secretary of War Henry Knox.

In 1788, Hamtramck requested leave to visit New York. Harmar denied his request. In August of that year, about 60 Kentucky militia led by Patrick Brown arrived in Vincennes, seeking revenge against Native Americans. Hamtramck ordered him to return to Kentucky, since peaceful tribes were "under the protection of the United States." Hamtramck reported to Harmar that he was powerless to stop Brown because he had "but nine men fit for duty."

The following year, a detachment of 36 men was attacked near the mouth of the Wabash River, killing 10 and wounding 8. A raiding party led by John Hardin killed a Shawnee party north of Vincennes that same year. The Kentucky raiders paraded their scalp trophies through Vincennes, where Hamtramck lamented that the "provocation" caused "the authority of the United States" to be "so much insulted." He feared that the "this Kentucky affair will end everything" and that Vincennes would pay for their raid.

Due to the lack of U.S. officials, Hamtramck became the de facto government representative in the Vincennes region. His bilingual skills made him effective both with U.S. settlers and the local French speaking residents, with whom Hamtramck was also popular due to his Catholic faith. Hamtramck remained as commander of the fort at Vincennes until 1791. He was successful in negotiating a suspension of hostilities between the Wabash nations and Vincennes. While serving at Vincennes, he met William Wells, an adopted member of the Miami, and informed his family in Kentucky of his residence. This led to a reunion between Wells and his brothers, although he chose to remain with the Miami.

1790
In 1790, Hamtramck was sent a speech by Governor of the Northwest Territory, Arthur St. Clair, which proposed peace. Hamtramck sent copies in French and English to the Wabash nations first by Pierre Gamelin, then by his brother Antoine Gamelin. Blue Jacket responded that the British at Fort Detroit must be consulted, and several Native Americans expressed skepticism that the peace proposal was meant "to take away by degrees" the native lands. Hamtramck reported the rejection to General Harmar, concluding "a war seems inevitable." A delegation of Potawatomi and Miami arrived later in the year. Hamtramck informed them that the governor was no longer in the region to negotiate, and told them to return with all their prisoners if they were sincere.

In August 1790, Hamtramck married Marie Josèphe Edeline, a resident of Vincennes and widow of Nicolas Perrot. They had 3 daughters together. As a reward for his service in the American Revolutionary War, Hamtramck chose bounty lands on the Wabash and Illinois Rivers.

Major Hamtramck was ordered to move that Autumn against Indian villages on the Wabash, Vermilion, and Eel rivers to create a distraction from the main campaign led by General Josiah Harmar. The Hamtramck expedition consisted of his own garrison, with militia from the local French residents and Kentucky. The total force was about 300 men. On 10 October, they arrived at an empty village near the Vermilion River, but lacked the supplies to continue on to more villages with the full force. In addition, several members of both the militia and the Kentucky force had deserted, and Hamtramck knew they were being tracked by Native American warriors. Anticipating a "severe drubbing" if they continued, Hamtramck returned to Vincennes, losing horses to hostile forces along the way and arriving on 26 October 1790. Hamtramck thought his mission had been a failure, but he later learned later that a force of 600 warriors from the Wabash Confederacy- nearly double the size of his own force- had assembled to fight. Hamtramck considered the Wabash force evidence that his primary mission had been accomplished.

That December, General Von Steuben wrote to Alexander Hamilton, "I still fear for Hamtramck. This war is not over, it is only the Commencement of the Hostilities, so will we never learn to be wise that by force of stupidity?"

St. Clair's Defeat
The following year, Lieutenant Abner Prior relieved Hamtramck as commandant at Vincennes. Hamtramck was ordered to report to Fort Washington with his detachment. They arrived on 15 July 1791, and were sent to Ludlow's Station, 6 miles north of Fort Washington. Major Hamtramck was placed in command of the First American Regiment, with Major David Ziegler as his second in command. They served under General Arthur St. Clair, who was leading a new campaign along the same route Harmar had followed the previous year. Hamtramck selected the site and oversaw the construction of an advance post, named Fort Hamilton. While there, he received a letter from Lieutenant Prior, warning that a large body of Native Americans would oppose St. Clair's march northward.

St. Clair ordered Hamtramck and First American Regiment to the rear in order to protect supply trains and catch deserters. On 4 November 1791, they heard cannon fire in the distance, and Hamtramck led the regiment on a "brisk pace" to catch the main body. They encountered Kentucky militia fleeing from St. Clair's Defeat, who informed them that the entire army had been destroyed. Hamtramck ordered a detachment forward to find the main army, then sent the majority of his command to secure Fort Jefferson, which he presumed would be the next target. The forward detachment made contact with leading elements of St. Clair's retreat and escorted them back to Fort Jefferson, which by nightfall was too crowded for additional refugees. Hamtramck was later criticized by Lieutenant Colonel William Darke, whose son Joseph had died in the battle, for failing to come to the aid of the retreating army, and was relieved of command pending an inquiry and court-martial for the charge of "cowardice and shamefully retreating for fear of the enemy". Hamtramck was acquitted of charges in December, and he returned to Fort Knox.

Hamtramck returned to Vincennes where, in 1792, he negotiated peace with the native nations of the Illinois Country. They had strong ties to the French residents of the region and were therefore less inclined to support the British. That same year, a delegation from Miami and Wea, including William Wells, arrived in Vincennes to claim women and children who had been taken in James Wilkinson's 1791 raid on Battle of Kenapacomaqua.

Legion of the United States
In February 1793, Hamtramck was relieved at Fort Knox by Captain Thomas Pasteur, and was again ordered to Fort Washington. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel Commandant of the 1st Sub-legion in the Legion of the United States, led by General Anthony Wayne to secure the Northwest Territory. Hamtramck was opposite James Wilkinson, now a Brigadier General and second-in-command of the Legion. As the Legion grew and organized, a list of promotions and appointments arrived from Henry Knox, which declined to fill a vacancy by BG Thomas Posey. Hamtramck was incensed, writing to Wayne to express his "mortification of seeing myself unnoticed" since "my Command is one wing of the Army, and the other Commanded by a Brigadier General." He requested a brevet promotion to match James Wilkinson in recognition of "eighteen years devoted to the Service of my Country, and that with irreproachable Conduct." Despite his threat to leave the army, Hamtramck was not promoted.

Hamtramck was placed in command of Fort Jefferson in 1793. That October, as Wayne marched the Legion north towards the fort, they heard musket fire. The Legion formed up and hurried to the fort, thinking it to be under attack. Instead, they found Hamtramck training his soldiers in a mock battle.

At the 1794 Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794, Hamtramck was given command of the combined Second and Fourth Sub-legions, on the Legion's left wing. The U.S. victory at Fallen Timbers created a schism in the Western Confederacy and led to the Treaty of Greenville, securing most of the modern state of Ohio for United States settlement.

Later career
Following the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Hamtramck was appointed as the first commandant of Fort Wayne, where he co-owned a large farm with his friend, William Wells. In 1796, he led the garrison to secure Fort Maumee. He was then transferred to Fort Lernoult (later renamed Fort Shelby) and the settlement of Detroit for the United States on 11 July 1796.

In 1798, Hamtramck was given command of the Northwestern military headquarters at Fort Lafayette. At the end of the same year, he was transferred to Fort Adams, Mississippi and given command of the Southwestern Military Department. On 1 April 1801, he was promoted to colonel and sent back to Detroit as part of a reorganization of the Army.

Hamtramck remained in command at Detroit, living in a house on land that is now Gabriel Richard Park near the present bridge to Belle Isle. His 1802 orders detailing 1st Infantry Regiment uniforms was still in effect at the onset of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Death and burial
Colonel Hamtramck died on 11 April 1803 and was buried at Ste. Anne de Detroit Catholic Church. The officers under his command placed a stone to mark his grave, as a "grateful tribute to his merit and his worth." His body was moved in 1817 to the new Saint Anne's, then, in 1869, to Mount Elliott Cemetery. Hamtramck's remains were moved a final time in 1962 to Veterans Park in Hamtramck, Michigan.

Dates of rank

 * Commissary, 1st Canadian Regiment - 15 September 1775
 * US-O2 insignia.svg Lieutenant, 2nd Canadian Regiment - 1776 (Congress later recognized him as a Captain during this time)
 * US-O3 insignia.svg Captain, 5th New York Regiment - 21 November 1776
 * US-O3 insignia.svg Captain, 2nd New York Regiment - 1 January 1783
 * Discharged - 3 June 1783
 * US-O3 insignia.svg Captain, US Infantry Regiment - 12 April 1785
 * US-O4 insignia.svg Major, US Infantry Regiment - 20 October 1786
 * US-O4 insignia.svg Major, 1st Infantry Regiment - 29 September 1789
 * US-O4 insignia.svg Major, 2nd Sub-legion - 4 September 1792
 * US-O5 insignia.svg Lieutenant Colonel Commandant, 1st Sub-legion - 18 February 1793
 * US-O5 insignia.svg Lieutenant Colonel Commandant, 1st Infantry - 1 November 1796
 * US-O6 insignia.svg Colonel, 1st Infantry - 1 April 1802

Legacy
In 1827, one of the four townships in Wayne County, Michigan was named for him, a portion of which later became the city of Hamtramck.

Hamtramck's son, John Francis Hamtramck, attended the United States Military Academy under recommendation from William Henry Harrison. He also achieved the rank of Colonel and served in the Mexican–American War.

In the 1962, Col. Hamtramck's remains were moved to Hamtramck, Michigan, the city formed from the township named in his honor. His grave site is incorporated into the Veterans Memorial at the entrance to Veterans Memorial Park, which is the main city park in Hamtramck, Michigan. This monument and the Beth Olem Jewish cemetery are the only remaining grave sites in the City of Hamtramck. The grave site is a Michigan historical marker site. The grave marker text reads:

 * Colonel John Francis Hamtramck, Esq.

 * The First United States Regiment of Infantry and Commandant of Detroit and its dependencies.
 * He departed this life on the 11th of April 1803 aged 48 years, 7 months and 28 days.
 * True patriotism and zealous attachment to national liberty joined to a laudable ambition led him into military service at an early period of his life.
 * He was a soldier even before he was a man. He was an active participant in all the dangers, difficulties and honors of the revolutionary war, and his heroism and uniform good conduct procured him the attention and personal thanks of the immortal Washington.
 * The United States in him have lost a valuable officer and a good citizen, and society a useful and pleasant member.
 * To his family his loss is incalculable, and his friends never forget the memory of Hamtramck. This humble monument is placed over his remains by the officers who had the honor to serve under his command- A small but grateful tribute to his merit and his worth.

 * This inscription was restored by the Catholic Study Club of Detroit, Michigan May 30th 1928.

title: Jean François Hamtramck


text:
Municipalities with language facilities

In Belgium, there are 27 municipalities with language facilities (faciliteitengemeenten; communes à facilités; Fazilitäten-Gemeinden), which must offer linguistic services to residents in Dutch, French, or German in addition to their single official languages. All other municipalities – with the exception of those in the bilingual Brussels region – are monolingual and offer services only in their official languages, either Dutch or French.

Belgian law stipulates that:
 * 12 municipalities in Flanders must offer services in French; of these 12, six (located around Brussels) are now believed to have become majority French-speaking.
 * Wallonia contains two language areas:
 * In the French-speaking part of Wallonia, four municipalities offer services in Dutch and another two offer services in German.
 * All municipalities in the German-speaking part of Wallonia (annexed after WWI) offer services in French in addition to German.
 * In Brussels, Dutch and French are co-official.
 * At the federal level, Dutch, French and German are all official languages.

1921–1962
There were three language areas as from the 31 July 1921 law: the Dutch-speaking Flemish area, the French-speaking Walloon area, and the bilingual area of Brussels (capital city). These language areas of 1921 actually had no institutional translation in the structure of the Belgian state, then still constitutionally divided into provinces and municipalities. Thence a French-speaking unilingual municipality could, for instance, be part of the province of West Flanders.

The Belgian law of 28 June 1932, on the use of languages for administrative matters based the language status of every Belgian municipality on the decennial census that included, since 1846, several language questions about the knowledge as well as the day-to-day practice. The criterion to belong to the Flemish- or Walloon-language area was a threshold of 50%; whereas, with a threshold of 30%, the municipal authorities had to offer services in the minority language as well. A municipality could ask the government to change its linguistic status by a royal decree only after a census showed a passage over the 30% or 50% threshold.

The German- and Luxembourgish-speaking minorities in Eastern Wallonia were not mentioned in the 1921 or 1931 laws. The German-speaking minority was mostly settled in the 'Eastern Cantons', several Prussian municipalities ceded to Belgium by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and administered from 1920 to 1925 by a Belgian military High Commissioner. There was, and still is, a Luxembourgish-speaking minority in some municipalities bordering the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

The 1932 law was implemented only once, as the invasion of Belgium by Nazi Germany in 1940 prevented the organization of the decennial census, which was organized in 1947 and applied only on 2 July 1954, when an ad hoc law modifying the law of 28 June 1932 on the use of languages for administrative matters transferred three previously unilingual Flemish municipalities with language facilities to the French-speaking minority (Evere, Ganshoren, and Sint-Agatha-Berchem) to the bilingual region of Brussels, thus and introduced language facilities for the French-speaking minority in four previously unilingual Flemish municipalities (Drogenbos, Kraainem, Wemmel, and Linkebeek).

1962 onwards
In 1962–1963 four language areas were formally determined: the Dutch-language area (now also corresponding with the Flemish Region), the bilingual area of Brussels-Capital, (whose borders came to determine those of the present Brussels-Capital Region), the French-language area, and the German-language area (together coinciding with Wallonia).

The situation around Brussels (in the rim municipalities, see below) differs from the situation along the border between Flanders and Wallonia, and between the German- and French-speaking areas in Wallonia, where certain municipalities have had linguistic minorities for several centuries. The language border appears quite stable and peaceful, except for the municipalities of Voeren (French: Fourons) and, to a much lesser extent, Mouscron (Dutch: Moeskroen) and Comines-Warneton (Dutch: Komen-Waasten).

During the 1970s, many municipalities were merged into a bigger municipality in order to lessen administrative overhead. However, the difficult situation of the municipalities with language facilities had the effect that no other municipalities liked to merge with those (unless they had the same facilities already). As a result, many of the smallest municipalities in Belgium today are municipalities with language facilities. S.a. the least populated municipality (Herstappe) and the smallest municipality with a city title (Mesen).

In the early 1990s, a revision of the Belgian Constitution made it more difficult to change the language status of the concerned municipalities by requiring that any such change had to gain a majority in each of the two language groups in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Previously, an overall majority would have been enough, which could have in theory allowed a near unanimity of Flemish representatives to impose an abolition of the facilities against the unanimous wish of the French-speaking representatives. This revision of the Constitution was widely seen by French speakers as a recognition that language facilities had permanent status.

Implementation
Currently, both Dutch and French speakers complain about poor or absent respect by certain authorities for their linguistic rights. Belgian and European courts are frequently solicited to arbitrate. Related political debates often take place in the various Belgian assemblies i.e. the federal, regional and community Parliaments.

Schools
In accordance with Article 6 of the Act on linguistic arrangements in educational matters promulgated on 30 July 1963 and Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 14 March 1960 (implementing Article 4 of the law of 29 May 1959 to which it refers): nursery and primary education may be organised in another national language than the official language of the linguistic area under the condition that:
 * at least 16 heads of households residing in the same municipality make an official request for such a school;
 * the language most commonly used by their children to be provided with schooling is the considered language
 * there is no school providing education in that language at less than 4 kilometres.

Since the 1988 reform which transferred educational matters from the federal government's level to the Communities’ level, the hosting Community is responsible for financing schools that meet the above criteria. However, the finances come from a special federal fund, which is shared between Communities according to the number of schools/pupils they respectively have in charge under the above legal arrangements. Annual subvention: nearly 10 million euros.

In conformity with the above legal arrangements:

 * The Dutch-speaking Community finances nine French-speaking nursery and primary schools for French speakers in Drogenbos (1), Linkebeek (1), Sint-Genesius-Rode (2), Wemmel (1), Kraainem (1), Wezembeek-Oppem (2), and Ronse (1).
 * The French-speaking Community finances a Dutch-speaking nursery and primary school for Dutch speakers in Mouscron.

In addition, the Decree of the Belgian French-speaking Community of 13 July 1998 and subsequent decrees and circulars on the organisation of education authorise schools which are funded by the French-speaking Community to offer language immersion education. In 2011, the French-speaking Community finances 152 nursery and primary schools and 101 secondary schools providing such type of education in Wallonia and Brussels. Out of them, 118 nursery and primary schools and 76 secondary schools use Dutch as language of immersion and 16 are located in municipalities with language facilities for Dutch speakers:
 * 8 nursery and primary schools with Dutch language immersion in Mouscron (3), Comines-Warneton (1) and Enghien (2).
 * 8 secondary schools with Dutch language immersion in Mouscron (4), Comines-Warneton (1) and Enghien (3).

Apart from the above, there are also:
 * 1 small private Dutch-speaking nursery and primary school in the Walloon municipality of Comines-Warneton. Since the above legal criteria to establish such a school had not been met, it is financed by the Dutch-language Community.
 * 1 special French-speaking school for sick children (falling under a different law) in the Flemish municipality (not with language facilities) of De Haan, linked with the paediatric medical centre of Zeepreventorium. It is financed by the Dutch-language Community.

In 2011, Dutch-speaking schools in Wallonia and French-speaking schools in Flanders are respectively inspected by Dutch- and French-speaking school inspectors. In 2007, the Flemish government decided that French-speaking schools in Flanders should be inspected by Flemish inspectors but the Constitutional Court canceled this decision in 2010 for the municipalities with language facilities around Brussels and confirmed its judgment in 2011 while extending it to all Flemish municipalities with language facilities for French speakers.

Communication and translation
The language facilities are regulated by the Belgian laws promulgated on 8 November 1962 and 2 August 1963. The administration of municipalities with facilities is internally monolingual (the administration works in one language) and externally bilingual (it communicates with the population in two languages). Until the 1990s, these laws were implemented in addressing the local residents in their own respective languages and in publishing public notices in both languages.

In the late 1990s, two Flemish ministers (Leo Peeters and Luc Vandenbrande) proposed a stricter interpretation of the above laws and instructed the Flemish municipalities with facilities for the French speakers to send all documents only in Dutch and to provide a French translated version only to people who would place an individual formal request which should be renewed for every document. These instructions sharpened the practice until then condoned by the Permanent Commission for Language Control, a joint commission set up by the law to control the correct application of the language laws in Belgium.

French speakers asked the Council of Europe to advise on the general situation of protection of national minorities in Belgium and petitioned for the Flemish Region to restore the previous practice. In 2002, after having sent various representatives to investigate the situation, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1301 (2002) on Protection of minorities in Belgium supporting French speakers' claim to be recognised as a "national minority" in the Flemish region, like Dutch speakers and German speakers in Wallonia. However, this assembly has a moral advisory role and not authority to impose rules on its members.

Until now, neither the French-speaking authorities nor the German-speaking authorities have taken any formal step to restrict language facilities in a similar way for the Dutch/French/German speakers living in Walloon municipalities with language facilities. However, in 2005 the Flemish newspaper De Tijd pointed out that the documents sent to the residents of the Walloon municipality of Enghien were generally written only in French while including just a small note in Dutch asking the receiver to inform whether he/she wished to get a Dutch copy. Since then, the municipality has corrected this practice.

Courts
Belgian courts are extremely reluctant to arbitrate in all matters related to the linguistic and ethnic rights of the various ethnic and language groups in Belgium. An attempt was made in Belgium's highest administrative court: in 2004, in a rare case of disavowing the recommendation of its Auditor, the 12th Flemish Chamber of the Belgian Council of State judged that the Flemish interpretation of the linguistic laws did not contradict the aforementioned laws. French speakers have generally considered that this ruling was politically motivated and legally unsound; and have kept demanding that the Flemish interpretation of linguistic laws be softened and that Belgium ratifies the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as per the Council of Europe's recommendations (a demand presently blocked by most Flemish political parties).

Recent trends
Over time, Flemings have become dissatisfied by the continued and growing presence of French speakers in the "rim" municipalities around Brussels. As a result, there is now a strong and growing reaction in Flanders demanding that the current language facilities should be phased out, especially for the recent 'migrants' around Brussels. For the facilities in the municipalities with historic minorities on the Walloon–Flemish border, there is still a willingness to consider maintaining them on condition of reciprocity (that these facilities are also properly implemented in Wallonia).

French speakers want to maintain all current facilities in Flanders, the more militant wing wanting to extend them in scope and/or area. French-speaking political parties, especially, protested against the Flemish ministerial circular letters from the socialist minister Leo Peeters (see supra). These circular letters, various additional restrictions put on the use of French in those municipalities, and the claims made by more and more Flemish politicians for the abolition of the facilities have caused a radicalisation of part of the French speakers, many of whom now think their linguistic rights would be better protected if the "rim" municipalities joined the bilingual Brussels-Capital Region. At the same time, French speakers from the civil society like Professor Philippe Van Parijs and French speakers among the members of the Brussels Enterprises Commerce and Industry Association (BECI) made proposals meant at addressing these issues (among others) while addressing at the same time Flemish concerns and demand for respect of the Flemish 'principle of territoriality':

 * BECI, on the basis of a study conducted by the Swiss agency “Bak Basel Economics” comparing Brussels productivity with 15 metropolitan areas in Europe, advocates the establishment of Brussels Metropolitan across the existing regional borders throughout Brussels’ economic hinterland. It would enclose Brussels, a large part of the Flemish district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde and a large part of the Walloon district of Nivelles. While some see in this proposal the opportunity to expand the borders of bilingual Brussels Region, others state that existing regional borders would remain unpaired but sound socio-economical and urban development policies strongly coordinated throughout the area.

 * In a proposal dated 23 August 2007, Professor Philippe Van Parijs explains that, while it would be foolish to think that Brussels could be coherently managed separately from his immediate hinterland (Flemish and Walloon Brabant), French speakers should be realistic and abandon such claims for the expansion of the Brussels Region to its entire economic hinterland since such expansion would put the Dutch language at risk. He suggests that the facilities would be maintained for the French speakers who presently live in the 2 largest municipalities among the 6 municipalities with facilities around Brussels, whereas they would no longer apply to their children and newcomers. The four smaller municipalities (covering less than 40% of the combined territory of the six communes) would be included into the bilingual region of Brussels; and the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde district would be split along this new border. In 2010 in a publication titled "The linguistic territoriality principle: Right violation or parity of esteem" he reiterated his belief in “territorial linguistic federalism” as opposed to “non-territorial linguistic federalism”. Indeed, the latter implies that people living in the same place would access services that may be of greatly different quality depending on the linguistic community they depend upon whereas the first, while avoiding this drawback, also addresses irreducibly special nature of any coherent, comprehensive project for a political community.

Dutch-speaking municipalities with facilities for French speakers
In Flanders, there are two kinds of municipalities with facilities. Rim municipalities are situated in the Flemish rim around the Brussels-Capital Region and form part of Flemish Brabant. The other municipalities are called language border municipalities because they lie close to the border with Wallonia.

Rim municipalities:
 * Drogenbos
 * Kraainem (French, not common: Crainhem)
 * Linkebeek
 * Sint-Genesius-Rode (French: Rhode-Saint-Genèse)
 * Wemmel
 * Wezembeek-Oppem

Wezembeek-Oppem and Kraainem are sometimes referred to as the oostrand (eastern rim). A survey published in Le Soir on 14 February 2005, indicated that in all six rim municipalities, the majority of the population was French-speaking (the study was unofficial since the public authorities refuse to undertake a census). More precisely, the survey claimed that the French-speaking population amounts to 55% of the population in Drogenbos, 78% in Kraainem, 79% in Linkebeek, 58% in Sint-Genesius-Rode, 54% in Wemmel, and 72% in Wezembeek-Oppem.

Language border municipalities:
 * Bever (French: Biévène)
 * Herstappe
 * Mesen (French: Messines)
 * Ronse (French: Renaix)
 * Spiere-Helkijn (French: Espierres-Helchin)
 * Voeren (French: Fourons)

Although Sint-Genesius-Rode also borders Wallonia, it is considered a rim municipality rather than a border municipality.

French-speaking municipalities with facilities for Dutch speakers

 * Comines-Warneton (Dutch: Komen-Waasten)
 * Enghien (Dutch: Edingen)
 * Flobecq (Dutch: Vloesberg)
 * Mouscron (Dutch: Moeskroen)

French-speaking municipalities with facilities for German speakers

 * Malmedy (German, not common: Malmünd)
 * Waimes (German: Weismes)

French-speaking municipalities with limited educational provisions for both German and Dutch speakers

 * Baelen
 * Plombières (Dutch: Blieberg, German: Bleiberg)
 * Welkenraedt (Dutch: Welkenraat, German: Welkenrath)

German-speaking municipalities with facilities for French speakers
All municipalities in the German-language community have French-language facilities:
 * Amel (French: Amblève)
 * Büllingen (French: Bullange)
 * Burg-Reuland
 * Bütgenbach (French: Butgenbach)
 * Eupen (old French: Néau)
 * Kelmis (French: La Calamine)
 * Lontzen
 * Raeren
 * Sankt Vith (French: Saint-Vith)

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

title: Municipalities with language facilities


text:
2934 Aristophanes

2934 Aristophanes, provisional designation , is a carbonaceous Veritasian asteroid from the outer regions of the asteroid belt, approximately 22 kilometers in diameter. It was discovered during the Palomar–Leiden survey in 1960, and later named after ancient Greek dramatist Aristophanes.

Discovery
Aristophanes was discovered on 25 September 1960, by Dutch astronomers Ingrid and Cornelis van Houten at Leiden, on photographic plates taken by Tom Gehrels at the Palomar Observatory, California, United States.

Palomar–Leiden survey
The survey designation stands for "Palomar–Leiden", named after Palomar Observatory and Leiden Observatory, which collaborated on the fruitful Palomar–Leiden survey in the 1960s. Gehrels used Palomar's Samuel Oschin telescope (also known as the 48-inch Schmidt Telescope), and shipped the photographic plates to Ingrid and Cornelis van Houten at Leiden Observatory where astrometry was carried out. The trio are credited with the discovery of several thousand asteroids.

Orbit and classification
Aristophanes is a member of the Veritas family (609), a young family of carbonaceous asteroids, that formed approximately $21.941$ million years ago. The family is named after 490 Veritas and consists of nearly 1,300 members.

It orbits the Sun in the outer main-belt at a distance of 3.0–3.3 AU once every 5 years and 8 months (2,062 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.05 and an inclination of 9° with respect to the ecliptic. The body's observation arc begins at Palomar, the night prior to its official discovery observation.

Physical characteristics
In the SMASS classification, Aristophanes is a Ch-type, a hydrated subtype of the carbonaceous C-type asteroid with absorption features at 0.7 μm.

Rotation period
As of 2017, no rotational lightcurve of Aristophanes has been obtained from photometric observations. The asteroid's rotation period, shape and poles remain unknown.

Diameter and albedo
According to the survey carried out by the NEOWISE mission of NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, Aristophanes measures 21.941 kilometers in diameter and its surface has an albedo of 0.110.

Naming
This minor planet was named after Aristophanes (445–385 B.C.), a Greek comic playwright of ancient Athens. The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 29 September 1985 (M.P.C. 10044).

title: 2934 Aristophanes


text:
Frederic Morton

Frederic Morton (October 5, 1924 – April 20, 2015) was an Austrian-born American writer.

Life
Born Fritz Mandelbaum in Vienna, Morton was the son of a blacksmith who specialized in forging (manufacturing) imperial medals. In the wake of the Anschluss of 1938, his father was arrested, but later released. The family fled to Britain in 1939 and migrated to New York City the next year, when the senior Mandelbaum also changed the family name in order to be able to join an anti-Semitic labor union.

Morton worked as a baker but began studying literature in 1949. He returned to Austria in 1962 to marry his fiancée, Marcia, whom he had met at college.

From 1959, Morton worked as a columnist for several American periodicals including The New York Times, Esquire, and Playboy. He died at the Hilton hotel in Vienna at the age of 90 on April 20, 2015.

Selected works

 * The Hound (Dodd, Mead, 1947) Intercollegiate Literary Fellowship Prize Novels
 * Asphalt and Desire (Harcourt Brace, 1952) novel
 * The Witching Ship (Random House, 1960) novel
 * The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait (Atheneum Books, 1962) ; edition with new epilogue and afterword, The Rothschilds: Portrait of a Dynasty (New York: Kodansha International, 1998) ( ISBN 1-56836-220-X ) ,
 * The Schatten Affair (Atheneum, 1965) novel
 * Snow Gods (New American Library, 1968) novel
 * An Unknown Woman (Little Brown, 1976) novel
 * A Nervous Splendor: Vienna, 1888–1889 (Little Brown, 1979) (ISBN 0-14-005667-X ) reprinted by the Folio Society 2006
 * The Forever Street (Doubleday, 1984) ( ISBN 0-7432-5220-9 ) novel
 * Chocolate: An Illustrated History (Random House, 1986) ( ISBN 978-0-517-55765-5 ) written with his wife Marcia
 * Crosstown Sabbath: A Street Journey Through History (Grove Press, 1987) ( ISBN 978-0-394-56070-0 )
 * Thunder at Twilight: Vienna 1913-1914 (Scribner's, 1989) (ISBN 0-306-81021-2 )
 * Runaway Waltz (Simon & Schuster, 2005) ( ISBN 0-7432-2539-2 ) memoir

Decorations and awards

 * 1963: Author of the Year (Anti-Defamation League)
 * 1980: Title of "Professor"
 * 2001: Gold Medal of Vienna
 * 2003: Austrian Cross of Honour for Science and Art, 1st class

title: Frederic Morton


text:
Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law

The Paris Declaration respecting Maritime Law of 16 April 1856 was an international multilateral treaty agreed to by the warring parties in the Crimean War gathered at the Congress at Paris after the peace treaty of Paris had been signed in March 1856. As an important juridical novelty in international law the treaty for the first time created the possibility for nations that were not involved in the establishment of the agreement and did not sign, to become a party by acceding the declaration afterwards. So did altogether 55 nations, which otherwise would have been impossible in such a short period. This represented a large step in the globalisation of international law.

The primary goal of France and Great Britain was to abolish privateering, a part of naval warfare whereby a belligerent party gave formal permission to privately owned ships by letters of marque to seize enemy vessels. By disrupting commerce, privateers could be effective against enemies that depended on trade and force them to deploy their warships to protect their merchant ships. In this way, maritime nations could wage war against larger land-based powers by the destruction of their commerce. The Paris Declaration established international policies related to neutral and belligerent shipping on the high seas, introducing new rules for prizes of war, a piece of enemy property seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle, typically at sea. The plenipotentiaries agreed on three major points: free ships make free goods, effective blockade, and no privateering. In return for surrendering the practice of seizing neutral goods on enemy ships, France insisted on Britain's abandoning its Rule of 1756 prohibiting neutral assumption of enemy coastal and colonial trade.

History
To put an end to the Crimean War (1853–1856), a series of diplomatic meetings were organised in Paris to negotiate peace, modelled after the Congress of Vienna. On the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris, which was signed on 30 March 1856, the plenipotentiaries assembled in conference also did agree on this declaration, at the suggestion of Count Walewski, the French Prime-Minister. The declaration is the outcome of a modus vivendi signed between France and Britain at the dawn of the Crimean War in 1854 becoming war allies for the first time. These two powers had agreed that they would not seize enemy goods on neutral vessels nor neutral goods on enemy vessels. The belligerents had also agreed that they would not issue letters of marque, which they actually had not done during the war. At the close of this war the principal states of Europe concluded that private armed ships, maintained at private cost for private gain, and often necessarily for a long time beyond the reach of the regular naval force of the state, could not be kept under proper control. With the agreements written down in the Declaration of Paris these rules were confirmed and added to them the principle that blockades, in order to be obligatory, must be effective.

The Declaration did not as such make privateers into a new category of international criminals, but rather made it a treaty obligation of states that they refrain from commissioning privateers in the first place. Most states normally treated foreign privateers as pirates in any case. In the plain wordings of the Declaration: The Declaration has been signed by Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey Ultimately, 55 states, royal houses and free cities ratified the Declaration, including the Ottoman Empire. This treaty established maritime law among the major powers of Europe. It represented the first multilateral attempt to codify in times of peace rules which were to be applicable in the event of war. This declaration bound only its signatories and nations that did accede later, when at war with each other, and left them free to use privateers when at war with other states.
 * Privateering is and remains abolished;
 * The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war;
 * Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag;
 * Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a forge sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

Position of the United States
The United States, which aimed at a complete exemption of non-contraband private property from capture at sea, withheld its formal adherence in 1857 when its “Marcy” amendment was not accepted by all powers, chiefly as a result of British influence. His proposed amendment would have exempted from seizure in time of war all private property that was not contraband, including enslaved persons. The US was also keen on maintaining privateers. It argued that, not possessing a great navy, it would be obliged in time of war to rely largely upon merchant ships commissioned as war vessels, and that therefore the abolition of privateering would be entirely in favour of European powers, whose large navies rendered them practically independent of such aid. Several other maritime states did not accede to the declaration, such as China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador.

In 1861, during the American Civil War, the United States declared that it would respect the principles of the declaration during hostilities. The Confederacy agreed to the provisions except for the right of privateering, and went on to extensively employ privateers as blockade runners. During the Spanish–American War of 1898, when the United States Government affirmed its policy of conducting hostilities in conformity with the dispositions of the declaration. Spain too, though not a party, declared its intention to abide by the declaration, but it expressly gave notice that it reserved its right to issue letters of marque. At the same time both belligerents organized services of auxiliary cruisers composed of merchant ships under the command of naval officers.

Some of the questions raised by this declaration were clarified by the 1907 Hague Convention.

The rules contained in this declaration later came to be considered as part of the general principles of international law and the United States too, though not formally a party, abides by provisions.

Signing parties
The following states signed the Paris Declaration or did accede afterwards:
 * Argentina
 * Belgium
 * Brazil
 * Bulgaria
 * Chile
 * Denmark
 * Ecuador
 * France
 * Greece
 * Guatemala
 * Haiti
 * Japan
 * Mexico
 * Netherlands
 * Ottoman Empire
 * Peru
 * Portugal
 * Republic of New Granada (modern-day Colombia and Panama)
 * Russia
 * Spain
 * States now part of Italy:
 * Duchy of Modena and Reggio
 * Duchy of Parma and Piacenza
 * Grand Duchy of Tuscany
 * Kingdom of Sardinia
 * Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
 * Papal States
 * States within the German Confederation:
 * Austrian Empire
 * Duchy of Brunswick
 * Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
 * Duchy of Nassau
 * Duchy of Saxe-Altenburg
 * Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen
 * Duchy of Saxe-Weimar
 * Electorate of Hesse
 * Free City of Bremen
 * Free City of Frankfurt
 * Free City of Hamburg
 * Free City of Lübeck
 * Grand Duchy of Baden
 * Grand Duchy of Oldenburg
 * Kingdom of Bavaria
 * Kingdom of Prussia
 * Kingdom of Saxony
 * Kingdom of Württemberg
 * Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt
 * Principality of Anhalt-Dessau
 * Sweden-Norway
 * Switzerland
 * United Kingdom
 * Uruguay


text:
User talk:Mustaafaa

Don't do that again. RickK 22:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

who are you my fvckin mother ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustaafaa (talk • contribs)

 * No, I don't think he is. Please try to be polite. -- Ams80 23:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Your user name - perhaps accidentally, though I doubt it - is extremely similar to mine, and your edits are already probably enough to justify blocking you. Clean up your act, or get kicked off. - Mustafaa 01:13, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Behavior issues
You need to watch what you say; even if you are blocked, if you continue to person attack others again, you will be blocked from editing. You need to watch your attitude and STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! Ashbeckjonathan 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mustaafaa


text: User talk:216.127.68.137

title: User talk:216.127.68.137


text:
User:Tomruen

Contact
Hi, my name is Tom Ruen. If you'd like to contact me, try out the form at: Special:Emailuser/tomruen

I also edit from User:SockPuppetForTomruen, mostly for eclipses.

My work here
I first came on here to edit on April 28, 2004 (19 years ago now!) It is an addicting idea to try to add to something much bigger than I could ever do. I am a little skeptical over the idea of freedom to change anything, but overall I'm very impressed by the quality of articles and I have faith good work is being done and I can add to it.

There are many quality websites out there and it seems silly to duplicate too much. I like the idea of learning about something and testing my knowledge by trying to share it. For me that motivates much of my efforts here.

Primary topics I've worked on include geometry, and astronomy.

My specialty has primarily been image generation, perhaps because I've found so many articles where useful images were absent. I try to make quality images, but I will compromise perfection for meaningful improvement. I'm happy if anyone can replace my images with better ones.

Active work and subpages

 * User:Tomruen/subpages

About me

 * Born April 16, 1968, I live near Minneapolis, Minnesota. I like astronomy, science, math, running, bicycling, reading, writing, photography, and gardening.
 * I do computer programming for a living, mostly in Java, Javascript, C, C++, and Delphi.
 * I have a B.S. in Computer Science and Mathematics, minor in Physics (astronomy), 1991, from the U of MN.
 * https://twitter.com/Tom_Ruen

Pictures

 * Astronomy Picture of the Day, November 12, 2003
 * Picture of the day/November 10, 2005
 * User:Tomruen/2006featuredpicture #10 Copied from on Commons Picture of 2006
 * Mars animation 2003, or simulated rotation April 2014
 * Sunrise corona animation
 * File:Venus_set_may_29_2020.gif Crescent venus setting
 * File:Asteroid_flyby_2015_TB145.gif 2015 TB145 Halloween flyby animation
 * File:Saturn view from earth 2009.gif Saturn animation, 2009 ring crossing
 * File:Saturn timelapse-29 years.gif Saturn animation for 29 years. (or as seen from Jupiter, 2000-2333, or from Pluto, 1890-2138
 * File:Lunar_eclipse_chart_close-2010Dec21_animation.gif 2010 lunar eclipse animation, or April 2014 lunar eclipse

Links

 * shortened footnote
 * reference page
 * .. linking between sections
 * ... flow text past left images, like
 * Edit counter
 * Texvc TEX formatting on wiki
 * Unicodes 2000-2fff Inverted-Y: & #8516; = ⅄, hex 2144
 * http://frodox.ch/infoboxplanet/rapid.php
 * http://word2cleanhtml.com
 * http://bmanolov.free.fr/html2wiki-tables.php HTML to Wiki Converter
 * unicodes: Isomorphism ≅, approximate ≈, ↔
 * Special:Newimages
 * Keyboard shortcuts
 * Vandalism in progress
 * WikiProject Wiki Syntax
 * Template messages/Merging and splitting
 * Deletion policy
 * Oversight - permanent deletion of revision history
 * αβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρστυφχψω
 * Macro codes:
 * $1000 = US$ in 1900
 * - delete article with wrong name
 * - delete image with wrong name
 * <:nowiki>
 * Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Bot requests
 *
 * WikiProject Mathematics
 * - delete image with wrong name
 * <:nowiki>
 * Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Bot requests
 *
 * WikiProject Mathematics

Wiki news

 * Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia, the self-organizing, self-correcting, ever-expanding, and thoroughly addictive encyclopedia of the future. In this presentation, he explains how Wikipedia's collaborative system works, and why it succeeds. (Recorded July 2005 in Oxford, UK. Duration: 20:47)
 * Jimmy Wales’s benevolent Wikipedia wisdom By DAVID HOROVITZ 07/01/2011

title: User:Tomruen


text:
Discovered attack

In chess, a discovered attack is a direct attack revealed when one piece moves out of the way of another. Discovered attacks can be extremely powerful, as the piece moved can make a threat independently of the piece it reveals. Like many chess tactics, they often succeed because the opponent would be unable to meet two threats at once unless one of the attacked pieces can simultaneously move away from its own attack and capture the other attacking piece. While typically the consequence of a discovered attack is the gain of, they do not have to do this to be effective; the tactic can be used merely to gain a tempo. If the discovered attack is a check, it is called a discovered check.

Types
When the moving piece gives check to the opponent's king, the maneuver is often described as a discovered attack with check. When the discovered attack is itself a check, it is called a discovered check. If both pieces give check, a double check results.

Discovered attacks—especially checks—can win material when the moving piece captures an opposing piece nominally protected by another opposing piece. If the opponent deals with the discovered attack (obligatory if it is a check), the attacking player will have time to return the moving piece out of harm's way. This scenario is often referred to as a discovered attack (or check) with capture. A discovered check can also win material if the moving piece ends up attacking another undefended piece. In this case, it would be impossible for the opponent first to capture the moving piece unless the king can capture.

When the moving piece moves to a square from which it threatens to inflict checkmate on the next move, the tactic is called a discovered attack with mate threat. A discovered checkmate itself is also possible.

Less often, a move may discover multiple attacks, as in the first diagram where the knight's departure opens two crisscrossing diagonals. And in exceptional circumstances, it is even possible for two checks to be revealed simultaneously. The only way for this to happen in orthodox chess is by way of an en passant capture. In the position shown in the second diagram, Black has just played 1...g7–g5. White replies 2.hxg6++. The result is a double check: One check is given by the rook, discovered by the capturing pawn's move; the other by the bishop, created by the captured pawn's removal. (The bishop’s check is not a discovered check, as the black pawn is captured and not moved.) Such a check is extremely rare in practical play, but it is sometimes found in problems.

Example
The diagram illustrates a trap in the Advance Variation of the French Defence, based on a discovered attack. If, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4, Black mistakenly attempts to win White's d-pawn with 7...Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 (diagram), White can play 9.Bb5+, a discovered attack (White's bishop gets out of the way of White's queen) against Black's queen with check. Black must get out of check, then White can follow up with 10.Qxd4.

title: Discovered attack


text:
Talk:Defensive programming

Random notes
...copied from article, "Please expand this article. These random notes should be changed to a more coherent article." Badanedwa 22:52, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

humm
This article its somewhat obsolete-ish, and feel too unix oriented. Maybe sould be edited to leverage this unix oriented style, then adding nowdays-sche stuff. Ok, maybe I am wrong. What other people think about the quality of this article? --Tei 15:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs cleaned up. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Bug Free
How does Defensive Programming differ from Standards of Good Software Development? Now I have been a computer programmer for over 40 years and fully agree that there is an enormous volume of crud out there, as we can see with the volume of patches coming from major software suppliers to fix problems that should never have been there in the first place, but most everything I am seeing in this article is talking about standards that most every programmer should adhere to, with variations on how to implement them by actual computer language, but few do. User:AlMac|(talk) 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT adhere to these rules
I see defensive programming a method that can be used when it is reasonable to both expect and possible to counteract intentional and accidental misuse of the code. The problem is that it is easy to hide the problem without alerting anyone about it. I it a design choice among others. Another approach if defensive programming is not used is to let the application crash, or in some other less drastic way make the call invalid. In other words enforce the correct use of the piece of software in question.

The idea that defensive programming is good programming is wrong, but one way of designing the code. The question is how to define the term properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk • contribs)

 * You didn't specify the programming language you use. In languages where an exception would be thrown and caught, and the traceback would be logged - sure. But in lower-level languages, most notably C, ignoring error returns will often lead to hard-to-debug situations much later in code, having possibly overwritten stack in some situations. Of course it depends on how well thought-out your error handling policy is; I personally consider it easier to drop log a message and attempt to abort the current operation as gracefully as is realistic. I realize the error handling codepaths can much more likely have bugs as they're not tested very often, but it's not a much worse situation. -- intgr 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed section
I've removed the "Other examples" section, introduced by Beno1000 on 01:24, 29 September 2008 in [ this edit], since, besides being rather awkwardly tacked onto the end of the article, it actually contains some factual errors. (In particular, division by zero does not normally produce buffer overruns.) In case someone wants to try making something usable out of it, here's the content of the section as it was when I removed it:

A rather common and infamous programming error is division by zero. Normally, this will cause a buffer overrun as the program tries to calculate to infinity. Some programs will detect this abnormality and quit gracefully, while others will hang or crash outright and others still will continue to run, but abnormally. However, this can be prevented by a simple if statement which will return an error message to the user, as in the pseudocode below.

If inputted data is zero then display an error message saying "Cannot divide by zero" Else Divide the inputted data by the number stored in the number buffer (variable)

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Murphy's Law
Citing Murphy's Law as justification for defensive programming is ridiculous. It is not a physical law, it's a humourous observation on life. The case can be argued much better using terms like risk. Nczempin (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I LOL'D. And as of late 2013 it's still here. --Abatishchev (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it there. Murphy's Law is much easier for most people to understand than The Gambler's Ruin, which boils down to the same thing -- given enough opportunities to go wrong, a system will go wrong. TTK (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

When to error out
I consider the function 'high_quality_programming' worse than 'low_quality_programming' which is very bad too. If the second function is called with a string longer that LENGTH characters, than it will SILENTLY truncate it. I assume here that the function is supposed to work on the complete string and not to just work on the first characters in case the string is too long. If it is allowed to pass a string longer than LENGTH, than the first function has random behavior and a crash somewhere else is hard to track down. The second function does the wrong thing and could have even more subtile changes in your program and with no crash or other symptom is most likely even harder to debug. A real defensive function would error out if it is called with arguments that it cannot handle. Initializing the target is also not necessary. It would be enough to make sure the result string is null terminated. strncpy also would be called with LENGTH+1 to make sure that the terminator is copied for strings of length LENGTH. The result of strncpy can be used to check if the string was null terminated. The function has to error out if truncating is not what the function is specified to do. Sconden (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

memset?
I don't mind the canon strcpy/strncpy example (though I think there are much less subtle examples of defensive programming), but does someone mind explaining to me the significance of the obfuscated memset call versus a much clearer "str[999] = '\0'"? strncpy already pads with null, so memset is not only vague and obfuscating, it's redundant. Honestly, I think the null bounding could be omitted entirely since it's irrelevant to the example's main point. Jrajav (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Vague and Off-track
I just came across this article and have some significant problems with it. Though there are some good things about it, in general it is vague and even incorrect in places. Towards the end it just becomes a succession of rambling statements, mostly irrelevant.

Take the first paragraph -- what does "ensure the continuing function" mean exactly? How can you cater for "unforeseeable usage" since by definition you can't foresee it - "unexpected" would be a better word here. The mention of Murphy's Law makes me think that the rest of an article is actually a joke. Emotive words like "mischievously" and "catastrophic" are also inappropriate.

The next bit is even worse. The true definition of defensive programming is open to debate (see below) but it is definitely not about removing bugs (rather about lessening their effect), or making code comprehensible. (Also why mention readable and understandable after the word comprehensible - all three words means the same thing in this context. And what do "code audits" have to do with it?)  The last sentence about "making the software behave predictably" is getting closer to the meaning but not really true. Also what is the difference between "inputs" and "user actions"?

The code example is a reasonable example of defensive programming. One confusing thing is why the buffer "str" is declared to be 1001 characters in the first snippet and only 1000 in the second. Also (as pointed out above) the memset is unnecessary since clearing the last byte is sufficient.

I think a simpler example would be a for loop. It also avoids the confusion between defensive programming and secure programming, since buffer overruns are a major aspect of secure programming but not so much in defensive programming.

However, my main problem with the article is that it does not describe the most commonly accepted definition of defensive programmming, which is simply code that recovers from unexpected situations. This can be useful in "secure programming" but more useful for that is input validation.

It also does not mention the problems with defensive programming which is that it tends to hide the presence of bugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.222.1 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of "overly" should be avoided
I find the use of the word "overly" in the "Overly defensive programming" examples problematic. They might be overly defensive according to the offensive programming principle, but that doesn't necessarily make them "overly" defensive in general.

And even if they are overly defensive even for defensive programming, then they are not very helpful in illustrating the actual difference between normal defensive programming and offensive programming.

The best would be to use perfectly valid "Normal defensive programming" (or "Non-offensive defensive programming") examples and contrast them with their corresponding "Offensive programming" examples, to actually show the difference.

I cannot correct this myself, as I am not enough into the terminology to provide a normal defensive programming example and provide a parallel offensive programming example. (I can see what is wrong, but that doesn't mean I can provide the correction.) --Jhertel (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree to that in 2023: "Overly" is a personal opinion and should be avoided. In fact, I think the "offensive programming" example using assert(0) is a very bad practice and not defensive programming at all. This is because it leaves the function without a defined return value when compiled with NDEBUG. It will even cause a compiler warning. Adding the assert(0) statement before an return statement is a more robust approach. 84.253.48.217 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claims
Several of the claims are dubious, and even encourage readers to fall prey to well known CWE's, such as CWE-478 (https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/478.html), by claiming that a default case is "overly defensive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.15.19 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Additions
1. Use source code and binaries scanners (e.g., https://www.veracode.com/) 2. Use docker images vulnerability scannners (e.g., docker snyk engine: https://docs.docker.com/engine/scan/, jfrog xray: https://jfrog.com/integration/xray-docker-security-scanning/

title: Talk:Defensive programming


text:
Yanbu

Yanbu (ينبع), also known simply as Yambu or Yenbo, is a city in the Al Madinah Province of western Saudi Arabia. It is approximately 300 kilometers northwest of Jeddah (at 24.08333°N, 38°W). The population is 331,916 (2022 census). Many residents are foreign expatriates working in the oil refineries and petrochemical industry, mostly from Asia, but there are also large numbers from the Middle East, Europe, and North America.

Yanbu has three primary sections; Yanbu Al-Bahr, Yanbu Al-Nakhl and Yanbu Al-Sina'iya as well as a major Red Sea port.

Pre-modern era
Yanbu's history dates back at least 2,500 years, when it was a staging point on the spice and incense route from Yemen to Egypt and the Mediterranean region.

Sharm Yanbu (شرم ينبع), historically known as Charmuthas, which is a small peninsula located to the north of Yanbu was mentioned by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus.

The Invasion of Dul Ashir took place in Yanbu two or three months after prophet Muhammad's return from Buwat. He appointed Abu Salamah Ibn Abd al-Assad to take his place in Medina while he was away commanding another raid. Between 150 and 200 followers joined this operation to al-Ushayra, Yanbu in either the month of Jumada al-awwal or Jumada al-Thani.

They had 30 camels that they rode upon by turns. When they arrived at al-Usharayh, they expected to raid a rich Meccan caravan heading towards Syria led by Abu Sufyan. The locals already had the knowledge of this caravan’s departure from Mecca and waited for about a month for this caravan to pass. But the Meccan caravan had already passed.

In this operation, Muhammad entered into an alliance with Banu Madlaj, a tribe inhabiting the vicinity of al-Ushayra. He also concluded another treaty that was made with Banu Damrah previously. All those treaties established good political connections for him.

Modern era
Yanbu served as a supply and operational base for Arab and British forces fighting the Ottoman Empire during World War I. On July 27, 1916 the Ottoman garrison surrendered in the Capture of Yanbu to the Arab revolutionary forces. It remained a small port town until 1975, when the Saudi government designated it as one of the country's two new industrial centers (the other being Al Jubayl in the Eastern Province). Extensive government and private development have taken place at the port and surrounding area, which is based on the petrochemical industry.

Geography
The city is divided into three primary sections, which are located about fifteen minutes (drive by car) away from each other. Yanbu is the second-largest Saudi Arabian city by the Red Sea, after Jeddah.

Yanbu Al-Bahr
(Also known as Yanbu Al-Bahar) is the most northern part of Yanbu. The downtown area of Yanbu Al-Bahr (which is also called Al-Balad) contains most of the population. Most of the restaurants here cater to the various ethnic groups in the area, although some also cater to residents in the Royal Commission. The area also contains some international chain restaurants, as well as some coffee shops. There is also a shopping mall and various shopping centers located here as well. The city has many popular local brand hotels, including international brand like Holiday Inn Hotel, ibis Hotel, Radisson Blu Hotel and Novotel Hotel is located at the edge of this area, as is Yanbu Airport. Arabian Homes also have a gated private residential community compound catering to the expat population, and is located next to the Holiday Inn. Most of the residents tend to be lower and middle-class Saudi citizens, and well as mostly South Asian and lower and middle-class Arab and other Middle Eastern expatriates. Every year there is a flower festival at the outskirts of Yanbu that has attracted many viewers around Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries.

Currently, the government is attempting to improve the old, historical area in downtown Yanbu, as many historical buildings are located there. Many are still in a serious state of disrepair. While most of Yanbu Al-Balad has a rather old, worn-out feel to it, parts of the city, particularly at the edges of the city, are starting to modernize, as new shopping centers, as well as a new shopping mall, have been built. Jarir Bookstore had also opened a branch in Yanbu Al-Balad.

Yanbu Al-Nakhal
(The Palms) is a separate area, some 47 kilometers from the city (according to Google Maps), that has more than 20 villages such as Jabriyya, Suwaiq, Raihan, Mesharif, Ain-Ajlan, Madsos, Alnejil and Talaat Nazah, where mostly farms would be found. Currently (July 2018), most of the residents are local tribes, mostly from Johainah (Aljohani), Harb (Alharbi), and few from Ashraf. There are also some foreign nationals, mostly from south and east Asia, as well as some expatriate Arabs. Some of the local Saudis work on their own farms and trade in sheep and camels. The most notable village in Yanbu Al Nakhal is Jabriyya, where the local government office for the town is located. The village has a general hospital, a bank, three ATM machines, four well-serviced filling stations, a fire station, two notable malls, several recreational facilities among other things. The locals are very friendly and cordial in greetings and offering help. There is almost everything you need for basic livelihood in the neighborhood, however, the options for residents pales in comparison to both the Royal Commission and Yanbu Al Bahr. The Radwah Mountain is very visible anywhere in the town.

However, the town has neither hotels nor international schools, and locals and expatriates seeking foreign education for their children had to send them to international schools in the main city center, Yanbu Al Bahr, or in the Royal Commission.

Yanbu Al-Sina'iya
Yanbu Al-Sina'iya (literally "the industrial Yanbu") is the industrial city, established in 1975 by royal decree to create a Royal Commission to manage the effort to build a new modern city. It is the southernmost part of Yanbu city. Yanbu Al-Sina'iya is divided into two parts, the industrial area to the south, and a residential area (referred to as the Royal Commission by many locals) directly north and adjacent to the industrial area. The industrial area within Yanbu Al-Sina'iya is the area of all the major refineries and petrochemical installations and is still undergoing major growth. This area of Yanbu was a strip of undeveloped coastal desert land on the Red Sea and has been transformed into an industrial city.

Yanbu Al-Sina'iya's residential section is near the Royal Commission Headquarters. It has amenities such as many international chain and local restaurants, two shopping malls, various shopping centers, supermarkets of various sizes, hospitals, banks, and coffee shops. The Movenpick Hotel, Yanbu's newest hotel, is located here, as is The Cove, a gated private residential housing compound built around a large private lagoon. Yanbu Al Sinaiyah is home to Yanbu Industrial College, created for training and imparting knowledge for the students and workforce of the industry. Yanbu International School was also located here, prior to its closing in 2018.

The majority of Yanbu's Western expatriate population is found living in the Royal Commission. The rest of the residents of Yanbu Al-Sina'iya tend to be upper-middle and upper-class Saudi citizens, upper-class Asians, and upper-class Arab and Middle Eastern residents. The residential area of Yanbu Al-Sina'iya has a more modern, clean, and organized feel to it than the downtown area. It is also greener.

A new waterfront project has been launched in the coastline of Yanbu Industrial City. The total area of this project is 12 km. The project consists of four phases. The first phase is made of a campground equipped with the needed facilities. The second phase is made up of gardens, marina and a number of islands. The third phase has a recreation area, hotel and other facilities. The fourth phase has an aquarium.

Climate
Yanbu has a hot desert climate (Köppen climate classification BWh) with very hot summer like weather year round.

Economy
Yanbu is an important petroleum shipping terminal and is home to three oil refineries, a plastics facility and several other petrochemical plants. It is the country's second port (after Jeddah) and serves as the main port for the holy city of Medina, 160 km to the east. The natural harbour is protected on both sides by wide coral reefs. These reefs remain mostly untouched, making them excellent areas for diving. Three major oil pipelines lead across the desert from the oilfields in the east to terminate at the Red Sea in Yanbu.

Education
For higher education, the city has several universities and colleges, including the following:
 * College of Computer Science & Engineering at Yanbu (CCSEY): Which belongs to Taibah University
 * Yanbu Industrial College
 * Yanbu University College

Yanbu is also home to several primary, intermediate and secondary schools such as:

 * Al-Isra International School
 * Al Manar International School -Yanbu
 * Al Tawhid International School
 * Naba'a Al-Maarifa Private Schools
 * Radhwa International School Yanbu
 * Yanbu Elite International School
 * Yanbu International School (closed as of July 31, 2018)

Hospitals

 * Al Ansari Hospital - Royal Commission
 * Yanbu National Hospital - Royal Commission
 * Royal Commission Medical Center Royal Commission Hospital - Yanbu

Tourism

Although the city is known for its industrial activities, it is now growing as a touristic destination. The beach is used for scuba-diving as well as swimming and relaxing in front of the white sandy shores. It has a very big beach called the "China herbal park ", which is approximately 4 km2 in size.

In 2020, Saudi Arabia's tourism ministry decided to renovate T. E. Lawrence's house in Yanbu, the British officer who captured the city during World War I.

Airport
Yanbu has an international airport (code YNB) that was upgraded in 2009. It only offers flights to Dammam, Jeddah, and Riyadh within Saudi Arabia. Internationally, it offers flights to Alexandria and Cairo in Egypt, Istanbul in Turkey, and Dubai and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates.

All of the international destinations are serviced by foreign airlines; domestic carriers Saudia and Flynas only serve the domestic destinations listed above.

Highways
A highway passes through Yanbu, linking Yanbu to Jeddah in the south, and to the northern parts of the kingdom as well as to neighboring countries like Syria, Jordan, etc., in the north.

Yanbu Commercial Port
It is one of the oldest sea ports along the Red Sea. The port is connected to the holy cities, especially the one in Madinah. Moreover, it has an economic importance as it located in an economically vital area. It also receives pilgrims.

Video

 * City of Yanbu
 * Palm Beach at Yanbu
 * Yanbu sunrise
 * Types and prices of fish in Yanbu

title: Yanbu


text:
User:Rimantas a

My name is Rimantas Adomauskas. I am 33 years old male from Kaunas, Lithuania. I work as project manager and programmer for a computer software company.

My main interest is basketball - NBA, European and international. I like to play basketball myself, I also play guitar a little.

title: User:Rimantas a