text:
Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands)

Mary of Austria (15 September 1505 – 18 October 1558), also known as Mary of Hungary, was queen of Hungary and Bohemia as the wife of King Louis II, and was later governor of the Habsburg Netherlands.

The daughter of Queen Joanna and King Philip I of Castile, Mary married King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia in 1515. Their marriage was happy but short and childless. Upon her husband's death following the Battle of Mohács in 1526, Queen Mary governed Hungary as regent in the name of the new king, her brother, Ferdinand I.

Following the death of their aunt Margaret in 1530, Mary was asked by her eldest brother, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, to assume the governance of the Netherlands and guardianship over their nieces, Dorothea and Christina of Denmark. As governor of the Netherlands, Mary faced riots and a difficult relationship with the Emperor. Throughout her tenure she continuously attempted to ensure peace between the Emperor and the King of France. Although she never enjoyed governing and asked for permission to resign several times, the Queen succeeded in creating a unity between the provinces, as well as in securing for them a measure of independence from both France and the Holy Roman Empire. After her final resignation, the very frail Queen moved to Castile, where she died.

Early life
Born in Brussels on 15 September 1505, between ten and eleven in the morning, Archduchess Mary of Austria was the fifth child of Philip the Handsome, Duke of Burgundy, and Queen Joanna of Castile. Her birth was very difficult; the Queen's life was in danger and it took her a month to recover. On 20 September, she was baptized by Nicolas Le Ruistre, Bishop of Arras, and named after her paternal grandmother, Mary of Burgundy, who had died in 1482. Her godfather was her paternal grandfather, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor.

On 17 March 1506, Emperor Maximilian promised to marry her to the first son of King Vladislaus II of Hungary. At the same time, the two monarchs decided that a brother of Mary would marry Vladislaus' daughter Anne. Three months later, Vladislaus' wife, Anne of Foix-Candale, had a son, Louis Jagiellon. Queen Anne died and the royal physicians made great efforts to keep the sickly Louis alive.

After the death of Mary's father in September 1506, her mother's mental health began to deteriorate. Mary, along with her brother, Archduke Charles, and her sisters, Archduchesses Eleanor and Isabella, was put into the care of her paternal aunt, Archduchess Margaret, while two other siblings, Archduke Ferdinand and posthumously-born Archduchess Catherine, remained in Castile. Mary, Isabella, and Eleanor were educated together at their aunt's court in Mechelen. Their music teacher was Henry Bredemers.

Queen of Hungary and Bohemia

Mary was summoned to the court of her grandfather Maximilian in 1514. On 22 July 1515, Mary and Louis were married in St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. At the same time, Louis' sister Anne was betrothed to an as yet unspecified brother of Mary, with Emperor Maximilian acting as proxy. Due to their age, it was decided that the newly married couple would not live together for a few more years.

Anne eventually married Mary's brother Ferdinand and came to Vienna, where the double sisters-in-law were educated together until 1516. That year, Mary's father-in-law died, making Louis and Mary king and queen of Hungary and Bohemia. Mary moved to Innsbruck, where she was educated until 1521. Anna and Mary moved first to Vienna, and then to Innsbruck. Maximilian rarely visited, but he sent his hunter home to instruct the two girls in the art of hunting. There was emphasis on their ability to handle weapons and other physical skills. The humanist education they enjoyed focused on problem-solving skills. They were also instructed in dancing, music, and came in contact with many humanists who visited the imperial library there. Innsbruck was also home to a great weapon arsenal and a growing armament industry built by the emperor.

This was her forming period. Similar to her grandfather Maximilian in many respects (she did not have his lively personality, but proved a better manager of financial affairs), Mary displayed a natural inquisitive mind and developed interest in the practical aspects of governing as well as military affairs. This passion would later be demonstrated during her tenure as governor of the Netherlands.

Life with Louis
Mary travelled to Hungary in June 1521, two and a half years after Emperor Maximilian's death. She was anointed and crowned queen of Hungary by Simon Erdődy, Bishop of Zagreb, in Székesfehérvár on 11 December 1521. The queen's coronation was followed by brilliant festivities. The royal marriage was blessed on 13 January 1522 in Buda. Mary's anointment and coronation as queen of Bohemia took place on 1 June 1522.

Mary and Louis fell in love when they were reunited. At first, Queen Mary had no influence over politics of Hungary and Bohemia because of her youth. Her court was replete with Germans and Dutch, who formed a base for the interests of the House of Habsburg. By 1524 Mary negotiated significant authority and influence for herself. In 1525, she took control over one powerful political faction and neutralised another. Austria's ambassador, Andrea de Borgo, was appointed by the Queen herself.

During her tenure as queen of Hungary, Mary attracted the interest of Martin Luther, who dedicated four psalms to her in 1526. Despite her brother Ferdinand's strong disapproval, Luther's teachings held great appeal for Mary during her marriage and even more for her sister Isabella and her brother-in-law King Christian II of Denmark. Mary turned away from his teachings mostly because of pressure from Ferdinand. Her trusted court preacher, Johann Henckel, is also considered responsible for Mary's return to orthodox Catholicism. The return was lukewarm, but historian Helmut Georg Koenigsberger considers Mary's reputation for sympathy with Lutheranism to be "much-exaggerated".

Louis and Mary spent their free time riding and hunting in the open country near the palace. They tried unsuccessfully to mobilize the Hungarian nobility against the imminent Ottoman invasion. Mary tried to cooperate with her brother Ferdinand in organizing a Hungarian defence against the Ottoman Empire, while at the same time consolidating Habsburg influence. She was much more vigorous and spiritually stronger than Louis – the Hungarians realized this themselves and criticized their king – but the fact she relied on non-Hungarian advisors cost her sympathy. Alfred Kohler opines that their defence project failed because of Louis's lack of competence.

Louis had inherited the crown of a country whose noblemen were fighting among themselves and against the peasantry. Hungary was deeply divided when, by the end of 1525, it became clear that the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent was planning to invade.

Ottoman invasion
On 29 August 1526, Suleiman and his army broke through Hungary's southern defences. Louis and his entire government marched out with a small army of 20,000 men. The Battle of Mohács was over in less than two hours, with the entire Hungarian army virtually annihilated. Louis tried to flee the site of the battle but slipped from his frightened horse and drowned. Mary would mourn him for the rest of her life.

Hungary was divided into three parts: Ottoman Hungary – a part of the Ottoman Empire, Royal Hungary – ruled by Mary's brother Ferdinand, and the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom – ruled by John Zápolya. Ferdinand was elected King of Bohemia. Mary took a vow to never remarry and always wore the heart-shaped medallion worn by her husband in the fatal Battle of Mohács.

Regency in Hungary
The day after her husband's death, Mary notified Ferdinand of the defeat and asked him to come to Hungary. She requested troops to support her until his arrival. Ferdinand, busy in Bohemia where he had already been elected king, instead named Mary his regent in Hungary.

Mary spent the following year working to secure the election of Ferdinand as King of Hungary. On 14 February 1527, she asked for his permission to resign as regent. Permission was denied, and Mary had to remain in the post until the summer of 1527, when Ferdinand finally came to Hungary and assumed the crown, to Mary's relief.

Mary soon experienced financial troubles, illnesses, and loneliness. In 1528, her aunt Margaret suggested that she should marry King James V of Scotland. Mary rejected the idea because she had loved her husband and did not wish another marriage. In 1530 Charles again suggested that she should remarry; he proposed to arrange a marriage to Frederick II, Elector Palatine, who had unsuccessfully courted Mary's sister Eleanor sixteen years before. Mary rejected him as well.

Ferdinand offered Mary the post of regent again in 1528, but she declined, saying that "such affairs need a person wiser and older". Ferdinand persisted in drawing Mary into his affairs throughout 1529. Archduchess Margaret died on 1 December the next year, leaving the position of Governor of the Seventeen Provinces in the Netherlands vacant. Ferdinand informed her about their aunt's death, saying that her affairs might now "take a different course".

Governor of the Netherlands

On 3 January 1531, Mary's older brother, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, requested that she assume the regency of the Netherlands. Charles was ruling a vast empire and was constantly in need of reliable family members who could govern his remote territories in his name. Mary reluctantly accepted on Charles' insistence. On 6 October 1537, in Monzón, the Emperor wrote to her:

"I am only one and I can't be everywhere; and I must be where I ought to be and where I can, and often enough only where I can be and not where I would like to be; for one can't do more than one can do."

Mary served as regent of the Netherlands so well that Charles forced her to retain the post and granted her more powers than their aunt had enjoyed. Unlike her aunt, Mary was deeply unhappy during her tenure as governor and never enjoyed her role. In May 1531, having governed for only four months, Mary told her brother Ferdinand the experience was like having a rope around her neck. While Margaret had been considered truly feminine, flexible, adaptable, humorous and charming, Mary was unyielding and authoritarian. Margaret accomplished her goals using a smile, a joke, or a word of praise, but Mary used cynical and biting comments. Unlike her aunt, Mary was unable to forgive or forget. She recognized this lack of "power as a woman" as her main problem.

Guardianship over nieces
Assuming the regency in the Netherlands meant assuming the guardianship of her nieces, Dorothea and Christina of Denmark, the daughters of her older sister, Queen Isabella of Denmark, who had died in 1526. Upon Isabella's death, the princesses had been cared for by Archduchess Margaret. Charles now relied upon Mary to arrange marriages for them, especially for Dorothea, whom he wanted to place on the Danish throne.

In 1532, Francesco II Sforza, Duke of Milan, proposed a marriage with Christina, who was then 11 years old. Charles agreed to the marriage and allowed its immediate consummation. Mary determinedly opposed this decision, explaining to Charles that Christina was too young for consummation of the marriage. Charles ignored her, but she nevertheless managed to delay the marriage. She first told the Milanese envoy that her niece was ill and then took her to another part of the Netherlands for "serious affairs". Christina was finally married on 28 September 1532, but Mary managed to postpone her departure until 11 March 1533. Immediately after Christina's departure, Mary fell ill and requested that she be allowed to resign as governor, but Charles did not allow it. A year later, Dorothea too was married. A few months after Dorothea's departure, the now widowed Christina returned to her aunt's court. King Henry VIII of England immediately proposed marriage to Christina, and Charles urged Mary to negotiate the marriage. She was not in favour of the union, and delayed. Henry VIII was excommunicated in 1539, at which point Charles had to end the negotiations.

Relationship with Charles
The Emperor assured Mary that he had no doubts about her loyalty to the Catholic Church. He had learned that the Queen could not easily be bullied, especially not in matters which affected her personally. Yet, upon leaving the States General in October 1531, Charles gave her a warning, saying that if his parent, wife, child or sibling became a follower of Luther, he would consider them his greatest enemy. Mary was thus forced to suppress Protestantism in the Netherlands, regardless of her own religious tolerance. However, she always strived to enforce her brother's laws on religion as little as possible. She was accused of protecting Protestants on several occasions.

Her determination sometimes caused clashes of wills with Charles. In most matters of patronage, Mary had to defer to Charles, which is why his relations in this area were not much better with Mary than with their aunt Margaret. He often criticized her decisions, which negatively affected their otherwise affectionate relationship.

Riots
Mary became worried about losing authority and was having trouble with the finances in February 1534. She complained that the budget could not be balanced even during the times of peace. Charles assured her that she was doing her best.

The Queen complained to Charles in August 1537 that the Low Countries were no longer governable and said he should come himself. In fact, Mary handled the crisis quite well and kept a cool head in public. In October, she travelled to the north of France to meet her brother-in-law, King Francis I of France, the second husband of her sister Eleanor. On October 23, they signed a treaty. Francis thereby promised Mary that he would not help those who rebelled against her, while the Queen promised to compensate certain French noblemen who lost their land in the Low Countries during the Italian Wars.

Military policies
In 1534, Mary prepared a proposal for a defensive union of all the provinces in her councils. She made the proposal at the States General in Mechelen in July, citing her brother, who had requested the provinces assist each other. The plan had to be given up and, after Mary and Eleanor's failure to negotiate peace between the Empire and France, Mary's letters to Charles began to resemble the theatrical outbursts of their aunt Margaret.

Mary strived for peace in the Netherlands. Charles paid no attention to the problems she was facing as governor and often ignored her warnings. One such incident led to Charles's loss of the city of Metz to France. Mary was forced to wage war against France in 1537 and to deal with the Revolt of Ghent between 1538 and 1540. Mary's appointment as Governor of the Netherlands was renewed on 14 October 1540, after the revolt in Ghent had been subdued.

Defence of the Herring Fleet
During the last decade of her regency, Scottish privateers became a serious problem in the North Sea. A 1551 petition by Antwerp merchants to the Habsburg government claimed that Scottish pirates and others, over the course of eight to ten years, had taken ships and goods that were worth about 1,600,000 Holland pounds. In 1547, Mary summoned deputies from the three fishing provinces to debate the matter. Many were in favor of safe-conducts, supposedly cheaper and more effective than building up naval armaments, but the Queen refused to negotiate with a weak Scottish government. Despite a firm sentiment against money for warships, Mary acted resolutely and issued orders forbidding all herring buses or merchantmen from sailing until the three fishing provinces could formulate an acceptable plan for naval defense. Under her pressure, the provinces agreed to create a common Netherlands war fleet, but differences were only completely worked out in the very last years of her government. Cornelis de Scepper, her chief naval strategist created a plan, according to which, a large naval squadron would patrol on station off the Estuary of Maas, while swift yachts would be responsible for communication with the herring fleet. Holland consented to provide eight warships for a fleet of twenty-five sail, intended to provide security for all branches of trade in the North Sea. James D.Tracy comments that "The development of this new strategy for naval defense was no small accomplishment, but most of the credit should go to the leadership provided by Mary of Hungary and her officials".

Creation of a permanent navy
Mary, the Admiral Maximilian of Burgundy and the Councillor Cornelis de Schepper were the team behind the professionalization process that characterized the Low Countries' maritime policy in the 1550–1555 period. The central government led by Mary tried to make provinces recognize the authority of the Admiralty. Mary favoured de Schepper over Maximilian but there were no distrust between the two men and the three formed an excellent team. Maximilian had too much responsibilities in various provinces, so perhaps this was why he appreciated help from others. De Schepper played the role of the mastermind, who formulated every memorandum and document regarding naval policies. From 1550 to 1555 (the year he died), he was the equal of the Admiral in equipping warships and organizing convoys. During this period, Schepper's activities focused on Flanders while Maximilian focused on Holland and Zeeland (initially, his authority was only recognized in Zeeland and Flanders but as he also the Stadtholder of Holland, he was able to exercise this authority in this province too). Their efforts resulted in the creation of a permanent navy. Mary proved herself a pragmatic and energetic leader in the process.

Resignation
The Queen had to mediate between her brothers in 1555, when Charles decided to abdicate as emperor and leave the government of the Netherlands to his son Philip, despite Ferdinand's objections. When Mary learned of Charles's decision, she informed him that she too would resign. Both Charles and Philip urged her to remain in the post, but she refused. She chronicled the difficulties she had faced due to her gender, the fact that she could not act as she thought she should have because of disagreements with Charles, and her age. Furthermore, she did not wish to accommodate to the ways of her nephew after years of getting used to Charles's demands. The actual reason for Mary's resignation was her numerous disagreements with her nephew. She asked for Charles's permission to leave the Netherlands upon her resignation, fearing that she would be drawn into politics again if she remained.

Charles finally allowed his sister to resign. She formally announced her decision on 24 September 1555 and dismissed her household on 1 October. On 25 October, her authority was transferred to Philip, who, despite his personal dislike of his aunt, tried to convince her to resume the post. After another quarrel with Philip, Mary retired to Turnhout. She remained in the Netherlands one more year.

Life in Castile

Mary wished to retire to Castile and live with her recently widowed sister Eleanor, near Charles, who had retired. She was afraid of moving to Castile because, although her mentally unstable mother Joanna (who died aged 75 in April 1555) had been sovereign there, Mary had never lived in Castile. She was afraid that Eleanor's death would leave her alone in a country whose customs she did not know. In the end, she decided to move to Castile, while retaining the possibility of moving back to the Netherlands in case she could not adjust to the Castilian customs. Charles, Eleanor, and Mary sailed from Ghent on 15 September 1556.

Although she repeatedly assured her brother that she had no intention of occupying herself with the affairs of state, Mary offered to become adviser to her niece Joanna, who was serving as regent for Philip. Joanna did not wish to share power and declined her aunt's offer.

Mary did not enjoy her retirement for long; Eleanor died in her arms in February 1558. The grief-stricken queen travelled to Charles to ask him for advice about her future. Charles told her that he wanted her to resume regency in the Netherlands, and promised a home and a large income, but Mary declined the offer. Her nephew Philip then urged her advisor to convince her to return. When Charles became ill in August, Mary accepted the offer and decided that she would become governor once again.

In September, Mary was fully prepared to depart for the Netherlands and resume her post when she was informed of Charles's death. Distressed by the death of another sibling, the Queen, who had suffered from a heart disease most of her life, had two heart attacks in October. Both were so severe that her doctors thought that she had died. When Joanna visited her, Mary was still determined to fulfill the promise she had given to Charles and assume the regency in the Netherlands, but she was weak and feverish. She died only few weeks later, in Cigales on 18 October 1558.

In her last will, Mary left all her possessions to Charles. Since Charles had died, Philip inherited his aunt's property. Shortly before her death, she decided that Philip and Joanna should execute her will. She requested that her heart-shaped gold medallion, once worn by her husband, be melted down and the gold distributed to the poor.

Queen Mary was first buried in the Monastery of Saint Benedict in Valladolid. Fifteen years after her death, Philip ordered that the remains be transferred to El Escorial.

Patronage of arts
Mary was a keen art collector, and owned several important masterpieces of Early Netherlandish painting as well as more contemporary works. These included the Deposition of Christ by Rogier van der Weyden, now in the Museo de Prado, and the Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck, now in the National Gallery, London. Most of the collection passed to the Spanish Royal Collection after her death.

Queen Mary of Hungary was a great patron of music. She supported both sacred and secular music at her court in the Netherlands, where her maître de chapelle was Benedictus Appenzeller. Several elaborate music manuscripts that she commissioned during her governance are preserved in Spain in the monastery of Montserrat.

Appearance and personality
According to Koenigsberger, having inherited the Habsburg lip and not very feminine looks, Mary was not considered physically attractive. Her portraits, letters, and comments by her contemporaries do not assign her the easy Burgundian charm possessed by her grandmother, Duchess Mary of Burgundy, and her aunt Margaret. Nevertheless, she proved to be a determined and skilful politician, as well as an enthusiastic patron of literature, music, and hunting. The contemporary historian Pierre de Bourdeille though found her beautiful and charming, despite the slight tendency towards mannishness. People close to her also found her charming. What made her perceived as masculine (and usually attracted criticism as going beyond "acceptable female behavior") was "her authoritarian manner, her overly public life and her 'masculine' activities".

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


text:
Forges du Saint-Maurice

The Forges du Saint-Maurice ("St. Maurice Ironworks") was the first successful ironworking industry in New France. At the time of the initial formation of the forges in 1730, the Saint Maurice region near Trois-Rivières had long been known for its iron resources. Although the forges went through multiple managements, they were unable to turn a profit on their own and owners had to deal with heavy debts. The French colonial state finally took direct control of the forges after the second private company went bankrupt, and managed it until the British arrival in the 1760s. In 1973 the forges were converted into a national historical site. The plant produced such staple items as pots, pans and stoves.

First Compagnie des Forges
François Poulin de Francheville was the Seigneur of Saint-Maurice, involved in the fur trade, and rather successful as an entrepreneur, when he attempted to expand to heavy industry, and to develop ironworks in his seigneury. In 1729, Francheville requested a 20-year monopoly on the mining of the iron deposits in his Seigneury of Saint Maurice. The King granted this monopoly in a generous fashion, along with an exemption from indemnities or tithes. He also permitted Francheville to make use of the surrounding lands which he did not own, assuming the Seigneur would reimburse the owners for the seizure of cultivated lands.

Before starting the enterprise, Francheville also requested and received a 10,000 livre cash advance from the King with which to build the industry. As the Seigneur realized the cost such an industry could have on one man, he formed a company with three partners, while still retaining majority control of the new "Compagnie des Forges du Saint-Maurice." Those partners included his brother, another merchant, the secretary of the intendant, and a member of the Conseil Supérieur, which was the sovereign council of New France. In early 1733, the company hired Christophe Janson to go to New England to study the ironworks that were in operation there.

While Francheville did construct a few roads, he tried to bypass the lack of infrastructure by conducting the smelting in the middle of winter, so that he could transport tonnes of ore from the mines to the forge over the smooth snow using sleds. The Compagnie des Forges attempted to use a method called direct ore reduction to turn ore to iron with a high yield. Unfortunately, Francheville and his ironworkers did not have the expertise to properly and consistently utilize these techniques, which were nevertheless working successfully in the British colonies to the south. In November 1733, Francheville died from an illness, leaving most of his property to his wife, including his share in the company. Practical control of the forges went in the hands of the three remaining partners and in those of the intendant Hocquart. Although Francheville’s wife took over his responsibilities in the company, the reality became more obvious as they started proper production and smelting ore. The numbers the company had promised were far beyond what could now be reasonably expected, the yield being consistently uneven and of low quality. In 1735, Hocquart sent bars of iron and a model of the forges to France so that the more experienced ironworkers of the metropole could evaluate the samples and provide advice to make the forges produce more efficiently. The same year, Cugnet, the aforementioned member of the Conseil Supérieur, was left in control of the company with a heavy debt to deal with. He thus decided to hire a French skilled worker to come and inspect the forges.

Second Company
In September 1735, the master ironworker François Vézin arrived in New France to inspect the ironworks and the land surrounding them. He believed that a few changes would be enough to achieve significant production output and to create approximately 120 jobs, an outcome the Colonial authorities desired. For instance, the land for the forges would have to be cleared since it had not been previously cultivated. Vézin and previous investors in Francheville’s company agreed to take over the forges and all their debt, and to begin anew with Vézin’s vision, as long as they received the same monopoly terms as Francheville. The new company was officially formed in 1737. It involved Cugnet and Gamelin, who were previous investors in the forges, along with Tascherueau who was a high-ranking individual within the Marine, Vézin, and another skilled ironworker from France. As local experts claimed that Vézin overestimated the amount of energy the creek could produce for the forges, the master ironworker modified his plans and finally created a smaller forge that would not be sufficient to produce the variety of ironwork initially hoped for. Work began in earnest after the change of plans with the aid of another master ironworker sent by the intendant. Pressed by the authorities, Vézin finished the construction quickly, thereby making a low quality building. Many skilled workers from France kept arriving to assist at the Forges du Saint Maurice, but due to the rushed timeline and poor craftsmanship, certain parts of the forges were not producing any output and the skilled workers could not ply their trade. The poor construction led to sections of the forges requiring reconstruction, which raised the operating costs and limited the profits. All these setbacks continued weighing upon the production of the forges, slowing it quite dramatically, even halving it during certain periods. The constant setbacks drove the ironworks deeper into debt to the French Crown, which continuously gave loans in the thousands of livres at the request of various colonial ministers, most notably the intendant Hocquart. Vézin’s estimates of the cost of the forges were low, and production predictions were drastically higher than what could actually be produced. In 1741, the Vézin era of the Forges du Saint Maurice came to an end. The forges had been struggling financially for many years when the company finally declared bankruptcy.

State rule
In 1741, the associates of the Compagnie des Forges announced their intention to resign. The Intendant Hocquart described two possible solutions to save the forges: either a new company would keep the private corporation running, or the State would have to take over. As everyone waited for the Crown to make a decision, Hocquart named Guillaume Estèbe director of the forges on behalf of the State. This storekeeper from Quebec was asked to make up an inventory of the enterprise and to temporarily direct it. Hocquart could not think of abandoning the forges, especially since the King had advanced a lot of money for the project. The intendant was still convinced that iron-exploitation would benefit the colony and that previous failures were entirely due to bad management and lack of money. If a new company with sufficient resources were to take over, Hocquart believed that minor repairs would be enough to ensure a great success. Despite this optimistic view, the estimated profit was not high enough to attract French investors. Furthermore, the required investment was too heavy for anyone in the colony to afford it. On May 1, 1743, the forges officially became Crown property as compensation for unrepaid loans on Vézin’s company. The former associates were thus discharged of their debt. However, some private creditors still had to be paid back and, from 1743 until 1750, the State consecrated a part of the profit of the forges to finally move on from the economic legacy of the previous owners. Even though they had taken over, official authorities still hoped to find a private company to buy the forges back. As a result, the State administered the forges on an interim basis, refusing to invest any more than the required minimum. No major change was thus implemented until 1747, when a fire destroyed the lower forge, forcing the government to pay for its reconstruction. On this occasion, a martinet was added to the infrastructure. French authorities also sent two French molders who knew how to cast artillery to Saint Maurice. This new technology and those skilled men enabled the diversification of the production. Manufactured domestic goods could now be produced and were sold on the colonial market. The forges were reoriented toward military production but never succeeded in casting good pieces of heavy artillery.

Until 1749, the forges made good profit. This success might have been the result of a cautious management; government officials did not have to worry about paying back loans to the State like previous owners did, and thus could take wiser decisions. Furthermore, more than half of the products were exported to France at high prices with the government imposing beneficial tariffs. By 1749, this prosperity reversed and the forges experienced years of deficit. Expensive repairs could not be delayed any longer and French imports increased competition on the market, causing a drop in iron prices. Furthermore, epidemics among workers spread and prevented them from working as efficiently as they did before. "Labour at St. Maurice was in general dissatisfied, incompetent or insubordinate." By 1752, labor issues caused multiple interruptions in the work. As workers grew older, no young generation wanted to replace them. Men had enough work on their farm or on the fur trade to be interested by industrial employment. This shortage compelled the State to pay high wages for bad quality work to the few remaining employees. To try to manage the situation, the State hired soldiers to work in the forges. Even though the solution was not perfect, it contributed to a notable peak in the production in 1752, which became the most fructuous year of the exploitation. Despite a sharp economic decline caused by the Seven Years' War, the forges remained interesting enough for the British to take over when they gained control of the colony in 1760. Therefore, under State direction the forges made better progress but did not reach total success because of multiple disruptive wars, and because of the lack of interests from colonial labor forces as well as deceived governmental hopes of finding private associates to take over.

British rule
The Forges continued under British rule, as a leased concession. From 1800 to 1845, they were the concern of Matthew Bell. In 1806, controversy erupted when the firm of Monro and Bell was re-awarded the lease for 790 pounds less than the expired lease, because the Executive Council under the stewardship of Thomas Dunn had failed to set a reserve price. In 1810 the plant contributed all of the ironwork to John Molson's Accommodation ferryboat, which was the first steamship to ply the waters of the St. Lawrence river.

The Forges had become obsolete long since when they were decommissioned in 1883.

As historical site
In 1973, Forges du Saint-Maurice became a National Historic Park, until that category of national park unit was retired in favour of "National Historic Site". Archaeological research there continues.

title: Forges du Saint-Maurice


text:
Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative

The Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) was an American company that operated from 1983 to 2003 led by founder and owner Victor Conte.

In 2003, journalists Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada investigated the company's role in a drug sports scandal later referred to as the BALCO scandal. BALCO marketed tetrahydrogestrinone ("the Clear"), a then-undetected, performance-enhancing steroid developed by chemist Patrick Arnold. Conte, BALCO vice president James Valente, weight trainer Greg Anderson and coach Remi Korchemny had supplied a number of high-profile sports stars from the United States and Europe with "the Clear" and human growth hormone for several years.

History
Headquartered in Burlingame, California, BALCO was founded in 1984. Officially, BALCO was a service business for blood and urine analysis and food supplements. In 1988, Victor Conte offered free blood and urine tests to a group of athletes known as the BALCO Olympians. He then was allowed to attend the Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea. From 1996, Conte worked with well-known American football star Bill Romanowski, who proved to be useful to establish new connections to athletes and coaches such as Korchemny. Conte and Korchemny shortly thereafter founded the ZMA Track Club for marketing purposes, well-known members of it being sprinters Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. In 2000, Conte managed to contact American baseball star Barry Bonds via Greg Anderson, a coach working in a nearby fitness studio. Bonds then delivered contacts to other baseball professionals.

Scandal
In 2003, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California began investigating BALCO. U.S. sprint coach Trevor Graham had given an anonymous phone call to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in June 2003 accusing a number of athletes being involved in doping with a steroid that was not detectable at the time. He also named Victor Conte as the source of the steroid. As evidence, Graham delivered a syringe containing traces of tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), nicknamed "the Clear."

Shortly after, Don Catlin, MD, the founder of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, developed a testing process for tetrahydrogestrinone. Now able to detect the new substance, he tested 550 existing samples from athletes, of which 20 proved to be positive for THG.

On September 3, 2003 agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Food and Drug Administration, San Mateo Narcotics Task Force, and United States Anti-Doping Agency conducted a search of the BALCO facilities. Alongside lists of BALCO customers in a BALCO field warehouse they found containers whose labels indicated steroids and growth hormones. In a search at Anderson's home two days later, steroids, $60,000 in cash, names lists and dosage plans were found.

Among the athletes listed in the record of BALCO customers were:
 * MLB players: Barry Bonds, Benito Santiago, Jeremy Giambi, Bobby Estalella, Armando Rios
 * Athletes: Hammer thrower John McEwen, shot putters Kevin Toth and C.J. Hunter, sprinters Dwain Chambers, Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Zhanna Block and Kelli White, middle-distance runner Regina Jacobs.
 * Boxer Shane Mosley.
 * Cycling: Tammy Thomas.
 * NFL players: A number from the Oakland Raiders, including Bill Romanowski, Tyrone Wheatley, Barret Robbins, Chris Cooper and Dana Stubblefield.
 * Judo: Conte was also connected with supplying "vitamin supplements" to the 1988 U.S. Olympic judo team coached by Willy Cahill of San Bruno, California.
 * Swimming: Amy van Dyken
 * Christos Tzekos and his athletes were initially connected to BALCO but later cleared.

Patrick Arnold, BALCO's chemist, alleges that Bonds and Gary Sheffield were given "the Clear," though the athletes deny knowing about it and Arnold does not claim to have witnessed it.

In April 2005, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada were honored with the journalist prize of the White House Correspondents' Association. In 2006, they published the book Game of Shadows, which consists of a summary of about 200 interviews and 1,000 documents they collected for their research.

On July 15, 2005, Conte and Anderson cut plea bargains, pleaded guilty to illegal steroid distribution and money laundering and avoided an embarrassing trial. Conte spent four months in prison. Anderson was incarcerated for 13½ months. He was released on November 15, 2007, the same day Bonds was indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

On June 6, 2006 the house of Arizona Diamondbacks player Jason Grimsley was searched as part of the ongoing BALCO probe. Grimsley later said that federal investigators wanted him to wear a wire in order to obtain information against Barry Bonds. He told people which players used performance-enhancing drugs. The final result was that the Diamondbacks released Grimsley, and he was given a 50-game suspension by Major League Baseball.

In October 2006, investigations against Fainaru-Wada and Williams were started. The reporters were served with subpoenas to appear before a grand jury to identify the individual who leaked Bonds' name to them. They refused to do so and federal prosecutors asked that they be jailed for up to 18 months (the typical term of a grand jury). However, in February 2007, federal prosecutors dropped charges against the reporters after a Colorado attorney, Troy Ellerman, who once represented Conte and another executive of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, admitted to leaking the testimony and pleaded guilty to federal charges of unauthorized disclosure of grand jury testimony.

In an interview with Editor & Publisher, Lance Williams revealed that he would never testify in court, even if it did not involve confidential sources. "I have no interest in becoming anybody's witness."

On November 15, 2007, former San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice based on his grand jury testimony in this investigation. The trial began March 21, 2011, and he was convicted on April 13, 2011 on the obstruction of justice charge. The conviction was overturned upon appeal in April 2015.

On April 4, 2008, Tammy Thomas was convicted by a federal jury on three counts of making false statements to a federal grand jury in November 2003, and on one count of obstructing justice. She was acquitted of two perjury charges. Sentencing was set for July 18, 2008. She was sentenced to six months' house arrest and five years' probation on October 10, 2008.

On May 29, 2008, Trevor Graham was convicted by a federal jury on one count of lying to federal investigators about his relationship to an admitted steroids dealer, and the jury deadlocked on two other charges. Sentencing was set for September 5, 2008. He was sentenced to one year of house arrest on October 21, 2008.

title: Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative


text:
Talk:Dublin Institute of Technology

Untitled
I have removed material from this article as it is from www.dit.ie and is copyrighted. Generally copyrighted material may only be used under specific circumstances, see Copyrights. As the original material is in the form of a press release please feel free to provide a link to it, this is an additional reason as to why it should not be part of the article as Wikipedia is not a brochure for organisations of eny type but an encyclopedia.

Also DIT was established on an ad-hoc basis in 1978 with origins to 1887, in 1992 it was established in accordance with a specific law, DIT was not established in 1887! Removing the final paragraph which deals with its academic powers, awards and related history is also a bit disingeneous. Djegan 17:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Question about ranking -- does Sunday Times refer to the Irish Times or London Times? Is the ranking Ireland only, UK/Ireland only, or worldwide? A link would be nice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.181.103 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note some citation is necessary for something like this. There are many entities that rank educational institutions, which entity ranked this within the top 400 universities worldwide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.88.76 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The faculty section of this article seems like a random selection of lecturers, some part-time, some full-time. Is it supposed to be 'notable' faculty, as in with a public presence? Either way, is 'current' appropriate for an encyclopedia? Staff change constantly. Much of the page is out of date considering DIT no longer exists as an entity. There are no current faculty.Citetic (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dublin Institute of Technology


text:
Talk:Sandy Berger

Supported case VS notable speculation
I'm just passing by here, but I just fixed what I think a serious violation in the intro summary. The body of the article and actual charges support the case that copies of information were taken out of the classified archives and later disposed of, and also presents the notable controversy and speculation that original documents could also have been taken/destroyed. The previous summary said "theft and subsequent destruction of classified documents from the National Archives in Washington" which to my ears clearly implies removal and destruction of the documents themselves, as opposed to the radically different breach of mishandling copies of classified documents. Presenting the notable controversy and speculation in the body of the article is appropriate, but I think it a pretty serious Wikipedia violation to implicitly present the unsupported speculative case as fact in the intro. Hopefully my edit (I forgot to log in when I did it) to the intro informs the reader clearly on both issues and satisfies everyone. Alsee 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that mere speculation is given too much importance in the into (EX:"notable controversy and speculation that he might have removed or destroyed originals of other unknown documents"). The DOJ has made it's position VERY clear -- they stand by their investigation in that there is absolutely no proof that originals were destroyed or removed. If Wiki begins to give credence to every conspiracy theorist in the main body of an entry, they become no better than a blog. User:justmyopinion 3:03 January 29 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.91 (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article
Some consideration should be lent toward the scope of this article.

If questions regarding the timing of the publicity of the investigation are valid, then it is also valid to point out opposition to the contemptable attempt to glaze over the deed itself.

 * Suggesting that the leak of information about the investigation was deliberately timed for political reasons does not inherently "attempt to glaze over the deed itself." It is entirely possible for both Sandy Berger to be an evil spy and for the leak of information about the investigation to have been politically motivated. Bryan 00:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We agree this is a legal matter, subject to legal evaluation, which is still in progress. I am not sure if your reference to contemptible applies to me, to the action, Sandy Berger or what? How can you possibly say that something which is under investigation has property X? Actions occur in contexts, I think you agree, and you have not considered the context. CSTAR 19:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * But in any case, it's acceptable for now...

"contemptible" applies to 'attempt[s] to glaze over the deed itself'. Not to individuals discussing the matter here.

We all know why a person answers questions about A with questions about B. From what I have heard of Berger's admissions, Berger broke the law. I do not believe Berger is an 'evil spy'. I do not doubt that the timing was 'politically motivated'. I do not see the latter as an answer to questions about the former.

This is indeed a legal matter. Berger admitted to actions that are against the law. That is absolutely true. Whether the man is convicted or punished for his crime is another matter which I've not raised in the article.

 * I agree that his guilt or innocence in this matter is not relevant to the issue of whether the leak about the investigation is politically motivated, that's exactly why I've been trying to ensure that the wording in the article doesn't present those as an either/or proposition. (oh, I don't think he's an "evil spy" either, and I'm not suggesting anyone here does - I was just using hyperbole for rhetorical purposes, my bad. :) Bryan 23:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-

OK there seems to be a lot of discussion ;) trying to settle on some satisfactory account of events. I'll be be optimistic and see if there is some possibility of dialogue.

Previous editor argues:  There is no reason to remove factual information from article
 * OK, there are lots of facts not mentioned in the article. Indeed there are an infinite number of facts. I'll kindly interpret those remarks to mean factual and relevant; that's fair enough, since relevant is mentioned previously. (I don't mean kind interpretation to mean condescension. I'm using as a name for a principle of rhetoric, to concede the maximal meaningful context to the interlocutor)
 * Obviously it is a fact; if Berger removed an item, then that item had to be in some way physically attached to his person as Berger left the room. This follows from almost reasonable account of the laws of mechanics. However, why is the fact relevant any more than other true (and derivable) facts about Berger and the documents at that moment.

Anyway I would like to encourage reasonable dialogue on this, even though we may be miles apart on some of the issues.CSTAR 18:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Statements by "Some"
"Some suggested that Berger's removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications. Also, some have voiced suspicion about the timing of the leak of the investigation, suggesting it might have been intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 Commission report later that week and the Democratic National Convention the following week."

Can we have quotes on these "suggestions" by "some"? At least links to one article that makes these suggestions and suspicions, rather than the ad hoc and intellectually fallible use of "some"?

--Xinoph 22:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, as luck would have it, an op-ed in today's (March 30, 2005) edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution written by Bob Barr makes exactly such accusations (in addition to accusing Pres. Bush of refusing to prosecute Berger for fear that bringing up the issue will resurrect questions about Rice's handling of pre-9/11 intelligence). --Delirium 04:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Article appears completely factual NPOV is uncalled for. If Berger deserves defense for the crime he's already pled guilty to that defense should be added as long as it's also factual. If something in the article is wrong that should be discussed hee and corrected/proven in the article - Honest Abe 13 Aug 05

 * Some of the things you posted directly contradict statements in the article you listed. Berger took no original papers, only copies. Please stop posting unbacked partisan rhetoric. Trilemma 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A change was made because the other statement was simply false. The comittee hearings did not conclude what was stated. Even the link provided did not make this claim, and of course this is all public information. Nancy Kegan Smith stated she wouldn't have known if originals were stolen, but the comittee actually noted that claim was not true since she gave him the originals in her office and they were returned to her subsequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know what could possibly be the reasons why the classified documents were removed? BridgettK (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Joel Hillman statement of no notes in the margin
Hillman said: "...the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all." This is insufficient information because past statements made by administration officials and complicit sycophants often argued minutia. (What the meaning of "is" is, or "that legal rule does not apply because there is no legal ruling authority.") Were the destroyed documents printed out just for Berger's use - or were they pre-existing documents that others had access to? If so, did others add contemporaneous comments to them, or not? How can we be sure? Were the copies, to which Hillman referred, made for the archive from an electronic source file, or were they original copies made for an NSA meeting and handed out to partricipants at that meeting who may have added comments.

Occam's razor says stealing documents by putting them in one's underwear - when a briefcase is available (which he admits to having), but bears the potential of a casual search - indicates a motive of secrecy. Removing multiple copies of the same document in such a manner by the same logic indicates a need to cover up some damaging content that is either in all of them or was added after they were printed out.

Corollary motives could be argued: Berger did not know the memos he stole out of the archives and destroyed were copies, so the destruction may have been an incorrect assumption that their destruction erased their ability to be examined. Or Berger knew they were copies, so stole them in such a covert manner, in order to have access to them for future reference. WmLambert 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC-5)

Berger put no documents in his underwear, only in his pockets. Please don't post unbacked partisan rhetoric. JamieMcCarthy 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons
I have blanked the section discussing the media response to Mr. Berger's conviction (in particular, the demotion of his significance to Sen. Kerry's campaign in news articles). The section did not have high-quality references (in fact it had no references) and therefore did not conform to the Biographies of living persons standard. I think it would be extremely useful information to this article if it is true, but only if it cites high-quality sources.

--Burzum 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article also needs some explanation of how Berger graduated college in 1967 but was able to be in law school when LBJ ended graduate school deferments (other than medical and dental) with his June 30, 1967 article. Berger was long overweight, so perhaps he had some medical reason, but this is a gigantic omission in an article on a person interested in public policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.238.77 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous suspicions of theft
Why is there no mention of the document stolen in September? The external link from the Washington Post states that the staff was suspicious of Berger after the first incident of missing documents. It is only because of these suspicions that they actually set a trap and caught him in October. It seems biased to neglect to mention this fact. It seems more likely that he got away with at least one theft and only caught later.

COPYVIO
The section "Convicted of mishandling classified terror documents" appears to be a copyright infringement. I have reverted the section to the last clean version on 23:26 7 Sep 2006 (UTC) in accordance with WP:CP. --Burzum 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * COPYVIO version of 02:16 8 Sep 2006 by 4.249.21.128
 * Washington Times article

The section being disputed clearly falls under Fair-Use, even Wiki's tight policy concerning it. To quote: "Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an ellipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed."

To detail further, the statements of Prosecutor Hillman (whether drawn from The Wall Street Journal or some other source) are, as a US government official operating in his public capacity, in the Public domain. The few brief statements of opinion from the WSJ are used to illustrate a point, clearly attributed, and the original references are hyperlinked. In addition, much of the remaining text is homegrown wiki material.

Depending on other people's input, it may be reasonable to trim some of the quoted sections in the established text. But reversion to a version a year old that includes factual inaccuracies is not a viable solution, and you would be well advised to build up support before making such drastic changes.

Anonymous Wikipedian 04:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello, you may not have noticed, but I spent a couple of hours today cleaning up this page and adding new info and you just reverted everything. If you want to readd what the other person removed, click on "history", find the article as it was before your info was removed and then cut and paste the information back into the article as it now is. Please don't dump all the work I have done today. Thanks! Regards, --Jayzel 04:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Click on page two of the Washington Times article and compare the diff that I have linked above. You will quickly see this has nothing to do with fair use. Cheers.--Burzum 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the removed text. It doesn't look like copyvio to me, either. Could you be more specific, Burzum?Bryan 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You need to look a little more closely. I'll give you one example: click to page two of the Washington Times article. The paragraph starting "Mr. Berger is the second senior Clinton administration..." is copied almost exactly by the COPYVIO section including referring to President Clinton as "Mr. Clinton" (which was the giveaway). After you verify that this is correct please remove the COPYVIO on the talk page below. Cheers.--Burzum 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I should also mention that you should only compare the first COPYVIO revision with the cited material (since the WP:CP policy clearly notes that future revisions cannot be used). You should compare that version that I linked above (compared to what you cited) to page two of the Washington Times artice starting with "The document theft raised questions about whether Mr. Berger was attempting to cover up the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies and actions." Cheers.--Burzum 05:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, so just to ensure I've got this straight. The entirety of the copyvio is the following three sentences:
 * Mr. Berger is the second senior Clinton administration official to be implicated in mishandling classified documents. Former CIA Director John M. Deutch was caught improperly storing highly classified defense documents on his personal computer in 1999. Mr. Deutch, who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified documents, was pardoned without explanation by Mr. Clinton in January 2001, before a sentence was imposed.
 * And so on account of these three sentences, you removed an entire section containing six other unrelated paragraphs and reverted three months' worth of other edits? That's an enormous overreaction. You should have simply removed the three sentences that were the actual copyvio, the rest of this is not a problem. Bryan 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * And the two additional sentences
 * The document theft raised questions about whether Mr. Berger was attempting to cover up the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies and actions. The records he took were related to internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the terrorist threat in December 1999 to bomb airports in the United States.
 * If you have a question on the official Wikipedia policy for Copyright violations feel free to discuss it on the WP:CP Talk page. There are two possible options: 1) revert to the version that had no copyright violations or 2) delete the article and start over again. The policy is certainly clear on this issue. Cheers.--Burzum 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Only part of one of those sentences seems to have survived subsequent edits, I've struck it out below. If we were to remove or rewrite those bits and then paste the material below directly back into the article, there wouldn't be a stitch of copyvio remaining anywhere except in the article history. This is the exact same result as option 1), which is obviously acceptable to you since that's what you yourself did with it. This is simply not the big deal you're making it out to be. Bryan 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You cannot cut and paste multiple paragraphs (which was what was done) and then later claim that it wasn't COPYVIO because you altered it a little bit. It would make our work here at Wikipedia a lot easier if that was the case. We could copy entire articles, alter it so that they weren't identical and then delete the original in the history. But that isn't legal. The policy forces deletion of an article if there are no acceptable reversions or reverting back to the last non violating version if it exists because anytime that you start out with copyright infringing material, anything that you build with it is also still a copyright infringement. Cheers.--Burzum 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * And by the way, I am not making this into a big deal. I am just following the established policy. If you disagree with the policy feel free to discuss it on the talk page as I have mentioned before. Cheers.--Burzum 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree with the policy, I disagree with your interpretation of it. The copied material hasn't just been "altered a little bit", it's all been removed or completely rewritten at this point. The current text is no more "built with" copyright-violating material than any other text that's been written based on information gleaned from an external source. Bryan 10:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - I went ahead and removed the paragraph that Burzum found offensive, not merely for a COPYVIO but a more obvious lack of pertenence to the subject. This is the page on Sandy Berger, not anyone else, and for that reason alone it should have been dropped. The other section was restored. --71.111.74.251 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (it's really me; I forgot to log in Anonymous Wikipedian 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Should Add An Accomplishments Section
I'm beginning to feel that if we have a "Controversies" section, we need some sort of matching "Accomplishements" to match it. Otherwise it really feels like we're not adhering to a NPOV guidelines.

This is, quite frankly, something I see a lot of in wiki-biographies of political figures. There's some neutral stuff at the top about age, position held, wife, kids, resume, etc - and then a "Controversies" about every criticism published about them over the course of their public careers. Cataloging every critique doesn't seem fair. But worse, it's not accurate.

In the present article, I have no idea how good Berger was at his job. I strongly suspect he was neither the best or worst. But given how long the man held his job, I think he had to have had something going for him, right?

I'm not adding anything at the moment; too often a talk page is just an ex-postfacto justification for a massive hack on the database. I'm not doing that. I want to see whether other people see the same thing as I do.

-- Anonymous Wikipedian 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course there should be more information about the man. I had planned on looking up some biographical info about him and expanding the article further, but am short on time at the moment. Help yourself, if you have some time. The fact remains, however, that Berger has been involved directly or indirectly in numerous different controversies since 1997. That's not POV, it's just the way things are. --Jayzel 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Every public figure on the political state is, as you say, "involved directly or indirectly in numerous different controversies". That comes with the territory for political jobs. The real question is whether this wikipedia entry is creating a false impression by creating a sort of reverse "highlight reel" of Berger's greatest blunders, without any contraveiling positive information to give a more complete (and neutral) accounting of his entire career.

 * Mind you, being convicted for mishandling classified terror documents is clearly something that needs to go in this entry. But any attack on his handling of his job - including what he did or did not do regarding the Chinese - needs to be carefully examined to make sure it's not someone with a political axe to grind placing in cherry-picked attacks.

 * -- Anonymous Wikipedian 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well enough, but the criticism regarding the failure to notify the president about the espionage was big news and wide-spread at the time and even included numerous calls for Berger to resign from his position. I've already supplied Berger's quote as well as a link to a New York Times editorial criticizing Berger. I'll find sources for the calls to resign a bit later today and add that to the article as well. By the way, I am having difficulty finding reliable biographical sources to help expand the article. I'd appreciate your help tracking some down. Thanks! Regards, --Jayzel 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag
I've added a bunch of "cit needed" tags to the article. I will try to find the original sources myself, but if I don't, I will remove the uncited info from the article within two weeks, save anyone else finding the citations. Regards, --Jayzel 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Waxman letter not appropriate for a bio
I really think that inclusion of petty criticism of a "leak" over the investigation of Berger should not be included in an bio about Berger himself. First, investigations of government officials are not state secrets. Second, do you honestly think an investigation of a former national security advisor for theft and destruction of documents could possibly be kept silent by all those involved (archive workers, justice department people, FBI, et al). Third, it may have had some worthwhile significance while the investigation was ongoing, but now that berger pleaded guilty it seems like an almost silly complaint. Lastly, again as this is a biographical article about Berger, the info seems inappropriate as it does not directly relate to Berger himself. Its not criticism of or by Berger, but by a third party towards investigators. Regards, --Jayzel 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Three observations. 1] If we are going to include a partisan report criticizing the subject of a bio, we need to include any substantiative criticisms of that report. Period. Wikipedia=NPOV. 2] I think you significantly underestimate how much of a departure the actions of senior officials (i.e. DOJ political appointees) were in this case. The House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform was perfectly capable of doing its own investigation of Berger directly; in fact, the Chair of that Committee has the power to issue subpoenas without even a vote. That instead of doing so, they focused their efforts on the internal working papers of the DOJ investigation, shows rather clearly that they intended to find substantive fault with the work the career prosecutors assigned to the case did. More importantly, the staff's failure to do so is indicative of the quality and credibility of Brachfeld and Hillman's work, which largely dismisses the secondary accusations as conspiracy theories in contradition with the facts. Again, if we're going to have multiple paragraphs entertaining these accusations, including half a dozen talking-head cites (none of which have any additional useful facts behind them), we need to show the other side of the story. 3] I am still amazed that no one - not even Berger's harshest critics - noticed that by initially lying to investigators in this case, he is absolutely guilty of Obstruction of Justice. I've been googling in vain for anyone (other than myself) to write this up so I can cite it, but there's just nothing there.

Anonymous Wikipedian 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Your comments are all well and good and I have no substantive objections to make, but they don't address my concern about the silly Waxman letter in relation to a biographical article on Berger. As for your thoughts on Berger obstructing justice, there is no evidence Berger lied to DOJ investigators. There is only evidence Berger lied to the press and indirectly the American people (unfortunately, lieing to the press and public is not a crime). Regards, --Jayzel 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Your point on this being a bio is well taken, but the problem remains. If we mention the GOP staff report in this biographical article, we have to mention substantiative criticisms of it as well. You may think the Waxman letter is "silly," but as it came from the ranking minority member of the House Oversight committee, I see it as no more or less silly than the GOP staff report.

 * We do have another option: create a separate, linked, "(possibly true) Conspiracy Theories related to Berger theft of Classified Documents" page, which would discuss the controversy in its entirety. We could even go blog-diving to find juicy quotes seeking to blame Clinton for 9/11 (which is what most of this stuff seems to be about - believe me, I've read a ton of opinion pages about it). I'm just not sure I like the idea any better. Right now the document flows reasonably well as a bio, and this episode is important enough to keep on the main page. Hmmm. Tell you what. I'll trim the paragraph you don't like down sometime today or tomorrow, and you tell me what you think.

 * Insofar as the Obstruction of Justice charge, I'm pretty sure that deliberately lying to the National Archives Staff, which has responsibility for maintaining this Top Secret and Codeword clearance documents, also qualifies. Well, OK. Reasonably sure. Maybe the DOJ investigators just decided the issue was fuzzy enough to cut Berger a break on that one. Regards, Anonymous Wikipedian 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I like the changes. Looks good. Now if I can only find the time to expand the "Clinton administration" section some more, we may just have a featured article on our hands. Regards, --Jayzel 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Surely you're joking; it's nowhere close. Nosseum (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV?
This article is really skewed against Berger, particularly the section about his presumed guilt or innocence. I don't believe the paragraph beginning with Mr Berger must have had a reason to steal and destroy the documents. is really encyclopedic - it corresponds more to a petulant rant. I for one would happily erase it. --Feralcats 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You are quite correct. But the proper action to take when met with political wiki-vandalism by an anonymous poster isn't to add a NPOV adjudication tag. Just revert it. (Which I did.)

 * Reread it now, and tell me whether you still think the article is skewed against Berger. I think not, but then that could be my own subconscious prejudices coming into play. If you have any constructive way to give a more accurate, and neutral, accounting in this Bio, please let me know. Anonymous Wikipedian 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The statement "However neither they, nor the committee report, detail an alternate theory in which multiple thefts of the same document are key." simply isn't in the citation. The blockquote is as valid, and from the same source as the other block quote which you don't seem to mind. 148.63.236.141 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * First, you really need to start a new section, rather than add this one. Second, as to your complaints, the WSJ OpinionJournal states "This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, to assist with his preparation for testimony to the commission. If that were the whole story, one copy of document 217 would surely have been sufficient." They do not, however, specify what exactly the "whole story" (or theory) is that they believe - which is what is noted in the article. If, for example, the WSJ now proposes that Berger was actually working for Chineese Communists, are Chineese Communists somehow unable to use a copy machine? The Prosecutors in the case assert that Berger's taking of 5 copies of the same document (3 of which he destroyed, 2 of which were returned after he was caught) is evidence that he was taking them for his own personal convenience. To qualify as an encyclopedic reference, any alternative theory must be fully fleshed out. This new alternative theory is not, therefore it does not qualify for inclusion. Anonymous Wikipedian 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It is highly POV to include a quote from the WSJ while they supported one view but to keep deleting their quote from when they changed their opinion in regards to Berger. Either both quotes should be kept or neither quote should be included but instead simply cited. I prefer the second approach but you seem to only want the older quote. 148.63.236.141 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * First, thank you for at least beginning to follow wiki guidelines about editing on controversial topics. You will find that you will get a lot further by hashing things out on the talk page before making significant changes, than engaging in edit wars.
 * Next, as to your points, they are almost entirely misapplied. The first WSJ editorial, like most opinion pieces, would not itself be encyclopedic, if it were not for direct quotes of the prosecutors in the case. (Indeed, it's rather ironic in this day and age where we have so much editorializing in supposedly hard news, to find so much news in an editorial.) However, the WSJ's opinions subsequent opinions are not. Let me illustrate using a hypothetical: imagine that an Al Jazera editorial condemning Osama Bin Laden contained a direct quote from the terrorist himself that he gave only them. That would make it encyclopedic. But it would not automatically make subsequent opinions, even an evolving ("gee he ain't so bad" in Arabic) opinion of Osama Bin Laden by AL Jazera encyclopedic. I, and a number of other wiki editors, hashed the compromise - of referring to the subsequent WSJ article but not highlighting it early on. And in fact, you've overwritten carefully vetted text not only in this, but several other places. Some editors insisted that even including Waxman's letter at all (termed "silly") did not even belong in this bio on Berger.
 * And that is, ultimately, what this is - a biography of Mr. Berger. If you want to actually improve this bio, rather than push a political point of view (and BTW don't think I don't know you suddenly came back because Rush is pushing the "Scooter is in jail; Burgler got off" thing right now - I listen to him too sometimes), you would do well to see what you can dig up about his tenure in the Clinton administration, rather than focus all your efforts on this scandal. Anonymous Wikipedian 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No, I haven't ever listened to Rush Limbaugh. You seem to care very much about this one single issue but its blinded you to keeping it POV. 148.63.236.141 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm. OK. Well then it was just happened to be random coincidence that you came back when you did. Regardless, I've decided that while deleting the text saying that "critics accuse Barger of crimes more sinister than mishandling classified documents" (which is an accurate description, BTW - they're not accusing him of littering), it's not a big enough point to argue about. So I won't dispute it. Anonymous Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Wall Street Journal op-eds
Why are 2 WSJ opinion pieces being included in the section on the mishandling of classified documents?Gmb92 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes--section "Convicted of mishandling"
I made some changes to section "Convicted of mishandling classified terror documents":
 * "unlawfully stealing": changed to "stealing" (there is no distinction of unlawful stealing vs. lawful stealing)
 * "Berger claimed that the removal [...] was accidental" -> "Berger claimed it was accidental that [...]" (better to read)
 * "Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing. One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks papers from the archives." -- removed. Reasons:
 * That Berger removed documents has already been stated earlier
 * I moved the "on more than one occasion" to the first paragraph, sourced it and made it more precise
 * "One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks [...]" Two problems: 1. This claim is so toxic that you definitely need a source. There was a CNN article referenced, but that did not mention socks. 2. It's wrong to write "saw", because imho that's a factive verb. "Saw" means that something did happen and the issue is only if someone saw it or not. However, the truth is that no one knows if the socks thing actually happened or was a baseless political smear. Nobody went on record to make that claim, which is one sign that it might be bogus.
 * "Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives." Can't find a source for that. CNN's article says National Archives staff discovered the copies are missing, contacted Berger, who returned the papers. I added that.
 * "Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence [...]" These claims are baseless, as discussed later in the Noel Hillman paragraph. I inserted a parenthesis to make that clear.

I tried to iron out a few things, but the section is still not really well-structured. There's lots of jumping back and forth in the topic and in the timeline.

--193.99.145.162 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Editor Mohummy has reinserted the following:

 * One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks papers from the archives..

 * It has already been pointed out that this charge does not appear in the cited source. If a quote from the source can be produced, I have no problem with it remaining. If a different reliable source that makes this claim can be provided, that would be acceptible as well. As stated it violates NPOV and is not verifiable and should be deleted per WP:Biographies of living persons. If reliable sources cannot be provided, the statement will be deleted.Cronos1 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have removed the paragraph in question. Mohummy (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we have an editor (76.16.180.16) attempting to insert the "hiding in socks" issue due to his/her discovery of a "new" source (a WaPo story from 4 years ago). This matter has been investigated and it has been discussed (see above paragraphs). Here is (76.16.180.16)'s edit:

"On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants.[16]"

Here's what the "new" source actually says (italics mine):

“Under debate during the Nov. 23, 2004, meeting was Brachfeld's contention that President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants, as National Archives staff member John Laster reported witnessing."

Obviously, the Justice Dept was not was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants.

The edit misrepresents what the source says. It is a violation of WP:BLP. If reintroduced, I will take it to the BLP noticeboard.Cronos1 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Balancing the historical record
This article seems to concentrate on a tiny portion of the history of Sandy Berger's career in public life, at some risk to the public record.

It would be good to pay attention to Berger's role in chasing al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden. He was the guy on the National Security staff who was assigned to "get" bin Laden -- there is no mention of that role at all.

Importantly, there is also no mention of his role in passing the torch of the get-bin-Laden effort to the Bush administration, who refused to take it.

Berger's distinguished career in making good things happen, and in trying to prevent further violence, is completely absent from the article.

See Charlie Rose Show archives, [here]http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2004/06/03/2/a-conversation-with-guest-host-fareed-zakaria-chuck-hagel-and-sandy-berger-about-the-resignation-of-george-tenet

Here's an old Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/keyplayers/berger070797.htm

Here's a column in the NY Times with perspective: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6DF133CF930A35752C1A9649C8B63 And more: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0D7103DF933A15750C0A9679C8B63

Edarrell (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Agree. I've reorganized the material a bit. Gathered what little there is on his actual work into one section. Put all the controversy stuff into another. Even after a thorough and much-needed trim of the documents conviction, the article is heavily tilted towards scandal. Needs some more substance, such as you suggest, in order to stay on the right side of the undue weight provisions of NPOV policy. Nosseum (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced assertion of the existence of a speculative allegation that Berger "may have" destroyed something as a BLP violation. This accusation was tagged as unsourced over a month ago. Wowest (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All the Facts, "Neutral" or Not
The document "Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions" (Staff Report, US House of Representatives, 110th Congress) makes it clear that he lied and schemed repeatedly in an effort to cover up his theft of classified National Archives documents. While I understand the desire to appear "neutral" in these Wiki biographies, there is no neutrality in excluding unsavory facts about the character of the biographee. As for the argument that such references to character are somehow irrelevant, I'm hard-pressed to think of something more important to know about a high government official than the fact that he lied about stealing national security secrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.59.111 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep to facts, not allegations, and you shouldn't have any problems.Cronos1 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sandy Berger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130125115101/http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/user/34/Samuel_Berger to http://americaabroadmedia.org/user/34/Samuel_Berger

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sandy Berger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004858/http://taiwansecurity.org/News/NYT-990306.htm to http://taiwansecurity.org/News/NYT-990306.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218002357/http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/10/nuclear.secrets.02/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/10/nuclear.secrets.02/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why?
The article doesn't talk about why SB removed documents. Is there a usable source that talks about this?Kdammers (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I think: He was looking for NSC(other?) reports on the Al-Qaeda threat. Reports noting the most recent Al-Qaeda attacks, their use of commercial aircraft, their recruitment efforts in the USA and also that the current perception of some within the NSC that the current policies of the administration (Clinton) "will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks".
 * After the events of 9/11 he was worried about the implications of that perception and more specifically (I think), the incongruences between these and a situation memo and report (written by Richard A. Clarke on his instruction) outlining the threat given to the Bush Administration during the transference period.
 * see Washington Post: "Verbatim: What Clarke Really Said, When He Said It" - for a frustratingly, less than detailed account.

144.134.99.146 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sandy Berger


text:
James Jerome

James Alexander Jerome, (March 4, 1933 – August 21, 2005) was a Canadian jurist and former politician and Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada.

Life and career
After receiving his law degree from Osgoode Hall in Toronto, Jerome began his law practice in Sudbury, Ontario. In 1966, he won a seat on Sudbury's city council and, the next year, attempted to win election to the House of Commons of Canada in a by-election but was defeated. He took the seat in the 1968 general election, however, and became the Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) for the Sudbury riding.

After the 1972 election, Jerome became Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Since there was a minority government in place, the opposition had a majority of members on the Committee and he had to remain impartial and balance the wishes of all parties in order to win approval for legislation.

His success in this role led Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to appoint him as Speaker of the House of Commons following the 1974 election.

In the 1979 election, Jerome considered following the precedent set by his predecessor, Lucien Lamoureux, by running as an independent as is the custom of the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. He decided to run as a Liberal, however, and was re-elected. The Progressive Conservative Party formed a minority government under Joe Clark's leadership. Despite the change in government, they decided to keep Jerome as Speaker.

After the Clark government was defeated in a motion of no confidence in December 1979, Jerome decided not to run in the ensuing general election. In January 1980, Clark appointed him Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court in Ottawa. He remained in this position until his retirement in 1998.

title: James Jerome


text:
Active Worlds

Active Worlds is an online virtual world, developed by ActiveWorlds Inc., a company based in Newburyport, Massachusetts, and launched on June 28, 1995. Users assign themselves a name, log into the Active Worlds universe, and explore 3D virtual worlds and environments that others have built. ActiveWorlds allows users to own worlds and universes, and develop custom 3D content. The browser has web browsing capabilities, as well as voice chat, and basic instant messaging features.

History
In the summer of 1994, Ron Britvich created WebWorld, the first 2.5D world where tens of thousands could chat, build and travel. WebWorld operated on the Peregrine Systems Inc. servers as an after-hours project until Britvich left the company to join Knowledge Adventure Worlds (KAW) in the fall of that year. In February 1995, KAW spun off their 3D Web division to form the company Worlds Inc. Britvich was eventually joined by several other developers, and the renamed AlphaWorld continued to develop as a skunkworks project at Worlds Inc, internally competing with a similar project known internally as Gamma and publicly as Worlds Chat. While AlphaWorld was developing a strong cult following due in large part to Britvich's open philosophy of favoring user-built content, Worlds, Inc. favored Gamma for the company produced contract projects for Disney and others.

On June 28, 1995, AlphaWorld was renamed Active Worlds (from Active Worlds Explorer) and officially launched as version 1.0. Around this time, Circle of Fire (CoF) was formed to create content for the Active Worlds universe. This company played a pivotal role in the future of the product. In January 1997, Worlds Inc., after failing to secure needed contracts and having spent its venture investment of over 15 million dollars, laid off almost the entire staff of the company, keeping only several employees which included the author of Gamma, now known as WorldsPlayer. Active Worlds, never considered much of an asset by the company, became an object of struggle for those close to it. Circle of Fire (COF) run by Richard Noll purchased all of the assets of Activeworlds and hired many of the Activeworlds developers. JP McCormick joined the company shortly thereafter and invested funds in COF to continue the expansion of Activeworlds.

On January 21, 1999, COF performed a reverse merger with Vanguard Enterprises, Inc., and changed the company's name to Activeworlds.com, Inc. and became a publicly traded company on Nasdaq under the symbol AWLD. In 2001, the company launched a new product called 3D Homepages. Each citizen account was entitled to a free 30-day trial of a virtual 10,000 square-meter 3D world, using their choice of layout from a selection of pre-designed styles. After the trial, the user had the option of upgrading to a larger size and user limit. These 3D Homepages were hosted for the user, unlike traditional worlds where the user would have to get their world hosted by another company or user, or themselves.

In 2002, the company increased the price of their yearly citizenships from US$19.95 to US$69.95. On June 16, 2008, Active Worlds, Inc. released the first major update to the browser in two years, version 4.2. It included web page rendering on objects and customizable avatars. On June 24, 2009, Active Worlds, Inc. released an open beta of version 5.0 to the public. On June 7, 2012, version 6.0 was released. The system's registration fee was removed in 2013.

In March 2016, the platform made headlines when YouTuber and Twitch streamer Vinny of the streaming group Vinesauce explored and came across a user by the name of "Hitomi Fujiko", who he assumed to be a non-player character, but who clearly showed signs of life as the stream continued. The stream was viewed by roughly 6,000 people, and caused the platform's login servers to crash due to an overload of registrations. As a result, no viewers were able to log in during the stream. The incident, described as creepypasta-like, led to speculation that the character was part of an ARG, and restored interest in the virtual world. It was later revealed that Fujiko was a viewer of Vinny's streams and a former frequenter of Active Worlds who had decided to revisit the game during Vinny's own playthrough of it as a means of entertaining herself; she later participated in a question & answer session revolving around the incident on the Vinesauce subreddit under the pseudonym "Pocketomi".

title: Active Worlds


text:
User:TnGrT

hello

title: User:TnGrT


text:
User talk:TnGrT

talk to me

title: User talk:TnGrT


text:
Mondego River

The Rio Mondego or Mondego River is the longest river entirely within Portuguese territory. It has its source in Serra da Estrela, the highest mountain range in mainland Portugal (i.e. excluding the Portuguese islands). It runs 234 km from the Gouveia municipality, at 1425 m above sea level in Serra da Estrela, to its mouth in the Atlantic Ocean next to the city of Figueira da Foz.

Etymology
The river's name is believed to be derived from the pre-Roman, Hispano-Celtic word Munda or Monda — by which names it had been referred to in the classical antiquity by Pliny and Ptolemy —, later latinised into Mondæcus until evolving into the present name.

Geography
It flows through the districts of Guarda, Viseu and Coimbra, all in Central Portugal. It flows near the towns of Celorico da Beira, Fornos de Algodres, Nelas, Tábua, Carregal do Sal and Mortágua and the cities of Seia, Gouveia, Guarda, Oliveira do Hospital, Mangualde and Santa Comba Dão, before crossing the town of Penacova. The river widens by the city of Coimbra (a historical city, the largest of the region, with a university as a World Heritage Site), and the Montemor-o-Velho municipality (known for its castle and rice fields), before reaching the Atlantic Ocean at the city of Figueira da Foz.

There are two main dams along the Mondego, the Aguieira Dam and the Raiva Dam, as well as a smaller one at Coimbra's main bridge.

Tributaries
One of its tributaries is the Rio Dão, which gives its name to the Dão wine region. Another is the Alva River, which enters the Mondego just before Penacova. The Ceira River enters the Mondego just south of Coimbra along National Road 17.

title: Mondego River


text: List of rulers of the Akan state of Adanse


text:
Tonique Williams-Darling

Tonique Williams-Darling ( Williams; born January 17, 1976, Nassau, Bahamas) is a Bahamian sprint athlete. She won the gold medal in the 400 meters at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece.

College
She attended the University of South Carolina, graduating with a bachelor's degree from the Moore School of Business in 1999.

Professional
Williams-Darling had a breakout year in 2004. She started with a bronze medal at the 2004 IAAF World Indoor Championships in Budapest, Hungary, running a personal best behind Russia's Natalya Nazarova and Olesya Krasnomovets. Then in July, at the Rome meeting of the IAAF Golden League, Tonique broke Mexican world champion Ana Guevara's 23 race winning streak in the 400 meter race.

At the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece Williams-Darling beat Guevara again. In a head-to-head final straight, she proved to be more powerful than the Mexican runner who had been hampered with injuries and trained only on a limited basis prior to the Games. Winning the race, she became the Bahamas' first individual Olympic gold medalist.

After the Olympics she secured the win in the overall Golden League-jackpot, cashing in US $500,000 after splitting the US $1M pot with Christian Olsson.

She also won the gold medal in the 400 meters at 2005 World Championships in Athletics, in a head-to-head race with American 400-meter specialist Sanya Richards. At the 2006 Commonwealth Games, despite being the favourite, she was beaten unexpectedly both in her semi-final and the final by Christine Ohuruogu of England, claiming silver instead.

Williams-Darling took the 2007 season off to nurse a hamstring injury and did not compete during the 2008 season.

In November 2012, she was elected as Public Relations Director of the Bahamas Association of Athletic Associations (BAAA) for the period 2012-2015.

In 2015 Williams-Darling served as senior director of event media services for the BTC/IAAF World Relays in the Bahamas.

Personal life
She graduated from St. John's College, Bahamas. She is married to fellow Bahamian Track and Field athlete Dennis Darling and is the sister-in-law of former NFL wide receiver Devard Darling.

Commemorations
In 2009 Williams-Darling was inducted into the University of South Carolina's Athletic Hall of Fame.

For her achievements to date, the Bahamas Government honoured her by naming a major highway the Tonique Williams-Darling Highway.

title: Tonique Williams-Darling


text:
Moisés Silva

Moisés Silva (born September 4, 1945) is a Cuban-born American biblical scholar and translator.

Life
He was born in Havana, Cuba, and has lived in the US since 1960.

Education
Silva holds degrees from Bob Jones University (BA, 1966), Westminster Theological Seminary (BD, 1969; ThM, 1971), and the University of Manchester (PhD, 1972). At Manchester he studied under New Testament and Biblical Studies luminaries, F. F. Bruce and James Barr. The latter's The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961) was a strong influence on Silva's Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983, 2nd ed. 1994), which challenged many common linguistic fallacies in biblical interpretation.

Academic work
He has taught biblical studies at Westmont College (1972–1981), Westminster Theological Seminary (1981–1996), and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1996–2000), where he was the Mary French Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of New Testament until his retirement. A past president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1997), Silva for many years had been an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Writings
He served as a translator of the New American Standard Bible, the New Living Translation (Ephesians–Philemon), the English Standard Version and the Nueva Versión Internacional, and as a New Testament consultant for Eugene Peterson's The Message. He has also authored or coauthored several books and articles, including a highly acclaimed commentary on Philippians; Invitation to the Septuagint (with Karen Jobes); God, Language, and Scripture; Has the Church Misread the Bible?; and An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (with Walter Kaiser, Jr.). He is editor of the second edition of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDNTTE), formerly edited by Colin Brown. He currently resides in Litchfield, Michigan, where he continues his work as an author and editor.

title: Moisés Silva


text: Category:Bahamian athletes

title: Category:Bahamian athletes


text: Category:Bahamian sportspeople

title: Category:Bahamian sportspeople


text: List of rulers of the Akan state of Akuapem