text:
Talk:2004 United States presidential debates

Armies of compassion
I'm an Australian, so what on earth was Bush going on about in the third debate with his multiple references to armies of compassion? I just read the transcript, it seems like it's code for something I'm missing, and it sounds "faith based". Psychobabble

 * Excellent question. I'm American, and follow the news closely, and tonight was the first I've heard this Orwellian phrase.  A Google turned up this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/faithbased.html. Bds yahoo 05:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That page is non-info :) I'd like to know what they really are... Psychobabble
 * Point taken. :) Bds yahoo 04:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Drink up
Is it too early to note that Kerry won? :) Just kidding, of course the article can't really say that, though The Daily Show basically said the same thing -- Jon Stewart seemed amazed that Rudy Giuliani thought Bush won, and Wesley Clark claimed Kerry won (both were guests).  Some googling doesn't reveal any other suitably prominent people claiming one way or another (some blogs, but I don't know enough to know which are prominent enough for Wikipedia).  Stewart could be noted, but I guess it's too early.  In the morning, there will be dozens of opinions available.  I'm probably just antsy because I quit smoking today and this whole nicotine patch thing is clearly a bunch of bullshit, so I'm trying to keep my mind on anything but cigarettes.  Grr... Don't cross me tonight, Wikipedians, or I will have you all killed... Tuf-Kat 05:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the daily show is not the most nonpartisan political source... But please don't kill me.

I think we should hold off for a while on assessing the first night... but until then, drink up if you're a kerry fan.

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE

Kerry: 53 Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 44 Bush: 26 Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 45 Bush 36: Tie: 17

Mort Kondracke: “This is the President's turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.”

Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online’s the Corner: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive."

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's the Corner: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night."

Bob Schieffer: “The President was somewhat defensive in the beginning”

Mark Shields: "The President showed a few times obvious anger"

Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: “I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate.”

Bob Schieffer: “Kerry got off to a very good start.”

Joe Scarborough: “It was John Kerry’s best performance ever…As far as the debate goes, I don’t see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry.” (MSNBC)

Andrea Mitchell: “This is the toughest we’ve ever seen John Kerry. He attacked the very core of the President’s popularity. He’s basically saying, who do you believe?” (MSNBC)

Tim Russert: “Tonight he seemed to find his voice for the Democratic view of the world.”

Fred Barnes on FNC: "Kerry did very well and we will have a Presidential race from here on out."

- JohnKerry.com --kizzle 06:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Not the first 2004 debate.
The debate tonight (9/30/04) keeps being referred to as the "first" Presidential debate of 2004. There was a Presidential debate prior to this though (9/06/04). However, both President Bush and Senator Kerry declined the invitation. Mr. Badnarik running under the Libertarian Party ticket and Mr. Cobb running under the Green Party ticket both attended. A direct link to a Real Player verion of the C-SPAN event can be found here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04090604_third.rm.

Putting the facts aside for a minute I'm going to go into non-NPOV mode and say that the September 6th Presidential debate was much more informative than the one on Sept. 30th. The latter seemed more like an infomercial. Dustin Asby 09:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transcripts of debates
Would it be possible to include a transcript of the debate(s when more have been done) or at least a link to a website with one? Chewyman 22:45, 1 Oct 2004
 * See 2004_U.S._presidential_election_debates (where currently there is a transcript of the September 30 debate)   ~leif ☺ HELO 19:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thanks. Chewyman 22:39, 2 Oct 2004

Kerry clearly won the debate
I don't support either candidate although between the two I prefer Bush. Kerry definitely won, because Bush failed to challenge any of Kerry's "points", and kept repeating his flip-flop mantra but not in those words. Bush seemed non-plussed by Kerry's hubris and did not know how to respond. Kerry contended he would have gotten everything right, from forming a better coalition, planning better for the occupation of Iraq, to using America's best forces instead of Afghani's to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. What is the proper debate response to someone who confidently states the hypothetical without any evidentiary basis that he would have done better?

Bush could have stated that Kerry was wrong about what he would have done, that Kerry would still be negotiating with the Taliban to try to get them to turn over Bin Laden, that if Kerry had attacked Afghanistan using American forces instead of special ops with the Northern Alliance that casualties would have been much higher. In answer to Kerry's insistance that Bin Laden was the real enemy, Bush could have countered that even though Bin Laden was not captured or killed, that he is effectively neutralized, like all Al Quada, except those in Iraq, he is having to keep his head down. In Iraq, al Quada is going against hardened military targets instead of innocent US civilians, etc.

When Kerry mentioned the CIA's negative estimate of the situation, Bush could have pointed out that pre-war intelligence also mentioned civil war as a potentential result of the invasion, just as the most recent estimate has, and yet despite this his policies have successfully avoided it to this point and despite the terrorist attacks most Iraqis are already living a better life and far fewer are dying than under the sanctions and Saddam.

Kerry also promised he would do much better than Bush in the future. An easy thing to contend and difficult to contest. Perhaps Bush should have used sarcasm, suggesting the Kerry with his international diplomatic skills should not even bother getting Germany and France in the coalition, when obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition. --Silverback 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Bush didn't say all that because that's not his views, that's his neo-conservative cabinet's views, so it's hard to get it all right sometimes. And Kerry wanted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, don't present a straw man, he wouldn't have negotiated with the Taliban, that's not what he said.  What he said was why the hell are we in Iraq after Saddam Hussein in response to 9-11 when he had nothing to do with it or had "any working relationship" with Al Qaeda?  Doesn't mean he wouldn't have used military forces in Afghanistan.  Interesting poll, I guarentee life will be better for Iraqis in long run, but as the job we are doing, 42% would elect Saddam Hussein again if they could...(I think Newsweek did it... not sure, google saddam's lawyer and Iraqi election) not a good indication.  As for "Obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition"... has Ann Coulter signed up for Wikipedia?  Bin Laden *is* the real enemy, but more importantly, Al Qaeda is.  Exactly what does Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda? (and if you mention "The Connection" the book I will slap you) :) --kizzle 18:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * Bush did negotiate with the Taliban, are you sure Kerry wouldn't have done it better? The Taliban did in the end refuse to turn over Bin Laden and give up being a haven for terrorists.  Iraq has Al Qaeda now, the lebanese guy that is doing all the beheadings who arrive there before the war began and was given sanctuary and medical treatment.  He definitely is more active than Bin Laden.  In the debate Kerry also claimed that he MIGHT have been able to stop 9/11 if he had been president.  That was the most falibility and humility he showed all night, other than when he said he had not explained his positions well.  20/20 hindsight and the bluster to claim he will do a better job than Bush was all the substance there was to his arguments.  It is embarrassing that Bush couldn't respond on his feet, but then debates are not really good ways to assess presidents, better would be reasoned arguments in writing by teams lead by each candidate--Silverback 19:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Iraq has Al Qaeda *now* because *we* invaded Iraq. We did not invade Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, rather Al Qaeda came to Iraq to fight us. It is not so far-off to say Kerry claimed he MIGHT have been able to stop Al Qaeda ... Aug 6 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" ... I don't see your point about falibility and humility, why would a candidate field their humility rather than strength? I like your idea of reasoned arguments, but I would want them written by the presidents themselves rather than a speechwriter. The debate is the only chance you get to see the candidates themselves without any filter from their handlers. And Bin Laden may or may not be contained, the point is that by invading Iraq, we obviously have not learned our lesson against guerilla warfare with a foreign country. Look at Vietnam for us. Look at Afghanistan (1980's) with the Soviets against the mujahideen and Bin Laden. I don't see how anyone could possibly justify the war in Iraq as a response to either terror in general or 9/11. If it was terror, why did we pull troops off Afghanistan? Why did we invade Iraq when North Korea and at least a dozen countries were far more prime targets if the criteria was "dictator with weapons of mass destruction"? We were led into Iraq because "the enemy attacked us"? Iraq did not attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. I think that was Kerry's best point, and it's hard for Bush to come up with a retort besides holding the red flag that says "FLIP-FLOP FLIP-FLOP!" --kizzle 20:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Strength without evidence and credibility is just bluster. Kerry claims he would not have made any mistakes, when before 9/11 he had consistently voted against intelligence and military strength. He claims he would have been strong and resolute, when he has a history of wanting to defer to foreign and international authority such as the International Court and the UN. He expects us to believe he would have persuaded the UN to support us in Iraq when Bush couldn't? What is he relying upon, the objectivity of the UN? If the UN had been objective they would not have let their emotions against Bush get in the way. Is he relying upon the UN's corruption? What is he going to do, bribe them like Saddam did in the Oil for Food program? Iraq was the best choice, because it was the most credible threat. Saddam was a character we could not trust, a loose canon with oil wealth who was already tying down part of our air force that we would need against a stronger oponent such as Iran or Korea, who was financing terrorism against Israel, who had tried to assassinate a former president and who we had no reason to believe he wouldn't help al Qaeda attack the US, if he could do so without consequences to himself. France and Germany could have kept the inspections and sanctions going if they had wanted to, all they would have had to do was start bearing a significant amount of the costs of bringing Saddam to the table. It was the US having to bear the costs of the troop build up, and France and Germany were not helping at all, there is no reason to believe they would ever help. Korea was isolatable and had incredible conventional forces holding Seoul, Korea hostage, the civilian casualties there would have been tremendous. We are in a better position against Iran now because we have a base in Iraq right in the center of the seething cauldron of Islamic fundamentalism, and we have reestablished some of the credibility of the UN sanctions. Iraq is arguably the most just war the US has EVER fought. We didn't purposely target civilain infrastructure, like we did in Serbia, the first gulf war and WWII. We did not target just innocent Iraqi conscripts but went after the responsible "authorities", the Saddam regime. Remember the slaughter in the bunkers of Kuwait in the first gulf war, remember how careful to avoid damage to civilain infrastructure we were in this war. Although our motives were as pure in the Vietnam, in this war we were using a volunteer professional force instead of innocent conscript civilians. We also used immoral conscription methods in the Korean conflict, WWII, WWI, the civil war and the revolutionary wars. Our allies in this war are better, mostly volunteer professional armies. We fought on Stalin's side in WWII. One really can't credibly oppose this war unless one is a pacifist. If you are not a pacifist then what war that was fought by moral means do you think was justified? They hypocrisy of having conscripts fight for "freedom" is palpable.--Silverback 01:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A war, while rarely justified in my opinion, is justifiable when there is a clear danger to the US, or more realistically in foreign conflicts that could tide later on. Look at Afghanistan in the 80's, which was a key component in bringing down the Soviet Union because it simply overspent in trying to expand its communist influence. We only spent 3 billion dollars, trained mujahideen, and as a result struck a devastating blow against a superpower who we were fighting with for over 40 years. The first Iraq War, while questionable in our true motives and Saudi Arabia, was to prevent Saddam from controlling an extreme share of the world's oil supply (although I think it had more to do with our ties to Saudis). However, this war was justified to us because:
 * 1) Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda (Steven Hayes, The Connection) (Deputy Defense Douglas Feith's report)
 * 2) Weapons of Mass Destruction
 * 3) Imminent threat to the U.S.

The only problem is that 1 is not true by any stretch. They had no working relationship, Cheney on the debate corrected himself (even though he had said the opposite on tape before) and said there was no relationship. The 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no working relationship". And like I said before, Al Qaeda came to Iraq to fight us, they weren't there before we stated our intent to preemptively invade Iraq. We all know 2 is incorrect if you read the Kay report. And what proof can you provide that we were ever in imminent danger from Iraq?

My primary problem is that we were going to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. I personally know my best friend's dad who is high up in the army who was told at the beginning of the Administration, that "In 2 years, get ready for Iraq, we're going in"... when he told me that I said that's BS, but when Richard Clarke's and Paul O'Neill's book I started to believe it. In addition, you have a cabinet consisting of most members of Project for a New American Century which advocates invading Iraq since 1998. Thus, we were going in before terrorism ever was a problem.

Finally, the justification you provide for invading Iraq applies to so many countries, what are we going to do, invade them all? Do you *seriously* think that by invading a string of muslim countries we are not going to set off some serious chains of consequences? We can't fight everyone before the muslim world unites against us. And one more thing, we pulled off troops from Aghanistan early in order to invade Iraq. That is wrong no matter how you spin it. Who do you think is a more important target, Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? One is a leader of a country with no weapons of mass destruction, one is a leader of a worldwide movement devoted towards killing America and has already killed 3000 *Americans*. I'll report, you decide. --kizzle 18:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've gone into why justification in more detail in Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Saddam before the Iraq war was more of a threat than Osama bin Laden as he was then and is now, only a figurehead leader in hiding.  I did believe we were headed for war with Iraq before 9/11 and that would have been justified both by his violations of sanctions, his attempted assassination of Bush 1 and his WMD programs that were ready to start up (recall the "clean" mobile biological labs).  His character and resources were such, that even before the reality of terror was brought home on 9/11, he could be expected to try further attacks if he thought he could get a way with them.  In my opinion we were already at war, I know if he had imposed a no fly zone on us, we would have considered it an act of war, no matter how many other nations had blessed it. Frankly, I think sanctions are an act of war, the bright moral line is between persuasion and threat, not between threat and war.  Threats entail war every so often and a gun to someones head is wrong, even if you don't pull the trigger every time.--Silverback 19:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq had to be dealt with, that is something which we all can agree. But the new CIA WMD report confirms that sanctions were effective, in that his nuclear ability was deteriorating, he had *no* WMDs, and that he had no capability at the time to produce them. And so far there is nothing shown that the 3 justifications to go to war given above, none of them turned out to be true. Realistically, I think Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wanted a US controlled state in the Middle East, not just a sympathetic ally in Israel. It makes sense... after the Cold War, Islamic Fundamentalism is the greatest threat to American safety, and the biggest fear that our administration has is the warring factions in various middle eastern states allying together to form an alliance which aligns against us through islamic fundamentalism and our not-so-good record with muslim countries. Why do you think we've supported the House of Saud all this time? Because if they fall, a new movement will take over which will be far less sympathetic to American values. But this does not mean you get to lie to the American people just to accomplish your political aims in foreign interests. The fact that he was a brutal dictator was NOT the reason we went to war. And if I'm not mistaken Colon Powell has since apologized for misleading the public with the clean (no quotations) mobile biological labs. --kizzle 23:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * No capability to produce them? What happened to the mobile labs.  I thought they could be spun up to produce biological weapons in a few months?
 * You must be joking. Don't try telling me you haven't heard. Been drinking too much of that Fox Kool Aid, huh? --Ropers

 * No--I hadn't heard. It sounds like a capability that might be mistaken for a biological lab by the early non-experts.  Is the guardian a reliable source?  What methods were being used to generate the hydrogen, I'm interested in alternate energy sources.

 * I had read the pipa.org "study" before and consider it poorly designed and the incorrectly used by persons such as yourself to cast aspersions upon Fox. Consider the issue of whether Iraq gave "substantial" support to al Qaeda or not, that is a value judgement, not a factual misperception.  Giving medical care and sanctuary to al Zaquari (sp?) might be viewed as substantial to some without any factual misperception.  The misperception of European opinion may not reflect negatively upon Fox at all, Fox may be presenting exactly the same facts on european opinion as PBS, but they might have different self selected audiences.  What people care about also impacts what they will pay attention to and retain, the Fox viewers might not care much about European opinion, but have fewer misperceptions about the stock market, while PBS viewers may be just the opposite.  I did not consider the PIPA "study" to be good science, although it wanted to masquerade as such.  I doubt errors such as this could have survived peer review.--Silverback 04:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The sanctions weren't working, because they weren't giving the world the assurances the UN sought, and the blame is squarely on Saddam Hussein, the documents his regime produced and the "cooperation" with the inspectors did not meet the required standards.Saddam could easily have avoided the war, just open up in such a way that was clear that no one was under any pressure to hide anything. Unfortunately his past behavior was such that his word was not enough, but that would have been no barrier if he had opened up. I think he could have bargained harder and had the most wonderful opportunity that any leader ever had for his people. I think he could have offered to open up his country and to disband his military in exchange a guarantee of his borders and a certain income. His could become the first people to have to bear no self defense expenditures and to have their human rights internationally enforced. If only some entity could credibly offer the US this.--Silverback 00:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no working relationship with Al Qaeda. These were the reasons given to us to go to war and they all were false. Not just false now, but shaky from the very beginning. This isn't monday-morning quarterbacking, this is holding our administration responsible for their actions. --kizzle 21:33, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting, are you willing to hold Saddam responsible for any actions? He could have come clean.  Do you know of any good sites where we can have this discussion, I'd love to see if we could reach agreement.--Silverback 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really about the article, so please take it to private e-mail if you want to continue. This isn't the purpose of talk pages. Tuf-Kat 05:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Gallup poll
Is there a more objective and less controversial source for polling results to use in the main article? Gallup has been discredited as biased at worst, and controversial at best. Stbalbach 22:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for this claim? You might post it at the Gallup wiki page, to which this article links, and readers can come to their own conclusions. Bds yahoo 20:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title Change
Shouldn't the year be at the end of the title, not at the beginning? See U.S. presidential election, 2004 and Naming conventions (years in titles) - GuloGuloGulo 18:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle's Edits (or, this page lacks real content)
Kizzle writes in his edit summary that the information about Bush's kidding around, during the second debate, about his demeanor in the first debate might not belong here at all*. Excuse me? If anything, this page is desperately in need of factual information about the content of each debate, instead of this cable-news-driven obsession with poll results. It is symptomatic that we have questions from the moderators, but none of the responses. The page goes from questions asked to poll results, without any attention to the substance of the debate. I know there are links to transcripts, but then why include the questions (which are also in the transcripts), or for that matter why include the poll results (which are available from linked articles)? This article should be at least as concerned with the substance of the debates as it is with the viewers' reactions and the pre-selected questions; as it reads, it is superficial and cable-news-ish.Bds yahoo 20:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * [Incidentally, I tried to phrase this fact in a way that I hoped was sensitive to both sides of the political divide, only alluding to "scowling" demeanor (and not some synonym) because it is close to the word Bush himself used, etc.]

 * All I did was move it to a different section, I didn't remove it. You placed it under polls section, which I don't think it belongs. --kizzle 21:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't say you removed it. But in your edit summary you wrote it belongs in a different section "if it belongs here at all."  Please explain that remark. Bds yahoo 21:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Your line definetely did not belong in the polls section, and as it stands there is no section for discussion of content as it stands, thus without a proposition for a new section I did not see any place for your line to go, however I didn't want to just rv you so I just put it in an "other" section. I don't necessarily have a problem with fleshing out content, see how other editors feel.--kizzle 21:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Third Party Debates
I noticed the second listed third-party debate said the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties were present. I have the c-span video and I don't see Peroutka, so I removed that party from the list. I also added information about the October 6th debate. Is the first listed debate appropriate for the page? Candidates hadn't been nominated at that point. --Thorne 03:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Analysis section needs fleshing out
Can whoever started the analysis section please flesh out more than simply Bush's view on Supreme Court. An analysis section should cover key highlights of both people's sides and choice quotes, if you insist on having an analysis section please fill it out with much more than you have and in a balanced manner to both candidates. --kizzle 06:48, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * You know how to type, Kizzle. Contribute. Bds yahoo 12:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * chill out. --kizzle 17:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * You're really good at telling people what to do. Bds yahoo 21:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * bds I apologize if I offended you in some way, seems like you're a bit testy :) --kizzle 04:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I added a bit to the Dred Scott and Roe v Wade parallel --Thames

Pen is Mightier...
Can somebody (perhaps Glenn Willen, since he made the edit) explain how bringing a pen was a violation of the rules? Both sides were seen writing down notes, so I don't get this. Unless there was some rule that candidates could not use their own pens, only those provided, in which case that should be stated in the article, for clarity. Bds yahoo 19:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, added citation to Memorandum of Understanding for pen rule. Also removed some stuff I added earlier which I now feel is extraneous and potentially POV; it is up to the reader to decide whether Kerry's removal of a pen from his jacket, in technical violation of the MOU, is "cheating" or not. (Obviously not in spirit, but I now think it would be extraneous to say that.) Glenn Willen (Talk)   23:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture of Bush and Kerry debating?
I was thinking of adding this image of President Bush and Senator Kerry debating to the main page: What do you think? Should I upload it? --Blue387 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you're still around, that looks like a nice picture... just make sure to re-size before you upload. --kizzle 21:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I am still here. How do I resize it? --Blue387 22:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll download and re-size it when I get a chance. --kizzle 22:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

why why poland?
This section seems to be a bit extraneous to the subject. We need an entire sub-article for one line from his speech? And no, this isn't the same prominance as the infamous 16 words on yellowcake from Africa. --kizzle 21:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Cheney
wasn't there a controversey over kerry's statements about mary cheney? all the republicans were going crazy about kerry "outing" her, then the democrats were going on about how the republicans were "ashamed" of her, if i remember rite. Xunflash 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * MC was already out, they were just complaining about her being mentioned. Schizombie 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointless DU Reference Under "Controversy"
I've removed the pointless reference to the Democratic Underground poster from the controversy section. It seems very unlikely to me that most people would consider that random forum posts from indeterminate users constitute encyclopedic material. --208.41.98.142 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

More about "device controversy"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/index.html Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate,"

Misnumbered Questions
There were parts of this article that have questions numbered incorrectly. I'm pretty sure this is related to the pictures, but I can't figure out what causing it.

Fair use rationale for Image:CHENEYEDWARDS DEBATE 1.jpg
Image:CHENEYEDWARDS DEBATE 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CHENEYEDWARDS DEBATE 2.jpg
Image:CHENEYEDWARDS DEBATE 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 1.jpg
Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 2.jpg
Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 3.jpg
Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 6.jpg
Image:BUSHKERRY DEBATE 6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Winner" of the vice-presidential debate
The statement "Cheney was viewed as the winner due to his forceful command on the language." is not supported by any footnotes or data. I found this information that contradicts that statement. Clearly there was no agreed upon "winner" by a majority of the polling sample.

RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE: CAMPAIGN 2000; Polls show no clear winner of VP debate; The Boston Herald October 7, 2004 Thursday

The ABC poll of registered voters found Cheney beat Edwards 43 percent to 35 percent, with 19 percent calling it a tie.

But one skewing factor to the ABC poll appeared to be its sample. -The network found viewership was made up of 38 percent Republicans and 31 percent Democrats, with the rest independents.

The ABC poll showed, though, that no votes changed after the debate - with Bush/Cheney beating Kerry/Edwards 51 percent to 48 percent before the debate and 50 percent to 49 percent afterward.

The CBS poll gave the nod to Edwards, 48 percent to 28 percent, with a much larger group, 31 percent, calling it a tie.

The network also found a greater number of voters said their opinions changed for the better for Edwards than Cheney - 49 percent said they like Edwards more now and 32 percent like Cheney more.

Nightkey (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bushbulge.jpg
Image:Bushbulge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You Forgot Poland
There were four countries that participated in the invasion. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofhistoricalnote (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge done
United States presidential debates MOU, 2004 was merged into here, per an earlier request, there being seemingly no reason against. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on United States presidential election debates, 2004. 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/20070220055849/http://www.azlp.org:80/NEWS/?041012.txt to http://www.azlp.org/NEWS/?041012.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050408061720/http://www.hillnews.com/under_dome/110404.aspx to http://www.hillnews.com/under_dome/110404.aspx

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 13:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on United States presidential election debates, 2004. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060512092450/http://rasmussenreports.com:80/VP%20Debate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/VP%20Debate.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060828005919/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com:80/index.php?sty=30208 to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=30208
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040901051726/http://www.fair.org/articles/appleseed.html to http://www.fair.org/articles/appleseed.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070330012105/http://www.c-span.org:80/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&ShowVidNum=10&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365/ to http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&ShowVidNum=10&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365/
 * Added tag to http://opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf
 * Added tag to http://opendebates.org/news/documents.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041016060417/http://www.factcheck.org:80/article271.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041019034927/http://factcheck.org:80/article275.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041019000846/http://www.factcheck.org:80/article281.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article281.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040806100440/http://www.justicetalking.org:80/viewprogram.asp?progID=452 to http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=452

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States presidential election debates which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States presidential debates, 2004. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706103054/http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential debates, 2004. 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/20100328042901/http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/35839.php to http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/35839.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf

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, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Plato's Crito

This article needs major work. Can somebody please rewrite the bullet points for Socrates' replies and the arguments of The Laws? Also, I'm not convinced of the capitalisation of the personified Laws, nor the apostrophes used. Finally, a quick bit about how this dialogue fits in with Plato's works overall? - I'm not too sure of myself on that.

title: Talk:Plato's Crito


text:
Michael Hillegas

Michael Hillegas (April 22, 1729 – September 29, 1804) was the first treasurer of the United States.

Biography
Hillegas was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was the son of Margaret Schiebenstock (1710 – July 21, 1770) and George Michael Hillegass (February 14, 1696 – October 30, 1749), an immigrant from Germany and a well-to-do merchant involved in iron and sugar. Soon Michael thus had the freedom and resources to participate in local politics. He married Henrietta Boude on May 10, 1753, at Christ Church in Philadelphia, and they went on to have many children. Hillegas was a member of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly from 1765 to 1775 and served as treasurer of the Committee of Safety under Benjamin Franklin in 1774.

On July 29, 1775, Hillegas and fellow patriot George Clymer were appointed by the Continental Congress to share the office of Treasurer of the United Colonies. Because Hillegas edited the Declaration of Independence, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, Clymer's signature appeared on the document.

After Clymer's resignation on August 6, 1776, Hillegas assumed sole ownership of the office, which he held throughout the remainder of the American Revolution, using much of his own fortune to support the cause. His son, Samuel Hillegas, was also given the authority to sign new currency, known as "Continentals." Hillegas also served briefly as quartermaster to the army and served on occasional commissions. On September 9, 1776, the Continental Congress officially changed the name of the country to the United States of America, but Hillegas's title did not officially change until March 1778. On September 11, 1789, Congress created the Treasury Department, and Alexander Hamilton took the oath of office as the first Secretary of the Treasury. On that same date, Hillegas tendered his resignation, and Samuel Meredith was appointed Treasurer.

Hillegas was also an early member of the American Philosophical Society, along with Franklin. He died in Philadelphia and is buried near Franklin in Christ Church Burial Ground. Late in the 19th century, his descendants petitioned to have his portrait appear on the ten-dollar gold certificate in the series issued in the years 1907 and 1922.

title: Michael Hillegas


text:
Jorge Garcia

Jorge Garcia (born April 28, 1973) is an American actor and comedian. He first came to public attention with his performance as Hector Lopez on the television show Becker, but subsequently became best known for his portrayal of Hugo "Hurley" Reyes in the television series Lost from 2004 to 2010. He starred in the Fox television series Alcatraz and played a minor character on ABC's Once Upon a Time. He starred as Jerry Ortega on Hawaii Five-0 and can be seen in the Netflix film The Ridiculous 6. He currently stars in the comedy series Bookie. Garcia also appeared on the cover of Weezer's 2010 album Hurley in a close-up shot from a photo he took with vocalist Rivers Cuomo.

Early life and education
Garcia was born in Omaha, Nebraska. His mother, Dora Mesa, is a Cuban-born professor, and his father, Humberto Garcia, is a Chilean-born doctor. He grew up in San Juan Capistrano in Orange County, California and went to San Clemente High School. He wrestled in high school, where he was given the nickname "Baby-Faced Killer". As a senior, he was selected by the faculty as "Triton of the Year", the highest award given to a graduating senior.

Garcia graduated from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1995 as a Communication Studies major. He also studied acting at the Beverly Hills Playhouse acting school.

Career
Garcia spent six years working at Borders Books and Music while auditioning. He was in a few commercials during that time. He later said that his first taste of street recognition came from starring in a Jack in the Box commercial which was aired frequently on local television.

Garcia was the first actor to be cast on Lost after the producers saw him on Curb Your Enthusiasm the night before casting began, and created the character of Hugo Reyes specifically for him. Garcia appeared in the second episode of the eighth season of Celebrity Poker Showdown, where he lost to Michael Ian Black. He was a contestant on an episode of Russian Roulette on Game Show Network. He missed a question about the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 and fell through the trap door.

Garcia is an associate producer and star in the independent film When We Were Pirates, in which he plays Jerry, who along with a group of close friends, learns that his childhood love of playing pirates helps him overcome some of the difficulties he faces later in life. He is seen singing in the studio for the upcoming project on an officially released YouTube clip.

During Lost's run, Garcia wrote a blog about the show called Dispatches from the Island. He also hosted a weekly podcast, Geronimo Jack's Beard, in which he discussed the script of Season 6.

Garcia is also featured on the front cover of Weezer's album Hurley, released on September 10, 2010. The album is named after his character from Lost. He performed as a guest vocalist at several Weezer concerts in 2010.

On November 21, 2010, Entertainment Weekly announced that Garcia was cast in the upcoming U.S. television series Alcatraz. On November 22, 2010, Garcia made a guest appearance on How I Met Your Mother`s episode "Blitzgiving". In the episode, references are made to Garcia's time on Lost.

In 2011, Garcia appeared as a recurring character in Mr. Sunshine, portraying a caretaker at the Sunshine Center. Starting in January 2012, Garcia portrayed Dr. Diego Soto, an Alcatraz expert, in the Fox series Alcatraz. The show was a mid-season replacement for Fox's Terra Nova. The series was officially cancelled by Fox on May 9, 2012, due to dropping viewership throughout its run. Garcia appeared on The Nerdist podcast posted June 18, 2012.

After appearing as a guest star in several season 4 episodes of Hawaii Five-0, Garcia, who plays the character of Jerry Ortega, was promoted to a series regular starting with season five.

In 2015, he joined the cast of The Healer starring with British actors Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Camilla Luddington and Jonathan Pryce.

Garcia launched a biweekly podcast with co-host Ralph Apel dedicated to kaiju films titled Kaiju Podcast on November 14, 2016.

In 2022, Garcia competed in season seven of The Masked Singer as "Cyclops" of Team Bad. He was eliminated alongside Jordan Mailata as "Thingamabob" of Team Cuddly.

title: Jorge Garcia


text:
One of These Nights

One of These Nights is the fourth studio album by American rock band the Eagles, released on June 10, 1975. The album was the band's commercial breakthrough, transforming them into international superstars. In July that year, the record became the Eagles' first number one album on Billboard Top LPs & Tape chart, yielding three Top 10 singles: "One of These Nights", "Lyin' Eyes" and "Take It to the Limit". Its title song is the group's second number one single on the Billboard Hot 100. The album sold four million copies and received a Grammy nomination for Album of the Year. A single from the album, "Lyin' Eyes", was also nominated for Record of the Year, and won the Eagles' first Grammy for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals at the 18th Annual Grammy Awards in 1976. The band embarked on the worldwide One of These Nights tour to promote the album.

One of These Nights is the last Eagles album to feature the original lineup of Randy Meisner, Glenn Frey, Don Henley, and Bernie Leadon (along with then-new member Don Felder). Leadon left the band after the album's tour due to his dissatisfaction with the band's shift from country towards a more mainstream rock sound and was replaced by Joe Walsh. The seventh track, "Visions", is the only Eagles song on which lead guitarist Don Felder sang the lead vocals, despite his desire to write and sing more songs.

Background
The Eagles began working on their fourth album in late 1974. Glenn Frey and Don Henley wrote four of the nine songs by themselves, and they also collaborated with other members of the band on three other songs. Many of the songs were written while Frey and Henley were sharing a house in Beverly Hills, including "One of These Nights", "Lyin' Eyes", "Take It to the Limit" and "After the Thrill Is Gone". In an interview with Cameron Crowe, Henley joked that it was their "satanic country-rock period" because "it was a dark time, both politically and musically" in America, referring to the turmoil in Washington and disco music starting to take off. He added: "We thought, "Well, how can we write something with that flavor, with that kind of beat, and still have the dangerous guitars?” We wanted to capture the spirit of the times."

Frey said that "One of These Nights was the most fluid and 'painless' album [they] ever made", and thought that the quality of the songs he wrote with Henley had improved dramatically. However, Leadon was becoming increasingly unhappy during the making of the album. He wrote three of the nine songs, none of which was released as a single. He was unhappy with the more rock direction of the band that Frey preferred, at one time walking out of a meeting to discuss which take to use after the recording of a rock track. Leadon would leave the band in late 1975, after the album was released.

Frey also began to sing less as a lead singer starting with this album, singing solo lead on only one song ("Lyin' Eyes") and sharing lead vocals with Henley on another ("After the Thrill Is Gone"). Henley later said: "[Glenn] was generous in that respect ... If I began to do more than he did, it was because if someone had a strong suit he would play that card. 'You sing this, you sing it better,' that kind of thing." Randy Meisner sings lead on two songs, one of which, "Take it to the Limit", a composition he co-wrote with Frey and Henley, was released as the third single from the album. Of the nine Eagles songs to feature Randy Meisner singing solo, this is the only song of his to be released as a single.

Track information
"One of These Nights", "Lyin' Eyes", and "Take It to the Limit" were released as singles.

"Journey of the Sorcerer"
"Journey of the Sorcerer" was used as the theme music for Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series produced by the BBC in 1978 and 1979. Adams said he had wanted something that sounded "sci-fi" while at the same time suggestive of a traveller, so this banjo-based instrumental struck him as ideal. "Journey of the Sorcerer" was used subsequently for the television series in 1981 (albeit re-recorded), the sequel radio series produced by Above the Title Productions for the BBC in 2003 and 2004, and (re-recorded once again) for the film produced by Disney/Touchstone in 2005. The original version from One of These Nights was used for all original transmissions of all five radio series, and a further version was used for the sixth. The TV adaptation of the series, and also an additional version released on LP record, used an arrangement by Tim Souster. The CD releases of radio series transmitted in 2004 and 2005 used another version arranged by Philip Pope, and recorded by a tribute band The Illegal Eagles, and the 2005 film used a version by Joby Talbot.

"I Wish You Peace"
“I Wish You Peace” was written by Bernie Leadon and his then-girlfriend Patti Davis, daughter of Republican then-Governor of California Ronald Reagan. Nancy Reagan had already disowned Patti during this period, ostensibly because of her choice to live together with Leadon as an "unmarried couple". Years later Don Henley would disparage this song as an Eagles release, describing it as “smarmy cocktail music and certainly not something the Eagles are proud of”. Henley was also annoyed that Davis was given cowriting credit, and told a reporter: "Nobody else wanted [the song]. We didn't feel it was up to the band's standards, but we put it on anyway as a gesture to keep the band together."

"After the Thrill is Gone"
According to Henley, he and Frey were aware of B.B. King's song "The Thrill Is Gone", and wrote the song to explore the aftermath: "We know that the thrill is gone – so, now what?" On the studio recording (and live performances during Frey's lifetime), Frey sings lead on the verses and choruses, while Henley sings lead on the bridge.

Artwork
The cover for the album is an image of an artwork by Boyd Elder, also known as "El Chingadero". Elder knew the Eagles in 1972 when pieces of his work were exhibited in an art gallery in Venice, California; among those who attended the opening were members of the Eagles who performed "Witchy Woman" at the show, an early appearance by the band as the Eagles. In 1973, Elder started to create artwork of painted skulls with wings and feathers. Elder was a friend of the album cover designer Gary Burden, who was responsible for the Eagles' three previous albums and was interested in using one of Elder's pieces for this cover. Elder presented two of his works to the Eagles in Dallas in late 1974, one of which was then chosen for the cover of One of These Nights. Later another work of Elder, an image of an eagle's skull, would be used for the cover of Their Greatest Hits album. The painted animal skull motif was also used in the cover for their compilation album The Very Best of, and the skull of One of These Nights was used for the cover of the documentary History of the Eagles.

The album cover for One of These Nights is the last Eagles album design on which Burden was involved. He made the skull stand up off the page by debossing large areas together with detailed and elaborate embossing in the wings and feathers. According to Burden, the cover image represents where the band was coming from and where they were going – "The cow skull is pure cowboy, folk, the decorations are American Indian inspired and the future is represented by the more polished reflective glass beaded surfaces covering the skull. All set against the dark eagle feather wings that speak of mysterious powers." The album artwork received a Grammy nomination for Best Album Package.

Album pressing
Original vinyl record pressings of One of These Nights (Elektra/Asylum catalog no. 7E-1039) had the following text engraved in the run-out grooves of each album side:

 * 1) Side one: "Don't worry --"
 * 2) Side two: "-- Nothing will be O.K.!"

The Eagles and their producer Bill Szymczyk would continue the trend of including such "hidden messages" in the run-out grooves on several subsequent albums.

This is the second album by the Eagles to have a Quadraphonic surround sound pressing. It was released on Quadraphonic 8-track tape and CD-4 LP.

Critical reception
Stephen Holden of Rolling Stone, in an early review of the album, expressed a liking for the album but did not consider it a great album. He thought the band's ensemble playing "unprecedentedly excellent" but they "lack an outstanding singer", and that while "many of their tunes are pretty, none are eloquent." He added: "And for all their worldly perceptiveness, the Eagles' lyrics never transcend Hollywood slickness. Their hard rock has always seemed a bit forced, constructed more from commercial considerations than from any urgent impulse to boogie. And when the Eagles attempt to communicate wild sexuality, they sound only boyishly enthused. These limitations, however, seem built into the latter-day concept of Southern California rock, of which the Eagles remain the unrivaled exponents." The Rolling Stone Album Guide judged the album to be the band's "most musically adventurous outing yet, flirting with disco on the title song, a waltz on "Take It to the Limit", and bluegrass psychedelia on Leadon's "Journey of the Sorcerer".

In a retrospective review, William Ruhlmann of AllMusic was more favorable. He thought that it had more original material and that the material was more polished, writing: "One of These Nights was the culmination of the blend of rock, country, and folk styles the Eagles had been making since their start; there wasn't much that was new, just the same sorts of things done better than they had been before. In particular, a lyrical stance—knowing and disillusioned, but desperately hopeful—had evolved, and the musical arrangements were tighter and more purposeful. The result was the Eagles' best-realized and most popular album so far."

Ultimate Classic Rock critic Sterling Whitaker rated both "One of These Nights" and "After the Thrill Has Gone" as being among the Eagles' 10 most underrated songs.

Grammy
!Ref. !scope="row" rowspan="4"|1976
 * rowspan="2"|"Lyin' Eyes"
 * Record of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan="4" style="text-align:center;"|
 * Best Pop Performance By a Duo or Group with Vocal
 * Won
 * One of These Nights (Gary Burden)
 * Best Album Package
 * Nominated
 * One of These Nights
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * }
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * }
 * }

Commercial performance
The album debuted on the US Billboard 200 chart at number 25 the week of its release, and climbed to number one in its fourth week on the chart, where it then stayed the next four weeks. It was the first of four consecutive number one albums for the Eagles. The album was certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), signifying shipment of over four million copies in the United States.

Personnel
Credits adapted from the liner notes.

Eagles
 * Glenn Frey – vocals, acoustic and electric rhythm guitars, piano, electric piano, harmonium on “Hollywood Waltz”, lead guitar on “Too Many Hands”
 * Don Henley – vocals, drums, percussion, tablas on “Too Many Hands”
 * Bernie Leadon – vocals, guitars, banjo, mandolin, pedal steel guitar
 * Randy Meisner – vocals, bass guitar
 * Don Felder – vocals, guitars, slide guitar

Additional personnel
 * David Bromberg – fiddles ("Journey of the Sorcerer")
 * The Royal Martian Orchestra – strings ("Journey of the Sorcerer")
 * Albhy Galuten – synthesizer ("Hollywood Waltz")
 * Jim Ed Norman – piano ("Lyin' Eyes", "Take It to the Limit"), orchestrations, conductor, string arrangements
 * Sid Sharp – concert master
 * The Eagles – string arrangements

Production
 * Bill Szymczyk – producer, engineer
 * Allan Blazek – engineer
 * Michael Braunstein – engineer
 * Ed Mashal – engineer
 * Michael Verdick – engineer
 * Don Wood – engineer
 * Gary Burden – art direction, design
 * Norman Seeff – photography
 * Tom Kelley – cover photography
 * Ted Jensen – remastering

title: One of These Nights


text:
Mu Qing (journalist)

Mù Qīng (March 15, 1921 – October 11, 2003) was a Chinese journalist and politician. He was known for his contributions to Chinese journalism in the 20th century. He was a reporter at Xinhua News Agency for decades before becoming its President. Most of his works were published in journalism textbooks and have been used widely throughout China.

Youth
Mu was born in Bengbu, Anhui in 1921. After attending secondary school in Henan he joined the Eighth Route Army, and in 1937, at the age of 16, he was responsible for a number of propaganda works. He joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1939 and entered the Lu Xun Academy of Art (鲁迅艺术学院) a year later.

War Correspondent
Mu commenced his career in journalism as a war correspondent in Jiefang Daily in the year 1942. Early in his career, he engaged in covering news stories on war, including the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and the Chinese Civil War. After Japan had surrendered in 1945, Mu was sent to the North-eastern China and established Dongfang Daily (东方日报).

Career in Xinhua
After the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, Mu was promoted to a senior level in the Xinhua News Agency. In 1951, Mu was given the title of Vice President for the Xinhua Headquarters in Beijing. Later in 1955, he moved from the Headquarters to the Xinhua News Agency main office in Shanghai, where he was President for the next three years.

In 1982, Mu became the Chief President of Xinhua until his retirement in 1992. On October 11, 2003 he died from lung cancer in Beijing.

Correspondences

 * An Unfinished News Report (一篇沒有寫完的報道)
 * For Premier Zhou's Exhortation (為了周總理的囑託——記農民科學家吳吉昌)
 * Jiao Yulu – A Good Example of the Secretaries of the County Committee of the Communist Party (縣委書記的榜樣——焦裕祿)
 * Judgement of history (歷史的審判)
 * Last Supper (最後的晚餐)
 * Revolution has begun again!(革命又回來了！)
 * Save Africa(救救非洲)
 * Wang Jinxi the Iron Man(鐵人王進喜)
 * Under the Leaning Tower (在斜塔下)

Books

 * Ding ci yishu (《定瓷藝術》) (2002)
 * Xinwen san lun (《新聞散論》) (Talking about News) (1996)
 * Jiao yu lu (《焦裕祿》) (1980)
 * Mingdai minyao qinghua (《明代民窯青花》) (With Tang Weijian) (2000)
 * Mu Qing sanwen xuan (《穆青散文選》) (1984)
 * Shi ge gongchandangyuan (《十個共產黨員》) (10 Communists)
 * Weiyena de xuanlü (《維也納的旋律》) (The Melody of Vienna) (1983)
 * Xiang zhong de hongqi (《湘中的紅旗》)(1950)
 * Xinwen gongzuo san lun (《新聞工作散論》) (1983)
 * Zhongguo xin wenyi daxi, 1937–1949. Baogao wenxue ji (《中國新文藝大系, 1937–1949. 報告文學集》) (Edited by Mu Qing) (1996)
 * Zhongguo xin wenyi daxi, 1949–1966. Baogao wenxue ji (《中國新文藝大系, 1949–1966. 報告文學集》) (Edited by Mu Qing) (1987)

Photographic Work

 * Selected photographic works of Mu Qing (穆青攝影選)

Calligraphy

 * Selected calligraphies of Mu Qing (穆青書法作品選)

title: Mu Qing (journalist)


text:
Spanish protectorate in Morocco

The Spanish protectorate in Morocco was established on 27 November 1912 by a treaty between France and Spain that converted the Spanish sphere of influence in Morocco into a formal protectorate.

The Spanish protectorate consisted of a northern strip on the Mediterranean and the Strait of Gibraltar, and a southern part of the protectorate around Cape Juby, bordering the Spanish Sahara. The northern zone became part of independent Morocco on 7 April 1956, shortly after France relinquished its protectorate. Spain finally ceded its southern zone through the Treaty of Angra de Cintra on 1 April 1958, after the short Ifni War. The city of Tangier was excluded from the Spanish protectorate and received a special internationally controlled status as Tangier International Zone.

Since France already held a protectorate over most of the country and had controlled Morocco's foreign affairs since 30 March 1912, it also held the power to delegate a zone to Spanish protection. The surface area of the zone was about 20948 km2, which represents 4.69% of modern-day Morocco.

Background

At a time when other European nations were acquiring or expanding their colonial empires, Spain's had generally gained independence. Its disastrous 1898 war with the United States stripped Spain of its few overseas provinces and exposed an inferior military. Yet, due to Morocco's proximity and the presence of Ceuta and Melilla, Spain eyed expansion in northern Morocco, despite an overall lack of enthusiasm for new colonial enterprises. During the last decades of the 19th century, Spain nervously watched the increasing influence of its European rivals in the Maghreb. Thus, ensuring Spanish security offered the most compelling reason to intervene. For example, Liberal leader Montero Ríos argued that if northwestern Morocco were to come under French control, Spain would be vulnerable to France from both north and south. Furthermore, the discovery of iron ore near Melilla convinced many that Morocco contained vast mineral wealth.

The key motivation for intervention, although less openly stated, was the belief that Morocco was Spain's last chance to maintain its position in the Concert of Europe, as it was the one area in which it could claim sufficient interest to generate some diplomatic strength with respect to the European powers. There was also the then-widespread belief in Europe that colonies increased a nation's prestige. Those beliefs encouraged Spanish politicians to adopt a forward policy in Morocco.

Formation
In a convention dated 27 June 1900 (at the same time as Treaty of Paris (1900)), France and Spain agreed to recognize separate zones of influence in Morocco, but did not specify their boundaries. In 1902, France offered Spain all of Morocco north of the Sebou River and south of the Sous River, but Spain declined in the belief that such a division would offend Britain. The British and French, without any Spanish insistence, acknowledged Spain's right to a zone of influence in Morocco in Article 8 of the Entente cordiale of 8 April 1904:

"The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government. The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government."

What exactly "special consideration" meant was dealt with in the secret third and fourth articles, specifying that Spain would be required to recognize Articles 4 and 7 of the treaty but could decline the "special consideration" if it wished:

"The two Governments agree that a certain extent of Moorish territory adjacent to Melilla, Ceuta, and other presides should, whenever the Sultan ceases to exercise authority over it, come within the sphere of influence of Spain, and that the administration of the coast from Melilla as far as, but not including, the heights on the right bank of the Sebou shall be entrusted to Spain."

The British goal in these negotiations with France was to ensure that a weaker power (Spain) held the strategic coast opposite Gibraltar in return for Britain ceding all their influence in Morocco. France began negotiating with Spain at once, but the offer of 1902 was no longer on the table. Since France had given up its ambitions in Ottoman Libya in a convention with Italy in 1903, it felt entitled to a greater share of Morocco. On 3 October 1904, France and Spain concluded a treaty that defined their precise zones. Spain received a zone of influence consisting of a northern strip of territory and a southern strip. The northern strip did not reach to the border of French Algeria, nor did it include Tangier, soon to be internationalized. The southern strip represented the southernmost part of Morocco as recognized by the European powers: the territory to its south, Saguia el-Hamra, was recognized by France as an exclusively Spanish zone. The treaty also recognized the Spanish exclave of Ifni and delimited its borders.

In March 1905, the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, visited Tangier, a city of international character in northern Morocco. There he loudly touted Germany's economic interests in Morocco and assured the Sultan of financial assistance in the event of a threat to Moroccan independence. At Wilhelm's urging, Sultan Abd el Aziz called for an international conference. The final act of the Algeciras Conference (7 April 1906) created the State Bank of Morocco, guaranteed the attending powers equal commercial rights in Morocco and created a native Moroccan police force led by French and Spanish officers.

The final Spanish zone of influence consisted of a northern strip and a southern strip centered on Cape Juby. The consideration of the southern strip as part of the protectorate back in 1912 eventually gave Morocco a solid legal claim to the territory in the 1950s. While the sparsely populated Cape Juby was administered as a single entity with Spanish Sahara, the northern territories were administered, separately, as a Spanish protectorate with its capital at Tetuán.

The Protectorate system was established in 1912. The Islamic legal system of qadis was formally maintained.

Rif War

Following the First World War, the Republic of the Rif, led by the guerrilla leader Abd el-Krim, was a breakaway state that existed from 1921 to 1926 in the Rif region, when it was subdued and dissolved by a joint expedition of the Spanish Army of Africa and French forces during the Rif War.

The Spanish lost more than 13,000 soldiers at Annual in July–August 1921. Controversy in Spain over the early conduct in the war was a driving factor behind the military coup by General Miguel Primo de Rivera in 1923 which foreshadowed the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39.

After the successful 1925 Alhucemas landing, the French–Spanish alliance ended up achieving victory and putting an end to the war.

Second Spanish Republic

Before 1934, the southern part of the protectorate (Tekna) had been governed from Cape Juby (within the same southern strip) since 1912; Cape Juby was also the seat of Spanish West Africa. Then, in 1934, the southern part began to being managed directly from Tetuán (in the northern part of the protectorate) and the seat of Spanish West Africa was moved from Cape Juby to the territory of Ifni (not a part of the protectorate), which had been occupied by the Spaniards that year.

Spanish Civil War
The Spanish Civil War started in 1936 with the partially successful coup against the Republican Government, which began in Spanish Morocco by an uprising of the Spanish Army of Africa stationed there, although within a day uprisings in Spain itself broke out. This force, which included a considerable number of Moroccan troops (regulares), was under the command of Francisco Franco (who spent much time in Morocco) and became the core of the Spanish Nationalist Army. The Communist Party of Spain and Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), advocated anti-colonial policies, and pressured the Republican government to support the independence of Spanish Morocco, intending to create a rebellion at Franco's back and cause disaffection among his Moroccan troops. The government – then led by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) — rejected that course of action as it would have likely resulted in conflict with France, the colonial ruler of the other portion of Morocco.

Because the locally recruited Muslim regulares had been among Franco's most effective troops, the protectorate enjoyed more political freedom and autonomy than Francoist Spain-proper after Franco's victory. The area held competing political parties and a Moroccan nationalist press, which often criticized the Spanish government.

World War II
Spanish troops provisionally occupied Tangier during World War II, on the pretext that an Italian invasion was imminent.

Retrocession to Morocco
In 1956, when France ended its protectorate over Morocco, Spain discontinued the protectorate and retroceded the territory to the newly independent kingdom, while retaining the plazas de soberanía which were part of Spain prior to the colonial period, Cape Juby, Ifni, and other colonies (such as Spanish Sahara) outside of Morocco. Unwilling to accept this, the Moroccan Army of Liberation waged war against the Spanish forces. In the 1958 Ifni War, which spread from Sidi Ifni to Río de Oro, Morocco gained Tarfaya (the southern part of the protectorate) and reduced the Spanish control of the Ifni territory to the perimeter of the city itself. Morocco and Spain negotiated for over a year over Ifni, with Morocco also wanting control of Ceuta and Melilla, while Spain was only willing to give up control of Ifni. On 5 January 1969 Morocco and Spain signed the treaty ceding Ifni to Morocco.

As of 2024, Morocco still claims Ceuta and Melilla as integral parts of the country, and considers them to be under foreign occupation, comparing their status to that of Gibraltar. Spain considers both cities integral parts of the Spanish geography, since they were part of Spain for centuries.

Mines
The iron mines in the Rif were one of the sources of income. Their exploitation led to an economic boom in Melilla.

Transport
After the Treaty of Algeciras signed in April 1906, where the northern part of Morocco was placed under Spanish administration, the Spanish started to develop this mineral-rich area, and numerous narrow gauge railways were built.

Administration

The administrative regime of the Protectorate is derived from the concept of protectorate itself, with a formal duality of authorities. On the one hand, there is a Moroccan administration, headed by a Khalifa (Jalifa), who exercised, by delegation of the Sultan, all his powers, mainly the legislative, which he exercised through the dahir (decree). He was also the highest religious authority. This government led by the Khalifa received the name of Makhzen and was divided into departments, like ministries, coordinated by the Grand Vizier. The ministers were the qadi al-qudat (chief or judge of judges), the Vizier of the Habus (inalienable patrimony whose income is destined to a pious or religious work or institution), the amin al-amlak and the amin al-umana (minister of Finance). It had an advisory council made up of two representatives from each of the five regions. The Khalifa was chosen by the Sultan from a pair proposed by the Spanish government. The first Khalifa was Mohammed Mehedi Ould Ben Ismael. Ishmael was the brother of Sultan Hassan I and later Sultan Hassan I was the great-uncle of the second Khalifa. The first Khalifa took office in Tetouan on 27 April 1913. Only two Khalifas held office until the independence of Morocco, Muley el Mehdi (between 1913 and 1923) and his son Muley el Hassán bin el Mehdi (who took office at the age of thirteen, ruling between 1925 and 1941 and 1945 and 1956).

The Spanish administration was led by a High Commissioner, formally accredited to the Khalifa but in fact the highest authority in the Protectorate. The High Commissary directed the political action of Spain in the Protectorate, and orders and instructions emanated from it. The high commissioner was assisted by various departments (Indigenous Affairs Development and Finance). There was a territorial controller in each of the regions, directly represented to the Delegation of Indigenous Affairs. Subordinate to him, there was a next level, with regional auditors and, finally, local auditors. The maintenance of order was in charge of the Regulares (forces of the Spanish army with "indigenous" Rif people) and the Indigenous Police. On the military side, the high commissioner was assisted by three commanders based in Ceuta, Melilla and Larache.

The administrative organization was arranged, at a general level, in this way: The High Commissioner was responsible for the direction of the Spanish action in the entire area and all the authorities (including the military) were subordinate to him. Among its activities were to intervene in the acts of the Khalifa, the regime of the cities in which the consuls acted as controllers, to dictate the general policy and to approve or direct, where appropriate, military operations. The Indigenous services department was entrusted with the General Secretariat and advising on all matters relating to relations with the Kabyles, the inspection of the Islamic Justice Administration, relations with the Consular Jurisdiction for the protection of the natives and with the Sheriff for everything related to real estate and the vindication of property, the inspection of schools and health care centers and the Spanish missions in educational work.

In Morocco, there was no prior organization to ensure public health, except in Tangier, and the Spanish tried to remedy this deficiency, creating in 1916 the Health Inspectorate, within the Office of Indigenous Affairs. The Spanish had to overcome the distrust that Moroccans felt towards their healers and home remedies, carrying out large vaccination campaigns that contributed to the prestige of the protecting country. Along with health action, culture was the other pending subject for Moroccans, since teaching was closely linked to religion and consisted of memorizing the Quran. Spain entrusted the task of educating the population to the Delegation of Indigenous Affairs, which depended on a Board of Education that was created on 3 April 1913. This Board was born with the purpose of training the personnel who would be dedicated to this task and as an instrument to learn about geography, literature, history and the Moroccan law. To this end, a Center for Moroccan Studies was organized in the Free Institute of Diplomatic and Consular Careers and Arabic chairs were created in some business schools and an Arabic board was created in the Board for the Extension of Studies.

Subsequently, Indigenous Affairs offices were created in Melilla and Ceuta that exercised surveillance functions, somewhat similar, in the occupied regions. In 1937, in the middle of the Spanish Civil War, the territorial organization of Spanish Morocco was in charge of the High Commissioner of the Territory and a Lieutenant Colonel responsible for civil and military affairs.

The High Commissioner and the Khalifa had their respective residences in two adjacent palaces in Tétouan, which following Morocco's independence in 1956 have been merged into a single compound and repurposed as the Royal Palace of Tétouan.

title: Spanish protectorate in Morocco


text:
Kitchenware

 *  For a record label, see Kitchenware Records

Kitchenware refers to the tools, utensils, appliances, dishes, and cookware used in food preparation and the serving of food. Kitchenware can also be used to hold or store food before or after preparation.

Types
Kitchenware encompasses a wide range of tools. Some of the most common items of kitchenware are: • Baking dish

• Baking tray

• Cake pan

• Can opener

• Chopping board

• Coffee press

• Colander

• Cooling rack

• Corkscrew

• Cutlery

• Dinnerware

• Eggbeater

• Egg slicer

• Electric mixer

• Fork

• Frying pan

• Garlic press

• Grater

• Glassware

• Grill pan

• Kitchen scissors

• Knives

• Mandolin

• Measuring cups and spoons

• Measuring spoon

• Meat slicer

• Mixing bowls

• Muffin tin

• Pressure cooker

• Pasta server

• Peeler

• Pepper mill

• Pie dish

• Pizza stone

• Plates

• Potato masher

• Potato ricer

• Rolling pin

• Saucepan

• Serving fork

• Serving spoon

• Sheet pan

• Skillet

• Slotted spoon

• Soup spoon

• Spatula

• Spiral vegetable slicer

• Spoon

• Stock pot

• Steamers

• Strainer

• Timer

• Tomato slicer

• Tongs

• Tray

• Whisk

• Wok

• Wooden spoon

title: Kitchenware


text:
Aerial Distributors Distributor Wing

The Distributor Wing DW-1 was a prototype agricultural aircraft of unorthodox design, designed by Ken Razak in the United States and marketed by Aerial Distributors in the 1960s.

Design
Developed with assistance from NASA, the University of Wichita and the University of Robbins, California, the aircraft was unusual in that it had a second engine mounted directly below its main powerplant, using this second motor to power a distribution system that used compressed air to carry dry chemicals from a hopper and blow them out of the trailing edges of its wings, over the flaps. Varying the power of this blower engine also provided lift control.

Flight testing and cancellation
First flown on January 30, 1965, the DW-1 was flight tested over several years, with the cowling being revised during testing. Development was terminated by economic conditions in the fertilizer market.

title: Aerial Distributors Distributor Wing


text:
Nikolai Ostrovsky

Nikolai Alekseyevich Ostrovsky (Николай Алексеевич Островский; Микола Олексійович Островський; 29 September 1904 – 22 December 1936) was a Soviet socialist realist writer. He is best known for his novel How the Steel Was Tempered.

Life
Ostrovsky was born in the village of Viliya (today a village in Rivne Raion (until 2020 it was situated in Ostroh Raion), Rivne Oblast) in the Volhynian Governorate (Volhynia), then part of the Russian Empire, into a Ukrainian working-class family. He attended a parochial school until he was nine and was an honor student. In 1914, his family moved to the railroad town of Shepetivka (today in Khmelnytskyi Oblast) where Ostrovsky started working in the kitchens at the railroad station, a timber yard, then becoming a stoker's mate and then an electrician at the local power station. In 1917, at the age of thirteen he became a Bolshevik party activist. At the same period he developed ankylosing spondylitis, which would later blind and paralyze him.

According to the official biography, when the Germans occupied the town in the spring of 1918, Ostrovsky ran errands for the local Bolshevik underground. In July 1918 he joined the Komsomol and the Red Army in August. He served in the Kotovsky cavalry brigade. In 1920 he was reportedly wounded near Lviv and contracted typhus. He returned to the army only to be wounded again and was demobilized on medical grounds.

In 1921, he began working in railway workshops of Kiev as an electrician and as the secretary of the local Komsomol.

Having rheumatism and typhus, in August 1922 he was sent to Berdyansk, a resort on the Sea of Azov, for treatment. In October 1922 he was officially declared an invalid; however he continued working. In 1923 he was appointed Commissar of the Red Army's Second Training Battalion and Komsomol secretary for Berezdiv in western Ukraine. In January 1924 he went to Iziaslav as the head of Komsomol district committee and in August 1924 he joined the Communist Party. In 1925, with his health rapidly declining, he went to Kharkiv for medical treatment and in May 1926 he went to a sanatorium in the Crimea. By December 1926 polyarthritis deprived him of almost all mobility and he became virtually bedridden. In December 1927 Ostrovsky began a correspondence course at the Sverdlov Communist University in Moscow that he completed in June 1929. In August, he lost his vision.

Undaunted by his immobility and blindness, in 1930, he began work on his first novel, How the Steel Was Tempered, which became renowned and influential in the Communist world. He also wrote articles for newspapers and journals and spoke often on the radio. In April 1932 he became a member of the Moscow branch of the Association of Proletarian Writers and in June 1934 he joined the Union of Soviet Writers. On 1 October 1935, he was awarded the Order of Lenin.

After living for years with paralysis, illness and blindness due to congenital ankylosing spondylitis as well as complications from typhus, Ostrovsky died on 22 December 1936, aged 32. Because of his early death, he was unable to complete his second novel, Born of the Storm, on the Russian Civil War.

Legacy
His novel How the Steel Was Tempered is considered one of the most influential works of Communist literature. In Moscow during the Communist period the Ostrovsky Museum and the Ostrovsky Humanitarian centre were built. They preserve his study and bedroom, while other exhibits include showcases of the achievements of disabled people like Nikolai Fenomenov and Ludmilla Rogova.

There also was established by the Central Committee of Komsomol of Ukraine the Ostrovsky Republican Prize.

The 2015 Ukrainian decommunization laws ban the use of Ostrovsky's name for the naming of public places. Hence Kyiv's Ostrovsky Park was renamed Mykola Zerov Park in 2020.

A monument to Ostrovsky in Shepetivka was dismantled in December 2022 after the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy had removed it from its list of "monumental art of local significance".

Quotations
"The dearest possession of any person is life. It is given only once, and it must not be lived only to feel tortured by regrets for wasted years or to know the burning shame of a mean and petty past; so live that when dying you have a right to say: all my life, all my strength was given to the finest cause in the world – the fight for the liberation of humankind."

title: Nikolai Ostrovsky


text: User talk:66.71.76.52

title: User talk:66.71.76.52


text:
Talk:Views of Palestinian occupation

First look
Uncle_Ed, I think it's a good idea to move this section here.

Some structure/organization suggestions: The best order of view subsections would be probably:
 * We should also move subsections "Palestinian Authority" and "Islamic sphere" over here, because those also describe views of occupation (and nothing else).
 * Add "Israel" subsection here and move all Israeli views into that subsection.
 * Add "International community" subsection and move their views there.
 * Contestants first (Palestinian views, Israel views), then
 * "Neutral arbiters" (International community), then
 * The rest (Arab world, Islamic sphere, whatever).

We should start with an NPOV summary, and there are many NPOV issues with the current text. Here's just one:
 * The "Arabs and their allies" sentence is POV in many ways:
 * It implies that only Arab allies oppose Israeli occupation, which is not true.
 * This mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists -- they call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater.
 * It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arab" is an ethno/racial term so a mirror term should be "Jew", not "Israel".
 * "Arabs and their allies" are a minority compared to the world. Thus the views of the international community should go first.

HistoryBuffEr 05:56, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Another suggestion
It would also make sense to create History of Palestine occupations and move all historic occupation subsections from Occupation of Palestine to the new article. It would make the main article more readable by reducing clutter and it would also do justice to the title Occupation of Palestine, which everyone assumes means "the current occupation" (otherwise we'd need yet another article titled OccupationS of Palestine). HistoryBuffEr 06:06, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

title: Talk:Views of Palestinian occupation


text: User talk:69.199.185.163

title: User talk:69.199.185.163


text:
Gary Russell

Gary Russell (born 18 September 1963) is a British freelance writer, producer and former child actor. As a writer, he is best known for his work in connection with the television series Doctor Who and its spin-offs in other media. As an actor, he is best known for playing Dick Kirrin in the British 1978 television series The Famous Five.

Biography
Russell was born in Maidenhead, Berkshire. His on-screen acting career included leading roles in the BBC's adaptation of E. Nesbit's novel The Phoenix and the Carpet as Cyril, ITV's adaptations of Enid Blyton's Famous Five novels (as Dick) and the BBC's Look & Read schools series, playing Lord Edward Dark in Dark Towers. He also spent seasons performing with Prospect Theatre Company and the Royal National Theatre.

He has written guide books, under the pseudonym Warren Martyn, to Frasier and The Simpsons for Virgin Publishing. He was editor of Doctor Who Magazine between 1992 and 1995. He was the producer for the Doctor Who licensed audio drama tie-ins at Big Finish Productions from its inception in 1998 until July 2006, when he stepped down to work for BBC Wales as a Script Editor on Doctor Who The Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood. He has written a number of Doctor Who spin-off novels and in 2000 co-wrote with executive producer Philip Segal the book Doctor Who: Regeneration (HarperCollins, ISBN 0-00-710591-6), the making-of book of the 1996 Doctor Who television movie, as well as the TV movie's novelisation in 1996.

He wrote a series of The Art of The Lord of the Rings, one per film, plus a fourth featuring material that could not be fitted into the individual volumes, and contributed to Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic with Andy Serkis. He also wrote the behind-the-scenes book on the making of the Matthew Warchus directed 2007 stage musical version of The Lord of the Rings. His behind-the-scenes book Doctor Who: The Inside Story was published in October 2006, coinciding with his joining the Doctor Who production team. His most recent reference work was also for Doctor Who; published in 2007 by BBC Books, The Doctor Who Encyclopedia is a guide to the current Doctor Who series (2005–present), which has been regularly updated (most recently in 2012) and published both in hardback and via an app. He also wrote a similar encyclopedia for Torchwood and The Torchwood Archive, a semi-fictional guide to the show. He also co-produced and directed the animated mini series The Infinite Quest and Dreamland, which tied in with the current television series of Doctor Who as well as a series of award-winning animated online games also based on the show.

In 2011, having left BBC Wales, he briefly returned to Big Finish to produce the Bernice Summerfield and Gallifrey audios, before moving to Australia and becoming the Executive Producer at animation company Planet 55 Studios. There he has overseen the development and production of a new children's sci-fi cartoon Prisoner Zero for ABC Television. He returned to the UK in 2016.

Comics

 * Doctor Who (in Doctor Who Magazine No. 173, 235–237, 1991, 1996, and in Radio Times issues dated 1 June 1996 – 2 March 1997)

IDW Doctor Who comic book
At the 2007 San Diego Comic Con, IDW Publishing announced their intention to publish a new series of Doctor Who comics, which will follow the adventures of the Tenth Doctor and Martha Jones. The first six issues of this series, later collected as Agent Provocateur, were scripted by Russell and published in early 2008. He has also written a number of Torchwood strips for Titan Publishing.

Awards
In April 2022, Gary Russell was given the inaugural Terrance Dicks Award For Writers by the Doctor Who Appreciation Society.

title: Gary Russell


text:
Yakkha people

Yakkha or Dewan  (Nepali याक्खा, Yākkhā) is an indigenous ethnic group from the Indian subcontinent, mainly in modern-day Nepal and present-day India (related to other Kirat groups, like the Limbu, Sunuwar, Rai, and more distantly all other Sino-Tibetan peoples). It is one of the descendants of Nepal's prehistoric Kirat dynasty. The Yakkha people are subsistence farmers who inhabit the lower Arun valley in eastern Nepal. They number only a few thousand and their language is nearly extinct.

Etymology
Scholars have different opinions regarding the origin of the word Yakkha. One school of thought claims that the ethnonym Yakkha as per the Aryan Sanskrit grammar had been spelled in the Aryan-Hindu mythologies as Yaksa-sh (like Bhisu-shu for an ascetic Bhikchu of the Buddhist holy scripts). Although the legendary Yaksa-sh, by the corrupt name of Yakkha, is mentioned in religious Hindu texts, the Vedas and ancient Sanskrit literature, Yakkha has historically been consistent in the use of its own endonyms. Yakkhawa or Yakkhaba is used to denote the male person and Yakkhama to denote the female person.

Exonyms
The Yakkhas are also known by the exonyms Dewan, Jimi and Rai titles they accepted after the conquest of the Kirat land by the Gorkhas under Prithvi Narayan Shah. The Yakkhas were not only given ownership of the land but were also given the responsibility of collecting taxes from the lands utilised by Yakkhas as well as non-Yakkhas living in the area. In Darjeeling district, Kalimpong district and Sikkim of India, Dewan is commonly used as a synonym of Yakkha, and as Dewans they are placed in the Other Backward Class category.

Yakkha Land (Yākkhālen)
Today, the Yakkha Motherland is considered a patch among the historic Kirat region (i.e., east of the Kathmandu valley). During the National Unification of Nepal by Prithvi Narayan Shah, the traditional bases of the Kirat Lands were merged. The Far Kirat (Pallo Kirat) of the Limbuwan area to the east of the Arun River was divided into seventeen Thums. Among these Seventeen Thums, the Panch (5) Khapan, Panch (5) Majhiya and Das (10) Majhiya; Tin Thum Yakkhalen are regarded as the traditional area of the Yakkhas. This Yakkha area is the Southern part of Sankhuwasabha district bordering the Terhathum District and Taplejung District in the East; Dhankuta District in the South; and Bhojpur District in the West; of the Eastern Nepal. Sibhuwa, Syabun, Wana, Dadagau, Swachi, Yangsijong, Wabun, Maidane, Chitlang are the names of Panch-Khapan; Madi Mulkharka, Tamafok, Tellok, Mamgling, Ankhibhuin, Hombong, Marrek, Chanuwa, Dandagaun, etc. are the names of the Dash-Majhiyas and Hattisudhe, Kingring, Chapabhuin, Aambote, Chainpur etc. are the name of Panch-Majhiyas.

Religion, language and culture
The Yakkha’s have a distinct language, culture and tradition. The Yakkha language is a Tibeto-Burman language. The onset of modernism and influence from external factors have caused a rapid disappearance of the Yakkha language. The Yakkhas practice the Kirati religion of nature worship. There are 32 family names (Thar) in the Yakkhas. Each Thar also has a sub-group called the Sameychong. Marriages do not occur between families sharing the same Sameychong.

Population
As per the National Population and Housing Census 2021 of Nepal, the population of Yakkhas in Nepal was 17,460 (0.06% of the total population of Nepal). As per the 2011 Nepal census of Nepal, the population of Yakkhas in Nepal was 24,336 (0.1% of the total population of Nepal). As per the population census of Nepal 2001, there were 17,003 Yakkhas in Nepal. A few thousand Yakkhas live in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts, Sikkim, North-Eastern states and other parts of India.

As per the 2021 Nepal census, the population of Yakkha people by province is as follows:
 * Koshi Province: 16,451
 * Madhesh Province: 90
 * Bagmati Province: 682
 * Gandaki Province: 39
 * Lumbini Province: 182
 * Karnali Province: 0
 * Sudurpashchim Province: 10

As per the 2021 Nepal census, the population of Yakkha people by district is as follows:
 * Taplejung: 235
 * Sankhuwasabha: 5752
 * Dhankuta: 4344
 * Terhathum: 180
 * Panchthar: 471
 * Ilam: 1308
 * Jhapa: 672
 * Morang: 1698
 * Sunsari: 1730
 * Udayapur: 47

 * Saptari: 12
 * Bara: 77

 * Nuwakot: 10
 * Kathmandu: 367
 * Bhaktapur: 29
 * Lalitpur: 229
 * Kavrepalanchok: 12
 * Chitawan: 12

 * Gorkha: 11
 * Kaski: 11

 * Nawalparasi (West): 88
 * Rupandehi: 90

title: Yakkha people