text:
Bracero Program

The Bracero Program (from the Spanish term bracero, meaning "manual laborer" or "one who works using his arms") was a U.S. Government-sponsored program that imported Mexican farm and railroad workers into the United States between the years 1942 and 1964.

The program, which was designed to fill agriculture shortages during World War II, offered employment contracts to 5 million braceros in 24 U.S. states. It was the largest foreign worker program in U.S. history.

The program was the result of a series of laws and diplomatic agreements, initiated on August 4, 1942, when the United States signed the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement with Mexico. For these farmworkers, the agreement guaranteed decent living conditions (sanitation, adequate shelter, and food) and a minimum wage of 30 cents an hour, as well as protections from forced military service, and guaranteed that a part of wages was to be put into a private savings account in Mexico. The program also allowed the importation of contract laborers from Guam as a temporary measure during the early phases of World War II.

The agreement was extended with the Migrant Labor Agreement of 1951, enacted as an amendment to the Agricultural Act of 1949 by the United States Congress, which set the official parameters for the Bracero Program until its termination in 1964.

In studies published in 2018 and 2023, it was found that the Bracero Program did not have an adverse effect on the wages or employment for American-born farm workers, and that termination of the program had adverse impact on American-born farmers and resulted in increased farm mechanization.

Since abolition of the Bracero Program, temporary agricultural workers have been admitted with H-2 and H-2A visas.

Introduction

The Bracero Program operated as a joint program under the State Department, the Department of Labor, and the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) in the Department of Justice. Under this pact, the laborers were promised decent living conditions in labor camps, such as adequate shelter, food and sanitation, as well as a minimum wage pay of 30 cents an hour. The agreement also stated that braceros would not be subject to discrimination such as exclusion from "white" areas.

This program, which commenced in Stockton, California in August 1942, was intended to fill the labor shortage in agriculture because of the war. In Texas, the program was banned by Mexico for several years during the mid-1940s due to the discrimination and maltreatment of Mexicans, which included lynchings along the border. Texas Governor Coke Stevenson pleaded on several occasions to the Mexican government that the ban be lifted to no avail. The program lasted 22 years and offered employment contracts to 5 million braceros in 24 U.S. states—becoming the largest foreign worker program in U.S. history.

From 1942 to 1947, only a relatively small number of braceros were admitted, accounting for less than 10 percent of U.S. hired workers. Yet both U.S. and Mexican employers became heavily dependent on braceros for willing workers; bribery was a common way to get a contract during this time. Consequently, several years of the short-term agreement led to an increase in undocumented immigration and a growing preference for operating outside of the parameters set by the program.

Moreover, Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor in 1951 disclosed that the presence of Mexican workers depressed the income of American farmers, even as the U.S. Department of State urged a new bracero program to counter the popularity of communism in Mexico. Furthermore, it was seen as a way for Mexico to be involved in the Allied armed forces. The first braceros were admitted on September 27, 1942, for the sugar-beet harvest season. From 1948 to 1964, the U.S. allowed in on average 200,000 braceros per year.

Railroad workers
Bracero railroad workers were often distinguished from their agricultural counterparts. Railroad workers closely resembled agriculture contract workers between Mexico and the U.S. Being a bracero on the railroad meant lots of demanding manual labor, including tasks such as expanding rail yards, laying track at port facilities, and replacing worn rails. Railroad work contracts helped the war effort by replacing conscripted farmworkers, staying in effect until 1945 and employing about 100,000 men."

Southern Pacific Railroad
In 1942 when the Bracero Program came to be, it was not only agriculture work that was contracted, but also railroad work. Just like braceros working in the fields, Mexican contract workers were recruited to work on the railroads. The Southern Pacific railroad was having a hard time keeping full-time rail crews on hand. The dilemma of short handed crews prompts the railway company to ask the government permission to have workers come in from Mexico. The railroad version of the Bracero Program carried many similarities to agricultural braceros. It was written that, "The bracero railroad contract would preserve all the guarantees and provisions extended to agricultural workers." Only eight short months after agricultural braceros were once again welcomed to work, so were braceros on the railroads. The "Immigration and Naturalization authorized, and the U.S. attorney general approved under the 9th Proviso to Section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, the temporary admission of unskilled Mexican non-agricultural workers for railroad track and maintenance-of-way employment. The authorization stipulated that railroad braceros could only enter the United States for the duration of the war." Over the course of the next few months, braceros began coming in by the thousands to work on railroads. While multiple railroad companies began requesting Mexican workers to fill labor shortages. Bracero railroaders were also in understanding of an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to pay a living wage, provided adequate food, housing, and transportation. Like many of the forgotten stories of the bracero, working in the U.S. was not easy. Oftentimes, just like agricultural braceros, the railroaders were subject to rigged wages, harsh or inadequate living spaces, food scarcity, and racial discrimination. Exploitation of the braceros went on well into the 1960s.

1951 negotiations to termination
American growers longed for a system that would admit Mexican workers and guarantee them an opportunity to grow and harvest their crops, and place them on the American market. Thus, during negotiations in 1948 over a new bracero program, Mexico sought to have the United States impose sanctions on American employers of undocumented workers.

President Truman signed Public Law 78 (which did not include employer sanctions) in July 1951. Soon after it was signed, United States negotiators met with Mexican officials to prepare a new bilateral agreement. This agreement made it so that the U.S. government were the guarantors of the contract, not U.S. employers. The braceros could not be used as replacement workers for U.S. workers on strike; however, the braceros were not allowed to go on strike or renegotiate wages. The agreement set forth that all negotiations would be between the two governments.

A year later, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was passed by the 82nd United States Congress whereas President Truman vetoed the U.S. House immigration and nationality legislation on June 25, 1952. The H.R. 5678 bill conceded a federal felony for knowingly concealing, harboring, or shielding a foreign national or illegal immigrant. However the Texas Proviso stated that employing unauthorized workers would not constitute as "harboring or concealing" them. This also led to the establishment of the H-2A visa program, which enabled laborers to enter the U.S. for temporary work. There were a number of hearings about the United States–Mexico migration, which overheard complaints about Public Law 78 and how it did not adequately provide them with a reliable supply of workers. Simultaneously, unions complained that the braceros' presence was harmful to U.S. workers.

The outcome of this meeting was that the United States ultimately got to decide how the workers would enter the country by way of reception centers set up in various Mexican states and at the United States border. At these reception centers, potential braceros had to pass a series of examinations. The first step in this process required that the workers pass a local level selection before moving onto a regional migratory station where the laborers had to pass a number of physical examinations.

Lastly, at the U.S. reception centers, workers were inspected by health departments, stripped & sprayed with DDT a dangerous pesticide.

They were then sent to contractors that were looking for workers. Operations were primarily run by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) along with other military personnel. Braceros frequently dealt with harassment from these officials and could be kept for extended periods of time in the examination rooms. These rooms held as many as 40 men at a time, and migrants would have to wait 6 or more hours to be examined. According to first hand accounts, personnel would often process 800 to 1600 braceros at a time and, on occasion, upwards of 3100. The invasive health procedures and overcrowded processing centers would continue to persist throughout the program's 22-year tenure.

To address the overwhelming amount of undocumented migrants in the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service launched Operation Wetback in June 1954, as a way to repatriate illegal laborers back to Mexico. The illegal workers who came over to the states at the initial start of the program were not the only ones affected by this operation, there were also massive groups of workers who felt the need to extend their stay in the U.S. well after their labor contracts were terminated.

In the first year, over a million Mexicans were sent back to Mexico; 3.8 million were repatriated when the operation was finished. The criticisms of unions and churches made their way to the U.S. Department of Labor, as they lamented that the braceros were negatively affecting the U.S. farmworkers in the 1950s. In 1955, the AFL and CIO spokesman testified before a Congressional committee against the program, citing lack of enforcement of pay standards by the Labor Department. The Department of Labor eventually acted upon these criticisms and began closing numerous bracero camps in 1957–1958, they also imposed new minimum wage standards and in 1959 they demanded that American workers recruited through the Employment Service be entitled to the same wages and benefits as the braceros.

The Department of Labor continued to try to get more pro-worker regulations passed, however the only one that was written into law was the one guaranteeing U.S. workers the same benefits as the braceros, which was signed in 1961 by President Kennedy as an extension of Public Law 78. After signing, Kennedy said, "I am aware ... of the serious impact in Mexico if many thousands of workers employed in this country were summarily deprived of this much-needed employment." Thereupon, bracero employment plummeted; going from 437,000 workers in 1959 to 186,000 in 1963.

During a 1963 debate over extension, the House of Representatives rejected an extension of the program. However, the Senate approved an extension that required U.S. workers to receive the same non-wage benefits as braceros. The House responded with a final one-year extension of the program without the non-wage benefits, and the Bracero Program saw its demise in 1964.

Emergency Farm Labor Program and federal public laws
 1942-1947 Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program   1948-1964 Farm Labor Supply Program

The workers who participated in the bracero program have generated significant local and international struggles challenging the U.S. government and Mexican government to identify and return 10 percent mandatory deductions taken from their pay, from 1942 to 1948, for savings accounts that they were legally guaranteed to receive upon their return to Mexico at the conclusion of their contracts. Many field working braceros never received their savings, but most railroad working braceros did.

Lawsuits presented in federal courts in California, in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade), highlighted the substandard conditions and documented the ultimate destiny of the savings accounts deductions, but the suit was thrown out because the Mexican banks in question never operated in the United States. Today, it is stipulated that ex-braceros can receive up to $3,500.00 as compensation for the 10% only by supplying check stubs or contracts proving they were part of the program during 1942 to 1948. It is estimated that, with interest accumulated, $500 million is owed to ex-braceros, who continue to fight to receive the money owed to them.

Notable strikes

 * January–February (exact dates aren't noted) 1943: In Burlington, Washington, braceros strike because farmers were paying higher wages to Anglos than to the braceros doing similar work
 * 1943: In Medford, Oregon, one of the first notable strikes was by a group of braceros that staged a work stoppage to protest their pay based on per box versus per hour. The growers agreed to pay them 75 cents an hour versus the 8 or 10 cents per box.
 * May 1944: Braceros in Preston, Idaho, struck over wages
 * July and September 1944: Braceros near Rupert and Wilder, Idaho, strike over wages
 * October 1944: Braceros in Sugar City and Lincoln, Idaho refused to harvest beets after earning higher wages picking potatoes
 * May–June 1945: Bracero asparagus cutters in Walla Walla, Washington, struck for twelve days complaining they grossed only between $4.16 and $8.33 in that time period
 * June 1945: Braceros from Caldwell-Boise sugar beet farms struck when hourly wages were 20 cents less than the established rate set by the County Extension Service. They won a wage increase.
 * June 1945: In Twin Falls, Idaho, 285 braceros went on strike against the Amalgamated Sugar Company for two days which resulted in them effectively receiving a 50 cent raise which put them 20 cents over the prevailing wage of the contracted labor
 * June 1945: Three weeks later braceros at Emmett struck for higher wages
 * July 1945: In Idaho Falls, 170 braceros organized a sit-down strike that lasted nine days after fifty cherry pickers refused to work at the prevailing rate.
 * October 1945: In Klamath Falls, Oregon, braceros and transient workers from California refuse to pick potatoes due to insufficient wages
 * A majority of Oregon's Mexican labor camps were affected by labor unrest and stoppages in 1945
 * November 1946: In Wenatchee, Washington, 100 braceros refused to be transported to Idaho to harvest beets and demanded a train back to Mexico.

The number of strikes in the Pacific Northwest is much longer than this list. Two strikes, in particular, should be highlighted for their character and scope: the Japanese-Mexican strike of 1943 in Dayton, Washington and the June 1946 strike of 1000 plus braceros that refused to harvest lettuce and peas in Idaho.

1943 strike
The 1943 strike in Dayton, Washington, is unique in the unity it showed between Mexican braceros and Japanese-American workers. The wartime labor shortage not only led to tens of thousands of Mexican braceros being used on Northwest farms, it also saw the U.S. government allow some ten thousand Japanese Americans, who were placed against their will in internment camps during World War II, to leave the camps in order to work on farms in the Northwest. The strike at Blue Mountain Cannery erupted in late July. After "a white female came forward stating that she had been assaulted and described her assailant as 'looking Mexican' ... the prosecutor's and sheriff's office imposed a mandatory 'restriction order' on both the Mexican and Japanese camps." No investigation took place nor were any Japanese or Mexican workers asked their opinions on what happened.

The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin reported the restriction order read:

""

The workers' response came in the form of a strike against this perceived injustice. Some 170 Mexicans and 230 Japanese struck. After multiple meetings including some combination of government officials, Cannery officials, the county sheriff, the Mayor of Dayton and representatives of the workers, the restriction order was voided. Those in power actually showed little concern over the alleged assault. Their real concern was ensuring the workers got back into the fields. Authorities threatened to send soldiers to force them back to work. Two days later the strike ended. Many of the Japanese and Mexican workers had threatened to return to their original homes, but most stayed there to help harvest the pea crop.

Reasons for discontent
First, like braceros in other parts of the U.S., those in the Northwest came to the U.S. looking for employment with the goal of improving their lives. Yet, the power dynamic all braceros encountered offered little space or control by them over their living environment or working conditions. As Gamboa points out, farmers controlled the pay (and kept it very low), hours of work and even transportation to and from work. Transportation and living expenses from the place of origin to destination, and return, as well as expenses incurred in the fulfillment of any requirements of a migratory nature, should have been met by the employer. Most employment agreements contained language to the effect of, "Mexican workers will be furnished without cost to them with hygienic lodgings and the medical and sanitary services enjoyed without cost to them will be identical with those furnished to the other agricultural workers in regions where they may lend their services." These were the words of agreements that all bracero employers had to come to but employers often showed that they couldn't stick with what they agreed on. Braceros had no say on any committees, agencies or boards that existed ostensibly to help establish fair working conditions for them. The lack of quality food angered braceros all over the U.S. According to the War Food Administrator, "Securing able cooks who were Mexicans or who had had experience in Mexican cooking was a problem that was never completely solved."

John Willard Carrigan, who was an authority on this subject after visiting multiple camps in California and Colorado in 1943 and 1944, commented, "Food preparation has not been adapted to the workers' habits sufficiently to eliminate vigorous criticisms. The men seem to agree on the following points: 1.) the quantity of food is sufficient, 2.) evening meals are plentiful, 3.) breakfast often is served earlier than warranted, 4.) bag lunches are universally disliked ... In some camps, efforts have been made to vary the diet more in accord with Mexican taste. The cold sandwich lunch with a piece of fruit, however, persists almost everywhere as the principal cause of discontent."

Not only was the pay extremely low, but braceros often weren't paid on a timely basis. A letter from Howard A. Preston describes payroll issues that many braceros faced, "The difficulty lay chiefly in the customary method of computing earnings on a piecework basis after a job was completed. This meant that full payment was delayed for long after the end of regular pay periods. It was also charged that time actually worked was not entered on the daily time slips and that payment was sometimes less than 30 cents per hour. April 9, 1943, the Mexican Labor Agreement is sanctioned by Congress through Public Law 45 which led to the agreement of a guaranteed a minimum wage of 30 cents per hour and "humane treatment" for workers involved in the program.

Wage discrepancies
Despite what the law extended to braceros and what growers agreed upon in their contracts, braceros often faced rigged wages, withheld pay, and inconsistent disbursement of wages. Bracero railroaders were usually paid by the hour, whereas agricultural braceros sometime were paid by the piece of produce which was packaged. Either way, these two contracted working groups were shorted more times than not. Bracero contracts indicated that they were to earn nothing less than minimum wage. In an article titled, "Proof of a Life Lived: The Plight of the Braceros and What It Says About How We Treat Records" written by Jennifer Orsorio, she describes this portion of wage agreement, "Under the contract, the braceros were to be paid a minimum wage (no less than that paid to comparable American workers), with guaranteed housing, and sent to work on farms and in railroad depots throughout the country - although most braceros worked in the western United States." Unfortunately, this was not always simple and one of the most complicated aspects of the bracero program was the worker's wage garnishment. The U.S. and Mexico made an agreement to garnish bracero wages, save them for the contracted worker (agriculture or railroad), and put them into bank accounts in Mexico for when the bracero returned to their home. Like many, braceros who returned home did not receive those wages. Many never had access to a bank account at all. It is estimated that the money the U.S. "transferred" was about $32 million. Often braceros would have to take legal action in attempts to recover their garnished wages. According to bank records money transferred often came up missing or never went into a Mexican banking system. In addition to the money transfers being missing or inaccessible by many braceros, the everyday battles of wage payments existed up and down the railroads, as well as in all the country's farms.

In a newspaper article titled "U.S. Investigates Bracero Program", published by The New York Times on January 21, 1963, claims the U.S. Department of Labor was checking false-record keeping. In this short article the writer explains, "It was understood that five or six prominent growers have been under scrutiny by both regional and national officials of the department." This article came out of Los Angeles particular to agriculture braceros. However, just like many other subjections of the bracero, this article can easily be applied to railroaders.

Reasons for strikes in the Northwest
One key difference between the Northwest and braceros in the Southwest or other parts of the United States involved the lack of Mexican government labor inspectors. According to Galarza, "In 1943, ten Mexican labor inspectors were assigned to ensure contract compliance throughout the United States; most were assigned to the Southwest and two were responsible for the northwestern area." The lack of inspectors made the policing of pay and working conditions in the Northwest extremely difficult. The farmers set up powerful collective bodies like the Associated Farmers Incorporated of Washington with a united goal of keeping pay down and any union agitators or communists out of the fields. The Associated Farmers used various types of law enforcement officials to keep "order" including privatized law enforcement officers, the state highway patrol, and even the National Guard.

Another difference is the proximity, or not, to the Mexican border. In the Southwest, employers could easily threaten braceros with deportation knowing the ease with which new braceros could replace them. However, in the Northwest due to the much farther distance and cost associated with travel made threats of deportation harder to follow through with. Braceros in the Northwest could not easily skip out on their contracts due to the lack of a prominent Mexican-American community which would allow for them to blend in and not have to return to Mexico as so many of their counterparts in the Southwest chose to do and also the lack of proximity to the border.

Knowing this difficulty, the Mexican consulate in Salt Lake City, and later the one in Portland, Oregon, encouraged workers to protest their conditions and advocated on their behalf much more than the Mexican consulates did for braceros in the Southwest. Combine all these reasons together and it created a climate where braceros in the Northwest felt they had no other choice, but to strike in order for their voices to be heard.

Braceros met the challenges of discrimination and exploitation by finding various ways in which they could resist and attempt to improve their living conditions and wages in the Pacific Northwest work camps. Over two dozen strikes were held in the first two years of the program. One common method used to increase their wages was by "loading sacks" which consisted of braceros loading their harvest bags with rock in order to make their harvest heavier and therefore be paid more for the sack. Also, braceros learned that timing was everything. Strikes were more successful when combined with work stoppages, cold weather, and a pressing harvest period. The notable strikes throughout the Northwest proved that employers would rather negotiate with braceros than to deport them, employers had little time to waste as their crops needed to be harvested and the difficulty and expense associated with the bracero program forced them to negotiate with braceros for fair wages and better living conditions.

Braceros were also discriminated and segregated in the labor camps. Some growers went to the extent of building three labor camps, one for whites, one for blacks, and the one for Mexicans. The living conditions were horrible, unsanitary, and poor. For example, in 1943 in Grants Pass, Oregon, 500 braceros suffered food poisoning, one of the most severe cases reported in the Northwest. This detrition of the quality and quantity of food persisted into 1945 until the Mexican government intervened. Lack of food, poor living conditions, discrimination, and exploitation led braceros to become active in strikes and to successfully negotiate their terms.

Role of women and impact on families
The role of women in the bracero movement was often that of the homemaker, the dutiful wife who patiently waited for their men; cultural aspects also demonstrate women as a deciding factor for if men answered to the bracero program and took part in it. Women and families left behind were also often seen as threats by the US government because of the possible motives for the full migration of the entire family.

Romantic relationships
Bracero men's prospective in-laws were often wary of men who had a history of abandoning wives and girlfriends in Mexico and not coming back from the U.S. or not reaching out when they were back in the country. The women's families were not persuaded then by confessions and promises of love and good wages to help start a family and care for it. As a result, bracero men who wished to marry had to repress their longings and desires as did women to demonstrate to the women's family that they were able to show strength in emotional aspects, and therefore worthy of their future wife.

Due to gender roles and expectations, bracero wives and girlfriends left behind had the obligation to keep writing love letters, to stay in touch, and to stay in love while bracero men in the U.S. did not always respond or acknowledge them. Married women and young girls in relationships were not supposed to voice their concerns or fears about the strength of their relationship with bracero men, and women were frowned upon if they were to speak on their sexual and emotional longings for their men as it was deemed socially, religiously, and culturally inappropriate.

Women as deciding factors for men in bracero program integration
The Bracero Program was an attractive opportunity for men who wished to either begin a family with a head start with to American wages, or to men who were already settled and who wished to expand their earnings or their businesses in Mexico. As such, women were often those to whom both Mexican and US governments had to pitch the program to. Local Mexican government was well aware that whether male business owners went into the program came down to the character of their wives; whether they would be willing to take on the family business on their own in place of their husbands or not. Workshops were often conducted in villages all over Mexico open to women for them to learn about the program and to encourage their husbands to integrate into it as they were familiarized with the possible benefits of the program

US government censorship of family contact
As men stayed in the U.S., wives, girlfriends, and children were left behind often for decades. Bracero men searched for ways to send for their families and saved their earnings for when their families were able to join them. In the U.S., they made connections and learned the culture, the system, and worked to found a home for a family. The only way to communicate their plans for their families' futures was through mail in letters sent to their women. These letters went through the US postal system and originally they were inspected before being posted for anything written by the men indicating any complaints about unfair working conditions. However, once it became known that men were actively sending for their families to permanently reside in the US, they were often intercepted, and many men were left with no responses from their women. Permanent settlement of bracero families was feared by the US, as the program was originally designed as a temporary work force which would be sent back to Mexico eventually.

Aftermath
After the 1964 termination of the Bracero Program, the A-TEAM, or Athletes in Temporary Employment as Agricultural Manpower, program of 1965 was meant to simultaneously deal with the resulting shortage of farmworkers and a shortage of summer jobs for teenagers. More than 18,000 17-year-old high school students were recruited to work on farms in Texas and California. Only 3,300 ever worked in the fields, and many of them quickly quit or staged strikes because of the poor working conditions, including oppressive heat and decrepit housing. The program was cancelled after the first summer.

Significance and effects
The Catholic Church in Mexico was opposed to the Bracero Program, objecting to the separation of husbands and wives and the resulting disruption of family life; to the supposed exposure of migrants to vices such as prostitution, alcohol, and gambling in the United States; and to migrants' exposure to Protestant missionary activity while in the United States. Starting in 1953, Catholic priests were assigned to some bracero communities, and the Catholic Church engaged in other efforts specifically targeted at braceros.

Labor unions that tried to organize agricultural workers after World War II targeted the Bracero Program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO. During his tenure with the Community Service Organization, César Chávez received a grant from the AWOC to organize in Oxnard, California, which culminated in a protest of domestic U.S. agricultural workers of the U.S. Department of Labor's administration of the program. In January 1961, in an effort to publicize the effects of bracero labor on labor standards, the AWOC led a strike of lettuce workers at 18 farms in the Imperial Valley, an agricultural region on the California-Mexico border and a major destination for braceros.

Prior to the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, The Chualar Bus Crash in Salinas, California made headlines illustrating just how harsh braceros situations were in California. In the accident 31 braceros lost their lives in a collision with a train and a bracero transportation truck. This particular accident led activist groups from agriculture and the cities to come together and strongly oppose the Bracero Program. According to Manuel Garcia y Griego, a political scientist and author of The Importation of Mexican Contract Laborers to the United States 1942–1964, the Contract-Labor Program "left an important legacy for the economies, migration patterns, and politics of the United States and Mexico". Griego's article discusses the bargaining position of both countries, arguing that the Mexican government lost all real bargaining-power after 1950. In addition to the surge of activism in American migrant labor the Chicano Movement was now in the forefront creating a united image on behalf of the fight against the Bracero Program.

The end of the Bracero Program in 1964 was followed by the rise to prominence of the United Farm Workers (UFW) and the subsequent transformation of American migrant labor under the leadership of César Chávez, Gilbert Padilla, and Dolores Huerta. Newly formed labor unions (sponsored by Chávez and Huerta), namely the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, were responsible for series of public demonstrations including the Delano grape strike. These efforts demanded change for labor rights, wages and the general mistreatment of workers that had gained national attention with the Bracero Program. Change ensued with the UFW championing a 40% wage increase for grape farm laborers nationwide. While the federal minimum wage remained at $1.25 per hour, laborers operating under the grape contract made $1.50. In order to avoid increased wages, farmers who formerly employed braceros would later turn to the mechanization of labor-intensive tasks.

Recent scholarship illustrates that the program generated controversy in Mexico from the outset. Mexican employers and local officials feared labor shortages, especially in the states of west-central Mexico that traditionally sent the majority of migrants north (Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacan, Zacatecas). The Catholic Church warned that emigration would break families apart and expose braceros to Protestant missionaries and to labor camps where drinking, gambling, and prostitution flourished. Others deplored the negative image that the braceros' departure produced for the Mexican nation. The political opposition even used the exodus of braceros as evidence of the failure of government policies, especially the agrarian reform program implemented by the post-revolutionary government in the 1930s. On the other hand, historians like Michael Snodgrass and Deborah Cohen demonstrate why the program proved popular among so many migrants, for whom seasonal work in the US offered great opportunities, despite the poor conditions they often faced in the fields and housing camps. They saved money, purchased new tools or used trucks, and returned home with new outlooks and with a greater sense of dignity. Social scientists doing field work in rural Mexico at the time observed these positive economic and cultural effects of bracero migration. The bracero program looked different from the perspective of the participants rather than from the perspective of its many critics in the U.S. and Mexico.

A 1980 Congressional Research Service report found that the Bracero Program was "instrumental" in significantly reducing illegal immigration by the mid-1950s. The end of the program saw a rise in Mexican legal immigration between 1963 and 1972, as many Mexican men who had already lived in the United States chose to return, bringing along their families. The dissolution of the Bracero program also saw a rise in undocumented immigration, despite the efforts of Operation Wetback, and American growers hired increasing numbers of undocumented migrants.

The aftermath of the Bracero Program's effect on labor conditions for agricultural workers continues to be debated. On one hand, the end of the program allowed workers to unionize and facilitated victories made by labor organizations and other individuals. A key victory for these former braceros was the abolition of the short-handed hoe, el cortito, spurred by the efforts of American lawyer Maurice Jordan. Jordan was successfully able to win a case against California growers, claiming that the tool did not increase crop yield and caused several health issues for workers.

However, the unionization efforts of the United Farm Workers, as popular as they were, were increasingly challenged by farm owners in the 1970s. Employers would pit unions against one another as they increasingly hired workers from the Teamster union, for example, that challenged the earlier work done by the UFW to achieve favorable contracts. Furthermore, union participation has decreased among many farmworkers, reaching a 90% decline from 1975 to 2000, consequently lowering the bargaining power of these organizations.

Some consider the H-2A visa program to be a repeat of the abuses of the Bracero Program where workers report dangerous conditions. For example, a blueberry farm worker in Washington died in August 2017 for reported 12-hour shifts under hot conditions to meet production quotas.

A 2018 study published in the American Economic Review found that the Bracero program did not have any adverse impact on the labor market outcomes of American-born farm workers. The study found that ending the Bracero program did not raise wages or employment for American-born farm workers. A 2023 study in the American Economic Journal found that the termination of the program had adverse economic effects on American farmers and prompted greater farm mechanization.

In popular culture

 * Woody Guthrie's poem "Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)", set to music by Martin Hoffman, commemorates the deaths of 28 braceros being repatriated to Mexico in January 1948. The song has been recorded by dozens of folk artists.
 * Protest singer Phil Ochs's song "Bracero" focuses on the exploitation of the Mexican workers in the program.
 * A minor character in the 1948 Mexican film Nosotros los Pobres wants to become a bracero.
 * The 1949 film Border Incident explores two federal agents' efforts to end an illegal bracero-smuggling operation.
 * Famed satirist Tom Lehrer wrote the song "George Murphy" about Senator George Murphy in response to an infamous racist gaffe referring to Mexican labor, which included the lines "Should Americans pick crops? George says "No" / 'Cause no-one but a Mexican would stoop so low / And after all, even in Egypt, the pharaohs / Had to import Hebrew braceros".
 * The 2010 documentary Harvest of Loneliness describes the history of the bracero program. It includes interviews with several former braceros and family members, and with labor historian Henry Anderson.
 * A Convenient Truth (2014) urges viewers not to let their governments repeat "the follies" of the Braceros program, during the end credits.

Exhibitions and collections
In October 2009, the Smithsonian National Museum of American History opened a bilingual exhibition titled, "Bittersweet Harvest: The Bracero Program, 1942–1964." Through photographs and audio excerpts from oral histories, this exhibition examined the experiences of bracero workers and their families while providing insight into the history of Mexican Americans and historical context to today's debates on guest worker programs. The exhibition included a collection of photographs taken by photojournalist Leonard Nadel in 1956, as well as documents, objects, and an audio station featuring oral histories collected by the Bracero Oral History Project. The exhibition closed on January 3, 2010. The exhibition was converted to a traveling exhibition in February 2010 and traveled to Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas under the auspices of Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service.

title: Bracero Program


text:
Hypalon

Hypalon is a chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) synthetic rubber (CSM) noted for its resistance to chemicals, temperature extremes, and ultraviolet light. It was a product of DuPont Performance Elastomers, a subsidiary of DuPont. Hypalon as it is now known in the marine industry today is a remarketed version of the old Hypalon using an additional layer of neoprene (cr) so the new chemical formulation is csm/cr.

Chemical structure
Polyethylene is treated with a mixture of chlorine and sulfur dioxide under UV-radiation. The product contains 20-40% chlorine. The polymer also contains a few percent chlorosulfonyl (ClSO2-) groups. These reactive groups allow for vulcanization, which strongly affects the physical durability of the products. An estimated 110,000 tons/y were produced in 1991.

Discontinuance
DuPont Performance Elastomers announced on May 7, 2009, that it intended to close its manufacturing plant in Beaumont, Texas, by June 30, 2009. This was DPE's sole plant for CSM materials. The company was therefore exiting the business for Hypalon and its related product, Acsium. The plant closure was delayed until April 20, 2010, in response to customer requests.

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

title: Hypalon


text:
Holidays in the Sun (song)

"Holidays in the Sun" is a song by the English punk rock band the Sex Pistols. It was released on 14 October 1977 as the band's fourth single, as well as the advance single from their only album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. A #8 chart hit in the UK, the single proved to be the last with singer John Lydon for 30 years. Steve Jones and Paul Cook recorded one more single, "No One Is Innocent" with Ronnie Biggs, as the band imploded, and Sid Vicious recorded solo covers of "My Way" and "Somethin' Else" under the Pistols name. Rolling Stone ranked the song #43 of the 100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time.

Song
The song was inspired by a trip to the Channel Island of Jersey: "We tried our holiday in the sun in the isle of Jersey and that didn't work. They threw us out." That trip was followed by a couple of weeks spent in Berlin. Although they described the city as "raining and depressing", they were relieved to get away from London. John Lydon said, "Being in London at the time made us feel like we were trapped in a prison camp environment. There was hatred and constant threat of violence. The best thing we could do was to go set up in a prison camp somewhere else. Berlin and its decadence was a good idea. The song came about from that. I loved Berlin. I loved the wall and the insanity of the place. The communists looked in on the circus atmosphere of West Berlin, which never went to sleep, and that would be their impression of the West."

"Holidays in the Sun" was later featured as the opening track on the group's debut album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. The single's B-side was "Satellite", a song about the band's early performances in "satellite towns" ("You know I don't like where you come from / It's just a satellite of London..."). The Sex Pistols had enjoyed playing away from London because it was an opportunity to play away from their manager Malcolm McLaren and his group of associates.

Promotional posters
Two promotional posters were issued to promote the single. The most common of the pair was simply an oversized reproduction of the single's front cover.

The second version featured a monochrome image of a beach scene. This version of the poster was reproduced heavily for commercial sale during the mid-1980s.

title: Holidays in the Sun (song)


text:
User:Caulds

An American for the first 48 years of my life, in October 2005, I became a resident of Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, New Brunswick, Canada.

title: User:Caulds


text:
Pettit (lunar crater)

Pettit is a lunar impact crater that lies near the western limb of the Moon. It was named after American astronomer Edison Pettit. In this location the crater is viewed nearly from the side by observers on Earth, and visibility can be significantly affected by libration effects.

The crater lies among the rugged features of the Montes Rook, the inner ring of mountains that surround the Mare Orientale impact basin. It is nearly a twin of the crater Nicholson which lies less than one crater diameter to the northeast. Another similar formation is Wright almost due south.

The rim of this crater has something of the appearance of a rounded hexagon, with slightly flattened rims to the east and west. The rim is sharp-edged, and the inner wall material has slumped down to lie in a pile around the base. The interior floor is a rugged jumble, with a small central peak and hills to the north and west. Beyond the rim lies rugged terrain to the north and west, while the ground becomes less jumbled to the southeast beyond the edge of the mountain foothills.

This formation should not be mistaken for the similarly named crater Petit, a small feature on the eastern half of the Moon's near side.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Pettit.

The following craters have been renamed by the IAU.
 * Pettit T — See Shuleykin (crater).

title: Pettit (lunar crater)


text:
2004 AFF Championship

The 2004 AFF Championship (officially known as the 2004 Tiger Cup for sponsorship reasons) was the 5th edition of the AFF Championship, the football championship of nations affiliated to the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF), and the last time under the name Tiger Cup. This was the first time a new format had been applied, with Group stage was jointly hosted by Vietnam and Malaysia from 7 to 16 December 2004, and top two teams from each group advanced to the Semi-finals and the Final, which was played in a two-leg home-and-away format from 28 December 2004 to 16 January 2005. This was also the final AFF Cup has a third-place match, then it wasn't continued since the 2007 edition.

Thailand were the two-time defending champions, but were eliminated in Group stage. Singapore won the tournament by a 5–2 victory in the two-legged final against Indonesia to secure their second title.

Summary
In the group matches, Indonesia, coached by former Thailand coach Peter Withe, emerged as the Group A winners with ten points, 17 goals scored and none conceded. They were the hot favourites to win the 2004 AFF Championship after bundling out the hosts Vietnam with an unexpected 3–0 victory. Less than a day after the match had ended, the Vietnam Football Federation requested the resignation from its national coach Edson Tavares, despite his requests to stay on until the last match. Singapore, led by Radojko Avramović pipped out the hosts by just a single point and remained to be the only team in the championship to not lose a single match.

Following the tournament motto "Anything can happen", Myanmar, under coach Ivan Kolev emerged as the surprise, holding defending champions Thailand to a draw and beating Malaysia on their own turf.

Teams
All teams from member associations of the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) participated with the exception of Brunei. However, they would be replaced by East Timor when sponsors Tiger Beer stated in May 2004 that the world's newest country at the time would be joining the competition. This kept the tournament at 10 teams.

Group A

 * All times are Indochina Time (ICT) – UTC+7
 * All matches played in Vietnam

Group B

 * All times are Malaysia Standard Time (MST) – UTC+8
 * All matches played in Malaysia

Semi-finals

 * First Leg

 * Second Leg

Singapore win 8–5 on aggregate

Indonesia win 5–3 on aggregate

Final

 * First Leg

 * Second Leg

Singapore win 5–2 on aggregate

Goal scorers

 * 7 goals
 * Ilham Jaya Kesuma

 * 6 goals

 * Muhamad Khalid Jamlus
 * Soe Myat Min
 * Agu Casmir

 * 5 goals
 * Kurniawan Dwi Yulianto

 * 4 goals

 * Boaz Solossa
 * Elie Aiboy
 * Liew Kit Kong
 * Noh Alam Shah
 * Indra Sahdan Daud
 * 🇹🇭 Sarayoot Chaikamdee
 * Thạch Bảo Khanh
 * Lê Công Vinh

 * 3 goals
 * 🇱🇦 Chalana Luang-Amath
 * Emelio Caligdong

 * 2 goals

 * Mohd Amri Yahyah
 * San Day Thien
 * Daniel Bennett
 * Khairul Amri
 * 🇹🇭 Therdsak Chaiman
 * 🇹🇭 Suriya Domtaisong
 * Đặng Văn Thành

 * 1 goal

 * Hing Darith
 * Hang Sokunthea
 * Charis Yulianto
 * Mahyadi Panggabean
 * Muhammad Mauli Lessy
 * Ortizan Solossa
 * 🇱🇦 Visay Phaphouvanin
 * Mohd Fadzli Saari
 * Mohamad Nor Ismail
 * Muhamad Kaironnisam Sahabudin Hussain
 * Muhammad Shukor Adan
 * Aung Kyaw Moe
 * Min Thu
 * Zaw Lynn Tun
 * Myo Hlaing Win
 * Chad Gould
 * Baihakki Khaizan
 * Itimi Dickson
 * Hasrin Jailani
 * Sharil Ishak
 * 🇹🇭 Weerayut Jitkuntod
 * 🇹🇭 Yuttajak Kornjan
 * 🇹🇭 Ittipol Poolsap
 * 🇹🇭 Sarif Sainui
 * 🇹🇭 Banluesak Yodyingyong
 * Januário do Rego
 * Simon Diamantino
 * Nguyễn Huy Hoàng
 * Nguyễn Minh Phương

 * Own goal
 * Sun Sampratna (For Vietnam)
 * 🇱🇦 Sengphet Thongphachan (For Singapore)

Team statistics
This table will show the ranking of teams throughout the tournament.

title: 2004 AFF Championship


text:
Japanese American Citizens League

The Japanese American Citizens League (日系アメリカ人市民同盟) is an Asian American civil rights charity, headquartered in San Francisco, with regional chapters across the United States.

The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) describes itself as the oldest and largest Asian American civil rights organization in the United States, focusing on civil and human rights of all Americans, particularly the Asian Pacific American community. The organization was formed in 1929 out of existing Nisei organizations in California and Washington.

In its early years, the JACL lobbied for legislation that expanded the citizenship rights of Japanese Americans, and local chapters organized meetings to encourage Nisei to become more politically active. During and leading up to World War II, the JACL was criticized for its decision not to use its political influence to fight the incarceration of Japanese Americans, aiding U.S. intelligence agencies in identifying "disloyal" Issei, and taking a hardline stance against draft resisters in camp. These issues remain a source of division within the Japanese American community and the organization itself.

After the war, the JACL returned its primary focus to civil rights legislation, lobbying Congress and bringing lawsuits to overturn or amend laws regarding interracial marriage, segregation, and race-based restrictions on immigration and naturalization. In the 1970s, after some initial disagreement among leaders, the organization became involved in the movement for redress for the wartime incarceration. The influence of JACL lobbyists was a key factor in the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which formally acknowledged the unconstitutionality of and provided reparations for the incarceration. A younger generation of JACL leadership has made an effort to acknowledge the consequences of its wartime actions, officially apologizing for its condemnation of Nisei draft resisters in 2002.

Today, the national organization consists of 100-plus chapters, mostly located in major cities and metropolitan areas across the US. These chapters are separated geographically into seven district councils, each of which is headed by a district governor. The organization is guided by a board of elected officials, consisting of the officers and district governors.

Early years (1929–1941)
In 1929, several already-established Nisei organizations merged to form the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), most prominent among them Fresno's American Loyalty League (アメリカ忠誠協会)(headed by Nisei UC educated dentist Dr. Thomas T. Yatabe, 1897–1977), the Seattle Progressive Citizens League (シアトル革新市民連盟), and the San Francisco-based New American Citizens League (新アメリカ市民協会) (headed by Nisei UC educated lawyer Saburo Kido, 1902–1977). Aiming towards professionals and small business owners among the Nisei, the JACL sought to promote free enterprise, self-reliance, and loyalty to the United States. The organization thus excluded a hyphen from its name.

Due in part to the active support of James Sakamoto and other Seattle activists, the nascent JACL chose to hold its first national conference in Seattle in 1930. It soon after began work to expand the citizenship rights of Japanese and other Asian Americans, who were considered unassimilable to American society and therefore ineligible for naturalization under the Immigration Act of 1924. Their first target was the Cable Act of 1922, which revoked the citizenship of women who married men ineligible for citizenship, namely Asian immigrants. After a successful lobbying campaign, Congress amended the act in 1931. Next, the JACL began a campaign to allow Issei and other Asian American veterans of the First World War to become U.S. citizens. In 1935, the Nye-Lea Act secured citizenship rights for these men.

World War II incarceration (1941–1945)
In 1941, within hours of the Imperial Japanese Navy's attack on Pearl Harbor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began arresting Japanese American community leaders (mostly Issei Japanese language school teachers, priests, martial arts instructors, and business owners). Members of the JACL testified at government hearings to promote a picture of Nisei as loyal and patriotic Americans, an effort to counteract rumors of fifth column activity that had spread in the wake of Pearl Harbor. At the same time, the JACL aided FBI and Naval Intelligence officials to identify potentially disloyal Issei, a move many Japanese Americans argued tried to buy political safety for a small segment of the community at the expense of its more vulnerable members.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, JACL leadership did not question the constitutionality of the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Instead, arguing it would better serve the community to follow government orders without protest, the organization advised the approximately 120,000 affected to go peacefully and distanced itself from those who actively opposed the order. In an interview after the war, civil rights attorney Wayne M. Collins criticized these actions of the JACL. "The JACL pretended to be the spokesman for all Japanese Americans, but they wouldn't stand up for their people ... They led their people like a bunch of goddam doves to the concentration camps."

Throughout the war, the JACL made efforts to ensure some measure of protection and comfort for Japanese Americans resettling outside government concentration camps, providing loans and establishing offices in Chicago to assist families resettling in the Midwest. The organization argued for the right of Japanese Americans to serve in the U.S. military. In Hawaii, where at that time the JACL did not exist, many community leaders actively supported for men of Japanese descent to serve in the military resulting in the formation of the 100th Infantry Battalion, and the 442nd Regiment Combat Team, when 10,000 signed up with eventually 2,686 being chosen to join the 1,500 from the mainland.

Redress (1945–1988)
Following the war, the JACL began a long series of legislative efforts to establish rights for Japanese Americans. The JACL embarked on a campaign to repeal California's Alien Land Law, which had prohibited all Japanese aliens (i.e. immigrants) from purchasing and owning land in the state. In 1948, the JACL succeeded in gaining passage of the Evacuation Claims Act, the first of a series of efforts to rectify the losses and injustices of the World War II incarceration. In 1949, the JACL initiated efforts in the U.S. Congress to gain the right of Japanese immigrants to become naturalized citizens of the U.S.

In 1970, the JACL endorsed a resolution, introduced by member Edison Uno, to urge Congress to compensate each camp survivor for each day they had spent in confinement. Later, in 1979, the JACL's National Committee for Redress proposed the creation of a federal commission to investigate the incarceration. The following year, the JACL, with help from Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga, pushed a bill through Congress to create the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). In 1983, the CWRIC published its findings and recommended an official Government apology and redress payments to survivors. This was granted with the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Post-redress (1988–present)
In 1994, at its national convention, the JACL passed a resolution affirming its commitment to and support of the basic human right of marriage, including the right to marry for same-sex couples. In 2012, the JACL was the first national civil rights membership organization to publicly and actively adopt this position, and praised President Barack Obama for his support for same-sex marriage.

Since 2022, the JACL has championed the cause of reparations for slavery. In addition to endorsing local proposals for reparations, JACL has demanded the Biden administration begin the process of studying federal reparations for African Americans. JACL representatives testified in favor of the creation of the Philadelphia Reparations Task Force.

Bridging Communities Program
The Bridging Communities Program brings youth from the Japanese and Asian American community together with Muslim and Arab American youth. High school students attend workshops on identity, community, organizing, culture, and empowerment. The program involves visits to the Tule Lake Relocation Center, Manzanar, and Minidoka National Historic Site concentration camps, which first confined Japanese Americans during World War II. The Bridging Communities program is funded by a grant from the National Park Service.

Organizational partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Tule Lake Pilgrimage Committee, the National Japanese American Historical Society, Nikkei for Civil Rights and Redress, Kizuna, and Friends of Minidoka.

JACL/OCA Leadership Summit
This three-day annual leadership training summit is a joint program organized by the JACL which includes participants from OCA National (formerly the Organization of Chinese Americans). Workshop topics range from coalition building techniques to the strategy of successful lobbying.

Youth Leadership Summit
The JACL's Youth Leadership Summit was first established in 2010 and has been held annually in Chicago, Portland, and Washington DC.

Scholarships
The JACL launched a National Scholarship and Awards Program in 1946. It offer scholarships to students at the entering freshman, undergraduate, graduate, law, financial need and creative & performing arts. All scholarships are one-time awards.

The League of Dreams
JACL National and film producer Lane Nishikawa are working together to create a documentary of the 90 years of history since the foundation of the JACL. Nishikawa intends for the documentary to "chronicle the history of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the oldest and largest Asian American civil rights organization in the U.S." The project has received a grant of $165,000 from the Japanese American Confinement Sites (JACS) and a grant award of $25,000 through the assistance of the San Diego Chapter JACL.

Anti-Hate Program
JACL's Anti-Hate Program was created in response to the increased rates of Asian American hate crimes and anti-Asian sentiments following COVID-19. The JACL states that they aim to "eradicate the use of negative stereotypes and misperceptions about Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. To accomplish this, the JACL monitors and combats hate crimes and hate incidents including defamation and racial/ethnic profiling." The site lists resources in response to anti-Asian sentiment and hate crimes, state hate crime laws, and responses to hate.

History of National Convention
The first JACL National Convention was held on August 29, 1930, in Seattle, Washington. The first post World War II National JACL Convention was held in Denver, Colorado. Adoption of a 14-point program of rebuilding which included Issei naturalization, reparations for discriminatory treatment during the war, re-examination of the constitutionality of the evacuation, stay of deportation on hardship cases involving Japanese nationals, a call for a national conference of minorities, elimination of racial discrimination in housing and employment, challenge of the alien land laws, creation of a research clearinghouse on the evacuation, and assistance of returning Nisei veterans.

1970 National Convention
The 1970 JACL convention was marred by the murder of Evelyn Okubo, an 18-year-old activist and attendee, by a black man. Nevertheless, the JACL continued its commitment to racial justice for all Americans, including African-Americans.

2013 National Convention
The 2013 JACL National Convention was held July 24–26, 2013, in Washington, DC. The theme for the 44th convention was "Justice for All".

Headquarters, districts and chapters
As of 2022, the JACL is headquartered in San Francisco's Japantown neighborhood, directly neighboring the offices of the Japanese American Association of Northern California (Hokka Nichi Bei Kai /北加日米会), which describes itself as the oldest Japanese American Community organization (founded in 1895).

The JACL also maintains an office in Washington DC, and (as of 2022) has over 100 chapters in the US, organized into seven district counciles: Central California District Council, Eastern District Council, Intermountain District Council, Midwest District Council, Northern California-Western Nevada-Pacific District Council, Pacific Northern District Council, and Pacific Southwest District Council.

The JACL did not exist in Hawaii during the years prior to and after World War II; a chapter was finally established in 1980.

Notable members

 * Frank Chuman
 * Gordon Hirabayashi
 * Mike Honda
 * Chris Iijima
 * Saburo Kido
 * Mike Masaoka
 * Doris Matsui
 * Robert Matsui
 * Spark Matsunaga
 * Stan Matsunaka
 * Norman Mineta
 * Evelyn Okubo
 * James Y. Sakamoto
 * Charles Z. Smith
 * Ina Sugihara
 * George Takei
 * Grayce Uyehara
 * George Yuzawa

title: Japanese American Citizens League


text:
Bob Deuell

Robert Franklin Deuell, known as Bob Deuell (born 11 March 1950) is a physician from Greenville, Texas, and a former Republican member of the Texas Senate. He entered office in 2003 and represented the ten counties of Senate District 2 in the northeastern portion of the state. His term ended in 2015.

Deuell was narrowly unseated in the runoff election held on May 27, 2014; he polled 17,930 (49.6 percent) to intraparty challenger Bob Hall's 18,230 (50.4 percent). Deuell had led a three-candidate field in the primary on March 4, with 23,847 votes (48.5 percent). Because he fell short of a majority, he was placed in the runoff with the number-two candidate, Bob Hall, who in the primary polled 19,085 votes (38.8 percent). The remaining 6,240 votes (12.7 percent) went to the third candidate, Mark Thompson.

Background
Deuell, was educated at George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, and the Medical College of Virginia. He is a partner in Primary Care Associates in Greenville, Texas. He is a member of the American Medical Association and Texas Medical Association. He is certified by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Legislative history
During the Seventy-ninth Texas Legislature (2005), Deuell passed legislation to help ensure firefighters and other first responders who contract diseases in the line of duty receive the benefits they deserve (Senate Bill 310), created a statewide stroke emergency plan with the Texas Stroke Act (Senate Bill 330), authorized a medical dispatch program for rural areas (Senate Bill 523) and set up a Medicaid buy-in program for the working disabled (Senate Bill 565). Deuell also worked to ensure passage of bills dealing with issues such as education, transportation, lawsuit reform and family issues.

In the Eightieth Texas Legislature Senator Deuell was tapped by Lt. Governor David Dewhurst to carry Jessica's Law legislation, aimed at protecting society's most vulnerable population from child predators. Governor Rick Perry signed this bill into law on July 17, 2007. Deuell also worked to advance issues as diverse as Medicaid reform and incentives programs to attract film and television production to Texas. For his work in this Session, Deuell was named as one of Texas Monthly's Best Legislators.

In 2013, Deuell co-authored legislation that would require abortion providers to abide by the same regulations as ambulatory surgical centers. Critics characterized the bill as a TRAP law that would enact a "virtual ban on abortion in Texas."

Leadership while in Senate
Deuell was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Economic Development, serving on the Senate Finance and Natural Resources committees, and was vice-chair of both the Health and Human Services and State Affairs committees.

In addition, Deuell was selected by Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Water Policy. He was a vice-chair of the Rural Caucus. Senator Deuell is a former chair of the Senate Republican Caucus.

title: Bob Deuell


text:
Talk:Luigi Galvani

Frog's Leg
''The statement has frequently been repeated that, in 1786, Galvani had noticed that the leg of a skinned frog upon the muscles of frogs. The observation that the suspension of certain of these animals on an iron railing by copper hooks caused twitching in the muscles of their legs led him to the invention of his metallic arc, the first experiment with which is described in the third part of the Commentary, with the date September 20, 1786.'' --10 October 2005 (edit) (undo) User:Omegatron (Talk | contribs)

 * Good work, I added some of this. --Sadi Carnot 16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard some things about Galvani's wife having something to do with the observation of that particular event, but can find nothing on the 'net about it. Anyone know anything about this? K K 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about this date. A real proof is necessary. The discussion above states 1786, whereas early version of Wikipedia stated 1771 until the page was changed to 1780 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luigi_Galvani&diff=602378048&oldid=602156439): --Nabrufa (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Galvani's Wife & Earlier Bioelectricity Experiments
I'm writing a paper loosely related to Galvani's work right now, and have come across an account that does put his wife in the room with him (suggesting she was in fact the person to notice the frog's leg twitch). The book is by Herbert W. Meyer, called A History of Electricity & Magnetism (1971), published by MIT press.

Also, this book suggests that Galvani was not the first to observe the connection between animal matter and electricity, though he may have been the first to associate this phenomenon with nerve endings specifically. Apparently, some physiologists named Joseph and Caldani (French and Italian) noted the contractions of frog leg muscles under the influence of electricity in 1700, and Dutch biologist Jan Swammerdam also performed some similar experiments in 1752.

Can anyone confirm this?

Joannayo 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Only professor's daughter ever?
"In 1764 he married a well-liked woman of society named, Lucia Galleazzi, she is the only daughter of a professor at the University of Bologna." When I first read that, I laughed quite heartily at the thought of a thousand-year-old university, which had probably had thousands of professors, producing only one professor who ever had a daughter. Then I re-read it and realized that it meant that she was the only daughter of a specific person, which made me feel foolish.

Then I read it a third time, and realized that the wording itself is foolish as well. The professor is not named, so it seems like a generic use of any professor from that university in all of history. If a woman who has been dead for two centuries is referred to in the present tense "she is the only...." then it should refer to something that is ongoing and contemporary, such as a long-standing, utterly preposterous, unenforceable, and only-once-broken rule about a lack of daughters among University of Bologna professors. It sounds to me like you could perfectly modify it to say "she is to this date the only..." and achieve the same exact meaning... which is why I shall be tweaking it. Chaparral2J (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Source of "animal electricty"
Hi I read from a number of sites about Luigi Galvani's belief that the source of "animal electricty" was from a fluid secreted by the brain. Does anyone have any verification of this or sources that I can reference for the article?

-Bill-

June 9, 2008

Spool Testing ?
I removed this uncited sentence:
 * At first he thought about being a mechanic because he loved taking and dealing with spool testing.

Doesn't "spool testing" sound like a Monty Python phrase?

I have seen some vague evidence that Galvani was interested in contraptions and gadgets, but nothing worth citing. I'll do some more reading and if I can find more information about "spool testing" or "taking and dealing" I'll add it.

Caltrop (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

third order of Saint Francis
I read in the aritcle that "At first he wished to enter the church.".. It would be useful to add that he become member of the Third Order of Saint Francis. Anyway it's "Church" and not "church".--79.56.178.43 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Why would that level of detail be important? Galvani's historical significance is in his scientific discoveries, not theology, religious works, or devotional example.  It seems the very definition of irrelevant trivia to me.  This is an encyclopedia entry, not an exhaustive biography.

Indeed, I am not at all clear why his religious beliefs have a separate section in the article. It does not seem appropriate for this particular personage any more than including the scientific views of a moral philosopher or faith leader would be.TheCormac (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Galvani banned from teaching and lost all his income
"In 1796, Napoleon and the French Army arrived at Bologna. One year later, they forced the professors of university and the civils servant to swear fidelity with the new mode, that is to say the Cisalpine Republic. Galvani refused to pronounce this oath which consisted in promising a feeling of hatred against any person and any institution who did not share the ideas of the revolution, for religious reason but also for a question of principle (considering the assent of the curia bolonaise). Thus after thirty-three years of teaching, it lost its station and all the remunerations from which it profited."

"He took refuge with his brother Giacomo and broke down completely through poverty and discouragement.".--79.56.178.43 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

His wife Marcus?
"... especially after the death of his wife, Marcus, in 1840".

Actually, I believe his wife was called Caterina. --95.89.34.214 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luigi Galvani. 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/20110613214747/http://137.204.24.205/cis13b/bsco3/Default.asp to http://137.204.24.205/cis13b/bsco3/Default.asp

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) 10:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Early life
...and Barbara was his fourth wife. His family was not aristocratic, but they could afford to send at least one of their sons to study at a university. At first, Galvani wished to enter the church, so he joined a religious order, the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, at 15 years old. He planned to take religious vows, but his parents persuaded him not to do so. Around 1755, Galvani entered the Faculty of the Arts of the University of Bologna. Galvani attended the medicine course, which lasted four years, and was characterized by its "bookish" teaching. Texts that dominated this course were by Hippocrates, Galen, and Avicenna.

Another discipline Galvani learned alongside medicine was surgery. He learned the theory and practice. This part of his biography is typically overlooked, but it helped with his experiments with animals and helped familiarize Galvani with the manipulation of a living body.

In 1759, Galvani graduated with degrees in medicine and philosophy. He applied for a position as a lecturer at the university. Part of this process required him to defend his thesis on 21 June 1761. In the following year, 1762, he became a permanent anatomist of the university and was appointed honorary lecturer of surgery. That same year he married Lucia Galeazzi, daughter of one of his professors, Domenico Gusmano Galeazzi. Galvani moved into the Galeazzi house and helped with his father-in-law's research. Lucia Galeazzi Galvani was actively engaged in the experiments; the couple also collaborated with Antonio Muzzi. When Galeazzi died in 1775, Galvani was appointed professor and lecturer in Galeazzi's place.

Galvani moved from the position of lecturer of surgery to theoretical anatomy and obtained an appointment at the Academy of Sciences in 1776. His new appointment consisted of the practical teaching of anatomy, which was conducted by human dissection and the use of the famous anatomical waxes. Lucia Galeazzi Galvani also was active as the medical assistant of her husband in his work as a surgeon and obstetrician. She additionally edited her husband's medical texts.

Appointed as a member of the select Benedictine Academy of Sciences, a papal institution with a generous stipend, Galvani had specific responsibilities. His main responsibility was to present at least one research paper every year at the Academy, which Galvani did until his death. There was a periodical publication that collected a selection of the memoirs presented at the institution and was sent around to main scientific academies and institutions around the world. However, since publication then was so slow, sometimes there were debates on the priority of the topics used. One of these debates occurred with Antonio Scarpa. This debate caused Galvani to give up the field of research on which he had presented for four years in a row: the hearing of birds, quadrupeds, and humans. Galvani had announced all of the findings in his talks but had yet to publish them. It is suspected that Scarpa attended Galvani's public dissertation and claimed some of Galvani's discoveries without crediting him.

The beginning of Galvani's experiments with bioelectricity has a popular legend which says that Galvani was slowly skinning a frog at a table where he and his wife had been conducting experiments with static electricity by rubbing frog skin. The Galvanis' assistant touched an exposed sciatic nerve of the frog with a metal scalpel that had picked up a charge. At that moment, they saw sparks and the dead frog's leg kicked as if in life. The observation made the Galvanis the first investigators to appreciate the relationship between electricity and animation—or life. This finding provided the basis for the new understanding that the impetus behind muscle movement was electrical energy carried by a liquid (ions), and not air or fluid as in earlier balloonist theories.

Galvani coined the term animal electricity to describe the force that activated the muscles of his specimens. Along with contemporaries, he regarded their activation as being generated by an electrical fluid that is carried to the muscles by the nerves. The phenomenon was dubbed galvanism, after Galvani and his wife, on the suggestion of his peer and sometime intellectual adversary Alessandro Volta. The Galvanis are properly credited with the discovery of bioelectricity. Today, the study of galvanic effects in biology is called electrophysiology, the term galvanism being used only in historical contexts.

Galvani vs. Volta
Volta's investigations led shortly to the invention of an early battery. Galvani believed that the animal electricity came from the muscle in its pelvis. Volta, in opposition, reasoned that the animal electricity was rather a metallic electricity caused by the interactions between the two metals involved in the experiment.

Thus, owing to an argument between the two in regard to the source or cause of the electricity, Volta built the first battery in order to specifically disprove his associate's theory. Volta's “pile” became known therefore as a voltaic pile.

After the controversy with Volta, Galvani kept a low profile partly because of his attitude towards the controversy, and partly because his health and spirits had declined, especially after the death of his wife, Lucia, in 1790.

Legacy

 * The crater Galvani on the Moon is named after him.
 * The Società Chimica Italiana awards the Luigi Galvani Medal to recognize the work of foreign electrochemists.
 * R&D bioelectronics company Galvani Bioelectronics is named after him
 * There is a statue of Galvani in his native Bologna in the eponymous Piazza Galvani.
 * There are streets named after Galvani in Le Havre, France; Antony, Hauts-de-Seine; Bolzano, South Tyrol; Bucharest, Romania and Linz (Austria)

Galvani-related landmarks in Bologna
Galvani’s home in Bologna has been preserved and can be seen in the central.

arguably Galvani worked for years trying to find the source of electricity that drives muscles. he used frog legs as a voltage detector .the yield of that research was the discovery that the electricity was stored in the ph of the body yet he didn't need to say it was in the acetylcholine(endo-nitric-acid-enzymes which emulate "zenotype" nitric acid), yet he alone discovered it could extract it by contact with 2 pieces of dissimilar metal electrically connected to each other. Volta simply used the acetylcholine of a lemon which is just another form of life. today we use lithium and PVC plastic and acid is phased out with the acceptation of petroleum powered cars using lead acid batteries built after "Galvani's discovery", not Volta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan scott james (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were thinking of "acetic acid", not acetylcholine, which is a neurotransmitter; but lemons and other citrus fruits are rich in a different organic acid, citric acid. But we should be working from Reliable Sources here, not personal opinions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Galvani’s monument. In the square dedicated to him, facing the palace of the Archiginnasio, the ancient seat of the University of Bologna, a big marble statue has been erected to the scientist while observing one of his famous frog experiments.

Liceo Ginnasio Luigi Galvani. This secondary school (Liceo) dating back to 1860 was named after Luigi Galvani.

title: Talk:Luigi Galvani


text:
Talk:The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL

No Mention of Far-Left?
This is the farthest left group in European Parliament, with many members who are frequently described as being far-left. There are also some reliable sources that describe them as far-left, one of which I have attached.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137265111_3 JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in that chapter, nor anywhere in the book, does the author characterise GUE/NGL as far-left. The author discusses PEL as the far-left grouping. Do not make false claims about the content of sources.
 * There are currently eleven sources which describe this as simply a left-wing group. The weight of sources indicate it is characterised as left-wing. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong source, here's a couple:
 * https://www.rferl.org/a/european-parliament-elections-results-epp-far-right/32986621.html
 * https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/57114/european-parliament-election-party-stances-on-migration JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One source run by the US government and one funded by the EU itself: not the kind of independent secondary sources used. These really don’t establish due weight to characterise it differently when weighed against the twelve sources (eleven cited and one to which you link above) that refer to the subject simply as left-wing. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These sources are generally considered reliable, but if you want to nitpick, then fine, here's two more:
 * https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/extreme-left-lost-but-gained-unexpectedly-in-the-north
 * https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/upload/20240529105124.pdf JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, many of the constituent parties are far-left, as well. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “here’s two more” - and then you post a link to a source that says So yet another source that describes them as left-wing. This is like a ‘70s farce. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It also calls it far-left, both in the title and in the tag. Thus, left-wing to far-left, the label which I am arguing for, is perfectly acceptable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://shapingeurope.eu/the-different-political-groups-in-the-european-parliament/
 * There's another that calls it "left to far-left"
 * https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2024/number/2/article/the-far-right-and-the-2024-european-elections.html
 * There's one that only says "far-left"
 * https://www.ft.com/content/80d97abc-2f51-42b3-a5f3-fba3f6c572d1
 * Another that says it is "made up of far-left parties"
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/socialists-in-turmoil-as-meps-defect-to-hard-left/
 * Another for "hard-left"
 * I have cited 8 reliable sources now, just as many as have been cited to call this party left-wing. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The headline is not relevant – it is not a reliable source. See WP:HEADLINES for an explanation of why. Neither Euronews nor Politico describe the article subject as far-left, hard-left, nor any synonymous phrase in the actual article content.
 * RFERL is not considered generally reliable. It is considered a biased source with no consensus of reliability. While it might be useful for some uncontentious fact, it's not appropriate to try to establish a new political position of a European Parliamentary group.
 * Thus far there are the eleven sources cited on the article that describe it as "left-wing", then two more sources that you found, while searching for something that describes it as "far-left", that in fact describe it only as "left-wing". Thus far a total of thirteen describing it only as left-wing. Beyond that we have the sixteen sources below which I found with 30 seconds of searching, all of which describe it as only left-wing. This brings the total to twenty-nine.
 * Many more could be found with little effort, as that's the way the majority of sources describe it.
 * Against that we have the two publications from think-tanks/lobby groups and one article in a right-leaning newspaper. So no, not "just as many". Far fewer, in fact a comparatively insignificant number, and certainly not such that they establish weight for what is very evidently a minority view.
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 * Cambial — foliar❧ 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The actual Wikipedia statement about RFERL is mostly based around its articles from the 50s through 70s, but if you insist, fine, ignore that. Your sources, too, are flimsy
 * Your first source is paywalled
 * Your second source calls two major constituent parties of GUE/NGL (Die Linke and the Belgian Workers' party) far-left and calls GUE/NGL "radical left"
 * Your third source calls GUE/NGL "communist," is not focused on the group, and in the entire 22 page document only calls it "left-wing" one time in passing.
 * Your fourth source refers to GUE/NGL as "Communists on the extreme left," only refers to GUE/NGL once as left-wing, and on page 92 calls it "far-left"
 * Your fifth source refers to GUE/NGL as "left-wing" only once in the entire research paper
 * Your sixth source is paywalled
 * Your seventh source describes GUE/NGL as uniting "radical left wing, socialist and communist parties," later calling it "extreme. . . left" and "extreme left-wing" on the same page, and "far-left" again on a different page, then far-left again on another page, and finally far-left one more time a line before conclusions. "Left-wing" is used only once.
 * Your eighth source is focused on large language models trying to differentiate left from right, and only uses "left-wing" loosely and in passing
 * Your ninth source is paywalled
 * Your tenth source is paywalled
 * I'll finish looking through these in a bit. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your eleventh source uses "left-wing" twice in well over 150 pages
 * Your twelfth source uses the same numer of "left-wing"s in a similar number of pages, written by a gender studies scholar.
 * Your thirteenth source is paywalled
 * Your fourteenth source is paywalled
 * Your fifteenth also has this gender studies scholar as its sole author, and only uses left-wing once.
 * Your sixteenth source uses "left-wing" and "far-left" equally, each one time on the same page.
 * So, overall, of what I have access to, about half of YOUR sources use some variation of "far-left," and many of the ones that only use "left-wing" are not focused on this classification. So, I ask you again, do you really think we should keep it "left-wing," or make it "left-wing to far-left?" JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your third source calls GUE/NGL "communist". It does not. It says "The European United Left / Nordic Green Left (Left) consists of national parties with a socialist, new leftist, or communist belief system or ideology" which is accurate. It does not support your view.
 * All three of the sources - two from think-tanks; one the FT - that you felt adequate sourcing to characterise the subject as "far-left", only describe the subject as "far-left" once in passing. In one it is only within a table. In another it is once within sixty pages. Now suddenly you are concerned that six sources describe it as "left-wing" on only one or two occasions. This selective concern that you express for the number of occasions a characterisation is used in a source - apparently you apply it only to sources with which you disagree - meshes with your efforts elsewhere to add "far-left" and remove "left-wing" regardless of the sources. It's not how we write an encyclopaedia.
 * No, you don't get to decide, after claiming that other sources that mention the subject's alignment exactly once in sixty or so pages were adequate sourcing (for your project to add "far-left" to party articles), that the fact other articles mention alignment only once or twice renders them insignificant. That kind of bait-and-switch game is not going to fly. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My sources are not 60 pages, they are news articles only a few pages in length. Now, you can nitpick purported inconsistencies in my evaluation of these sources, but you are yet to address the elephant in the room:
 * Half of your sources (that I can see) use far-left and equivilants. What do you have to say about this?  JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't even get straight basic facts about the sources you posted: you suggested this - https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/upload/20240529105124.pdf It is a 60-page document. An argument based on a principle you only wish to apply selectively, against sources that do not support your POV, carries little or no force.
 * Four of those sources make some reference to far-left. I've not claimed that no sources exist that characterise it as such. They are significantly in the minority, with the weight suggesting "left-wing" as the common characterisation. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * If there are several reliable sources describing the group as left-wing and several describing it as far-left, it doesn’t matter which description is used more often, we should use “left-wing to far-left”. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * That’s not the case. The principle of WP:weight is that we give prominence So where one description significantly outweighs another, it obviously matters which description is used more often. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I didn’t mean that it is literally irrelevant which description is used more often. I meant that numerous reliable sources describing the group in a certain way, provide enough weight for that description to be included in the infobox. So, if there are several reliable sources describing the group as left-wing and several describing it as far-left, regardless of which description is used more often, we should use “left-wing to far-left”. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I am trying to describe, though I am not articulating it very well. It is most reasonable, by Wikipedia's policies regarding due weight, to include both. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe a good compromise could be to say that the party is left wing but some consider the party to be far left (do note that we should should source something that directly calls the party far left on the latter statement, in order to avoid WP:AWT which it honestly still might violate.) Gaismagorm (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @MZH2020 @GlowstoneUnknown @lliVaiNill @Nablicus @Autospark @Mtlelas, and @FellowMellow,
 * All of you have had varied stances and have been productive contributors to the discussion over on the ideology of Patriots for Europe. Would any of you like to weigh in on this? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not opposed to including such a mention, but I feel it should either be as a Faction: or as a footnote stating that it's often described that way by critics (or perhaps both somehow?). – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @JustAPoliticsNerd I would keep it as left-wing to far-left. I’m not opposed to having it as factions: also. I have seen GUE/NGL be described that way and there have to be reliable sources ofc. There are some really far-left forces in the group like the Belgian Workers' Party of Belgium, French LFI, the Danish Red-Green Alliance, the Basque EH Bildu, and the Communist parties in Portugal (CDU) and Cypriot AKEL. However we should do it in the way that ECR does it, but have it centre-left and far-left factions, as parties like Greece’s SYRIZA and the Irish Sinn Féin have centre-left in it. That’s my argument.
 * Like this:
 * Left-wing
 * (including centre-left
 * and far-left factions) - FellowMellow (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, this would be an ideal solution. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  09:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to "Factions" unless there are reliable, third-party (preferably scholarly) sources which explicitly refer to the group as containing factions. Another other claim is WP:SYNTH. We are here to reflect any evidence that may exist, not actively invent it.-- Autospark (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep to simply left-wing. Far-left is WP:UNDUE. Helper201 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Agree wholeheartedly with Helper201, as per above – left-wing only.-- Autospark (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Tochal

Tochal ( Točāl), is a mountain and ski resort located on the Alborz mountain range, adjacent to the metropolitan area of Tehran in northern Iran. It includes a 12 km ridge. Its highest peak, also called Tochal, is at an elevation of 3963 m above sea level.

A gondola lift runs from Tehran to the Tochal ski resort and hotel, all as a part of Tochal Complex.

Peaks
A number of peaks are accessible from the Tochal main ridge or by their own climbing paths. Peaks (from west to east) include:

 * Lavarak (3560 m): accessible by main Tochal ridge or Imamzade Davood climbing path.
 * Bazarak (3753 m): accessible by main Tochal ridge or Imamzade Davood climbing path.
 * Palang-chal (3520 m): accessible from Darakeh valley and Palangchal Shelter.
 * Sar-Bazarak (3640 m): accessible from Palangchal peak and main Tochal ridge.
 * Shah-Neshin (3875 m): accessible from Tochal main ridge, Hezarcham path and south (Abshar-Dogholoo) ridge.
 * Tochal (3964 m): The highest peak of the range, accessible by any climbing path that ends on the Tochal main ridge. The usual path from Tehran is by the south ridge (normally from Shirpala shelter and Siahsang hut).
 * Spilit (3120 m): through Band-yakh-chal and Shervin hut by rock climbing or Klakchal ridge.
 * West Lezon (3585 m): accessible from Tochal main ridge, Kolakchal shelter or Shirpala shelter.
 * East Lezon or Piaz-chal (3540 m): accessible from Tochal main ridge, Kolakchal shelter or Shirpala shelter.
 * Kolak-chal (3350 m): from Kolakchal shelter (through Golab-dareh valley, Vezbad valley or Jamshidieh park)
 * Siah-band (3320 m): from Dar-abad valley and Dar-abad hut.

Gondola lift
Tochal has a long gondola lift which begins from Velenjak valley at 1900 m and ends in the last station at 3740m near the main ridge of Tochal. This gondola lift is used for accessing ski resorts and other recreational centers on the mountain.

Opening Season
Tochal International Ski Resort, located in Iran’s capital Tehran, was officially reopened on 22.01.2024

title: Tochal


text:
Talk:Imino acid

Untitled
proline is an amino acid, not an imino acid. an imino group is C=N-R.

secondary amino acids

 * Amino acids containing secondary amine group (the only natural compound of this type is proline) are sometimes named imino acids[1][2], though this usage is disputed by some.

Hydroxyproline also occurs in nature. N-methylated amino acids like NMDA also occur naturally and contain secondary amine groups.--Eloil 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 * My organic chemistry colleagues tell me that imino- should be reserved for -N= exactly as stated in the opening paragraph; proline is a secondary amine, not an imine. The problem is that its description as an imino acid appeared in a few older textbooks, particularly those written from a medical rather than chemical viewpoint. Like many textbook errors, this gets repeated in newer textbooks that copied their content from older ones. 96.54.32.44 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, so i 've learned it too, that there must be a double bond between the nitrogen]] and carbon. Thoses are amides from an imine and are called Iminamide. Examples: Sulfaguanidine, 1-(4-Nitrophenylethyl)piperidylidene-2-(4-chlorophenyl)sulfonamide. 77.177.43.109 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition
In reply to User:DMacks, the definition given talks about an imino group, which is specified as >C=NH, and this is also how my CRC Handbook and my American Heritage Dictionary define "imino". I know that the diagram shows an "imine" as having a radical attached to the nitrogen, not necessarily a hydrogen. That may be correct as the definition of an imine, but I don't think it's the correct definition of the term "imino". Maybe we should change that diagram. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's as much structural-definition distinction between "imino" (adjective) and "imine" (noun), rather than just adjective vs noun. For example, Gold Book search for imino finds lots of C=NR not just C=NH. But its definition of "imino acid" only mentions the C=NH derivative. That seems in keeping with IUPAC defining structure-classes by the parent structure. For example, that same definition says that the nomenclature suffix "imine" is the =NH group, but here they use that nomenclature and interchangeably use imine/imino wording with examples that are =NR. I agree with changing the inline structure.

 * Interestingly, amino acid (as well as many lay-reader and even intro school texts) define that that compound class contains the amino group specifically identified as "NH2" despite proline. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I notice that your link search for imino uses the term "N-substituted imino group". So I think an acid with >C=N-R should be called an N-substituted imino acid. I would say that the 1-Pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid in the illustration is a sort of N-substituted imino acid – but it's not a very good example of that either, because the thing that substitutes the H on the N is part of the same chain that is attached by a double bond to the N! Unfortunately I don't know of any other example with a drawing we could use. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imino acid. 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/20080118064634/http://opbs.okstate.edu/5753/Amino%20Acids.html to http://opbs.okstate.edu/5753/Amino%20Acids.html

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) 07:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Imino acid


text:
Schubert (lunar crater)

Schubert is a lunar impact crater that lies near the eastern limb of the Moon's near side. It is located northwest of the Mare Smythii, and southwest of the prominent crater Neper. Nearly attached to the southern rim is the crater Back.

Schubert is a nearly circular crater formation that has not suffered significant erosion from subsequent impacts, and retains a well-defined rim. The interior surface is generally flat, with a few low hills near the center.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Schubert.

The following craters have been renamed by the IAU.
 * Schubert B — See Back (crater).
 * Schubert Y — See Nobili (crater).
 * Schubert Z — See Jenkins (crater).

Schubert C is called Doyle on some older maps, but this name was not approved by the IAU.

title: Schubert (lunar crater)