text:
Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 2

Photo
Does anyone think this new photo is superior to the one which was there previously? I certainly don't, but I won't revert it till I hear other opinions. Adam 03:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I preferred the old one Rexworth 10:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Her Majesty
no article referes to the queen(articles like queen beatrix) as "her majesty". It is title used in Britain but she is just the queen to the rest of the world she does not reign. Encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta also don`t call her her majesty. In NPOV style she shall stay only queen. [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 08:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what articles on contemporary queens (beside Beatrix) you have read. I have found seven such articles (except this one). Rania of Jordan, Silvia Sommerlath and Sofía of Spain all have HM in the introduction, while Beatrix of the Netherlands, Margrethe II of Denmark, Paola Ruffo di Calabria and Sonja, Queen of Norway have no HM. I don't see how three out of seven is "no article". I also think the correct manner of address is an important piece of information. -- Jao 13:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, editors of Britannica and Encarta don`t use HM! We are, IMO, not better of them. Then I found these articles- Harald V of Norway, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah, Albert II of Belgium, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, Hassanal Bolkiah, Norodom Sihanouk, Akihito, Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah, Letsie III of Lesotho, Mohammed VI of Morocco, Rainier III of Monaco, Qaboos of Oman, Hamad bin Khalifa, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and Mswati III of Swaziland all don`t use His Majesty! Abdullah II of Jordan is using it, Juan of Spain too and Bhumibol Adulyadej. So more articles are without HM than with it, not to talk about late kings and queens! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION

We shall use Her Brittish Majesty instead of just Her Majesty to keep foreigners happy by adding Brittish and her people with Her Majesty

[[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That would be utterly absurd, and in fact worse than not having 'Her Majesty' at all. Nobody calls her that at all.  'Her Majesty' is part of her formal title - 'Her Brittish Majesty' [sic]' is not. Morwen - Talk 16:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The correct style of address is Her Majesty The Queen - usually abbreviated to HM The Queen. Whether or not any other publication uses the correct form is irrelevant, no matter how many examples are cited. --Martin TB 16:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If they don't have it and it's part of their of their official styles, then they should be added to the articles. Get to work! "Her Brittish Majesty" is just plain idiotic. --Jiang 16:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my idea idiotic!!! We shouldn`t keep that HM anyways !!!!! She is majesty of brittish people but far away from being anybody elses MAJESTY! I am offended that she is called majesty in enciclopedia becuase she is just Queen of Britain for me. Kim Jong-il's article is not calling him dear in first sentence because of NPOV! Don`t be stubber and respect rest of the world and the people that don`t adore Elizabeth II. [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Avala, she's not just The Queen of Britain, but of many other nations too. "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen, &c." Further, this is supposed to be NPOV. Whether or not she is 'adored' or disliked is irrelevant - we should stick to the FACTS. Her Majesty The Queen is a fact - not something imagined. I also agree with Jiang - if other royals have official styles of address, then their pages should be editted to reflect that. --Martin TB 16:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

so i should put the word dear in first sentence in article about Kim Jong-il cause he is using it?????? [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 17:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a style. Stating it is just indicating its official status, not necessarily believing in what it means. Kim Jong-il is not styled "dear". "Dear Leader" is a title, just like "Queen". --Jiang 17:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be best not to get hung up about the words used in styles. When you call someone "Reverend Jones" you are not commenting on how reverent he is. When someone is styled "Her Majesty", you are not relaying your judgment on her degree of majesticness by using that style. Nor is nationaity really an issue here. Similarly when you say "Serene Highness" you are not claiming someone is particularly serene. Nor does acknowledging "His Holiness" mean you think someone is particularly holy. I believe the standard Wikipedia practice is [1] don't include styles in the title of the article [2] do use the style the first time the name is mentioned (but in the standard "plain" typeface; only the name and/or title is in boldfaced type) [3] use the name or title but not the style in the rest of the article. With regard to Kim Jong-il, if "Dear Leader" is his official style, then by all means it belongs in his article (but not in bold print); if it is merely a way he is popularly (or unpopularly) referred to, as the article seems to imply, rather than an official style or title, it doesn't. - Nunh-huh 17:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala: As has been explained to you, Her Majesty is the honorary accorded by the title. Just as one refers to Bush as President Bush regardless of nation, and to Kerry as Senator Kerry regardless of state, the form of address for the position Queen is "Her Majesty," and so long as she legitimately holds the title and one recognizes the title's legitimacy (Which one ought do, unless one believes the British government to be illegitimate), "Her Majesty" is a reasonable form of address.

Please don't turn this into a repeat of Janez Drnovsek. Snowspinner 17:28, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Her Majesty was bolded, Dear Leader will be bolded too. All you say is going on the other side of NPOV! You will say President of USA GWB not just president! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Her Majesty is not bolded and should not be. Dear Leader should be bolded. Nor is she "officially Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" (and hence my last revert). --Jiang 18:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jiangs opinion-only opinion! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]]

Avala: You just don't get it do you - so I am going to have to spell it out. She is:- HM The Queen of Antigua & Barbuda, HM The Queen of Australia, HM The Queen of The Bahamas, HM The Queen of Barbados, HM The Queen of Belize, HM The Queen of Canada, HM The Queen of Grenada, HM The Queen of Jamaica, HM The Queen of New Zealand, HM The Queen of Papua New Guinea, HM The Queen of St. Kitts & Nevis, HM The Queen of The Solomon Islands, HM The Queen of Tuvalu HM The Queen of Northern Ireland and HM The Queen of Great Britain.

She is also the former Queen of Burma, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, Nigeria, Tanzania, Pakistan, The Seychelles, Singapore, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and in each of those territories she is still HM The Queen.

I have remove your latest edit on the main page as, although it is correct, it doesn't reflect the complete picture. --Martin TB 21:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Um, no - she's not Queen of Northern Ireland; or Queen of Great Britain - she is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - one country. Morwen - Talk 21:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala, can you grasp the difference between a style and a title? No, it is not like Kim Jong-il. "Dear Leader" is a title, just like Queen. Comprehend? --Jiang 21:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala's being ridiculous. BTW, she was never the Queen of Burma, Cyprus, Dominica, India, Ireland, or Singapore. India became a republic in 1950. Burma was a republic from independence in 1948. Ireland became a republic in 1949, although the monarch continued to use "King of Ireland" as a style until Elizabeth's coronation in 1953. Dominica, Cyprus, and Singapore also became Republics on their independence during Elizabeth's reign, so while she may have been their head of state when they were colonies, She was never "Queen of" these places. I'm fairly certain this is true of Vanuatu, as well, which was a Franco-British condominium. And I'm not sure about Seychelles. john k 21:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I was wrong with some of my expamples - sorry. What's the situation with dependencies - is she queen of those territories? Falklands, Anguilla, Bermuda, Diego Garcia, Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Pitcairn Islands, Monserrat, St. Helena, Tristan da Cuhna &c. I think in the case of the Channel Islands it's through her title Duke of Normandy that she's the head of state, but I am not sure. --Martin TB 09:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * She's not the Duke of Normandy: that's just a belief arising from the traditional Jersey toast to "Our Queen, the Duke". It's the alcohol speaking, and what it's saying has no relation to reality. The Channel Islands are not the Duchy of Normandy, to which Elizabeth would in any case have no claim; she governs them as Crown Dependencies, as Queen. -- Nunh-huh 09:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * She rules the Isle of Man as "Lord of Man," I believe. I'm not sure exactly the status of the Channel Islands.  The others she rules in her capacity as Queen of the UK - they are colonies/dependencies.  john k 09:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The Offical Guernsey site history and govt. page states that "The islands are an 'appenage' or possession of the Crown and allegiance is given to our Sovereign and Duke of Normandy, Queen Elizabeth the Second." link and the royal.Gov.uk Page (which I think is the offical page of the Royal Family) states "However, the Channel Islands, part of the lost Duchy, remained a self-governing possession of the English Crown; while the Islands today retain autonomy in government, they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy. The Islands' links to their Sovereign and their independence are shown in the Islands' Loyal Toast to 'The Duke of Normandy, our Queen'." Link --Martin TB

 * Regarding the Isle of Man: The Tynwald site (Isle of Man Govt.) States "For many centuries the Stanley family (the Earls of Derby) were feudal Kings or Lords of Mann, but in 1765 the Island was purchased by the British Crown. Her Majesty The Queen is therefore Lord Proprietor of the Island and is formally referred to on the Island as "The Queen, Lord of Mann"." Please note the double nn in Mann! link Then click the Tynwald of Today link on the left frame. --Martin TB 10:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the royal website is notable for its frequent errors. The right of English monarchs to the title of "Duke of Normandy" was given up by a treaty between Henry III of England and Louis IX of France in 1259. Although the Channel Islands had been part of the Duchy of Normandy, the Queen does not reign over them as "Duke of Normandy", since she has no right to this title, nor have any of her predecessors since 1259. There's much discussion of this question in the alt.talk.royalty archives, if you're interested. john k 10:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of text not referenced in talk
This text:

 * Two of the Queen's grandchildren, Peter and Zara Phillips, have no titles — probably a unique circumstance in British history. This is because British titles are, with rare exceptions, inherited through the male line. Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children are commoners also.

Was not discussed here as mentioned in the summary. I will revert it pending discussion. Is the claim that it is untrue or that it is unneeded? I would argue that it is relevent if true. - Tεx  τ  urε  14:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know why it was reverted: it's more-or-less true. The "less" part is that by the strictest definition of "peer", children of a peer are commoners, even if they are styled by courtesy titles that make it appear otherwise, and even though this is ignored by the general public... so that even if Mark Phillips had become a peer, his children would be commoners (but with courtesy titles). The "Mr" and "Mrs" just makes this more obvious.
 * There's a (not-fully-vetted) list of the recent "top 10" in the succession to the British throne Top 10 and while there are no "Mr" or "Mrs" occurring before Peter and Zara, there are commoners bearing courtesy titles (1900: Lady Alexandra Duff (she was later made a princess in 1905 and became a duchess on her father's death), Lady Maud Duff (courtesy style of the daughter of a peer); 1930 & 1940: George Lachelles styled Viscount Lachelles, and his brother Gerald Lachelles bearing a courtesy title of "Hon" only (as the younger son of a peer). The excised portion could be made unobjectionable by changing the last sentence to "Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children have no courtesy titles." - Nunh-huh 15:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have an eye appointment August 12th. I don't plan on saying anything further until I get my eyes checked... :) - Tεx  τ  urε  15:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the paragraph in question, I take Nunh-huh's point about the definition of commoner. But I think the reference to courtesy titles will only confuse matters. The simpler solution is to say ""Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children have no titles." Adam 16:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, that has the advantage of not requiring a paragraph of explanation, and can only be caviled at by those who insist Mr and Mrs are titles... - Nunh-huh 17:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth

 * Those former colonies which have chosen to retain the Queen as their head of state have, at the date of their independence, thereby assumed a similar status to the original Dominions in relation to the Crown, even though under the Statute of Westminster they do not have the power to independently regulate the succession. When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of the constitutional law of each of them, rather than by hereditary right. It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state.

I find this paragraph difficult to follow. Firstly, if her heir will definitely be accepted as head of state in each realm, how is that different from hereditary right? Secondly, why does this mean that their citizens are not subjects? (I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I myself, as someone who-- despite having some understanding of what the Statute of Westminster is-- is no expert on constitutional law, have difficulty following the argument. Marnanel 04:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is a hybrid between what I originally wrote and what someone else (I think it was User:Emsworth) interposed into my text. I don't know what "even though under the Statute of Westminster they do not have the power to independently regulate the succession" really means, and I don't necessarily agree that "When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms." This paragraph really needs attention from a constitutional lawyer. Adam 08:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I am not a constitutional lawyer, I can say with certainty that the portion of the above paragraph relating to the Statute of Westminster is not accurate. The relevant part of the Statute appears in the preamble, and is consequently not binding. It is intended only as a guideline. Also, how can we prognosticate about whether or not Elizabeth II's heir will be accepted? I have accordingly removed this statement as well. Finally, I think that the statement about HM's subjects may be incorrect, but I may perhaps be mistaken. Strictly speaking, if British people are HM's subjects, then so are Australians. Why are they treated any differently? Her Majesty may be primarily associated with the UK, but theoretically the Crowns of all the Commonwealth Realms are equal. -- Emsworth 23:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The British Nationality Act abolished the status of 'British subject' for UK citizens. 80.229.39.194 08:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Do you mean the 1948 or the 1981 Act?
 * The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 alters the latter, including the term:
 * SCHEDULE 1
 * Section 3
 * 1. 42
 * (5) A person of full age shall not be registered under this Act as a British Overseas citizen or a British subject unless he has made the relevant citizenship oath specified in Schedule 5. [My emphasis.]
 * ... which would suggest, to my mind at least, that the term "British subject" still applies to UK citizens (but that "citizenship" does, too). Or am I mis-reading this?
 * James F. (talk) 14:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

shouldn't she be QE I of UK?
She's certainly the first Elizabeth to be monarch of Scotland, and for that matter of the UK - or do you think Scotland should be a republic by now? - dave souza 16:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * ... and Edward VIII wasn't the eigth Edward to rule over England, but he is Edward VIII what would you have use change that to? Mintguy (T) 16:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * She's the first Elizabeth to be monarch of Canada, too, but they still call her Elizabeth II . You might like to read up on the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, where this question was dealt with. Marnanel 17:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * from List of British monarchs he sure looks like VIII of England (if not for long), presumably II or III of UK depending if Edward Balliol gets counted - me, I preferred King Edward the cigar. I've not heard of any fuss about these two, but there certainly was (and is) sensitivity about QE I and II, probably related to the rise of Scottish nationalism. I don't know what the official proclamation is about usage in UK terms, bur noted that RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was pointedly referred to as 2 rather than the second at her launch. dave souza 17:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * fair do, the court of session lets her call herself what she wants, and the titles subsection looks fair: The pillarbox monogram was EIIR, will have a look at what they say now - dave souza 18:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The QE2 is the sucessor to the QE, and is not named after EIIR. "What they say now" is nowt, mainly because some people thought that it would be a good idea to blow them up.
 * James F. (talk) 19:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The Saxon Edwards i.e. Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor are not numbered. Mintguy (T) 19:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Time to say I'm sorry; apologies to Jdforrester and Mintguy, and thanks for correcting my inadequately researched edits. The titles subsection and linked articles cover this fully - this part of Wikipedia has come together well. A minor quibble is that I'd expect the pillarbox monogram to have read E.II.R rather than E.R.II as described in the titles subsection, but have no proof of this. Modern pillarboxes I've found confirm the article, having only "Post Office" and a crown with no royal monogram: still have a niggling suspicion that there are some with ER, but none found to date. Oddly, there are numerous pillarboxes with GR, as well as others with G.VI.R.
 * dave souza 22:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you sure you have seen "Post Office" and not "Royal Mail"? Bobblewik (talk) 22:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What I've seen is "Post Office" on pillar boxes of various periods - will recheck. dave souza 22:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * correction: our local wee modern postbox on a stick says "Royal Mail" with a crown under - all the older ones say "Post Office" (E.VII.R, G.VI.R, GR) dave souza 22:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Interesting discussion. I found a web page that mentions both the Elizabeth 1/2 issue and the Post Office/Royal Mail issue. See: http://www.wicks.org/pulp/part2.html There are a few letter box nerds out there on the web. I am surprised that there is not a Wikipedia article on it. Bobblewik (talk) 08:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Her proper title should be Elizabeth II of England,Wales and Northern Ireland and Elizabeth I of Scotland. Most people in Scotland have never accepted her title as EIIR because it is factually inaccurate. Elizabeth I was Queen of England and Ireland. Scotland had Mary who was murdered by Elizabeth who was her full blood cousin. Scotland is one of the few parts of the UK today that have a majority in favour of a republic and I am one of them! There is also not one postbox in Scotland which shows EIIR. Some were put in place in the '50s but they were all removed after some were blown up.

Holden 27

Political functions
I think that the constitutional status & political role sections are much too lengthy. It is appropriate to mention Elizabeth II's reign over multiple realms, and also to mention her role as a constitutional monarch, but the present level of detail is too great. The details should be moved to British monarchy, for they apply not just to her personally, but in general to any person who might reign over the UK and other Commonwealth Realms. -- Emsworth 02:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either there or Politics of the United Kingdom. But, not being familiar with the constitution, I don't know which parts are specific to the present monarch. If you do, have at it. Gazpacho 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

common practice

 * In common practice Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "Her Majesty".

Certainly "The Queen" is common, but I don't think "Her Majesty" is common outside formalities? Perhaps it varies in different places? Martin 22:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It must do because I've heard the Queen referred to as Her Majesty plenty of times. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 2


text:
Luigi Sturzo

Luigi Sturzo (26 November 1871 – 8 August 1959) was an Italian Catholic priest and prominent politician. He was known in his lifetime as a Christian socialist and is considered one of the fathers of the Christian democratic platform. He was also the founder of the Luigi Sturzo Institute in 1951. Sturzo was one of the founders of the Italian People's Party (PPI) in 1919 but was forced into exile in 1924 with the rise of Italian fascism, and later in 1943 Christian Democracy, although he was never a party member. In exile in London and later New York City, he published over 400 articles (published after his death under the title Miscellanea Londinese) critical of fascism. Sturzo's cause for canonization opened on 23 March 2002 and he is titled as a Servant of God.

Early years, family, education, and priesthood
Sturzo was born on 26 November 1871 in Caltagirone to Felice Sturzo and Caterina Boscarelli. His twin sister was Emanuela (also known as Nelina). One ancestor, Giuseppe Sturzo, served as the mayor of Caltagirone in 1864 until an unspecified time, and another ancestor was Croce Sturzo who wrote about the Roman Question. His two brothers Luigi and Franco Sturzo were well-known Jesuits. His elder brother Mario (1 November 1861 – 11 November 1941) was a noted theologian and Bishop of Piazza Armerina. His two other sisters were Margherita and the nun Remigia (or Sister Giuseppina). From 1883 until 1886, he studied at Acireale and then in Noto. He commenced his studies for the ecclesial life in 1888. Sturzo received his ordination to the priesthood on 19 May 1894 from the Bishop of Caltagirone Saverio Gerbino at the Chiesa del Santissimo Salvatore in Enna. Following his graduation, Sturzo served as a teacher of philosophical and theological studies in Caltagirone; he served as his town's Vice-Mayor from 1905 to 1920. In 1898, he received a doctorate in his philosophical studies from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and he taught that subject in his hometown from 1898 to 1903.

In the late 1890s and early 1900s, Sturzo came to know Giacomo Radini-Tedeschi. In his spare time, he liked to collect antique ceramic art; while serving as the Vice-Mayor, he opened a ceramicists' school in 1918. He also founded the newspaper La Croce di Constantino in Caltagirone in 1897. In 1900, at the same time as the Boxer Rebellion, Sturzo asked his bishop to serve in the missions in China despite the persecutions the Catholic Church was enduring there; he was denied this request on the account of his precarious state of health. Since 1915, Sturzo was involved with Azione Cattolica. He was also close with Romolo Murri. Sturzo's political activism and collaboration with his colleagues prevented Giovanni Giolitti assuming power once again in 1922; this allowed for Luigi Facta to assume the prime ministership.

Italian Popular Party
Sturzo was among the founders of the Italian People's Party (PPI) on 19 January 1919. The formation of the PPI, with the permission of Pope Benedict XV, represented a tacit and reluctant reversal of the Vatican's Non Expedit of non-participation in Italian politics, which was abolished before the 1919 Italian general election in which the PPI won 20.6% of the vote and 100 seats in the legislature. The PPI was a colossal political force in the nation; between 1919 and 1922, no government could be formed and maintained without the support of the PPI. A coalition between the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and the PPI was deemed unacceptable within the Vatican, despite the fact Giolitti had proposed it as prime minister in 1914, and something his progressive and powerless successors—Ivanoe Bonomi (1921–1922) and Luigi Facta (1922)—reimaged as the single possible coalition that excluded the Italian fascists.

Sturzo was a committed anti-fascist who discussed the ways in which Catholicism and fascism were incompatible in such works as Coscienza cristiana and criticized what he perceived to be clerical fascist elements within the Vatican. Sturzo also wrote about the thought of Saint Augustine of Hippo and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, as well as Giambattista Vico and Maurice Blondel. He did this in order to elaborate on what he called the "dialectic of the concrete" and opposed this dialectic as a veer towards absolute idealism and scholastic realism.

Sturzo was not among the 14 PPI members who defected—under pressure from Pope Pius XI—to approve the Acerbo Law in July 1923 that allowed the National Fascist Party to gain an absolute majority of the parliamentary seats. Sturzo was forced to resign as the General Secretary of the PPI on 10 July 1923, a position he had served since 1919, after being unable to obtain the support of the Vatican to continue to oppose Benito Mussolini and the Mussolini Cabinet. He further resigned from the board on 19 May 1924. After Sturzo's departure, the Vatican endorsed the formation of the National Union, which was pro-fascist and Catholic, which hastened the rupture of the PPI and provided political cover for its former members to join Mussolini’s inaugural government. Following the Matteotti affair, after which Sturzo thought the Aventine Secession should return to Parliament, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri acceded to the wishes of Mussolini and forced Sturzo to leave the Italian nation before the re-opening of Parliament commemorating the March on Rome.

Exile
Sturzo was exiled from 1924 to 1946 first in London (1924–1940) and then in the United States (1940–1946). Sturzo left Rome for London on 25 October 1924. Sturzo was consigned to a three-month educational trip in London; the choice of London was perhaps intended to isolate Sturzo because he did not speak the language and it did not contain a large population of like-minded Catholics. He moved to the residence of the Oblates of Saint Charles in Bayswater and then in January 1925 to the Servites at their priory of Saint Mary in Fulham Road where he was asked to leave in 1926 because the Servites' motherhouse in Rome was being denied funds as long as Sturzo was their guest.

In 1926, Sturzo refused an offer from the Vatican that was communicated through Cardinal Francis Bourne to serve as a chaplain in a convent in Chiswick and lodging for his twin sister Nelina in exchange for ending his journalistic activism and issuing a "spontaneous declaration" that he was retired from politics in full. In November 1926, he moved into a flat at 213b Gloucester Terrace in Bayswater with his sister where the pair lived as lodgers until 1933. After the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, he was offered an appointment as a Canon of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome again in exchange for his permanent renunciation of politics.

On 22 September 1940, Sturzo boarded the Samaria in Liverpool bound for New York hoping for an academic appointment and arrived there on 3 October 1940. He was instead sent to Saint Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, which was filled with priests who were ill and about to die. Beginning in 1941, he cooperated with agents from the British Security Co-Ordination, as well as the Office of Strategic Services and the Office of War Information, providing them with his assessments of the political forces with the Italian resistance movement and radio broadcasts to the Italian peninsula. Sturzo returned to Brooklyn in April 1944 but his return to his homeland received a Vatican and Alcide De Gasperi veto in October 1945 and May 1946.

Return, last years, and death
Sturzo set off to return to his homeland on the Vulcania on 27 August 1946 (after the 1946 Italian institutional referendum had abolished the need for a monarch) but did not have a dominant role in Italian politics after his arrival on 6 September 1946 in Naples. He instead retired to the outskirts of Rome after landing in Naples. In 1951, he founded the Luigi Sturzo Institute, which was designed to endorse research in historical science, as well as in economics and politics. He was made a member of the Senate of the Republic on 17 December 1952 and senator for life in 1953 at the behest of the then Italian president Luigi Einaudi and he obtained a dispensation from Pope Pius XII in order to accept the title.

On 23 July 1959, Sturzo celebrated Mass. When he came to the consecration of the Eucharist, he looked down and slumped. He was carried to his bed still in his vestments and his health took a sharp decline until his death. Sturzo died in Rome in the afternoon of 8 August 1959 at the general house of the Canossians; his remains were interred in the church of San Lorenzo al Verano but were transferred in 1962 to the church of Santissimo Salvatore in Caltagirone.

Beatification cause
The beatification process for Sturzo opened under Pope John Paul II on 23 March 2002 after the Congregation for the Causes of Saints issued the official nihil obstat decree and titled the priest as a Servant of God. Cardinal Camillo Ruini inaugurated the diocesan process of investigation on 3 May 2002; the postulator for this cause is the lawyer Carlo Fusco The diocesan process concluded on 24 November 2017 in the Lateran Palace.

Authorship
Sturzo was the author of several works in relation to philosophical and political thought. This included:
 * Church and State (1939)
 * The True Life (1943)
 * The Inner Laws of Society (1944)
 * Spiritual Problems of Our Times (1945)
 * Italy and the Coming World (1945)

Articles

 * "The Totalitarian State" (1936). Social Research. 3 (2): 222–235.
 * "Sociology of the Supernatural" (1942). The American Catholic Sociological Review. 3 (4): 204–214.
 * "Italian Problems in War and Peace" (1943). The Review of Politics. 5 (1): 55–81.
 * "The Roman Question before and after Fascism" (1943). The Review of Politics. 5 (4): 488–508.
 * "The Vatican’s Position in Europe" (1945). Foreign Affairs. 23 (2): 211–221.
 * "Alcide De Gasperi, Prime Minister" (1946). Blackfriars. 27 (312): 87–89.
 * "The Philosophic Background of Christian Democracy" (1947). The Review of Politics. 9 (1): 3–15.

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

title: Luigi Sturzo


text:
Talk:Human rights in Australia

far fetching claims
G’day Dmol, You are making far fetching claims without providing any evidence. Either you cite the HCA judgment, where it was decided that the Constitution of Australia contains implied rights or stop posting information, which is not true. The same applies to your claim regarding “numerous laws”. I challenge you to list these laws which protect Australians against HR violations by the Commonwealth Government, including by the black robed tyrants. Your claim that “Human rights in Australia are generally respected and recognised” must stand on some facts as well. Who respects your rights? Which law recognises them? Finally, please list the rights, which you think you have and let us know how they are protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozjustwik (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for evidence of recognition of rights by the High Court, you could look at the Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation series of decisions in relation to the implied freedom of political communication, or the more recent decision in relation to the restriction of the franchise of prisoners, whose name escapes me at the moment.VeryRusty (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1992 HCA 45]

 * Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992 HCA 46]

 * Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007 HCA 43]

 * Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010 HCA 46]

 * There are plenty more, if anyone else insists on being a prat.119.12.137.28 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Expansion needed
This seems... incomplete. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. It's really just a shell. A serious article on this topic would (will) be quite long indeed. - Borofkin 01:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal Health
The article seems good, however tables 5, 6, and 7 from the HREOC report seem unnecessary. It occupies too much space and is excessively detailed. Perhaps a more general statement would be more appropriate instead of listing statistics for individual diseases. Readers who want to view exact statistics can just follow the link to the report. Mr john luke (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made the changes, people can follow the link for actual report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr john luke (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Democrats
A press release by the Democrats about legislation by the Democrats doesn't sound like a neutral third-party source. Andjam (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

POV push.
I have tagged the intro for POV check. User Retty1 has repeatedly modified the long-standing sentence - "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia" and has changed it to "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia in respect of the white non indigenous population (Bolded for clarity).  This is clearly POV, changes the meaning of the entire introduction, and is an uncited claim not suited to an introduction.  As the user has constantly change this, I am looking for other users' input.--Dmol (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The repeated changes were introduced by Dmol in respect of an edit which had existed unchanged for some time before it came to the notice of Dmol. Dmol's edits on 9 April also included a deletion of the section on asylum (Sri Lanka and Afghanistan) - with no reason given. My subsequent edits also restored this section which had been removed without explanation. The opening sentence of the article, in proclaiming compliance with "human rights", was crudely bold - no attempt as preamble to engage with the concept of human rights, no evidence cited and no mention of the contested nature of human rights compliance. Whatever the observer's opinion on compliance the fact that it is vocally contested cannot be in dispute. Such a "fact" is not compatible with such a naive opening statement which makes no mention of the contested nature of human rights compliance. It is for example in respect of the suspension of consideration of asylum claims in respect of Sri Lanka and Afghanistan difficult to see how such a bold opening statement can be supported: "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia". Such a claim would, in the context of the facts, be alien to generally accepted understandings of compliance with "human rights" (both in procedural terms and in terms of outcome). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retty1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the introduction as it stands is not good gramatically (yes I am aware of the irony, based on my sentence structure). I think the body of the article gives a number of examples, current and historical where Australia's Human rights are not ideal. I think a more nuanced introduction is in order, replacing at least the entire first sentence. Perhaps the following would at least be an improvement:
 * "The record of the Australian Government in relation to human rights is largely positive, with a number of exceptions. Australia's indigenous population particularly have been affected by government policy and continue to trail the wider population in a number of indicators." VeryRusty (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good compromise. Can I add that I don't for one moment think that Australia's record is perfect, (it certainly wasn't in the past) but could not allow such a dramatic change to the tone of the article to go unchallenged. Feel free to change the article to this intro, or maybe we could wait a few more days for more input. As I am one of the disagreeing parties, I'll refrain from editing for the moment. Thanks for your suggestion.
 * The first sentence suggested by VeryRusty is undermined and contradicted by the intensity of the second sentence. The seond sentence is, moreover and with reservations, a more appropriate/accurate summary of the issues than the first. The most contentious sentence in the whole article would be the the first thirteeen words of the suggested opening sentence - "The record of the Australian Government in relation to human rights is largely positive..." Grammatical construction aside I do not see what is wrong with the existing content of the first sentence. It is politically tendentious and non neutral to suggest, let alone argue, that the human rights record is "positive" or "good". A modifier citing Australian Government policy initiatives attempting to redress the balance in human rights abuses might be appropriate. But it is hardly contentious or off the wall to suggest that there are serious problems with any statement that seeks to affirm the "general" human rights record of the Australian Government. Maybe a referenced summary debate on the professional legal/human rights literature would be more appropriate.
 * Having looked at some of the other countries introductions there are those that try to provide an assesment (like ours), or just provide factual information. The second option is possible, for example, our lack of a bill of rights, but not preferential to me. Are there any other views? VeryRusty (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have amended the introduction to be entirely factual.VeryRusty (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

World law?
Under Mandatory Detention there is the mention of "world law," whatever that is. Quote (as of the time of edit): "Under world law, it is illegal for a country to return an asylum seeker to a country or place where their life is at risk. Australia is currently breaching this law and agencies in Australia are taking matters into their hands to show the world." Is this supposed to be international law, and if yes, a reference would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2615:A701:F90E:75AD:1205:759 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * International law? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Human rights in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110327003948/http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/ to http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Aborigines
The fact is Australia did not respect the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 till 1967. Out of 550 Aboriginal tribes survived only 40. Others were wiped out through killing and the spread of introduced diseases. The Aborigines were not even a part of any government statistics until 1967.--94.68.78.151 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Colonial conflict and dispossession (1790s-1930s)
The whole section is written in a politically correct fashion and it shall be rewritten. The colonial conflict is actually a bad word for the brutal extermination of the indigeneous Australian people through killing and introduced diseases. The Aborigines were completely helpless in their attempts to protect their land and culture whose weapons were wooden or made of stone. The dispossession lasted until the end of 20ieth century.

To get a better insigth into te Aboriginal human rights in Australia in 1997 see Australia accused of genocide against aborigines--94.68.78.151 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Australia. 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/20110316143541/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202000730/http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm to http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm

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) 11:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Too much focus on legislation, not enough unbiased reporting of historical and on-going HR violations.
Supposedly a neutral encyclopedia, but doesn't include full disclosure of the serious human rights abuses perpetrated throughout history and still on-going in Australia. This doesn't compare equally with Human Rights articles about many other nations on Wikipedia (eg. China, Pakistan, etc). หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * There is a section on Treatment of particular groups and minorities which contains quite a bit of info and many links to other articles. Did you have any particular topics you'd like to see addressed? Feel free to add sourced content. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment was posted a while ago, so I don't remember the full context or the content of the article, but a good example would be the forced vaccinations of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, where there were reports and apparently video evidence of elderly and disabled people being aggressively handled, if not outright assaulted, by the police (or army, not sure). Regardless of whether or not you think they should have been vaccinated, or if you think it was good for them, that does not detract from the fact that it is a human rights violation. And there's all the genocide stuff, etc. Yellow Peril, White Australia Policy, systemic abuse directed at immigrants for a long portion of the nation's history (especially from 1950s through to 1980s), Stolen Generation, Catholics vs Protestants (systemic discrimination at many different levels of society). I am sure many people could expand on these topics, and I feel that I have barely scratched the surface. We could also go into systemic abuse in the justice system against prisoners, and especially in the juvenile justice system (bad enough that the ABC 'Four Corners' did a documentary on it. And so on and on and on... Just doing a puff piece on all the laws is not really describing the actual situation of Human Rights, just the official position on the topic. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human rights in Australia


text:
Talk:M26 Pershing

No real facts in the article just opinions concerning the M26 development
The conspiracy theory sort of thing with the AGF, McNair, Tank Destroyers, and inexperienced combat commanders really isn't helpful and not actually factual, being based on opinions of others opinions. Too much is being read into Zaloga's and the others story telling where they are throwing in too many irrelevant details. It simply took a long time for the Ordnance Department to actually get the T26/M26 ready for production. McNair did deny one request for production - but at that time the T26 was not ready for production. When the T26/M26 was ready in November 1944 and the AGF tried to block it, the Army Chief of Staff Marshal overrode them. I have seen no indication that anything the AGF did caused any delays; McNair did not like the idea but he let Ordnance play around all they wanted. He threatened to prevent production but the M26 was no where near ready when he did so. The ground commanders were asked for their viewpoint on tank needs in 1945 and numerous differing options were returned because they had nothing but some statistics to work with. They and their men had not seen nor driven any proposed tank making it impossible to reach a consensus on what was best.

The Tank Destroyer doctrine did nothing but force the Ordnance Department to build GMCs with better cannon (for antitank work) than the tank's 75s.

The same thing happened with the 76-mm M1. If Jacob Devers had supported production of the first kludged M4s with 76's in April 1943 the Army might have tried them, learned them, recommended fixes. He would not accept the "crude" first fix with an 800 pound storage box on back of the turret to balance. Ordnance had developed the 3-inch GMC M10 for the Tank Destroyers in 1942 and its gun bound the turret like the 76 did and they fixed it with the workable but crude counterbalances. If Ordnance had taken the time to lengthen the turret for the 76, maybe widen it some, I might have pleased Devers enough to accept it then and there. But, no, the quick fix meant it took the Ordnance Department until August 1943 to get a setup the Armored Forces would accept. McNair resisted it; the very man who he had set up to try to better control Armored Command convinced him to allow production; production commenced January 1944. In May 1944 the ground forces were schooled on it; they had not seen the M4 (76) nor had their men driven any. They had nothing but numbers to work from and those indicated they would loose ground fire ability for armor penetrating ability. They had no idea what to do. They were experienced enough to not just accept some pretty new toy because it was said to be wonderful. They needed a chance to see what their men - who were doing the fighting and dieing - thought of it based on their own hands on experiences.

Notice how the M4 (76) was not an entirely new tank like the T26 and how long it took to get it into the soldier's hands.

The M18 armed with the 76 was finished in mid-1943 or so; tried in Italy with user feedback; approved; and in Normandy in June 1944.

If Ordnance had readied the M26 in timefor the Army to put it through trials, and in time for actual mass production and delivery, things would have been different. The T26/M26 was not finalized in the form used in 1945 in time to do more than was done with it. As Zaloga noted in Armored Thunderbolt, after all the fuss and nonsense that he had built up with tank destroyers and AGF and so on - entertaining red herrings - the actual development of the M26 drug on so long that in the end there was no real way for it to get into production any sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.175.139 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Some of those dates look wrong but...So what you are saying is the OD started too late? Let's do something the "analysts" can't be bothered with.

 * It took 12 months of development for the M3 Grant from first concepts in June 1940 to production June 1941.

 * The T23 came about September 1942 so it might be expected September 1943. Hunnicutt (page 80) says first production pilot 10/1943 and final tanks 12/1944.

 * In May 1943 250 T23s ordered of them 10 as T26s So, the expected date for T26 production is May 1944 and Hunnicuut page 104 says they were built Feb. 1944 to May 1944. The Armored guys wrung them out and had a fix-list including (you'll love this) a muzzle brake for the 90mm and 70 rounds of ammo rather than 42. Production started Nov. 1944. February 1945 the Zebra Mission in Europe.

 * To get the T26 into Europe in 1944 the Ordnance needed to start on it May 1942. All that nonsense everyone is spewing about other people is just that. T26/M26 development was started too late.Jdnwiki2016 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Thougt I had a reference but it wss not verifiable.
 * No! The point is that no one has actually looked into the development process itself to try to say XYZ interfered on WHATMONTH, WHATYEAR and that led to 999 weeks of delay. All accusations, no pursuant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.175.139 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia writers are mistaking Zaloga's explanations of why the Army commanders were unable to see the need for better armed tanks in time for any action to be taken. The development cycle for the M26 was no longer than that of other similar new tanks; at 19 months it was likely faster. He went over that in his M26/M46 book but it obviously flew over the head of the Wikipedia authors. Zaloga writes like a drama queen and that leads to drama queen fans. Under Stalin the Soviets responded quickly to needs having starting in 1941; Hitler pushed German developments. The US had weak leadership where head of the AGF McNair resisted improvements in favor of Tank Destroyers and the other major Army leaders had no idea what to do, asking for improvements months after the timeline needed to implement them had passed. Such as the request for 1,000 x 90mm armed M4s late in 1943; they might have started arriving late in 1944 if someone overrode Armored Forces to prevent them from wasting months in trials and requiring fixes because the 90mm had no muzzle brake, etc. (See the76mm gun.) And asking the British to supply 17pdr armed M4s only after the need became obvious in 1944.  Britain had weak leadership in tank design and had to combine the 17pdr with the M4 to get it in a tank the Army wanted. The Armored Forces spent 21 months getting the M4 Sherman into production; they seemed to think that thereafter Ordance had a magical machine that could pump out new designs and produce them in a month's notice.70.175.11.15 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Take this for what you may: The explanations given so far must be overly complex. Boiled down (1) McNair did not directly interfere with development of the M26 only preferred to prevent production as stated on page 330 or 331 of On Beachhead and Battlefront: "General McNair had no objection to 'experimenting' with 90-mm. tanks, but felt that by supplying them AGF would be encouraging tank versus tank battles instead of giving antitank work to the field artillery and tank destroyers to which he thought it belonged." What he failed to do in his office was more important than any efforts he otherwise took. As commander of the Army Ground Forces he should have cultivated better combat vehicles. But, since he favored artillery and anti-tank guns he also let his leadership job slide. All he had to do was sit back and let the other branches fumble around failing to achieve anything. (2) The same culture that was responsible for the Tank Destroyer Doctrine was also responsible for slighting tank development. Yes, Tank Destroyers got better armed vehicles in the field, but in place of tanks. Work spent on the gun motor carriages could have been spent on better tanks. Again, as commander of the AGF McNair favored the tank destroyer concept (but also towed guns and artillery) over tanks so he let the Doctrine continue onward. (3) He let Ordnance fiddle around with designs like the T23 with an electrical transmission when as leader he might have ended that dead end and focused them on the 90mm armed M26. (4) If Armored Forces/Command/etc had participated more in some projects like the 76mm and M26 they may have been completed earlier and with better results. McNair let hem do as they pleased since he did not want the 76mm (at first) nor the M26. (4) Lacking the foresight of the British in arming tanks with better cannon like the 17 pounder, the ground combat commanders had only experience to teach them. As it is, they had it easy in 1942-1943 and while they took some lumps and losses their units "won" their battles so there were no had knocks let alone common sense to lead them to urgently call for better combat vehicles in 1942-1943. They did not need all tanks to mount a 17 pounder or 90mm; but rather something like the base M4 armed with the 76mm (properly set up with mzzle break, HE, WP, etc.) and 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 or so armed with a 17 pdr or 90mm. They had NONE so equipped when going into Europe in 1944. When Europe 1944 showed better guns were advisable, it was too late for anyone to provide them. That is what their "complacency" was about - the lack of personal or external forces to make them think, "Wait, why not have some well armed tanks available?" When they asked for 90mm armed M4s in 1943 and the 17 pounders in 1944, it was too late for action. McNair did not guide them along and force them to accept better tanks because he dd not want them to have better tanks. JDNatWiki (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "Britain had weak leadership in tank design and had to combine the 17pdr with the M4 to get it in a tank the Army wanted." - previously in 1940 Britain had had to leave most of its armour and other vehicles behind at Dunkirk and so unlike the US was having to maximise production of existing or modified vehicles at a time when it really needed to be developing new ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been nearly nine years since I started extensively revising this article on the M26 Pershing. If you go back in the history of the article, my first entry was:

08:06, 21 November 2009 68.120.230.38 (I didn't start a login ID until several entries later)

The previous version of the article can only be described as very incomplete, and contained a massive bit of fake history:

08:47, 7 November 2009 SmackBot

This was because it contained the slanderous claim by Belton Cooper, made in his book "Death Traps" (and also in a History Channel documentary in 2000 where he featured as an expert tank historian of sorts) that U.S. tanks, especially the M4 Sherman, were "vastly inferior" to German tanks and that Gen. Patton was the one who personally intervened to delay the development of the M26 Pershing.

By that time in 2009, Zaloga's books "Panther vs. Sherman" and "Armored Thunderbolt" had come out, and it was clear to me that Zaloga had written "Armored Thunderbolt" specifically to address all the Fake History that Belton Cooper had been spouting, basically making stuff up that wasn't true about both the M4 and Gen. Patton.

As I started writing and revising and adding to this article, I got more books to fill out my research, eventually finding a bootleg copy of Hunnicutt's Pershing tank book (I thought it was a legit reprint - I bought it on Amazon for a great price. Later, I tracked Hunnicutt down by phone to find out who owned the rights to the photos in his book, since Wiki editors were threatening to delete the photos I had posted unless I could prove they were public domain photos.    That was when Hunnicutt  told me that that particular copy was a ripoff unauthorized version Made in China for which he was not getting royalties.  And as it turns out, the photos in his book had been taken by a U.S. Army officer, in his official capacity as part of the Zebra Mission, so they were all public domain US government photos)

I also came across Zaloga's original "M26/M46 Pershing Tank" book, and was shocked to discover that this older Zaloga book contained that same bit of Fake History about Patton being the one responsible for delaying the development of the M26.

I've since realized that many of Zaloga's earlier works have similar sloppy such history - with tidbits about tanks and weapons thrown in without any accreditation and sometimes of dubious truth.

I decided that "Armored Thunderbolt" was a much better work by Zaloga, probably written specifically to right that wrong about Patton. You can see some serious research into the National Archives records in this book, and it is indeed quite well documented, with many many references  and information based on written letters between the generals involved.

My various revisions and additions to this article continued through 2010 and I stopped editing this article in 2011. Since that time there have been hundreds and hundreds of edits made by others. All of the details about Belton Cooper's false claims and why I devoted such a big chunk of the article on McNair's role in delaying the M26 have been deleted. Many of the tinier details about when or why and who did what in the history of the M26 also got deleted. A lot of useless extraneous little tidbits got thrown in by other editors. Still, about 80-90% of the information in this article is stuff I inputted.

So, if anybody thinks that the blame on McNair is not adequately documented in this article, all I can say is that well, blame the @#$%& Wiki editors who took out all of those details. This information was there originally in the versions of this article that I wrote, and they ARE in Zaloga's book "Armored Thunderbolt". The slightly different versions of this history in the books by Hunnicutt and George Forty are also documented in their books. And so there is plenty of documentation that AGF/McNair were to blame for the delay in development of the M26 and that Belton Cooper was totally off-base in his claims about Patton.

As to the delay merely being part of the "normal" development timeline for any tank, I would strongly disagree. The T23 with the 76mm gun had been developed by Jan. 1943 and 250 had been produced by the end of the year, and this was not even a full production tank. Devers had all along been advocating for a heavier tank with a 90mm gun and the "smoking gun" letter written by McNair slamming down his push for a tank with a 90mm was written in the FALL OF 1943. Despite this, Devers was able to get the T26E1 prototype produced and it was ready by February 1944. As such, similar numbers as the T23 could have been produced and sent to Europe by the time of the Battle of the Bulge, had MacNair not been in opposition and had full production been heavily pushed by somebody in charge. And, as it turned out, the #1 advocate for the M26, Devers,  got transferred to command of the 6th Army in Europe, and thus wasn't around anymore to push for this to happen faster.

Another detail that was in my original article was why the 17 pounder Sherman Firefly was not adopted by the US Army. Zaloga's book makes clear this was a case of the US Army favoring its  own 90mm gun over buying the British 17 pounder, and Devers may have been guilty of squashing and thus delaying earlier efforts to adopt a US Army version of the Firefly.

So there, go read the original books, or read the earlier versions of this article I wrote

DarthRad (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)DarthRad (talk)

It would help if wiki writers would read books other than the few popular ones. Some actually show the development process from a different perspective:

"Development of the forty T25s and ten T26s ordered in May 1943 never faltered during 1943 even though both AGF and ASF questioned the approval of Gen. Devers's request for mass production. Gen. Eisenhower's concurrence with Devers's request in January 1944 ended ASF's opposition. But technology could not be rushed. By 10 December 1943, drafting work was still only 95 percent complete on the T25 and an even slower 85 percent on the T26. [1] A pilot model of the T25 was completed in January 1945, and the T26 followed in February. (Production of the original order of forty T25s and ten T26s had been completed in May 1944). [2]

"Development of the T25 and T26 was not opposed by AGF or the Armored Force in 1944 despite post-war claims of the Ordnance Department's spokesmen to the contrary. . . . AGF cooperated with development in March by sending members of the Armored Board to Aberdeen to "shorten the time of tests." [5] (The Board did not usually participate in any tests until tanks arrived at Fort Knox.) "

[Faint Praise American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II page 119]

"Encouraged, Campbell finally made a direct proposal for large scale production. Writing to Brehon Somervell, Commander of ASF, on 31 March [1944], Campbell recommended that orders be placed for at least 2,000 or preferably 4,000 tanks in order to get them into production on a quantity basis during 1945. Campbell assured Somervell that it was not important to decide the proportion of T25 or T26 tanks immediately, since "from a tooling standpoint both tanks were very similar." Campbell assured him that detailed changes in the design made necessary by service tests, could easily be made in the six or eight months before production started. [13] Gen. Somervell's representative, Lucius Clay, quickly passed the buck to AGF, commenting on 2 April that it did nor seem advisable to begin retooling facilities unless a demand was established. But he left the decision to the officials of AGF if they were "prepared now to state that the model will be required in large numbers." [14]

"AGF acted quickly to assure the success of Campbell's proposal. Apparently, AGF had queried the Armored Board about the desirability of mass production. [Faint Praise American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II page 121]

"Despite AGF criticism of the armament of the T25, its request was a major victory for the Ordnance Department. Gen. McNair had finally agreed to large scale production for the T20 series. Gen. Campbell had requested only 2,000 to 4,000 of either the T25 or T26; the response from AGF for 7,600 of the tanks must have exceeded his wildest expectations. Since the AGF request had noted that production of M4s should cease as soon as production of T25s could meet operational requirements, McNair had finally found a tank good enough to replace the Sherman." [Faint Praise American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II page 124]

Production did not begin until November 1944, after test reports in May 1944 onward revealed many items to be fixed, production was set up and authorized by the bean counters. The T25 itself was dropped in the process: as for the T26/M26, 10 were produced in November, 30 in December, 70 in January 1945, 132 in February 1945 and so on.

2600:8804:9F03:200:E5BB:B13F:D7F0:B1B6 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Can this article get a bit more metrical units, such as weight in so-called "TONNE"
And why I don't see the calibre of the gun in the former colony's owners units? Why is it «90mm», not «90/2.54"»46.242.2.80 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gunner Seat M26A1.png

Not factual
The M26 Pershing was NOT the largest American tank of WW2 68.229.253.247 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:M26 Pershing


text:
Talk:Synaspismos

Article Name
The comma in the name of the article looks misplaced. I am inclined to change it. aliceinlampyland 17:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The comma has been removed, albeit somewhat belatedly, per the party's own preferred translation at http://www.syn.gr/en/profile.htm. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case when 'official translations' needs to be adjusted. The name as it stands now becomes highly awkward in English. An alternative would be 'Left Coalition of Movements and Ecology', or even better just 'Synaspismos' (with explanation of full name in the article heading). --Soman 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd go for "Synaspismos", as that is the name usually used in Greece. The word translates to "Coalition", but that would be a bit awkward for WP. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  11:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that in the link above, the party refers to itself as Synaspismos in English, with the full translation in brackets. --Soman 11:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we go for it then? --Michalis Famelis (talk)  12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it. It would make a hell of a lot of sense. English-speakers in Greece refer to it as Synaspismos, so too does the Athens News.--Damac 12:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved. Duja ► 10:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it exist?
The party was a part of Syriza coalition, which in 2012 transformed into a single party with Tsipras as a leader. Did Synaspismos cease to exist at that point, or is it still an existing party? Litawor (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Far left
As this party is essentially a successor to a Communist party, surely it is far left rather than left wing?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. Synaspimos was a very moderate force for most of its existence, not more radical than PASOK. --Soman (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * i doubt it since overwise they hadn't a reason to coexist Braganza (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Coalition of Left, of Movements and Ecology → Synaspismos – Move per WP:COMMONNAME. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Support: English-language expert literature almost always uses the short name Synaspismos and rarely the translated long form Coalition of (the) Left, of Movements and Ecology (ca. 11 google books hits for the latter vs. far more than 50 for the former). --RJFF (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People and media tend to use short names. Examples are many. In Greece for example PASOK and DIMAR are way more common than parties' full names. The problem here is that this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine nor a book so I think we should use the full name. Moreover, the full title marks the change of the name of the party some years ago when they switched for Coalition of Left and also marks the difference between this party and Synaspismos, the party coalition where KKE participated. Comment: The title of ANTARSYA needs more attention since there is inconsistency between the title (Front of the Greek Anticapitalist Left) and the leading text (Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow ). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Synaspismos


text:
Sifnos

Sifnos (Σίφνος) is an island municipality in the Cyclades island group in Greece. The main town, near the center, known as Apollonia (pop. 918 as of 2021), is home of the island's folklore museum and library. The town's name is thought to come from an ancient temple of Apollo on the site of the church of Panayia Yeraniofora. The second-largest town is Artemonas, thought to be named after an ancient temple of Apollo's sister Artemis, located at the site of the church of Panayia Kokhi. The village of Kastro, was the capital of the island during ancient times until 1836. It is built on top of a high cliff on the island's east shore and today has extensive medieval remains and is the location of the island's archeological museum. The port settlement, on the west coast of the island is known as Kamares.

Geography

Sifnos lies in the Cyclades between Serifos and Milos, west of Delos and Paros, about 130 km (80 nautical miles) from Piraeus (Athens' port). The municipality has an area of 73.942 km² and is 15 km long and 7.5 km wide. It has a shoreline of 70 km, with a permanent population of 2,625. The island is served by the ferries which run on the Piraeus – Kythnos – Serifos – Sifnos – Milos – Kimolos line and via Naxos. There are also infrequent sailings to other islands in the Cyclades.

To the south of the island, about 350 meters from the coast there is an uninhabited island, Kitriani.

History

Sifnos was inhabited by human beings from at least 4000 BCE. Archeological evidence indicates the island was within the mainstream of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cycladic civilization. The island was very wealthy in ancient times, thanks to its gold, silver, and lead, which were being mined there as early as the 3rd millennium BCE. Proof of this is the treasury which the Siphnians built at Delphi in the 6th century BCE to house their offerings. According to Pausanias, these mines were obliterated by floods in ancient times, a disaster which some attributed to the people of the island suspending their tribute out of greed. Modern scholars suggest that some of the mines flooded because they had eventually been dug to a depth below sea level, while the majority of them, situated far from the sea, were probably exhausted. Remains of ancient mines, some dating back to prehistoric times, are still to be seen on the island, most notably at Ay. Sostis, and remains of ancient fortifications, dating from the third millennium to the sixth century BCE, have been found at Ay. Andreas, Ay. Nikitas, and Kastro. Another indication of Sifnos's wealth is the fact that it was one of the first places in Greece to mint coins, beginning around 600 BCE, although the number minted does not seem to have been great, and the island of Aegina, which used Siphnian silver, seems to have developed a much greater export capacity in this form of the metal.

During the extensive Greek migrations which occurred beginning perhaps as early as the 12th century BCE, Sifnos was mostly populated by Ionian Greeks from Athens. The island appears only rarely in the subsequent ancient history of Greece. In the sixth century BCE it was invaded by pirates from Samos. In the fifth century BCE, Sifnos was an official member of the Greek defensive alliance formed to fight the Persian Wars. In the next century the island was briefly taken over by the Persians but liberated by a fleet sent by Alexander the Great. The verb "to play the Siphnian" appears in a fragment of Aristophanes, and is explained in the Suda alongside "to Lesbianize" as a reference to transgression.

Little is known of Sifnos during the Roman and Byzantine eras, though three Roman sarcophagi remaining in the streets of Kastro and a collection of 80 Byzantine coins in the museum there testify to substantial continued population during those times. In the early 14th century Sifnos came under the power of the Italian or Spanish Hospitaller Januli I da Corogna, who proclaimed the island independent from the Sanudo dynasty which then ruled most of the Cyclades area. The Corognas ruled Sifnos for over a hundred years; around 1440 as a result of a dynastic marriage power over the island passed to a Bolognese family, the Gozzadini, who ruled until 1617, the last of these rulers being Nikolas. Though both these dynasties became thoroughly Hellenized, they retained their Roman Catholic form of religion, and during the 1800s the Sifniotes continued to take pride in their Latin ancestry.

Little is also known of Sifnos during the Ottoman rule from 1617. It seems likely that, as in most of the Cyclades, Ottoman rule on Sifnos was fairly loose, consisting mainly of the collection of taxes, with the islanders largely administering their own affairs. By the early 17th century Sifnos was a significant commercial center, and from 1821 the island played an important role in the Greek War of Independence.

Notable figures from Sifnos in modern times include the educator and revolutionary leader Nikolaos Chrysogelos (1780–1858), who served as Greece's Minister of Education, and the chef Nikolaos Tselementes (1878–1958), who wrote a classic cookery book still used in Greece today.

The island's rich clay veins, sunny weather and temperature have made Sifnos a capital of pottery in the Aegean, with unique jars and pots that are a "trademark" of the island. They are typical of the Sifnian everyday life, such as ashtrays, cooking and food vessels, "masteles", "foufoudes" (kind of chimneys) etc. Locally, 'Sifnios' was a variant word for potter. The oldest potteries were found in central regions such as Artemon and Ano Petali to avoid pirate attacks.

Beaches
The most famous ones are:
 * Cherónnisos (Χερόννησος)
 * Pouláti (Πουλάτη)
 * Fáros (Φάρος)
 * Platís Gialós (Πλατύς Γιαλός)
 * Vathí (Βαθύ)
 * Apokoftó (Αποκοφτό)
 * Vroulídia (Βρουλίδια)
 * Fykiáda (Φυκιάδα)
 * Chrysopigí (Χρυσοπηγή)
 * Kamáres (Καμάρες)

Churches
There are 360 churches in the island of Sifnos, as per the days of the year, more than any other island in Cyclades. It is no coincidence, the large number of festivals held on the island almost every month. Many churches and monasteries of the island are historical sites with great religious and architectural interest. The most important one is the monastery of Panagia Chryssopigi. One of the most "popular" churches of the island, is one of the Seven Martyrs, where many couples choose to get married. Still, Panagia Poulati is renowned both for its beauty and the landscape that surrounds it.

Religious festivals (Panigiria)
Several religious festivals are held during the summer.
 * In July
 * St. Marina in Flabouro in the evening of the 17th
 * Prophet Helias (2 events both in the evening of the 19th: on the top of the tallest mountain-also known as Prophet Helias the tall and in Troullaki respectively)
 * In August
 * Holy Virgin (Panagia) on the 15th. There are many events on the following days.
 * Panagia tou Nigiou, in the evening of the 16th
 * Panagia Platanissa, in the evening of the 16th
 * Panagia to Toso Nero, in the evening of the 17th
 * St.Symeon in the evening of the 31st

Cuisine
Local dishes:
 * Mastelo: goat or lamb marinated in red wine and dill, cooked in special clay pot – called mastelo – in a wood fired oven. Traditionally served on Holy Saturday evening, during Orthodox Easter.
 * Revithada: chickpea soup cooked overnight in a wood-fired oven, in clay cooking pots called skepastaria. Traditionally served after Sunday church services.
 * Manoura Sifnou: local cheese

Omega3, a high-end seafood restaurant located in the southern seaside town of Platys Gialos, offers sushi and other non-traditional dishes. It has been visited by numerous celebrities, including Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Tom Hanks.

Subdivisions
The municipality Sifnos is subdivided into the following districts and villages:
 * Apollonia (Apollonia, Vathy, Kamares, Kastro, Kato Petali, Platys Gialos, Faros, Chrysopigi)
 * Artemonas (Artemonas, Agia Marina, Troulaki, Cherronisos)

People

 * Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople (1850-1924)
 * Patriarch Hierotheus II of Alexandria (?-1858)
 * Aristomenis Provelengios (1850-1936), poet and politician
 * Nikolaos Tselementes (1878-1958), chef
 * Nikos Chrysogelos (born 1959), politician

title: Sifnos


text:
Talk:Phosphorated hydrogen

Spelling
This archaic name for phosphine is properly spelled phosphureted hydrogen. However, the 'rationalized' spelling phosphorated hydrogen is about as common by Google hit count, so I'm adding that as a synonym. Herbee 11:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phosphorated hydrogen


text:
Westbere

Westbere is a small village and civil parish in Kent, England, centred 4 mi north-east of Canterbury city centre along the A28 road to the Isle of Thanet.

Geography
The relatively small area parish in this district is agricultural in most of its land use then residential as a subsidiary. It comprises a preservation area that overlooks Westbere lakes (created by gravel extraction) that teem with birds and wildlife. The village spreads along a steep wooded bank north of the Great Stour between the A28 and the Ashford to Ramsgate railway. With fewer than 130 properties, it is a peaceful rural village with a variety of dwellings including a minority of hall houses built in the 15th century; some historic cottages and barns; a few Georgian and similar period properties surviving for wealthy residents and some modern houses and bungalows. Because it was for so long a poor farming community, it was not targeted for development in Victorian times and the central part of Westbere, in particular, remains quaint and rural. Westbere lakes, created when a former quarry was flooded, now form an extensive wetland area with reed beds.

History
Westbere has been on important transport routes, and the subject of development, for at least two millennia. Given its historical position on these routes it is not surprising that Westbere has had significant archaeological discoveries recorded over the last couple of centuries, including prehistoric artefacts, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon burials and a large Iron Age Romano-British settlement (now beneath Lakesview International Business Park). Almost all were discovered accidentally; it did not prove possible to assess their full significance properly and they have been sparse in number given the long known history of settlement. All relate to a relatively narrow time period, roughly 700 BC to 700 AD, after which there is a gap until the church appears sometime after the Norman conquest. Much probably remains to be discovered and a full archaeological assessment and history are still waiting to be written.

Economy
There has been industrial development in some of the areas beyond the village including the now closed Chislet Colliery and the new Lakesview International Business Park.

Culture
Venues exist in the village and social events are well-supported, mainly:
 * Westbere annual Summer Picnic
 * Westbere community Christmas lunch
 * Westbere Christmas carols on the Green.

One of the organisations, the Westbere Village Preservation Society, has set up a Westbere Heritage Trail with a grant from the Local Heritage Initiative. An illustrated and descriptive walking trail leaflet is accompanied by a booklet which contains contributions from many villagers. Subjects documented include the architecture, industry, the lakes, local traditions and treasures, natural and social history, All Saints Church and Ye Olde Yew Tree Inn. The Village Hall houses an album quilt with the theme "Living in Westbere" made entirely by the residents of Westbere parish.

Amenities
The village has no formal centre with shops and other services; All Saints Church presides from the hill slope in Church Lane; there is a much used village hall and the local inn, Ye Olde Yew Tree dating from the 15th century, is popular with locals and visitors. The Inn was built in 1348 and it is one of the oldest pubs in Kent. Queen Anne and the Archbishop of Canterbury are reputed to have stayed here, and Dick Turpin evaded capture from the law hiding out here. The building was used as a hospital to treat wounded soldiers during the civil war and supposedly it has two ghosts. The interior is heavily beamed and features a large inglenook fireplace.

title: Westbere


text:
Mercy seat

According to the Hebrew Bible, the kaporet (כַּפֹּרֶת kapōreṯ) or mercy seat was the gold lid placed on the Ark of the Covenant, with two cherubim at the ends to cover and create the space in which Yahweh appeared and dwelled. This was connected with the rituals of the Day of Atonement. The term also appears in later Jewish sources, and twice in the New Testament, from where it has significance in Christian theology.

Etymology
The etymology of kaporet (הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת) is unclear. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that "some translate simply 'cover'", whilst others posit a different Hebrew or foreign origin.

In the Hebrew Bible
According to the biblical account, the cover was made from pure gold and was the same width and breadth as the ark beneath it, 2.5 cubits long and 1.5 cubits wide. Two golden cherubim were placed at each end of the cover facing one another and the mercy seat, with their wings spread to enclose the mercy seat. The cherubim formed a seat for Yahweh. The ark and mercy seat were kept inside the Holy of Holies, the temple's innermost sanctuary which was separated from the other parts of the temple by a thick curtain (parochet).

The Holy of Holies could be entered only by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. The high priest sprinkled the blood of a sacrificial bull onto the mercy seat as an atonement for the sins of the people of Israel.

In rabbinic tradition
After the destruction of the Second Temple, just as the Torah scroll was contained in a Torah ark (Aron HaKodesh, "Holy ark") in synagogues, so also the term kaporet was applied to the valance of the parochet (Hebrew: "curtain") on this ark.

Second Temple era sources
In the Hellenistic Jewish Septuagint the term was rendered hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον, "thing that atones"), following the secondary meaning of the Hebrew root verb "cover" ( kaphar) in pi'el and pu'al as "to cover sins," "to atone" found also in kippurim. Hilastērion is relatively rare in classical Greek and appears largely in late writings to reference a sacrifice to appease the wrath of a deity. The term in the Septuagint was translated in the Latin Vulgate Bible with the word propitiatorium from which we get our English word propitiation.

In the New Testament
Hilastērion is found twice in the New Testament: Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. In the passage in Romans the term is typically translated "propitiation" or "sacrifice of atonement," whereas in the passage in Hebrews the term is typically translated "mercy seat," the traditional term for the gold lid on the Ark of the Covenant. The difference in translation is explained by the different contexts. In Romans the context is the sacrificial death of Christ, whereas in the Hebrew passage the context is a description of the Holy of Holies and its contents. The Epistle to the Hebrews portrays the role of the mercy seat during Yom Kippur Day of Atonement as a prefiguration of the Passion of Christ, which was a greater atonement, and the formation of a New Covenant (Hebrews 9:3–15). The Yom Kippur ritual was a shadow of things to come (Hebrews 10:1). The continual sacrifice for sin under the Mosaic covenant became obsolete following the once-for-all sacrificial death of Christ.

In English Bibles
The first English Bible, translated from Latin 1382, renders the term a propiciatory following the Vulgate propitiatorium, and in the first occurrence, Exodus 25:17, also inserts an unbracketed gloss "that is a table hiling the ark" – hiling is Middle English for "covering".

The term propitiatory was also used by J.M. Powis Smith, a Protestant, in The Complete Bible: An American Translation, published in 1939. The originally Protestant translation "mercy seat" was not followed by Ronald Knox, but has since been largely adopted also by Roman Catholic Bible versions, such as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985.

title: Mercy seat


text:
Hugo Maradona

Hugo Hernán Maradona (9 May 1969 – 28 December 2021), also known as El Turco, was an Argentine football player and coach. He was the younger brother of Diego Maradona. He played as a midfielder for clubs in South America, Europe, Japan, and Canada, and was a member of the Argentina U-16 national team.

Career
In 1985, Maradona was a part of the Argentina U-16 national team's squad that competed at the U16 South American and World Championships in China. In Argentina's first round match against Congo, he scored two goals to help the team to a 4–2 win, which however was one goal short of what Argentina needed to advance past the group stage.

During 1987, Hugo Maradona was bought by Ascoli to play in the Italian Serie A championship. He played just 13 matches without scoring a goal and was sold at the end of the season to Rayo Vallecano in Spain. During 1989 he moved again, that time to Rapid Wien, and after that experience he went back to Argentina.

In 1992, he moved to Japan to play for the PJM Futures (renamed as Tosu Futures after changing their hometown in 1994), which was aiming to promote to the newly inaugurated J.League. After playing for Futures for three seasons, he played for Fukuoka Blux (known as Avispa Fukuoka since 1996) in the 1995 and 1996 seasons and Hokkaido Consadole Sapporo in the 1997 and 1998 seasons.

After retiring from association football as a player, Maradona lived a relatively quiet life in Argentina.

In 2004, Hugo Maradona moved part-time to Puerto Rico, where he became part of that country's association football federation's attempt to invigorate the sport among Puerto Ricans by becoming the head coach of the Puerto Rico Islanders, a team in the American USL First Division. He then moved back to Italy, working for a number of youth and amateur teams in the Naples region.

Personal life and death
Maradona was born in Lanús on 9 May 1969, as the youngest sibling of brothers Diego Maradona and Raúl Maradona, both noted footballers in their own right. His father Diego Maradona "Chitoro" (1927–2015), who worked at a chemicals factory, was of Guaraní (Indigenous) and Galician (Spanish) descent, and his mother Dalma Salvadora Franco, "Doña Tota" (1930–2011), was of Italian descent.

He died from a heart attack at his home in Monte di Procida, near Naples, on 28 December 2021, at the age of 52. He has 3 kids with ex-wife, Delia Occhionero. Fraternal twins, Nicole and Thiago Maradona, and Melina Maradona.

title: Hugo Maradona


text:
Talk:ISO 3166-2:ES

Should the "Autonomous communities" be included on this page? The codes don't seem to fit the format, although they are mentioned on the ISO newsletters. --Phil | Talk 11:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

=
================================

In Spain, Spanish is everywhere an official language, there are no regions where the regional language is the sole official language. They are co-official.

=
================================

The page is just wrong, as is the page for Albania (and maybe others). The codes do fit the format, it is simply that in some cases 3166-2 describes a hierarchy and in those cases the top level codes are shown stripped of their country prefix.

3166-2:ES describes three types of entity. autonomous communities, provinces categorised by autonomous community, and African cities.

Sorted alphabetically by province within community, the correct situation for Spain is:

Andalucía (8)   Almería Cádiz Córdoba Granada Huelva Jaén Málaga Sevilla Aragón (3)   Huesca Teruel Zaragoza Asturias, Principado de (1)   Asturias Canarias (2)   Las Palmas Santa Cruz de Tenerife Cantabria (1)   Cantabria Castilla-La Mancha (5)   Albacete Ciudad Real Cuenca Guadalajara Toledo Castilla y León (9)   Ávila Burgos León Palencia Salamanca Segovia Soria Valladolid Zamora Cataluña (4)   Barcelona Girona Lleida Tarragona Extremadura (2)   Badajoz Cáceres Galicia (4)   A Coruña Lugo Ourense Pontevedra Illes Balears (1)   Baleares La Rioja (1)   La Rioja Madrid, Comunidad de (1)   Madrid Murcia, Région de (1)   Murcia Navarra, Comunidad Foral de (1)   Navarra País Vasco (3)   Álava Guipúzcoa Vizcaya Valenciana, Comunidad (3)   Alicante Castellón Valencia Autonomous cities in North Africa (2):   Ceuta Melilla

Note that with the exception of the Balearics (IB/PM), whenever a Community maps to a single province the upper and lower level codes are the same. Additionally the above table shows the correct labels which are also a key part of the Standard!

Hope that helps. Can somebody please rewrite the article accordingly? Chris Dent

title: Talk:ISO 3166-2:ES


text:
Talk:Pacific sleeper shark

Untitled
Several references around the web say that the Sleeper Shark (also known as the Greenland Shark) is arctic, not antarctic. The species describe here sounds different.

And the "scientists are unsure" thing is just nonsense. Sharks are much thicker than giant squid, which are long, but narrow.

Pacific sleeper shark
The claim that eating urea-rich flesh seems to be unsupported trivia. Can a source be found for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.103.207 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

was a Pacific sleeper shark deemed the largest shark ever filmed?
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean... The two largest species of shark (and fish in general) are the Whale shark and the Basking shark, and I believe both have been filmed. --KFP 14:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the documentary I watched ment the largest toothed shark ever filmed.

I have seen the video footage of this shark it is much, much bigger than any whale shark could ever be. so big that its whole body could not be filmed.

Huh? Bigger than a whale shark? Better go read some Web sites where KNOWN shark species lengths and weights and other vital measurements are compared.68.13.191.153 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"300 pups in a litter" Unable to find info to verify that number. 300 is a LOT of little sharklets. Verification would be incredibly groovy.68.13.191.153 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleeping Shark?
According to a couple of articles that i've found today, here and here reference is made to a Sleeping Shark, the largest shark in the world, that is a mystery as recently as 2003. Anyone know anythign really about this?--The Sporadic Update 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They refer to the pacific sleeping shark. Both those sites mentioned are incredibly inaccurate; one of them a famous russian tabloid; the other a creationist propaganda site. The tabloid has for some reason came to confuse "23-26 feet" with 23-26 metre (70-85 feet or so). Anyway, they both deal with the filming of a very large pacific sleeper shark by the coast of Japan in the early 1990's. It can be found here on YouTube. Experts said it was roughly 23 feet long. Luka 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Range of the shark
I was just reading the article on colossal squids and looked at the sleeper shark afterwards. The ranges seem to be in the wrong hemisphere-the squids are described as inhabiting the oceans around Antarctica and this shark seems to exclusively live around the Arctic. How can this be? JJ (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the same thing, the article itself gives a much different range i think the picture is just plain wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.110.13 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to the range map, it is wrong according to fishbase, and notified the maker of the map, I'm pretty sure he has a correct map somewhere and misnamed them. --Stefan talk 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw a documentary, into the abyss and the scientist who first filmed the sleeper shark on film for the first time, filmed a second sleeper shark in a area that was thousands of miles from where it was previousley recorded, so their range is huge.70.129.20.225 (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)B

The range of this shark is wrong again. The article itself mentions a shark examined that was caught off the coast of chile but the map doesn't show chile or any part of south america as the habitat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Caused by former confusion with southern sleeper shark, a separate but closely related species of the southern oceans. 62.107.193.251 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Newer footage of the Pacific Sleeper Shark was caught in the caldera of the volcano Kavachi, which is not included in this range map. Needs to be changed. --75.161.173.3 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Quotations?
Why are there quotations around the word Megalodon? It doesn't seem like the correct usage of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.202.105 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Caudal Fin Storage?
"Pacific sleeper sharks have a short caudal fin, which allows them to store energy for fast and violent bursts of energy to catch prey." This sentence suggests that the sharks store energy in their caudal fins, which is highly unlikely. Equally unlikely is the notion that the sharks use energy bursts to catch prey. That makes it sound as if they have some sort of science fiction blaster gun. I'll check the associated citation to see if it's a syntax issue on the part of the Wiki contributor. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pacific sleeper shark