text:
Talk:USS Stark

Untitled
This entry has major shortfalls. This a significant enough subject that it deserves a significant expansion. The Stark is perhaps known best for the attack, which ought to go into the first paragraph. It's missing significant details of the attacks, particularly the idea that it was the fuel of the missiles that created the largest problem. I'm going to link to the formal report and hope someone else takes this up before I get around to it. Other stuff: http://usscoontz.tripod.com/id23.html http://www.ussstark.com --Thatnewguy 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note, as a good family friend of mine was an Officer on the Stark and had just left the bridge when the ship was struck by the Iraqi Exocets. The following statement from the original wiki article is misleading and needs clarification:

"Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles."

As it was explained to me by my friend, Iraqi fighters regularly flew intercept missions in the gulf and "painted" US warships by radar. Nothing ever came of these radar locks, and it was more or less perceived to be a routine non-hostile occurrence by both sides. I hesitate to use the word "game", but encounters of this nature were relatively routine and generally weren't considered to be a threat by either side. An Iraqi fighter would lock onto the ship, the ship would lock onto the aircraft, and the aircraft would disengage and break off until the next time.

In the events leading up to the attack on the Stark, this same pattern of radar banter took place, except that this time, the Iraqi Mirage unloaded the Exocets straight into the Stark's hull. My friend believes that there was no error on the part of the Iraqi aviator, and that he had every intention of firing on the ship. While this is conjecture on my friend's part and is certainly open for debate, the later claims by the Iraqi aviator that he thought the Stark was an Iranian oil tanker seem suspect at best, given the routine and specific encounters between US Naval Warships and Iraqi fighter aircraft in the gulf at the time.
 * Be bold Make the change that you think should be made. Jinian 17:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

explain what "routinely challenged" means
"Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles."

What does this mean? This sounds like milspeak that the average person would not understand. Please elaborate.
 * The article has no info on what (if any) IFF mode, if any, was in use. —Dgiest c 08:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent 5 years on board the U.S.S DeWert FFG-45, same class of ship as the Stark. i deployed to the Persian gulf in Dec. of 1988. During the time period the Stark and we were there, Iran and Iraq were fighting a war and were shooting at tankers and mining the gulf. therefore the gulf was considered a war / hostile zone. It is standard procedure for any U.S navy ship operating in international waters to "routinely challenge" any air, surface or subsurface vessel approaching it. this merely consists of the ship transmitting over various radio frequencies that the vessel is approaching a us naval warship operating in international waters and to identify itself and state its intentions. This is done prior to taking any action against the vessel approaching (including engaging with weapons)if time allows for the challenge to be issued.Roberts114 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Way Off
I'd suggest searching online for other accounts of the attack. The book didn't even get my name spelled right, so has lower credibility with me. You'll find plenty of the survivors out there to use as primary sources.

Both missiles struck in the same spot, in the hull, port side, just aft of the fore end of the superstructure. The first warhead did not explode; it passed completely through the ship and struck the inside of the starboard hull without exiting. That warhead was later removed by an explosives disposal team. The second missile exploded immediately upon impact, leaving the huge hole in the port side hull. Note that neither missile operated as designed; they were supposed to penetrate far into a ship and explode deep within it.

The two missiles dumped a total of around 600 pounds of propellent into the ship, and the resulting fires were devestating, far more so than the warheads. The fires took over twelve hours to extinguish, and could not have been defeated without equipment and assistance from nearby ships.

Stark was towed back to Bahrain for temporary repairs, and later returned to the United States under her own power.

The Captain and two other officers were found to be at fault in the attack, but the crew as a whole was cited for "clear thinking, exceptional courage and extraordinary herosim" in saving the ship. The two officers found at fault with the Captain were still awarded the Navy/Marine Corps Medal for their efforts and valor in the damage control.

Source: FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ATTACK ON THE USS STARK (FFG 31) ON 17 MAY 1987; by Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group Two, Ser00/S-0487, 12 June 1987 (edited to be made unclassified)

If you're looking for Post Traumatic Stress patients, several can be found in this crew. 207.190.80.125 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have a question for you: If Stark had a CIWS system did the R2D2 attempt to shoot down the incoming missile? And for the matter did Stark have any anti-missile missile systems that could have intercepted the vampire? TomStar81 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Exocet is a fire and forget anti ship cruise missile. As a sea-skimming missile, it has a rocket motor burning solid fuel propellant, the warhead is activitated by a delay proximity fuse. The operational requirement for exocet at the design stage was to disable ships and not sink them. Hence the size of it and the adaptability of the design to be launched off of different platforms, e.g. ship, aircraft, land battery and submarine. The missile travels subsonically at 600mph, which means that the delay fuse, has to be very short if it is to detonate correctly inside the ship. From the information given the fuse setting was too long with the first missile, at 600mph that is 880ft in 1s. In the case of the second I would argue that this missile detonated correctly inside the ship, after the delay proximity fuse has wound down, when the head had punctured the ships side. At 600mph the missile travels: 22ft in (1/40)s i.e 0.025s. It is aparrent that the settings of the fusing was different in both missiles, although, they were fired from the same platform. This could be pilot error in the data transfers programming the missiles from the aircrafts weapons system. Aquizard 5:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Punishment of the Iraqi pilot
"According to Iraqi officials, the pilot who attacked the Stark was not punished. Though American officials believed he had been executed, journalist Robert Fisk, in his book The Great War For Civilisation, quotes an ex-Iraqi Air Force commander who says the pilot is still alive." This could use an explanation - why would one expect the Iraqi pilot be punished?--Nonpareility 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This was during the Iran-Iraq war. The United States was not at war with Iraq at the time, and so the attack was most likely not authorized. ♠ SG →Talk 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Could someone explain to me why a pilot who flies a Mirage aircraft specifically designed for anti-shipping-strikes, who- as a result of the fact that the Iranian navy only had three ships warranting an anti-shipping-strike, which effectively never even left port for the duration of hostilities with Iraq- spend his time as a pilot in exercises and on patrols, has the capacity to find a target the size of a frigate, while the navigational skills of Iraqi pilots in general were so refined that they could not even find a target the size of Teheran ? --If I remember correctly, then those very navigational skills were the very reason why AWACS- aircraft were sent to Saudi-Arabia as part of the clandestine support for Iraq during that conflict. They guided Iraqi bombers to their targets acting as radio-beacons. 86.41.214.219 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TimeZone
The times listed during the attack are meaningless w/o a timezone attached. Can some one update?--J Clear 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

CIWS?
Just out of interest, why exactly did the CIWS not shoot down the Exocets? Although I have seen a source that says that no Phalanx system has ever intercepted and destroyed an incoming missile in a war time situation (SeaDart having destroyed the Silkworm(?) missle fired in the gulf war) TheMongoose 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think CIWS are left in an active state. I'm guessing there's a good chance they'd lock up on approaching aircraft, such as the ship's own LAMPS, so are left in standby or off.  Ever see the movie Under Siege?  So if, as stated in the article, the Stark did not detect the Exocet launch, the CIWS would not have been enabled, thus never even attempted to destroy them. --J Clear 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The official investigation report {dead link} try JAG.Navy.mil declassified (16-May-20110) indicates the CIWS was in Standby mode, a non-firing mode which I believe means it was not searching for targets, and that the STIR missile fire-control radar was obstructed by the forward mast because of the ships heading. The Exocet's struck the forward-port side (from approx 330 relative to the ship pdf page 9), if the STIR was in a cutout its possible the CIWS was also obstructed, or close to it since it is on the aft part of the ship. I'd say that even if the CIWS was in the right mode, it may have been a close call as far as coverage goes. After reading the investigation report, it seems they had a number of problems with the CIWS anyway. They hadn't done a pre-action calibration because of a misunderstanding as to where they could test fire and the CIWS was intermittently failing a system test (SOT 5, whatever that is). In addition to that, the CIC watchstander in charge of operating the CIWS by remote control was on a bathroom break during the initial stages of the engagement. Since he died in the attack he was probably in or near the berthing area that was hit, and not available to take or recommend defensive action assigning the STIR or activating CIWS. He was replaced by another operator moments before the missiles hit, but the STIR cutout problem prevented a decent track on the aircraft and prevented detection of the inbound missiles. --Dual Freq 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (Reworded --Dual Freq 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

 * I've added a port bow view of USS Ford to give kind of an idea the angle the missile may have approached toward Stark. The pdf says 330° relative, so 30° off the bow on the port side, similar to the image. From this image you can see that the STIR is obstructed by the mast, as mentioned in the report, and it looks like a very poor angle for a CIWS engagement, depending on the altitude of the inbound missiles. Its a close call, they might have had a shot, certainly better odds if they had maneuvered as mentioned in the investigation pdf. --Dual Freq 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * No Higher Honor website Stark section, says the first missile hit 8 feet above the waterline. I'm guessing the impact point must have been close to the cruising altitude of the Exocet. If that is correct, that would mean the camera angle on the Ford above should be a bit lower, making it even harder for the CIWS to shoot without the Stacks or the superstructure getting in the way of the bullets. --Dual Freq 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reactions of Iraqi and US governments
Any sources on reactions to the Exocet attack? Did the Iraqis apologise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

i seem to recall there was a lawsuit against the Navy and DoD on this, that in part alleges the stark command staff had been pulled off a few days prior and the stark was sailing with unseasoned junior officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.36 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Investigation" section
I have moved the followed newly added (and ill-proofed) text here pending citations. Among other things, Brindel was a commander, not a captain, and was not demoted.

 * Captain Glenn Brindel who just on year earlier been warned by Lieutenant Commander Chris Scoppa the damage control engineer of how they where susceptible to attack. And asked for more safety precautions on the different areas of the ship. After Captain Brindel had ignored a list of memo’s and letters, Chris Scoppa had a heated argument with the Captain, which ended in the court-martial of the lieutenant Commander for insubordination. Due to overwhelming evidence that the captain had ignored precautions and blatantly dismissed what the damage control officer said Lieutenant Commander Chris Scoppa was found not guilty and was reassigned to the N.A.T.O. position. After the bombing of the coal Captain Brindel was given serious attention due to the evidence of negligence brought forward in the court-martial of Chris Scoppa. Captain brindel was demoted and later retired from the navy.

PRRfan 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New article Glenn R. Brindel. Retired at a reduced grade due to lack of time in service per The New York Times. Navy Forgoes Courts-Martial for Officers of Stark. July 28, 1987. --Dual Freq 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The USS Stark incident
Iran hit the stark, not Iraq.

From Senate Resolution 82, May 5, 1997.

"Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am submitting today a resolution to address a matter that I consider vital to our national security. I have here a picture of the U.S.S. Stark that was disabled 10 years ago by an Exocet missile fired by the Iranians. Thirty-seven American sailors were killed in this disaster."

65.183.163.148 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you and Mr. Bennett are in error. See, among every other credible source, the Navy's report on the matter. PRRfan 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Here is the text from the Congressional record:

"Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am submitting today a resolution to address a matter that I consider vital to our national security. I have here a picture of the U.S.S. Stark that was disabled 10 years ago by an Exocet missile fired by the Iranians [sic; the missile was fired by Iraq]. Thirty-seven American sailors were killed in this disaster." Where is says "sic" is a correction that was inserted later. I think the error was intentional.--Two way time (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Name spelling
One question, SN Mark R. Caouette's last name is spelled Caouette in most news articles and in the investigation report. However, it is spelled Caquette on the Image:USS Stark (FFG-31) memorial in Mayport.jpg (4th from top left side). Which is correct, and should it be changed here? Personally, I hope the memorial is spelled correctly since I think someone would have complained about a mispelling on a monument and the QU makes sense to me, but the bulk of the articles back the first spelling and there are virtually no hits for Caquette and Stark on google. --Dual Freq 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mirage F1 or military Falcon ?
You will finds three types of sources for this plane : Among them, Gal Ahmad Sadik, former IrAF Gal and author of many books about warplanes. The Falcon did have two pods. Make your choice ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sources stating "warplane" quite prudently
 * sources stating Mirage F1, generally with no explanation
 * sources stating Falcon, adding that the Mirage F1 EQ5:
 * did not have the necessary range
 * was fitted with only one Exocet missile, whereas 2 were fired by a single plane.

 * The JAG report says it was an F1. It would be nice to know the location of the attack to calculate the range needed. It took off from Basra which is next to the gulf. The F1 can carry two Exocets according to its own article. So, it sounds possible and the military says its so. IMO, that part needs to say in the article.

 * I found a reference to it being a "Iraqi Falcon 50" ("Ship Strike" ISBN 1853107735) but not sure if this person is just guessing. Maybe we can add " (although some believe it to be an Falcon)" to the text. --MarsRover (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've talked with one of Falcon 50 pilots and he confirmed that they are who did hit the USS Stark. I've written all the details here http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=663 41.46.94.66 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Humm.. it is hearsay at best. And I doubt an Iraqi pilot would be speaking flawless English. --MarsRover (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an "Official Website of the United States Navy... produced by the Defense Media Activity for U.S. Navy Office of Information" that says it was a "Dassault Falcon 50 modified business jet". Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And here's a good one. I think we should go with this, it's a good compromise. "Iraqi F-1 Dassault Falcon 50". Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Only attack againt US navy?
The anti-ship missile article right there sez "The first anti-ship missiles, which were developed and built by Nazi Germany used radio command guidance, and these saw some success in the Mediterranean Theater in 1943 - 44, sinking or heavily damaging several ships, such as the Italian battleship Roma or the cruiser USS Savannah. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.220.243 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010

Need to balance detail
WP:Summary style level of detail re the missile attack incident needs balancing between the USS Stark (FFG-31) and the USS Stark incident articles, or perhaps the latter article should be merged into the former. Please discuss at Talk:USS Stark (FFG-31). Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content re Dassault Falcon 50
This edit, saying  caught my eye. The edit also removed the cite of this source to support the removed content. I see that this has been discussed in the section above, and I think I remember seeing it come up re this article on other occasions. I don't have any inside info or personal POV re this content, but WP:DUE comes to mind. Reliability of supporting sources is one criterion under DUE. The cite which was removed was to an article at the website of The National Interest; that article mentions this book as a source of information. I haven't looked at the book, but I did glance at this list of books credited to one of the authors. Offhand, this looks to me as if it might meet the "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" criterion of DUE for inclusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I've done some more searching and have found more sources mentioning this. One of them is Look at the content startinng with what I've highlighted on page 408 there. As I say, I have no idea what might or might not have actually happened, but it looks to me as if the existence of the Falcon 50 narrative has sufficient weight for inclusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I've found another reasonable-looking source. That has a section titled The Stark Incident beginning on page 306. The pages immediately following that are not previewable online, but I've looked at an e-book version of that source. It says there, "... It turns out that the aircraft that fired at the Stark was not a Mirage, but a French-made Falcon 50 transport aircraft that [...] As a stop-gap measure, the Iraqis had then modified two Falcon 50s with the F1's firing radar and control systems. One of the Falcons was fully equipped to carry Exocets, [...], and gives more detail which I have not requoted here. Again, it looks like this meets inclusion criteria of DUE. Unless there is objection, and if nobody else does it before I get to it, I'll probably add a section to the article about the existence of this alternative narrative. Discussion? Objection? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC (added info) Looking at this material related to this incident, I note that paragraph 2 on page 10/55 of the PDF (being page 2 of the Formal Report letter identified there as 5102, SER000/S-0487, 12 June 1987) is redacted. Looking at the copy of that report located here, I see that this paragraph is unredacred there and contains the information, "About ten minutes prior to being hit by the first Exocet, STARK detected emissions from a Cyrano IV radar correlating to an F1 Mirage fighter". This is probably too far down in the weeds of primary sources to mention in a WP article, and making a linkage in a WP article between this and the mention in the (Murray, Woods 2004) book mentioned above that the Falcon-50s had been fitted with Mirage F1 firing radar and control systems would be WP:OR. Having noticed it, though, I thought that I would make note of that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) (added info) I see here that there's still edit warring going on in the article over this. I'm not going to pursue that as an issue (the edit warrior is an anon with a one-use IP address). I've seen a couple of some other sources (AB CD ) with apparently relevant info, including photos showing Saddam Hussain pictured with a modified Falcon-50 housing what is said to be a Mirage-F1 nose cone with Mirage radar and fire control systems fitted to it. I've seen no discussion from anyone else here, so I'll probably put some content about this in the article next week.

Stopping work on this
I apologize, but I'm going to have to stop work on this. It looks to me as if I've turned up sufficient sources to, at minimum, support the inclusion of a summary of the Falcon-50 attacker narrative as an alternative to the Mirage attacker narrative. However, it also looks to me that doing that would involve significant rewriting in this article and major rewriting in the USS Stark incident article, and I am not up to doing that. I have linked the online sources I've found above, but I'm going to have to back out of doing the rewriting. Apologies for that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 * well, we miss you. 137.188.108.28 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:USS Stark


text:
Code page 865

Code page 865 (CCSID 865) (also known as CP 865, IBM 00865, OEM 865, DOS Nordic ) is a code page used under DOS in Denmark and Norway to write Nordic languages (except Icelandic, for which code page 861 is used).

Code page 865 differs from code page 437 in three points: 0x9B (ø instead of ¢), 0x9D (Ø instead of ¥) and 0xAF (¤ instead of »). The letter Ø is required for the Danish and Norwegian languages.

In the BBS software MBBS and its descendant BBBS, code page 865 was referred to as IBN (by contrast with IBM, which was used for code page 437).

Character set
The following table shows code page 865. Each character is shown with its equivalent Unicode code point. Only the second half of the table (code points 128–255) is shown, the first half (code points 0–127) being the same as code page 437.

{{legend|#FFD|Differences from code page 437}}

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

title: Code page 865


text:
Talk:Veritas (political party)

Untitled
http://www.veritasparty.com

Truth in Latin - "I would add this, but the page is currently being edited, and I don't want to break anything!"

Folded into page. Simultaneous editing is OK, it breaks nothing, changes are kept in old versions, you just need to watch what's been altered:)

-
 * The party has been criticised as little more than a vanity vehicle for Kilroy-Silk after his failed leadership bid for UKIP

Criticised by whom? Some evidence wouldn't go amiss if NPOV is to be maintained. 80.255 21:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Try a Google search for "veritas vanitas" for lots and lots of examples. -- The Anome 22:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the fact about the award won by the party at the PSA awards - it was turkey of the year, not party of the year. Cordless Larry 13:07, Dec 15, 2005 (UTC)

RKS's previous allegiances
Should this party really be listed in the right-wing populist category seeing as RKS is a former Labourite?
 * Yes, IMHO. The category is defined by the policies of the party, not by the career history of its leader. Wombat 12:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to violate Godwin's Law, but Oswald Mosley was also a former Labourite.

What policies besides immigration make them right-wing populist?
 * Flat rate tax is seen as right-wing ("progressive" tax is left wing), and anti-European policies are seen as right-wing these days (but this is less clear). Andreww 11:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Flat rate taxes would have more than doubled Mitt Romney's tax obligations. Prior to the Conservative Party's Canadian tax reforms of 1977, people with gross incomes in the ninth decile paid the lowest percentage of their income in overall taxes of any level of income earners.

 * The ninth decile of income is where you will find most of the lawyers, accountants, and paper-pushers who write the regulations. Milovan Djilas' New Class, alive and well at a location near you!

 * And it wasn't Mike Godwin, it was a Canadian guy named Sexton, a Web pioneer of the late '80's or so, who first said "Every argument will end up with somebody bringing in Hitler -- and the first person to do so loses."

 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party was in power in Canada until 1979, and the subsequent Progressive Conservative government did not last long enough to implement tax reform. The Liberals returned in 1980 for another four years. Ground Zero | t 02:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup
First half is good but then it suddenly gets very confusing - we have a list of dates that are all 2005 (for a party that's only existed 6 months that's a bit confusing) and lots of random snippets - there's a slight NPOV problem (admittedly there's not much positive to say, but odd sentences are creeping in -"Patrick Eston changes his political party's quicker than most people change their socks.", etc.) and random inclusion of unrelevant Telegraph questions. The resignations list seems to do little other than 'rub in' their problems. The English also needs a good rewrite as does the formatting - more subheadings needed.

Any other ideas? I'll do something on it soon... Me677 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

are they Right Wing Libertarian

Comment about Alex Stevenson joining Popular Alliance is not relevant here - so deleting it. Dennett p 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership
Hello, is there any source to delcare the current membership for this party?

Thank you.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Is or was?
The lead changes tense constantly. "Veritas (Latin: truth) was a political party", "Therese Muchewicz is the Party Leader", "Veritas has no representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, although it had a small number of members serve in the European Parliament and the London Assembly", "its leader Therese Muchewicz stood in Bradford West for the English Democrats...in the 2015 General Election". Is it currently in existence or not? The article needs to decide. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Veritas (political party). 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/20070629182440/http://www.veritasparty.com:80/news.html to http://www.veritasparty.com/news.html

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 05:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Veritas (political party)


text:
Mark Stepnoski

Mark Matthew Stepnoski (born January 20, 1967) is an American former professional football player who was an offensive lineman in the National Football League (NFL). He attended Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, Pennsylvania, and went on to star at the University of Pittsburgh. He played 13 seasons in the NFL, with the Dallas Cowboys from 1989 to 1994, with the Houston / Tennessee Oilers from 1995 to 1998, and back to the Cowboys for three more seasons. Stepnoski won two Super Bowls with the Cowboys and was selected to five consecutive Pro Bowls from 1992 to 1996.

Early years
Stepnoski, was a highly recruited All-State and Parade All-American offensive tackle from Erie Cathedral Preparatory School. He graduated from the school in 1985.

He signed with the University of Pittsburgh and became a four-year starter at offensive guard, helping clear the way for Craig Heyward and Curvin Richards to become two of the leading rushers in the nation.

Stepnoski was a third-team All-American as a sophomore, a consensus first-team All-American in 1988 and a finalist for the Outland Trophy as a senior. He was a two-time Academic All-American (1986 and 1988). He also played in the East–West Shrine Game.

Professional career
All values from NFL Combine

Dallas Cowboys (first stint)
Stepnoski was selected by the Dallas Cowboys in the third round of the 1989 NFL draft. He dropped in the draft because the scouts thought he was undersized for the National Football League.

The Cowboys switched him to center, although he had never played that position. During his rookie year he was tutored by Tom Rafferty, who was playing his last season in the NFL. He became a starter for the last four games of the season. Stepnoski used his athletic ability, leverage and balance to outmaneuver bigger defensive players and become one of the league's best centers of his era. By the end of the 1991 season he was selected to the first of five straight Pro Bowls. From 1992 to 1994, together with Erik Williams, Mark Tuinei, Nate Newton and Kevin Gogan, he was part of some of the best offensive lines to play in NFL history, that also helped pave the way for Emmitt Smith to become the NFL's all-time leading rusher. In 1993, he suffered a knee injury that required surgery while playing against the Minnesota Vikings in the 13th game of the season. He was replaced by John Gesek and couldn't play during the playoffs and Super Bowl XXVIII. He became a free agent at the end of the season, but the Cowboys could only sign him to a one-year contract ($1.2 million and a $500,000 signing bonus).

Stepnoski was one of the team's first big-name players to leave the Cowboys following the 1994 season via unrestricted free agency, leaving with three Pro Bowls and back-to-back Super Bowl victories.

Houston / Tennessee Oilers
Stepnoski signed with the Houston Oilers in 1995. During his first two seasons with the Oilers he increased his streak of Pro Bowl selections to five. Stepnoski played two more seasons with the team upon their relocation to Nashville.

Dallas Cowboys (second stint)
The Cowboys signed Stepnoski as a free agent in 1999, where he finished his career with three more years, retiring after the 2001 season.

Career achievements
Stepnoski played 13 seasons in the National Football League, which included five consecutive Pro Bowl appearances (1992–1996) and a place on the National Football League 1990s All-Decade second team. He won two Super Bowls with the Dallas Cowboys (XXVII and XXVIII) and was a nominee for the Pro Football Hall of Fame class of 2007.

Cannabis advocacy
During the early 2000s, Stepnoski served as president of the Texas chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). He became a lifetime member of NORML in 1998 when he contributed $2000 to the organization. He kept private his views as an active player though, not wanting to create a distraction for his team. As an active player, Stepnoski says he occasionally used cannabis for pain relief.

Stepnoski's advocacy caused his high school alma mater, Cathedral Preparatory School, to cancel his induction into the school's athletic hall of fame. His efforts also drew the ire of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush. A spokesperson stated: "It's really kind of sad that someone who could use his role as a role model for young children chooses not to use it constructively, but to use it for something that has caused devastation for families throughout this country."

Personal life
Stepnoski moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2003. He has a son.

In a 2007 interview, Stepnoski expressed support for the 9/11 truth movement.

title: Mark Stepnoski


text:
Sheikh Mansur

Sheikh Mansur ("The-Victorious"; born Mansur Ushurma, Mansur Ucherman; c. 1760 – 13 April 1794) was a Chechen military commander and Islamic leader who led an anti-Russian North Caucasian resistance, known as the Sheikh Mansur Movement. He was influential in the resistance against Catherine the Great's imperialist expansion into the Caucasus during the late 18th century. Sheikh Mansur is considered the first leader of the resistance in the North Caucasus against Russian imperialism. He remains a hero of the Chechen and North Caucasian peoples in general, and their struggle for independence.

Biography
Mansur Ushurma was born in the aul of Aldi (today a suburb of Grozny) in the region of Chechnya, centered in the Sunzha River valley. Later on, he ventured to the Dagestan hill country for education, eventually settling for a madrasa.

In 1784, Sheikh Mansur, now a respected imam, journeyed back to Chechnya and became upset with the Russian encroachment in the North Caucasus. He ordered the remaining non-Muslim Chechens to stop practicing many of their old pagan traditions with the cult of the dead and to stop smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. He also influenced Islamic concepts into social conventions (adat) and preached them to attempt Islamic unity. This was not easy in a land where people had lived under ancient traditions, customs and religions. Islamic tradition in Chechnya, especially in the mountainous areas, was not as strong as it was in Dagestan. But the holy war that he declared was an attempt at unity among the Chechen teips.

As Mansur's message became popular with the Chechen people, the Russian Empire attempted to discredit him and ultimately arrest him. In 1785, the Russians sent a punitive expedition of up to 3,000 to his home in Aldi, only to find the village bare and desolate. Angered, the Russian troops plundered and burned the village to the ground. Upon returning to Aldi with others, Mansur proclaimed a holy war (gazavat) against the Russians. Soon, Chechen fighters won the Battle of Aldy, killing and taking hundreds of Russian soldiers captive. After that, Sheikh Mansur rallied resistance fighters from Dagestan through Kabardia. Most of the forces were young Chechen and Dagestani men numbering more than 12,000 by August 1785. However, Mansur suffered several defeats when he tried to infiltrate Russian territory and capture the fortresses Kizlyar in July, Grigoriopolis and Kizlyar again in August 1785.

The core of the Mansur's troops consisted of the Kumyks from the Northern parts of Kumykia. Kumyk princes participated in the first attack on the Russian garrison in Kizlyar, led by Sheikh Mansur. Those princes were Chapalav Anji-Murtazali, Makhach Uruskhan, Hamza Alish, along with their uzdens (suite of nobles). The Kumyks made a decision that: "'...if there are traitors among them and they will inform the Russian authorities about the course of the uprising, then such a person will be killed and his house with be destroyed'."After the battle of Kizlyar, the Russian people refortified their settlements and the Russian Empress Catherine the Great withdrew her forces from Georgia to the Terek River line. In 1786, Russian forces abandoned the new fort of Vladikavkaz, and would not occupy it again until 1803. From 1787 to 1791, during the Russian-Turkish War, Sheikh Mansur moved to the northwestern Caucasus region of Circassia, strengthening Islamic practice there. He led the Circassians and Nogais in assaults against Russian forces.

In June 1791, Sheikh Mansur was captured at the Ottoman fortress of Anapa on the Black Sea when it came under siege. He was brought to Saint Petersburg and imprisoned for life. In April 1794, he died at the Shlisselburg Fortress.

Appearance
Description by Russian historian Prozitelev:

"Tall, handsome, slender brunette with a pale face and passionate speech. Fanatic. His name became a threat to the Russians. The young missionary's powerful speech and ardent to self-forgetfulness, with his handsome, outstanding appearance, quickly gave him admirers of both sexes."

Description by the 3rd Imam of the Caucasian Imamate Imam Shamil:

"Sheikh Mansur had a courageous, fascinating appearance and, despite the fact that he did not know literacy, possessed an extraordinary gift of speech. He was so tall that in a crowd of people he seemed to be sitting astride a horse."

Legacy

 * The Chechens and Circassians still honor him as a national leader.
 * Sheikh Mansur was the subject of two Romantic novels in the mid-19th century, one in Russian by V. I. Savinov and one in English by E. Spencer.
 * Akhmat Kadyrov Square was formerly named after Sheikh Mansur until 1996.
 * Many songs have been dedicated to Sheikh Mansur, e.g. by artists such as Timur Mutsurayev, Turpal Djabrailov, Hasmagomed Hadjimuradov and Rizavdi Ismailov.
 * Streets have been named after Sheikh Mansur, inter alia, in the Dagestani city, Khasavyurt.
 * Sheikh Mansur belonged to the Elistanzkhoy teip and was married to Chachi with whom he had three children at the time of his arrest - a son Yasa (8 years old), and two daughters Ragmet (4 years old) and Namet (a year old). The descendants of Sheikh Mansur also took a Y-DNA test which showed a typical Elistanzkhoy Y-DNA result in L-M20.
 * The Sheikh Mansur Battalion, fighting on the Ukrainian side in the Russian armed aggression against Ukraine.

title: Sheikh Mansur


text: Category:1499 books

title: Category:1499 books


text:
Talk:Hudson, Ohio

History
I removed the recently added History section because it was taken verbatim from, which has a copyright notice. Because this appears to be copyrighted material, explicit permission must be granted to use the material under terms of the GFDL. Alternatively, it can be re-written, summarized, and appropriately cited as a source rather than simply plagiarized without attribution. older ≠ wiser 15:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)=

Hudson Public Access Cable
Having lived in Hudson (and many other places), I've not seen anything like Hudson's Public Cable Access. Do they still have the "Half Hour Show?" Perhaps something could be added in the Hudson article about its local public cable access. Jeannedb 15:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Information about Hudson Cable Television is in the ==Government== section of this page. I recently created subheadings in this section to further organize this.  See Hudson%2C_Ohio  --DangApricot 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that. I guess I should have looked more closely.  I'm very glad it was included. Jeannedb 15:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

JakeH07 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)JakeH07
 * Rest assured, they still have the much anticipated "Half Hour Show" and its as boring as ever. Anyway, I think the Hudson Cable Television should be split from the Government section since Hudson Cable now has sports events and contests in addition to government coverage

 * Hudson Cable Television is a department of the City of Hudson. It should remain in the government section.  --DangApricot (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saywell's?
Come on, this article ought to mention cherry phosphates. - Frankie (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Akron suburb?
I’m concerned about the opening sentence that Hudson is a suburb of Akron, which hardly seems to fit the definition. The towns are 15 miles apart, separated by at least two other towns and rural areas including wilderness. Why not say it’s a suburb of Cleveland, less than 10 miles further? Bedroom community, maybe, Akron suburb, no. --71.47.169.123 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 * A suburb doesn't necessarily need to border the city it is a suburb of. It's all about the relationship between the two (i.e. do a lot of Hudson residents commute to Akron?). The same is true for Stow, which also does not border Akron. It's similar to Cleveland's "outer ring" suburbs like Solon, Beachwood, etc. It's not unreasonable to refer to Hudson as a suburb of Akron since it 1) has suburban characteristics, 2) is served by METRO Regional Transit Authority out of Akron (not the Cleveland-based RTA), 3) is located on a major commuter highway to Akron (SR 8), 4) and is part of the Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area. I reworded it so the focus is off it being a suburb of Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hudson, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
 * Added tag to http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/37749197v1p37_ch02.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hudson, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928100200/http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Community-Action/100-Best-Communities/2010-Winners/Hudson-OH to http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Community-Action/100-Best-Communities/2010-Winners/Hudson-OH
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429222451/http://www.hudson.oh.us/profile/sistercity.asp to http://www.hudson.oh.us/profile/sistercity.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hudson, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003181645/http://www.hudson.oh.us/departments/ISGIS/maps/MajorWatersheds_11x17.pdf to http://www.hudson.oh.us/departments/ISGIS/maps/MajorWatersheds_11x17.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514023619/http://www.hudson.oh.us/elements/parks%20brochure.pdf to http://www.hudson.oh.us/elements/parks%20brochure.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201170231/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/3936651.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/3936651.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720223342/http://www.joann.com/joann/common/content_corporate.jsp?catName=factSheet to http://www.joann.com/joann/common/content_corporate.jsp?catName=factSheet
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060607110230/http://www.hudson.oh.us/government/council/index.asp to http://www.hudson.oh.us/government/council/index.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:42, 8 November 2017 (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) 18:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * HudsonOhioSkyline.png

title: Talk:Hudson, Ohio


text:
Ou Yezi

Ou Yezi was a legendary master of sword-making in the Spring and Autumn period. According to Yuejueshu, he forged five treasured swords for Gan Jiang and King Zhao of Chu, named, respectively, Zhanlu (湛卢), Juque (巨阙), Shengxie (胜邪), Yuchang (鱼肠) and Chunjun (纯钧). He also made three swords for King Goujian of Yue, named Longyuan (龙渊), Tai’e (泰阿) and Gongbu (工布), Hailed as The Greatest Blacksmith.

Teacher of Gan Jiang
According to the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue, Ou Yezi was the master teacher of Gan Jiang (Birrell 1993, 221-227 and 303).

Swords made by Ou Yezi

 * (纯钧, 纯钩, or 淳钧) Chúnjūn, Chúngōu, or Chúnjūn (Purity) - Its patterns resembled a row of stars in a constellation.
 * (湛卢) Zhànlú/Pilü (Black) - A sword made from the finest of the Five Metals and imbued with the essence of Fire. Said to be sensitive to its owner's behaviour, it left of its own accord for the state of Chu when Helü's conduct offended it. When Helü became aware of King Zhao of Chu's possession of Zhanlu, he attacked Chu.
 * Haocao/Panying (Bravery/Hard) - Said to have been imbued with the aspect of lawlessness and was therefore of no use to anyone. It was used as a burial object.
 * (鱼肠) Yúcháng (Fish Intestines) - A short dagger said to be capable of cleaving through iron as if it were mud. Used by Helü of Wu to assassinate his uncle, Liao of Wu. It was hidden in a cooked fish presented to King Liao at a banquet. As a result of the assassination, the blade gained a reputation for causing its user to be disloyal.
 * (巨阙) Jùquē (Great Destroyer) - Said to be incredibly durable, being able to withstand even hitting or stabbing rock.
 * (胜邪) Shèngxié (Victor over Evil)

Swords made with Gan Jiang

 * (龙渊) Lóngyuān (Loong Gulf) - Its shape resembled that of a deep gulf when saw from a high mountain. Goujian used it to cut a gash in his thigh as an act of self punishment when he mistakenly executed an innocent person.
 * (泰阿) Tàiā (Great Riverbank) - It had patterns like the waves of a flowing river. Tai'a was used by the king of Chu to direct his army against a Jin invasion.
 * (工布) Gōngbù (Artisanal Display) - Gongbu patterns like flowing water that stop like pearls at the spine.

title: Ou Yezi


text: Category:312 deaths

title: Category:312 deaths


text:
User:StasFomin~enwiki

Stas Fomin.

 * http://belonesox.moikrug.ru/

=Sandbox=

title: User:StasFomin~enwiki


text: Category:1490s books

title: Category:1490s books


text:
Delict (Scots law)

Delict in Scots law is the area of law concerned with those civil wrongs which are actionable before the Scottish courts. The Scots use of the term 'delict' is consistent with the jurisdiction's connection with Civilian jurisprudence; Scots private law has a 'mixed' character, blending together elements borrowed from Civil law and Common law, as well as indigenous Scottish developments. The term tort law, or 'law of torts', is used in Anglo-American (Common law) jurisdictions to describe the area of law in those systems. Unlike in a system of torts, the Scots law of delict operates on broad principles of liability for wrongdoing: 'there is no such thing as an exhaustive list of named delicts in the law of Scotland. If the conduct complained of appears to be wrongful, the law of Scotland will afford a remedy even if there has not been any previous instance of a remedy being given in similar circumstances'. While some terms such as assault and defamation are used in systems of tort law, their technical meanings differ in Scottish delict.

Although the law of delict affords reparation for wrongdoing such as assault, invasions of privacy and interference with property, 'in modern times statistically most of the case law on delict has been concerned with the law of negligence, interpretation of statutory regulations in workplace accident cases, and (particularly in the nineteenth century) defamation'. As in South Africa, there is no nominate 'tort' or 'delict' of negligence in Scotland, but rather the law recognises that delictual liability will arise where one person negligently [or indeed intentionally or recklessly] causes loss to another. In addition to this, the law of delict will afford remedy where legally recognised affront has been suffered, a pursuer's property interests have been interfered with, or some specific and nominate form of wrongdoing has been proven to occur (e.g., where the pursuer has been defamed).

Overview
Delict is borrowed from Latin delictum and, as a branch of Scots law. In Roman law, there were four 'institutional' delicts recognised by Justinian, damnum injuria datum (loss wrongfully caused), injuria (wrongdoing which infringes a person's dignity), furtum (theft) and rapina (theft with violence). Stair, the Scottish Institutional Writer, noted that these four delicts had a degree of historical pedigree, but nonetheless rejected the Roman system of nominate delicts in favour of an analysis which identified the interests of persons which, if infringed, could trigger a right of reparation in delict. These interests are protected by general principles which differ depending on the interest in question: some interests are patrimonial (concerned with 'what a person has') while others are 'non-patrimonial' (concerned with 'who a person is'): patrimonial interests are repaired by actions based on the loss caused by the defender's wrongful conduct, or are safeguarded by actions for interdict, while harm to non-patrimonial interests is repaired without reference to 'loss', but with an award of solatium taking into account the affront suffered by the pursuer. By way of a legal fiction, 'personal injury' is treated as (physical) 'damage done', with the net effect that 'the actio injuriarum root of Scots law infuses the [nominate] delict assault as much as any development of the lex Aquilia' and wrongdoing that results in physical harm to a person may give rise to a claim of both damages and solatium. This separation of protection of the physical integrity of the person from the principles which afford protection to other non-patrimonial interests 'has had consequences not only for the details of the law protecting those interests, but also for determining what are the fundamental principles and doctrinal theoretical structure of the law of delict as a whole. In particular, this phenomenon provides much of the explanation why the Scots common law of delict is not today structured under two broad heads, Aquilian liability and iniuria [in the nominate sense] (adapted and modified by human rights law and statute law).'

Although there is no clear divide between liability based on iniuria and Aquilian liability in Scots law, as there is in South Africa, actions may as yet be predicated on either iniuria alone or damnum injuria datum depending on the interest infringed. ‘Liability in delict, with few exceptions, is referable to the concepts of injuria or damnum injuria datum’, with statutory innovations and nominate delicts developed at common law supplementing the general actions available for the reparation of patrimonial loss or non-patrimonial injury. Hence, there remains scope for the law to protect non-patrimonial interests such as privacy or dignity on grounds that 'the actio iniuriarum is sufficiently wide to cover any deliberate conduct causing affront or offence to the dignity, security or privacy of the individual' although few modern cases have attempted seriously to argue this. In practice, delictual actions which call before the courts of Scotland are, if not concerned with a particular nominate delict (such as defamation), predicated on a claim that 'loss' has been caused by wrongful conduct (and so based on Aquilian liability rather than on the actio iniuriarum).

The modern Scots law pertaining to reparation for negligent wrongdoing is, as might be expected from the above, based on the lex Aquilia and so affords reparation in instances of damnum injuria datum - literally loss wrongfully caused - with the wrongdoing in such instances generated by the defender's culpa (i.e., fault). In any instance in which a pursuer (A) has suffered loss at the hands of the wrongful conduct of the defender (B), B is under a legal obligation to make reparation. If B's wrongdoing were intentional in the circumstances, or so reckless that an 'intention' may be constructively inferred (on the basis that culpa lata dolo aequiparatur - 'gross negligence is the same as intentional fault'), then it follows axiomatically that B will be liable to repair any damage done to A's property, person or economic interest: 'wherever a defender intentionally harms the pursuer - provided the interest harmed is regarded as reparable - the defender incurs delictual liability'. If the pursuer has suffered loss as the result of the defender's conduct, yet the defender did not intend to harm the pursuer, nor behave so recklessly that intent might be constructively inferred, the pursuer must demonstrate that the defender's conduct was negligent in order to win their case. Negligence can be established, by the pursuer, by demonstrating that the defender owed to them a 'duty of care' which they ultimately breached by failing to live up to the expected standard of care. If this can be shown, then the pursuer must also establish that the defender's failure to live up to the expected standard of care ultimately caused the loss (damnum) complained of.

The landmark decision on establishing the existence of a duty of care, for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom, is the House of Lords appeal case, Donoghue v. Stevenson

Patrimonial interests
The Roman lex Aquilia was originally concerned only with damage directly done to certain types of property - slaves and 'four-footed beasts'. Reparation for what is now known as 'personal injury' was barred under the legislation in view of the principle dominus membrorum suorum nemo videtur (no one is to be regarded as the owner of his own limbs); in effect, a Roman paterfamilias could not raise a claim for 'damage' done to his own body, as he was not, in law, a 'self-owner' and so there was no 'property damage' for the law to take cognizance of. This notion was received into Scots law, hence 'while [following negligent injury to their body, a free person] could claim damages for medical expenses and loss of earnings, [they] could not claim for other non-patrimonial types of harm because of the principle that a freeman’s body is of inestimable value'. This changed in 1795 with the (unreported) case of Gardner v Ferguson, which 'is generally regarded as the first case in the modern Scots law of negligence'. Since that time, it has been recognised in Scotland that one's physical - and by extension one's mental - health might be 'damnified' for the purposes of an Aquilian action, hence intentional, reckless or negligent invasion of the property, person or psychiatric wellbeing of another will, in principle, generate liability for reparation in delict.

Economic losses which derive from physical or psychiatric damage will, in principle, be recoverable as 'derivative economic loss'. Pure economic interests separated from one's property, person and mental wellbeing are, in principle, protected patrimonial interests and so ex facie causing another pure economic loss by way of one's wrongful conduct generates a right of reparation in the pursuer. In practice, claims for 'pure economic loss' - i.e., loss which is not connected to damage done to one's person, property or mental health - are limited with reference to the rules pertaining to the duty of care and on remoteness of damages: ‘The grand rule on the subject of damages is, that none can be claimed except such as naturally and directly arise out of the wrong done; and such, therefore, as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the view of the wrongdoer.’ Unless a pursuer in such a case can demonstrate that the defender intended to cause them pure economic loss, or was reckless to that end, they must show that a duty of care was owed towards them and that the loss was directly caused by the breach of this duty.

Non-patrimonial interests
The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non-patrimonial - i.e. dignitary or personality - interests is said to be 'a thing of shreds and patches'. This notwithstanding, there is ‘little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law' in the development of mechanisms to protect so-called 'rights of personality'. The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise, and afford reparation in, cases in which no patrimonial (or 'quasi-patrimonial') 'loss' has occurred, but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through the wrongful conduct of the defender. For such reparation to be offered, however, the non-patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted: negligent interference with a non-patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability. An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious' - that is, it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer's recognised personality interest that an intention to affront (animus iniuriandi) might be imputed.

Overview
In principle, only interests which may be 'damnified' are recognised as reparable under the principles of Aquilian liability and so in practice this means that harm done, through negligence, to non-patrimonial interests does not generate a right of reparation under the principles outlined below. With that said, since the end of the 18th century, it has been recognised that so-called 'personal injury' cases are in principle to be treated no differently from cases concerning damage done to patrimonial interests.

Duty of care
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), also known as ‘The Paisley Snail case’, is considered to have defined the concept of duty of care. Mrs. Donoghue was in a cafe in Paisley where she consumed a bottle of ginger beer which contained a decomposing snail in an opaque bottle. The snail was invisible to the naked eye until the contents of the bottle had been almost completely consumed. Consequently, she suffered serious gastric problems. To whom do we owe a duty of care? Donoghue says that we owe this duty to our neighbours:

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be —persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” per Lord Atkin at 44 of SC

Since Donoghue v Stevenson, duty of care has been expanded by various cases. One of the most noted cases would be Caparo Industries v Dickman. It was held in this case that any extension of the circumstances in which a duty of care should be owed should be developed cautiously. This developed a further criterion: is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty? This new tripartite test was introduced to personal injury cases in Scotland in the case of Gibson v Orr

Donoghue v Stevenson was the topic of a BBC Radio Scotland programme Denise Mina's Case Histories in December 2019.

Breach of duty of care
The idea of delict is not to prevent a person's acts or omissions from ever causing harm occurring, but is to take reasonable precautions in the circumstances to prevent harm. This is seen in the ratio of Muir v Glasgow Corporation.

To be sued successfully under delict it must be proven that a defender owed a duty of care to an individual, that they have breached this duty of care (i.e. taken insufficient precautions to prevent harm), it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances and that there is a causal link between your wrongdoing and the loss suffered by the individual in question. In determining what constitutes sufficient precautions several factors apply:

1) Probability of injury
Bolton v Stone [1951] A cricket ball was hit out of the ground, over a fence 17 feet high, striking and injuring a passer-by. It was held that despite the fact that the precautions in place were not sufficient to prevent such harm occurring, the defender had not been in breach of his duty of care. This was because in the past 30 years a ball had only left the grounds over that fence 6 times, making the likelihood of such an injury merely a remote possibility rather than a reasonable probability.

2) Severity of injury
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] It was decided that a welder was not owed a duty of care to be provided with safety goggles (today this duty would exist), but that due to Mr Paris' unique circumstances (he only had one eye) the severity of his potential (and resulting) injury was so great that he be owed a more comprehensive duty of care.

3) Availability of precautions
Roe v Minister of Health [1954] When the danger of an act is not known (e.g. working with Asbestos prior to knowing it was dangerous) or the precautions are not known and it is reasonable not to know about them, no duty can exist to provide such precaution.'''

4) Foreseeability of injury
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Held: even although it was unforeseeable that a child would be injured in such a way in such circumstances, considering that an unattended site such as this would be likely to constitute an allurement for young children it was foreseeable that there was a risk of injury by burning. Since that was what in fact occurred, the nature of the damage was reasonably foreseeable and the boy won his case. It was decided that the type of injury arising from the wrong must be of a foreseeable type.

Burden of proof
Normally the burden of proof is on the pursuer to show that the defender has not achieved the standard of care expected of him in the circumstances. However, this can be difficult if not impossible where the cause of an accident cannot be discovered. In these circumstances the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves) may be of use to the pursuer since it transfers the burden of proof to the defender. In other words, if the pursuer can successfully plead res ipsa loquitur the law presumes that the defender has been negligent and it is up to the defender to provide a plausible explanation for the accident which is inconsistent with his negligence.

To rely upon this doctrine the pursuer must establish two things:
 * 1) The offending ‘thing’ must be under the exclusive control of the defender.
 * 2) Such an accident would not happen in the ordinary course of events unless those in control were negligent.
 * Example case: Scott v London & St Catherines Docks [1865]
 * Facts: S was injured when a bag of sugar fell onto him as he was walking past L’s warehouse. No one could say how the bag of sugar had come to fall on S.
 * Held: since L was in exclusive control of their warehouse and bags of sugar do not ordinarily fall out of warehouses without negligence, it was up to L to provide an alternative explanation. Since L could not, it was presumed that L had not achieved the standard of care expected.

Defences
Once the pursuer has established on the balance of probabilities that he was owed a duty of care by the defender, and that the defender’s failure to achieve the standard of care expected caused the loss or injury for which the pursuer is seeking a remedy, the pursuer may be said to have established a prima facie case. This means that ‘at first sight’ the pursuer will win and the burden of proof shifts to the defender. The defender can attempt to avoid liability or have the amount of damages which is sought by the pursuer reduced by putting forward appropriate defences or attempting to argue that the damage or injury for which the pursuer is seeking compensation is too remote a consequence of the defender’s negligence.

Volenti non fit injuria
This Latin maxim basically means ‘to one consenting, no wrong can be done’. Thus if a pursuer appreciates the risk associated with his activity, but nevertheless continues in such a way as to suggest that he is accepting the risk, this will provide the defender with a complete defence - i.e. one which will allow the defender to completely escape liability to the pursuer. It is up to the defender to show that the pursuer has accepted the risk and obviously this means that the defender must first show that the pursuer was appropriately informed of the risk. Titchener v British Railways Board 1984

Note that if the defender does provide a plausible alternative explanation the burden of proof then passes back to the pursuer.

title: Delict (Scots law)