text:
Turner v. Safley

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech (in sending/receiving letters). The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.

The case has been cited as precedent, establishing the "Turner Test" for constitutional challenges to prison regulations. According to the test, a prison regulation is constitutional if it satisfies four factors:

 * 1) There is a rational connection to a legitimate government interest;
 * 2) There are alternative means for prisoners to exercise their right(s);
 * 3) Accommodation of the right(s) would have excessive "ripple effects"; and
 * 4) There are no "ready alternatives."

This test has been used for decades by US courts, but it has also been criticized by legal scholars for being too deferential to prison administrators.

Background
The Renz Correctional Institution, at the time a prison of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MODOC, then called the Missouri Division of Corrections) near Jefferson City, transitioned in 1975 from being a men's prison to housing both male and female inmates. It was there that two inmates, a man named Leonard Safley and a woman named Pearl Jane "P.J." Watson, met and began a relationship. There was an unwritten rule at the time that if two inmates developed a "close" or "physical" relationship, one would be transferred to another facility. After an incident that the trial court would describe as "a noisy lover's quarrel," Safley was transferred to the Ozark Correctional Center at Fordland, Missouri. Safley attempted to keep in touch with Watson by mail, but staff at Renz consistently prevented it from arriving. Safley tried using the pseudonym "Jack King," or having friends send letters on his behalf, but only a few of these made it to Watson.

Mail between inmates in different facilities was subject to divisional regulation 20-118.010(e), a rule that always allowed mail between family members or related to legal matters, but said other mail "may be allowed" if prison staff believed it was "in the best interest of the parties involved." Enforcement of this rule was inconsistent and varied by facility; in practice, Renz inmates were not allowed to send or receive mail from non-family inmates at other facilities without prior approval. Renz was the only facility in the state with an effective total ban.

Additionally, inmate marriages were restricted at Renz. At the time, regulation 20.117.050 did not authorize facility superintendents to prohibit inmate marriages, though they were not obligated to assist with them either. However, Renz's superintendent did regularly deny permission for inmates to marry, especially female inmates. After this litigation was filed, in December 1983, MODOC put out a new regulation which put a burden of proof on inmates to convince their superintendent that there was a "compelling reason" to allow them to marry. This did not make much difference at Renz, as the superintendent continued to deny permission to female inmates in most cases, stating that it was not in their "best interest."

As the end of Safley's sentence grew near, and he was transferred to a halfway house, he tried to visit Watson, but was denied permission when he arrived at Renz. MODOC rules prohibited former inmates from visiting prisons until six months after release. The two also wanted to get married, but were denied permission.

District Court
In 1981, they filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Missouri challenging the constitutionality of the restrictions on inmate mail, marriage, and visitation. In March 1982, during a preliminary injunction hearing, Safley's attorney Floyd Finch suggested to the Judge, Howard Sachs, that Safley and Watson could get married right then and there in court. Sachs allowed it over the objection of the state's attorney, seeing "no 'substantial state interest' in preventing it," and the newlyweds were allowed to sit together for 10 minutes.

This rendered their individual claim about the marriage restriction moot, but the case was certified as a class action and continued. A five-day trial was held in February 1984, and in May 1984 a ruling was issued that overturned the restrictions on mail and marriage, but left the visitation rule intact. As visitation was not nearly as important a right as the rights of marriage and free speech, the visitation rule was upheld "as a matter of legitimate discretion."

On the other hand, Judge Sachs' ruling applied strict scrutiny to the mail and marriage rules. The rationale offered by MODOC witnesses for the mail rule was discouraging the formation of inmate gangs, and preventing coordination of riots, escapes, etc. Sachs noted that in Procunier v. Martinez the Supreme Court had refrained from crafting a specific standard for mail between inmates, but after discussing various other opinions by appellate courts, he ruled that the mail regulations were "unnecessarily sweeping", and were therefore unconstitutional.

For the marriage rule, he relied on cases such as Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia that held marriage to be a fundamental human right. In his findings of fact, the judge found that the superintendent, out of an apparent "protective attitude", denied permission for female inmates to marry except where there was a birth or a pregnancy. Even though incarceration came with the loss of certain rights and freedoms, Sachs wrote,". . . defendants have no right to have the last word on a personal decision of this import. Even inmates have the right to make their own mistakes."

Court of Appeals
MODOC appealed the ruling to a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court was wrong about the appropriate standard of review, and was clearly erroneous in its finding of fact. The Court disagreed, and affirmed the rulings of the trial court. It spent very little time discussing the "clearly erroneous" argument, simply noting that after reviewing the "entire record," they found "substantial evidence to support each finding of fact."

With respect to the mail rule, MODOC argued that that plaintiffs' status as inmates meant that the regulation should be review under a rational basis standard, rather than strict scrutiny. MODOC compared their rule to other prison rules which had been upheld, but the Court distinguished them as a "time, place, or manner" rules (as with Pell v. Procunier and Bell v. Wolfish, etc.), or as barely affecting freedom of speech (as with Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union ). In contrast, an 8th Circuit case, Gregory v. Auger, had treated restriction on inmate mail as "a serious infringement of First Amendment liberties." As this case squarely dealt with speech, and finding no precedent in either Supreme Court or 8th Circuit caselaw to support a lower standard of review for prison rules on free speech, the Court upheld the application of strict scrutiny and the trial court's finding that the rule was unconstitutional.

In considering the marriage rule, the Court noted testimony from Superintendent Turner that, even before the new rule in 1983, "he believed he had the inherent power to deny permission [to marry] by virtue of Missouri statutes 'which allow me to control my institution.'" MODOC also argued that they had an interest in preventing "love triangles", which could lead to fights. The substance of MODOC's legal argument was again comparison to restrictions that had been upheld, and an argument that a lower level of scrutiny was appropriate. The Court found, however, that the other examples still left alternative ways for prisoners to exercise their rights, but "[h]ere, in contrast, both the old marriage rule as it was applied by Superintendent Turner and the 1983 rule on its face absolutely prevent those inmates denied permission from getting married." As the right to marriage was a "well settled" fundamental right, the Court again affirmed the lower court's reasoning and ultimate verdict.

The Turner test
Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor began by examining the precedent set by Procunier v. Martinez, and determining the appropriate level of scrutiny for judicial review of prison regulations. The Court in Martinez had stated, ". . .federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates," but also said that "courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform." Thus, there were competing interests of justice, and O'Connor argued that courts should tread carefully: "Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint." O'Connor wrote that Martinez had not actually formulated a standard of review, and the lower courts had been incorrect to interpret it as imposing strict scrutiny in this case. Rather, Martinez had imposed strict scrutiny in a situation where inmate mail had been censored based on its content (mail was censored for statements that "unduly complain," "magnify grievances," or express "inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views"), and where the rights of non-inmates were also implicated. Whereas content-based regulation of speech by the general public was an easy case where strict scrutiny should be applied, the present case called for a new standard to be formulated.

Thus the Court formulated such a standard, which would come to be known as the Turner test. A prison regulation that affected inmates' constitutional rights "is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," and reasonableness would be judged by four factors:
 * 1) Whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it;
 * 2) Whether there are alternative means for the prisoner to exercise the right at issue;
 * 3) The impact that the desired accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources (so-called "ripple effects"); and
 * 4) The presence or absence of “ready alternatives," where the presence of ready alternatives make it more likely that a regulation is unreasonable, while the absence make it less likely that the regulation is unreasonable.

The test applied to the mail rule
Applying this test, the Court found MODOC's mail rule to be reasonable. It noted testimony by prison officials that gang activity was a growing problem in Missouri prisons, and that separating and isolating gang members was a well-known strategy. Renz was also sometimes used to put inmates in protective custody, which might be undermined by inmates communicating with other facilities. The first factor was thus satisfied. For the second factor, the Court said that inmates still had other forms of expression available, implicitly stating the ability to send and receive mail should not be considered in isolation. For the third factor, the Court felt that lower courts had underestimated the cost of allowing mail between inmates, especially because "exercise of the right affects the inmates and staff of more than one institution." The administrative cost of monitoring inmate communications, thwarting gangs, etc., would thus be increased across the state, not just at Renz. Finally, the Court stated that MODOC had "no obvious, easy alternatives to the policy [it] adopted. Other well-run prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have concluded that substantially similar restrictions on inmate correspondence were necessary to protect institutional order and security."

The test applied to the marriage rule
The Court began by affirming that inmates did indeed have a right to marry, a right previously recognized by cases such as Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia: "The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals." The Court then reviewed the reasons MODOC had given for its marriage rule (that love triangles could lead to fights, or that many female inmates needed to "develop[e] skills of self-reliance" because they had a history of abuse or were too reliant on men), and found them to have no reasonable relationship to the actual rule. As for the love triangles, "surely . . . inmate rivalries are as likely to develop without a formal marriage ceremony as with one." The proposition that female inmates needed to be more self-reliant in no way explaining why women's requests were routinely denied and men's were routinely granted, and was inconsistent with testimony that there were no recorded problems with such marriages before the 1983 rule was adopted. Moreover, while the Court did not deem this fact to be necessary for its holding, it did observe that this "rehabilitation" rationale was based on a suspect classification, as it only applied only to women, in a system of "excessive paternalism."

The Court thus overturned the marriage rule, but upheld the mail rule on its face, and remanded the case back to the court of appeals for a determination of whether the mail rule was "arbitrary and capricious" as applied.

Concurrence in part and dissent in part
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, agreed with the majority's approach to the marriage rule, but disagreed with its analysis of the mail rule. He wrote, "How a court describes its standard of review when a prison regulation infringes fundamental constitutional rights often has far less consequence for the inmates than the actual showing that the court demands of the State in order to uphold the regulation. This case provides a prime example . . . if the standard can be satisfied by nothing more than a 'logical connection' between the regulation and any legitimate penological concern perceived by a cautious warden, . . . it is virtually meaningless. Application of the standard would seem to permit disregard for inmates' constitutional rights whenever the imagination of the warden produces a plausible security concern and a deferential trial court is able to discern a logical connection between that concern and the challenged regulation. Indeed, there is a logical connection between prison discipline and the use of bullwhips on prisoners. .." One problem that Stevens had with the majority opinion is that it treated the plaintiff's case as only a facial challenge. He cited the original complaint and evidence from trial that discussed the ways that Renz's rules were different from every other facility in Missouri, and only paid lip service to some aspects of MODOC's state-wide standards. Both the trial court and the court of appeals, he argued, had properly grappled with the problems with Renz's rules as they were applied, and this was reflected in the injunctions and rulings they had issued. The majority, however, dealt only with MODOC's rules on their face, which clearly did not reflect the situation that had caused the plaintiffs to file their complaint.

Stevens also took issue with the way the majority handled the factual record of the case, with several assertions of fact (such as the gang problems, the availability of other means of expression, and the cost of reading all inmate mail) lacking "a sufficient basis in the record to support the Court's holding on the mail regulation."

For these reasons, although in theory the majority had developed a test and applied it to both the marriage rule and the mail rule, Stevens though their analysis of two rules was simply inconsistent: "In pointing out these inconsistencies, I do not suggest that the Court's treatment of the marriage regulation is flawed; as I stated, I concur fully in that part of its opinion. I do suggest that consistent application of the Court's reasoning necessarily leads to a finding that the mail regulation applied at Renz is unconstitutional."

Subsequent developments
Turner has been cited as precedent and is now considered to be part of a line of cases like Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court has declared a fundamental right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment.

title: Turner v. Safley


text:
Jim Mattis

James Norman Mattis (born September 8, 1950) is an American military veteran who served as the 26th United States secretary of defense from 2017 to 2019. A retired Marine Corps four-star general, he commanded forces in the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War.

Mattis was commissioned in the Marine Corps through the Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps after graduating from Central Washington University. A career Marine, he gained a reputation among his peers for intellectualism and eventually advanced to the rank of general. From 2007 to 2010, he commanded the United States Joint Forces Command and concurrently served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. He was commander of United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, with Admiral Bob Harward serving as his deputy commander. After retiring from the military, he served in several private sector roles, including as a board member of Theranos.

Mattis was nominated as secretary of defense by president-elect Donald Trump, and confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2017. As secretary of defense, Mattis affirmed the United States' commitment to defending longtime ally South Korea in the wake of the 2017 North Korea crisis. An opponent of proposed collaboration with China and Russia, Mattis stressed what he saw as their "threat to the American-led world order". Mattis occasionally voiced his disagreement with certain Trump administration policies such as the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, withdrawals of troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and budget cuts hampering the ability to monitor the impacts of climate change. According to The Hill, Mattis also reportedly dissuaded Trump from attempting to assassinate Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria.

On December 20, 2018, after failing to convince Trump to reconsider his decision to withdraw all American troops from Syria, Mattis announced his resignation effective the end of February 2019; after Mattis's resignation generated significant media coverage, Trump abruptly accelerated Mattis' departure date to January 1, 2019, stating that he had essentially fired Mattis.

Early life
Mattis was born on September 8, 1950, in Pullman, Washington. He is the son of Lucille (Proulx) Mattis (1922–2019) and John West Mattis (1915–1988), a merchant mariner. His mother immigrated to the United States from Canada as an infant and had worked in Army Intelligence in South Africa during the Second World War. Mattis's father moved to Richland, Washington, to work at a plant supplying fissile material to the Manhattan Project. Mattis was raised in a bookish household that did not own a television. He describes "hitchhiking around a lot from the time I was about 12 or 13 to about 20 going into the Marines on active duty."

Mattis graduated from Richland High School in 1968. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in history from Central Washington University in 1971 and a Master of Arts in international security affairs from the National War College of National Defense University in 1994.

Marine career
Mattis enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1969. He was commissioned a second lieutenant through the Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps on January 1, 1972. During his service years, Mattis was considered an "intellectual" among the upper ranks. Robert H. Scales, a retired United States Army major general, called him "one of the most urbane and polished men I have known." As a lieutenant, Mattis was assigned as a rifle and weapons platoon commander in the 3rd Marine Division. As a captain, he was assigned as the Naval Academy Preparatory School's Battalion Officer, commanded rifle and weapons companies in the 1st Marine Regiment, then served at Recruiting Station Portland, Oregon, as a major. Upon promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel, Mattis commanded 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, one of Task Force Ripper's assault battalions during the Gulf War. As a colonel, Mattis commanded the 7th Marine Regiment from June 28, 1994, to June 14, 1996.

Mattis is a graduate of the US Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, US Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the National War College. He is noted for his interest in the study of military history and world history, with a personal library that once included over 7,000 volumes, and a penchant for publishing required reading lists for Marines under his command. He required his Marines to be well-read in the culture and history of regions where they were deployed, and had his Marines deploying to Iraq undergo "cultural sensitivity training". According to an article published in 2004 by the Los Angeles Times it was his concern for the enlisted ranks along with his energy and enthusiasm that garnered him the nickname "Mad Dog". But in 2016, when President-elect Trump asked Mattis if his nickname was indeed "Mad Dog," Mattis replied, "No, sir," saying that his actual nickname was "Chaos."

War in Afghanistan
Mattis led the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade as its commanding officer upon promotion to brigadier general. It was as a regimental commander that he earned his nickname and call sign, "CHAOS", an acronym for "Colonel Has Another Outstanding Solution", which was initially somewhat tongue in cheek.

During the initial planning for the War in Afghanistan, Mattis led Task Force 58 in operations in the southern part of the country beginning in November 2001, becoming the first Marine Corps officer to command a Naval Task Force in combat. According to Mattis, his objective upon arriving in Afghanistan was to "make sure that the enemy didn't feel like they had any safe haven, to destroy their sense of security in southern Afghanistan, to isolate Kandahar from its lines of communication, and to move against Kandahar". In December 2001, an airstrike carried out by a B-52 bomber inadvertently targeted a position held by US special operations troops and Afghan militiamen in Uruzgan Province. Numerous men were wounded in the incident, but Mattis repeatedly refused to dispatch helicopters from the nearby Camp Rhino to recover them, citing operational safety concerns. Instead, an Air Force helicopter flew from Uzbekistan to ferry the men to the Marine Corps base where helicopters sat readily available but unauthorized to fly. Captain Jason Amerine blamed the delay caused by Mattis's refusal to order a rescue operation for the deaths of several men. Amerine wrote, "Every element in Afghanistan tried to help us except the closest friendly unit, commanded by Mattis," though he also wrote that "none of that was assessed properly because the [5th Special Forces Group] chose not to call for a formal investigation". This episode was used against Mattis when he was nominated for defense secretary in 2016.

Mattis describes being presented with the location of Osama bin Laden in December 2001 and creating a plan to kill him that was never executed.

While serving in Afghanistan as a brigadier general, Mattis was known as an officer who engaged his men with "real leadership." A young Marine officer, Nathaniel Fick, said he witnessed Mattis in a fighting hole talking with a sergeant and lance corporal: "No one would have questioned Mattis if he'd slept eight hours each night in a private room, to be woken each morning by an aide who ironed his uniforms and heated his MREs. But there he was, in the middle of a freezing night, out on the lines with his Marines."

Iraq War
As a major general, Mattis commanded the 1st Marine Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War. Mattis played key roles in combat operations in Fallujah, including negotiation with the insurgent command inside the city during Operation Vigilant Resolve in April 2004, as well as participation in planning of the subsequent Operation Phantom Fury in November.

Wedding bombing
In May 2004, Mattis ordered the 3 a.m. bombing of what his intelligence section had reported was a suspected enemy safe house near the Syrian border, but was later reported to be a wedding party and allegedly resulted in the deaths of 42 civilians, including 11 women and 14 children. Mattis said it had taken him 30 seconds to decide whether to bomb the location. Describing the wedding as implausible, he said, "How many people go to the middle of the desert to hold a wedding 80 mi from the nearest civilization? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive." The occurrence of a wedding was disputed by military officials, but the Associated Press obtained video footage showing a wedding party and a video the next day showed musical instruments and party decoration among the remains. When asked by the press about footage on Arabic television of a child's body being lowered into a grave, he replied: "I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men."

Department of Defense survey
Following a Department of Defense survey that showed only 55% of US soldiers and 40% of Marines would report a colleague for abusing civilians, Mattis told Marines in May 2007 that "whenever you show anger or disgust toward civilians, it's a victory for al-Qaeda and other insurgents." Believing that a need for restraint in war as key to defeating an insurgency, he added: "every time you wave at an Iraqi civilian, al-Qaeda rolls over in its grave."

1st Marine Division's motto "no better friend, no worse enemy"
Mattis popularized the 1st Marine Division's motto "no better friend, no worse enemy", a paraphrase of the epitaph the Roman dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote for himself, in his open letter to all men within the division for their return to Iraq. This phrase later became widely publicized during the investigation into the conduct of Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, a platoon commander serving under Mattis.

In the letter Mattis also encouraged his men to "fight with a happy heart," a phrase he attributes to Sitting Bull, and that he learned from the Native American oral tradition.

Cultural sensitivity training
As his division prepared to ship out, Mattis called in "experts on the Middle East" for "cultural sensitivity training." He constantly toured the battlefield to tell stories of Marines who were able to show "discretion in moments of high pressure." As an apparent example, he encouraged his Marines to grow moustaches to look more like the people they were working with.

Removal of senior leaders
He was also noted for a willingness to remove senior leaders under his command when the US military seemed unable or unwilling to relieve underperforming or incompetent officers. During the division's push to Baghdad, Mattis relieved Colonel Joe D. Dowdy, commander of Regimental Combat Team-1. It was such a rare occurrence in the modern military that it made the front page of newspapers. Despite this, Mattis declined to comment on the matter publicly other than to say that the practice of officer relief remains alive, or at least "we are doing it in the Marines." Later interviews of Dowdy's officers and men revealed that "the colonel was doomed partly by an age-old wartime tension: Men versus mission—in which he favored his men," while Mattis insisted on execution of the mission to seize Baghdad swiftly.

Combat Development Command
After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat Development Command. In February 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said, "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." Mattis's remarks sparked controversy; General Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement suggesting Mattis should have chosen his words more carefully, but he would not be disciplined.

US Joint Forces Command
The Pentagon announced on May 31, 2006, that Mattis had been chosen to take command of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, based out of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. On September 11, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that President George W. Bush had nominated Mattis for appointment to the rank of general to command US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) in Norfolk, Virginia. NATO agreed to appoint Mattis as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT). On September 28, 2007, the United States Senate confirmed Mattis's nomination, and he relinquished command of the I MEF on November 5, 2007, to Lieutenant General Samuel Helland.

Mattis was promoted to four-star general and took control of USJFCOM/SACT on November 9, 2007. On September 9, 2009, French Air Force General Stéphane Abrial assumed the position of SACT. Mattis remained commander of JFCOM from November 2007 until September 2010.

As a four-star general, Mattis included a member of the intelligence community on his staff to be in every meeting and "challenge any assumptions we made."

US Central Command
In early 2010, Mattis was reported to be on the list of generals being considered to replace James T. Conway as the commandant of the US Marine Corps. In July, he was recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates for nomination to replace David Petraeus as commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), and formally nominated by President Obama on July 21.

Mattis took command at a ceremony at MacDill Air Force Base on August 11. As head of Central Command, Mattis oversaw the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was responsible for a region that includes Syria, Iran, and Yemen. He lobbied the Obama administration for a more aggressive response to Iran, including more covert operations and disruption of Iranian arms shipments to Syria and Yemen. After an incident in 2011 where an Iranian jet had attacked a U.S. drone flying over the Persian Gulf in international airspace, Mattis wanted permission to shoot down any Iranian aircraft that was attacking American drones, but the Obama administration denied this request. According to Leon Panetta, the Obama administration did not place much trust in Mattis because he was perceived as too eager for a military confrontation with Iran. Panetta later said, though, that some of the mistrust was unjustified, arising from the inexperience of some White House staff not understanding the need "to look at all of the options that a president should look at in order to make the right decisions." Nevertheless, Mattis's hawkishness was out of step with the White House's perspective, and "ultimately, Mattis’s advocacy and aggressive style alienated the White House and the president he was serving."

Mattis retired in March 2013, and the Defense Department nominated General Lloyd Austin to succeed him. Sheikh Моhamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan asked Mattis to serve as a military advisor in the Yemen war conflict. During Mattis's tenure as the Secretary of Defense under President Trump, his consultation with the UАЕ was omitted from public record and financial disclosure. Mattis's relationship with the UАЕ was strong, featuring a speech in Аbu Dhаbi initially set to be compensated at $100,000 but later clarified as unpaid.

Civilian career
After retiring from the military, Mattis worked for FWA Consultants and served as a member of the General Dynamics Board of Directors. Between 2013 and 2017, while on the board of General Dynamics, Mattis made more than $900,000 in compensation, including company stock. In August 2013, he was appointed an Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution and in 2016 he was named the Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow.

In December 2015, Mattis joined the advisory board of Spirit of America, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides assistance to support the safety and success of American service personnel and the local people they seek to help.

He is co-editor of the book Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military, published in August 2016.

From 2013 to January 2017, Mattis was a board member of Theranos, a health technology company that claimed to have devised revolutionary blood tests using very small amounts of blood, which was later determined to be a fraudulent claim by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Previously, in mid-2012, a Department of Defense official evaluating Theranos's blood-testing technology for the military initiated a formal inquiry with the Food and Drug Administration about the company's intent to distribute its tests without FDA clearance. In August 2012, Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes asked Mattis, who had expressed interest in testing Theranos's technology in combat areas, to help. Within hours, Mattis forwarded his email exchange with Holmes to military officials, asking "how do we overcome this new obstacle". In July 2013, the Department of Defense gave Mattis permission to join Theranos's board provided he did not represent Theranos with regard to the blood-testing device and its potential acquisition by the Departments of the Navy or Defense.

In 2019, Mattis's book Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead was published. It is an autobiography as well as an argument in favor of an internationalist foreign policy. On August 7, 2019, Mattis was re-elected to the board of General Dynamics.

Nomination and confirmation
President-elect Donald Trump met with Mattis for a little over one hour in Bedminster, New Jersey, on November 20, 2016. He later wrote on Twitter, "General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for secretary of defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!" On December 1, 2016, Trump announced at a rally in Cincinnati that he would nominate Mattis for secretary of defense.

The National Security Act of 1947 requires a seven-year waiting period before retired military personnel can assume the role of secretary of defense; Mattis's nomination meant that it was the first time since 1950 (in that instance for George Marshall) that a waiver of the law was needed. The waiver for Mattis passed 81–17 in the Senate and 268–151 in the House. Mattis was subsequently confirmed as secretary of defense by a vote of 98–1 in the United States Senate on January 20, 2017. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was the sole "no" vote, stating that she was opposed to the waiver on principle.

Tenure
In a January 2017 phone call with Saudi Arabia's deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, Mattis "reaffirmed the importance of the US–Saudi Arabia strategic relationship".

For his first official trip abroad, Mattis began a two-day visit with longtime US ally South Korea on February 2, 2017. He warned North Korea that "any attack on the United States, or our allies, will be defeated", and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with an "effective and overwhelming" response from the United States. During a press conference in London on March 31, 2017, with the British secretary of state for defence, Michael Fallon, Mattis said North Korea was behaving "in a very reckless manner" and must be stopped. During a Pentagon news conference on May 26, Mattis reported the US was working with the UN, China, Japan, and South Korea to avoid "a military solution" with North Korea. On June 3, Mattis said the United States regarded North Korea as "clear and present danger" during a speech at the international security conference in Singapore. In a June 12 written statement to the House Armed Services Committee Mattis said North Korea was the "most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security". On June 15, Mattis said the US would win a war against North Korea, but "at great cost".

On March 22, 2017, during questioning from the US Senate, Mattis affirmed his support for US troops remaining in Iraq after the Battle of Mosul was concluded. Mattis responded to critics who suggested the Trump administration had loosened the rules of engagement for the US military in Iraq after US-led coalition airstrikes in Mosul killed civilians, saying, "We go out of our way to always do everything humanly possible to reduce the loss of life or injury among innocent people." According to Airwars, the US-led coalition killed as many as 6,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria in 2017. On April 5, 2017, Mattis called the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack "a heinous act," and said it would be treated accordingly. On April 10, Mattis warned the Syrian government against using chemical weapons again. The following day, Mattis gave his first Pentagon news conference since becoming secretary of defense, saying ISIL's defeat remained "our priority," and the Syrian government would pay a "very, very stiff price" for further usage of chemical weapons. On April 21 Mattis said Syria still had chemical weapons and was in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Trump ordered Mattis to assassinate Assad, but Mattis refused. On May 8 Mattis told reporters details of the proposed Syrian safe zones were "all in process right now" and the United States was involved with configuring them.

Mattis voiced support for a Saudi Arabian-led military campaign against Yemen's Shiite rebels. He asked Trump to remove restrictions on US military support for Saudi Arabia.

On April 20, 2017, one week after the Nangarhar airstrike, Mattis told reporters that the US would not conduct a damage assessment "in terms of the number of people killed" in Afghanistan. Mattis traveled to Afghanistan days later and met with government officials, explaining that the purpose of the trip was to allow him to state his recommendations for US strategy in the country. On June 13, Mattis said US forces were "not winning" in Afghanistan and the administration would develop a new strategy by "mid-July" while speaking to the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. On June 29, Mattis said the Obama administration "may have pulled our troops out too rapidly" and that he intended to submit a new Afghanistan strategy to Trump upon his return to Washington, D.C.

The United States has been openly arming the Syrian Kurdish fighters in the war against ISIL since May 2017. Following the start of the Turkish invasion of northern Syria aimed at ousting US-backed Syrian Kurds from the enclave of Afrin, Mattis said in January 2018: "Turkey is a NATO ally. It's the only NATO country with an active insurgency inside its borders. And Turkey has legitimate security concerns." Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ urged the United States to halt its support for Kurdish YPG fighters, saying: "Those who support the terrorist organization will become a target in this battle."

On April 13, 2018, Mattis briefed reporters in a press conference at the Pentagon on the 2018 missile strikes against Syria being carried out against the Assad regime's chemical weapon compounds, saying, "Tonight, France, the United Kingdom and the United States took decisive action to strike the Syrian chemical weapons infrastructure. Clearly the Assad regime did not get the message last year. This time our allies and we have struck harder. Together we have sent a clear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack for which they will be held accountable".

In November 2018, the CIA assessed with "high confidence" that Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman ordered the assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Under mounting pressure from lawmakers who wanted action against Saudi Arabia, Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a rare closed briefing of the Senate, disputed the CIA's conclusion and declared there was no direct evidence linking the crown prince to Khashoggi's assassination.

Wherever Mattis traveled overseas, he brought the Defense Security Cooperation Agency director (the official in charge of weapon sales to foreign governments), according to Lt. Gen. Charles Hooper, speaking at the Brookings Institution in June 2019.

Conflicts with Trump and resignation
Mattis had recommended General David L. Goldfein, Air Force Chief of Staff, to succeed retiring General Joseph Dunford as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2018. Instead, Trump chose General Mark Milley, Army Chief of Staff, whom Mattis had recommended for the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

On December 19, 2018, Trump announced immediate US withdrawal from Syria, over his national security advisers' objections. Mattis had recently said that the US would remain in Syria after ISIL's defeat to ensure it did not regroup. The next day, he submitted his resignation after failing to persuade Trump to reconsider. His resignation letter contained language that appeared to criticize Trump's worldview—praising NATO, which Trump has often derided, and the 79-nation anti-ISIS coalition that Trump had decided to abandon. Mattis also affirmed the need for "treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors" and remaining "resolute and unambiguous" against authoritarian states such as China and Russia. He wrote that Trump has "the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with [his] on these and other subjects." His resignation triggered alarm among historical allies. In his 2018 resignation letter, Mattis called both Russia and China "authoritarian models" rivaling US interests. Mattis's letter said his resignation would be effective February 28, 2019. Three days later Trump moved Mattis's departure date up to January 1, after becoming angered by the implicit criticism of Trump's worldview in Mattis's letter. On January 2, 2019, Trump criticized Mattis's performance as secretary of defense and said he had "essentially fired him."

John F. Kelly, Trump's chief of staff when Mattis left his position, denied that Trump fired Mattis or asked for his resignation. He said Trump must be confused or mistaken, and that "Jim Mattis is an honorable man." Mattis returned to his post as Davies Family Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Post-tenure
After leaving the White House, Mattis initially declined to offer his opinion of the Trump administration, saying, "If you leave an administration, you owe some silence," and was guarded when asked to reflect on Trump or military matters, saying he didn't want to detract from the troops. He changed his position after becoming "angry and appalled" about the events leading up to the violent treatment of noncombative protesters near the White House on June 1, 2020, for the purpose of a photo op for Trump at the church across Lafayette Square. Trump responded by Twitter that evening that he "felt great" he had previously asked Mattis to resign, and he didn't like much about Mattis or his "leadership style" and was "Glad he is gone!"

In 2019, Mattis joined The Cohen Group as senior counsel.

Mattis, along with all other living former secretaries of defense, ten in total, published a Washington Post op-ed piece in January 2021 telling President Trump not to involve the military in determining the outcome of the 2020 elections.

Al Smith Dinner comments
At the October 17, 2019, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Mattis, the keynote speaker, responded to comments Trump had made about him, saying, I'm not just an overrated general, I am the greatest, the world's most overrated... I'm honored to be considered that by Donald Trump, because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actress. So I guess I'm the Meryl Streep of generals, and frankly, that sounds pretty good to me. And you do have to admit that between me and Meryl, at least we've had some victories. He continued, "I've earned my spurs on the battlefield... Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor."

Political positions
Mattis claims he has "never registered for any political party". He also claims when he was 18 that he was "proudly apolitical".

Israeli–Palestinian peace process
Mattis supports a two-state solution model for Israeli–Palestinian peace. He has said the situation in Israel is "unsustainable" and that Israeli settlements harm prospects for peace and could lead to an apartheid-like situation in the West Bank. In particular, he has said that the perception of biased American support for Israel has made it difficult for moderate Arabs to show support for the United States. Mattis strongly supported Secretary of State John Kerry on the Middle East peace process, praising Kerry for being "wisely focused like a laser beam" on a two-state solution.

Iran and Middle Eastern allies
Mattis believes Iran is the principal threat to the stability of the Middle East, ahead of Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Mattis says: "I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief. Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates." Mattis sees the Iran nuclear deal as a poor agreement, but believes there is now no way to tear it up, saying: "We are just going to have to recognize that we have an imperfect arms control agreement. Second, that what we achieved is a nuclear pause, not a nuclear halt". Mattis argues that inspections may fail to prevent Iran from seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but that "[i]f nothing else at least we will have better-targeting data if it comes to a fight in the future." Additionally, he criticized Obama for being "naive" about Iranian intentions and Congress for being "pretty much absent" on the nuclear deal.

Mattis praises the friendship of regional US allies such as Jordan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. He also criticized Obama for seeing allies as "freeloading", saying: "For a sitting US President to see our allies as freeloaders is nuts." He has cited the importance of the United Arab Emirates and Jordan as countries that wanted to help, for example, in filling in the gaps in Afghanistan. He criticized Obama's defense strategy as giving "the perception we're pulling back" from US allies. He stresses the need for the US to bolster its ties with allied intelligence agencies, particularly those of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 2012, Mattis argued for providing weapons to Syrian rebels as a way to fight back against Iranian proxies in Syria.

Japan
Mattis visited Japan one week after being sworn in as secretary of defense. During a meeting with Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, Mattis emphasized that the US remains committed to the mutual defense of Japan and stated, "I want there to be no misunderstanding during the transition in Washington that we stand firmly, 100 percent, shoulder to shoulder with you and the Japanese people." He also reassured Japan that the US would defend the disputed Senkaku Islands controlled by Japan but also claimed by China and Taiwan.

Russia
Speaking at a 2015 conference sponsored by The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Mattis said he believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin's intent is "to break NATO apart." Mattis has also spoken out against what he perceives as Russia's expansionist or bellicose policies in Syria, Ukraine and the Baltic states. In 2017, Mattis said that the world order is "under the biggest attack since World War II, ... and that is from Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea.

On February 16, 2017, Mattis said the United States was not currently prepared to collaborate with Russia on military matters, including future anti-ISIL US operations. In August 2017, he said: "Despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe".

On July 1, 2022, he described the Russian invasion of Ukraine as "immoral, the tactically incompetent, operationally stupid and strategically foolish effort". He added that Vladimir Putin "probably thought that the Ukrainian people were going to welcome him."

China
Mattis called for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and criticized China's island-building activities, saying: "The bottom line is... the international waters are international waters."

Climate change
In 2017, Mattis said that budget cuts would hamper the ability to monitor the effects of global warming, and noted, "climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response." He also told senators "climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today."

2020 George Floyd protests
On June 3, 2020, Mattis issued a statement to The Atlantic in which he criticized President Donald Trump and his policies during the George Floyd protests. He berated Trump for deliberately trying to cause division among the American people and advocating military action to "dominate" the country's protests. "Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society, and diminishes the trust and constitutional relationship between the armed services and the civilian population they support", he wrote. Mattis called for reunification among the people, regardless of the president, to preserve the welfare of society, and its future.

Mattis wrote that Trump was "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us". He added that America is "witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership". He called for accountability for "those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution." He concluded, "Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad."

Personal life
A bachelor for his entire professional career, Mattis married physicist and business executive Christina Lomasney in June 2022. He has no children. He previously proposed to a woman, but she called off the wedding three days before it was to occur, after colleagues talked him out of leaving the Marine Corps for her. He was nicknamed "The Warrior Monk" because of his bachelorhood and lifelong devotion to the study of war. An avid reader, he has 7,000 books in his private library, and has recommended Marcus Aurelius's Meditations as the one book every American should read. Mattis describes Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers as one of the reasons for implementing training simulators for infantrymen.

Mattis was inducted into the Sons of the American Revolution on July 13, 2021.

Mattis is a Catholic, and has been described as "devout" and "committed". During the 2003 Iraq invasion, he often prayed with general John F. Kelly on Sundays. The Trump transition team's formal biography of Mattis described him as "the living embodiment of the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis." He has declined when asked by reporters to discuss his faith in public. In a 2003 PBS interview, Mattis recalled how his Marines followed advice from his chaplain on gaining the support of Iraqi citizens: On the suggestion of my Catholic chaplain the Marines would take chilled drinking water in bottles and walk out amongst the protesters and hand it out. It is just hard to throw a rock at somebody who has given you a cold drink of water and it's 120 degrees outside.

Military awards
Mattis's decorations, awards, and badges include, among others:

Meritorious Service Cross citation

"'While occupying key leadership positions within the United States Armed Forces and NATO between 2001 and 2012, General Mattis directly and repeatedly contributed to the Canadian Forces’ operational success in Afghanistan. Providing unprecedented access and championing Canadian participation in critical policy and training events, he helped shape Canadian counter-insurgency doctrine. Demonstrating unequivocal support and unwavering commitment to Canada, General Mattis has significantly strengthened Canadian-American relations and has been a critical enabler in both countries’ shared achievements in Afghanistan.'"

Civilian awards

Mattis's civilian awards include:

 * 2009: Center for National Policy's Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award
 * 2010: Atlantic Council's Distinguished Military Leadership Award
 * 2013: World Affairs Council of Greater Hampton Roads "Ryan C. Crocker Global Citizen of the Year" Award
 * 2014: Marine Corps University Foundation Semper Fidelis Award
 * 2014: Washington College honorary doctor of laws degree
 * 2016: Washington Policy Center Champion of Freedom Award recipient
 * 2021: Elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * 2021: Honorary Companion of the Order of Australia

In popular culture

 * Mattis is the primary subject of Guy Snodgrass's 2019 book Holding the Line: Inside Trump's Pentagon with Secretary Mattis.
 * Robert John Burke portrays Mattis in the 2008 HBO miniseries Generation Kill, which depicts the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
 * Mattis is also known for the Internet meme depicting him as "Saint Mattis of Quantico, Patron Saint of Chaos".
 * Mattis is commonly "reported on" by the military satire website Duffel Blog for potentially being fired, winning an "arms race" with Russia, and crossing the Potomac to launch a Roman-style coup d'état.
 * Mattis is an avid reader and releases his reading lists.

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

title: Jim Mattis


text:
Pope Michael

Pope Michael may refer to:

Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria:
 * Pope Michael I of Alexandria (743–767)
 * Pope Michael II of Alexandria (849–851)
 * Pope Michael III of Alexandria (880–907)
 * Pope Michael IV of Alexandria (1092–1102)
 * Pope Michael V of Alexandria (1145–1146)
 * Pope Michael VI of Alexandria (1475–1477)

Other:
 * David Bawden, an American who claimed the Roman Catholic papacy (1990–2022) under the papal name Michael
 * Rogelio Del Rosario Martinez, a Filipino papacy claimant who succeeded Bawden and took the name of Michael II

title: Pope Michael


text:
Earl Boen

Earl Boen (August 8, 1941 – January 5, 2023) was an American actor. He is perhaps best known for portraying criminal psychologist Dr. Peter Silberman in The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003).

Boen was also very active in the voice-over field, voicing characters such as Mr. Horace Bleakman in Clifford the Big Red Dog, Police Chief Kanifky in Bonkers, the narrator and King Terenas Menethil II in World of Warcraft, Señor Senior, Senior in Kim Possible, and LeChuck in the Monkey Island series.

Early life
Earl Boen was born on August 8, 1941, in New York City.

Career
On television, some of Boen's early roles include The Streets of San Francisco, Hawaii Five-O, The Jeffersons, Judge Barnes on What's Happening! and District Attorney Hepburn on Kojak. Boen played the Harper family's pastor, the Rev. Lloyd Meechum in a recurring role on the 1980s sitcom Mama's Family. He also appeared as a clergyman in episodes of The Golden Girls, The Golden Palace, The Wonder Years, Boy Meets World, Seinfeld and Three's Company. He also appeared as Willie's boss in ALF, and as Patrick Morrison in the Matlock episode "The Cult".

Boen played Jim Petersen, Angela Bower's boss on the show Who's The Boss?. Boen had a recurring role as Dr. Kramer in the 1990s Fox series Get a Life. Boen appeared (alongside Tom Jones) in an episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air in 1993 as a Princeton admissions agent. He also voiced the omnipotent alien Nagilum in a second season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

In film, Boen was well-known for playing criminal psychologist Dr. Peter Silberman in The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). Other films in which he appeared include The Main Event (1979), Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), 9 to 5 (1980), Soggy Bottom, U.S.A. (1981), The Man with Two Brains (1983), To Be or Not to Be (1983), Alien Nation (1988), Marked for Death (1990), Naked Gun $33 1⁄3$: The Final Insult (1994), and Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000).

In 1987, came his first voice role as Taurus in the direct to video G.I. Joe: The Movie. He voiced the villainous pirate LeChuck from the Monkey Island series of adventure games. He also provided the introductions for World of Warcraft and its expansions, voiced Magtheridon in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade and King Terenas Menethil II in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, including the cinematic trailer and ending cutscene for that expansion, which featured the iconic line "no king rules forever, my son."

Boen voiced the dramatic thespian Edwin Blackgaard in Focus on the Family's "Adventures in Odyssey", as well as Edwin's nefarious twin brother Regis. He portrayed Sergei Gurlukovich in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, a role that he later reprised in the Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance rerelease and the official digital graphic novel. Other roles include Colossus in X-Men: Legends and a variety of characters across multiple Star Trek titles, including Bridge Commander and Armada II.

Boen's voice was heard on the Disneyland Railroad from 2002 until 2016 and on the Walt Disney World Railroad from 2002 until late 2010.

Boen retired from screen acting in 2003, but continued his work as a voice actor in radio, television cartoons and video games until 2017.

Personal life and death
Boen married actress Carole Kean in 1970. She died on April 23, 2001, from ovarian cancer at the age of 58. Together they had a daughter. Boen married his second wife, Cathy, in 2008.

Boen was diagnosed with lung cancer in the fall of 2022. He died in Hawaii on January 5, 2023, at the age of 81.

title: Earl Boen


text:
Talk:DVI (disambiguation)

DVI (disambiguation) → DVI
Apparently, the move is being blocked because someone edited the redirect. DVI currently redirects to Digital Visual Interface, but it seems that the disambiguation page would go better there. “alerante” 19:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Opppose. The redirect presently at DVI is easily editable. If you really think it would be better going to DVI (disambiguation), feel free to edit the redirect., but looking at the article pages that currently link to DVI, exclusing the TLAs from AAA to DZZ page, I have to say that six of them are for Digital Visual Interface and only two are for any other meaning. So it seems that the current redirect is the correct one; primary topic disambiguation is already available through that article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose The video interface is what comes to mind, and it will only be more so as the technology becomes more popular. TeX typesetting is a technical sub-specialty, and much more obscure, but it's easy to find through the disambiguation mechanism already present.  —Michael Z. 2005-02-9 17:25 Z

Move against consensus above
I am in favour of the primary meaning being Digital Visual Interface, and have promoted to the top. I would be in favour of moving this back, and having a redirect as primary. As there's debate above (in agreement) and history, I want to gain consensus first... Widefox ; talk 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No opposition, so just like VGA, making this the primary meaning Widefox ; talk 14:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disaster Victim Identification
DVI is also Disaster Victim Identification - we need a page on that ... http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Forensics/DVI David Thrale (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:DVI (disambiguation)


text:
Ashley's stopper knot

Ashley's stopper knot, also known as the oysterman's stopper, is a knot developed by Clifford W. Ashley around 1910. It makes a well-balanced trefoil-faced stopper at the end of the rope, giving greater resistance to pulling through an opening than other common stoppers. Essentially, the knot is a common overhand noose, but with the end of the rope passing through the noose eye, which closes upon it. It may be multiplied to form a larger knot with more than three bights appearing around the knot. It is the result of implementing a double wall knot in one strand.

Ashley developed this knot in trying to duplicate a knot he saw on a boat in a local oyster fishing fleet. When he had a chance to observe the knot up close at a later time he realized it was just a badly water-swollen figure eight stopper knot.

"The oysterman's stopper...It is a larger knot than the figure-eight, which has but one part around the stem. The oysterman's stopper knot has three rim parts, and these are quite symmetrical when viewed from the underside. From this view it closely resembles a three-strand wall knot. The end is nipped by a single top part. It is easy to tie and practical to use when the hole that is to be filled is too large for the figure-eight."

- The Ashley Book of Knots

Tying

 * 1) Form an overhand noose, or simply tie an overhand knot around the standing part as shown.
 * 2) Tighten the overhand portion of the knot around the standing part.  Thread the working part through the loop.
 * 3) First close the noose on the working part by pulling on the standing part, then remove any remaining slack in the knot by pulling on the working part.  The knot should have a tidy, triangular shape where the standing part enters the knot. (See image at right.)

title: Ashley's stopper knot


text:
List of tai chi forms

List of tai chi forms, postures, movements, or positions in order of number of forms:

Hand forms

 * 4 - Chen 4 Step is a subset of Chen Old Frame One (Zhu Tian Cai)
 * 4 - Chen 4 Step is a subset of Chen Beijing Branch (Wang Xiaojun)
 * 5 - Yang 5 Step (Wang Xiaojun)
 * 8 - Yang Standardized
 * 8 - Chen Standardized
 * 9 - Chen Old Frame (Master Liu Yong)
 * 10 - Yang Introductory Form (also often called 8-step)
 * 11 - Chen created by Liming Yue after many years of study with Chen Zhenglei and Kongjie Gou
 * 12 - Chen(Based on the movements from Feng Zhiqiang's Chen Style Xinyi Hunyuan Taijiquan system. Taught by the SF Wushu Team)
 * 12 - Yang
 * 13 - Chen (created by Master Chen Bing based on the movements from (Old Frame, First Routine, Lao Jia Yi Lu))
 * 13 - Chen (aka Five Element Chen) subset of either Old Frame One or Small Frame (Zhu Tian Cai)
 * 13 - Dong Yue (East Mountain) Combined
 * 13 - Wudang (Zhang SanFeng - Wudang Nei Jia Quan) - Shi San Shi
 * 13 - Yang Family 13-Form
 * 13 - Chu style Yang form Long 108 and Short 37 movements
 * 14/16 - Guangbo (Guang-Bo) (a mixture of Chen, Yang, Wu, and Qigong that was done by factory workers in China)
 * 16 - Yang Standardized
 * 16 - Chen Standardized
 * 16 - Actually Chen 4 Step (see above) popularly repeated in four directions of the compass (Zhu Tian Cai)
 * 16 - Yang Family 16-Form
 * 18 - Chen (Chen Zhenglei)
 * 18 - Wudang (Zhang SanFeng - simplified new form)
 * 19 - Chen (Chen Xiao Wang)
 * 20 - 5 Section Taijiquan (Yang Simplified)
 * 20 - 5 Section Chen Taijiquan (Chen Simplified)
 * 20 - Simplified form of Chen Xiaojia (Small frame of Chen tai chi)
 * 24 - Yang ('Simplified', 'Beijing', 'New Style') Standardized
 * 24 - Chen Shi (Chen style) Xinyi Hunyuan Taijiquan (24 Form by Feng Zhiqiang)
 * 24 - Zhao Bao
 * 24 - Jingquanshitaijiquan (24 Forms - T'ien Ti Tao/Tiandidao)
 * 26 - Yang
 * 28 - Yang
 * 28 - Wudang Taiji
 * 32 - Combined Form
 * 32 - Chen Standardized "Fist" (New Frame)
 * 32 - Yang
 * 34 - Wudang short
 * 35 - Sun Standardized Short
 * 36 - Chen Standardized, Beijing Branch (Tian Xiuchen and Kan Guixiang)
 * 36 - Fu style short form tai chi ch'uan
 * 36 - Wu Short Form
 * 37 - Wu (Wang Pei-sheng) Short
 * 37 - Yang (Zheng, Cheng Man-ch'ing) Short
 * 37 - Taiji 37 (Dr. Shen Hongxun) Short
 * 38 - Chen (Chen Xiao Wang)
 * 39 - Chen (Old frame 39)
 * 39 - Chen (New frame 39)
 * 40 - Yang competition
 * 40 - Sun Family Modern Short Form
 * 40 - Jingquanshitaijiquan (40 Steps or 24 Forms - T'ien Ti Tao/Tiandidao)
 * 41 - Sun 41: Tai Chi for Arthritis (TCA), created by Dr. Paul Lam of the Tai Chi for Health Institute, Sydney, Australia. Sun 20: Basic 6 moves, performed on Right and Left. Sun 41: additional 6 moves, also performed both sides.
 * 42 - Yang
 * 42 - Chen (Old form cannon fist)
 * 42 - Combined Style Competition Form
 * 42 - Sun Traditional Short
 * 43 - Yang (Jiang Yu Kun)
 * 43 - Zhao Bao
 * 46 - Yang Competition
 * 46 - Wu competition
 * 48 - Old Combined Style Competition Form
 * 48 - Chen Shi (Chen style) Xinyi Hunyuan Taijiquan (48 Form by Feng Zhiqiang)
 * 49 - Yang Family Demonstration and Competition Form ("Short" Form)
 * 49 - Wu (Hao) short form
 * 50 - Lee-style short form
 * 53 - Fu style advanced tai chi
 * 54 - Wu Jianquan family (Wu Daxin) competition form
 * 56 - Chen Competition
 * 56 - Zhao Bao
 * 64 - Yang (Kuang Ping style)
 * 64 - Chen-style tai chi Practical Method Erlu
 * 66 - Combined Standardized (Lost, original content unknown)
 * 67 - Movements Combined tai chi form
 * 67 - Fu style tai chi lightning palm
 * 67 - Hwa Yu tai chi Long Form
 * 71 - Chen Erlu (Cannon Fist), Beijing Branch (Chen Fake)
 * 72 - Huang Sheng Shyan Form
 * 72 - Wu Chao Xiang: "traditional form of the master Wu Chao Xiang";
 * 73 - Sun Competition
 * 74 - Chen-style Laojia forms
 * 77 - Yang Extended Renovation
 * 81 - Wu (Hao) Old Form
 * 81 - Chen Style tai chi Practical Method Yilu
 * 81 - WoLong, Divine Fractal Form
 * 83 - Chen Yilu, Beijing Branch (Chen Fake)
 * 83 - Beijing Northern Wu Style tai chi
 * 88 - Yang Standardized (which appears to differ slightly from traditional forms of similar length)
 * 95 - Shanghai Jianchuan T'ai Chi Association Wu Style tai chi fast form
 * 96 - Wu (Hao) long form
 * 96 - Ma Yongsheng "New Tai Chi" 96-steps as taught in Nanjing Central Kuoshu Academy. Currently it is also known as Ma-family tai chi and as it covers the 8 directions, some called it Bagua tai chi.
 * 97/98 - Sun Traditional Long
 * 99 - Orthodox Cheng Ming System which was devised as a combination of the 5 Main styles in Nanjing in 1929 and was taught by the Master Wang Shujin
 * 103 - Yang long form (The moves can also add up to 85, 88, 108 or 150 depending on how they are counted.)
 * 105 - Fu style tai chi
 * 108 - Taoist Tai Chi form, As done by Taoist Tai Chi Society
 * 108 - Chen
 * 108 - Wu Jianquan long form
 * 119 - Wudang long
 * 120 - Tchoung_Ta-chen - Annotated Form
 * 127 - Yangjia Michuan tai chi - Yang Family Hidden Tradition
 * 140 - Lee-style form
 * 144 - Chen Style tai chi Practical Method Combined Yilu-Erlu
 * 180 - Wu Long Form
 * 185 - Lee-style tai chi dance (Tiàowǔ 跳舞)
 * 229 - Tchoung_Ta-chen - Long Form

Weapon forms

 * 13 - Dong Yue (East Mountain) Combined Jian (sword)
 * 13 - Wu Jianquan Spear
 * 13 - Beijing Northern Wu-style Tai Chi thirteen Dao (saber)
 * 13 - Posture Poem Yang-style Tai Chi Dao Form
 * 13 - Yang-style Dao
 * 14 - Chen Tai Chi Dadao (machete), Chen Beijing Branch
 * 16 - Yang Standardized Sword
 * 16 - Yang/Combined Standardized Spear
 * 18 - Chen 'Health' Standardized Jian
 * 20 - Chen sword Xiaojia
 * 23 - Chen long stick (gun), Chen Beijing Branch
 * 23 - Chen Broadsword
 * 24 - Wu Jianquan Spear
 * 27 - 5 Section solo Tai Chi
 * 30 - Chen Tai Chi Dadao
 * 32 - Yang/Combined Jian
 * 32 - Divine Staff of Tiandidao.
 * 36 - Chen Jian, Beijing Branch (Tian Xiuchen)
 * 36 - Chen Broadsword, Beijing Branch (Tian Xiuchen)
 * 36 - Chen-style Xinyi Hun Yuan broadsword
 * 36 - Yang-style Tai Chi Fan
 * 40 - Chen Broadsword
 * 42 - Tai Chi Dao of Tiandidao.
 * 42 - Competition Sword Tai Chi Jian (complements 42 tai chi competition forms)
 * 46 - Chen Broadsword, Beijing Branch (Tian Qiutian)
 * 48 - Chen Hand Fan (Ma Chunxi)
 * 48 - Chen-style Xinyi Hun Yuan sword
 * 49 - Chen Sword
 * 54 - Yang Sword
 * 56 - Fu-style tai chi seven star sword
 * 58 - Chen Sword, Beijing Branch (Chen Fake)
 * 60 - Wu-style tai chi Jian (Created by Master Chian Ho Yin)
 * 62 - Chen Single Sword
 * 64 - 5 Section 2 person tai chi
 * 67 - Movement Yang-style tai chi Sword Form
 * 84 - Wu Style Heaven and Earth Sword Form (Qian Kun Jian)
 * 92 - Wudang Single Sword
 * 108 - Wu Jianquan Dao
 * 108 - Wu Jianquan Jian
 * 216 - Lee style Tai Chi sword
 * 270 - Lee style Tai Chi Stick (Staff)

title: List of tai chi forms


text:
Talk:Cofradía, Cortés

Suggestions
Education The first school was founded in 1900, its first teacher was Don Filadelfo López Morales.

A boys' school was founded in 1900, by teacher Donaldo Sabillon Vásquez.

The girls' school was founded between 1905 and 1912; its first teacher was Elvia Julia Morales.

Another boys' school was founded in 1930 under the direction of Leandro Rodríguez.

The Miguel Paz Barahona girls school was founded December 24, 1937 at the same time as the inauguration of a municipal water system. The mayor of San Pedro Sula at this time, Don José Castro López, appointed Doña Laura Vda. de Alcocer as the director. And in (from?) 1920 he and Don Donaldo alternated the position, with a monthly salary of Lps. 90.

 * Why do you think "con dos grados alternados" means they alternated the position? (Not a rhetorical question: I've just never seen that expression used with that meaning.) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

At that time, sixth grade was offered only in the more advanced villages, with children in others only going to the fifth grade. The age of matriculation ranged between 7 and 18 years. The teachers were very strict disciplinarians: if a student failed to show up for school, a teacher's assistant would seek the student out and bring him or her back to school, to be punished there by the teacher; and punished again by his or her parents upon arriving back home. The students received 8 hours of lessons daily. Teaching materials for students included a notebook made of sewn office paper, ink made with blue aniline. Pencils were of made candle wax, the satchels were made of cloth or nylon.

I'm sorry for trying to help.WikiUser 18:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Other than that, this seems almost verbatim from what the article already says, why didn't you just make these few small edits in the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't a criticism, i'm just trying to understand: do you have some basis for that understanding of the one problematic phrase (e.g. are you a native Spanish speaker, or is this phrase familiar to you?) or was that a guess? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:08, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is there something good about Cofradia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abyab (talk • contribs) 31 March 2006.

 * They have the largest skating rink in Honduras. INAUGURAN LA PISTA DE PATINAJE MÁS GRAN DE HONDURAS EN COFRADÍA, CORTÉS. That's cool. --Catrachos (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish language link (under Languages) not correct
Placed in the wrong group of language links. They do not refer to the Honduras Cortés department place name that is documented by this article. The language links refer to a religious notion, Cofradía,

 * como término general universal, designa diferentes tipos de cosas, como hermandad, gremio, compañía, unión o reunión de individuos.

It appears now that the Spanish version links to Confraternity. I couldn't find any equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipeda for this one (village of Cofradía in Cortés).--Catrachos (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

2001 Demographics appear out of date
As of March 2017 the inhabitants were trying to convert the village classification to the 299th municipality Honduras and 13th of Cortés (Quieren convertir a Cofradía en el municipio 13 de Cortés):
 * Esa situación ha llevado a un grupo de pobladores a continuar con un proyecto que estaba engavetado y es el de convertir a la Villa de Cofradía en el municipio 299 de Honduras. Conformaron un comité pro municipio de Cofradía que ha iniciado una serie de actividades para llamar la atención de la realidad de la Villa y la necesidad de ser el municipio 299 de Honduras y el 13 del departamento de Cortés.'

The article summarizes data as of that date:
 * En la parte baja o urbana del sector hay 64 colonias con una población de 195,000 habitantes sin contar con la población rural en la parte del El Meredon, que corresponde a Cofradía y que tiene más de 62 aldeas y caseríos. No hay datos del número de habitantes en este sector.

--Catrachos (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cofradía, Cortés


text:
China Navigation Company

The China Navigation Company Limited (CNCo) is a London-based holding company of merchant shipping companies Swire Shipping Pte Ltd and Swire Bulk Pte Ltd, both of which are headquartered in Singapore.

CNCo is part of the Swire group and wholly owned by John Swire & Sons Limited. Swire Shipping was formerly known as the China Navigation Company until October 2021, when it was renamed Swire Shipping.

1872–1945: Yangtze River origins
Founded in London in 1872 by John Samuel Swire, CNCo was established with the intent of providing paddle steamer services on the Yangtze River. The company was started with an initial investment of £360,000 provided primarily by John Samuel Swire and William Hudson Swire, along with other shareholders, including the father of James Henry Scott of Scotts' Shipbuilding. John Swire and Sons (JS&S) initially commissioned the construction of three ships for trade on the Lower Yangtze in 1873. That same year, they also purchased the Union Steam Navigation Company, which included CNCo's first two ships, Tunsin and Glengyle, along with property leases in Shanghai and other river ports. Later in 1873 and in 1874, the three originally ordered paddle streamers arrived from A & J Inglis – Pekin, Shanghai, and Ichang. James Henry Scott joined as a partner in 1874, and together with JS&S, they acquired two steamers, named Fuchow and Swatow, from John Scott IV, who also invested in these vessels. The two vessels laid the foundation for the formation of a new company, the Coast Boats Ownery (CBO), which was set up to manage China coastal trade.

By the mid-1870s, CNCo expanded its operations to the Canton River trade and the Shanghai-Ningbo and Shanghai-Tianjin routes. The company faced intense competition, rate wars, and entered into pool agreements with rival firms, reflecting the volatile nature of the Chinese shipping industry in the late 19th century.

By 1883, the five steamships managed by CNCo's managing firm, Butterfield & Swire, and which were primarily serving South China routes, were also integrated into CNCo's own fleet. In the same year, CBO merged with CNCo, and operated as the Coastal Steamers section of CNCo with an expanded fleet.

CNCo's fleet grew to 29 ships by 1894, serving an extensive network of ports across Asia and other regions. The company faced numerous challenges in the 20th century, including political turbulence and piracy in the Far East, but continued operations through both World Wars. Initially focusing on the Yangtze River trade, the company expanded its operations to include coastal and regional routes by the late 19th century.

In 1939, CNCo first became involved in the Papua New Guinea trade, which ceased with the start of the war.

In 1940, the CNCo fleet was requisitioned by the British Government during the World War II, while CNCo maintained its operations from an office in Bombay. In 1945, it returned to Shanghai and Hong Kong, and operations gradually resumed. CNCo's business on the North China Coast (from Ningpo north) and the Yangtze River was undertaken from Shanghai, while the South Coast, Canton trade and all Australian, South East Asian, and Philippines routes were handled out of Hong Kong. The growth of CNCo eventually led to shipping becoming the predominant focus for Butterfield & Swire.

1945–present: Post World War II
CNCo re-entered the trade in the 1950s and began new trading routes in the region, from Australia to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands.

Post-World War II, the company innovated in the Pacific trade routes, notably introducing "unitisation" in cargo handling during the 1960s, and later transitioning to full containerisation. The company also diversified into passenger cruising and the dry bulk carrier market, and in the 1980s, ventured into the Very Large Crude Carrier market. The 1990s saw a consolidation of management operations in Sydney, while its New Zealand operations were hinged on its investments in Tasman Asia and Tasman Orient Line.

In 2009, CNCo relocated its headquarters to Singapore, establishing The China Navigation Company Pte Limited as a subsidiary of the UK-registered parent company. Its global liner operations, and all existing ship-owning and operating activities, are being managed out of the new office in Singapore. The office opening ceremony in 2010 was attended by Lim Hwee Hua, then Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and Transport.

In 2012, CNCo established Swire Bulk to manage its dry bulk shipping activities, and in 2021, separated it to focus on liner shipping and fleet management.

In 2014, CNCo acquired New Zealand-based Pacifica Shipping.

In 2020, CNCo launched Swire Projects to provide specialised project cargo shipping services.

In 2021, CNCo rebranded as Swire Shipping. A year later, Swire Shipping acquired US-based Westwood Shipping Lines.

Swire Shipping
MIHOS
 * Kokopo Chief

PACIFIC CLASS
 * Apia Chief
 * Kiribati Chief
 * Majuro Chief
 * Noumea Chief
 * Port Vila Chief
 * Samoa Chief
 * Tonga Chief
 * Vanuatu Chief

HERITAGE CLASS
 * Coral Chief
 * Highland Chief
 * New Guinea Chief
 * Papuan Chief

PNG CLASS
 * Carpenters Vega
 * Changsha
 * Moresby Chief
 * Rabaul Chief

FIJI CLASS
 * Honiara Chief
 * Lautoka Chief
 * Nadi Chief
 * Suva Chief

WESTWOOD
 * Westwood Columbia
 * Westwood Olympia
 * Westwood Rainier
 * Westwood Victoria

WEIHAI1300
 * Takutai Chief

CC9K
 * Aotearoa Chief

CV1700
 * Moana Chief

Swire Bulk

 * Hanyang
 * Hoihow
 * Hunan
 * Hupeh
 * Kaifong
 * Kansu
 * Kaying
 * Kian
 * Kiating
 * Kinling
 * Liangchow
 * Luenho
 * Pakhoi
 * Pekin
 * Powan
 * Poyang
 * Tatung
 * Tientsin
 * Tunsin

Notable former vessels

 * SS Anhui ( built 1925 was one of only three large vessels, the others being Coast Farmer and Dona Nati, to actually deliver supplies early in the Pacific war to the Philippines from Australia arriving in Cebu City on 20 March 1942. Anhui later operated under U.S. Army control as part of the Southwest Pacific Area permanent local fleet as X-6 from 4 March 1942—September or December 1945.)
 * MV Anshun (1930)
 * MS Changsha
 * SS Hanyang ( built 1940 was involved in early Pacific war efforts to supply the Philippines and Netherlands East Indies from Australia and later operated under U.S. Army control as part of the Southwest Pacific Area permanent local fleet as X-8 from 24 March 1942—August 1945.)
 * MV Eredine (sold)
 * MV Erradale
 * SS Shengking
 * SS Shuntien (1934) (sunk by enemy action)
 * MV Soochow (also known as Maersk Asia Decimo)
 * MS Taiyuan
 * SS Wang Phu
 * SS Wu Chang
 * MV Wulin
 * SS Yochow ( built 1938 was involved in early Pacific war efforts to supply the Philippines and Netherlands East Indies from Australia and later operated under U.S. Army control as part of the Southwest Pacific Area permanent local fleet as X-7 from 11 April 1942—December 1945.)

title: China Navigation Company


text:
Pointblank directive

The Pointblank directive authorised the initiation of Operation Pointblank, the code name for the part of the Allied Combined Bomber Offensive intended to cripple or destroy the German aircraft fighter strength, thus drawing it away from frontline operations and ensuring it would not be an obstacle to the invasion of Northwest Europe. The Pointblank directive of 14 June 1943 ordered RAF Bomber Command and the U.S. Eighth Air Force to bomb specific targets such as aircraft factories, and the order was confirmed when Allied leaders met at the Quebec Conference in August 1943. Up to that point, the RAF and USAAF had mostly been attacking the German industry in their own way – the British by broad night attacks on industrial areas, and the US in "precision attacks" by day on specific targets. The operational execution of the Directive was left to the commanders of the forces. As such, even after the directive, the British continued their night attacks. The majority of the attacks on German fighter production and combat with the fighters were conducted by the USAAF.

In practice, the USAAF bombers made large-scale daylight attacks on factories involved in fighter aircraft production. The Luftwaffe was forced into defending against these raids, and its fighters were drawn into battle with the bombers and their escorts. It was these battles of attrition that reduced the Luftwaffe's fighter pilot strength, despite increases in German aircraft production.

Casablanca directive
At the January 1943 Casablanca Conference, the Combined Chiefs of Staff agreed to conduct the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO), and the British Air Ministry issued the Casablanca directive on 4 February with the object of:

"The progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened. Every opportunity to be taken to attack Germany by day to destroy objectives that are unsuitable for night attack, to sustain continuous pressure on German morale, to impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to contain German fighter strength away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war."

On 14 June 1943, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued the Pointblank directive which modified the February 1943 Casablanca directive. Along with the single-engine fighters of the CBO plan, the highest-priority Pointblank targets were the fighter aircraft factories since the Western Allied invasion of France could not take place without fighter superiority. In August 1943, the First Quebec Conference upheld this change of priorities.

Among the factories listed were the Regensburg Messerschmitt factory, the Schweinfurter Kugellagerwerke ball-bearing factory and the Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke (WNF) which produced Bf 109 fighters.

Fighter Command declines to engage
As part of the Pointblank plans, the USAAF repeatedly pressed the RAF to contribute to the daytime effort by providing fighter escorts, and even suggesting daylight bombing if sufficient escorts were available.

Long-range fighter operations are at a natural disadvantage; friendly ground assets like spotters and radar are not available and even radio support can be difficult. The penetrating aircraft have to carry much more fuel, reducing their performance, and the long flight times fatigue the pilots. This led RAF Fighter Command to conclude that their assets should be used purely defensively, and in the years leading up to Pointblank this had never seriously been reconsidered. Although escorts had been requested on several occasions by both Bomber Command and Coastal Command, Fighter Command repeatedly returned dubious reports stating the Supermarine Spitfire simply could not be converted. This was especially curious considering the D-model photoreconnaissance versions of the Spitfire were available from 1940 and offered the required range and performance.

For Pointblank, USAAF General Henry H. Arnold requested that allocations of the North American P-51 Mustang to the RAF be directed to provide escort for daytime raids and that British Mustangs be put under Eighth Air Force command. Chief of the Air Staff Charles Portal, responded that he could provide four squadrons, not nearly enough for the mission. Arnold wrote back, clearly upset, and stated:

"As presently employed it would appear that your thousands of fighters are not making use of their full capabilities. Our transition from the defensive to the offensive should surely carry with it the application of your large fighter force offensively ... We have put long range tanks in our P.47's. Those P.47's are doing some offensive action several hundred miles from England. In their basic design, our P.47's were shorter range aircraft than your Spitfires."

Arnold's letter said that he felt the fighters should have been fitted with additional fuel tanks and bombs and used against the German aircraft on the ground at their airfields. Portal responded saying that the day-force strength averaged 1,464 fighters and that it had "consistently been employed offensively... mainly in conjunction with medium and light bombers". His subordinate, Air Chief Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory, added that the RAF fighter force was designed for air superiority over Northern France in the coming invasion

USAAF General Barney M. Giles met with Portal and offered to convert two Spitfires entirely at the USAAF's expense. Two Mark IXs were shipped to Wright Field in January 1944 and modified, demonstrating their newfound range by flying back to England across the Atlantic. Tests at Boscombe Down were equally successful, but by the time the conversions had been approved in August, Pointblank had concluded and the Luftwaffe had been conclusively defeated.

title: Pointblank directive


text:
Enfield poltergeist

The Enfield poltergeist was a claim of supernatural activity at 284 Green Street, a council house in Brimsdown, Enfield, London, England, between 1977 and 1979. The alleged poltergeist activity centred on sisters Janet, aged 11, and Margaret Hodgson, aged 13.

Some members of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), such as inventor Maurice Grosse and writer Guy Lyon Playfair, believed the haunting to be genuine, while others such as Anita Gregory and John Beloff were "unconvinced" and found evidence the girls had faked incidents for the benefit of journalists. Members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), including stage magicians such as Milbourne Christopher and Joe Nickell, criticized paranormal investigators for being credulous whilst also identifying elements of the case as being indicative of a hoax.

The story attracted press coverage in British newspapers, has been mentioned in books, featured in television and radio documentaries, and dramatised in the 2016 horror film The Conjuring 2.

Claims
In August 1977, single mother Peggy Hodgson called the Metropolitan Police to her rented home at 284 Green Street in Enfield, London, saying she had witnessed furniture moving and that two of her four children had heard knocking sounds on the walls. The children included Janet, aged 11, and Margaret, aged 13. A police constable reported witnessing a chair "wobble and slide" but "could not determine the cause of the movement." Later claims included disembodied voices, loud noises, thrown toys, overturned chairs, and children levitating.

Over a period of eighteen months, more than thirty people, including the Hodgsons' neighbours, paranormal investigators and journalists, said they variously saw heavy furniture moving of its own accord, objects being thrown across a room and the sisters seeming to levitate several feet off the ground. Many also heard and recorded knocking noises and a gruff voice. The story was regularly covered in the Daily Mirror newspaper until reports came to an end in 1979.

Paranormal
Society for Psychical Research (SPR) members Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair reported: "curious whistling and barking noises coming from Janet's general direction." Although Playfair maintained the paranormal activity was genuine and wrote in his later book This House Is Haunted: The True Story of a Poltergeist (1980) that an "entity" was to blame for the Enfield disturbances, he often doubted the children's veracity and wondered if they were playing tricks and exaggerating. Still, Grosse and Playfair believed that, even though some of the alleged poltergeist activity was faked by the girls, other incidents were genuine. Other paranormal investigators who visited the Enfield house included American demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren, who were convinced that the events had a supernatural explanation. According to Brian Dunning, the Warrens' visit was short: "Ed Warren tried to persuade Playfair that money could be made from this case by writing books and selling movie rights; and then the Warrens left".

Janet was detected in trickery: a video camera in an adjoining room caught her bending spoons and attempting to bend an iron bar. Grosse had observed Janet banging a broom handle on the ceiling and hiding his tape recorder. According to Playfair, one of Janet's voices, whom she called Bill, displayed a "habit of suddenly changing the topic—it was a habit Janet also had". When Janet and Margaret admitted pranking to journalists, Grosse and Playfair compelled the girls to retract their confessions. The two men were mocked by other researchers for being easily duped.

Psychical researcher Renée Haynes noted that doubts were raised about the alleged poltergeist voice at the SPR conference at Cambridge in 1978, where videocassettes from Enfield were examined. SPR investigator Anita Gregory stated the Enfield case had been "overrated", characterizing several episodes of the girls' behaviour as "suspicious" and speculated that the girls had "staged" some incidents for the benefit of journalists seeking a sensational story. John Beloff, a former president of the SPR, investigated and suggested Janet was practising ventriloquism. Both Beloff and Gregory came to the conclusion that Janet and Margaret were playing tricks on the investigators.

Other
Milbourne Christopher, an American stage magician, briefly investigated the Enfield occurrences and failed to observe anything that could be called paranormal. He was dismayed by what he felt was suspicious activity on the part of Janet, later concluding that "the poltergeist was nothing more than the antics of a little girl who wanted to cause trouble and who was very, very clever." Ventriloquist Ray Alan visited the house and concluded that Janet's male voices were simply vocal tricks.

Criticisms of investigations
Sceptic Joe Nickell of the US-based Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) examined the findings of paranormal investigators and criticized them for being overly credulous; when a supposedly disembodied demonic voice was heard, Playfair noted that "as always Janet's lips hardly seemed to be moving." He states that a remote-controlled still camera—the photographer was not present in the room with the girls—timed to take a picture every fifteen seconds was shown by investigator Melvin Harris to reveal pranking by the girls. He argues that a photo allegedly depicting Janet levitating actually shows her bouncing off the bed as if it were a trampoline. Harris called the photos examples of common "gymnastics" and said, "It's worth remembering that Janet was a school sports champion!"

Nickell pointed out that a tape-recorder malfunction that Grosse attributed to supernatural activity and SPR president David Fontana described as an occurrence "which appeared to defy the laws of mechanics" was a peculiar threading jam occurring with older model reel to reel tape-recorders. He also said that Ed Warren was "notorious for exaggerating and even making up incidents in such cases, often transforming a 'haunting' case into one of 'demonic possession'."

In 2015 Deborah Hyde commented that there was no solid evidence for the Enfield poltergeist: "The first thing to note is that the occurrences didn't happen under controlled circumstances. People frequently see what they expect to see, their senses being organized and shaped by their prior experiences and beliefs."

Response to claims
Sceptics have argued that the alleged poltergeist voice that originated from Janet was produced by false vocal cords above the larynx and had the phraseology and vocabulary of a child. In a television interview for BBC Scotland, Janet was observed to gain attention by waving her hand and then putting her hand in front of her mouth while a claimed "disembodied" voice was heard. During the interview both girls were asked the question, "How does it feel to be haunted by a poltergeist?" Janet replied, "It's not haunted" and Margaret, in a hushed tone, interrupted, "Shut up". Sceptics have regarded these factors as evidence against the case.

As a "magician experienced in the dynamics of trickery" Nickell examined Playfair's account and contemporary press clippings. He noted that the supposed poltergeist "tended to act only when it was not being watched" and concluded that the incidents were best explained as children's pranks.

Although Grosse made tape recordings of Janet and believed no trickery was involved, the magician Bob Couttie said, "He made some of the recordings available to me and, having listened to them very carefully, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing in what I had heard that was beyond the capabilities of an imaginative teenager." All of the recordings have been catalogued and digitized by the SPR and a book of their content, The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes: White Crow, was produced by Dr Melvyn Willin in 2019.

A 2016 article by psychology professor Chris French in  Time Out magazine described five reasons why he believed the case to have been a hoax. His reasons are:
 * The two sisters involved admitted to hoaxing some of the activity
 * The photo of Janet levitating above her bed could just as easily be explained as Janet jumping
 * The "spirit" of an old man who supposedly possessed Janet took a great deal of interest in menstruation
 * Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable
 * Other schoolgirl pranks before and after have got out of hand

In popular culture

 * On 26 December 1978 BBC Radio 4 broadcast the documentary The Enfield Poltergeist by BBC reporter Rosalind Morris. Morris visited the Hodgson family on numerous occasions to make this documentary.
 * In 1992 the BBC aired a controversial mockumentary titled Ghostwatch, written by Stephen Volk and based on the Enfield poltergeist.
 * In March 2007 Channel 4 aired a documentary about the Enfield poltergeist titled Interview with a Poltergeist.
 * The Enfield poltergeist has been featured in episodes of ITV series Strange but True? and Extreme Ghost Stories.
 * The Enfield poltergeist was the subject of the 2015 Sky Living television series The Enfield Haunting, which was broadcast from 4–17 May 2015.
 * The 2016 film The Conjuring 2 is based on Ed and Lorraine Warren's investigation of the case.
 * In 2018 the BBC Radio 4 programme The Reunion, presented by Sue MacGregor, revisited the case, with interviews with witnesses Morris, Richard Grosse and Graham Morris.
 * In 2023 a play titled The Enfield Haunting was announced, starring Catherine Tate, to be premiered at Theatre Royal, Brighton and Richmond Theatre before moving to the Ambassadors Theatre in London from 30 November 2023 to 2 March 2024.
 * On 27 October 2023 Apple TV debuted "The Enfield Poltergeist" miniseries, filming the documentary in a recreated set of the allegedly haunted house at 284 Green Street, utilizing actors lipsyncing to original tape recordings, archival video footage and modern-day interviews with living witnesses of the events.

title: Enfield poltergeist