text:
National Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

National Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (NIAMT) formerly known as the National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology (NIFFT) is a premier public technical research institution in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. It is a Deemed to be University under Ministry of Education (MoE), Government of India. It is one of the autonomous institutes under the NIT+ system in India. As such it is directly under the control of the Ministry of Education (MoE).

It was established in 1966 by the Government of India in collaboration with UNDP – UNESCO to provide qualified engineers and specialists for running foundry and forge industries. It is a National Institute as well as Deemed to be University and is Centrally Funded by Ministry of Education (MoE), Government of India.

The institute offers postdoctoral, doctoral and master's program at the graduate level and bachelor's program and advanced diploma courses at the undergraduate level. The objectives of the institute have broadened to meet the present need of the industries, with the introduction of departments of Manufacturing Engineering in 1985, Materials and Metallurgical Engineering in 1998, Mechanical Engineering in 2020 and Electronics and Computer Engineering in 2021.

Apart from training and placement of students, NIAMT also provides consultancy, documentation and information retrieval services in manufacturing engineering, industrial metallurgy and in foundry and forge sectors and many more core sectors all over world.

Location
Located in Hatia, which is about 7.4 km from Ranchi. Distance from Ranchi Airport: 6 km Distance from Ranchi Railway Station: 10 km Distance from Hatia Railway Station: 1.1 km and 140 km from Chaibasa.

History
In consonance with the general guidelines of UNESCO (1962) regarding establishment of specialized institutes, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology (NIFFT) was created in 1966 under the UNDP program to cater to the need of a large number of technicians in industry. The particular emphasis was on foundry and forge technology to meet the demand of trained manpower in the primary metal manufacturing sectors like automobile, heavy engineering, machine and component manufacturing etc. Two carefully designed advanced diploma courses, namely foundry and forge technology, were offered.

In view to push forward the knowledge boundary, four M.Tech programs were introduced in the core areas of foundry and forge technology. Subsequently, two B.Tech. programs, one in Manufacturing engineering in 1992, and other in Metallurgical and materials engineering in 1998. The courses were affiliated to the Ranchi University. The affiliation was later granted by the Jharkhand University of Technology from 2018. In 2020, Manufacturing Engineering was replaced by Mechanical Engineering. On 1 July 2021, the university grants commission approved the institute for the Deemed University status under section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. On 23 February 2024, the institute got upgraded as Deemed to be University by the Ministry of Education, Government of India. Now NIAMT has no affiliation with any other university Ranchi University or Jharkhand University of Technology also as NIAMT itself have full autonomy or independence in administration and operations for being Deemed University. All award degrees, examinations and other academic certifications will be provided directly by NIAMT itself and all operations also controlled and managed by NIAMT(NIFFT) university itself as it cannot have other institutes affiliated to it and has a single educational institute under its wing.

In 2022, two new B.Tech courses Computer Engineering and Production and Industrial Engineering is introduced to reinforce the core framework of foundry and forging technology with the knowledge of materials and manufacturing to cater the emerging need of the industries. The doctoral program for manufacturing engineering began in 2006.

The institute currently offers doctorates in 5 departments, 4 master's degrees, 4 bachelor's degrees and 2 advanced diploma courses.

Campus
The NIAMT campus is located on NH-75 around 7.2 km from Ranchi. It is around 2.2 km from Hatia railway station and around 10 km from Ranchi Junction railway station. The campus is around 6.4 km from Birsa Munda Airport making it easily accessible via rail as well as airways.

The campus is spread over 65 acre. It is located in the town of Hatia.

It houses the administrative building, academic buildings and halls of residence for students. The faculty residential area, grounds, library, auditorium, laboratories and workshops are other areas on its well maintained campus.

Hostels
As NIAMT all academic courses fully residential, NIAMT has five boys hostels namely Nirala Chatrawas, Homi J. Bhabha Chatrawas, J. C. Bose Chatrawas, M. Visvesvaraya Chatrawas, Vikram A. Sarabhai Chatrawas and one girls' hostel, Kalpana Chawla Chatrawas, whose total holding capacity is around 1200 students, in single-bed and double-bed rooms in ADC, B.Tech., M.Tech., and PhD courses. Each hostel has sports facilities such as TT tables, football ground, basketball ground, badminton court, cricket ground, carrom boards and volleyball courts apart from the common college facilities.

Nirala Chatrawas, J. C. Bose Chatrawas and M. Visvesvaraya Chatrawas have canteens inside the hostel. The other hostels also have a student's mess and canteen nearby.

Sports facilities
The college provides sporting facilities to its students for their all-round development. These include a cricket ground, volleyball courts, table tennis, football and shuttle badminton.

Classrooms and Auditorium
The classrooms specifically designed to facilitate participative learning. Many of them have the necessary presentation facilities like overhead projector, screen etc. and many more modern equipment of study. Auditorium is designed and used for seminars, cultural festivals, alumni-meet and various events with extreme maximum seating capacity.

Information Technology Centre (ITC)/ CAD-CAM Centre/ Centralized Computer Centre(CCC)
The institute provides many computer facilities. These include software like DEFORM, PROCAST, UNIGRAPHICS, CATIA, AUTODESK Inventor Professional (Mechanical and Electrical), MATLAB and also servers, desktops, workstations and terminals. CAD Center/Computer Center and the E-library provide students with internet access with fully Wi-Fi enabled campus and hostel rooms also with LAN/WAN support.

Departments
NIAMT has the following six departments:
 * Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
 * Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering
 * Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering
 * Department of Foundry Technology
 * Department of Forge Technology
 * Department of Applied Sciences and Humanities

Academics
The institute conducts educational programmes leading to the award of Advanced Diploma Course Certificates (ADC), Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.), Master of Technology (M.Tech.) and Doctor of philosophy (PhD) and post Doctoral. The institutes will launch Integrated B,Tech-M.Tech (5 years) course also in near future.

Laboratories and Workshop
The institute has well equipped laboratories and workshop for carrying out practical study work by the students and for extending testing facilities pertaining to foundry, forge, metallurgical analysis and materials characterization to the outside organizations on payment basis. The institute houses laboratories such as sand laboratory, metallography laboratory, flexible manufacturing system (FMS) laboratory, non-destructive and mechanical testing laboratory, composite laboratory, spectroscopy laboratory, environmental monitoring and pollution control laboratory, metrology laboratory, and a forging laboratory. The institute also houses workshop buildings which include carpentry, foundry and forge shops as well as graphics rooms and other laboratories

Library and Documentation Centre
NIAMT have one of the best libraries in the technical field. The vast resource of knowledge of constant value addition to the students and faculty members. The four-storeyed library's rich collection includes over 31000 books, 3560 bound volumes and 215 current periodicals in Manufacturing, Metallurgy, Materials Science and allied areas. In addition, it has CD-ROMs on various aspects of engineering, up-to-date standards both Indian and foreign, technical films, tapes, slides, microfilms, microfiches etc. OPAC facility to the user through the software 'LIBSYS" is OPAC facility to the user through the software 'LIBSYS" is also available.

Admissions
For admission into the Advanced Diploma Courses (ADC), the institute self conducts examination. The undergraduate students for Bachelor's degree at the institute are selected through the competitive exam, completely based on JEE-Mains conducted Joint Entrance Examination by NTA. For Master of Technology (M.Tech.) courses admission is through Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE). For the PhD course, admission is through interview and self examination held at campus at the beginning of every semester.

Admission of B. Tech Students is through JEE Main (Admission through common NIT+ system counseling CSAB/JOSAA)

Admission of M Tech students is through CCMT (valid GATE score)

Admission of Advanced Diploma students through All India Entrance Test conducted by NIFFT Ranchi itself.

Rankings and reputation
The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranked it 115 among engineering colleges in 2021. In 2022, NIAMT ranked 150th in NIRF Engineering category and in 2023 it was in the rank band of 151-200.

Life at NIAMT
NIAMT has many student clubs which conduct many technical and cultural events throughout the year. These include the SAC (Students Activity Centre), SAE Club, Technical Club, IEDC (Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Cell), NIAMT Cricket Club, NIAMT Football Club, NIAMT Volleyball Club, NIAMT Chess Club, NIAMT Badminton Club, NIAMT Table Tennis Club, The NIAMT Ensemble (Music Club), Anagha (Dance and Drama club), Nukkad Team, Photography Club, etc.

Jinks
Jinks is the annual youth cultural fest organized by the Students' Gymkhana committee of NIAMT, held in last of February every year. The festival spans three days and comprises more than forty events. It also collaborate other technical institutes also in this fest.

Pranav
Pranav is the inherent Technological fest to upskills youth mind to provide them opportunity of their innovative Technological Development.

In Jinks-Pranav 2023, the main attraction was The Strangers band, DJ Himani Singh and Mohammed Irfan (singer). For more details about fest visit the pages of Pranav cited.

Umeed & Kartavya
Umeed is a social welfare program, formed by NIAMT students community that aims to help the poor and unfortunate survive the harsh winter by donating them clothes. Started in 2015 with the motto "For it is in giving that we receive" by the students of NIAMT, the program helped more than five hundred people of Ranchi in its first edition. The year 2016 saw the involvement of another educational institution from Ranchi, Central University of Jharkhand, in this social work. The collection and distribution of the clothes is managed by the student from the institutions. The cloth collection drive will be starts from mid October and will extend through the month till the first week of November. The distribution of the clothes will take place after the collected clothes have been sorted and filtered according to their fitness to be worn. On 13 November 2016 the clothes were distributed in various orphanages and old age homes in Ranchi. Cultural events for orphaned children on 14 November 2016, on the occasion of Children's day was also held at NIAMT, Ranchi.

Kartavya is NGO of student of NIAMT formed with the motto "An efforts towards educated" established in the year of 2007.

Pranav Priyadarshi Memorial Intra Sports Tournament
This is the intra college tournament of NIFFT, Ranchi. In the past years, games like Badminton, chess, volleyball and football has been added as only cricket was the lead game in the tournament. This is generally held in the month of April to help students participate in sports apart from other chores and studies.

RASHTRIYA EKTA DIWAS
For the birth anniversary of Iron Man of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel this festival celebrated in the institute as “Rashtriya Ekta Diwas”- “National Unity Day”.

SADBHAVNA CRICKET TOURNAMENT
As Sport fest, it is an inter-batch cricket tournament played with tennis ball.

SWACHHTA PAKHWADA
Swachhta Pakhwada started from 1 September with the day celebrated as “Clean Campus Day”

NIFFT PREMIER LEAGUE
As biggest sport fest, NIFFT Premier League (NPL) is a cricket tournament, a glimpse of Indian Premier League in the premises of NIFFT, Ranchi.

Anagha
The official Dance and Drama club of NIAMT Ranchi the club formed to showcase talent of dance and drama for not only special occasion but also all college fests.

Ensemble

The official Sole Music Club formed by college students for the deep love of music to include students with different kind of Instruments and music, rhythm. Collaboration with IIT Kharagpur Spring fest event.

EDC
Entrepreneurship Development Cell, the team of Startup enthusiasts to foster the sprit of entrepreneurship in the college campus.

Arts and Craft Club

NIAMT's official club comprises artists, craftsmen amateur, painters and many more.

NIAMT PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY

The Photographic Society, NIFFT, Ranchi gives students the opportunity to expand their photography skill.

NIAMT Cricket, Football, chess and Volleyball Club

The club to showcase your talents and passion for Cricket, Football, chess and Volleyball at the next level.

NIAMT Racing Club

The official Racing club of NIAMT Ranchi, to showcase the talent of speed and accuracy. SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) club of racing an International platform with the flair of automotive, robotics, design. Participated in Formula SAE Italy 2013 event also exemplary performance of many Asian, European racing competition.

In popular culture
Parts of the Punjabi movie Dakuaan Da Munda were shot at NIAMT.


text: File:Kolkatatram.jpg

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

title: File:Kolkatatram.jpg


text:
Talk:Dublin Regulation

Untitled
I have permission from the copyright holder. The page just needs a reference to the website.

 * Hi, Parmaestro. Are they releasing it under the GFDL or into the public domain so others can reuse it as well? Who did you contact? When? Please see Copyrights for the policy and procedures. 68.81.231.127 09:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous. The organisation which runs the website has assured me that they "have no objection to items on [their] website being reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment."

Am I missing something here ? We're talking about a description of an international convention !

Parmaestro 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Parmaestro. Text included in the Wikipedia either needs to licensed under the GFDL, released into the public domain, or qualify under fair use. A vague, informal statement doesn't meet that criteria, and even if permission is given, that must be specifically documented. See Copyrights for details. A more enduring problem is that promotional material doesn't belong in the Wikipedia (though it can be an excellent source of facts for an article you write yourself). The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our articles need to have a neutral point of view, and must be based on publically available sources. See What Wikipedia is not, and Neutral point of view. The stub you wrote on the /temp page is a good start. BTW, I have a static IP so I'm actually less anonymous than registered users. :) 68.81.231.127 21:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll help rewrite parts of it later, but I don't have time right now. 68.81.231.127 22:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Switzerland
My understand is that they're holding a referendum on the dublin convention because enough signatures (over 50,000) on a petition were gathered to force one. See http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18772 and http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6204 -- Joolz 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I’ve to Europe from Italy and Italy government took my finger prints So my question is does that gonna be problem when came to Switzerland? Ismet turkmen 00 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassingly biased and hopelessly low quality
This is without doubt the worst quality article I've ever seen on here. The bias inherent in the article is beyond parody. The Dublin Regulation does not prevent asylum seekers' claims from being considered. It's purpose is to identify a single member state responsible for determining a claim and in so doing improve efficiency and ensure MSs take responsibility. As an example of the comedy bias of the article take for example the suggestion that the Regulation means most asylum seekers stay in the countries (eg Greece) at the periphery of the EU. This claim does not stand up to even the most cursory examination: 90% of asylum application are lodged and determined in France, Gremany, Sweden, the UK and other 'northern' members states. The 'southern' states (like Greece) handle hardly any - and even with Dublin on get back a tiny proportion of those who pass through. The pressures on these states are caused by irregular migration flows, not by the Dublin regulation. There's no way to improve the article. The only sensible solution is to delete and start again, this time with at least a pretence of objectivity.

Hungary
There is no mention when Hungary ratified it. I mention this because recently, Hungary started to cancel some parts of the Dublin treaty, in particular about asyl seekers from Serbia. 2A02:8388:1641:C480:5C4D:1C0E:422A:9794 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates needed please
Could the article be updated. There has been a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding enforcement of Dublin Regulation. Perhaps the two most notable examples are that the regulation on paper deters asylum seekers from travelling onwards from bordering EU member states such as Greece, Italy and Hungary. In reality the unofficial policy in place is to register and let the asylum seekers move onwards towards Northern Europe. Additionally the number of eligible asylum seekers who are returned to the first member state which registered them is around 20% according the the chapter called Dublin Trickery in the book by Marco Funk - at least for Italy for 2013 figures - http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Europes-Inner-Wall-Dilemmas/dp/1514815621/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447011427&sr=8-1&keywords=marco+funk+fortress. The reason for the low enforcement of returning Dublin cases is a combination of the administrative burden required to do so and a set period in which a applicant can be returned. A applicant who absconds during a Dublin case request has their request voided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Update needed on criticism
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call an "asylum lottery":

"(p. 281) Discordant views on different elements of the refugee definition give rise to varying rates of refugee recognition among states, with asylum seekers subjecting their futures to what has been described as an ‘asylum lottery’.21 In relation to Afghan asylum seekers, for example, refugee recognition rates in 2011 among eight European countries ranged from 3 per cent in the Netherlands to 33 per cent in Austria. When other forms of protection such as complementary protection, subsidiary protection, and humanitarian status are included in this equation, the gap is even more drastic, ranging from 11 per cent in Greece to 73 per cent in Sweden.22 This is despite the ongoing development of a Common European Asylum System, which was set in place to ensure that any person seeking protection in Europe would be treated in the same way irrespective of where they apply. Despite some positive progress towards this goal, a 2010 evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Directive found that ‘the objective of creating a level playing field with respect to the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection and to the content of the protection granted has not been fully achieved during the first phase of harmonization.’23" From http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024

A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Update needed on criticism
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call an "asylum lottery":

"(p. 281) Discordant views on different elements of the refugee definition give rise to varying rates of refugee recognition among states, with asylum seekers subjecting their futures to what has been described as an ‘asylum lottery’.21 In relation to Afghan asylum seekers, for example, refugee recognition rates in 2011 among eight European countries ranged from 3 per cent in the Netherlands to 33 per cent in Austria. When other forms of protection such as complementary protection, subsidiary protection, and humanitarian status are included in this equation, the gap is even more drastic, ranging from 11 per cent in Greece to 73 per cent in Sweden.22 This is despite the ongoing development of a Common European Asylum System, which was set in place to ensure that any person seeking protection in Europe would be treated in the same way irrespective of where they apply. Despite some positive progress towards this goal, a 2010 evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Directive found that ‘the objective of creating a level playing field with respect to the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection and to the content of the protection granted has not been fully achieved during the first phase of harmonization.’23" From http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024

A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)  Davidthebuyer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222012517/http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/ to http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What Sovereignity Clause?
Germany started accepting refugees it was not responsible for under the Dublin Accords. The article says it did so under a 'Sovereignty clause'. What is that? There is no reference in the article. Also, mention should be made of the perception by some that Germany was unilaterally breaking the Accords, and the German response to the accusation. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112181343/http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80 to http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928170557/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Germany no longer checking Eurodac as a consequence of Dublin III interruption (by Germany)
Hello, an editor deleted the following WP:RS and labeled it as "offtopic", when the WP:RS itself makes the case:  "He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter." . This quote is regarding the  murderer of Maria Ladenburger, who was able to apply for asylum in Germany in 2015 despite having already applied in Greece in 2013. Can we discuss if this is off topic if the WP:RS itself mentions what happens when Dublin III is no longer in force? Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not totally off topic but listing all cases here where the Dublin agreement may have failed or not would just make the article totally unreadable. It would make much more sense to address possible shortcomings and failures in a more general way than listing one particular rape case here where it is at the moment not even totally clear yet what actually happened with regard to Eurodac and Dublin proceedings.LucLeTruc (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that listing every instance of Eurodac failure caused by unilateral Dublin III abrogation would render the article unreadable... if we had many reports of failure. Alas!, presently there is only one case reported by the WP:RS and therefore it is not incorrect to keep to the sources and include it here.  If, as you fear, we get a dozen or more, and the article starts to become unreadable, then we should at that point consider trimming and pruning as suitable, to avoid unreadability.  XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, we have had a user delete material directly sourced from a WP:RS for the following reason: "This paragraph was based on a big misconception and serves an agenda.People applying for asylum in more that one country was happening before the suspension of the Dublin III regulation." Could the editor please clarify what the misconception is.  In the meantime, I have reverted the edit and invited discussion here in the TP. Thanks in advance.  XavierItzm (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE. All the 800 000 refugees who arrived in Germany last year arrived due to this suspension of the Dublin agreement and this is already covered in the article. So mentioning this here gives WP:UNDUE undue weight to one isolated case.LucLeTruc (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was the user who deleted this point. I was initially thinking of editing the paragraph, but in fact I could not find a correct way to approach it, since the relation between the suspension of Dublin convention and this murder is not linear. First of all, as it was mentioned by LucLeTruc it is one isolated case and therefore should not qualify as an effect. Despite the fact that the reference states so, it establishes a relationship between the two events they are in fact not related. Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece, considering the country had no conditions to receive them. Asylum Seekers were entering Germany despite the Dublin Convention, and Hussein K. would have entered either way Germany. The misconception is that the Dublin III regulation was actually enforced and put into practice before its suspension, and that its suspension has changed legislation to the point that it permitted a murder. This legislation is complex and oversimplifying it to establish a cause-effect correlation with a murder is an action that should not find a place in an encyclopedia. It is just as valid to say that the murder is an effect of the 1951 asylum convention, or the whole European policy on asylum. Also the paragraph was poorly written, treating the case in a subjective manner and failing to demonstrate how the two things were related. Still, I understand that this point may be relevant and important for many people, but it was not the correctly formulated. Maybe, if instead of effect, one can change the headline to criticism on the partial suspension and restrain from a cause-effect formulation, it will be more acceptable. Maybe the point should reflect on how the suspension threatens national security as it can be exemplified by this murder case. Nmp.escudeiro (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.165.24.41 (talk)
 * Good points. The article has been edited accordingly.  Let's see if consensus can be reached while respecting the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the mentioning of the Murder of Maria Ladenburger case
Should the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the surrounding arguments be mentioned here on the side regarding the Dublin agreement? LucLeTruc (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * NB Disputed text is hers Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Remove because it is WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE. The huge majority of the 800 000 refugees who arrived in Germany last year arrived due to this suspension of the Dublin agreement (without this suspension only the few thousand refugees coming by plane could legally apply for asylum in Germany) and this is already covered in the article. So mentioning this here gives WP:UNDUE weight to one isolated case just because this person happened to commit a crime. The only political aspect of this particular crime case is the fact that he already commited crimes in Greece without the German authories knowing this when he applied for asylum because his info was not in Interpol but this has nothing to do with the Dublin agreement. Hence, the whole case should not be mentioned here. LucLeTruc (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the item comes straight from a WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * re: the item comes straight from a WP:RS, could you please show us the RS that describes the 'accused' as 'the murderer'?Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A very important point from WP:BLP and just a basic fairness issue.  I have made the change. XavierItzm (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do not add - Most importantly, the content violates WP:BLP. Calling someone a "rapist/murderer" who at this point is only a suspect and has not been convicted is not permitted for legal reasons.  Additionally, see WP:BLPCRIME:"For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."
 * At this point, this is only a suspected effect. Even if a conviction is secured, and the effect is proven, I agree with LucLeTruc that this article is not the appropriate place to cherry pick isolated cases to highlight.  Otherwise we'd need to include "effects" like this as well: Syrian Refugees Rescued a German Neo-Nazi Leader From a Car Crash.
 * If there is some broad effects (ie is there evidence that crime rate has increase and can be tied to Dublin) then I would support adding that. TDL (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very nice technicality! Delete a whole paragraph with a good WP:RS instead of adding the word "accused" immediately before the existing text "rapist of Maria Ladenburger"....  I salute the creativity on display here.  Will amend the entry as suggested.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP is most certainly not a "technically". Posting potentially libelous content on wiki exposes the project (and you personally) to potential litigation and significant financial damages.  We simply cannot allow a reckless editor to put the project at such risk.  Nor is there anything "creative" about this observation: it is very clearly a black and white BLP violation, as echoed by other editors here.  What is "creative" is your selective reading: ignoring my explanation for why the content even with "alleged" is still discouraged by policy, hence my full removal.  I strongly suggest you read the BLP policy.  Also you have still not addressed the due weigh agruments.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do not add Proposed text is blatant BLP violation. If a more neutral text could be proposed, it would be possible to assess what weight to give to this case. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The text has been amended to be more neutral, as requested.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do not add Because it establishes a microscopic cause-effect exception, that is not relevant in the context of the the article which discusses macroscopic european legislation. It describes one isolated case and therefore should not qualify as an effect. Despite the fact that the reference states so, it establishes a relationship between the two events they are in fact not related. Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece, considering the country had no conditions to receive them. Asylum Seekers were entering Germany despite the Dublin Convention, and Hussein K. would have entered either way Germany. The misconception is that the Dublin III regulation was actually enforced and put into practice before its suspension, and that its suspension has changed legislation to the point that it permitted a murder. This legislation is complex and oversimplifying it to establish a cause-effect correlation with a murder is an action that should not find a place in an encyclopedia. It is just as valid to say that the murder is an effect of the 1951 asylum convention, or the whole European policy on asylum. Also the paragraph was poorly written, treating the case in a subjective manner and failing to demonstrate how the two things were related. Still, I understand that this point may be relevant and important for many people, but it was not the correctly formulated. Maybe, if instead of effect, one can change the headline to criticism on the partial suspension and restrain from a cause-effect formulation, it will be more acceptable. Maybe the point should reflect on how the suspension threatens national security as it can be exemplified by this murder case. Nmp.escudeiro (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nmp.escudeiro -thank you. A very constructive comment.  I agree that one drop of snow does not a winter make.  I did not know what you quote, which is "Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece".  This seems to contradict the main section "Partial suspension of the regulation during 2015 European refugee and migrant crisis," where it says: «On 24 August 2015, Germany decided to make use of the "sovereignty clause" to voluntarily assume responsibility for processing Syrian asylum applications for which it is not otherwise responsible under the criteria of the Regulation».  I say it seems to contradict because if Germany was already commonly not implementing Dublin III, then why bother making a big announcement in August 2015 that Germany unilaterally suspends it?  I seem to recall Merkel gave a big press conference on it, even.  Maybe we should revise that text?  Also, I've altered the headline as per your comment.  The idea here is to edit Wikipedia and reach a common consensus on the best way to present information, rather than just deleting stuff, so I really appreciate your approach. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your modifications, Xavieritzm, are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the worst. As I explained to you after your additions in Syrian Civil War, you are not allowed to put your own interpretations, judgement and viewpoints in here and to strategically combine different sources to a new meaning, just to drop the link to this murder case here (as you tried in so many articles). And, more important, you really need to understand the circumstances of the events you are writing about. The fr source does not say that the case increased a wave of critizism of the Dublin suspension (this is only your POV) and the NYT source relates this growing anger to terrorist attacks and the cologne incidents. This is WP:SYNTH as its best. To help you with your understanding: The reason why the suspect was not returned back to Greece was that he did not tell authorities that he came from Greece. Germany only suspended the agreement for refugees from Syria. So, at the moment, the available sources mostly speculate about the asylum procedure of the the suspect in Germany. As long as this does not change and we have a RS that clearly writes what went wrong where, putting this case in all these asylum procedure articles is largely WP:OR. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, LucLeTruc. I think Nmp.escudeiro raised some quite valid points about the criticism to the Dublin III suspension and we have some quite specific WP:RS that cover (1) the criticism and (2) an exact quote regarding some of the things that can arise from Dublin III suspension.  XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as I just tried to explain to you, neither did the murder happen because of this suspension, nor do the sources you use say this. Hence your formulation is WP:SYNTH, whether you agree with me or not. More important, we just do not know what actually happened as all sources are rather vague and contradicting with regards to the asylum procedure of the suspect. You are just trying to construct a case here by selectively picking some sources, interpreting them with your WP:POV and WP:SYNTHing them with other sources to prove your point for which Wikipedia certainly is not the place.
 * You are totally right, there are some serious issues with this whole Dublin agreement and raises some of them which should be addressed in this article. Cherrypicking isolated cases and misrepresenting the sources to demonstrate a POV here is just not the way to do this. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, let's go one by one. Do you question that Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany." ?   Looks pretty legit to me! XavierItzm (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you picked the only part of your addition that is not WP:SYNTHLucLeTruc (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, are there any objections to «Reports such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine of December 2016 that the Dublin III suspension may have impacted at least one criminal case, "he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter" »? XavierItzm (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As i said numerous times, at the moment what the faz writes is total speculation. Authorities have not yet confirmed what actually went wrong there. According to the faz source you cite, police in Germany apparently did not know that the suspect arrived from greece so that is the main reason that they did not send him back, not the suspension of the dublin agreement. The way you put it in the article, the article falsely claims exactly this. The main reason that he was granted temporary asylum (until his 18th birthday) was most probably that he was underage and the Dublin III agreement has regulations to protect such underage minors and prevents them from beeing send back to the country of first entry. But this is all speculation and should hence not be in the article. Try to find a general source about critizizm and shortcomings of the Dublin agreement (there are plenty) and write something about general issues but leave out this particular case where it is totally unclear what actually happened. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is not a WP:RS? Hard to believe.  Or are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is usually reliable but in this particular case you don't like what the Frankfurter Allgemeine is reporting? XavierItzm (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do no add per all of the above; this raises too many policy and common-sense issues. However, if controversial interplay between that case and the politics surrounding the Dublin Regulation is itself the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple major sources, it might be worth mentioning that [presently hypothetical] related controversy, as a related controversy, at this article, rather than dwelling on the case's details (it already has its own article, remember).  Even if that controversy exists, it should be covered more at the article on the case, and only be mentioned in summary here.  I would think that it would need to show a strong impact on Dublin Regulation political discourse to make it into this article at all, for the UNDUE reasons.  The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting, but the relevance and PoV ones are not.  — SMcCandlish' ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment., the pretty overwhelming consensus seems to be to remove the addition you added about the murder case. Can we close this RfC and delete the paragraph in the article? I really do not see a way that we can turn this stuff into something that would add useful information to the article without speculation and WP:UNDUE weight. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not look like SMcCandlish is addressing the current page, but a previous version. To wit, the editor says: "The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting".   In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited.  Also, is the editor talks about a "[presently hypothetical] related controversy".  So, the quote from DW is a hypothetical controversy?  I cite from the current article: «Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany." » XavierItzm (talk)
 * Same situation here as in the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the Burqa case: A big majority of editors argues against your addition, with you constantly keeping the discussion going. So, I have boiled down your content to stuff that is actually in the sources and no voilation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In my eyes, the rest is still pretty much useless for the article but i am tired of these endless discussions. In the current version of the article, there is at least no speculation and none of your WP:POV in it anymore so i could live with this version. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. But I think you mistakenly removed a WP:RS citation from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung which explicitly addresses Dublin III: «"he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter" »  I will be adding it back, to correct the oversight.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited." This is not true. You did not remove all references to his name.
 * Yes there is a real Dublin controversy, but the hypothetical controversy being referenced is one directly related to this specific case. You are trying to synthesize other controversies with this case to justify the content addition.  This, as has been explained to you, is OR.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse version written by LucLeTruc, and remain opposed to addition of content XavierItzm has been campaigning for. After nearly a month of debate, the user has still not  addressed the synthesis and due weight objections raised by a number of editors. If the user is just going to reapeat the "but the case and the Dublin regulation were mentioned in the same article!" talking point to all arguments, without addressing (or perhaps grasping?) the objections it seems of little use to continue arguing with them about it, given the clear consens against the addition.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. You perfectly summarize this whole discussion. I personally would still remove the stripped down version which is in the article right now as in my eyes it does not add any useful information but i could live with the current version and am rather tired of this debate. So lets close this discussion. Any revert reintroducing any reference to this murder case will be boldly reverted, Xavieritzm. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322103120/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223104718/http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324073823/http://www.ecre.org/resources/press_releases/1065 to http://www.ecre.org/resources/Press_releases/1065
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050319010056/http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html to http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Article "the" in front of "ECRE" and "UNHCR"?
The current article text includes:

"According to European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and UNHCR"

"both by ECRE and UNHCR"

"After ECRE, the UNHCR and other non-governmental organisations"

I am almost convinced standard English would have the article "the" in front of the names of these organizations [ECRE, UNHCR]. Can someone confirm this?Redav (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree with you, but it is not straight forward as I would not use "the" such as NATO. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe
— Assignment last updated by Michaelasabbag (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dublin Regulation


text: Template:Freeways and Expressways in Taiwan


text:
User:Snoakie

Snoakie: Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Thue | talk 12:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Snoakie


text:
User talk:Snoakie

Snoakie: Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Thue | talk 12:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snoakie


text:
Talk:Left Party (Turkey)

= Comments =

Websites
Özgürlük ve Dayanisma Partisi

ODP ODP Kadikoy

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this. "BetacommandBot" is perhaps the biggest pain in the ass on wikipedia, and that's saying something. T L Miles (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of libertarian socialism has had no reasonable justification whatsoever
There's two editors removing it: User:Darkstar1st repeatedly (who's on a Wikipedia-wide cleansing of any mention of libsoc upon deciding it's some kind of international hoax) and User:Toddy1, whose edit summary reads: "I see nothing in the 20 page document that explicitly supports the claim that the ideology is Libertarian Socialism (liberter sosyalizm), so remove unverifiable claim"

Please see the actual reference given: Gunter, Michael M. (2010). Historical Dictionary of the Kurds (2nd ed. ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Group. p. 247. ISBN 0810875071.

I quote directly: "The ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996" fi (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the source given for the ideology is in Turkish, no translation provided. . Darkstar1st (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Google translate. Look why are you removing references for socialist libertarianism from countless articles? Thats POV pushing, please read WP:NPOV. --Mrjulesd (talk)  01:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did google translate it and the term libertarian socialist does not appear in the link next to ideology.Darkstar1st (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, did you miss the part where I explained, again, that the source is written in American English by a respected professor from Tennessee? What on god's earth you even talking about? Look at the citation I added after your second or third removal of libsoc. That would be the citation above. The one in English. fi (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even... not that it matters, but the book is in English. You can look it up on Google book search, for example. That's an English quote, from an English book, by an American academic. Did you even look at the source? fi (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the source I tagged was in ideology and that is not the source given there. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do us the courtesy of reading the article you are editing before editing it further. fi (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The source given for ideology was Özgürlük Ve Dayanişma Partisi, Tüzüğü. I see nothing in this 20 page document that explicitly supports the claim that the ideology is Libertarian Socialism (liberter sosyalizm).  If you think there is, please quote a sentence from it that does support it - please quote in the original language, so we can verify that the sentence is present, and provide a translation of the sentence you are quoting.

 * If you think the source is the wrong source, then please edit the article, to provide the right source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It's already in the article. I assumed there was some other reason for referencing the libsoc-flavored manifesto and left it up to the concerned editors, but the point is that it's completely superfluous because the affinity has already been sourced, if anyone had bothered to look. fi (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look it says"Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi, özgürlükçü, özyönetimci, enternasyonalist, demokratik planlamacı". Now look at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberter_sosyalizm it describes libertarian socialism as "Liberter sosyalizm veya özgürlükçü sosyalizm", Liberter and özgürlükçü are words for libertarianism. Özyönetimc means self-government. --Mrjulesd (talk)  03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since User:Finx said that the source for it being libertarian-socialist is page p247 of Gunter's Historical Dictionary of the Kurds, I have changed the citation for the libertarian-socialist to that. My edit summary makes it clear that though I have not checked that source, User:Finx says he/she has.--  Toddy1 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * User:Mrjulesd's quotation "Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi, özgürlükçü, özyönetimci, enternasyonalist, demokratik planlamacı", translates as "Freedom and Solidarity Party, liberal [or libertarian], self-governing, internationalist, democratic planners". I do not see how that directly and explicitly supports the claim that the party is libertarian-socialist. WP:STICKTOSOURCE suggests that Wikipedia articles have citations that directly and explicitly support statements in articles.--  Toddy1 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * You don't see how a socialist party identifying as libertarian... makes that party libertarian socialist? I find that rather incredible, but I guess it's beside the point now, so I may as well drop it. fi (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is called original research. That is against Wikipedia policy.--  Toddy1 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's... original research... to assume that self-described socialists and libertarians... subscribe to libertarianism. Okay then. fi (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotations from non-English source
WP:NONENG says "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." User:Mrjulesd has cited Özgürlük Ve Dayanişma Partisi, Tüzüğü as the source for the various quotations in Freedom and Solidarity Party. Please could you provide the original Turkish for each of those quotations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you can't translate text? Sigh ok, but you will actually believe me?

Bu evrensel ve tarihsel özlemin taşıyıcısı olan Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi;

yeniden üreten eşit, özgür, sömürüsüz ve sınıfsız bir dünya arayışı insanlığın özlemidir.

doğrultusunda, sermaye güçlerinin egemenliğini, emperyalizmin tahakkümünü ortadan kaldırarak,

emek güçlerinin siyasi iktidarının kurulmasını amaçlar.

kapitalizmin ve onun insanlığa dayattığı bütün baskı, sömürü, şiddet ve eşitsizlik biçimlerinin ortadan kalkmasını savunur. Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi, özgürlükçü, özyönetimci, enternasyonalist, demokratik planlamacı, doğa

 * --Mrjulesd (talk)  04:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

i used google to translate and still no mention of libertarian socialism. do you have a better translation? ''Freedom and Solidarity Party, who are carriers of this universal and historical aspirations reproduce equality, freedom, humanity's quest for a world without exploitation and classless aspirations. In line, the domination of capital strength, eliminating the domination of imperialism, It aims to establish the political power of the labor force. all the pressure of capitalism and impose his humanity, exploitation, violence and advocates the elimination of inequality format. Freedom and Solidarity Party, liberal, özyönetimc, the internationalist, democratic planners, nature'' Darkstar1st (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So User:Mrjulesd has the following Turkish quotations to back his translations: Unless anyone objects, I will delete the first quotation from the article, and add the other Turkish quotations to footnotes, improving the verifiablity of the the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bu evrensel ve tarihsel özlemin taşıyıcısı olan Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi" ["carrier of the universal and historical longing"]
 * Google translate says: "This universal and the bearer of the historical longing for Freedom and Solidarity Party".
 * I think we should delete that quotation since the quotation is a longing for the party not for the stuff in the paragraph of the article.
 * "yeniden üreten eşit, özgür, sömürüsüz ve sınıfsız bir dünya arayışı insanlığın özlemidir" ["an equal, free, exploitation-less and class-less world."]
 * Google translate says: "reproducing equality, freedom, humanity's quest for exploitation and a classless world is longing"
 * Yes, that can stay.
 * "doğrultusunda, sermaye güçlerinin egemenliğini, emperyalizmin tahakkümünü ortadan kaldırarak" ["end the power of the forces of capital and imperialism"]
 * Google translate says: "In line [doğrultusunda], the domination of capital strength, eliminating the domination of imperialism"
 * Yes, that is probably right.
 * "emek güçlerinin siyasi iktidarının kurulmasını amaçlar" ["set up the power of the labor forces"]
 * Google translate says: "It aims to establish the political power of the labor force"
 * Yes, that can stay.
 * "kapitalizmin ve onun insanlığa dayattığı bütün baskı, sömürü, şiddet ve eşitsizlik biçimlerinin ortadan kalkmasını savunur. Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi, özgürlükçü, özyönetimci, enternasyonalist, demokratik planlamacı, doğa" ["towards a libertarian, self-rule-based, internationalist, pro-democratic-planning, ecologist, anti-militarist and feminist socialism."]
 * Google translate says "all the pressure of capitalism and impose his humanity, exploitation, violence and advocates the elimination of inequality format. Freedom and Solidarity Party, liberal [or libertarian], self-rule-based [özyönetimc], internationalist, democratic planners, nature"
 * Yes, that can stay.
 * I object to removing it as a citation for libsoc above, right where it was before you and Darkstar1st pulled it, because (as was pointed out to you already) the word for liberal is "liberal" and never "özgürlükçü" which translates to one thing only: libertarian as in "libertarian socialist." That is, the only thing libertarian means outside the context of American establishment politics. There was absolutely nothing wrong with this original citation and it's only the POV-pushing farce going on here presently that even compelled me to add a redundant English-language citation. Leave it be. fi (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Google translate says özgürlükçü = freedom, My dictionary says it means liberal or liberalism, liberality. --Obsidi (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to http://tr.wikipedia.org/, type "özgürlükçü" in the search box and press enter. fi (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (repeat from earlier) Look at the Turkish article on libertarian socialism at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberter_sosyalizm; it describes libertarian socialism as "Liberter sosyalizm veya özgürlükçü sosyalizm", Liberter and özgürlükçü are both words for libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk)  18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why does it say at the top of the page "liberteryen ile karıştırılmamalıdır." or in other words in English "Should not be confused with libertarianism?" --Obsidi (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Gunter (p. 246) writes, "The ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party...." Google translates "libertarian" to "özgürlükçü;" freedom and liberty to "özgürlük."  "özgürlükçü" translates back to freedom.  While the literal translation may be "socialist freedom party", the point of reliable sources is that they can be relied upon to capture the meaning.  "Libertarian" derives from the word "liberty" which is the Norman-derived synonym for the Anglo-Saxon derived "freedom."  TFD (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There we go, now that's a good cite, we should use that. --Obsidi (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already used and in the article. That was the original source Darkstar1st requested and subsequently removed. fi (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * would anyone object to me adding an inline citation until a human can translate the source? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gunter is in English, and should be used as the source. Although it was used in the article until removed by Darkstar1st, it was quoting a different sentence about a different issue.  --Obsidi (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought Gunter was only talking about dev yol, not the entire ODP? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It had previously been used only to talk about dev yol, but it also talks about the entire ODP before it gets to that. --Obsidi (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ah ok, thanks for the clarification. my apologies for the disruption/error on my part. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Left Party (Turkey)


text: File:United Trade Union Congress mural, Kolkata.jpg


text:
Amigo

Amigo(s) (Portuguese and Spanish for male friend) may refer to:

People

 * Carlos Amigo Vallejo (1934-2022), Spanish Roman Catholic archbishop emeritus of Seville

Facilities

 * Amigos School, a bilingual primary school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.
 * Los Amigos Biological Station, a research station in Peru
 * Los Amigos High School, Fountain Valley, California, U.S.

Other places

 * Amigo, West Virginia, U.S., an unincorporated community
 * Los Amigos River, a river in Peru

Businesses and products

 * Amigo (restaurant), a Hong Kong restaurant
 * Amigo Comics, a Spanish comic book publisher
 * Amigo Energy, an American retail electricity provider
 * Amigo Holdings, a British lender
 * Amigo Mobility, an American electric mobility devices manufacturer
 * Amigo Spiele, a German board and card game publisher
 * Amigo Supermarkets, a chain of supermarkets in Puerto Rico
 * Amigos Creations, an Indian film production company
 * Amigos Library Services, an American company
 * Isuzu Amigo, a compact SUV
 * IGO amigo, a version of the navigation software platform iGO

Film, television and theatre

 * Amigo (film), a 2010 film by John Sayles
 * Amigos (film), a 2023 Indian Telugu-language action-thriller film
 * Deaf Smith & Johnny Ears, also known as Los Amigos, a 1972-73 spaghetti Western film
 * Amigo (1980 film), a film starring Andrés García
 * Amigo (TV series), a Norwegian game show for kids
 * "¡Amigos!", an episode of Arrested Development
 * Amigos (play), a 2004 play by David Williamson
 * Amigo, a 2001 film by Erik Carrion, featuring Amaruk Kayshapanta
 * The Amigos, a group of fictional penguins in the 2006 film Happy Feet

Bands

 * Die Amigos, a German music band

Albums

 * Amigo (Arlo Guthrie album), 1976
 * Amigo (David Ball album), 2001
 * Amigo (Kendji Girac album), 2018
 * Amigos (Santana album), 1976
 * Amigos (Paul Anka album), 1996
 * Amigo, a 1990 album by Grupo Bronco
 * Amigos, a 1989 album by Lindisfarne
 * The Shinee World, 2008 album by South Korean boy band Shinee re-released as Amigo

Songs

 * "Amigo", by Olavi Virta, 1954
 * "Amigo" (Roberto Carlos song), 1977
 * "Amigo", by Roberto Blanco, 1978
 * "Amigo" (Black Slate song), 1980
 * "Amigo", by Lake from Ouch!, 1980/81
 * "Amigo", by Toque Profundo from Sueños Y Pesadillas Del 3er Mundo, 1992
 * "Amigo", by Quickspace, 1998
 * "Amigo", by David Ball from Amigo, 2001
 * "Amigo" (Shinee song), 2008

Other uses

 * Amigos de las Américas (AMIGOS), a non-profit organization
 * AmiGO, a web-based search tool for the Gene Ontology project

title: Amigo


text:
Amigo Spiele

Amigo Spiele is a German board and card game publisher. Many of their games have won Spiel des Jahres awards, and many have been published in English by Rio Grande Games.

Notable games

 * 6 nimmt! (also Take 6!)
 * Bohnanza
 * Café International
 * Dungeons & Dragons
 * Diskwars (Tabletop)
 * Elfenland
 * Fluxx
 * Der Große Dalmuti
 * Guillotine
 * Piratenbucht, a.k.a. Pirate's Cove
 * Rage
 * Robo Rally
 * Saboteur (game)
 * Uno (card game)
 * Rage
 * Robo Rally
 * Saboteur (game)
 * Uno (card game)
 * Saboteur (game)
 * Uno (card game)
 * Uno (card game)
 * Uno (card game)

title: Amigo Spiele


text:
A1081 road

The A1081 is a road in the south of England. It starts at Luton Airport in Bedfordshire and runs to High Barnet in Greater London via Harpenden, St Albans and London Colney, a distance of around 20.5 mi. For most of its length, the A1081 follows the route of the original A6.

The route
The first section of the A1081 runs south-west from Luton Airport to the spur of the M1 motorway on the southern outskirts of Luton. This section is a dual carriageway known as New Airport Way. Just west of the airport, there is a junction with the A505.

At the M1 spur, the A1081 turns south to join the route of the original A6. It skirts the grounds of Luton Hoo estate, then crosses into Hertfordshire, passing through Harpenden before reaching St Albans.

In St Albans, the road has a junction with the A4147 and A1057 (both making up the former A414), then meets the A5183 (the former A5). At this point, it bears south-east, bypassing London Colney before reaching junction 22 of the M25 motorway. There is a junction with the current A414, the North Orbital Road, just north of London Colney.

The A1081 then multiplexes with the M25 to junction 23 at South Mimms, the junction with the current A1 and A1(M). From here, it continues south-east to High Barnet, ending at a junction with the Great North Road (the former A1, now the A1000).

History
The A1081 designation was originally used on The Woodford Spur in east London. The Woodford Spur is a 1920s new build road that branches off the A12 (former A106) Eastern Avenue at the Gants Hill Roundabout and heads through Woodford.

It was allocated the A1081 number in 1925, although the road hadn't yet opened. It was opened not long afterwards between the A106 and A11 (now A1199), with the section to the A104 opened later (shown as under construction on the 1932 OS Maps).

The A1081 number became redundant after World War II when the road became an extension of the A406. The North Circular has since been rerouted and so the section east of the A113 is now numbered A1400.

The current A1081 was established in the 1950s, when the section of the A6 from South Mimms to High Barnet was so renumbered following the re-routing of the A1 onto the 1920s-built Barnet Bypass.

When the M25 was built in the 1980s, it took over the section of the A6 from London Colney to South Mimms, which was already dual carriageway. The section from Luton to London Colney was then renumbered the A1081.

title: A1081 road


text:
Talk:Netherlands

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023
The country's name is not "Netherlands", but "The Netherlands". The name of the entry should be "The Netherlands" and every time it is mentioned it should say "The Netherlands". Thank you. Sidolanters86 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does have "the Netherlands" in most places. It doesn't when it's giving the origin of the word "Netherlands", which makes sense, and it doesn't in phrases like "Clovis I had conquered and united all these territories in the southern Netherlands" or "modern day Netherlands"—surely you don't think it should say "... in the southern The Netherlands" or "modern day the Netherlands". If what's you're referring to is that the "the" isn't capitalized, that's because Wikipedia style says not to in any case where the name of something starts with "the", whether it's the Bahamas, the New York Times ("The New York Times" is the title), etc. See MOS:THECAPS, MOS:THEINST. Largoplazo (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed that you were talking about the article's very title. Regarding that, see Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). (I'll just comment here that it's odd to me that anyone would be concerned about whether the "The" is included in the name of the country in English given that in Dutch the name is singular and is never prefixed with the definite article.) Largoplazo (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Given this is also a request for renaming the page, I wanted to share the link to WP:MOVEREQ, where you can find the process for requesting that a page be renamed moved, which is how we refer to renaming a page here. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you meant "request that a page be moved, which is how we refer to renaming a page here". Largoplazo (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Woops! Yes, you are correct. This is what happens when I rewrite something to try and make it less jargon-y for an apparently-new user. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The country's name is NEDERLAND - no plural and no definite article. The English name should be NETHERLAND but for some reason everyone keep incorrectly making the country name plural and adding the definite article. Marlarkey (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not incorrect to call it The Netherlands in English. That's what it's called. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The country's name is KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN, literally KINGDOM OF-THE [genitive] NETHERLANDS. Plural with the definite article. Why and when the Dutch began referring to the country informally in the singular and without the definite article I don't know, but English and other languages (Spanish los Países Bajos, French les Pays-Bas) didn't make up the use of the plural with the definite article by themselves. Largoplazo (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The country's common name is "Netherlands". Sidolanters86 is clearly confused about the "Netherlands". The name has been debated many times in the past. The consensual decision and rationale can be found in the archives. gidonb (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The 't' in 'the' should not be capitalized. Compare to 'the US'. Thayts   •••  16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! In terms of capitalization, the same rules apply to the "Netherlands", the "United States", the "United Kingdom", and the "Philippines"! gidonb (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge
Why not merge this with Kingdom of the Netherlands?

There isn’t a separate article for mainland USA or Australia. 91.195.200.22 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Mainland US and mainland Australia aren't distinct political entities. The Netherlands is one, having its own government and sitting alongside Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten in the Kingdom. The Netherlands isn't just the European mainland anyway. It includes Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba. Largoplazo (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mainland Australia, Contiguous United States. CMD (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL, I'd accepted the premise as given. But even if those articles didn't exist, I stand by my observations. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
Netherland is now the 33d country with the most density, not the 16th. Negar Ebrahimi (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I updated all mentions of 16th to 33rd, and also changed the European population density rank from 5th to 6th. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024
I would like to change the following

In January 2020, the Dutch government officially dropped its support of the word Holland'' for the whole country. ''

to

Starting in 2019, the Dutch government officially prefers the Netherlands instead of Holland'' when talking about the country. ''

One reason for this rewrite is that the old claim that the government "dropped support" is false. https://holland.com still exists and mostly mentions "the Netherlands", but also has some articles referring to "Holland". Overall, I think it's therefore more reasonable to say that the government now "officially prefers". Rkhu (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Done: Your phrasing sounds better than what was in the article IMO, with a few small changes. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: which of the sources that you cited says that the Dutch government officially prefers..? M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Music Section
I can appreciate examples of Dutch musicians of various styles, but it's reading a bit like a list of musicians without adding anything to the article. I think maybe just including a link to a List of Dutch musicians at the start of the section and maybe just the top 2 or 3 most well-known or popular bands after each genre would make it cleaner. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Should drop name spam....WikiProject Countries " Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments." Good example Canada. Moxy 🍁 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Lopsided wording "inventiveness" and food exports
From the intro: "Nevertheless, it is the world's second-largest exporter of food and agricultural products by value, owing to its fertile soil, mild climate, intensive agriculture, and inventiveness". "inventiveness" is neither scientific, nor objective, nor neutral. I understand the intent looking at the source, but something like "innovative agricultural practice" or something would probably be a bit more serious than that word which really sounds like a value judgement. I'm also wondering if we shouldn't add the consequence (stikstof - nitrogen crisis) of the intensive agriculture but I'd let the experienced users be the judge. 89.207.171.120 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The whole sentence is wrong. A country can have fertile soil, a mild climate, intensive agriculture, and "inventiveness" and feed only itself, let alone be the second-largest exporter. And assuming those qualities lead necessarily to being an exporter, how does it necessarily follow from them that it will be precisely the second largest, as the wording implies? Finally, what does "second-largest ... by value" mean? By what value? Measured how? I have no idea! Largoplazo (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Geert Wilders is not prime minister
Geert Wilders is incorrectly named prime minister of the Netherlands. Current outgoing prime minister is Mark Rutte. Even though Geert Wilder’s party won last election, he will not be prime minister as agreed with the other three forming parties. Succeeding prime minister after last election is not decided yet. 87.212.254.148 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Links to BBC News profile
The two BBC News profile links at go to the same page. I suggest removing one - the second, since that old URL now redirects. --Talky Muser (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. 〜 Askarion   ✉  22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Talky Muser (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Netherlands


text:
Talk:Boyer Gallery

Untitled
The article for Paul Boyer appears to be for a different person than the artist for whom the museum is named. Just thought I'd mention this before someone wikifies his name. :) --Darkwind 12:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boyer Gallery


text:
Mark Fletcher (businessman)

Mark Fletcher is an American entrepreneur. He was the founder and CEO of the news aggregator website, Bloglines, and the Vice President of Ask.com until June 2006. Ask Jeeves acquired Bloglines on 8 February 2005.

On September 23, 2014 Fletcher launched Groups.io in beta.

In February 2005, Fletcher won one of the annual Rave Awards, presented by Wired magazine, for the success of Bloglines. Fellow nominees in the Tech Innovator category were Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales, Adam Curry, Scott Maccabe, and Zhang Zuoyi.

Previously, Fletcher started the free mailing list service ONElist. ONElist merged with eGroups, which was later acquired by Yahoo! in June 2000. Yahoo! Groups closed down in December 15, 2020. Many groups migrated to Groups.io Fletcher was also a software engineer at internet appliance maker Diba, Inc., now owned by Sun Microsystems, and at Pixel, Inc.

Fletcher has invested in One True Media, Plaxo, Techdirt and Wesabe

Fletcher obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of California, San Diego.

title: Mark Fletcher (businessman)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Kirk Nevins

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Merge. --BM 00:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Justin Kirk Nevins
Vanity page. The guy's sole claim to fame is that he has made a toy similar to the cryptex described in the Da Vinci Code (we even get to read what street he was on when he thought of it), and sold 67 copies. Maybe when he's sold 67,000 copies he should have a page. Securiger 12:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete -- Vanity page, created by a local of Tacoma. Not notable enough. -- Longhair 18:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'm the author of the page. While it's true I live in Tacoma, I have no interest in the person or product, do not know them, have not seen them, indeed no know one who has -- I know of them only through the cited newspaper article.  On 'vanity pages' we read in the guidelines:  "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools. Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project."  I have no affiliation whatsoever.  Thus the label of 'vanity page' does not apply, as I have no connection of any sort (except as a subscriber to the rather undistinguished paper where the article appeared) and indeed will not feel that my "vanity" is wounded in the event of deletion, as my motives in writing it were purely altruistic (as far as I can divine).  The Da Vinci Code is a work of great popular interest (though not to me personally, by the way -- I haven't even read it, so no 'vanity' there either) and the devising of a 'cryptex' is an accomplishment of note, IMHO.  Perhaps the readers on the 'Da Vinci Code' page might be polled.  -- Naturally I accede to the wisdom and outcome of this process, but wanted to set forth my disinterestedness.  Mark K. Jensen 06:29, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cryptex. The fact that he makes cryptices makes him very relevant to that article, but most details given in his own article are too detailed to be very interesting. Radiant! 09:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Tom Stephenson (activist)

Tom Criddle Stephenson (1893–1987) was a British journalist and a leading champion of walkers' rights in the countryside.

In the First World War he was imprisoned as a conscientious objector.

He was for many years from 1948 the Secretary of the Ramblers' Association. He is credited with having inspired the creation of the Pennine Way, the first of Britain's long-distance footpaths, through an article he wrote for the Daily Herald in 1935, and his subsequent lobbying work with MPs as Ramblers' Association Secretary. He wrote the first official guidebook for the Way, published after it officially opened on 24 April 1965, when Stephenson was 72. The guide was published by HMSO for the Countryside Commission in 1969.

He was also a long-serving committee member of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society (now the Open Spaces Society). He complained to close colleagues that the Society's committee was boring, but that it was necessary to maintain a strong presence to prevent it from caving in to landowners' interests, as had happened in the 1930s under the Access to Mountains Bill (subsequently repealed).

title: Tom Stephenson (activist)