text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dbenbenn

Dbenbenn
 (30/1/0) ending 05:52 February 13 2005 (UTC)

Dbenbenn has amassed over 4500 edits, many of them the sort of tidying-up that keep Wikipedia looking neat and pulled-together. He's active in the Wiki-numbers project, and a huge help in keeping the VfD/Old pages cleared out. He is courteous and thoughtful in his dealings with others: a quality that we need more of. Dbenbenn would make a wonderful administrator. Joyous 05:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much. I accept.  dbenbenn | talk 06:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Joyous 06:01, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MarkSweep 06:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) "$user isn't an admin already?" :) --Slowking Man 06:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Good janitors make good admins. Carrp | Talk 06:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) [Insert cliche of choice here]. ;) Neutralitytalk 06:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) He has keeping the VFD page updated, since the change that I added over. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I thought he was admin already. Hope we see Rights for "User:Dbenbenn" set (+sysop) soon. jni 10:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Rje 13:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Completely support, excellent choice for admin. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  23:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Cool. JuntungWu 03:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Seems responsible; diligent in mastering the not entirely transparent midnite tasks on VfD; expanding into its /Old is especially worthwhile. --Jerzy(t) 09:21, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * 12) Seems like a good choice. Jordi·✆ 10:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Let's hear it for the wikijanitors... (cue shameless link to adminship subpage) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:49, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * 14) Yup. Isomorphic 20:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Michael Snow 21:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) R yan!  |  Talk  22:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes of course. -- Hoary 03:58, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * 18) Likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus 04:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Definite support. SWAdair | Talk  06:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) I've had nothing but positive experiences in dealing with this user. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Good nomination! Lst27 ( t a l k )  22:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) I've seen Dbenbenn around. Support. - RedWordSmith 22:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Bart133 (t) 00:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Very much so. — Dan | Talk 03:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Apollomelos 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Good Luck! User:Marine 69-71
 * 29) older ≠ wiser 20:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) yep Wolfman 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I've had no positive experience in dealing with this user. Everyking 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * 4613 edits.

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * Mainly WP:VFD/Old. I'd be happy to help out Quadell at WP:IFD if he wants a hand.  Clearing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.  Not RC patrol—my computer's too slow.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Petersen graph is my baby.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * I've been peripherally involved in conflicts at Finno-Ugric languages, Sollog, and Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album). Here's the only conflict I remember being involved in directly.

dbenbenn | talk 06:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Category:Astronomy images

NOTE: This category is for astronomy images, and not for articles about astronomical images.

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

title: Category:Astronomy images


text:
User:Mack Zulkifli

Mack Zulkifli
Runs a Wiki called Water Cooler Crowd, in hopes of assimilating Malaysian blogospehere.

title: User:Mack Zulkifli


text: Category:Images by scientific discipline


text:
File:Tap-tap panels.jpg

Tap-tap cab bench detail Photo by Meggar

title: File:Tap-tap panels.jpg


text:
Category:Milwaukee Bucks players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Milwaukee Bucks.

title: Category:Milwaukee Bucks players


text: Category:Space images

title: Category:Space images


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screamapillar

 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. dbenbenn | talk 08:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Screamapillar
Must we have an article for every one-off joke on every television show? Psychonaut 05:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's well written, though - and the screamapillar is awesome. I'm trying to find someplace to stick this text. [maestro] 06:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or I'll deliver one to your home. Seriously, it's a one off joke, never used again. Deserves one line in an episode guide. Average Earthman 12:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't to cover every tiny little detail about the topics we cover. JoaoRicardo 20:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Made-up words in The Simpsons. This article, as written, can be copied-and-pasted directly into that article under a new heading. --Deathphoenix 03:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useable to Made-up words in The Simpsons, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable joke. The Simpsons is great, but we don't need a record of every joke that was ever on the show. For crying out loud. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It was the whole basis of an episode, if I remember correctly. I've merged, but not redirected. --  user:zanimum
 * Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons, and add a redirect 11:23, 11 Feb 2005 User:Radiant
 * Merge. I was the one who rewrote this. In retrospect, I should have just redirected to Made-up words in The Simpsons and written a little Screamapillar section. -- Binadot  11 Feb 2005

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.


text:
Stroganoff (disambiguation)

Stroganoff usually refers to beef Stroganoff, a Russian dish.

Stroganoff may also refer to:

 * Stroganov family, a Russian noble family
 * Stroganoff Madonna
 * Alexander Grigorievich Stroganoff
 * Elisabeth Alexandrovna Stroganoff
 * Vasili Vasilievich Stroganoff

title: Stroganoff (disambiguation)


text:
Category:Minnesota Timberwolves players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Minnesota Timberwolves.

title: Category:Minnesota Timberwolves players


text:
William S. Kenyon (Iowa politician)

William Squire Kenyon (June 10, 1869 – September 9, 1933) was a United States senator from Iowa, and a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Education and career
Born on June 10, 1869, in Elyria, Lorain County, Ohio, Kenyon attended Grinnell College and the University of Iowa, then read law in 1891. He was admitted to the bar and entered private practice in Fort Dodge, Iowa, from 1891 to 1911. He was prosecutor for Webster County, Iowa from 1892 to 1896. He returned to private practice in Webster County from 1897 to 1900, and from 1902 to 1904. He was a Judge of the Iowa District Court for the Eleventh Judicial District from 1900 to 1902, before leaving to accept a position with his father-in-law, J. F. Duncombe, who was Iowa counsel for the Illinois Central Railroad. Kenyon succeeded his father-in-law as the railroad's Iowa counsel upon Duncombe's death in 1904. In 1908, Kenyon was promoted and served as the railroad's general counsel for all lines north of the Ohio River. He was an assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1910 to 1911.

United States Senate service
Kenyon, relatively unknown in political circles, announced his candidacy for election to the United States Senate by the 1911 Iowa General Assembly. Considered "a conservative with progressive proclivities," he sought to wrest the seat away from fellow Republican Lafayette Young, who had been appointed by the governor upon the death of Jonathan P. Dolliver. On April 12, 1911, Kenyon was elected on the 67th ballot after a session-long stalemate, in which Young was his principal Republican adversary until the 23rd ballot. Kenyon was re-elected to the Senate in January 1913 (by legislative ballot) and November 1918 (by direct popular election, following ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution), defeating Democrat Charles Rollin Keyes, a noted geologist.

In April 1917, Kenyon received a letter from Iowa Attorney General Horace Havner concerning the 1912 Villisca axe murders. In the Senate, Kenyon was considered a leading progressive and co-sponsored the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Child Labor Act. In 1921, he formed the bipartisan "farm bloc" in the Senate, which led to the enactment of several farm-related bills, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, regulation of grain futures and futures trading in grain, and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff. A supporter of Prohibition, he co-authored the Webb–Kenyon Act, which was intended to bolster the ability of states to enforce their own prohibition laws (prior to the adoption of the Volstead Act).

On the eve of the United States' entry into World War I, Kenyon was one of a group of twelve senators who blocked President Woodrow Wilson's armed neutrality bill, which would have given Wilson the power to arm American vessels. However, after Wilson asked Congress to declare war one month later, Kenyon voted in favor of the declaration. Following the Armistice, when Wilson pressed the Senate to support the United States' membership in the League of Nations, Kenyon became a member of the moderate faction known as the "mild reservationists," who allowed for the possibility of membership so long as the treaty were amended to address a specified list of reservations held by those senators and pursued compromise solutions. However, when Wilson refused to compromise, Kenyon continued to oppose United States membership.

Kenyon served as Chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of State in the Sixty-second Congress, Chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the War Department (also in the Sixty-second Congress), Chairman of the Committee on Standards, Weights and Measures (in the Sixty-fifth Congress), Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor (in the Sixty-sixth Congress and Sixty-seventh Congress), and Chairman of the Committee on the Philippines (in the Sixty-sixth Congress). Kenyon resigned from the Senate on February 24, 1922, to accept a federal judgeship.

Federal judicial service
Kenyon was nominated by President Warren G. Harding on January 31, 1922, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge Walter I. Smith. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 31, 1922, and received his commission the same day. His service terminated on September 9, 1933, due to his death.

Notable case
In 1926, Kenyon wrote the Eighth Circuit's ruling in the principal civil suit arising from the Teapot Dome scandal. Reversing a federal district court in Wyoming, the appellate court panel ordered the lower court to cancel the Mammoth Oil Co.'s leases, demand an accounting of the oil which had been taken from Teapot Dome, and the company was enjoined from trespassing further on United States Government property.

Political offers
While a sitting federal judge, Kenyon was the subject of numerous offers of appointive and elective office. In January 1923, before the death of President Harding, newspapers speculated that Judge Kenyon would be Harding's leading opponent in the 1924 presidential race. At the 1924 Republican National Convention, he was touted as a potential vice-presidential candidate with Calvin Coolidge, and he received 172 votes on the first ballot. Even though President Coolidge indicated that Kenyon would be acceptable to him, the Convention instead selected Charles Dawes, who did not get along with Coolidge and many others. Coolidge offered Kenyon the position of Secretary of the Navy, but Kenyon declined to accept it. While a judge, he also served as an active member of a blue-ribbon "National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement," better known as the "Wickersham Commission," appointed by President Herbert Hoover to assess the lessons learned from Prohibition, among other things.

Supreme Court consideration
In 1930, following the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Edward Terry Sanford, Kenyon was considered by some as a favorite to succeed him, but President Hoover instead nominated John J. Parker (who failed to win Senate confirmation) and then Owen Roberts (who was confirmed). In January 1932, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes retired, Kenyon's name was again included on short lists of potential successors, but this time Hoover selected New York Court of Appeals Judge Benjamin Cardozo.

Death
On September 9, 1933, at age 64, Kenyon died in Sebasco Estates, Maine, where he kept a summer home. He was interred in Oakland Cemetery in Fort Dodge.

Honors
There are streets in Des Moines, Iowa, and Fort Dodge named after Kenyon.

Personal
Kenyon married Mary Duncombe in 1893, one year after beginning service as a prosecutor for Webster County.

title: William S. Kenyon (Iowa politician)


text:
Bosnian genocide

The Bosnian genocide (Bosanski genocid / Босански геноцид) refers to both the Srebrenica massacre and the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25 000–30  000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

The ethnic cleansing that took place in VRS-controlled areas targeted Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included extermination, unlawful confinement, genocidal rape, sexual assault, torture, plunder and destruction of private and public property, and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals, and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship. The acts have been found to have satisfied the requirements for "guilty acts" of genocide and that "some physical perpetrators held the intent to physically destroy the protected groups of Bosnian Muslims and Croats".

In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide; this remains the academic consensus, although Bosnian Genocide denial within academia remains a serious issue. These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts (the convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts). In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide.

The Srebrenica massacre was found to be an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a finding upheld by the ICJ. On 24 March 2016, former Bosnian Serb leader and the first president of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 40 years in prison. In 2019 an appeals court increased his sentence to life imprisonment. On 12 May 2021, it was announced that, in an agreement with UK authorities, he would serve the rest of his sentence in a UK prison.

United Nations
On 18 December 1992, the U.N. General Assembly resolution 47/121 in its preamble deemed ethnic cleansing to be a form of genocide stating:

"Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights, a burgeoning refugee population resulting from mass expulsions of defenceless civilians from their homes and the existence in Serbian and Montenegrin controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of 'ethnic cleansing', which is a form of genocide..."

On 12 July 2007, in its judgement on the Jorgić v. Germany case, the European Court of Human Rights noted that:

"the ICTY, in its judgments in the cases of Prosecutor v. Krstić and Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, expressly disagreed with the wide interpretation of the 'intent to destroy' as adopted by the UN General Assembly and the German courts. Referring to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, the ICTY considered that genocide, as defined in public international law, comprised only acts aimed at the physical or biological destruction of a protected group."

Finding of genocide at Srebrenica
In 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was genocide. In the unanimous ruling Prosecutor v. Krstić, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, reaffirmed that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide, the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."

In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajišnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).

In 2007, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude on alleged genocidal intent. "The Court is however not convinced, on the basis of the evidence before it, that it has been conclusively established that the massive killings of members of the protected group were committed with the specific intent (dolus specialis) on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such. The killings outlined above may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so."

Finding of genocide at Žepa
In the case of Tolimir, in the first degree verdict, the International Criminal Tribunal has concluded that genocide was committed in the enclave of Žepa, outside of Srebrenica. However, that conviction was overturned by the appeals chamber, which narrowed the crime of genocide only to Srebrenica.

Milošević trial
On 16 June 2004, in Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević: Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, the ICTY Trial Chamber refused to acquit former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević on the same grounds, and ruled:

"246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in fact committed in Brčko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Ključ and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including the evidence set out in paragraphs 238–245. The scale and pattern of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are all factors that point to genocide."

On 26 February 2007, however, in the Bosnian genocide case, the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that there was no evidence linking Serbia under the rule of Milošević to genocide committed by Bosnian Serbs in the Bosnian War. However, the court did find that Milošević and others in Serbia did not do enough to prevent acts of genocide from occurring in Srebrenica.

On 22 November 2017, an International court in The Hague found General Ratko Mladić guilty of one count of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war. He was found not guilty of one count of genocide and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Bosnian Genocide Trial
Currently, former Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić were both on trial on two counts of genocide and other war crimes committed in Srebrenica, Prijedor, Ključ, and other municipalities of Bosnia. Karadžić and Mladić are charged, separately, with:

Count 1: Genocide.
 * Municipalities: Bratunac, Foča, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik. Initially dismissed by the Trial Chamber on 28 June 2012, this count was unanimously reinstated on 11 July 2013 by the Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber concluded, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber erred by finding that evidence adduced by the Prosecution was incapable of proving certain types of genocidal acts as well as relevant genocidal intent by Karadžić.

Count 2: Genocide.
 * Municipality: Srebrenica.

Count 3: Persecutions on Political, Racial and Religious Grounds, a Crime Against Humanity.
 * Municipalities: Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Novi, Bratunac, Brčko, Foča, Hadžići, Ilidža, Kalinovik, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Pale, Prijedor, Rogatica, Sanski Most, Sokolac, Trnovo, Vlasenica, Vogošća, Zvornik and Srebrenica.

They are also charged with murder, deportation, inhumane acts, spreading terror among civilians, unlawful attacks on civilians, and taking of hostages.

Involvement of Serbia
The UN's highest court has cleared Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide during the 1990s Bosnian war. But the International Court of Justice did rule that Belgrade had violated international law by failing to prevent the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica.

On 28 February 2013, the ICTY Court of Appeals overturned a conviction for JNA (Yugoslav National Army) Chief of Staff Momčilo Perišić for crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and ordered Perišić's immediate release. His acquittal means that, to date, no official or army officer of Serbia-Montenegro (Yugoslavia) and no member of the JNA or VJ high command has ever been convicted by the ICTY for war-crimes committed in Bosnia.

On 30 May 2013, the ICTY acquitted and ordered the immediate release of Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, two close aides of Slobodan Milošević. Stanišić was the Chief of the Serbian State Security Service, while Simatović was in charge of the special operations arm of the State Security Service.

United States House and Senate resolutions
The month before the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre, both houses of the United States Congress passed similarly worded resolutions asserting that the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, including the Srebrenica Massacre, constituted genocide.

On 27 June 2005, during the 109th Congress, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 199 sponsored by Congressman Christopher Smith with 39 cosponsors) commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The resolution, as amended, was passed with an overwhelming majority of 370 – YES votes, 1 – NO vote, and 62 – ABSENT. The resolution is a bipartisan measure commemorating 11 July 1995 – 2005, the tenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. The Senate version, S.Res.134, was sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith with 8 cosponsors and was agreed to in the Senate on 22 June 2005 without amendment and with unanimous consent. The summaries of the resolutions are identical, with the exception of the name of the house passing the resolution, and the substitution of the word executed for murdered by the House in the first clause: "Expresses the sense of the [House of Representatives]/[Senate] that:
 * (1) the thousands of innocent people executed at Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995, along with all individuals who were victimized during the conflict and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, should be remembered and honored;
 * (2) the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide;
 * (3) foreign nationals, including U.S. citizens, who have risked, and in some cases lost, their lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be remembered and honored;
 * (4) the United Nations (U.N.) and its member states should accept their share of responsibility for allowing the Srebrenica massacre and genocide to occur, and seek to ensure that this does not happen in future crises;
 * (5) it is in the U.S. national interest that the responsible individuals should be held accountable for their actions;
 * (6) persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) should be apprehended and transferred to The Hague without further delay, and countries should meet their obligations to cooperate with the ICTY; and
 * (7) the United States should support the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and peace and stability in southeastern Europe."

International Court of Justice (ICJ): Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro
A trial took place before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), following a 1993 suit by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro alleging genocide. On 26 February 2007, the ICJ, in the Bosnian Genocide Case concurred with the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide:

ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there was much evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina such as widespread killings, the siege of towns, mass rapes, torture, deportation to camps and detention centres, but the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over them, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term". Moreover, the Court found "that Serbia has not committed genocide" nor "conspired to" or "incited the commission of genocide". It did however, find that Serbia had failed "to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica" and to comply fully with the ICTY by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić to the custody of the ICTY in the Hague and that Serbia must in future transfer to the Hague all ICTY-indicted individuals, who reside under Serbian jurisdiction.

Criticism of the ICJ judgement
The Court's finding that Serbia was not directly involved in the Srebrenica genocide have been strongly criticized. Prof. Yuval Shany, Hersch Lauterpacht Professor of Public International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, described the Court's conclusions on the three questions before it as controversial:

"First, as far as the jurisdictional part of the decision goes, the court has been severely criticized for unjustifiably over-stretching the concept of res judicata to decisions on jurisdiction rendered at an earlier stage of the same proceedings; for over-relying on legal conclusions that were decided at earlier stages without serious consideration; and for narrowly construing its powers of revision. Indeed, seven out of the fifteen judges on the bench expressed varying degrees of unease with this particular outcome.

Second, as for the actual findings on the commission of genocide, some writers have criticized the court for refusing to look at the 'bigger picture' of the events in Bosnia – a picture that seems to suggest that the various atrocious crimes meted out by the Bosnian Serbs were all part of the same 'master-plan' of creating an ethnically homogeneous Serbian state. Others have questioned the court's readiness to rely on the absence of individual convictions in genocide by the ICTY (except with relation to the massacre in Srebrenica), without properly considering the difference between standards of liability under criminal law and state responsibility or fully appreciating the limited probative value of reduced charges as the result of plea bargains.

Third, with respect to the question of Serbian responsibility, the court's legal analysis of attribution standards, the reluctance to find Serbia to be an accomplice to genocide, and the decision to refrain from ordering reparations, have all been criticized as excessively conservative. At the same time, the court's expansive reading of Article 1 of the Genocide Convention as potentially imposing on all states a duty to prevent genocide, even if committed outside their territory, has been noted for its remarkable boldness. Still, some writers have criticized the court for not clarifying whether Article 1 can provide an independent basis for exercising of universal jurisdiction against individual perpetrators of genocide. So, arguably, the court construed broadly the duty to prevent genocide while narrowly construing the duty to punish its perpetrators."

Antonio Cassese, the first president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, criticized the ICJ judgement on the ground that "The International Court has set an unrealistically high standard of proof for finding Serbia complicit in genocide." He added:

"The ICJ, which ... deals with controversies between states, was faced with Bosnia's claim that Serbia was responsible for the Srebrenica massacre. Although the Court ruled that genocide had taken place, it decided that Serbia was not responsible under international law.

According to the Court, the Bosnian Serb generals who were guilty of this genocide, the various Mladić's and Krstić's, were neither acting as Serbia's agents nor receiving specific instructions from Belgrade ... Why was it not enough to prove that the Bosnian Serb military leadership was financed and paid by Serbia and that it was tightly connected to Serbia political and military leadership? More importantly, the ICJ's decision that Serbia is responsible for not having prevented a genocide in which it was not complicit makes little sense. According to the Court, Serbia was aware of the very high risk of acts of genocide and did nothing. But Serbia was not complicit, the Court argued, because 'it has not been proven' that the intention of committing the acts of genocide at Srebrenica 'had been brought to Belgrade's attention'.

This is a puzzling statement at best. The massacre was prepared in detail and took place over the course of six days (between 13 and 19 July). Is it plausible that the Serbian authorities remained in the dark while the killing was in progress and reported in the press all over the world?"

The vice-president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Al-Khasawneh, criticized the judgement as not reflecting the evidence with respect to Serbia's direct responsibility for genocide at Srebrenica:

"The 'effective control' test for attribution established in the Nicaragua case is not suitable to questions of State responsibility for international crimes committed with a common purpose. The 'overall control' test for attribution established in the Tadić case is more appropriate when the commission of international crimes is the common objective of the controlling State and the non-State actors. The Court's refusal to infer genocidal intent from a consistent pattern of conduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina is inconsistent with the established jurisprudence of the ICTY. The FRY's knowledge of the genocide set to unfold in Srebrenica is clearly established. The Court should have treated the Scorpions as a de jure organ of the FRY. The statement by the Serbian Council of Ministers in response to the massacre of Muslim men by the Scorpions amounted to an admission of responsibility. The Court failed to appreciate the definitional complexity of the crime of genocide and to assess the facts before it accordingly."

Missing SDC Records
The International Criminal Tribunal never received a complete archive of the Supreme Defense Council minutes from Serbia. According to the explanation given by Sir Geoffrey Nice, former prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milošević:

"First, it is important to note that Serbia did not hand over to the Prosecution (OTP) the complete collection of SDC [Supreme Defense Council] records. For example, for the year 1995 the OTP received recordings for only about half of all the sessions held by SDC. Further, some of the SDC records were not handed over in their full stenographically recorded form but were produced as extended minutes. That means that they were shorter than steno-notes but longer than the regular minutes. The dates of the missing meetings or the meetings where this lesser form of record was provided, as I recall, were significant – namely dates leading up to, surrounding and in the aftermath of the Srebrenica massacre. The full records of those meetings need yet to be provided. At the same time, these documents, significant as they are, do not constitute a single body of evidence that will explain once and for all what happened and who was culpable. They do provide a much fuller context and provide some very valuable testimonials of things that were said by Milošević and others. In their un-redacted form they would point all who are interested (not just governments and lawyers) to other documents that have never been provided and that might well be more candid than the words of those at the SD Council meetings who knew they were being recorded by a stenographer. Second, it should also be remembered that there are other protected document collections and individual documents which were, and still are, protected by direct agreements between Belgrade and the former OTP Prosecutor, i.e. they were not protected by the Trial Chamber. These documents are difficult now to identify but if and when Bosnia-Herzegovina decides to reopen the ICJ case it will be essential to require Serbia and/or the ICTY to produce all those documents for the ICJ."

European Court of Human Rights
The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, in September 1997, handed down a genocide conviction against Nikola Jorgić, a Bosnian Serb who was the leader of a paramilitary group located in the Doboj region. He was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment for his involvement in genocidal actions that took place in regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, other than Srebrenica.

In a judgement issued on 12 July 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the Jorgić v. Germany case (Application no. 74613/01), reviewed the German court's judgements against Jorgić. In rejecting Jorgić's appeal, the ECHR affirmed that the German court's ruling was consistent with an interpretation of the Genocide Convention foreseeable at the time Jorgić committed the offence in 1992. However, the ECHR highlighted that the German court's ruling, based upon German domestic law, had interpreted the crime of genocide more broadly than and in a manner since rejected by international courts. Under the wider definition that the German judiciary upheld, the ethnic cleansing carried out by Jorgić was a genocide because it was an intent to destroy the group as a social unit, and although the majority of scholars took the view that German genocide law should interpret genocide as the physical-biological destruction of the protected group, "a considerable number of scholars were of the opinion that the notion of destruction of a group as such, in its literal meaning, was wider than a physical-biological extermination and also encompassed the destruction of a group as a social unit".

In the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić (2 August 2001), the ICTY ruled "customary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. Hence, an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide". On 19 April 2004, this determination was upheld on appeal: "The Genocide Convention, and customary international law in general, prohibit only the physical or biological destruction of a human group. ... The Trial Chamber expressly acknowledged this limitation, and eschewed any broader definition. ... " although like the lower court, the appeal court also ruled that ethnic cleansing might with other evidence lead to an inference of genocidal intent. On 14 January 2000, the ICTY ruled in the Prosecutor v. Kupreškić and Others case that the Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing campaign in order to expel the Bosnian Muslim population from the region was persecution, not genocide per se. The ECHR noted the opinion of the International Court of Justice ruling in the Bosnian Genocide Case that ethnic cleansing is not in and of itself genocide.

In reference to legal writers, the ECHR also noted: "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide".

The ECHR having reviewed the case and the more recent international rulings on the issue the ECHR ruled that "The Court finds that the [German] courts' interpretation of 'intent to destroy a group' as not necessitating a physical destruction of the group, which has also been adopted by a number of scholars ..., is therefore covered by the wording, read in its context, of the crime of genocide in the [German] Criminal Code and does not appear unreasonable", so "In view of the foregoing, the [ECHR] concludes that, while many authorities had favoured a narrow interpretation of the crime of genocide, there had already been several authorities at the material time which had construed the offence of genocide in the same wider way as the German courts. In these circumstances, the [ECHR] finds that [Jorgić], if need be with the assistance of a lawyer, could reasonably have foreseen that he risked being charged with and convicted of genocide for the acts he had committed in 1992.", and for this reason the court rejected Jorgić's assertion that there had been a breach of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights by Germany.

European Parliament
On 15 January 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Union's executive authorities to commemorate 11 July as a day of remembrance and mourning of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, explicitly recognized as such with reference to the ICJ decision. The resolution also reiterated a number of findings including the number of victims as "more than 8000 Muslim men and boys" executed and "nearly 25 000 women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported, making this event the biggest war crime to take place in Europe since the end of the Second World War". The resolution passed overwhelmingly, on a vote of 556 to 9.

Individuals prosecuted for genocide during the Bosnian War
About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in Bosnia. To date, after several plea bargains and some convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal, two men, Vujadin Popović and Ljubiša Beara, have been found guilty of genocide, and two others, Radislav Krstić and Drago Nikolić, have been found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide, by an international court for their participation in the Srebrenica massacre.

Four have been found guilty of participating in genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom, Nikola Jorgić, lost an appeal against his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights.

On 29 July 2008, the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Milenko Trifunović, Brano Džinić, Aleksandar Radovanović, Miloš Stupar, Branislav Medan and Petar Mitrović guilty of genocide for their part in the Srebrenica massacre, and on 16 October 2009 the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Milorad Trbić, a former member of the Bosnian Serb security forces, guilty of genocide for his participation in the genocide in the Srebrenica massacre.

Slobodan Milošević, the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He was charged with having committed genocide, either alone or in concert with other named members of a joint criminal enterprise. The indictment accused him of planning, preparing and executing the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina including Bijeljina, Bosanski Novi, Brčko, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Prijedor, Sanski Most and Srebrenica. He died during his trial, on 11 March 2006, and no verdict was returned.

The ICTY had issued a warrant for the arrest of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić on several charges including genocide. Karadžić was arrested in Belgrade on 21 July 2008, and was transferred into ICTY custody in the Hague nine days later on 30 July. Ratko Mladić was also arrested in Serbia on 26 May 2011 after a decade in hiding.

On 24 March 2016, Karadžić was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Finally, on 22 November 2017, Mladić was sentenced to a life in prison. Both were sentenced for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Both Karadžić and Mladić appealed their convictions. In 2019 appeals judges increased Karadžić's sentence to life in prison. A verdict in Mladić's appeal was expected in June 2021. It was rejected on 8 June with Mladic's sentence affirmed by a panel of U.N. judges in a four to one vote.

Death toll

If a narrow definition of genocide is used, as favoured by the international courts, then during the Srebrenica massacre, 8000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were murdered and the remainder of the population (between 25 000 and 30  000 Bosniak women, children and elderly people) was forced to leave the area. If a wider definition is used, then the number is much larger. According to the ICTY Demographic Unit, an estimated 69.8% or 25,609 of the civilians killed in the war were Bosniak (with 42,501 military deaths), with the Bosnian Serbs suffering 7,480 civilian casualties (15,299 military deaths), the Bosnian Croats suffering 1,675 civilian casualties (7,183 military deaths), amounting to a total of 104,732 casualties, spread between the Bosnian Croats (8.5%), Bosnian Serbs (21.7%), Bosniaks (65%), and others (4.8%).

In January 2013, the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center (RDC) published its final results on "the most comprehensive" research into Bosnia-Herzegovina's war casualties: The Bosnian Book of the Dead – a database that reveals "a minimum of" 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina's citizens killed and missing during the 1992–1995 war. The head of the ICTY Demographic Unit, Ewa Tabeu, has called it "the largest existing database on Bosnian war victims". More than 240 000 pieces of data were collected, processed, checked, compared and evaluated by an international team of experts to tabulate the names of the victims. According to the RDC, 82% or 33,071 of the civilians killed in the war were Bosniak, with a minimum of 97,207 casualties, military and civilian, for all sides involved: Bosniaks (66.2%), Serbs (25.4%) and Croats (7.8%), as well as others (0.5%).

In addition to those known to be outright killed, around 10,500 people are still missing with unknown fates due to the Bosnian War; most of them are Bosniaks.

In a statement on 23 September 2008 to the United Nations, Dr. Haris Silajdžić, as head of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation to the United Nations 63rd Session of the General Assembly, said that "according to ICRC data, 200 000 people were killed, 12  000 of them children, up to 50  000 women were raped, and 2.2 million were forced to flee their homes. This was a veritable genocide and sociocide". However, such estimations have been criticized as highly inaccurate and analysts such as George Kenney have accused the Bosnian government and the international community of sensationalism and of deliberately inflating the number of fatalities to attract international support for the Muslims.

Controversy and denial
While the majority of international opinion accepts the findings of the international courts, there remains some disagreement about the extent of the genocide and to what degree Serbia was involved.

The Bosnian Muslim community asserts that the Srebrenica massacre was just one instance of what was a broader genocide committed by Serbia.

The International Court of Justice veered away from the factual and legal findings of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Duško Tadić case. In the judgment delivered in July 1999, the Appeals Chamber found that the Army of Republika Srpska was "under overall control" of Belgrade and the Yugoslav Army, which meant that they had funded, equipped and assisted in the coordination and the planning of military operations. Had the International Court of Justice accepted this finding of the Tribunal, Serbia would have been found guilty of complicity in the Srebrenica genocide. Instead it concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case "did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility". Paradoxical as it may be, the outcome of this legal suit filed back in March 1993 arrived too early for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Radovan Karadžić arrest came over a year after the ICJ gave its judgement, and Ratko Mladić, also accused of genocide, was arrested in May 2011. Slobodan Milošević died during his trial and three trials of former Serb officials have just started.

Although the ICTY prosecutors had access to them during the trials, some of the minutes of wartime meetings of Yugoslavia's political and military leaders, were not made public as the ICTY accepted the Serbian argument that to do so would damage Serbia's national security. Although the ICJ could have subpoenaed the documents directly from Serbia, it did not do so and relied instead on those made public during the ICTY trials. Two of the ICJ judges criticised this decision in strongly worded dissents. Marlise Simons reporting on this in The New York Times, states that "When the documents were handed over [to the ICTY], the lawyers said, a team from Belgrade made it clear in letters to the tribunal and in meetings with prosecutors and judges that it wanted the documents expurgated to keep them from harming Serbia's case at the International Court of Justice. The Serbs made no secret of that even as they argued their case for 'national security,' said one of the lawyers, adding, 'The senior people here [at the ICTY] knew about this'.". Simons continues that Rosalyn Higgins the president of the ICJ, declined to comment when asked why the full records had not been subpoenaed, saying that "The ruling speaks for itself". Diane Orentlicher, a law professor at American University in Washington, commented "Why didn't the court request the full documents? The fact that they were blacked out clearly implies these passages would have made a difference.", and William Schabas, a professor of international law at the University of Ireland in Galway, suggested that as a civil rather than a criminal court, the ICJ was more used to relying on materials put before it than aggressively pursuing evidence which might lead to a diplomatic incident.

Denial
Several prolific writers and academics, including Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, have argued that the Srebrenica massacre does not constitute genocide. Such advocates often cite that women and children were largely spared and that only military age men were targeted. This view is not supported by the findings of the ICJ nor the ICTY. According to Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Bećirević, the faculty of criminology and security studies of the University of Sarajevo:"Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms in Serbia. The methods range from the brutal to the deceitful. Denial is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system."

Other sources

 * Max Bergholz. Violence as a Generative Force: Identity, Nationalism, and Memory in a Balkan Community. Ithac, Cornell University Press, 2016. 464 pp. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-5017-0492-5.
 * Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,United States, 1995.ISBN 9780160474446.
 * Paul R. Bartrop, Bosnian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide,Greenwood Press, 2016.ISBN 9781440838682.
 * Walasek Helen, Bosnia and the destruction of cultural heritage, Routledge, 2015. ISBN 1409437043.
 * Donia Robert. J, Radovan Karadžić : Architect of the Bosnian Genocide, Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 1107073359.
 * Roy Gutman, A witness to genocide, Prentice Hall & IBD, 1993, ISBN 0-02-546750-6.
 * Cigar, Norman, Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of "Ethnic Cleansing", 1995, Texas A & M University Press, 1995.ISBN 0890966389.
 * Allen, Beverly, Rape Warfare: The Hidden Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1996. ISBN 0816628181.
 * Ching Jackie, Genocide and the Bosnian War, Rosen Publishing Group, 2008. ISBN 9781404218260.
 * Edina Bećirević, Genocide on the Drina River, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-0-300-19258-2.
 * Michael Anthony Sells, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998, ISBN 978-0520206908.
 * Attila Hoare Marko, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Genocide, Justice and Denial, Center for Advances Studies, 2015, ISBN 978-9958022128.*
 * Thomas Cushman and Stjepan Mestrovic, This Time We Knew: Western Responses to Genocide in Bosnia, New York University Press, 1996, ISBN 978-0814715352.

title: Bosnian genocide


text:
Category:New Jersey Nets players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the New Jersey Nets.

title: Category:New Jersey Nets players


text:
Category:New York Knicks players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the New York Knicks.

title: Category:New York Knicks players


text:
Category:Orlando Magic players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Orlando Magic.

title: Category:Orlando Magic players


text: Category:Philadelphia 76ers players

title: Category:Philadelphia 76ers players


text:
Category:Phoenix Suns players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Phoenix Suns.

title: Category:Phoenix Suns players


text:
Category:Portland Trail Blazers players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Portland Trail Blazers.

title: Category:Portland Trail Blazers players


text:
Dholka

Dholka  is a city and municipality in the Ahmedabad District of the Indian state of Gujarat. It is the headquarters of Dholka Taluka, and is 48 km by road via National Highway 8A southwest of the city of Ahmedabad. Dholka has an average elevation of 17 m.

History
Large numbers of old buildings in the city suggest that it was important in ancient times; archaeologists have discovered small stone chert tools made of chalcedony, quartz and agate which date to the Middle Stone and Iron Ages.

Dholka is said to stand on the site of Viratpur, or Matsyanagar, which, in their wanderings, the Pandavas found governed by queen Sudishva of the Kaiyo or Bhil race. Her brother, Kichak Kaiyo, a prince of great power, was, according to the story, slain for an attempt on the chastity of Draupadi.

Here too in 144 AD, Kanaksen, a prince of the race of the sun, Suryavansh, is said to have settled.

At the close of the eleventh century, the town was adorned with a lake – still its chief ornament – by Minaldevi, the mother of Jayasimha Siddharaja of the Chaulukya dynasty.

In the 12th century, Muhammad al-Idrisi mentioned Dholka as one of the chief trading towns in Gujarat. Vaghelas were vassals of the Chaulukya rulers of Gujarat. As the Chaulukyas went into decline, so the Vaghelas rose in power, becoming rulers of Gujarat from 1243 until the Muslim conquest in 1297. They restored stability to Gujarat for the latter half of the 13th century, while the Vaghela kings and their officials were dedicated patrons of the arts and temple-building. Early in the thirteenth century, it was apparently called Dhavalgadh and held by Vir Dhaval, the founder of the Vaghela dynasty, whose territories included the lands of Godhra and Lat. In records of the Muslim kings and viceroys, though never a place of great consequence, Dholka is often mentioned as a town and fort, the quarters of a local governor; its remains show that at one time, it was adorned by many beautiful Muslim buildings.

In the eighteenth-century troubles, Dholka seems to have been taken by the Marathas in 1736; to have been recovered by the Viceroy in 1741; to have again fallen into the Gaikwad's hands in 1757; and to have remained with him till its cession to the British in 1804. It suffered much from the 1813 famine: when surveyed in 1820–1822, it showed few signs of returning prosperity.

Other Name in Literature
Gujarati Historic Novel named Gujaratno Jay written by Zaverchand Meghani based on various Jain Prabandhas describes city as Dhavalakka (ધવલક્ક).

Notable people

 * Bhupendrasinh Chudasama - Cabinet Minister Govt. of Gujarat
 * M. C. Bhatt - Human rights lawyer

Architecture
Regarded as the oldest municipality in Gujarat, the city has majestic ruined mosques featuring tracery work, carvings and designs. There are monuments there known as Pandava's Pathshala and Ali Khan's Mosque as well as mandapas and chattris (outdoor pavilions), all marked by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Next to the lake stands the massive Dholka Idgah, or main mosque, which has mandapas on either side set some distance away. The three mosque towers are around 200 ft tall, with massive domes covering each hall. Outside, one set of steps leads to the top of the structure and another to the muezzin's tower. The entire building is constructed of brick and limestone mortar; its doorway features large religious inscriptions. The rear wall of the mosque has a series of intricately designed limestone jalis (perforated screens) while the central room has a minbar (pulpit) where the imam stands to deliver sermons. This tall features is made of marble and remains completely intact. From here, even a softly spoken voice resounds throughout the entire mosque, which consists of three halls, each with an area of more than 100 ft2. Each room has a spot identifying which direction is west, with a pilastered niche (mihrab) towards Mecca. Windows high up in the wall admit light and air to the building. The mosque is also called Ali Khan's mosque (or Alif Khan's mosque) and was built around the 11th century. Fallen pillars, grave stones with intricate patterns on all sides, and broken chattris (pavilions) lie within the premises of the idgah (congregation assembly area), while its paved ground is almost entirely covered in grass. A chattri similar in style to those found in the state of Rajasthan marks the border of the mosque area.

Nearby stands the Pandava's Pathshala. This is where the pandavas are said to have practiced and honed their war skills. This massive fort-like structure is enclosed on all sides and distinctly Hindu in style, with a chattri on each of the four corners. There are battlements and guard positions all around, with halls in the center of this structure or boundary wall.

Around 10 km from Dholka is a place known as "Chandisar" on the land of which the great war between "Arjun and Bhishma Pitamah" was believed to happen. The Arjun had used these jungle trees to hide his weapons during "agyatwas". Some people also claimed that those weapons are sometimes visible at midnight after a thousands of years of happenings.

The city has so many underground water tanks and even UNDERGROUND WALK WAYS too. Since the Archaeological Survey of India is not taking interest in all these things / site, the said heritage monuments gets ruined. Surprisingly there is an under ground walkway at Brahmanpith, which was discovered by some people while resurfacing the road. Now it is closed and the door was fitted by the road. The monuments gets under road and will never even gets out.

Demographics
As of the 2001 Indian census, Dholka had a population of 53,792, of which 52 percent were male and 48 percent female. The city has an average literacy rate of 66 percent, higher than the national average of 59.5 percent. Male literacy stands at 73 percent and that for females at 59 percent. In Dholka, 12 percent of the population is under six years of age.

Places of interest
The chief object of interest near Dholka is the Malav lake, built about the close of the eleventh century by Minaldevi, widow of Karna and mother of Jayasimha Siddharaja (or perhaps by Lavanprasad's wife Maybhalla, according to research done by R. T. Savliya, author of Ancient lakes of Gujarat). It is about 400 yards in diameter, surrounded by a finely carved stone wall and flights of stone steps. In the middle of the lake are the remains of a building, connected with the shore by a light and graceful wooden bridge, supported on sculpted stone piers. The platform and roadway are mostly gone, but the piers remain entire by 1857.

Of Hindu temples, the chief is the Nageshvar, or Chandreshvar Mahadev, built in 1751 (1807 S.) by Antaji Rav, an officer of the Gaikwad's. The revenues of the village of Rajpur, assigned in 1758 (1814 S.) by the Gaikwad, were set apart for its support in past.

Dholka is home to one of the old Hindu Swaminarayan temples in the world, which was established in 1883 on the fifth day of the bright half of Vaishakha in Vikram Samvat, according to the Hindu calendar. There is another Shree Akshar Purrshottam Swaminarayan Mandir in the town built by BAPS Sanstha, located to the southeast.

There are three Jain temples in this ancient town.
 * Parshwanath Mandir, Dholka Bypass Rd, Rajasthani Society, Kalikund - This Jaina temple got constructed by Vastupal-Tejpal is situated is in Ambaji Pole.
 * Shri Jindatt Suri Dadawadi, Paresh Sompura, Dholka Bypass Rd, Kalikund, Dholka – is located opposite to Parshwanath Mandir
 * Shetrunjay Temple, Kalikund, Dholka [massive; newly constructed] – is located little south of Parshwanth mandir
 * There are few other Jain temples in the town.

Besides scattered remains, there are two mosques of almost the same size and plan, each about 150 feet square with three arches in the screen wall and five domes in the mosque front. There are many ancient mosques in the city, including the Khan Masjid (a rare brick structure) along with the magnificent stone Khan Talao, Jumu'ah Masjid (Friday prayer mosque). Other well known Muslim shrines include the Hazrat Shah shrine and Najmuddin Chisti's shrine in Lilajpur.

title: Dholka


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 2

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
While this article was still in progress, it had already won acclaim from multiple news agencies (e.g., theUK Guardian, the ed-tech Insider). It managed to be npov despite a flood of potential scammers and conspiracy theorists, and remains more comprehensive than any other freely available overview of the subject. Well written, well illustrated, well linked to other projects [wikinews, commons] and to external news and multimedia. A model news-feature article. +sj+ 08:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Jan 6 FAC discussion : Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 1

 * Object.  Still too soon: the situation is still changing far too quickly for us to go over this and get in into FA shape.   There's no end of rewriting, copyediting, updating and pruning to be done. Mark1 06:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "No end" seems to sum up your feelings on the matter ;) FA's aren't perfect.   No articles are.  They're just brilliant, model articles.  This one happens to be a brilliantly-written model of a news-related article-in-progress, covering changes in an ongoing situation, changing news sources, and changing statistics.  This article is already FA quality even before you personally have time to give it a final writing/copyediting/pruning rub-down.  I can't wait to see it improve.  +sj  +  06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I was rather hoping that someone else would give it an overhaul.  My own contributions have been minimal, while Curps and Banyantree especially have the background knowledge to do the job much better. Why can't you wait?  ("No end" was a rhetorical flourish). At a minimum, the references to online news sources which we know will disappear need to be replaced with more durable ones; given the number of people who have contributed, including probably many subtle vandals and the plain ill-informed, we need to do a thorough fact-check and referencing; the external links need to be checked and severely pruned to eliminate duplication, and they need to be annotated so that users can tell the difference between them. This is still very much a work in progress. Mark1 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's been enough time. Tuf-Kat 06:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I read the whole thing and I'm very impressed. Has all the qualities and FA should have. I've also never seen such extensive use of inline references ; it looks like the whole article is fully referenced this way. Anybody objecting based on newness of the event need only look at the page history for this article to see that further development has settled down a great deal (most of the edits are vandalism and reverts of that vandalism). A great example of why Wikipedia is so much better than the competition. It is just sad, that it takes something like this to prove this fact. -07:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object until the external links are coalesced into references appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Inline references are a perfectly valid way of referencing. See What is a featured article. "Include references by extensive use of inline references and/or by including a ==References== section." --mav
 * No, they really aren't. For instance, let's say that we point to an online article by the Sydney Morning Herald. Three months later, they archive the story. Say goodbye to the reference! This is why they need to be placed into a references section. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference escapes me. Explain?  In a references section, the link will still be dead. +sj  +  06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Was this directed at me? Your indent doesn't make it clear... anyway, I'll respond. The link may still be there, but the references section is meant to give you: a) the author b) the title c) the publication and d) the year. An inline link can't provide any of these things. We can always look at the archives if the link dies - I know that for a publication like the SMH that the State Library of NSW keeps copies we can lookup. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't notice them. I see them so often, they just seem to fade into the background for me. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Supported before, I'll support again. I've often referred to this article for updates on the casualty figures and such. It's excellent work, and a great example of what Wikipedians can do. Everyking 08:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - poor references. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
 * You must be joking. Every section has at least several inline references. --mav
 * Uh, and yet: no references section! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You very conveniently changed that criteria after the fact. --mav
 * I think that has been accepted as a recommended practice for a while now. I certainly agree the inline citations need to be collected somewhere. As noted above though, perhaps inline citations to one specific fact may be better suited to a 'Notes' section, and those sources used and suitable for a general reference for the article are better for the references section. I could be off base though. Object though until the inline citations are collected somewhere is useful form that shows they are used to cite facts. Overall though, appears fantastically well done. With the previous issue fixed, I would be comfortable supporting as a FA now and then if it degrades as new information become available, removing it from being featured then. - Taxman 21:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that every article, even ones that have inline references, should include a separate reference section at the bottom of the article as well. Also, it won't hurt anything to have both at the bottom.   →Iñgōlemo←   talk  05:13, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Should have been promoted last time, jguk 15:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - excellent piece of work Brookie 16:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - though the stand-alone sentences in "Humanitarian, economic and environmental impact" should be consolidated into paragraphs or moved to the relevant country impact page. Otherwise, a remarkable article. An account of the development of this article would be fascinating.  - BanyanTree 02:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object The article is excellent I have nothing against that. But it's the other bits that makes me object. 1) The number of deaths is still not even near complete, We _could_ make it a FA but then we must regret not accurately showing the disaster to its completion - only a near completion 2) Yhe article was a "In the news" article for like a week or something, why do we need to make it a FA? 3) Not even one reference, for an article of this size that is unbelievable 4) What about the rebuilding after the Tsunami? It only talks about humanitarian aid, but nothing about the actual use of the money to rebuild. Probably due to that this FAC is still too early for information of that kind to be put in. 5) Still a article for target of vandals - but this might not be a valid reason. I am only pointing out it out Squash 07:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The vandalism is relevant in that it's stopping us from giving the article a good, cold-eyed overhaul.  That would make it much tighter, and much better. Mark1 07:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Its still too soon to give FA status to this article. It is undoubtably an excellent article, but several major events still have to take place - pledges being met, reconstruction, after the media leaves, etc. I think April at the earliest for promotion. Also I think that some more sections chould possibly be made into their own articles - the page currently carries the warning WARNING: This page is 44 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB. CGorman 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Inline references are fine for the time being, although as more scholarly treatments get published they should be mentioned in a references section. --Michael Snow 01:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A superb job, and worthy of featuring despite analysis yet to come. Denni ☯ 03:00, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * Object. References need to be collected in a references or notes seection. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. This was in the news for quite a while not long ago. Putting it back on the front page so soon gives the impression that there's only a small handful of articles worth being there - few enough that we have to repeat very often.  I'm not saying the article isn't of the quality of a featured article, it just doesn't make sense to put it back on the main page right now. LizardWizard 22:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid objection to featuring the article. Mark1 04:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And besides, being a FA and being on the main page are two different things. - Taxman 19:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The objections seem to be
 * "it is too early" - but it is over 6 weeks later, and no longer a "front page" news story;
 * "it is not comprehensive" - but it presents all that is known (it is certainly much more comprehensive than it was on 6 January);
 * "it has inadequate references" - references are scattered throughout; true, they could also be collected in one place, like H II region, but they are good enough for me;
 * "it is too long" - being over 32k is undesirable, but it has not stopped articles being Featured in the past. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object First I want to thank the vast contributions that have and are occuring on this important article, but to be honest it is not a feature, to be self-centered, I first posted this this message on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then after no response I posted this question (same question) on the talk page of Talk:Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and still I have found no reason why this has not been added; this added that I am refering to is, what is the status of the Indigenous Tribes? CBS News... I am curios and I am sure others would like to know what is going on... can someone please tell me why this has not been addressed? (Below is an part copy of info...)
 * AP article:
 * Government officials and anthropologists believe that ancient knowledge of the movement of wind, sea and birds may have saved the five indigenous tribes on the Indian archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar islands from the tsunami
 * only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years
 * Thanks, PEACE ~ RoboAction 08:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * see Effect_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_India. If it is inadequate, you are welcome to add more info on it. pamri 08:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PEACE ~ RoboAction 08:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * see Effect_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_India. If it is inadequate, you are welcome to add more info on it. pamri 08:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support This article has become famous and desperately needs to be a featured article BMWman


text:
Category:Sacramento Kings players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Sacramento Kings.

title: Category:Sacramento Kings players


text:
User:Kurgan5000yearsbc

Hello.

My interests include (evolutionary) psychology, psychometrics and cognition, military history, world history, ethics, beyondism, as well as just about any field of science. I strive to be as objective and impartial as possible.

I am a new user and sometime lurker.

Steve

title: User:Kurgan5000yearsbc


text:
Category:San Antonio Spurs players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the ABA or the NBA for the San Antonio Spurs.

title: Category:San Antonio Spurs players


text:
Category:Seattle SuperSonics players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Seattle SuperSonics.

title: Category:Seattle SuperSonics players


text:
Category:Toronto Raptors players

This category is for basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Toronto Raptors.

title: Category:Toronto Raptors players


text:
Category:Utah Jazz players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Utah Jazz.

title: Category:Utah Jazz players


text:
Category:Washington Wizards players

This is a list of basketball players who have played in the NBA for the Washington Wizards.

title: Category:Washington Wizards players