text:
People's Volunteer Army

The People's Volunteer Army (PVA), officially the Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV), was the armed expeditionary forces deployed by the People's Republic of China during the Korean War. Although all units in the PVA were actually transferred from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) under the orders of Chairman Mao Zedong, the PVA was separately constituted in order to prevent an official war with the United States. The PVA entered Korea on 19 October 1950 and completely withdrew by October 1958. The nominal commander and political commissar of the PVA was Peng Dehuai before the ceasefire agreement in 1953, although both Chen Geng and Deng Hua served as the acting commander and commissar after April 1952 following Peng's illness. The initial (25 October – 5 November 1950) units in the PVA included 38th, 39th, 40th, 42nd, 50th, 66th Corps; totalling 250,000 men. About 3 million Chinese civilian and military personnel had served in Korea throughout the war.

Formation
Although the United Nations Command (UNC) forces were under United States command, this army was officially a UN "police" force. In order to avoid an open war with the U.S. and other UN members, the People's Republic of China deployed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) under the name "volunteer army".

About the name, there were various opinions. According to some scholars during the mid 1990s, after the PRC made the strategic decision to send soldiers to Korea, the first name of this army was "support army." However, Huang Yanpei, the vice premier of the Government Administration Council of the Central People's Government at that time, suggested that the name "support army" might cause the international community to assume that China was sending soldiers as an act of direct aggression against the United States. Therefore, the army's name was modified to "volunteer army" while different unit designations and footings were used instead, to give the impression that China did not intend to declare war against the U.S. but rather that Chinese soldiers were only present on Korean battlefields as individual volunteers. On the other hand, some recent studies show that the change was not only Huang's advice. On 7 July 1950, the name had already been changed to "volunteer army" by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai on his manuscript about the decision of the army's clothing and flags.

Despite arguments on the changing from "People's Support Army" to "People's Volunteer Army", the name was also a homage to the Korean Volunteer Army that had helped the Chinese communists during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War. It also managed to deceive the U.S. intelligence and the UN about the size and nature of the Chinese forces that entered Korea. They later realized that the PVA was the PLA's North East Frontier Force (NEFF), with other PLA formations transferred under NEFF's command as the Korean War dragged on. But the result was that they still admitted the name, "People's Volunteer Army", in order to minimize the war within the Korean Peninsula and prevent escalation of the war.

Decisions to enter war
On 30 June, five days after the outbreak of the war, Zhou decided to send a group of Chinese military intelligence personnel to North Korea to establish better communications with Kim as well as to collect firsthand materials on the fighting. One week later, on 7 July, Zhou and Mao chaired a conference discussing military preparations for the Korean Conflict. Another conference took place on 10 July. Here, it was decided that the Thirteenth Army Corps under the Fourth Field Army of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), one of the best-trained and best-equipped units in China, would be immediately transformed into the Northeastern Border Defense Army (NEBDA) to prepare for "an intervention in the Korean War if necessary". On 13 July, the CMCC formally issued the order to establish the NEBDA, appointing Deng Hua, the commander of the Fifteenth Army Corps and one of the most talented commanders of the Chinese Civil War, to coordinate all preparation efforts.

On 20 August Zhou informed the UN that "Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question". Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea. U.S. President Harry S. Truman interpreted the communication as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN", and dismissed it. Mao ordered that his troops should be ready for action by the end of August. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, by contrast, was reluctant to escalate the war with a Chinese intervention.

On 1 October the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim sent frantic appeals to Mao for Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces would not directly intervene. In a series of emergency meetings that lasted from 2 to 5 October, Chinese leaders debated whether to send Chinese troops into Korea. There was considerable resistance among many leaders, including senior military leaders, to confronting the U.S. in Korea. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Mao appointed Peng Dehuai commander of the Chinese forces in Korea. Peng made the case that if U.S. troops conquered Korea and reached the Yalu River, they might cross it and invade China; the Politburo agreed to intervene in Korea. On 4 August, with a planned invasion of Taiwan aborted because of heavy U.S. naval presence, Mao had reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the PLA's Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force.

On 8 October, the day after UN troops crossed the 38th parallel and began their offensive into North Korea, Chairman Mao issued the order for the NEFF to be moved to the Yalu River, ready to cross. Mao redesignated the NEFF as the People's Volunteer Army. To enlist Stalin's support, Zhou and a Chinese delegation arrived in Russia on 10 October. They conferred with the top Soviet leadership, which included Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lavrentiy Beria and Georgy Malenkov. Mao saw intervention as essentially defensive: "If we allow the U.S. to occupy all of Korea... we must be prepared for the U.S. to declare... war with China", he told Stalin.

Mao delayed his forces while waiting for Soviet help, and the planned attack was thus postponed from 13 October to 19 October. Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no closer than 60 mi from the battlefront. The MiG-15s in PRC colours would be an unpleasant surprise to the UN pilots; they would hold local air superiority against the F-80 Shooting Stars until newer F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Soviet role was known to the U.S., but they kept quiet to avoid any international and potential nuclear incidents. It has been alleged by the Chinese that the Soviets had agreed to full scale air support, which never occurred south of Pyongyang, and helped accelerate the Sino-Soviet split.

Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition but warned Zhou that the Soviet Air Force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis and that the Soviet Air Force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of matériel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like.

In a meeting on 13 October, the Politburo decided that China would intervene even in the absence of Soviet air support, basing its decision on a belief that superior morale could defeat an enemy that had superior equipment. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October, Zhou met with Mao, Peng and Gao, and the group ordered 200,000 PVA troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 19 October. UN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched "dark-to-dark" (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage (concealing soldiers, pack animals, and equipment) was deployed by 05:30. Meanwhile, daylight advance parties scouted for the next bivouac site. During daylight activity or marching, soldiers were to remain motionless if an aircraft appeared, until it flew away; PVA officers were under order to shoot security violators. Such battlefield discipline allowed a three-division army to march the 286 mi from An-tung, Manchuria, to the combat zone in some 19 days. Another division night-marched a circuitous mountain route, averaging 18 mi daily for 18 days.

China justified its entry into the war as a response to what it described as "American aggression in the guise of the UN". Chinese decision-makers feared that the American-led invasion of North Korea was part of a U.S. strategy to invade China ultimately. They were also worried about rising counterrevolutionary activity at home. MacArthur's public statements that he wanted to extend the Korean War into China, and return the Kuomintang regime to power reinforced this fear. Later, the Chinese claimed that U.S. bombers had violated PRC national airspace on three separate occasions and attacked Chinese targets before China intervened.

The collapse of the North Korean Korean People's Army (KPA) in September/October 1950 following the Battle of Inchon, the Pusan Perimeter offensive and the UN September 1950 counteroffensive alarmed the PRC government. The PRC had issued warnings that they would intervene if any non-South Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, citing national security interests.

On 15 October Truman traveled to Wake Island to discuss with UN Commander General Douglas MacArthur the possibility of Chinese intervention and his desire to limit the scope of the Korean War. MacArthur reassured Truman that "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter."

Equipment

The PVA soldier was reasonably well clothed, in keeping with the PLA's guerrilla origin and egalitarian attitudes. All ranks wore a cotton or woolen green or khaki shirt and trousers combination with leaders' uniforms being different in cut.

The nominal strength of a PLA division was 9,500 men, with a regiment comprising 3,000 and a battalion consisting of 850. However, many divisions sent to Korea were below-strength while the divisions stationed opposite Taiwan were above-strength. There was also variation in organization and equipment as well as in the quantity and quality of the military equipment. Some of the PLA's equipment was from the Imperial Japanese Army or were captured from the Kuomintang military forces. Some Czechoslovak-made weapons were also purchased on the open market by the PRC.

During the PVA's First Phase Offensive in the Korean War between October and November 1950, large quantities of captured U.S. weapons were widely used because of the availability of the required ammunition and the increasing difficulty of re-supplying across the Yalu River because of numerous UN-conducted air interdiction operations. In addition, there was also a local copy of the U.S. Thompson submachine gun being produced by the PRC, based on the type of which had already been exported to and used in China since the 1930s and by UN troops during the Korean War.

Later on, after the first year of the Korean War, the Soviet Union began to send more weapons and ammunition to the PRC, which started to produce licensed copies of some types of Soviet weapons, such as the PPSh-41 submachine gun, which was designated as the Type 50. In addition to surplus WWII Soviet arms, the Soviet Union also provided some WWII German small arms to the Chinese like the Karabiner 98k rifle. Surplus Mauser ammunition were also supplied by the Soviet Union or were available from stocks left behind by the KMT forces who also used German ammunition.

First Phase campaign (25 October–5 November 1950)

On 19 October Pyongyang was captured by UN forces. On the same day, the PVA crossed the Yalu River under strict secrecy. The initial PVA assault began on 25 October under the command of Peng Dehuai with 270,000 PVA troops (it was assumed at the time that Lin Biao was in charge, but this notion had been disproved).

The PVA assault caught the UN troops by surprise, and employing great skill and remarkable camouflage ability, the PVA concealed their numerical and divisional strength after the first engagement with the UN. After these initial engagements, the Chinese withdrew into the mountains. UN forces interpreted this withdrawal as a show of weakness; they thought that this initial attack was all that the Chinese forces were capable of undertaking.

Second Phase campaign (25 November–24 December 1950)
On 25 November the PVA struck again along the entire Korean front. In the west, at the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, the PVA overran several UN divisions and landed an extremely heavy blow into the flank of the remaining UN forces, decimating the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division in the process. In December 1950, Chinese forces captured Pyongyang. The city saw a massive evacuation of refugees alongside UN forces heading south in order to avoid the advancing PVA. The resulting UN retreat from North Korea was the longest retreat of an American unit in history. In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Task Force Faith—a 3,000 man unit from the 7th Infantry Division—was surrounded by the PVA 80th and the 81st Divisions. Task Force Faith managed to inflict heavy casualties onto the PVA divisions, but in the end it was destroyed with 2,000 men killed or captured, and losing all vehicles and most other equipment. The destruction of Task Force Faith was considered by the PVA to be their biggest success of the entire Korean War.

The 1st Marine Division fared better; though surrounded and forced to retreat, they inflicted heavy casualties on the PVA, who committed six divisions trying to destroy the Marines. Although the PVA were able to recapture much of North Korea during the Second Phase campaign, 40% of the PVA was rendered combat ineffective—a loss which they could not recover from until the start of Chinese spring offensive.

UN forces in northeast Korea withdrew to form a defensive perimeter around the port city of Hŭngnam, where an evacuation was carried out in late December. Approximately 100,000 military personnel and material and another 100,000 North Korean civilians were loaded onto a variety of merchant and military transport ships.

Third Phase Campaign (31 December 1950–8 January 1951)

Hoping to pressure the UN into abandoning South Korea, Mao ordered the PVA to attack the UN forces along the 38th parallel. On the last day of 1950, PVA/KPA forces attacked several ROK divisions along the parallel, breaching the UN defenses in the process. To avoid another encirclement, UN forces evacuated Seoul on 3 January, and PVA/KPA forces recaptured the city on 4 January. Both the Eighth Army and the US X Corps retreated another 50 mi, but the overextended PVA were completely exhausted after months of nonstop fighting.

Fourth Phase Campaign (30 January–21 April 1951)
The overextended PVA were forced to disengage and to recuperate for an extensive period of time, but the UN forces soon returned to the offensive. On 23 January 1951 the Eighth Army launched Operation Thunderbolt, attacking the unprepared PVA/KPA forces south of the Han River. This was followed up with Operation Roundup by X Corps in central Korea.

Hoping to regain the initiative, the PVA counterattacked at the Battle of Hoengsong on 11 February, stopping X Corps' advance in the process. But without proper rest and recuperation, the new offensive soon fizzled out at the Battle of Chipyong-ni on 15 February. With the entire PVA incapable of any further offensive operations, the Eighth Army launched Operation Killer on 21 February, followed by Operation Ripper on 6 March. The Eighth Army expelled the PVA/KPA troops from Seoul on 16 March, destroying much of the city with aerial and artillery bombardments in the process.

Fifth Phase Campaign (22 April–22 May 1951)
The PVA counterattacked on 22 April 1951 in a major offensive with three field armies (approximately 700,000 men). The offensive's first thrust fell upon U.S. I Corps and IX Corps which fiercely resisted, blunting the impetus of the offensive, which was halted at the No-Name Line north of Seoul. On 15 May the PVA commenced the second impulse of the offensive and attacked the ROK and the X Corps in the east, and initially were successful, yet they were halted by 22 May.

On 20 May the Eighth Army counterattacked the exhausted PVA/KPA forces in the UN May-June 1951 counteroffensive, inflicting heavy losses. The destruction of the PVA 180th Division of the 60th Army during the counterattack has been considered to be the worst Chinese defeat during the entire Korean War. Roughly 3,000 men managed to escape (including the division commander and other high-ranking officers), but the majority of the division were killed or captured. During the final days of the Fifth Phase Campaign, the main body of the 180th Division was encircled during a UN counterattack, and after days of hard fighting, the division was fragmented, and the regiments fled in all directions. Soldiers either deserted or were abandoned by their officers during failed attempts to wage guerrilla warfare without support from the local people. Finally, out of ammunition and food, some 5,000 soldiers were captured. The division commander and other officers who escaped were subsequently investigated and demoted on return to China.

Stalemate (10 June 1951–27 July 1953)

The UN counterattack in the aftermath of the spring offensive stabilized the front roughly along the 38th parallel. The rest of the war involved little territory change, large-scale bombing of the population in the north, and lengthy peace negotiations, which started in Kaesong on 10 July 1951. Even during the peace negotiations, combat continued. For the UN forces, the goal was to recapture all of what had been South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid loss of any territory and the PVA attempted similar operations. A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs. The Chinese and North Koreans insisted on forcible repatriation, while the UN insisted on voluntary repatriation. The war continued until the Chinese and North Koreans eventually dropped this issue.

On 29 November 1952 U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the war. With the UN's and PVA's acceptance of India's proposal for an armistice, fighting ended 27 July 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel. A demilitarized zone was established along the Military Demarcation Line, which is patrolled to this day by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other.

Tactics
PVA forces used rapid attacks on the flanks and rear and infiltration behind UN lines to give the appearance of vast hordes. This, of course, was augmented by the PVA tactic of maximizing their forces for the attack, ensuring a large local numerical superiority over their opponent. The initial PVA victories were a great morale booster for the PVA. However, by late 1951, overextended supply lines and superior UN firepower had forced a stalemate. The KPA that invaded in 1950 had been much better supplied and armed by the Soviets than the PVA had been. The main arms of the PVA were captured Japanese and Nationalist arms.

Historian and Korean War veteran Bevin Alexander had this to say about Chinese tactics in his book How Wars Are Won:

The Chinese had no air power and were armed only with rifles, machineguns, hand grenades, and mortars. Against the much more heavily armed Americans, they adapted a technique they had used against the Nationalists in the Chinese civil war of 1946–49. The Chinese generally attacked at night and tried to close in on a small troop position—generally a platoon—and then attacked it with local superiority in numbers. The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics.

Roy Appleman further clarified the initial Chinese tactics as: In the First Phase Offensive, highly skilled enemy light infantry troops had carried out the Chinese attacks, generally unaided by any weapons larger than mortars. Their attacks had demonstrated that the Chinese were well-trained disciplined fire fighters, and particularly adept at night fighting. They were masters of the art of camouflage. Their patrols were remarkably successful in locating the positions of the U.N. forces. They planned their attacks to get in the rear of these forces, cut them off from their escape and supply roads, and then send in frontal and flanking attacks to precipitate the battle. They also employed a tactic which they termed Hachi Shiki, which was a V-formation into which they allowed enemy forces to move; the sides of the V then closed around their enemy while another force moved below the mouth of the V to engage any forces attempting to relieve the trapped unit. Such were the tactics the Chinese used with great success at Onjong, Unsan, and Ch'osan, but with only partial success at Pakch'on and the Ch'ongch'on bridgehead.

Discipline and political control
The discipline of the PVA was strict by Western standards, a notable improvement when compared to the Nationalist and warlord armies that ruled the country from 1912 until 1949. Discipline was applied universally within the army, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members expected to be punished more than non-Party soldiers for the same infraction. Beatings and abuses were forbidden by regulations. Although capital punishment was enforced for disobeying certain orders, it was rarely used in accordance with the Chinese traditions. Normally, public shamings and political indoctrination camps were the preferred methods for dealing with serious infractions such as desertion, and the punished were expected to return to frontline duty with their original units.

Like the Soviet Army, political and military officers formed a dual chain of command within the PVA, and this arrangement could be found as low as the company level. Political officers were in charge of the control and the morale of the troops, and they were often expected to act like role models in combat. Unlike other communist armies of the same period, although the political officers had authority over military officers on combat decisions, the military officers could issue orders without political officers' approval. Similarly, the line between military and political officers were often blurred in the PVA, since the political officers often had extensive military experiences while most military officers were senior Party members within a unit.

Besides the political officers, Party members and Party candidates also enforced political controls within the ranks. Squads were often divided into three-man fireteams, with each fireteam led by a Party member or a Party candidate. Group meetings were frequently used to maintain unit cohesion, and within the meetings public shamings and criticisms were conducted to raise morale and to indoctrinate soldiers.

The by-product of the tight political control within the PVA is that it relied on the presence of the Party members within its ranks to be combat effective. A PVA unit could disintegrate once the Party members were either killed or wounded in action. Also, the tight political control created a general dissatisfaction amongst the Chinese ranks. Constant political indoctrination and high peer pressure were required to maintain high morale for each soldier.

According to The Korean War, written by Matthew Bunker Ridgway, the commander-in-chief of the UN forces, the positive evaluation of the Chinese Army's good treatment of prisoners is completely different from the KPA's policy of abusing prisoners. He positively praised the Chinese army as a disciplined army and a respectable enemy. During the Korean War, the US front-line combat forces also spoke highly of the fighting will of the PVA.

Prisoners-of-war (POWs)
Prisoners-of-war (POWs) played a major role in the continuation of the war past 1951. The US accused China of implementing mind control, coined "brainwashing", on US prisoners, while China refused to allow the US to repatriate POWs to Taiwan.

United Nations POWs
In contrast with their KPA counterparts, executions committed by the PVA were rather few in number. According to author Kevin Mahoney in his study of the PVA, executions of POWs did occur during the heat of the battle. Most of the executions appeared to have been committed by the lower commands without the upper echelons' knowledge, and it is often carried out to prevent the future escapes or rescues of the POWs.

As the PVA rarely executed prisoners, the Chinese considered themselves to be more lenient and humane than the KPA. However, the Chinese were unprepared for the large influx of POWs after their entry into the war and a large number of prisoners were crowded into temporary camps for processing. Mass starvation and diseases soon swept through those camps during the winter of 1950–51, while numerous death marches were conducted by the PVA to move the prisoners into permanent locations. Although the situation started to improve after permanent camps were established by January 1951, death by starvation still continued until April 1951. About 43 percent of all US POWs died from November 1950 to April 1951. In comparison, only 34 percent of all US prisoners died under Japanese captivity during World War II. The Chinese have defended their actions by stating that all PVA soldiers during this period were also suffering mass starvation and diseases due to the lack of a competent logistics system. The UN POWs, however, pointed out that a lot of the Chinese camps were located near the Sino-Korean border, and claimed that the starvation was used to force the prisoners to accept the communist indoctrination programs. The starvation and the POW deaths finally stopped by the summer of 1951 after the armistice talks started.

Allegations of mind control
During the Korean War, Edward Hunter, who worked at the time both as a journalist and as a U.S. intelligence agent, wrote a series of books and articles on the allegations of Chinese mind control, which he coined as "brainwashing".

The Chinese term 洗腦 (xǐnǎo, literally "wash brain") was originally used to describe methodologies of coercive persuasion used under the Maoist regime in China, which aimed to transform individuals with a reactionary imperialist mindset into "right-thinking" members of the new Chinese social system. To that end the regime developed techniques that would break down the psyche integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, information retained in the mind and individual values. Chosen techniques included dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt and group social pressure. The term punned on the Taoist custom of "cleansing/washing the heart" (洗心, xǐ xīn) prior to conducting certain ceremonies or entering certain holy places.

Hunter and those who picked up the Chinese term used it to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners-of-war. It was believed that the Chinese in North Korea used such techniques to disrupt the ability of captured troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment. British radio operator Robert W. Ford and British army Colonel James Carne also claimed that the Chinese subjected them to brainwashing techniques during their war-era imprisonment.

After the war, two studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war by Robert Lifton and by Edgar Schein concluded that brainwashing (called "thought reform" by Lifton and "coercive persuasion" by Schein) had a transient effect. Both researchers found that the Chinese mainly used coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize and maintain morale and hence to escape. By placing the prisoners under conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, better food, warmer clothes or blankets, the Chinese did succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements. Nevertheless, the majority of prisoners did not actually adopt Communist beliefs, instead behaving as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical abuse. Both researchers also concluded that such coercive persuasion succeeded only on a minority of POWs, and that the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment. In 1961, they both published books expanding on these findings. Schein published Coercive Persuasion, and Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. More recent writers including Mikhail Heller have suggested that Lifton's model of brainwashing may throw light on the use of mass propaganda in other communist states such as the former Soviet Union.

In a summary published in 1963, Edgar Schein gave a background history of the precursor origins of the brainwashing phenomenon:

Thought reform contains elements which are evident in Chinese culture (emphasis on interpersonal sensitivity, learning by rote and self-cultivation); in methods of extracting confessions well known in the Papal Inquisition (13th century) and elaborated through the centuries, especially by the Russian secret police; in methods of organizing corrective prisons, mental hospitals and other institutions for producing value change; in methods used by religious sects, fraternal orders, political elites or primitive societies for converting or initiating new members. Thought reform techniques are consistent with psychological principles but were not explicitly derived from such principles.

Mind-control theories from the Korean War era came under criticism in subsequent years. According to forensic psychologist Dick Anthony, the CIA invented the concept of "brainwashing" as a propaganda strategy to undercut communist claims that American POWs in Korean communist camps had voluntarily expressed sympathy for communism. Anthony stated that definitive research demonstrated that fear and duress, not brainwashing, caused western POWs to collaborate. He argued that the books of Hunter (whom he identified as a secret CIA "psychological warfare specialist" passing as a journalist) pushed the CIA brainwashing theory onto the general public.

In addition, Herbert Brownell Jr., the Attorney General of the United States, once said publicly that "if American prisoners of war cooperate with the Communist Party during their imprisonment in North Korea, they will face charges of treason that may carry out the death penalty. Moreover, the United States official wrote a statement saying: "Those who cooperate with Communists and sign false confessions should be quickly removed from the army, not honored." In addition to threats and pressure by the U.S. government and military, prisoners of war also face great psychological pressure from the impact of their families. This may explain why many American prisoners of war accused "China of abusing prisoners of war" or why they recanted statements in favor of the People's Republic of China after returning home.

Anti-communist POWs in communist service
During the Panmunjom Truce negotiations, the chief stumbling block to the arrangement of a final armistice during the winter of 1951–1952 revolved around the exchange of prisoners. At first glance, there appeared to be nothing to argue about, since the Geneva Conventions of 1949, by which both sides had pledged to abide, called for the immediate and complete exchange of all prisoners upon the conclusion of hostilities. This seemingly straightforward principle, however, disturbed many Americans. To begin with, UN prisoner-of-war camps held over 40,000 South Koreans, many of whom had been impressed into communist service and who had no desire to be sent north upon the conclusion of the war. Moreover, a considerable number of North Korean and Chinese prisoners had also expressed a desire not to return to their homelands. This was particularly true of the Chinese POWs, some of whom were anti-communists whom the communists had forcibly inducted during the Chinese Civil War into the PLA unit that was later transferred into Korea.

Aftermath of the Korean War
In 2011, some former members of the PVA revisited North Korea. After the visit, they commented that they were "very sad" and dissatisfied with the post-war development of North Korea. "[We] liberated them, but they're still struggling for freedom" said Qu Yingkui.

To mark the 70th year of entry into the Korean War by the volunteers' army, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un visited the cemetery in 2020. The Pyongyang Times described the soldiers as having 'unparalleled bravery, mass spirit and international heroism,' and describing the other help that the volunteer army provided.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The legacy of the PVA is commemorated in the DPRK with the Cemetery of the Fallen Soldiers of the Chinese People's Volunteers Army, located in Hoechang County. Wreaths and floral baskets are sent to commemorate their contributions to the war.

People's Republic of China
For many Chinese, the Korean War is generally regarded as an honorable struggle in Chinese history. The PVA was the first Chinese army in a century that was able to withstand a Western army in a major conflict. They had earned a name "the most beloved people (最可爱的人)", which is from the essay written by Wei Wei in 1951, "Who are the Most Beloved People?". More and more stories of heroism by members of the PVA continue to be promoted by the PRC government even to this day, and appear in school textbooks. The willingness of China to assist North Korea against the United States, and the show of force they engaged in, heralded that China was once again becoming a major world power.

From official Chinese sources, PVA casualties during the Korean War were 390,000. This breaks down as follows: 110,400 KIA; 21,600 died of wounds; 13,000 died of sickness; 25,600 MIA/POW; and 260,000 more wounded. However, western and other sources estimate that about 400,000 Chinese soldiers were either killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents with around 486,000 wounded, out of around 3 million military personnel deployed in the war by China. Mao Zedong's oldest and only healthy son, Mao Anying (毛岸英), was a PVA officer during the war, and was killed by a UN air strike.

The war also contributed to the decline of Sino-Soviet relations. Although Chinese had their own reasons to enter the war (i.e. a strategic buffer state in the Korean peninsula), the view that the Soviets had used them as proxies was shared in the Western bloc. China had to use Soviet loans originally intended to rebuild their shattered economy to pay for Soviet arms.

Republic of China
After the war was over, of the PVA POWs held by UNC forces, 14,235 were transported to Taiwan. They began arriving in Taiwan on January 23, 1954 and were referred to as "Anti-Communist Heroes" (反共義士). In Taiwan January 23 became World Freedom Day (自由日) in their honor.

The Korean War also led to other long-lasting effects. Until the war, the US had largely abandoned the government of Chiang Kai-shek, which had retreated to Taiwan, and had no plans to intervene in the Chinese Civil War. The start of the Korean War rendered untenable any policy that would have caused Taiwan to fall under PRC control. Truman's decision to send American forces to the Taiwan Strait further deterred the PRC from making any cross-strait invasion of Taiwan. The anti-communist atmosphere in the West in response to the Korean War and Cold War contributed to the unwillingness to diplomatically recognize the People's Republic of China by the United States until 1979. Today, diplomacy between the Republic of China and mainland China remains strained, and mainland China continues to claim the sovereignty of Taiwan.

Media
Who are the Most Beloved People? is the title of an essay by Chinese writer Wei Wei about the Chinese soldiers serving in the Korean War. It is considered to be the most famous literary and propaganda piece produced by China during the Korean War.

Battle on Shangganling Mountain is a famous Chinese war movie about the Battle of Triangle Hill. The story is centered around a group of Chinese soldiers that were trapped in a tunnel for several days. Short of both food and water, they hold their grounds till the relief troops arrive. The movie's popularity is largely due to the fact it was one of the few movies that were not banned during the Cultural Revolution.

War Trash is a novel by the Chinese author Ha Jin, who has long lived in the United States and who writes in English. It takes the form of a memoir written by the fictional character Yu Yuan, a man who eventually becomes a soldier in the Chinese People's Volunteer Army and who is sent to Korea to fight on the Communist side in the Korean War. The majority of the "memoir" is devoted to describing this experience, especially after Yu Yuan is captured and imprisoned as a POW. The novel captured the PEN/Faulkner Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

title: People's Volunteer Army


text: User talk:67.176.76.198

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

title: User talk:67.176.76.198


text:
User talk:Neonw

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Xtra 10:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * if you want to contribute positively to wikipedia, that is fine, but please don't add rubbish to pages you don't like. Xtra 10:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Images
Hi there, welcome to the Wikipedia! I hope you have a long and happy time as a Wikipedian.

I notice you have uploaded various images, including Image:Ind_1983.jpg, Image:Masterblaster1.jpg, Image:Dravid1.jpg and Image:Dravid2.jpg, for which you have not included an image copyright tag. Could you add some to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks!

Finally, with your obvious editing interest in cricket you might be interested in participating in WikiProject Cricket, a project set up to improve Wikipedia's coverage of cricket-related topics.

--Ngb 10:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I got a couple of them off google image search, and some I already had stored on my pc. I do not know about the copyright status except that nothing was mentioned about that on the sites those images were from. thanks.

 * Okay, for the moment I have marked them for the moment as unverified, which does mean they are liable for deletion if accurate information about their source cannot be found. --Ngb 11:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Glennsss.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Glennsss.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Neonw


text: MediaWiki talk:Imagelinks

title: MediaWiki talk:Imagelinks


text:
Talk:Shareholders United

Anyone want to NPOV this? It reads like a sales pitch. Kinitawowi 10:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have had a go at fixing it. Cal T 17:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shareholders United


text:
Talk:Flemish Movement

[2005 & 2006 comments]
"The movement is unique in that it is dominated by right-wing politics, whereas similar movements in Ireland, Basque, and Quebec are dominated by left-wing politics." Unique? Seems a rather strong claim to me, compare with Lega Nord in Italy for instance. I wouldn't even know if left-wing separatism is a trend. Junes 10:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article needs some serious revisions. It is not at all neutral. "Flemish culture -- if such a thing exists." "Militants." Etc etc etc.

For example: the myth told is actually quite true, there simply weren't Dutch-speaking officers and the French-speaking officers ended all of their speeches with "...et pour les flamands, le même chose" (French), this means "...and for the Flemish, the same thing". This page is totally anti-Flemish movement. It should be more objective... Dancet 18:28, 8 May 2006 CET

French minority
"In the 1930s the Flemish movement grew ever larger and larger and Dutch was recognized for the first time as the sole language of Flanders, and the sizable French-speaking minority of Flanders started being subjected to all sorts of administrative prickles who continue to this day."

The last part of this sentence is totally incorrect:

- there has never been a French-speaking minority in Flanders;
 * Hm, I more or less agree, altough not totally. There was indeed never a period when a certain part of flanders was inhabited by a local majority of French-speakers. As such, the french-speakers can not be considered in the same perspective as the catalans and the Basques in Spain, or the Scots in Great-Brittain. However, just as there are allophone groups in Flanders since centuries (e.g. Yiddish- and German-speakers), there are also French-speaking groups in Flanders since a while. So, no national minority. --Lucas Richards 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If you look at it that way the French-speakers are indeed an allophone minority (like the Turcs), but I wonder where those German-speakers are:-) --Dionysos1 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

- and if there is, it's certainly not sizable;
 * Correct. Even the figures from the most militant French-speaking groups (very small groups however), never go beyond a few percent of the total flemish population. --Lucas Richards 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * And not even a sizable allophone minority indeed. --Dionysos1

- the French-speakers are not subjected to all sorts of administrative prickles; claiming that the Flemings rag them is wrong and unfair; as explained below.
 * Agree with this; I've seen many claims from militant French-speakers, but I'm still waiting on the first objective account that confirms that French-speakers are illegally discriminated against or harrassed in Flanders. --Lucas Richards 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanders historically was an homogeneous Dutch (Flemish, Brabantic and Limburgian dialects) speaking area. During time some parts (French Flanders, region of Dunkirk and Calais) were annexed by France and entirely gallacized. The region of present-day Flanders, in the meaning of 'the northern part of Belgium', has always been Dutch-speaking as well. Brussels, originally a Dutch-speaking (and Dutch only) city was after Belgian independence (and French being the only official language, although the majority of the population spoke Dutch) largely and actively frenchified, reducing the Dutch-speakers to a minority. This evolution began at the end of the 19th and remained during the 20th century and has not yet come to a halt.

During the second half of the 20th century, French-speakers moved to the suburbs around Brussels which were Dutch-speaking. Those towns were frenchified as well and in most of them French was either recognised as an official language (next to Dutch) (and thus added to the bilingual area of Brussels) or linguistic facilities (a light form of bilingualism) were installed.

This was a short history of what could be called the French minority of Flanders. But it's clearly a minority of immigrants, not an historical minority as the Swedish in Finland.

Therefore claiming that through unilingualism of Flanders the French-minority is subjected to prickles is wrong (towns became bilingual or they achieved facilities) and unfair (it is an immigrant minority).

This is the reason why I have deleted this sentence and I advise everyone to take a neutral and fair status in this article since it is a very sensitive subject to all parties.

PS: I suspect a non-native speaker of English (like me) of having written this sentence because prickles who continue is as far as I know no good English. (could 156.109.10.17 be French-speaking?) By the way, the person who wrote this has a strong anti-Flemish wikipedian history.Dionysos1 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Against!
Looks to me that the Flemish movement is much wider than only separatists! On the Dutch page, it apparently mentions 5 major tendencies within the Flemish movement. The separatists are only one of them. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the Flemish movement could clarify this further.

 * Do not merge I agree the Flemish movement is more than just political, and certainly more than just separatist. Bejnar 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Do not merge for the same reason.Dionysos1 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not Merge !
The Flemish movement is a much broader concept than advocacy of Flemish independence (separatism, calling for the splitting of Belgium in two or more independent states). Where there is no majority in favour of Flemish independence, probably a majority of the "Flemish people" (Dutch speaking Belgians) would defend their Flemish identity, as opposed to "Belgicism" or francophilia. Moreover, there is a Flemish cultural movement, totally distinct and not to be identified with any political point of view.

Flandern und Deutschland by Kurt Kerlen
The Library of Congress gives the subject of this 1917 book as "Flemish movement."
 * I'm only interested in knowing more about Kurt Kerlen.
 * This author also wrote/edited/compiled Boche and Bolshevik.
 * My contribution is to let you know about the old Library of Congress use.
 * Can anyone tell me anything about Kurt Kerlen besides this author's association with Nesta Webster? Was Kerlen an important figure in the Flemish movement?

Thanks.

Inadvertently I failed to sign the above.--Ludvikus 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch dont need protection
I strongly advocate that the lead be changed from saying that The Flemish Movement protects the Dutch Language. It doesn't. It protects the Flemish dialects that have historically been spoken in Flanders. If there are no objections, I will change it tomorrow. In Belgium the nomenclature for that entity (Dutch Language) is Flemish! It's roots in Dutch are acknowledged, but its proper name is Flemish always. That designation gives a name to a people, the Flemish people. Duly recognized thruout history as a seperate and recognizable people. I respectfully request that editors recognize this fact and resist changing it so that it is something that solely pleases The Dutch. It doesnt please the Flemish, to be sure.--Buster7 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * On the contrary. Flemish as a language doesn't exist. Colloquially the Dutch as spoken in Belgium is called Flemish, as much as in most languages the Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands is called Hollandic. Dutch is Dutch and is not proper to any country. To address the Dutch as it is spoken in Belgium with Flemish is only a minor inaccuracy, but to state that it is a different language is completely incorrect. If you're not convinced, you should get informed first before exporting your fantasies to wikipedia. Not a single academic would be taken seriously if he'd say Flemish and Hollandic (to you, only that is Dutch) were two seperate languages. The difference to be made is of the same degree as the difference between American and British English.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I'm from Flanders myself and "hollandic" is the same language. It's a bit like english in the UK and english in the USA. Same language but a different accent and there are some words that are only used in Flanders or Holland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.160.160 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it is true for the Nederlanse that the both of you speak...no question. But, the Flemish that I speak is from the 1950's. Any of the real historic "taals' of either West or East Flamders are very dis-similar to the current Dutch derivative spoken in Belgium. A better example than British/American might be Portuguese and Spanish. These are not fantasies. Please see:[] for a differing opinion.--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The Flemish from the 1950's you speak is not the current language in Flanders. In schools, public institutions and the official Flemish newspapers and television stations, the AN (Algemeen Nederlands - General Dutch) is used, both in the Netherlands and Flanders. I too speak my own West-Flemish dialect at home, which could be seen as a separate language from Dutch as much as Frisian is a separate language from Dutch. Nonetheless, officially we all speak Dutch and it is the lingua franca between people from different Flemish dialects (West-Vlaams, Oost-Vlaams, Brabants and Limburgs). The written Flemish language is exactly the same as Dutch, which is even recognised by the site you gave (http://www.hermanboel.eu/dossiers-vl-ned.htm). So no, it's not like Portuguese-Spanish (different languages), it's like English with an American accent, and English with a British accent (different accents). Don't mistake me for someone who doesn't like his mother tongue, but I also like to get the facts right...
 * To state my point even more clearly: http://taalunieversum.org/taalunie/wie_zijn_wij/ => Nederland en Vlaanderen ontwikkelen al sinds 1980 een gemeenschappelijk beleid voor het Nederlands. (transl: Since 1980, the Netherlands and Flanders are developing a shared/unified policiy concerning the Dutch language.) So sorry, but 1950 is 60 years ago, times have changed.

84.195.160.160
84.195.160.160, could you please have someone correct the English in your contributions before adding them? Thanks! Rbakker99 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, without any intent to criticize, your contributions while welcome are in serious need of work. Also, I might suggest that you create an identity. It's more fun that way!--Buster7 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A Movement begins
The last sentence of this section needs to be clarified but I'm not sure how. Any Ideas?--Buster7 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The last section, Post War I believe it's called, is a huge mess. Capitalization alone is a task. Miss-spelling, etc. are many. The claims made in this section require verification. Please have someone copy-edit entries before they go into the encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read and been told about this whole issue, the "Flemish Movement" in fact seems to have confused language with class. Their resentment would have been better directed against those who spoke French, rather than the language itself. The nobility and other members of the ruling class in Flanders chose to speak French, basically, because of its greater international prestige, but they were still Flemings. They were not foreign invaders. The present campaign seems to target the French language wherever it is spoken, even if the speakers are from the "lower" classes and are historically native speakers (or descendants of Walloons who abandoned their French-based dialect - of which there were quite a large number - to speak Standard French). It appears to be no different from the alleged earlier campaigns to crush Flemish or, to put it another way, two wrongs do not make a right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioblen (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Transfers
I would like the section "Transfers" to be documented and their figures supported by serious sources. Adumoul (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I would like this whole article to be rewritten... it's about an ideology that wants to be considered as a culture, find some sources to say otherwise.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.26.143 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The section about Transfers has serious issues with WP:NPOV. Only one POV is used. One source I have removed, because it was on a totally biased site (one that promotes the Flemish independence). Also other sources are not that good (like 'Het Nieuwsblad'). Gold Renet  16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, the whole article is badly cited and only had one POV. Gold  Renet  16:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

...et pour les Flamands, la même chose...
This very common quote is linked here to king Albert I. Could somebody give a reliable source of it, because I can't find one. Other sources say that the quote originates from the orders from French-speaking WWI officers, directed at the Flemish soldiers, so if king Albert I didn't use it this should be removed. Felix Atagong (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

LDD are confederalists
I added List Dedecker to the confederalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.208.98 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Extremists?
Calling VB, Voorpost, NSV and others extremists doesn't seem neutral to me. Therefore I changed it to "radical right-winged". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.208.98 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

De Coster
De Coster did write Uijlenspiegel but he wrote it in French so I don't think he can be counted as a "Flemish Movement" (or whatever its supposed to have been and become) protagnist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.12.167 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Be thy own judge and thou shalt be forgiven
"To many of the Flemish nationalists the reasons for their collaboration were understandable." This sentence has no meaning! It says something between

1° that many flemish nationalists cautionned collaboration 2° they understood what they did 3° the frustration by the french speakers pushed them into collaboration and so it is acceptable

Go ask Bart De Wever how many jews were put on the trains during this period! Has it ever been understandable? Nice piece of post-war fascist rhetorics!! How many Flemish are proud of this? Flanders is indeed in need of some cultural identity!

it's a shame that after such an interesting start, the flemish movement is still now being held hostage by the right-wing parties (whom have never been benefical to culture, or is it the other way around? that lack of culture....)

This article has to be rewritten! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.0.140 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Flemish Martyr Synrdome"
What the hell is this? That "Pour les flamands, la meme chose" might not have a source, it's exemplary for how the Flemish were treated in the army. You couldn't become officer without knowing French, even though the majority of the soldiers were Flemish. Anyway, it's far less from the truth than someone who invented Flemish Martyr Syndrome... Go look it up in google, count the hits of "Flemish Martyr Syndrome" (5) and "Pour les Flamands, la meme chose" (761). I'd like to try the "Irish Martyr Syndrome" on some random wikipedia page, and watch how I get banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.82.242 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Roeselare Hugo Verriest -1.JPG Nominated for Deletion
The sources are not neutral. Recent sources form the Flemish Movement itself are lacking. F.e. Marc Reynebau is generally considered as an opponent of the Flemish Movement. Van Haegendoren is a Flemisch Mover, but a older one, who died before 2000. The imago of Verriest seems correct to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.40.81 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

authenticity citation by Rogier in section "French Flanders"
The authenticity of the supposed citation by Charles Rogier:

"Les premiers principes d'une bonne administration sont basés sur l'emploi exclusif d'une langue, et il est évident que la seule langue des Belges doit être le français. Pour arriver à ce résultat, il est nécessaire que toutes les fonctions civiles et militaires soient confiées à des Wallons et à des Luxembourgeois; de cette manière, les Flamands, privés temporairement des avantages attachés à ces emplois, seront contraints d'apprendre le français, et l'on détruira ainsi peu à peu l'élément germanique en Belgique."

is quite contested, as can be seen in the articles on Charles Rogier in the Dutch and French Wikipedia and elsewhere. Beyond that, in the quoted resource (Leclerc 2008) it is said that the quote is from a letter to Lord Palmerston, not to Raikem, and the questionableness of the citation is clearly mentioned. I think this should urgently be revised. I won't do it because I feel my English is not good enough.

Greetings, kikkertje

[Untitled]
Added many references, only one remains for which I couldn't find any reference in the collections I have access to. If anyone feels like adding more references, please do, articles like this are always in grave need of them. I took the liberty of deleting the "references are needed - template". Many Good Wishes, --131.111.219.247 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[Untitled bis]
Please update this article:

'The ensuing deadlock has led to the fact that at the time of writing (August 2011) no federal government has yet been formed and no compromise that might serve even as a basis for further negotiation has emerged.'

We are proud to say that finally we have formed a government. All te problems solved then? i beg to differ.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.119.214.170 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flemish Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/$FILE/Deschou.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709023355/http://verkiezingen2010.belgium.be/nl/ to http://verkiezingen2010.belgium.be/nl/

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) 16:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flemish Movement. 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/20121120114344/http://www.vgc.be/Onderwijs/Onderwijsbeleid+van+de+VGC/Over+het+Brussels+Nederlandstalig+onderwijs/geschiedenis.htm to http://www.vgc.be/Onderwijs/Onderwijsbeleid+van+de+VGC/Over+het+Brussels+Nederlandstalig+onderwijs/geschiedenis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812214902/http://www.kuleuven.be/emeritiforum/thema/2006-2007/MEERVLAANDEREN211206/identiteit-Vlaanderen-Wallonie%20%28prof.%20W.%20Dewachter%29.doc to http://www.kuleuven.be/emeritiforum/thema/2006-2007/MEERVLAANDEREN211206/identiteit-Vlaanderen-Wallonie%20%28prof.%20W.%20Dewachter%29.doc

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) 06:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Replace "Militant" with something else
This article refers to separatists as "militants". I think that's very biased and unfair. "militant", in English, is often used to refer to groups using violence to achieve an objective in mass media, and readers may conflate the dictionary definition (used in this page) with the mass-media one. A more experienced editor suggested that this page should use the word "radical" instead. I disagree with that too. This article says that the "militants" are defined by them wanting independence. However, separatism isn't always considered radical: the Wikipedia pages for Quebec, Basque and Catalan separatist movements only use the word "militant" in reference to paramilitary groups (Catalan), and the word "radical" is only used to refer to the radicalization during the Spanish Civil war (almost a century ago) towards Franco, who was very authoritarian and anti-democratic (Basque). Also, the Flemish "militants" have much more popular support in Flanders than separatists in all of the regions I mentioned, making them less radical by definition. SentientObject (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flemish Movement


text:
Talk:ʻIolani Palace

Untitled
"The building was completed in 1882 and was outfitted with an elaborate fortress guard house called 'Iolani Barracks."

I removed the part of this sentence regarding Iolani Barracks. The barracks were completed ten years before the current Iolani Palace and weren't even originally located on the Palace grounds (it originally stood where the Hawaii State Capitol does now). Instead, I added a "See also" link to the barracks article. I left the photo of the barracks, however.

I also removed some information about Aliiolani Hale from the article, as it is already mentioned on its own page.

I corrected some information in the article too. The decision to dedicate Aliiolani Hale as a government building instead of a palace, for example, was made by Kamehameha V himself, not Kalakaua.

--Aoi 10:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to proper name?
I may not fully understand the complexities of the issue, but as far as I can see, this page could be moved to its proper (UTF-8) name, just like the others? I will do that, please revert me if I was overly naïve with respect to the drama incurred by an opening quote mark. Arbor 29 June 2005 09:14 (UTC)

 * OK, done it. I saw that the ‘Okina page itself is doing just fine, so I assume that the current one will work as well. Arbor 29 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)

Consider adding "|Iolani Palace" as a sortkey to the category entries. I presume it should be alphabetized as if it does not have a diacritical mark. It looks a bit odd now, being at the end of category listings. For example, see Category:U.S. National Historic Landmarks. --Eoghanacht 2005 June 29 16:45 (UTC)

 * Actually, it would be more proper to list it by the consonant, but this is seldom if ever done. Hawaiian dictionaries just alphabetize on the vowel.  Nonetheless, it is not a good idea to use the article title Iolani, for the reason that few if any would look for that name (Iolani, being more usual) and the representation of the  has been in flux here at Wikipedia (and can be represented many ways, most not necessarily correct) - Marshman 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kamehameha III
I read that Iolani Palace wasn't founded during the reign of Kamehameha IV but during Kamehameha III when he moved to Honolulu. He had purchased it from his niece Victoria Kamamalu's father. He named it Hale Alii meaning House of the Chiefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.99 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an apostrophe
What is the reasoning behind the move to a mis-spelled version of the name? Where was this discussed? The Okina is clearly not an apostrophe so this seems like a step backwards. The PUNCT rule clearly states that:
 * Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes...are represented by their correct Unicode characters.

W Nowicki (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved back. Quick question, why is it just "Iolani Palace" in the infobox and not "ʻIolani Palace" as in the article and title?  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Answer to your question: Because the National Register of Historic Places database was done long before Unicode, so often drops or approximates non-latin characters. Our compromise was to use the Unicode in the body, but generally keep the infobox title the same as the NRHP database. There are cases where the NRHP databases is totally different than the Wikipedia article title, so this inconsistency seems tolerable. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the move. I had no opinion on the matter, and was just acting on the move request made by Xeworlebi. Good to see it's been resolved. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it happened again, sigh. Someone confusing the apostrophe moved it over the redirect with no discussion? W Nowicki (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And then the NRHP infobox was changed to be inconsistent with the NRHP database (in 1966 they did not have Unicode!). Sigh. Please look at sources. W Nowicki (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Use the proper okina. It is a letter. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
& → ʻIolani Palace — Improper use of apostrophe see above W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted my move. Stop fucking obsessing.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Imprisonment room
Interesting fact: the room was once the room of Prince David Kawānanakoa .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:ʻIolani Palace


text:
Frank Black (album)

Frank Black is the debut solo album by American alternative rock musician Frank Black. The album was recorded in 1992 and released on March 8, 1993, via 4AD and Elektra Records, after the breakup of Black's band Pixies.

The album is similar in style, both musically and lyrically, to the Pixies' last album prior to their 1993 breakup, Trompe le Monde. Frank Black is characterized by a focus on UFOs and science fiction. Two singles from the album—"Los Angeles" and "Hang On to Your Ego"—were released in 1993; both reached the top ten of Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart.

The song "I Heard Ramona Sing" is featured in the 2010 film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, as well as its soundtrack.

Recording and production
While the Pixies' 1991 album Trompe le Monde was being recorded, Black, known as Black Francis at the time, had discussions with the album's producer, Gil Norton, about a possible solo record. He told Norton he was keen to record again, even though he had no new material; as a result, the two decided on a covers album. However, by the time Francis visited a recording studio again in 1992, he had "plenty of tunes and musical scraps".

He collaborated with Eric Drew Feldman of Pere Ubu to record new material; they began by trimming down the number of covers to one, the Beach Boys' "Hang On to Your Ego". Feldman became the album's producer, and played keyboard and bass guitar on several songs, with former Pixies guitarist Joey Santiago on lead guitar. Francis recorded the album during the hiatus and breakup of the Pixies in late 1992 and early 1993. He then adopted the stage name "Frank Black" (inverting his old persona "Black Francis") and released the results as Frank Black in March 1993.

Music
Frank Black is characterized by a lyrical focus on UFOs and science fiction, although he explored other eclectic subjects, such as in "I Heard Ramona Sing", a song about the Ramones. The album is similar in style, both musically and lyrically, to the Pixies' albums Bossanova and Trompe le Monde. Feldman later said that the first record connected his solo career with Trompe le Monde, "but at the same time it is an island, like nothing else he [Black] did".

Critical reception
The New York Times wrote: "Thompson has memorized the unabridged punk-rock songbook from the Rolling Stones onward. In his hands, though, aggressive, malevolent underpinnings take on a bleak cheeriness as he rambles on about seedy seaports and science-fiction conventions and turns himself into a maniacal soda jerk and a fallen czar." The Indianapolis Star noted that "the full, grinding punk/surf/sci-fi kick of the Pixies is missing from his first solo album, [but] Frank Black has the essential cryptic lyrics, peripatetic rhythms and pop sensibility."

Track listing
Notes

Personnel

 * Frank Black – vocals, guitar
 * Eric Drew Feldman – bass, keyboards, synthetics
 * Nick Vincent – drums, percussion

Additional musicians
 * Joey Santiago – additional guitar
 * Dave Sardy – additional guitar
 * Jeff Moris Tepper – additional guitar
 * Bob Giusti – additional drums
 * John Linnell – saxophone
 * Kurt Hoffman – saxophone

Technical personnel
 * Alistair Clay – engineer, mixing
 * Efren Herrera – second engineer
 * Matt Packuko – second engineer
 * Sean Leonard – second engineer
 * Wally Traugott – mastering
 * Chris Bigg – design
 * Vaughan Oliver – design
 * Simon Larbalestier – artwork photography
 * Michael Halsband – portrait photography

title: Frank Black (album)


text:
List of Anglican church composers

Composers who have made significant contributions to the repertory of Anglican church music.

A

 * Malcolm Archer
 * Thomas Armstrong
 * Thomas Attwood
 * Richard Ayleward
 * Raffaella Aleotti

B

 * Edgar Bainton
 * Edward Bairstow
 * John Barnard
 * Joseph Barnby
 * Adrian Batten
 * Jonathan Battishill
 * Lennox Berkeley
 * William Thomas Best
 * Elway Bevin
 * Hugh Blair
 * John Blow
 * William Boyce
 * Harry Bramma
 * David Briggs
 * Benjamin Britten
 * Albertus Bryne
 * William Byrd
 * Judith Bingham
 * Amy Beach
 * Diana Burrell
 * Sally Beamish
 * Carol Barnett

C

 * Anthony Caesar
 * Jeremiah Clarke
 * Benjamin Cooke
 * Henry Cooke
 * Robert Cooke
 * Joseph Corfe
 * William Croft
 * William Crotch
 * Rebecca Clarke
 * Avril Coleridge-Taylor
 * Jean Coulthard

D

 * Harold Darke
 * John Albert Delany
 * Richard Dering
 * James Douglas
 * Jonathan Dove
 * Thomas Sanders Dupuis
 * George Dyson
 * Eleanor Daley

F

 * Richard Farrant
 * Gerald Finzi
 * Cheryl Frances-Hoad

G

 * Henry Gadsby
 * Bernard Gates
 * Orlando Gibbons
 * John Goss
 * Maurice Greene

H

 * Peter Hallock
 * Calvin Hampton
 * George Frideric Handel
 * William H. Harris
 * Basil Harwood
 * William Henry Havergal
 * Philip Hayes
 * William Hayes
 * Edward John Hopkins
 * Martin How
 * Herbert Howells
 * Pelham Humfrey
 * Peter Hurford
 * Imogen Holst

I

 * John Ireland
 * Grayston Ives

J

 * Enderby Jackson
 * Francis Jackson
 * William Jackson of Exeter
 * William Jackson of Masham
 * Roger Jones
 * John Joubert

K

 * James Kent
 * Charles King
 * Gerald Knight

L

 * Craig Sellar Lang
 * Kenneth Leighton

M

 * John Merbecke
 * George William Martin
 * William Mathias
 * J. H. Maunder
 * E. J. Moeran
 * Thomas Morley
 * Herbert Murrill
 * Cecilia McDowall
 * Sarah MacDonald (musician)
 * Elizabeth Maconchy

N

 * Peter Nardone
 * James Nares
 * Sydney Nicholson
 * T. Tertius Noble
 * June Nixon

O

 * George Oldroyd
 * Frederick Ouseley

P

 * Frederick Augustus Packer
 * Hubert Parry
 * Osbert Parsley
 * Robert Parsons
 * Walter Porter
 * Francis Pott
 * Daniel Purcell
 * Henry Purcell
 * Florence Price
 * Roxanna Panufnik
 * Elizabeth Poston

R

 * Vaughan Richardson
 * Alan Ridout
 * Sir John Rogers, 6th Baronet
 * Barry Rose
 * Bernard Rose
 * John Rutter

S

 * John Sanders
 * Martin Shaw
 * Richard Shephard
 * John Sheppard
 * Caleb Simper
 * Henry Smart
 * William Smith
 * Leo Sowerby
 * John Stainer
 * Charles Villiers Stanford
 * Charles Steggall
 * Charles Edward Stephens
 * Charles Hylton Stewart
 * Herbert Sumsion
 * Undine Smith Moore
 * Rhian Samuel

T

 * Thomas Tallis
 * John Tavener
 * John Taverner
 * Thomas Tomkins
 * George William Torrance
 * John Travers
 * Noël Tredinnick
 * James Turle
 * William Turner
 * Christopher Tye

V

 * Stanley Vann
 * Ralph Vaughan Williams
 * Charles Garland Verrinder

W

 * Thomas Attwood Walmisley
 * William Walton
 * Thomas Weelkes
 * John Weldon
 * Samuel Wesley
 * Samuel Sebastian Wesley
 * Alfred Wheeler
 * Healey Willan
 * Michael Wise
 * Charles Wood
 * Richard Woodward
 * Judith Weir
 * Errollyn Wallen
 * Grace Williams
 * Janet Wheeler

title: List of Anglican church composers


text:
User talk:Dover

You posted your Saudi prince article in the wrong place. I've reverted. You can go to the history, pull out your work and repost it in the right place. After just a cursory glance, I'd guess that it's a good job! Zora 10:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dover


text:
Sesamex

Sesamex, also called sesoxane, is an organic compound used as an adjuvant for synergy; that is, it enhances the potency of pesticides such pyrethrins and pyrethroids, but is itself not a pesticide.

Solubility
Sesamex is soluble in kerosene, freon 11, and freon 12.

title: Sesamex


text:
Talk:Nagcarlan

The Underground cemetery of Nagcarlan was built not in 1851 but in 1845. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.83.144 (talk) 18:49, February 8, 2005 (UTC)

Changed to 1845. I also added a photo. Matikas 0805 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nagcarlan, Laguna. 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/20131004104825/http://census.gov.ph/ to https://www.census.gov.ph/

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) 10:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lumban, Laguna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Revising Nagcarlan's Tourism Description
I revised the description of Nagcarlan's attractions from a marketing style to an objective encyclopedic one suitable for Wikipedia. I removed promotional language and subjective qualifiers, rephrasing phrases as factual sentences. I described features as "rivers, waterfalls, lakes and hills" rather than hyperbole. I framed sites and dining descriptively for exploration and cuisine rather than listing them. These edits shifted the tone from advertorial to informative, transforming the content from a persuasive marketing overview to an impartial summary. Feel free to improve upon this edit as needed, but please keep discussion neutral and focused on the content and scope of the entry itself. Additional details, facts, images or citations that strengthen scope and depth without advocacy are welcome. Cujam (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nagcarlan


text:
Hexathelidae

Hexathelidae is a family of mygalomorph spiders. It is one of a number of families and genera of spiders known as tunnelweb or funnel-web spiders. In 2018, the family was substantially reduced in size by genera being moved to three separate families: Atracidae, Macrothelidae and Porrhothelidae.

Description
These spiders are medium to large in size, with body lengths ranging from 1 to 5 cm. The body is typically three times longer than it is wide. They are darkly colored, ranging from black to brown, with a glossy carapace covering the front part of the body. Like the related diplurid spiders, the hexathelids have generally long spinnerets.

Their moderately long posterior spinnerets and other features make the Hexathelidae appear similar to the Dipluridae, and were considered a subfamily of the latter until 1980.

Like other Mygalomorphae (also called the Orthognatha, an infraorder of spiders which includes the true tarantulas), these spiders have fangs which point straight down and do not cross each other (see also Araneomorphae). They have ample venom glands that lie entirely within their chelicerae. Their chelicerae and fangs are large and powerful.

Taxonomy
A molecular phylogenetic study in 2018 showed that Hexathelidae, as then circumscribed, was not monophyletic and hence split off genera into the new families Atracidae, Macrothelidae and Porrhothelidae. The following cladogram shows the relationships found between these families (former Hexathelidae families marked with boxes).

Genera
, the World Spider Catalog accepts the following genera:

 * Bymainiella Raven, 1978 — Australia
 * Hexathele Ausserer, 1871 — New Zealand
 * Mediothele Raven & Platnick, 1978 — Chile
 * Paraembolides Raven, 1980 — Australia
 * Plesiothele Raven, 1978 — Australia
 * Scotinoecus Simon, 1892 — Chile, Argentina
 * Teranodes Raven, 1985 — Australia

Formerly placed here
, some genera formerly placed in Hexathelidae have been moved to other families:
 * Former subfamily Atracinae, now in Atracidae
 * Atrax O. P-Cambridge, 1877 — Australia
 * Hadronyche L. Koch, 1873 — Australia
 * Illawarra Gray, 2010 — Australia

 * Now in Macrothelidae
 * Macrothele Ausserer, 1871 — Africa, Europe, Asia

 * Now in Porrhothelidae
 * Porrhothele Simon, 1892 — New Zealand

Distribution and habitat
Five of the seven genera are found in Australia and New Zealand. Two genera are from Argentina and Chile in South America.

Hexathelids typically live in burrows, which are constructed in the ground or in tree hollows. An elaborately constructed burrow entrance is common. These spiders construct a funnel-shaped web and lurk for prey in the small end of the funnel. They frequently search for a place to nest under human dwellings, or under nearby rocks, logs, or other similar objects. They are most active at night. Some build in rain forests, both in the soil and in hollows on trees; others build entirely in sand, e.g., Fraser Island, southeastern Queensland. In Australia, these spiders tend to prefer cooler climates, hence they are found primarily in rain forests.

title: Hexathelidae


text:
Aeromás

Aeromás is a cargo and private jet charter airline based in Montevideo in Uruguay (Carrasco International Airport). It is a company in the commercial air transport market with main presence in Uruguay and Mercosur. It has conducted commercial aviation activity since 1983 with a banner towing service, since expanding into providing air transport services for passengers and cargo in1988.

It is the longest running company in the commercial air transport in Uruguay, and the first certified as a 135 Operator (135-001) in the country, also being the first one certified for business jet operation under the Uruguayan flag.

Its founder and CEO, Daniel Dalmás, is a pilot with fifty years' experience in aviation who has more than 13,000 hours of experience as Airline Captain on intercontinental operations. He currently chairs the National Association of Commercial Air Transport Companies (A.N.E.P.A.) as well as, since its formation, the Chamber of Aeronautical Operators of Uruguay (C.O.P.A.U.).

Aeromás has long experience in the transfer of executives, politicians, entertainers and top-level athletes. It has also operated, for more than 20 years, as a Flight School and currently as an authorized Civil Aviation Instruction Center (C.I.A.C.) with its Aeromás Training Center.

History
The company was founded by actual Director Daniel Dalmás in 1983 as a banner towing business. It evolved into public transport in 1988 becoming Uruguay's largest air taxi company. It is partly owned by Southern Cross Aviation Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Fleet
The Aeromás fleet includes the following aircraft (as of February 2023):

 * 1 Embraer EMB 110P1 Bandeirante CX-MAS
 * 1 Learjet 60 CX-SCA
 * 1 Piper PA-38 Tomahawk CX-BKC

Accidents & incidents

 * On the 16th of February 2023, in the early morning, an Aeromás Cessna 208 registered CX-MAX was destroyed in a forced landing incident at Berisso, Argentina. There were no casualties.

title: Aeromás


text:
Repatriation

Repatriation is the return of a thing or person to its or their country of origin, respectively. The term may refer to non-human entities, such as converting a foreign currency into the currency of one's own country, as well as the return of military personnel to their place of origin following a war. It also applies to diplomatic envoys, international officials as well as expatriates and migrants in time of international crisis. For refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants, repatriation can mean either voluntary return or deportation.

Voluntary vs. forced return
Voluntary return is the return of eligible persons, such as refugees, to their country of origin or citizenship based on freely expressed willingness to such return. Voluntary return, unlike expulsion and deportation, which are actions of sovereign states, is defined as a personal right under specific conditions described in various international instruments, such as the OAU Convention, along with customary international law. Certain countries offer financial support to refugees and immigrants to facilitate the process of starting a new life in their country of origin. Examples of 21st-century voluntary return include the Danish government, which in 2009 began offering £12,000 each to immigrants to return, Switzerland offering approximately 6,500 Francs, targeted for business startups upon returning home, as well as Ireland. In 2016, Germany allocated €150 million over three years for migrants willing to return, and the Swedish government began offering £3,500 each. 544 Nigerians returned home from Switzerland in 2013. This financial support may also be considered as residency buyouts.

Two countries may have a re-admission agreement, which establishes procedures, on a reciprocal basis, for one state to return irregular non-nationals to their country of origin or a country through which they have transited. Illegal immigrants are frequently repatriated as a matter of government policy. Repatriation measures of voluntary return, with financial assistance, as well as measures of deportation are used in many countries.

As repatriation can be voluntary or forced, the term is also used as a euphemism for deportation. Involuntary or forced repatriation is the return of refugees, prisoners of war, or civil detainees to their country of origin under circumstances that leave no other viable alternatives. According to modern international law, prisoners of war, civil detainees, or refugees refusing repatriation, particularly if motivated by fears of political persecution in their own country, should be protected from refoulement and given, if possible, temporary or permanent asylum. The forced return of people to countries where they would face persecution is more specifically known as refoulement, which is against international law.

Repatriation vs. return
While repatriation necessarily brings an individual to his or her territory of origin or citizenship, a return potentially includes bringing the person back to the point of departure. This could be to a third country, including a country of transit, which is a country the person has traveled through to get to the country of destination. A return could also be within the territorial boundaries of a country, as in the case of returning internally displaced persons and demobilized combatants. The distinction between repatriation and return, voluntary or involuntary, is not always clear.

Medical repatriation
Repatriation is linked with health care due to the costs and resources associated with providing medical treatment to travelers and immigrants pursuing citizenship. For example, if a foreign national is in the United States with a visa and becomes ill, the insurance that the visa holder has in his or her native country may not apply in the United States, especially if it is a country with universal health care coverage. This scenario forces hospitals to choose one of three options: Determining which option is the most ethical is often very challenging for hospital administrators.
 * Limit their services to emergency care only (as per the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)
 * Offer charity care free of charge or at a reduced rate
 * Repatriate the patient back to his or her native country where he or she will be covered according to that country's policy

In some cases, a traveler's personal insurance company may repatriate the patient back to their home country for medical treatment due to the cost of medical expenses in the current country. The method of repatriation could be via regular flight, by ground, or by air ambulance which ever is deemed necessary subjected to the medical condition of patient and cost in mind. Medical repatriation is different from the act of medical evacuation.

Repatriation of mortal remains
In modern society where everything has become interconnected, it is not uncommon for diasporas to be found living abroad. When someone passes away overseas, a next of kin usually has to physically fly over to verify the body before the body gets repatriated back home by a funeral home.

Repatriation of foreign nationals abroad during wars
Countries have repatriated their nationals who are abroad during the outbreak of a war. For example when World War II begun in 1939, the United States launched a repatriation effort to repatriate Americans who were either living or visiting Europe with 75,000 Americans being repatriated by early November 1939. At the beginning of the Korean War, the United States repatriated its civilians from Korea sending them to Japan with a total of 1,655 people being repatriated.

Post–World War II
In the 20th century, following all European wars, several repatriation commissions were created to supervise the return of war refugees, displaced persons, and prisoners of war to their country of origin. Repatriation hospitals were established in some countries to care for the ongoing medical and health requirements of returned military personnel. In the Soviet Union, the refugees seen as traitors for surrendering were often killed or sent to Siberian concentration camps.

Issues surrounding repatriation have been some of the most heatedly debated political topics of the 20th and 21st centuries. Many forced back to the Soviet Union by Allied forces in World War II still hold this forced migration against the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The term repatriation was often used by Communist governments to describe the large-scale state-sponsored ethnic cleansing actions and expulsion of national groups. Poles born in territories that were annexed by the Soviet Union, although deported to the State of Poland, were settled in the annexed former German territories (referred to in Polish as the Regained Territories). In the process they were told that they had returned to their Motherland.

After the fall of the Iron curtain and end of Bosnian War increased repatriation, deportation and readmission agreements were observed in Europe.

Battlefield casualties
The Korean War marked the first time that the United States or any nation began returning the bodies of battlefield casualties as soon as possible. During Operation Glory, which followed the Korean Armistice Agreement, thousands of remains were exchanged by both sides. The practice of immediately recovering casualties continued for United States during the Vietnam War.

Repatriation laws
Repatriation laws give non-citizen foreigners who are part of the titular majority group the opportunity to immigrate and receive citizenship. Repatriation of their titular diaspora is practiced by most ethnic nation states. Repatriation laws have been created in many countries to enable diasporas to immigrate ("return") to their "kin-state". This is sometimes known as the exercise of the right of return. Repatriation laws give members of the diaspora the right to immigrate to their kin-state and they serve to maintain close ties between the state and its diaspora and gives preferential treatment to diaspora immigrants.

Most countries in central and eastern Europe as well as Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey have longstanding repatriation legislation. China, Japan, Norway and Serbia also have repatriation laws for their diaspora populations. The number of countries with repatriation laws has mushroomed since the end of Soviet communism and most independent nations that were once part of the communist domain in Europe have since legislated repatriation laws. Many other countries such as Jordan and Sweden have (or have had) generous immigration policies with regard to the nation's diaspora without having formally enacted repatriation laws. Such states can be described as practicing common law repatriation.

In comparison, one of the central tenets of the Rastafari movement is the desirability of the repatriation of black people from the Americas and elsewhere back to Africa. While Ethiopia specifically has land available in Shashamane to encourage this project, black people who are citizens of countries outside Africa do not have the right of return to Africa, although as individuals they are free to try to emigrate.

Psychological aspects
Repatriation is often the "forgotten" phase of the expatriation cycle; the emphasis for support is mostly on the actual period abroad. However, many repatriates report experiencing difficulties on return: one is no longer special, practical problems arise, new knowledge gained is no longer useful, etc. These difficulties are highly influenced by a number of factors including self-management, spouse's adjustment, time spent abroad and skill utilisation. What is crucial is that every individual perceives these factors in a different way. Reintegration is a process of re-inclusion or re-incorporation of a person into a group or a process, and may contribute to overcoming repatriation.

Direct managers and HR staff often notice the difficulties a repatriate experiences, but they are not always able to act on it. Budget shortcomings and time constraints are frequently cited as reasons why it fails to be an agenda priority. Solutions for repatriation difficulties do not have to be expensive and can lead to great benefits for the company. Basic support can consist, for example, of good communication in advance, during and after the international assignment, or a mentor program to assist the repatriate. The expatriate and his/her family should feel understood by his or her company. Support can increase job satisfaction, thereby protecting the investment made by the company.

Human remains
Return of human remains to their nation of origin. In the United States, Native Americans' human remains are uncovered and removed from their burial sites in the construction/land development process or as part of archaeological excavations. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 established the process whereby federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations can request that federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funds return culturally affiliated human remains. The NAGPRA also sets forth provisions that allow for the disposition of Native American human remains found on federal lands to the affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. NAGPRA does not apply to the Smithsonian Institution, which is covered under the repatriation provisions of the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act) of 1989. In previous eras, it was common for British colonial authorities to collect heads and other body parts of indigenous peoples such as Indigenous Australians and Māori for display in British museums. The repatriation of these body parts is currently ongoing. For an example of a successful body part repatriation, see Yagan. Another example can be seen through the dedicated work of the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme, established in partnership between Māori and the New Zealand government in 2003. This programme is administered by the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa), and since 2003 has repatriated over 350 Māori and Moriori ancestral remains to Aotearoa New Zealand. Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to repatriate their human remains. The declaration was passed in September 2007 with the support of 143 countries. The four opposing countries—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States—subsequently endorsed the declaration.

This also applies to the return of mummified human remains. An example of this kind of repatriation would be the Coffin of Nedjemankh being returned to Egypt after its illegal purchase by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Cultural artifacts
Cultural or art repatriation is the return of cultural objects or works of art to their country of origin (usually referring to ancient art), or (for looted material) its former owners (or their heirs). Repatriation of cultural artifacts also includes items that fall under the purview of NAGPRA and the NMAI Act such as Native American sacred items, funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony. The Iroquois Wampum belts are an example of objects of cultural patrimony subject to repatriation under NAGPRA. The "Utimut Process" of returning cultural objects from Denmark to Greenland between 1982 and 2001, was an early example of repatriation. The no:Bååstede project saw the transfer of over 1600 cultural objects from museums in Oslo to institutions under Sámi management between 2012 and 2019.

Economic repatriation
Economic repatriation refers to the process of a company getting its profits back into their own country. There are four main methods of repatriation: Dividends and Profits, Royalties, Management Service Fees and Intercompany Loans.

Repatriation of currency
Repatriation of currency is when foreign currency is converted back to the currency of the home country. An example would be an American converting British pounds back to U.S. dollars. Repatriation also refers to the payment of a dividend by a foreign corporation to a U.S. corporation. This happens often where the foreign corporation is considered a "controlled foreign corporation" (CFC), which means that more than 50% of the foreign corporation is owned by U.S. shareholders. Generally, foreign direct investment in CFC's are not taxed until a dividend is paid to the controlling U.S. parent company, and is thus repatriated. The foreign direct investment income of the CFC is taxed only by the country where it is incorporated until repatriation. At that time, income is subject to the (typically higher) U.S. tax rate minus the Foreign Tax Credits. (FN: See IRC 951–965) There are currently hundreds of billions of dollars of Foreign direct investment in CFC's because of the disincentive to repatriate those earnings. (See Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts for the United States, available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.)

title: Repatriation


text: Category:Airlines of Uruguay

title: Category:Airlines of Uruguay


text:
Shogun (disambiguation)

Shōgun is a military rank and historical title in Japan.

Shogun may also refer to:
 * The Sho-Gun, 1904 opera by George Ade and Gustav Luders
 * Shōgun (novel), a 1975 novel by James Clavell
 * Shōgun (1980 miniseries), based on the novel
 * Shōgun (2024 TV series), also based on the novel
 * Shōgun: The Musical, 1990
 * Shogun (video game), 1986
 * James Clavell's Shōgun, a 1989 interactive fiction computer game
 * Shogun (toolbox), an open source software library for C++
 * Shogun (Trivium album)
 * Shogun (Stormwitch album)
 * Shogun (1986 board game), from Milton Bradley
 * Shogun (2006 board game), by Dirk Henn
 * Shogun: Total War, a 2000 video game
 * Total War: Shogun 2, a 2011 video game
 * Mitsubishi Pajero or Mitsubishi Shogun, an SUV
 * Mitsubishi Fuso Super Great or Mitsubishi Shogun, a heavy-duty truck
 * Maurício Rua (born 1981), nicknamed "Shogun", mixed martial artist
 * Shogun, a limited production batch of customized Ford Festivas
 * Shogun, a brand of bicycle by Falcon Cycles
 * "Shogun" (Legends of Tomorrow), an episode of Legends of Tomorrow

title: Shogun (disambiguation)


text:
X Toolkit Intrinsics

X Toolkit Intrinsics (also known as Xt, for X toolkit) is a library that implements an API to facilitate the development of programs with a graphical user interface (GUI) for the X Window System. It can be used in the C language (or any language that can use the C API, such as C++). Design took place late 1980s to early 1990s.

The low-level library Xlib is the client-side implementation of the X11 protocol. It communicates with an X server, but does not provide any function for implementing graphical control elements ("widgets"), such as buttons or menus. The Xt library provides support for creating widget types, but does not provide any itself. A programmer could use the Xt library to create and use a new type of widget. Xt implemented some object oriented concepts, such as inheritance (the user could make their own button by reusing code written for another type of button), events, and callbacks.

Since the graphical user interface of applications typically requires a number of widget types, most developers were reluctant to write their own, and instead prefer to use libraries such as Xaw, Motif and OLIT that provide a set of widgets.

Xt programs had a notorious problem of being unusable if the "app-defaults Xrm database", a text file describing all the widgets, could not be found. Most modern, widely-used toolkits such as GTK and Qt do not use the Xt library. Rather, they use Xlib or XCB directly.

title: X Toolkit Intrinsics