text:
KMWA

KMWA (96.3 FM; "Air1") is a non-commercial FM radio station licensed to Edina, Minnesota, and serving the Twin Cities area. The station is owned by the Educational Media Foundation, and airs programming from EMF's nationally syndicated "Air1" radio format featuring Christian Worship Music. KMWA's transmitter is located in New Hope.

Origins
The frequency was originally licensed as KQXA by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on August 15, 1991. In August 1993, the station signed on as KARP, playing a wide mix of classic rock, oldies, country music and farm reports. The station's transmitter was initially located west of Le Sueur.

To increase the value of the station, KARP's owners decided to seek FCC permission to increase power and move their transmitter closer to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. The transmitter was moved farther north and east to a location south of Hutchinson, and power was increased from 50,000 watts to 100,000 watts, giving the station a city-grade signal over much of the west metro area. The move also resulted in WJMC-FM (96.3) in Rice Lake, Wisconsin downgrading from 100 kW to 50 kW, changing its frequency to 96.1 FM, and moving its transmitter north. The actions were approved by the FCC in September 1999.

B96 (2000–2010)
In February 2000, KARP was purchased by a group consisting of local investors Kandu Communications and Cincinnati, Ohio-based Blue Chip Broadcasting, with the aim of bringing a full-power quasi-urban-formatted music FM station to Minnesota for the first time. The station moved its transmitter to a new site near Watertown later that month. The transfer in ownership to Blue Chip Broadcasting took place just after Noon on May 18, 2000. The station played all requests during the morning hours, with goodbyes from the DJs and other staff. Morning hosts John Carrigan and John Mons gave a final farewell, followed by "Happy Trails." They also announced that the KARP call sign and format would be moving to KKJR (106.9 FM) in Hutchinson, on June 1. Following KARP's departure from 96.3 FM, the station began stunting, repeating a short list of songs from Prince and Janet Jackson.

The new "B96" (KTTB) debuted on May 31, 2000. In May 2001, Blue Chip sold the station to Radio One, a company that specializes in urban formats. However, Radio One allowed KTTB to maintain its rhythmic-formatted playlist (although the station leaned towards urban and played some urban exclusive songs that most rhythmic stations normally didn't play).

Off to the "Northern Lights"
On June 14, 2007, Northern Lights Broadcasting, owned by the family of Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad, announced the purchase of KTTB from Radio One for $28 million (USD). The deal was approved by the FCC on August 20, 2007. Northern Lights had already stated that it would keep the station's staff and format intact.

In September 2008, Northern Lights Broadcasting filed an application to change KTTB's city of license from Glencoe to Edina (the city in which the station's studios were located), move its transmitter to the tower in St. Louis Park used by AM stations WWTC and KYCR, and decrease its power (from 100,000 to 24,000 watts) and antenna height. Northern Lights purchased 1310 AM KRBI in St. Peter in late July, and changed its call sign to KGLB. It plans to change KGLB's city of license to Glencoe (which has no other radio stations licensed to it) to maintain local service to Glencoe. The deal was not approved, but Northern Lights' application to change KTTB's city of license to Edina, move the transmitter to New Hope, and decrease its power (from 100,000 to 19,000 watts) was approved, and KTTB began transmitting from New Hope on August 20, 2009.

The move strengthened KTTB's signal in urbanized portions of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The lower power, however, meant the station lost coverage in the nearby smaller markets of Mankato and St. Cloud, where it also had significant listenership.

96.3 Now (2010–2012)
At Noon on January 6, 2010, Northern Lights rebranded the station as "96.3 Now" and changed call letters to KHTC, officially dropping the urban lean at the station, while retaining the rhythmic format. The final song on "B96" was "Say My Name" by Destiny's Child, while the first song on "Now" was Miley Cyrus' "Party in the U.S.A.". The move put KHTC in an even closer rivalry to mainstream Top 40 (CHR) station KDWB-FM. According to radio promos, the station also featured Commercial-Free Mondays. While they were moving closer towards KDWB's format, KHTC's Program Director Sam Elliott insisted that "96.3 Now" would continue to have a Rhythmic flavor, will be more "Dance-oriented" than KDWB, will not play any songs that are too "Disney Pop", and will not add any pop/rock artists (like Nickelback). KHTC remained a reporter in Nielsen BDS' Rhythmic Airplay Panel as well as on Mediabase's Rhythmic Chart because of its rhythmic direction and playlist, and therefore did not meet the criteria to be included on their mainstream Top 40/CHR reporting panels.

96.3 K-Twin (2012–2014)
On December 29, 2011, Northern Lights announced that KHTC would drop the rhythmic format and "Now" branding on January 1, 2012, and shift to a modern adult contemporary format, branded as "96.3 K-Twin." At Midnight on January 1 (after "In Paris" by Jay-Z and Kanye West), the station officially flipped to the new format, with "Misery" by Minneapolis band Soul Asylum being the first song being played, followed by "Beautiful Day" by U2 and "Learn to Fly" by Foo Fighters. The "K-Twin" playlist featured, according to Northern Lights' preview of the change, "today’s guitar based, pop alternative music" and similar, gold-based hits from 1985 onward. "K-Twin", though it was described as a modern adult contemporary format with an alternative rock lean, was classified as adult top 40 because of rhythmic content (such as Bruno Mars' "It Will Rain") and non-alternative classic hits (such as Def Leppard's "Pour Some Sugar on Me"), and to differ itself from Hot AC rival KSTP-FM (that station reports to the Mediabase/BDS hot AC panels). Even some 1970s staples could be found on the station, such as "Jammin'" by Bob Marley. The artist roster on "K-Twin" featured acts ranging from Bon Jovi and U2 to Adele and Green Day, along with songs and artists that, according to Northern Lights, "aren't currently being played in the (Twin Cities) market." It leaned in a much older direction versus KSTP; however, as of April 2012, the station was listed on the Nielsen BDS hot AC panel. The station in the Modern AC era also competed against Cities 97, which shared many of the titles played.

Another noticeable emphasis of "K-Twin" was its connections with Twin Cities listeners and its employment of local personalities, including a morning show (which debuted on January 4) that featured Tone E. Fly, a KDWB alum and a former "B96" and "96.3 Now" jock, former Miss Minnesota International contestant Danni Star who is also a former "Now" jock, and KARE news personality Eric Perkins.

With the flip to "K-Twin", the station changed its call sign to KTWN-FM, which mirrored the calls on Northern Lights' country-formatted AM station in Glencoe. The calls and "K-Twin" branding were originally used by what is now KQQL from 1968 to 1983.

By the spring of 2012, KTWN-FM evolved to a straightforward hot adult contemporary format, playing hits from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and today. The station was trying to fill a void left by KSTP-FM, which had moved closer towards Top 40 (CHR).

On August 15, 2012, the Minnesota Twins announced KTWN-FM would be the team's new radio flagship, starting with the 2013 season.

By October 2013, KTWN-FM transformed again, shifting away from Hot AC into more of a gold-based AAA direction with the addition of artists such as The Beatles, Neil Young, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. However, KTWN-FM occasionally threw in some 1990s songs from bands like Blues Traveler, Dave Matthews Band, Counting Crows, and Gin Blossoms.

During its entire existence as "K-Twin", ratings for the station were anemic, usually below a 2 share of the market (with an average of a 1.7 share per ratings period). With the hybrid mix of baseball and music, the station stayed steady at a mere 1.0 share over the past three monthly ratings periods of 2014. In addition, the station has had a constant turnover in airstaff since launch, such as 96.3 veteran Tony Fly being let go in mid-2012.

Go 96.3 (2015–2021)
In December 2014, morning host Eric Perkins (who was the final airstaff member remaining from the station's initial launch) and afternoon host Curt Copeland left the station, as rumors abounded that 96.3 was about to undergo a major overhaul of its format, as nine new web domains were registered for the station. Morning show co-hosts Mark Rider and Rena Sarigianopoulos remained in place.

The station enlisted Minneapolis branding agency Fellow to assist in the transition of the brand. At Midnight on January 1, 2015, 3 years to the hour after "K-Twin" debuted, after playing a set of songs with the word "go" in the title, as well as a block of "end"-themed songs (culminating with "Closing Time" by Minneapolis band Semisonic), KTWN-FM began stunting with a Siri-like text-to-speech voice quoting various movie and pop culture quotes, as well as a countdown to 3 p.m. on January 5. At that time, the station flipped to alternative rock as Go 96.3, launching with 10,000 songs in a row, starting with "Long Way Down" by Robert DeLong. The station continued to be the home affiliate for the Twins until the 2017 season, when Twins broadcasts returned to WCCO. (The Twins had previously been on WCCO radio since their first season in Minnesota in 1961 until the end of the 2006 season.) About a month after the station's launch, the station added a full-time airstaff. The initial lineup of airstaff included Barb Abney, Brian "BT" Turner, Jason Nagel, and the duo of Thorn and Linnea Mohn.

On April 6, 2015, the station launched GoTV, an in-booth music and video content streaming source.

With the Pohlads' purchase of KNOF in September 2015, KTWN-FM was speculated to move to the newly acquired frequency, in order to take advantage of a larger coverage area. This comes as they have registered the domains Go953.com, Go953MN.com and GoNorthMN.com. Instead, a current-based rhythmic contemporary format, under the "Go 95.3" moniker, launched on that frequency at 3 p.m. on January 5, one year to the minute after KTWN launched the "Go" format. Soon after that station's launch, Northern Lights would rebrand as Go Media (though Northern Lights would remain the name of the stations' official licensee).

On January 1, 2017, KTWN-FM changed its call letters to KQGO to match the "Go" branding.

In July 2020, morning show hosts Ben Holsen and Dana Wessel were let go from KQGO due to the financial impact resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. They were replaced by Jordan Alamat, KQGO's music director and night show host at the time.

Air 1 (2021–present)
On December 1, 2020, Go Media announced that they would sell KQGO and KZGO (the former KNOF) to the Educational Media Foundation for $2.45 million. With the announcement of the sale, the stations immediately dismissed all on-air staff and shifted to a jockless presentation, which it continued with until the sale officially closed. However, this would cause some problems with operation during said time; by the start of 2021, the station's online stream would abruptly stop operation and never start back up again, and there would be long stretches of only music, with little to no liners or identification, and some songs occasionally being played again after the first playing ended. The FCC officially approved the sale on March 26, 2021, and was consummated on April 12. At 9:06 a.m. on April 13, after playing "Trouble's Coming" by Royal Blood, then the first seconds of "All About You" by The Knocks and Foster The People, the signal was abruptly cut off and the station temporarily went silent; around 11 a.m. that day, the station returned to the air and flipped to the contemporary worship music network Air 1 under the new callsign KMWA.

HD Radio
KMWA broadcasts in HD Radio (digital). In addition to the HD1 channel, which mirrors the KMWA analog signal, KMWA has one other HD sub-channel.

HD2

96.3-HD2 carried a simulcast of KBHL in Osakis ("PraiseLive"), which was previously heard in the Twin Cities on KNOF before Go Media's acquisition of the station in 2016. With the sale to EMF being consummated on April 12, 2021, the "PraiseLive" programming moved back to 95.3 FM (the former KNOF, with those call letters returning to that frequency the same day as the sale consummation); the HD2 sub-channel and 95.3 FM simulcasted the programming for a few days before changing to a transitional looping message redirecting listeners to the new frequency. On May 3, the HD2 sub-channel flipped to the St. Louis-based “Boost Radio” format of Christian pop/hip hop (which is relayed on translator W225AP (92.9 FM)).

HD3

As of September 9, 2020, the station's HD3 sub-channel was simulcasting Hmong news, talk, and music formatted WIXK. This comes after Hmong Radio Broadcast, LLC's acquisition of previous KFAI translator K294AM (106.7 FM). With the sale to EMF being consummated on April 12, 2021, the HD3 sub-channel went silent; K294AM, which relayed KQGO-HD3, continues to simulcast WIXK, and switched its relay to KEEY-HD3.

In 2021, KMWA-HD3 became K-LOVE.

title: KMWA


text:
User talk:One25

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:One25


text:
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is a legislative act that made several significant changes to the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Referred to colloquially as the "New Bankruptcy Law", the Act of Congress attempts to, among other things, make it more difficult for some consumers to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7; some of these consumers may instead utilize Chapter 13.

It was passed by the 109th United States Congress on April 14, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005. Provisions of the act apply to cases filed on or after October 17, 2005.

Provisions
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) made changes to American bankruptcy laws, affecting both consumer and business bankruptcies. Many of the bill's provisions were explicitly designed by the bill's Congressional sponsors to make it "more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy." The BAPCPA was intended to make it more difficult for debtors to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy—under which most debts are forgiven (or discharged)—and instead required them to file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy—under which the debts they incurred are discharged only after the debtor has repaid some portion of these debts.

Some of the bill's more significant provisions include the following:

Presumption of abuse
Prior to the BAPCPA Amendments, debtors of all incomes could file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. BAPCPA restricted the number of debtors that could declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The act sets out a method to calculate a debtor's income, and compares this amount to the median income of the debtor's state. If the debtor's income is above the median income amount of the debtor's state, the debtor is subject to a "means test."

The most noteworthy change brought by the 2005 BAPCPA amendments occurred within. Congress amended this section of the Bankruptcy Code to provide for the dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 case upon a finding of "abuse" by an individual debtor (or married couple) with "primarily consumer debt". The pre-BAPCPA language of § 707(b) provided for dismissal of a chapter 7 case upon a finding of "substantial abuse". Under the former § 707(b), only the court or the United States trustee could bring a motion to find abuse under the section. The 2005 amendments removed these restrictions.

Post-BAPCPA, § 707(b) provides two definitions of "abuse". "Abuse" may be found when there is an unrebutted "presumption of abuse" arising under a BAPCPA-created "means test", [see ], or through a finding of bad faith, determined by a totality of the circumstances [see ].

Means test
Only debtors whose monthly income is higher than the median income of their state, as calculated by the Code, are subject to being found abusive under § 707(b)(2). Debtors whose income falls below the median income figure may be in violation of the means test, however no party is permitted to file a motion in order to find abuse under § 707(b)(2), [see ]. This creates a means test "safe harbor" for debtors below the state's median income figure.

Current monthly income is defined in as the monthly average of the income received by the debtor (and the debtor's spouse in a joint case) during a defined six-month time period prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. Some narrow classes of payments, for example, social security, are excluded from these figures. Notably, the average income may be higher or lower than the debtor's actual income at the time of filing for bankruptcy. This has led some commentators to refer to the bankruptcy code's "current monthly income" as "presumed income". If the debtor's debt is not primarily consumer debt, then the means test is inapplicable.

The applicable median income figure is adjusted by family size. Generally, the larger the family, the greater the applicable median income figure and the more money the debtor must earn before a presumption of abuse arises. A chart of the most recent applicable median incomes by state can be found at the US Trustee's website.

This code section then requires a comparison between the debtor's "current monthly income" and the median income for the debtor's state. If the debtor's income exceeds the median income, then the debtor must apply the means test.

For debtors subject to the means test, the test is calculated as follows. The debtor's "current monthly income" is reduced by a set of allowed deductions specified by the IRS. These deductions are not necessarily the actual expenses the debtor incurs on a monthly basis. Some commentators have referred to these deductions as "presumed expenses".

The deductions applicable in the "means test" are defined in, (ii)-(iv) and include:
 * living expenses specified under the "collection standards of the Internal Revenue Service",
 * actual expenses not provided by the Internal Revenue Standards including "reasonably necessary health insurance, disability insurance, and health savings account expenses",
 * expenses for protection from family violence,
 * continued contributions to care of nondependent family members,
 * actual expenses of administering a chapter 13 plan,
 * expenses for grade and high school, up to $1,500 annually per minor child provided that the expenses are reasonable and necessary,
 * additional home energy costs in addition to those laid out in the IRS guidelines that are reasonable and necessary,
 * 1/60th of all secured debt that will become due in the five years after the filing of the bankruptcy case,
 * 1/60th of all priority debt, and
 * continued contributions to tax-exempt charities.

An itemized list of the applicable IRS living standards can be found at the US Trustee's website.

A "presumption of abuse" will arise if: (1) the debtor has at least $182.50 in current monthly income available after the allowed deductions (this equals $10,950 over five years) regardless of the amount of debt, or (2) the debtor has at least $109.59 of such income ($6,575 over five years) and this sum would be enough to pay general unsecured creditors more than 25% over five years. For example, if a debtor had exactly $109.59 of "current monthly income" left after deductions and owed less than $26,300 in general unsecured debt, then the presumption of abuse would arise, [see ].

If a presumption of abuse is found under the means test, it may only be rebutted in the case of "special circumstances", [see ].

Nonpresumed abuse
Even in cases where there is no presumption of abuse, it is still possible for a Chapter 7 case to be dismissed or converted. If the debtor's "current monthly income" is below the median income, as discussed above, only the court or the United States trustee (or bankruptcy administrator) can seek dismissal or conversion of the debtor's case. If the debtor's "current monthly income" is above the median income, as discussed above, any party in interest may seek dismissal or conversion of the case. The grounds for dismissal under are the filing of a petition in "bad faith", or when "the totality of the circumstances (including whether the debtor seeks to reject a personal services contract and the financial need for such rejection as sought by the debtor) of the debtor's financial situation demonstrates abuse."

Waiting period between filings
Another change that resulted from the BAPCPA was an extension of the time between multiple bankruptcy filings. was amended to provide that the debtor would be denied a discharge if a debtor had received a discharge in a prior Chapter 7 case filed within eight years of the filing of the present case. Prior to BAPCPA, the rule was six years between chapter 7 filings. BAPCPA did not change the rule for the waiting period if the debtor filed a chapter 13 previously.

Credit counseling and debtor education requirements
Another major change to the law enacted by BAPCPA deals with eligibility. Section 109(h) provides that a debtor will no longer be eligible to file under either chapter 7 or chapter 13 unless within 180 days prior to filing the debtor received an "individual or group briefing" from a nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency approved by the United States trustee or bankruptcy administrator.

The new legislation also requires that all individual debtors in either chapter 7 or chapter 13 complete an "instructional course concerning personal financial management." If a chapter 7 debtor does not complete the course, it constitutes grounds for denial of discharge pursuant to new. The financial management program is experimental and the effectiveness of the program is to be studied for 18 months. Theoretically, if the educational courses prove to be ineffective, the requirement may disappear.

In 2006 more than half of all certified pre-filing counseling sessions were rendered by the three largest agencies: Money Management International, Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta and GreenPath Debt Solutions.

A 2007 GAO report was inconclusive regarding the efficacy of the counseling provisions and concluded that there is no mechanism in place to evaluate it:

"... the value of the counseling requirement is not clear. The counseling was intended to help consumers make informed choices about bankruptcy and its alternatives. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests that by the time most clients receive the counseling, their financial situations are dire, leaving them with no viable alternative to bankruptcy. As a result, the requirement may often serve more as an administrative obstacle than as a timely presentation of meaningful options. Because no mechanism currently exists to track the outcomes of the counseling, policymakers and program managers are unable to fully assess how well the requirement is serving its intended purpose."

- Government Accounting Office

Applicability of Automatic Stay
The automatic stay in bankruptcy is the result of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code that requires all collection proceedings to stop. There are exceptions, of course, but generally this is the term for the "relief" from collection proceedings a debtor receives by filing the bankruptcy with the bankruptcy clerk's office. BAPCPA limited the protections the stay provides in some re-filed cases. New § 362(c)(3) provides that if the debtor files a chapter 7, 11 or 13 case within one year of the dismissal of an earlier case, the automatic stay in the present case terminates 30 days after the filing, unless the debtor or some other party in interest files a motion and demonstrates that the present case was filed in good faith with respect to the creditor, or creditors, being stayed. If the present case is a third filing within one year, the automatic stay does not go into effect at all, unless the debtor or any other party in interest files a motion to impose the stay that demonstrates that the third filing is in good faith with respect to the creditor, or creditors, being stayed.

The provision presumes that the repeat filings are not in good faith and requires the party seeking to impose the stay (usually the debtor) to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

There are exceptions. Notably, § 362(i) provides that the presumption that the repeat filing was not in good faith would not arise in a "subsequent" case if a debtor's prior case was dismissed "due to the creation of a debt repayment plan."

BAPCPA also limited the applicability of the automatic stay in eviction proceedings. The stay does not stop an eviction proceeding if the landlord has already obtained a judgment of possession prior to the bankruptcy case being filed, § 362(b)(22). The stay also would not apply in a situation where the eviction is based on "endangerment" of the rented property or "illegal use of controlled substances" on the property, § 362(b)(23). In either situation the landlord must file with the court and serve on the debtor a certificate of non-applicability of the stay spelling out the facts giving rise to one of the exceptions. There is a process for the debtor to contest the assertions in the landlord's certificate or if state law gives the debtor an additional right to cure the default even after an order for possession is entered, § 362(l) & (m).

In addition, BAPCPA extends the exceptions to automatic stay to certain paternity, child custody, domestic violence and domestic and child support proceedings.

Stricter notice requirements
BAPCPA enacts a provision that protects creditors from monetary penalties for violating the stay if the debtor did not give "effective" notice pursuant to § 342, [§ 342(g)]. The new notice provisions require the debtor to give notice of the bankruptcy to the creditor at an "address filed by the creditor with the court," or "at an address stated in two communications from the creditor to the debtor within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy case. The notice must also include the account number used by the creditor in the two relevant communications [§ 342(c)(2)(e) & (f)].  An ineffective notice can be cured if the notice is later "brought to the attention of the creditor."  This means that the notice must be received by a person designated by the creditor to receive bankruptcy notices.

Dischargeability
BAPCPA also provided more protections to creditors because it expanded the exceptions to discharge. The presumption of fraud in the use of credit cards was expanded. The amount that the debtor must charge for "luxury goods" to invoke the presumption is reduced from $1,225 to $500. The amount of cash advances that would give rise to a presumption of fraud has also been reduced, from $1,225 to $750. The time period was increased from 60 days to 90 days. Thus, if a debtor purchases any single item for more than $500 within 90 days of filing, the presumption that the debt was incurred fraudulently and therefore non-dischargeable in the bankruptcy arises. Prior to BAPCPA, the presumption would not have arisen unless the purchase was for more than $1,225 and was made within 60 days of filing (§ 523(a)(2)(C)).

BAPCPA amended § 523(a)(8) to broaden the types of educational ("student") loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy absent proof of "undue hardship." The nature of the lender is no longer relevant. Thus, even loans from "for-profit" or "non-governmental" entities are not dischargeable.

Lien avoidance
Some types of liens may be avoided through a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. However, BAPCPA limited the ability of debtors to avoid liens through bankruptcy. The definition of "household goods" was changed—for example, by limiting "electronic equipment" to one radio, one television, one VCR, and one personal computer with related equipment. The definition now excludes certain items such as works of art not created by the debtor or a relative of the debtor, jewelry worth more than $500, with adjustment for inflation (except wedding rings), and motor vehicles. Prior to BAPCPA, the definition of household goods was broader so that more items could have been included, including more than one television, VCR, radio, etc.

Limits to the homestead exemption
Under the new law, the homestead exemption, which allows bankruptcy filers in some states to exempt the value of their homes from creditors, is limited in various ways. If a filer acquired their home less than 1,215 days (40 months) before filing, or if they have been convicted of security law violations or been found guilty of certain crimes, they may only exempt up to $125,000 (adjusted periodically), regardless of a state's exemption allowance.(§ 522(p)(1)). Filers must also wait 730 days before they are allowed to use their state's exemptions. (§ 522(b)(3)(A)). There is an exception if the property is "reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor."

These provisions were largely intended to prevent filers from forum shopping, i.e. moving assets and domiciles to a state with more favorable exemptions and filing.

Exemptions
BAPCPA attempted to eliminate the perceived "forum shopping" by changing the rules on claiming exemptions. Exemptions define the amount of property debtors may protect from liquidation to pay creditors. Typically, every state has exemption laws that define the amount of property that can be protected from creditor collection action within the state. There is also a federal statute that defines exemptions in federal cases. In bankruptcy, Congress allowed states to opt out of the federal exemption scheme. Opt out states still controlled the amount of property that could be protected from creditors, or "exempted" from creditors, in bankruptcy cases.

Under BAPCPA, a debtor who has moved from one state to another within two years of filing (730 days) the bankruptcy case must use exemptions from the place of the debtor's domicile for the majority of the 180-day time period preceding the two years (730 days) before the filing [§ 522(b)(3)]. If the new residency requirement would render the debtor ineligible for any exemption, then the debtor can choose the federal exemptions.

Also, there is a "cap" placed upon the homestead exemption in situations where the debtor, within 1215 days (about 3 years and 4 months) preceding the bankruptcy case added value to a homestead. The provision provides that "any value in excess of $125,000" added to a homestead can not be exempted. The only exception is if the value was transferred from another homestead within the same state or if the homestead is the principal residence of a family farmer (§ 522(p)). This "cap" would apply in situations where a debtor has purchased a new homestead in a different state, or where the debtor has increased the value to his/her homestead (presumably through a remodeling or addition).

Additional requirements for filers
The new law adds a number of new requirements for bankruptcy filers that attempt to make the filing process more difficult and costly. These additional requirements include:

 * Additional filing requirements and fees. The new law increases the amount of paperwork involved in filing and raises the filing fees. The law also allows filing fees to be waived for debtors earning below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
 * Increased attorney liability and costs. Attorneys representing bankruptcy filers are now required to conduct an investigation of their clients' filings and can be held personally liable for inaccuracies. Most bankruptcy attorneys predicted that this will result in increased attorneys fees and will make attorneys less likely to take on some cases. In addition, bankruptcy filings are now subject to audit in a manner similar to tax returns.
 * Increased compliance requirements for small businesses. The new law increases the bureaucratic compliance obligations and shortens the deadline for Chapter 11 reorganizations involving small businesses, a series of new requirements not applicable to larger businesses.
 * Increased amount of debt repayment under Chapter 13. The new law made several changes that effectively increased the amount of debt that Chapter 13 filers will have to repay.

Other changes

 * The new law allows creditors to pursue collection remedies without court permission in various circumstances such as offsetting tax refunds, pursuing tax and domestic relations litigation in all respects except the final turnover of assets from the estate, establishing wage assignments in domestic relations actions, repossessing vehicles and personal property subject to loans or leases 45 days after the first meeting of creditors in cases where no court action has been taken regarding that property, and allowing evictions that completed the court process prior to the filing of the petition or involve endangerment to property or drug use to proceed. The law also makes it easier for creditors who received preferential payments of less than $5,000 from the debtor before bankruptcy to avoid repaying such payments for the benefit of all creditors.
 * The law improves the ability of the bankruptcy estate to reclaim assets placed in asset protection trusts within ten years of filing or paid as employment bonuses to insiders within two years prior to filing.
 * The law makes Chapter 12 bankruptcy (farm reorganization) permanent while adding family fishermen, overhauls the treatment of complex financial contracts including many derivative contracts used by hedge funds, and overhauls the treatment of ancillary foreign bankruptcy proceedings.
 * The law extends protection to non-ERISA pension plans like private sector 403(b)s and some Individual Retirement Account that ERISA plans had enjoyed thereby making these plans more similar to ERISA plans.
 * The law raises the priority status for payment of domestic support obligations (such as alimony and child support) from seventh place to first, only behind the administrative expenses of the trustee. This means that domestic support claimants get paid before all other unsecured creditors.

Legislative history
The 2005 bankruptcy bill was actually first drafted in 1997 and first introduced in 1998. The United States House of Representatives approved a version titled the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999" and the Senate approved a slightly different version in 2000. After the differences in the bills were reconciled, Congress passed the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000". President Clinton, however, employed what is known as a "pocket veto" by waiting for the lame duck congressional session to adjourn without signing the bill, a legislative maneuver tantamount to a veto. Professor Elizabeth Warren, a member of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission at that time, briefed First Lady Clinton on negative effects of the bill; according to Warren, after the briefing:

"President Clinton had been showing that this is another way that he could be helpful to business. It wasn't a very high visibility bill. And when Mrs. Clinton came back with a little better understanding of how it all worked, they reversed course, and they reversed course fast. And indeed, the proof is in the pudding.

The last bill that came before President Clinton was that bankruptcy bill that was passed by the House and the Senate in 2000 and he vetoed it. And in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto and she rightly should. She turned around a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy. She got it."

In the years since 2000, the bill was introduced in each Congress, but was repeatedly shelved due to threats of a filibuster from its opponents and because of disagreements over various amendments, including one backed by Senate Democrats that would have made it harder for anti-abortion groups to discharge court fines related to legal debts incurred from lawsuits filed by pro-abortion groups.

The increase in Republican majorities in the Senate and House after the 2004 elections breathed new life into the bill, which was introduced in its current form by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. According to George Packer in his book The Unwinding, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton helped pass this bill. (Of the three, however, only Biden voted for the final bill. Dodd voted against, and Clinton did not vote. ) The bill was supported by President George W. Bush. Tom DeLay also championed the legislation. The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House and 74-25 in the Senate, and was signed into law by President Bush.

Support
Support for the act mostly came from banks, credit card companies, and other creditors.

Since banks, credit companies and other creditors are the ones who must bear the losses for debts discharged through bankruptcy, their lobby power was a great supporting factor to eventually prevailing and getting Congress to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

It was widely claimed by advocates of BAPCPA that its passage would reduce losses to creditors such as credit card companies, and that those creditors would then pass on the savings to other borrowers in the form of lower interest rates. These claims turned out to be false. After BAPCPA passed, although credit card company losses decreased, prices charged to customers increased, and credit card company profits soared.

Criticisms
The 2005 bankruptcy bill was opposed by a wide variety of groups, including consumer advocates, legal scholars, retired bankruptcy judges, and the editorial pages of many national and regional newspapers. While criticisms of the bill were wide ranging, the central objections of its opponents focused on the bill's sponsors' contention that bankruptcy fraud was widespread, the strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3–5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions favorable to credit card companies. Opponents of the bill regularly pointed out that the credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years. There has also been significant criticism of BAPCPA's changes to Chapter 11 business bankruptcies. Harvey Miller, one of the most-prominent bankruptcy attorneys in the country (particularly in terms of representing corporate debtors) has described BAPCPA as "ill-conceived."

One of the primary stated purposes of the bankruptcy bill was to cut down on abusive or fraudulent uses of the bankruptcy system. As Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), one of the bill's key supporters in the House, argued, "This bill will help restore responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system by cracking down on fraudulent, abusive, and opportunistic bankruptcy claims." Opponents of the bill argued that claims of bankruptcy abuse and fraud were wildly overblown, and that the vast majority of bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and job losses. These arguments were bolstered by an in-depth study and survey of 1,771 bankruptcy cases by scholars at Harvard University, of whom 931 submitted to interviews. The study found that "about half" of bankruptcy filers in the year 2001 cited out-of-pocket medical bills in excess of $10,000 as a major contributor to bankruptcy (the average bankruptcy filer in this study was a 41-year-old woman with a median income of $25,000, slightly below the personal income average for that year).

Perhaps the most controversial provisions of the bill was the strict means test it established to determine whether a debtor's filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code would be considered as an "abuse" and therefore subject to dismissal. This decision was previously made by a bankruptcy court judge, who would evaluate the particular circumstances that led to a bankruptcy. Critics of the means test, which is triggered if a debtor makes more than their state's median income, argued that it ignored the many causes of individual bankruptcies, including job loss, family illnesses, and predatory lending, and would force debtors seeking to challenge the test into costly litigation, driving them even further into debt.

Besides the stricter means test, opponents of the bill also objected to the many other obstacles the bill creates for individuals seeking bankruptcy protection. These changes included more detailed reporting requirements, higher fees, mandated credit counseling, and the additional liability placed on bankruptcy attorneys, which critics argued would drive up attorneys' fees and decrease the number of lawyers willing to help consumers file. These criticisms were partly borne out in the months following the new law, as lawyers have reported that the bankruptcy process has become significantly more arduous, forcing them to charge higher fees and take fewer clients.

One criticism of the law was that the law made the discharge of liability for medical bills more difficult. A major target of the bill's opponents were provisions they described as beneficial to credit card companies. In particular, critics objected to the extension to eight years from six to the time before which debtors could liquidate their debts through bankruptcy, and requirements that those who file for multiple bankruptcies pay previous credit card debt that would have been forgiven under the old law. The bill's opponents were especially critical of provisions that expanded exemptions to the discharge of credit card debt, forcing spouses owed alimony to compete more often with credit card companies and other lenders for their unpaid child support. More broadly the bill's critics argued that the legislation did nothing to curtail what they characterize as predatory practices of credit card companies, such as exorbitant interest rates, rising and often hidden fees, and targeting minors and the recently bankrupt for new cards. The bill's critics argue that these practices are themselves significant contributors to the growth of consumer bankruptcies.

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee claimed: "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply.

The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would not attempt to enforce the means test rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department Trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy law and are able to file the motions necessary to enforce the means test. Despite these assurances, bankruptcy judges are still able to enforce these rules sua sponte.

The Department of Justice also indicated it would not oppose a debtor's eligibility to file bankruptcy because the debtor did not fulfill the credit counseling requirements before filing. U.S. Trustees have the discretion to grant waivers of the credit counseling requirements to debtors. See.

Global Financial Crisis of 2008
As the Financial Times noted during the fall of 2008, "the 2005 changes made clear that certain derivatives and financial transactions were exempt from provisions in the bankruptcy code that freeze a failed company's assets until a court decides how to apportion them among creditors." This radically altered the historic process of paying off creditors and did so just a few years prior to trillions of dollars in assets going into liquidation as a consequence of bankruptcies following from the global financial crisis of 2008.

Some observers have argued that this contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 by removing the incentive that creditors would normally have to keep a borrower out of bankruptcy. Institutions who provided short-term funding to financial firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman through repo lending could abruptly withdraw that funding even if it risked pushing the firms into bankruptcy, because they did not have to worry about tying up their claims in bankruptcy court, due to the new safe harbor provisions of BAPCPA.

On October 4, 2009, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair proposed imposing a haircut on secured lenders in the event of a bank default, in order to prevent this kind of short-term funding run on a troubled bank. "This would ensure that market participants always have some skin in the game, and it would be very strong medicine indeed," Bair said.

Case law interpreting the Act

 * Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. ___ (2011), involving the Chapter 13 means test


text:
Rugby and Kenilworth (UK Parliament constituency)

Rugby and Kenilworth was a county constituency in Warwickshire, England. It returned one Member of Parliament to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It existed from 1983 to 2010.

History
The constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth was created for the 1983 election and was held by the Conservative Jim Pawsey until the 1997 election when the Labour candidate Andy King was narrowly elected. In the 2001 election he increased his majority slightly. The Conservatives regained the seat in 2005, with Jeremy Wright becoming the Member of Parliament.

Rugby and Kenilworth was a marginal seat from 1997 onwards, but had been a safe Conservative seat previously (see Elections). Rugby, being an industrial town, traditionally leans towards Labour. Kenilworth, however, is a prosperous dormitory town and leans towards the Conservatives.

Boundaries
1983–2010: The Borough of Rugby wards of Admirals, Benn, Bilton, Brownsover, Caldecott, Clifton and Newton, Dunchurch and Thurlaston, Eastlands, Hillmorton, Knightlow, Lawford, Leam Valley, New Bilton, Newbold, Overslade, Paddox, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, St Mary's, and Wolston, and the District of Warwick wards of Abbey, Park Hill, St John's, and Stoneleigh.

This Warwickshire seat took in areas from the Rugby and Warwick local authorities. From Rugby came the town itself, and parishes on the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire borders. From neighbouring Warwick came Kenilworth and country villages bordering Coventry and Solihull.

Boundary review
Following the Boundary Commission for England's review of parliamentary representation in Warwickshire, the Rugby and Kenilworth constituency was abolished for the 2010 general election.

The successor seats were Kenilworth and Southam, which was originally to be named "Mid Warwickshire", and a re-created Rugby constituency.


text:
Talk:Kyū

Translation question
I wrote most of this to date, but I still have no idea whether 'kyu' has a concrete translation. Does it mean 'junior' or 'junior grade' and can it be used to refer to the people with these grades? "Kyu-level practitioners" seems to be correct, but feels a bit clumsy. Or am I being over-protective?

Rednaxela 22:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To the best of my knowledge, kyu just means class, level or grade. In terms of of useage I think you would use the word with the number, like 'yonkyu' to refer to the person with that rank, but I may be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.93.118 (talk • contribs)

 * For Wikipedia, it's best to find an authoritative source that provides your definition.
 * Kortoso (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Random Fact?
Someone keeps inserting a note that the word "kyu" is used to describe a crazy kid. An admittedly brief dictionary search found eleven homophones for "kyū" (きゅう), and four homophones for "kyu" (きゅ), none of which meant anything remotely related to "crazy kid". Assuming this is a slang usage, can whoever keeps adding this please provide some kind of citation, or at least assure us that it's actually the same kanji as the one meaning 'grade' (and not one of the other fourteen I found), thereby actually belonging in this article?Bradford44 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Western innovation?
The article says that color belts are not commonly used in Japan. Where did they originate? -Toptomcat 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Off the top of my head - France. Check for citations if you think it's an important piece of information. As I understand it, completely unsupported by references (although they should be easy to find) the coloured belt system appeared when Judo was first brought to Europe and demonstrated in Paris. Why it appeared is a different question, to which I won't pretend to know an answer... Leushenko (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm just another random person on the internet, but it's a commonplace among martial artists to assume (without proof) that the belt system was invented to appease impatient westerners. On the other hand, this website about judo may furnish answers: https://judoinfo.com/obi/
 * Kortoso (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Amount of kyu ranks
It was mentioned that aikido has 6 kyu ranks. Also Kodokan Judo and many Karate styles has only 6 kyu ranks for adults. (Aikido can hava 8 kyu ranks if junior ranks are counted, thought they are not used everywhere.) Korppi76 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that there is any standard in aikido. In the United States Aikido Federation, there are five kyu ranks that you can test for.  Some people refer to students that haven't receive rank yet as 6th kyu, but as far as I know there is nothing official about that name.  Some schools have 10-6th kyu for children. Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Belt colors?
I can't find anywhere info about the colors of the belts in the kyū system. Someone please help and put info about it in this article. 80.35.16.144 —Preceding comment was added at 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The belt colours aren't standardised. The colour isn't the relevant part; it just serves as a visual aid. Leushenko (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the things that are missing from the article, is that the colours of the belts - progressing from lighter (white/yellow) to darker (red/brown) - elegantly evolved so you could use one belt and dye it multiple times to indicate your kyu without buying a new one every time. This is not such an issue for western practitioners but I believe that obi (belts) were quite expensive and difficult to come by in Japan after WW2 (source below). This is alluded to in the Dan_(rank) article but not in this one. Also from the simple Karate belts article: "Some believe when a student graduated a kyu, he/she would dye their current belt the new, desired color.[3] This was often done in Japan during WWII when it was a very poor country.[4]" Key source: Page 29 (Chapter 2) by Pawlett, R., 2008. The Karate Handbook (Martial Arts (Rosen)), Rosen Publishing Group. 77.103.169.140 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowest rank!?
The table of kyuu ranks lists 10 kyuu as the lowest rank. The amount of kyuu ranks, depends on the dojo. Not the martial art, as some dojos can have, say, 6, while another has 10 and another has 12... Go can have 20-50 kyuu ranks, depending on the country/server/whatever. To list one kyuu rank as the lowest, is ludicrous. I'll remove that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Please provide references for this. Some (in fact, most from I can tell) styles have a fixed number of kyu ranks; only a few arts allow dojos to determine this by themselves.
 * Kortoso (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What they aren't called
"This is not called "Shikyū"." etc.

You could go on forever listing what the grades aren't called. What is this for, exactly? If they're often wrongly called Shikyū, Rokukyū and Shichikyū, we ought to be specific about this. And "This is not pronounced as "Jūkyū"." is absurd partly as many of us don't know how "Jūkyū" is pronounced, and partly as it goes out of its way not to explain how "Jukkyū" is meant to be pronounced. — Smjg (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those grades may, quite easily, wrongly be though to be shikyuu, rokukyuu etc, by those with some understanding of Japanese. 3rd kyuu is sankyuu. Three is san in Japanese, add kyuu, and you have sankyuu. Four, on the other hand, is either shi or yon, just as seven is either shichi or nana. Six is Roku, but 6th kyuu is rokkyuu, just as ten is juu, but 10th kyuu is jukkyuu. Anyone who has learned a bit of Japanese, could easily make those mistakes. Anyone with a bit greater level of Japanese, will understand that it's not that simple, but lower levels are more common, and the numbers are amongst the first things you learn. I even know someone who learned the numbers in Japanese, despite not learning Japanese, due to her training judo a while.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that, strictly speaking, jukkyū is an incorrect reading of 10th kyū (十級) and it would most likely be marked as such if given as an answer on a school test. じゅっ  sounds more natural because of its similarity to じゅう  so that probably explains why so many people think it is a standard on reading  for 十, even though it is not. There are other examples of this such as 十分 (jippun), 十歳 (jissai), 十回 (jikkai), 十個 (jikko), 十匹 (jippiki), etc. In all of those examples, 十 is often pronounced as じゅっ  in the Kanto (Tokyo) region. Since how people speak in and around Tokyo is pretty much taken as standard Japanese (標準語),  じゅっ  has slowly but surely spread throughout rest of the country. So even though 十級 (jikkyū) is technically correct, over time it has been slowly replaced in everyday speech by the more natural sounding jukkū . On NHK broadcasts, however, the announcers still say jippun, jissai , jikkai , jikko , jippiki , and jikkyū , etc.  Also, since there are still lots of Japanese who consider じゅっ  to be nothing more a conversational local dialect and not proper  Japanese, using it in job interviews and other formal situations might make others wonder about your educational background. It would be kind of similar to using ain't  in English. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite interesting ...and checking those (for those that had entries) with a English-Japanese dictionary does seem to confirm the "ji" form. Both "ju" and "ji" are noted as possible pronunciations.
 * It's always nice to learn more. Thanks for the information :) --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan Kanji Apptitude Testing Public Interest Foundation
The Japanese Kanji Aptitude Test Association is not correct or no longer correct. According to this (in English) and this (in Japanese) website, the 日本漢字能力検定協会 refers to itself as The Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Public Interest Foundation. The official English name of the test is the Japan Kanji Aptitude Test but it's often referred to as Kanji Kentai  or simply Kanken  for short and there is exists a Wikipedia article for it. See Kanji Kentei Moreover, in my opinion, the reasons for both the 準1級 and the more recently added 準2級 levels have more to do with the amount of material that used to be covered by the 1級 and 2級 exams, and generating more revenue (many people tend to take the exams in order and purchase the Foundation's study guides, etc.) than making the exams easier to pass. I guess you could assume that less material to study means an easier test to pass, but I don't think this would be a very accurate assumption. I am, however, only basing this upon my own experiences and the experiences of others I know. I passed 2級 before 準2級 was added and it was a hard test; however, it was certainly not too hard to pass. Moreover, although I have also not taken either 準2級 or the new 2級, I do know quite a few people (including a few Japanese) who have and failed, so the tests still seem to be fairly hard. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 * While you make a decent case for what the official name is, that doesn't mean that, that is what should be written in the article. Please note WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia encourages use of a commonly recognizable name. Not the most correct one. The official name of the organization should be noted
 * ...in Kanji Kentei.
 * There is no need to even mention the (quite long) full official name, here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ZarlanTheGreen:  . Thanks for the feedback. I only changed the name because the original text was different from what it says on the organization's website. Is Japanese Kanji Aptitude Test Association  how the organization is commonly referred to outside of Japan? It seems to me like somebody translated 協会 as Association  and then just added it to Japanese Kanji Aptitude Test. There's nothing wrong with that of course per se, and if you google that you will get some hits, but you will also get hits for Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Foundation, Japanese Kanji Ability Test Association, Kanji Aptitude Testing Association as well as for Japan Kanji Education Promotion Association. I wasn't sure which of the aforementioned was more commonly used, so I just went with what was on the organization's website. FWIW, Business Japanese Proficiency Test gives a link to this JETRO page which used Japan Kanji Aptitude Test Foundation . That might be an acceptable compromise, but that JETRO page links to this, which brings us back to Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Public Interest Foundation  according to this English contact page. Since the official name is too long (and probably more appropriate for the Kanji Kentei''  page) and since there are different English translations of the organization's name being used by different websites, maybe the best thing to do is to simply remove any mention of it (i.e., the organization) altogether. For example, maybe it could just read as follows:"For instance, the Japanese Kanji Apitude Test, which measures a person's ability to correctly read, write and use kanji, has levels for 10th to 1st Kyū, including Pre-1st and Pre 2nd Kyū." Just a suggestion - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That does, indeed, seem a very sensible solution. Especially as there is not need to mention the organization, in the first place.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK . Would you like to make the edit or do you think it should wait to see if others also agree? Thanks again for all the input - Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I will post something on the talk pages of Kanji Kentei, etc., to let the people watching those pages know about this seemingly official name and see how they want to handle it. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kyū


text:
Royal Australian Air Force Ensign

The Royal Australian Air Force Ensign is used by the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Air Force Cadets in Australia. It may also be flown on Air Force aircraft overseas. It is based on the Australian national flag, with the field changed to Air Force blue, and the southern cross tilted clockwise to make room for the RAAF roundel (which itself is a modified RAF roundel) inserted in the lower fly quarter. The roundel is a red leaping kangaroo on white within a dark blue ring. The ensign was proclaimed as a Flag of Australia under section 5 of the Flags Act on 6 May 1982.

The southern cross is tilted so that Gamma Crucis stays in the same position as for the Australian National Flag and that Alpha Crucis is moved along the x-axis towards the hoist by one-sixth of the width of the flag. This results in the axis being rotated 14.036° clockwise around Gamma Crucis and each star is rotated in this way, although the constellation as a whole is not simply rotated.

History
The RAAF was established in 1921. On 24 July 1922, the British Royal Air Force Ensign, a sky-blue British ensign with the RAF roundel in the fly, was approved as the ensign of the RAAF. This flag was used until 1948, when the RAAF asked to change the flag to avoid confusion. A warrant for the new flag, which had the roundel in the lower fly of sky-blue ensign with Commonwealth Star and tilted southern cross to match the Australian national flag, was given in 1949. The RAAF adopted a distinctive roundel on 2 July 1956; a red kangaroo replacing the red circle of the British version. The old roundel remained on the ensign, however, until 1981, when Elizabeth II, who also serves the role as Queen of Australia approved the change to the current flag.

Although the flag is only flown by the RAAF, dispensation was granted to New Lambton Public School, NSW on 18 May 1995 to fly the RAAF ensign. This was in recognition of the school's involvement with the RAAF during World War II, when it was requisitioned by the government and used as No. 2 Fighter Sector Headquarters. New Lambton Public School is currently the only school in Australia with permission to fly the RAAF ensign.

title: Royal Australian Air Force Ensign


text:
Talk:Christian reconstructionism

Class rating
No insult intended to any previous editors, but this article still needs major work (just look at the number of non-referenced sections). It's not at a 'B' class in my opinion. The Squicks (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead links
Footnotes 6, 7 and 8 (as I write) are *all* dead. 86.132.141.169 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kinism
Kinism redirects here, but there is currently no mention of Kinism in this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I've done more research and it looks like Kinism has more in common with Christian Identity (to which it is virtually identical) than Reconstructionism. I'm altering the redir accordingly. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible first point
"# Calvinism, for its description individual spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit that is required to change people on a personal level before any positive cultural changes can occur," This sentence makes absolutely no sense. I'd fix it myself but I can't because I have no idea what is supposed to be expressed. 83.226.206.82 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does not adequately convey the extreme positions of Reconstructionism on social issues. Well known Reconstructionists have publicly advocated death by stoning for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, "unchastity before marriage" (for women only), abortion, and advising a woman to get an abortion. The current article says only that they support recriminalization of abortion and homosexuality. While technically accurate, it is misleadingly vague.

While the article states that they "make no pretense of subscribing to" pluralism and tolerance, their stated goals are markedly more extreme and militant. North states, "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." In short, he (and they) favor destruction of the current political and social fabric and the replacement of it with an explicitly Christian one.

 * I agree, more detail would help put this article in clearer context. Please, provide reputable citations so we can get that detail included. Uberhill 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

67.165.141.125 (talk)Dr. H. Joel Jeffrey, Ph.D. —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Jesuism
User Ian.Thomson mooted that the slim content there be merged here a few months ago. Maybe time to take up the idea? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Christian Reconstructionism is about as un-Jesus-like as any branch of Christianity and seems diametrically opposed to Jesuism by definition.  If you're going to merge stuff here, merge things like Prosperity Gospel, Dominionism, the Market Church, etc., which are physically linked, historically, to this topic, or merge this topic into Dominionism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to delete this poorly referenced and unreferenced nonsense?
The article has several reference-related boxes in it which date back to 2007. 5 years, folks. At this point, it's pretty obvious that no references are forthcoming and no one is going to bother to improve the article. As it stands, the article is a failure and should be removed. 67.233.242.65 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North articles should be enough to demonstrate that there are references out there. Reconstructionism has gone mainstream within evangelical Christianity, so it's still an important topic. Michael J. McVicar has written a few good articles; Max Blumenthal, Frank Schaeffer and others have written about it since 2007. We shouldn't conflate "the article is not moving" with "the topic is dead". -Sigeng (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Reconstructionism has in no way gone mainstream in evangelical Christianity. Can people play "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" with Rushdoony and North? Absolutely. Could we argue that evangelicals, without realizing it, have incorporated some vaguely Rushdoony-ish stuff into their outlook. Maybe. But "Reconstructionism has gone mainstream with evangelical Christianity" is a stretch. Do major Christian bookstores sell Rushdoony's work? Does Gary North get invited to any serious major evangelical events? Does Christianity Today debate the latest books coming out of American Vision? Is there a major televangelist, anywhere, who recommends people read start applying Old Testament civil law in detail? Of course not. Alephb (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Armstrong's characterization of reconstructionism
Armstrong did not characterize the theologians as "totalitarian" but rather the Dominion that they think will come. It is the difference between a namecalling personal attack and expressing opinion about the substance. The passage was once more fairly characterized in the past, but was changed here. Poodleboy (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Reconstructionism. 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.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215174321/http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=30 to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2c6a_47e.htm
 * Added tag to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/219e_47e.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"active homosexuals"
Under the "Theonomy" subsection, the article currently says that "Prominent advocates of Christian reconstructionism have written that ... God's law approves the death penalty for ... active homosexuals." The sole source cited for this, Gary DeMar's Ruler of the Nations, p. 212, says that, in a hypothetical reconstructionist world, "Homosexuals who practice behind closed doors are out-of-bounds for the courts, of course, unless others witness their homosexual behavior. ... The law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back to the closet, to the dark realm of shameful activity."

The wording in the article could be misleading, then, because of the distinction sometimes made between "active" and "passive" homosexuals (i.e. that during a sex act one person is "active" and the other "passive"). DeMar isn't saying that the "active partner" is subject to the death penalty; he is saying that homosexuals who commit "their criminal behavior" in public are subject to the death penalty.

I'm not sure of the best way to word this, but "active homosexuals" could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusions. Alephb (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

New information?
I see at the top of this page it says, "This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (September 2021)." This is rather mysterious. Was the person thinking of something in particular? How is an aspiring editor supposed to know what they're talking about? Inquiring minds want to know... Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 02:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christian reconstructionism


text:
Template:U.S. judgeship row

 * - style="background:;"
 * style="text-align:left;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" |

 * style="text-align:left;" |
 * style="text-align:left;" |

title: Template:U.S. judgeship row


text:
User:R Calvete

I make music http://evilresidence.com "Wikipedia can't even make up its mind about what it actually is. Is it a free encyclopedia where democracy rules? Is it a peer-reviewed collection of encyclopedic articles? Or is it, as it seems, a nerd oligarchy where a bunch of losers throw around their e-weight on trivial issues? It's horrible that it has become such a mainstream source of information. One of these days I hope some group forms that just methodically and constantly ruins it until its information is scattered back to the winds and out of the hands of a bunch of sniveling basement dwellers that have had a whiff of editorial power." Zack Parsons, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2203918&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post319079927

title: User:R Calvete


text:
User:Tixity

I'm a 4th-year undergraduate student at the University of Chicago (I live in Shoreland Hall), originally from Ohio. I am prone to watch and edit pages having anything to do with Bob Dylan, but also with Eastern Orthodoxy and anything that catches my eye as something I can fix or add to.

title: User:Tixity


text:
User:WCFrancis/test

Box o' Sand
test:
 * 1) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 18:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alignment
here is centered text. here is centered text. Now let's do it with  here is this centered text.  here is this centered text. And so it is for centering.

 This is some text. It could go on and on. Or not. This is another paragraph,   This is some text. It could go on and on. Or not. This is another paragraph,

 And on we go.   And on we go.

Is ¶ tag needed? warble warbledy warble, said the bird swimmingly to the flying fish. warble warbledy warble, said the bird swimmingly to the flying fish. Yep. It's needed. warble warbledy warble, said the bird swimmingly to the flying fish. warble warbledy warble, said the bird swimmingly to the flying fish.

title: User:WCFrancis/test


text:
Australian white ensign

The Australian white ensign (also known as the Australian naval ensign or the Royal Australian Navy ensign) is a naval ensign used by ships of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) from 1967 onwards. From the formation of the RAN until 1967, Australian warships used the British white ensign as their ensign. However, this led to situations where Australian vessels were mistaken for British ships, and when Australia became involved in the Vietnam War, the RAN was effectively fighting under the flag of another, uninvolved nation. Proposals were made in 1965 for a unique Australian ensign, which was approved in 1966, and entered use in 1967.

The Australian white ensign is identical in design to the Australian national flag, but with the reversal of the blue background and the white Commonwealth Star and Southern Cross.

History
Before Australia's Federation, the Colonial navies flew the British Blue Ensign, defaced with the symbol of the relevant colony. When operating outside colonial waters, these ships had to be commissioned into the Royal Navy, and consequently flew the British white ensign.

During the early 1900s, several British dominions, including Australia, began to campaign for the right to create naval forces independent of the Royal Navy, and capable of deploying outside territorial waters. During the 1909 Imperial Conference, Canada and Australia campaigned for this, and suggested that these ships fly the British White Ensign, defaced with an emblem representing the dominion. No binding decision was made on the matter. During the lead up to the creation of the RAN, the issue was raised again: Australian politicians and the public wanted Australian ships to fly a unique ensign, while the British Admiralty wanted them to fly the British White Ensign. Suggested Australian ensigns included the British ensign defaced with a blue Commonwealth Star, or a variant of the Australian national flag. Australian warships used the national flag as an ensign until the formal creation of the RAN from the Commonwealth Naval Forces on 10 July 1911: ships were ordered to fly the British ensign, while the Australian flag was used as a jack to identify their nationality.

Australian warships regularly found themselves mistaken for their British counterparts. One attempt to alleviate this was made by the executive officer of HMAS Anzac (D59) during the Korean War, when he had a kangaroo-shaped 'weathervane' made and mounted to the destroyer's mainmast: this became the basis for the red kangaroo symbol fixed to the funnels or superstructure of major RAN vessels.

Australia's participation in the Vietnam War put the RAN in a difficult situation: the United Kingdom was not involved in the conflict, and RAN ships were effectively fighting under the flag of another, uninvolved nation. During a Naval Estimates hearing in 1965, Victorian politician Samuel Benson voiced concern over the use of the British ensign by Australian ships on wartime deployments, and Don Chipp, Minister for the Navy, announced that an Australian ensign was under consideration. In 1966, Prime Minister Harold Holt added his support to the idea that a unique RAN ensign was required. The First Naval Member of the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board, Sir Alan McNicoll, proposed two designs to the board members: one retaining the St George's Cross from the old ensign but replacing the Union flag in the canton with the Australian flag, the other retaining the Union flag and replacing the cross with the six stars from the Australian flag. McNicoll was in favour of retaining the Union flag, and in January 1966, the Naval Board recommended that the second design for the new ensign. The design was approved under section five of the Australian Flags Act 1953. Royal Assent was granted to the new flag by Queen Elizabeth II on 7 November 1966, and its creation was formally announced by Prime Minister Holt on 23 December 1966.

The official changeover occurred on 1 March 1967, with all ships and establishments hoisting the new flag that day. The date was brought forward from 1 May 1967 to correspond with the commissioning of the chartered cargo ship HMAS Boonaroo, which became the first ship commissioned under the new ensign. However, the frigate HMAS Stuart (DE 48) was the first to use the ensign, when the ship's company unofficially flew the flag on 25 December 1966 as part of shipboard Christmas Day celebrations while deployed to the Far East Strategic Reserve. Only two RAN ships served in conflict under both the old and new ensigns: the aircraft carrier (later troopship) HMAS Sydney (R17) and the destroyer HMAS Vendetta (D08).

Design and use
The flag is white, with the Union flag in the canton. A blue Commonwealth Star is located in the lower hoist. The Southern Cross constellation is depicted in the fly in the same manner as the national flag, but in blue instead of white.

Regulations for the use of the Australian White Ensign are detailed in Australian Book of Reference (ABR) 1834 Volume III. Although the flag is normally reserved for use by commissioned warships of the RAN, special dispensation has been granted to the museum vessels HMAS Vampire (D11) and HMAS Onslow, The sail training ship Young Endeavour as a non-commissioned ship in Naval service wears the AWE.

The Blue Ensign of the Australian Navy Cadets uses the Australian White Ensign in the canton.

Battle ensign
During battle, commissioned ships of the RAN will fly a large Australian white ensign at the foremast of single masted ships, and at the mainmast of two masted ships.

title: Australian white ensign


text:
Talking points memo

Talking Points Memo is a political journalism website that began in 2000

Talking points memo may also refer to:

 * Talking Points Memo Cafe, a blog portal created as a spin-off blog to Talking Points Memo that began in 2005
 * Talking points memorandum, a succinct statement designed to support persuasively one side taken on an issue

title: Talking points memo


text: User talk:82.35.56.126

title: User talk:82.35.56.126


text: User talk:202.74.219.94

title: User talk:202.74.219.94


text: Template:Start U.S. judgeship

title: Template:Start U.S. judgeship


text: User talk:65.27.238.51

title: User talk:65.27.238.51