text:
Thomas Boyd, Earl of Arran

Thomas Boyd, Earl of Arran (died c. 1473) was a Scottish nobleman.

Thomas was the son of Robert, 1st Lord Boyd, who was a regent during the minority of King James III of Scotland. His father was able to have Thomas created Earl of Arran and Baron Kilmarnock in the Peerage of Scotland, and arrange for Thomas' marriage to Princess Mary Stewart of Scotland, sister of King James III and daughter of King James II of Scotland, in 1467. The marriage was unpopular, especially after Lord Boyd and his brother, Sir Alexander Boyd, were later convicted of treason for abducting young James III, contriving the marriage of Thomas to Princess Mary Stewart (which was considered as an unforgivable insult by King James III), and establishing the regency.

While Thomas Boyd and his father were out of the country, negotiating the cession of Orkney to Scotland and King James III's marriage to Margaret of Denmark, the regency was overthrown, and they were attainted for high treason in 1469. However, Thomas fulfilled his mission, that of bringing the King's bride Margaret to Scotland, and then warned by his wife, he escaped with her back to Denmark. He is mentioned very eulogistically in one of the Paston Letters, but practically nothing is known of his subsequent history. He probably died at Antwerp between 1471 and 1473.

Family
On 20 January 1465, Thomas Boyd was firstly engaged to Lady Marion Kennedy, youngest daughter of Gilbert Kennedy, 1st Lord Kennedy, but this marriage did not take place. After his first marriage to Lady Elizabeth Montgomerie, daughter of Alexander Montgomerie, 1st Lord Montgomerie, he married Princess Mary Stewart, eldest daughter of King James II, before 26 April 1467. Upon their marriage, the Isle of Arran was given to them as Mary's dowry, and Law Castle in North Ayrshire was built for the couple.

Being greatly attached to Thomas, his wife Mary later returned to Scotland without him, after he was charged for treason, mainly in hopes of obtaining a pardon for Thomas from her brother King James III. She was however confined at Kilmarnock, and Thomas was summoned to appear within sixty days, which he failed to do so; thus, his marriage to the King's sister was declared null and void, and she was then compelled to marry James, Lord Hamilton.

According to Ferrerius, Buchanan, and other old historians, this took place in 1469, but the correct date was probably February or March 1474. Princess Mary Stewart died apparently about Whitsuntide 1488, having had a son and daughter by both husbands. Thomas Boyd's children by Mary, who were both said to have been born abroad, were:
 * James, 2nd Lord Boyd (1469–1484) killed by Elizabeth Montgomerie's nephew Hugh Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Eglinton; died unmarried.
 * Lady Grisel or Margaret Boyd (she is called Grizel in the genealogies, but appears as Margaret in the Registers of the Great Seal, and in the Papal Dispensation, etc.). She was born between 1468 and 1473, and was married twice: first, to Alexander Forbes, 4th Lord Forbes, who died without issue before 16 May 1491; and secondly, before 9 August 1509, as the second wife to Sir David Kennedy, 3rd Lord Kennedy, then created Earl of Cassilis, who died without issue by her at Flodden on 9 September 1513. By her marriage to Sir David Kennedy, she had no descendants.

title: Thomas Boyd, Earl of Arran


text:
Nani

Nani may refer to:

People

 * Alla Nani (born 1969), Indian politician
 * Nanai people of north Asia
 * Nani (actor) (born 1984), Indian actor
 * Nani (footballer) (born 1986), Portuguese footballer
 * Antonio Nani (1842–1929), Maltese classical composer
 * Gianluca Nani (born 1962), former technical director at West Ham United
 * Kesineni Nani (born 1966), Indian politician
 * Kodali Nani, Indian politician
 * Nanabhoy Palkhivala (1920–2002), Indian jurist and economist
 * Nani Roma (born 1972) a Spanish rally racing driver
 * Nani Alapai (1874–1928), Hawaiian soprano vocalist
 * Nani family of Venice, members of which owned various palazzi:
 * Palazzo Barbarigo Nani Mocenigo
 * Palazzo Bernardo Nani
 * Palazzo Erizzo Nani Mocenigo
 * Palazzo Nani
 * Perni Nani, Indian politician

Places

 * Nani, Afghanistan

Other uses

 * Nani Pelekai, a character from the 2002 animated Disney film, Lilo & Stitch, and its franchise
 * Naani, 2004 Indian film

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

title: Nani


text:
Talk:Wellington Webb

Untitled
Wellington Webb was commonly known in Denver as Wellington E. Webb. Maybe this should be changed to reflect that.

MLK day marches
Comment moved from an obscure "comment" page. Astronaut (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very upset that the article does not mention the very public marches that Mayor Webb particpated in during almost every Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. day. The KKK would come to Denver, and Mayor Webb would support their right to free speech as he marched with members of the community in protest to what they said. It was a beautiful display of American ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.130.45 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wellington Webb. 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/20140107154104/http://brunerfoundation.org/rba/index.php?page=committees to http://www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/index.php?page=committees

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) 00:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wellington Webb


text:
Uti possidetis

Uti possidetis is an expression that originated in Roman private law, where it was the name of a procedure about possession of land. Later, by a misleading analogy, it was transferred to international law, where it has had more than one meaning, all concerning sovereign right to territory.

In Rome, if two parties disputed possession of a house or parcel of land, the praetor preferred the one who was in actual occupation, unless he had got it from the other by force, stealth or as a temporary favour (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario). The contest was initiated by an interdict called uti possidetis. The winner was confirmed or restored in possession, and the loser was ordered not to displace him by force. However, the winner had not proved he was the real owner; only that, for the moment, he had a better right to possession than his opponent. Hence the rights of third parties were not prejudiced. The phrase uti possidetis was a conventional abbreviation of the praetorial edict dealing with such matters.

In the early modern era some European states, when dealing with other European states, used the phrase to justify the acquisition of territory by occupation. There was no universally agreed rule and, for example, Portugal applied it more ambitiously than Spain. Despite that, there is no doubt that important polities, such as Brazil, have been established on that interpretation. It was also a generally accepted rule about the interpretation of peace treaties. A peace treaty was presumed to give each party a permanent right to the territory it occupied at the conclusion of hostilities, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated. Whether this rule has survived in the international regime following the creation of the United Nations must be doubtful. This usage is sometimes called uti possidetis de facto.

In recent times, uti possidetis refers to a doctrine for drawing international boundaries. When colonial territories achieve independence, or when a polity breaks up (e.g., Yugoslavia), then, in default of a better rule, the old administrative boundaries between the new states ought to be followed. This doctrine, which has its critics, is sometimes called uti possidetis juris.

Introduction
A displaced landowner had a theoretically simple way to recover his property: a traditional action called vindicatio. All he had to do was to prove he was the owner and the defendant was in possession. However, in reality proof of ownership could be exceedingly difficult for lack of documentation since, during the formative period of Roman law, there was no system of written conveyancing and registration of land. In the Republican era most land transfers were verbal and did not even have to be witnessed. Consequently, as time went by, there must have been many Roman estates whose owners could not prove they were.

Accordingly, in litigation about land each party tried to manoeuvre a situation where the burden of proof was cast on his opponent, and he merely had to defend. To achieve this they went outside the traditional Roman actions and used a praetorial remedy.

Praetorial remedies
Already in the Roman republic the praetor was an official whose duties included the keeping of the peace. A praetor held office for a year, at the start of which it was customary for him to publish edicts; these announced the legal policies he intended to apply. Usually they were adopted with or without modification by his successors. With these edicts praetors could change the law, though they did it somewhat cautiously.

An interdict was a praetorial order forbidding someone to do something. The one relevant for present purposes was the interdictum uti possidetis. It seems this interdict was available by about 169 B.C. because there is a joke about it in one of Terence's comedies, though we do not know the praetor's original wording. Probably it originated as a means of protecting occupants of public lands, since these people could not sue as owners. Later, however, it was adapted as a procedural device to assign disputants to the role of plaintiff and defendant, respectively.

The interdict uti possidetis
According to the Roman jurist Gaius (Institutes, Fourth Commentary):

$undefined$*The vindication was the name of the traditional action for claiming ownership of land, as already explained.

A person could establish possession by occupying the property himself, or through another e.g. his inquilinus (house tenant) or colonus (agricultural tenant).

The three exceptions: nec vi nec clam nec precario
That the praetor would confirm the party in possession was only a default rule, since there were three exceptions:
 * Vi (force). If the possessing party had got it from the other by force he was not entitled to the benefit of the interdict. Otherwise it would reward the getting of land by violence.
 * Clam (stealth). Likewise if his possession had been obtained furtively; and for a similar reason.
 * Precario. A precario was a person who was in possession only by favour, and could be told to leave at any time. (Hence the English word precarious.)

If any of those exceptions applied his possession was flawed (this was called possessio vitiosa) and did not count.

Third parties
If he had got his possession from a third party, though, it did not matter that he had done it illegitimately, i.e. it was of no present relevance. This is made explicitly clear by Justinian's Institutes, IV, XV §5: "He came off victorious who was in possession at the time of the interdict, provided he had not acquired possession as against his adversary by force, or secretly, or at will, although he had expelled some other person by force, or had secretly deprived him of the possession, or had asked some one [else] to allow him to possess at will. [Emphasis added]" It was up to the third party to initiate legal proceedings about that, if he wanted to; he was not shut out.

This was significant when early modern European powers sought to apply the uti possidetis concept to their colonial acquisitions (see below). Thus, that they had vanquished the indigenous inhabitants by force was of no present consequence if a dispute was between rival Europeans.

Procedure
On the first appearance in court the praetor, whose time was valuable, did not try to investigate the facts. He simply pronounced the interdict impartially against both parties. (Hence it was called a "double interdict"). Conceivably, one of the parties knew he was in the wrong and decided he had better obey the praetor's interdict. If so, that was the end of the matter. Suppose, however, he chose to brazen it out or, indeed, sincerely believed himself to be in the right.

The next step was to bring matters to a head. Accordingly, on a prearranged day the parties would commit a symbolic act of violence (vis ex conventu) e.g. pretending to expel each other from the land. That, for the one in the wrong, must have been a formal disobedience of the praetor's order. Each party now challenged the other to a wager by which he had to pay his adversary a sum of money if it was he who had disobeyed the interdict. (This way of settling disputes in Rome — by having a wager on the result — was called agere per sponsione). The agere per sponsonie was sent off to be tried by a iudex (akin to a one-man jury, usually a prominent citizen), who in due course delivered his decision. Meanwhile, the right to interim possession of the land was auctioned to whichever of the two contestants was the highest bidder, on his promise to pay his adversary the rent if he turned out to be in the wrong.

Roman litigation was not for the faint-hearted. Getting one's opponent into court at all could be difficult, and arguably praetors "were nothing more than politicians, frequently incompetent, open to bribery, and largely insulated against suits for malfeasance". A litigant could frustrate the interdict process by omitting to take part in its rituals. When that happened, however, it was possible to obtain a secondary interdict by which he lost the case at once.

Advantages of the interdict
Although the interdict neither conferred nor recognised any proprietary right, the party who prevailed had achieved three important advantages.

First, he enjoyed peaceful possession of the land against his adversary for the time being. Secondly, although his opponent might yet get the land — by bringing a vindicatio — the case had to be proved. This was important since it assigned the burden of proof. Thirdly, and in practice, his opponent might not trouble to take it further. Then, the party left in possession looked very like the real owner. As time went by it must have become more and more difficult to prove he was not.

In sum, by peaceful, open and unlicensed possession of land a party did not acquire ownership, but he did acquire practical advantages.

The Roman doctrine about establishing possession (not ownership) may seem slightly elusive for those brought up in the Anglophone common law where it is trivially obvious that a good title to land can indeed be acquired by mere occupation (e.g. "squatters' rights"). However, it was not so in Roman law which drew a sharp line between ownership and possession. Except in special cases, mere occupation of land could not confer ownership.

Later knowledge: the text of the edict
Although Gaius' text was imperfectly known to early modern Europeans, because it was lost and not rediscovered until 1816, they knew the edict in the later recension by Justinian. The interdict's name uti possidetis was a conventional abbreviation of the wording of the praetorial edict:"Uti eas aedes, quibus de agitur, nec vi nec clam nec precario alter ab altero possidetis, quo minus ita possideatis, vim fieri veto. De cloacis hoc interdictum non dabo: neque pluris quam quanti res elit; intra annum, quo primum experiundi potestas fuerit, agere permittan. (Dig. 43, 17, 1)"

which has been translated"Whichever party has possession of the house in question, without having acquired it either by violence, or clandestinely, or by leave and licence of the adversary, the violent disturbance of his possession I prohibit. Sewers are not included in this interdict. The value of the thing in dispute and no more may be recovered, and I will not allow a party to proceed in this way except within the first year of days available for procedure (annus utilis)."

Much later, when it came to be adopted in international law the abbreviation was represented as Uti possidetis, ita possideatis ("as you possess, so may you possess"), whereby "possession became ten-tenths of the law", said to be a perversion of the Roman doctrine.

Uti possidetis as a doctrine for the acquisition of territory in international law
From Roman private law, uti possidetis was transposed to international law as an assertion of sovereignty over territory, although the analogy was misleading.

European powers, when they sought to justify their acquisition of territory in America and elsewhere, based their claims on a variety of legal concepts. One argument was that the new lands were terra nullius (belonging to nobody) and so could be acquired by occupation. But some prominent European jurists and theologians, like Francisco de Vitoria, rejected this, arguing that the lands did have owners: the indigenous peoples. However, since the European powers were not seeking to justify themselves to the indigenous people, but to their European rivals, all they needed to show was a better claim, not an absolute one. Here they found the Roman law uti possidetis analogy valuable.

Apparently it was first devised by the Portuguese diplomat Luís da Cunha in order to justify his country's claims to territory in colonial South America, though some have attributed the idea to the Luso-Brazilian diplomat Alexandre de Gusmão.

While Spanish-American states may have been content to draw mutual boundaries by adopting the internal administrative divisions of the old Spanish Empire (see uti possidetis juris, below), this was not done as between Portuguese-America (Brazil) and the Spanish-American polities, and was not possible. Explained John Bassett Moore:"There can be no more conclusive proof of the futility of the attempts made by Portugal and Spain to fix the limits of their dominions in South America than the fact that they left to their successors no treaty by which those limits purported to be determined."

The Brazilian frontier movement into Spanish-claimed lands
In 1494 Spain and Portugal agreed to modify the 1492 papal bull which divided the world into two spheres of influence, with each country agreeing that it would respect the other's acquisitions on either side of an imaginary line. The Treaty of Tordesillas modified this imaginary line running from pole to pole: Spain was to have the lands to the west of that line, Portugal to the east. Shortly afterwards, and around the same time, expeditions from both countries discovered South America. As the new continent was explored it was gradually realised that the Tordesillas line, though rather vague, gave Portugal only a corner of it, the vast majority going to Spain.

Despite that, for the next 400 years Portuguese America, and its successor Brazil, expanded relentlessly in a generally westwards direction, deep into the lands claimed by Spain and its successors. Summarised E. Bradford Burns:

"From a few village nuclei and plantations in the mid-sixteenth century clinging tenuously to the shores of the South Atlantic Ocean, first the Luso-Brazilians and, after 1822, the Brazilians crept westward and northwestward to the foothills of the mighty Andes Mountains by 1909. The frontier movement triumphed at the territorial expense of eleven neighboring [Hispanic] nations and colonies... Just in the period 1893–1909 alone Brazil swallowed up territory equal in size to Spain and France combined."

Today Brazil comprises about half the continent.

The Portuguese got an early start owing to Spanish acquiescence. Although Portugal and Spain legally were separate kingdoms, the same Spanish dynasty sat on both thrones from 1580 to 1640. Portuguese settlers ignored the Tordesillas limit, and the Spanish crown did not object to their incursions. Thus, by mid 17th century – see map (a) – the Portuguese had established incursive footholds around the mouth of the Amazon and along the south Atlantic coast.

There were too few Portuguese men to conquer the vast lands of Brazil by themselves and almost no Portuguese women went there at first. In effect, sectors of the indigenous people were co-opted. The country was opened up by bands of entrepreneurs. The most famous of these are the bandeirantes, who searched for wealth: Indians to enslave, gold or diamonds. Though generally loyal to the Portuguese king, most bandeirantes were mamelucos (of mixed race) or perhaps Indians; illiterate; and extremely poor; speaking Tupi rather than Portuguese amongst themselves. Some bandeira commanders were black. The wilderness – where they endured severe hardships, and where they hoped to find riches – gripped their imagination. Bandeirismo in one form or another was to persist into the 19th century.

After the restoration of an independent Portuguese monarchy, the Portuguese interpreted the Tordesillas treaty creatively. Their version would have given them not only Patagonia, the River Plate and Paraguay, but even silver-rich Potosí in Upper Peru. Modern research has revealed that their cartographers deliberately distorted maps to convince the Spanish they occupied more land to the east than was the case.

By 1750, the Luso-Brazilians, employing their "indirect method of conquest", had tripled the extension of Portuguese America beyond that allowed by the Treaty of Tordesillas. This method was to occupy the land with people and apply their version of the Roman doctrine of uti possidetis. In the Portuguese view this trumped Spanish paper claims – such as, under the Treaty of Tordesillas – because, as time went by, they became obsolete and no longer reflected reality. Today it might be called facts on the ground.

Portugal articulated its uti possidetis principle in the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Madrid (1750), and this treaty broadly accepted that lands possessed by Portugal should continue to be so. The Treaty of Tordesillas was annulled.

This new treaty did not stop continuing Luso-Brazilian expansion. The Marquis of Pombal, who virtually ruled the Portuguese Empire, instructed:

"As the power and wealth of every country consists principally in the number and multiplication of the people who inhabit it ... this number and multiplication of people is most indispensable now on the frontiers of Brazil."

Since there were not enough native Portuguese to populate the frontiers (he wrote), it was essential to abolish "all differences between Indians and Portuguese", to attract the Indians from the Uruguay missions, and encourage their marriage with Europeans. The Jesuit missions among the Guaraní Indians stood in the way of this plan, and Pombal had the Jesuits expelled from the Portuguese empire in 1759. In The Undrawn Line: Three Centuries of Strife on the Paraguayan-Mato Grosso Frontier, John Hoyt Williams wrote:

"When the Treaty of Madrid was signed in 1750, separating the Spaniards and Portuguese from each other's throats, it established the high-minded principle of uti possidetis as a basis of territorial settlement. Intended to be an even-handed manner of recognizing the territory actually held (rather than merely claimed) by each of the contestants, in reality it touched off complex and bitter maneuvers to grab as much of the unmapped wilderness as possible before demarcation teams could arrive and begin to plot precise imperial limits. Further, there was great difficulty concerning which rivers were where, in which direction they flowed, and in what form they were spelled. Some rivers were searched for for years and never found."

There were subsequent treaties between Portugal and Spain but for various reasons they never succeeded in defining a frontier between their American possessions. Boundary disputes between their respective successor states had to be resolved by recourse to the factual uti possidetis.

Brazil after it achieved its independence continued with the same principles, demanding that all territorial questions be decided on the principle of uti possidetis de facto. In treaties between Brazil and (respectively) Uruguay (1851), Peru (1852), Venezuela (1852), Paraguay (1856), the Argentine Confederation (1857), and Bolivia (1867), the uti possidetis de facto principle was adopted.

Africa
A similar principle, called the principle of effective occupation, was adopted by European powers e.g. at the Berlin Conference (1884–85). It was followed by the Scramble for Africa.

Classical international law
When two states had been at war, the ensuing peace treaty was interpreted to mean that each party got a permanent right to the territory it occupied at the conclusion of hostilities, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated. Probably the most influential 19th century textbook, Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law, asserted (in text virtually unchanged through successive editions for 80 years): "The treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it found it – according to the principle of uti possidetis – unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. During the continuance of the war, the conqueror in possession has only a usufructuary right, and the latent title of the former sovereign continues, until the treaty of peace, by its silent operation, or express provisions, extinguishes his title for ever."

This was only a default rule, however, for usually states were careful to specify explicitly in the peace treaty.

Sometimes a war would cease without a peace treaty. (For example, in the Spanish American wars of independence the fighting stopped in 1825, but Spain did not formally recognise the new republics' independence for a generation.) In such cases it was doubtful whether the losing side was deemed (1) to assert the status quo ante bellum or (2) to concede the uti possidetis, but most authors favoured the latter alternative.

Current position
The classical doctrine that victory in war gave good title to conquered territory was modified in the 20th century. The League of Nations Covenant of 1919, while it required states to resort to conflict resolution, did permit recourse to war. However the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact, ratified by most of the world's independent states, banned aggressive war; it was the basis on which the World War II war criminals were prosecuted in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. Its essentials were reproduced in the United Nations Charter (1945). By Article 2(4):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations"

although Article 51 does allow self-defence.

A corollary is said to be that international law does not recognise forcible territorial acquisitions, and a treaty procured by force or the threat of force is void; in other words, the uti possidetis interpretation of peace treaties is now obsolete. However, the position of a state which fights in self-defence and recovers territory previously lost to the aggressor does not appear to have been discussed.

Uti possidetis juris
This is a method of establishing international boundaries based on anterior legal divisions. "Stated simply, uti possidetis provides that states emerging from decolonization shall presumptively inherit the colonial administrative borders that they held at the time of independence". The new states may be able to modify the old borders by mutual agreement with their neighbours.

Originating after the breakup of the Spanish empire in America, it was there assumed to be possible "by a careful study of Spanish decrees, to trace a definite line of division between the colonial administrative units as of the period of independence". Hence the new states, when settling their mutual boundaries, quite often instructed arbitrators to use the uti possidetis at the date of independence. In reality, it turned out that a definite historical line could rarely be found. Later, the principle was extended to the newly independent African states, and it has been applied to the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

The doctrine of uti possidetis juris has been criticised as colliding with the principle of self-determination. It has been argued that instead of promoting definite international frontiers it makes matters worse. Castellino and Allen have argued that many of the modern separatist conflicts or tribal conflicts, such as Biafra, East Timor, Katanga, Kosovo, and Rwanda, can be traced to blind insistence on such artificial borders.

title: Uti possidetis


text:
CONPLAN 8022-02

According to The Washington Post, the United States Strategic Command contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats is formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02. The plan was reportedly completed in November 2003, resulting in a preemptive and offensive strike capability. The main plan involves the preemptive use of tactical nuclear strikes (mini-nukes) on deep-ground rocket/bomb installations, computer viruses, and radar disruption technology.

See: Single Integrated Operational Plan for origins and details.

title: CONPLAN 8022-02


text:
Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium

Armed Forces Field at RFK Stadium: Did this ever happen?
I seem to recall that this proposed renaming never happened -- it was felt to be a poor use of Pentagon cash. Surely someone in DC can confirm or deny whether the renaming in fact went through. --Jfruh 16:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been renamed as of yet. I believe the military option is out, and the last i can recall was that a local financial services company, i can't recall the name, was in the for the bidding, but that was maybe a month ago. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the weekly joke column in "Sports Illustrated", they said naming it for the Armed Forces was a bad idea because then President Bush would only come to the games once a month. Wahkeenah 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't want the stadium to be named "Armed Forces Field." It sounds... tacky. -- Win777 16:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Tackier than "U.S. Cellular Field"??? Wahkeenah 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos
Why do people keep putting that blurry, distorted photo instead of the clearer, better, baseball photo? User:Getreprimanded 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It ought to be dumped. Its color is nauseating (although appropriately fitting for many Senators teams of the past). Wahkeenah 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Which Photo?
We should vote on wheter we should put the D.C. United or Washington Nationals picture, or if we can find another picture for it. ColumbusCrew29 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some things shouldn't be put to a vote. Anyone who is looking at the two photos objectively can recognize that the baseball one is a higher quality, clearer picture.  If there were two pictures of equal quality, then I could see us having a reasonable discussion about this.  But these pictures aren't equal quality.  If someone wants to contribute a high-quality picture of a D.C. United game, then it would make sense to talk about which one should be at the top. —Cleared as filed. 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I took the D.C. United photo and agree that it is technically inferior and shouldn't be used when a better photo is available. (I took it with a cell phone.) I do think there should be an exterior shot of the stadium as the exterior is much more interesting architectually. In defense of my photo, I don't find the colors "nauseating". I think it's vivid and also like the action and the excitement of the crowd. The other photo makes baseball seem even more boring than it actually is. Most of the spectators aren't even looking at the game. --Flag of Washington, D.C..svg D.M. (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My complaints were about the colors of the seats, not about your photo. For a cellphone photo, it's excellent. And I do think an exterior shot would be nice. If it looks anything like when it was built, it has nice lines to it. Wahkeenah 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Something's Not Right...
One of the memorable moments states...

 * June 18, 2006 - Washington Nationals defeat the New York Yankees on Ryan Zimmerman's walk-off home run, in front of a sellout crowd  45,157 fans, the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history.

However, the moment just prior to that says...

 * April 14, 2005 - Washington Nationals defeat the Arizona Diamondbacks 5-3, before a crowd of 45,596, to win their first home opener in Washington, D.C. They go on to sweep the 3-game series.

It would seem like the game on April 14, 2005 had "the largest single-game baseball crowd in RFK history". Where's the mistake? --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Replying three years later since I happen to be viewing this page in case someone else asks someday. For the April 14 game you reference, which was the first regular-season game back in DC since 1971, due to the insane ticket demand some additional temporary stands were put in place (with special permission from MLB) down the two baselines near where the corners of the stands were. Hence the higher capacity for that one game. The problem with citing RFK's capacity is that the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission tends to be vague about the actual numbers. 1995hoo (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Future of RFK Stadium after DC United and Nationals Leave
I've been reading up on this and it appears that there are two different options that are possible: Either the Redskins build a new stadium at the site or the current stadium will be demolished and the site will revert back to the federal government. The article, D.C.'s next waterfront drama in the Washington Business Journal discusses this. The National Capital Planning Commision is already studying what to do with the site should it revert back to federal control as explained on this website and their draft report. I think some of this should be expounded upon in the article as it seems to only give a mention of the proposal to build a new stadium for the Redskins on the site. Mecaterpillar 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When not in use
Since the Washington Nationals are moving to a new facility, what will become of the pres box that is/was used for baseball?--BigMac1212 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Crystal ball
Patience, Grasshopper. Until the first game is played in the new one, and unless the old one has been demolished, you can't definitively say they're done with the old one. That violates the wikipedia "crystal ball" rule. For all you know, there could be a leaky pipe that floods the stadium, undermines the infrastructure, and makes it fall into the river. Oops. Not likely, but wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future. So when Nationals Park actually has its first game, you can close the book on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

DC United in the History section
Hi.

At present, the stadium's history section does not include much detail concerning the tenure of DC United at RFK - despite the relatively high level of success they have had compared to other recent tenants at the stadium.

Is there anyone more familiar with United's history who could consider adding a paragraph's owrth of information about how RFK has been home for the team? --Nerroth (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Soccer vs. Association Football
I just reverted an edit that attempted to rename "football" as "American football" and "soccer" as "Association Football". While I am aware of the differences, given that this is an article about a U.S. Stadium, the prevailing American terminology should be in use, yes? LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The typical approach is to link them to the longer name. However, note how it was done in Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

--I just reverted an edit that attempted to rename "Association Football" as "soccer". Just corrected, there are differences between the terms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.218.211 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lease-revoking threat
In the third paragraph at the top of the article, there's discussion of how Robert Kennedy pushed for integration of the Redskins, with the threat of revoking the team's lease. The last sentence in that paragraph, however, leaves me scratching my head: "That was not necessarily an effective threat or sanction, however, as no National Football League team currently plays in the stadium, and the League has been able to function without the use of the stadium since 1996." This statement doesn't make sense at all. The Redskins played at RFK for roughly three decades after integrating. Their departure from RFK was about moving to a modern, football-dedicated facility, and had nothing to do with integrating NFL player rosters, which hadn't been an issue in a long time. This sentence needs to be fixed, or removed. Kyojikasshu (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The stadium was used for intercity high school football. A little history of this would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.246.241 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

multi-purpose stadium details: irrelevant?
It seems there are a lot of words about multi-purpose stadiums other than RFK. They don't seem relevant on this page. I can't imagine people coming to this page in search of that particular information rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_stadium. Similarly for the details about Metropolitan Stadium. 69.141.44.218 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. 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/20110727164627/http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1999/08/30/Sports/When-We.Played.Football.The.Gw.Boys.Of.Fall.18901966-16420.shtml to http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1999/08/30/Sports/When-We.Played.Football.The.Gw.Boys.Of.Fall.18901966-16420.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130045851/http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Mens-National-Team/2011/06/US-Ready-for-Gold-Cup-Quarterfinal-Match-against-Jamaica.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Mens-National-Team/2011/06/US-Ready-for-Gold-Cup-Quarterfinal-Match-against-Jamaica.aspx

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) 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lights go out 1966
I think the following should be in the article:

On September 16, a fire in the stadium's transformer caused half of the light towers to go dark while the Senators were playing the Kansas City Athletics. The game was suspended in the third inning and resumed two days later.

This is important to the article for several reasons. A: Lights going out in stadiums during games is a rare occurrence. B: The incident generated news coverage. C: The incident speaks to the integrity of the stadium's construction and is useful for helping the reader evaluate how well (or not well) the stadium was built. D: There is very little information about the stadium's early years and almost NO information about sports (its primary purpose). The article isn't exactly teeming with information to the point where we need to cut notable facts to keep it at encyclopedic length. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium


text:
Zebra loach

The zebra loach (Botia striata) is a freshwater loach native to rivers and streams in the Western Ghats of India. The maximum size is about 9 cm. It lives in tropical climate with temperature range of 21 - 26 C, and prefers water with 6.0 to 7.5 pH.

Zebra loaches are peaceful fish suitable to community aquarium tanks. However, being bottom feeders, they may show some aggression against other smaller bottom feeders. Therefore, small corydoras are not suitable tankmates. They should be kept in groups of at least five. Any fewer and they will become stressed. They require some caves in which to hide during most of daylight. B. striata will accept a wide variety of fish foods, including live food such as blackworms, snails and small shrimps, and most commercial brands of sinking fish foods.

This species is shy, and will spend much of its time hiding. Also rarely, during times of stress it has been seen to attack smaller fish such as tetras.

According to the IUCN, the zebra loach is currently endangered in the wild due to habitat alteration combined with a small native range. Aquarists interested in keeping zebra loach specimens are strongly advised to investigate the source of locally available fishes, and to only purchase those known to be captive-bred. Home aquarium breeding is unknown, but the species is bred on a commercial basis with the use of hormones.

title: Zebra loach


text: Category:Universities in Ukraine

title: Category:Universities in Ukraine


text:
Zdravko Tomac

Zdravko Tomac (24 May 1937 – 4 January 2020) was a Croatian politician.

A native of Slavonski Brod, Zdravko Tomac began his political career in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. There he rose through the ranks, becoming a close associate of Jakov Blažević. In late 1980s he became one of the chief ideologists of the League of Communists of Croatia and one of the closest associates of Ivica Račan.

After the Croatian Communist Party rebranded itself into Social Democratic Party of Croatia and lost the 1990 parliamentary elections, Tomac worked very hard to steer the party towards the nationalist course close to Franjo Tuđman and the ruling Croatian Democratic Union. Because of that, Tomac became deputy prime minister in the wartime "National Unity" government of Franjo Gregurić, thus becoming one of the first top Communist officials in Eastern Europe to return to a top executive post after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He served as deputy prime minister from August 1991 to June 1992.

Because of that, many in the Croatian public saw Tomac as just another of many former Communist officials who discarded their former ideology in order to embrace Croatian nationalism. The only difference was in Tomac choosing to remain within the former Communist Party. This served the SDP very well, which made Tomac into one of their most prominent members and thus gained enough nationalist credentials to improve its electoral chances in the long run.

Tomac showed this potential in the 1995 Croatian parliamentary election by winning a Sabor seat in Zagreb and later serving as a Zagreb City Assembly speaker and informal opposition leader during the Zagreb Crisis.

Two years later he ran as an SDP candidate at the 1997 Croatian presidential election. Although Tomac failed to unseat Tuđman, he scored an important victory for himself and his party by finishing second with 21.0% of the vote. He came out on top of former dissident Vladimir Gotovac and the Croatian Social Liberal Party. With the SDP established as the top opposition party in Croatia, it had the upper hand in the negotiations that would lead to the 1998 pre-election pact with HSLS and victory at the 2000 Croatian parliamentary election.

The 2000 triumph proved to be the beginning of Tomac's political decline. Soon after the parliamentary elections, Croatia had elections for president. The SDP endorsed Dražen Budiša as its candidate and appointed Tomac to be his campaign manager. What looked like a formality turned into a very unpredictable and increasingly vicious contest when Stjepan Mesić joined the fray. When the contest got narrowed to Budiša and Mesić, Tomac began to pander to nationalist and right-wing voters. This didn't have much effect and Mesić got easily elected, with Tomac's position within the party and the new government becoming increasingly marginalised.

As time went by, Tomac began to drift from Račan and the SDP. He began to criticise ICTY and bitterly oppose extradition of Croatian generals to Hague. Finally, in September 2003 he formally announced his departure from the SDP.

He founded a new party called Croatian Social Democrats (Croatian: Hrvatski socijaldemokrati), but this party, even after being allied with a few small right-wing parties, failed to enter the Zagreb City Assembly in the 2005 local elections.

On January 4, 2020, Tomac died in Dubrava Clinical Hospital after a short, severe illness.

Works

 * Predsjednik protiv predsjednika, 2005
 * Tuđmanizam i mesićizam - predsjednik protiv predsjednika, 2. dio, 2007
 * Obraćenje - od komunista do vjernika, 2008

title: Zdravko Tomac


text:
Talk:Use-define chain

Content
This article seems really heavy on the algorithm and really light on explanatory text. My inclination is to remove most of the algorithm stuff and replace it with a short explanation of the fact that use-define chains are used by compilers in optimizing code, and also as tools for human debuggers. Opinions?

Leonard Lcuff 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That would make a not so useful article even more useless. I'm wading through most artices in Category:Computer science and this one is on my to be rewritten list, so I suggest keeping it as it is. --R.Koot 18:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would tend to agree with R.Koot. The algorithms are fine; they just need some explanation.  In general, I've learned that deleting is the last resort.  It's sort of like, "If you don't have something better to say, leave it alone" unless it's clearly wrong or utter nonsense. --KSnortum 03:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I see both points. One issue is that academic papers use many different mathematical structures.  Lambda calculus, set theory, number theory, etc.  The prose often have text like, $s(i)$ where it is clear what this means if you are familiar with the subject matter.  However, it is not that helpful to a random technical reader.  For instance, where i is an integer in $[1,n]$ would be easier to understand if it was where i is an integer in the range $[1,n]$.  The papers do this for brevity, but it really makes the Wikipedia text less accessible.  I think expressing the algorithm is useful.  However, academic papers want a mathematical formalism to prove properties; and all readers are often intimately familiar with these mathematics.  The math is not so important for comprehension.  I think that a pictorial with arrows and crossed/Xed arrows for killing would be instructive to many more people than re-using the mathematical notation. 157.52.22.218 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar with CompSci but this is a little outside my experience, so I tried to only deal with formatting and clarity. Hopefully I didn't change the meaning.

"Consider now the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and consider that we observe the computation at statement j" This is such a clunky sentence. Hopefully what I changed it to is clearer without being inaccurate: "Consider the sequential execution of the list of statements s(i) and what we now observe as the computation at statement j"

The headings "Setup" and "Execution" are mine and very artificial. I just thought the article needed at least two headings. "Setup" should probably be changed; it's the best I could think of.

The statement "A(i) is a simple but powerful concept..." is parenthetical, so I put it in parentheses. Still, I don't like the format. Maybe a footnote.

--KSnortum 16:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge
I would agree on the merge. It seems on is heavy on technical explanations and the other is more on how and why def-chains are used. I would like to see the second one cleaned up more, though. The language is very informal. --KSnortum 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Added an example
I added an example but had problems with the editor. I could not add the references. Could somebody please do it? This is the link http://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/pi/lehre/ws0910/se/uebungen/Uebung6-Vorstellung.pdf and you have to look at page 25.

Hope it is better than nothing and could be useful for someone.

Kian Salem (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

definition and declaration
Quoting the first paragraph:

(...) A definition can have many forms, but is generally taken to mean the assignment of some value to a variable (which is different from the use of the term that refers to the language construct involving a data type and allocating storage).

Isn't the use of the term that refers to the language construct involving a data type and allocating storage simply a declaration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagguh (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Use-define chain


text:
Rainbow crow

The story of the Rainbow Crow is a supposed Lenape legend, symbolizing the value of selflessness and service. However, the Lenape origins of this myth are denied by the Lenape-Nanticoke Museum, which attributes the myth to a recent modification of a Cherokee story known as the "First Fire". And in fact, the museum states that the crow has no significant role in traditional Lenape culture. No source for a Lenape version of this story is known to exist prior to a 1989 book of the same name supposedly "retold" by Penguin Random House author Nancy Van Laan. Van Laan ultimately attributes this story to a Chief Bill "Whippoorwill" Thompson.

Plot
After a long period of cold weather, the animals of the community become worried. They decide to send a messenger to the Great Sky Spirit to ask for relief. The Rainbow Crow, the most beautifully feathered bird, offers to make the arduous journey. He travels safely, and is rewarded by the Great Spirit with the gift of fire. He carries the gift in his beak back to his people, but upon his return, he does not appear to be the same bird that he once was. The fire has scorched his plumage black, with only hints of his previous color, and his voice has been made rough and hoarse by the smoke. In this way, his sacrifice is commemorated.

Another name for Rainbow Crow is Many Colored Crow. This is in reference to the iridescent feathers created from the fire that scorched his plumage black, with only hints of his previous color that reflect when sun light strikes them.

Adaptations
This legend is the basis of multiple American animated short films, including one by online media platform HitRecord and another by Baobab Studios titled Crow: The Legend, with singer John Legend voicing the titular crow.

title: Rainbow crow


text:
Romantic chess

Romantic chess is a style of chess popular in the 18th century until its decline in the 1880s. This style of chess emphasizes quick, tactical maneuvers rather than long-term strategic planning. Romantic players consider winning to be secondary to winning with style. The Romantic era of play was followed by the Scientific, Hypermodern, and New Dynamism eras. Games during this era generally consisted of 1.e4 openings such as the King's Gambit and Giuoco Piano. Queen-side pawn openings were not popular and seldom played. The Romantic era is generally considered to have ended with the 1873 Vienna tournament where Wilhelm Steinitz popularized and the. This domination ushered in a new age of chess known as the "Modern", or Classical school, which would last until the 1930s when hypermodernism began to become popular.

The Romantic era is generally considered to have reached its peak with Alexander McDonnell and Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, the two dominant chess players of the 1830s. The 1840s were dominated by Howard Staunton, and other leading players of the era included Adolf Anderssen, Daniel Harrwitz, Henry Bird, Louis Paulsen, Paul Morphy and Joseph Henry Blackburne.

The Immortal Game, played by Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky on 21 June 1851 in London—where Anderssen made bold sacrifices to secure victory, giving up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, and then checkmating his opponent with his three remaining minor pieces—is considered a supreme example of Romantic chess.

Despite the Romantic era's reputation for dashing tactical play and combinations, positional play and closed games were not at all unknown during this time; they featured prominently at the London tournament of 1851, widely considered the first true chess tournament. Paul Morphy often complained about "dull chess" and criticized the Sicilian Defense and queen's pawn openings for leading to this sort of game. Morphy included a stipulation in his matches that at least half the games had to begin with a 1.e4 e5 opening.

During the 1930s, Nazi Germany co-opted chess as a political tool and to that end circulated propaganda alleging that the age of Romantic chess, dominated by dashing Aryan players such as Morphy and Anderssen, had been derailed by "cowardly, stingy" positional chess exemplified by Jewish players like Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, and others.

The Romantic era in the arts was roughly analogous to the chess world. The arts were focused on emotional expression more than technical mastery. This would come to an end towards the end of the 19th century as evolution in the arts (Impressionist music and Symbolist poetry) coincided with Steinitz' emergence as the new stylistic force in the chess world. Some notable chess masters have argued that chess is an art form in addition to a science.

title: Romantic chess


text:
Robert Boyd, 1st Lord Boyd

Robert Boyd, 1st Lord Boyd (died c. 1482) was a Scottish statesman, Lord Chamberlain of Scotland from 1467.

Biography
Robert Boyd was knighted and was created a Peer of Parliament (Lord Boyd) by James II of Scotland at some date between 1451 and 18 July 1454 (the date he took his seat in Parliament). In 1460 he was one of the Regents during the minority of James III. In 1464 he was one of the commissioners at York for a truce with Edward IV of England.

The date of creation of Boyd's title can be further narrowed to between 1451 and 15 June 1452. On the latter date, the King confirmed the charter of Robert Boyd, Lord of Kilmarnock and of Dalry, conveying one-third of the lands of Lynn in Dalry to Robert Boyd [indweller] of Lynn. Only three months earlier, Andrew Lynn in Dalry was described in another charter as Lord of that Ilk, meaning lord of a property of the same name as his family name.

Lord Boyd conspired with his brother, Sir Alexander Boyd, and obtained possession of young James III in 1466. He was then made by Act of Parliament sole Governor of the Realm, Lord Chamberlain of Scotland for life, and Lord Justice General in 1467. Early in that year, he procured the marriage of his eldest son, Thomas, (created Earl of Arran for that occasion) with Mary Stewart, Princess of Scotland, elder sister of James III, which aroused the jealousy of the other nobles and made his eventual downfall inevitable, since King James III regarded the marriage of his sister as an unforgivable insult.

Lord Boyd obtained the cession of the Orkney Islands to Scotland, on 8 September 1468, from Christian I, King of Norway, for whose daughter Margaret, he negotiated a marriage with James III. While absent for that purpose he and his son Thomas (the Earl of Arran) and his brother (and coadjutor) Sir Alexander Boyd, were attainted for high treason, whereby his peerage became forfeited. He was living Easter 1480/1, and died before October 1482, it is said, at Alnwick in Northumberland where he had fled in 1469.

James III's biographer sums Boyd up as an unscrupulous political gambler and an inveterate optimist. To forcibly assume guardianship of an underage King was a familiar path to power in medieval Scotland, but it was also a dangerous path. Boyd underestimated the dangers, overestimated his support, and made the fatal mistake of marrying his son to the King's sister, an insult the King would not forgive.

Family
Robert Boyd belonged to an old and distinguished family, of which one earlier Sir Robert Boyd, had fought with Sir William Wallace and Robert The Bruce. He was the son and heir of Sir Thomas Boyd of Kilmarnock (died 9 July 1439). Robert married Mariot (or Janet), daughter of Sir John Maxwell, son of Robert Maxwell of Calderwood. She died after 25 June 1472, apparently early in 1473. They had three sons:
 * Thomas, Earl of Arran, was in Denmark when his father was overthrown. However, he fulfilled his mission, that of bringing the king's bride, Margaret, to Scotland, and then, warned by his wife, escaped to the continent of Europe. He is mentioned very eulogistically in one of the Paston Letters, but practically nothing is known of his subsequent history;
 * Alexander, who became head of the family after the death of James, the son of his elder brother Thomas;
 * Archibald of Nariston, and afterwards in Bonshaw. Archibald is recorded as being of Nariston in 1472, but it appears that there was a question over his right to the property and he had lost possession by 1500. In 1502 Archibald and his wife Christine Mure had a lease of Bonschaw and Dririg. He was dead before 4 May 1507, when Christine Mure, his widow, and her sons, paid a year's rent on taking over the lease. She was living on 28 January 1523. They appear to have had two sons and three daughters, one of whom was Marion Boyd, mistress to King James IV and mother of at least two children by him.

title: Robert Boyd, 1st Lord Boyd


text:
Galina Starovoytova

Galina Vasilyevna Starovoitova (Гали́на Васи́льевна Старово́йтова; 17 May 1946 – 20 November 1998) was a Soviet dissident, Russian politician and ethnographer known for her work to protect ethnic minorities and promote democratic reforms in Russia. She was shot to death in her apartment building in 1998.

Early life and academic career
Born in the Ural Mountains city of Chelyabinsk on 17 May 1946 to a Belarusian father and a Russian mother, Starovoitova earned an undergraduate degree from the Leningrad College of Military Engineering in 1966 and an MA in social psychology from Leningrad University in 1971. In 1980, she earned a doctorate in social anthropology from the Institute of Ethnography, USSR Academy of Sciences, where she worked for seventeen years. She conducted PhD research at the end of the 1970s, focusing on a sensitive topic at that period, specifically on the role of ethnic groups in Soviet cities. The data of her study were drawn mainly from Leningrad. Her PhD thesis, published in 1987, was a study of the Tatars of Leningrad. She also published extensively on anthropological theory, cross-cultural studies, and Caucasian anthropology—with fieldwork notably in the areas of Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia. In early 1988, after the birth of the Armenian national-democratic movement, she became a supporter of the self-determination of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In December 1988, she accompanied Academician Andrei Sakharov on a fateful trip to Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Karabakh region in an attempt at mediation and reconciliation. From 1994 to 1998, she was a visiting professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, lecturing on the politics of self-determination for ethnic minorities.

Political career
Galina Starovoitova began her political career in 1989, when she was elected as a representative to the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union from Armenia. In the USSR Congress, she became a member of the reformist faction, the Inter-Regional Group of People’s Deputies, which was led by Sakharov and included other notables such as Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Yushenkov, and Boris Yeltsin. In the Congress, her work centered mostly around nationalities' problems, plans for the new federation, and the drafting of a new Soviet constitution. She also advocated for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In June 1990, Starovoitova also won a seat in the new RSFSR Congress of People’s Deputies (Russian Federation) from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), where she served until the dissolution of the Congress in September 1993. As with the USSR parliament, she won her seat in the Russian parliament by a landslide over a competing slate of male candidates.

In the summer of 1991, Starovoitova served as spokesperson for Yeltsin in his successful campaign for the presidency of the Russian Federation. At that time, Starovoitova had been promoted by several democratic forces for the post of either vice president or minister of defense. Instead, she became presidential advisor on interethnic issues until the end of 1992, when she was dismissed by Yeltsin apparently under pressure from conservative elements for criticizing Moscow's support for Ossetians in their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Ingush in the North Caucasus.

Before re-launching her legislative career in 1995, Starovoitova spent her time at the Institute for the Economy in Transition in Moscow, as co-chair of the Democratic Russia Movement, and as a fellow in the Washington-based United States Institute of Peace. With former political prisoner Sergei Grigoryants, and funding from George Soros, she co-organized a series of international conferences in Moscow in the mid-1990s around the theme "The KGB: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow".

In 1995, she was elected to the Russian State Duma from the political movement "Democratic Russia - Free Workers Union". The movement was led by her and two prominent members of the Moscow Helsinki Group: Lev Ponomarev and the dissident Orthodox priest Gleb Yakunin.

Galina Starovoitova was a strong defender of ethnic minorities. She said, "If in accordance with international standards we recognize the rights of nations to self-determination, we must recognize it also within Russia." Together with Sergei Kovalev and others she negotiated with Dzhokhar Dudaev in attempt to prevent the First Chechen War. They convinced Dudaev to sign a protocol where he agreed to withdraw his demands for immediate Chechen independence and begin official negotiations, according to another Duma member Valery Borschov. Sergei Stepashin, then FSK director, and others convinced Yeltsin that military operations were necessary and would be very quick and successful. When the war began, Starovoitova called Yeltsin "Boris the Bloody" and said: "The historic time of Yeltsin the reformer has passed, and his new regime can turn out to be dangerous not just for Russia".

She was an editorial board member of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published in cooperation with the American University and Moscow State University.

Over the years, Galina Starovoitova attended numerous international meetings and discussions, where she had conversations with world leaders including Margaret Thatcher, Jacques Chirac, Václav Havel, Henry Kissinger and Lech Wałęsa.

Starovoitova was strongly against the omnipresence of security services in Russia and believed that lustration was necessary but none of the other elected representatives supported her. Starovoitova has drafted a law on lustration and presented it to the Duma at least 5 times. Her subsequent murder has been linked by some to her work towards making lustration a law in Russia and her opposition to revanche of KGB into power. She said, "I propose a decision to order a medical examination of deputies of the State Duma, especially in the light of yesterday's voting on the battle against anti-semitism, when many of our colleagues gave us reason to doubt their mental health".

In April 1998, she became the leader of "Democratic Russia", then registered as an official party, in order to prepare for State Duma elections that were to be held in December 1999. State security people took the post of Prime Minister in succession at the time. Cabinet of GRU-connected Sergei Kiriyenko was replaced in August 1998 by cabinet of SVR veteran Yevgeny Primakov. New leadership also came to the state security services as Vladimir Putin was appointed as head of FSB in July 1998. Galina Starovoitova tried to prevent such people from coming to power using her personal connections with different political figures and with Yeltsin's wife, according to Valeriy Borschov.

Starovoitova opposed the broad mandate of FSB. She made this part of her political platform in "Democratic Russia". She voted against nominating Yevgeny Primakov for Prime Minister.

Death and investigation
Starovoitova was gunned down in the entryway of her apartment building in St. Petersburg on 20 November 1998. Her aide, Ruslan Linkov, was wounded in the attack. The murder investigation took place under the personal control of Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin, a prominent member of the pro-Western Yabloko party, former reformist FSB boss under Yeltsin and future Prime Minister of Russia. In June 2005, two hitmen, Yuri Kolchin and Vitali Akishin, were convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 and 23 years of imprisonment respectively. Akishin was named as the one who pulled the trigger and Kolchin as one who had organized the attack. On 28 September 2006, Vyacheslav Lelyavin was sentenced to 11 years in prison for his role in organizing the murder. Sergey Musin, Oleg Fedosov and Igor Bogdanov are still wanted for the investigation.

According to official investigation, the murder was organized by former GRU hitman Yuri Kolchin. However, the people who ordered this assassination and paid for it have never been found. Valeria Novodvorskaya claimed that the Russian state security services murdered Starovoytova to eliminate her influence on Boris Yeltsin and her resistance in appointing former KGB general Yevgeny Primakov as Prime Minister of Russia. Novodvorskaya suggested that FSB general Viktor Cherkesov accompanied Starovoitova just before the murder because he knew that she was due to be killed.

Award and tomb
Shortly before her death, Galina Starovoitova established an award "for contributions to the protection of human rights and consolidation of democracy in Russia".

The award was sponsored by Irina Thomason and the Fund for the Protection of the Rights of Children and Women. The recipients so far have been:
 * Gleb Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest
 * Moscow Helsinki Group founder Larisa Bogoraz
 * Former St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak,
 * The Soldiers' Mothers of St. Petersburg
 * Former deputy of the State Duma, Yuli Rybakov
 * Leader of the Democratic Union, Valeria Novodvorskaya.

Starovoitova was buried in a prominent tomb (pictured here in 2009) in the Nikolskoe Cemetery at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg. The monument depicts a tattered Russian flag and purportedly uses the pavement from where she was assassinated to cover the grave.

title: Galina Starovoytova


text:
User talk:Tom-land

Hi is this good havin an account

title: User talk:Tom-land


text:
Paul & Paula

Paul & Paula, consisting of Raymond Glenn "Ray" Hildebrand (November 21, 1940 – August 18, 2023) and Jill Jackson (born May 20, 1942), were an American pop singing duo, best known for their 1962 million-selling, number-one hit record, "Hey Paula".

Biography
Hildebrand was born in Joshua, Texas and Jackson was born in McCamey, Texas. Both were attending Howard Payne College (now called Howard Payne University) in Brownwood, Texas, in 1962, when a local disc jockey, Riney Jordan, of station KEAN, asked listeners to come to the studio and sing their songs to help the American Cancer Society. The duo sang a song called "Hey Paula," which Hildebrand wrote; the lyrics were inspired by a friend of his, Russell Berry, whose fiancée was named Paula. Jordan decided that Hildebrand and Jackson should record the song, and they did.

Shelby Singleton of Philips Records eventually signed the two, but not before changing their professional names; Singleton reasoned that a pair named Ray and Jill singing about "Hey, hey Paula" and "Hey, hey Paul" did not make sense. "Hey Paula" sold over two million copies globally, and was awarded a gold disc by the Recording Industry Association of America in 1963.

The duo released two regular albums and a Christmas-themed album after the success of "Hey Paula", which charted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks in February 1963. Their follow-up, "Young Lovers", reached number six on the Billboard chart later in the same year. In 1963, American Bandstand signed Paul & Paula to Dick Clark's Caravan of Stars national U.S. tour, which was scheduled to perform its 15th show on the night of November 22, 1963, at the Memorial Auditorium in Dallas, until suddenly the Friday evening event had to be cancelled after U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated that afternoon. In 1965, Hildebrand left the act to complete his college education, having decided that a future in show business was not for him. He made this decision in the middle of another Dick Clark Caravan of Stars road trip, and Clark had to fill in at the last minute. Hildebrand recorded a Christian music album in 1967 called He's Everything to Me. He became best known among Christian music fans for his 1970s hit song "Anybody Here Wanna Live Forever?" Subsequently, Hildebrand joined up with another Christian performer, Paul Land, and during the 1980s and 1990s, they performed comedy and Christian music under the name of Land & Hildebrand.

Jackson went on with a solo career, and then married a Los Angeles businessman named Marvin Landon. After their days as a singing duo, Jill and Ray remained friends, and well into the early 2000s, they occasionally would get together to sing as Paul & Paula for special events, such as oldies shows. In 2002, Hildebrand and Jackson returned to Howard Payne University in Brownwood, Texas, where they were the homecoming guests of honor and grand marshals.

Ray Hildebrand died on August 18, 2023, at the age of 82.

title: Paul & Paula


text:
Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle

Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle (Entertainment Software Self-Regulation, abbreviated USK) is the organisation responsible for video game ratings in Germany. In Austria, it is mandatory in the state of Salzburg, while PEGI is mandatory in Vienna.

Ratings

Until 2003, all of the rating symbols were yellow, with the exception of USK 18 which was red. In 2003, the symbols were redesigned to add colour coding: white for 0, yellow for 6, green for 12, blue for 16 and red for 18. The symbols were again redesigned in 2009.

Content descriptors
In January 2023, the USK began using various content descriptors alongside their age ratings. These include descriptors specifying the level of violence, horror, sexual content, profanity and drug and alcohols.

Usage notes
In January 2023, the USK also introduced descriptors indicating additional features in the game, such as in-game purchases and online interaction.

According to the USK itself, the state uses the age-rating symbol to regulate whether a computer game may be publicly supplied to children and young persons. Retailers are obliged to comply with the restrictions indicated by the rating. For example, a game approved for children aged 12 and above may not be sold to a 10-year old. Outside of business relations (e.g. parents or adult friends giving the game to a child or youth) there is no such restriction.

Advertisement of games rated USK 18 or below is not restricted only if the advertisement itself has no content that is harmful to minors.

Distinction from the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons
Additionally the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons maintains a List of media harmful to young people (colloquially known as the "Index"). Titles that are on this list may only be sold on request to adults 18 or older, are not to be advertised in any media or put on display in retail stores. German retail stores, mail order and internet vendors tend to sell only games that do have a USK rating, due to the massive restrictions. These games are still sold from vendors outside Germany into the German market.

Video games that are rated by the USK are protected from the indexing process. Many publishers and developers choose to release edited versions of their games to try to receive an USK-18-rating fearing the same negative sales impact an AO rating would have in the US out of fear that an unrated title might be indexed. Games without an USK rating are treated like an indexed game.

Restrictions
Up through 2018, USK had refused to rate games that contained imagery of anti-constitutional groups, including Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, as required by Strafgesetzbuch (German code) section 86a, effectively making them unavailable to purchase in retail channels. While Section 86a included a "social adequacy" clause that allowed such images to be used in areas like education, science, and art (including literature and film), video games were not considered as qualifying under that section USK enforced. To publish affected games in Germany, developers and publishers had to strip out and replace objectionable images. One example is Wolfenstein: The New Order, which replaced swastikas on uniforms with a fictional symbol.

In August 2018, USK announced that the German government would relax this Section 86a restriction on video games, as long as the imagery included falls within the "social adequacy" allowance. USK evaluates how relevant imagery is used and reject games they believe fail to meet the social adequacy allowance. In 2019, the simultaneously released Wolfenstein: Youngblood and Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot were the first games allowed to depict Nazi imagery under the "social adequacy clause". Despite being officially rated by USK, major German retailers, such as MediaMarkt, Saturn, and GameStop, refused to sell the uncensored version, offering only the separately sold German version without Nazi imagery and references.

title: Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle


text:
Wikipedia:Goings-on/June 5, 2005

Welcome to Wikipedia's goings-on. This page is a central point for community members to collect current information about the community project and to report on recent goings-on. In a sense, it's an announcement page, but it is supposed to collect even those kinds of information that are normally not announced on pages like Announcements (e.g. arbitration progress, outspoken newcomers, amusing things, etc.). However, please notice that this page is explicitly not for discussion. When listing topics here that are being discussed or have been discussed, please link to the appropriate discussion page and discuss it there. For a project-wide update of events, see the Meta goings-on. For Votes see Current surveys.

This page is archived in a weekly digest-like fashion, every Sunday at 0:00 UTC.

{| cellspacing=3 width="100%"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Goings-on in the week starting Sunday June 5 2005

 * Requests for arbitration/RFC - The arbitration committee is looking for community feedback in this requests for comment.
 * Issue 22 of Wikipedia Signpost is published.

Current live Collaborations of the Week
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|
 * General: Stone Age
 * Article Improvement Drive: Social Justice and Choctaw language
 * Australian: Snowy Mountains Scheme
 * Canadian: Rick Hansen
 * Indian: Indian Railways
 * United Kingdom: Human rights in the United Kingdom
 * Spanish translation: Icod de los Vinos, from es:Icod de los Vinos
 * Gaming: Mega Man
 * Cricket: Laws of cricket
 * Wikimedia: Help pages
 * - valign="top"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles featured on the Main Page
 * Windows XP (June 5)
 * Benjamin Mountfort (June 6)
 * The Brothers Karamazov (June 7)
 * United Kingdom corporation tax (June 8)
 * Mumbai (June 9)
 * Sudoku (June 10)
 * MTR (June 11)

 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles that gained "featured" status
 * Xiangqi (June 7)
 * Sandy Koufax (June 7)
 * Sydney Riot of 1879 (June 7)

Lists that gained "featured" status

 * List of cultural references in The Cantos (June 9)

Pictures that gained "featured" status

 * Terragen scene (June 11)
 * Chamomile (June 11)
 * }

title: Wikipedia:Goings-on/June 5, 2005


text:
Rita Cosby

Rita Cosby (born November 18, 1964) is a television news anchor for Fox, MSNBC and NewsMax, as well as a best selling author. She is a host on the two-hour news show Saturday Report on Newsmax and a special correspondent for the CBS syndicated program Inside Edition, specializing in interviewing newsmakers and political figures. Cosby has the Jack Anderson Award for investigative excellence, the Matrix Award, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and the Lech Walesa Freedom Award. October 11, 2010, was declared "Rita Cosby Day" in the State of New York for her “extraordinary journalism and exemplary service on behalf of her community.”

Biography
The daughter of a Danish mother and a Polish father Richard Cosby (Ryszard Kossobudzki) who came to the United States after World War II, Cosby was born in Brooklyn, New York. She grew up in Greenwich, Connecticut, where she attended Greenwich High School and freelanced for the local paper. She earned her bachelor's degrees from the University of South Carolina. Cosby balanced college with a position at WACH-TV, the local FOX affiliate. After an internship working for Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, Cosby found work as an anchor/reporter at KERO-TV in Bakersfield, California, and WBTV in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Fox News Channel
From 1995 to 2005, Cosby worked at Fox News. At Fox, she hosted both The Big Story Weekend Edition with Rita Cosby and Fox News Live with Rita Cosby. She has interviewed over twenty world leaders, conducting historic back-to-back interviews with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. She was the first reporter to see prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. She also interviewed Serbian president Slobodan Milošević who called her from his prison cell at the Hague. Years earlier, while broadcasting live from Belgrade during the NATO bombing, she broke the news that three American POWs were going to be released.

Cosby also made national headlines for her interviews with boxer Mike Tyson, singer Michael Jackson and convicted serial killer David Berkowitz, "The Son of Sam," who wrote to her during the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings in October 2002. As that story unfolded, Cosby secured another major first, by reporting the names and license plate numbers of the sniper suspects. In 2001, Cosby's interview with flight attendant Anne Marie Smith led to a U.S. Attorney's Office investigation of Rep. Gary Condit for obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

Cosby served as a lead reporter during the 1996 and 2000 Presidential campaigns. During the Monica Lewinsky investigation, she broke the news that President Bill Clinton was about to be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. After receiving an exclusive letter from Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, she was granted a rare meeting with Pope John Paul II to discuss death penalty issues.

MSNBC
In 2005, Cosby moved to MSNBC to host a primetime weeknight show, Rita Cosby Live & Direct. It became the network's highest-rated show that year, and she did extensive reports for other NBC programs, including The Today Show. She traveled for the network, originating live for several weeks from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region to report on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as from the war zone in Afghanistan and along the U.S.-Mexico border. On February 8, 2007, Cosby broke the news on the death of Anna Nicole Smith. She conducted the last broadcast interview with former Crips gang leader Stanley “Tookie” Williams and was one of a few journalists to witness his execution at San Quentin Prison. Additionally, she conducted rare interviews with Erik Menéndez and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, both also behind bars. She left the network in 2007 to pursue other media offers and projects.

Other media activities and appearances
Since 2009, she co-hosts the worldwide broadcast of The National Memorial Day Parade simulcast to all US military installations around the globe. Well known in the Mideast, Cosby also interviewed candidates about foreign policy on Israel's TV show, The Ambassador. Additionally, Cosby has co-chaired various events internationally, including the Intersec Security Conference in Dubai in 2009. and the Euro-American Women's Council Forum in Greece in 2010. She was selected by Cosmopolitan Magazine as a “Fun and Fearless Female.” Cosby is heard daily on her WOR Radio program called The Rita Cosby Show. Cosby's interviews have included: Jimmy Carter, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mark Burnett and former President Donald Trump.

Since 2022, Cosby has hosted the weekly two-hour news show Saturday Report on Newsmax, replacing previous host Carl Higbie

Publications
Cosby has authored two books.

Blonde Ambition
On September 4, 2007, Cosby released a book about Anna Nicole Smith, Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith's Death. The book details the circumstances around the death of the model in 2007. The book has become a New York Times bestseller. In October 2007, Howard K. Stern, Smith's  former  attorney and  agent   filed a $60 million libel and   defamation lawsuit  against  Cosby and her publisher  for her claims that  Stern and  father of  Smith's daughter  were involved in  homosexual  relationship and that there was a  videotape  of  their alleged  relationship. In July 2009, in a court  hearing  whether to dismiss the lawsuit  Cosby  admitted there was no videotape and could not prove allegations that Stern  was involved  in  criminal activities regarding  Smith's death. New York Federal court judge Denny Chin ruled that  Cosby's  actions were  extremely  troubling, and suggest she was  attempting  to  obstruct justice by tempering with witnesses. The defamation lawsuit was  withdrawn and settled  in  November  2009. The terms of  the  settlement were confidential.

Quiet Hero
In 2010, Cosby released a memoir, Quiet Hero: Secrets From My Father’s Past. The book became a best-seller on several lists, including The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post. The book details her father's youth as a Polish Resistance fighter who battled the Nazis during the Warsaw Uprising in World War II. In 2010, a resolution was passed in the South Carolina Legislature honoring Rita Cosby and her father. The book has raised money for the USO to help wounded soldiers and their families.

title: Rita Cosby


text: Template:Fruits Basket

title: Template:Fruits Basket


text:
Talk:DEVGRU

Do Not Merge
SEAL team Six and Devgru are two totally and completely different things, whose different names represent different periods of operations, objectives and leadership. You made a mistake when you merged the two together. Hopefully it not too late to recover SEAL team Six previous page which discussed their Red Cell activities with Commander Richard Marcinko. Recover it if possible. Otherwise, welcome to stupidville Moderator-Geeks.

SAS Disambiguation
Does the link to SAS refer to Special Activities Staff (US, CIA) or Special Air Service (UK)? SeventyThree 17:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm fairly sure it refers to the Special Air Service of the UK.

Merge?
Should we merge this with SEAL Team SIX? I see no reason for two separate pieces. Bbpen 18:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. SeventyThree 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge --The [[Image:Liefeld01.jpg|100px|Rob Liefeld]] troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Liefeld Troll (talk • contribs)
 * MERGE THEM together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.204.205 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge --OneEuropeanHeart 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge --Habap 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)abap|Habap]] 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge --Swatjester 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge --Nkcs 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge --Darklegions 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Merging would be a mistake!! Because 1) The DEVGRU is not a component of the Naval Special Warfare Command (COMNAVSPECWARCOM) which commands following units:

*Special Warfare Group ONE *Special Warfare Group TWO *Special Boat Squadron ONE *Special Boat Squadron TWO *Naval Special Warfare Center *Special Warfare Development Group

but NOT the DEVGRU. 2) DEVGRU and Delta Force are components of the Joint Special Operations Command, which is responsible for military counter-terrorism operations worldwide and stands on the same level as the COMNAVSPECWARCOM. Considering the chain of command and the DEVGRU`s special focus on CT and hostage rescue, it is obvious, that DEVGRU is a separate unit. (MARK S. 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

 * I think the way it is set up now - with redirects from DEVGRU and Seal Team Six both going to U.S. Navy Special Warfare Development Group works best. The opening paragraph explains the controversy about whether DEVGRU is Seal Team Six, a successor or completely separate. --Habap 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No Merger!
This unit is a different beast from Team 6. The stuff that is repeated here about Team 6 should be removed since the SEAL Team SIX link provides the same material. This section should be kept to capture what their new mission and make up is (once this is revealed to the public) Removing this section would be the same as removing the Central Intelligence Agency link because there is an Office of Strategic Services section. --SFjarhead 03:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I recommend retaining both articles, with Seal Team Six being the historical focus and DEVGRU going forward from its redesigantion. SEAL Team Six is too well known to be purged completely, while DEVGRU has not yet gained popular fame. Paulmeisel 18:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Then why not use a redirect?

Not the Same unit... ST6 no longer exhists. DEVGRU is a R&D Team.

-Merging this would be like merging UDT and SEAL... Temporal issue.

 * So, DEVGRU is the current name for a unit that was not disbanded, but, rather, renamed from SEAL Team Six? Both articles state that it is the same unit under two different names. Just like Orpah Winfrey can't tell Wikipedia what belongs in her article and what doesn't, neither can the US Navy. Either we change the articles to explain how they are different or we merge the articles.

 * Both the OSS-CIA and UDT-SEAL arguments are not valid. Both of those original organizations had disappeared before their descendents appeared. SEAL Team Six was renamed, not dissolved. (or both articles are wrong) --Habap 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:DEVGRU


text: Category:Provinces of Argentina

title: Category:Provinces of Argentina


text:
Robert Boyd, 4th Lord Boyd

Robert Boyd, 4th Lord Boyd (c. 1485 – 3 January 1558) was a Scottish nobleman who supported various factions attempting to dominate Scottish politics during the reign of King James V and the minority of Mary, Queen of Scots.

Biography
Robert Boyd was the son of Alexander, 3rd Lord Boyd.

Robert Boyd is first mentioned in connection with a feud with the Montgomeries, in which Patrick Montgomerie of Irvine was slain in December 1523. This appears to have been in revenge for the murder of James, 2nd Lord Boyd, in 1484, and the feud continued more or less until 2 May 1530, when Hugh Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Eglinton, proposed a settlement. The parties agreed in Glasgow that Boyd should accept 2,000 merks for the killing of James, and should marry his son and heir to one of the Earl's "oos" [house].

On 24 June 1525 he had a discharge from Archibald, Earl of Angus, for the "fermes" of Kilmarnock pertaining to his spouse, Margaret the Queen Mother, and another from Margaret herself, dated 27 November 1529, having been appointed a Squire of the Household on 26 June 1525. Among the Boyd papers is a bond of mutual assistance dated 26 May 1529 between this Robert Boyd and Margaret the Queen Mother and Henry, Lord Methven, her third husband.

On 13 June 1532 Robert Boyd's son, also called Robert, was granted a nine years' lease on the lands of Kilmarnock from Margaret. Robert Boyd had succeeded his father Alexander as Bailie and Chamberlain of Kilmarnock, and resigned that position on 5 May 1534, when his son was appointed in his place. Henceforth "Robert senior" appears as "formerly in Kilmarnock" and under this designation he and Helen Somerville, his spouse, had a grant of the lands of Dundonald in Walters-kyle in exchange for lands in Cunyngham on 20 May 1536; under the same description they had a further grant, dated 13 August 1536, of the lands of Chapelton, etc., in the lordship of Stewartoun, in recompense for their renunciation of all their claims and rights to the lands and barony of Kilmarnock. For services in France and elsewhere, he and his wife had a new grant of the said lands "and of the lands and castle of Dundonald" on 1 June 1537.

In 1543 Robert Boyd protested against the reduction of the forfeiture of Sir James Colville of East Wemyss, and early the next year he rendered material assistance to the Regent James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran, against the faction supporting Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, at the Battle of Glasgow. It was doubtless in reward for this help at a critical juncture of the battle that he was ultimately restored as Lord Boyd. The date of this is generally given as 1549, when he is said to have been confirmed by a charter of novodamus in all the estates, honours, and dignities that belonged to his grandfather (Robert Boyd, 1st Lord Boyd). The precise date of this charter, which is not recorded in the Register of the Great Seal, is not given, but the actual date of the restoration of the title was between 22 September 1545 and 17 November 1546. The property, however, was probably restored in 1543, as on 29 October that year he had a letter from the dowager queen, Mary of Guise, discharging the execution of any letters at the instance of the Master of Glencairn, charging the said Robert Boyd or "any otheris withholderis of the castle of Kilmarnock to deliver the same to him or any of his servants", and on 11 March 1545 he was served heir to James Boyd, the son of his father's elder brother, in the lands of Kilmarnock, Dairy, Kilbride, etc., being thus acknowledged as head of the family.

Robert Boyd of Kilmarnock was one of those who pledged to defend the country against the English in the Parliament held at Stirling on 26 June 1545. Robert Boyd, son and heir-apparent of Robert Boyd of Kilmarnock, had sasine on precept (a legal instrument giving him feudal tenure) dated 22 September 1545 by the dowager queen Mary, following the resignation of his father. Robert, Lord Boyd of Kilmarnock and Robert, Master of Boyd, his son, witnessed a contract between the Countess of Eglinton and Montgomerie of Langschaw on 17 November 1546 (see also The Lands of Lainshaw).

Robert Boyd was present at the meeting of the Privy Council at St. Andrews on 19 December 1546. Notwithstanding the agreement of 1530, the feud with the Montgomeries still continued, and Sir Neil Montgomerie of Lainshaw was slain by Lord Boyd and his adherents in a skirmish in the streets of Irvine in 1547. This was warmly resented, and the feud raged until 1560–61, when, in the time of his son the 5th Lord Boyd, peace was restored between the parties by a mutual compromise. Robert, 4th Lord Boyd, died between 29 July 1557, when his son is styled Master of Boyd, and 10 May 1558, when the son is "now Lord Boyd".

Family
Robert Boyd married Helen, daughter of Sir John Somerville of Cambusnethan, before 1518. She was living on 13 August 1536. He married, secondly, before December 1542, Elizabeth Napier, widow of Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, and thirdly, before February 1549, Marion, daughter of Sir John Colquhoun of Luss. She survived him, and was married, secondly, to Captain Thomas Crawfurd of Jordanhill. He had two children:
 * 1) Robert, 5th Lord Boyd (c. 1517–1590)
 * 2) Margaret, who married John Montgomerie of Lainshaw and was widowed before 10 February 1560–61.

title: Robert Boyd, 4th Lord Boyd


text: User:Dampignak

title: User:Dampignak