text:
At the Threshold of an Era

At the Threshold of an Era was a Hong Kong epic drama series broadcast by TVB Jade Channel from 11 October to 18 December 1999 and 13 March to 26 May 2000 and was extensively promoted by TVB as its cross-millennium, one-hundred-episode-long epic. The series composed of two parts, with a gap in between airing.

The entire series took place in a continuing flashback, with the protagonist, Tim Yip (Gallen Lo), pondering the trials and tribulations he went through while riding on a train in the "green city" he developed.

In 2022, the drama was selected as one of ten classic TVB dramas being honoured for Youku and TVB's new programme.

Premise
The drama documents the rise and fall of three entrepreneurs, who founded Lik Tin Century Corporation (力天世紀) together to achieve the ultimate goal of developing a pollution-free town in Hong Kong. Vendetta and love serves as strong subplots throughout the series, with the vendetta between two families being the most prominent.

The stories covered a span of 20 years, from 1990 to 2010, and featured many technologies that came to age during this time, including the nascent internet, and a bulkier tamagotchi virtual pet device (shown as a device similar to Game Boy in the series), which was developed by one of the entrepreneurs before his entry into construction.

Speculation on production
It was speculated that the show was not originally meant to become a cross-millennium event, and was rushed into development and broadcast by TVB because of a slump in ratings.

In Hong Kong, TVB is the predominant TV station in terms of ratings, often receiving 90% viewing shares. During the summer of 1999, the Mainland-Taiwanese drama My Fair Princess, aired by rival broadcaster ATV, took away a significant portion of TVB's audience, and came out on top in the ratings battle during certain hours.

It is speculated, but never confirmed, that the managements of TVB drafted its top actors and actresses to perform in the series, and rushed the production into broadcast as a weapon against the resurgent ATV. Supporters of this theory point to the splitting of the series into two parts, with a gap in between the broadcast to allow for production time. Opponents of the speculation assert that ATV only had a one-off hit with My Fair Princess, and there were no other series afterward that could have retained the audience that eventually returned to TVB. The opponents also allude to the fact that even during the lowest point of the entire crisis, TVB still retained a competitive edge in ratings, and would have been able to defeat ATV right after My Fair Princess concluded. However, this still does not provide an explanation to the gap between two series.

Cost
The series was the costliest ever produced in Hong Kong television history, totaling more than HK$100 million (US$12.8 Million), thus creating a record that no other television series has ever been able to break until The Gem of Life in 2008.

Main

 * Tim Yip Wing-tim (葉榮添, portrayed by Gallen Lo): The main character in the series, and an ambitious entrepreneur, he is the leader of his circle of three friends that established the Lik Tin Century (力天世紀) construction corporation. Throughout the series, Tim has sometimes resorted to rather unsavory tactics to get things done due to his poor upbringing and his lust for revenge. As the main character of the series, he faces many challenges like the constant betrayals of his best friends (especially Michael), the feud between the two branches of Yip families, and the love obstacles with the many women in the series. He cares most of his family and friends yet at the beginning of the story, he was too bent on revenge, resulting in unethical schemes that hurt others around him. But through the long course of the story, he realizes his mistakes and evolved into an honorable person.
 * Michael Hui Man-piu (許文彪, portrayed by Sunny Chan): An urban planner and the most educated person in his family, he was the brain of the gang of three, and the most principled one out of all three in the beginning. However, his world begins to fall apart when his estranged family was placed in danger and little by little, opportunities of corruption keeps coming up that could help him solve most of his problems. After a stressful event, he finally succumbs to the glories of dirty tactics and the crisis turned him into the villain of the first series. His evolution was so big that he would eventually turn on everyone he loved just for fame and fortune. He was probably Tim's greatest friend and greatest challenge. Over the course of the first series, Tim first tries to get him to see the benefits of walking outside the straight line and will later try to make him repent his sins. He eventually dies at the end of the first series after being pushed off a cliff.
 * Ma Chi-keung (馬志強, portrayed by Roger Kwok): He is the most unimpressive of the group of three due to his naivete but he is very nice towards his parents and friends. He started off as an investment counsellor and joined Lik Tin after he was fired from the bank. After his parents' death, he left the company when he realizes that their deaths were part of a defamation plot hatched by Michael and Tim. Though sometimes considered the weaker one, he is a good-natured innocent boy stuck between Tim and Michael. He is the friendly one who always stops the arguing of the three friends.

Yip family
Yip Hau-kan's branch Howard Yip's branch
 * Yip Hau-kan (葉孝勤, portrayed by Chow Chung): Brother of Howard Yip, and established Ming Dai Group (明大集團), which is now controlled by Howard Yip and his family. He went to prison for his brother over poorly constructed houses that violated safety regulations years before the time of the series, and is currently in retirement.
 * Lee Pik-chun (李碧珍, portrayed by Suet Nei): Mother of Tim, and has a housewife mentality, often speaking about matters without knowing what she's talking about. She was once diagnosed with cancer during Ken's time in prison and is now constantly worried about her children.
 * Yip Wing-chak (葉榮澤, portrayed by Hawick Lau): An athlete whose dream was to compete professionally. He is usually supportive of his brother. His dreams were dashed during a revenge attack initiated by Michael Hui.
 * Cat Yip Nga-man (葉雅汶, portrayed by Grace Ip): A student who doesn't really know what the future brings for her. She is rebellious to Tim, who tries to be strict towards her, and is open to the idea of starting a relationship with Keung. She eventually leaves for the United States to pursue postsecondary education after she was raped in an alleyway.
 * Howard Yip Hau-lai (葉孝禮, portrayed by Paul Chun): Chairman of the Ming Dai Group, which is one of the largest corporations in Asia with hundreds of subsidiary companies. His rise to the top involved treachery towards his brother, Hau-ken, who went to jail for him over poorly constructed houses consisting of concrete mixed with sea water (an illegal building method). His company is mainly into land development and the architectural and realty business but makes much money by taking over investment firms and R&D companies.
 * Donald Yip Wing-chun (葉榮晉, portrayed by Joe Ma): First son of Howard. His rich upbringing makes him a spoiled brat and his father's competitive nature makes him resort to devious tactics in business to ensure success. He looks down on Tim Yip and his family and suspects that everyone is out for money when trying to enter affairs with Ming Dai or the Yip family. Out of the three brothers, he is considered the clever, devious and most importantly, the reckless one.
 * Eva Lau Suet-ling (劉雪玲, portrayed by Kara Hui): Wife of Donald and pretty useless in terms of contributing to the household. Donald asks her to help him secure funding from a financial banker she once dated which leads to her developing an affair with him.
 * Jason Yip Wing-ngai (葉榮毅, portrayed by Lee Wai-kei): Second son of Howard. He was the underrated child as he does not possess the business expertise of Donald and the heart of Joe. His devious sides eventually show and soon hatches a plan to gain his father's favour by teaming up with Michael Hui to take down Donald and kidnapping Joe.
 * Joe Yip Wing-hang (葉榮亨, portrayed by Nicky Wu): Third son of Howard. He is at first a playboy, but later becomes more hardworking because of a kidnapping attempt by Michael and Jason. Initially dated Helen Fok, but the relationship ended rather quickly upon Howard's marriage to Helen's mother, which made them brothers and sisters. Due to his lavish upbringing, he was hot-headed and extremely competitive in social circles, often making him commit mistakes in the business world. He was never a fan of Michael Hui due to his affections for Tina. Tina was simply a game for him to overcome at first until her steadfast attitude made him realize the importance of hardwork and earning your position. He eventually realize that his feelings for her is of love. He was kidnapped near the end of the series by his second brother, Jason, in order to rid him from gaining the Chairman position at the Ming Dai group.

Fok family

 * David Fok King-leung (霍景良, portrayed by Kwok Fung): Chairman of the Fok's Group (霍氏集團), and is known for his extremely unsavory tactics and ever-shifting alliance arrangements. Tim Yip worked with him at first to secure Lik Tien's future after a disastrous spell, but later ditches him and battled against him head on. Like Helen, he has a rocky relationship with Tim, often partnering with him when there is profit but his large company makes him a bully of sorts.
 * Liza Fong Kin-ping (方健平, portrayed by Liza Wang): Initially wife of David Fok, but later divorced him upon learning that he is cheating on her with her best friend, Sabrina. Eventually married her longtime friend, Howard Yip. She is extremely wise due to her experience in the corporate world and always approach situations in a calm and diplomatic manner.
 * Helen Fok Hei-yin (霍希賢, portrayed by Flora Chan): Love interest of Tim Yip, and worked in Lik Tien Century as their legal advisor for that very purpose. She is very emotional in her dealings and that leads to a rollercoaster relationship with Tim. She married Barry in a rebound but eventually realizes that her heart still lies with Tim, especially after a change in his personality.

Hui family

 * Hui Tai-hon (許大漢, portrayed by Lau Kong): Father of Michael Hui and a former police officer. Like most of his family, he is uneducated and extremely arrogant. Now he spends his days in gambling rings and picking fights with anyone that shows even a hint of disrespect. He was shot by police while chasing Tim with a butcher knife and died.
 * Cheung Yuk-fong (張玉芳, portrayed by Rainbow Ching): Estranged mother of Michael, who cheated on Michael's father and left for Taiwan. She has another son, Nick Cheung (張自力), who is a gangster at the time Michael knows of his existence.
 * Hui Man-kwan (許文坤, portrayed by Andy Dai): Brother of Michael, and is known for acting before thinking. Like his father, he tends to gamble a lot and plays the stock market in hopes of making a big fortune in a short amount of time. He later joins Michael in his schemes to run Ming Fo, once a subsidiary of Ming Dai and is arrested by the ICAC in his brother's place for budgeting fraud.
 * Hui Man-ying (許文瑛, portrayed by Celine Ma); Sister of Michael. The most useless sibling and goes into beauty and makeover business ventures with little to no success.
 * Nick Cheung Chi-lik (張自力, portrayed by Louis Koo): Half-brother of Michael. Initially fell into a bad crowd due to his poor upbringing in Taiwan, but after a near-death experience where Michael saves him, he tries to redeem himself. Eventually, it is his good brother that leads him back into the wrong path once more.

Other characters

 * Ivy Shum Wing-yan (岑穎欣, portrayed by Kenix Kwok): Love interest of Tim Yip in the first series, she stood by Tim during his hardest hours, and did many things for him with little or no rewards in return. She eventually married Michael and goes into a small business of her own. She has little self-esteem and is always wondering if she's good enough for him. She soon realizes that the sincere and innocent man he once was is now a monstrous villain. She was framed for murdering him by Jason Yip and was jailed in Taiwan. After an escape attempt, she is shot by the police and dies.
 * Tina Pang (彭芷蔚, portrayed by Maggie Shiu) An upper-middle-class woman who strives to be successful in all her endeavours. At first is dating Michael Hui but leaves him due to his non-existent ambitions. When he turns a new leaf, she finds herself attracted to him because of his new headstrong and forward looking perspective and is somewhat jealous of Ivy for being with him. She treats Joe like a pet, someone to be used in her business endeavours due to his finances but can never rely on him due to his incompetency and playboy nature. She soon realizes his feelings for her are true and ends up with him only to be kidnapped by Jason along with Joe.
 * Barry Kwan (Portrayed by Michael Fitzgerald Wong): A lawyer who studies in the West, he immediately develops an infatuation for Helen which turns into love. He has poor Cantonese skills due to his upbringing in the west and will often mispronounce words and uses English during court proceedings. Unlike Tim, he is an introvert and apologizes too often usually for things that don't even warrant one. He begins a relationship with Helen and eventually marries her until he realizes her heart lies with Tim.
 * Sandy Ho (何佩琪, portrayed by Florence Kwok) A lawyer who's working in the same firm as Helen, she often provides Helen with romantic advise. It is ironic because she is in a relationship with a married man which often leads to dramatic antics. She develops feelings for Keung at one point but after his parents' death, she cannot handle his constant dependency on her and his reckless nature due to the lost.
 * Tin Ning (田寧, portrayed by Ada Choi) A bar girl that once had a fling with Tim in Taiwan years before the series began however his operational nature and an opportunity for business was always a priority before she was. He eventually leaves her without notifying her. Years later, she is with Nick.

Cameo appearances by Kenneth Ma as Stanley, Lik Tin's stock broker and Raymond Lam as a Taiwanese prison guard.

Broadcast
The series was repeated during late night hours in the summer of 2005, and, to the shock of many analysts, drew impressive ratings. It drew twice the audience comparing to 2004's late night hours rerun. Traditionally, reruns only serve as fillers in the late night hours and were never expected to draw impressive ratings. TVB has since undergone a rethink into the philosophy of reruns and is currently broadcasting more high-quality shows during rerun hours.

title: At the Threshold of an Era


text:
Lochbuie, Mull

Lochbuie (Locha Buidhe, meaning "yellow loch" ) is a settlement on the Isle of Mull in Scotland about 22 km west of Craignure.

Geography
Once known as the "Garden of Mull", the fertile land around the main village of seventeen houses is surrounded by hills, with the narrow valley to the east containing both Loch Uisg and the only road to the estate. The settlement lies at the head of Loch Buie, a sea loch which contains the tidal islands of Eilean Mòr and Eilean Uamh Ghuaidhre. Frank Lockwood's Island (or Eilean Sneth Dian) lies in the Firth of Lorne, just offshore from the Laggan peninsula to the south. This island is named after Frank Lockwood who was Solicitor General for England and Wales from 1894 to 1895 and the brother-in-law of the 21st MacLean of Lochbuie.

The highest hills in the area are Ben Buie whose summit is 747 m above sea level to the north, the Druim Fada range reaching 405 m to the south and Craig Ben, at 698 m to the east, overlooking Loch Spelve. A track allows walking access to Carsaig 10 km to the west.

History
There is a fine stone circle at Lochbuie, the only one on Mull, and the remains of a pre-historic tomb. Both these sites are scheduled monuments, as is Moy Castle, originally a 14th-century keep, subsequently altered, and is now an uninhabited 3-storey tower. It is near the imposing 18th-century Lochbuie House and both buildings were once the seat of Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie. There is the medieval chapel of Caibeal Mheamhair, which may originally have been dedicated to St. Oran, rebuilt in the 19th century as a mausoleum for the MacLaine family. A luxurious silver brooch (known as the Lochbuie Brooch) dating to c. 1500 was found on the estate and has been in the British Museum's collection since 1855. Lochbuie is in the Diocese of Argyll and the Isles and there is a small Episcopal church built in 1876 consecrated to the mythical St Kilda.

Between 1752 and the construction of the existing mansion house the MacLaine lived in a smaller house on the estate. There is an inscription above a doorway in Lochbuie House farm square that states: "After leaving Moy Castle the Lochbuie family resided in this house from 1752 to 1789 and it was in this house that Dr. Johnson and Mr. Boswell were entertained in 1773 by John MacLaine XVII chief of Lochbuie."

Samuel Johnson wrote: We came without any difficulty, at evening, to Lochbuy, where we found a true Highland Laird, rough and haughty, and tenacious of his dignity; who, hearing my name, inquired whether I was of the Johnstons of Glencroe, or of Ardnamurchan.

Lochbuy has, like the other insular Chieftains, quitted the castle that sheltered his ancestors, and lives near it, in a mansion not very spacious or splendid. I have seen no houses in the Islands much to be envied for convenience or magnificence, yet they bare testimony to the progress of arts and civility, as they shew that rapine and surprise are no longer dreaded, and are much more commodious than the ancient fortresses.

Among the island's notable residents have been Hester Gatty, wife of the poet Siegfried Sassoon, and their son George Sassoon, who in the 1960s was a farmer at Lochbuie.

Economy
The 8900 ha Lochbuie Estate, run by the Corbett family since 1921, is a sporting estate and a cattle farm. Self-catering cottages are available and both loch and sea-fishing.

Media and the arts
Scenes for the 1945 film I Know Where I'm Going! directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger were shot at Lochbuie, and a group of 40 fans visited to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the film's release in 2005.

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

title: Lochbuie, Mull


text:
Talk:The Da Vinci Code paintings

An Original research essay.

title: Talk:The Da Vinci Code paintings


text:
Death for Life

Death for Life is the fourth studio album by American hardcore punk band Death by Stereo, released on June 7, 2005.

This release is much heavier than any of Death By Stereo's previous work, but it also includes the first ever ballad-like Death By Stereo song, "Forever and a Day", which was also re-recorded for the band's following album, Death Is My Only Friend. The closing track on their second album "Day of the Death" has the same name as this album, "Death For Life".

Track listing
All tracks written by Death by Stereo except "Entombed We Collide", being written by Death by Stereo and Mark Renk.

Personnel

 * Efrem Schulz - vocals
 * Dan Palmer - lead guitar, backing vocals
 * Tim "Tito" Owens - rhythm guitar, backing vocals
 * Tyler Rebbe - bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Todd Hennig - drums, backing vocals
 * M. Shadows of Avenged Sevenfold (additional vocals, tracks 4 and 11)
 * Scott Gilman (strings and programming)
 * Derek Whitacre (live samples)
 * Produced, mixed and recorded by The Factory (Fred Achambault and Bruce MacFarlane)
 * Recorded at Sound City, Ton Recording and The Scene
 * Mixed at Ton Recording and Al's Hobby Shop
 * Assistant engineered by Pete Martinez (Sound City)
 * Mastered by John Golden
 * Artwork and design by Paul A. Romano
 * Mark Renk – vocal coach
 * Gardner Knutson – drum technician

title: Death for Life


text:
Armored Box Launcher

The Mark 143 Armored Box Launcher (ABL) is a four-round protected launch container for the BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

Fitted to the Iowa-class battleship following their 1980s recommissioning upgrade, each ABL contains four ready-to-fire Tomahawks. The use of ABLs on these vessels rather than a non-armored solution was necessitated to enable the battleships to continue to exploit the capability provided by their heavy armor and reduce the vulnerability of the delicate missiles within. Eight ABLs were fitted to each of the four recommissioned battleships, providing 32 weapons to each ship. Some of the original dual 5 inch (127 mm) gun mounts were removed to fit the ABLs.

As well as being fitted on to the United States Navy's Iowa-class battleships, this system was also fitted on the nuclear-powered cruisers, including the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) and the Virginia-class cruiser as well as some Spruance-class destroyer (Comte de Grasse, Merrill, Conolly, John Rodgers, Leftwich, Deyo, and Ingersoll). The cruisers and destroyers were fitted with two ABLs each for a total of 8 missiles.

Since then the Armored Box Launcher missile system has been phased out in favor of the more flexible, larger capacity Vertical Launching System (VLS).

The Armored Box Launcher shares one common handicap with the Vertical Launching System: It can not be reloaded at sea. The ship must return to port in order to receive and load her ABLs.

title: Armored Box Launcher


text:
Talk:Harcourt Park

Untitled
Is this an offering?

The subject refers to a unique and rare collectively-owned and organized realestate cottaging corporation, located in an interesting region of Ontario, and is not meant to be viewed as an "offer," whatever that may imply. This page does not serve as a business advertisement of any kind - no more so than a page dedicated to a brand-name product such as Pepsi, Nokia, or Sony does. People who are interested in cottage living, or are researching different aspects of cottaging, would find the page on the Park interesting, due the unusual premises behind its structure and organization.

 * I'd agree with that, no there is no offering. The "Park" bit in the name is misleading.  Its legal structure is more akin to a condo corporation with private ownership of the cottages but 50 year leases on the land.  Harcourt Park is more akin to a small community, rural municipality, or village - and as such a page in Wikipedia is appropriate imho. 74.216.224.3 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harcourt Park


text:
User:Lelandpaul

I'm a PhD student in linguistics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. My research focus is on syntax, prosody, and languages of Africa.

title: User:Lelandpaul


text:
Talk:Commutator subgroup

Notation
As pointed out above, the notation $$G^1$$ is unusual. If there are no objections, I intend to change it to $$[G,G]$$ (because the alternative $$G'$$ is too easily misread as $$G$$ in some fonts). --Zundark 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The notation $$G^{(n)}$$ is nice in some respects because the condition for a group to be solvable is that there exists some n such that $$G^{(n)}=\{e\}$$, echoing ideas of differentiation somehow. But you are right, it isn't all that common. I much prefer $$G'$$, but [G, G] should be okay too, though it might look a bit cumbersome in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysprosia (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

'Smallest' normal subgp?
This article seems to claim a total order on normal subgps. This is probably a mistake but I wanted to check first.

Isaac (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The article does not (intend to) claim that the normal subgroups are totally ordered, merely that a certain partially ordered subset of normal subgroups has a unique minimal element. The commutator subgroup is the intersection of all normal subgroups with abelian quotient and is itself such a normal subgroup, so it is the unique minimal element of the set of normal subgroups with abelian quotients, where the order is the partial order of set-wise inclusion.  It is reasonably common in mathematics to use "smallest" for partial orders to be sort of a two-part assertion: (1) it is *a* minimal element, that is, there are no elements less than it in the partial order, and (2) it is the only minimal element, and even more, every element is greater than it in the partial order.  A poset need not have a smallest element, but it can.  Infimum or meet are other common words used in partial orders and lattices.  The poset article uses the term smallest (with the sort of required qualifier, "if it exists"), and the lattice article uses "least" and "infimum" (where part of being a lattice is being a poset where smallest elements *do* exist; the lattice of normal subgroups is a lattice for instance).  JackSchmidt (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Last line of Definition
"The commutator subgroup is a fully characteristic subgroup: it is closed under all endomorphisms of the group, which is stronger than normal."

Can someone clarify what is meant by the last clause 'which is stronger than normal'. Does it mean "The condition of being closed under all endomorphisms is a stronger condition than obtains for normal groups" ? As it is it kind of hangs in the air and isn't clear (to me anyway) Thx. Zero sharp (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've reworded it. --Zundark (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Some cleaning up
I made some changes in the article. Previously, the facts that the commutator subgroup was normal and moreover fully characteristic came up three times in the article, each time saying things slightly differently. I consolidated this information into one place farther up in the article. I also wrote out some simple "commutator identities" so as to make these properties as clear as possible. I noticed that there was no discussion of "commutators" per se so I added a section on that.

I reiterated the assertion of the two groups of order 96 in which the subset of commutators is not a subgroup, but in fact this was news to me (not that I disbelieve it): a reference is really needed here.

I also removed the passage about the (supposed) universal property of the commutator subgroup, together with its rather awkward footnote. I think this material was actually incorrect: a universal mapping property is something that defines an object up to canonical isomorphism in a certain category. The fact that it is only defined up to canonical isomorphism is an important feature of the definition. But there's no category here; we're just talking about the subgroups of a fixed group [true, you can view the lattice of subgroups as a category in which the morphisms are the inclusion maps, but that's a contrivance in this context] and indeed the commutator subgroup is truly unique, a clue that there is no [nontrivial] universal mapping property here.

On the other hand, the universal mapping property of the abelianization ought to be spelled out, although perhaps in a different article. Plclark (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that JackSchmidt made some changes in my revisions. Thanks for this -- almost all the changes are clear improvements. Just a couple of thoughts:

1) This is picky, but I think that always -- and especially in the more formal context of an encylopedia, definitions should come before they are used, not after: so the conjugation notation should not be used and then defined followed by a "where..."

2) I had defined the commutator as $$ghg^{-1}h^{-1}$$ and this was changed back to having the inverses first. Of course there is no mathematical difference here.  But in my experience, the convention I used seems more common and is a little more sensible (why throw in inverses? we could also define the commutator as $$hgh^{-1}g^{-1}$$ and that would be mathematically okay too, but shouldn't the most direct and transparent notation be used?). The article on commutators suggests that the "inverse first" convention is preferred by group theorists.  Is this (still) true?  I would be interested to hear from a group theorist on this.

Also, the section on abelianization should be expanded a bit, since it seems not to appear anywhere else on wikipedia. Does anyone else think that the use of terminology like "reflective subcategory" and "reflector" is more heavy-handed than necessary?

Thanks again -- it's a very positive experience to have one's improvements improved upon.

Plclark (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanations on the talk page. Today has been hectic, and I hadn't noticed the clear explanations here (luckily I don't think I messed up anything you explained).  I definitely liked your reorganization.  Looking at the diffs I was at first appalled you had deleted so much good material, but then when I looked at the article it was all still there! Magic? No just repetitive old version.  The section on commutators seems like a very good idea.  It has just the right amount of detail before sending the reader to commutator or down to the next section for the commutator subgroup proper.
 * I'll see if I can find a paper reference for the 96 thing. It is in a few textbooks (Dummit&Foote's Algebra, Isaacs's Character Theory, probably many others).  Sadly it takes less than a second to search the small groups library in GAP, so it may not ever have been published as a "result".  There was also some interesting thing about rearranging words and the relation to commutator subgroups and commutators, but I've forgotten the authors (I think it was a series of papers).
 * I'm never too fond of using categorical language to describe simple ideas in group theory. Even Glauberman's text on finite groups says that "conjugation functors" (a technical device that behaves well with conjugation and normalizers) are just called that, though you could make a category if you wanted.
 * So yes, I think if "reflective subcategory" is needed to understand a point in the article that is not intended for explaining category theory, then I think it is too heavy-handed. On the other hand, there is no reason not to have some explanations of category theory in this article, just like explaining a bit of the commutator subgroup in the commutator article.  In other words, it is fine as "bonus material".  I actually feel excluding these points of views (even if they are heavy handed) is a violation of WP:NPOV, but that policy also says they need only be given their due weight based on how prevalent that point of view is.
 * To answer your specific concerns about my edits: (1) I'm fine with moving the definition up.  I believe it is done to your liking in the commutator article.  I tend to think it is fine to have the definition in the same sentence.  (2) This has always struck me as odd.  More or less every group theorist uses gh = hg[g,h] = h g^h, the only exceptions being a few who came over from topology.  However, really a significant portion of all other mathematicians (rarely use it at all, but when they do they) use gh = [g,h]hg.  In the commutator article, both standards are discussed.  In the commutator subgroup article basically it doesn't matter which way you do it, so I just try to keep it from changing.
 * So, I am fine with any fixes to 1 (sorry, I hadn't realized I broke it). I lean heavily towards keeping the "English" (and German) convention for gh=hg[g,h], but lean even more heavily towards trying not to mention it at all in this article.  Definitely need more sources (in all the math articles!).  You have my support for making all category theory stuff into "extras", rather than the main presentation, but try to keep some (correct) mention of it. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Short description
The short description of this article is currently "Smallest normal subgroup by which the quotient is commutative." The definition of the commutator subgroup is "The subgroup generated by the set of all commutators." I propose changing the short description to the definition. What is currently in the short description is a consequence of the definition.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, the previous short description was "smallest normal subgroup such that the quotient of the parent by this subgroup is commutative". IMO, the present short description better fits the objectives short descriptions, as described in WP:Short description. In fact "Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided", so, it is better to avoid repeating the word "commutator". "The short description may be used for several purposes, including as a disambiguator in searches and as an annotation in outline articles." This implies that the short description is mainly used by readers for deciding whether they want to access the article. So, it is better to explain the reason for which the concept is useful than to provide the technical definition, specially when, as it is the case here, both are equivalent and this eqivalence is given in the second sentence of the lead. So the present formulation seems better. However, I am open for changing my opinion if strong arguments are given against my formulation.
 * By the way, you can see in Abelian group an example of the use of the short description of this article, and of the redirect to one of its section D.Lazard (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commutator subgroup


text:
Jin Youzhi

Jin Youzhi (, 21 September 1918 – 10 April 2015), born Aisin-Gioro Puren, was a Chinese politician, teacher and historian. He was the head of the House of Aisin-Gioro, the ruling clan of the Qing dynasty, from 1994 until his death in 2015. He was the fourth and youngest son of Prince Chun, and a younger half-brother of Puyi, the last emperor of China. Instead of using his Manchu clan name "Aisin-Gioro" as his family name, Puren adopted "Jin" as his new family name. "Jin" means "gold" in Mandarin, as does "Aisin" in the Manchu language. His courtesy name was "Youzhi." He is best known as "Jin Youzhi." The Chinese media referred to him as "the last emperor's younger brother" or "the last imperial younger brother."

Life
Jin was born in the Prince Chun Mansion in Shichahai, Beijing. After receiving an early education in Chinese classics and traditional art, he established a public primary school in the Prince Chun Mansion in 1947 with support from his father. He was the principal of the school while his sister was a teacher there. The school was later donated to the Chinese government, after which Jin continued working as a teacher until retiring in 1988. In his retirement, Jin wrote books on the history of the Qing dynasty and literature. He served three terms as a delegate to the Municipal Political Consultative Conference of Beijing, and was also a researcher in Chinese history at the Beijing Research Institute.

Jin was the heir to the Manchu throne under a 1937 succession law issued by Puyi as emperor of Manchukuo.

Family

 * First wife, of the Jin clan (金氏; d. 1971), personal name Yuting (瑜庭)
 * Yuzhang (毓嶂; b. May 1942), first son
 * Jin Yuquan (毓峑; b. 1946), second son
 * First daughter, personal name Yukun (毓琨)
 * Married Mr. Du (杜), and had issue (one son)
 * Second daughter, personal name Yucheng (毓珵)
 * Married Mr. Qiao (喬), and had issue (one son)
 * Jin Yulan (毓嵐; b. December 1948), third son

 * Second wife, of the Zhang clan (張氏), personal name Maoying (茂瀅)

title: Jin Youzhi


text:
Andy Titterrell

Andrew James Titterrell (born 10 January 1981 in Dartford, England) is a former rugby union player who played at hooker and previously for England.

Titterrell was educated at the Hugh Christie Technology College in Tonbridge and Sevenoaks School and started playing rugby union at the age of seven at Sevenoaks which also nurtured England prop David Flatman and Sevens specialist Tony Roques.

After learning the game in Kent, he had spells with Saracens and Waterloo before joining Sale Sharks in 2001. His first game for Sale was against French club Auch in 2001. Capped by England at schoolboy and U21 level, he was first capped for England A against Ireland A in 2002. He caught the eye of Clive Woodward with a dynamic display on his first start for England A against Scotland A in March 2002. He gained his second A cap against Italy A in 2003 and was involved in the Churchill Cup success in Canada. He won a place in the England Elite Player Squad for 2003. He was considered an outside chance for Woodward's 2003 Rugby World Cup squad but was ultimately left out.

In 2004, Titterrell earned England A selection against France A in their narrow defeat in Perpignan. He took part in the 2004 senior Summer tour, earning his first senior cap, coming off the bench against the All Blacks in Auckland. He added another when coming on as a replacement against Canada in November 2004. In 2005 Titterrell was a surprise selection for the British & Irish Lions tour to New Zealand ahead of more experienced players.

In the 2005–06 Guinness Premiership, Titterrell played every game for Sale Sharks and was a key catalyst for the team's Final victory in May. Titterrell only missed 1 game during the whole season for the Sharks which was against the Llanelli Scarlets in the Powergen Cup.

On 3 April 2007, Titterrell joined Gloucester Rugby on a three-year deal.

On 12 April 2009, it was announced that Titterrell had been released by Gloucester. But subsequently in November 2009 he joined Leeds Carnegie on a three-month contract that was later renewed until the end of the season. On 14 December 2011, Titterell rejoined Sale Sharks on a loan deal from Leeds Carnegie. Following his loan deal from Sale Sharks, Andy Titterrell signed a one-year contract to join Edinburgh Rugby ahead of 2012/13 season. On 31 May 2013, after his release from Edinburgh, Titterrell signed for London Welsh ahead of the 2013/14 season. However, on 12 February 2014, Titterrell announces his retirement from rugby on medical advice.

After his retirement, Titterell joins Wasps backroom staff as their new Strength and Conditioning Coach.

title: Andy Titterrell


text:
User:Warshy

My name is Yuval Warshai. (Sex - Male)

I live in Ann Arbor, MI.

I'm interested in Economic and Cultural History (17th century colonial sugar trade) and Philosophy, mostly Epistemology. I like to contribute to certain areas in Wikipedia using my acquired limited knowledge, but also using a good measure of simple common sense.

title: User:Warshy


text:
Talk:Chełmno extermination camp

(Bohn)
What is (Bohn) ?Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still unanswered.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no (Bohn) found... in what sen(ten)ce? 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The victims were brought from all over Landkreis Warthbrücken to Koło by rail with the last stop in Powiercie
Something is wrong. The majority of victims was transported from Kolo to Powiercie using a narrow gauge rail. I'm not sure how they were transported to Kolo, rather not all of them by rail. Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What other means would there have been? By truck? No way! - first it should be defined where this Kolo is! On a map I see: Lodz to Kolo is 60km directly to the north-west, whereas Powierce is on the same "line" 10km south of Powierce. HOWEVER there is also a Kolo: Koło, Łódź Voivodeship = 47 km (29 mi) south-east of the regional capital Łódź.[1] - SO THERE are at least two Kolo in a direct "line" - one about 60km NW to Lodz AND another 47km SE of Lodz! 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again looking at the map! The railway line passes Kolo from north-west in a curve and goes off to the east! Strange that there is no railway crossing of the Warta, so one can assume that transports came from the north-west on the standard gauge railway into Kolo and were then transferred to (a no longer existing?) narrow gauge railway line to Powierce, which is the closest rail transport to Kulmhof/Chelmno is possible. 80.151.9.187 (talk)
 * regarding: "(a no longer existing?) narrow gauge railway line to Powierce": from teh German article "Dabie": "Der Bahnhof Dąbie Kolskie am Nordrand der Stadt war Endpunkt der Schmalspurbahn Sompolno–Dąbie Kolskie. " - translated: The station Dbie Kolskie on the northern outskirts of the town (Dabie) WAS the end point of the narrow gauge line Sompolno (to the north of Dabie) –Dąbie Kolskie 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Patrick Montague the name "Chełmno extermination camp" is ahistorical. The name of the camp was Kulmhof.
My statement is obviously true. Patric Montague is quoted several times. If you believe that the place is wrong, you are able to move the text instaed to remove it. But I believe that this information is basic, so it should go after the ahistorical name, to inform about the problem, rather to hide the information in a long text. There was no Chełmno at that time.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to add a source when adding information. It's not enough to say someone is quoted several times - add a correct citation as most of this article is sourced. This is basic Wikipedia 101 - adding a reliable source when adding the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Montague discusses this in the introduction. He says the name "Chelmno" for the camp is historically inaccurate and probably comes from the first ever English language translation of the commission report on the camp. He also says that it despite its inaccuracy it has become common in English literature and that's why he uses it.  Volunteer Marek   02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chełmno extermination camp


text:
User talk:Twistermatic8

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! pamri 05:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:Jenna.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. pamri 05:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright
Thank you for uploading Image:SavannaSamson.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. pamri 11:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Twistermatic8


text:
Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis

Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis (Πάρης Κασιδόκωστας-Λάτσης; born 1982) is a Greek shipping heir, socialite, film and music producer, and ship owner. He is the grandson of the shipping multi-billionaire tycoon Yiannis "John S." Latsis.

Family
Latsis is the son of Marianna Latsis and Grigoris Kasidokostas, who was mayor of the affluent seaside town Vouliagmeni from 1986 to 2012, where he also ran a large water-ski school and was also a former polo player for Panathinaikos. His mother is a major philanthropist who donated funds for Greek earthquake relief and the Athens Olympics.

When his grandfather died in 2003, his fortune was estimated as the 101st largest in the world. Eventually the Latsis family expanded into banking, oil refining and real estate. As of March 2019 Forbes magazine estimated the Latsis family fortune at US$2.7 billion, placing them at No. 838 on the magazine's list of the world's richest people.

Film production
In 2005 he and Terry Dougas established the film production company 1821 Media which got its name from the Greek Revolution of 1821. Among the stars that have worked with the label are Natalie Portman, Stan Lee, Kevin Costner, Cameron Diaz, and Danny Trejo. Other labels that are in collaboration with 1821 Media are 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures and Warner Bros.

In 2015 he founded the film financing company Hercules Film Fund, which financed the film American Made starring Tom Cruise. Latsis was executive producer on that film.

Music production
In 2011, he co-founded with George Arsenakos the record label Panik Records.

Shipping
In 2012, Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis took over Latsco Shipping Ltd. In addition, he established Marla Bulkers and Marla Tankers in 2017 and 2018 to invest in second hand bulk carriers and second hand tanker respectively. The total fleet of Latsco and Marla is currently 35 vessels.

Personal life
In May 2005, it was announced that Kassidokostas-Latsis was engaged to American socialite Paris Hilton. In September 2005, the couple broke off their engagement. Since early 2015, Kassidokostas-Latsis has been in a relationship with the Greek-Georgian singer Tamta.

title: Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis


text:
User talk:Master Psychologist

How are you?
Do you still want to work on any project? --Jondel 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Hi Master Psychologist,

I noticed that you are a psychology student, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comeback
Come back! Where are you? We need your contributios.--Jondel 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Master Psychologist


text:
Far-right politics in New Zealand

Far-right politics in New Zealand has been present in New Zealand in the form of the organised advocacy of fascist, far-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and anti-Semitic views by various groups, although fascism has never gained a strong foothold.

Early anti-Semitism
As in most Western societies, a certain amount of anti-Semitic feeling has been present in New Zealand for quite some time. This feeling was not particularly strong, however, as evidenced by the fact that Julius Vogel, a practising Jew, was able to become Premier in 1873. Vogel did, however, suffer jibes about his faith, and political cartoonists frequently employed various Jewish stereotypes against him. The fact that he served as treasurer was particularly played upon, with stereotypes of Jewish bankers and moneylenders being brought out. However, none of this anti-Semitism was conducted in an organised fashion, being simply the views of individuals rather than any sort of political movement.

New Zealander Arthur Desmond, "possibly the most widely read and influential political writer New Zealand has ever produced", incorporated anti-semitism into his writing, particularly his 1896 political treatise Might Is Right. Numerous editions of the book have been printed and it found new popularity with neo-Nazi groups in the 21st century.

20th century
In the early 20th century, another more disciplined strain of anti-Semitism crystallised around the social credit theory. This theory, set out by the British engineer C. H. Douglas, was highly critical of bankers and financiers, believing that debt was being used to undermine people's rights. While by no means all creditists were anti-Semitic, the complaints made by Social Credit fit well with existing anti-Semitic theories that Jews controlled financial institutions. As such, many anti-Semites gathered around social credit organisations, and in some cases, became powerful.

Initially, most supporters of social credit were supporters of the Labour Party, which meant that any anti-Semitic sentiments were considerably diluted. Later, however, an independent Social Credit Party was founded, and some allege that the new group contained many anti-Semitic elements. Gradually, rifts emerged in the party over anti-Semitic views, and the faction opposed to anti-Semitism was victorious. By the late 1960s, any anti-Semitic strain had been virtually expelled from the Social Credit Party. Many anti-Semites supported the League of Rights, an organisation originating in Australia which also had links to the social credit movement.

Unlike some countries, New Zealand did not have any notable fascist organisations in the first half of the 20th century, although the New Zealand Legion was sometimes accused of having fascist leanings. There were no real equivalents to the British Union of Fascists or the Silver Legion of America, although certain individuals, notably Lionel Terry and Arthur Nelson Field, promoted white supremacist ideals.

In the post-war period, however, a number of fascist organisations became active. In 1968, the fascist activist Colin King-Ansell was jailed for an attack on a synagogue. The following year, he established the National Socialist Party of New Zealand, and contested a number of elections under its banner. Later, he led a group called the National Socialist White People's Party, modelled after the party established by George Lincoln Rockwell in the United States. In 1979, King-Ansell was fined for breaching the Race Relations Act by distributing several thousand anti-Semitic leaflets.

Another allegedly fascist group established in this period was the New Zealand National Front (NZNF). The National Front was established by Brian Thompson of Ashburton in 1968, although its initial operations were erratic. Eventually, in 1989, a new organisation called the Conservative Front (founded by Anton Foljambe) absorbed the National Front and adopted its name. The now-defunct New Zealand Democratic Nationalist Party also dates from this time period.

In 1981, a group called the New Force was founded. One of its founders and a member of its directorates was Kerry Bolton, who was also involved in the NZNF. In 1983, the New Force was renamed the Nationalist Workers Party.

In 1981, a visit by South Africa's rugby team generated huge controversy due to South Africa's apartheid policies at the time. Colin King-Ansell and a number of other fascist figures took part in counter-demonstrations against anti-tour protesters.

In the 1990s, there was something of a resurgence in New Zealand fascism. A number of gangs with fascist views, notably Unit 88, gained considerable public attention. Colin King-Ansell was once again involved, although he distanced himself from Unit 88 when the media focused on it. Later, in March 1997, King-Ansell founded the New Zealand Fascist Union, which described itself as being more closely modelled on Mussolini's Italy and Perón's Argentina than on Nazi Germany. The Fascist Union at one time claimed to have 500 members, the necessary number for official party registration, but the Union was never registered.

Also in 1997, Anton Foljambe resigned as leader of the National Front. Kyle Chapman resigned as leader in May 2005, and he and Foljambe then established the crypto-fascist National Democrats Party. Kyle Chapman has established the Right Wing Resistance (RWR), a neo-Nazi skinhead organization. The RWR has distributed pamphlets throughout Christchurch, Auckland, Hastings, Nelson, Invercargill, Wellington and Palmerston North. RWR joined with the National Front and small organisations at demonstrations. The introduction of black uniforms along the lines of Fascist Italy and the British Union of Fascists is now in place.

21st century
Foljambe resigned from the National Democrats Party in 2007 and since then the party has been defunct.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the Australian-born perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, was an admitted fascist who admired Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British fascist organization British Union of Fascists (BUF), who is also quoted in the shooter's manifesto The Great Replacement (named after the French far-right theory of the same name).

According to the sociologist Paul Spoonley, some notable far right groups in New Zealand as of 2020 have included the neo-nazi body-builder group Wargus Christi, the White nationalist Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia groups.

According to a Stuff report, an alleged co-founder of the Dominion Movement was a New Zealand Defence Force soldier named Johann Wolfe, who is facing court martial for sharing information with an undisclosed group. Action Zealandia is the successor to the Dominion Movement, which has opposed alleged Chinese political influence in New Zealand, the Global Compact for Migration, and denied the indigeneity of Māori to New Zealand. According to Newsroom journalist Marc Daalder, Action Zealandia was linked to at least three potential crimes in March 2020 including a member named Sam Brittenden making an online threat against the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, posting a leaked New Zealand Police Financial Intelligence unit document, and alleged plans to start a terror cell and purchase weapons from like-minded groups such as the Atomwaffen Division.

In August 2021 journalist and politician Elliot Weir of student newspaper Critic Te Ārohi reported an under-cover investigation of Action Zealandia, including their plans to infiltrate the New Zealand National and New Zealand Social Credit parties and plans to appeal to a broader group of people.

Organisations

 * National Front (1968–2019)
 * National Socialist Party (1969-1980)
 * Kiwis Against Further Immigration (1990s)
 * National Democrats Party (1999-2007)
 * Patriot Party (2005-2005)
 * New Zealand League of Rights
 * Nationalist Workers Party
 * Unit 88
 * Right Wing Resistance
 * Black Order
 * Dominion Movement (2018-2019)
 * Action Zealandia (2019– )
 * Wargus Christi

People

 * Colin King-Ansell (born 1947)
 * Kerry Bolton (born 1956)
 * Kelvyn Alp (born 27 March 1971)
 * Kyle Chapman (born 27 April 1971)

title: Far-right politics in New Zealand


text:
Harcourt Park (disambiguation)

Harcourt Park may refer to:

 * Harcourt Park - A cottaging enclave in Canada.
 * Harcourt Park - The real-life setting for Isengard in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001).
 * Harcourt Garden, Hong Kong, also known as Harcourt Park

title: Harcourt Park (disambiguation)


text:
Canadian Mosaic

Canadian Mosaic is a book by John Murray Gibbon, published in 1938. Gibbon's book, the full title of which is Canadian Mosaic: The Making of a Northern Nation, heralded a new way of thinking about immigrants that was to shape Canadian immigration policy in the latter part of the 20th century. The idea of a mosaic, in which each cultural group retained a distinct identity and still contributed to the nation as a whole, was in contrast to the melting pot, a popular metaphor for the more assimilationist American approach to immigration.

The idea of a mosaic of cultures forming a nation was adopted by Canadian sociologist John Porter in his study of social class, entitled Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. The mosaic theme became a part of Canadian multiculturalism policy in the 1970s, which envisioned Canada as a "cultural mosaic".

title: Canadian Mosaic


text:
Original intent

Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently used as a synonym for originalism; while original intent is one theory in the originalist family, it has some salient differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to distinguish original intent as much as legal realists do.

Approach
Original intent maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding. As in purposivism, tools such as legislative history are often used.

One example of original intent is in Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc., [2012]. The plaintiffs took out mortgage loans from Quicken Loans. In 2008 they sued Quicken Loans arguing that that respondent had violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no services were provided. The plaintiffs supported their allegation by referring to the Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) policy statement that says that §2607(b) “prohibit[s] any person from giving or accepting any unearned fees, i.e., charges or payments for real estate settlement services other than for goods or facilities provided or services performed.”

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court that RESPA Section 2607(b) was not violated by referencing that RESPA included a directive that HUD make a report to Congress regarding the need for further legislation in the area, so the original intent was to pass new legislature if it was needed, so the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Originalist criticisms of original intent proponents (and some proposed rebuttals)
Despite the potential confusion of terms between the original intent and originalism, other schools of originalist thought have been as critical of original intent as non-originalists.
 * Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text. In the case of the United States Constitution, the Philadelphia Convention was composed of over fifty men, who spent an entire summer compromising and arguing over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public. It is far from clear, therefore, that those fifty-plus men had – i.e., agreed upon – a single original intent of the text, or whether their purposes in drafting the Constitution were predicated on personal self-interest. (There is no meaning from an originalist perspective without intent. That is, it is impossible to interpret anything which has no intent, according to originalism. Lawmakers either have no intent, one intent, or multiple intents. But these multiple intents are always consistent, otherwise the law can have no meaning.)
 * Even if the convention did have a single, unified intent, it is unclear how it could reliably be determined from two centuries' distance. (That may be, but what can often be determined is that an interpretation being considered is inconsistent with the original intent even though the exact intent is not known.)
 * Many of the clauses of the Constitution are relative, and thus specifically defy any claim that it is possible to divine a single, indisputable outcome to any specific problem or dispute. Key passages in the Constitution were originally cast as flexible evaluations, such as "due process", a phrase that suggests the definitions, requirements and dimensions of court or other governmental proceedings sufficient in any given context to permit citizens to be deprived of their rights were never intended to be fixed forever. (A single indisputable decision is never the outcome using any other jurisprudence. This is an argument against making any decision at all. The judge must merely make his best effort to decide in a manner which is consistent with the intent of the framers or authors of legislation, so far as they can ascertain it.)
 * In the case of US federal law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the president. Five hundred and thirty-six people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them in order to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying "be on the Senate floor at 9:36 pm and say 'Aye'." Their vote will count even if they are falling-down drunk or if they have not even read the bill under consideration. All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent – no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is – but the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt their inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the judge thinks would be a good result. (The intent can be ascertained so far as the authors of the legislation or other less authoritative contemporary sources said what it was)
 * Original intent may fall afoul of formalist theories of law, which explicitly decline interest in how a law is made, an inquiry which is obviously at the core of an original intent inquiry.
 * Original intent cannot be reconciled against textualism. Most of those who are originalists in Constitutional matters are also textualists in statutory matters, and textualism rejects the value of the intentions of the legislature in passing a text. If one adopts originalism as an "error-correcting lens which fits over textualism to account for the passage of time", one cannot adopt an originalist theory which is incoherent with the underlying textualism.

Other schools of thought
In Canada, the predominant school of thought for legal interpretation is the living tree doctrine, under which interpretations can evolve along with the society, to deal with new conditions that were different or did not exist when the Constitution was framed.

title: Original intent


text:
The Design Revolution

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design is a 2004 book by William A. Dembski, who supports intelligent design, and the idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. The book is written in question/answer format from Dembski's point of view as one of the conceptual leaders in the movement. Each chapter is about 4 pages long and addresses one specific question. Dembski describes these questions as from his prior ten years experience in lectures, media interviews, and published criticism by the scientific community opposed to intelligent design, who constitute the majority of the scientific community and science education organizations. The foreword was written by Charles W. Colson.

In the preface Dembski states he is progressively more convinced that Intelligent Design will revolutionize science, and that revolutionaries must be willing to take abuse and ridicule by the ruling elite, in this case the "dogmatic Darwinists and scientific naturalists."

Criticism
Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit criticises the book for evasion and dissembling. Mark Perakh mentions this book in his criticisms of Dembski, criticizing that the index does not contain the names of prominent critics.

title: The Design Revolution


text:
User:Darkcadaver

I am Darkcadaver.

Vital Info:

Sex: Male Location: London, Ontario, Canada Age: 22

Things I like:

Sports. Namely baseball, tennis, hockey and sometimes basketball, depending on the season and how well the Toronto Raptors are faring.

Music. Particularly that of the good decade. Yes, I'm talking about the 1980's.

Education. I attend the University of Western Ontario. I am a fourth year history student, planning on attending teacher's college.

Politics. I am most interested in Canadian politics, but also international politics, especially that of which many in the West do not follow. Hence, I may be the only Canadian 22 year old to have some knowledge on the politics and political history of Turkmenistan. Just as an example. In terms of ideology, I don't particularly have one. I swing all over the political map, especially in terms of the Canadian political scene. I could only really describe myself as a green liberal-conservative with a flair for social libertarianism.

Travel. I wish to travel the world one day. And not just to those locales that everyone goes to, like Italy and Australia, though I'm sure they are both fantastic places. I'm talking places like Solomon Islands, Moldova, and Paraguay.

Anyway, I will be making and editing pages occasionally as time goes on. So far, I have created the Port Perry page, as well as the Alyona Bondarenko page. That's not a whole lot even though I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time.

I created the former because it is my hometown, and the latter merely because I was browsing the sports section one day, read about her, and decided to create a page out of that just for a bit of page editing practice.

That is all!

Some Pages I've Worked On
Port Perry

39th Canadian parliament

Sania Mirza

Alyona Bondarenko

Tampa Bay Lightning

Gary Merasty

Québec Solidaire

2006 Australian Open

Galician Cities

title: User:Darkcadaver


text:
Talk:Zeolot rush

Better as a subsection at Starcraft, no? --Wetman 05:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

its pronounced 'Zealot' ,article name is wrong

This article should really be deleted
"Zeolot" is not a starcraft term. This article had identical content to the correctly-spelled article Zealot rush, so I have replaced it with a redirect to that. Rast June 30, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zeolot rush


text:
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child who was wrongfully taken by a parent from one country to another country. In order for the Convention to apply, both countries (the one the child was removed from, and the one the child has been brought to) must be Contracting States; i.e. both must have adopted the Convention.

The Convention seeks to address international child abduction arising when a child is removed by one parent, when both parents have custody rights, or custody has yet to be determined. It was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children wrongfully abducted from their country of habitual residence, or wrongfully retained in a country that is not their country of habitual residence.

The Convention was developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). The convention was concluded 25 October 1980 and entered into force between the signatories on 1 December 1983.

As 2022, there are 103 parties to the convention; Botswana and Cape Verde being the most recent countries to accede, in 2022.

Aims and Scope of the Convention
The objectives of the Convention are set out in Article 1: to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and, to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting State.

The Convention is used when one parent (the "abducting parent") allegedly removed or retained the child in a State other than the State of habitual residence, either:

 * 1) before a court in the State of habitual residence ruled on custody and access, or
 * 2) after a court in the State of habitual residence ruled on custody and access and the wrongful removal or retention interfered with the custody or access rights that the other parent (the "left-behind parent") had under that order.

The Convention, by returning children to the State of habitual residence, deters parents from crossing international borders in search of a more sympathetic court (i.e. one who is more likely to rule on custody and access in their favor).

In order for a court to order the return of a child under Article 12 of the Convention, these conditions must be met:

 * 1) the child was removed from their habitual residence;
 * 2) the child is under the age of 16; and
 * 3) the removal of the child was considered wrongful.

Even if the above conditions are met, the court might not order the return of the child because of the exceptions specified in Articles 12 and 13.

Procedural nature
The Convention does not alter any substantive rights of the parents. When an abduction occurs, the parent seeking the child's return will commence proceedings by making an application to the Central Authority. Each Contracting State is required to have a Central Authority to help facilitate the child's return.

 * Depending on the Contracting State, the role of the Central Authority varies. For example, in Germany, the Central Authority will take the matter to court on behalf of the left-behind parent. In Canada and the United States, it is the left-behind parent who appears in court while the Central Authority acts as a liaison.

The Convention requires that no judicial or administrative authority in the State the child has been brought to shall decide the merits of custody or access until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under the Convention.

A court in the State the child has been brought to should not consider the merits of the underlying custody or access dispute, but should determine only the country in which that dispute should be adjudicated.

The Convention provides that all Contracting States, as well as any judicial and administrative bodies of those Contracting States, "shall act expeditiously in all proceedings seeking the return of children", and the institutions in each Contracting State "shall use the most expeditious procedures available" to ensure the prompt return specified in the Convention objectives.

Wrongful removal or retention
The Convention provides that the removal or retention of a child is "wrongful" whenever: (a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and

(b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. Habitual residence must be assessed first because whether or not a parent had rights of custody is determined by the law of the place of habitual residence. (See, for example the U.S. case Carrascosa v. McGuire, where the Court refused to accept a Spanish Court's decision that the father did not have rights of custody. The Spanish Courts never applied New Jersey law despite acknowledging that the child's place of habitual residence was New Jersey).

Habitual residence
An application for the return of a child can succeed only if a child was, immediately before the alleged removal or retention, habitually resident in the Contracting State to which return is sought. This means that a child, taken from State A to State B, will only be subject to a return order to State A if the court determines that the child’s habitual residence was State A at the time the child was taken.

The Convention does not define the term "habitual residence", so it is open to the courts in each Contracting State to do so. It is intended to be a fact-based determination, avoiding legal technicalities.

There are a few approaches to assessing habitual residence, depending on the court seized of the analysis.

 * 1) The parental intention approach. Under this approach, the court looks for a shared intention on the part of the parents (when there has been a move and there is a dispute as to whether the parents intended for the child to retain the existing habitual residence or acquire a new one). the U.S. case Mozes v. Mozes has provided guidance on the parental intention approach. The jurisprudence in some U.S. States continues to treat shared parental intent as a decisive factor in the determination of a child's habitual residence. Under this analysis, a parent cannot unilaterally create a new habitual residence by wrongfully removing or retaining a child. The court must look at the shared intentions of the parties, the history of the child's location and the settled nature of the family prior to the facts giving rise to the request for return.
 * 2) The child centered approach. This approach calls for the court to look towards the child, not the parents, and to examine past experiences of the child, not future intentions for residence. The court will consider the child’s connections with the State including their academic activities, social engagements, participation in sports, and meaningful connections with the people and places. This approach is used in some U.S. States, and in Germany.
 * 3) The hybrid approach. Using the hybrid approach, the court does not look exclusively to parental intent or to the child’s acclimatization to a State, rather, the court looks at “all relevant considerations arising from the facts of the case at hand.” This approach is used in the UK, Canada,  Israel, and again some U.S. States. The application judge determines the focal point of the child's life which is the family and social environment in which its life has developed, immediately prior to the removal or retention. The judge considers all relevant links and circumstances – the child's links to and circumstances in country A; the circumstances of the child's move from country A to country B; and the child's links to and circumstances in country B. The child must be physically present in that place and that presence cannot be temporary or intermittent. Other factors relevant to the determination of habitual residence include the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child's stay in that State. When considering how much weight to place on the various considerations in the habitual residence analysis, a court will factor in a child's age. For very young children, more weight will be placed on the shared intent of the parents because a young child will not form meaningful connections with people and places, whereas the impact of parental intent is more limited for older children who are "capable of becoming "firmly rooted" in a new country".

Rights of custody
Rights of custody may arise by operation of law or from a judicial or administrative decision, or an agreement having legal effect under the law of the country of habitual residence. The explanatory report of the convention clarifies the meaning of wrongful as:

"'the removal of a child by one of the joint holders without the consent of the other, is ... wrongful, and this wrongfulness derives in this particular case, not from some action in breach of a particular law, but from the fact that such action has disregarded the rights of the other parent which are also protected by law, and has interfered with their normal exercise.'"

The Convention specifies that “rights of custody” includes rights relating to the care of the child and the right to determine the child’s place of residence, while “rights of access” includes the right to take the child for a period of time.

Rights of custody may not be explicit or formal in order for them to be recognized by a court. In the Matter of K (A Child) (Northern Ireland), the Court ruled that the term rights of custody may include certain informal rights (called "inchoate rights"). In that case, the child lived with his maternal grandparents in Lithuania when, at the age of 7, the mother moved the child to Northern Ireland against the grandparent’s wishes. There was no custody order awarding the grandparents any rights of custody, but if they had applied for a custody order in Lithuania they would have likely been able to secure one.

Specific and limited rights of custody may still amount to rights of custody for Convention purposes. For example, in Abbott v. Abbott, the Court held that a parent’s ne exeat right, i.e. the right to consent before a child is moved to another country, is sufficient to give rise to rights of custody under the Convention. The General Principles and Guide to Good Practice, Hague Conference on Private International Law explains, at page 43, that a significant number of cases interpreting 'rights of custody' under the Convention supports the view that a right of access combined with a veto on the removal of a child from the state of habitual residence, constitutes real rights of custody. However, if the parent has the right to object, as opposed to the right to veto the removal of the child, this is not sufficient to amount to rights of custody.

After assessing whether the parent had rights of custody or access according to the laws of the child's State of habitual residence, the court then determines whether or not those rights were “actually exercised”, making the removal or retention wrongful.

Article 15 of the Convention is designed to promote cooperation amongst Contracting States. It provides that a Contracting State may, prior to making an order for the return of the child, request a decision or determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention by that Contracting State’s law. The rationale behind Article 15 is that the foreign court is better placed to understand the meaning and effect of its own laws.

Some Contracting States take the position that an Article 15 determination should report only on matters of national law regarding rights of custody, and not to extend the analysis to classify the removal as wrongful, which is a question for the court requesting the Article 15 determination. An Article 15 determination from a Contracting State should be taken as conclusive to avoid further delays.

Special rules of evidence
The Convention provides special rules for admitting evidence, independent of the evidentiary standards set by the domestic laws of each Contracting State. Article 30 provides that any application submitted to the Central Authority or the courts directly, and any documents attached to that application, shall be admissible in proceedings for a child's return. Further, the court in which a Convention application is proceeding, when determining whether there is a wrongful removal or retention, may take judicial notice of the law in the State of habitual residence of the child, without requiring the parties prove that State’s law as a matter of fact through evidence.

In general, the rules of evidence for Convention applications must be “the most expeditious procedures available”, due to the Convention objectives: to secure the prompt return of children. As a result, several Contracting States conduct hearings with only affidavit or written evidence, although oral evidence and cross examination are allowed if credibility is at issue, or if the affidavit evidence is conflicting. In Canada, Convention applications are "typically heard on affidavit evidence". The same is true in the United Kingdom, Finland, and South Africa. In the Netherlands however, two hearings (and a child interview, if the child is above 6 years of age) will take place, and in the second hearing, the presence of all parties is "highly desirable" so the judge can "hear from you and the other parent".

Defences to return
The Convention limits the defences available to the parent refuting the return application. To defend against the return of the child, the defendant parent must establish to the degree required by the applicable standard of proof (generally determined by the lex fori, i.e. the law of the State where the court is located), that one of the following apply:

(a) the parent applying for the child’s return was not "actually exercising custody rights at the time of the removal or retention" under Article 13(a); or

(b) the parent applying for the child’s return "had consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention" under Article 13(a); or

(c) the application for return commenced more than one year from the time of wrongful removal or retention and the child has "settled in its new environment", under Article 12; or

(d) the child “objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views” under Article 13; or

(e) "there is grave risk that the child's return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation," under Article 13(b); or

(f) the court’s invokes its residual discretion under Article 20: the return of the child is not permitted by the fundamental principles (in the State conducting the analysis) that relate to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

While the best interests of the child is central to legal decisions involving children, it does not play a role in a Convention application. The Convention presupposes that the child’s best interest is served by their prompt return to their State of habitual residence. That being said, "the concept of the best interests of the child must be evaluated in the light of the exceptions provided for by the Hague Convention”.

These exceptions are explained further below.

(a) Actually exercising custody rights
Whether or not a parent was actually exercising their custody or access rights is arguable depending on the rights of custody held, based on the law of the State of habitual residence. If there is a clear court order that dictates custody or an access schedule, there will be little dispute. If there is no formal agreement but one parent sees or spends time with the child, there may be a question as to whether or not that parent was actually exercising custody rights.

For some Contracting States, "actually exercising" is defined broadly so that some minimal involvement between the parent and child is enough. For example, in a case from Quebec Canada, one parent’s telephone contact and occasional visits with the child (one visit in the year 2009) were considered sufficient to equate to an actual exercise of custody rights. Additionally, if custody has not yet been determined, it is possible that the court will find that the parent had rights of custody that “would have [been] exercised” had the child not been removed by the abducting parent.

(b) Consent or acquiescence
A parent can explicitly consent to the child’s removal or retention, or they can acquiesce, i.e. passively and implicitly accept the removal or retention. In short, acquiescence implies unstated consent. Consent must be real, positive and unequivocal so that a court is satisfied that consent was actually given, despite the absence of a written agreement. This defence is likely to be successful where evidence is convincing that the left-behind parent made an informed decision, consenting to the child’s removal or retention, and that the abducting parent can prove that they reasonably believed that the other parent consented to a durable, lasting change in the residence of the child. Evidence that one parent deceived the other will likely vitiate any finding of consent.

The burden of proof is on the abducting parent who is fighting the Convention application to show that the other parent did in fact consent or acquiesce. Then, it is up to the parent applying for the child’s return to “adduce as much evidence as possible about the circumstances of the children's departure” which could include texts, emails and any deceitful behaviour on the part of the abducting parent (i.e. only a few of the child’s items were packed, fooling the left-behind parent into thinking that the trip was temporary).

(c) One year time limit
For this defence to apply, the application for the child’s return must have been commenced after 1 year of the removal or retention, and the child must be settled in the new State. The parent resisting the return order is advised to adduce as much evidence as possible about the child’s school, friendships, and community connections in the new State.

In some jurisdictions, the courts refer to the primary purpose of the Convention (the return of children) to hold that only strong and compelling evidence of settlement can displace the Convention objective and justify denying the return. Other jurisdictions look to the child to assess whether or not they are settled in their new environment by taking a literal approach to settlement. In Canada, one Court held that “to determine if a child is “now settled” in its new environment, a “child-centric” factual inquiry must be undertaken to determine the child’s actual circumstances.” The same approach is taken in the UK.

(d) The child's objections
The parent seeking to defend against the return order can argue that the child objects to the return. A preference to remain in the new State because the child likes their new school and friends is not enough to amount to an objection. To accept a child’s preference as sufficient would undercut the objectives of the Convention, encouraging parents to abduct their children, settle in a new State, and then “rely on their children’s contentment to avoid being returned to the jurisdiction which should properly deal with their custody and residence.”

Some Contracting States have legislated precision into the level of objection required. In Australia, family law regulations provide that the child must object to a return, and the objection must show a “strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes.”

Courts have distinguished between a child objecting to being returned to the State of habitual residence, and an objection to being returned to the care of the left-behind parent. The Convention provides that a court will order “the return of the child wrongfully removed or retained to the State of habitual residence and not to the person requesting the return” [emphasis added].

Article 13 specifies that the court should consider a child’s objection if that child has attained an appropriate age and degree of maturity. A child can be 15 but not meet the requisite degree of maturity, and a child can be too young, despite having advanced maturity. Both age and degree of maturity are considered together, and there is variance amongst the Contracting States. In Canada, a Court did not accept the objections of a child of 10 years of age. The United States and England & Wales have upheld the objections of children 8 years of age. Scotland rejected the objections of siblings 15 and 11 years of age. Jurisprudence in the European Union has reversed the requirement: instead of taking into account the views of the child if it is appropriate to do so, based on age and degree of maturity, the European Union has established that the court must take into account the child’s views unless it is inappropriate to do so due to age or maturity.

A child whose views are going to be heard may require independent legal representation. This is especially true if the abducting parent is suspected to be manipulating or alienating the children, influencing their objections to return. Some examples of Contracting States with legal representation for children include Canada, (the Office of the Children’s Lawyer), and Australia (Independent Children’s Lawyer).

(e) Grave risk exception
The language of Article 13 suggests that the child may be in grave risk if a return would expose them to (1) physical harm, (2) psychological harm, or (3) an intolerable situation. Examples include where there is war, serious civil unrest, or a natural disaster in the State of habitual residence, or where the parent applying for the return order has been abusing the child. More frequently though, Convention applications are made when the abducting parent who flees the State of habitual residence with the child, is escaping intimate partner violence, whether or not the child is also abused.

In X v. Latvia, the European Court of Human Rights held that the parent who opposes the return of a child on the basis of Article 13(b) must adduce sufficient evidence of the existence of a risk that can be specifically described as grave. Unsubstantiated allegations of abuse will not succeed, and it is also possible for the court to order a return as long as the authorities in the State of habitual residence are prepared to conduct an investigation, and to protect the child and abused parent. It is also possible for the State hearing the Convention application to conduct an investigation into the abuse allegations before deciding whether or not to order the child’s return.

Physical harm can arise after an attempt is made to return the child to the State of habitual residence, requiring the courts to consider if there would be grave harm if future attempts to return the child are made. In Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction), the children were en route from London to Australia (Australia being their State of habitual residence), when one of the children attempted to open the airplane door as it was taxiing for take-off.

Physical risk and psychological harm may be distinct or conflated. For example, threat of suicide could be construed as either or both physical and psychological harm. In an English case, Re R. (A Minor Abduction), the child’s threats to commit suicide were central to the Court deciding not to order the return. Contrast this with the approach taken in Israel, where the Court rejected the argument that a child’s previous suicide attempt in the State of habitual residence justified denying the return. In addition to the child’s threats of suicide, an Australia case held that evidence that the abducting parent may commit suicide if ordered to return with the child could constitute grave risk of harm.

Some have tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that grave risk includes exposure to city pollution, high risk of future earthquakes, inadequate housing, financial weakness, and reliance on state benefits. Poor financial circumstances have factored into the analysis when deciding not to order the child’s return in Australia, the Netherlands, and Scotland.

If physical or psychological harm are not established, the parent can argue any other “intolerable situation", which is described as a situation that goes beyond the inconveniences necessarily linked to the experience of return, producing a situation beyond what a child might reasonably bear.

(f) Residual discretion
If none of the above defences are successfully argued, the court hearing the Convention application retains discretion not to order the return if to do so would violate that State’s fundamental principles with regards to protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Canadian case AMRI v. KER, provides an example of a situation where the Court will look to their own laws regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms to determine whether or not to order the return. In this case, the child lived in Canada and was legally recognized as a refugee. The mother commenced a Convention application for the child to be returned to Mexico. According to Canadian law, the child’s refugee status gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of risk of persecution, engaging the child's s. 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person, and engaging the exceptions in Article 13 and 20.

Facilitating the child's return - practical matters
The court may make an order for the return of the child on certain conditions, called undertakings. In the Canadian case Thomson v. Thomson, the Court explained that undertakings may be required to achieve the purpose and spirit of the Convention, namely, restoring the status quo. In Thomson, after the child was taken from Scotland to Manitoba by the mother, the father left behind in Scotland obtained a “chasing order”, granting him interim custody. The mother feared that, upon landing in Scotland pursuant to the return order, the chasing order would be enforced and the child would be taken from her and placed in the custody of the father. The Court considered possible harm to the child if moved from the mother (primary caregiver) to the father (pursuant to the chasing order) and then, possibly back again to the mother (after the full custody hearing). The father’s undertaking, not to enforce the chasing order became a condition upon which the return order was made.

In Thomson v. Thomson, the Court looked to Re L. (Child Abduction) (Psychological Harm), for other examples of valid undertakings. These include undertakings to pay the airfare for the parent and child returning to the country of habitual residence, to pay interim support money, and to vacate the matrimonial home until the custody hearing so that the returning parent and child can live there. In South Africa, undertakings can relate to “care, financial issues, custody and contact, non-prosecution, ‘protection of the parent who abducted the child’, protection of the child on their return, and ‘expedited court proceedings in the country of return’”. See also Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, decided by the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane.

Although rare, the parent applying for the return of the child may discontinue the application, or fail to enforce a return order after it is made. In these situations, the court may decide that the application be struck or the order discharged.

In Re G. (Abduction: Striking Out Application), the High Court in England granted the mother’s order to strike out the application for return made by the father because, not only was there a delay in commencing the application but also seeing it through. Justice Connell struck the application because of the “manifest failure of [the] father to conduct his Hague Convention proceedings with proper diligence and speed”. In Australia, The Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986, Reg 19A provides that, if a return order is made, either party can apply for the return order to be discharged if certain criteria are met.

State parties
As of November 2022, there are 103 parties to the Convention. The most recent States to accede to the convention were Botswana and Cape Verde in 2022.

Domestic legislation
Contracting States that have enacted domestic legislation to give effect to the Convention include:

Australia

 * Reg. 16(3) Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1989.

Canada

 * Alberta: International Child Abduction Act, RSA 2000, c I-4.
 * British Columbia: Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 80.
 * Manitoba: The Child Custody Enforcement Act, CCSM c C360.
 * New Brunswick: International Child Abduction Act, RSNB 2011, c 175.
 * Newfoundland and Labrador: Children's Law Act, RSNL 1990, c C-13, s 54.
 * Northwest Territories: International Child Abduction Act, RSNWT 1988, c I-5.
 * Nova Scotia: Child Abduction Act, RSNS 1989, c 67.
 * Nunavut: International Child Abduction Act, RSNWT (Nu) 1988, c I-5.
 * Ontario: Children's Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12.
 * Prince Edward Island: Children's Law Act, RSPEI 1988, c C-6.1.
 * Quebec: Act respecting the civil aspects of international and interprovincial child abduction, CQLR c A-23.01.
 * Saskatchewan: The International Child Abduction Act, 1996, SS 1996, c I-10.11.
 * Yukon: International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) Act, SY 2008, c 5.

United States of America

 * International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.).
 * International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA), 22 U.S.C. § 9101 et seq.


text:
User talk:Fullspeed

Looking for origin(s) of idiomatic expression: It is(isn't) one's cup of tea ( usually used in negative ). My sister and I were wondering where this came from. For something like " It is piece of cake ", we would guess that the meaning originated from how easy to slice a cake, or how easy to eat a piece of cake. But for cup of tea, we were not sure where it came from.. HELP!!

title: User talk:Fullspeed


text:
Danny Lyons

Danny Lyons (1860 – August 21, 1888) was, along with Danny Driscoll, the leader of the Whyos street gang during the 1870s and 1880s.

Whyos Gang
A prominent member of the Whyos Gang, a New York City street gang, Lyons led the gang with co-leader Danny Driscoll at their height during the late nineteenth century. Lyons, who was hired for crimes ranging from assault to murder, also supported three prostitutes, Lizzie the Dove, Bunty Kate, and Gentle Maggie. When the three women were unable to earn enough money Lyons hired Kitty McGown away from rival pimp Joseph Quinn.

Murder of Joseph Quinn
Joseph Quinn soon began looking for Lyons and on July 5, 1887, Lyons killed Quinn during a gunfight between them. Lyons was captured several months later and, while it seemed to be self-defense on the part of Lyons, he was executed by hanging on August 21, 1888. However, it has been suspected local authorities used the incident as an excuse to execute the well known criminal. While Kitty McGown and Bunty Kate quickly found another pimp, Lizzie the Dove and Gentle Maggie went into mourning. The two later got into an argument while toasting Lyons at a Bowery tavern and Gentle Maggie stabbed Lizzie the Dove in the throat, killing her. As Lizzie the Dove lay dying she was said to have told Gentle Maggie that she would "meet you in hell and there scratch your eyes out".

Death
Danny Lyons was executed in The Tombs Prison in New York City on August 21, 1888.

title: Danny Lyons