text:
Talk:Cyprus problem/Archive 2

Untitled
Moved old discussion to archive:

Talk:Cyprus dispute/Archive 1

Vandalism by Snchduer and EA.
Your continued reversions of this page to a pro-Turkish biased account which is neither neutral not accurate and your removal of all of my contributions which are historical and legal facts and figures so can in no way be biased is considered to be Vandalism. It is clear from what you have written that you are favouring Turkey and are trying to promote the views of the illegal occupation regime in occupied Cyprus which the UN has declared "legally invalid" and called upon all members not to facilitate in any way in Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984).

Snchduer your attempt to equate the Turkish massacre of 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians with the death of 200 Turkish Cypriots, by replacing the facts and figures I gave with "Thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots had been killed and wounded and many more were missing" is truly repugnant.

Since your contributions amount to Vandalism I am entitled to revert to the version before the sabotage occurred without incurring any penalties. Either start from the point before the sabotage occurred or don't edit at all if you cant present a neutral point of view.

 * Discuss what you want to add here first, dont you have anything constructive to add to Wikipedia other than political tripe about Greek suffering? You seem to blame Turks for everything that has happened to Greek people. You should blame Greece's failed dictators and terrorists like Sampson and Grivas for putting Cyprus in this situation. --E.A 20:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

How to edit
Dear everybody, especially dear Argyrosargyrou!

We have a nice, albeit too neutral (in my opinion) version of the page now, mostly contributed by JL (articles should be balanced, not necessarily neutral). Please, make smaller edits, do not try to transform the page into a completely different one, without a consensus reached on this beforehand on this very same Talk page. If you want to make major or important changes (incl. changing the summary), start a discussion about this beforehand. In this way, I hope we can improve this page slowly. Also, refrain from personal attacks here.

Oh, and dear people, do sign your contributions to this talk page! - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversies
If you have any dispute with the facts presented, or are concerned about the way they are presented, please do not edit the main page. Please post your concerns here first.

'''Please remember that Wikipedia is a respected source of information. It is not meant to be a propoganda tool or a place for advocacy. Please use the links section to point people to sources of extra information that you believe convey an accurate picture of the views of one side or another. The aim of the page is to give readers a set of agreed basic facts and then give them the means to make up their own mind about the positions of the two sides.'''

Table of the Annan Plan
First of all, a little excuse from myself for converting it to neutral-speak a bit and killing off the percentages (40% and 100%), which are in my opinion only confusing. I would actually even propose to erase the second table totally, and to include instead a third row to the first one with the total percentages, and a note about the fact that 60% of the voters in the north are considered Turkish settlers and thus without the right to vote by the RoC government. - Snchduer 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Introductory summary
Dear 194.42.16.218 (I guess you are in fact Ank99 and forgot to sign in,

your introduction makes it sound as if Britain should take all the blaim for causing the Cyprus conflict. I think this is a personal opinion and does not belong in the introductory mini-summary, that is supposed to shortly explain what this article is about, and not already "inform" the user on who's-to-blame. We can discuss this, but let us discuss this here, on the Talk page! - Snchduer 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was actually me! Well yes much of the blaim goes to Britain and there are facts to back this up. As the opening paragraph is right now it only says half true. But before we go through this I would like to find out what your qualifications are to discuss the Cyprus issue with such authority and revert every edit made on the subject except your own. --Ank99 12:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am sorry to have reverted your edit, but I thought that it should be discussed first here, and I would like to hear more opinions of course than yours and mine. The reason is also that this is the first thing people will read when opening the page, and will be their first impression of the whole issue. Maybe we can agree on another formulation? While your opinion may be that most of the blame goes to Britain, other users might not share it. As I know the Cyprus problem, we are very likely to also hear the opinions that either Turkey or Greece (or the Greek Cypriots) has most of the blame. You can follow the links at the bottom of the page to the Cypriot government or the KKTC page, read a bit and see what I mean. - Snchduer 12:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Blaming Britain is only one theory amongst many, to make it dominate the introduction makes it completely out of place. You do not need a Phd to recognise this. Also, Saying Greece abanadoned claims to the island from 1960 makes no sense when they staged a coup in 1974. --E.A 12:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have never said that MOST of the blame goes to Britain. But certainly they are at the root and the cause of the problem (and continue to be). And certainly they have been the dominant player. Therefore an introduction should at least say so. My edit was balanced and not against any of the communities in Cyprus, to the contrary. As to Snchduer qualifications: You are a long way from getting the authority to revert (thus censor) everybody's edits. The Cyprus issue IS a controversial issue but it also has historical facts that are disputed only by those that want the continuation of the dispute. --Ank99 12:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Let us not discuss qualifications here. I do not want to censor either, I said I wanted to discuss and will continue to do so. I would simply prefer that the introduction be as balanced as possible, so that nobody gets the wrong impression from the very start.

 * If you say that Britain is the root and the cause of the problem, to me it sounds very much as if they are to take most of the blame. However, from 1960 on, Cyprus was practically independent; even though Britain retained some rights on the island, somewhere in the 60s they practically gave up on the Cyprus problem, and are now - at least to what I can see - only a side actor (main parties today include UN, EU, Greece and Turkey, and the two leaderships on Cyprus). There are long accounts of intercommunal violence in which the British did in fact not participate, and they did not do anything much during the 1974 events either.

 * Please, to further the discussion, state some good reasons why in fact Britain is the root and the cause of the problem, and we can talk about this. - Snchduer 13:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To move away from a dead-end road: I think including Britain in the summary is not a bad idea - while i do think that they had a role to play, I think to say that they are the root of the problem is a bit too much. Maybe sth like "While Britain did not directly involve in the dispute, it was certainly under its rule that things started to get out of hand." - they certainly had some unlucky decisions (like, for instance, to recruit TCs for the police in the middle of the 50s EOKA campaign). Plus, I would also like to include a short note on the (general) strategic importance of the island. - Snchduer 14:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with changing the introduction, there is no need to complicate it or start pointing the finger so early on in the article. I agree with a section on strategic importance though. --E.A 14:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1967 Intercommunal fighting
Should we not mention the mainland Greek contingent that had been smuggled in violation of Treaty of Guarantee?

 * "They forced Athens to recall Grivas and 9,000-12,000 Greek soldiers who had swelled the ranks of the National Gurad on Cyprus to around 24,000 in violation of the 1960 Treaty of Gurantee" John L. Scherer, Blocking the Sun: The Cyprus Conflict p 29.

 * He also adds an important note "One report estimated that as many as 20,000 Greek troops were stationed on the island. New York Times, 19 Novemeber 1967" p116.

 * I think its important to highlight the fact that such a large proffesional army contingent was despatched against what were poorly armed villagers. --E.A 13:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Wrong. The Greek forces were ther leaglly under UN resolution 186(1964)to protect the peope of Cyprus from over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters.

 * Just to point out that it wasn't a professional army, the only professionals were the officers, the soldiers were conscripts. Mavros 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The current text makes it clear that the attack was made on the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots and that Greece was forced to remove a number of its troops. While I agree that Greek forces had been increased to a number larger than the size permitted under the Treaty of Alliance (950 troops for Greece and 650 for Turkey), there is also evidence to show that Turkey had also been smuggling in army officers to train the Turkish Cypriot militias. (I was even told this by a group of TMT veterans.) Both sides were at fault in this regard. In any case, I think that this captures the main point, namely that an attack was made on the Turkish Cypriots that almost led to an invasion by Turkey and forced Greece to relent and ensured that Makarios had to start reconsidering the policy of enosis and taking Turkish Cypriot concerns more seriously. Let's not try to flesh out every incident too much. Remember this is for general readers who want to know the basic issues. - JL

 * It was the TMT terrorists that attacked the Cyprus security forces, the UN and users of the Larnaka to Limasols highway. These were acts of terror and had to be dealt with. Wrong. The Greek forces were there leaglly under UN resolution 186(1964)to protect the peope of CYprus from over 10,000 fully aremd TMT fighters.

 * Plus, if we start mentioned all the violations of Treaties by the two sides, we will end up with quite a lengthy and not very informative article... _ Snchduer 13:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, the first change for discussion: referring to 1967, I have removed any reference to who started what. It is just neutral. There were intercommunal clashes. The TCs say the GCs started it. The GCs say vice versa. Also, the troops increases by both sides were illegfal under the Treaty of Alliance, so let's not get too bogged down with that detail. Regardless of who started it, and whether the force sizes were legal or not, can everyone can accept that fighting took place and that this led to consequences outlines? Yes or No?

 * That is not true and you know it. The treaty of alliance was declared invalid by the UN because it contravened Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter and resolution 186(1964) superseded it.

 * The Greek troops were there legally under the mandate given in numbered paragraph 2 of that of that resoultion.

 * Your editing out of the historical facts is unacceptable. The TMT and the paramilitaries of the Turkish garrison attempted to destabilise the Republic of Cyprus. You are trying to portray this as the two communities not getting on with each other and that is simply NOT TRUE. Greek Cypriot civilians were not fighting Turkish Cypriot civilians as you are trying to portray. Cypriot security forces were fighting Turkish state sponsored terrorists.

Population sizes
The text under the Annan Plan is repeatedly correct to show that the GCs are 90% of the population and that the TCs are only 10%. I have never seen this written in any credible publication. The standard position that is accepted by the international community is that the GCs are 80% and the TCs are 20%. However, in the spirit of compromose, I propose to include a clause referrign to the fact that there are no current figures, but that at the time of independence it was 80:20. It may have changhed. We just don't know. We certainly cannot say it is now 90:10 and withotu knowing it would be dishonest to present it as a fact. Can we therefore note that it is contested and put the 1960 figures down? Yes or No?

 * The population statistics given by the Republic of Cyprus state that 90% of the legal population are Greek Cypriots and 10% are Turkish Cypriots. The illegal Turkish colonists are not Turkish Cypriots nor are they considerd as Cyprus citizens.

"Population: 802,500 (2002) 80.1% Greek Cypriots (642,600), 10.9% Turkish Cypriots (87,400), 9.0% foreign residents and workers (72,500)"

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/AB56397DF1BA68F4C2256DCE00423A6B?OpenDocument

 * CIA factbook places population from 2001 as 77% GC, 18%TC 5%Other https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html --E.A 13:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Argyrosargyrou,
Your way of leading a discussion - and i hope i speak for many here - seriously goes against anything i know of leading a pragmatic, result-oriented discussion. You think your view of the history is the only acceptable one, while everyone else here (or, at least, most people) tries to reach a consensus.

 * LOL.. Neither Expatkiwi, Snchduer, and RickK are contributing from a neutral standpoint. Snchduer, and RickK have all shown from their contributions here and elsewhere that they are behaving like apologists, with RickK going so far as to demand that the page on the Hellenic Genocide be deleted. EA. is a Turkish Cypriot nationalist and like RickK wants the history of the Hellenic Genocide suppressed so its no wonder he is doing the same on the history of Cyprus. And you accuse me of saying my view of history is the only acceptable one. I am saying that Expatkiwi, Snchduer, RickK and EA. are all on the side of Turkey and that balance is needed which none of them have provided. Snchduer has deleted all the historical facts and figures I added so as to equate legality with illegality and EA continues to reputedly sabotage the page by reverting to earlier pro-Turkish edits. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So basically you are saying that we all are wrong and you are the only one who has the truth on his side? I have deleted your figures because you refuse to contribute in a healthy and cooperative way; you are simply reinstating your version over and over again, which is anything else but balanced. - Snchduer 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am saying that you are taking sides with Turkey. My figures are all neutral and so are my historical contributions which have all been on the basis of legality. You have repeatedly tired to equate legality with illegality. You have systematically removed all the historical facts and figures in order to portray this as a dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots as if Turkey invasion of Cyprus and its violation of the UN resolutions and the human rights of the Greek Cypriots did not happen and as if its occupation of 40% of Cyprus territory has to be condoned in order to be fair on the Turkish Cypriots. That's why you don't want it known that 90% of the property in the north is owned by Greek Cypriot's who made up 90% of the legal population and are being prevented from returning, and thats why you don't wont that contrasted with the fact that all the Turkish Cypriots are free to return to the south at any time the like. It's also why you have tried to sanitized the Annan plan into something the Greek Cypriots should have accepted even though it violated every human rights norm in existence and that's why you removed all of my references to those. You who editorial bias has been from the point of view of Turkey and the US and the UK all of which have perpetrated crimes against Cyprus and thats why Ank99's contributions as well.--Argyrosargyrou 18:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you read the balanced article version (not yours) properly, you will find it mentions a lot of the things you want to express already (also the human rights violations by the Turkish army). I do not know why you would call your figures neutral - I figure many of them can be found on the RoC's homepage, which - as well as the TRNC's homepage, btw - I consider heavily biased. We do not want to edit out historical facts, but we do want to present them in a balanced way, which you seem to want to avoid. - Snchduer 20:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As a footnote: I found it very interesting that you refer to the killing of 1957 of GCs by TMT as "first intercommunal killing", nonregarding the fact the EOKA started killing TCs in 1955/6 (at least afaik). It is these small phrases that make the history lessons on Cyprus...

 * EOKA did not deliberately target Turkish Cypriots in its campaign against the British. The first intercommunal killing were carried out by the TMT in 1957 after Turkish government instigated provocations that were based on the Pogroms in Constantinople of 1955. --Argyrosargyrou 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ. When the GCs pulled out of the security forces for fear of being persecuted by EOKA, the British started employing more and more TCs, who of course became a favored target of the EOKA campaign against the British. - Snchduer 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To 213.207.149.234 Historical Edits Unaccptable
You and EA have both removed historical facts from the original texts without discussing it. The only reasons why this historic facts were removed was because the show deliberate Turkish aggression and Turkeys brutal violation of the human rights of the Greek Cypriot which was not reciprocated. After doing this you tried to portray the Greek Cypriot as the aggressors by falsely accusing them of attacking Turkish Cypriot villages when in fact they were attacking TMT terrorists who were firing on civilians and UN personnel. But you deliberately went and removed all the references I made to that didn't you because it did not suit you biased view. In the same vain you have deliberately tired to equate legality with illegality. While the original text cited proof of the Turkish ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriot you went and removed all reference to that and tried to portray it as if the Greek Cypriots left their homes voluntarily and that this was equivalent to what happened to the Turkish Cypriots in the south who were never ethnically cleansed and were only 1/4 of the number of the Greek Cypriots who were driven out of their homes by the Turkish forces. You are nothing more than a Turkish apologist and you contributions are neither historical nor neutral. They have all been political. Instead of recognising that the Cyprus government made the decisions in Cyprus you started referring to Greece doing this, Greece doing that, Greece sending in troops unilaterally, all by itself as if the Cyprus didn't existed and didnt didn't for them. Again this was all part of you deliberate attempt to equate legality with illegally. We all know that Turkey tried to invade Cyprus twice in the 1960's and sent in commandos and armed terrorists illegally while the Greek troops in Cyprus were there legally under a UN mandate but you went and removed all reference I made to that. You wanted to equate Cyprus attempt to stop the TMT terrorist violence in the 1960's when there were over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters in Cyprus with the Turkish invasion of 1974. You are nothing more than a propagandist who removes all the historical facts you don't like (just like EA)whereas I am a historian who has included all the facts so that people can make their own decisions based on them.

This sums up the Cyprus Dispute
In response to an attempt to find an impartial account of the Cyprus Dispute, the following warnings were posted by a Greek Cypriot contributor who objected to the attempt to present a more 'neutral' tone.

 * Neutral tone. You must be joking. Removing historical facts which show deliberate Turkish provocations and aggression and attempting to equate legality with illegality is not neutral. Its Turkish propaganda.

You have evidently decided to ignore the pleas to try to generate a balanced account based on a text that has been subjected to academic scrutiny. Instead, you are intent on putting up your side of the story and denying any other perspective. What is worse is that as soon as anyone puts up anything that does not fit with your world view you immediately pull it down, replace it with your own text again and say that they are trying to misinform people. You then 'warn' them about their behaviour! Given your clear desire to advocate a Greek Cypriot position in the article, this is intellectually dishonest in every way. Moreover, it goes against the very essence of the Wikipedia. What is so hard about taking the text put up and discussing changes here first? EA was prepared to do so. Why can't you?

 * Nonsence. You and EA have both removed historical facts from the original texts without discussing it. The only reasons why this historic facts were removed was because the show deliberate Turkish aggression and Turkeys brutal violation of the human rights of the Greek Cypriot which was not reciprocated. After doing this you tried to portray the Greek Cypriot as the aggressors by falsely accusing them of attacking Turkish Cypriot villages when in fact they were attacking TMT terrorists who were firing on civilians and UN personnel. But you deliberately went and removed all the references I made to that didn't you because it did not suit you biased view. In the same vain you have deliberately tired to equate legality with illegality. While the original text cited proof of the Turkish ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriot you went and removed all reference to that and tried to portray it as if the Greek Cypriots left their homes voluntarily and that this was equivalent to what happened to the Turkish Cypriots in the south who were never ethnically cleansed and were only 1/4 of the number of the Greek Cypriots who were driven out of their homes by the Turkish forces. You are nothing more than a Turkish apologist and you contributions are neither historical nor neutral. They have all been political. Instead of recognising that the Cyprus government made the decisions in Cyprus you started referring to Greece doing this, Greece doing that, Greece sending in troops unilaterally, all by itself as if the Cyprus didn't existed and didnt didn't for them. Again this was all part of you deliberate attempt to equate legality with illegally. We all know that Turkey tried to invade Cyprus twice in the 1960's and sent in commandos and armed terrorists illegally while the Greek troops in Cyprus were there legally under a UN mandate but you went and removed all reference I made to that. You wanted to equate Cyprus attempt to stop the TMT terrorist violence in the 1960's when there were over 10,000 fully armed TMT fighters in Cyprus with the Turkish invasion of 1974. You are nothing more than a propagandist who removes all the historical facts you don't like (just like EA)whereas I am a historian who has included all the facts so that people can make their own decisions based on them.

Warning to 213.207.149.234
Stop using this page as a Turkish propaganda site and stop trying to equate legality with illegality and remove all references to Turkeys crimes against humanity. Your attempt to equate Turkeys brutal and savage ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriots with the UN/UK transfer of 51,000 Turkish Cypriots to the occupied areas as demanded by Tureky following threats to bomb the free areas is UNACCPTABLE.

Your portrayal of the events of 1967 is nothing short of Turkish propaganda. Why did you exclude all reference to Turkish terrorist attacks on UN peacekeepers and all users of the Larnaka to Limasol highway.

All the long you have deliberatly tried to portray the Greek Cypriots as the aggressors by leaving out all reference to Turkish state sponsored terrorism in Cyprus to which the Cypriot securitiy forces were duty bound to respond to. Your allegation that Greek Cypriot atacked Turkish Cypriot villages is unacceptable. They did not attack Turkish Cypriot villages at all. They attacked the terrorists who were in them after they were attack themselves. But that's what you've been calculating all the long isn't it?

Warning to E.A.
The same warning to you. Stop using this page as a Turkish propaganda site. The history of Turkish aggression in Cyprus WILL be given like it or not. Your attempt to remove it and introduce a Turkish biased propaganda account is sabotage.

''This discussion forum is percisely for the purpose of airing of views. If the other side doesn't like it, then too bad. You are entitled to your opinions as well.....Just like the Turkish Cypriot people. Self-Determination and Freedom is an inalienable right. It's amazing how many people forget that.''

Expatkiwi 19:19 20 MAY 2005 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous
''With an attitude like that, no wonder neither side can seriously live together in a unitary state. If neither side wishes to leave the island, then partition is the only answer.''

Expatkiwi 19:16 20 MAY 2005 (UTC)

Referendum results table
I dont think its neutral to place Turkish Cypriots under "Areas of the Republic of Cyprus" and "Republic of Cyprus Citizens". TRNC is neither an area of RoC nor are its citizen part of RoC. I took a leaf out of BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656753.stm and renamed it Turkish Cypriot North and Greek Cypriot South. --E.A 19:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * More unacceptable Turkish propaganda.

 * The north of Cyprus is not Turkish Cypriot. It is part of the Republic of Cyprus and 90% of the legal inhabitants are Greek Cypriots. Under UN resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984) the self-declared "TRNC" has been dammed "Legally Invalid" and all UN members are asked not to facilitate it in any way.

 * Which is why i didnt refer to it as TRNC. I see a pattern emerging here. I am a Turkish propogandist, the user contributing excellent material is a propogandist, all the authors you use are propogandists, the Financial Times is propogandist and now the BBC is also propogandist....Could it just be that they say what you dont want to hear? --E.A 11:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is POV for this article to deny that TRNC is a separate nation, even if the UN also denies that it is. It is also POV to use a 90:10 population split based on the argument that some TRNC inhabitants are illegal. KVenzke 17:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever else you've done, this back-and-forth squabbling has rendered the results table totally incomprehensible. "Ballot total: % of voters: 100% + 40%" -- I don't think I'm a particularly stupid person, I've got a better-than-average understanding of the Cyprus dispute (among non-Greeks, non-Turks, & non-Cypriots, at least) and I was a close watcher of the referendum when it happened, but I'm afraid I cannot get any sense out of that. Congratulations. –Hajor 17:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree i dont fully understand whats being portrayed below the simple yes/no vote. I'll gladly get rid of it if people agree. With regards to squabbling, i suggest you read the neutral version several others and myself are trying to re-instate and then read the one Argy claims to be neutral. I'll eat my hat if you find his neutral. --E.A 18:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Where the actual figures of votes cast are indicated under the corresponding percentages. You'll also note the regional identifiers have been changed from "Occupied areas" and "Free areas". North and South aren't optimal, either, but at least it's unlikely they'll lead to bloodshed. The Annan Plan (RIP) proposed "Turkish Cypriot State" and "Greek Cypriot State" for the two halves of the union, of course...

We should also try to keep in mind that, for the purposes of this referendum, the undisputed fact that there are more "Greek" Cypriots than "Turkish" Cypriots didn't matter one whit, because all the referendum needed was a simple majority on both sides of the Green Line. But, by all means, add another line showing the total (combined) vote in the two halves/sectors/communities, whatever.

It'd nice if this article linked (as I'm sure it must have done at some point) to the main referendum article at Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004, too, to save overlapping too much. Or to spread the edit war out over more pages, depending on your perspective. –Hajor 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The penny just dropped as to what the "40% vs. 100%" in the second half of that table is referring to. Oh, my; wasn't I naïve? Outta here, –Hajor 23:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

''One thing you're not telling us, Hajor: Just what is it you hope for Cyprus: one unified paradise for all Cypriots, or simply as an ethnically cleansed province of Greece? Turkish Cypriots have just as much right as Greek Cypriots to live without fear, which is why the 1960 Constitution was established. If one side insists upon either forcing assimilation or eviction of the other side - which what was attempted in 1974 - then what else is one going to expect than resistance and partition?''

 * "Louis, are you pro-Vichy or Free France?"  Is that a tribute to my NPOV, or are you just pleased to see me? It was me who started both the referendum and the Annan Plan articles. I was rootin' for Kofi all the way down the line. Best chance they had in this generation or the next to sort out the whole damn mess. –Hajor 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

''Given the similar hatreds that exists in Bosnia-Herzegovina between Serbs and Muslims, you really think that Greeks and Turks can bury their differences and live in a unitary state? I'm sorry, but human nature means that emnity between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot will continue until either community can think of themselves purely as Cypriot. Until then, partition is the only answer for peace. Sepearation worked for the former Czechoslovakia, so let it work here.''

Added figures
I have added the figures of TC's and GC's displaced in the events of 1963/4 to give a more balanced view and also added the number of TC's that died in 1974. I have also made the table clearer and done more explaining of the Annan plan.

Come on people
Am i the only one who finds the changes by Argy to be totally skewed towards GC's? We had an excellent impartial article provided by a

 * What ? I added the 20,000 TC's who left thier villages didn't I. I added those who were displaced by the fighting.

historian on the subject and no one seems to be trying to preserve

 * The article was not impartial. Impartial means listing all the facts and surrounding events so people can make their own judgement. The author of that article was trying to make a political point and was equating legality with illegality. It is precisely that kind of approach which led to the Annan plan which violated every human rights norm in existence.

 * Impartial especially means listing the major facts and surrounding events in an impartial way, not inserting pure speculations. Listing the facts in a certain way (like, putting a long phrase about the GCs who were "brutally and savagely ehtnically cleansed", and then mentioning that the TCs went to the north "voluntarily") can indeed be very POV. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The brutal and saved ethnic cleansing of the Greek Cypriots by Turkey is a historical fact proven to the satisfaction of the ECHR. In contrast the Turkish Cypriots were not ethnically cleansed from their homes nor were they intimidated to leave. They left because Turkey threatened to bomb the free areas if the UN and British Authorises did not transport them to the occupied areas. While the TC's are free to return to their homes in the south the Greek Cypriot's are not despite ECHR judgments against Turkey. Your attempts to equate legality with illegality are unacceptable and not neutral at all and make you sound to like and apologist to the people whose families have suffered at the hands of Turkey like mine have. --Argyrosargyrou 17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

that article, but instead are mopping up after Argy and leaving a trail of GC POV. For instance if he wants to start getting into the deaths caused by TMT, why should i not mention the mass graves in the North or the attack by Greek mainland forces on villages (which was deleted)? Why does he not mention the 10-20000 Greek soldier

 * There were no attacks on any villages by any Greek mainland forces.

 * Since I have given the total death toll accepted by both sides, what are you complaining about. The were clashes between TMT fighters and Cypriot security forces and people were killed.

 * were violation of Treaty of Guarantee, yet he will point out Human right violations by Turkey, how can we allow sentences such as "the plans legality was highly questionable" - is this the job of an encylopedia? Does this sentence sound Neutral to to you:

 * The Treaty of Guarantee violated the UN charter and was de facto declared invalid by UN resolution 186(1964). Since the Greek troops were requested by the Cyprus government how could they violate the Treaty of Guarantee anyway.

"Note: The 120,000 Turkish colonists who have been brought into the Turkish occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey in violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention are not recognised as Cypriot citizens by any member state of the United Nations"

Even a simple table becomes a POV, TRNC is not part of the RoC and neither are its citizens part of the RoC, this is accepted.

 * The so-caleld "TRNC" does not legally exist. That is not POV but fact. The violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention is also a fact.

 * Clarification: The TRNC does not legally exist as it is not recognised and shall not be mentioned in the statistics. I find southern/northern Cyprus very acceptable for this. And the citizens of the TRNC - insofar they are TCs living on Cyprus before 1974 (or form such a family) - can become citizens of the RoC. - Snchduer 12:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"In the process about 200,000 Greek Cypriots who made up 82% of the pupulation in the north became refugees; many of them forced out of their homes (violations of Human Rights by the Turkish army have been acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights), the rest fleeing at the word of the approaching Turkish army. 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians were killed, over 1,000 women were raped. Approximately 1,600 Greek Cypriots were abducted and remain missing, their whereabouts never disclosed by the Turkish authorities. There were also over 200 deaths among the Turkish Cypriot community." - He may as well say "Oh yeah 200 Turks died as well".

Is it the job of an encylopedia to list human right violations against Turkey?

 * It's job is to list facts. Those are they. If you know the number of Turkish troops that were killed I'll add those as well.

 * It is not the job to list these violations in full length and full account. We can point to the fact that there were recognised violations, but that's about it. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=14082231 imo is an excellent reference for anyone who wants get an impartial account. --E.A 01:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The version by JL is not neutral and is anti-Cypriot propaganda. I have already edited it to make it acceptable. Stop sabotaging my changes.

 * That seems to be only your point of view, dear Agry (start signing your contributions to the talk page!), and has not been accepted by anyone else so far. - Snchduer 12:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well just look at this from your User Bio "Cyprus - very nice island, good for a holiday, especially as long as the North is not overrun - ah, empty beaches! Though do not talk about politics too much..."

 * So it seems that you are promoting holidays in the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus and through that the usurpation of Greek Cypriot property there. You are happy that the beaches are not overrun (which is a results of Greek Cypriot's being ethnically cleansed). It is clear from this that you don't give a damn for the Greek Cypriots property rights and you are not a neutral observer. You even have a link to a page page the illegal regime. No wonder you consider the Turkish propaganda that the has been published here to be neutral. You have no credibility whatsoever.

 * Thank you for putting this against my credibility *totally confused*. I did enjoy a stay on Cyprus (sleeping in the south, visiting both parts), and I enjoyed the northern beaches for not being overrun - but for this simple fact, not for having any second thoughts. Obviously not everybody likes empty beaches ;). What you deduce from this I see as a personal attack, as it is absolutely not true. I do care for the property rights of all Cypriots, but I see it also in the light of what has happened here in Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall, when a lot of people claimed property in the "new federal states" they had owned before Germany was separated. A lot of personal tragedy here - imagine you live in a house for 40 years and are thrown out one day because the former owner wants it back... - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I put a link to the TRNC for informative reasons, so people are informed about the political and legal situation in the northern part of the island as well. Note that I also put a link to the general Cyprus article, and that I put the TRNC under "non-countries". - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As for people agreeing with me. There are lots of Cypriots who have seen this page who have emailed me and agree with me and I suspect Ank99 also has the same view.

 * Indeed, none of them (except for Ank99) has edited the talk page... - Snchduer 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

--Argyrosargyrou 13:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There was never any agreement to keep restarting from the version by JL everytime you don't like the truth and the historical facts being mentiond. I have made chages to the JL version to make it neutral. Your (both Snchduer and EA) removal of the historical facts, statistics and description of events is sabotage. Start from those if you want to contribute any further like Ank99 has done. If you don't like the facts, the legal definitions and statistics then here is the place to discuss them.

 * Truth and historical facts are so relative on Cyprus. The version by JL was quite balanced and NPOV. It was in fact not Turkish propaganda. We can start from this version, adding facts and also points of view, but your first action after JL finished his contribution was reverting to your previous version in complete disregard of his achievement and effort - Snchduer 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

--Argyrosargyrou 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

And to Snchduer. What were you doing in the occupied north in the first place. Don't you realise that the Greek Cypriots who made 90% of the population can never enjoy the beaches and the property they own. By staying in the occupied areas you contributed to the coffers of the occupation regime and perpetuated Cyprus division. You are no different to the people who perpetuated apartheid in South Africa by trading with the Africana regime and whereas that regime was recognised by the UN the Turkish occupation regime in Cyprus is not so you are far worse.

 * This actually does not really deserve a comment, so I will make it short: I do not think the fact that the island is divided deprives me of the right to see the whole island. And I do not believe that my visiting the north gives about any statement about the regime there. - Snchduer 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How can you dismiss the credibility of Snchduer, when you write to the British Foreign Affairs Committee in the hope of starting a war against Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. Let me quote you from your submitted evidence:

"decisive military action must be taken against Turkey to force its capitulation, once air-superiority and superiority on the ground and in the sea has been achieved by Greece and the United Kingdom as guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus and the European Union which has the duty to protect its territorial integrity, so that Cyprus can be liberated."

 * Why don't you quote everything I said. If Turkey does not comply with UN resolutions and ECHR judgments and sanctions fail to make it comply then the only option is to use force in the same way that it was used against Saddam by George Bush Snr.--Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This doesnt seem to make you the best source for impartiatlity on this aritcle does it. I'd rather someone promote holidays to the North than wars... --E.A 13:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question, How many Turkish Cypriots owned property in the north before the events of 1963 started to force Turkish Cypriots into enclaves? If property was taken by Greek Cypriots from Turkish Cypriots between 1963-1974, then they have no ligitimate right to that land. The sword cuts both ways, you know. --Expatkiwi 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The TC's owned less than 10% of the property in the north before 1963. Value wise they owned less than 5%.

 * Most TC's lived in property rented from GC's landlords in GC majority villages. When they moved into enclaves the GC's were deprived of a living.

 * Before 1963 97% of the Greek Cypriots in the north lived in villages with a Greek Cypriot majority (1963 census) and 66% of Turkish Cypriots lived in villages with a Turkish Cypriot majority (1963 census). Less than 20,000 TC's lived in Greek Cypriot villages and only 6,000 GC's lived in Turkish Cyprtot villages out of a population of 144,000 GC's that lived in the north (excluding Varosha).

 * The question you have to ask is why the Annan plan did not allow all Greek Cypriot majority villages in the north to be placed under GC's control which would have ensured that 97% of the Greek Cypriot refugees could return to their homes and would have affected only 20,000 TC's.

 * Because it has been agreed any future plan will comprise of 2 federated states. How can you have a Turkish Cypriot federate state if its majority is Greek Cypriot, they will be minority in their own country. Which of course would suit GC's down to the ground but not very tempting for TC's. --E.A 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The cantons under TC administration should only consist of villages that the Turkish Cypriots formed the majority in before 1963. If this were done 97% of the Greek Cypriots would be unaffected and could all return to their homes under Greek Cypriot control. 66% of the TC's would be able to from their own administration and be the outright majority in the TC cantons with only 18% of the population there being GC's without any of the ethnic cleansing which would have heppend under Annan plan having to take place.--Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line
The bottom line is that the Greek Cypriot community still wants Cyprus to be an integral part of the Hellenic Republic (Greece) while the Turkish Cypriots wish to retain their presence on the island without fear of persecution. The events of 1963 and 1974 have made the Turkish Cypriots extremely wary of the current motives of the Greek Cypriots (who also shot themselves in the foot by voting down the 2004 Annan Plan). If the international community is unwilling to officially recognize the existance of the TRNC, then a federated state is the only answer. The sooner that the Greek Cypriot side can fully accept this - as well as that Turkish Cypriots are people too, the better, otherwise the TRNC should be finally acknowledged. --Expatkiwi04:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * --Argyrosargyrou 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC) deleted personal attack - RickK 23:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * How do you explain your recommending the page on the Hellenic Genocide for deletion ? --Argyrosargyrou 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I appreciate your gesture, but Argyrosargyrou is entitled to air his opinions on the issue. Personally, I have followed this particular issue for years. Being neither Greek or Turk, I like to think that my conclusions on who is more to blame for the inter-communal conflict on Cyprus is taken from a more impartial viewpoint. But to answer Argyrosargyrou, I make no apologies for my stand. I believe fully in the principle of self-determination and if the Turkish Cypriots desire to live in their own state, then their wishes should be respected.--Expatkiwi04:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine! Are you also willing to give YOUR house and possibly a part of the state YOU live in for them to establish their own state? If not, then you make no sense and are theorizing and adopting propaganda style arguments. --Ank99 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Except for the (very unrealistic) prospect of some army chasing Turkey out militarily from Cyprus, any agreement in the Cyprus issue will need to be agreed on by at least Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. A separation will never be accepted by the GCs, for a lot of reasons. Neither will a complete and sudden reinstatement of ownership be accepted by the TCs, also for quite some reasons. So I find any discussion on this pure theory, however your own personal opinion on this may be. - Snchduer 15:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Very soon the EU will be setting up navel patrols to stop illegal immigration in the north. If Turkey tries to challenge these patrols or send more troops and colonists to Cyprus then it will be a war with the EU. Lets see how long the Turkish occupation can last with Turkeys military supply line cut off. --Argyrosargyrou 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not think that the naval patrols will stop the military supplies for the Turkish armed forces in northern Cyprus. Also, I do not think they will start shooting down planes, so it is highly unlikely that the supply line will be cut off. - Snchduer 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * He is entitled to make reasoned discussion, he is not entitled to make personal attacks. See WP:RPA.  RickK 04:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ank99, The GC's tried to force out the TC's from the island from 1963 thru 1974, so that ALL of Cyprus would be theirs. That is why I don't sympathize with them. It's called taking consequences for their actions. --Expatkiwi17:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * They did nothing of the kind whatsover and what you have written is typical Turkish propaganda. How dare you accuse the Greek Cypriots of trying to force the Turkish Cypriots out of the island in 1974 who you know perfectly well they did not and that Turkey massacred 5,000 Greek Cypriot civilians and savagely ethnically cleansed 200,000 more. And how dare you accuse the Greek Cypriots of trying to force the Turkish Cypriots out of the island in 1964 when they were being systematically attacked by Turkish state sponsored TMT terrorists who along with Turkey were trying to portition the island as is evident from the Galo Plaza report.

 * Neither you nor EA, nor RickK, nor Snchduer can be considered neutral. --Argyrosargyrou 18:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither are you. The moment I heard the GREEK national anthem being played when a Cypriot won a Gold Medal at the 1990 Commonwealth Games, I knew then that the Greek Cypriots wanted all TC's out. --Expatkiwi21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cyprus problem/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Modulor

The first paragraph read

 * Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover a natural underlying relationship between the proportions of the human body and the Golden Mean, and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture.

This seems to imply that Vitruvius (or his interpreters) or Alberti worked with the golden ratio, which is unsubstantiated, and most likely incorrect. Vitruvius used whole numbers, i.e. rational ratios, and da Vinci's famous Homo ad circulum, illustrating a paragraph in Vitruvius, has no convincing golden ratios, and there is no contemporary writings to support the idea. The golden ratio did not seriously enter into aesthetical analysis before the "psychophysics" of Gustav Fechner at the end of the 19th century. Therefore, I have changed the 1st paragraph into:
 * Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body, and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture.

--Niels Ø 11:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes???
some tender care needed:

''^ Ostwald, Michael(2001) p146 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p17 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p20 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p36 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p43 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p56 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p52 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p115 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p53 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p122 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p131 ^ Samuel(2007) p62 ^ Samuel(2007) p83 ^ Sekler & Curtis (1978) p158 ^ Sekler & Curtis (1978) p182''

Is Samuel a book or a publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.2.106 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Samuel is the author of a book listed below in the references. But you need to stop the nonsense edits; you're about to have a longer block for vandalism.  Have you tried reading your talk page or looking at the edit history to see why your silly edits keep reverting?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * since you seem to care, the article itself constitutes vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.2.106 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Interesting thesis; but I don't get it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

an orphan wants you to help him
Dear authors of the "Modulor” Wikipedia entry: Concerning your article, may I cordially suggest you to read the text “The TK Theory of Visual Proportions” and, if necessary, link or cross-reference the latter article with the former. Please contact me in case you have any doubts or questions. Yours, espaisNT. --EspaisNT (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) --EspaisNT (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Update needed
This article should be revisited to consider the scholarship critiquing Modular and other systems of proportion in the field of architecture. These figures have contributed to an architecture of exclusion, as they are not based on the human body but rather a very specific demographic of our society. --M4M3M2M1 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep gender politics out of this
I deplore everyone to keep Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedic tone. I deemed the additions I reverted were politically motivated and thus not suited for this article. Do add sources to avoid adding your own subjective opinions. Flister AW (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Modulor


text: List of drugs: I

title: List of drugs: I


text:
Template:List of drugs I

Ia–Il | Im–In | Io–Ip | Iq–Iz

title: Template:List of drugs I


text:
Incompatible element

In petrology and geochemistry, an incompatible element is one that is unsuitable in size and/or charge to the cation sites of the minerals in which it is included. It is defined by a partition coefficient between rock-forming minerals and melt being much smaller than 1.

During the fractional crystallization of magma and magma generation by the partial melting of the Earth's mantle and crust, elements that have difficulty in entering cation sites of the minerals are concentrated in the melt phase of the magma (liquid phase).

Two groups of incompatible elements that have difficulty entering the solid phase are known by acronyms. One group includes elements having large ionic radius, such as potassium, rubidium, caesium, strontium, and barium (called LILE, or large-ion lithophile elements), and the other group includes elements of large ionic valences (or high electrical charges), such as zirconium, niobium, hafnium, rare-earth elements (REE), thorium, uranium and tantalum (called HFSE, or high-field-strength elements).

Another way to classify incompatible elements is by mass (lanthanide series): light rare-earth elements (LREE) are La, Ce, Pr, Nd, and Sm, and heavy rare-earth elements (HREE) are Eu–Lu. Rocks or magmas that are rich, or only slightly depleted, in light rare-earth elements are referred to as "fertile", and those with strong depletions in LREE are referred to as "depleted".

title: Incompatible element


text:
Australian legal system

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system, which superseded Indigenous Australian customary law during colonisation. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is the same across the states and territories.

The Australian Constitution sets out a federal system of government. There exists a national legislature, with a power to pass laws of overriding force on a number of express topics. The states are separate jurisdictions with their own system of courts and parliaments, and are vested with plenary power. Some Australian territories such as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have been granted a regional legislature by the Commonwealth.

The High Court is Australia's apex court. It has the final say on the judicial determination of all legal matters. It hears appeals from all other courts in the country, and is vested with original jurisdiction.

Prior to colonisation, the only systems of law to exist in Australia were the varied systems of customary law belonging to Indigenous Australians. Indigenous systems of law were deliberately ignored by the colonial legal system, and in the post-colonial era have only been recognised as legally important by Australian courts to a limited degree.

Indigenous customary law
Indigenous Australian customary law varied between language groups, clans, and regions. It developed over time from accepted norms within indigenous societies. The laws regulated human behaviour and relationships, mandated sanctions for misdeeds, and connected people with the land and each other through a system of relationships.

Such law is often intertwined with cultural customs, stories, and practices. These customs were and are passed on intergenerationally through oral tradition, often incorporated within cultural works such as songlines, stories and dance.

Reception of English law

The laws of England had evolved over centuries, with the common law emerging following the 1200s. This law was introduced to Australia through the colonisation of Australia by the British. By 1824, a court system based on the English model had been established through Acts of the British Parliament. The New South Wales Act 1823 provided for the establishment of a Supreme Court with the power to deal with all criminal and civil matters "as fully and amply as Her Majesty's Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer at Westminster". Inferior courts were also established, including courts of General or Quarter Sessions, and Courts of Requests.

Despite the presence of indigenous inhabitants, Australia was determined to be "settled" rather than "conquered" and as a result all English law "applicable to the new situation and condition of the infant colony" applied, as opposed to the continuation of indigenous laws. This was confirmed by the Australian Courts Act 1828 an act of the Imperial Parliament which had the effect of ensuring that all English common and statute law up to 28 July 1828 was to have effect in New South Wales and Tasmania, and later Victoria and Queensland when they separated from New South Wales. The reception of English law in Western Australia and South Australia was later deemed by statute to have occurred on 1 June 1829 and 28 December 1836 respectively.

The earliest civil and criminal courts established from the beginnings of the colony of New South Wales were rudimentary, adaptive and military in character. Although legality was not always observed, the courts limited the powers of the Governor, and the law of the colony was at times more egalitarian than in Britain.

Representative government emerged in the 1840s and 1850s, and a considerable measure of autonomy was given to local legislatures in the second half of the nineteenth century. Colonial Parliaments introduced certain reforms such as secret ballots and female suffrage, which were not to occur in Britain until many years later. Nevertheless, Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to the colonies could override contrary colonial legislation and would apply by "paramount force". New doctrines of English common law continued to be treated as representing the common law of Australia. For example, the doctrine of the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson from which the modern negligence law derived, was treated as being latent already within the common law at the time of reception.

Federation and divergence

Following a number of constitutional conventions during the 1890s to develop a federal nation from the several colonies, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) was passed and came into force on 1 January 1901. Section 9 of this act contains Australia's constitution, to this day within a British act.

Following federation, Britain's role in the government of Australia became increasingly nominal in the 20th century. However, there was little momentum for Australia to obtain legislative independence. The Australian States did not participate in the conferences leading up to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which provided that no British Act should be deemed to extend to the dominions without the consent of the dominion. The Australian Government did not invoke the provisions of the statute until 1942. The High Court also followed the decisions of the Privy Council during the first half of the twentieth century.

Complete legislative independence was finally established by the Australia Act 1986, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. It removed the possibility of legislation being enacted at the consent and request of a dominion, and applied to the States as well as the Commonwealth. It also provided for the complete abolition of appeals to the Privy Council from any Australian court. The Australia Act represented an important symbolic break with Britain, emphasised by Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Australia to sign the legislation in her legally distinct capacity as the Queen of Australia.

Legislative independence has been paralleled by a growing divergence between Australian and English common law in the last quarter of the 20th century. In addition, a large body of English law received in Australia has been progressively repealed in state parliaments, such as in New South Wales by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969.

Constitutional law
The Australian colonies were federated into 'The Commonwealth' in 1901. To achieve this, the British Parliament enacted a written constitution drawn up by the Australian colonists. The document was influenced by constitutional systems of the UK, the United States, and Switzerland.

Australia's constitution 'establishes the form of the federal government and sets out the basis for relations between the Commonwealth and the states'. Chapter I defines the role and powers of the legislature, Chapter II defines that of the Executive, and Chapter III defines that of the Judiciary.

In addition to the document's text, Australian constitutional law is affected by the structure of the document. The division of the three branches of government into chapters is understood to establish a Separation of Powers doctrine in Australia.

It is also known that a number of unwritten constitutional conventions are present within the document. E.g. the constitutional doctrines of responsible government, and the requirement of the governor-general to accept the advice of the prime minister.

The Australian constitution is notable for not containing a bill of rights, and express constitutional restrictions upon Commonwealth power are minimal in number and scope. Nevertheless, some restrictions upon Commonwealth power have been recognised by implications drawn constitutional sections unconcerned with the establishment of rights. The stipulations of Section 7 and 24 that the members of the respective Commonwealth legislatures be 'directly chosen by the people'; have been interpreted by the High Court as giving rise to doctrines protecting freedom of political communication, and a right to vote.

The constitution may only be amended by a national referendum, a provision inspired by the Swiss Canton system.

The respective state governments of Australia also have constitutional documents, many of which have carried over from the colonial era. Those documents, however, are amenable to state legislation, and thus do not bind on the respective state parliaments in the same way that the Commonwealth and the States are bound by Australia's written constitution as supreme law. (see also: Marbury v. Madison)

Statute law
The legislative powers of the federal Parliament are limited to those set out under an enumerated list of subject matters in the Constitution. These powers include a power to legislate on matters "incidental" to the other powers. The Parliament of the Commonwealth can also legislate on matters referred to it by the Parliament of one or more States.

In contrast, with a few exceptions the State legislatures generally have plenary power to enact laws on any subject. However, federal laws prevail in the event of collision, according to Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia.

The process of creating a statute involves a Bill being drafted, usually by Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill is read, debated and sometimes amended in both houses of parliament before being approved. Once a bill has been passed it must be assented to by the representative of the sovereign. Legislation may also be delegated to local councils, statutory authorities or government departments. Usually, this is done in respect of minor statute laws such as road rules.

Most statutes are applied by administrative decision makers rather than judges. When laws are brought before a court, judges are not bound to select an interpretation proffered by one of the parties and instead their role is to seek an objective interpretation of the law.

The jurisprudence of statutory interpretation is not settled in Australia. Interpretive doctrines such as the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule; must comply with the Commonwealth's mandate in the Acts Interpretation Act that statutes be interpreted according to their purpose. The legitimate role of extrinsic materials is not settled law in Australia.

Common law
Australia's common law system originated in the system of common law in the UK. Although similarities remain, and the influence of UK common law decisions remain influential on Australian courts, there exists substantial divergence between each system.

Until 1963, the High Court regarded decisions of the House of Lords binding, and there was substantial uniformity between Australian and English common law. In 1978, the High Court declared that it was no longer bound by decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The High Court has declared that Australia's system of common law is uniform across all states: this may be contrasted with other jurisdictions, like the United States, that have maintained distinct systems of common law within each state.

International law
Australia has entered into many treaties. Treaties are not automatically incorporated into Australian domestic law upon signature or ratification (aside from those terminating a state of war).

The role of treaties in influencing the development of the common law is controversial. The text within a treaty is a valid interpretive aid to an act which attempts to give effect to that treaty.

By reliance on the external affairs power, matters subject of a treaty may be legislated upon by the Commonwealth Parliament; even in the absence of the matter among other the heads of power.

title: Australian legal system


text:
Talk:Agnes Baden-Powell

Untitled
Agnes was asked by B-P to organise Girl Guides, in the United Kingdom. Juliette Low organised Girl Scouts in The USA quite separately

W Ingle Girlguiding Essex SE

1st Lone Company
I found reference to the 1st Lone Company in the sparse article and web-page on Agnes Baden-Powell, but can't find any reference to the actual company. Is this a Girl Guide equivalent of the 1st Gilwell Scout Group? Horus Kol 09:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this isn't the same as the 1st Gilwell Scout Group, as far as I understand. At the time, the Lone companies were made up of girls living far apart. These groups enabled girls with no other Guides nearby to participate in Guiding. The 1st Lones had members throughout Europe and they communicated by newsletter. Occasionally they met up for activities, such as camping. You are correct that the company started in 1912. Lone Guiding still exists in many countries, including the UK, but their organisation has changed many times. Kingbird 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see - a bit like the Deep Sea Scouts worked - do you know where we could get some more information on Lone Companies? Horus Kol 11:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada have information on the internet about their Lone activities. I'd be able to contribute a paragraph or two on the early days of 1st Lone, gleaned from a book on Guiding history. Do you think that the 1st Lones deserve their own article or that they should be one section in a larger article on Lone Guiding? I am tending toward the latter at the moment as there isn't a lot of information available. Kingbird 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can get a couple of paragraphs on the 1st Lone Company, then I think it should be kept as a section in the history of Lone Guiding - if there is more than that available, then a seperate article. It would be good to have either article, in any case. Thanks Horus Kol 08:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've pulled together some information and started an article at Lone Guides. Kingbird 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Agnes Baden-Powell


text:
Talk:John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

Please provide proof of this theory's existense, and also its notability - why should it have an article? Harro5 11:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be an actual theory proposed about a year ago that has been passed around the internet and is achieving popularity. I'm not sure if it has achieved sufficient notability yet, however. It would be best if someone who knows something about internet memes would look into this.--Sophitus 11:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

although it's only my opinion, i think it's sufficiently deserving of an article. removing the deletion notice. --69.1.7.5 01:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Australian legal system

Untitled
Very nice parent article on Australian law. Make sure you link all the "see also" pages to this article. Harro5 11:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody should add a seperate page about Australian defamation laws, and not just part of the tort laws page. Aussie defamation laws are notorious.

Proposed Merge of Judiciary of Australia into Law of Australia
From a quick read the content(although it is uncited) is almost entirely covered in Law of Australia already, any other details can be merged into this article. Once done, Judiciary of Australia can be set as a redirect to Law of Australia. Aeonx (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

RIDICULOUS - the judiciary is the judiciary and the law is the law - yes sure link them but dont merge. My search was for Australian Judges and I got exactly what I asked for - it's fine the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.207.86 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No information about environmental policy of Australia?

 * Environmental policy of Australia redirects to this article, but this article does not discuss Australia's environmental policy. Should any of this information be added to the article? Jarble (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Common Law
I have added an intro as this section had an oblique start, jumping straight into the US Supreme Court. Supcmd (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"In South Australia an award can be made by the district court. In Queensland an award can be made by the court that heard the criminal proceedings. In Tasmania an award can be made by the master, registrar or deputy registrar of the Tasmanian supreme court."

I have removed the sentence above as it made no sense and seemed out of place and incomplete as (1) it did not tie in with the section on common law (2) introduces a concept "Award" without definition and (3) seems incomplete as it only covers 3 states and neglects the rest of Australia. (4) May be better suited to the article Judiciary of Australia. Apologies if I missed something, if it can be improved please re-instate. Supcmd (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411044012/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delegated law?
According to Australia's Parliamentary Education Office, there are three types of laws: statute law (made by parliament), delegated law (made by government ministers or departments) and common law (made by courts). As it stands, this article describes statute and common law, but has no mention of delegated law. Any comments on whether it should be added? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Australian legal system


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are You Sure

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are You Sure
Anybody heard of this? Does it need a redirect to an artist or albumn? Donovan Ravenhull 11:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't verify the info but it claims to be "a hit single for the band So, reaching the top 30 singles in the US". Double Blue  (Talk) 00:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Deleted personal attack RickK 22:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I resent you characterising this as a personal attack. It is simply a request for information without any malice. Double Blue  (Talk) 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Delete DarkBlue's reinsertion of the personal attack.  RickK 21:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * A better question might be "Why did you add both a clean-up tag and a speedy delete? Shouldn't clean-ups be for things that won't be deleted?"  T h e St ev e  13:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The band So doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. Googling produces no useful evidence given how common the words "so" and "are you sure" are. Delete unless someone can produce verification of this band, of this song, and that it was a hit single. --Metropolitan90 01:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence this was a hit, no verification it reached the Top 30 singles chart. Megan1967 02:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Research shows that it's a cut from the album Horseshoe in the Glove, the only So album released in the US. http://www.933flz.com/iplaylist/artist/22470/ says, ""Are You Sure," was a minor hit that built anticipation for a full LP.".  No vote.  RickK 22:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability of the song not established. JamesBurns 03:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering Rick's research I would suggest a merge to So (band) or even The Opposition (band), the group they formed from and returned to but those articles do not exist. Unless someone wants to create one, I vote delete. Double Blue  (Talk) 21:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Template:List of drugs J

title: Template:List of drugs J


text: Template:List of drugs K

title: Template:List of drugs K


text:
User:Kieranoleary

Kieran

title: User:Kieranoleary


text: List of drugs: L

title: List of drugs: L


text:
Template:List of drugs L

La | Le | Lf–Ln | Lo | Ls–Ly

title: Template:List of drugs L


text: User talk:65.141.120.11

title: User talk:65.141.120.11


text: User talk:65.148.149.1

title: User talk:65.148.149.1


text:
Ronald W. Jones

Ronald Winthrop Jones (July 5, 1931 – September 27, 2022) was an influential international trade economist and retired Xerox Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester. His highly acclaimed book Globalization and the Theory of Input Trade summarizes much of his past work and also discusses the recent market trend toward fragmentation and outsourcing of the production process.

Professor Jones also is an author of World Trade and Payments (with Richard E. Caves and Jeffrey Frankel), an upper-level college textbook that focuses on international economics.

He earned an A.B. from Swarthmore College in 1952 and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1956.

title: Ronald W. Jones


text:
Rickard Rydell

John Rickard Rydell (born 22 September 1967) is a retired Swedish racing driver. He won the 1998 British Touring Car Championship, the 2011 Scandinavian Touring Car Championship, and has also been a frontrunner in the European/World Touring Car Championship.

Early career
Rydell was born in Vallentuna, Stockholm. Initially he trained to be an accountant at AB Rydell, his family's flower boutique business, but was bitten by the racing bug. In the early 1990s, he raced in various Formula Three series. He also won pole position in the 1991 Macau Grand Prix, and won the 1992 race. He competed in Japanese F3 in 1992 and 1993, British F3 in 1989 and 1991, and the Swedish F3 series in 1987 and 1988. In 1990, he raced in F3000. In 1984–1985, he won the Swedish 100cc go kart championship.

BTCC

His first year in the BTCC was 1994, when his car was quite distinctive, driving a Volvo 850 Estate, when it was normal to race saloons. The TWR team switched to a saloon in 1995 and Rydell took pole for 13 of the 24 races, but due to several slow starts he won only 4 times and he finished on podium 7 times. At the end of the year he was third in the championship, a result repeated in 1996 although Audi dominated with Frank Biela he was able to score 4 victories and 6 podium. In 1997 Volvo switch from 850 saloon to new model Volvo S40, at the end of year he was fourth with 1 victory and 5 podium. In 1998, he finally won the BTCC title in a Volvo with 5 victories and 12 podium, beating Anthony Reid at the final meeting. He also won the 1998 Super Touring Bathurst 1000, sharing a Volvo S40 with Jim Richards. In 1999 he was again third behind the two Nissan Primera with 4 victories and 7 podium.

After five years with Volvo, he was loaned to Ford (Prodrive) for 2000 where he finished for the fourth time in seven years third behind his two teammates Alain Menu and Anthony Reid.

ETCC
He spent 2001 largely waiting for his ETCC Volvo S60 to be built, but he raced a Ferrari 550 Maranello in the FIA GT Championship for the Prodrive team. In 2002 he raced in the ETCC finishing 5th with 8 podiums while in 2003, without official Volvo's support, he finished just 11th with only 2 podiums.

He moved to SEAT's SEAT Sport team in 2004 for the ETCC driving Seat Toledo Cupra ending 10th with 1 victory and 1 podium. In 2004 he also took part in two races in the Swedish Touring Car Championship, claiming one victory.

2005 season
SEAT and Rydell continued in the World Touring Car Championship (WTCC) when it replaced the ETCC for 2005. He finished sixth in the championship, winning race two at Silverstone and 4 podium.

2006 season
He continued with SEAT for 2006, finishing seventh, with just 4 podium.

2007 season
Rydell lost his SEAT drive for 2007, and instead drove an Aston Martin DBR9 with the Prodrive team in the GT Championship having previously worked with the team when using Ferrari's in 2004.

Rydell raced in the 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans with David Brabham and Darren Turner and they won in the GT1 class.

On the WTCC weekend in Anderstorp, Sweden, Rydell returned to the category as a fourth driver for the Chevrolet team and a local hero guest driver. He won the second race of the day, ahead of teammates Nicola Larini and Alain Menu ignoring the team order not to attack their teammate, in particular Larini who was fighting for the title championship and losing the opportunity to continue with RML until the end of the season.

Prior to the last event of the 2007 WTCC calendar in Macau, Rydell was chosen by the SEAT Sport team to race for them as an additional driver to help the team take home at least one of the main championships, either the Driver's championship via SEAT's Yvan Muller winning, or the Manufacturer's championship. The weekend though did not set off as planned, due to Rickard starting 14th on the race 1 grid and Yvan Muller started 2nd behind the eventual winner of the first race Alain Menu in the RML run Chevrolet. Rickard finished 11th in the first race with Yvan Muller leading 8 of the 9 laps of the race, but due to a fuel pressure problem Muller's race weekend ended on the 8th lap even before he was able to get to the pits. During the second race Rickard had a much better race than the first as he finished in 6th, but unfortunately his efforts were not enough to help SEAT clinch the Manufacturer's crowns, as the championship went to the reigning Manufacturer's champions BMW.

2008 season
Rydell was re-signed by SEAT as one of their drivers in their five strong driver line up for an assault on the 2008 WTCC season. Rickard finished fifth in the final standings, winning once at Estoril and once at Okayama.

2009 season
Rickard raced for SEAT yet again in 2009, winning at Puebla and finishing seventh overall in the final standings.

2011 season
Rickard Rydell returns to racing after a year as a commentator of the STCC for Swedish TV. He was signed to Chevrolet Motorsport Sweden team with the Cruze joining as team with his teammate Viktor Hallrup a developmental driver for the team in his second season with the team, with first season being with the Lacetti. Rickard came in as a booster driver for Chevrolet Sweden to gain results for the team as their developmental driver was still not up to speed with the top runners. Rickard won the title* at the last race of the season at Mantorp by just 2 points to Frederik Ekblom.

 * This is under debate for Rydell passing under yellows which are not present till Turn 2, but Volkswagen (VW) Team Biogas.se brought in former STCC champion Thed Bjork, and he slowed down before Turn 1 letting three cars past before the first yellow flag light. At present VW have appealed and failed 3 times fourth might be soon.

The two pieces of evidence that Volkswagen Team Biogas.se brought in: Photo and Video, both illustrated on touringcartimes.com

This is Rydell Second National Touring car title after the BTCC championship in 1998, although he won the Bathurst 1000 that year also which was his last touring car title before his return to form in 2011.

Next year he will be defending his STCC title however, Frederik Ekblom will not be contesting in the STCC as he has signed with Volvo Polestar in the silhouette touring car championship run by the TTA which is based on a Volvo C30 chassis and many teams and successful Swedish drivers, i.e. Jan "Flash" Nilsson and Richard Göransson, who were STCC BMW drivers in the 2011 season.

2013 season
Rydell joined NIKA Racing for the 2013 FIA WTCC Race of China to drive their Chevrolet Cruze 1.6T.

In a 2005 poll run by Motorsport Magazine, Rydell was voted 18th greatest touring car driver of all time.

Rydell announced his retirement from motorsport in early 2016.

GT racing

Rydell raced in the 2001 FIA GT Championship for Prodrive, after the team had built a Ferrari 550-GTS Maranello. The aim was to showcase the competitiveness of the car and tempt potential race teams to buy the vehicle from Prodrive. Consequently, there were numerous drivers of the vehicle that season, Rickard being one of them. He drove five races that year, finishing 3rd at the Nurburgring and two overall victories at the A1 Ring and Jarama respectively.

He moved back to touring cars for his full-time programmes from 2002, but competed with Prodrive in the Ferrari again at the 2002 24 Hours of Le Mans, sadly retiring. For the 2004 24 Hours of Le Mans the Prodrive Ferrari-Rydell combination finished on the GTS-class podium in third, Rickard sharing the car with Darren Turner and rally-driver Colin McRae.

After a hiatus of two years, Rickard once again teamed up with Prodrive for the 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans, this time in an Aston Martin DBR9. Sharing the car with Darren Turner and David Brabham, Rydell won the GT1 class.

Complete Japanese Formula 3000 results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete British Touring Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position – 1 point awarded 1996 onwards in all races) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap) ( * signifies that driver lead feature race for at least one lap – 1 point given)

Complete Swedish Touring Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete European Touring Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete World Touring Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete Scandinavian Touring Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete Bathurst 1000 results
* Super Touring race

title: Rickard Rydell


text:
MYMP

M.Y.M.P. (or MYMP, short for Make Your Momma Proud) is an acoustic band from Quezon City, Philippines. They released their first album, Soulful Acoustic in 2003 and a double album, Beyond Acoustic which was a number six charting album, and number two charting album Versions in 2005, the second album was the best-selling album by an acoustic band having sold 285,700 album sales.

Origin (1996–2002)
Jacques "Chin" Alcantara founded the band in 1996 as an amateur rock band.

The band transitioned to pop music when they had a female vocalist, Nina in late 1997. When she left for a solo career a year later, Juris from Davao took her place.

Early career (2003–2004)
It was the trio of Alcantara, Juris Fernandez and percussionist Mike Manahan that established the beachhead for M.Y.M.P.’s frontal assault on the sales and radio charts.

Their recording career started when Raymund Ryan Santes, the station manager of iFM 93.9, watched their gig. Ryan met with a producer to produce their debut album, Soulful Acoustic. Ivory Music and Video then became their recording company. M.Y.M.P.'s debut album was released during the label's 20th anniversary. The band became famous with their original hit song "A Little Bit" (music and lyrics by Raymund Ryan Santes, which won the People's Choice "Favorite Song" Award in Awit Awards 2004) and cover versions of Sting's "Every Little Thing" and Bob Marley's "Waiting in Vain".

M.Y.M.P. became a duo when one of their members decided to leave the group. Manahan left the band in mid-2004 due to what Alcantara called “professional differences” as well as a fallout from Manahan’s breakup with Fernandez; the two were in a relationship for a while. Yet, this did not stop M.Y.M.P.'s Juris & Chin from sharing their music, touring as a duo to promote their album.

Critical and commercial success (2005–2008)
The duo enjoyed their ride in the Philippine music scene as a new and improved M.Y.M.P. had emerged, a quartet together with Andrew and John as bassist and kahonista, respectively, as two more albums were released in a year. Versions and Beyond Acoustic, both 12-track albums. Beyond Acoustic debuted album number six on the Philippine Top Albums chart and was certified Gold after less than a month having sold 15,000 copies, to date the album had sold 210,700 copies in the Philippines making it the best-selling acoustic band album. They then recorded their double-disc 2nd album, Versions and Beyond Acoustic.

On October 1, 2005, MYMP had their first concert at the Music Museum, titled 'Especially For You'. The success of the concert prompted the band to hold its first major concert at the Araneta Coliseum on November 18, 2005, and a repeat on February 3, 2006. In December 2009. MYMP released their fourth studio-album New Horizon were it debuted at number three in Philippines, and was certified PARI Platinum with 30,000 copies sold. MYMP embarked on a US summer tour in 2006 and 2007.

In 2008, MYMP's contract with Ivory Music expired and signed a deal with Star Records, releasing their last album with Ivory Music, Now.

Departure of Juris Fernandez, label and lineup changes (2009–2018)
On November 5, 2009, Juris Fernandez was expelled from MYMP due to "irreconcilable professional differences". Contract disputes froze Chin and MYMP for 2 years, preventing them from recording outside Star Records, which was Juris' label.

On January 24, 2010, Juliet Bahala was introduced as the new vocalist of M.Y.M.P. on ASAP. Bahala, then an 18-year-old regional singing champ, also came from Davao like its previous female vocalist. She sang on M.Y.M.P.'s second live album The Unreleased Acoustic Collection which was released in May 2011 under Galaxy Records.

During the promotion of the album, Bahala suffered severe vocal fatigue, laryngitis and vocal nodules which eventually forced her to rest indefinitely. She was temporarily replaced by Vanessa Rangadhol from November 2011 to March 2013. Jana Laraza was later chosen via audition, and release the single "Electrified" and remained their vocalist until mid-2018.

Recent history (2018–present)
Carmella Ravanilla was chosen as vocalist in 2018. A few months earlier, MYMP returned to their original label, Ivory Music. The song "Wishes & Dreams" was released after almost 6 years of not recording new material. In July 2022, Juliet Bahala rejoined the group, then in January 2023, the group added 2nd female vocalist, Ethyl Bahala, the sister of Juliet Bahala.

Blackface controversy
On October 30, 2020, MYMP went live on Facebook for a Halloween show with Chin Alcantara wearing blackface. In the session, the group stated that the Black Lives Matter movement was not to be supported and was propaganda, saying "All Lives Matter". Tremendous backlash with over 1,000 comments on the live, with the majority denouncing MYMP's use of race as a costume.

Discography

 * Soulful Acoustic (2003)
 * Versions (2005)
 * Beyond Acoustic (2005)
 * New Horizon (2006)
 * Now (2008)
 * Electrified: 10th Anniversary Edition (2014)

Band members
Current members
 * Chin Alcantara - Lead guitar and vocals
 * Juliet Bahala - Lead vocals (2010–2011, 2022–present)
 * Ethyl Bahala - Lead vocals (2023–present)
 * Aaron Cadaing - Bass
 * Benj Bamba - Drums
 * Gen Lapinid - Keyboards

Past members
 * Fritz Ednacot - Guitar and vocals (1996-1999)
 * Mark Esguerra - Drums (1996–1999)
 * Hannche Bobbis - Keyboard (1996-2013)
 * Ebet Ednacot - Bass (1996–2004)
 * Nina - Lead vocals (1997–April 2001)
 * Juris Fernandez - Lead vocals (2001–November 2009)
 * Mike Manahan - Vocals and Percussions (1999–July 2004)
 * Andrew Advincula - Bass (2004-2006)
 * Joel Tolentino - Drums (2004-2018)
 * Amiel Rivas - Bass (2006-2009)
 * Oja Jimenez - Keyboard (2006-2009)
 * Jeff Lima - Drums (January 2010-2012)
 * Bong Maquito - Keyboard (2013-2018)
 * Vanessa Rangadhol (November 2011–March 2012)
 * Jana Laraza - Lead vocals (April 2012–September 2018)
 * Carmela Ravanilla - Lead vocals (2018–2022)
 * Rodnie Resos - Keyboard (2020-2023)

title: MYMP


text:
OK!

OK! is a British weekly magazine that primarily specialises in royal and celebrity news. Originally launched as a monthly magazine, its first issue was published in April 1993. In September 2004, OK! launched in Australia as a monthly title – the magazine went weekly in October 2006. In 2005, a US version was launched, followed by an Indian edition in May 2006, a Spanish-language version in Mexico in 2006, a Bulgarian-language version in 2007 and a Spanish edition in 2008.

OK! USA
In 2011, American Media Inc. bought OK! USA from Northern & Shell. In 2017, former editor James Heidenry stepped down, and was replaced by James Robertson. The Chief Content Editor of American Media, Dylan Howard, oversees the publication.

Other locations
OK! is the world's biggest celebrity lifestyle magazine, with more than 30 million readers worldwide, and now appears in 20 countries (Australia (readership of 158th as of June 2018), Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Middle East, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK, the US, Venezuela and Vietnam).

OK! Australian edition was published by Bauer Media Australia and New Zealand. In July 2020, Bauer Media's Australian and New Zealand operations were acquired by the Sydney investment firm Mercury Capital, which cancelled the magazine due to declining advertising revenue and travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Weddings
OK! is best known for its coverage of celebrity nuptials.

In 2000, OK! had exclusive rights to publish photographs of the wedding of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, but its rival Hello! magazine published pictures as well, and OK! sued. It was awarded £1,033,156 in an initial judgment, but lost it on appeal.

In October 2005, three celebrity weddings took place on the same day: those of Katie Price and Peter Andre, Kate Garraway and Derek Draper, and Samia Ghadie and property developer Matthew Smith. OK! covered them all over separate issues. The biggest wedding of the three (Price and Andre) was covered over two bumper issues.

The same happened for the wedding of Ashley and Cheryl Cole, as well as Christina Aguilera's. OK! devoted an issue to photos of Tony Parker and Eva Longoria's wedding.

Other weddings covered by OK! include:

 * Natasha Hamilton and Riad Erraji (November 2007)
 * Kerry Katona and Mark Croft (February 2007)
 * Holly Willoughby and Dan Baldwin (August 2007)
 * Steven Gerrard and Alex Curran (June 2007)
 * John Terry and Toni Poole (June 2007)
 * Kym Marsh and Jack Ryder (August 2002)
 * Melanie Brown and Jimmy Gulzar (September 1998)
 * Wayne Rooney and Coleen McLoughlin (June 2008)
 * Jack Tweed and Jade Goody (February 2009)
 * Patsy Kensit and Jeremy Healy (April 2009)
 * Kian Egan and Jodi Albert (May 2009)
 * Samantha Janus and Mark Womack (May 2009)
 * Hilary Duff and Mike Comrie (August 2010)
 * Prince William and Kate Middleton (April 2011)
 * Tom Fletcher and Giovanna Falcone (May 2012)
 * Victoria Adams and David Beckham (July 1999)

Controversies
Prior to Jade Goody's cancer-related death in March 2009, OK! sparked controversy by publishing an "Official Tribute Issue" with the front-page captions "In Loving Memory" and "1981-2009," even though Goody was still alive when the issue went to press.

In June 2009, OK! ran another tribute issue, this time for Michael Jackson. The publication had paid a reported $500,000 for images of Jackson's body being retrieved after his death. The cover photo showed a deceased Jackson on a stretcher, in a neck brace and with an oxygen mask. "It’s a photo that captures the surprise and the upset and the moment of this breaking news story," Sarah Ivens, the magazine's editorial director, said. "I hope the cover will provoke readers."

In 2010, the magazine faced more criticism after running a cover story on Kourtney Kardashian's pregnancy. It published a cover photo of Kardashian holding her son, Mason, and claimed to feature an exclusive interview revealing the secrets to her weight loss. Kardashian tweeted in response, "One of those weeklies got it wrong again…they didn’t have an exclusive with me. And I gained 40 pounds [18 kg] while pregs, not 26 [12 kg]…But thanks!" She also alleged that the body on the cover was not hers, and that OK! had Photoshopped her face onto someone else's body.

OK! came under fire again in July 2013 when it published an issue featuring Kate Middleton on the same day she left the hospital after giving birth to Prince George. The front cover of the 30 July issue advertised "Kate's Post-Baby Weight Loss Regime" [sic] and an "exclusive interview" with Middleton's trainer, who claimed that "[Kate's] stomach will shrink straight back" to its previous size. The story sparked backlash on Twitter when English TV presenter Katy Hill tweeted a photo of her own postnatal body and urged fellow mothers to boycott the magazine. Hill gained support from other women who believed that the story had been posted too soon after Middleton gave birth and felt that OK! was "pressuring new moms to instantly lose the baby weight." The magazine's parent company, Northern & Shell, later issued an apology in a statement published in The Guardian: "Kate is one of the great beauties of our age and OK! readers love her. Like the rest of the world, we were very moved by her radiance as she and William introduced the Prince of Cambridge to the world. We would not dream of being critical of her appearance. If that was misunderstood on our cover it was not intended."

Other media
OK! TV was an early-evening magazine program broadcast on Channel 5 as a brand extension of OK! Magazine. It replaced Live From Studio Five in February 2011 and was presented by Jenny Frost and Jeff Brazier, who replaced Kate Walsh and Matt Johnson in August 2011. A U.S. version of OK!TV aired from 2013 to 2016.

''OK! Insider'' is a weekly video podcast about the current issue of the magazine. It is written and presented by Layla Anna-Lee and Lizzie Cundy and produced by Simon Withington, and is available on the OK! UK website.

title: OK!


text: Talk:The One (comics)

title: Talk:The One (comics)


text:
Talk:Felix Perez Camacho

Page move
Hi! I just wanted to explain the page's move from Felix Camacho to Felix Perez Camacho. While much lesser known, there is a Felix Camacho who is a former boxer and who was mentioned in a couple of articles, as he is the brother of the more famous boxer Hector Camacho, and the uncle of Hector Camacho Jr..

Thank you and God bless you all! Sincerely yours, ''Antonio Camacho Martin

what for a descent he is?

hello from europe

September 19, 2006
I removed this bit from the re-election paragraph, as it was uncited POV:

"However, his hopes of winning might have depleted due to poor public image. For example, Guam's archaic sign law forbids political signage on private property.  His administration, through the Department of Public Works, has enforced the law vigorously, yet he was the first to put up oversized signs of himself at his campaign headquarters."

El Krem 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Felix Perez Camacho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024212242/http://www.kuam.com/decision2006/races/candidate_bio.aspx?id=11 to http://www.kuam.com/decision2006/races/candidate_bio.aspx?id=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Felix Perez Camacho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024212242/http://www.kuam.com/decision2006/races/candidate_bio.aspx?id=11 to http://www.kuam.com/decision2006/races/candidate_bio.aspx?id=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Felix Perez Camacho


text: List of drugs: M

title: List of drugs: M