text:
Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 1

For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. But there's an important exception to keep in mind: Commentary written by and specifically credited to one person should not be edited for content without correctly identifying all the changes. It's OK to fix obvious spelling and grammar bugs, but changing content is tantamount to making a false quotation claim. For example, the Wiki is not paper page contained a quote from Jimbo about something that would "grow gracefully old", and someone changed it into the cliche "grow old gracefully". That's not what Jimbo said, and it has a different meaning. It was also not an improvement on the original; in fact it was much worse. --LDC

Another comment: There are times when I have edited a page originally written in British English. Since my native language is American English, I do not consider myself competent to edit British text without accidentally throwing in a "realize" or "the team is..." or something else I'm not familiar with, so I simply "translated" the page into American English in its entirety so that I can be sure it's correct. This in no way implies that I think one is better than the other; only that I'm more competent to edit one. Of course, if a British person later comes along to edit it and wants to translate it back, that's fine too if he or she feels more competent editing that. --LDC

 * Perhaps this debate doesn't really belong here, but do you really find British English so different that you feel you can't piecemeal edit it correctly? I certainly feel competent to edit pages obviously written by Americans :) As far as ending up with a mixture of British and American (and, what the hell, let's throw in some Australian, New Zealand, and South African English as well), I can't see it as a huge problem.  If somebody finds the spelling and vocabulary inconsistencies too annoying, they'll get cleaned up IMHO.  --user:Robert Merkel

 * I don't need to edit other people's text to get a mishmash of American and British English -- my writing is a mishmash already! I switch willy-nilly from -ise to -ize and back again... :) --user:Simon J Kissane

 * Or consider Canadian English. Just read anything written in standard Canadian English (whatever that is), or peruse the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary, and you'll find that using a mishmash of British and American English is the norm in Canada.  So rewriting an entire article is probably not worth the bother. --AJM

So, this page should link to a new one, called, Avoid edit wars, maybe? Graft

This seems to be duplicated on meta: Be bold in updating pages. Is it better placed here or there?

Isn't the first line "Wikis don't work if people aren't bold." too definitive (and misleading ?) ? It suggests that boldness is the only way to live in wikipedia. Better ways of rephrasing the line can be found at Editing_policy, section:On editing styles. It talks about different approaches to take while editing, boldness being one of them. Wikis work with other approaches too. Perhaps the line could be "Wikis develop faster when people are bold." as the speed element is the biggest advantage. Jay 22:45, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Don't mass edit without asking first...
... If you think that particular information should be added to, restructured or reformated in many articles, please ask first at the Village pump."

This should be written in many places, maybe there should be a {msg:} for it, so we can put it on users' talk pages. All of this provoked by a recent mass edit of articles on Holy Roman emperors, which made the first sentences unreadable. (anon user added german/czech/slovak/hungarian names, which is appropriate, but not in the first sentence like that. Also unwikified. I have work to do now, so I can't but if anybody wishes to correct all of it, please go ahead. Zocky 18:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * That goes against the advice to be bold though. :) Angela. 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Probably the be bold guideline could do with a further caveat about naming conventions and certain use of style; now that some standards have become generally accepted. : ChrisG 22:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It would also have been useful in a recent case, currently being discussed at Naming_conventions_(places), where a user has changed UK county names wholesale across many articles on towns, cities, counties etc, and has also created many new articles to suit a particular view of what is correct. There's a place beyond 'bold', where even angels fear to tread! Chris Jefferies 21:11, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Indeed, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". But also there must be a life-cycle issue. As WikiPedia converges (if it ever does...) the need for community respect for what exists must become relatively more important versus the priority of getting new contributers and getting new content. Systems become unstable near convergence if the step size is left high... --BozMo|talk 14:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quote:

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. Then, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either: Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text.
 * 1) Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
 * 2) Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.

Unquote

I'm sorry, but there are several things I don't understand here.

- Wikipedia menus do not include a "talk page" (or even a "Talk page"). A fair amount of digging will eventually reveal that what is meant is the "Discuss this page" option; but aren't we dealing here with an article for newcomers to the Wikipedia?

- If taking option 1. we are instructed to "Move it to the Talk page" (presuming that the "it" refers to "anything substantial"). But later we are told "then wait a bit" before proceeding. Moving means taking away from one place as well as putting in another, so we are being instructed to proceed to make an amendment or deletion, then told not to proceed to do so before waiting "a bit" for responses to what we should not (or is it should?) have done anyway. The author of the caveat presumably meant not "move" but "copy" But why should we have to presume so much?

- After that conundrum comes another, equally difficult to grasp. Option 1: List your objections if they refer to a sentence or so vs. Option 2: Only list your objections if they refer to something longer (= don't list your objections if they refer to a sentence or so).

- Finally, "If no one objects, proceed". The liberum veto comes to Wikipedia! I sincerely hope not! Et in Arcadia, 12.08 UTC on 06 March 2004

- There seems to be a lot of people here talking about Wikis, and what to write and what not to write. What is the point!? Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something else? Like what people on these pages do for a living, or perhaps if there's a certain type of people who write things on these sites.

Having only just found out about these from a story on the BBC website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3857621.stm I thought the concept was fantastic. But instead of reading about all sorts of interesting opinions from around the world there's just a load of people saying what you should and shouldn't write...

Chill out you silly Americans! It's a free platform. Stop trying to control it so much!!!

Toby, UK.

Parent page needs reverting (see 'sex monkey') but I have no idea how to do it. AndyE.

Ultra-minor nit-pick: shouldn't this page be at Wikipedia talk:Be bold in updating pages!, given that it's in the imperative mood...? Otherwise, we could have Wikipedia talk:Being bold in updating pages, to describe the state of mind and attitude, rather than give an order...

I said it was minor. ;-)

James F. (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Create the page and redirect — that's what this project is all about! --Ardonik 19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Be bold! image
I added Wapcaplet's "Be bold!" T-shirt graphic to the page. I'm not satisfied with the layout, but I trust that someone will improve upon it. --Ardonik 19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC) Do you see any way to rework the image so that the article is improved? --Ardonik.talk 20:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) However, you should also consider what you are trying to say by including the image. Right now, it seems to just repeat the title (which sums up the whole point of the article). After a user has been referred here and has read the page title, does he really need a further repetition of the same title? Ultimately, I'm not sure that any image is appropriate here, because I don't think an image really illustrates the idea of being bold any better than text can. --Twinxor 22:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) For me, this is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. Do you seriously find the image to be so off-putting that it detracts from the message? If so, I'm afraid we'll be at odds and I will seek community consensus at the Village pump. --Ardonik.talk 23:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * To me, this image seems ugly, but also unecessary. I don't see what this adds to the article - it seems to just clutter things up and screw up the minimalistic style of Wikipedia. --Twinxor 20:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To me, the image is relevant, good-looking, and an enhancement to the article. I would also disagree that the Wikipedia is minimalistic; we do what we can to make our articles look good in spite of the technical limitations.  But you might have expected that I would disagree with you--such is life.
 * I suppose the main issue with the image is that it's distracting. The color, jumpy fonts, and prominent position on the left all draw one's focus away from the article. In this case the article is not encyclopedia content; rather, it's advice to editors, and it seems harmful to draw their attention from the important point being made. If you fix some of these issues, I think the image becomes less problematic.
 * I doubt that the image's impact is as devastating as you describe it. I am also no more able to justify the image's inclusion on the article than I am able to justify the 10K Wikipedia logo in the upper-left corner--in both cases, they add nothing to the content, could easily be replaced with text, and are there simply because they look nice.  Provided a webpage is accessible, I have no problem it looking good.  The image is also an apt illustration of being bold (in my opinion): I saw a beautiful T-shirt design on m:User:Wapcaplet, asked him if he would mind if I put up on WP:BB, and there it is.
 * I don't find it "devastating"; I find it annoying. If no one else cares, it certainly is no big deal. --Twinxor 00:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * :-( ™ --Ardonik.talk 00:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over my paragraph above and it reads like a legal threat. I hope it was not construed as such?  Seriously, it's simply not that big a deal, but if there is a way we could keep the image in a way that you found aesthetically appealing, I would really love to hear your ideas.  --Ardonik.talk 00:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, no, it's no problem. Nobody else seems to object, and I can't say it's all that crucial to me. Leave it up and gauge reaction for a bit. --Twinxor 00:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you ever make significant changes to an article?
I'm just curious, what do any of you do when you come across an article which you believe needs significant changes to its structure? Like if it restates facts, scatters facts under irrelevant sections, uses 'critics believe that...' too often, rambles, includes lots of citations which aren't relevant or noteworthy, or just generally has poor formatting - do you ever go in and rework an article significantly? If you do, how do you deal with previous editors who may get their nose bent out of shape that you redid their stuff? Or do you just leave well enough alone, limit your changes to specific details within the existing structure of the article, and trust that the people who edited before you knew what they were doing and your own opinion might be wrong? - Brian Kendig 00:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Be bold, and explain your changes on the Talk pages, but be prepared to get involved in pointless controversies, or to get abused if a long standing one already exists for that article, or to get all your work reverted. -- Simonides 00:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Most of the time if you do a good reorg of the info, and structure a good encyclopedia article, you won't get wrapped up in arguments. Sloppy articles need to be fixed, and most people actually apprecaite a helpful touch on pages they frequent.  — siro  χ  o  01:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * What's the article in question? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Windows XP. Before I started editing it, I felt like it read like a high school essay. It rambled and repeated words. I reworked it; someone reverted it (possibly by mistake?); someone else (in Talk:Windows_XP) said he was glad it was reverted. The version that's up there right now is based on my own edits, and I'm comfortable in my reasoning behind what I changed (but, of course, I don't mind someone else editing me). I guess I was just rattled a bit at first at having been reverted, and wanted to know what to do in case I was reverted again - especially as the complaints given about my article were fairly subjective and could have gone either way. Who's to say whether or not I deserved to be reverted? (Today I also reworked Windows Me and Mac OS. Is there any sort of "request for peer review" list around here, where I can ask people for opinions on my edits?) - Brian Kendig 02:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Brian, there is a place to request peer review at Peer review — siro  χ  o  04:57, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've reworked a couple of articles. Sometimes I just start rewriting it one paragraph at a time, adding a paragraph, and then later deleting the redundant parts in the rest of the article.  Sometimes I just add all the missing pieces first, so grossly expanding the article that the previous text is in the minority.  Then, later, the previous bits can be reworded, worked in, or just deleted. Either way, if your text is high quality, and no factual data is actually lost in the process, it'll probably stick, and hopefully fewer noses will be bent. --ssd 03:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I have also reworked a couple of articles. I think the following steps can be taken to minimise the risk of dispute -

 * Check the article's history. If there is a frequent contributor or the article is clearly largely the work of one or two users, explain your plans on their talk page(s) - not to ask "permission", but just to keep them informed.
 * Explain your plans on the article's talk page and invite comments. Anyone watching the article will see this.
 * Re-write in stages. If a re-structuring is necessary, do this first, with minimal changes to existing text. Leave it for a day or two. Then tidy up existing text (spelling, grammar, style etc.) but keep the same content. Leave it for a day or two again. Then add all that new content that you have been itching to put in.
 * Try not to remove stuff - this is what often causes disputes. Clear factual errors should be removed, but other material can usually be incorporated in one way or another. POV stuff can be re-written as NPOV; bias can be balanced etc.

 * Just my few thoughts ... Gandalf61 10:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Gandalf61, this is great advice (is this written up anywhere in a Wikipedia: space article?). Anecdote: one of my earliest contributions was an overly enthusiastic refactoring of cryptography — I think I ticked off a couple of editors because they were already working on a new version (although it was under construction as a user subpage, quite easy to overlook...). If I'd followed these guidelines, it would gone much smoother. — Matt 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That IBM research suggested that initial text is rarely taken away. With the exception of short stubs, the first edit tends to define an article. There of course plenty of exceptions (even 1% would be 3,000 articles). Pcb21| Pete 10:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * What's this IBM research you mention? Was it all about Wikipedia? [[User:Bodnotbod| b o d not b o d      ......TALK Q uietly ) ]] 07:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Blimey Bod you have a very long sig when you view it in wikitext! The IBM paper is . (Read the PDF). See also Wikipedia_in_academic_studies Pcb21| Pete 08:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've seen the direct results of what the IBM study found, it isn't pretty. Some articles that started with text with factual errors continue to support those errors many edits later.  I think people are afraid to edit it out.  Frequently if the original text was disorganized, people just keep adding bits and pieces without ever actually restructuring it, leaving it a rambling mess.  I've found myself doing this.  It is much harder to rearrange and restructure a text than just add a few pieces.  The original text will color the tone of the article long afterwards, even if it does not deserve to. --ssd 04:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To facilitate the building of a consensus around what edits an article need, you can use the new Todo lists. Any comments on it are welcome. Pcarbonn 17:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent addition by anonymous user
One of the problems when trying to even remotely approach anything like a bold update (i.e. not even really a bold update) is that someone is likely to come along and revert the update, even when the update happens to be uh, "reasonable". A couple of experiences like this would discourage would-be bold updaters and encourage conservative editing instead.

Is this a complaint, or something that we can incorporate into the article? What is meant here by "reasonable" (with the scare quotes)? Also see ; is this a can't tell if User:128.175.112.225 is trying to say something here of if he just has an axe to grind because he was reverted elsewhere. I'll leave a message on his talk page (assuming it's a he.) --Ardonik.talk 18:13, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Page renamed
Where was the discussion about renaming this page from Be bold in updating pages to Be bold ? -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * I looked throught the "What links here" of the former title and found that Be bold got many links. Plus, it's more inclusive of what the page actually says and is less wordy. So I though I would be bold myself and move the page. Do you have any objections? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Checking the Whatlinkshere shows a lot of user talk pages referencing that... what you didn't consider was "why?". The Be bold link is/was used in a lot of new user Welcome messages.  I think you should move it back and, this time, fix all the redirects. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * Why move it back? The new name got more links, it's shorter, and more descriptive of what the page actually is. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * This would have been a great conversation to have before you moved it. You also speedy deleted the pre-existing redirect at this location against the WP:CSD policy "Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and: ... Consensus is that it should be removed to make way for a non-controversial page move". Key word there is -consensus-. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * I didn't speedy delete any redirect (See Deletion log). And I hardly thought that this move would be "controversial." But if you have such strenuous concerns, I will not object to moving this back. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:42, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * "19:29, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Wikipedia:Be bold" (Delete to make way for page move.)" I did see the Deletion log, which is how I knew you'd done it. Care to change your story? -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood you. I temporally deleted that redirect in order to move the page from "Be bold in updating pages" to "Be bold" — which I did (I noted why I was deleting the page in the edit summary, which you left out. I thought you meant that I permanently deleted the redirect, something I would never do. Gets quite confusing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Move request
(from WP:RM)

Be bold in updating pages → Be bold

 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree for ambiguity reasons. Yes, we say "BE BOLD!", but we mean in updating the pages. Unless someone says that this page can be expanded to mean "Be bold in everything you do on Wikipedia", I think it should stay where it is. New users and visitors will get the right context from the current article title. All appropriate redirects are already in place, so finding the article (or citing it) is no problem. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
 * Be bold in updating pages seems more accurate than simply Be bold so I'd rather it stays where it is. Angela. 03:25, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Clarifying we're talking about article edits
I added a bit to try and clarify that "Be bold!" generally means edits to a single article, recommending a bit more caution when doing things that have wide-spread effects. If someone thinks the idea can be presented better, feel free to edit mercilessly. If someone thinks I've mis-interpreted the general consensus, we can move it here and try and hash out any objections. I've just been spending too much time recently cleaning up after ill-advised and/or un-followed up page moves and template changes, and would rather have the newcomers warned in advance, instead of getting a 'please don't ___' when they apply 'be bold' beyond article edits. Niteowlneils 02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I haven't read what you've done, but I definitely agree with the idea. Maurreen 10:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind
This page is all about BEING BOLD. Too many cautionary warnings will water this idea down. Remember, this is the page we point a lot of new users towards to encourage them to just get going. Mistakes and missteps may be made, but by-and-large, the BE BOLD statement serves as a motivator. Remember, nothing a newbie does is ever truly permanent. Keep the cautions, warnings, and caveats to a minimum on this page. Make it about empowerment. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Deference to other authors
Because I've recently seen some authors make major changes to articles without showing other editors of the article any respect, I'd like to see a blurb like this added:
 * Show deference to the article authors who came before you. If the content changes you make to a long-established article are significant, err on the side of explaining your changes in a reasonably detailed manner on the article's talk page.

— Stevie is the man!  Talk 23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be bold vs. Original research
In many cases contributers are interested in editing an article, but distance themselve from this because they're not 100 percent certain if the edit the're about to do is completely correct (that is, not everyone is a PhD in what he/she would like to edit). This reflects No_original_research. --Abdull 13:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Dead Poet's society
"This quote has no relevance."

I don't really have a strong stance on the subject, but Necaholic has removed my quote, which was perfectly relevant, in fact it can be interpreted as literally "be bold, but don't be reckless", its also a relatively well known movie reference: "'Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone.' -Dead Poets Society"

I don't see what the issue was? The article is relatively informal, and is meant to be.. I don't really care that much, but just for future reference. Specifically, as much as I love wikipedia, I think one of the major weaknesses is that the writing style is so formulaic and drab. I think all the pressures to be NPOV and what-not (which I don't deny the importance of at all) have created a culture that is afraid to add any flair, humour or character to the content, in ways which aren't necessarily contradictory to the philosophy. Not that I'm claiming that this quote is the shining beacon of literature or anything, but nonetheless, isn't that what this page is partially about? The fact that this is happening here I think adds a touch of irony ;) I could be wrong though; I've been contributing for only 4-5 months (but reading much longer), maybe I don't understand the system.  --Freshraisin 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 1


text:
Odd Ball (comic strip)

Odd Ball is a long-running British comic strip in the British comic magazine Whizzer and Chips' and survived its merger with Buster. It debuted in 1969 and ended when Buster sold its final issue on 4 January 2000. Latterly appearing in reprints, it was drawn throughout its run by Terry Bave. His subtitle was "Nobby Noodle owns Odd Ball, the amazing toy from space".

Odd Ball follows the adventures of the titular red rubber ball which accidentally found itself kicked from a distant planet onto earth. Its finder, Nobby, remained its owner. Odd Ball could see and speak, and was able to turn himself into any shape at will. In later years, Nobby's dad lost his moustache and beard, and gained a full head of hair – his head was also redrawn at the time. Odd Ball also gained a Time Travel shape in the late 1980s, where previously he had been strictly restricted to rubber versions of day to day objects.

From 3 November 1990 until 4 January 2000, the series ran in Buster. In the final episode, Odd Ball gets punctured on a thorn and dies.

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

title: Odd Ball (comic strip)


text:
Talk:Peacock (disambiguation)

Definition?
Where is the definition for peacock as in peacock terms?--AI 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) is "siki" another name for peacock ? ist this correct ??? why do they call a peacock "siki"??

 * Avoid peacock terms.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peacock (disambiguation)


text:
FTW Championship

The FTW Championship, at different times meaning both the Fuck The World Championship, and For The World Championship, is a men's professional wrestling championship currently utilized in the American promotion All Elite Wrestling (AEW). It is presented as an "outlaw" or "renegade" title that is unsanctioned by officials in-storyline, and essentially serves as a hardcore championship, as many matches for the title are held under "FTW Rules". The current champion is Chris Jericho, who is in his first reign. He won the title by defeating Hook in an FTW Rules match at Dynasty in St. Louis, Missouri on April 21, 2024.

The title was originally established in the now defunct Extreme Championship Wrestling promotion, in 1998 by its inaugural holder, Taz, making it currently the oldest championship in All Elite Wrestling.

It was originally unified into the ECW World Heavyweight Championship when then ECW World Heavyweight Champion, Taz won the title from Sabu at Living Dangerously 1999. It remained inactive for 21 years, but, as it was never actually property of ECW, but of Taz himself, it was not included as the intellectual property sold to WWE during the sale of ECW in 2001, allowing Taz to reintroduce the title in All Elite Wrestling in 2020, this time awarding it to his client, Brian Cage. It was introduced in a similar matter to how it was introduced in ECW; the world champion of the promotion was inactive at the time, and unable to defend it, thus the FTW Championship was awarded to the would-be challenger.

Extreme Championship Wrestling (1998–1999)
The FTW Heavyweight Championship was designed, created, and conceived by Taz, who also owns the rights to the title. The title was used to compensate for storylines that had to be dropped due to injuries. ECW World Heavyweight Champion Shane Douglas had a serious sinus infection and an elbow injury. Taz and Al Snow also missed their matches at Wrestlepalooza 1998 due to health problems. ECW Owner Paul Heyman said the title suited Taz's "bad-ass, no-nonsense" attitude."

Taz announced the creation of the FTW Heavyweight Championship (also referred to as the Brooklyn World Championship) on May 14, 1998, at It Ain't Seinfeld. In the storyline, he was frustrated by his inability to challenge for the ECW World Heavyweight Championship due to Champion Shane Douglas' injury and refusal to face him. Taz created and defended his own world title, billing himself as the "real" World Champion. He stated that fans appreciated the message conveyed by the title, which represented contempt for bosses and society, and said that he believed it was more appreciated than the company's top title. The championship was billed as "unrecognized" by ECW.

Taz lost the title only once, in a singles match against Sabu. This was an intentional loss, when he pulled an unconscious Sabu over himself on December 19, 1998 (he was confident that he would defeat Shane Douglas in an upcoming title bout, and thus no longer needed the FTW Heavyweight Championship). Taz regained the title at Living Dangerously on March 21, 1999, where he unified the FTW Heavyweight Championship with the ECW World Heavyweight Championship (which he then held) by defeating Sabu in a title versus title match. Taz then began using only the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, being the sole World Heavyweight Championship in the promotion, in turn retiring the FTW Heavyweight Championship.

All Elite Wrestling (2020–present)
Taz began appearing in All Elite Wrestling (AEW) in late 2019 and officially signed with the company in January 2020 as a commentator. He then began managing Brian Cage. On Night 2 of Fyter Fest on July 2 that year (aired on July 8), Cage was scheduled to face Jon Moxley for the AEW World Championship; however, the match was postponed as Moxley had to self-quarantine after his wife Renee Paquette had tested positive for COVID-19. In turn, Taz reinstated the title (as the FTW Championship) that night and awarded it to Cage, mirroring the circumstances behind the title's original inception in ECW. Just like in ECW, the FTW Championship is not an officially sanctioned championship in AEW.

After winning the title at Dynasty in April 2024, due to the negative connotation of the words "FTW", Chris Jericho, under his gimmick of a delusional mentor "The Learning Tree", declared that "FTW" will now stand for "For The World" and that the title is for all the fans.

Belt designs
When the title was first created, the FTW belt was a custom ECW Television Championship belt with a leather strap painted orange, stickers partially covering the belt, and a "TAZ" logo at the top. "FTW" stickers were strategically placed over the word "Television" in the middle of the belt as well as the United States and United Kingdom flags on the side plates. A few months later, in an attempt to persuade Taz to team with Sabu and Rob Van Dam against Shane Douglas and The Triple Threat, Bill Alfonso presented Taz with an original FTW belt featuring a black leather strap and orange-accented bronze plates, with a "TAZ" logo engraved in the belt's centerplate. This second design would also be used for the belt after its reintroduction in AEW. Taz stated that the concept and attitude have been replicated by other companies.

According to Taz on The Rise and Fall of ECW DVD documentary, when Sabu won the title, he was legitimately upset backstage over Taz's name being permanently displayed on the belt. From then on, whenever Sabu had the belt with him, he would cover the Taz logo with athletic tape and write "SABU" on it in magic marker. A similar instance occurred with the current champion Chris Jericho, as after winning the title, he appeared on the April 24, 2024 edition of Dynamite with a decal of his name at the top of the belt to cover Taz's name.

Reigns
As of July 29,, there have been nine reigns between seven champions and one vacancy. Taz was the inaugural champion and is tied with his son Hook for the most reigns at two. Ricky Starks has the longest reign at 378 days while Taz's second reign was the shortest at less than a day as he abandoned the title upon winning the ECW World Heavyweight Championship in a championship unification match. Chris Jericho is the oldest champion at 53 years old while Hook is the youngest at 23.

Chris Jericho is the current champion in his first reign. He won the title by defeating Hook in an FTW Rules match at Dynasty in St. Louis, Missouri on April 21, 2024.

Combined reigns
As of July 18, 2024

title: FTW Championship


text:
Mark Taper Forum

The Mark Taper Forum is a 739-seat thrust stage at the Los Angeles Music Center designed by Welton Becket and Associates on the Bunker Hill section of Downtown Los Angeles. Named for real estate developer Mark Taper, the Forum, the neighboring Ahmanson Theatre and the Kirk Douglas Theatre are all operated by the Center Theatre Group.

History
The Mark Taper Forum opened in 1967 as part of the Los Angeles Music Center, the West Coast equivalent of Lincoln Center, designed by Los Angeles architect Welton Becket and Associates. Peter Kiewit and Sons (now Kiewit Corporation) was the builder. The dedication took place on April 9, 1967, at an event attended by Governor Ronald Reagan. The smallest of the three venues, the Taper is flanked by the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion and the Ahmanson Theatre on the Music Center Plaza.

Becket designed the center in the style of New Formalism, which emphasized geometric shapes. The perfectly circular Taper is considered one of his best works, featuring a distinctive decorated drum of a design with its exterior wrapped in a lacy precast relief by Jacques Overhoff. The lobby has a curving, abalone wall by Tony Duquette. Charles Moore described Becket's design for the Music Center as "Late Imperial Depression-Style cake".

Becket designed the building not knowing who would use it. Various proposals included chamber music concerts, or even grand jury meetings. Ultimately Dorothy Chandler, the Los Angeles cultural leader, convinced Center Theater Group artistic director Gordon Davidson to use the Taper. For 38 years, Davidson was the artistic director of Center Theater Group, which also ran the Ahmanson and eventually the Kirk Douglas Theater in Culver City. The Taper became known for its thrust stage, jutting into a classical, semicircular amphitheater, which creates an especially intimate relationship between audience and performer.

The building bears an architectural resemblance to Carousel Theatre at Disneyland, also designed by Welton Becket and Associates in 1967. It is similar in design concept and size to the Dallas Theatre Center, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and the original Tyrone Guthrie Theatre, in Minneapolis.

On October 8, 1993, a memorial was held in the actor Richard Jordan's honor. It was the same day his final movie Gettysburg was released.

In June 2023 the Center Theatre Group announced an indefinite pause of shows at the Mark Taper Forum. It is unknown whether this change will lead to a permanent closure.

Renovation
A $30-million renovation of the Taper led by the Los Angeles firm Rios Clementi Hale Studios began in July 2007 after the 2006/2007 season. The theater reopened on August 30, 2008, for the first preview of John Guare's The House of Blue Leaves.

The Taper, as originally designed, was a case study in what happens when a theater is built without a tenant in mind. Fitting the auditorium into the circular building left a tiny backstage and only a narrow, curved hallway for a lobby.

The renovation updated nearly everything that was not concrete and did not disrupt the building's circular shape. To create a larger main lobby, the designers reduced the ticket booth and removed about 30 parking spaces from the lower-level garage to move the restrooms below ground as part of a stylized lounge with gold, curved couches and mosaics of mirrored tiles that fit the era in which the building was designed. The theater seats are wider and total capacity was reduced from 745 to 739. The entrance was moved to the plaza level and an elevator added to increase the accessibility of the theater.

The original theater also had very few women's restrooms opening with four women's stalls for a 750-seat hall. The renovation increased the number of stalls to 16. Backstage, changes included removing an outdated stage "treadmill" and old air-conditioning equipment, installing a modern lighting grid, and enlarging the load-in door to 6 feet by 9 feet. A wardrobe room was constructed in the space previously occupied by the air-conditioning equipment.

The auditorium was renamed the Amelia Taper Auditorium after a $2 million gift from the S. Mark Taper Foundation.

Production history
The Taper has presented innovative plays since its 1967-opening of The Devils from playwright John Whiting about the sexual fantasies of a 17th-century priest and a sexually repressed nun. The play received a great deal of protest from local religious leaders and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, although the production continued.

The production of such plays as Murderous Angels, The Dream on Monkey Mountain, Children of a Lesser God, Savages, The Shadow Box, The Kentucky Cycle and Angels in America has established definition of a "Taper play"; one which is provocative, political and liberal.

The Taper has been host to world premiere productions of many notable plays including The Shadow Box (1975), Zoot Suit (1978), Children of a Lesser God (1979), Neil Simon's I Ought To Be In Pictures (1980), Lanford Wilson's Burn This (1987), Jelly's Last Jam (1991), Angels in America (1992), Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 (1994), David Henry Hwang's revised version of Flower Drum Song (2001), August Wilson's Radio Golf (2005) and the musical 13 (2007).

In all, the theater has 5 Tony Awards to its credit.

title: Mark Taper Forum


text:
Mameluke sword

A Mameluke sword is a cross-hilted, curved, scimitar-like sword historically derived from sabres used by Mamluk warriors of Mamluk Egypt after whom the sword is named. Egypt was, at least nominally, part of the Ottoman Empire and the sword most commonly used in Egypt was the same as used elsewhere in the empire, the kilij.

The curved sabre was originally of Central Asian Turkic in origin from where the style migrated to the Middle East, Europe, India and North Africa. In Anatolia and the Balkans the sabre developed characteristics that eventually produced the Ottoman kilij. It was adopted in the 19th century by several Western militaries, including the French Army, British Army, Royal Sardinian Army, Royal Italian Army and the United States Marine Corps. Although some genuine Ottoman sabres were used by Westerners, most "mameluke sabres" were manufactured in Europe or America; their hilts were very similar in form to the Ottoman prototype, but their blades tended to be longer, narrower and less curved than those of the true kilij, while being wider and also less curved than the Persian shamshir.

In short, the hilt retained its original shape. but the blade tended to resemble the blade-form typical of contemporary Western military sabres. The Mameluke sword remains the ceremonial sidearm for some units to this day.

United States Marine Corps

Marine Corps history states that a sword of this type was presented to Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon by the Ottoman Empire viceroy, Prince Hamet, on December 8, 1805, during the First Barbary War, in Libya, as a gesture of respect and praise for the Marines' actions at the Battle of Derna (1805). Upon his return to the United States, the state of Virginia presented him with a silver-hilted sword featuring an eaglehead hilt and a curved blade modeled after the original Mameluke sword given to him by Hamet. Its blade is inscribed with his name and a commemoration of the Battle of Tripoli Harbor.

Perhaps due to the Marines' distinguished record during this campaign, including the capture of the Tripolitan city of Derna after a long and dangerous desert march, Marine Corps Commandant Archibald Henderson adopted the Mameluke sword in 1825 for wear by Marine officers. After initial distribution in 1826, Mameluke swords have been worn except for the years 1859–1875 (when Marine officers were required to wear the U.S. Model 1850 Army foot officers' sword), and a brief period when swords were suspended during World War II. Since that time, Mameluke swords have been worn by Marine officers in a continuing tradition to the present day.

British Army

Mameluke swords were adopted by officers of light cavalry regiments in the first decade of the 19th century, some were used as 'walking out swords' (for ornamental wear on social occasions on foot) but others were employed on active campaign. They are prominent in images of officers of the Hussars painted by Robert Dighton in 1807. As officially regulated dress or levée swords they first appear in 1822 for lancer regiments. Later, other light cavalry and some heavy cavalry regiments also adopted similar patterns. Though broadly similar in form, each regiment's swords had individual variations in the decoration of both blade and hilt. The current regulation sword for generals, the 1831 Pattern, is a Mameluke-style sword, as were various Army Band swords.

There are a number of factors which influenced the fashion for Mameluke swords in the British Army.
 * Napoleon raised a number of Mameluke units during his Egyptian campaigns in the French Revolutionary Wars, leading to the adoption of this style of sword by many French officers. In the post-Napoleonic period French military fashion was widely adopted in Britain.
 * The Duke of Wellington carried a Mameluke sword from his days serving in India and throughout his career. After he defeated Napoleon his status was a national hero, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and then prime minister; as such, his tastes had considerable weight.
 * The United States Marine Corps sword, discussed above, has been suggested as also being influential. The 1831 Pattern General Officers' Sword is very similar to the USMC Mameluke that pre-dated it.

Australian Army
The Mameluke is still used today by the Australian Army, carried by the rank of Major General or above on ceremonial occasions.

title: Mameluke sword


text:
De Tomaso Pantera

The De Tomaso Pantera is a mid-engine sports car produced by Italian automobile manufacturer De Tomaso from 1971 to 1992. Italian for "Panther", the Pantera was the automaker's most popular model, with over 7,000 manufactured over its twenty-year production run. More than three quarters of the production was sold by American Lincoln-Mercury dealers from 1972 to 1975; after this agreement ended De Tomaso kept manufacturing the car in ever smaller numbers into the early 1990s.

History
The Pantera was designed by the Italian design firm Carrozzeria Ghia's American-born designer Tom Tjaarda and replaced the Mangusta. Unlike the Mangusta, which employed a steel backbone chassis, the Pantera's chassis was of a steel monocoque design, the first instance of De Tomaso using this construction technique.

The car debuted in Modena in March 1970 and was presented at the 1970 New York Motor Show a few weeks later. Approximately a year later the first production cars were sold, and production was increased to three per day. De Tomaso sold the rights to the Pantera to Ford, who were to distribute the cars in the United States through its Lincoln-Mercury dealerships, while Alejandro De Tomaso retained the rights to market the Pantera in Europe.

The slat-backed seats which had attracted criticism at the New York Auto Show were replaced by more conventional body-hugging sports seats in the production cars: leg-room was generous but the pedals were off-set and headroom was insufficient for drivers above approximately 6 ft tall. Reflecting its makers' transatlantic ambitions, the Pantera came with an abundance of standard features which appeared exotic in Europe, such as electric windows, air conditioning and even "doors that buzz when ... open". By the time the Pantera reached production stage, the interior was in most respects well sorted, although resting an arm on the central console could lead to inadvertently activating the poorly located cigarette lighter.

The first 1971 Pantera models were powered by a 351 CID Ford Cleveland V8 engine having a power output of 335 PS. The high torque provided by the Ford engine reduced the need for excessive gear changing at low speeds: this made the car much less demanding to drive in urban conditions than many of the locally built offerings.

The ZF transaxle used in the Mangusta was also used for the Pantera: a passenger in an early Pantera recorded that the mechanical noises emanating from the transaxle were more intrusive than the well restrained engine noise. Another Italian car that shared the ZF transaxle is the Maserati Bora, also launched in 1971 although not then available for sale. Power-assisted four-wheel disc brakes and rack and pinion steering were all standard equipment on the Pantera. The 1971 Pantera could accelerate to 97 km/h (60 mph) in 5.5 seconds according to Car and Driver.

In the spring of 1972, De Tomaso introduced the more sporting GTS model for the European market. The GTS was developed for Group 3 racing and received a more powerful engine with 350 PS DIN at 6000 rpm, thanks to a 11.0 : 1 compression ratio (versus 8.0 : 1 in the US market Pantera), larger Holley carburetors, a forged aluminum intake manifold, and freer flowing exhaust headers. The GTS also has considerably wider wheels, a more aggressive steering rack setup, ventilated disc brakes, adjusted spring rates and gear ratios, and conspicuous matte black body elements.

The Pantera logo included a T-shaped symbol that was the brand used by De Tomaso's Argentinian cattle ranching ancestors, as well as a version of the Argentinean flag turned on its side, inspired by the company's founder, Alejandro De Tomaso, having been born and raised in Argentina.

In the United States
Late in 1971, Ford began importing the Pantera for the American market to be sold through its Lincoln-Mercury dealers. The first 75 cars were simply European imports and are known for their "push-button" door handles and hand-built Carrozzeria Vignale bodies. A total of 1,007 cars reached the United States that year. As with most Italian cars of the day, rust-proofing was minimal and the quality of fit and finish on these early models was poor with large amounts of body solder being used to cover body panel flaws. Subsequently, Ford increased their involvement in the production of the later cars with the introduction of precision stampings for body panels which resulted in improved overall quality. Several modifications were made to the Pantera for the 1972 model year. A new 351 cuin four-bolt main Cleveland Engine, was used with lower compression ratio (from 11:1 to 8.6:1, chiefly to meet US emissions standards and run on lower octane standard fuel) but with the more aggressive "Cobra Jet" camshaft (featuring the same lift and duration as the 428 Cobra Jet's factory performance cam) in an effort to reclaim some of the power lost through the reduction in compression ratio along with a dual point distributor. Many other engine changes were made, including the use of a factory exhaust header.

The "Lusso" (luxury) Pantera L was also introduced in August 1972 as a 1972$1/2$ model. For the US market, it featured a large black single front bumper that incorporated a built-in airfoil to reduce front end lift at high speeds, rather than the separate bumperettes still used abroad, as well as the Cleveland engine then having a power output of 264 hp at 5400 rpm. The "L" model featured many factory upgrades and updates that fixed most of the problems and issues the earlier cars experienced. It was so improved that the 1973 DeTomaso Pantera was beating offerings from Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, and Porsche. During 1973 the dashboard was changed, deviating from two separate pods for the gauges to a unified unit with the dials angled towards the driver.

The European GTS model had sparked interest in the United States, with several grey market cars being imported and many of the performance parts being offered. In the first half of 1974 a US version of the Pantera GTS was introduced, with the first 40 cars only being available in California. This model featured GTS badging and matte black sections as well as a special steering wheel and an electric clock, but not the higher compression engine nor the wheels or other performance modifications of its European counterpart.

Disengagement of Ford

Ford stopped importing the Pantera to the US in 1975, having sold around 5,500 cars. De Tomaso continued to build the car in ever-escalating forms of performance and luxury for almost two decades for sale in the rest of the world. A small number of cars were imported to the US by gray market importers in the 1980s, notably Panteramerica and AmeriSport. After 1974, Ford discontinued the Cleveland 351 engine, but production continued in Australia until 1982. De Tomaso started sourcing their engines from Australia once the American supplies stopped. These engines were tuned in Switzerland and were available with a range of outputs up to 360 PS.

According to De Tomaso the chassis was completely revised in 1980, beginning with chassis number 9000. From May 1980, the lineup included the GT5, which had bonded and riveted-on fibreglass wheelarch extensions and from November 1984 the GT5-S model which had blended arches and a distinctive wide-body look. The GT5 also incorporated better brakes, a more luxurious interior, much larger wheels and tires and the fiberglass body kit also included an air dam and side skirts. Production of the wide body GT5 (and similarly equipped narrow body GTS models) continued until 1985, when the GT5-S replaced the GT5. Although the factory has not made its records available, an analysis based on Vehicle Identification Numbers by the Pantera Owners Club of America (POCA) late model (9000 series) registrar has shown that fewer than 197 GT5 Pantera models were likely to have been built. The GT5-S featured single piece flared steel fenders instead of the GT5's bolted-on fiberglass flares, and a smaller steel front air dam. The 'S' in the GT5-S name stood for "steel". Otherwise the GT5-S was largely identical to the GT5. The POCA 9000 series registrar's VIN analysis indicates that fewer than 183 GT5-S Panteras were built. Concurrent GTS production continued, on a custom order and very limited basis, until the late 1980s.

The car continued to use a Ford V8 engine, although in 1988, when the supply of Ford 351 Cleveland engines from Australia ran out, De Tomaso began installing Ford 351 Windsor engines in the Pantera instead. In all, about 7,260 cars in total were built.

Pantera 90 Si
In 1990 the 351 engine was replaced by the 5.0-litre Ford 302 engine featuring electronic fuel injection and modified cylinder heads, intake manifolds, camshafts, valves, and pistons. Stopping power was improved by the addition of four-wheel ventilated and drilled disc brakes with Brembo calipers that were shared with the Ferrari F40. The Pantera received new styling penned by Marcello Gandini, suspension redesign and a partial chassis redesign. The new model was called the Pantera 90 Si and it was introduced in 1990. The taillights came from the facelifted, first series Alfa Romeo 33. Only 41 90 Si models were made before the Pantera was finally phased out in 1993 to make way for the radical Guarà. Out of the 41 cars made, two were used for crash testing, and one was reserved for the De Tomaso museum. As such, only 38 were sold to the public, of which four were converted to Targas by Pavesi. In the UK, the model was sold as Pantera 90.

Group 3

De Tomaso offered a Pantera competition car built to special order according to the Group 3 class racing rules between 1972 and 1984 based on the Pantera GTS. 30 cars were built for private customer teams. Group 3 rules were very strict and allowed little modifications to the original road going production cars. Earlier Group 3 cars are infamously called "push button" chassis cars as they were built by hand because De Tomaso did not have a proper assembly line when the Pantera began production. Special equipment of the Group 3 cars included Campagnolo wheels (15 x 8 inches at the front and 15 x 10 inches at the rear), adjustable Koni shocks, racing brakes and special safety equipment required at the time: plexi-glass windows with cutouts, a roll bar, fire extinguisher and racing bucket seats. The engine modifications included a reinforced camshaft, a 10-litre oil pan and a Holley racing 4 barrel carburetor. Displacement of the engine was also enlarged to 5.8-litres. The engine had a power output of 336 PS. The engine was mated to a 5-speed close ratio gearbox with a heavy duty single plate clutch and a limited slip differential. It was reported that with the long ratio gears, the Group 3 cars could achieve a top speed up to 280 kph. The Group 3 cars were so competitive that this prompted Porsche to speed up development of the more powerful 911 Carrera RS and Carrera RSR race cars. The use of racing brakes for the Pantera Group 3 was not allowed until 1975 and the car competed with the brakes of the road legal Pantera which proved to be its weak point. Due to an accident in 1973 at the Charade circuit, reinforced hubs developed by De Tomaso for the Group 3 car were approved in Group 3.

Group 4

After the Pantera had begun production, De Tomaso introduced a motorsport oriented Group 3 version of the car. This was followed by a modified Group 4 version in 1972. British engineer and driver Mike Parkes, who had previously developed racing cars for Ferrari was tasked with the development of the new car.

As per the regulations, the Group 4 car was based around the road car's steel monocoque chassis. The double wishbone suspension was substantially modified and Koni adjustable shocks were used in order to improve handling at the track and make room for wider Campagnolo wheels and tyres. Bigger ventilated brakes supplied by Girling and a quick ratio steering rack were used to refine handling and stopping power. The standard steel body shell of the Pantera also received modifications such as aluminium doors, front lid and engine cover along with flared fibre glass wheel arches in order to accommodate the wide wheels and tyres. Plexi glass windows were used throughout and holes were cut into the chassis where possible in order to reduce weight. The car had no front or rear bumpers and a front deep chin spoiler. It also had no rustproofing or interior amenities. The interior was fitted with a cut-off switch instead of a radio, light weight cloth bucket racing seats, a vinyl trim, a roll-cage and drilled aluminium pedals. The final car had a weight of 1100 kg.

Ford, providing a good amount of financial backing in the development of the road going Pantera had little interest in the motorsport version of the car and refused to supply engines for the Group 4 Pantera. De Tomaso engaged a private US based engine builder Bud Moore to supply engines for the car.

Based on the same Ford 351 Cleveland V8 engine used in the road going Pantera, the engine in the Group 4 Pantera was fitted with bespoke aluminium heads, TRW forged pistons, large capacity oil pans and titanium valves. Initially, a single Holley Racing 1150 CFM four barrel carburetor was fitted but this was replaced by four Weber carburetors and a revised intake. The engine had a higher compression ratio of 12.0:1. Displacement of the racing engine was unchanged from road going Pantera's engine. The "spaghetti" styled exhaust system similar to the one used in the Ford GT40 was used. The engine had a claimed power output of 507 PS, although the cars ran at a power output of 446 PS at 7,000 rpm, which was increased to 477 PS when the Weber 850 CFM carburetors were used. The engine was mated to a ZF 5-speed close ratio manual transmission with a heavy duty single clutch plate.

The first Group 4 Panteras were entered into the 1972 24 Hours of LeMans. The problems of the car then began to become apparent. The engine proved to be unreliable and the car was also subject to a weight penalty, increasing the weight to 1250 kg. This was set reportedly high due to Porsche's influence over the governing body of the race. Another problem of the car was the rigidity of its chassis. Nevertheless, the car continued to compete in Group 4 and the engine problem was addressed by sourcing replacement engines with a lower compression ratio. A total of 14 Group 4 cars were made. Some Group 3 cars were modified to Group 4 specifications by privateers.

Group 5

The Group 5 Pantera race cars were converted by private racing teams from Group 4 and Group 3 cars and competed in Group 5 class racing from 1976 to 1981. The Group 5 cars only had wider body panels and no significant design, mechanical and chassis modifications.

However, two cars were extensively modified to compete in the IMSA GTX and Group 5 class respectively. The first car having chassis number #001 was constructed from a new chassis by Italian racing team Sala and Marveti. The second car, having chassis number #1603 was a Group 4 car campaigned by Hugh Kleinpeter in the US and then underwent modification. Afterwards, the former was converted to Group C class specifications in 1983 and the latter was converted to IMSA GTP class specifications respectively. Both cars were uncompetitive in their categories.

Ares Design Project1

Italian car manufacturer Ares Design introduced the Project1 in 2019 as a modern reinterpretation of the Pantera, based on the Lamborghini Huracán chassis.

title: De Tomaso Pantera


text:
User:John Z/drafts/Occupied territories

oldtalk
Above should go in Disputed area article.
 * Greeks typically say that Turkey "occupies" the northern half of Cyprus
 * It's fine here. The Turkish army does occupy northern Cyprus, but at least recognizes that it is not a part of Turkey.

Stop me if I'm way off base on this. Perhaps I'm confused about the distinction (which may exist only in my head) between a frankly avowed occupation and a one-sided advocacy claim. When Germany lost the war, they had to give back France. America also eventually left Japan (after making sure they wouldn't attack other countries any more).
 * Germany occupied France during WWII and everyone called it "occupied France".
 * America occuiped Japan for 5 years after WWII and had a military government backed by "occupation forces".

Hmm... getting complex. Should we give up, or what? --Ed Poor
 * Quitting would be the same as abandoning NPOV!
 * If one keeps to some sort of fundamental understanding of what "Occupied" means the subject becomes an easy one. To me occupation is the de facto control, usually by military force of territory that does not belong to the occupier.  It can be by direct miltary action, as a result of a surrender, or as part of an international protectorate arrangement.  The de jure situation, or legal justification (if any) for the occupation is irrelevant to the fact of the occupation. Eclecticology 12:35 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

An example of a nation which does not occupy the land of previous inhabitants is Samoa. I changed it to "most nations". -- zero 07:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC) --- Not sure this is true....

 * Israel officially disputes this, saying that the territories were not legally held by any other party before coming under Israeli control in 1967.

I'm not sure that Israel does officially dispute that the West Bank is territories under miliitary occupation. Israel hasn't formally annexed the West Bank or Gaza, and the status of the territories before 1967 is irrelevant to the definition of occupied territory.

Note: I'm *not* arguing about what the state of the territories is, I am arguing about what Israel says it is.

Roadrunner

From (Israeli ministry of foreign affairs):

''The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.''

I am therefore reinstantiating the removed sentence.

uriber 07:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Israel's position is self-contradictory and ambiguous. It both says that they "should not be considered occupied" in easy to find public statements (recently - for the first 10 years, until Begin, it called the territories occupied just like anybody else), but says in legal documents unambiguously that they are occupied. So apparently Israel's opionion is that they are occupied, but thinks either (a) nobody else should think that or (b)thinks that it even though it considers them occupied, it thinks it shouldn't. Kind of absurd, but the only ways to make their statements consistent.

I altered the sentence about the Golan not being occupied, to make it clear that this is only Israel's position. The Golan is still occupied according to Security Council resolution 497 (1981), which has the weight of international law like all SC resolutions. --zero 08:18, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * The article says: [...] territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. Are you saying this is wrong? If so - the article should be fixed. Also, on what are you basing your claim that SC resolutions are equivalent to international law? uriber 08:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * The fact that Security Council resolutions are binding on all UN members is in Article 25 of the UN Charter. However, that is not the issue with this article.  If anyone could get out of applying the Geneva Conventions by "formally annexing" a territory, then every occupying power would do that.  It makes no sense and I very much doubt that there is any general principle like that.  So yes, I am saying that I don't believe the statement "territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed" is accurate and I'd like to know where it comes from. -- zero 08:38, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Would you say that Tibet is occupied by China? I would not say that. Further, West Bank and Gaza are not claimed by any state except Israel. Therefore the term "occupied" is as biased as "liberated". Der Eberswalder 06:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * "Occupied Territory" is a formal concept under international law. "Liberated Territory" is not. It is not up to me or you to say what territories are occupied or not; it is up to legally competent bodies like the UNSC. --Zero 13:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * In which UNSC resolution is the term "occupied territory" clearly assigned to West Bank and Gaza? Usually the UNSC resolutions are written in a way that it leaves much space for interpretations. Der Eberswalder 06:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * There are countless UNSC resolutions which refer to WB&G as "occupied". Examples include 452, 592, 605, 607, 799, and many many more. See 605 for an exceptionally clear statement that uses the phrase "occupied territories" several times.  Why are you writing on these issues at all if you need to ask such an elementary question? --Zero 09:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I see, they are really called "occupied". Well, I thought the UN were an unbiased entity. Now I see they are not. The UN has severely lost credibility. see Der Eberswalder 16:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The belief that the UN is an unbiased entity probably comes from the hope that its members generally accept the ideals expressed in its charter. But almost every country in the world is a member, and some of what America considers the world's worst violators of human rights are allowed to vote in the General Assembly and even serve on the UN's human rights panel -- which voted the United States OFF THE PANEL! Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Sudan still have slavery and condone genocide? And shouldn't a country that does that be the TARGET of a human rights panel, instead of a MEMBER of that panel? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link to "Palestinian Territories" just redirects back into "occupied territories"

Why does this article only discuss lands occupied by the United States and Canada as occupied Native American territories? Wouldn't every single country in the Western Hemisphere be considered occupied territory? RickK 04:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But that would be logical, and this is Wikipedia. We don't do logic here, haven't you heard? -Penta 05:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the British Indian Ocean Territory is not considered to be occupied? The UK government lied that there were no inhabitants there, expelled the residents to Mauritius/Seychelles/Maldives, etc., and then built a military base. That doesn't count as occupation under international law? Hard to believe. --Sesel 21:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

How is Tibet considered "occupied" under international law? --Jiang 10:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV Tag
In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The scope of this article
This article states:

''Because military occupation is often considered illegitimate, the term is often used to refer to territories whose government one considers illegitimate. This usage is not technically accurate under international law because territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. This opinion is not universally adopted, and bodies such as the United Nations Security Council frequently describe as "occupied" territories which have been annexed in the event that the annexation is not accepted.''

''A list of disputed territories and areas said to be under occupation are discussed in their own article, disputed territory. That entry discusses the issue in regards to many nations such as Israel, Morocco, and others.''

Clearly, this article claims to describe only territories that have not been annexed or otherwise integrated by a country. This would include the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Nearly all territories that are disputed are called "occupied" by the side that disputes but does not control them, and those territories is covered under another article: Territorial dispute. Just from eastern Asia, examples would include not just Tibet but also Xinjiang, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Aceh, Papua... which are all called "occupied" by some POV or other. These are all outside the scope of this article. -- ran (talk) 14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * States can exist independent of other states recognition (as a reply to your edit comment), and even if Tibet wasnt a state (a claim I dont agree with), that doesn't mean the conquest didn't lead to an occupation. The current article is a bit inaccurate, annexation is a unilateral act and may be considered null and void under international law, thus making annexed territory still considered occupied under IL (the SC has done this on a few occations). Also, see article 47 of Geneva IV, unilateral annexation is not a way to get a way from responsibilities an occupant has. Also, the fact that a territory is "disputed" politically speaking doesnt mean it cant be considered occupied. Occupied is a distinct status given to territories under IL, "disputed" is not in the same category. Occupations may be disputed or thay may not, disputed territories may be both occupied and not. The article states "considered Occupied Territories under International Law", territories may still be disputed and falling within this category. The other examples given are also "disputed", this does not change it's status under IL. --Cybbe 18:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then please tell me why the following do not belong: Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Karafuto (Japan's position continues to be that it's occupied by Russia), Ryukyu Islands (some Chinese nationalist groups consider Japan's annexation of the Ryukyus in the 19th century as a military invasion and occupation of a Chinese tributary state), Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Pratas Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Montagnard territories of Vietnam, Aceh, Maluku Islands, Papua. All of the above are considered to be occupied by some group, and many of them were indeed occupied by their current controlling power through a unilateral military act (e.g. southern Kuriles). And these are just examples from eastern Asia. Why does this article not talk about all of the above? If you want to change the definition, then these should be included.

Actually, it would help if you offered a clear and unambiguous definition of "occupied territory" instead of the one given, especially the difference between that and "disputed territory". -- ran (talk) 00:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would go on to add that the entirety of the current list (Palestine, Cyprus, Western Sahara) seems to be slanted towards a few well-known / popular separatist or irredentist movements, while leaving out all other separatist or irredentist movements that exist all over the world. Territorial dispute has a much fairer and more comprehensive list. The list provided here is POV and should be completely removed, unless a separate definition can be provided for "occupied". -- ran (talk) 00:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence cited from the article above is misleading. Not all of the occupations are illegitimate. And quite often, the occupation is legitimate due to the act of war. U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare's chapter 6 provides the legal sources and regulations for the military occupation. Before the sovereignty return, Iraq would be a good example of territory under legitimate U.S. military occupation. This is not to argue that the Iraq war is an legitimate one. I belive the article failed to tell us what are the legitimate occupation and thus caused the confusion. I have no intention to argue that many occupation are deemed as illegitimate, especiall those perpetuating occupations. If you read that chapter 6, you will learn that peace treaties are supposed to be signed ASAP to complete the occupation. I belive that there is still a clear disctinction between occupations and disputed territories and perhaps this is something could to work on in the article.--Mababa 03:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article could be more precise on that point, there certainly are so called "legitimate" occupations, more so than annexations (speaking in modern terms). As for a definition for occupation, the one used in the "Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War at Land" says:

 * "Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

 * The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.".

 * Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (common of the four), also has a definition for when that treaty applies. These two definitions combined are the best "legal" definitions we have, as for the 1907-convention (also referred to as Hague IV), it is considered customary IL (e.g. the Nuremberg trials). --Cybbe 21:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * You'd have to define "hostile" too. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Or, by other words, hostile is not an ambiguous term in this context. The enemy army in a war is per definition "hostile", at least in terms of jus in bello. To speak of a friendly army in this context is ludicrous. Also, when this convention was written, there was little difference between so called legal and illegal use of force (e.g. war), so both armies are "hostile", only from each others POV. And the laws of war (jus in bello) applies equally, regardless of who the belligerent is considered to be. Just search through the convention on "hostile", its used extensively to describe the enemy power. --Cybbe 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Are the Golan Heights "under the authority of a hostile army"? Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Occupations could be classified into belligerent occupation and friendly occupation. Friendly occupation, or the "civil affairs administration of a military government", may be specified as covering the point in time when the peace treaty comes into effect until the point when the military government of the principal occupying power ends. Not all occupation are belligerent occupation. I am not familiar with the situation of Golan Heights.--Mababa 23:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The Golan Heights were certainly placed under the authority of a hostile army i 67, and you'd have to take into consideration the Geneve Convention too (art.2 specifies when it shall apply). As for the Golan Heights, I am sure you are familiar with UNSC resolutions on the matter of Israels annexation. I said I would see what this book said on the matter some time ago, it included case studies of East-Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, her conclusions were that they are still considered occupied under IL. --Cybbe 13:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the Golan Heights are now under the authority of a "hostile" army". Jayjg (talk)  17:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I never did. But the definition says "placed under", and it were in 67. And article 2 and 47 of Geneva IV may also be of interest. Besides, this is not just my interpretation, it is the one found in the book referred to and the one UNSC has decided upon. --Cybbe 08:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

All of this debate on the Golan Heights is moot. For what all here seem to agree on is simply incorrect. The Golan Heights were not formally annexed in 1981, and this error should be fixed throughout Wikipedia. "Effectively annexed" has been used in this situation, but formally annexed is just not true. Israel would have had to issued a proclamation or sent diplomatic notes - basically EXPLICITLY said "The Golan is part of Israel" and it did not. The Golan Heights Law does not say Israel is annexing them, nor did SC 497 claim it did. This is not a controversial issue, just one that sloppy authors make mistakes about. (Two non-sloppies : Chomsky and Julius Stone  - a real odd couple! :-).

ARTICLE:

"territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed."

Is simply wrong, and should be excised from the article. "This opinion is not universally adopted" is too weak. "This opinion is universally not adopted" is better. I believe it comes from some editor's misreading of his source.

The UN Security Council, a body with the power to create international law - particularly when it addresses itself to matters of war - could hardly be said to be wrong on such a matter, anyways; it is absurd to set up Wikipedia as a higher authority on the meaning of terms in international law than the Security Council or the International Court of Justice - or the universal opinion of all states.

As Cybbe points out, 4GC 47 among other effectively disproves this opinion - calling occupations "annexations" has no legal effect. A country cannot effectively break a treaty by just changing the agreed-on meaning of words; if it could, the 4th Geneva Convention would be a dead letter and have no meaning at all.

This is a logical consequence of the modern doctrines of non-recognition of illegal acts - the Stimson Doctrine (I've got to write an article on this), and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

In the (bad) old days, grabbing territory by war was hunky-dory, so nobody protested occupations being turned into annexations - what was illegal about it? - and peace treaties - under duress often - invariably regularized the situation, so there was no such problem of "alleged /anticipated annexations." But nowadays no state has the unilateral right to evade its international obligations by unilaterally making a verbal change about what it calls territory it has acquired through war. In any case, this is only perhaps applicable for Israel for the case of Jerusalem.

In particular, read the invaluable and universally-considered-authoritative commentary edited by Jean Pictet http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCOMART?openview

In particular the one for the 4th GC 47(4) http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b466ed681ddfcfd241256739003e6368/c4712fe71392afe1c12563cd0042c34a?OpenDocument

As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory (4). Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts. And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of "anticipated annexation", as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate. Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this [p.276] nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention. It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation" (5). Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it (6). A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

slim

 * Slim, I am glad to see that you used to support the OT usage, and would hope you rethink your position again. Though I do not like the way that Marsden has been bringing up the issue, and I very strongly oppose turning an article on a general term "Occupied Territory" into something on Israel - in effect this would be anti-Israel povpushing, when it emphatically should be what any encyclopedia would have, a discussion of the term in international law, wiki and legal arguments against calling the territories occupied are extremely weak. As "Cybbe" notes, "occupied" has a precise legal definition - from customary international law, the Hague conventions, and the Geneva conventions, and as he notes it is the practically unanimous opinion of experts outside and even many, perhaps most inside Israel that the Israeli presence fits.   There is no difference between common usage, UN usage, ICRC usage and correct or legal expert usage, or what is decisive in my opinion, Israeli usage in formal contexts.  The official position of the state of Israel, at least if one goes by official statements, court rulings or legal documents presented to courts, which are the only things international law looks at, is and always has been that these territories are occupied, and that the law of belligerent occupation applies there, with the possible exception of Gaza now.  Whenever Israel has been asked whether they are occupied - by someone with the right to an answer - it has been "yes." This is different from many "supporters of Israel" and  Israeli propaganda views, e.g. Dore Gold, but it is a fact, and I have looked and have never found a reputable refutation of it that even starts to come to grips with these arguments.  The statement on the Israeli website is perhaps the most noteworthy - it is fairly new, 2002 I think, and stronger than anything official I have seen before.  However, does it say "not occupied" - no.  It says "should not be called occupied."  A distinction without a difference - if there had not been many other occasions before and after it where the government said different.  For starters, SC 242 uses the term, and Israel has accepted it since 1968. If it is not an occupation, there were no territories occupied and Israel has to do nothing to satisfy the resolution.  Is there anyone who is biased enough to read the resolution that way?   Since the Elon Moreh decision of 77 or so Israel's high court has essentially ruled that the territories are "hague-occupied" but not "geneva-occupied." - that the Hague conventions explicitly apply de jure, but that the GC's do not.   This should be here at Wikipedia, but is is not.

title: User:John Z/drafts/Occupied territories


text:
Zygomatic

Zygomatic (from Greek ζύγωμα (zygōma), "yoke") may refer to:
 * Zygomatic arch
 * Zygomatic bone
 * Zygomatic branches of the facial nerve
 * Zygomaticus major muscle
 * Zygomaticus minor muscle
 * Zygomatic nerve
 * Zygomatic process
 * Zygomatic process of frontal bone
 * Zygomatic process of maxilla
 * Zygomatic process of temporal bone

title: Zygomatic


text:
User:Swiftwindcat

Currently a PhD student in Integrative biology, but I started editing Wikipedia when I was a wee little high school freshman who was obsessed with extinct cats and domestic cat genetics. Now I work on insect behavior, monoamines, and environmental toxicology.

Pages I started back in the Dark Ages, also before I had an account

 * Machairodontinae
 * Miracinonyx
 * Metailurini
 * Smilodontini
 * Ojos Azules
 * American Wirehair

title: User:Swiftwindcat


text:
User:Shii/Wikipedia Nook

This is a nook.

There are interesting links here.

 * Phantom islands
 * Lost works
 * Lost cities and towns
 * Unusual articles

title: User:Shii/Wikipedia Nook


text:
Turukhan

The Turukhan (Турух́ан) is a river in northern Krasnoyarsk Krai in Russia. It is a southeast-flowing left tributary of the Yenisey. The river is 639 km long. The area of its basin is 35800 km2. The Turukhan freezes up in October and stays under the ice until late May or the first half of June. Its main tributaries are the Usomchik, Bolshaya Bludnaya, Verkhnyaya Baikha and Nizhnyaya Baikha from the right and Makovskaya from the left. Its mouth is 20 km downstream from Turukhansk, where the Lower Tunguska joins the Yenisei. The river is navigable for about 288 km from its mouth to the settlement of Yanov Stan. It was part of the canoe route from the Gulf of Ob – Taz – Turukhan – Yenisey – Nizhnyaya Tunguska – Yakutsk (see Siberian River Routes). The uncompleted Salekhard–Igarka Railway from the Ob to the Yenisey was planned to cross the Turukhan at Yanov Stan.

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: Turukhan


text:
Western Albemarle High School

Western Albemarle High School is a public high school located in Crozet, Virginia. Western Albemarle is often simply referred to as Western or WAHS (pronounced "wAz") by students and locals. The school opened in September 1977. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school went fully virtual following March 13, and it resulted in the use of Zoom platforms and online learning.

About the school
Western Albemarle enrolls approximately 1,241 students. It is situated at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains on a 75 acre site adjacent to Highway 250 and Interstate 64. WAHS is part of the Albemarle County Public School System, serving the western and central areas of Albemarle County.

The main feeder school is J. T. Henley Middle School.

Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) opened its doors to students in fall 1977. Then, the school consisted of two classroom wings (the A and B-Wings), the fine arts wing with the auditorium, band and choir room, as well as a few more classrooms (the C-Wing), and the gymnasium and athletic wing (D-Wing). The building remained untouched until the 1996 academic year when a new addition to the school was opened. This addition added four classrooms and two science labs to the B-Wing and a new auxiliary gymnasium and athletic offices to the D-Wing. In 2005 a new, modern weight room was added to the D-Wing. In 2011, the school received a total overhaul of their athletic field. A brand new AstroTurf playing field and rubber running track was installed using funds from an anonymous donor. In 2015, a renovation to the media center was conducted to enhance student activities as well as modernize the existing, outdated library. The main office was also modernized and renovated to improve school security. In 2016, a new modern greenhouse and classroom was constructed behind the school to be used by Western's STEM academy the Environmental Studies Academy (ESA). In 2017, two history classrooms and two English classrooms (all together in a quad) were renovated to promote Albemarle County's Global Studies concept where the history and English classes are intertwined. In summer 2018, a total renovation and addition of science labs began. Opening in fall 2018 was the school's new Tri-Lab, a large, open multi use space to the building. This space consisted of two classrooms and a hallway that were all connected by knocking down walls and modernizing the whole room. Throughout the 2018–19 school year and summer 2019, construction continued on the new science addition that would soon be known as the E-Wing. During summer 2019, all of the school's existing science labs were renovated and modernized. These rooms, along with the new E-Wing, opened to students at the beginning of the 2019–20 school year.

Academics
In January 2008, it was announced that Western was one of two schools (along with Murray Elementary) in the county that received the Governor's Award for Educational Excellence. This was the highest honor in the new incentive program for schools and school divisions created by the board of education to advance Governor Tim Kaine’s “competence to excellence” agenda.

Also in 2008, the school was ranked 1310 of 1358 of the top 5% of U.S. high schools by Newsweek, placing it in the 9th percentile of school quality. It is also ranked in the top 10 of the state of Virginia.

Athletics
Western Albemarle's athletic department has been awarded the Wells Fargo Cup (formerly the Wachovia Cup) five times (2004, 2005, 2008, 2018, and 2019). The cup is awarded annually to one school in each of the VHSL's six divisions that demonstrates the best-overall record in state championship competitions. WAHS broke the record for most points ever scored towards the cup in 2019. The school is a member of VHSL's Class 3 in the Jefferson District.

The boys' soccer team won its fifth state championship in 2022, with other championships coming in 1996, 2014, 2016, and 2019.

The girls' soccer team won their second and third state championships in 2017 and 2018, with the first in 2002.

In football they have been three-time Jefferson District champions.

In 2011, the Western Albemarle track team sent several relay teams to the national track competition. In 2018, the Boys and Girls Indoor Track teams also won the state championship.

In 2004–2005, the school won 21 district, regional, and state championships.

Combined, the boys and girls swimming and diving teams have won 17 state championships, with the girls winning from 2011 to 2016, and in 2019, 2020, and 2024, and the boys winning in 2016, and 2018-2024 with 7 straight state titles. The girls' team currently holds the title for the most state championship wins of any swim team in the state of Virginia. The teams own Thomas Heilman (Class of '25) qualified for the 2024 Paris Olympics in the 200 butterfly and 100 butterfly, making him the youngest male swimmer in the Olympics since Michael Phelps. .

In 2017, the boys' and girls' cross-country teams both won the state championship.

Activities
Western Albemarle's quizbowl team placed second at the 2014 PACE NSC In 2014 they also won the VHSL Scholastic Bowl 3A title as well as the NAQT Virginia state championship.

WAHS hosts the Destination ImagiNation tournament for the Jefferson District.

Bombing plot
In 2006, a 16-year-old Western Albemarle High School student and a 15-year-old Albemarle High School student were arrested after it was discovered that they were plotting to detonate explosives at their schools. The students were both found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to use explosives to destroy a school house, and have been committed to the juvenile justice system.

Notable alumni

 * Bill Baber, NFL tight end
 * Billy Campbell, American film actor
 * LeRoi Moore, American saxophonist
 * Colin Steers, contestant on Season 2 of Bravo's Make Me a Supermodel
 * Remedy Rule, Filipino swimmer

title: Western Albemarle High School


text:
Jiro Kuwata

Jiro Kuwata (桑田 二郎) was a Japanese manga artist.

Biography
Kuwata was born in Suita, Osaka. He started out as a manga artist at the young age of 13, when he created The Strange Star Cluster (怪奇星団) in 1948. His turning point came in 1957, when he created Maboroshi Tantei (まぼろし探偵) (which was adapted into a tokusatsu TV series in 1959). Since then, Kuwata devoted himself to creating science fiction/superhero adventures. His most famous was 8 Man, which he co-created with writer Kazumasa Hirai.

Unfortunately, in 1965, when he was to finish the final issue of 8 Man, he was arrested for possessing a handgun (he had contemplated suicide). With Kuwata in jail, co-creator Hirai got other manga artists to finish the final issue, but wasn't satisfied with it. It was published in a manga magazine, but has never before been reprinted.

Nevertheless, Kuwata, released from prison shortly thereafter, continued his manga work well into the 1970s, but also ran into depression and alcoholism. In 1977, he had an epiphany and converted to Buddhism. He has since done beautiful art books about the life of Buddha. He also occasionally got back into manga work, and in 1992, he agreed to do his own version of the final issue of 8 Man, upon being asked by co-creator/friend Kazumasa Hirai.

Kuwata passed away at age 85 in Suita, Osaka.

title: Jiro Kuwata


text:
El Trece

Canal 13 (known by its current brand name El Trece, stylized as eltrece) is an Argentine free-to-air television network and the flagship station of the network of the same name, located in the capital of Argentina, Buenos Aires. It is owned by Grupo Clarín through Artear.

As mentioned by its name, it broadcasts on VHF channel 13 in Buenos Aires, where the main station is located.

Foundation
Canal 13 was founded in 1960, and started broadcasting on 1 October 1960, at 8:30 p.m. The channel was tendered to the company Rio de la Plata S.A. TV, founded by Cuban businessman Goar Mestre and the US network CBS. In the mid-1960s, Editorial Atlántida and Mestre's wife bought the shares of the channel. Since then, Channel 13 began to compete strongly with the other two open private channels of the city of Buenos Aires, Channel 9 and Channel 11, which had gone through a similar process.

In those years there were great successes in the Argentine television industry, with Channel 13 broadcasting Viendo a Biondi ("Seeing Biondi"), a comedy show centered on characters by Pepe Biondi; The Falcón Family starring Pedro Quartucci, and sketch comedy shows such as Telecataplum, featuring an innovative group of Uruguayan comedians including Ricardo Espalter, Enrique Almada and Gabriela Acher, among others.

Nationalisation
In 1974, the government of Isabel Perón nationalised the station along with two other terrestrial private TV channels of Buenos Aires (Channel 9 and Channel 11), in order to bring a media policy based on the European (and possibly RTVE's) way, where television was largely managed by the federal government.

During the self-styled National Reorganisation Process, the last military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1976 to 1983, the channel's administration was handed over to the Argentine Navy, a condition maintained until 1983, when democratic rule was restored. However, the network continued under public administration, as it had been since the Perón years. The Navy helped the station in its transition to color broadcasts on Labor Day, 1 May 1980, just over a year after Channel 7's switch.

On 2 July 1980, the Channel 13 broadcast studios burned only partly, with no casualties among its workers.

Privatisation
After 15 years as a government-owned station, in December 1989, Arte Radiotelevisivo Argentino (Artear) S.A (English: Argentine Radio and Television Arts), a company with majority ownership by Artes Gráfico Editorial Argentino S.A (AGEA, English: Argentine Publishing Graphics and Arts), publisher of the Clarín newspaper and part of its multimedia conglomerate, officially took over the station management.

Since then, the channel is positioned as second placer in TV ratings in Buenos Aires, competing against Telefe (excluding the 2010-2011 period when it became the ratings leader). In the 1990s, El Trece achieved great ratings, thanks to political comedy programs Tato Bores, programs of cultural and La aventura del hombre, TV series La Banda del Golden Rocket, Montaña Rusa, Gasoleros and the series Campeones de la vida and Poliladron.

Since 1996, the channel operated with Pol-ka Producciones, owned by actor and producer Adrian Suar, who in 2001 became program manager of the channel.

The channel began broadcasting in HD with its broadcasts of 2000 Today on New Year's Eve 1999, fitted with local opt-outs aired live from various Argentine tourist sites.

2000s
In 2000, its brand name was changed to Canal Trece (literally Channel Thirteen).

In 2002, the network started a new trend, which consisted on renewing its aesthetic graphical package every year.

During the 2000s, Channel 13 remained in second place on TV ratings.

In December 2005, Artear bought 30% of shares from Ideas del Sur.

In January 2009, the channel rebranded itself with another graphical package, but kept its logo. In April of that year, after several failed attempts, Channel 13 launched its own international channel (El Trece Internacional), which is broadcast in over 20 countries via subscription television. Between 24 and 26 March and 5 May 2009, Artear's satellite feeds (which included Channel 13's satellite feed, El Trece Satelital) suffered unusual interferences. Although the opposition lawmakers blamed the Cristina Fernandez left-wing administration, the anomalies were finally determined to be caused by a Mexican broadcasting company.

2010s
In 2010 and 2011, El Trece managed to defeat Telefe (and, in the process, rank first) in the general audience average, a situation that had not happened in 20 years, driven largely by the high audience of the reality show Showmatch, added to the outstanding performance of Telenoche, the daily shows Malparida, Los únicos y Herederos de una venganza, entertainment programs Sábado show, La cocina del show and A todo o nada and the fourth season of Este es el show. In 2012 the station returned to second place (behind Telefe, but still far ahead of El Nueve and América TV), remaining in that position as of 2021.

From 2010 to 2014, the channel's highlighted programs were telenovelas Malparida, Herederos de una venganza, Los Únicos, Sos mi hombre, Solamente vos, Farsantes and Guapas, TV shows Para vestir santos, El puntero and Tiempos compulsivos, entertainment programs and newscasts like Showmatch, Este es el show, Sábado show, El diario de Mariana, Periodismo para todos, A todo o nada and Los 8 escalones and its reality shows Soñando por bailar, Soñando por cantar y Cuestión de peso. With this programming, the channel scored second place in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Tinelli remained as the main figure of the channel during this decade. He was absent from Showmatch in 2013 when he decided to take a sabbatical year after finishing his contract with Channel 13. In that year he was about to move to Telefe, in the middle of an operation led by the Kirchner left-wing government through businessman Cristóbal López, to harm Grupo Clarín. The businessman that mostly controlled Canal 13 during this decade was Guido Kaczka, who led programs such as A todo o nada, Los 8 escalones, Dar la nota, La mejor elección, Hacelo feliz, Las puertas and La tribuna de Guido.

In March 2014, after 34 years, Mirtha Legrand returned to EL Trece starring in Almorzando con Mirtha Legrand (which airs on Sundays at 1:30 p.m.) and La noche de Mirtha (Saturdays at 10:00 p.m.).

title: El Trece