text:
Opel Blitz

Opel Blitz (Blitz being German for "lightning") was the name given to various light and middleweight trucks built by the German Opel automobile manufacturer between 1930 and 1975. The original logo for this truck, two stripes arranged loosely like a lightning symbol in the form of a horizontally stretched letter "Z", still appears in the current Opel logo. The Blitz name was then applied to the British-made Bedford CF when it replaced the Blitz in certain markets.

1930
During the years preceding World War II, Opel was Germany's largest truck producer. The Blitz name, coined in a prize competition, was first applied to the new Opel truck presented in November 1930. As part of the Nazi economy and the German re-armament efforts the authorities ordered the construction of the Opelwerk Brandenburg facilities in 1935, and through 1944 more than 130,000 Blitz trucks and chassis were produced. The new Blitz came with two different engines; the heavier models were equipped with the flathead 61 PS 3.5-liter petrol straight-six engine from the 1930 GM Marquette. Following General Motors' takeover of Opel in 1929, the production tools for the Marquette engine were exported to Germany as this Buick sub-brand was made defunct. Opel's own 2.6-liter four-cylinder engine with 40 PS was also available.

By 1934, four versions of the one-tonne basic model were offered, along with fourteen versions of the larger two-tonne and 2½-tonne trucks. The Marquette engine was replaced in 1937 with a modern overhead valve 75 hp straight-six engine also used in Opel Admiral passenger cars. This engine was very similar to Chevrolet engines from the same period, to the point that advancing Allies were able to put disabled Blitzes abandoned by retreating Germans easily back into service using Chevrolet/GMC and Bedford parts. From 1939, the Blitz 3.6 three-tonne version was used in large numbers by the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) throughout World War II. Variants included an elongated version and the four-wheel drive Blitz A. To cope with the bad road conditions and the rasputitsa mud seasons on the Eastern Front, a half-tracked Maultier ("mule") ''Sd.Kfz. 3'' version was built using tracks and suspension based on the British Universal Carrier. Among others, these were used as service vehicles for the Messerschmitt Me 323 military transport aircraft.

The light basic model was manufactured as Blitz 2.5 in Rüsselsheim until 1942 and again from 1946, equipped with the 55 hp Opel Super 6 engine. On 6 August 1944, the Opelwerk Brandenburg was devastated by an RAF air raid. Until the end of the war, about 2,500 Blitz 3.6 trucks were built by order of Minister of Armaments Albert Speer at the Mannheim plant of the rival Daimler-Benz company, while production of its own Mercedes-Benz L3000 model had to be discontinued. After the war, the facilities in Brandenburg were completely dismantled at the behest of the Soviet Military Administration, while Daimler-Benz in Mannheim resumed building the Blitz 3.6 under the designation L 701 until 1949. The last 467 medium trucks were again assembled by Opel in Rüsselsheim until production finally discontinued in 1954 without a successor.

Nazi war crimes
It is claimed that Opel used forced labor to build the Blitz. The degree of control that General Motors in the US had over Opel at the time is subject to debate, but by production numbers alone, it is evident that Opel was heavily involved in production of trucks and other equipment for the Nazi war machine.

The Opel Blitz was one of the vehicles (along with Renault, Saurer and Magirus based vehicles) used by Germans in The Holocaust as a gas van to kill with carbon monoxide.

Post-war
After the end of the war, with the Brandenburg plant dismantled and transported to the Soviet Union, and 47% of the buildings in Rüsselsheim destroyed, former Opel employees began to rebuild the Rüsselsheim plant. The first postwar Blitz was completed on 15 July 1946 in the presence of United States Army General Geoffrey Keyes and other local leaders and press reporters. The first post-war designed Blitz in 1952 and had the same cabin as the Chevrolet Advance Design, albeit with a different front end and coupled with the pre-war chassis, alongside a more economical Opel engine. The new 1.75 ton truck was offered with a van and pickup body. The new model retained the pre-war chassis with the straight-six petrol engine. Opel remained the market leader for light trucks despite strong competition especially by the newly designed 1955 Mercedes-Benz L 319 model and the Ford FK series, as well as Hanomag and Borgward vans. A coach version was built by the Karl Kässbohrer Fahrzeugwerke from 1953 to 1956. The 1.75 to model was a very popular fire engine (LF8-TS), typically equipped with an engine driven pump mounted at the front bumper and a second, portable pump in the back of the truck. The portable pump was powered by a 34 hp Volkswagen engine and weighed about 400 lbs. Firetruck conversions were made by companies such as Ziegler, Metz and Rosenbauer.

In 1960, the 1.9-tonner with 2.6-liter engine replaced the previous 1.75-tonne model. This model (later dubbed Opel Blitz A) was distinguished by a cab forward design and a revised six-cylinder engine, leading to less overall length and more cargo space. Due to the powerful engine, the truck was an excellent performer for its time, and the 1.9-tonne model with 2.6 L engine was like his predecessor a common base for a light fire truck. The configuration was similar to the one described above for the 1.75-tonner. However, commercial sales of this model declined during the production run, mainly due to the lack of an economic diesel option.

The Opel Blitz B was launched in 1965, and was the last of the Opel Blitz trucks. To improve fuel economy, this model was available with a 1.9-liter four-cylinder cam-in-head option. Alternatively, a 2.5 liter six-cylinder version of the new CIH engine series could be ordered. These engines were also available in the contemporary Rekord and Commodore models, but the Blitz engines had a stronger ground construction and were de-tuned for more torque and better economy.

Under pressure from strong competition of the popular Mercedes-Benz T2 model, in 1968, Opel finally offered a 2,100 cc Indenor XDP 4.90 diesel engine (most famously used in the Peugeot 504) - but too late to regain lost market shares. Opel GM decided not to develop a successor, and in 1975, the production of Opel commercial vehicles finally ceased.

Bedford Blitz
According to the corporate policy of General Motors, from 1973 to 1987 a successor vehicle produced by Bedford Vehicles of Luton, and based on the Bedford CF, was sold in the German market as the Bedford Blitz, to fill the replacement need for the Opel Blitz. Imports to Germany ended in 1987, and Opel left the commercial sector, instead focusing on car-derived vans such as the Opel Astravan and Opel Corsavan. It was not until 1998 that Opel re-entered the sector with the Opel Arena.

title: Opel Blitz


text:
Category:Food and drink companies of Canada

Articles about restaurants, food manufacturing companies, etc. in Canada.

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


text:
Anisha Nicole

Anisha Nicole Gwynn, (born August 8, 1985) better known by the stage names Anisha Nicole and Nee-Nee Gwynn, is an R&B, hip hop, and pop singer.

Gwynn's single "No Means No", as Nee-Nee Gwynn featuring Baby Diva, entered the Billboard charts on February 22, 2002, staying on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales chart for 19 weeks, reaching #4 April 5. The single was on the Hot 100 Singles Sales chart for 19 weeks, reaching #18, also on April 5. On the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, the single peaked at #89 on March 8, 2003. In 2005, Gwynn released her first album, 19, on her mother's recording label, Base Hit Records. Her father, Tony Gwynn, wore number 19 for the San Diego Padres.

Personal life
Gwynn is a graduate of Poway High School (2003). She attended California State University, Northridge (CSUN) before she decided to pursue her musical career full-time.

Gwynn married baseball player Kennard Jones on January 31, 2009.

Gwynn is the daughter of Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn, who played his entire 20-year career for the San Diego Padres and was the head baseball coach for San Diego State University following his retirement from the Padres. Her mother is Alicia Gwynn. Her brother, Tony Gwynn Jr., is a former major league outfielder and current analyst for the Padres. Her uncle is former Major League Baseball player Chris Gwynn.

title: Anisha Nicole


text:
Observatory Ridge, Johannesburg

Observatory Ridge is the highest point in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is 1808 m above sea level. It is in the suburb of Observatory.

There is a large sandstone monument on top of the ridge that commemorates the British Indian Army. The monument bears the inscription: "To the memory of British Officers, Natives, NCOs and Men, Veterinary Assistants, Nalbands, and Followers of the Indian Army".

title: Observatory Ridge, Johannesburg


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball)

Perhaps it should be renamed to something along the lines of "Pre-release speculation as to the content of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince"
 * I agree that if the article is kept, the title should be changed, but that's a bit wordy. Perhaps "Pre-release speculation about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"? --Idont Havaname 05:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Nickptar 21:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Jim Walker (drummer)

Jim Walker (born 1955) is a Canadian musician who was a founding director as well as the original drummer for the UK music group Public Image Ltd.

Early life and education
James Donat Walker was born in Edmonton, Alberta. He first trained as a jazz drummer at the Berklee College of Music in Boston, where he was taught by Alan Dawson and Joe Hunt.

Career
In 1977, Walker, along with Malcolm Hasman and Chris Arnett, formed the Vancouver area punk band the Furies, the first punk rock band in Western Canada. The band broke up after a few months, and Walker moved to London later that year. In early May 1978, after answering an ad placed in Melody Maker, he auditioned for and became a founding member of Public Image Ltd., with John Lydon, Keith Levene, and John Wardle (Jah Wobble).

Dissatisfied with the band's direction, he left PiL as a player in February 1979, and as a director in January 1980. After PiL, he played for a few lesser known local London bands, including Kirk Brandon of Theatre of Hate's first band, The Pack, and Stan Stammers' band The Straps, before forming the Human Condition in 1981 with Jah Wobble and Dave "Animal" Maltby. The Human Condition were together for just over a year, playing to mixed reviews, before disbanding in 1982.

In 1984, he left London for New York, and after playing that year left the music industry. Walker was interviewed for the 2017 documentary film, The Public Image is Rotten.

title: Jim Walker (drummer)


text:
Talk:Midnight

Talk:Midnight
Why is it important to pray at mid-night? 41.246.26.180 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Midnite (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Midnight


text:
Jukskei River

The Jukskei River is one of the largest rivers in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is the southernmost river in the Crocodile River basin.

Course
The Jukskei begins in Ellis Park in Johannesburg. Its original spring was on the former Doornfontein farm, which measured at 18,000 litres per hour, but has since disappeared under subsequent urban development. Now the first surface expression of the Jukskei is in Bertrams at the intersection of Queen Street and Sports Avenue where it emerges from a storm drain. From there the river flows through Bezuidenhout Valley and Bruma. It then meanders in a northerly direction through Bedfordview and Edenvale before flowing through Alexandra Township. It then turns northwest and flows through Modderfontein, Buccleuch, Leeuwkop Prison, Lone Hill, Dainfern and Steyn City before joining the Crocodile River outside Lanseria.

Tributaries
The Jukskei River is joined by numerous streams along its course with its major tributaries being the Modderfontein Spruit, Braamfontein Spruit and the Klein-Jukskei. The Jukskei River provides the largest amount of water, by discharge, into the Crocodile River basin.

Character
The Jukskei is mostly shallow and not deep enough for transportation. It is also heavily polluted by urban runoff. Lack of infrastructure maintenance has let raw waste flow into the river on a daily basis. Cholera-causing bacteria have occasionally been found in the river. The river receives a large inflow from the Northern Waste Water Treatment Plant in northern Johannesburg. The Jukskei River is one of the largest contributing factors of the eutrophication problems facing Hartbeespoort Dam further down stream. Tons of waste such as plastic, metal and rubber flow down the river annually.

The banks are prone to bursting, especially in summer when rainfalls are the heaviest for the year regionally. This spells disaster for the impoverished residents of the Alexandra Township who often build makeshift shacks along the river banks owing to overcrowding and the need for access to water for washing, drinking, and cooking.

Cultural and sporting significance
The Jukskei traditionally demarcated the boundary between the Northern Transvaal and Transvaal for sporting purposes, and teams like the Titans cricket team and Blue Bulls (formerly Northern Transvaal) continue to be headquartered in Pretoria, north of the Jukskei.

Restoration

 * Revamping the Jukskei River
 * Alex Riverbank Face-lift

title: Jukskei River


text:
User:Skud/AustHistoryTodo

Australian Colonial History project (personal project at the moment... but trying to rope in others)

Colonial Australia page
I'd like to make a page on Colonial Australia which gives an overview of life in the colony, issues, etc, more from a social history POV than the existing History of Australia before 1901. Possible section headings:

 * Settlement
 * Government/politics/law
 * Population
 * Economy
 * Family life
 * Crime and punishment
 * Culture
 * Representations in literature, film, etc

Categories
There should be better coverage of Australian history in the categories on WP.

Existing categories to fill out:

 * Category:Folklore of Australia

As yet unformed (or unknown) categories:

 * an overall Australian History category
 * Australian colonial people
 * Australian exploration

Coverage of important categories of stuff
People:
 * Governors of colonies
 * Explorers
 * Bushrangers
 * important colonial figures eg major landowners, businessmen, politicians, etc

Places:
 * Settlements
 * Penal colonies
 * Heritage sites (eg Hyde Park Barracks)

Events:
 * Gold rush
 * Eureka Stockade
 * Castle Hill Rebellion

Other:
 * Rum Corps

title: User:Skud/AustHistoryTodo


text:
Bugti Hills

Bugti Hills are a range of hills in eastern Balochistan, Pakistan. It includes the tribal tract called Bugti country.

30 million years ago the Haplorrhinies: Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum, similar to today's lemurs, lived in rainforests on the Bugti Hills of central Pakistan.

title: Bugti Hills


text:
User talk:Bluescorp27

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Bluescorp27


text:
Talk:Richfield Senior High School

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep, but expand. For details, please see Votes for deletion/Richfield Senior High School. -- BD2412 talk 05:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richfield Senior High School


text:
Talk:Universities Admission Index

UAI Calculation
The information provided is erronous for the Higher School Certificate at least (not sure at how the UAI for ACT is calculated), is this correct for the ACT calculation, if so I'll split it up otherwise I will replace the section. Xayma 05:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok removed it here was the original: UAIs are calculated with the use of several variables. Xayma 08:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * The average of the three courses that the student obtained the highest grade in, and three-fifths of the fourth highest (i.e. the average of the best 3.6 courses).
 * Performance in the Australian Scaling Testing (AST).
 * Overall performance by the school in which the student in studying.
 * The rank of the student in the class.
 * The 10 best units are counted, subjects are allocated as units, most subjects being 2 units, and the most common amount would be "best 5 subjects"- however some subjects such as extension subjects take up only 1 unit, although part of a subject, are still calculated separately

UAI as a percentile
I removed the reference to the UAI as a percentile mark. It is not - see UAC's FAQ and distribution tables. flamearrows] 18:57, October 7, 2005 (AEST)

 * It is a percentile but not of the HSC cohort. It is taken off the year 10 cohort, if a student completes year 10 but then does not complete the HSC, what their UAI would've been is estimated and is used. It is probably clearer not to refer it to a percentile since that might imply a HSC percentile. Xayma 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Xayma is right, this quote is from the UAC (here) "Specifically, a UAI indicates the position of a student relative to their Year 10 cohort. That is, a UAI of 80.00 indicates that students with that UAI have performed well enough in the HSC to place them 20 percent from the top of their Year 10 cohort, had all the Year 10 students completed Year 12 and been eligible for a UAI." 220.239.26.129

UAI - ENTER
The relationship between the UAI and ENTER is better explained in the article on the ENTER. I believe an edit of the UAI article is appropriate, however as an unqualified Victorian I don't feel that I should.

Cleanup
I have removed a number of questionable statements from the article. If they can be verified with reliable sources, and shown to be notable then there should be no problem with putting them back in: Remy B 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The UAI is not exactly equivalent to the ENTER. Since different formulas are used, there is no way to justify saying that a UAI of 50 is the same as an ENTER of 50. Also, they are not even in the same range, since the ENTER tops out at 99.95.
 * It is obviously wrong to say that the total student cohort of the UAI is those who have completed their Year 10 School Certificate. Only those who have completed their HSC (and followed the other conditions) are part of the group who the UAI applies for, whether or not the rankings take into account SC graduates who did not go on to complete the HSC.
 * There is no source for the claim that pink slip graduates get free beer at schoolies.
 * It is fairly redundant to say that the NSW and ACT versions have their advantages and disadvantages without explaining what they are (in a NPOV way).
 * I too have done some cleanup via Wikipedia-style wordsmithing. For example, the article uses a wide collection of three-letter-abbreviations (TLAs), and I have attempted to provide the full TLA text for the first usage, and also to wikilink where appropriate. The article also makes several claims about the validity of tests, and it would benefit if more citations were included to support these statements. Truthanado 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Calculation
"The student who comes first in the subject" What does that mean exactly? First in their school's class? First in assessment or HSC + assessment? – 60.241.151.205 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

History
There's a lack of history in the article. What I know (based on having done the HSC in 1988) is:
 * The HSC in NSW yielded a mark out of 500, up until 1988.
 * The marks were scaled to an average of 50% (250) up to 1982 or later. By 1988 it had been changed to 60% (300).
 * From 1989 (I think) a 0-100 scale ranking was introduced. I thought this was called the TER (Tertiary Entrance Rank) at first but I may be wrong. Was UAI introduced in 1989, or was there a TER in between? --Chriswaterguy talk 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Universities Admission Index


text:
Jack Lambert (American actor)

John Thomas Lambert (April 13, 1920 – February 18, 2002) was an American character actor who specialized in playing movie tough guys and heavies. He is best known for playing the psychotic cat-loving, iron-hooked Steve "the Claw" Michel in Dick Tracy's Dilemma.

Career
Following a spell on Broadway, the Yonkers, New York-born Lambert moved to Hollywood and began working in films in 1942. He was a familiar figure in Westerns and crime dramas after World War II, in such movies as The Killers with Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner, The Enforcer with Humphrey Bogart, Bend of the River with James Stewart, Vera Cruz with Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster, Kiss Me Deadly with Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer, and How the West Was Won.

Lambert also appeared in many television series of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Rod Cameron's State Trooper, twice on Bat Masterson (1959 in S1E22's "Incident in Leadville" and again in 1961 in S3E19's "Bullwhacker’s Bounty"), Gunsmoke (as all evil gunman Kin Creed in the 1959 S4E35 episode “There Never Was A Horse”, where he likely was the only man in the show's 20 year run who ever outdrew Matt Dillon - but missed), Have Gun – Will Travel, Sugarfoot, Tales of Wells Fargo, Daniel Boone, Wagon Train, Bonanza, Get Smart (season one, episode 18, 1966) and The Andy Griffith Show (season three, episode 32, 1963, "The Big House") From 1959 to 1960, Lambert was a regular cast member (as Joshua Walcek, sometimes called "Joshua MacGregor"), in 23 of the 42 episodes of the Darren McGavin series, Riverboat.

Personal life
In 1959 Lambert moved into a home in Palm Springs, California, owned by his wife Marjorie Franklin (who owned the home with her divorced husband Alexander Hall). He had a son, Lee J. Lambert.

Lambert is not to be confused with the British character actor with the same name who died in 1976.

title: Jack Lambert (American actor)


text:
Category talk:Nature conservation

Conservation (Library science) and Conservation (Environmentalism)?
I believe there needs to be a separate category for conservation in the library science sense of the term, and conservation in the environmental sense of the term. Brittle Books Program looks remarkably out of place here. Jordaneg (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conservation a sub-category of enviromentalism?
Shouldn't conservation be a sub category of enviromentalism? IreverentReverend 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will start a WikiProject Environment soon. I am busy at present (exams!). Alan Liefting 01:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This should be a subcategory of Category:Environment. I have requested that this category is to be resurrected. Alan Liefting 01:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Nature conservation


text:
Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated/Archive 2

One more time... (signal to noise ratio adjustment)
Ed asked that we go line-by-line, in keeping with my suggestion. I'd like to get back to that discussion, please. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Price-Anderson Act is a United States law which limits liability for nuclear plant operators.

Benjamin, are you going to continue to disagree that PAA is a law? I scanned your above comments but they were not constrained to this sentence. You keep trying to make suggestions for the entire opening paragraph, but that's not working. So let's talk about this sentence, please. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

From your above comments, you said:

To Say an Act is a Law, strikes me as either redundant or inaccurate. (Benjamin, cut from above)
 * It's not inaccurate; I've shown you why it's not. How can it be redundant?  In fact it's necessary, otherwise people will wonder whether it's been enacted, or simply a bill waiting for action. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling it a law, a bill, a piece of legislation, a framework, or an Act. - i doubt it needs to be called more than one of those in the first sentence. Benjamin Gatti
 * So then you're fine with the sentence as it is? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to calling it a law, a bill, a piece of legislation, a framework, or an Act; However, the first sentence ought to be as complete as possible - and as written it is incomplete. there are 3 parts to Price - 1. Free Ride Federal Insurance 2. Smaller Pool by government run Insurance 3. Limit the state and the people's right to democratically participate in holding bad actors responsible for the harm they cause. - The first sentence is the most important and it needs to hit each of those three - plus scope (US - nuclear reactors) - a short-cut version is POV by Selection. Benjamin Gatti
 * We can talk about things to add in later. What we're all trying to do is get something down we can agree with, then modify slowly.  Do you agree with the sentence above or not? Yes or no. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that its NPOV neutral because it violates NPOV by selection - that is it asserts facts, but the facts it asserts vs the complete set of facts is not neutral - nor is it complete. I think its fine for some sentences later to be incomplete in an of themselves, but the standard ought to be very high for the first sentence. What is your own words, is wrong with the first sentence which I have proposed?

"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. Benjamin Gatti

 * Regretting taking this on yet, Ed? :) --Woohookitty 20:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, this is good stuff. Once we get this first sentence, the rest is gravy. Did you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? There's a part in there about a girl who overcame writer's block. It was simply awesome. Uncle Ed 21:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's what you think. :) --Woohookitty 22:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As I said, all we're doing is trying to find a base of agreement from which to build. Do you agree with the sentence?  Of course it's incomplete.  It's just a starting point.  We can discuss things to add once we can agree on this very basic sentence.  I'm going to assume since you haven't stated any problems specifically with that sentence that you don't have a problem with anything the sentence asserts. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Blend of yours and mine
"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a law passed in 1957 which provides Federal Indemnity and limits liability for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear incidents in the United States.

 * The problems with the above, again, are that (1) it ignores the industry's contributions, (2) the law affects more than just private nuclear reactor operators, and (3) it covers far more than just catastrophic events. This version ignores most of Price-Anderson in a rush to push a pov about catastrophic accidents. Simesa 00:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean potential contributions? The Law was meant to create the private nuclear industry - anything else it covers is ancillary - I suggest. The risk was always the catastrophic event - that is why GE said they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It'd be like building a moat - and then saying it was to keep the ants out. The purpose of a moat is defend oneself against a catastrophic event. Benjamin Gatti

Hello, everybody?
How's everybody doing? Relaxed and happy? Uptight and be-bothered?

Here's a factoid I googled, trying to find an opening sentence:

 * The Price-Anderson Act - signed into law in 1957 as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 - provides for payment of public liability claims in the event of a nuclear incident.

And don't forget to check out the latest version of the article, er, sub-mini-stub ;-) at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated. Uncle Ed 21:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a United States law passed in 1957 which affects all nuclear facilities in the United States.

Ben, why does the first sentence have to be as complete as possible? Can't it simply be as acceptable as possible? I put up a version (hope that's not cheating!) which is as bland as pablum, but at least has the virtue of being indisputably true. Uncle Ed 21:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I find the factoid accurate and Uncle Ed's version acceptable. Simesa 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We're not in mediation to avoid Pablum, so I agree not to object - unless the purpose of bland is to hide the unpleasant truth that the act is. and that without it the nuclear energy industry isn't. The Act as written addresses "Reactors" and it does not apply - according to Simesa - to all reactors or facilities because the Navy isn't covered. It has only the virtue of being wrong about facts which don't matter. I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement - and I object to the watering down of the article. How about another option - use all the pablum one wants in the second sentence on - but convey the full force and meaning of the Act in the opening sentence. The goo dnews is that as the first sentence goes, so goes the rest of the article - if we get this right and fair, the rest is downhill. Benjamin Gatti

 * Ben, encyclopedias ARE pablum. They ARE watered down. They ARE "dry" and "authoritative". The thing is, you can complain about it until you are blue in the face, but this article is going to end up dry. That's just how encyclopedias work. --Woohookitty 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I want to note for the record that I might have written "all" - i'm not sure whether its true or not - Simesa i'd be happy to hear why you think it doesn't cover all, and also to hear what about the weird case, like a tidal wave throws a nuclear sub into a trai carrying nuclear waste - or what about sabatage? an act of war by sabatage - what if the nuclear material is foriegn and smuggled in? What if it was stolen in 1970 from a covered site, and then manufactored into a warhead and used against us in a war? My sence is that the act was intended to cover "the people" affected by an accident - while protecting reactor operators from state laws which (how horrid) dare to hold people financially accountable for putting other people at risk. Benjamin Gatti

 * What an odd paragraph. A sub hitting a nuclear waste train wouldn't do much  but in the event there were radiological effects the public obviously would be covered.  Getting the plutonium out of spent nuclear fuel requires a large and heavily shielded facility.  Your "sence" is pov. Simesa 03:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply on Pablum
I would suggest in reply that in addition to being a free stand-in for the now defunct Brittanica, Wikipedia is a social experiment pushing the envelope of free speech - that is allowing all POV's to be heard uncensored. The purpose as I understand it is not merely to come as close to a dead trees edition as possible, but to go farther - to explore, and perhaps to revisit the most challenging problems of publication by applying the awesome paradigm of collective reasoning. Perhaps some fail to understand that aspect of the Wiki, and expect to find a virtual reincarnation of the news room, with bosses and senior editors making the safe call to please advertisers - that is not this. There is a chaos to collective reasoning (see the stock market for example) but that is the price of its superior results - in short those who are frustrated by the exploration of new social paradigms might feel more comfortable with their shadows on the cave wall. Benjamin Gatti

 * Ben, that is not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a large position paper. I'm sick and tired of you inferring that we are censoring you. I know what Wikipedia is, Ben. I know what it stands for. It is not a giant blog. Go here. It says that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not a discussion forum. And by the way, what's with this "collective" jazz? I've yet to see you have a supporter. --Woohookitty 01:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not suggesting its a soapbox, but you'll have to agree the idea of open editorship invites a broader contribution base than a dead-trees project. I'm taking about diverse and politically unpopular points of view having a fair representation. A soapbox is for personal opinions. My contributions lately have been direct quotes - just so i could avoid being accused of orginal research. I would suggest again that watering down is a POV

 * You have a very odd concept of POV, Ben. Very odd. To you, everything we try to do is POV and everything you do is NPOV no matter what it is. Must be nice. Unless it says "Nukes are bad!!!!!" it is POV to you. I don't see how "watering down" can be POV. What because we don't scream "nukes are awful!" in the first sentence? I don't get it. --Woohookitty 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Another Blend - full force and meaning
"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a law passed in 1957 which addresses the risk of catastrophic nuclear incidents by providing Federal Indemnity for nuclear investors, imposing a liability limit on nuclear victims, and by coordinating a pool of insurance for nuclear reactor operators in the United States.

In what way is this opening insufficient? Benjamin Gatti

 * First, it's too vague in spots ("addresses the risk" -- how? just say it, don't say it "addresses it".) Second, it doesn't impose a liability limit on "nuclear victims," it imposes the liability limit on the nuclear industry.  Third, it doesn't "coordinate a pool," the pool wouldn't exist without the PAA, this makes it sound as if the government is just a nice facilitator for something already out there.  I continue to believe that "makes available" is the best language in this instance.  Come to think of it, the version that's in the article now is much better.

 * The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. It also makes available a pool of funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. It indemnifies the nuclear industry for accidents, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry. (modified slightly) · Katefan0(scribble) 03:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I object. We do not need to summarize the entire article in the first sentence. it's unwieldly to say the least. There is no harm in taking a paragraph to say that like they usually do on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 03:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a law regarding nuclear power, which was passed in 1959. The law was designed to address the risk of catastrophic nuclear incidents by providing Federal Indemnity for nuclear investors. In addition, it imposes a liability limit on nuclear victims and also coordinates a pool of insurance for nuclear reactor operators"?

It's more understandable. --Woohookitty 03:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have the same objections as before. I'll repeat them.  (1) It ignores the industry's contributions. (2) The law affects more than just private nuclear reactor operators. (3) It covers far more than just catastrophic events.
 * Also, in the event of a major accident nuclear investors could only receive at most the $200 million in primary insurance - reactors cost ten times that, and the investors would receive no pool or federal money.
 * Finally, there's not necessarily a limit on what the injured can receive - in the event the fund is depleted, Congress is required to consider what to do, possibly passing more assessments onto the industry.
 * A misleading opening paragraph isn't going to fly. Simesa 03:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually Simesa, I was just trying to come up with something that Ben would be ok with and then go from there. My version isn't meant to be the "final" or anything close. --Woohookitty 03:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "have as a condition of the license a requirement that the licensee have and maintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" FROM THE ACT - Simesa - it appears nuclear plants are required to "Have and Maintain" thats not a contribution - its a regulation to put something under your pillow.
 * You say there isn't a limit - but the venue restriction is inherently a limit. Every lawyer knows if you want big damages - you go to state court and get a jury to set the amount. If a nuclear plant pulled a chernobly, the entire organization would be bled dry - the threat of economic ruin is what keeps dangerous companies from getting investors in the first place. It is the free markets way of protecting the public - if the safety system has been disabled - the reader needs to know. Benjamin Gatti

Great Source for Both Sides
"In the United States, safety-related shortcomings have been identified in the construction quality of some plants, plant operation and maintenance, equipment reliability, emergency planning, and other areas. In addition, mishaps have occurred in which key safety systems have been disabled. NRC's oversight of the nuclear industry is an ongoing issue; nuclear utilities often complain that they are subject to overly rigorous and inflexible regulation, but nuclear critics charge that NRC frequently relaxes safety standards when compliance may prove difficult or costly to the industry."

"The consensus among most safety experts is that a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United States is likely to occur less frequently than once every 10,000 reactor-years of operation. These experts believe that most severe accidents would have small public health impacts, and that accidents causing as many as 100 deaths would be much rarer than once every 10,000 reactor-years. On the other hand, some experts challenge the complex calculations that go into predicting such accident frequencies, contending that accidents with serious public health consequences may be more frequent."

Translation: - at current rates, there is expected to be a severe nuclear accident in the United States during our lifetime.

"Nuclear Accident Liability

Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210). The act is up for reauthorization on August 1, 2002, but existing nuclear plants will continue to operate under the current Price-Anderson liability system if no extension is enacted.

Under Price-Anderson, the owners of commercial reactors must assume all liability for accident damages to the public. To pay any such damages, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum liability insurance available, currently $200 million. Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally against all operating commercial reactors, up to $83.9 million per reactor. Those assessments - called "retrospective premiums" - would be paid at an annual rate of no more than $10 million per reactor, to limit the potential financial burden on reactor owners following a major accident. Including three that are not operating, 106 commercial reactors are currently covered by Price-Anderson.

For each accident, therefore, the Price-Anderson liability system currently would provide up to $9.09 billion in public compensation. That total includes the $200 million in insurance coverage carried by the reactor that had the accident, plus the $83.9 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 106 currently covered reactors. On top of those payments, a 5% surcharge may also be imposed. Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry's liability for an accident is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the number of licensed reactors, the amount of available insurance, and an inflation adjustment that is made every five years. Payment of any damages above that liability limit would require congressional action. "

 Benjamin Gatti

 * So what's wrong with "Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210)." as an opening line? Simesa 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Another Try
"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a law passed in 1957 which permits nuclear reactor operators in the United States to avoid the liability laws established by the states, provides a Federal Indemnity subsidy for nuclear investors, and creates a small pool of insurance for nuclear reactor operators in place of full operator liability.

Benjamin Gatti

 * Worse than before. Pure propaganda. Simesa 05:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the word "avoid" is very POV here. It has to be neutral or "watered down" as Ben says. --Woohookitty 05:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding.
 * How about this version -- remember this one? The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. It also makes available a pool of funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. It indemnifies the nuclear industry for accidents, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry. (modified slightly) · Katefan0(scribble) 05:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Katefan0's version. Simesa 10:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

from liability in excess of the level of financial protection
"(c) Indemnification of licenses by Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 2002, for which it requires financial protection of less than $560,000,000, agree to indemnify and hold harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their interest may appear, from public liability arising from nuclear incidents which is in excess of the level of financial protection required of the licensee. " FROM THE ACT

I would call $100,000,000 of damages a catastrophy - does Simesa want to claim that the act is not focused on large claims, or that 100M is still a small claim? Benjamin Gatti

 * Since reactors carry $200 million of primary insurance, according to catastrophe $100 million of claims might be a disaster but wouldn't be a catastrophe. Since Three Mile Island injured no one but resulted in $71 million in claims, yes I'd say $100 million in claims could be a small amount. Simesa 05:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Absurd Example of Watering Down
"The Holocaust was an event in Germany in the 1940's which required very precise train schedules."

To show that scrubbing facts can push a profound bias. Benjamin Gatti

You cannot be serious. I don't see a single fact missing from this first sentence. Not a one. "Considerably less" and such are not facts. What you consider "facts" are often opinion, such as your attempt at writing for the enemy. I hope you feel proud for cheapening the Holocaust to serve your needs. --Woohookitty 03:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

For the people affected by nuclear power accidents - which price anderson encourages - the horror is quite similar. Nuclear is the stuff the next Holocaust is made of. It does not cheapen the victims of one genocide to oppose another. Keep in mind a generation of children were terminated to avoid the malformation affects of chernobly - victims which are not even listed in the tally. Benjamin Gatti

 * I'm not going to respond to that. It's pointless responding to your diatribes. So I'll get back to the issue of this article.

 * What you believe as facts are actually your opinion. The "fact" that the money is considerably less than what Chernobyl cost is your opinion. You have no way of knowing how much a nuclear accident here would cost and none of the sites you cite do either. The "fact" that Price-Anderson supposedly encourages accidents is your opinion. It is not fact. The "fact" that Price-Anderson supposedly helps to avoid all liabilities is your opinion. But you want to include these in the first sentence or the first paragraph and if they aren't in there, then we are "watering down" the article. I hate to tell you this, Ben, but 6,000,000 Jews dying in the Holocaust is a fact. What we have proposed as the first sentence doesn't leave out any real facts whatsoever. What it does leave out is opinion.

 * Wikipedia is NOT an opinion journal, even though from what you said earlier, you think it is. It's not a place where everyone puts their opinions into the articles. What I don't like about Wikipedia is that there is no way to avoid bad actors like yourself who don't really want what's best for Wikipedia. You want what's best for whatever you believe in and you will keep gaming the system until you've reached your goal. And now, I'm going to ignore any more of your diatribes. Stick to the article itself and we'll be cool.

 * And one more thing Ben. You say that Wikipedia is here for everyone to express their own viewpoints. But it's not. If that was the case, we'd keep all posts of vandals. We'd never delete a page. We'd never rewrite pages. Frankly, if you consider what we are going "censorship", then you would consider most of Wikipedia "censorship". But wait, I misspeak. You haven't seen the rest of Wikipedia. Pardon me. --Woohookitty 05:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti
 * 1) "The "fact" that the money is considerably less than what Chernobyl cost is your opinion." No actually it is quite well established that 9.8 Billion is substantially less that 250 Billion. The estimated cost of chernobly is hardly my opinion - the relationship is simple math.
 * 2) "The "fact" that Price-Anderson supposedly helps to avoid all liabilities is your opinion." No - that is the opinnion of groups whose opinions I have cited - CATO Greenpeace etc. Avoiding "All" liability is a stretch - rather it fixes liability as an unreasonably low figure.
 * 3) Millions were affected by chernobyl - depression has increased in an entire region as a result, children were aborted (perhaps no count is available).
 * 4) I did not say that Wikipedia is a place for every persons opinion, but it is a place for substantial viewpoints - and thats the nuance which is missing here. Perhaps only your Point of view should be represented - perhaps only THE GOVERNMENTS point of view? The essence of the first amendment - without which of course wiki wouldn't exist is precisely that the government doesn't get to control the message - that is my point regardless of how you intend to distort it.
 * 5) I'm going to ask you in this context to follow the rules of mediation which indicate no personal attacks - calling me a bad actor shows a lack of good faith on your part and undermines the process - i'll ask to have you removed from this process if it continues.

Personal remarks
Let's all try to avoid personal remarks such as those I struck out above:

 * I hope you feel proud for cheapening the Holocaust to serve your needs.
 * It's pointless responding to your diatribes.
 * What you believe as facts are actually your opinion.
 * You cannot be serious.

Each of you will recognize your own, er, handwriting here. You'll also notice that I picked precisely two examples from each person. I am not accusing anyone of violating policy, but I'm saying that remarks such as these distract us from the task at hand.

Let's stick to discussing the article. Uncle Ed 16:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph
Ben's proposed first sentence was placed in the article, and objections asked for. I object. This morning I replaced it with Katefan0's proposed first paragraph which I, Katefan0 and I believe Woohookitty support. Any deficiencies in it can be dealt with in the body of the article. Simesa 16:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Points of Disagreement
I feel this reply by Kate touches the heart of the problem: I had proposed: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a law passed in 1957 which addresses the risk of catastrophic nuclear incidents by providing Federal Indemnity for nuclear investors, imposing a liability limit on nuclear victims, and by coordinating a pool of insurance for nuclear reactor operators in the United States.

To which Kate replies:
 * 1) "First, it's too vague in spots ("addresses the risk" -- how? just say it, don't say it "addresses it".)
 * There really are three "How's" - ther are listed. Addressing the Risk is probably the truist description of the act - the risks were not addressed in the Atomic Act of 1955 and as a consequence - no movement to build. GE came to congress and said "Address the risk" - and this is how they did it.

 * 1) Second, it doesn't impose a liability limit on "nuclear victims," it imposes the liability limit on the nuclear industry.
 * Here you're simply dead wrong. The limit is imposed on victims. You're hurt? - sorry You Mrs. Victim CANNOT go after the people responsible because they are "special" they have federal protection - instead you can have this fixed sum of taxpayer (your) money.

 * 1) Third, it doesn't "coordinate a pool," the pool wouldn't exist without the PAA, this makes it sound as if the government is just a nice facilitator for something already out there.
 * Well it pretty much is. The something out there is the highest private insurance availble in 1957 - about 1M - but the government coordinates this insurance by making each nuclear plant "responsible" for any accident at any other plant.

 * 1) I continue to believe that "makes available" is the best language in this instance.
 * The Government isn't doing the "making" - it's organizing - or taking it from the taxpayer.

Benjamin Gatti

Following Suit
Since Simesa Replaced the Moderated Version with his own version, I took the liberty of modifying here and there. For the most part the facts are the same, but the qualifyiers tend to hide the effect. Price has a dramatic effect - it suspends state safety laws, it makes a nuclear accident far more likely to occur by encouraging reckless engineering, it imposes risk on taxpayers while providing profits for rich investors. If every industry was run that way - there would be no differnce between the US and The USSR. Car safety has improved impressively in the last 40 years - why? because people injured by a bad design sue the Crap out of the engineering firm - tough - but that's the cost of improvement - everyone else sees the award and says - we need to make sure our design is safe. In the Nuclear field, that has been defeated by Price. a nuclear accident would not result in similar lawsuits, and so the engineers have the luxury of passing on the dangers of their design to Joe Taxpayer/Victim. Hence the term "Deadbeat" - nuclear engineers don't want to pay the cost imposed by the risks they take - they want society to pay those costs instead - a spade is a spade. Benjamin Gatti

 * I reverted it back to Ed's version from yesterday since it's obvious that Ben objects to Simesa's version. --Woohookitty 19:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well now I put the 2 versions side by side. --Woohookitty 19:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's go easy on the reversions. The thing is to make a "text move" and then discuss the disputed text. Think about "mom and apple pie". (sorry, spacing out, I mean we need to think about making a clear unbiased presentation). Uncle Ed 20:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, car safety and reliability has increased due to competition. This is also happening in the nuclear field - the new ABWRs are approximately 100 times safer than previous BWRs (due largely to putting the recirculation system inside the reactor vessel).  Also, passively-safe designs such as the ESBWR and AP-1000 are now available.  Finally, inherently-safe designs such as the pebble bed modular reactor are under research.  Your pov is again wrong. Simesa 23:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Text move
I would like to define a "text move" as:
 * 1) cutting a disputed passage of text from an article; and,
 * 2) pasting the text into the article's talk page

Please do not revert any changes to Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated. Just do text moves. Can we all agree to this? Uncle Ed 20:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Imagine you're a victim of Chernobyl
Or the equivelent in the US.

Now image you read these two introduction to Price. One is pablum - the other actually informs the reader as to the exitence of a danger which is too great for industry to accept on its own, and it warns the reader that they are - out of luck - in the event of a disaster, and it has that - you've been warned - quality. The other is simply says nothing except rehease the governments doublespeak that "a pool of funds have been created" which sounds like reponsability = when its exactly the opposite. Benjamin Gatti

 * Ben, we're not giving in. I wish you'd just compromise. We're not giving in to making this an opionated article. We need to come to a middle ground or else you're not going to get anything you want in the article. --Woohookitty 20:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
"This page is 57 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Anyone want to help archive? Uncle Ed 20:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I archived it a bit. --Woohookitty 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Real issues
What are the real issues?

 * 1) It's unfair that nuclear power gets a subsidy, while coal and oil and non-burning methods have to struggle along in the marketplace.
 * 2) Price-Anderson will lead to a holocaust, like Chernobyl only maybe worse: killing millions of people.

I'm just guessing. Why do I have to guess? Can't you guys just come and out and tell me point blank? I'm going to demand an increase in my pay if you don't start helping me to help you! :-(

Yes, I'm ticked. I want double pay ;-) or else you guys have to start doing what I say. Uncle Ed 20:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Both things you listed are Ben's argument. Simesa and Katefan0 do the arguments on our side, so I'm just pointing that out. --Woohookitty 20:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I came here because of an RFC. Benjamin has been, primarily, the one seeking changes.  I have generally been involved mostly in making sure the changes he wants are NPOV. The version as it is now (on the protected page), as far as I'm concerned, is relatively fine.  The criticisms section is a little bloated but that can be fixed fairly easily, and I think the way the pool works needs a better explainer (that's what I was working on when the page was protected).  Beyond some other minor things, that's about it.  · Katefan0(scribble) 20:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it's S+K+W vs. B. The three of youse want to keep it mostly the same (with more clarity re: the pool) while Ben wants to add some significant points? Who agrees with this? (sign below or something, while I go increase my stress meter - see user:Ed Poor). Uncle Ed 21:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ben - Humbly Suggesting a series of points on which we disagree:
 * 1) Whether the wiki will assert the opinions of government officials as fact or couched for what they are.
 * 2) Whether the wiki asserts that the "pool" is bigger, smaller, created, or reduced.
 * 3) Whether or not the wiki will speculate on the scale of future nuclear accidents with authority.

That's it. I reject the notion that this is a lopsided debate in any sence other than a personal one. as far as facts are concerned, Kate has added copious facts with which I wholeheartedly agree. The truth is that the line of agreement has been moving in the direction that I would call neutral - that is in which my points are well represented. Benjamin Gatti
 * Just to clarify for Ed's sake: I helped Benjamin add most of the "criticisms" section, because he didn't seem to quite get how to properly source or attribute opinions on WP.  I was trying to be helpful, but they shouldn't be construed as my own preferences. (Indeed, I think it's too much.) · Katefan0(scribble) 01:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's my take:
 * 1) The article could truthfully and accurately state that this or that government official has said X about Price-Anderson.
 * 2) *...while refusing to speculate on whether X is "really true" or not.
 * 3) The article could describe the pool in terms of what '''various officials, politicians, pressure groups, etc." say it is:
 * 4) *Official F says it's too big, politician M says it's too small, and Group B says it's just right.
 * 5) The article can report on what the various speculations are:
 * 6) *Scientist H says the next accidet will be a "mega-holocaust"
 * 7) *Industry spokesman P says the next accident will be a "mini-Three Mile Island".

In other words, just give the range of opinion, ducking all conclusions. No bias, just unvarnished neutrality. Uncle Ed 22:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Of Course, and as you'll see by my request for Mediation - that is exactly what I believe is consistent with wiki policy. Thank you for clarifying Wiki Policy - I would be surprised is any subject we're as important and as tricky as this one - in short this I think is the case for which NPOV was written. If the people of Belarus and Kiev has access to free speech, Chernobly might never have happpened. Benjamin Gatti

 * The three key issues as I see them are:
 * Ben insists on inserting uncited pov statements: "Price Anderson makes it possible for a nuclear accident, such as Chernobyl, to occur in the United States by suspending the safety laws of all fifty states." for example.
 * Ben rejects government statements not favorable to the points he wants to push - for example, besides Katefan0's sources on the genesis of PAA, I have a cite from the NRC (as well as four others) as to why an accident in the US would be less severe than Chernobyl, and Ben is dead-set against allowing them in (he has come up with none to the contrary). I submit that if it is okay to name Greenpeace as a source, then it must be okay to name the CRS, GAO and NRC as sources.
 * Ben for some reason doesn't want it mentioned in the article that the Department of Energy operates reactors, fuel enrichment plants and other nuclear-related facilities, and that they and the contractors running them are covered by Price-Anderson.
 * Ben admits he is in the wave energy business and wants the nuclear industry closed down so that subsidies will be forced into that business. (The rest of us have no contact with the energy industries.)  He isn't satisfied with an article that has 7 paragraphs of criticisms (not counting criticisms in other paragraphs) to 6 for the rest of the article.
 * Simesa 00:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Unlike Simesa who has and expects to receive Nuclear money (Social Security deferrments, retirement etc) Ben hasn't been paid a dime by any energy industry. As a researcher, he believes renewable energy is adequate and less expensive than nuclear. More importantly, he belives that renewable energy is more egalitarian and democratic as it removes power from a few, and gives it to many - and everywhere - rather than only a few powerful states. I'm not shy about my POV, and I'm pretty clear that the Wiki shouldn't express it - but neither should it present any other POV in the first voice.

 * What part of that is not factual - Supreme court say it suspended laws - said it was better and necessary. Clearly it trumps state liability laws (safety laws in common words), without it, a nuclear accident couldn't happen in the US - because of Price Anderson, GE and Westinghouse can take a risk on a chernobly - otherwise they wouldn't - we have sourcs on that - so yes, it could be stated and couched - but I doubt you can deny the facts therein.
 * No - i only ask that they be couched - same as you require of my assertions.
 * Specifically i object to the statement "Price doesn't cover the Navy - which never had an accident." because it seems more irrelevent than relevent and only there to push the POV - see - its safe. By all means a comprehensive sense of what IS covered would be a good idea.
 * Again, i don't think nuclear deserve 96% of energy subsidies, nor is it the cheapest solution in a zero subsidy world.

Benjamin Gatti

Question for Ed
I have a question for you, Ed. This is something I've asked Ben but he's never responded. Do you know of any other article on Wikipedia that does not treat government statements as to why a law was created as authoritative? Because that's what Ben is trying to do here. I know that our discussion has been hard to follow at times, but his main point is that government sources should not be treated as authoritative in terms of describing why this law was passed in the first place.

It's really the major point of contention here. He sees the government sources as being POV, even when it comes to non-partisan sources like the GAO. I've yet to find an article that treats a government source by saying "The GAO said...". In other articles, the government voice is treated as authoritative. I know you said up above that we should state things as "that this or that government official has said about Price-Anderson". Well we're not talking about a biased government official in the present. We're talking about GAO reports...Katefan has some experience in this and she has said that the GAO is never criticized as being anything but neutral. Ever. By Democrats, Republicans...anyone. And yet Ben keeps arguing that the GAO and other non partisan sources should be treated as "POV" when they aren't treated as POV by any other article I've ever seen. And I'm just wondering if you've ever seen an article that treats the GAO or any such non-partisan group as POV.

In the end, to me, this is our #1 issue and if we can get past it, I think the rest will be easier. So that's why I'm just asking if you have anything to say about it. --Woohookitty 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, yes, I've seen several articles like that. Much as I love government (grin), it's not always correct. Even a nonpartisan pronouncement can represent a point of view which hides something or just fails to recognize something. The classic examples are both political and ecclesiastical: the Roman governor's decision to punish Jesus, and the Inquisition's decision to make pioneer scientist Galileo Galilei recant his views on the mobility of the earth.

 * I assume you want more recent examples, but I hesitate to supply them. Let's do a thought experiment instead.

 * Tell me, which government's statements do you consider to be authoritative? Next, what do we at Wikipedia do when we find two different governments with clashing opinions? Declare them both right? (I can think of several cases where a certain, er, Western Hemisphere government disagrees with several European governments on a major matter similar in character to nuclear power disaster compensation. Must I spell it out?) Uncle Ed 11:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of Evening of July 16
Uncle Ed proposed:
 * "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act has been criticized by environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs as a handout to the nuclear power industry."
 * "The act regulates financial compensation for victims of nuclear power plant accidents. While guarenteeing a certain minimum level of compensation, through a "pool" system, it drastically limits maximum levels of compensation. even when a plant operator is found criminally negligent."

I have a number of problems with this proposal.
 * 1) We start by criticizing something that hasn't even been explained - this sentence belongs at the end of these sentences.
 * 2) The Act covers more than nuclear power plant accidents - it also covers radiological injuries from transportation, at enrichment plants, mishaps at several other DOE facilities, etc.
 * 3) "guarenteeing a certain minimum level of compensation" isn't correct - it guarantees a maximum pool amount, and requires Congress to consider acting if that is exceeded.
 * 4) "drastically" is definitely pov.
 * 5) I suggest "even if" instead of "even when", as I've seen no cites as to this ever happening under PAA.
 * Simesa 03:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti
 * 1) Now that the shoe is on the other foot - expect the same complaints - "I want my POV first." - but I do agree - its silly.
 * 2) The Act covers incidents not accidents - terrorist is not an accident. - presuambly involving radioactive material.
 * 3) The Act replaces standard liability with federal indemnity - making the taxpayer liable for damages caused by nuclear reactors even IF they are criminally negligent.
 * 4) is "reduces" neutral as in it reduces the level of compensation and holds operators harmless even IF ...

 * I completely object to the version proposed. Way way too many POV words in the version proposed. We have "criticized" in the very first sentence and then we have "drastically". The last sentence is very POV. Ed, why can't we both put up what we propose for our complete versions and then look at the differences between the two? This line by line approach is going to take us months and I'm not exagerating here. Just doing basically 2 sentences has taken us about a week. And also...don't take this as a criticism because it's not...but I don't think you quite understand the major issues involved and where we differ. I know it's our fault because we've done way too much free form discussion, but maybe putting our complete versions side by side will show you the differences. --Woohookitty 04:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Struck some of my comments. I made them before I had fully read all of the responses and posts today. I duly apologize. --Woohookitty 09:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with S-1, S-2, S-5, and B-2. But I gotta go now. c u Uncle Ed 12:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Ed has asked me to respond to the accusation that I (Ben) have a vested interest and cannot therefore be neutral. If you visit my talk page you will see 2 items, My interest in solving the energy problem (which is to say the world peace problem) without destroying the environment, and 2. that I have been arrested for picking up litter - actually for encouraging minors to pick up (advertising) litter. I am not afraid to act against accepted norms when those norms are immoral. In addition my wife's family has received the Chernobly Liquidator Award - and in a very real sence, my own daughter (3) was exposed to the radiation of Chernobyl.

Technically, I am not in the business, though I would hope to be. But more important, my objection to the 93% subsidies which nuclear gets is that nuclear energy for all that is still more expensive than wind - imposes a security threat - and cannot be used to solve the wider world problem because of proliferation and scarce resources. It is estimated that we have 30 years of uranium reserves. If the Chinese install 100 reactors, that goes to 20, if we install 100 more it goes to 15 - what are we going to do with half-used nuclear reactors? who will pay for the decomissioning? Who is decomissioning the plants now? Did you know it takes longer to decomission a nuclear plant than to build it AND RUN IT? (10+40) useful life vs. 100+years for decomissioning. Ed, I think an honest evaluation shows that everyone has a vested interest at ~ $1000 a month as a household energy budget (Includes energy in food, goods consumed and depreciated, services rendered, transportation, etc...) So my vested interest is not paranormal. Simesa on the other hand was employed by the nuclear industry - and wants the wiki to assert that a nuclear accident in the US would be on a smaller scale than chernobyl. I think Katefan has an interest in her pet topic - do we exclude everyone from having a fair stake as soon as we indentify a potential conflict? I doubt it - the Supreme court addressed this issue years ago and observed that only people with some stake and going to pursue the ends of justice, and so they should not be descriminated against for that reason. - I hope that helps answer the question. MyWebsite Benjamin Gatti
 * I'm not sure why Benjamin feels it's okay to misrepresent my position, but I've said numerous times that I came here as a result of a Request for Comments posted presumably by Simesa. WP:RFC My personal interest in this topic is marginal at best; I came here to help resolve the conflict between Benjamin and Simesa.  · Katefan0(scribble) 15:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * In case it wasn't clear, I only suggested that "Kate" - "Fan" has an interest in her pet topic (Katherine Hepburn) - I much prefer her sister, but that's another story. What is relevent is that everyone comes into the world with a bias, and that we have to find neutrality in spite of our biases, and not start disqualifying individuals because of them. Benjamin Gatti

 * This is obviously off topic, but if I don't correct this, Kate won't forgive me. :) Katharine Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn are not related. I'm hoping you were just being facetious. :) --Woohookitty 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As usual, Ben's sources get their facts wrong. The Shippingport Reactor was cleared to a unrestricted brownfield in 5 years .  There's plenty of uranium, and even if there weren't there's far more thorium.  And I have detailed cites for my desired assertion. Simesa 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Spendthrift trust

In trust law, a spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a person (often unable to control his/her spending) that gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary. Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the beneficiary.

The creator of a trust is often called the "trustor", "grantor", or "settlor" of the trust. A trust generally will not be treated as a spendthrift trust unless the trust agreement contains language showing that the creator intended the trust to qualify as spendthrift. This is what is known as a spendthrift clause or spendthrift provision.

A spendthrift provision creates an irrevocable trust preventing creditors from attaching the interest of the beneficiary in the trust before that interest (cash or property) is actually distributed to him or her. Most well-drafted irrevocable trusts contain spendthrift provisions even though the beneficiaries are not known to be spendthrifts. This is because such a provision protects the trust and the beneficiary in the event a beneficiary is sued and a judgment creditor attempts to attach the beneficiary's interest in the trust.

The protection of the spendthrift trust extends solely to the property that is in the trust. Once the property has been distributed to the beneficiary that property can be reached by a creditor, except to the extent the distributed property is used to support the beneficiary. If a trust calls for a distribution to the beneficiary, but the beneficiary refuses such distribution and elects to retain property in the trust, the spendthrift protection of the trust ceases with respect to that distribution and the beneficiary's creditors can now reach trust assets.

Necessaries, child support and alimony
Some creditors may compel payment out of the trust, particularly those who supply the beneficiary with "necessaries" (usually food and shelter, but sometimes clothing and transportation, if these are not extravagant). Most jurisdictions also permit the invasion of spendthrift trust assets to satisfy awards of child support and alimony.

Trusts where the beneficiary is also the creator
A trust created by an individual for his or her own benefit is sometimes called a "self-settled trust", and may be a kind of asset-protection trust. If the creator of a self-settled trust is also a beneficiary of the trust, particular problems arise regarding the protection of assets from creditors, and the prevention of fraud, that is, the possibility that the creator of the trust seeks to defraud creditors.

The general rule: Self-settled trusts do not protect the trust creator
To prevent individuals from creating trusts to defeat their own creditors, the laws of most states provide that a spendthrift clause in a trust document does not protect the beneficiary to the extent that the beneficiary is also the person who created the trust. The settlor does not need to be either the sole settlor or the only beneficiary of the trust. As long as the settlor is a beneficiary of the trust to any extent, to that extent the trust will be deemed self-settled. For example, Texas law provides:

 * (d) If the settlor is also a beneficiary of the trust, a provision restraining the voluntary or involuntary transfer of his beneficial interest does not prevent his creditors from satisfying claims from his interest in the trust estate.

Further, laws in some states (like Texas) are worded so broadly that anyone transferring property to the trust might be deemed to be a "creator" (i.e., settlor, grantor, or trustor), not merely the person or persons who originally set up the trust.

The exception: DAPT states
However, several states have changed their laws to provide that a person may create a self-settled spendthrift trust (i.e., a spendthrift trust for his or her own benefit). Such trusts are also called Domestic Asset Protection Trusts ("DAPT"), and sometimes informally called "Alaska trusts", as Alaska was a pioneer in allowing this kind of spendthrift trust. However, because of the danger of the misuse of Alaska trusts to defraud creditors, the legality of such trusts (to the extent that they purport to protect the trust share of a beneficiary who is also a creator of the trust) is uncertain in the states not allowing self-settled spendthrift trusts.

Nevada has enacted a series of statutes, codified at Chapter 166 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, that specifically enable the creation of self-settled spendthrift trusts. This form of trust is commonly referred to as a "Nevada Asset Protection Trust". Under Chapter 166, an individual can serve as the settlor, trustee, and beneficiary of the trust. This network of laws is specifically designed to protect trust assets from the claims of any creditor. NRS 166.170 specifically limits the circumstances under which a creditor may bring a claim. If a creditor existed at the time of the property's transfer to the trust, then the creditor must bring its claim against the trust within 2 years after the transfer or within six months after the creditor reasonably should have known of the transfer, whichever is later. NRS 166.170(1). If the creditor's claim surfaces after the transfer is made, the creditor must bring its claim within two years after the transfer, regardless of notice. NRS 166.170(1). Moreover, the creditor can only sustain its claim if it can prove by clear and convincing evidence (a tough evidentiary standard) that the transfer was made as a fraudulent conveyance. NRS 166.170(3).

The extent to which sister states will recognize the asset protections of these DAPTs, like those created under the laws of Nevada and Alaska, is unclear due to a somewhat sparse body of relevant case law. While states are generally compelled to honor and recognize the laws of sister states, pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, some of these laws may be in direct conflict with the laws of other states. Some of these DAPT laws can be quite expansive. The scope of the Nevada law is drawn quite broadly to govern Nevada's enforcement of all trusts created within or outside the state, so long as they meet certain limited criteria. See NRS 166.015(1). The law goes on to require that the statutes be applied to the enforcement by any other state of any spendthrift trust created within Nevada, so long as the law is not in direct conflict with the other adjudicating state. NRS 166.015(3). In fact, the Nevada law does not even require that the trust assets be located within Nevada, so long as one of the trustees declares his/her domicile as Nevada. NRS 166.015(1)(d).

The following other states now have a DAPT statute: Delaware, Mississippi (as of July 31, 2014, see Miss. Code 91-9-701 et seq.), South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.

In the United States
Because estates and trusts are largely governed by state law in the United States, individual states each may have their own statutory or common law treatments of spendthrift clauses and trusts.

For example, the Nevada Property Code provides:
 * There is no personal or corporate income tax imposed by the state of Nevada.
 * An Irrevocable Spendthrift Trust, if properly formed in the State of Nevada, is currently not subject to income taxes of other States, as long as the Nevada Spendthrift Trust is qualified to do business in the other State(s).
 * A Nevada Spendthrift Trust is only subject to Federal Income Tax.
 * The Settlor has the right to change or add other beneficiaries at any time without notification to any beneficiary past or present, the state of Nevada, or the Federal Government.
 * All rights and privileges of a Spendthrift Trust formed in the State of Nevada are clearly set out in a concise set of statutes in Nevada and are not dependent on court decisions or interpretations for the validity of the Trust.
 * There are no registration fees, annual reporting fees, or any other recurring fees charged by the State of Nevada or any local Government for the continued validity of the Trust. The Trusts are also not required to retain a Resident Agent in the State of Nevada.

In Texas, the Texas Property Code provides:

 * (a) A settlor may provide in the terms of the trust that the interest of a beneficiary in the income or in the principal or in both may not be voluntarily or involuntarily transferred before payment or delivery of the interest to the beneficiary by the trustee.

A clause in the terms of a trust agreement that complies with the above-quoted statute is an example of what the law calls an "anti-alienation provision."

To continue with the example of the Texas law, the Texas Property Code further provides:

 * (b) A declaration in a trust instrument that the interest of a beneficiary shall be held subject to a "spendthrift trust" is sufficient to restrain voluntary or involuntary alienation of the interest by a beneficiary to the maximum extent permitted by this subtitle.

 * (c) A trust containing terms authorized under Subsection (a) or (b) of this section may be referred to as a spendthrift trust.

The above-quoted language essentially means that a trust instrument does not (at least, in Texas) have to contain complex legal jargon to qualify the trust as "spendthrift"; simply using the word "spendthrift" in the trust document may be sufficient.

title: Spendthrift trust


text:
Arthur Storer

Arthur Storer (1645–1687) was America's first colonial astronomer. He came to Calvert County, Maryland, from Lincolnshire, England. He was among the first observers to sight and record data about a magnificent comet that passed over Patuxent skies in 1682. Storer's work shows up in a number of Newton's writings. The comet became known as Storer's Comet, until Edmund Halley later predicted the comet's return; thereafter this celestial marvel was known as Halley's Comet. His observations of the great comet of 1680 are mentioned twice in Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. A planetarium bearing Storer's name is located in Prince Frederick, Maryland.

Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton's well known confessions list in the Fitzwilliam notebook of 1662 includes "beating Arthur Storer".

When Isaac was about 12 years old, he was sent away to the Grammar school in Grantham. While in school he boarded at the home of William Clarke, an apothecary on Grantham High Street next to the George Inn. Clarke was the second husband of Arthur's mother Katherine. Katherine brought her four children Edward, Arthur, Katherine and Ann to the marriage.

Arthur's sister Katherine Storer, did not deny that Newton may have had a romantic interest in her. William Stukeley interviewed her in 1727 after Newton's death when she was 'Mrs Vincent' a widow of 82 years. He wrote: "Sir Isaac & she being thus brought up together, it is said that he entertain'd a passion for her, when they grew up: nor dos she deny it.

Storer's Comet
At about dawn on August 14, 1682, looking westward over the Patuxent River near Hunting Creek, Arthur Storer apparently saw what is now known as Storer's Comet. The comet stayed visible in the area until September 18, 1682.

Storer's observations of the comet are considered to be the most accurate of his contemporaries with the exception of the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

title: Arthur Storer


text:
Louis Botha Avenue

Louis Botha Avenue (part of Johannesburg Metropolitan Route M11) is a major street in Johannesburg, South Africa. Originally part of the main road between central Johannesburg and Pretoria, it runs along through the north-eastern parts of the city from Hillbrow to Sandton, passing through numerous older suburbs, including Houghton and Orange Grove, before it becomes the Pretoria Main Road (R101) which passes the Alexandra Township and continues to Midrand and Pretoria.

Route
Louis Botha Ave, which is part of the M11 Metropolitan Route, begins at the top of the Johannesburg CBD in the suburbs of Hillbrow and Berea and then heads north-east passing through Houghton to the north and Yeoville and Bellevue to the south. In Houghton it passes close to the private boys schools of St John's College (1889) and King Edward VII school (1911). After this point the road curves and is ominously nicknamed Deathbend due to the number of car accidents at the spot. The route then enters the suburb of Orange Grove, passing the new Victory Theatre (2007), the older one torn down in 2005 which has its origins aa a cinema in 1929 and renamed after the end of World War II as the Victory and became a theatre in the early nineties. Radium Beer Hall is on the right. Midway through Orange Grove, the road bends northwards and passes through Orchards and Sydenham and the smaller suburbs of Maryvale, Forbesdale, Cheltondale, Rouxville and Hawkins Estate. The road then crosses the M20 at Atholl Road in the suburbs of Highlands North and Waverley. The road crosses Corlett Drive in Bramley before ending a short distance later at the Artwright Avenue (M40) junction in the light industrial suburb of Wynberg with the old township of Alexandra close by. The road, still designated as the M11, continues on northwards as the Pretoria Main Road.

History
The roadway originates as far back as 1876 as a wagon track connecting the farms south of the ridge with South African Republic's (ZAR) capital, at Pretoria. The road would pass through Halfway House (now known as Midrand) before heading to Pretoria. Halfway House was laid out in 1890 and became the halfway mark between the two towns on the Zeedeberg coach route. The roadway has its beginnings at the apex of triangular piece of unused government land at Randjelaagte in what is now the suburbs of Hillbrow and Berea. The apex is remembered by the Randjelaagte Beacon at the top of Clarendon Place. The road then headed north-east along the boundaries of the old Witwatersrand farms Klipfontein to the north and Doornfontein to the south before peeling away through the former as it drops down from the ridge crossing the small Lemoen Spruit (Orange Grove Spruit) and into the northern valley. At the bottom of the ridge the road would pass the Lemoen Plaas a farm where travelers would rest. Gold was discovered south of the ridge in 1886 and by 1889 a hotel called the Orange Grove Hotel appeared close to the old farm and was an excursion point for the early town residents. During the Second Boer War, after the British Army captured Johannesburg, a British block-house was built alongside the road near the bottom of the ridge overlooking the valley protecting the town from the Boer forces. It was still visible in 1909.

The land around this area, called Alexandra Estate would be renamed as Orange Grove in 1904 and the suburb was laid out by the African Realty Trust. In 1909 a tram line from Johannesburg would be laid down the road and would terminate in the suburb of Sydenham. The old Pretoria road obtained its existing name in 1917 when it was named after the prime minister and Boer-War general, Louis Botha. On 3 July 1917, the Federation of Ratepayers Association recommended to the City of Johannesburg that two main roads in Johannesburg be named after Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, in honour of their service to the British Empire during World War I. The council voted and Morgan Road and Pretoria Main Road became Louis Botha Avenue.

Developments
A largely business street, there are some problems on Louis Botha Avenue, including urban decay caused by illegal land uses, such as shebeens. In 2014, construction began on the expansion of Johannesburg's Rea Vaya bus rapid transit system to Louis Botha Avenue.

title: Louis Botha Avenue


text:
User:Chris Mounce

Stuff I'll Forget

 * To redirect to pagename, use #REDIRECT pagename

title: User:Chris Mounce


text: User:Ericg/experimental/template/test i

title: User:Ericg/experimental/template/test i