text:
Eichmann in Jerusalem

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is a 1963 book by the philosopher and political thinker Hannah Arendt. Arendt, a Jew who fled Germany during Adolf Hitler's rise to power, reported on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the Holocaust, for The New Yorker. A revised and enlarged edition was published in 1964.

Theme
Arendt's subtitle famously introduced the phrase "the banality of evil." In part the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial as the man displayed neither guilt for his actions nor hatred for those trying him, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job." ("He did his 'duty'...; he not only obeyed 'orders,' he also obeyed the 'law.'")

Eichmann
Arendt takes Eichmann's court testimony and the historical evidence available, and she makes several observations about him:
 * Eichmann stated in court that he had always tried to abide by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. She argues that Eichmann had essentially taken the wrong lesson from Kant: Eichmann had not recognized the "Golden Rule" and principle of reciprocity implicit in the categorical imperative, but had understood only the concept of one man's actions coinciding with general law. Eichmann attempted to follow the spirit of the laws he carried out, as if the legislator himself would approve. In Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative, the legislator is the moral self, and all people are legislators; in Eichmann's formulation, the legislator was Hitler.  Eichmann claimed this changed when he was charged with carrying out the Final Solution, at which point Arendt says, "He had ceased to live according to Kantian principles, that he had known it, and that he had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer 'was master of his own deeds,' that he was unable 'to change anything.
 * Eichmann's inability to think for himself was exemplified by his consistent use of "stock phrases and self-invented clichés". The man demonstrated his unrealistic worldview and crippling lack of communication skills through reliance on "officialese" (Amtssprache) and the euphemistic Sprachregelung (convention of speech) that made implementation of Hitler's policies "somehow palatable".
 * While Eichmann might have had antisemitic leanings, Arendt argued that he showed "no case of insane hatred of Jews, of fanatical antisemitism or indoctrination of any kind. He personally never had anything whatever against Jews".
 * Eichmann was a "joiner" his entire life, in that he constantly joined organizations in order to define himself, and had difficulties thinking for himself without doing so. As a youth, he belonged to the YMCA, the Wandervogel, and the Jungfrontkämpferverband. In 1933, he failed in his attempt to join the Schlaraffia (a men's organization similar to Freemasonry), at which point a family friend (and future war criminal) Ernst Kaltenbrunner encouraged him to join the SS. At the end of World War II, Eichmann found himself depressed because "it then dawned on him that thenceforward he would have to live without being a member of something or other". Arendt pointed out that his actions were not driven by malice, but rather blind dedication to the regime and his need to belong, to be a joiner. In his own words: "I sensed I would have to live a leaderless and difficult individual life, I would receive no directives from anybody, no orders and commands would any longer be issued to me, no pertinent ordinances would be there to consult—in brief, a life never known before lay ahead of me."
 * Despite his claims, Eichmann was not, in fact, very intelligent. As Arendt details in the book's second chapter, he was unable to complete either high school or vocational training, and only found his first significant job, as a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company, through family connections. Arendt noted that, during both his SS career and Jerusalem trial, Eichmann tried to cover up his lack of skills and education, and even "blushed" when these facts came to light.
 * Arendt confirms Eichmann and the heads of the Einsatzgruppen were part of an "intellectual elite." Unlike the Einsatzgruppen leaders, however, Eichmann would suffer from a "lack of imagination" and an "inability to think."
 * Arendt confirms several points where Eichmann actually claimed he was responsible for certain atrocities, even though he lacked the power or expertise to take these actions. Moreover, Eichmann made these claims even though they hurt his defense, hence Arendt's remark that "Bragging was the vice that was Eichmann's undoing". Arendt also suggests that Eichmann may have preferred to be executed as a war criminal than live as a nobody. This parallels his overestimation of his own intelligence and his past value in the organizations in which he had served, as stated above.
 * Arendt argues that Eichmann, in his peripheral role at the Wannsee Conference, witnessed the rank-and-file of the German civil service heartily endorse Reinhard Heydrich's program for the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe (die Endlösung der Judenfrage). Upon seeing members of "respectable society" endorsing mass murder, and enthusiastically participating in the planning of the solution, Eichmann felt that his moral responsibility was relaxed, as if he were "Pontius Pilate".
 * During his imprisonment before his trial, the Israeli government sent no fewer than six psychologists to examine Eichmann. These psychologists found no trace of mental illness, including personality disorder. One doctor remarked that his overall attitude towards other people, especially his family and friends, was "highly desirable", while another remarked that the only unusual trait Eichmann displayed was being more "normal" in his habits and speech than the average person.

Arendt suggests that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and different from "normal" people. From this document, many concluded that situations such as the Holocaust can make even the most ordinary of people commit horrendous crimes with the proper incentives, but Arendt adamantly disagreed with this interpretation, as Eichmann was voluntarily following the Führerprinzip. Arendt said that moral choice remains even under totalitarianism, and that this choice has political consequences even when the chooser is politically powerless: "[U]nder conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that 'it could happen' in most places but it did not happen everywhere. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation."

Arendt mentions, as a case in point, Denmark: "One is tempted to recommend the story as required reading in political science for all students who wish to learn something about the enormous power potential inherent in non-violent action and in resistance to an opponent possessing vastly superior means of violence.

It was not just that the people of Denmark refused to assist in implementing the Final Solution, as the peoples of so many other conquered nations had been persuaded to do (or had been eager to do) — but also, that when the Reich cracked down and decided to do the job itself it found that its own personnel in Denmark had been infected by this and were unable to overcome their human aversion with the appropriate ruthlessness, as their peers in more cooperative areas had."

On Eichmann's personality, Arendt concludes: "Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a 'monster,' but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the entire enterprise [his trial], and was also rather hard to sustain in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused to millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly noticed and almost never reported."

Arendt ended the book by writing:

"And just as you [Eichmann] supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations—as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world—we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang."

Legality of the trial
Beyond her discussion of Eichmann himself, Arendt discusses several additional aspects of the trial, its context, and the Holocaust.
 * She points out that Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina and transported to Israel, an illegal act, and that he was tried in Israel even though he was not accused of committing any crimes there. "If he had not been found guilty before he appeared in Jerusalem, guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the Israelis would never have dared, or wanted, to kidnap him in formal violation of Argentine law."
 * She describes his trial as a show trial arranged and managed by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, and says that Ben-Gurion wanted, for several political reasons, to emphasize not primarily what Eichmann had done, but what the Jews had suffered during the Holocaust. She points out that the war criminals tried at Nuremberg were "indicted for crimes against the members of various nations," without special reference to the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
 * She questions Israel's right to try Eichmann. Israel was a signatory to the 1950 UN Genocide Convention, which rejected universal jurisdiction and required that defendants be tried "in the territory of which the act was committed" or by an international tribunal. The court in Jerusalem did not pursue either option.
 * Eichmann's deeds were not crimes under German law, as, at that time, in the eyes of the Third Reich, he was a law-abiding citizen. He was tried for 'crimes in retrospect'.
 * The prosecutor, Gideon Hausner, followed the tone set by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, who stated, "It is not an individual nor the Nazi regime on trial, but antisemitism throughout history." Hausner's corresponding opening statements, which heavily referenced biblical passages, was "bad history and cheap rhetoric," according to Arendt. Furthermore, it suggested that Eichmann was no criminal, but the "innocent executor of some foreordained destiny."

Banality of evil
Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept of the banality of evil. Her thesis is that Eichmann was actually not a fanatic or a sociopath, but instead an average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself, was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of "good society". Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.

Many mid-20th century pundits were favorable to the concept, which has been called "one of the most memorable phrases of 20th-century intellectual life," and it features in many contemporary debates about morality and justice, as well as in the workings of truth and reconciliation commissions. Others see the popularization of the concept as a valuable warrant against walking negligently into horror, as the evil of banality, in which failure to interrogate received wisdom results in individual and systemic weakness and decline.

Alleged Jewish cooperation
Another of the most controversial points raised by Arendt in her book is her criticism concerning the alleged role of Jewish authorities in the Holocaust. In her writings, Arendt expressed her objections to the prosecution's refusal to address the cooperation of the leaders of the Judenräte (Jewish councils) with the Nazis. In the book, Arendt says that Jewish organizations and leaderships in Europe collaborated with the Nazis and were directly responsible for the numbers of Jewish victims reaching the dimensions they did:

"Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people. According to Freudiger's calculations about half of them could have saved themselves if they had not followed the instructions of the Jewish Councils."

The aforementioned Pinchas Freudiger was a witness in the trial, and during his deposition there were many objections from the public. To the accusation of not having advised the Jews to flee rather than passively surrender to the Germans, Freudiger replied that about half of the fugitives would have been captured and killed. Arendt says in her book that Freudiger should have remembered that as many as ninety-nine percent of those who did not flee were killed. Furthermore, she says that Freudiger, like many other leaders of the Jewish Councils, had managed to survive the genocide because they were wealthy and able to buy the favors of the Nazi authorities.

Reception
Eichmann in Jerusalem upon publication and in the years following was controversial. Arendt has long been accused of "blaming the victim" in the book. She responded to the initial criticism in a postscript to the book: "The controversy began by calling attention to the conduct of the Jewish people during the years of the Final Solution, thus following up the question, first raised by the Israeli prosecutor, of whether the Jews could or should have defended themselves. I had dismissed that question as silly and cruel, since it testified to a fatal ignorance of the conditions at the time. It has now been discussed to exhaustion, and the most amazing conclusions have been drawn. The well-known historico-sociological construct of 'ghetto mentality'...has been repeatedly dragged in to explain behavior which was not at all confined to the Jewish people and which therefore cannot be explained by specifically Jewish factors... This was the unexpected conclusion certain reviewers chose to draw from the 'image' of a book, created by certain interest groups, in which I allegedly had claimed that the Jews had murdered themselves."

Stanley Milgram, who would conduct controversial experiments on obedience, maintains that "Arendt became the object of considerable scorn, even calumny" because she highlighted Eichmann's "banality" and "normalcy", and accepted Eichmann's claim that he did not have evil intents or motives to commit such horrors; nor did he have a thought to the immorality and evil of his actions, or indeed, display, as the prosecution depicted, that he was a sadistic "monster".

Jacob Robinson published And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight, the first full-length rebuttal of her book. Robinson presented himself as an expert in international law, not saying that he was an assistant to the prosecutor in the case.

In his 2006 book, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes and Trial of a "Desk Murderer", Holocaust researcher David Cesarani questioned Arendt's portrait of Eichmann on several grounds. According to his findings, Arendt attended only part of the trial, witnessing Eichmann's testimony for "at most four days" and basing her writings mostly on recordings and the trial transcript. Cesarani feels that this may have skewed her opinion of him, since it was in the parts of the trial that she missed that the more forceful aspects of his character appeared. Cesarani also suggested that Eichmann was in fact highly anti-Semitic and that these feelings were important motivators of his actions. Thus, he alleges that Arendt's opinion that his motives were "banal" and non-ideological and that he had abdicated his autonomy of choice by obeying Hitler's orders without question may stand on weak foundations. This is a recurrent criticism of Arendt, though nowhere in her work does Arendt deny that Eichmann was an anti-Semite, and she also did not say that Eichmann was "simply" following orders, but rather had internalized the rationalities of the Nazi regime.

Cesarani suggests that Arendt's own prejudices influenced the opinions she expressed during the trial. He argues that like many Jews of German origin, she held Ostjuden (Jews from Eastern Europe) in great disdain. This, according to Cesarani, led her to attack the conduct and efficacy of the chief prosecutor, Gideon Hausner, who was of Galician Jewish origin. According to Cesarani, in a letter to the noted German philosopher Karl Jaspers she stated that Hausner was "a typical Galician Jew... constantly making mistakes. Probably one of those people who doesn't know any language." Cesarani says that some of her opinions of Jews of Middle Eastern origin verged on racism; she described the Israeli crowds in her letter to Karl Jaspers: "My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic. Some downright brutal types among them. They would obey any order. And outside the doors, the Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies [sidelocks] and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all reasonable people here." Cesarani's book was itself criticized. In a review that appeared in The New York Times Book Review, Barry Gewen argued that Cesarani's hostility stemmed from his book standing "in the shadow of one of the great books of the last half-century", and that Cesarani's suggestion that both Arendt and Eichmann had much in common in their backgrounds, making it easier for her to look down on the proceedings, "reveals a writer in control neither of his material nor of himself."

Eichmann in Jerusalem, according to Hugh Trevor-Roper, is deeply indebted to Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, so much so that Hilberg himself spoke of plagiarism.

Arendt also made use of H.G. Adler's book ''Theresienstadt 1941-1945. The Face of a Coerced Community'' (Cambridge University Press. 2017), which she had read in manuscript. Adler took her to task on her view of Eichmann in his keynote essay "What does Hannah Arendt know about Eichmann and the Final Solution?" (Allgemeine Wochenzeitung der Juden in Deutschland. 20 November 1964).

Arendt also received criticism in the form of responses to her article, also published in the New Yorker. One instance of this came mere weeks after the publication of her articles in the form of an article entitled "Man With an Unspotted Conscience". This work was written by witness for the prosecution Michael A. Musmanno. He argued that Arendt fell prey to her own preconceived notions that rendered her work ahistorical. He also directly criticized her for ignoring the facts offered at the trial in stating that "the disparity between what Miss Arendt states, and what the ascertained facts are, occurs with such a disturbing frequency in her book that it can hardly be accepted as an authoritative historical work." He further condemned Arendt and her work for her prejudices against Hauser and Ben-Gurion depicted in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Musmanno argued that Arendt revealed "so frequently her own prejudices" that it could not stand as an accurate work.

By the 21st century, Arendt had received further criticism from authors Bettina Stangneth and Deborah Lipstadt. Stangneth argues in her work, Eichmann Before Jerusalem, that Eichmann was, in fact, an insidious antisemite. She utilized the Sassen Papers and accounts of Eichmann while in Argentina to prove that he was proud of his position as a powerful Nazi and the murders that this allowed him to commit. While she acknowledges that the Sassen Papers were not disclosed in the lifetime of Arendt, she argues that the evidence was there at the trial to prove that Eichmann was an antisemitic murderer and that Arendt simply ignored this. Deborah Lipstadt contends in her book The Eichmann Trial that Arendt was too distracted by her own views of totalitarianism to objectively judge Eichmann. She refers to Arendt's own work on totalitarianism, The Origins of Totalitarianism, as a basis for Arendt's seeking to validate her own work by using Eichmann as an example. Lipstadt further contends that Arendt "wanted the trial to explicate how these societies succeeded in getting others to do their atrocious biddings" and so framed her analysis in a way which would agree with this pursuit. However, Arendt has also been praised for being among the first to point out that intellectuals, such as Eichmann and other leaders of the Einsatzgruppen, were in fact more accepted in the Third Reich despite Nazi Germany's persistent use of anti-intellectual propaganda. During a 2013 review of historian Christian Ingrao's book Believe and Destroy, which pointed out that Hitler was more accepting of intellectuals with German ancestry and that at least 80 German intellectuals assisted his "SS War Machine," Los Angeles Review of Books journalist Jan Mieszkowski praised Arendt for being "well aware that there was a place for the thinking man in the Third Reich."

title: Eichmann in Jerusalem


text:
User talk:Bera7m

Please discuss your issues here.

I cannot realize the basis for this war
Many a page with many many problems

Help the Zain
Hi. Can you help this guy: Nxzain. I see you know alot about Arabic or whatever, please take a look at my talk and answer his question. Thanks.--HaRpRiT

Urdu Wikipedia
Asalam-o-Alikum

I request you to please contribute to Urdu wikipedia. We are trying hard to build this wiki. Current article count is 617. Your help in any way would be appreciated.Wisesabre 06:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Bera7m


text:
William Cabell Rives

William Cabell Rives (May 4, 1793 – April 25, 1868) was an American lawyer, planter, politician and diplomat from Virginia. Initially a Jackson Democrat as well as member of the First Families of Virginia, Rives served in the Virginia House of Delegates representing first Nelson County, then Albemarle County, Virginia, before service in both the U.S. House and Senate (his final term as a Whig). Rives also served two separate terms as U.S. Minister to France. During the Andrew Jackson administration, Rives negotiated a treaty whereby the French agreed to pay the U.S. for spoliation claims from the Napoleonic Wars. During the American Civil War, Rives became a Delegate to the Provisional Confederate Congress and the Confederate House of Representatives.

Early life and education
Rives was born at "Union Hill", the James River plantation estate of his grandfather, Col. William Cabell, in what was then Amherst County, Virginia and is now Nelson County. His parents were Robert Rives (1764–1845) and the former Margaret Cabell (c. 1770–1815). Robert Rives of Sussex County had served in the patriot army during the final Yorktown campaign, then became a commission merchant (first operating as Robert Rives and Company and later as Brown, Rives and Company), with Thomas Jefferson as one of his clients. He built a plantation, Oak Ridge Plantation, in Nelson County in 1802, where he would bury his wife, and later be buried. On his death in 1845, the personal estate of Rives Sr. would be valued at $100,000 (~$ in ) and included lands in Albemarle, Buckingham, Campbell and Nelson Counties. Three of their sons, including William C. Rives would serve as legislators. Others included Robert Rives Jr. (1798–1869) and future Virginia Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Alexander Rives. His distant nephew Alexander Brown wrote books about the early history of Virginia as well as The Cabells and their Kin.

After private tutoring appropriate to his station, W. C. Rives attended Hampden-Sydney College, followed by the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg. He then studied law with Thomas Jefferson at Monticello in nearer home.

During the War of 1812, he joined the local militia, which defended the Commonwealth.

Personal life
In 1819, Rives married Judith Page Walker (1802–1882), the daughter of Francis Walker, and likewise of the First Families of Virginia. Their eldest son, Francis Robert Rives (1821–1891) followed his father's path into the law and diplomacy, but after returning from his foreign service in 1845, married banker's daughter Matilda Antonia Barclay and lived in Manhattan as well as Dutchess County, New York, with his firstborn son George Lockhart Rives (1849–1917) following family tradition by becoming a lawyer and diplomat (but not owning slaves). This Rives' second son, William C. Rives Jr. (1826–1890), likewise began a legal career and also operated Virginia plantations using enslaved labor. The junior Rives owned the still-standing Cobham Park Estate near Charlottesville, and his son, also William Cabell Rives (1850–1938) donated the Peace Cross and supported building the Washington National Cathedral. The youngest son, Alfred Landon Rives, became a prominent engineer (working on the U.S. Capitol and later for railroads), and his granddaughter Amélie Rives became a novelist, best known for The Quick or the Dead? (1888). The Rives also had daughters Grace Rives (1822–), Amelia Rives Sigourney (1832–1873) and Emma Rives (1835–1892).

Early career
In 1814, Rives was admitted to the bar at Richmond. He began his law practice in Nelson County, but after his marriage moved to her estate Castle Hill, near Cobham in Albemarle County. This remained his primary residence for the rest of his life.

Like his father and other family members, Rives operated his plantations using enslaved labor. In the 1830 federal census, he owned 26 enslaved men and 26 enslaved women in Albemarle County. In the 1850 federal census, he owned 54 slaves in Albemarle County. A decade later, Rives owned 68 slaves and his son William C. Rives Jr. owned 24 slaves in Albemarle County. His brother or nephew Robert Rives Jr. owned 43 slaves in Albemarle County in 1850. and 70 slaves a decade later.

Political career
Rives's political career began by as one of Nelson County's delegates in the state constitutional convention of 1816. Rives then won election and re-election as one of Nelson County's delegates (part time) in the Virginia House of Delegates (serving 1817–19), then won election as one of Albemarle County's delegates in 1822. During that session, his younger brother Robert Rives Jr., also served, as one of the Nelson County delegates.

Rives did not seek re-election to the Virginia legislature because in November 1822, voters in Virginia's 10th congressional district (which included both counties) elected him to represent them in the United States House of Representatives. He also won re-election and served from 1823 to 1829. In 1829 President Andrew Jackson nominated Rives to become Minister to France.

When Rives took office, compensation demands for captured American ships and sailors, dating from the Napoleonic era, caused strained relations between the American and French governments. The French Navy had captured and sent American ships to Spanish ports while holding their crews captive, thus forcing them to labor without any charges or judicial rules. Secretary of State Martin Van Buren, considered relations between the U.S. and France "hopeless." Yet, Rives was able to convince the French government to sign a reparations treaty on July 4, 1831, that would award the U.S. ₣ 25,000,000 ($5,000,000) in damages. However, the French government fell behind in its payments due to internal financial and political difficulties, but after firm insistence from the United States, payments were finally made in February 1836.

Rives was presented as a candidate for the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1835, but the nomination went to Richard M. Johnson, in spite of having been presidential nominee Martin Van Buren's preferred candidate.

After Rives returned from France, Virginia legislators elected (and twice re-elected) him to the United States Senate. He replaced conservative Littleton Tazewell. In 1834, Rives resigned because he disagreed the proposed senatorial censure of President Jackson's removal of government deposits from the Bank of the United States. However, the next legislature again elected Rives as Senator, this time to replace John Tyler (thus he did not succeed himself). During his third term, Rives had become a member of the Whig Party and voted to expunge record of the censure from Senate records.

Rives also served on the Board of Visitors for the University of Virginia from 1834 to 1849, and for many years as president of the Virginia Historical Society.

In 1849, Rives once again accepted an appointment (and the Senate confirmed him) as Minister to France. He served until 1853, when he returned to his Virginia plantations. In 1831, Rives was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society.

Later life and American Civil War
Rives published several books and pamphlets, including the Life and Character of John Hampden (1845), Ethics of Christianity (1855) and Life and Times of James Madison (4 vols., Boston, 1859–68). His wife also published several volumes: The Canary Bird (1835), Epitome of the Holy Bible (1846), Tales and Souvenirs of a Residence in Europe (1842), Home and the World (1857),

In 1860, Rives endorsed the call for a Constitutional Union Party Convention. He received most of Virginia's first ballot votes for president. Rives then became one of Virginia's unofficial delegates to the February 1861 Peace Conference in Washington, which sought to prevent the American Civil War by preserving slavery. Although Rives spoke out against secession, he was loyal to Virginia when it seceded. He served in the Provisional Confederate Congress from 1861 to 1862 and the Second Confederate Congress from 1864 to 1865.

Death and legacy
Rives died at Castle Hill in 1868 and was buried in the family cemetery. In addition to re surviving historic estate homes, Rives is the namesake of the town of Rivesville, West Virginia.

title: William Cabell Rives


text:
Talk:Environmental health

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: BartHarleyJarvis, Sportsphreak73, AMaizing2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cv243, Vne5385.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

how
how is biostatistics used in environmental health

I've worked in environmental health for 35 years and all I can say is that this article is terrible. It's disjointed, has no references, includes an irrelevant section on nutrition and so on. My plan is to completely rewrite it. What are everyone's thoughts?Armona 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'd love to see a rewrite, but don't have a lot of time at the moment.  Still, if you were to start mocking up a rewrite on a page in your userspace, I'd be happy to look at it and make suggestions -- this article has a long way to go.  bikeable (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I am not in the EH field, but the article was ridiculous, so I took the liberty of deleting the nutrition section and at least organizing the rest of the info into contained categories rather than scattered unrelated info. It's not ideal, but at least it's a start, and at least it's better than what was there before. Perhaps those of you in the field can carry on from here. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, gang, I did quite a bit of clean up and adding headings and organizing and making things more coherent. One thing that I think is relevant is for at least a small section on the built environment to be added (since there is currently a large segment on the natural environment, but none on the built environment). Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)\

 * Thank you for starting to clean up this article. It still needs a lot of work IMO.  I agree that the built environment needs to be covered. Armona (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. Yes, obviously it needs quite a bit of work. Since the environmental health field is huge, this article can (and should) be quite large and comprehensive; so I think, beyond being rather fundamental and somewhat choppy, it's now sort of scratching the surface of the field. By the way, some of the stuff that has been deleted over time (I'm NOT talking about the nutrition thing) is still relevant, and was probably just in the wrong place or badly written, or someone was in a bad mood. If someone wants to go through past versions and check for those (I don't have time or inclination right now), it may be worthwhile. Some of my redo was from the earliest version of the article. Lastly, I don't even know what environmental health actually comprises in its totality, so only someone who is in the field can know exactly what needs to be added. For instance, is industrial air pollution the purview of environmental health? Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Environmental health does include industrial air pollution and many other topics ranging from global climate change to the prevention of unintentional injuries. Armona (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That is a very broad definition that is not shared by everyone. For example, "prevention of unintentional injuries" is an element of the safety profession, and many do not consider that to be part of "environmental health."

 * In general, those working most directly on this article should be aware that separate articles already exist for many topics that ARE considered to be part of environmental health. So this article need not cover them in detail but can include a sentence or two along with a reference to the main article on most of them.  As a result, there is no intrinsic need for this artilce to be especially long.  Pzavon (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * "As a result, there is no intrinsic need for this article to be especially long." Granted, although a lot of what is now there is quite interesting and useful; so, should it be necessary to shorten what is now there, I'd like to see the shortened info moved to the revelant subject article rather than completely deleted. Softlavender 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * There is no question among knowledgeable EH professionals that "unintentional injuries" is a component of environmental health, although not addressed in many environmental health programs. It is an environmental health issue because it involves an external disease or injury agent, namely, kinetic energy. Gcarter12 22:55, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Obviously some EH professionals hold that injuries are part of environmental health, since you make the assertion above.  Others do not.  I am among the latter group.  An MS in Environmental Health and 30 years in the field, qualifies me, I think as a "knowledgable EH professional."  Pzavon (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, Pzavon, but your 30 years of experience has trapped your thinking within the traditional and old concepts of environmental health. Unintentional injuries as an environmental health issue is new and has been included as the practice of environmental health becomes more sophisticated.  Kinetic energy is every bit a valid disease agent as electromagnetic energy, wouldn't you agree?  The only difference is that it is a newcomer. Gcarter12 16:29, 05 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Your apparent love of the "new" seems to have blinded you to the fact that a claim that "there is no question among knowledgeable EH professionals" on any topic requires that the vast majority agree. And that is simply NOT the case.  It rarely is the case with something that is "new".   However, in this case, kinetic energy has been recognized as an injury agent (it does not generally produce disease) for longer than Environmental Health has been recognized as a distinct field of study.  Trying to include it within EH seems to me to be a unilateral attempt to incorporate an already existing discipline.  Some might call that empire building.  Pzavon (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * OK Prazon, I have 35 years of experience (albeit no MS) and I direct a local government's environmental health agency so I would suggest that we are equally knowledgeable EH professionals, at least for the purposes of this discussion. In my opinion, the prevention of unintentional injuries is indeed an environmental health issue -- and NOT a new one. We conducted an environmental safety program in my agency back in the 1970s. Armona (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I would also like to add that the U.S. National Environmental Health Association's 2008 Annual Conference will include a section entitled, "Injury Prevention/Occupational Health." Armona (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Most professional conferences of that sort have cross-functional offerings these days. Their presence in any one conference is not "proof" that one field is part of another, merely that practitioners mainly of one field have a real need to understand related fields and be able to function in them at least at a basic level. Look at the Industrial Hygiene offerings at ASSE annual conference, the Safety and the Health Physics offerings at AIHCE, etc., etc. Pzavon (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)\

 * I disagree, there is often overlap between professional disciplines, biology and physics for example. Do you disagree that injury prevention is more a part of environmental health than is geopathic stress, which has a link in the article? Armona (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I had not looked at the geopathic stress link before you mentioned it. It is, in my opinion, clearly unrelated (it redirects to Lay lines) and I have removed it.  Whether injury prevention is more a part of environmental health and geopathic stress is not, in my opinion, a valid question, since I don't think it is part of environmental health at all.  Pzavon (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "how is biostatistics used in environmental health" Biostatistics is an integral component of epidemiology, the science which drives the practice of environmental health. Gcarter12 22:59, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding an overview of the basic disciplines in EH
I think this article would benefit from a brief description of the disciplines of EH (environmental epidemiology, toxicology, exposure science) and how these work together to influence environmental health policy (e.g. through risk assessment). I have served as a teaching assistant for an intro EH course, and this is generally how we introduce the subject, but if you have other suggestions, I welcome them. I just feel that the list of "Concerns" is unorganized and doesn't give any structure to the description of the field. I will add this section, but would appreciate help with finding references aside from the course notes/text. Thanks! --AlisonLC (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a draft, mostly based on the book Environmental Health: from Global to Local, 2nd. edition, edited by Howard Frumkin, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. San Fransico, 2010.
 * == Disciplines of Environmental Health ==
 * Three basic disciplines generally contribute to the field of environmental health: environmental epidemiology, toxicology, and exposure science. Each of these disciplines contributes different information to describe problems in environmental health, but there is some overlap among them.
 * Environmental epidemiology studies the relationship between environmental exposures (including exposure to chemicals, radiation, microbiological agents, etc.) and human health. Observational studies, which simply observe exposures that people have already experienced, are common in environmental epidemiology because humans cannot ethically be exposed to agents that are known or suspected to cause disease.  While the inability to use experimental study designs is a limitation of environmental epidemiology, this discipline directly observes effects on human health rather than estimating effects from animal studies.
 * Toxicology studies how environmental exposures lead to specific health outcomes, generally in animals, as a means to understand possible health outcomes in humans. Toxicology has the advantage of being able to conduct randomized controlled trials and other experimental studies because they can use animal subjects. However there are many differences in animal and human biology, and there can be a lot of uncertainty when interpreting the results of animal studies for their implications for human health.
 * Exposure science studies human exposure to environmental contaminants by both identifying and quantifying exposures. Exposure science can be used to support environmental epidemiology by better describing environmental exposures that may lead to a particular health outcome, identify common exposures whose health outcomes may be better understood through a toxicology study, or can be used in a risk assessment to determine whether current levels of exposure might exceed recommended levels.  Exposure science has the advantage of being able to very accurately quantify exposures to specific chemicals, but it does not generate any information about health outcomes like environmental epidemiology or toxicology.

 * Information from these three disciplines can be combined to conduct a risk assessment for specific chemicals or mixtures of chemicals to determine whether an exposure poses significant risk to human health. This can in turn be used to develop and implement environmental health policy that, for example, regulates chemical emissions, or imposes standards for proper sanitation.  --AlisonLC (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The proposed new Disciplines of Environmental Health would definitely improve the article. I recommend that you go ahead and add it. Armona (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible advertorialising
Hi. I've just removed (for now) a recent addition of rather a lot of material on a specific mapping programme, which looked rather too like advertorialising and also suffered from lack of attention to audiences outside the US. I suggest that a mention of the particualr tool in question can be reintroduced subsequently if these deficits are remedied. John Snow II (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Program Content Of Environmental Health
The following subjects should be known in advance as one prepares to join the expeditious club of the Environmental Health Inspectors; these are Mathematics,Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geometrical & Technical Drawing, Home Economics And English. These prerequisite subject helps a lot and one can never go wrong with this.Collibeey  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.63.9.2 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Navigation boxes for environmental health
I suggest that navigation boxes are created for environmental health. This would make it easier for a user to see the whole discipline and its main parts. This is my first suggestion for the structure. Two separate navboxes would work best, so that they can be used on relevant pages.

For an example, see Template:Disasters.

The box below needs a better categorisation, maybe based on the emission that caused the problem.

 * See also other navigation boxes:
 * Environmental health
 * Public health
 * Disasters

--Jtuom (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

list better read as prose tag
Hi, for the concerns section I disagree with the tag that the list will read better as prose. There's so many items and the bulleting makes it very easy for a reader to read them or skip past them to the next idea. If they were converted to prose I think they'd read worse. Think this is a case where guidelines aren't rules. I want to remove the tag. Any objections? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

My boiler
My boiler packed in on the 23rd December, my landlord have been promising that he’s waiting for a part and coming to do it, but always txting excuses! I’m disabled have 2 children and it is absolutely freezing in this house 51.9.172.101 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Mlclark1 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by Am12058 (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Plans for Revision
Hi everyone! I am hoping to work on this article as a part of my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course for this semester. I plan to expand the "Concerns" section and include more work on environmental racism, air quality, climate change and its effects on health, noise pollution control, and safe drinking water. As I do more research on this topic I may also find other sections to add.

I have made more comments, with a list of sources I plan to use, on my talk page. Please refer there if you have any questions, comments or concerns. CatherineGCC (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities
— Assignment last updated by Asmaley (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 2
— Assignment last updated by English.pr (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Rats on bins
Ra 46.69.243.71 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENV H 453 Industrial Hygiene
— Assignment last updated by Fr33M4Nn4 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Population Health Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Srevisu (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Environmental health


text:
User:BrunoJunqueira

I'm from the Netherlands and I'm absolutely fascinated by prostitution and prostitutes. So I made some contributions.

nl:Gebruiker:BrunoJunqueira

title: User:BrunoJunqueira


text:
2011 Cricket World Cup

The 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup was the tenth Cricket World Cup. It was played in India, Sri Lanka, and for the first time in Bangladesh. India won the tournament, defeating Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the final at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, thus becoming the first country to win the Cricket World Cup final on home soil. India's Yuvraj Singh was declared as the player of the tournament. This was the first time in World Cup history that two Asian teams had appeared in the final. It was also the first time since the 1992 World Cup that the final did not feature Australia.

Fourteen national cricket teams took part in this tournament, including 10 full members and four associate members of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The opening ceremony was held on 17 February 2011 at Bangabandhu National Stadium, Dhaka, and the tournament was played between 19 February and 2 April. The first match was played between India and Bangladesh at the Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium in Mirpur, Dhaka.

Pakistan was also scheduled to be a co-host, but after the 2009's terrorist attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team in Lahore, the ICC cancelled that, and the headquarters of the organising committee, originally in Lahore, was transferred to Mumbai. Pakistan was to have held 14 matches, including one semi-final. Eight of the games (including the semi-final) were awarded to India, four to Sri Lanka, and two to Bangladesh.

Host selection
The International Cricket Council (ICC) announced on 30 April 2006 which countries would host the 2011 World Cup. Australia and New Zealand had also bid for the tournament; if successful, they would have shared the hosting equally, leaving the location of the final still to be decided. The Trans–Tasman bid, Beyond Boundaries, was the only one delivered to the ICC headquarters in Dubai before the 1 March deadline, but the Asian bidders were granted an extension by the ICC. The New Zealand government had given assurance that Zimbabwe would be allowed to compete in the tournament, following political discussions in the country over whether their cricket team should be allowed to tour Zimbabwe in 2005.

The extra time needed for the Asian bid had weakened its prospects, but when the time came to vote, Asia won the hosting rights by ten votes to three. The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has revealed that the vote of the West Indies Cricket Board was decisive, as the Asian bid had the support of South Africa and Zimbabwe as well as the four bidding countries. The Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that the Asian countries had promised to hold fund-raising events for West Indian cricket during the 2007 World Cup, which may have influenced the vote. However, I. S. Bindra, chairman of the Monitoring Committee of the Asian bid, said that their promise of extra profits of around US$400 million had been decisive, that there "was no quid pro quo for their support", and that playing the West Indies had "nothing to do with the World Cup bid".

Format
Late in 2007, the four host nations agreed on a revised format for the 2011 World Cup, identical to that of the 1996 World Cup, except that there would be 14 teams instead of 12. The first round of the tournament would consist of two groups of seven teams. Each team in a group would play all the others once, and the top four from each group would qualify for the quarter-finals. This ensured that every team would play at least six matches.

Qualification
As per ICC regulations, all 10 full members automatically qualify for the World Cup, including Zimbabwe who have given up their Test playing status until the standard of their team improves.

The ICC also organised a qualifying tournament in South Africa to determine the four associate teams who would participate in the 2011 event. Ireland, who had been the best performing associate nation since the last World Cup, won the tournament, beating Canada in the final. The Netherlands and Kenya also qualified by virtue of finishing third and fourth respectively. All 4 associates kept their ODI status as well as Scotland who this time failed to qualify for the World Cup.

List of qualified teams
The following 14 teams qualified for the final tournament.

Pakistan loses co-host status
In April 2009, the ICC announced that Pakistan had lost its right to co-host the 2011 World Cup because of concerns about the "uncertain security situation" in the country, especially in the aftermath of the 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team in Lahore. The PCB estimated that this would lose them $10.5 million. This figure took account only of the fees of $750,000 per match guaranteed by the ICC. The overall loss to the PCB and the Pakistani economy were expected to be much greater.

On 9 April 2009, PCB chairman Ijaz Butt revealed that they had issued a legal notice to oppose ICC's decision. The ICC, however, claimed that the PCB was still a co-host, and that they had only relocated the matches out of Pakistan. Pakistan proposed that South Asia host the 2015 World Cup and that Australia and New Zealand host the 2011 event, but this option did not find favour with their co-hosts and was not implemented.

Allocation of matches
On 11 April 2005, PCB chairman Shahryar Khan announced an agreement on the allocation of games, under which India would host the final, Pakistan and Sri Lanka the semi-finals, and Bangladesh the opening ceremony. After being stripped of its status as a co-host, Pakistan proposed to host its allocated games in the United Arab Emirates as a neutral venue. They had played matches in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Sharjah in the preceding months. On 28 April 2009, however, the ICC announced that matches originally intended to be played in Pakistan would be reallocated. As a result, India hosted 29 matches across eight venues, including the final and one semi-final; Sri Lanka hosted 12 matches at three venues, including one semi-final; and Bangladesh hosted 8 matches at two grounds, as well as the opening ceremony on 17 February 2011.

On 1 June 2010, the first tranche of tickets were put on sale after a meeting of the tournament's Central Organising Committee in Mumbai. The cheapest tickets cost 20 US cents in Sri Lanka. In January 2011, the ICC declared the Eden Gardens ground in Kolkata, India, to be unfit and unlikely to be complete by 27 February, when it was scheduled to host a match between India and England. The match was moved to Bangalore.

Media and promotion
The World Cup has grown as a media event with each tournament. The ICC sold the broadcasting rights for the 2011 event to ESPN Star Sports and Star Cricket for around US$2 billion. For the first time, the tournament was broadcast in high-definition format, and it was to be covered by at least 27 cameras using recent technology. It was also planned to be shown across platforms such as online and mobile 3G. It was the first time that an ICC event had the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS).

The final was watched live by 135 million people in India, as recorded by the ratings agencies TAM and aMap, including 67.6 million Indian cable and satellite viewers. The final was watched by 13.6% of Indian TV-equipped households on average, with a peak of 21.44% at the end of the game, thus beating the semi-final between India and Pakistan, which had an estimated 11.74% TV rating in India for the whole match.

The official event ambassador was Sachin Tendulkar.

Song
The official song of the 2011 Cricket World Cup has three versions, in Bengali, Hindi and Sinhala, corresponding to the three host countries. "De Ghuma Ke" (Swing It Hard) is the Hindi version, composed by the trio of Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy. It employs an array of Indian rhythms combined with elements of rock and hip hop. The Sinhala version, "Sinha Udaane", was adapted by Sri Lankan R&B and hip hop artist Ranidu Lankage and composed by lyricist Shehan Galahitiyawa. Both songs were performed at the opening ceremony. "Sinha Udaane" was performed by Lankage.

Mascot
Stumpy, a young elephant, was the official mascot for the 2011 Cricket World Cup. He was unveiled at a function in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 2 April 2010, and his name was revealed on 2 August 2010 after an online competition conducted by the ICC in the last week of July.

Opening ceremony
The opening ceremony was held in the Bangabandhu National Stadium in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on 17 February 2011, two days before the first match.

Prize money
The 2011 Cricket World Cup winning team would be taking home a prize money of US$3 million and US$1.5 million for runner-up, with the ICC deciding to double the total allocation for the tournament to US$8.01 million. The winning team was also awarded a replica of the Cricket World Cup Trophy, a practice that originated in 1999. The decision was taken at the ICC Board meeting which was held in Dubai on 20 April 2010.
 * US$250,000 – Losing quarter-finalists (4 teams)
 * US$500,000 – Losing semi-finalists
 * US$1,500,000 – Runners-up
 * US$3,250,000 – Winners

Venues
All the Indian stadiums for the tournament had been finalised by mid-October 2009, and those of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in late October 2009. The ICC announced all the venues in Mumbai on 2 November 2009. Two new stadiums were constructed in Kandy and Sooriyawewa, Sri Lanka, for the event.

Umpires
The umpire selection panel selected 18 umpires excluding a reserve umpire, Enamul Haque (Bangladesh) to officiate at the World Cup: five from Australia, three from England, two each from India, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and one each from South Africa and the West Indies.

Australia
 * 🇦🇺 Simon Taufel
 * 🇦🇺 Steve Davis
 * 🇦🇺 Rod Tucker
 * 🇦🇺 Daryl Harper
 * 🇦🇺 Bruce Oxenford

New Zealand
 * 🇳🇿 Billy Bowden
 * 🇳🇿 Tony Hill

South Africa
 * 🇿🇦 Marais Erasmus

Pakistan India
 * 🇵🇰 Aleem Dar
 * 🇵🇰 Asad Rauf
 * 🇮🇳 Shavir Tarapore
 * 🇮🇳 Amiesh Saheba

England
 * 🏴 Ian Gould
 * 🏴 Richard Kettleborough
 * 🏴 Nigel Llong

Sri Lanka
 * 🇱🇰 Asoka de Silva
 * 🇱🇰 Kumar Dharmasena

West Indies
 * Billy Doctrove

Squads
Each country chose a 30-member preliminary squad, which would then be reduced to 15. All the 14 teams announced their final squads before 19 January 2011. Sachin Tendulkar of India played in his sixth consecutive world cup, equalling the record of Javed Miandad (PAK).

Warm-up matches
The following 14 warm-up matches were played before the World Cup started, between 12 February and 18 February 2011. All 14 nations that were qualified to take part in the World Cup participated in a series of matches to prepare, experiment with different tactics and to help them acclimatise to conditions in the Indian Subcontinent. The warm-up matches were not classified as One Day Internationals by the ICC, despite sharing some of main features of this form of cricket, but some of the playing regulations were different from standard internationals in order to allow teams to experiment. For example, the main change allowed for thirteen different players to play in a match – nine players being allowed to both bat and bowl, with two only being able to bowl and two only being able to bat – instead of the eleven players normally allowed.

England, India, Sri Lanka and South Africa were the only teams to win both of their warm-up games, while Australia, Canada, Kenya and Zimbabwe did not win either of their fixtures.

Match status
As of 2007, none of the warm-up games were officially recognised as ODIs or List A matches by the ICC due to various changes in the rules of the game, and this continued into the 2011 World Cup. While normally only 11 players are allowed to bat and field (excluding situations involving a substitute fielder), 13 players were used in each team's squad for the matches – 11 of whom were allowed to field at one time and 11 of whom were allowed to bat (meaning players could be swapped in and out when fielding or bowling, but two players did not bat in a match). In official ICC matches match referees are required to help officiate a game, but due to the changes in the rules none were appointed for any of the warm-up games.

Group A
The top four teams from each group qualified for the quarter-finals (indicated in green).

Group B
The top four teams from each group qualified for the Quarter finals (indicated in green).

Final
The final was played on 2 April between India and Sri Lanka at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai. India were crowned champions after winning by six wickets with only 10 balls remaining. India captain MS Dhoni was named man of the match after an unbeaten, match-winning innings of 91 runs off 79 balls, including the final shot that won the game. Gautam Gambhir contributed with a crucial knock of 97 after India lost early wickets. After the match, the Indian players paid tribute to Sachin Tendulkar, who was playing in his last World Cup. The final had a viewership of about 558 million people all over the world.

Controversies

 * Bangladeshi fans threw rocks at the West Indies team bus as it returned players to their hotel after their win over Bangladesh in Dhaka on 4 March. It was later claimed that the rock-throwers had confused the bus with the Bangladesh team bus. The elite Rapid Action Battalion of Bangladesh arrested 38 people after the attack, and the West Indies later received an apology.
 * The political party Shiv Sena threatened to disrupt the final in Mumbai if the Pakistani team qualified.
 * During the group stage match between India and England, Ian Bell was given not out for leg before wicket despite the ball hitting him in line with the wickets and being on a path to hit the stumps. India captain MS Dhoni referred the decision to the TV umpire, who confirmed the original decision as the ball had struck Bell at a point more than 2.5 m from the stumps, a point at which the reliability of the Hawk-Eye system diminishes below acceptable levels. Dhoni later complained that the rule had deprived his side of what seemed like an obvious wicket. The rules were subsequently revised and the umpires were given new guidelines. The Sri Lankan captain, Kumar Sangakkara, later criticised the decision to alter the 2.5-metre rule while a tournament was in progress.
 * In the final between India and Sri Lanka, loud crowd noise prevented match referee Jeff Crowe from hearing Sri Lanka captain Kumar Sangakkara's call as the coin was tossed by India captain MS Dhoni. The toss had to be redone – an extremely unusual event, especially at an event as prominent as the World Cup final. The second toss was won by Sri Lanka.
 * In June 2020, it was alleged that the final match was fixed and Sri Lanka sold the match to India. Former Sri Lankan Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage said, "The 2011 Cricket World Cup final was fixed. I stand by what I say. It took place when I was the Minister of Sports." Earlier, former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga also claimed the final to be fixed and demanded a probe into the matter. However, in July 2020, the investigation was dropped, after no supporting evidence could be provided to verify the allegations. The ICC added that they did not have a reason to doubt the integrity of the tournament's final.

In media

 * Footage of the final match was purchased by makers and used in their film M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (2016), a Bollywood film based on India captain MS Dhoni.

title: 2011 Cricket World Cup


text:
User:Bera7m

Hello and welcome to my page. Enjoy and discuss.

 * Be delighted.

عنقریب بس ہم انقلابِ وکیپیدیا شروع کردیں گے
یک یادداشت : از درِ ناب ہے خالی صدف کی اغوش...ک

title: User:Bera7m


text:
Litton, Derbyshire

Litton is a village and civil parish in the Peak District of Derbyshire, England. The population at the 2011 Census was 675 (including Cressbrook (within the parish) and the separate parish of Little Longstone). It is one mile from Tideswell and six miles from Bakewell.

The village has a primary school, a public house (the Red Lion ) and a post office run by a co-operative of villagers. There are two churches, one at the east end of the village, and Christ Church at the west, on the outskirts of the village on the road to Tideswell.

Litton has a well dressing each summer. The display is set on a base of moist clay and the patterns formed from petals, seeds, mosses and lichens.

History
When it was first classed as a village in the late 18th century there were only a few houses on the outskirts of Tideswell. Later on, however, a lead mine was built near Peter's Rock. An obelisk-style cross shaft lies atop steps on the village green.

Notable residents
This was the birthplace in 1628 of William Bagshaw, the celebrated Nonconformist divine called the "Apostle of the Peak".

title: Litton, Derbyshire


text: User talk:70.24.163.29

title: User talk:70.24.163.29


text:
Cornered

Cornered may refer to:
 * Cornered (1924 film), a 1924 silent film
 * Cornered (1932 film), a 1932 Pre Code western film
 * Cornered (1945 film), a 1945 film noir starring Dick Powell
 * Cornered! (film), a 2010 horror film starring Steve Guttenberg
 * Cornered (comics), a comic strip
 * "Cornered" (Breaking Bad), a season four episode of Breaking Bad

title: Cornered


text:
Callistratus of Aphidnae

Kallistratos of Aphidnae (Καλλίστρατος, Latinized: Callistratus; bef. 415–aft. 355 BCE) was an Athenian orator and general in the 4th century BCE.

Family
Little is known of his background, though he appears to have been of the liturgical class with interests in commerce rather than agriculture. His father was Kallikratous and he was a nephew by marriage of the Athenian demagogue Agyrrhios, though whose sister married whose brother is unknown. Aphidna was one of the towns of Attica.

Career
The earliest mention of Kallistratos was in 379 when the Theban Pelopidas used his name to gain entry to the home of his rival Leontidas in order to assassinate him. This was the opening gambit in the anti-Spartan party's campaign to retake control of the Theban government and expel the Spartan garrison occupying the Kadmeia. Their success led directly to the Boeotian War (379–75). It is unclear whether Kallistratos was actually involved in the plot or what his name was supposed to mean to Leontidas.

He was already a force in Athenian politics, though, and the next year, after the aborted invasion of Attica by the Spartan Sphodrias, he was elected strategos along with Timotheos and Chabrias.

In 375, during the negotiations that led to the peace treaty ending the war, he is recorded as trying to convince the Theban delegation to give up their dream of uniting the cities of Boeotia in a federation. In this he was unsuccessful and Thebes was the only city involved in the war not to sign the treaty. This, of course, meant that the war was to continue, since Thebes would not give up on the Boeotian Federation and Sparta would not accept its existence.

In 373, Timotheos was commissioned by Athens to take a fleet to the island of Kerkyra to protect it from a Spartan takeover. His ships were undermanned, however, and he was not provided with the funds to pay his sailors and troops. So he spent most of the summer sailing season in the Aegean trying to make up for the shortages. He was unsuccessful in this, though he gained new allies for Athens in the process. He returned to Athens without fulfilling his mission. For this Kallistratos and Iphikrates prosecuted him, but the specific charges are unclear. Demosthenes reports that two heads of state, Alketas of Makedon and Jason of Pherai (Thessaly) came to Athens to support him at the trial and this helped secure his acquittal. His treasurer and confidential agent Antimachos, however, was found guilty, condemned to death, and had his property confiscated by the state.

The next year Iphikrates was chosen to complete the same mission and he chose Kallistratos and Chabrias to accompany him as co-commanders.

In 371, after more years of fighting, Athens sought once again to negotiate peace with Sparta and invited Thebes to attend a conference in Sparta. At this event, three Athenians spoke in an effort to convince the Spartans to accept the peace: Kallias tried to paper over the differences between the two cities; Autokles berated the Spartans for past sins; and Kallistratos, striking a more conciliatory tone, admitted that both sides had made mistakes and they had different interests, but these were no reason to destroy each other in constant war. Making peace sooner rather than later made the most sense.

Kallistratos’ arguments convinced the Spartans and peace was agreed – on the condition that each combatant withdraw its garrisons from all the cities where they were stationed so that all cities could be autonomous. Armies and navies would be dissolved. If any city violated the treaty, anyone could go to war with them, but others were not required to join in. Thebes, once again, chose not to sign if they could not sign for the Boeotian Federation. Sparta, for its part, chose to punish them for this. What followed a few weeks later was the Battle of Leuktra, which marked the beginning of the end of Spartan military dominance in Greece.

Oropos Affair
The coastal village of Oropos lay in the northwest corner of Attica, next to Boeotia. Control of the area had shifted back and forth between Athens and Thebes for generations, and in the year of 366 was an Athenian territory. Certain exiles from the village had induced Themison, tyrant of Eretria in Euboea, to take control so they could return. Athens sent out a regiment commanded by Chares to take it back, but by the time it got there, Thebes had stepped in and taken it for themselves.

In the later Assembly debate over to what to do, Kallistratos and Chabrias advised restraint, expecting that the situation could be resolved diplomatically. When Thebes refused to cede control, the two men were brought up on charges. The specifics are not clear, but in ancient Athens anyone could sue anyone for almost anything. The eloquence of Kallistratos at the trial convinced the jury to acquit them, and in the process inspired a young Demosthenes to embark on a career in oratory.

Exile
In 362/1 Kallistratos was indicted again, but whether it was a renewal of the earlier charge or a new offense is not clear. In this case, he chose exile over trial and was condemned to death in absentia. He made his way to Methone, a seaport in Makedonia, ruled at that time by Perdikkas III. While there he arranged to have the harbor dues doubled from twenty talents to forty.

Demosthenes reported that while there he sought passage on an Athenian warship from Methone to the island of Thasos to see his son-in-law Timomachos, who was in charge of the Athenian garrison there. The trierarch Apollodoros refused, since it was against the law for him to harbor or aid an exile.

Kallistratos eventually did make it to Thasos and from there, in c. 360, was instrumental in helping the Thasians found a colony at Datos, across the strait in Thrace in the territory of Edonia. The city was renamed Krenides and was later taken over by Philip II, who renamed it Philippi.

Return to Athens
From the orator Lykourgos we learn Kallistratos' ultimate fate:"Who does not know the fate of Kallistratos, which the older among you remember and the younger have heard recounted, the man condemned to death by the city? How he fled and later, hearing from the god at Delphi that if he returned to Athens he would have fair treatment by the laws, came back and taking refuge at the altar of the Twelve Gods was none the less put to death by the state, and rightly so, for 'fair treatment by the laws' is, in the case of wrongdoers, punishment. And thus the god, too, acted rightly in allowing those who had been wronged to punish the offender. For it would be an unseemly thing if revelations made to good men were the same as those vouchsafed to malefactors."The date of his return to Athens is a matter of conjecture. Isokrates in On the Peace, written in early 355, makes no mention of his return, thus making that year the earliest it could have been. Lykourgos’ Against Leokrates was written in 330. His comment about younger men having only heard the tale recounted suggests that Kallistratos’ return was not long after 355. The Social War, where Athens was fighting several of its allies, concluded that year and it is possible that Kallistratos saw an opportunity to repatriate at this time of renewed peace. Unfortunately, the anger at his crime of 361 had not abated and even the sanctuary of the Twelve Gods was not strong enough to protect him.

title: Callistratus of Aphidnae