text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ral315

I'm Ral315; I've been a user since November 2004, began editing in December 2004, and became an administrator in September 2005. I'm running for Arbitration Committee for one simple reason: Because I want to help.

The proceedings of the Arbitration Committee have always interested me, since I first joined Wikipedia. Lately, the Committee has been having a very tough time handling its caseloads. I applaud all remaining Committee members for being able to stick through all the burnout that inevitably happens when dealing with so many disputes. I also applaud all members running for Arbitration Committee this year; anyone willing to run for such a time-consuming position must either be extraordinarily dedicated, or insane. From what I've been told, I belong to the latter group.

In all seriousness, the Arbitration Committee serves an important purpose on Wikipedia: Settling disputes between users, and more often, doling out punishments to unruly users. Such a position needs a strong, unbiased user. I feel that I can fulfill these requirements. I do not plan to decide cases based on my personal beliefs, nor on any other user's personal beliefs. Cases should be decided on the merits of the case alone. Too often, both inside Wikipedia and in the real world, problems are decided on personal beliefs and biases. I will keep bias out of my decisions if I am elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Another part of being an Arbitration Committee member is being available to the community. I am regularly available on Wikimedia IRC channels, and I always try to respond to messages left at my e-mail address and on my talk page.

Finally, I think that to be an effective Arbitration Committee member, one mustn't take arbitration too seriously. The main goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The only reason that the Arbitration Committee should ever punish a user is if the user is so disruptive that corrective action is needed.

If you have any questions that I might help answer, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I will try to answer it as soon as I can. Ral 315   WS  03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: I'm fifteen years old, and I'm a college sophomore. My current classes are as follows:

 * Humanities
 * Introduction to Computing
 * Linear algebra
 * Mathematics in Technology (a math programming course)
 * Principles of Marketing
 * State government and politics
 * Structure and logic

I'm also active on my school's Student Senate.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I think that setting a specific number of hours per month is problematic, especially considering how the number of cases has grown significantly since the ArbCom was first created, and would continue to do so over my term. However, I would think that a minimum of 15-20 hours a month is necessary- at the very least, an arbitrator should check all open cases at least 3 times a week, responding as necessary and taking in the specifics of the case. I am definitely willing to do this- I'd wager that I spend, on average, at least an hour a day on Wikipedia right now- perhaps more.

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: To be perfectly frank, I haven't created that many articles- simply because many subjects that I am familiar enough to write an article about already have articles. I do have experience revising articles; for example, I rewrote Jonathan Levin from an easily deletable article that was facing VFD to a decent stub. I think what's more important than having edited thousands of articles is to have good people-reading skills, which is particularly hard over the internet. One of an arbitrator's toughest jobs, in my opinion, is to attempt to figure out whether a user facing arbitration is trolling, or is simply a user who needs a little help getting adjusted to the rules. I feel I'm particularly good at this, which is one of the reasons why I think I'd be a good arbitrator.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: Other than editing under a few IP addresses (very, very rare- usually when I forget to log in), I haven't edited under any other usernames.

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting question. I would say the following:

 * More usage of temporary injunctions. In the case of an editing dispute, I don't see the problem with limiting each party involved to 1 revert a day, or in some cases, completely blocking involved editors from editing the page(s) in question.  This also would give the arbitrators some insight into what their final decision might do- if users break the injunction, it gives ArbCom the knowledge that the user will likely continue to be disruptive.  If the users instead take it to the Talk page, I think you might see, in some cases, the situation resolving itself.

 * Unaccepted arbitration requests brought against users that are more than 30 days old should be removed. Right now, there are 4 cases that were originally filed in late August that have not really been edited in over a week or two, and have not been voted on by ANY ArbCom member in nearly a month.  Requests deleted in this way will be preserved in page history, or in an archive, should a new request be filed, so that old requests can be referred to.

 * ArbCom appreciation day, in which all users send money to ArbCom members. This point shall only be enacted should I be elected to ArbCom :)

 * More use of mediation. Mediation too often gets forgotten in the rush to ArbCom someone.  There's a reason that three steps of dispute resolution were created.

 * The reaffirmation that an RFAr is not used to try and punish someone for misdeeds. While in most cases, there are punishments, minor or major, involved, many requests for arbitration should be little more than a second Request for Comment, except that the arbitrator's findings are mandatory, rather than advised.

 * Tell me if you have any more questions.  Ral  315   WS  05:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question. On weekends I help my dad out at a bowling center he owns, and have had the opportunity to talk to many drunks who would try to BS their way out of a paper bag.  I can't say that I've had many specific opportunities where I've had to judge BS or not, but in most cases I've seen on Wikipedia, it's usually black or white.  Should there be a gray area, I would use my best judgment, assuming good faith in the process.  Ral315 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's necessary to judge the intent of the policies, rather than just the words. WP:IAR is not a way to justify anything you do, it's a policy mainly designed to eliminate red tape when dealing with malefactors.  That's not to say that it doesn't have its uses outside the "red tape" realm, but people need to be wary about using IAR to defend every controversial action they take.

 * When two policies overlap and conflict, my belief is to look at the action, ignoring all policies for a moment, and try to judge what action was taken, why it was taken, and if there were any alterior motives. Then, it's a lot easier to decide which policy takes precedent in such a case.  Take, for example, the current case regarding Chip Berlet.  Involving numerous parties, it appears to be one of the tougher cases they've handled recently.  And it seems like one of the biggest things involved in their proposed decision has been what the parties have done, and why.  Ral315 (talk)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

 * I wouldn't say I have too strong of opinions...while I do hold opinions in many cases, I prefer to rely on facts rather than emotion when viewing arguments. If I felt that my opinions would impede my judgment, I would without question recuse myself.

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

 * I think I'm very willing to contest decisions of arbitrators. At this point, I think that the AC has generally made good decisions, but I would certainly make sure to bring up my opinions.  I don't think it's appropriate to do so publicly, except in rare cases, so I'd probably do so through the private mailing lists if necessary.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

 * No, I don't. There are certainly many cases where it's necessary to re-address the situation, either due to positive or negative behavior of parties involved.  AC rulings are reversible, and if their remedies no longer serve a necessary purpose, or are inadequate, I would make suggestions of that sort.  Even so-called "problem users" deserve to have their cases reviewed when they feel it necessary.

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

 * It depends. In many cases, the behavior of other parties is good.  But I worry about the cases when all parties are at fault.  If we allow parties to bring arbitration in order to avoid punishments against themselves, we're leaving a serious problem open for malefactors to exploit.  In general, I support this decision, but I think we need to be careful about it, certainly.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Questions answered above; thanks. Ral315 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a very good question, and one that I can't address right now, as I'm on my way to work. Let me get back to you, and thanks again for asking.  Ral315 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question. In certain areas, I admit, I am lacking.  But I don't worry about this, because I think to some extent, every arbitrator is going to face topics that they're not familiar with.  In fact, to some extent I feel that having some younger arbitrators might be to an advantage, given our wide technology and pop culture coverage, which I do have background in.  And, I will certainly research topics if I need to, to try and gain insight into the disputes.  Thanks for your question, and sorry I couldn't answer earlier.  Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, to be fair, I doubt most people running for ArbCom know much about these things. It's also important to remember that an older person might not know much about something like the GNU/Linux naming debates.  But if a case were to come up regarding something like this where first-hand knowledge is required, I will do the necessary research to learn about Zulu culture, or Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual.  Thanks again for your questions.  Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Code of conduct (Ted Wilkes)
Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's inherently implied that an ArbCom member must adhere to those standards. I wonder if this is a case of instruction creep, as ArbCom members have on occasion been involved in arbitration cases (Jayjg was admonished in one case, if I remember correctly, for revert-warring).  I think it's important that we hold all members to the same standards, but in its current state, I don't think that code of conduct will do anything but be another page emphasizing the same principles.  Thanks for your question.  Ral315 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input there? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator Experience
As a mediator, what specific steps, actions or ideas of your own did you find most effective in furthering the goals of Wikipedia? Benjamin Gatti 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Specifically, I don't think I furthered any goals. I think in mediation, the goal of a mediator should be to start with a hands-off approach, trying to encourage parties to work to a common goal without doing a significant amount of work.  When a mediator is too involved, accusations of POV are more likely, and it can seem like less of an agreement than when the parties work together.  More generally, I think that I've tried to further the goals of Wikipedia by trying to create a non-confrontational environment where I mediate.  Ral315 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a tough call, certainly. There's a fine line between IAR and making unilateral decisions.  I think whenever an administrator does use IAR to block someone for a long period of time, they have to make sure in their own mind that it's a blockable offense.  By 'blockable offense', I mean something that common sense would rule blockable, not just the limited things that Wikipolicy provides for.  The key thing to remember about IAR is that it's a common sense rule, pure and simple.

 * I believe in any of these cases, a post on WP:AN is necessary- other admins' and users' reactions to the block can be key in showing that a particular block is in line with IAR (or not, in which case the blocking admin should unblock) Generally, I think that of the hundreds of administrators, there's always one who will stand up and protest an unfair block.  Thanks for the question; let me know if there's anything else I can clear up on this point.  Ral315 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

 * No, I think they're instruction creep. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I view the role of civility as very important. Sure, we're an encyclopedia first and a community second, but a lot of the encyclopedia rules (WP:NPOV, etc.) can't work without civility.  Correctness means nothing if the user cannot act reasonably.  I'm human too, so I try to assume good faith, and realize that outbursts will happen, but a person with a significantly uncivil personality is a problem- they can drive off other willing contributors with their words and actions.
 * I'm in college right now, going for a dual major in Math and Computer Information Systems. I take critiques seriously, even if sharply worded or uncivil.  Perhaps I take the words more seriously if done in a kinder tone, but I do try to figure out the root of disputes and fix them.  I think my professors would say the same thing about me; I always try to listen when someone tries to help me.
 * I think the policy is a combination of instruction creep and misguided beliefs. I would abide by most of it as an unofficial policy, but there are some things I disagree with.  For example, I disagree with the "No Lese magesty" section (it encourages vandals to violate WP:Civility with no repercussions), and the "No Damnatio memoriae sanctions" (I believe it contradicts itself, and I believe that some content can be offensive or otherwise inappropriate without violating policy.)

Thanks for your questions. Ral315 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I plan to spend about an hour a day on ArbCom business, give or take. It depends on what's necessary.

 * I don't really have any projects. I do mostly janitorial work, but semi-randomly.

 * I don't think anything would be affected that negatively. The work I do would be instead picked up by other users and administrators.

 * Thanks for the questions. Ral315 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe that stripping an arbitrator of their duties is a dangerous precedent to set. While I do believe that circumstances might occur where an arbitrator is seen to be acting in bad faith, I believe that between Jimbo, the community, and the Arbitration Committee themselves, action can be taken.  If you're referring to the Kelly Martin RFC fiasco, I have to say that I don't believe most of the people voting there believed that she should have been stripped of her post, regardless of their beliefs on her actions.  Censure can take many forms, but stripping someone's post isn't the most likely one to occur.

 * To be perfectly honest, I rarely edit controversial issues, for the sole purpose that I like stopping arguments, not being a party in them. While some might believe that makes me unable to be an arbitrator, I believe it instead allows me to judge the actions from a different view than other arbitrators.

 * Thanks for your questions...let me know if you have any more. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 1. I don't pledge by them as a rule, though I promise to recuse myself if I feel any impropriety in taking the case.

 * 2. I don't agree with the code of conduct in general, because I feel that most of it is instruction creep.  I haven't seen a single arbitrator whom I'd worry about their conduct.

 * 3. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to pledge anything of the sort while running, since it would certainly affect the likelihood of me being elected/appointed to the committee.  Some of my arbitration proposals can be found above.  I do think that the "backlog" is better than it was earlier this year; many of the open cases have stalled due to lack of involvement by the parties in the cases.

 * 4. I may have made some comments, though I don't remember them off-hand.  I mainly didn't vote since it seems none of the proposals had any real chance of taking effect at this point, and because many of them, while well-meaning, would not help the problems facing the ArbCom at this time (i.e. forcing 2 or 3-year terms, etc.)

 * Thanks for your questions. Ral315 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Direction for the Arbcomm
If elected, would the Arbcomm be more interested in personal disputes - such as compaints of failing to assume good faith - or in efforts to ensure that the content of the wikipedia is as factually accurate as its paper peers? In short would you continue the current trend which some might view as placing style over substance? Benjamin Gatti 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the Signpost?
Seeing you signing up to burn yourself up in the ArbCom(semi-kidding) makes me worry bout the future of our beloved Signpost - any ideas of people who can take over your work there if you are elected to the ArbCom? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand this is of concern to a few people. If I were elected, I would continue my work at the Signpost.  One of the nice things about the Signpost is that it's only a hassle on Sundays and Mondays.  I have a lot of time during the rest of the week, of which a small minority is spent on Signpost-related tasks.  If for some reason I couldn't keep up with the duties of both jobs, I'd trust Michael Snow, the previous editor, to help me should he be willing to.  Ral315 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's certainly a bit troubling. I have no trouble at all with templates that say "This user is a Democrat", or "This user drinks Pepsi".  Affiliation is one thing.  Ones like "This user supports George W. Bush" are a little questionable, because those open the door for the opposite view; i.e. "This user hates George W. Bush".  Ones that serve no purpose other than to mock, libel, or anger people violate WP:CIV - even if the policy itself was meant for on-wiki people, off-wiki people are similarly applicable.

 * I'm not sure, however, that the ArbCom is the right place to handle this. The ArbCom policy has always been not to deal with content disputes, which one could argue this primarily is.  I would like to see the community, and Jimbo Wales, take a stand against divisive templates.  The easiest way to control this situation is to create new policy, or reaffirm existing policy, to deal with this.  Ral315 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Perhaps it would help to clarify matters if you could pretend you've been elected as an arbitrator and, in a workshop in an actual case involving community-building and use of template space, you see the following proposed principle. What would be your comment as an arbitrator on this proposal? Would you adopt it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
1) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

 * Comment by (prospective) Arbitrator:
 * I would adopt this principle. While I believe that the community aspect is important, as always, the important thing to remember is that when the two conflict, the encyclopedia must take precedent.  Ral315 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent webcomics case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:


text:
De Paepe

De Paepe is a Dutch surname. Paep is another word for 'Pope'.

People

 * Aldo de Pape
 * César De Paepe: prominent syndicalist.
 * Javier de Paepe: Argentine badminton player.
 * Léon-Jean de Paepe: President of the Privy Council.
 * Lorne De Pape: Olympic curler of New Zealand.
 * Thomas de Paep: Flemish painter

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

title: De Paepe


text: Category:Tourism in the Czech Republic

title: Category:Tourism in the Czech Republic


text:
USS Jarvis (DD-393)

USS Jarvis (DD-393), was a Bagley-class destroyer and the second of three United States Navy ships to be named after James C. Jarvis, a U.S. Navy midshipman who was killed at the age of 13 during the Quasi-War with France. She saw service in the Pacific during World War II and participated in the invasion of Guadalcanal. The destroyer was sunk to the south of Guadalcanal on 9 August 1942, with all hands - one of only two American major surface warships to be lost in World War II with no survivors.

Construction and service history
The second Jarvis (DD-393) was laid down by Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington on 21 August 1935 and launched on 6 May 1937; sponsored by Mrs Thomas T Craven, wife of Vice Admiral Craven. Jarvis was commissioned on 27 October 1937.

Clearing Puget Sound on 4 January 1938, Jarvis operated along the California coast and in the Caribbean Sea until 1 April 1940 when she departed San Diego for fleet exercises off the Hawaiian Islands. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 26 April, patrolled the Pacific to Midway and Johnston Islands and steamed to San Francisco, arriving on 8 February 1941 for an overhaul. Returning to Pearl Harbor on 17 April to commence more than seven months of maneuvers as part of Destroyer Division Eight (DesDiv 8) of Destroyer Squadron Four, she put into Pearl Harbor on 4 December following exercises off Maui Island.

Attack on Pearl Harbor
Three days later the Japanese executed an attack on Pearl Harbor. Moored next to USS Mugford (DD-389) in berth B6 of the Navy yard for minor repairs, Jarvis opened fire with 5-inch guns and machine guns and made preparations to get underway. Her gunners claimed four aircraft destroyed, as the first wave of bombers attacked Battleship Row with torpedoes and bombs. Ensign W. F. Greene made the following entry in Jarvis' Deck Log: "0758 Hostilities with Japan commenced with an air raid on Pearl Harbor. Went to General Quarters." Emerging from the attack with no loss of crew and only superficial damage, Jarvis sortied that morning with several cruisers and destroyers to conduct surveillance and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrols.

First war cruises
On 16 December she cleared Pearl Harbor with the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga (CV-3) and joined Task Force 14, steaming to relieve the beleaguered defenders on Wake Atoll. The task force was recalled to Pearl Harbor on 23 December after the rescue mission was aborted. Jarvis returned to Pearl Harbor on 29 December to resume ASW patrols. While operating with the carrier USS Lexington (CV-2) and her screening cruisers, Jarvis help rescue 182 survivors of the fleet oiler USS Neches (AO-5) six hours after she was torpedoed on 23 January 1942.

Jarvis departed Pearl Harbor on 5 February to escort a convoy to Brisbane, Australia. Following her return on 27 March, the destroyer sailed on 8 April for San Francisco to undergo alterations with the other ships of DesRon Four. She returned to Pearl Harbor on 18 May escorting 13 ships and proceeded five days later via Fiji to Sydney, Australia. Arriving on 18 June, Jarvis commenced convoy escort and ASW patrols from Australia to New Caledonia, continuing with this duty until she was tasked to participate in the invasion of Guadalcanal.

Guadalcanal campaign
Sailing from Sydney on 14 July, Jarvis arrived in Wellington, New Zealand, on 19 July to join Task Force 62. The task force sailed on 22 July for the Solomons. After conducting rehearsal landings in the Fiji Islands from 28 to 30 July, the invasion force of 84 ships and 20,000 Marines steamed for Guadalcanal on 31 July. Protected from Japanese search planes by rain and heavy mist, the force arrived off the landing beaches at dawn on 7 August.

Following naval and air bombardment of enemy defenses, the first amphibious operation of the war commenced at 0650. Jarvis patrolled as part of the protective screen while Marines established a beachhead. As landing operations progressed, the Allied forces expected the Japanese to strike at the transports with land-based aircraft. However, during the two attacks that occurred that afternoon, the American ships sustained only minor damage and claimed to have destroyed 14 attacking aircraft.

Following a night patrol off the southern end of Savo Island, Jarvis returned to Lunga Point to screen the unloading transports. The warning of an impending air attack suspended these operations and the transports and their protective screen deployed in the body of water between Guadalcanal and Florida Island, soon to be called "Ironbottom Sound". When enemy torpedo bombers appeared around noon on 8 August, they met by heavy anti-aircraft fire. Only 9 of the 26 planes penetrated the defensive fire, but they set the attack transport USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) on fire and torpedoed Jarvis as she maneuvered between the heavy cruiser USS Vincennes (CA-44). Although anti-aircraft fire destroyed the aircraft, its torpedo exploded against Jarvis' starboard side near the forward fireroom, stopping her dead in the water and killing 14 crewmen. Her crew jettisoned the port torpedoes and brought the fires under control. The destroyer USS Dewey (DD-349) towed her to shallow anchorage off Lunga Point and after the attack, she crossed to Tulagi, where she transferred her seven wounded and conducted temporary repairs.

Despite a 50 ft gash in her side, she was considered seaworthy and ordered to proceed under cover of darkness to Efate, New Hebrides, escorted by the destroyer minesweeper USS Hovey (DMS-11). Unaware of this order as her radios had been disabled, her commanding officer, Lt. Comdr. William W. Graham Jr, decided to steam to Sydney, Australia, for repairs from the destroyer tender USS Dobbin (AD-3). Unnoticed by her own ships, Jarvis departed Tulagi at midnight on 9 August and moved slowly westward between Savo Island and Cape Esperance. At 0134 she passed 3,000 yd northward of Rear Admiral Mikawa's attacking cruiser force, as they commenced the Battle of Savo Island. Mistaking her for a cruiser of the New Zealand Achilles class, the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Yūnagi briefly engaged her with gunfire and torpedoes, without effect.

The destroyer, continuing to retire westward, had little speed, no radio communications, and few operational guns but she refused aid from the destroyer USS Blue (DD-387) upon being sighted at 0325. After daybreak a Saratoga-based scout plane sighted her 40 miles off Guadalcanal, trailing fuel oil and down by the bow.

Loss of Jarvis
The Japanese, still mistaking Jarvis for an escaping cruiser, dispatched 31 planes from Rabaul to search out and destroy her. Once discovered, the badly damaged destroyer was no match for bombers raking the ship with bullets and torpedoes. According to Japanese records, Jarvis "split and sank" at 1300 on 9 August. None of her 233 remaining crew survived.

Jarvis received three battle stars for World War II service.

title: USS Jarvis (DD-393)


text:
Chavda dynasty

The Chavda (IAST:Chávaḍá), also spelled Chawda or Chavada was a dynasty which ruled the region of modern-day Gujarat in India, from c. 690 to 942. Variants of the name for the dynasty include Chapotkatas, Chahuda and Chávoṭakas.

Vanraja was the founder (746 or 765) of the city of Aṇahilaváḍa and most prominent ruler of the dynasty. According to Prabandhachintámaṇi, he ruled for 60 years. He was succeeded by Yogaraja (ruled 35 years), followed by Kshemraja (25 years), Bhuyada (29 years), Virsimha (25 years) and Ratnaditya (15 years). Ratnaditya was succeeded by Samantsimha (also known as Chuyadadeva) who ruled seven years. Samantsimha did not have any children so he adopted his nephew Mularaja who overthrew him in 942 and established the Chaulukya dynasty.

Sources of information
The chief sources of information regarding the Chavda rule are the opening chapters of the Prabandhachintámaṇi and Vicháraśreṇi, Sukṛitasankírtana, and Ratnamálá. All of these works are written during rule of Chaulukya dynasty, successors of Chavdas. The Prabandhachintámaṇi and Vicháraśreṇi were written by Merutunga. The Prabandhachintámaṇi is a short historical compilation; the Vicháraśreṇi, though a mere list of kings, is more reliable. Kṛishṇabhaṭṭa's Ratnamálá is a poetic history with good descriptions and many fables taken from the Prabandhachintámaṇi. Arisiṇha's Sukṛitasankírtana is a short work largely borrowed from the Vicháraśreṇi.

The reference to them was found in a Navsari copperplate of Chalukya governor of Lata region (modern-day South Gujarat) Avanijanashraya Pulakeshin dated 738-39 CE which enlisted the dynasties defeated by Arabs (Tajika) and finally repelled by him. In it, Chávoṭaka is mentioned after Kachchela and Saindhavas.

Dharanivaraha's Haddala grant dated Shaka 836 (914 CE) mentions himself as Chapas of Vardhamana (now Wadhwan). Dharanivaraha was subordinate of Mahipala of Gurjara-Pratihara (of Kanauj). The grant was issued to Acharya of Amardaka Santana of Vimkala village (Shaiva sect). It also mentions his ancestors; Vikramarka, Addaka, Pulakeshin, Dhruvabhata followed by himself.

Origin
The Chavdas are connected with the Chápas of Bhinmal and Chápas of Wadhwan. Dharanivaraha of Vardhamana's grant mentions origin from the Chapa or bow of Shiva. It was a common practice at that time to associate one's origin with Puranic or mythological traditions. Historically, they originated as unimportant rulers and forest-dwelling thieves.

Early history
A small Chavda chiefship centred at Pañchásar (now a village in Patan district, Gujarat) in the 7th century. The Navsari copperplate prove the early existence of the domain. According to Jackson, they were probably always feudatories of the rulers of Bhinmal.

Jayaśekhara
The author of the Ratnamálá (c. 1230 CE) says that in 696 CE (Samvat 752) Jayaśekhara, the Chavda king of Pañchásar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuvaḍa of Kalyánakaṭaka in Kanyákubja (probably Kanauj) and slain by Bhuvaḍa in battle. Before his death Jayaśekhara, he sent his pregnant wife Rupasundarí to the forest in charge of her brother Surapála, one of his chief warriors. After Jayaśekhara's death, Rupasundarí gave birth to a son named Vanarája.

The truthfulness of the tradition is doubtful. In the seventh century, not Chaulukyas but Gurjara-Pratihara and Pala kings flourished in Kanauj. No place of importance called Kalyánakaṭaka is recorded in the Kanauj territory. The Western Chalukya kingdom with its capital at Kalyán was only established about the middle of the eleventh century. The Chalukyas of Vemulavada lists contain no king named Bhuvaḍa, unless he be the great Chálukya king Vijayáditya also called Bhuvanásraya, who warred in the north and was there imprisoned but made his escape. The Prabandhachintámaṇi and other old records do not mention of an invasion from Kanauj. The attack may be carried out by Gurjara-Pratihara or Arabs mentioned in Navsari copperplate.

Vanraj
Merutunga, the author of the Prabandhachintámaṇi, tells a story that Rupasundarí was living in the forest swinging her son in a hammock, when a Jain monk named Śílaguṇasúri noticing as he passed royal marks on the boy bought him from his mother. The story adds that a nun named Víramatí brought up the boy whom the monks called Vanarája, literally "the forest king". When eight years old, the monk told Vanarája to protect his place of worship from rats. The boy's skill in shooting rats convinced the monk he was not fit to be a monk but was worthy of a kingdom. He therefore returned the boy to his mother. These details seem invented by the Jain writers themselves. No mention of any such story occurs in the Ratnamálá.

In the forests where Vanarája passed his youth lived his maternal uncle Surapála, one of Jayaśekhara's generals, who, after his sovereign's defeat and death, had become an outlaw. Vanarája grew up under Surapála's charge. The Prabandhachintámaṇi records the following story of the origin of Vanarája's wealth. A Kanyákubja king married Maháṇaká, the daughter of a Gujarát king. To receive the proceeds of the marriage cess which the Gujarát king had levied from his subjects, a deputation or panchkúla came from Kanyákubja to Gujarát. The deputation made Vanarája their leader or sellabhrit to realize the proceeds of the cess. In six months Vanarája collected 24 lákhs of Páruttha drammas and 4000 horses, which the deputation took and started for Kanyákubja. Vanarája waylaid and killed them, secured the money and horses, and remained in hiding for a year. With the wealth thus acquired Vanarája enrolled an army and established his power assuming the title of king.

Founding of Aṇahilaváḍa (now Patan, Gujarat), 746–765 CE, he fixed the site of a capital which afterwards rose to be the great city of Aṇahilapura. Vanarája is said to have asked a Bharváḍ or Shepherd named Aṇahila, son of Śákhadá to show him the best site. Aṇahila agreed on condition that the city should be called by his name. Aṇahila accordingly showed Vanarája the place. The city may have been called after some local chief since it was popularly known as Aṇahilaváḍa (Sanskrit:Aṇahilaváta) that is "the place of Aṇahila". In the Prabandhachintámaṇi, Merutuṇga gives 746 CE (S. 802) as the date the installation of Vanarája, while in his Vicháraśreṇi the same author gives 765 CE (S. 821 Vaisakha Śukla 2) as the date of the foundation of the city. The discrepancy may be explained by taking 746 CE (S. 802) to refer to the date of Vanarája's getting money enough to fix the site of his capital, and 765 CE (S. 821) to refer to the date of his installation in the completed Aṇahilaváḍa. Vanarāja secured the support of rich merchants by giving them administrative positions, such as his chief minister Jamba.

Vicháraśreṇi gives 765 (S. 821) seems the more probable date for the installation as the Prabandhachintámaṇi says that Vanarája got himself installed at Aṇahilapura when he was about fifty. This accords with the date fixed on other grounds. Placing Vanarája's birth at about 720 CE would make him 44 in 765 CE (S. 821) corresponding to date mentioned in the Vicháraśreṇi. Merutuṇga in both his works gives the length of Vanarája's life at 109 and of his reign at sixty years. The figure 60 seems to mark the length of his life and not of his reign. So long a reign as sixty years is barely possible for a sovereign who succeeded late in life, and the 109 years of his life can hardly be correct. Taking Vanarája's age at 45 when he was installed in 765 CE (S. 821) and allowing fifteen years more to complete the sixty years, he probably died circa 780 (S. 836), the closing year of his reign.

It is unclear that he had a war with Arab or not as mentioned in Navsari copperplate (739 CE).

Successors
The lists of Vanarája's successors vary so greatly in the names, in the order of succession, and in the lengths of reigns, that little trust can be placed in them. The first three agree in giving a duration of 196 years to the Chávaḍá dynasty after the accession of Vanarája. The accession of the Chaulukya dyansty founder Mularaja is given in the Vicháraśreṇi at Saṃvat 1017 and in the Prabandhachintámaṇi at Saṃvat 998 corresponding with the original difference of nineteen years (S. 802 and 821) in the founding of the city. This shows that though the total duration of the dynasty was traditionally known to be 196 years the order of succession was not known and guesses were made as to the duration of the different reigns. Certain dates fixed by inscriptions or otherwise known to some compilers and not known to others caused many discrepancies in the various accounts.

 * Table of successors

Yogaraja
According to the calculations given above Vanarája's reign lasted to about CE 780. Authorities agree that Vanarája was succeeded by his son Yogarája. The length of Yogarája's reign is given as thirty-five years by the Prabandhachintámaṇi and the Ratnamálá, and as twenty-nine by the Vicháraśreṇi. That is according to the Prabandhachintámaṇi and Ratnamálá his reign closes in CE 841 (S. 897) and according to the Vicháraśreṇi in CE 836 (S. 891). On the whole the Prabandhachintámaṇi date CE 841 (S. 897) seems the more probable. The author of the Vicháraśreṇi may have mistaken the 7 of the manuscripts for a 1, the two figures in the manuscripts of that date being closely alike. If CE 780 is taken as the close of Vanarája's reign and CE 806 as the beginning of Yogarája's reign an interval of twenty-six years is left. This blank, which perhaps accounts for the improbably long reign and life assigned to Vanarája, may have been filled by the forgotten reign of a childless elder brother of Yogarája.

Of Yogarája the Prabandhachintámaṇi tells the following tale. Kshemarája, one of Yogarája's three sons, reported that several ships were storm-stayed at Prabhása or Somanátha. The ships had 10,000 horses, many elephants, and millions of money and treasure. Kshemarája prayed that he might seize the treasure. Yogarája forbade him. In spite of their father's orders the sons seized the treasure and brought it to the king. Yogarája said nothing. And when the people asked him why he was silent he answered: "To say I approve would be a sin; to say I do not approve would annoy you. Hitherto on account of an ancestor’s misdeeds we have been laughed at as a nation of thieves. Our name was improving and we were rising to the rank of true kings. This act of my sons has renewed the old stain. Yogarája would not be comforted and mounted the funeral pyre".

Kshemarája
According to the Prabandhachintámaṇi in CE 841 (S. 898) Yogarája was succeeded by his son Kshemarája. The Vicháraśreṇi says that Yogarája was succeeded by Ratnáditya who reigned three years, and he by Vairisiṃha who reigned eleven years. Then came Kshemarája who is mentioned as the son of Yogarája and as coming to the throne in CE 849 (S. 905). The relationship of Yogarája to Ratnáditya and Vairisiṃha is not given. Probably both were sons of Yogarája as the Prabandhachintámaṇi mentions that Yogarája had three sons. The duration of Kshemarája's reign is given as thirty-nine years. It is probable that the reigns of the three brothers lasted altogether for thirty-nine years, fourteen years for the two elder brothers and twenty-five years for Kshemarája the period mentioned by the Prabandhachintámaṇi. Accepting this chronology CE 880 (S. 936) will be the date of the close of Kshemarája's reign.

Chámuṇḍa
According to the Vicháraśreṇi and the Sukṛitasankírtana Kshemarája was succeeded by his son Chámuṇḍa. Instead of Chámuṇḍa the Prabandhachintámaṇi mentions Bhúyada perhaps another name of Chámuṇḍa, as in the Prabandhachintámaṇi the name Chámuṇḍa does not occur. The Prabandhachintámaṇi notes that Bhúyada reigned twenty-nine years and built in Aṇahilaváḍa Patan the temple of Bhúyadeshvar. The Vicháraśreṇi gives twenty-seven years as the length of Chámuṇḍa's reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives CE 908 (S. 964) as the close of Chámuṇḍa's reign according to the Vicháraśreṇi.

Ghaghaḍa
After Bhúyada the Prabandhachintámaṇi places Vairisiṃha and Ratnáditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The Vicháraśreṇi mentions as the successor of Chámuṇḍa his son Ghaghaḍa who is called Ráhaḍa in the Sukṛitasankírtana. Instead of Ghaghaḍa the Prabandhachintámaṇi gives Sámantasiṃha perhaps a title of Ghághaḍa's. The Vicháraśreṇi gives Ghaghaḍa a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The Sukṛitasankírtana gives the name of this son as Bhúbhaṭa. According to these calculations the close of Ghághaḍa's reign would be CE 936 (Saṃvat 965 + 27 = 992). Adding nineteen years for Bhúbhaṭa's reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to CE 956 (Saṃvat 993 + 19 = 1012) that is five years earlier than S. 1017 the date given by the Vicháraśreṇi. Until some evidence to the contrary is shown Merutuṇga's date CE 961 (S. 821 + 196 = 1017) may be taken as correct.

Ratnaditya was succeeded by Samantsimha (also known as Chuyadadeva) who ruled seven years. Samantsinh Chavda did not have any children so he adopted his nephew Mularaja who overthrew him c. 942 and established the Chaulukya dynasty.

Temples
The Merutunga's Prabandhachintamani states about Vanrajavihara temple at Anahilapathaka (now Patan, Gujarat) as well as the construction of Kanteshwari-prasada by Vanraja. Kanteshwari was the patron goddess of later Chaulukya kings too. Kumarapala has prohibited the animal sacrifice at this temple later. The Prabandhachintamani mentions the construction of the temple of Bhattaraka Shri Yogishwari by Yogaraja at Patan in the early 9th century. The Prabandhachintamani also mentions the construction of Bhuyadeshwara temple built by Bhuyada at Patan in last quarter of the 9th century. According to Haribhadra Suri (middle of the 12th century), Minister Nihhaya's son Lahara had built the temple of Vindhyavasini (Laharadhanuhavi) at Sander in Patan district. He had also founded Narangpura town and built a Panchasara Parshwanath temple for merit of his mother. In the later half of the 9th century, king Yashobhadra had built a Jain temple at Dinduanapura, which is mentioned in Purnagaccha-pattavali. According to an inscription on a bronze, king Raghusena had built Raghusena-vihara at Ramasaiyanpura in 928 CE.

The extant temples this period (Early Nagara phase) include the Roda Group of Temples, Lakodra in Vijapur Taluka, old temple at Thangadh, Ranakdevi's Temple at Wadhwan, the Sun Temple at Kanthkot, Shiva temple at Puaranogadh at Manjal in Kutch. Harishchandra-ni-Chori at Shamlaji, older Bhadreshwar Jain Temple (rebuilt now) and the Temple III of Roda Group of Temples are some other extant temples of the 9th century.

Related dynasties and descendants
Based on Dharanivaraha's grant, it is known that in 914 CE, he, a Chapa or Chavda king, was ruling at Vardhamana (now Wadhwan) as a feudatory of Gurjara-Pratiharya Mahipaladeva. It also mentions his ancestors; Vikramarka, Addaka, Pulakeshin, Dhruvabhata followed by Dharanivaraha. King Vyaghramukha of the Chapa dynasty, who was a patron of the astronomer Brahmagupta and was ruling in A.D. 628, had his capital at Bhillamala (Bhinmal).

Circa 942, one of queens of Sámantasiṃha fled with her year-old child to his father's house in Jaisalmer. This son Ahipata became a formidable outlaw and he was used to ravage dominions of Anahilawada. He conquered more than 900 villages in Kutch and established Morgadh as its capital. He reigned for many years and was succeeded by his son Vikramsi. The lineage of succession was Vibhuraja, Takulji, Seshkaranji, Vaghji, Akheraja, Tejasi, Karamsinha, Takhansinha, Mokasinha, Punjaji. Punjaji lived in the reign of Alauddin Khalji around the end of the 13th century.

During the British Raj, the small Varsoda and Mansa princely states under the Mahi Kantha Agency (now in Gujarat) remained ruled by the claimed descendants of the Chavda dynasty until independence of India in 1947.

title: Chavda dynasty


text:
Center for Immigration Studies

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA.

Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement. The CIS sued the SPLC over the designation, but the lawsuit was dismissed.

History and funding
The CIS was founded by Otis L. Graham and John Tanton. The organization was founded in 1985 as a spin-off from the Federation for American Immigration Reform and is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA. Otis L. Graham, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara was the founding chairman of CIS, and later a founding board member. John Tanton, an ophthalmologist, eugenicist, and white nationalist, was instrumental in its founding. The CIS began as the research arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and became a separate entity in 1986. According to immigration historian Carly Goodman, Tanton created CIS as a separate entity from FAIR so that they could produce research that had a greater appearance of objectivity.

CIS doesn't provide any details about its funding, though the Colcom Foundation is one of its main sources.

CIS has been described as conservative,   a label rejected by the organization. After an NPR story described CIS as "decidedly right-wing", Edward Schumacher-Matos, the then ombudsman of NPR, argued that this mislabelled CIS, noting the organization's "political diversity".

Trump administration
CIS influenced the Trump 2016 campaign and Trump administration's rhetoric on immigration. Trump's first national general election ad cited CIS.

In 2017, CIS analyst Jon Feere joined the Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Trump administration. In his writings for CIS, Feere had claimed that giving birth on U.S. soil gives immigrants access to welfare and other social benefits, and that this gives rise to "birth tourism" (the practice of foreigners traveling to the United States to give birth to U.S. citizens). CNN wrote that "Politifact has mostly debunked those claims, concluding that US-born children do little in the long term to help their immigrant parents. Citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until the young person turns 21 and any social benefits would be given to the child and not their undocumented parents, who do not qualify. The Pew Research Center also has found that the number of babies born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been declining steadily in recent years."

In September 2017, the Trump administration defended its claim that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs" by citing editorials written by members of the Center for Immigration Studies. However, economists consulted by PolitiFact rejected the claim, noting that the job market is not fixed or zero-sum.

In May 2018, President Trump nominated Ronald Mortensen, a CIS fellow, as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, a top state department position overseeing refugee resettlement. Mortensen had been a vocal critic of illegal immigration.

In March 2019, CIS fellow Todd Bensman claimed that female migrants were given free elective laser eye surgery in detention centers, and that their children were given free braces. The Associated Press found the claim to be false.

Policy stances and activities
The Center for Immigration Studies supports lower levels of legal immigration and stricter enforcement measures against illegal immigration.

Support for Trump administration's family separation policy
In 2018, CIS defended the Trump administration's decision to separate undocumented immigrant children from their parents. CIS argued that the policy deterred immigrant families from crossing the US border and said that the policy "actually protects foreign nationals." At a June 2018 event hosted at CIS, outgoing acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, defended the policy.

Opposition to sanctuary cities
CIS opposes sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions which limit cooperation with federal immigrant enforcement agencies or prioritize law enforcement resources for other things than immigration enforcement.

Opposition to work permits for foreign university students
CIS seeks an end to "Optional Practical Training" work permits, which foreign students who attend American universities can use to obtain internships.

Publications
CIS publishes books and posts on its website a variety of announcements, research reports, memoranda, op-eds and articles, panel discussion transcripts, Congressional testimony, and videos. It also maintains a blog. The organization's publications address topics relating to both illegal and legal immigration.

Project 2025
CIS is a member of the advisory board of Project 2025, a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee win the 2024 presidential election.

Criticism
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002 and 2009 on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics. The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.

In a response in the National Review, Krikorian called the SPLC's report "hackwork", and pointed to members of the CIS board who were involved with civil rights organizations as evidence that the group was not a hate group. Tanton also denied the SPLC's accusations. As to his alleged influence at CIS, he wrote, "I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the Center for Immigration Studies, but I have played no role in the Center's growth or development." According to CNN, Tanton openly embraced eugenics. The New York Times noted that Tanton made his case against immigration in racial terms. CIS has consequently been criticized for its reluctance to criticize Tanton and his views.

In March 2010, CIS published a report written by Jerry Kammer, a senior research fellow at CIS, that was sharply critical of the SPLC, its tactics and methodologies, and its attacks against groups such as CIS, NumbersUSA, and FAIR.

In 2004, a Wall Street Journal editorial repeated the SPLC's allegation that CIS is part of a network of organizations founded by Tanton and also charged that these organizations are "trying to stop immigration to the U.S." It quoted Chris Cannon, at the time a Republican U.S. representative from Utah, as saying, "Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons."

Several months earlier, Krikorian denied allegations made in a similarly critical The Wall Street Journal editorial and by Representative Cannon, writing "This kind of venomous lying and guilt by association are par for the course in the fever swamps of the web, but are startling in the halls of the U.S. Congress and the pages of the nation's largest-circulation newspaper." Although former Representative Cannon expressed a negative view of CIS, the CIS website quotes other elected officials, including U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX), former Governor Richard D. Lamm (D-CO), U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), in support of the organization.

In 2016, the SPLC began describing CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group. It cited CIS's repeated publication of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, its employment of an analyst known to promote racist pseudoscience, its association with John Tanton, and its record of publishing reports that it said hyped the criminality of immigrants. In 2019, CIS sued the SPLC over the hate group designation in a RICO lawsuit, alleging that the designation was false and part of a "smear campaign". Notre Dame Law School professor G. Robert Blakey, the author of the 1970 RICO statute, described CIS's filing as "not too thoughtful" and said its legal claims lacked merit. The SPLC described the suit as an attempt to suppress their right to free speech. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2019 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson for failure to state a claim.

Controversial reports
The Center for Immigration Studies has been criticized for publishing a number of reports deemed to be false or misleading and using poor methodology by scholars on immigration, such as the authors of the National Academies of Sciences 2016 report on immigration; by think tanks such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Cato Institute, Urban Institute and Center for American Progress; fact-checkers such as FactCheck.Org, PolitiFact, Washington Post, Snopes and NBC News; and by immigration-research organizations (such as Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Center).

A March 2003 CIS report said that between 1996 and 2001 welfare use by immigrant-headed households had increased and that "welfare use rates for immigrants and natives are essentially back to where they were in 1996 when welfare reform was passed." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said this was misleading because the U.S. children of noncitizens "account[ed] for all of the increase in Medicaid or SCHIP participation among U.S. citizens living in low-income households headed by noncitizens."

In March 2007, CIS issued a report saying that the "proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households." Wayne A. Cornelius of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UCSD, wrote that this was misleading because "once 'welfare usage' is disaggregated, as Camarota does in a table near the end of his report, we see that food assistance is the only category in which there is a significant difference between immigrant- and native-headed households. Immigrants are significantly less likely than natives to use Medicaid, and they use subsidized housing and cash assistance programs at about the same (low) rate as natives."

In September 2011, CIS published a report Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? saying that, in the period 2007–2011, immigrants (legal and illegal) had taken 81% of newly created jobs in the state. According to Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer for the Pew Hispanic Center, "there are lots of methodological problems with the CIS study, mainly having to do with the limitations of small sample sizes and the fact that the estimates are determined by taking differences of differences based on small sample sizes." Chuck DeVore, a conservative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, criticized the report, saying that it "relied on flawed methodology." CIS subsequently replied to DeVore's criticism. The report was subsequently cited by Mitt Romney and David Frum. Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that CIS's report "does acknowledge that 'no estimate of illegal immigration is exact'. But the methodological shortcomings also weaken the certainty of Romney's statistic. On balance, we think that both the report's authors and its critics have reasonable points. In the big picture, we agree with Chuck DeVore – a conservative critic of the study – that 'trying to draw conclusions about immigration and employment in Texas in isolation from other factors is problematic at best.' But we also agree with Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies' executive director, that 'even if DeVore prefers a net-to-net comparison, immigrants still got a disproportionate share of new jobs'."

Norman Matloff, a UC Davis professor of computer science, wrote a report featured at CIS arguing that most H-1B visa workers, rather than being "the best and the brightest", are mostly of average talent. James Shrek of The Heritage Foundation argued that Matloff's methodology was a "highly misleading measure of ability", as Matloff simply looked at the wages of the H-1B visa workers and how they compared to other workers in the sector. Shrek notes that the existing data shows that H-1B workers are more skilled than the average American: "H-1B workers are highly educated. Almost half have an advanced degree. The median H-1B worker earns 90 percent more than the median U.S. worker. They are in no way average workers." Matloff, in his reply, said that H-1B workers were not supposed to be compared to median workers and that Sherk's argument is "completely at odds with the claims the industry has made concerning the "best and brightest" issue" and that comparison to O-1 visa wage data showed that H-1B visas were being used by employers to undercut wages.

In May 2014, a CIS report said that in 2013 Immigration and Customs Enforcement had "freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings ... [and t]he vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law (in fact, in some instances, apparently contrary to law), nor the result of local sanctuary policies." An ICE spokesman said that many such releases were required by law, for instance when a detainee's home country refuses to accept them or required by a judge's order. Caitlin Dickson, writing in the Daily Beast said that ICE had "highlighted key points that CIS failed to address." Associated Press, however, when reporting on CIS's figures, said that "the releases that weren't mandated by law, including [the] 28 percent of the immigrants with homicide convictions, undermines the government's argument that it uses its declining resources for immigration enforcement to find and jail serious criminal immigrants who may pose a threat to public safety or national security." CIS's report was criticized by the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Council who said that "looking at this group of people as an undifferentiated whole doesn't tell you much about who poses a risk to public safety and who does not." Muzaffar Chishti, the New York director of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, said that the CIS report was "a select presentation of a set of facts without any comparative analysis that can lead to misleading conclusions." According to CBS, Gregory Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said the report had "a lot of misleading information" and "that the report's definition of criminals who have been 'released' includes those who are still subject to supervision including electronic ankle monitoring and regular check ins with ICE."

A May 2015 report by CIS stated that "immigrant households receive 41 percent more federal welfare than households headed by native-born citizens." The report was criticized on the basis of poor methodology by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute. Nowrasteh said that the report opted not to examine how much welfare immigrants use, but to examine households led by an immigrant so that the report could count the welfare usage of the immigrant's US-born children, which leads to a misleading estimate of immigrant welfare use.

In September 2016, CIS misrepresented the findings of a comprehensive state-of-the-art report on the academic immigration literature by the National Academies of Sciences. CIS headlined its own summary of the report, "National Academy of Sciences Study of Immigration: Workers and Taxpayers Lose, Businesses Benefit." A 2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study cited CIS's misrepresentation, which was repeated by President Trump, as an example of unscrupulous actors with ulterior motives who make it difficult for researchers to communicate scientific findings to the public.

In 2017, Stephen Miller, a senior White House policy adviser, sought to get the State Department to use figures from CIS that were considered flawed by the State Department. They claimed that refugees cost 12 times more to resettle in the United States than to resettle them in the region of the world where they were from. State Department officials refused to use the CIS report because the report failed to take into account the contributions that the refugees would make through paying taxes.

A February 2017 CIS report said that "72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks", an assertion that several fact-checking agencies debunked. Stephen Miller, a senior White House policy adviser, used the data provided by CIS to justify President Trump's 90-day travel ban, earning him "Three Pinocchois" from the Washington Post Fact-Checker (its second-worst rating). FactCheck.org found that most (44 of the 72) had not been convicted on terrorism charges, and that none of the 72 people were responsible for a terrorism-related death in the US, and Snopes mirrored the assessment.

In March 2018, the Trump administration stated that construction on a Mexico border wall would pay for itself by keeping undocumented immigrants out of the United States, citing a CIS report. The CIS report was based on data from the 2016 National Academies of Science (NAS) report. However, several of the authors of the NAS report said that CIS misused the data from the report, made unjustifiable methodological decisions, and that it was likelier that keeping undocumented immigrants out would reduce government revenue. The 18-member panel of economists, sociologists, demographers and public policy experts, and chosen by the National Academies of Science, concluded that undocumented immigrants had a net positive fiscal impact.

In 2020, CIS published a report arguing that refugees had an adverse fiscal impact. The Niskanen Center pointed out that the report in question used arbitrary and questionable cut-offs to make claims about the fiscal impact of the refugees. For example, CIS downgraded refugees' educational attainment in questionable ways, such as claiming that refugees with medical degrees had only "some college".

title: Center for Immigration Studies


text:
Microsoft Assistance Markup Language

Microsoft Assistance Markup Language (Microsoft AML, MAML) is an XML-based markup language developed by the Microsoft User Assistance Platform team to provide user assistance ("online help") for the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system. It makes up the Assistance Platform on Windows Vista.

MAML is also used to provide help information for PowerShell V2 Cmdlets, modules and advanced functions.

Concept
MAML is a departure from all previous types of user assistance for Windows operating systems. Some of its features have been available in .NET Framework 2, but more options shipped with the release of .NET Framework 3. Previously, user assistance for Windows operating systems used Microsoft Compiled HTML Help files, which contains little machine-readable semantic information.

The most significant aspect of MAML is that it shifts the production of user assistance to the concept of structured authoring (somewhat similar to DITA or DocBook). Documents and their constituent elements are defined by their context. With MAML, the emphasis is on content and the tasks a user performs with a computer, not the features of the software. Presentation is managed as part of the rendering engine when a user requests a topic.

The structured feature of MAML means that it can express a wide range of active concepts as well. One notable feature is guided help (active content wizard), which allows the help file to either run a task automatically or highlight the parts of the screen a user should interact with step-by-step. The feature was a notable aspect of Project Longhorn, yet Microsoft opted not to incorporate it into the ultimate release of Vista.

The MAML authoring structure is divided into segments related to a type of content: conceptual, FAQ, glossary, procedure, reference, reusable content, task, troubleshooting, and tutorial.

Presentation
Three levels of transformation occur when a topic is displayed: structure, presentation, and rendering:
 * The structural transformation contains reusable content and applies conditional logic to determine the structure that content should take when it is displayed, and the content of the text itself.
 * The presentation transformation enables content authored in MAML to be used in many different formats, including DHTML, XAML, RTF, and printed material.
 * The rendering transformation applies style sheets and displays the final content to users.

Authoring
There are no tools to assist in creating MAML; therefore, the XML files must be created manually.

An application such as Notepad, Notepad++, or Infopath may be used to manually create MAML content.

Format
MAML content uses the h1s help file format, which, along with the HelpPane viewer, is found in Windows Vista and Windows 7. The format is similar to Microsoft Help 2 .hxs files. A third party "xHelpMarkup" tool for compiling and decompiling exists, but it is only a wrapper around the BDD 2007 apcompnt and apss.dll tools.

title: Microsoft Assistance Markup Language


text: Talk:List of storms named Ione

title: Talk:List of storms named Ione


text: Talk:List of storms named Irene

title: Talk:List of storms named Irene


text: Talk:List of storms named Iris

title: Talk:List of storms named Iris


text:
Talk:List of storms named Isaac

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hurricane Isaac (2012) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of storms named Isaac


text: File:Campbell cut.jpg

title: File:Campbell cut.jpg


text: Talk:List of storms named Ilsa

title: Talk:List of storms named Ilsa


text: Talk:List of storms named Isidore

title: Talk:List of storms named Isidore


text: Talk:List of storms named Ivan

title: Talk:List of storms named Ivan


text:
Perseus (disambiguation)

Perseus is a figure in Greek mythology.

Perseus may also refer to:

People

 * Perseus (geometer), ancient Greek mathematician
 * Perseus of Macedon, last king of Macedon
 * Perseus of Pylos
 * Perseus Karlström (born 1990), Swedish racewalker
 * Perseus (spy), a Soviet spy at White Sands Missile Range

Fictional people

 * Perseus (Pantheon), a fictional character in Marvel Comics
 * Perseus "Percy" Jackson, the main protagonist of the children's book series Percy Jackson & the Olympians by Rick Riordan
 * Perseus, a fictional character in the light novel series Campione! and its derived works
 * Perseus, a fictional factions in the video game call of duty series Black Ops Cold War
 * Perseus, the code name for Dr. Howard Busgang in the TV Series Chuck

Places

 * Mount Perseus, an ice dome on Candlemas Island, South Sandwich Islands
 * Mount Perseus (British Columbia), a mountain in Canada
 * Perseus Crags, a group of nunataks in Palmer Land, Antarctica
 * Perseus Peak, a summit in the Cook Mountains, Antarctica

Astronomy

 * Perseus (constellation), a constellation in the northern sky
 * Perseus Arm, an arm of the Milky Way
 * Perseus Cluster, a galaxy cluster
 * Perseus–Pisces Supercluster, galaxy cluster chain
 * Perseus molecular cloud, a giant gas and dust cloud
 * Perseids, a prolific meteor shower associated with the comet Swift-Tuttle

Ships

 * HMS Perseus, any of several ships of the Royal Navy
 * USNS Perseus (T-AF-64), a 1944 American stores ship
 * USS Perseus (WPC-114), a U.S. Coast Guard ship built by Bath Iron Works (1932)
 * Perseus (Soviet ship), a Soviet arctic research ship (1922–1941)
 * Perseus (1799 ship), an English sailing ship

Mythology

 * Perseus, son of Danae and Zeus
 * Perseus (son of Nestor), a son of Nestor and Eurydice (or Anaxibia) who appears in the Odyssey

Other uses

 * Perseus (munition), a 900 kg (2,000 lb) bomb made in Greece
 * "Perseus" (song), a song by Hitomi Shimatani
 * Perseus Books Group, a publishing company
 * Perseus Project, a digital library
 * Perseus, a GWR Iron Duke Class steam locomotive
 * Bristol Perseus, an aero engine
 * CVS401 Perseus, a supersonic cruise missile concept
 * Ferranti Perseus, a British vacuum tube (valve) computer
 * UGM-89 Perseus, a cancelled project for an American missile
 * Hero Perseus, a special unit in the video game Age of Empires
 * perseus, the code name of the Xiaomi Mi MIX 3 smartphone

title: Perseus (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Claudio Chiappucci

Chioccioli article
An article called Chioccioli showed up very recently. It's not in fact about Franco Chioccioli but about Claudio Chiappucci, and is a translation of the Italian Wikipedia article on Chiappucci. It showed up as a machine translation and I put it on AfD before I found the original source and translated it better. Anyway, the material probably should be merged into this article, assuming it's verifiable. --Trovatore 03:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Claudio Chiappucci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1992_13.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.team-csc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5013
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wilhelm-gym.de/html/sport/doping/it28_10.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://limburg.hbvl.be/nieuws-sport-wielrennen/2004/03/11/vrijgesproken-conconi-moreel-veroordeeld-door-italiaanse-gerecht.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927025853/http://www.velo-club.net/article.php?sid=5556 to http://www.velo-club.net/article.php?sid=5556
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630040247/http://mrambaul.club.fr:80/coureurs/coureurs_c/chiappucci.htm to http://mrambaul.club.fr/coureurs/coureurs_c/chiappucci.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claudio Chiappucci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120801124415/http://www.dewielersite.nl/db2/wielersite/nieuwsfiche.php?nieuwsid=1203 to http://www.dewielersite.nl/db2/wielersite/nieuwsfiche.php?nieuwsid=1203
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mrambaul.club.fr/coureurs/coureurs_c/chiappucci.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Claudio Chiappucci


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The lords

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr/undefined 19:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The lords
anybody said "another non notable band" ?. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OMG I Just love that band and that song of theirs I failed WP:MUSIC Delete song --JAranda | yeah 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete... too bad the speedy for failing WP:MUSIC was not accepted.--Isotope23 15:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, but with some of the bands coming up in Afd too close to the line, I'd rather they didn't get a speedy category. Mallocks 16:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Antonio Mancini

Antonio Mancini (14 November 1852 – 28 December 1930) was an Italian painter.

Biography

Mancini was born in Rome, Papal States, and showed precocious ability as an artist. At the age of twelve, he was admitted to the Institute of Fine Arts in Naples, where he studied under Domenico Morelli (1823–1901), a painter of historical scenes who favored dramatic chiaroscuro and vigorous brushwork, and Filippo Palizzi. Mancini developed quickly under their guidance, and in 1872, he exhibited two paintings at the Paris Salon.

Mancini worked at the forefront of the Verismo movement, an indigenous Italian response to 19th-century Realist aesthetics. His usual subjects included children of the poor, juvenile circus performers, and musicians he observed in the streets of Naples. His portrait of a young acrobat in Il Saltimbanco (1877–78) captures the fragility of the boy whose impoverished childhood is spent entertaining pedestrian crowds.

In 1871 two of his works, exhibited at the Neapolitan salon, were purchased by two foreign clients, both painters: Per un fiore (For a Flower) by the Canadian-born American painter François B. De Blois and L'ultima medicina (The Last Medicine!) by the French Felix de Lapommeraye. When in Paris in 1877-78, Mancini met the Impressionist painters Edgar Degas and Édouard Manet. He became friends with John Singer Sargent, who famously pronounced him to be the greatest living painter. His mature works show a brightened palette with a striking impasto technique on canvas and a bold command of pastels on paper.

In 1881, Mancini suffered a disabling mental illness. He settled in Rome in 1883 for twenty years, then moved to Frascati where he lived until 1918. During this period of Mancini's life, he was often destitute and relied on the help of friends and art buyers to survive. After the First World War, his living situation stabilized and he achieved a new level of serenity in his work. Mancini died in Rome in 1930 and was buried in the Basilica Santi Bonifacio e Alessio on the Aventine Hill.

His painting The Poor Schoolboy, exhibited in the Salon of 1876, is in the Musée d'Orsay of Paris. Its realist subject matter and dark palette are typical of his early work. Paintings by Mancini also may be seen in Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna e Contemporanea in Rome, the Museo Civico-Galleria d'Arte Moderna in Turin, and other galleries in Italy. In 1903 he painted the portrait of the American ambassador in Italy George Von Lengerke Meyer: believed to be lost, the painting was discovered in 2023 by Italian art historian Manuel Carrera, who found it in the Navy Art Collections, Washington.

The first exhibition in the U.S. devoted exclusively to Mancini's work was at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, October 20, 2007 – January 20, 2008, a museum which owns fifteen oil paintings and three pastels by Mancini that were a gift of New York City art dealer Vance N. Jordan.

title: Antonio Mancini


text:
User:Jondel/Kayumanggi

So as the legend said, God had an oven and he had just fashioned a piece of clay in the form of a  human being he was creating in his own image. He placed that clay figure of a person into the oven. When he opened the oven to see the creation, he was dismayed because the clay was overcooked and therefore charred or black.. So he fashioned another clay figure of a person and again placed the figure inside the oven. Later he opened the oven but he was unhappy about the result, as human form was taken from the open early and therefore the figmentation was light or white.

This time God in his infinite wisdom resolved to do the right thing and have his creation come right. So he carefully fashioned the clay and even talk to it repeating that this third creation will be the product of his love and resolve. He then again placed the form into the oven and when he opened the oven, he was very happy. The human he created is just right and brown. So we should be proud that we are brown skinned. We are God's perfect creation. And the saying is still true: Kayumangging Kaligatan

title: User:Jondel/Kayumanggi


text:
User:Keefer

This is a quick starter page until I get the time to do something more substantial. Mostly it's to prevent the "new page" color showing up on my name. ;)

title: User:Keefer


text:
César De Paepe

César De Paepe (12 July 1841 in Ostend, Belgium – 1890 in Cannes, France) was a Belgian medical doctor, socialist activist and a prominent proponent of syndicalism whose work strongly influenced the Industrial Workers of the World and the syndicalist movement in general. Anticipating modern political philosophy, democracy according to de Paepe would inevitably spread to the economic segments of society and economic organizations: workplace democracy was inevitable. He graduated in medicine at the Free University of Brussels.

De Paepe was a leading member of the First International and was the principal leader of the Collectivist victory over the supporters of Proudhonian mutualism, like Henri Tolain, at the 1868 Brussels conference. Initially siding with the anti-Marxist side of the 1872 split, his subsequent debates with the anarchists of the Jura Federation such as Paul Brousse and Adhémar Schwitzguébel over the "Public Service Question" led him to defend the necessity of a workers' state to provide social services like a public health service.

At the end of 1877 De Paepe, Joseph Favre, Benoît Malon and Ippolito Perderzolli co-founded the review Le Socialisme progressif in Switzerland. Twenty three issues appeared between 7 January and 30 November 1878. Favre, Malon, Lodovico Nabruzzi and Tito Zanardelli had earlier founded the internationalist section of Lake Lugano. They rejected insurrection in favor of evolutionary solutions, and supported trade unions.

Because he flourished after The Communist Manifesto but before World War I, de Paepe's views are inevitably compared to those of Karl Marx. De Paepe was notably neutral on the question of a violent worker revolution by the proletariat. He thought it was possible, and maybe desirable in some countries, but that a slow gradual advancement of democratic values and norms in workplaces would have a pacifying effect and eventually make the methods by which the ruling class ruled obsolete: once everyone was a manager, management would lose mystique, just as once everyone could vote, political leadership had also.

title: César De Paepe


text:
Amani W. A. Kabourou

Aman Walid A. Kabourou (23 May 1949 – 6 March 2018) was a Tanzanian politician.

Elected to the National Assembly for the first time in 1995 as a member of the Chadema, a political party he had served as secretary-general, he won reelection in 2000 and 2005 before joining the Chama Cha Mapinduzi in 2006. He represented CCM in the African Union's Pan-African Parliament. Kabourou also served as member of the second East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) between the period of 5 June 2006 - 4 June 2012. At EALA, he served on the Accounts Committee and the Committee on Regional Affairs and Conflict Resolution. From 2012 to 2017 he served as CCM chairman for Kigoma region.

title: Amani W. A. Kabourou