text:
Classification of Saint-Émilion wine

In 1955, the wines of Saint-Émilion in the wine-growing region of Bordeaux were classified. Unlike the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 covering wines from the Médoc and Graves regions, the Saint-Émilion list is updated every 10 years or so. Following the initial classification, the list was updated in 1969, 1986, 1996, 2006, 2012, and 2022. However the 2006 classification was declared invalid following a series of legal actions, and the 1996 version of the classification has been reinstated for the vintages from 2006 to 2009.

The region's Syndicat Viticole started planning for a classification of St.-Émilion wine in 1930, but it was not until October 7, 1954, that the principles behind the classification became official when the INAO agreed to take responsibility for handling the classification. The first list of classified St.-Émilion estates was published on June 16, 1955, and was amended on August 7 and October 18, 1958. The original list contained 12 Premier grands crus classés and 63 Grands crus classés.

Controversy surrounding the 2006 classification
The fifth classification of St.-Émilion wine, announced in September 2006 and comprising 15 Premiers grands crus classés and 46 Grands crus classés, was challenged by four dissatisfied producers that had been demoted - La Tour du Pin Figeac, Cadet Bon, Guadet and Château de la Marzelle - and has resulted in several confusing legal turns during 2007 and 2008 that currently mean that the 2006 classification is invalid and the 1996 classification is applied instead. The legal dispute has centered on the fact that several members of the panel involved in assessing the wines had vested interests (e.g. as négociants with business dealings with some of the châteaux), and thus could be suspected of not being impartial.

Initially, an administrative tribunal in Bordeaux declared the classification temporarily suspended in March 2007, after which a Bordeaux court suspended the classification indefinitely by denying a motion to lift the initial suspension. After that the Conseil d'État, the French supreme administrative court, on November 12, 2007, overturned the suspension of the 2006 classification, thereby reinstating it. However, this ruling was not final, and only decided that the case of the four demoted châteaux did not merit a suspension of the entire classification. The matter was returned to a Bordeaux court to assess if the complaining châteaux had been fairly treated. On July 1, 2008, this court ruled that the wine tasting mechanism used in the 2006 classification was not impartial, thus again making the entire classification invalid.

Immediately after the ruling, it was estimated that a further appeals process aiming at reinstating the classification could take about two years, and would have an uncertain result. This led the French regulatory body for wine, INAO, to request the French Government to use emergency powers to reinstate St.-Émilion classification, which it did on July 11, 2008. This decision extended the validity of the 1996 classification to the vintages 2006 to 2009. Thus, the complaining demoted châteaux are able to keep their classification, but those who were newly promoted are not. Presumably, this measure will allow INAO to arrange for a less contested classification to be finalised by around 2010.

The reaction among the estates who had their promotions retracted, such as Grand Corbin-Despagne, Monbousquet, Pavie-Macquin and Troplong Mondot, was one of despair, who beyond facing financial consequences stated the decision was unjust, and damaging to the image and community of St.-Émilion. Xavier Pariente of Troplong-Mondot said, "That's almost 20 years of hard work and investment by all the personnel here wiped out at the stroke of a pen. It frightens me and it revolts me".

In December 2008, the French senate had allowed the 8 demoted estates to regain their previous status, with Pavie-Macquin and Troplong Mondot returning to Premiers grands crus classés, while Bellefond-Belcier, Destieux, Fleur-Cardinale, Grand Corbin, Grand Corbin-Despagne, and Monbousquet again to become classified as Grands crus classés, as a result of several months of lobbying. However, in January 2009 this proposal was thrown out by the French government constitutional council.

In March 2009, it was stated that the French Court of Appeal had made a final ruling, that the 2006 Saint-Émilion classification will not stand, although the ultimate outcome was the opposite. A law passed on May 13, 2009, contained a footnote clarifying that the six chateaux promoted to Grand Cru Classe in 2006 would be able to keep their status with immediate effect, and date it back to the date of the classification, therefore the status of the classified estates of 1996, plus the eight chateaux promoted in 2006, is mandated by law until 2011, two years beyond what was previously scheduled.

The 2012 classification
The 2012 classification was conducted differently than previous efforts, with tastings and inspections outsourced by INAO to independent groups with no involvement by St.-Emilion Wine Syndicate and Bordeaux wine trade, but instead wine professionals from Burgundy, the Rhône Valley, Champagne, the Loire Valley and Provence made up a seven-person commission. There is no longer a fixed number of châteaus which can be classified, and the new rankings elevated Château Pavie and Château Angélus to Premier Classe A. Among new Premiers grands crus were Larcis Ducasse, Canon-la-Gaffelière and garagiste producers Valandraud and La Mondotte, while Château Magdelaine was omitted from the list as it will be merged with Château Bélair-Monange. Château La Tour du Pin Figeac (Moueix) did not apply for the 2012 classification, as it was being merged with Chateau Cheval Blanc.

In January 2013, Château La Tour du Pin Figeac (Giraud-Bélivier), Chateau Croque-Michotte and Château Corbin-Michotte filed complaints with a Bordeaux administrative tribunal, claiming there were procedural errors in the selection process. Chateau La Tour du Pin Figeac, had previously challenged its demotion in the disputed 2006 classification without being reinstated in 2012, while Château Croque-Michotte was refused promotion from Grand cru to Grand cru classé. Having been classified as Grand cru classé since the inception of the ranking in 1955, Château Corbin Michotte was declassified in the 2012 ranking, but regained the Grand cru classé status in the 2022 classement.

Classification
As of 2022 (through the 2031 harvest), the classification comprises 14 Premiers grands crus classés (2 'A', 12 'B') and 71 Grands crus classés.

Other categories
Over two hundred other Saint-Émilion wines carry the description "Grand Cru", however this designation is awarded under the basic appellation rules and is not part of the formal 1955 classification. Wines in this category are not seen as being of comparable quality to the Grand Cru Classés.

Notes and references
a.  Promoted to Premier grand cru classé in 2006 and relegated in 2008 b.  Declassified in 2006 and reinstated in 2008 c.  Classified in 2006 and declassified in 2008 d.  Promoted in 2012 e.  Demoted in 2012 f.  Did not reapply for classification, ceased to exist and absorbed into Château Cheval Blanc in 2012 g.  Withdrew in 2021. h.  Withdrew in 2022. i.  Promoted in 2022.
 * Château la Clusière is no longer listed as it is now part of Château Pavie and Château Curé-Bon-la-Madeleine is no longer listed as it is now part of Château Canon.
 * Chateau Guadet changed its name from Chateau Guadet-St Julien in 2005
 * Château Cadet Piola is no longer listed as it is now part of Château Soutard, Château Bergat part of Trottevielle, Château Haut-Corbin part of Grand Corbin and Château Matras now partly in Canon.
 * Château Magdelaine merged with Château Bélair-Monange.

 * General

 * vins-saint-emilion.com

 * Footnotes

title: Classification of Saint-Émilion wine


text:
User:Rebug/sandbox

Someone took a doody in my sandbox. —rebug (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User:Rebug/sandbox


text:
Alheira

Alheira is a type of Portuguese sausage, made with meats (usually pork, veal, duck, chicken, quail or rabbit) and bread.

Although alheira derives from alho (garlic) and was once used to describe any sausage seasoned with it, not all present-day alheiras contain garlic, though it is still a common ingredient.

The type of sausage that became known as "alheira" was invented by the Jews of Portugal, also known as Sephardic Jews, who in 1497 were given the choice of either being expelled from the country or converting to Christianity. Those conversos who remained and secretly retained their beliefs avoided eating pork, forbidden in Judaism; this put them at risk of being noticed not to hang sausages, traditionally made of pork, in their fumeiros (smokehouses). As a way to avoid attracting the attention of the Portuguese Inquisition, or, in rural areas, the Portuguese Christians, they began to make sausages from other meats such as poultry and game, mixed with bread for texture. With time, alheira spread to the remaining population and became an example of typical Portuguese cuisine, though nowadays its preparation is no longer strictly guided by Jewish dietary precepts.

Alheiras were traditionally grilled or roasted and served with boiled vegetables. Nowadays they are often fried and served accompanied by french fries and a fried egg. They are often one of the cheapest items on restaurant menus, although those made with game can be expensive.

Although alheiras are typically associated with the city of Mirandela, the regions of Beira Alta and Trás-os-Montes are also famous for their alheiras.

Varieties with PGI protection status include Alheira de Vinhais and Alheira de Barroso-Montalegre.

title: Alheira


text:
José Joaquín Palma

José Joaquín Palma Lasso (September 11, 1844 – August 2, 1911) was a Cuban writer who was the author of the Guatemalan national anthem's lyrics.

Biography
He was the son of Pedro Palma y Aguilera and Dolores Lasso de la Vega and went to "San José" School in Bayamo under the direction of José María Izaguirre whom he would later meet again in Guatemala. He wrote poetry since his youth and is considered an important Cuban poet.

He joined the revolutionaries of the Ten Years' War in Cuba (1868–1878) and served briefly as a recruiter for the revolutionary forces and as an aid to Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, the leader of the insurrection. When Bayamo was about to fall to the Spanish forces, he set fire to his own house in the citywide fire started by the residents.

He went to Jamaica, New York City and Guatemala in an attempt to gain support for the Cuban insurrection. In Guatemala he met the Honduran Marco Aurelio Soto and his cousin Ramón Rosa who in 1876 -with the help of Guatemalan president Justo Rufino Barrios became president and Prime Minister of Honduras, respectively. He went to Honduras as private secretary to President Soto in 1876 and left this county and returned to Guatemala when Soto resigned as president, forced by his former ally, Justo Rufino Barrios.

Not until 14 years later, in 1910, did he reveal that he was the author. He received a gold medal from the Guatemalan government for his literary and patriotic contributions.

By the end of the 1890s, Palma had developed a strong friendship with public speaker and journalist Rafael Spinola, editor in chief of La Ilustración Guatemalteca and also secretary of Infrastructure of president Manuel Estrada Cabrera; by 1899, Mexican writer and diplomat Federico Gamboa arrived to Guatemala as interim Mexican Ambassador and got to know both Spinola and Palma quite well.

National Anthem of Guatemala

In 1896 the Guatemalan president José María Reina Barrios promoted a contest to select the lyrics of the national anthem - the National Anthem of Guatemala. The winning piece was entered anonymously and won by unanimous decision; Palma was part of the jury that selected the winner lyrics.

In the 1900s, it was frequent that he wrote contributions for the Albumes de Minerva, official proceedings magazine of the Fiestas Minervalias, main propaganda event of president Estrada Cabrera. However, the author of the lyrics of the National Anthem was still in the dark; between 1896 and 1910, Guatemalans were intrigued about the anonymous contributor that won the contest in 1897; but the enigma was over when Palma Lasso -already in his death bed- confessed that he was the famous «Anónymous»; he had not signed with his name given that he was part of the jury in 1897. In the 1910 Fiestas Minervalias the government awarded him with a prize and on 23 July 1911, Guatemalan intellectuals and president Manuel Estrada Cabrera, crown him with a silver laurel crown in his residence.

Death
By early August 1911, Palm was agonizing; his children took care of him until the very last moment -especially Zoila América Ana, who has his inseparable companion- and died at his home on 2 August 1911. A large crowd came to present the respects and to say goodbye to the poet; his remains were covered with the Cuban flag -given that he was the Cuban consul at the time of his death-. His funeral took place at 10:00 am on 3 August; doctor Luis Toledo Herrarte pronounced a speech in representation of the government and Arturo Ubico Urruela, president of Congress, spoke about the terrible loss and how his adoptive country had loved the poet very much. Finally, Rafael Arévalo Martínez wrote a poem in his honor.

Monuments and ceremonies in his honor

 * Theater "José Joaquin Palma", Calle "Carlos Manuel de Céspedes" #172 e/ Perucho Figueredo y Lora, Bayamo, Cuba was named in his honor.
 * On 2 September 1944, general Federico Ponce Vaides, then interim president of Guatemala, issued an extraordinary decree to celebrate Palma's Centennial, however, the political situation Guatemala was going through at the time -after the resignation of general Jorge Ubico- did not permit the ceremonies to go as planned. On 11 September 1944, only the Universidad Nacional held a ceremony in their building, by invitation of doctor Carlos Federico Mora, president of the University.  Doctor Calixto García, business attaché of Cuba in Guatemala, was the guest of honor, David Vela gave the ceremonial speech and José Joaquín Palma, grandson of the poet spoke on his behalf. Then, on the house #27 on the 10 E. street, where Palma died in 1911, both Cuban and Guatemalan national anthems were played and a commemorative plaques was unveiled.
 * Carlos Prío Socarrás government in Cuba declared the house where Palma Lasso was born as a Cuban National Monument in 1951.

Return of his remains to Cuba

In 1951, Cuban president Carlos Prío Socarrás requested Guatemalan president Jacobo Árbenz the return of Palma's remains to Cuba; upon learning that Palma's family agreed to this, Árbenz asked his Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of Education to take care of the ceremonies.

On 16 April 1951, after his remains were incinerated in presence of his family, Cuban Ambassador and a commission of the Guatemalan government, the urn was placed on an artillery cart of the Guatemalan Army and taken to Congress, where it remained for 24 hours, while it had a Guard of Honor of the President and his cabinet, representative to Congress, diplomats, Army cadets, school delegations, teachers, member of the Guatemalan Society of Geography and History, journalist and intellectuals. Doctor Raúl Roa Garcia, director of Culture the Cuban government, made the ceremonial speech and a student choral group sang the anthems of Cuba and Guatemala, and, for the first time, the Hymn to "José Joaquín Palma", composed by Raúl Marchena. To end the ceremony, a bronze plaque with the signatures of Palma Lasso and Rafael Alrez Ovalle – who composed the music the Guatemalan Anthem – was unveiled.

The next day, 17 April, in a ceremony in Congress, colonel Alfredo Lima and doctor Aureliano Sánchez Arango, pronounce a eulogy of Palma Lasso, and stressed the love that he had for his adoptive country, Guatemala. Zoila América Ana Palma de Figueroa, daughter of the poet was in attendance for this ceremony, which ended with a speech by representative Marco Antonio Villamar Contreras, who bid farewell to Palma in the name of the people of Guatemala. Immediately after, his remains were lifted by the Secretaries of Education of both Cuba and Guatemala, doctor Sánchez Arango and Héctor Morgan García, respectively and by the President of Congress and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, Manuel Galich and the general public sang the original Guatemalan Anthem lyrics as they were written by Palma; then, the urn was placed on a military jeep and transported to La Aurora International Airport escorted by Army Cadets.

Once at the cemetery, Morgan García, officially gave the remains to the Cuban delegation. At 1:15 pm, five Cuban airplanes took off back to Cuba, and were escorted by a Guatemalan plane formation to the Atlantic coast.

Cuban president Carlos Prío Socarrás, his cabinet, diplomats, military commanders, journalist, school children, teachers and other guests received Palma's urn at the Rancho Boyeros military airport. Thousand of children with both Guatemala and Cuba flags walked alongside the urn until it was placed in the Hall of the Lost Steps and the government declared national mourning on 17 and 18 April. Palma was awarded the titles of "Bayamo's best son" and "Major general of the Cuban Army".

title: José Joaquín Palma


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Salva Me

More information was added to the page...and there are 1000's of websites out there for music...We cant be on all of them.


text:
Talk:Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?) (Diana Ross song)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 22:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Category:Bird rarities committees

This category groups together articles about bird rarities committees

title: Category:Bird rarities committees


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 27

New try at BC/BCE/AD/CE paragraph
I haven't chimed in before today, but I do think the recent edit war is ridiculous.

Here's the old paragraph:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE."

And here's my suggestion, which I think addresses everyone's stated issues.

Blacklined from my original suggestion (should be the same as the unblacklined version just below): "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. When an article only references includes dates in the CE/AD era, there is no need to use the era name. For dates early in the CE/AD era, it may provide clarity to use the era name but is not required. You should always use era names for dates in the BCE/BC era. When an article references includes dates in the BCE/BC era or both eras, it may provide clarity to include the CE/AD era names, but is not required. You should always use era names for all dates ranges of dates that span both eras . (note that AD precedes the date and all other names follow the date). For example, 1 –1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE. Note that AD precedes the date and all other names follow the date."

Current version (I will list edits below as I make them): "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. When an article only includes dates in the CE/AD era, there is no need to use the era name. For dates early in the CE/AD era, it may provide clarity to use the era name but is not required. You should always use era names for dates in the BCE/BC era. When an article includes dates in both eras, it may provide clarity to include the CE/AD era names, but is not required. You should always use era names for ranges of dates that span both eras.  For example, 1 –1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE. Note that AD precedes the date and all other names follow the date."

Chuck 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Edited Chuck 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Edited to address Rl's concern. Chuck 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That doesn't sound right. When you say "When an article references dates...", you actually mean to say "When a range references dates...". Otherwise it would make no sense. Rl 18:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your replacement, but your point is valid. Changes made above. Chuck 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "When an article references includes dates in the BCE/BC era or both eras, you should use era names for all dates" — Let's take Paris as an example. That article includes dates in both eras ("Paris was occupied by a Gallic tribe until the Romans arrived in 52 BC."). The wording as proposed not only allows, but suggests that we should add era names to all dates in the Paris article. Rl 07:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Do articles, or indeed ranges, reference?

 * Point. I lost some of my confidence in common sense, so I am somewhat sensitive to ambiguous wordings that might fit an agenda. I do not want to end up with editors going through articles adding their flavor of AD/CE to every date just because some events mentioned in the article happened over 2000 years ago. Rl 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I'd appreciate comments on why my version (as modified by Maurreen) above is inappropriate. It's much shorter and it preserves what I am advised the current guidance to be. By reducing all references to BCE/CE/BC/AD to a bare minimum, it improves readability greatly. In particular, note there is no such thing as the "CE/AD era" - introducing new jargon isn't desirable.

Second, the intention is to rewrite what is already there so that it is clearer (in particular to those, like me, who aren't familiar with BCE/CE terminology). Chuck's proposed sentence "For dates early in the CE/AD era, it may provide clarity to use the era name but is not required" appears to be new. Something along those lines may or may not be desirable - whichever it is, it's best to discuss a proposed change separately from the rewrite discussion, jguk 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First, your version is inappropriate because it removes various clarifications that are valuable. In your version, its not even clear what you mean by "date notation".  In the existing version and my suggestions, it is very clear.  In addition, you have a history of POV in trying to remove or reduce any mention of the BCE/CE system.  There's no reason to do so and we're not interested in sanctioning your clear POV.

 * Second, "CE/AD era" is not jargon. I have not created (nor tried to create) a new term.  Slashes are not generally included within terms in English; in fact, a slash is an accepted way in english "to make clear a strong joint between words or phrases" (i.e. "the Ernest Hemingway/William Faulkner generation", "Or maybe this plague/onslaught of bad/ugly slashes is a recent/new phenomenon/thing"). We could go back to using Common Era if you would prefer.

 * Third, the sentence "For dates early in the CE/AD era, it may provide clarity to use the era name but is not required" was added in response to one of the criticisms of your language. Its one sentence, why not discuss it?  We're not talking about that many words here.

 * Fourth, Your stated intention originally was to "state explicitly 'Where an article only refers to events that happened within the last 2,000 years, do not use date notation', and to remove the reference to 'Common Era', which isn't well known." The first of your issues I included in a different form, because "last 2,000 years" is not really what we're trying to get at.  I have also excluded any mention of the term "Common Era".  We're not going to get rid of BCE and CE, though, because they are accepted terms and we're not going to delete them just because you don't like them. Chuck 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree. Chuck's four points, above, are bang on IMO.  The wording he has proposed for the the guideline on eras, along with the strikethroughs, is the best yet.  Sunray 06:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

To respond in order:

1. I've never explained my views on this, so the charge of POV is necessarily one based on your presumptions. Once the recent Slrubenstein proposal failed a number of editors tried to implement it. I, along with a number of others including RickK and violet/riga, resisted this on the grounds that failed proposals shouldn't be implemented through the backdoor. So not much POV there. My other edits have also been fully in accordance with WP guidance, and are not unlike many other edits made by many other editors - so there's no real reason to single me out. My strongest bugbear on WP is that too many articles are needlessly inaccessible to readers - and that this should change. We should write in a style that appeals to our readers (not our editors, or indeed, non-readers). To me, this naturally leads to an abrogation from taking points of view. The deciding factor isn't (or shouldn't) be my personal view, nor the personal view of any other individuals, but rather on what approach is best suited to our readers. This is no different to a commercial website deliberately adopting an approach that it believes will suit its customers, and if WP is to have as wide an audience as possible, is certainly the direction we should be going in.

As far as your comments that the reference to "Neither date notation..." may be unclear - perhaps "Neither the AD nor CE date notation..." would easily solve that.

2. Whether it's termed "jargon" or not, the phraseology is confusing. I also have no idea what the Ernest Hemingway/William Faulkner generation would mean. Does it refer to people alive at any time Hemingway and Faulkner were alive? Maybe to people alive when they were at their most productive? Those influenced by them who were of similar age to them? Or just people of a similar age? Out of context (and this is a short guideline for which there is no detailed explanation of context), it's difficult to understand. I'm quite willing to bet that if I asked the man on the Clapham omnibus what the BCE/BC era or the CE/AD era are, he'd have no idea at all.

3. I'm not unwilling to discuss the proposed change in the guideline, just stating that I think that discussion should be separate from the rewriting of the guideline. The rewrite is not intended to change anything, but only to make it clearer.

4. I thought the last 2,000 years or so was exactly what the guideline was getting at - though I appreciate that I am relying on what others are saying the current guideline means as (even after all this time) I struggle to get much meaning from it myself. If it's not the last 2,000 years, what is it trying to get at? jguk 07:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to comment on Jguk's first point above. His view of what happened is based on assumption, not fact.  He says: "Once the recent Slrubenstein proposal failed a number of editors tried to implement it..." This is simply not true.  As one of the editors involved, and speaking only for myself, I can categorically state that I was in no way trying to implement Slrubenstein's proposal.  I really didn't set all that much stock in the proposal, although I did vote in favour of it.  What I was doing was trying to neutralize Jguk's virulent anti-BCE/CE crusade which had him going all over Wikipedia reverting BCE/CE edits to BC/AD (evidence presented in the ArbCom case on this matter revealed that Jguk had made over 1,000 such changes to over 700 articles).  In cases where I didn't think that was in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I reverted him and attempted to discuss the matter and get consensus on the talk page.  Request to Jguk: Please stop trying to promote an unfactual account of the BC/BCE revert war.  Sunray 19:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems I still have to suffer abuse for preventing an attempt by SouthernComfort to subvert the rejection by the WP community of Slrubenstein's proposal. It failed, SC tried to implement it all the same (and was encouraged to do so by Slrubenstein), and a number of editors weighed in to revert SC's edits, and another number weighed in to revert those reverting SC's edits. By standing up to SC's attempt to enforce his view on political correctness, I admit, I expected to be harangued - those who disagree with political correctness and those who stand up to support the community's decisions always are. But surely it's time to leave this to one side? Unfortunately you continue to try to besmirch me - despite the ArbCom clearly not seeing anything grossly wrong with my edits, like you continue to allege. If you want to present a factual account you will note that ArbCom supported my many edits to make date notation consistent within articles - which the vast majority of those edits were. This is hardly surprising, since the guideline clearly promotes this. Furthermore, they noted that editors should not go randomly changing date notation - thereby vindicating completely my stance of reverting those who have attempted to do so. So let's stop this nonsense about there being a "virulent anti-BCE/CE crusade" - the fact is that such a charge has been looked at by independent arbitrators uninvolved in the dispute, and has been rejected. Why can't you accept the ArbCom decision - which resulted in all participants (which included you as well as me) being reminded of the existing guidance?

 * Suffer abuse? If you stick to the facts, I won't have to take issue.  As to the ArbCom decision, please show me where they "supported" your edits.  They decidedly did not.  Your last comment is factual: All participants were reminded of the existing guidance."  This is factual.  Now perhaps we could begin to start sorting this thing out. Sunray 07:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

So please stop this offensive nonsense of accusing me of an "anti-BCE/CE crusade". You are fully aware of the religious overtones of the word "crusade" and have already admitted that you use it deliberately to cause offence to me. What I have done has been pro-Wikipedia. I have supported the WP community's right to decide things against an editor who refused to accept that decision, and I have copyedited in accordance with current WP guidelines. I have also emphasised throughout the importance of putting our readers first - and that all of our own personal viewpoints, whatever they may be, should have no bearing whatsoever. It's just a shame that other users prefer politicking over making an encyclopaedia with as wide a range of readers as possible.

 * But alas, Jguk, feeling hard done by at the use of the word crusade, lapses back into vitriol, accusing others of politicking. (Of course, he isn't politicking!).  As I mentioned to him before, one of the meanings of the word crusade is: "A vigorous, concerted action to promote or eliminate something."  The word is apt in either sense. Sunray 07:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

With that in mind, can we go back to trying to rephrase this guideline in a way that everyone can understand? As noted, at present I just cannot decipher for myself what they are saying - and I know I am not alone. I have tried to make constructive suggestions myself already. This isn't trying to get one over on anyone - it's an attempt to make something clear to all. It shouldn't really be controversial, and certainly shouldn't have given rise to all this vitriol. Even Maurreen agreed with my edit (which is probably the first time we've ever agreed on anything). It's a shame others couldn't do the same, jguk 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify for the record, I did not object to the edit and I saw no other objections at the time. Maurreen (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course. If you will stick to the facts and cease the vitriol, perhaps we can work on creating something that will be to the benefit of editors and readers.  Sunray 07:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Responses to Jguk's earlier comments.

 * 1) Fortunately, I do not rely on whether you have explained your POV or not. I rely on your statements and actions.  You have consistently tried to elliminate or downplay any reference to BCE/CE dates on the Wikipedia.  And why?  Well, when I see you added one of the lesser known definitions of BCE  — "Before the Christian Era" — to the BCE disambiguation page, without adding the other lesser known definition, the reason for your POV becomes clear.
 * 2) How is there not context? Earlier in this paragraph, we linked to meanings for BCE/CE and BC/AD; that provides the context someone needs to figure out what CE/AD is.  Frankly, even without following the link, it is clear from the sentence "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable" that BCE is at least similar to BC and CE is at least similar to AD.  If someone needs more explanation, they will follow the link.  That's the beaty of wiki.
 * 3) Your rewrite made many more changes than mine did, yet now you don't want to make any changes... I don't get it.
 * 4) In case you've missed it, the current year is 2005. And it changes once every 365 days.  The other term we could use is "in the current era", without capitalization or wikilink.  Everyone who knows BC/AD terms knows that we are currently in AD, and everyone who knows BCE/CE knows we are currently in CE.
 * Response to Jguk's comment directly above:
 * I was not involved in this discussion before the last few days so cannot comment on the earlier stuff. Just by seeing your comments over that period, however, I find it hard to believe you are merely looking out for our poor readers; the evidence is against you on that point.:Chuck 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding in turn: 1. On the BCE disambiguation page, all interpretations of what BCE stands for should be noted - I added one that I knew about and that was missing. I wasn't aware of or didn't remember the "before the current era" interpretation. That's why I didn't add it. I was surprised at the edit summary, to say the least. How can not adding something you're not aware of be POV? Or to put it another way, if you look for bad faith, you will always find it even where there is none. 2/3/4. What's wrong with eliminating the jargon? The less complicated the constructions we use to describe the guideline, the better. The phrase the "last 2,000 years" pretty much suffices. It differs from what was exactly there before by excluding the years 1, 2, 3 and 4 - not a major concern, surely? Perhaps "since the year 1" would be better. 3. You say my proposed wording makes more changes than yours. The only change that I was aware of was technically excluding years 1 to 4 (see above). However, I admit (and have done above), that really I do not understand what the current guideline means. It uses terminology that (even despite all these discussions) I still have no intuitive feeling for or real knowledge of. So I have had to rely on what others have told me it means. As far as your final comment, I'm quite sure that if I, after all this debate, still fail to be able to understand something, that I am far from alone in not understanding it. At work, if I'm told that someone does not understand a sentence I've written, I re-write it. I don't argue that it's perfectly comprehensible (even when it is!). If one person struggles with it, I assume others will too. Conversely, if I can't understand something, it's a pretty fair bet that others can't understand it too, jguk 21:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Considering your level of involvement in the Common Era page, I find that hard to believe.
 * 2) Stop calling it jargon.  There's no jargon.  Say "I don't think that's very clear".  But calling it jargon is no different than an ad hominum attack.
 * 3) Your change eliminates the clarification that AD goes before the year, while BC, BCE, and CE go after the year.  Your change eliminates the clarification that date ranges that span both eras should include the era names.

1. When I first saw the Common Era page the comments in it quite simply did not stand up to scrutiny. The page is much better now, but has been bedevilled in the past by those who are trying to encourage usage of BCE/CE notation rather than actually report on what is meant by the term and what its real usage is.

2. It is jargon - because it is little understood except for a group of professional historians. The term has no currency amongst the general public where I am - I have never seen it. I do not understand the terminology surrounding it, and I do not believe I am alone in it. It is virtually unknown in India, and from the internet it seems it is not in general circulation in Australia, New Zealand or Canada too. Do you not realise that? You may be familiar with the terminology, those around you may be, but the vast majority of the worldwide public are not! I remain frustrated that those who use BCE/CE notation seem either to be unaware of this, or to ignore it completely.

As with most jargon, using it excludes those who do not understand it (and note that articles written by professional historians for other professional historians contain a lot more jargon that just the date notation). Jargon drives those who do not understand it or are unfamiliar with it away from articles (both reading and contributing). In short, it is a bad thing. Now you and your chums can carry on writing history articles for historians - but they will be little-read by non-historians. As far as the general public is concerned, they may as well not exist. I think that's a shame - history should be for everyone, not just an élite - but if the élite are unwilling to share, then there's little anyone can do. As far as a guideline is concerned, it is absolutely imperative that everyone can understand it.

3. This can be easily resolved with an additional sentence along the lines of "AD precedes the year, whereas BC, BCE and CE go after the year". The second point you have is so obvious there's no real need to spell it out - it's part of the general principle that date notation should be used where to do otherwise would make the date being referred to ambiguous, jguk 07:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * BCE/CE is hardly jargon and is not only used by historians. It is used by some of the great museums of the English-speaking world and by a significant number of academics in several disciplines in Australia, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S.  It has gained in popularity as a mechanism used in inter-faith dialogue.  While you are correct that it is not in common usage among the public, is that really a serious concern?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Presumably people who consult Wikipedia do so out of curiosity and in anticipation of learning something.  If a term is unclear, is not the whole point of our project to encourage people to follow links or use the search tool to find answers?  People may then think about issues related to date notation; whether BC/AD is a form of cultural imperialism or not, and whether BCE/CE is a viable alternative.  People can actually form their own ideas about this.  Sunray 09:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * We have a key point of agreement here - although we disagree on its import, namely that BCE/CE notation "is not in common usage amongst the public". I think that is a very serious concern when we are writing for the public. To be a good communicator you use language the person you are communicating to will understand. If you use language they do not understand they will either struggle to understand you and perhaps fail, or (even more seriously) just stop reading.

 * Someone chooses to read an article if it appears to be of interest to them, and I would suggest in the expectation of learning about the article's subject - not about other things. Yes, it is fair to leave links for users to read up on related articles, but that is not why a reader reads an article in the first place.

 * On the issue of date notation, it is quite proper to allow people who wish to read about alternative date notations (or indeed the history of the current worldwide standard BC/AD) to do so. But it is not reasonable to foist notation they will be unfamiliar with on a wide range of articles in the hope that they will wish to learn about date notations. Or put another way, if you read an article about Julius Caesar, do you not want to read about Caesar? You may want to go on to read more about the Roman Empire, his predecessors and successors - but it's quite a stretch of the imagination to suppose someone wants to read about date notation.

 * In summary, since we should be writing for the public, and BCE/CE noation is not in common usage amongst the public, we should not use it. However, where it is appropriate for the issue at hand (which is not the case for all historical articles or indeed many of them), we should provide links to the Anno Domini and Common Era articles. I have no problem with people who want to learn about BCE/CE being able to do so on WP, I do have a problem with people who have no desire to learn about BCE/CE having many articles made inaccessible to them in the hope that they may learn, jguk 11:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You're repeating yourself. The terms are reasonably commonly used, and are becoming more common all the time.  Having them in an article is no great hardship for the reader, nor does it cause any major confusion. Jayjg (talk)  17:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Define reasonably commonly used. Why should a reader endure any hardship? --ClemMcGann 21:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hardship? How on earth is it a hardship to read an abreviation that one is unfamiliar with? It happens all the time.  You don't give our readership much credit for being able to figure it out (as I did, the first time I encountered the term) or for being curious, or for wanting to learn.  As to how common it is, a great deal of evidence has been presented that it is increasingly common (see the Common Era article).  Some folks resist BCE/CE notation and would rather it went away.  But it will not go away since the basis of the term is respect for readers from non-Christian cultures.  Sunray 23:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hardship was your word, not mine. OK, Why should readers have to “figure it out”? It is not a matter of “wanting to learn”, what is there to learn? You are, I suggest, mistaken is assuming that this is an issue of “respect for readers from non-Christian cultures”. The use of CE meaning “Christian Era” is already twice as common as “Common Era”. Just do a Google. I asked for evidence to support your contention that “The terms are reasonably commonly used, and are becoming more common all the time”. You offer the article Common Era, an article which does little to recommend itself. Until a week ago it included the false allegation that “It corresponds to Oxford style and is used in the Oxford English Dictionary and ODWR”. You will be glad to know that this falsehood was deleted. The arguments in favor of CE are supported by articles from answers.com and from h2g2. It seems strange to me to see WP depending on another wiki as a reference. Yet the h2g2 wiki has resolved this question itself – in uses BC/AD! Perhaps we should amend the Common Era article here to reflect that reality? --ClemMcGann 09:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This is straying rather wide of the scope of this talk page. it makes no sense to discuss the contents of the Common Era article here. I merely referenced that page to refer to usage (there are references in the body of the article).  You have a strong point of view on this and I am sure that nothing I could say will modify it.  However, it is a fact that within established  Wikipedia policy, either form of date notation is acceptable.  The guideline on Consensus provides the groundrules for agreeing on wording on particular pages.  Perhaps you could try to live with that.  Sunray 14:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hardship was your word, not mine, just as you referenced the Common Era article. I have yet to hear any valid arguments to favour CE. You mention consensus and mention living within it. I am pleased that you make that suggestion. Hopefully it means that you have adjusted you position. It was regrettable to see unilateral changes to dates. I have made the case for retaining the familiar BC notation on talk pages. I have yet to actually alter any date. I now hope that, in time, you will consider the reputation of wikipedia and the impact that this unusual notation has on our audience. In the meanwhile, lets see how the manual of style can be clarified. Regards, --ClemMcGann 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Revised suggestion
Replace:

''Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE .''

With:

''Where it may be ambiguous as to which year in the Julian or Gregorian calendar is being referred to, use either BC and AD notation or BCE and CE notation to make it clear which year is being referred to. However, be consistent - that is, do not mix up BC/AD and BCE/CE notation within the same article. Neither AD nor CE notation should be used for articles dealing with events wholly within the last 2,000 years. Note that AD precedes the year, but BC, BCE and CE are shown after the year. For example: AD 230, but 150 BC, 20 CE] and [[135 BC|135 BCE.''

I think this covers the main objections to the earlier draft. The only "change" is that technically the years 1 to 4 are not within the last 2,000 years, but I do not see this as significant, jguk 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This proposed change doesn't seem to me to be as clear as the current wording of the MoS. In fact, I confess I really do not see why we would need to make a change to the current wording.  It is relatively simple and straight forward.  It informs the writer and gives guidance.  In short, it seems a good guideline.  Have I missed something?  Sunray 09:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. The current wording isn't clear to everyone - as evidenced by a proposal that was made actually to modify the proposal, and gaining some acceptance (by those unfamiliar with BCE/CE notation), being shouted down by others who were familiar with BCE/CE notation saying that the guideline already said what they were proposing. The aim is to get a guideline that everyone can understand, jguk 09:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Some minor edits to Jguk and one major addition: "Where it may be ambiguous as to which era of the Julian or Gregorian calendar is being referred to, use either BC and AD notation or BCE and CE notation to clarify. However, do not mix up BC/AD and BCE/CE notation within the same article. Neither AD nor CE notation need be used for articles dealing with events wholly within the last 2,000 years. Notation should always be used for dates in the BC or BCE era, or for date ranges that span both eras (such as 3 BC-5|AD 5). Note that AD precedes the year, but BC, BCE and CE are shown after the year. For example: AD 230, but 150 BC, 20 CE and 135 BCE."Chuck 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No one has been able to explain why we need to re-word the guideline on dates and numbers (eras). Jguk says that it isn't clear to everyone, but fails to explain in what way it is unclear.  What is unclear about it? Sunray 06:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I (and others, it appears) cannot understand it. It's hard to explain - you use and are familiar with BCE/CE terminology, etc. - I am not. Anything using this, talk of eras (which to me is a sort of general rather than a precise concept), and lots of abbreviations are just confusing. Pretend you'd never heard of BCE/CE terminology or the "common era" and you'll get close to how at sea I am with the phrasing, jguk 06:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a stupid controversy - the policy should be that both terminologies are acceptable, but changing terminologies on a page is not acceptable. Whatever system (CE/AD) is first used on an article should remain that way. It's a pity so much time is spent doing this rather than worthwhile things... FranksValli 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT/ADDITION: In the future, or perhaps now, perhaps Wikipedia should have a policy that the CE/AD notation is not necessary for non-BCE/BC dates. In other words, timespans should only mention the numerical number of the year, as it's pretty self-explanatory they are CE/AD.  Someone will probably think this is too extreme (the horror!), but it's a good way to resolve the debate, as the majority of pages are CE/AD.  For the remaining that are BC/BCE or span between BC/BCE and AD/CE, the policy I mentioned above should apply. FranksValli 01:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate to break this to you, but that is exactly the current policy. Jguk doesn't think its very clear, though. Chuck 04:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comma
This brings up one of my pet peeves. Assuming wiki links are used, if someone writes "December 7, 1941, is a day that lives in infamy," some will see it correctly with a comma following the year. But some will see it as "7 December 1941, is a day that lives in infamy," where the comma following the year is incorrect. —Wayward 21:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Wayward, I share your pet peeve. But as a practical matter, I doubt anything can be done. Maurreen (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't there a split in the authorities as to whether that second common belongs there? If so, or even if not, we could say that Wikipedia policy is to not use it here, not to put a comma following the year unless it belongs there for other reasons.  But I have a similar pet peeve related to the use of "yyyy in aviation" and similar links on the years, which screw up the presence or absense of commas between the year and the day-month or month-day component. That either adds a comma which shouldn't be there, or omits one which should be there. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right that there are authorities pointing in both directions. I strongly doubt you'll get a proposal for WP to adopt a standard of omitting a second comma past Maurreen though, jguk 13:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The two style manuals that I use both call for a comma after the year in MM/DD/YYYY format.

 * MLA, 2nd ed., 3.10.5: "If you begin with the month, be sure to add a comma after the day and also after the year . . ."
 * Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 6.46: "In the month-day-year style of dates, the style most commonly used in the United States and hence now recommended by Chicago, commas are used both before and after the year." —Wayward 23:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Navy Ceremonial Duty Ribbon

Untitled
The fact that this ribbon is only retroactive to 2001 is a slap in the face to all those who have served in the U.S. Ceremonial Guard before that time. Whether you served in the guard in 2003 or 1933, you still served in the guard. It hard for me to understand Gordon R England's thought process when he initiated this award. I guess I'm just sore because the ribbon is just so snazzy looking.

Also, many sailors serving on CONUS duty serve on the US Navy's regiona Funeral Details, providing the same services as the Ceremonial guard to honor our deceased veterans and shipmates. None of those individuals are eligible either.

 * Shit, when I found out about it I awarded it to myself. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 17:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

BullShit they don't perfom in half of the ceremonies that we do, and we probably trained them how to do it. and if you are wearing that ribbon then your just a shitbag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.220.95 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

HOO-YAH FIRING PARTY

T.I.F.P.   (THIS IS FIRING PARTY)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.220.95 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was Ceremonial Guard 1990 to 1992 I sure as shit should be elegible.

Petition to Include Ceremonial Guardsmen Prior to the NAVADMIN Cut-off Date of 2001
There is an effort of former and current Guardsmen that is currently organizing to petition Congress to have the NAVADMIN policy changed, sponsored by the USN Ceremonial Guard Alumni Association. The website for this petition is at http://guardmember.ning.com.

This group disagrees with the NAVADMIN policy that establishes the eligibility criteria to receive the award as the formation of the USN Ceremonial Guard as it's own command, than a department that fell under the auspices of Naval District Washington. This group believes that the short-sighted policy set forth by NAVADMIN ignores the 70-year long generational legacy of Guardmembers who received, learned, practiced, supported and taught the Guard standard since the formation of the Guard in 1931. The group also feels that the award of the USN Ceremonial Guard service ribbon is "empty" without the legacy of a 70-year legacy of former members who have also earned the award by their actions, during their dates of service.

Former Guard members that fail to meet the arbitrary cut-off-date, are ineligible to receive the award, regardless of their performance or service. It is a great injustice to deny due honors to any Veteran. The NAVADMIN cut-off date applies to former members being ineligible to receive this ribbon based on the command change date, but not other parts of the Ceremonial Guard legacy. There is the issue that the current USN Ceremonial Guard Navy Colors carry a number of streamers that were awarded to past Guard generations. The group feels that this creates an uneasy double-standard by the new USN Ceremonial Guard command where it's accepted that the Guard embraces it's legacy in some ways, but not all ways, specifically to those in the Guard prior to 2001, that like every Guard generation, assure the integrity of the Guards standards. It is unfortunate that past Guardsmen, and the families of Guardsmen do not have an opportunity to submit a candidate award package to be evaluated for the award, and it's also unfortunate that recipients of the award are not included in the legacy of former Guardsmen who should have received the award, but were ineligible based only upon the time that they served.

If you want to correct this injustice, please join the petition effort and follow the guidance to write your congressional leadership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.240.13 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Navy Ceremonial Duty Ribbon


text:
Talk:Blank Check (film)

Page move
This page was moved from "Blank Check (movie)" to "Blank Check (film)" as per the naming convention set out at Naming conventions (films) – Ianblair23 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blank Check film.jpg
Image:Blank Check film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative title usage
I know the alternative Blank Cheque was formerly used in the United Kingdom but does anyone have any information on whether it was used in any other English speaking countries? Tk420 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that Ireland often imports its DVDs (and previously VHS tapes) from the UK so there is a strong chance that Blank Cheque was also used there. In other European countries the title is in the local language e.g. L'apprenti millionnaire in French and Mac Millionär in German.

I have recently noticed the alternative title being removed from this article without an explanation. If the film is widely known by a different name in another English-speaking country it is usually noted in the article although the film's title in its home country is used primarily. Another example of this is Miracle on 34th Street (the original 1947 film) which was initially released in the United Kingdom as The Big Heart. This is noted in the article although the alternative title is no longer used officially. I presume it is noted to let readers know they have found what they are looking for especially if they remember the old title and might search for it by that name or discovered it that way.Tk420 (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

On further research I have found another example of such alternative title usage by Disney suggesting it was common in that era where there were spelling differences. The example is the 1995 volume Colors of the Wind (titled Colours of the Wind in the UK) from Disney Sing-Along Songs. There are other differences between the UK and US versions in the series but those are mainly restricted to the songs in the volumes. Tk420 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have recently watched my Region 2 DVD copy and discovered that the subtitles use the British spelling for cheque although it uses the US spelling in the film's title.Tk420 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Couldn't be Home Alone or Dennis the Menace? --182.190.242.96 (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 182 anon.

Possible Edit? I'm sorry that I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but shouldn't this page mention that the author based much of his book, "Save the Cat" on this film? He refers to the film frequently, describing it as a success, albeit not exactly a masterpiece. Meanwhile, his book has gone on to become arguably the most successful screenwriting how-to guide in history. See: http://www.savethecat.com/tools/save-the-cat-podcast-blake-snyder-on-theme-stated-and-the-beats-of-blank-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.236.5 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blank Check (film)


text:
Chilean destroyer Aldea

The third Aldea was a Serrano-class destroyer of the Chilean Navy in service from 1928 to 1967, but temporarily reactivated in 1973 to participate in the coup d'etat, where she and Captain Prat were used to secure Federico Santa María Technical University. She was laid down in 1928 by Thornycroft, at Woolston, Hampshire, England. She was launched by Mrs. Berta Castro de Merino (mother of future admiral José Toribio Merino) in November 1928, and commissioned in July 1929.

Aldea was one of six vessels in its class to serve Chile. The class was ordered from the United Kingdom and delivered in 1928 and 1929. Like its sister ships CHILEAN DESTROYER Riquelme and CHILEAN DESTROYER Videla, it was also equipped for duties as a minesweeper. The vessels had a displacement of 1430 LT at full load and were armed with three 4.7 in/45 and one 3 in/40 DP gun, as well as six 21 in torpedo tubes. The ships could make 35 kn, but their light build proved unsuitable for the harsh southern waters off Chile's coast.

title: Chilean destroyer Aldea


text:
Pierrot the Clownfish

Pierrot the Clownfish is a French children's book by author Franck Le Calvez.

Disney lawsuit
In 2003, Le Calvez filed suit against Pixar and its distribution company Walt Disney Pictures, claiming that the story and the characters from this book were plagiarized in the film Finding Nemo. The author and his lawyer, Pascal Kamina, demanded from Disney a share of the profits from merchandising articles sold in France. Le Calvez and Kamina lost the lawsuit on 12 March 2004 and intended to file an appeal on 5 October 2004; however, to date there has been no further action taken against Pixar on the matter.

title: Pierrot the Clownfish