text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Becker Westphall (2nd nomination)

The result was delete. Ok, this is a bit of a mess, so:
 * That other things have Wikipedia pages does not mean this one should. For one thing, the other articles may also merit deletion. For the other thing, they may be different.
 * Speculation on there being persecution does not help anyone, especially when there is no proof.
 * Merely asserting that something is notable is not enough for keeping a topic.
 * It is rather impolite to talk about "egos" in a discussion on whether we should have an article on something. Making an account solely to insult a person is unacceptable.
 * On the flipside, it's also impolite to start hunting down editors because they started a deletion discussion. We don't have any personal dislike of the article topic, just concerns about whether they meet or don't meet our admittedly not always clear (and to people unfamiliar with the details, arbitrary) inclusion criteria.
 * A deletion discussion 10 years ago on a different project is not necessarily irrelevant, although in general you'd want to explain whether the arguments provided apply here and now on enwiki.
 * When people say that someone is notable (and not in the sense of WP:N) or important it's useful to show evidence.
 * While not explicitly prohibited, it's often a bad idea to make an account solely to !vote in a certain way in an AfD.

All that said, it seems like there is no indication that the topic meets WP:GNG and consensus excluding the SPA and poorly argued IP posts lends itself to the notion that WP:PROF isn't met either. And thus, we cannot have an article on this topic at this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Becker Westphall
AfDs for this article:
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page should not exist. It is very clear that the subject is the one reverting deletion requests. He does not provide citation for most claims and fills the article with useless claims (such as "Talk in WhateverCon 2017"). Also, page was nominated before and the nomination was closed as delete, but the deletion was reverted for some reason. Sparkling Pessimist  Scream at me!  16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. NOTE THAT DELETING THIS PAGE WOULD BE AN ABSURD. WHY PROFESSOR WESTPHALL HAS A GREAT PROFILE. WELL BETTER THAN MANY OTHER PROFESSORS AND WIKIPAGE ARTICLES. IT IS ENOUGH TO ANALYZE YOUR PERFORMANCE INDEXES AS SHOWN ON RESEARCHGATE AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A GREAT ENVIRONMENT AND PERSECUTION AGAINST THE COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THIS UNIVERSITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I'm sorry, but not every professor deserves their own Wikipedia article especially one that isn't at all notable. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment THIS PAGE SHOULD EXIST. You must be consistent. What authority do you have to say that a professor is or is not notable? Certainly he is much more notable than others that have articles in wikipedia. So you're being unfair. In addition, the article has already been corrected and changed to be in accordance with the wikipedia requirements. Even so, you have disregarded these facts and commented on problems that no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS>  (talk • contribs)  — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO: he has no coverage other than his papers (i.e. are non independent). Fails all items of WP:ACADEMIC; his most cited work has 272 citations, not very remarkable in computer science, and he's not the first author in it. Also, the all-caps comments here against deletion are form a IP inside the professor's university, which could indicate a conflict of interest. Shinigami3 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Shinigami3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: multiple IPs that appear to be the same person are being used to derail the discussion.  Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Congratulations Professor Westphall. Google Scholar - Citations 1911, h-index 17, ResearchGate 42.92; 476,063 Reads. Top Top Professor. Full professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (Brazil), since 1993. Founder of the IEEE Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium and of the Network and Management Laboratory at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Editorial board of Computer Networks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)  — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep THIS PAGE MUST BE EXISTING ONE. IT SHOULD BE KEPT. Professor Westphall is much more notable than any other. He has already taken necessary measure to meet the wikipedia requirements. Congratulations Professor Westphall ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)  — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm going to bet you a pack of salt and vinegar crisps that this professor is more notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * General comment to all participants in this debate. Please be advised that !votes that are not policy based will likely be ignored by the closing admin. If you want to argue that this bio should be kept, then please show evidence that Westphall meets either WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC (one of them is enough). To whomever is organizing this infestation of anonymous IPs: please stop, your efforts are really harming your case and as all these IP !votes are likely to be ignored completely, the effort is wasted. Finally: please comment on the issues, not on people. Please see WP:AFD if you're not familiar with how these debates are run. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Page should be removed. Wikipedia is no place for egos but for knowledge sharing. It should try to resemble some "Internet yellow pages". 9:41, 20 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)  — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: actually, WP is an encyclopedia and should not resemble "some Internet yellow pages" (see WP:NOTADIRECTORY). And "knowledge sharing" includes biographies of notable persons, which is what should be the topic of this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep I would keep Carlos Becker Westphall's page simply for the reason that he seems to be unique in disseminating useful information to mailing list subscribers. Having said that, I doubt whether Professor Westphall ultimately cares about the fate of this page. If he truly did revert the attempt at deletion, he probably did so out of a sense of injustice, rather than a misplaced sense of self-aggrandizement. Edepa (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Moved from talk page
 * Delete. Article offers no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mr. Westphall may be a nice guy who sends useful information to mailing lists, the article should be deleted because he fails at WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. I'm sorry. Yogistrop (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Yogistrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Mr. Westphall thinks is "under attack" because his page was nominated for deletion. He so concerned about his page that he even has sent an email to thousands of subscribers of Brazilian Computer Society's mailing list (original, requires registration, and copy) asking for help to locate and identify the "aggressor" behind IP <IP_ADDRESS>. As you can see, there is no aggression whatsoever from IP, and his only edit was an ordinary deletion request of an article about someone that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC. Yogistrop (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh my god, this is getting shameful. They are talking about breaking user privacy completely to chase on someone that marked the article for deletion for lack of notability? The university administration should be informed of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. We are solely concerned with issues of notability here. Up till now, the arguments presented boil down to "does not meet etc" or "keep this page". There's a lot of words, but very few arguments. For those arguing for "keep", please tell us how the subject meets any of the listed notability guidelines. For those arguing against, please tell us how the subject does not meet those guidelines. As for any off-wiki harassment, WP:ANI is the place for that, not this AfD. Concerning the off-wiki canvassing (not really something that merits informing a university administration about), as I have stated above, that is pretty useless, as the closing admin will without any doubt ignore all the SPA/IP !votes (on both sides of the debate). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete per SamHolt6 - doesn't meet notability standards. There are zero independent refs - 1 to a journal listing and 1 to a database.  The reasons for deletion back in 2008 still apply as well.
 * A couple of reason to delete are probably more suggestive of major problems than (strictly speaking) based on policy. There is no corresponding article in Portugese, which I'd expect if he was notable in Brazil. Also the photo appears to be a passport photo (see imprinted seal on the side) and was uploaded as "own work" by the same editor who re-created the article.    Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep I am new at wiki - this is the first time I am posting! Disclosure: I have met Dr. Carlos Becker Westphall once many years ago. Two of my students and I participated in a tutorial that he was the speaker of and we all significantly benefitted from the tutorial (it was an impressive work). I am somewhat familiar with his research contributions. In addition, I am not a relative and also do not know him personally. Dr. Westphall is probably one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil. He has name recognition above and beyond most others in South America. His DSc is in Computer Science from one of the most prestigious institutions in France. He has published in stringently reviewed journals and conferences and has won best paper awards. He has served all major associations in a selfless manner (including IEEE, CNOM, ...) and has received formal appreciation awards from them. He has been the team coordinator of European research initiatives and has led research teams in Brazil. He has (and continues) serving on various journal and conference editorial boards. Dr. Westphall's published work has received about 2,000 citations with a very healthy acceleration in his citation record (69, 97, 157, 197, 250, 244, 287 citations for years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively). His papers published in 2010 "A cloud computing solution for patient's data collection in health care institutions" and "Intrusion detection for grid and cloud computing" are of award quality each receiving over 250 citations. According to worldcat.org ( https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2008187999/ ); some of his published work has been translated into three languages (17 in Portuguese, 7 in English, and 2 in French). Many of his work as editor have been produced in multiple editions. According to Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:network_and_service_management ), he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in "Network and Service Management). He is also among the top 80 researchers in IoT. If the above (which is a very small subset of Dr. Westphall's achievement) does not qualify him to be included in wiki, then I do not know who would qualify. I can provide more information about his achievements but at the same time I know that none of what I say matters. The wiki editors would do what they wish (I have seen wiki "editors" in acts of low integrity and low ethics when it comes down to people of good repute). It is offensive to read some of the comments on this page. Schultzr (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. "According to Google Scholar (...) he is the THIRD highest cited researcher in Network and Service Management". No, he is not. He is the 3rd out of 18 researchers in the number of total citations among the researchers that created a profile in Google Scholar and labelled one of their research areas as "Network and Service Management". He is not even the third highest cited author within "Network and Service Management" research area, whatever that buzzword means... Yogistrop (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources tell that he is "one of the most well known Computer Scientists in Brazil"? I do not see any. If we had such RS (and they were telling anything of substance and interesting about the person), that would be a very different story. Without supporting WP:RS, he looks like plain non-notable. "THIRD highest cited researcher in"... his lab. And this is all one can tell to justify his notability. The lab is not notable as well, even by WP standards. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete [redacted: personal attack on Westphal removed; one more edit like this and you'll be blocked from editing.] TheTruthSpeaker ( smalltalk ) :18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — TheTruthSpeaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete His article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was deleted in 2007 because, like this one, it wasn't encyclopedic content. It was mostly a transcription of his curriculum vitae (again, just like this one). Here's the link to the AfD in the Portuguese Wikipedia. 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — 2801:84:0:1018:C82:9FA6:DE9:7B5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Different wikis have different standards. What happened on the pt wiki is immaterial here. AfDs from 10 years ago are even less pertinent. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 *  Keep  All his major research contributions were published AFTER 2007. He is now qualified to be included in wiki. It is very telling that those of you who are recommending "delete" are not countering one single statement I said above. Some of your reasoning included "I am one of his students ..." and/or his wiki was deleted before (over a DECADE ago). In fact, you are all making my case - the reasons that you are providing in removing the wiki page make my case for keeping it. Schultzr (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Schultzr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Please only !vote once. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep Prof Westphall's bio aligns with WP:ACADEMIC standards have been providing a significant contribution to Brazilian academia along more than 30 years of Full Professorship. His research has had a significant impact in Network Management, a discipline of Computer Sciences, as demonstrated by his list of publications, co-authorships, promotion of research networks, and number of citations. Moreover, he has provide an extensive contribution to formation of human resources and the next generation fo researchers and innovators in Brazil. Prof. Westphall has received numerous academic acclaims and awards at national and international levels, heading some of the most prestigious initiatives in Network Management research in the world, such as NOMS. His work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. He has head the Journal of Network and Management Systems, a notorious publication venue in the area. From a personal point, I know Prof Westphall for over 20 years and can assure his commitment to the formation of next generation of researchers in Brazil. He is not a sef-promoting personal and I see his interest at Wikepedia as setting a role model to promote leadership in research in Brazil. As an expat Brazilian researcher, I highlight the importance of equity and equivalence in promoting diversity of research approaches and consider the equivalence of research output between from leader researchers in developing and underrepresented regions. fkoch (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Fernandokoch2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. I'm afraid that your spirited praising of Westphall does not carry much weight. This is not a vote. Just saying "I like him" is not enough. You will have to show with reliable sources independent of the subject, how he meets one of the guidelines mentioned above. As a word of advice to other SPAs kreeping out of the woodwork: save your breath. Unless your arguments are policy-based, they will be ignored. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete. Citations on GS in this very high cited field not enough yet to pass WP:Prof. There is nothing else, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. This Prof. made no breakthrough or is relevant for Computer Science in general. Albeit there are many publications, his h-index is low compared to other notable people in the area (list of professors with h-index more than 40). His publications are not even listed among the List of important publications in computer science in Computer Science. In addition, he doesn't meet any criteria to be listed in List of computer scientists. So, unless he does something notable, in my opinion, this page should be removed since it is centered on quantity instead of quality. Fettboba (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Fettboba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The list you cite is extremely selective, containing only an estimated 0.06% of all computer scientists. We usually put the bar much lower here at WP. And if this bio is kept (which looks unlikely at this point), it would need to be included in the list of computer scientists (having an article here is sufficient to be included in that list, being or not being in that list has no bearing on notability). And, yes, some people are notable because of the quantity of their work, not necessarily the quality. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete Fails WP:PROF clearly not enough to pass WP:Prof and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete and utter blank when searching for sources. I've got a sore head from reading the discussions further up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unremarkable citation profile, no evidence of major awards, no sources indicating that something he wrote has become a standard text... I'm just not seeing a way to pass WP:PROF, let alone any other guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article fails to pass WP:PROF and doesn't show that he's done anything remarkable enough in Computer Science for coverage. --  Dane talk  20:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is simply nothing significant in his biography, nothing that would be worth including in online encyclopedia. WP is not a listing of individuals from various fields. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also nominated for deletion Network and Management Laboratory. Same thing. This is pure advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Weak delete. I think the off-wiki canvassing may have slightly poisoned the well here. Google Scholar returns a high number of citations to Westphall's work, although perhaps not enough to pass WP:PROF in a high-citation field like computer science, and mentions a few things that suggest a potential pass of other PROF criteria. But we would need some sources for that, which I can't find. I'd be interested to hear if  had any insight. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fernandokoch2017 did not disclosure Mr. Westphall was his master's degree advisor, and they has been publishing papers together for a long time. Actually Mr. Westphall is co-author in 25% of the Fernandokoch2017's papers listed in DBLP. Therefore I would take Fernandokoch2017's comment with a grain of salt. Yogistrop (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yep. And given that your only edits here are to get Westphall's bio deleted, your comments are certain to be taken with a grain of salt, too. I don't care who was advising who. It's arguments and sources that count, not !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. You may not care who was advising who but I'm pretty sure other people (including the future closer of this AfD) would like to know why some opinions may be highly biased. Anyway it's funny see you complaining about the account I've created to participate in this AfD because I did it because someone else asked me so. I was just fine editing anonymously and I plan to back to anonymity after this ends. Yogistrop (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment': Ritchie's response was to an IP whose only contributions where about Westphall, as is the case for your current account. If you want to be taken more seriously in this kind of discussions, you'd better show more contribution history. As for "biased" comments that are not policy based (just like the one directly below by ), those are routinely ignored by closing admins (and I speak from experience, having closed hundreds of AfDs and participated in even more). --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep. I think this article should be kept as per WP:ACADEMIC. Prof. Westphall is a known proponent of free access information (articles and books). He is also a well respected researcher on Cloud related issues with proven track record in both publishing and directing graduate degree students. Nick 1976 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — Nick 1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete. This AfD is a mess of canvassing, new editors unfamiliar with our standards, and apparent animus on both sides. To run through some of the arguments we might try using to help resolve this:
 * Westphall is a fellow of an organization called IARIA, but I've never heard of that organization before and from web searches they appear to be, or to once have been, or to have been accused of being, a spammy organizer of low-quality for-profit conferences; for instance they were included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers before it was taken down. So I don't think this is good for a pass of WP:PROF and may count against Westphall more than it counts for him.
 * Westphall has moderate (borderline) numbers of citations in a high-citation field, not so high as to convince me of a clear pass of WP:PROF but high enough that it's not a clear fail either. The questionable nature of IARIA might cast into doubt some of his citation counts, but I looked through them and they look like valid citations from other authors rather than self-citations, many of them in respectable non-IARIA publications, so if there's a citation circle going on here it's not an obvious one.
 * Maybe the best claim to fame from his web site is that he founded the Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium, which is run by a more respectable organization, IEEE. We can certainly verify that he was the editor for the first of these symposia. But it's not clear to me that it's a notable event itself, let alone notable enough for its founder to have any inherited notability. Founding a conference is not one of the WP:PROF criteria so we'd have to go to WP:GNG to get notability that way, and without in-depth independently-written and independently-published sources for his role in the conference, there's not much hope there.
 * He's on various editorial boards but that's not enough for notability without being editor in chief, per WP:PROF. Similarly, he has a leadership role within IEEE CNOM but without heading that organization it's not enough for WP:PROF.
 * He has some best paper awards but those never count for much.
 * So, in summary, there are some arguments for notability, maybe enough to justify a weak keep but nothing clear-cut. There is clearly both a lot of self-promotion and a lot of reaction to the self-promotion, and very little in the way of independent reliable sourcing that would allow us to cut through all of this hullabaloo and write a neutral article. So I'm on the fence, but I think the lack of good sourcing for this is tilting me towards deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Weak delete. Per David Eppstein's detailed analysis. The citation data (which I added to the article) gave me pause, but I'm convinced by David's arguments. Fails to meet GNG or ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It was deleted several times from Wikipedia in Portuguese 1/2/3/4. See also:, , , ,   and . Bilhauano (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete. Did not improve significantly from last deletion (or really any of the lots of deletions of the above comment), so the same arguments still apply. Even though he seems to have some relation to some relevant things, I can't find strong bounds that make the subject notable enough for the rules. --Lordfire (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Lordfire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


text:
Talk:Introduction to Philosophy/Philosophy of Science

Occam's razor
This should get a mention, no? A problem with the rejection of the axiomic approach on the basis of the axioms being seemingly arbritrary is that it doesn't take into account that they are selected by being the simplest that offer the fullest explanation of observations. MrJones 09:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falsificationismists?
"principle of falsificationism"? "principle of falsification", surely? MrJones 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed text
"Widely discredited is the thoery stating that there is no reason to think of science as a better source of knowledge about the universe compared with any other vision of the world. This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics."

Not that I'm an exceptionally big fan of Wiccanism (which, incidentally, isn't a theory but a religion), but it isn't supposed to offer any information on genetics, physics, neurobiology, or any other branch of natural science. It describes the universe in different terms, comes to different conclusions, etc. Anyhow, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that, say, a particular branch of science and a particular religion are on par with one-another in terms of their ability to describe the same sorts of things. What most philosophers who go on and on about how no one method is privileged over another are talking about is how, given systems of thought that describe different sorts of things, we can't say for sure which gives us knowledge of the universe *as it is*. What we can say for sure is how each helps and hinders us. Thus science, which is not spiritually satisfying, which gives us no answers about how we may have come to be, which makes no moral or ethical claims, is not necessarily priviliged over, say, Pentecostalism, which does cover all these topics. This has not been "widely discredited".

Also, "This has the disadvantage of putting theories such as Wiccanism, which although no doubt spiritually satisfying has little to offer on genetics." is not a sentence. I'd edit it, but I'm not quite sure what is being said.

"Other problems that continue to persist include fashions and politics that can both advance and detract from science, Lysenko and the theory (that environmental factors can affect genes) that replaced genetics for many years in the Soviet Union being the foremost of these."

Are these problems for science or problems for the philosophy of science?

 * The above parts about Wiccanism, fasion, and politics were removed because they were unclear. liblamb 15:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too much included under Karl Popper
Though many others are often mentioned in the same breath as Popper in discussion, is it a good idea to completely include all mention of them under the Popper section? Kuhn and the rest should receive their own section, as their thoughts aren't solely dependent on those of Popper. Smegs 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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


text:
baviti

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to do, attend, engage in, go in for, occupy oneself with
 * 2)  to deal with
 * 1)  to deal with
 * 1)  to deal with
 * 1)  to deal with

title: baviti


text:
rääkätä

Etymology
Possibly of origin, or sound-symbolicized from a borrowing deriving from.

Verb

 * 1) to torture, torment especially an animal

title: rääkätä


text:
Talk:Dave Dravecky

Politics
A politics section as insignificant as this for a baseball player is frankly unnecessary - particularly one so lacking in the sources department. Feebas factor 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a separate section, but if he was "better known for association with the John Birch Society than his pitching", then we should write about it. The sources have been improved. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Honorary degree
Does anyone actually know of a news report covering the honorary doctorate? The SDCC graduation ceremony program (http://www.sdcc.edu/uploadedFiles/Alumni_and_Friends/CHC_Graduation_2005/Grad%20program%2006_1.pdf) shows him as listed to speak, but doesn't mention an honorary degree... I am fairly confident it's true, but as I can't verify it, I have had to take it out for the time being, until a reliable source can be found. Js farrar 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Emotion-laden Prose
We all know, deep down, that Wikipedia really isn't an encyclopedia so it is understandable when untruths slip by, when total fabrications slip by, when misinformation gets through, etc, etc. But is it really necessary to use prose dripping with syrupy emotion? "To see a pitcher break his arm with a loud cracking sound while doing something as ordinary as throwing a pitch, then fall to the ground rolling in agonizing pain, was shocking, unusual, and upsetting, especially for those who had followed his touching story." What drivel. Maybe we should warn people that if they want facts without emotion they should go over to Britanica -- the real encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This Makes no Sense
"Dravecky's arm was broken a second time by Kevin Mitchell and Kelly Downs." Why would two other players break Dravecky's arm and how did they do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Dravecky


text:
Jozo Zovko

Jozo Zovko, OFM (born 19 March 1941) is a Herzegovinian Croat Franciscan priest, most notable for being a parish priest in Medjugorje during the alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary in 1981. He was very active in the promotion of apparitions around the world. He is an adherent of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Zovko is currently under a suspension imposed on him by his bishops in 1989, 1994 and 2004 for disobedience and is forbidden to perform priestly duties in his home Diocese of Mostar-Duvno.

Zovko was ordained a priest as a Franciscan in 1965. During the alleged Marian apparitions in Medjugorje in 1981, he was the parish priest of the St. James Church and became the first supporter and mentor of the visionaries.

The same year he was sentenced to three years in prison because of a sermon allegedly criticising the communist authorities, which Zovko denied. After being released in 1983, he became a vicar in Tihaljina near Grude, but remained in close touch with Medjugorje. It is claimed by the visionaries of Our Lady of Medjugorje, that the Virgin gave them a vision of Zovko while in prison in October 1981. Zovko claims to have had a vision of Our Lady in April 1983.

The Bishop revoked his priestly jurisdiction because of disobedience and his activity in Medjugorje, a decree soon afterward confirmed by Rome in 1989. However, Zovko continued to be active in Medjugorje and around the world, promoting the apparitions, despite the suspension. He finally submitted to the decree under pressure from Rome, and moved to a Franciscan friary in Badija near Korčula in Croatia in 2009, and periodically lived in Graz, Austria, until he moved permanently to Zagreb, Croatia's capital in 2011, where he currently lives.

Biography
Jozo Zovko was born March 1941 in Uzarići, Herzegovina and attended and finished elementary school in nearby Široki Brijeg. He entered the seminary in Bol on the island of Brač in 1958. In 1963 in Sarajevo he began his theology studies and then transferred and graduated from Ljubljana. He was ordained a priest, as a member of the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province, on 3 April 1965. He started taking courses in religious education in 1974 at the University of Gratz. After these studies, he moved to Posušje and became the parish priest. In November 1980, Zovko was appointed parish priest of the St. James Church in Medjugorje. When the visions began on June 24, 1981, he was suspicious at first, of the Marian apparitions, but soon became a fierce supporter. The Madonna allegedly appeared to him as well. He was known to his colleagues to practice special devotions to the Madonna and often participated in catechetical summer schools as a lecturer and discussant of charismatic orientation.

Marian apparitions in Medjugorje
On 25 June 1981, the day of the first alleged Virgin Mary apparition occurred, he was away from Medjugorje in Zagreb officiating at a meeting of Franciscan nuns. When he arrived back to Medjugorje he was surprised to see the church surrounded by a large crowd along with their many vehicles including tractors, cars, trucks and donkey carts. Zovko and his assistant, Father Čuvalo, were concerned because outside religious gatherings were forbidden in Yugoslavia and arrests could occur. He and Čuvalo decided the best thing to do was interview each visionary individually in detail while recording each one. Zovko was both curious and skeptical. He noticed that the seers became agitated if anyone hinted that they were lying and he was taken by the fact that their physical descriptions of the Gospa were consistent with each other.

He was suspicious at first when none of the visionaries used the exact words even when quoting the Madonna. He declined to go with the children that night to the mountain. However, Father Čuvalo and Father Kosir went to the mountain along with at least five thousand people. When they reported to Zovko afterward, Čuvalo said he asked Jakov to ask the Virgin what she wanted from the Franciscans. Randall Sullivan wrote that according to all six children, she said: "Have them persevere in the faith and protect the faith of others."

On 29 June during the afternoon mass Zovko was giving a sermon at the same time the children were being interrogated by representatives of the communist regime of Yugoslavia. They arrived in two vehicles and ordered the visionaries into a vehicle and took them to the police station for interrogation and then an examination by a pediatric specialist. It was determined that they were healthy physically and not on drugs. Next, they were taken to the morgue in the hospital where they viewed corpses in many stages of autopsy. They then were placed among the mentally ill in the psychiatric wing of the hospital and told they could end up here. They were frightened. Randall Sullivan wrote that it wasn't over and were driven to another town, Čitluk, to be examined by Dr. Ante Bijević who determined that each child was, "Normal, balanced, well-situated in time and in space, no hallucinations." When it was over, the medical experts concluded that each seer was both medically and mentally fine.

Zovko gave the seers several prayer books and rosaries and tried to teach them more about the church. He also gave Mirjana a book on apparitions in Lourdes, from which the visionaries concluded that their apparitions would last until 3 July 1981, as in Lourdes. Mirjana, one of the visionaries, told Zovko on 30 June 1981 on audiotape, that the Madonna told her that she would appear only for the next three days, that is until 3 July 1981. Ivanka, another visionary, confirmed this. Fr. Sivrić said to remember that Zovko asked the visionaries to ask the same question the day before on 29 June. The seers asked Madonna what the length of her visitations would be. She answered that she would continue for as long as they wanted. The visionaries, including Mirjana and Ivanka, continue to claim to have visions to this day.

Randall Sullivan wrote that Zovko was praying on his knees for direction in the St. James Church and all of a sudden he heard a voice clearly say, "Come out now and protect the children." He immediately went to the door and the girls were running from a nearby field towards him running from Communist authorities. He hid them in an inner room and locked them in. He told the authorities he had seen the children and the police ran off towards town away from the church. Later that afternoon the apparition took place in the church and Zovko was given the same vision that the visionaries see. Right then he became a fierce supporter of the apparitions. Zovko eventually was convinced of the children's accounts.

Communist authorities
From the middle to the end of July 1981 both, the police and officials of the Communist League were demanding that the evening mass be discontinued. Sullivan wrote that he asked the visionaries to ask the Madonna about that and her reply was, "Continue to celebrate Mass". Zovko refused to stop the evening mass and the children, in order to protect the church, started to gather outside on Podbrdo. This enraged the government officials and as a result, they became more violent. On August 11 Zovko was summoned to the Communist Party headquarters in Mostar to be given a final warning - to stop the people from meeting on Podbrdo. The communist authorities also wanted the evening mass to be stopped. He refused once again. On August 17 the authorities arrested Zovko on the charge of sedition. Zovko was accused of making hostile and malicious allusions to the Yugoslav political system in two of his sermons, when he used the words "as a prison system and a ‘40-year-long slavery’ in which the people were exposed to ‘false teachings,’” according to Perica Vjekoslav. One of these sermons was presented on 11 July 1981 at the Saint James Church and the second one was presented two weeks later when Bishop Žanić's visited Medjugorje, according to the indictment. Perica Vjekoslav wrote that the state prosecutor said that the false teachings allegation was interpreted as an "attack on the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Marxism, and self-management socialism."

On October 19, 1981 the visionaries were asked by the Madonna to fast on bread and water for a week while praying for Zovko. Rene Laurentin wrote that at that time she gave them a vision of Zovko in his prison cell and he "tells them not to be afraid for him, that everything was well." On October 21 Zovko was given a speedy trial in one day and was convicted of sedition.

According to Rene Laurentin, when the visionaries voiced concern for Zovko, the Madonna said that "Jozo looks well and he greets you warmly. Do not fear for Jozo. He is a saint. I have already told you." She also said that his punishment would be announced the next day and would not be severe. The next morning his sentence was announced and was reduced to 3 1/2 years in prison. Paul Kengor wrote, that the communists, in their persecution, "also smashed up the church, broke and scattered religious articles and generally ransacked the parish."

In February 1983 the communists released Zovko after 18 months of hard labor. The condition upon his release was not to return to Medjugorje. According to Sullivan, he "emerged from prison gaunt, ashen, and nearly deaf in one ear,". He was then appointed a vicar in Tihaljina near Grude and remained in close touch with Medjugorje.

Suspension
On 23 August 1989, Bishop Pavao Žanić suspended Zovko's priestly faculties in the two dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan "due to his involvement in the conflict between the Franciscans and bishops over the division of parishes - which has been intense in Herzegovina for the last 40 years." Zovko objected to the Bishop's decree to the Holy See on 14 October 1989, only to see the Bishop's decree confirmed on 15 February 1990, with the ruling that the Bishop's sanction will remain in force until he retreats "to a friary remote from Medjugorje". Zovko was appointed a guardian for the Franciscan friary in Široki Brijeg and did not perform any pastoral duties. He continued to hear confessions, so the new Bishop Ratko Perić revoked his confessional jurisdiction as well in 1994.

After a five-year absence, Zovko made a surprise appearance in Medjugorje and spoke from the pulpit on 1 January 1990. He denounced the parishioners who put profit above religious practice. Sullivan wrote that Zovko said, "We must understand that all of this commercialism is against Medjugorje...I truly am angry about it." Father Slavko the current priest agreed with Zovko and demanded that the profiteers leave but the shopkeepers had the support of the communist government and didn't leave.

While Zovko said that the Bosnian War was a political rather than religious matter, he gave a sermon at Medjugorje where he stated that Mary is "...calling upon her people to pick up their swords put on their uniforms and stop the power of Satan." According to Professor Michael L. Budde, given that the Herzegovina Franciscans supported the Croatian Nationalists fighting the Bosnian Muslims, the "...reference was not to be understood biblically but historically - it was a reference to Islam."

According to Daniel Klimek, on 17 June 1992, Zovko met with John Paul II in Rome during the wars in former Yugoslavia and the pope said, "I give you my blessing. Take courage I am with you. Tell Medjugorje I am with you. Protect Medjugorje. Protect Our Lady's messages!” Mary Rourke wrote that Zovko also said, “the pope shook my hand, very firmly, and said ‘Guard Medjugorje, protect Medjugorje." According to Journalist Randall Sullivan, John Paul II received the nickname “Protector of Medjugorje” in Vatican circles as it was common knowledge in the Holy See that he loved Medjugorje. One of the ways he protected Medjugorje was by stopping a negative judgment on the apparitions from Pavao Žanić.

Zovko continued to promote the apparitions, traveling around the world, especially in the United States. On 5 November 2002, Zovko began a speaking tour in the United States. On this tour, the director of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Boston, Walter Rossi, forbade Zovko to hold a mass there after receiving a letter from the bishop of Mostar, Ratko Perić. Perić described Zovko as a "disobedient Franciscan" who had been stripped of "every faculty" to serve in public ministry since 1989. Cooperman wrote that Perić "did not explain the reasons for Zovko's original censure, which was imposed by Perić's predecessor, now deceased." The protesters handed out leaflets accusing Zovko of sexually molesting several women while in Medjugorje. According to Cooperman, Rev. Gerard A. Petta, the prayer service's organizer, said, "There is no credibility at all to the allegations of sexual abuse. It just doesn't exist." Zovko was not blocked from appearing anywhere else on his tour. In fact a few days later, Zovko held a sermon in Boston with no problems.

Outside Herzegovina
In 2005, the Franciscan Province of Dalmatia turned over the friary and island of Badija in Croatia to the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province for a term of 99 years. The respective provincials, Father Bernardin Škunca OFM and Father Slavko Soldo OFM, invited Zovko to relocate to the old Franciscan friary and oversee its restoration. The premises were in ruin - in a destitute condition. However, Zovko ignored the request for four years until 2009, when he agreed to move to the friary in Badija on 16 February 2009. There was an announcement that a commission will be formed in the Vatican very soon to re-investigate all the events in Medjugorje. According to Horvat, Zovko received a diagnosis from Italian doctors that he had "defibrillation of the heart and that the need for rest was necessary."

Afterward, Zovko lived between Badija and Graz in Austria, where he would come periodically. He was transferred to Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, in December 2011 and resides in the Franciscan monastery of the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province. He lives between the Franciscan monastery in Zagreb and the Franciscan monastery in Badija.

Gospa - Movie about Medjugorje
Martin Sheen, a Catholic American actor, visited Medjugorje. He played Zovko in the drama film Gospa (Madonna), a 1995 Croatian movie directed by Jakov Sedlar.

Works by Zovko
The online library called LibraryThing has a listing of the works of Jozo Zovko.

 * As She Asks
 * Behold Your Mother
 * Father Jozo Zovko from Youth Festival, Medjugorje
 * Guidati dalla regina della pace
 * Living Presence: Reports of Eucharistic Miracles In America
 * Novena ro the Siroki Brijeg Martyr
 * Pregate il Santo Rosario ogni giorno
 * Our Lady's Message of Prayer [CD]
 * The Pilgrim's Guide to Medjugorje
 * The Rosary: the simple prayer
 * The Way of the Cross with Father Jozo Zovko

title: Jozo Zovko


text:
Lin Foxhall

Lin Foxhall, FSA, MBE, is a Professor of archaeology and ancient Greek History. She has written on women, men, and gender in the classical world. She is an Honorary Professor at the University of Leicester, and in 2017 she was appointed to the Rathbone Chair of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology at the University of Liverpool.

Career
Foxhall studied for her bachelor's degree at Bryn Mawr College. She received her master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania. She was awarded her PhD from the University of Liverpool in 1990 for a thesis entitled, Olive Cultivation Within Greek and Roman Agriculture: The Ancient Economy Revisited. She is the Principal Investigator on the 'Tracing Networks' Project. She is the co-director of the Bova Marina project. Foxhall joined the University of Leicester in 1993, and was made Professor of Greek Archaeology and History in 1999.

Foxhall was awarded an honorary MBE in 2001 in recognition of her contribution to the Millennium celebrations. As a bell-ringer herself, she created the “Ringing in the Millennium” project in 1996 and was awarded £3 million in National Lottery funding towards the £6 million project. Across the UK over 150 communities benefited from the project, in which new bells were installed and old bells restored.

Foxhall was elected as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London (FSA) on 5 June 2003.

In 2017, she was the Rathbone Chair of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology at the University of Liverpool.

She is a member of the editorial board of World Archaeology journal.

Publications

 * "Women's Ritual and Men's Work in Ancient Athens", in Women in Antiquity. New Assessments, edited by Richard Hawley and Barbara Levick (London: Routledge, 1995) ISBN 0-203-42855-2, S. 97–110
 * Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justifications not Justice, edited with A. D. E. Lewis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) ISBN 0-198-14085-1
 * Thinking Men: Masculinity and its Self-Representation in the Classical Tradition (= Leicester-Nottingham studies in ancient society. Band 7) edited with John Salmon (London: Routledge, 1998) ISBN 1-134-68698-6
 * Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy (Oxford: Wiley, 2007) ISBN 978-0-191-51841-6
 * Gender and the City before Modernity, edited with Gabriele Neher (Chichester: Wiley, 2013) ISBN 978-1-118-23443-3,
 * Studying Gender in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)

title: Lin Foxhall


text:
Earl Verney

Earl Verney, in the Province of Leinster, was a title in the Peerage of Ireland. Sir Ralph Verney sat as a member of parliament for Aylesbury, for Great Bedwyn and for Buckingham. In 1661 he was created a Baronet, of Middle Claydon in the County of Buckingham, in the Baronetage of England. His son Sir John Verney, Bt, was a member of parliament for Buckinghamshire and for Amersham. In 1703, he was raised to the Peerage of Ireland as Baron Verney of Belturbet, in the County of Cavan, and Viscount Fermanagh. His son, the second Viscount, represented Amersham and Wendover in Parliament. In 1742 he was created Earl Verney, in the Province of Leinster, in the Peerage of Ireland. However, all titles became extinct on the death of his son, the second Earl, in 1791.

The Fermanagh title was revived in 1792 for Mary Verney, who was created Baroness Fermanagh in the Peerage of Ireland. She was the posthumous daughter of Hon. John Verney, second son of the first Earl Verney. However, Lady Fermanagh never married and on her death this title became extinct as well.

The original seat of Earl Verney was Claydon House near the villages of Botolph Claydon, Middle Claydon (hence the title), Steeple Claydon and East Claydon.

Verney Baronets, of Middle Claydon (1661)

 * Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Baronet (1613–1696)
 * Sir John Verney, 2nd Baronet (1640–1717) (created Viscount Fermanagh in 1703)

Viscounts Fermanagh (1703)

 * John Verney, 1st Viscount Fermanagh (1640–1717)
 * Ralph Verney, 2nd Viscount Fermanagh (1683–1752) (created Earl Verney in 1742)

Earls Verney (1742)

 * Ralph Verney, 1st Earl Verney (1683–1752)
 * Ralph Verney, 2nd Earl Verney (1714–1791)

Baronesses Fermanagh (1792)

 * Mary Verney, 1st Baroness Fermanagh (1737–1810)

title: Earl Verney


text:
User:Ilan1966/sandbox

Phyllis Altman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice Albie Sachs in South Africa's Constitutional Court Albert "Albie" Louis Sachs (1935-) was a judge on the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He was appointed to the court by Nelson Mandela in 1994 and retired in October 2009. Justice Sachs gained international attention in 2005 as the author of the Court's holding in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie, in which the Court overthrew South Africa's statute defining marriage to be between one man and one woman as a violation of the Constitution's general mandate for equal protection for all and its specific mandate against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Contents [hide] 1 Early life 2 Imprisonment and exile 3 Awards and writings 4 Radio 5 References 6 External links [edit]Early life

Sachs was born into a South African Jewish family of Lithuanian background. His career in human rights activism started at the age of seventeen, when as a second year law student at the University of Cape Town, he took part in the Defiance of Unjust Laws Campaign.[1] Three years later, in 1955, he attended the Congress of the People at Kliptown where the Freedom Charter was adopted. He started practice as an advocate at the Cape Town Bar aged twenty one, where he defended people charged under racial statutes and security laws under South African Apartheid. Sachs has a law degree from the University of Cape Town and a PhD from Sussex University. [edit]Imprisonment and exile

After being arrested and placed in solitary confinement for his work in the freedom movement, Albie Sachs went into exile in England and then Mozambique. In 1988, in Maputo, Mozambique, he lost an arm and his sight in one eye when a bomb was placed in his car by South African security agents. After the bombing, he devoted himself to the preparations for a new democratic constitution for South Africa. He returned to South Africa and served as a member of the Constitutional Committee and the National Executive of the African National Congress. [edit]Awards and writings

In 1991 he won the Alan Paton Award for his book Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter. The book chronicles his response to the 1988 car bombing. A revised, updated and expanded edition was released in October 2011.[2] He is also the author of Justice in South Africa (1974), The Jail Diary of Albie Sachs (1966), Sexism and the Law (1979), and The Free Diary of Albie Sachs (2004). His most recent book, The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law (2009), also won the Alan Paton Award, making him the second person to have won it twice.[3] The Jail Diary of Albie Sachs was dramatized for television and broadcast by the BBC in the late 1970s.[4] He helped select the art collection at Constitution Hill, the seat of the Constitutional Court. In 2006 his alma mater the University of Cape Town awarded him an honorary Doctorate in Law.[5][6] On 8 July 2008 Sachs was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree by the University of Ulster in recognition of his contribution to human rights and justice globally.[7] In 2009 Sachs received the Academy of Achievement Golden Plate Award. On 16 July 2010 Sachs was further awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of the University of York for his contribution to the construction of post-apartheid South Africa, in particular for his involvement in the creation of the South African constitution.[8] This constitution is widely regarded as being the most progressive in the world.[9] In all, Sachs has 14 honorary degrees across four continents.[10] [edit]Radio

On idealism, passion and reason in South Africa Albie Sachs Speaks on BBC The Forum On the 20 June 21012 he received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Dundee. [edit]References

^ Image: Participants in the 1952 Defiance Campaign ^ [1] ^ Book SA ^ [2] ^ Honours Roll, University of Cape Town ^ Law Review, September 2007 ^ Ulster honours Distinguished South African Jurist Albie Sachs University of Ulster News Release 8 July 2008 ^ University of York honours Albie Sachs ^ The Constitution of South Africa; Heinz Klug, The Constitution of South Africa: a Contextual Analysis (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010) ^ [3] [edit]External links

Biography at the Constitutional Court of South Africa website - broken link Sept 2011 An interview with Albie Sachs by the Conversations with History program of the Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley Voices on Antisemitism Interview with Albie Sachs from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Interview with Justice Sachs on Chicago Public Radio's Worldview program Hear his talk "The South African Court Looks At Same-Sex Marriages: The Fourie Case" at the University of Chicago Interview with Albie Sachs on The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law, "The Law Report" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 14 September 2010 [hide] v t e Constitutional Court of South Africa Constitution Hill, Johannesburg Current Justices Mogoeng Mogoeng (Chief Justice) Dikgang Moseneke (Deputy Chief Justice) Edwin Cameron Johan Froneman Chris Jafta Sisi Khampepe Bess Nkabinde Thembile Skweyiya Johann van der Westhuizen Zak Yacoob

Former Justices Lourens Ackermann Arthur Chaskalson John Didcott Richard Goldstone Johann Kriegler Pius Langa Tholie Madala Ismail Mahomed Yvonne Mokgoro Sandile Ngcobo Kate O'Regan Albie Sachs Lists of judgments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Law of South Africa Constitution of South Africa Courts of South Africa Judiciary of South Africa

title: User:Ilan1966/sandbox


text:
hankki

Etymology 1
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) handle, grip
 * 2) hanging loop e.g. on a towel
 * 1) hanging loop e.g. on a towel

title: hankki