abstract: The term transformation in the field of mediated cross-border communication refers to a media system's change from for instance authoritarian or communist structures to a new media system with different structures and control mechanisms. Compared to the studies of media systems, transformation research is focused on the collective and individual actors who "demand, support, and manage change". They can be found in governments, parties, NGOs, civil society organizations or interest groups. To the largest extent, transformation research addresses change from authoritarian to democratic media systems. Since transformation processes in media systems are always linked to the political and socioeconomic development, transformation research is not solely focused on the transformation of the media systems, but also on sectors like politics, economy, society, or culture. Transformation research is a comparative approach, since processes in different stages of the political or media system are compared. The approach is highly complex, because it combines comparison with the dimension of space and time, for instance by analyzing similar change processes of media systems in different world regions and times in history. This causes problems, because the changing systems can exhibit considerable differences between one another. Although there are differences between them, transformation processes often occur at the same time and significant similarities between the resulting patterns can be observed.

text:
# Transformation processes (media systems)

The term transformation (also "transition" or "system change") in the field of mediated cross-border communication refers to a media system's change from for instance authoritarian or communist structures to a new media system with different structures and control mechanisms.

Compared to the studies of media systems, transformation research is focused on the collective and individual actors who "demand, support, and manage change". They can be found in governments, parties, NGOs, civil society organizations or interest groups. To the largest extent, transformation research addresses change from authoritarian to democratic media systems. Since transformation processes in media systems are always linked to the political and socioeconomic development, transformation research is not solely focused on the transformation of the media systems, but also on sectors like politics, economy, society, or culture.

Transformation research is a comparative approach, since processes in different stages of the political or media system are compared. The approach is highly complex, because it combines comparison with the dimension of space and time, for instance by analyzing similar change processes of media systems in different world regions and times in history. This causes problems, because the changing systems can exhibit considerable differences between one another. Although there are differences between them, transformation processes often occur at the same time and significant similarities between the resulting patterns can be observed.

## Interrelation between transformation processes of political and media systems

The transformation research on media systems has its origin in transformation studies of political sciences. Fragments of political science theories were applied in comparative media studies, since transformation processes of media systems are strongly connected to the transformation of political systems. Katharina Hadamik (2003) describes this connection as "political-medial transformation-parallelism". She stresses that the media system in a state cannot take any path of transformation. It is connected to the transformation of the political system. For instance, states which develop democratic structures and constitutional conditions in their political system also build out free or relatively free media systems. In contrast, media systems in states with weaker or even no transformation of the political system have much higher barriers of development to overcome. So, "it is the political system that ultimately has the power to make binding decisions and thus shapes the basic structure and functioning of the media system". This strong connection between political and media system can be emphasized by watching the process of transformation from an authoritarian to a democratic system in both politics and media.

The transformation from an authoritarian to a democratic political system has three phases:

Phase 1: end of the old authoritarian regime

Phase 2: transformation and institutionalisation of democracy

Phase 3: consolidation of democracy through a new system

The process of transformation from an authoritarian to a democratic media system also has three phases, similar to the phases of transformation in political systems:

Phase 1: breakthrough in the media sector

Phase 2: fixation of the changes in the media sector

Phase 3: development of a stable media system

## Types of transformation processes

In comparative media system research, scholars have identified three processes of change in media systems: homogenization, heterogenization, and hybridization.

### Homogenization towards one model of media systems

In the field of comparative media system research, homogenization is defined as the convergence of many media systems towards one specific model, caused by changes in political and economic structures, commercialization, and changes in technology. Cultural differences between the countries are said to become less important, since a few international conglomerates dominate the global media industry. In 2004, the authors Hallin and Mancini attested a convergence of European media systems towards the Liberal Media System prevalent in North America, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Relating to the convergence of media systems, four constitutive factors can be identified:

* Americanization: The changing organizational structures and behaviors within the media are heading towards patterns first established in the United States. Moreover, the US American model of politically neutral and professional journalism is becoming more and more influential for other media systems. The journalistic education of the United States has said to have been a strong influence on journalism cultures worldwide.
* Technological change: New technologies can lead to adaptations by individuals and social institutions, for instance assuming new communication procedures associated with the new technology. These effects often produce common practices across different social contexts. The development of professional journalism is also connected to technological change.
* Secularization: The term secularization describes "the separation of citizens from attachments of religious and ideological 'faiths,' and the decline of institutions based on these faiths". This separation results in a decline of political parties, since they are connected to ideologies and particular social milieus. Hence, secularization leads media systems towards the Liberal Model.
* Commercialization: Commercialization can be seen as the most important force of homogenization. It has changed the print media as well as the electronic media. The transition of European broadcasting systems, from predominantly public service systems in the 1970s to a system with commercial domination today, gave the strongest impetus for homogenization. Thus, commercialization decreases the ties of media system and political system.

Although a tendency of homogenization towards the Liberal Model can be attested, there still are important differences between the systems. First of all, the variations between the political systems of each country seem to persist in the future. Furthermore, the party and electoral systems between the countries remain different. Moreover, the legal systems of the countries are still distinct. Also, even though there is a trend towards neutral journalism, political parallelism in the national press of Democratic Corporatist countries still persists and will probably remain in the immediate future. Thus, a complete converge of the media systems seems unlikely.

There are also limits and countertendencies against homogenization. There is evidence of countertendencies relating to the reduction of political polarization and ideological differences between parties. In some countries, new extremist parties on the far right of the political spectrum arose, motivated through issues of immigration, multiculturalism and integration. Moreover, so called advocacy journalism does not only persist in Polarized Pluralist countries (especially in Italy, Spain and Greece), but new forms of it are also beginning to proliferate in all kinds of media systems.

### Heterogenization of media systems

Some scholars argue against the theory of homogenization of media systems that due to national political cultures and institutions, a process of heterogenization rather than homogenization, has to be stated. The countertendencies of homogenization (for instance new right extremist parties, new forms of advocacy journalism, divergence processes in the styles of election coverage between the United States and Great Britain) lead to heterogenization of the media systems. However, the divergence of media systems is confronted by a much more fundamental convergence between them. Hallin & Mancini also argue that the results of their analysis do not support the thesis of heterogenization of media systems.

### Hybridization of media systems

Hybrid media systems are defined as a blend of already existing practices and new practices from a new or foreign media system. Foreign models are adapted to the particular historical, geographical, social, and cultural characteristics of the domestic media system. Rather than a temporary state of transformation, hybrid media systems are considered an equilibrium between two types of practices. Thus, hybrid media systems are mostly located between authoritarian and democratic political systems. Although they may have introduced competitive elections, they may not strengthen further democratic institutions beyond the basic requirements. Therefore, the degree to which hybrid systems adopt democratic practices can vary from state to state. Hybrid systems build out distinct patterns of politic-media relations with significant differences to Western media systems, for instance the Brazilian media system, which was influenced by the American journalism model. However, the American journalism system was not adopted one-to-one, since there "was no solid market economy, individualistic culture, or political culture that valued the freedom of press". Another example is the media system of Poland, which detached itself from its communist ties in the 1990s and converged towards Western media systems, but still has its Polish specifics, such as the use of public-service broadcasting as a political instrument.

According to the three phases from an authoritarian to a democratic media system, the old authoritarian system ends by the institutionalisation of democratic elements (phase 1 and 2). In the third phase, the new hybrid system consolidates democratic elements, but some elements of the authoritarian system still exist. Thus, it is difficult to state when the third phase is completed.

In Hallin & Mancini's *Comparing media systems beyond the western world* (2012), which gives an overview of criticism about their framework of 2004 and furthermore extends and revises it, Katrin Voltmer states that, instead of media system homogenization towards the Liberal Model of Hallin & Mancini's framework, transformation processes rather move towards hybrid media systems, since media markets become more international, but have to adapt to local situations. Thus, the theory of hybridization in media systems is rather an adaption than a counterpart to the theory of convergence.

## Outlook

A consistent transformation theory valid for all transformation processes and countries, does not yet exist, since it is difficult to cover the variety and complexity of all the processes. Some researchers are of the opinion that it is impossible to find a consistent theory of transformation processes, because of the historical, political and social particularities of each country and their different types of transformation processes. Furthermore, the debate about convergence, divergence, or hybridization of media systems is still ongoing.

* Boczkowski, P.J.; Mitchelstein, E.; Walter, M. (2011). "Convergence Across Divergence: Understanding the Gap in the Online News Choices of Journalists and Consumers in Western Europe and Latin America". *Communication Research*. **38** (3): 376–396. doi:10.1177/0093650210384989.
* Coman, M. (2000). "Developments in Journalism Theory About Media "Transition" in Central and Eastern Europe 1990-99". *Journalism Studies*. **1** (1): 35–56. doi:10.1080/146167000361168.
* de Albuquerque, A. (2012). On Models and Margins: Comparative Media Models Viewed from a Brazilian Perspective. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), *Comparing media systems beyond the western world* (pp. 72–95). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9781107013650
* Hadamik, K. (2004). *Transformation und Entwicklungsprozess des Mediensystems in Polen 1989 bis 2001*. Dortmund: chnische Universität Dortmund.
* Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004a). Americanization, Globalization, and Secularization: Understand the Convergence of Media Systems and Political Communication. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), *Comparing Political Communication. Theories, Cases, and Challenges* (pp. 25–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521535403
* Hallin, D.C.; Mancini, P. (2004). *Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Hardy, J. *Western media systems*. London: Routledge.
* Kleinsteuber, H. J. (2010). Comparing West and East: A Comparative Approach of Transformation. In B. Dobek-Ostrowska, M. Glowacki, K. Jakubowicz, & M. Sükösd (Eds.), *Comparative media systems. European and global perspectives* (pp. 23–40). Budapest: Central European University Press. ISBN 9789639776548
* Merkel, W. *Systemtransformation: Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung*. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
* Roudakova, N. (2012). Comparing Processes: Media, "Transitions", and Historical Change. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), *Comparing media systems beyond the western world* (pp. 246–277). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9781107013650
* Voltmer, K. (2008). "Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West". *Central European Journal of Communication*. **1** (1): 23–40.
* Voltmer, K. (2012). How Far Can Media System Travel?: Applying Hallin & Mancini's Comparative Framework outside the Western World. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), *Comparing media systems beyond the western world* (pp. 224–245). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9781107013650

## Footnotes

1. Hadamik (2004), p. 9.
2. Kleinsteuber (2010), p. 26.
3. Kleinsteuber (2010), p. 23-26.
4. Kleinsteuber (2010), p. 23.
5. Voltmer (2008), p. 29.
6. Hadamik (2004), p. 54-56.
7. Voltmer (2012), p. 240.
8. Merkel (1999), p. 119-169.
9. Hadamik (2004), p. 57-58.
10. Hallin & Mancini (2004a), p. 25-41.
11. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 251-254, 294-295.
12. Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Walter (2011), p. 379.
13. Hallin & Mancini (2004a), p. 25-28.
14. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 254-259.
15. Hardy (2008), p. 119-122.
16. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 259-261.
17. Hardy (2008), p. 78.
18. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 263.
19. Hallin & Mancini (2004a), p. 28-32, 34-38.
20. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 263-267.
21. Hallin & Mancini (2004a), p. 38-40.
22. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 273-282.
23. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 282-287, 301.
24. Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Walter (2011), p. 380.
25. Hardy (2008), p. 121.
26. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 284-285, 301.
27. Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Walter (2011), p. 377.
28. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 284-285.
29. Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Walter (2011), p. 389.
30. Hallin & Mancini (2004b), p. 86.
31. de Albuquerque (2012), p. 89.
32. Hadamik (2004), p. 55.
33. Coman (2000), p. 54.
34. Voltmer (2012), p. 231-245.
35. Roudakova (2012), p. 247.
36. de Albuquerque (2012), p. 82.
37. Hadamik (2004), p. 324.
38. Voltmer (2012), p. 231.
39. Hadamik (2004), p. 23.
40. Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Walter (2011), p. 377, 385-391.


abstract: The women's 200 metres event at the 2015 Military World Games was held on 7 and 8 October at the KAFAC Sports Complex.

text:
# Track and field at the 2015 Military World Games – Women's 200 metres

The **women's 200 metres** event at the **2015 Military World Games** was held on 7 and 8 October at the KAFAC Sports Complex.

## Records

Prior to this competition, the existing world and CISM record were as follows:

| **World Record** | Florence Griffith Joyner (USA) | **21.34** | Seoul, South Korea | 29 September 1988 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **CISM World Record** | Ana Cláudia Silva (BRA) | **23.01** | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | 23 July 2011 |

## Schedule

| Date | Time | Round |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7 October 2015 | **10:50** | **Round 1** |
| 8 October 2015 | **13:15** | **Final** |

## Medalists

| **Gold** | **Silver** | **Bronze** |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Edidiong Odiong
*Bahrain* | Anna Kiełbasińska
*Poland* | Rosângela Santos
*Brazil* |

## Results

### Round 1

Qualification: First 2 in each heat (Q) and next 2 fastest (q) qualified for the final.

Wind:
Heat 1: -1.6 m/s, Heat 2: -1.0 m/s, Heat 3: -0.9 m/s

| Rank | Heat | Name | Nationality | Time | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 3 | Anna Kiełbasińska | Poland | 23.50 | Q |
| 2 | 3 | Edidiong Odiong | Bahrain | 23.56 | Q |
| 3 | 2 | Nataliya Pohrebnyak | Ukraine | 23.90 | Q |
| 4 | 1 | Vitória Cristina Rosa | Brazil | 24.06 | Q |
| 5 | 2 | Nadezhda Kotliarova | Russia | 24.09 | Q |
| 6 | 2 | Rosângela Santos | Brazil | 24.09 | q |
| 7 | 3 | Andriana Ferra | Greece | 24.14 | q |
| 8 | 1 | Kseniya Ryzhova | Russia | 24.16 | Q |
| 9 | 1 | Marta Jeschke | Poland | 24.20 |  |
| 10 | 2 | Xuan Wang | China | 24.30 |  |
| 11 | 1 | Yelyzaveta Bryzhina | Ukraine | 24.42 |  |
| 12 | 2 | Sabina Mukoswa | Kenya | 25.37 |  |
| 13 | 3 | Margarita Manzueta | Dominican Republic | 25.48 |  |
| 14 | 2 | LaTisha Moulds | United States | 26.32 |  |
| 15 | 3 | Rose Cherono Sang | Kenya | 26.38 |  |
| 16 | 2 | Jelena Marsenic | Montenegro | 32.91 |  |
|  | 1 | Xuejing Yao | China | DQ | R163.3 |
|  | 3 | Alexina Haantebe | Zambia | DQ | R163.3 |

### Final

Wind: +3.2 m/s

| Rank | Lane | Name | Nationality | Time | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 6 | Edidiong Odiong | Bahrain | 23.18 |  |
|  | 5 | Anna Kiełbasińska | Poland | 23.33 |  |
|  | 1 | Rosângela Santos | Brazil | 23.38 |  |
| 4 | 4 | Nataliya Pohrebnyak | Ukraine | 23.55 |  |
| 5 | 2 | Andriana Ferra | Greece | 23.66 |  |
| 6 | 8 | Nadezhda Kotliarova | Russia | 23.69 |  |
| 7 | 3 | Vitória Cristina Rosa | Brazil | 23.81 |  |
|  | 7 | Kseniya Ryzhova | Russia | DQ | R162.7 |


title: Tranås

abstract: Tranås is a locality and the seat of Tranås Municipality, Jönköping County, Sweden with 14,197 inhabitants in 2010.

text:
# Tranås

**Tranås** (Swedish pronunciation: \[ˈtrɑ̂ːnoːs\]) is a locality and the seat of Tranås Municipality, Jönköping County, Sweden with 14,197 inhabitants in 2010.

## Overview

It is close to the lake Sommen in the north of Småland. Its main commercial center is located along the main street, Storgatan. The symbol of the town is the crane as featured on the town's coat of arms. Some of the bigger employers in the town are Strömsholmen, Pastejköket, OEM, EFG (European Furniture Group) and IVT.

The company Stiga was founded by Stig Hjelmquist in Tranås 1934. Since 2005 there is free bus service in the central part of town.

The town is also the home of Wood House, a major table tennis blade manufacturing facility

## Notable people

## InfoBox

| Tranås | |
| --- | --- |
| Summer in Tranås | |
| TranåsTranås | |
| Coordinates: 58°02′N 14°58′E / 58.033°N 14.967°E / 58.033; 14.967 | |
| Country | Sweden |
| Province | Småland |
| County | Jönköping County |
| Municipality | Tranås Municipality |
| Area | |
| Total | 10.56 km2 (4.08 sq mi) |
| Population (31 December 2010) | |
| Total | 14,197 |
| Density | 1,345/km2 (3,480/sq mi) |
| Time zone | UTC+1 (CET) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+2 (CEST) |


abstract: The Treaty of Establishment, Commerce and Navigation was signed on August 25, 1935, between representatives of Iran and the Soviet Union. This accord helped to reinforce the tenets of the Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship. Based on the terms of the treaty, both signatories reinforced their respective rights to fly their national flags on their respective commercial vessels. Moreover, both signatories were allowed to fish in the Caspian Sea within ten nautical miles (19 km) of the coastline.

text:
# Treaty of Establishment, Commerce and Navigation

The **Treaty of Establishment, Commerce and Navigation** (or the **Treaty of Establishment, Commerce and Navigation with Full Protocols and Annex**) was signed on August 25, 1935, between representatives of Iran and the Soviet Union. This accord helped to reinforce the tenets of the Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship. Based on the terms of the treaty, both signatories reinforced their respective rights to fly their national flags on their respective commercial vessels. Moreover, both signatories were allowed to fish in the Caspian Sea within ten nautical miles (19 km) of the coastline.

## Sources

* Mehdiyoun, Kamyar. "Ownership of Oil and Gas Resources in the Caspian Sea." *The American Journal of International Law*. Vol. 94, No. 1 (January 2000), pp. 179–189.


title: Treaty of Falaise

abstract: The Treaty of Falaise was a forced written agreement made in December 1174 between the captive William I, King of Scots, and Henry II, King of England. During the Revolt of 1173-1174, William joined the rebels and was captured at the Battle of Alnwick during an invasion of Northumbria. He was transported to Falaise in Normandy while Henry prosecuted the war against his sons and their allies. Left with little choice, William agreed to the Treaty and therefore England's dominion over Scotland. For the first time, the relationship between the king of Scots and the king of England was to be set down in writing. The Treaty's provisions affected the Scottish king, nobles, and clergy; their heirs; judicial proceedings, and transferred the castles of Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling over to English soldiers; in short, where previously the king of Scots was supreme, now England was the ultimate authority in Scotland. During the next 15 years, William was forced to observe Henry's overlordship, such as needing to obtain permission from the English crown before putting down local uprisings. The humiliation for William caused domestic trouble for him in Scotland, and Henry's authority extended as far as picking William's bride. The treaty was annulled in 1189 when King Richard I, Henry's successor, was distracted by his interest in joining the Third Crusade, and William's offer of 10,000 marks sterling. More pre-disposed to William than his father, Richard drew up a new charter on 5 December 1189, known as the Quitclaim of Canterbury, that nullified the Treaty of Falaise in its entirety. This new written agreement restored Scottish sovereignty, reverting to the previously vague and ill-defined personal traditions of fealty and homage between Scottish and English kings, rather than the direct subjugation that Henry demanded.

text:
# Treaty of Falaise

The **Treaty of Falaise** was a forced written agreement made in December 1174 between the captive William I, King of Scots, and Henry II, King of England.

During the Revolt of 1173-1174, William joined the rebels and was captured at the Battle of Alnwick during an invasion of Northumbria. He was transported to Falaise in Normandy while Henry prosecuted the war against his sons and their allies. Left with little choice, William agreed to the Treaty and therefore England's dominion over Scotland. For the first time, the relationship between the king of Scots and the king of England was to be set down in writing. The Treaty's provisions affected the Scottish king, nobles, and clergy; their heirs; judicial proceedings, and transferred the castles of Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling over to English soldiers; in short, where previously the king of Scots was supreme, now England was the ultimate authority in Scotland.

During the next 15 years, William was forced to observe Henry's overlordship, such as needing to obtain permission from the English crown before putting down local uprisings. The humiliation for William caused domestic trouble for him in Scotland, and Henry's authority extended as far as picking William's bride.

The treaty was annulled in 1189 when King Richard I, Henry's successor, was distracted by his interest in joining the Third Crusade, and William's offer of 10,000 marks sterling. More pre-disposed to William than his father, Richard drew up a new charter on 5 December 1189, known as the Quitclaim of Canterbury, that nullified the Treaty of Falaise in its entirety. This new written agreement restored Scottish sovereignty, reverting to the previously vague and ill-defined personal traditions of fealty and homage between Scottish and English kings, rather than the direct subjugation that Henry demanded.

## Background

### The Northumbrian Question

To understand how William came to be captured at Alnwick, one must go back to the question of Northumbria. The seeds of William's discontent were sown in July 1157, when Henry II deprived his brother Malcolm IV, king of Scots, of certain lands and titles that their grandfather, David I, had secured for Scotland from Stephen, king of England, in 1139. The ill-defined border of northern England and southern Scotland had been a matter of dispute depending on the relative power and relationship between Scottish and English kings in the 12th century. Taking advantage of English civil unrest during The Anarchy, the succession crisis between Stephen and Empress Matilda, Henry II's mother, David invaded northern England on behalf of the Empress’ claim to the English throne. While he had sworn allegiance to his niece Matilda as Henry I's successor in 1127, this may have amounted to a principled pretext for his invasion as David believed that Northumbria and Cumberland were his by right through his late wife. Through the second Treaty of Durham in 1139, he secured from Stephen Scottish control of these border lands, including the Earldom of Northumbria for his son, Henry, father of Malcolm and William. For Scotland, Northumbria, Cumberland, and other border lands won by David were now viewed as hereditary, and no longer disputed. However, by retaining English control of two castles in Northumbria, Bamburgh and Newcastle, Stephen was able to keep the Northumbrian question on the table for future disputes.

### A King, Spurned

William assumed the Scottish throne in 1164, and almost immediately set out to reclaim the Earldom of Northumbria, which he still viewed as his rightful inheritance. Perhaps taking a cue from his grandfather's maneuvers, William attempted to capitalize on Henry's divided attentions by pressing his claim for Northumbria and Cumberland in 1166. Joining Henry to quell unrest in Normandy, William participated in the military campaign, perhaps as a gesture of good faith, but ultimately returned to Scotland empty-handed. A letter sent to Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, around this time describes Henry's anger when one of his knights spoke favorably of William, depicting a deteriorating personal relationship between the two kings. Further evidence points to William sending emissaries to Louis VII in 1168 amidst renewed warfare between the English and French, but nothing came of this once peace negotiations began between Henry and Louis. A few years later, William tried again when meeting with Henry at Windsor in April 1170, but was rebuffed; however, as earl of Huntingdon (but not as king of Scots) he was required to perform homage to Young Henry, who was now crowned as king-designate.

## William Joins the Revolt

As three of Henry's sons, Young Henry, Richard, and Geoffrey; his wife, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, along with various nobles and barons; and aided by Louis VII of France; began their rebellion in 1173, William saw another opportunity to reclaim Northumbria. He received overtures from Young Henry, and a letter from Louis promising that William “should be put in possession of the land which his ancestors had once held…the land north of the Tyne or Northumberland, and the counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland.” Unsure which side to join, he sent messengers to Henry in Normandy offering 1000 knights and 30000 soldiers, and in return “only what is his lawful due, that is to say, first of all Northumberland, to which no one has so good a right as himself.” Rejected again by Henry, William aligns with the rebels and invades northern England.

While directing a scattered series of raids in Northumbria, on 13 July 1174, William left himself with only a small retinue of knights and was surprised by a force of Henry's loyalists at Alnwick. Upon identifying the English advancing at close range, William mounted his horse and cried, ‘We shall now see who will act the part of a good knight!” He cut his way through the enemy until his horse was killed out from under him, becoming trapped and forced to surrender to Ranulph de Glanvill. William was brought to Newcastle and then to Richmond, to await his fate from Henry. With the main threat on his northern front subdued, on 26 July Henry had William brought to him at Northampton “with his feet fastened beneath a horse’s belly,” an especially demeaning way to treat a fellow king. For William, this ride of shame was only just the beginning.

Eventually brought to the castle in Falaise in Normandy, William waited out the now-inevitable conclusion of the rebellion. An agreement was drawn up while William was in captivity in Falaise, but it was issued at Valognes on 8 December 1174. As per the agreement, Henry arranged a public ceremony, held in York on 10 August 1175, where William sealed the document in front of his brother and heir, David, and a host of Scottish nobles, and the Treaty was read aloud for all to witness.

## The Treaty of Falaise, 1174

### Text of the Treaty

This is the agreement and treaty which William, king of Scots, made with his lord king, Henry, the son of Maud, the empress:

*William, king of Scots, has become liegeman of the lord king (Henry) against every man in respect of Scotland and in respect of all his other lands; and he has done fealty to him as his liege lord, as all the other men of the lord king (Henry) are wont to do. Likewise, he has done homage to Henry the king, son of King Henry, saving only the fealty which he owes to the lord king, his father.*

*And all the bishops and abbots and clergy of the king of Scots and their successors shall do fealty to the lord king (Henry) as to their liege lord, in the same way as the lord king’s other bishops are wont to do; and they shall likewise do fealty to Henry the king, his son, and to his heirs.*

*And the king of Scots, and David, his brother, and his barons and other men, have granted to the lord king (Henry) that the Scottish Church shall make submission to the English Church as it ought to do, and as it was wont to do in the time of the lord kin’s predecessors, kings of England. Likewise, Richard, bishop of St. Andrews, and Richard, bishop of Dunkeld, and Geoffrey, abbot of Dunfermline, and Herbert, prior of Coldingham, have granted that the English Church should have such rights in Scotland as it ought to have, and that they will themselves not oppose any of the rights of the English Church. And they have pledged themselves in respect of this admission by performing liege fealty to the lord king and Henry, his son.*

*Likewise the other Scottish bishops and clergy shall do so by a pact made between the lord king (Henry) and the king of Scots, and David, his brother, and his barons.*

*The earls also and barons and such other men holding land from the king of Scots as the lord king Henry may select, shall also do homage to the lord king as against all men, and shall swear fealty to him as their liege lord, in the same way as his other men are wont to do. And they shall do the same to Henry the king, his son, and to his heirs, saving only the fealty which they owe to the lord king, his father. Likewise, the heirs of the king of Scots, and of his barons, and of his men shall do liege homage to the heirs of the lord king (Henry) against all other men.*

*Further, the king of Scots and his men shall not receive, either in Scotland or in any of his other lands, any exile from the lands of the lord king who has been expelled therefrom by reason of felony, unless he wishes to justify himself in the court of the lord king (Henry), and to submit to the judgment of his court. Otherwise, the king of Scots and his men shall take such a one as quickly as they can and bring him to the lord king (Henry) or to his justiciars or to his bailiffs in England.*

*Again, if there comes to England any fugitive expelled as a felon from the lands of the king of Scots he shall not be received in the lands of the lord king (Henry) unless he wishes to justify himself in the court of the king of Scots, and to submit to the judgment of his court. Otherwise such a one shall be delivered to the men of the king of the Scots by the bailiffs of the lord king (Henry) wherever he is found.*

*Further, the men of the lord king (Henry) shall continue to hold the lands which they held, and which they ought to hold, from the lord king (Henry) and from the king of Scots and from their men. And the men of the king of Scots shall continue to hold the lands which they held, and which they ought to hold, from the lord king (Henry) and from his men.*

*In order that treaty and pact with the lord king (Henry) and Henry the king, his son, and their heirs, may be faithfully kept by the king of Scots and his heirs, the king of Scots has delivered to the lord king (Henry) the castle of Roxburgh, and the castle of Berwick, and the castle of Jedburgh, and the castle of Edinburgh, and the castle of Stirling to be held by the lord king (Henry) at his pleasure. And the king of Scots shall pay for the garrison of these castles out of his own revenue at the pleasure of the lord king (Henry).*

*Further, in pledge of the aforesaid treaty and pact, the king of Scots has delivered to the lord king (Henry) his brother, David, as a hostage, and also the following: Earl Duncan, Earl Waldewin, Earl Gilbert, the earl of Angus, Richard of Morville the constable, Niz son of William, Richard Comyn, Walter Corbet, Walter Olyfard, John de Vals, William of Lindsay, Philip de Coleville, Philip of Valognes, Robert Frembert, Robert de Burneville, Hugh Giffard, Hugh Rydal, Walter Berkele, William de la Haye, William de Mortemer.*

*When the castles have been handed over, then shall William king of Scots, and David his brother, be released. And (again after the castles have been handed over) the earls and barons aforesaid shall be released, but only after each one has delivered his own hostage, to wit, his legitimate son if he has one, or otherwise his nephew or nearest heir.*

*Further, the king of Scots and his barons aforesaid have guaranteed that with good faith and without evil intent and without excuse, they will see to it that the bishops and barons, and other men of their land, who were not present when the king of Scots made his pact with the lord king (Henry) and with Henry the king, his son, shall do the same liege homage and fealty as they themselves have done. And the barons and men, who were not present at this agreement, shall give such hostages as the lord king (Henry) shall determine.*

*Further, the bishops, earls and barons aforesaid have covenanted with the lord king (Henry) and with Henry the king, his son, that is the king of Scots shall by any mischance default in his fealty to the lord king (Henry) and his son, and shall thus break the aforesaid agreement, then they, the aforesaid bishops, earls and barons will hold to the lord king (Henry), as to their liege lord, against the king of Scots and against all men hostile to the lord king (Henry). And the bishops shall place the land of the king of Scots under interdict until the king of Scots returns to the lord king (Henry) in his fealty.*

*The king of Scots and David, his son, and all the aforesaid barons, as liegemen of the lord king (Henry) and of Henry the king, his son (saving only their fealty to the lord king, his father), have give full sworn assurance that the aforesaid treaty shall be strictly observed by them in good faith and without any evil intent.*

*And these are the witnesses: Richard, bishop of Avranches; John, dean of Salisbury; Robert, abbot of Malmesbury; Ralph, abbot of Montebourg; Herbert, archdeacon of Northampton; Walter of Coutances; Roger, the king’s chaplain; Osbert, clerk of the chamber; Richard, son of the lord king, and count of Poitou; Geoffrey, son of the lord king, and count of Brittany; William, earl of Essex; Hugh, earl of Chester; Ricard of Le Hommet, the constable; the count of Meulan; Jordan Tesson; Humphrey “de Bohun”; William of Courcy, the seneschal; William, son of Aldhelm, the seneschal; Alfred of Saint-Martin, the seneschal; Gilbert Malet, the seneschal.*

*At Falaise.*

### Analysis of the Treaty's Provisions

The Treaty set terms that, for the first time written down in an official document and declared publicly, defined the king of Scots to be subservient to the king of England. Its provisions affected the Scottish king, nobles, and clergy, and all their heirs; judicial proceedings, and the loss of castles; in short, where previously the king of Scots was supreme, now England was the ultimate authority in Scotland.

The first proviso states clearly, “*William, king of Scots, has become liegeman of the lord king (Henry) against every man **in respect of Scotland** and in respect of all his other lands; and he has done fealty to him as his liege lord, as all the other men of the lord king (Henry) are wont to do.”* The Scottish king now explicitly owes fealty to England for Scotland, a remarkable change from the previous personal fealty traditions that existed before. When William paid homage to Henry previously, he did so as Earl of Huntingdon, not as king of Scots, and likewise for Malcolm and David and previous kings paying homage for their English holdings. The dance of fealty among Scottish and English kings had historically been purposely vague, for diplomatic and personal reasons. Past Scottish kings had certainly been called ‘the man’ of English rulers, but this relationship was ill-defined and ambiguous. Now, Henry was making English dominance clear in no uncertain terms, which extended beyond William.

Scottish nobles, like their king, now owed fealty to Henry and his heirs “against all men,” as did bishops, abbots, and clergy. This meant that the loyalty of Scottish nobles was greater towards Henry than William, and should he “draw back” from the agreement they must intervene on Henry's behalf, an unprecedented direct intervention between the Scottish king and his people. In addition to the clergy owing fealty, the Church of Scotland was now subject to the Church of England, an aggressive move to enshrine the Archbishop of York’s supremacy over Scotland, and one in which the king of England lacked authority to mandate.

As further punishment, five castles – Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling \- were also handed over to Henry, to be manned by English soldiers at Scotland’s expense. Another provision details the respective responsibilities for dealing with fugitives, with England able to try Scottish fugitives, but the Scots required to hand over English felons. To further secure the subservience of Scotland writ large, barons and bishops not present would be required to perform the same liege homage, and hostages comprising their heirs or nearest kin turned over.

Negotiated while William was prisoner, or rather dictated to him, the public act of submission occurred at the church of St. Peter’s in York in front of the chief men of the English kingdom. In front of his own nobles, clergy, knights, and freeholders, William and his brother sealed the document and had to suffer the additional embarrassment of it being read aloud to all. Two crucial drafting details stand out that add to the scale of humiliation:

*“Scotland was recurrently referred to as a land (terra), not as a kingdom (regnum) thereby anticipating by over a century Edward I’s vocabulary of demotion, while the premier-league status of Henry II’s title as ‘the lord king’ (dominus rex) stood in pointed superiority to that of William, merely ‘king of the Scots’ (rex Scottorum).”*

This concept of an English ‘overlordship’ or ‘high kingship’ would define this relationship throughout the duration of the Treaty. This was not explicitly a feudal relationship, as the Treaty did not call Scotland a ‘fief,’ nor that Scotland was ‘held’ or ‘had’ by the king of England. Henry was the high king, allowing William to reign as king of Scots so long as he “acknowledged \[his\] ultimate dependence” on Henry's overriding lordship.

## Aftermath

Following the enactment of this Treaty, William suffers several humiliations back in Scotland as a result of his weakened position. In Galloway, previous tensions surfaced to take advantage of William's subjugation, and for which William needed to seek advice and council of Henry before commencing any actions to re-assert Scottish control over Galloway. In Moray and Ross, brooding anger among certain nobles gave rise to potential challengers to the kingship, principally Donald MacWilliam, a possibly illegitimate descendant of Duncan II. William's frequent visits to Henry's court, about eight in 10 years, his weakened position at home, and the embarrassment of having Scotland's heirs held by Henry, gave rise to serious discontent.

As William's overlord, Henry was also afforded the right to pick his bride. William's first request of Henry's eldest granddaughter, Matilda of Saxony, was declined on a papal ruling of consanguinity, which may have been the outcome Henry sought. In 1186, Henry selected Ermengarde, his kinswoman but the daughter of a relatively minor noble Richard, viscount of Beaumont, and for his gift he returned to William the castle at Edinburgh. Taken with William's reinstatement as the Earl of Huntingdon (which he passed immediately to David in 1185), William's continued fealty, combined with Henry's recognition of the more important French threats to his kingdom, provided the Scots with some positive gains a decade into the Treaty.

For Henry, the Treaty was just another feather in his cap after quashing the rebellion; for he had already brought his rebellious children back in the fold, and neutralized Queen Eleanor by sentencing her to confinement under guard at various castles, a punishment he maintained for the rest of his life. Despite his now direct overlordship of Scotland, Henry did not have to do much, nor was he asked very often, to intervene in general Scottish affairs. The only surviving evidence that a Scot appealed directly to Henry for assistance was from Abbot Archibald of Dunfermline. The abbot sought Henry's protection because of continued harassment at the port of Musselburgh from the English garrison stationed at nearby Edinburgh, not in response to an action William had taken as king of Scots. A happenstance of timing during the rebellion played to his good fortune, as he performed public penance at Thomas Becket’s tomb on his return to England on 12 July 1174. With William’s capture occurring the following day, Henry was at once able to move past the ugliness associated with Becket’s murder and claim divine intervention on his, and England’s, behalf against the Scots, the French, and his own children.

## Revocation

### Subjugation Ended

Upon Henry’s death in 1189, Richard I assumed the throne and received William shortly after his coronation. Distracted by his interest in departing for the Third Crusade, and much more pre-disposed to William than his father, on 5 December 1189, Richard drew up a new charter with William, known as the Quitclaim of Canterbury, that nullified the Treaty of Falaise in its entirety:

*“Accordingly, William, king of the Scots, came to the king of England at Canterbury in the month of December, and did homage to him for his dignities in England, in the same manner that his brother Malcolm had held them. Richard, king of England, also restored to him the castle at Roxburgh, and the castle of Berwick, freely and quietly to be held by him; and he acquitted and released him and all his heirs from all homage and allegiance, for the kingdom of Scotland, to him and the kings of England, for ever. For this gift of his castles and for quitting claim to all fealty and allegiance for the kingdom of Scotland, and for the charter of Richard, king of England, signifying the same, William, king of Scots, gave to Richard, king of England, ten thousand marks sterling.”*

William, and Scotland, were now freed from their humiliating subjugation. The original Treaty of Falaise was handed over to William, and presumably destroyed. A contemporary account of Scotland’s regained independence declared that “by God’s assistance, he \[William\] worthily and honourably removed his \[Henry’s\] heavy yoke of domination and servitude from the kingdom of the Scots.”

### Quitclaim of Canterbury, 1189

The Charter of the king of England as to the liberties granted by him to William, king of Scotland:

*Richard, by the grace of God, king of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitane and earl of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbats, earls, barons, justices, and sheriffs, and all his servants and faithful people throughout the whole of England, greeting. Know ye that we have restored to our most dearly-beloved cousin William, by the same grace of king of the Scots, his castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, to be held by him and his heirs for ever as his own of hereditary right. We have also acquitted and released him of and from all covenants and agreements which Henry, king of England, our father, of happy memory, extorted from him by new charters, and in consequence of his capture; upon condition, however, that he shall in all things do unto us as fully as Malcolm, king of the Scots, his brother, did as of right unto our predecessors, and of right was bound to do. We likewise will do for him whatever rights our predecessors did and were bound to do for the said Malcolm, both in his coming with a safe-conduct to our court, and in his returning from our court, and while he is staying at our court, and in making due provision for him, and according to him all liberties, dignities, and honors due to him as of right, according as the same shall be ascertained by four of our nobles who shall be selected by us. And if any one of our subjects shall, since the time when the said king William was taken prisoner by our father, have seized upon any of the borders or marches of the kingdom of Scotland, without the same being legally adjudicated to him; then we do will that the same shall be restored to him in full, and shall be placed in the same state in which they were before he was so taken prisoner. Moreover, as to his lands which he may hold in England, whether in demesne or whether in fee, that is to say in the county of Huntingdon, and in all other counties, he and his heirs shall hold the said counties as fully and freely for ever as the said Malcolm held or ought to have held the same, unless the said Malcolm or his heirs shall have since enfeoffed any one of the same; on the further condition also that if any one shall be hereafter enfeoffed of the same, the services of said fees shall belong to him or his heirs. And if our said father shall have given anything to William, king of the Scots, we do will that the same shall be hereby ratified and confirmed. We have also restored to him all allegiances of his subjects and all charters which the king our father obtained of him by reason of his capture. And if any other charters shall chance, through forgetfulness, to have been retained by us or shall hereafter be found we do hereby order that the same shall be utterly void and of no effect. He has also become our liegeman as to all the lands for which his predecessors were liegemen to our predecessors, and has sworn fealty to ourselves and to our heirs. The following being witnesses hereto: - Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, Walter, archbishop of Rouen; Hugh, bishop if Durham; John, bishop of Norwich; Hubert, bishop of Salisbury; Hugh, bishop of Lincoln; Godfrey, bishop of Winchester; Gilbert, bishop of Rochester; Reginald, bishop of Bath; Hugh, bishop of Coventry; William, bishop of Worcester; Eleanor, the king's mother; John, earl of Mortaigne, the king's brother, and many others.*

## Legacy

Even though the Treaty of Falaise was in effect for only fifteen years, it had a lasting impact on English-Scottish relations. The nature of the Treaty required that another written document would have to succeed it, as the Quitclaim of Canterbury did. The explosion of charters and treaties in the 12th and 13th centuries highlighted this growing method of diplomacy, although their effect depended on who would enforce them. The immediate consequence was a reversion to the previous tradition of fealty and homage on a personal level, not “for” Scotland as Henry had demanded. The intrusive English “overlordship” was no more, but despite William’s umbrage at being the lesser, Henry did not truly exploit the Treaty’s powers, as evidenced by his decision to not even establish English garrisons in all the castles that William was required to surrender. Henry’s ultimate goal may have been to keep the Scots in line, rather than him having to manage another kingdom.

Perhaps the most consequential legacy of Henry’s victory over the rebellion, which gave rise to this Treaty, stemmed from his visit to Becket’s tomb. Helping to cement for eternity a new patron saint of England, Henry pressed for total subjugation of Scotland as well. Regarding its provisos relating to the Church of England’s dominion over its Scottish counterpart, the Treaty of Falaise ultimately forced the opposite result. The question of England’s supremacy over the Church of Scotland had seemed to be answered by the Treaty. Henry tried to force the subjection of Scottish bishops per the Treaty at a council in Northampton, but a dispute between the archbishops of Canterbury and York over which of them should be Scotland’s metropolitan allowed time for an appeal to Rome. Pope Alexander III issued the bull *Super anxietatibus* on 30 July 1176, which declared that the bishops of Scotland should regard the pope as their metropolitan until further notice. This became official in 1192 with the *Cum universi* establishing the Church of Scotland as an independent body.

When it comes to Northumbria, William was never able to get over the loss of his earldom. In 1194, he offered 15,000 marks of silver for Northumberland, but Richard would only part with the land and not the castles, which was unacceptable to William. With John's ascension in 1199, William made several more attempts over the years, each of which was rebuffed. William dies in 1214, having never recovered Northumbria, the issue which defined so many of his actions relating to England throughout his long reign.

In sum, the Treaty of Falaise played an important role in English and Scottish history, as its short-lived declaration of English dominion would set the table for more hostilities down the line. Future English kings would press these claims, and look to the Treaty's spirit to force English dominion in Scotland, as well as Wales and Ireland. The revocation of the Treaty provided for a century of uneasy alliance, until Edward I capitalized on a succession crisis to re-assert England's complete control over Scotland, leading to the Scottish Wars of Independence beginning in 1296.

## References.


title: Traian Georgescu

abstract: Traian Georgescu was a Romanian football defender who spent his entire career at Universitatea Cluj. He was "U" Cluj's captain when the club won the 1964–65 Cupa României.

text:
# Traian Georgescu

**Traian Georgescu** (20 March 1931 – 15 May 2008) was a Romanian football defender who spent his entire career at Universitatea Cluj. He was "U" Cluj's captain when the club won the 1964–65 Cupa României.

## Career

> "The man of balance. An exponential player who was a conductor of the defense. At the same time, he feeds the midfielders or forwards with the precision of his passes. A special altruist and a special captain. The way he was, is the way a captain must be"

–Former "U" Cluj teammate, Remus Câmpeanu talking about Georgescu

Traian Georgescu was born on 20 March 1931 in Ploiești, Romania where he started to play junior level football in 1946 at Prahova Ploiești, switching teams in 1948 when he went at neighboring club, Concordia Ploiești. He went to college at the Faculty of Medicine from Cluj-Napoca, where he started to play senior level football at local club, Universitatea, making his Divizia A debut on 15 April 1951 under coach Iuliu Baratky in a 4–1 away loss in front of Flacăra Petroșani. In the same year, he scored all the goals of Universitatea, in the 3–1 victory against CCA București, the second goal being considered by the press of the time as the most beautiful goal of that season for Universitatea, when Georgescu made a run from the center of the field and with a shot from 20 meters he defeated goalkeeper Ion Voinescu. By the end of his first season he would score a total of six goals, except for the hat-trick against CCA, he scored once against each of Dinamo București, Locomotiva Timișoara and Flacăra Mediaș, the latter being in the Cupa României. In 1954 he was called up by Romania's national team coach, Ștefan Dobay for a friendly with Hungary in which however he did not play. After the team relegated in 1956, Georgescu stayed with the club, also becoming the team's captain after Mircea Luca retired, helping it promote back to the first league after one year in which scored four goals in 23 matches. He helped "U" Cluj win the 1964–65 Cupa României, being used all the minutes by coach Andrei Sepci in the 2–1 victory from the final with Dinamo Pitești. In the following season, Georgescu made his debut in European competitions, playing three games in the 1965–66 European Cup Winners' Cup, helping *The Red Caps* eliminate Austrian team, Wiener Neustadt in the first round, being eliminated in the following round by Atlético Madrid. He retired shortly after the double with the Spaniards, having a total of 280 Divizia A games with 13 goals scored.

## Personal life

Georgescu also worked as a surgeon and when his team colleague Remus Câmpeanu was diagnosed with appendicitis, Georgescu was the one who operated him at Câmpeanu's request. He died in 2008 a few years after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

## Honours

**Universitatea Cluj**

## InfoBox

Traian Georgescu
| Personal information | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Date of birth | (1931-03-20)20 March 1931 | | |
| Place of birth | Ploiești, Romania | | |
| Date of death | 15 May 2008(2008-05-15) (aged 77) | | |
| Place of death | Romania | | |
| Height | 1.74 m (5 ft 9 in) | | |
| Position(s) | Midfielder / Defender | | |
| Youth career | | | |
| 1946–1948 | Prahova Ploiești | | |
| 1948–1951 | Concordia Ploiești | | |
| Senior career\* | | | |
| Years | **Team** | **Apps** | **(Gls)** |
| 1951–1966 | Universitatea Cluj | 303 | (17) |
| \*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 1 January 2020 | | | |


title: W. Nathaniel Howell

abstract: Wilson Nathaniel "Nat" Howell was an American diplomat and educator. He served as the United States Ambassador to Kuwait from 1987 to 1991. Born in Portsmouth, Virginia, Howell earned a B.A. at the University of Virginia, 1961. He earned a Ph.D. in Government and Foreign Affairs at UVA, 1965, and entered the Foreign Service. From 1970 to 1972, he studied Arabic at the Foreign Service Institute, Beirut, Lebanon. On May 26, 1987, President Reagan announced his intention to nominate Howell to be Ambassador of the U.S. to Kuwait. Howell was at his post awaiting reassignment when, on August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City, was declared closed by Saddam Hussein on August 24, by which time many Americans and other nationals had taken refuge on the embassy compound. Iraq's declaration of the annexation of Kuwait, by means of trumped-up historical, economic and political pretexts, was not recognized by the U.S. It was decided to keep the mission open, under siege, as Iraq would not allow non-diplomats to leave the country. For reasons best known to himself, Saddam relented and allowed all persons on the compound to leave overland, by way of Baghdad, in mid-December 1990, before the start of the Gulf War. At that point, Howell and the remainder of his staff left the embassy unoccupied, though technically not "closed," until his successor, Skip Gnehm, returned upon the liberation of Kuwait. In 1992, W. Nathaniel Howell joined the faculty of UVA. His positions included diplomat-in-residence; director, Arab Peninsula and Gulf Studies Program; member of the Steering Committee of CIAG; and John Minor Maury, Jr., Professor of Public Affairs. He retired as Professor Emeritus in early 2015. He died in Charlottesville on December 17, 2020, at the age of 81.

text:
# W. Nathaniel Howell

**Wilson Nathaniel "Nat" Howell** (September 14, 1939 – December 17, 2020) was an American diplomat and educator. He served as the United States Ambassador to Kuwait from 1987 to 1991.

Born in Portsmouth, Virginia, Howell earned a B.A. at the University of Virginia, 1961. He earned a Ph.D. in Government and Foreign Affairs at UVA, 1965, and entered the Foreign Service. From 1970 to 1972, he studied Arabic at the Foreign Service Institute, Beirut, Lebanon.

On May 26, 1987, President Reagan announced his intention to nominate Howell to be Ambassador of the U.S. to Kuwait. Howell was at his post awaiting reassignment when, on August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City, was declared closed by Saddam Hussein on August 24, by which time many Americans and other nationals had taken refuge on the embassy compound. Iraq's declaration of the annexation of Kuwait, by means of trumped-up historical, economic and political pretexts, was not recognized by the U.S. It was decided to keep the mission open, under siege, as Iraq would not allow non-diplomats to leave the country (Iraq retained foreign "guests" as human shields, to deter military strikes).

For reasons best known to himself, Saddam relented and allowed all persons on the compound to leave overland, by way of Baghdad, in mid-December 1990, before the start of the Gulf War. At that point, Howell and the remainder of his staff left the embassy unoccupied, though technically not "closed," until his successor, Skip Gnehm, returned upon the liberation of Kuwait.

In 1992, W. Nathaniel Howell joined the faculty of UVA. His positions included diplomat-in-residence; director, Arab Peninsula and Gulf Studies Program; member of the Steering Committee of CIAG; and John Minor Maury, Jr., Professor of Public Affairs. He retired as Professor Emeritus in early 2015. He died in Charlottesville on December 17, 2020, at the age of 81.

## Service chronology

Nat Howell's Diplomatic Chronology
| Position | Host Location | Year(s) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| US Foreign Service | Washington, D.C. | 1965 to 1966
 |
| US Foreign Service | Cairo, Egypt | 1966 to 1967
 |
| US Foreign Service (NATO) | Paris, France
Brussels, Belgium | 1967
 |
| US Foreign Service (INR) | Washington, D.C. | 1968 to 1970
 |
| US Foreign Service (FSI: Arabic) | Beirut, Lebanon | 1970 to 1972
 |
| US Foreign Service | Abu Dhabi, UAE | 1972 to 1974
 |
| US Foreign Service | Beirut, Lebanon | 1974 to 1976
 |
| US Foreign Service (NEA/ARN) | Washington, D.C. | 1976 to 1982
 |
| US Foreign Service (NWC) | Fort McNair | 1982 to 1983
 |
| US Foreign Service (DCM) | Algiers, Algeria | 1983 to 1985
 |
| US Foreign Service (CENTCOM POLAD) | MacDill AFB | 1985 to 1987
 |
| U.S. Ambassador | Kuwait City, Kuwait | 1987 to 1991
 |

## Further reading

* Culbertson, Roberta; Howell, W. Nathaniel (2001). *Siege: Crisis Leadership: The Survival of U.S. Embassy Kuwait*. Charlottesville, VA: VFH Press. ISBN 0-9668919-2-9.
* Howell, W. Nathaniel (2016). *Strangers When We Met: a Century of American Community in Kuwait*. New Academia Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9966484-1-7.


title: Tully Formation

abstract: The Tully Formation is a geologic unit in the Appalachian Basin. The Tully was deposited as a carbonate rich mud, in a shallow sea at the end of the Middle Devonian. Outcrops for the Tully are found in New York State and Pennsylvania. It is also found subsurface in western Maryland and northern West Virginia. A number of fossil remains from marine organisms maybe found in Tully out crops.

text:
# Tully Formation

The **Tully Formation** is a geologic unit in the Appalachian Basin. The Tully was deposited as a carbonate rich mud, in a shallow sea at the end of the Middle Devonian. Outcrops for the Tully are found in New York State and Pennsylvania. It is also found subsurface in western Maryland and northern West Virginia. A number of fossil remains from marine organisms maybe found in Tully out crops.

## Description

The Tully is primary made up of limestone. There there are also layers with much higher clay contend resulting in a calcareous shale. To the east the Tully becomes siliciclastic. This is due to sediments being washed in from the Acadian Mountains to the east. By the time the Tully was being deposited the Appalachian Basin had been nearly filled in that the Tully was deposited on a broad planform of rock. The Tully ranges in thickness to less than 1' in western New York to 70'+ thick in central Pennsylvania and 90'+ thick in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia.

## Fossils

### Brachiopods

*Tullypothyridina, Camarotoechia Mesocostale, Rhyssochonetes, Emanuella, Pseudoatrypa, Spinatrypa, Tylothyris, Mucrospirifer tulliensis, Cyrtina, Tullypothyridina, Echinocoelia, Strophodonta*

## InfoBox

| Tully Formation | |
| --- | --- |
| Stratigraphic range: Devonian | |
| Tully Formation at Taughannock Falls State Park | |
| Type | Formation |
| Sub-units | New York* New Lisbon Member * Laurens Member * West Brook Member  Pennsylvania* Weissport Member * Brodhead Creek Member * Lehighton Member |
| Underlies | Harrell Shale/Genesee Group |
| Overlies | Hamilton Group |
| Lithology | |
| Primary | Limestone |
| Other | Shale, Siltstone, and Sandstone |
| Location | |
| Region | Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
West Virginia |
| Country | United States
Canada |
| Type section | |
| Named for | Tully, NY |
| Named by | Vanuxem (1839) |


title: Thomas D. Cook

abstract: Thomas Dixon Cook is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Northwestern University and Emeritus Fellow at their Institute for Policy Research, where he was formerly the Joan and Sarepta Harrison Chair of Ethics and Justice. In 2014, he became a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research.

text:
# Thomas D. Cook

**Thomas Dixon Cook** (born 31 July 1941) is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Northwestern University and Emeritus Fellow at their Institute for Policy Research, where he was formerly the Joan and Sarepta Harrison Chair of Ethics and Justice. In 2014, he became a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research.

## Honors and awards

Cook received the Myrdal Prize for Science from the American Evaluation Association in 1982 and the Donald Campbell Prize for Innovative Methodology from the Policy Sciences Organization in 1988. He was a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University in 1997-1998. In 2000, he was elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and he became a Margaret Mead Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in 2002. He received the Peter H. Rossi Award for Contributions to the Theory or Practice of Program Evaluation from the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management in 2012.

## InfoBox

| Thomas D. Cook | |
| --- | --- |
| Born | Thomas Dixon Cook
(1941-07-31) 31 July 1941
Birkenhead, England, United Kingdom |
| Citizenship | United Kingdom
United States |
| Education | Oxford University
Stanford University |
| Known for | Program evaluation
Social science research methods |
| Awards | Peter H. Rossi Award for Contributions to the Theory or Practice of Program Evaluation from the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (2012) |
| **Scientific career** | |
| Fields | Sociology |
| Institutions | Northwestern University
Mathematica Policy Research |
| Thesis | *Attitude change as a function of the interaction of reception and source competence* (1967) |
|  | |


title: Nubchen Sangye Yeshe

abstract: Nubchen Sangye Yeshe was one of the twenty-five principal students of Guru Padmasambhava, revealer of Vajrayana and founder of the Nyingma school and of Tibetan Buddhism. Nubchen Sangye Yeshe is considered an important figure in the development of the White Sangha of lay yogis, the Ngakpas and Ngakmas. Crazy wisdom Terton Tsasum Lingpa was a reincarnation of Nubchen Sangye Yeshe.

text:
# Nubchen Sangye Yeshe

**Nubchen Sangye Yeshe** (Tib:གནུབས་ཆེན་སངས་རྒྱས་ཡེ་ཤེས, Wylie: gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes, Chinese: 努千桑傑耶喜, Pinyin: Nǔqiān Sāngjié Yéxǐ) (9th century) was one of the twenty-five principal students of Guru Padmasambhava, revealer of Vajrayana and founder of the Nyingma school and of Tibetan Buddhism. Nubchen Sangye Yeshe is considered an important figure in the development of the White Sangha of lay yogis, the Ngakpas and Ngakmas. Crazy wisdom Terton Tsasum Lingpa (17th century) was a reincarnation of Nubchen Sangye Yeshe.

## Teachers

As well as his fame as one of the 25 principal disciples of Padmasambhava, Nubchen Sangye Yeshe is held in different sources to have been a direct disciple of Shri Simha, Vimalamitra, Kamalashila, Dhanadhala, Tshaktung Nagpo, Shantigarbha, Dhanasamskrita, Shakyadeva, Dhanarakshita, the Brahman Prakashalamkara, Dharmabodhi, Dharmaraja, Tsuglag Pelge, Acarya Vasudhara, Chetsenkye, Nak Jñanakumara, Sogdian Pelgi Yeshe and Gyelwei Yönten.

## Works

Nubchen Sangye Yeshe wrote the *Armor Against Darkness* (Wylie: *mun pai go cha*), a major commentary on *The Six Tantras Clarifying the Six Limits* (*dgongs pa dus pai mdo*), which is a central tantra of the Anuyoga tradition.

Namkhai Norbu also identifies Nubchen Sangye Yeshe as the author of a treatise, *Samten Migdrön* (*bsam gtan mig sgron*). Nyingma scholar Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche has written the primary commentary on Nubchen Sangye Yeshe's *Samten Migdron*.

Jacob Dalton states that:

> Nubchen Sanggyé Yeshé is renowned for having preserved a number of tantric lineages through the so-called “dark period” of Tibetan history (roughly 842-978 CE), when state-supported monastic Buddhism fell into decline. Nubchen authored many works, including the *Lamp for the Eye in Contemplation* (*bsam gtan mig sgron*), an extensive discussion of early Tibetan contemplative systems. But by far his longest work is his little read *Armor Against Darkness* (*mun pai go cha*), a systematic commentary on the *Compendium of the Intentions Sūtra*. In preparing his commentary, Nubchen studied directly under Chetsenkye and the other translators of the *Compendium Sūtra*.

Eva Dargyay discusses the particular generation stage cycle of the 'Eight Pronouncements' (Wylie: *bka'-brgyad*) that Nubchen was empowered to practice by Padmasambhava and through the realisation of which Nubchen accomplished the specific emanation of this Manjushri 'yidam' (Wylie: *lha*), mandala of divine accoutrements and entourage and demonstrated his siddhi by deftly wielding the energetic phurba:

> *Sangs-rgyas-ye-śes* practiced the *gŚin-rje-snying-thig*, the divine power (*lha*) of which is *Mañjuśri*; as a sign of successful meditation, he thrust a ceremonial dagger (*phur-bu*) into a rock.

### Lamp for the Eye in Contemplation the Samten Migdron (Tib. bSam-gtan Mig-sgron.)

Elias Capriles, in discussing the 'Lamp for the Eye in Contemplation' the *Samten Migdrön* discovered in 1908 at Tun-huang by Paul Pelliot, states:

> ...this book was entombed in the ruins of Tun-huang, where it remained from the eleventh or twelfth century CE until 1908, when French Sinologist Paul Pelliot explored the cave temples that a local farmer discovered accidentally at the turn of the twentieth century. Therefore, its authenticity is beyond question.

In the *Samten Migdrön*, Nubchen Sangye Yeshe establishes a distinction within the Mahayana between:

The 'suddenness' is further explicated and contextualised by Capriles, who mentions Huineng:

> In his sutra, Hui-neng noted that no tradition is sudden or gradual, and that these adjectives should be applied to students rather than to teachings or schools, for no doubt some students are more “sudden” than others (Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price, translators, 1969); however, the term is used to refer to the Ch’an or Zen School insofar as in it Awakening is not posited as the result of a gradual development through paths and levels, but as an instantaneous breakthrough.

For 'instantaneous breakthrough' and 'awakening' refer *kensho* (Japanese) and *satori* (Japanese), respectively.

#### English translations

* Esler, Dylan (2023). *The Lamp for the Eye of Contemplation*. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-760990-3.

### Citations

### Works cited

## Further reading

## InfoBox

| Nubchen Sangye Yeshe | |
| --- | --- |
| Tibetan illustration of Nubchen | |
| Known for | Early scholar and systematizer of Dzogchen |


title: Shakura S'Aida

abstract: Shakura S'Aida is a Canadian blues vocalist, songwriter and actress. She is sometimes credited Shakura.

text:
# Shakura S'Aida

**Shakura S'Aida** is a Canadian blues vocalist, songwriter and actress. She is sometimes credited **Shakura**.

## History

Shakura S'Aida was born in Brooklyn and lived in Switzerland before moving to Canada.

S'Aida was lead singer of the 13-piece world music ensemble Kaleefah, before embarking on her solo career. She has also performed as a backing vocalist for Rita MacNeil and Patti LaBelle, as well as with jazz musicians such as Jimmy Smith and Ruth Brown. She has also been nominated for several Juno Awards for her music.

S'Aida independently released her first solo album, *Blueprint*, in 2008. Her second album, *Brown Sugar*, was released in 2010 on Ruf Records. In 2012, she released a double CD, *Time*, on Electro-Fi Records.

As an actress, she starred in a Toronto production of George Boyd's *Consecrated Ground* in 2004, as well as Sudz Sutherland's *Doomstown* in 2006 and Sharon Lewis's film *Brown Girl Begins* in 2018.

In 2013, she was nominated for a Blues Music Award in the 'Contemporary Blues Female Artist' category.

## Discography

* *Blueprint* (2008, independent)
* *Brown Sugar* (2010, Ruf)
* *Time* (2012, Electro-Fi)

## Filmography

### Film

| Year | Title | Role | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1995 | *First Degree* | Ella Rodie |  |
| 1996 | *Talk to Me* | Scarecrow |  |
| 1996 | *Critical Choices* | Mother |  |
| 1999 | *A Map of the World* | Guard |  |
| 2000 | *Livin' for Love: The Natalie Cole Story* | Backup singer (as Shakura S'Aida) |  |
| 2006 | *Doomstown* | Karen Twisleton |  |
| 2007 | *A Winter Tale* | Charmaine |  |
| 2017 | *Whitewash* | The Narrator (voice) | Video documentary |
| 2017 | *Brown Girl Begins* | Mami |  |

### Television

| Year | Title | Role | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2000 | *Falcone* | The Waitress | Series |
| 2005 | *Kevin Hill* | Jury Foreman | Series |
| 2007 | *The Jane Show* | Lillian | Series |
| 2008 | *Flashpoint* | Jackie | Series |
| 2009 | *'Da Kink in My Hair* | Shirley Andrews | Series |
| 2010–2011 | *Turbo Dogs* | Marlene | Series |
| 2012 | *The Firm* | Researcher | Series |
| 2013 | *CBC Music Festival* | Herself | TV special |
| 2010–2015 | *Lost Girl* | Dark Fae Elder | Series |
| 2015 | *Saving Hope* | Cora Boullot | Series |
| 2016–2017 | *Schitt's Creek* | Lena | Series |
| 2021–present | *Batwoman* | Cora Lewis | Season Two |

### Theatre

| Year | Title | Role | Notes | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1998 | *The Destruction of Eve* (by Svetlana Zylin and Connie Kaldor) | Unknown | with Company of Sirens |  |

## Awards and nominations

| Year | Award | Category | Result | Reference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1993 | Juno Awards of 1993 | Best World Music Artist/Band | Nominated |  |
| 2004 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2005 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2007 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| 2008 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2009 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| 2010 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Won | |
| | | Recording of the Year (for *Brown Sugar* (Ruf Records)) | Nominated | |
| 2011 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| 2012 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| | | Songwriter of the Year (with Donna Grantis) | Nominated | |
| | | Recording of the year (for *Time* (Electro-Fi Records), with Howard Ayee) | Nominated | |
| 2013 | Juno Awards of 2013 | Best Blues Album of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | Blues Music Awards | Contemporary Female Artist | Nominated |  |
| | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| 2014 | Maple Blues Award | Entertainer of the Year | Nominated |  |
| | | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated | |
| 2015 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2016 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2017 | Maple Blues Award | Female Vocalist of the Year | Nominated |  |
| 2023 | Juno Awards of 2023 | Best Contemporary Roots Album of the Year | Nominated |  |
|

## InfoBox

| Shakura S'Aida | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Background information | |
| Born | Brooklyn, New York, U.S. |
| Genres | Blues |
| Occupation(s) | Singer, actress |
| Labels | Electro-Fi, Ruf |


title: Structure plan

abstract: Structure planning is a type of spatial planning and is part of urban planning practice in the United Kingdom and Western Australia. A structure plan in any jurisdiction will usually consist of a written component, supported by maps, photographs, sketches, tables and diagrams and a 'plan' component consisting of one or more plans illustrating land use and infrastructure proposals for the area being planned. In the United Kingdom a structure plan was an old-style development plan required by United Kingdom planning law between 1968 and 2004. Structure plans set out strategic planning policies and formed the basis for detailed policies in local plans. Although no longer prepared, these plans continue to operate in many areas following the commencement of the new development plan system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, due to transitional provisions. In Western Australia structure plans are commonly prepared at subregional, district and local levels. Typically, subregional structure plans are informed by higher level policy and strategy and deliver sufficient information to identify areas that should be excluded from development, guide the planning of major infrastructure and the broadscale zoning of land at the regional level. Similarly, district structure plans are informed by relevant policies and strategies, any subregional structure plan and by any detailed engineering of major infrastructure affecting that district. Local structure plans repeat this process to the level of local roads, land subdivision, sites for community facilities, parks, utilities, etc. in order to inform the final phase of road and infrastructure construction and the zoning of the land.

text:
# Structure plan

**Structure planning** is a type of spatial planning and is part of urban planning practice in the United Kingdom and Western Australia. A structure plan in any jurisdiction will usually consist of a written component, supported by maps, photographs, sketches, tables and diagrams and a 'plan' component consisting of one or more plans illustrating land use and infrastructure proposals for the area being planned.

In the United Kingdom a structure plan was an old-style development plan required by United Kingdom planning law between 1968 and 2004. Structure plans set out strategic planning policies and formed the basis for detailed policies in local plans. Although no longer prepared, these plans continue to operate in many areas following the commencement of the new development plan system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, due to transitional provisions.

In Western Australia structure plans are commonly prepared at subregional, district and local levels. Typically, subregional structure plans are informed by higher level policy and strategy and deliver sufficient information to identify areas that should be excluded from development, guide the planning of major infrastructure and the broadscale zoning of land at the regional level. Similarly, district structure plans are informed by relevant policies and strategies, any subregional structure plan and by any detailed engineering of major infrastructure affecting that district. Local structure plans repeat this process to the level of local roads, land subdivision, sites for community facilities, parks, utilities, etc. in order to inform the final phase of road and infrastructure construction and the zoning of the land.

## United Kingdom

Structure plans were first introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, as strategic level development plans, prepared either by a county council or by local authorities working jointly together. They consisted of a broad framework of policies looking forward up to 20 years ahead, supported by a "key diagram" showing land use, transport and environmental proposals diagrammatically (that is, not on a locationally specific map base). Local plans, prepared by district rather than county councils, were required to accord with the overall strategy set out in the structure plan.

Structure plans were increasingly criticised in the 1980s and 1990s for the length of time taken in their preparation and adoption, their often abstract nature, and for imposing an unnecessary level of policy above the level of the local district council. This became increasingly apparent with the establishment of regional planning conferences (later Regional Assemblies) and the development of Regional Planning Guidance after the mid-1980s.

Structure plans in the UK were abolished as part of the new development plan system introduced following the 2004 legislation. They were replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies and by Local Development Documents, particularly Core Strategies. Regional Spatial Strategies have since been abolished as part of the 2010 Coalition Government's abolition of Regional Development Agencies. At a local level, Local Plans are now closest in nature to the former structure plans.

## Western Australia

In Western Australia structure plans do not have a legal status under the Planning and Development Act 2005 and cannot therefore directly control the use of land. However, they are provided for by State Planning Policies prepared under that Act by the Western Australian Planning Commission and one of their key functions is to propose land use zoning changes and to provide the planning logic to support such changes.

In contrast to United Kingdom practice, Australian structure plans are spatially precise, particularly in regard to the elements of the plan (e.g. boundaries of land to be protected, land to be reserved for major infrastructure, etc.) that are intended to be 'fixed' spatially by a particular plan. Elements that are not intended to be fixed at that level of planning may be indicated approximately and 'fixed' spatially by a subsequent, more detailed level of structure plan.


title: Valtura

abstract: Valtura is a village in the municipality of Ližnjan-Lisignano, in northern Istria in Croatia.

text:
# Valtura

**Valtura** (Italian: **Altura**) is a village in the municipality of Ližnjan-Lisignano, in northern Istria in Croatia.

## Demographics

According to the 2021 census, its population was 773. In 2001 it had a population of 636.

## InfoBox

| Valtura Altura | |
| --- | --- |
| Village | |
|  | |
| Valtura | |
| Coordinates: 45°03′55″N 14°01′02″E / 45.06528°N 14.01722°E / 45.06528; 14.01722 | |
| Country | Croatia |
| County | Istria County |
| Municipality | Ližnjan |
| Area | |
| Total | 10.0 sq mi (25.8 km2) |
| Population (2021) | |
| Total | 773 |
| Density | 78/sq mi (30/km2) |
| Time zone | UTC+1 (CET) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+2 (CEST) |
| Postal code | 52100 Pula |
| Area code | 052 |


title: Markayankottai

abstract: Markayankottai is a panchayat town in Theni district in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

text:
# Markayankottai

**Markayankottai** is a panchayat town in Theni district in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

## Demographics

As of 2011 India census, Markayankottai had a population of 6509. Males constitute 50% of the population and females 50%. Markayankottai has an average literacy rate of 76%, higher than the national average of 79.5%: male literacy is 86%, and female literacy is 75%.

## InfoBox

| Markayankottai | |
| --- | --- |
| Town | |
| MarkayankottaiLocation in Tamil Nadu, IndiaMarkayankottaiMarkayankottai (India) | |
| Coordinates: 9°51′29″N 77°22′02″E / 9.85806°N 77.36722°E / 9.85806; 77.36722 | |
| Country | India |
| State | Tamil Nadu |
| District | Theni |
| Population (2011) | |
| Total | 6,509 |
| Languages | |
| Official | Tamil |
| Time zone | UTC+5:30 (IST) |


abstract: Van Buren Township is one of the seventeen townships of Hancock County, Ohio, United States. As of the 2020 census, the population was 1,024.

text:
# Van Buren Township, Hancock County, Ohio

**Van Buren Township** is one of the seventeen townships of Hancock County, Ohio, United States. As of the 2020 census, the population was 1,024.

## Geography

Located in the southern part of the county, it borders the following townships:

The village of Jenera is located in northern Van Buren Township.

## Name and history

Statewide, other Van Buren Townships are located in Darke, Putnam, and Shelby counties.

Van Buren Township was organized in 1831. It was named for Martin Van Buren, who had at that time served as Secretary of State, and who would go on to become President of the United States.

## Government

The township is governed by a three-member board of trustees, who are elected in November of odd-numbered years to a four-year term beginning on the following January 1. Two are elected in the year after the presidential election and one is elected in the year before it. There is also an elected township fiscal officer, who serves a four-year term beginning on April 1 of the year after the election, which is held in November of the year before the presidential election. Vacancies in the fiscal officership or on the board of trustees are filled by the remaining trustees.

## InfoBox

| Van Buren Township, Hancock County, Ohio | |
| --- | --- |
| Township | |
| On the Lincoln Highway in New Stark | |
| Location of Van Buren Township in Hancock County | |
| Coordinates: 40°52′39″N 83°43′20″W / 40.87750°N 83.72222°W / 40.87750; -83.72222 | |
| Country | United States |
| State | Ohio |
| County | Hancock |
| Area | |
| Total | 24.4 sq mi (63.2 km2) |
| Land | 24.4 sq mi (63.2 km2) |
| Water | 0.0 sq mi (0.0 km2) |
| Elevation | 889 ft (271 m) |
| Population (2020) | |
| Total | 1,024 |
| Density | 42/sq mi (16/km2) |
| Time zone | UTC-5 (Eastern (EST)) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC-4 (EDT) |
| ZIP code | 45889 |
| Area code | 419 |
| FIPS code | 39-79408 |
| GNIS feature ID | 1086254 |


title: Valerie Jones Giltner

abstract: Valerie Jones Giltner is an American politician who has served as a member of the Delaware House of Representatives from the 37th district since 2023. She is a Republican.

text:
# Valerie Jones Giltner

**Valerie Jones Giltner** is an American politician who has served as a member of the Delaware House of Representatives from the 37th district since 2023. She is a Republican.

## Biography

Jones is from Georgetown, Delaware and graduated from Sussex Central High School. In her professional career, she became a nurse and healthcare consultant.

On December 21, 2023, Jones Giltner won the special election to fill Ruth Briggs King's vacated seat. She took office the following day.

## InfoBox

| Valerie Jones Giltner | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Member of the Delaware House of Representatives
from the 37th district | |
| **Incumbent** | |
| **Assumed office**
December 22, 2023 | |
| Preceded by | Ruth Briggs King |
|  | |
| Personal details | |
| Political party | Republican |
| Education | Sussex Central High School |
| Occupation | Nurse, healthcare consultant |
|  | |


title: Mario Tiberini

abstract: Mario Tiberini was an Italian tenor who sang leading roles in the opera houses of Europe and the Americas in a career spanning 25 years. Known for his advanced singing technique and dramatic ability, he sang the role of Alvaro in the premiere of the revised version of Verdi's La forza del destino and created several roles in operas by lesser-known composers, including the title role in Faccio's Amleto.

text:
# Mario Tiberini

**Mario Tiberini** (8 September 1826 – 16 October 1880) was an Italian tenor who sang leading roles in the opera houses of Europe and the Americas in a career spanning 25 years. Known for his advanced singing technique and dramatic ability, he sang the role of Alvaro in the premiere of the revised (and now standard) version of Verdi's *La forza del destino* and created several roles in operas by lesser-known composers, including the title role in Faccio's *Amleto*.

## Life and career

Tiberini was born in San Lorenzo in Campo in Italy's Marche region. After study in Rome with Domenico Lucilla and in Naples with Emanuele de Roxas, he made his stage debut in 1851 as Idreno in Rossini's *Semiramide* at Rome's Teatro Argentina. He performed in a few provincial theatres in Italy until 1854 when he toured North and South America with Italian opera companies. He also gave solo concerts in New York and Boston launched by the opera impresario Bernard Ullman who billed Tiberini as a descendant of the Roman Emperor Tiberius.

After his return to Europe in 1858, Tiberini was engaged as *primo tenore* at the Gran Teatre del Liceu in Barcelona. There he met and fell in love with the soprano Angiolina Ortolani who was singing the title role in *Linda di Chamounix*. They married soon after and for the rest of their careers, appeared together in many operas. By 1875, Tiberini's voice began showing signs of decline, and shortly afterwards he also began showing symptoms of mental illness. He spent his final days in a sanatorium in Reggio Emilia where he died at the age of 54. An inscription on a lithograph in the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan states that he died believing he was Manrico, the protagonist of *Il trovatore*. However, according to Denise Gallo writing in *The Cambridge Verdi Encyclopedia*, there is no mention of this delusion in the records of the asylum, and it may well be a theatrical legend.

Tiberini was buried in the Cimitero Monumentale di Milano. The funerary sculpture on his grave is by Pietro Fumeo (1831–1898) and depicts a broken column entwined with ivy. The inscription lists his greatest roles: Edgardo, Arturo, Corradino, Raul, Lohengrin, and Alvaro. In 1880, four months after his death, the Teatro Trionfo in San Lorenzo in Campo was renamed the Teatro Mario Tiberini in his honour as was the street on which it stands.

## Roles created


title: Mario Thomas

abstract: Mario Thomas Zapiáin, nicknamed "Don Mario", was a Mexican Spanish language baseball announcer who worked San Diego Padres games for 28 seasons, from 1969 to 1997. Born in Tijuana, Thomas began working for the Padres as their play-by-play announcer in 1969, alongside color commentator Gustavo López Moreno. Other than the 1970 season, he called Padres games until his retirement in 1997. Additionally, he also worked games for the Aguilas de Mexicali of the Mexican League in the offseason and called the Caribbean Series in 1986. Eduardo Ortega, Thomas' partner for the last eleven years of his tenure, would recall later that he imitated Thomas' style of calling games when he started his broadcasting career. As a sign of respect, Thomas was nicknamed "Don Mario". During the 25th anniversary of his tenure, Thomas was presented with a plaque by fellow Padre's broadcaster Jerry Coleman. During the ceremony, Coleman joked: "I didn't know your first name was Donald." The plaque read: "In recognition of DON MARIO THOMAS". Thomas died in August 2009, aged 85, and was inducted into the Hispanic Heritage Baseball Museum Hall of Fame in 2010.

text:
# Mario Thomas

**Mario Thomas Zapiáin** (c.1924 – August 8, 2009), nicknamed "**Don Mario**", was a Mexican Spanish language baseball announcer who worked San Diego Padres games for 28 seasons, from 1969 to 1997.

Born in Tijuana, Thomas began working for the Padres as their play-by-play announcer in 1969, alongside color commentator Gustavo López Moreno. Other than the 1970 season, he called Padres games until his retirement in 1997. Additionally, he also worked games for the Aguilas de Mexicali of the Mexican League in the offseason and called the Caribbean Series in 1986.

Eduardo Ortega, Thomas' partner for the last eleven years of his tenure, would recall later that he imitated Thomas' style of calling games when he started his broadcasting career.

As a sign of respect, Thomas was nicknamed "Don Mario". During the 25th anniversary of his tenure, Thomas was presented with a plaque by fellow Padre's broadcaster Jerry Coleman. During the ceremony, Coleman joked: "I didn't know your first name was Donald." The plaque read: "In recognition of DON MARIO THOMAS".

Thomas died in August 2009, aged 85, and was inducted into the Hispanic Heritage Baseball Museum Hall of Fame in 2010.

## InfoBox

| Mario Thomas | |
| --- | --- |
| Born | c.1924
Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico |
| Died | (2009-08-28)August 28, 2009 (aged 85)
Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico |
| Occupation | Baseball play-by-play announcer |
| Years active | 1969–1997 |
| Employer | San Diego Padres |


title: Marlangki Suting

abstract: Marlangki Suting is an Indian football player. He is currently playing for Royal Wahingdoh F.C. in the I-League as a defender.

text:
# Marlangki Suting

**Marlangki Suting** (born 1986) is an Indian football player. He is currently playing for Royal Wahingdoh F.C. in the I-League as a defender.

## InfoBox

Marlangki Suting
| Personal information | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Full name | Marlangki Suting | | |
| Date of birth | (1986-01-09) 9 January 1986 | | |
| Place of birth | Shillong, India | | |
| Height | 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) | | |
| Position(s) | Defender | | |
| Team information | | | |
| Current team | Royal Wahingdoh F.C. | | |
| Senior career\* | | | |
| Years | **Team** | **Apps** | **(Gls)** |
| 2008–?? | Shillong Lajong FC | ?? | (2) |
| 2014– | Royal Wahingdoh F.C. | 10 | (0) |
| 2015 | NorthEast United (loan) | 1 | (0) |
| \*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 24 May 2015 | | | |


title: Marissa Otten

abstract:
Marissa Otten is a Dutch former professional racing cyclist.
She retired in August 2015.

text:
# Marissa Otten

**Marissa Otten** (born 11 July 1989) is a Dutch former professional racing cyclist. She retired in August 2015.

## InfoBox

Marissa Otten
| Personal information | |
| --- | --- |
| Born | (1989-07-11) 11 July 1989<br>Enter, Netherlands |
| Team information | |
| Current team | Retired |
| Discipline | Road |
| Role | Rider |
| Professional teams | |
| 2011–2012 | Dolmans Landscaping Team |
| 2013 | Cyclelive Plus–Zannata |
| 2014 | Parkhotel Valkenburg Continental Team |
| 2015 | Lensworld.eu–Zannata |
|  | |


title: Marissa Oakley

abstract: Marissa Oakley is an American artistic gymnast.

text:
# Marissa Oakley

**Marissa Oakley** (born April 15, 1999) is an American artistic gymnast.

## Early life

Marissa Oakley was born on April 15, 1999, in Naperville, Illinois, to parents, Dan and Jill Oakley. She has two sisters; Angelique and Joslyn. She got into gymnastics because her older sister, Angelique, was in it and Marissa wanted to do it.

She started gymnastics in 2006 at Premier Gymnastics as a level four gymnast. She quickly progressed through the Junior Olympic levels and was a Level 10 in 2010; at ten years old.

## Gymnastics career

### 2010-14: Junior Olympic career

Her first J.O. Nationals was in 2011; placing 48th in the Junior A division. She was State champion in 2012 and later placed twenty-seventh at J.O. Nationals. In 2013, her fourth season as a level ten, she won Regionals. At Nationals, she finished fifth in the Junior A division as well as tying for second on bars with Emily Gaskins and Grace Waguespack. In addition, she tied for third with Rachael Lukacs too.

On November 23, 2013, she verbally committed to the University of Georgia and their gymnastics team. Oakley remained a level ten for the 2014 Junior Olympic season and her prowess showed; winning both State and Regional titles. At Nationals, Marissa finished eleventh in the all-around but tied for third on beam with Sophia Carter.

### 2014-present: International Elite

In March, prior to the Level 10 championship season, Oakley participated in one of the National Elite Qualifier events; held in California. She finished third in the all-around with a score of 54.100, which was enough to qualify her to the U.S. Classic.

At 2017 Classics, Oakley finished in fourth on the uneven bars behind Ragan Smith, Alyona Shchennikova, and Trinity Thomas and tied with Margzetta Frazier.

Later that summer, Oakley attended nationals, where she placed third on the uneven bars behind Riley McCusker and Ashton Locklear and tied with Smith.

## InfoBox

| Marissa Oakley | |
| --- | --- |
| Regions represented | 5 |
| Born | (1999-04-15) April 15, 1999<br>Naperville, Illinois |
| Hometown | Oswego, Illinois |
| Residence | Athens, Georgia |
| Discipline | Artistic gymnastics |
| Level | Senior International Elite |
| Club | Phenom |
| College team | Georgia Gym Dogs |
| Head coach(es) | Greg McGarity |
| Medal record      Representing the  United States  National Championships  2017 Anaheim  Uneven Bars | |


title: Markushevich basis

abstract: In functional analysis, a Markushevich basis is a biorthogonal system that is both complete and total.

text:
# Markushevich basis

In functional analysis, a **Markushevich basis** (sometimes **M-basis**) is a biorthogonal system that is both *complete* and *total*.

## Definition

Let $X$ be Banach space. A biorthogonal system $\\{x\_{\alpha };f\_{\alpha }\\}\_{x\in \alpha }$ in $X$ is a Markushevich basis if $\overline {\text{span}\\{x\_{\alpha }\\}=X}$ and $\\{f\_{\alpha }\\}\_{x\in \alpha }$ separates the points of $X$.

In a separable space, biorthogonality is not a substantial obstruction to a Markushevich basis; any spanning set and separating functionals can be made biorthogonal. But it is an open problem whether every separable Banach space admits a Markushevich basis with $\\|x\_{\alpha }\\|=\\|f\_{\alpha }\\|=1$ for all $\alpha $.

## Examples

Every Schauder basis of a Banach space is also a Markushevich basis; the converse is not true in general. An example of a Markushevich basis that is not a Schauder basis is the sequence $\\{e^{2i\pi nt}\\}\_{n\in \mathbb {Z} }\quad \quad \quad ({\text{ordered }n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\dots )}$ in the subspace $\tilde {C}\[0,1\]$ of continuous functions from $\[0,1\]$ to the complex numbers that have equal values on the boundary, under the supremum norm. The computation of a Fourier coefficient is continuous and the span dense in $\tilde {C}\[0,1\]$; thus for any $f\in {\tilde {C}\[0,1\]}$, there exists a sequence $\sum \_{|n|\<N}{\alpha \_{N,n}e^{2\pi int}\to f{\text{.}}}$But if $f=\sum \_{n\in \mathbb {Z} }{\alpha \_{n}e^{2\pi nit}}$, then for a fixed $n$ the coefficients $\\{\alpha \_{N,n}\\}\_{N}$ must converge, and there are functions for which they do not.

The sequence space $l^{\infty }$ admits no Markushevich basis, because it is both Grothendieck and irreflexive. But any separable space (such as $l^{1}$) has dual (resp. $l^{\infty }$) complemented in a space admitting a Markushevich basis.