text:
Latest update Friday, November 13: The Associated Press projects President Donald Trump will win North Carolina and take their 15 electoral college votes. Trump leads in North Carolina by 73,697 votes. Friday was the deadline for counties to certify their election results. Trump now has 232 electoral college votes and Joe Biden is still at 290. The AP has already projected Biden will win the presidential election.
Meanwhile, Georgia remains uncalled at this time. The Associated Press has not projected a winner in that state and the margin between the two candidates remains at 0.3 percent in Biden's favor. A hand recount audit is underway currently.
UPDATE 12:30 p.m. ET Tuesday, November 11: The Associated Press projects President Donald Trump will win Alaska, and take their 3 electoral college votes. This brings Trump up to 217 electoral votes and Joe Biden is still at 290. The AP projected Biden will win the presidential election.
A recount in the presidential race will happen in Georgia, and North Carolina has still not been called for either candidate at this time.
UPDATE Saturday 7 p.m. ET: The presidential race has still not been called in Georgia and North Carolina at this time. Trump leads in North Carolina by around 75,000 votes and Biden has a small lead in Georgia. Democrats will maintain majority in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, Democrats have 48 seats and Republicans have 48 seats, there are two senate races in Georgia headed to a run-off election in January.
UPDATE Saturday 11:30 a.m. ET: The Associated Press is projecting Joe Biden will be elected President of the United States, after being projected to win Pennsylvania and Nevada Saturday morning.
America, I'm honored that you have chosen me to lead our great country.
The work ahead of us will be hard, but I promise you this: I will be a President for all Americans — whether you voted for me or not.
I will keep the faith that you have placed in me. pic.twitter.com/moA9qhmjn8
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 7, 2020
Updated vote tallies Saturday increased Biden's lead in Pennsylvania to more than 30,000 votes. In Nevada, Biden now has a 25,000 vote lead.
This will make Biden the oldest person to take the oath of office for President of the United States.
Kamala Harris is projected to be the Vice President, making her the first woman, first Black American and first South Asian American to hold that office.
See below for more.
As of Tuesday afternoon, Joe Biden had 290 Electoral College votes and Donald Trump had 217, based on Associated Press projections. This puts Biden over the 270 threshold.
Georgia (16 electoral votes)
Joe Biden: 2,471,974 votes
Donald Trump: 2,457,872 votes
Difference: Biden ahead 14,102
99% reporting
States called so far:
Total electoral votes: 290
Arizona (11 Electoral College votes)
California (55)
Colorado (9)
Connecticut 7
Delaware (3)
District of Columbia (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maine - (3) Biden has won at least three of the state's four Electoral College votes, with one going to Trump.
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
Nebraska - CD 2 (1) Biden awarded one Electoral College vote for taking the congressional district in the Omaha region.
Nevada (6)
New Hampshire (4)
New Jersey (14)
New Mexico (5)
New York (29)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (20)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Virginia (13)
Washington (12)
Wisconsin (10)
Total electoral votes: 232
Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Florida (29)
Idaho (4)
Iowa (6)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Maine -(1) Trump wins the 2nd Congressional District in Maine, taking 1 electoral vote, while Biden wins the state's other 3
Mississippi (6)
Missouri (10)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (4)* Nebraska divides its Electoral College votes by congressional districts.
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (18)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (9)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)
Below is a timeline of the presidential race since Election Day. Refresh below for updates:
UPDATE 11:30 a.m. ET: The Associated Press is projecting Joe Biden will be elected President of the United States, after being projected to win Pennsylvania Saturday morning. Updated vote tallies Saturday increased Biden's lead in Pennsylvania to more than 30,000 votes, and in Nevada he leads by 25,000 votes.
UPDATE 11 a.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden still leads in Arizona, now by more than 20,000 votes. The Associated Press called Arizona for Biden earlier this week as votes were still being counted. President Donald Trump did close the gap in Arizona, Friday night Biden was ahead by more than 29,000 votes. Saturday morning the Secretary of State for Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, said there are still less than 40,000 votes to still process. However, those remaining ballots need additional time to process, including overseas ballots, braille ballots and damaged ballots.
UPDATE SATURDAY 10:30 a.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden increased his lead in Pennsylvania and Georgia overnight. Saturday morning, Biden leads by 28,877 votes in Pennsylvania. About 99 percent of the votes are reportedly counted at this time. In Georgia, the difference has increased from 4,000 votes Friday night to more than 7,000 votes in Biden's favor Saturday morning. Georgia is also reporting about 99 percent of total votes counted.
UPDATE FRIDAY 11:30 p.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden widens his lead in Pennsylvania. After overtaking President Donald Trump's lead Friday morning by around 5,000 votes, Biden now leads with about 29,000 votes and 98 percent of votes counted.
UPDATE 9: 45 p.m. ET: Biden gained nearly 5,500 additional votes in Allegheny County thanks to a combination of mail-in, provisional and overseas ballots to take a lead of more than 27,000. Biden's lead is nearing the point that would be outside the margin for an automatic recount.
UPDATE 9 p.m. Another tranche of votes was released in Maricopa County, Arizona representing nearly one-third of the remaining ballots left in the state of Arizona. Trump gained a net of 7,000 votes to cut Biden's lead to 30,000 votes. The Associated Press previously called Arizona.
UPDATE 7:40 p.m. ET:Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said on Friday that the overwhelming majority of mail-in and absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have been counted and the process of counting provisional ballots has begun.
UPDATE 7:30 p.m. ET: A new batch of more than ballots were released by the Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, adding to Biden's lead by over 3,000 votes in the state. Biden now leads the state by more than 20,000. Pennsylvania is important because if he wins the state, he wins the presidency.
UPDATE 5:30 p.m. ET: The lead for Biden has jumped in Georgia following a tranche of votes came from Gwinnett County. Biden's lead increased to nearly 4,200 as the mail-in vote tabulation is nearing the end.
Meanwhile, Trump has neared 70 million votes in the popular vote, which would give him the second-most votes in an election. Both Biden's and Trump's vote total this year is more than any other candidate in past elections, indicating this year's election had a strong turnout.
UPDATE 2 p.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden widens his lead in Pennsylvania. After overtaking President Donald Trump's lead Friday morning, Biden now leads with about 13,000 votes and 98 percent of votes counted.
UPDATE 1 p.m. ET: Election officials from battleground states announced updated vote tallies will come Friday night, as counting continues through the weekend. Arizona is expected to update their vote tally 7pm local time, Pennsylvania and Nevada have said they will update their vote tallies in the late afternoon. Most states expect to have nearly all votes counted at the end of the weekend, however some states allow mail-in ballots to be accepted and counted several days after Election Day.
UPDATE 11:30 a.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden has increased his lead in Nevada, which is still too close to call Friday morning. Around 11:30 a.m. ET, updated vote totals were released showing Biden's lead nearly double from roughly 11,000 Thursday to now more than 20,000 votes over President Donald Trump.
UPDATE: 9 a.m. ET: Democrat Joe Biden is now leading President Donald Trump in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. By Friday morning, Biden overtook Trump in the number of ballots counted in the state, which Trump must win to have a shot at reelection. Biden now holds a nearly 6,000-vote advantage. The contest is still too early for The Associated Press to call. Votes in the state are still being counted.
UPDATE: 5 a.m. ET: Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has pulled ahead in Georgia. The former Vice President now holds a slim 917-vote edge throughout the state with more mail-in ballots still to be counted. President Donald Trump held a substantial lead on election night, but Biden has vastly outpaced Trump on mail-in ballots. The state remains too close to call.
UPDATE: FRIDAY, 2:40 a.m. ET: Pennsylvania and Georgia continues to slowly release figures that have steadily allowed Biden to eat away at Trump's lead. In the last hour, figures from Philadelphia and Clayton County, Georgia, have been released. Both areas are highly favorable to Biden.
UPDATE: THURSDAY, 10:55 p.m. ET: A huge vote drop came out of Philadelphia Thursday evening, which cut Trump's lead to nearly 26,000 votes. There are roughly 200,000 votes left to count in Pennsylvania. Biden is poised to take the lead in the state in the coming hours.
UPDATE: 9 p.m. ET A new trove of votes from Maricopa County, the largest county in the state. Trump gained nearly 11,000 votes, cutting Biden's lead to 46,257. Meanwhile, Biden is within 50,000 votes in Pennsylvania and 2,500 in Georgia.
UPDATE: 8 p.m. ET: It is a narrow race in Pennsylvania and Georgia. Trump's lead in the two states have evaporated. In Pennsylvania, Biden trails by 64,000 votes, but there are 250,000 votes left. Biden needs to win 63% of what is left, but Biden has been winning 77% of the mail-in vote in Pennsylvania. In Georgia, there are 19,000 votes left and Trump is leading by 3,500 votes. Biden needs to win 60% of what is left. Biden has been winning 65% of all mail-in votes in Georgia.
UPDATE: 4:40 p.m. ET: Nevada is not expecting to release more number until Friday morning. Pennsylvania and Georgia are expecting to slowly release numbers through the night. Arizona, which some networks have not declared a winner, will release a large number of ballots at 9 p.m. ET.
UPDATE: 3 p.m. ET: Though Georgia remains took close to call, officials say there are still about 47,000 ballots remaining to be counted. Officials hope to finish the count on Thursday, though as many as 8,000 mail-in ballots could be eligible to be counted if they are postmarked by Nov. 3.
UPDATE WEDNESDAY: 6 p.m. ET: Biden declared the winner of Michigan, meaning Biden is just one state away from being elected. He leads in Nevada, but trails in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. Trump has to win all four states in order to secure re-election.
UPDATE: 2:20 p.m. ET: Joe Biden wins Wisconsin, taking 10 electoral votes.
UPDATE: 1:25 p.m. ET: President Trump wins the 2nd Congressional District in Maine, taking one electoral vote. Biden takes the other three electoral votes of Maine's four.
UPDATE: 1:00 p.m. ET: President Donald Trump's campaign manager wrote in a statement that they plan to "immediately" request a recount in Wisconsin, where the presidential race is close. Biden leads by less than 1 percentage point, according to the latest Associated Press results.
UPDATE: 9:00 a.m. ET: As votes continue to trickle in from Michigan, totals now indicate that Biden holds a slim lead in the state — though there are still thousands of votes yet to be counted. Michigan is a key state that is vital to both Biden and Trump's path to 270 electoral college votes.
UPDATE: 5:00 a.m. ET: The state of Wisconsin released more information, and while the race is still too close to call, the state now reports that Biden now has a slight lead. The state will go a long way to determining which candidate wins the presidency.
UPDATE: 3:15 a.m. ET: Biden is projected to win the state of Maine, which like Nebraska, divvies its Electoral College votes based on congressional districts. Biden will win at least three of the state's four Electoral College votes.
UPDATE: 2:55 a.m. ET: Biden has won arguably his most important state of the night by taking the state of Arizona. 2020 marks the first time a Democrat has won Arizona in this century. The victory also means that Biden can lose either Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan and still win the election.
UPDATE: 2:45 a.m. ET: Trump declared victory despite trailing by a 225-212 margin in the Electoral College. He falsely claimed that the election is being stolen as the counting in states is taking longer to be counted. He, too, addressed supporters in an early Wednesday morning speech.
UPDATE: 1:45 a.m. ET: Biden picked up what could be a key Electoral College vote in Nebraska by winning the state's congressional district. Given the states left, that could potentially give Biden exactly the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win.
UPDATE: 1:14 a.m. ET: Trump has won Texas, holding off a Biden challenge in the state. Trump has narrowly caught up to Biden's lead in the Electoral College.
UPDATE: 12:35 a.m. ET: Trump won the state of Florida in arguably the biggest and most important call of the night.
UPDATE: 12:25 a.m. ET: In recent minutes, the Associated Press has called Hawaii and Minnesota for Biden; Trump has won Ohio, Montana and Iowa. Biden speaks to supporters, urging voters to "keep the faith."
TUESDAY UPDATE: 11:10 p.m. ET: Utah is now in Trump's favor. So far, no surprises.
UPDATE: 11 p.m. ET: The first battleground state of the evening has been called with Biden taking the state of New Hampshire. It was a state Democrats won four years ago. Most other key battlegrounds remain in Trump's favor, but have not been called yet. An exception is Arizona, which would be a huge boost to Biden. If Biden hangs onto Arizona, Biden could likely afford to lose Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan and still win.
UPDATE: 10:30 p.m. ET: Trump has picked up Missouri's 10 Electoral College votes. Trump is now pulling ahead in most battleground states as Trump has retaken the lead in North Carolina. Biden is leading in Arizona, which would be a turnover if he is able to hang on there.
UPDATE: 10 p.m. ET: Trump has won the state of Kansas. Trump now holds leads in most battleground states, including Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Texas. Biden maintains a narrow lead in North Carolina.
UPDATE: 9:36 p.m. ET: Biden has been projected to win Colorado, marking the fourth straight election Democrats take Colorado, once a GOP stronghold.
UPDATE: 9:30 p.m. ET: The District of Columbia was called for Biden, which is one of the strongest Democratic strongholds in the US.
UPDATE: 9 p.m. ET: A number of states closed at the hour. Trump is the projected winner in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana and Nebraska. Biden is projected to win New York and New Mexico. Biden holds narrow leads in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, while Trump has narrow leads in Florida, Georgia and Michigan.
UPDATE: 8:53 p.m. ET: Indiana was called for Trump.
UPDATE: 8:30 p.m. ET: Polls closed at 8:30 p.m. in Arkansas and Trump was projected to win Arkansas.
UPDATE: 8 p.m. ET: A large number of polls in the eastern and central time zones closed at 8 p.m. ET. Trump picked up wins in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Oklahoma; Biden won the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. So far, no surprises.
UPDATE: 7:36 p.m. ET: Virginia was called for Biden, marking the fourth straight election Democrats carried the state.
UPDATE: 7:30 p.m. ET: Polls have closed in West Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. North Carolina and Ohio are battleground states that are expected to take time to count. West Virginia was projected for Trump.
UPDATE: 7 p.m. ET: Polls are closed in six states (Vermont, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and Indiana). As soon as polls closed, Vermont was called for Joe Biden and Donald Trump was declared the winner of Kentucky. The other states are either too close or too early to call.


text:
CIUS: EU must act on sugar shortage risk
The committee, which represents European sugar-using food and beverage firms such as Mondelez International and Nestlé, said there was an "inherent supply deficit" in the current sugar system that required exceptional market measures to deal with.
Muriel Korter,secretary general for the organization, told ConfectioneryNews: "The current sugar regime under production quotas, which will be eliminated in October 2017, limits production in Europe to around 80% of its needs. The left needs to be supplied by imports. These are since 2009 not filling the gap of what is needed for users."
Industry competiveness at stake
The organization said that allowing shortages on the market ran contrary to the latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms for a sustainable transition to an EU sugar supply chain, and annulled all efforts by the European Commission to stabilize EU sugar market supply.
"The competitiveness of the European sugar-using food and drink sector is at stake," the organization said.
Korter said the CIUS welcomed the elimination of the production quotas from 2017/18, but added that it needed to be accompanied by a gradual decrease in import protection as sugar consumption increased with economic recovery.
Market measures
The organization suggested tendering as a "transparent market-based measure" to ensure improvements already seen in end stock levels are sustained. "If there is sufficient sugar on the market, producers and refiners will not bid as there is no market opportunity. But any additional sugar should be made available in equal amounts to each sector, beet or cane, and at zero duty," the group said.
It said market management over the last three years had already made over one million tons of additional sugar available to the industry each year meaning end stock levels had finally reached a "reasonable level". However it said the competitiveness and price goals were still far from being achieved.
It said that several factors could still led to lower than expected stock levels, including a failure to meet CXL import quotas, currently only at 50% of capacity. The CXL import grants preferential access to the EU market to countries that may have otherwise lost out on trade as countries like Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU.
But CIUS said: "The import quota attributed to Brazil has still not been filled, a volume of around 300,000 tons."
It also said that EPA/EBA preferential imports has always been over estimated, meaning an overestimation of sugar entering the EU market from these countries. It also said that sugar consumption in the EU could increase with economic recovery and that this had already been acknowledged by the Commission and member states in their sugar market balance sheet forecast.
Sugar firm Tate & Lyle has said that the CXL duty, borne by the European sugar refiners, is out dated and unfair. "In short, at €98 per tonne, the CXL duty is punitive and makes it significantly more expensive to source raw cane sugar for import. This is unfair because the beet sector will be unleashed from quotas and levies in 2017, meaning they can produce as much as they wish without policy interference. The €98 duty is over 20 years old and there appears to be no surviving evidence of how the duty was determined at this level," the company said.
CIUS members purchase and use almost 70% of the European annual consumption of sugar.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've posted before about the Our American Kitchen series from GE Appliances and what makes kitchens across the country unique, and yet similar at the same time. For each of us, individually, in our own homes, our kitchens play a huge role in our daily life. The kitchen is the heart of the home, and so much of life plays out there in its most honest form. So today we're taking a little different look at the role the kitchen plays in our families.
So what does our kitchen do for our family? It keeps us fed, of course, but it does so much more. It is the hub of our home where we cook, eat, work on projects, do messy artwork, and most importantly - where we do all these things together. We spend so much time there and have literally watched our children grow up in our kitchen.
Our kitchen is open to our living room, which is the only living space in our home apart from the bedrooms. So I'm not kidding when I say we spend a lot of time there. Day in and day out. Working, playing, and just living.
I think some of the biggest impacts from our kitchen have been on our boys. They learn and grow with us on a daily basis in ways that couldn't happen anywhere else. They learn the art of conversation, they grow more connected to us and each other, and they learn basic life skills like how to cook and do the dishes.
Both our boys are at the age where they LOVE to help. Every time there is a meal to prepare or dishes to wash, someone small will be there wanting to measure, taste, and play in the bubbles. They have so much fun, but they are also watching and learning. Learning what makes a healthy meal, how to measure and mix, and how we all work together as part of our family.
And that's what I want for my kids. I want them to know how to prepare their own food and know what is healthy. I want them to learn to build relationships, take turns, and work together. I want them to know every day that they are loved and an important part of our family, and we are so glad they are here with us. And we can accomplish all of those things in our kitchen.
GE Appliances has been a part of American homes since 1905. For a hundred and ten years they have been changing the ways people live, play, cook, celebrate, and shape family life in their homes. GE's Our American Kitchen series highlights the role of kitchens in homes all across the country and, more importantly, the real, honest families who live in them. And while each family is unique, you may begin to see the common threads that connect us all.
Ready to enter the giveaway? We have a question for you:
Entry Instructions:
No duplicate comments.
You may receive (2) total entries by selecting from the following entry methods:
- Leave a comment in response to the sweepstakes prompt on the blog post promoting this Promotion. Your comment will be your entry. In your comment, tell us what your American Kitchen means to you in 3 Sentences or less.
- For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules to learn about an alternate form of entry.
The Official Rules are available here.
This sweepstakes runs from 9/16/15 – 10/25/15.
Be sure to visit the GE Appliances brand page on BlogHer.com where you can read other bloggers' posts!


text:
Rockburn Chardonnay in Gift Box
Tasting Notes
- Region New Zealand
- Extras Gift, New
- Wine Style Chardonnay, Rich Oaky Whites
- Wine Type White
- Grapes Chardonnay
- Body Full
Central Otago Rockburn Chardonnay leans towards the crisper and lighter end of the spectrum, demanding minimal use of oak. The nose is pure and subtle with elements of wet stone, lemon zest and ripe peach. The palate is full, textural with fine tension, showing lemon meringue, butterscotch and delicate minerality and a zesty finish.
Customer Reviews
Shipping & Returns
- Pricing For 1-12 bottles, shipping is $6.99 for Auckland, $8.99 for the North Island and $11.99 for the South Island. For 13 or more bottles, shipping is $11.99 for Auckland, $14.99 for the North Island and $17.99 for the South Island.
- Timing We estimate delivery to be up to 3-4 working days for urban NZ addresses, and up to 5 working days for rural delivery.
- Click and collect is available from our Albany warehouse shop.
- We do not ship outside of New Zealand.
- We are unable to deliver to PO Boxes. Delivery is via NZ Couriers.
You may return most new, unopened items within 30 days of delivery for a full refund. We'll also pay the return shipping costs if the return is a result of our error (you received an incorrect or defective item, etc.).
You should expect to receive your refund within four weeks of giving your package to the return shipper, however, in many cases you will receive a refund more quickly. This time period includes the transit time for us to receive your return from the shipper (5 to 10 business days), the time it takes us to process your return once we receive it (3 to 5 business days), and the time it takes your bank to process our refund request (5 to 10 business days).
If you need to return an item, simply login to your account, view the order using the 'Complete Orders' link under the My Account menu and click the Return Item(s) button. We'll notify you via e-mail of your refund once we've received and processed the returned item.


text:
Animal wall art featuring this adorable little piglet. Pair this piece with some of Brett Blumenthal's other animal portraits to create an adorable collection.
Canvas wall art is reproduced in our San Diego studios using the best digital reproduction method currently available, resulting in great clarity and color saturation. After printing, the canvas is stretched by hand over a custom built 1.5" wood frame. The canvas wraps around the sides providing a finished decorative edge. While not needed for our canvases, solid wood framing in a contemporary shadow box style is available in ten sizes and two color choices. A saw tooth hanger is attached for easy hanging and artist biography information is included on the back so that children can learn more about today's working artists. Canvases are exceptionally durable and can be cleaned with a soft, dry or slightly damp cloth.
This is a custom order and ships in approximately 4 weeks


text:
This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. As many voters, or would-be voters, consider tonight's second presidential debate, we decided to take another look at one of the groups that may have an influence on that and other races this election season. It's a group that first earned attention for boisterous rallies and demonstrations at town halls and in fairly short order was credited with a major impact on the 2010 midterm elections for helping to return the House of Representatives to Republican control.
Of course we're talking about the Tea Party movement. In a minute we'll speak to a Tea Party activist to get her views about how the group is evolving. But first, let's take a look at the role of the Tea Party in congressional races. And our guest is NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Ron, welcome back. Thanks for joining us.
RON ELVING, BYLINE: Good to be with you, Michel.
MARTIN: So Ron, as we said, in 2010 candidates that were associated with the Tea Party stormed the congressional races. Are we seeing the same thing this time around?
ELVING: No. Because to some degree the Tea Party now has become the establishment, at least within a portion of the Republican Party, say, the House Republican caucus. The Tea Party is very much the warp and woof of the party there, and while there were a number of Tea Party challengers to Republican incumbents in the primaries this year, as there had been earlier, this time around the Republican incumbents held them off.
However, when the Tea Party endorsed the Republican incumbent - frequently somebody who had been associated with the Tea Party or friendly to it - that incumbent also won the primary. So as I say, the Tea Party is no longer the complete outsider element. It now really constitutes the mainstream of the House Republican caucus.
MARTIN: Now, that's interesting that the Tea Party caucus itself, which was newly formed, claims 60 members. If you're looking at the Tea Party caucus on the whole, some of these are freshman and some of these are experienced members, as you said, who were embraced by the Tea Party - how are they doing as a whole in their reelection races?
ELVING: Several of them, of course, are very high profile targets for the Democrats, including Michele Bachmann herself in Minnesota, who apparently is going to have something of a close race. She has a self-financing Democratic opponent. And down in Florida, Allen West, who has certainly been a high profile figure. A lot of people expect him to have a tough race and we see conflicting polls there.
But also Joe Walsh, who had a great deal of media presence during these two years in Illinois, in the outer suburbs of Chicago. He's certainly got a tough race and he may very well be the single most endangered person on the Republican list writ large. But among the Tea Party members, not as many as you might think look shaky for November.
In other words, let's take the 20 toughest races from the standpoint of the National Republican Congressional Committee itself. If you look at the 20 races they think are going to be hardest for them, fewer than half of those really have what you would call outright Tea Party ties or are members of that Tea Party caucus.
MARTIN: We're talking about the impact of the Tea Party in this election season. We've been hearing from NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. We're going to ask him to stand by. And now we're going to bring in Shelby Blakely. She is the journalist coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. That's a national organization that supports local Tea Party groups.
And she's been with us from time to time to talk about what the Tea Party is doing and how the group is evolving. Shelby, welcome back. Thanks for joining us once again.
SHELBY BLAKELY: Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: Now, you just heard Ron Elving say that the Tea Party is kind of now the warp and woof of the Republican caucus. Does it feel that way to you?
BLAKELY: It would be great if that were true, but honestly, there's no love lost between the Tea Party movement and the Republican establishment. I think the race with Joe Walsh in Illinois is a classic example of the establishment working against the Tea Party.
Wash was redistricted and forced into a face-off with a more moderate Republican candidate and the GOP, since he won that primary, they have not been giving him the support that he needs specifically in that state because they have basically written it off for the presidential election.
MARTIN: I was going to ask you - why do you think that is? You're saying that you think that A) there is an establishment that's different from the Tea Party. I mean Ron's view is that the Tea Party is part of the establishment now. You're saying that you feel that there's still some tension between those groups?
BLAKELY: Oh, absolutely. If the Tea Party was controlling the Republican establishment at large, you would not have seen the debt ceiling increase. You would not have seen the continuing resolutions. People like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, those kind of people, they're not friends of the Tea Party and they've shown that time and time again.
MARTIN: But you know, many Republicans have embraced issues important to the Tea Partiers even if they don't use the same language. But there was an absence of Tea Party members on stage at the Republican National Convention. So when you look at that altogether, Shelby, you see what?
BLAKELY: Well, you saw a lot of more conservative members of the Republican establishment party, but not once during the entire Republican convention was the phrase Tea Party uttered by anyone.
MARTIN: Ron, let me hear from you on this. Now, Republican - there are a lot of Republican candidates who say that they're sympathetic to Tea Party ideals, including the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, but they stop shy of describing themselves as Tea Party members. What does that say to you?
ELVING: Shelby is quite right about the Republican National Convention in Tampa. The Tea Party was not featured. The Tea Party really was not mentioned. And yet the issues that the Tea Party ran on and the emphases that the Tea Party tried to give to the Republican thrust in the House and in the Senate in the last Congress, the current Congress, was very much the focal point.
So the term Tea Party does not poll as well as it once did. If you look at a Republican poll like Rasmussen, it's still pretty much equally divided whether people see the Tea Party positively or not. Some other polls have the Tea Party positives down now below 30, down around a quarter.
That's way down from where it was at its height. So the phrase Tea Party may not be popular, and if you want to define the Republican establishment strictly as the leadership - John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, not terribly popular leaders, even among the people who are voting them into the leadership - yes, there is clearly a divide between the Tea Party impetus and those leaders.
But what is the establishment? The establishment, in the end, is the voting bloc that controls which way those chambers go. If the House Republican caucus goes in a certain direction because that's where most of the Tea Party members want to go, then that becomes the warp and woof of what the Republican Party is in the House and ditto in the Senate.
MARTIN: Now, Shelby, what about that Rasmussen poll that Ron just cited? The Rasmussen poll taken this spring says that 44 percent have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party compared to 49 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party. How do you read that? What do you think that means?
BLAKELY: Well, I think there's been a lot of misconceptions about the Tea Party, what it is and what it does, in the media. And because the movement is maturing past the protest stage, past the sign waving stage, there hasn't been a lot of dialogue back and forth between the Tea Party and the media.
What we're doing is, as a grassroots organization, our members are extremely interested in school board meetings, city council positions, county commissioner positions, and then working up to the state and federal level. I'd really call it trickle up politics. But as far as controlling the national leadership, only 22 Republicans voted against raising the debt ceiling.
I would not call that a majority and it shows America how much work we still have to do in order to bring fiscal responsibility back to our government ideals.
MARTIN: Shelby, you were saying that the focus of one of the Tea Party Patriots that you're in touch with is the local races. Is that right?
BLAKELY: It's actually a split focus. There's a good portion of the groups and the members of those groups and those coordinators that are focusing on local issues and local and state politics. But there's also a good segment of people more interested in the national level. There's even an emerging section of the Tea Party who's interested in monitoring and reporting on the bureaucracy, the unelected bureaucracy, and we hope to use the elected officials to hold that unelected bureaucracy accountable.
MARTIN: Well, what's the logic of the focus on the local races? If the issue is constitutionally limited government and the debt, then wouldn't it seem that the focus ought to be on Congress and the Senate?
BLAKELY: Well, the thinking is - the speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, once said all politics is local. And Tea Party members realize that if the local and state governments stand up to the federal government, the federal government does not have a leg to stand on. The federal government is the creation of the states and of the people, and as such if we control those mechanisms, we can control the centralization of power.
MARTIN: OK. Interesting. Now, Ron, I just wanted to get your take on what Shelby was saying about the local level. Do you think that that's in part about creating a farm team, if you want to use that phrase?
ELVING: There's always a split in any election between those people who are thinking in terms of that election cycle only and those people who are thinking about multiple cycles in the future, and younger people, in particular, are frequently interested in asking, what's in this for me? Is there an office I might run for down the road? And, if I'm not interested or not able to run for Congress in this particular cycle or if I'm not able to run for a state legislative seat, is there something I could do in this cycle to get my name out there? Could I run for some lesser office? Could I get some experience? Could I show what a Tea Party person would do if in office?
And so, yes, you're building a farm team. You're building a farm team, not just for 2014 or '16, but for the 2020s and the 2030s.
MARTIN: Finally, in the just a couple of minutes that we left, I wanted to ask about the whole question of turn-out. A lot of people are saying that this election depends on turn-out, since the pool of voters who are actually winnable or undecided is shrinking, so now it's really all about getting people out to the polls.
And I wanted to ask each of you if you think that the Tea Party is as big a player in that as it was in 2010. So, Shelby, I'll hear from you first and then, Ron, I'll get your perspective on that. What do you think, Shelby?
BLAKELY: I absolutely believe they are because we have matured past the sign waving stage and past the protest stage and we are in things like city councils and, specifically, primaries. If I had to describe the Tea Party in a phrase, it would be grim determination. We're there door knocking. We're there dropping literature. We're there connecting with local people on the local level and that's what a voter is. Someone local.
MARTIN: Ron, what do you say?
ELVING: The Tea Party was, by far and away, the most important turnout factor in 2010, but the turn-out that it dominated was a relative low turn-out. In the state of New York, the turn-out was the lowest in the entire country, down in something like the 25 percent range or lower, and the Tea Party, as a result, was able to be dominant.
In 2012, with a presidential election, you're going to have a much larger turn-out in places like New York, but also all across the country. And, in that situation, the same power, the same number of votes, the same turn-out ability that the Tea Party had in 2010 will be on a much different scale. It will be competing with a much larger turn-out from other elements, other elements of the Republican Party, Independents and Democrats. So we'll see if it has the same kind of impact.
MARTIN: Ron, still something to keep an eye on, still a movement important to watch, in your opinion?
ELVING: Absolutely.
MARTIN: Ron Elving is NPR's senior Washington editor. He was with us from Washington, D.C. Shelby Blakely is the journalist coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and she was with us from member station WABE in Atlanta, Georgia.
Thank you both so much for speaking with us.
BLAKELY: Good to be back.
ELVING: Thank you, Michel.
MARTIN: Coming up, Malala Yousafzai is only a teenager, but she was speaking out against the militants who she feared were taking over her part of Pakistan, the Swat Valley.
MALALA YOUSAFZAI: But, my dear friends, today, Swat has, in the past few years, become a heartland for Pakistan Islamic militancy.
MARTIN: And, for that, she was shot last week by the Taliban. New York Times print and film correspondent Adam Ellick got to know the young girl, who is now fighting for her life. He tells us more about her in just a few minutes on TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Report problems about particular biographical material on Wikipedia to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. |
This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. |
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
- Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- Verifiability (V)
- No original research (NOR)
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
Writing style
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.
The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
Attack pages
Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.
. Non-administrators should tag them withReliable sources
Challenged or likely to be challenged
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
Avoid misuse of primary sources
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]
Self-published sources
Avoid self-published sources
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. See § Images below for our policy on self-published images.
Using the subject as a self-published source
It has been suggested that this section be merged into Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2023. |
There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;[d]
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Avoid gossip and feedback loops
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:
- is unsourced or poorly sourced;
- is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources ;
- relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP ; or
- relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. .
Further reading, External links, and See also
External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that BLP with caution . In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the external links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.
"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research.
Presumption in favor of privacy
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
- Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.
People who are relatively unknown
Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution . Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.
The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.[2]
If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.[3]
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.[4]
If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight.
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.[e] Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.
Subjects notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
People accused of crime
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information.
Use in continued disputes
Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.[g]
BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Non-article space
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?
The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[h] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.
Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living persons should be immediately blocked and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind of non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about living persons, regardless of the legitimacy of the information and whether or not the information is correct. Requests for removing such usernames from logs should be reported to the Oversight team for evaluation.
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited.
Images of living persons that have been created by Wikipedians or others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist.
These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.
Recently dead or probably dead
Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 25 July 1909 [
]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even without confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.Legal persons and groups
This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.
{{BLP}} alerting readers to this policy may be added to the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that focus on living persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for articles containing material on the deceased that also contains material about living persons. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} template is present, you can add |living=yes
to the template parameters. If a {{WikiProject banner shell}} template is also present, add |blp=yes
to it.
For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all.
For editors violating this policy, the following can be used to warn them on their talk pages:
- {{uw-biog1}}
- {{uw-biog2}}
- {{uw-biog3}}
- {{uw-biog4}}
- {{uw-biog4im}}
- {{uw-bioblock}} for when a block is issued
The template {{BLP removal}} can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.
Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia
Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.
Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When a logged-out editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005:
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article—to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.[5]
Dealing with articles about yourself
Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} on your user talk page. You may also post an explanation of your concern on the biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced.
If you are an article subject and you find the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the page history.
Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective.
Legal issues
Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as VRT). Please e-mail info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.
As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.
How to contact the Wikimedia Foundation
If you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See Contact us for details.
Wikimedia Foundation resolution
On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.
Role of administrators
Page protection and blocks
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases, they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.
See § Templates for appropriate templates to use when warning or blocking for BLP violations.
Contentious topics
"All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.
Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking
Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.
Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with our policies.
Relatively unknown subjects
Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of an administrator deleting a complete article, wherever possible such disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article.
All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere.
See also
Foundation policies and resolutions
- Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy
- Wikimedia Foundation resolution on biographies of living persons, amended November 2013.
Arbitration cases
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, July 2007.
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of BLP § Biographies of living persons, June 2008.
- Arbitration Committee/Motion regarding BLP deletions, January 2010.
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, September 2011.
- Autobiography
- Conflict of interest
- Fringe theories § Treatment of living persons
- Manual of Style/Biography
- Notability (people)
Requests for comment
- An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
- Avoiding harm
- Coatrack articles
- Criticism
- Minors and persons judged incompetent
- Signatures of living persons
- Verifiable but not false
Discussion forums
Related pages
- ^ People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia.
- ^ For examples of arbitration cases that refer to this policy's parameters, see:
Rachel Marsden case, 28 November 2006: "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry."
Manning naming dispute, 16 October 2013: "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page."
- ^ Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
- ^ For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
- ^ This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor. Notability is not presumed or inherited with extremely limited exception (such as heir to a throne or similar).
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse – actual, apparent, or potential – of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."
The New York Times Company: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may arise in many areas. They may involve tensions between journalists' professional obligations to our audience and their relationships with news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another; or with the company or one of its units. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them."
- ^ See Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page.
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
Wales, Jimmy (19 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Wales, Jimmy (4 August 2006). "Archives/Jimbo Keynote". Wikimania 2006. Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 August 2006. Retrieved 22 June 2018.One of the social things that I think we can do is WP:BIO [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.
- ^ Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45 § Removal of WP:DOB
- ^ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 165 § People's birthdate, conflicting (reliable) sources, and WP:SYNTHESIS
- ^ June 2021, talk page discussion
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude § Mercy. Passed 6-0-1.


text:
Title | 2024 NMG 1200X1200 CRANE OUTRIGGER PAD 1200X1200 CRANE OUTRIGGER PAD NATIONWIDE MACHINERY GROUP |
Type | Cranes |
Sub Type | Cranes and Lifting Accessories |
Make | NMG |
Model | 1200X1200 CRANE OUTRIGGER PAD 1200X1200 CRANE OUTRIGGER PAD NATIONWIDE MACHINERY GROUP |
Year | 2024 |
Sale Price | $2,550 |
Listing Type | New |
Stock Number | dc19bfba-5d0c-439d-80f0-6a3c1d852e73 |
RefCode | TA1154161 |
Our fully welded interior design provides strong joints and durability; you can count on us!
Excellent Intensity with a high strength steel welded interior design that is built for strength providing strong joints and precision level flatness.
1. Excellent Intensity with high strength steel
2. Fully welded interior design for precision level flatness
3. Easy assembly with forklift auxiliary hole
4. Favorable wear resistance, anti-rust armour paint
Can be customized according to your needs
Quick & easy set up
Our high quality outrigger pads are easily deployed on any jobsite. Transporting, lifting and moving is no problem, each pad is fitted with rated lifting ears, with options for forklift pockets.
Safety first
Engineering ground pressure data is available. Designed with lifting points for safe lifting and transport. The face has anti-rust armour paint to help prevent slips.
Robust construction
Designed with a honeycomb centre and full welded joints, these outrigger pads are designed fit for purpose using high tensile steel. This keeps tare weight down for transport maximizing strength for size.
Type Length(mm) Width(mm) Height(mm) Weight(kg) Load Capacity (MT)
Type 200 282 50T
Price $2550 each pad + GST + Freight
Customized colour available at $180 each pad.
comes with all certification ready for use
Delivery can be arranged Australia wide
We pride ourselves on being the recognised, Authorised Distributor for Zoomlion/Sunward/JAC Australia. We have been the accredited distributors and maintenance providers for Zoomlion/Sunward cranes for over 20 years and in that time have built up a direct link to the factory. This enables us to offer professional and reliable services on all cranes, machinery,parts and lifting accessary for your Zoomlion/Sunward/JAC products. Our product range includes new and used cranes including truck cranes, mini crawler cranes, tower cranes, construction hoist, lattice/hydraulic boom crawler cranes, hoist, scissor lifts, boom lifts, spider boom and forklift and as well as spare parts so whatever your crane or machinery needs, you can be sure that we have the expertise and experience to meet them. Contact us today to discuss your requirements.
The market for heavy machinery is constantly changing, so it's important to act now to take advantage of this great opportunity. If you need any assistance or would like more information on anything we offer, please don't hesitate to contact us today! We look forward to hearing from you soon.
All prices are subject to changing freight charges and currency changes. Please contact our Sales Office for current rates and charges and more information.


text: The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is developing new rules for assessing market risk. The new regulation, entitled Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), will likely increase capital requirements for banks. The article "Liquidity Squeeze" discusses the possible impact of the new rules on the liquidity of financial markets and summarizes key regulatory changes.


text:
Product Details
Kagu Floor Liners by 3D MAXpider®. Carbon Fiber embossed pattern. Unlike the traditional floor liners with heavy weights, commercial rubbery looking. 3D KAGU all-weather custom fit floor liners are the revolutionary interior protection for your vehicles with an innovative, unique three-layer structure. The digitized three dimensional design measured to exact cabin contours of your vehicle for trapping mess and spills.
Supreme all-weather protection to keep your cabin clean and pristine
Innovative three-layer structure engineered to protect the interior of your vehicle with style, safety, and comfort in your daily ride. Rain or shine, keeps dirt, water and coffee spills off your cabin.
Safety bottom for unmatched anti-skid performance and peace of mind for your factory carpets
The patented MAXpider bottom layer keeps mats in place without leaving marks like nibs of traditional rubber floor mats and keeps dirt away.
Tailored for a perfect contoured fit to the interior of your vehicle
Three-dimensional designs measured to exact cabin contours of your vehicles with raised edges that give maximum coverage and protection to vehicle interior; Waterproof; effectively contain mess and spills.
Three truly distinctive carbon fiber texture styles to match your interior best
Surface layer made of Thermoplastic Rubber of carbon fiber texture to complement your vehicle's interior in the style you desired.
XPE foaming inner layer blocks out sound and vibration from the floor
The innovative XPE inner layer minimizes foot fatigue and provides the sound barrier for a quieter, more comfortable ride; yet the material is non-toxic and odorless. This layer is made from high-density XPE foam known for its ability to withstand heat and water, while its semi-rigid properties provide high-quality of shock and sound insulation.
The patented anti-skid bottom layer keeps mats in place without leaving marks like nibs of traditional rubber floor mats. Surface layers made of Thermoplastic Rubber of carbon fiber texture to complement different vehicles as the unique style you desired. The innovative XPE inner layer minimizes foot fatigue and provides the sound barrier for a quieter ride, the material is non-toxic and odorless. 3D KAGU all-weather custom fit floor liners give the style you desired and the peace of mind for your factory carpets when spills happen.
3D MAXpider® is a top-rated manufacturer offering superior custom fit floor liners, sunshades, all season windshield covers, and interior styling accessories. The products of the company are designed by its award-winning team that has a combined experience of more than 26 years in the automotive industry. Anti-slide, odorless, 100% waterproof, non-toxic, and non-PVC floor mats and cargo liners which 3D MAXpider offers are aimed to boost your pleasure and comfort while driving. Their patented anti-skid backing ensures reliable securing, while three dimensional designs with raised edges provide maximum coverage and ultimate protection to the vehicle interior.


text:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unwittingly ignited a firestorm earlier this week when he responded to a reporter's question in Great Britain about forced vaccinations of children in New Jersey by suggesting that the law in the U.S. needs to balance the rights of parents against the government's duty to maintain standards of public health.
Before Christie could soften the tone of his use of the word "balance," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul jumped into the fray to support the governor. In doing so, he made a stronger case for the rights of parents by advancing the view that all vaccines do not work for all children and the ultimate decision-maker should be parents and not bureaucrats or judges. He argued not for balance, but for bias — in favor of parents.
When Christie articulated the pro-balance view, he must have known that New Jersey law, which he enforces, has no balance, shows no deference to parents' rights and permits exceptions to universal vaccinations only for medical reasons (where a physician certifies that the child will get sicker because of a vaccination) or religious objections. Short of those narrow reasons, in New Jersey, if you don't vaccinate your children, you risk losing parental custody of them.
The science is overwhelming that vaccinations work for most children most of the time. Paul, who is a physician, said, however, he knew of instances in which poorly timed vaccinations had led to mental disorders. Yet, he was wise enough to make the pro-freedom case, and he made it stronger than Christie did.
To Paul, the issue is not science. That's because in a free society, we are free to reject scientific orthodoxy and seek unorthodox scientific cures. Of course, we do that at our peril if our rejection of truth and selection of alternatives results in harm to others.
The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? This is a question the government does not want to answer truthfully, because if it does, it will sound like Big Brother in George Orwell's novel "1984." That's because the government believes it owns your body.
Paul and no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected that concept. Under the natural law, because you retain the rights inherent in your birth that you have not individually given away to government, the government does not own your body. Rather, you do. And you alone can decide your fate with respect to the ingestion of medicine. What about children? Paul argues that parents are the natural and legal custodians of their children's bodies until they reach maturity or majority, somewhere between ages 14 and 18, depending on the state of residence.
What do the states have to do with this? Under our Constitution, the states, and not the federal government, are the guardians of public health. That is an area of governance not delegated by the states to the feds. Of course, you'd never know this to listen to the debate today in which Big Government politicians, confident in the science, want a one-size-fits-all regimen.
No less a champion of government in your face than Hillary Clinton jumped into this debate with a whacky Tweet that argued that because the Earth is round and the sky is blue and science is right, all kids should be vaccinated. What she was really saying is that in her progressive worldview, the coercive power of the federal government can be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy upon those states and individuals who intellectually reject it.
In America, you are free to reject it.
Clinton and her Big Government colleagues would be wise to look at their favorite Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade. Yes, the same Roe v. Wade that 42 years ago unleashed 45 million abortions also defines the right to bear and raise children as fundamental, and thus personal to parents, and thus largely immune from state interference and utterly immune from federal interference.
Paul's poignant question about who owns your body — and he would be the first to tell you that this is not a federal issue — cannot be ignored by Christie or Clinton or any other presidential candidate. If Paul is right, if we do own our bodies and if we are the custodians of our children's bodies until they reach maturity, then we have the right to make health care choices free from government interference, even if our choices are grounded in philosophy or religion or emotion or alternative science.
But if Paul is wrong, if the government owns our bodies, then the presumption of individual liberty guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has been surreptitiously discarded, and there will be no limit to what the government can compel us to do or to what it can extract from us — in the name of science or any other of its modern-day gods.