text:
This is the sixth time the Pew Research Center has measured restrictions on religion around the globe.⁴⁴ This report, which includes data for the year ending Dec. 31, 2013, generally follows the same methodology as previous reports, although it includes one new analysis, which is discussed below.

[Index Point Change]Pew Research uses two 10-point indexes – the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) – to rate 198 countries and self-governing territories on their levels of restrictions.⁴⁵ This report analyzes changes in restrictions on an annual basis, focusing on the period from 2012 to 2013.

The study categorizes the amount of change in each country’s scores in two ways, numerically and by percentile. First, countries are grouped into categories depending on the size of the numeric change in their scores from year to year on the two indexes: changes of two points or more in either direction; changes of at least one point but less than two points; changes of less than one point; or no change at all. (See chart at right.)

Changes in overall levels of restrictions are calculated for each country by comparing its scores on both indexes (the GRI and the SHI) from year to year. When a country’s scores on the GRI and the SHI changed in the same direction (both increased or both decreased), the greater amount of change determined the category. For instance, if the country’s GRI score increased by 0.8 and its SHI score increased by 1.5, the country was put into the overall “1.0 to 1.9 increase” category. When a country’s score increased on one index but decreased on the other, the difference between the amounts of change determined the grouping. For example, if the country’s GRI score increased by 2.0 and its SHI score decreased by 1.5, the country went into the overall “0.1 to 0.9 increase” category. When a country’s score on one index stayed the same, the amount of change on the other index was used to assign the category.

[Levels of Restrictions on Religion]Second, this report categorizes the levels of government restrictions and social hostilities in each country by percentiles. As the benchmark, it uses the results from the baseline year of the study (the year ending in mid-2007). Scores in the top 5% on each index in mid-2007 were categorized as “very high.” The next highest 15% of scores were categorized as “high,” and the following 20% were categorized as “moderate.” The bottom 60% of scores were categorized as “low.” See the table to the right for the index score thresholds as determined from the mid-2007 data. These thresholds are applied to all subsequent years of data.

Overview of Procedures

The methodology used by Pew Research to assess and compare restrictions on religion was developed by former Pew Research senior researcher and director of cross-national data Brian J. Grim in consultation with other members of the Pew Research Center staff, building on a methodology that Grim and Professor Roger Finke developed while at Penn State University’s Association of Religion Data Archives.⁴⁶ The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective and transparent measures of the extent to which governments and societal groups impinge on the practice of religion. The findings were used to rate countries and self-governing territories on two indexes that are reproducible and can be periodically updated.

This research goes beyond previous efforts to assess restrictions on religion in several ways. First, Pew Research coded (categorized and counted) data from more than a dozen published cross-national sources, providing a high degree of confidence in the findings. The Pew Research coders looked to the sources for only specific, well-documented facts, not opinions or commentary.

Second, Pew Research staff used extensive data-verification checks that reflect generally accepted best practices for such studies, such as double-blind coding (coders do not see each other’s ratings), inter-rater reliability assessments (checking for consistency among coders) and carefully monitored protocols to reconcile discrepancies among coders.

Third, the Pew Research coding took into account whether the perpetrators of religion-related violence were government or private actors. The coding also identified how widespread and intensive the restrictions were in each country.

Fourth, one of the most valuable contributions of the indexes and the questions used to construct them (see the section on “The Coding Instrument” on page 37) is their ability to chart change over time.

Countries and Territories

The 198 countries and self-administering territories covered by the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. They include 192 of the 193 member states of the United Nations as of 2013 plus six self-administering territories – Kosovo, Hong Kong, Macau, the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and Western Sahara.⁴⁷ Reporting on these territories does not imply any position on what their international political status should be, only recognition that the de facto situations in these territories require separate analysis.

Although the 198 countries and territories vary widely in size, population, wealth, ethnic diversity, religious makeup and form of government, the study does not attempt to adjust for such differences. Poor countries are not scored differently on the indexes than wealthy ones. Countries with diverse ethnic and religious populations are not “expected” to have more social hostilities than countries with more homogeneous populations. And democracies are not assessed more leniently or harshly than authoritarian regimes.

Information Sources

In the latest year of the study, Pew Research identified 17 widely available, frequently cited sources of information on government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion around the world. This study includes four sources that were not used in the baseline report on religious restrictions.

The primary sources, which are listed below, include reports from U.S. government agencies, several independent, nongovernmental organizations and a variety of European and United Nations bodies. Although most of these organizations are based in Western countries, many of them depend on local staff to collect information across the globe. As previously noted, Pew Research did not use the commentaries, opinions or normative judgments of the sources; the sources were combed only for factual information on specific policies and actions.

Primary Sources for 2013

1. Country constitutions
2. U.S. State Department annual reports on International Religious Freedom
3. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom annual reports
4. U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief reports
5. Human Rights First reports in first and second years of coding; Freedom House reports in subsequent years of coding
6. Human Rights Watch topical reports
7. International Crisis Group country reports
8. United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office annual report on human rights
9. Council of the European Union annual report on human rights
10. Global Terrorism Database
11. European Network Against Racism Shadow Reports
12. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports
13. U.S. State Department annual Country Reports on Terrorism
14. Anti-Defamation League reports
15. U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
16. Uppsala University’s Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Armed Conflict Database
17. Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters

_U.S. government reports with information on the situation in the United States_
• U.S. Department of Justice “Religious Freedom in Focus” newsletters and reports
• FBI Hate Crime Reports

One source used in the previous report – Amnesty International’s Country Reports – was not available for the latest round of coding. But information provided in previous Amnesty International reports, including data on religion-related detentions, was covered in other sources used in the study.

As noted, this study includes four sources that were not included in the Pew Research Center’s first report on global restrictions on religion: Freedom House reports; Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database; the “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters of Human Rights Without Frontiers; and the Global Terrorism Database.

The Freedom House reports have replaced Human Rights First reports, which have not been updated since mid-2008. The Uppsala Armed Conflict Database provides information on the number of people affected by religion-related armed conflicts, supplementing other sources. The Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters have replaced the Hudson Institute publication “Religious Freedom in the World” (by Paul Marshall), which has not been updated since its release in 2008. Human Rights Without Frontiers is a nongovernmental organization based in Brussels that has affiliated offices throughout the world.

In the previous report, the Pew Research Center relied on three sources for information on religion-related terrorism: the International Crisis Group’s country reports, Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database and the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism. (One source used in earlier reports, the U.S. government’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System, is no longer available online.) In the latest year of coding, the Pew Research Center also used data from the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. This database is one of the most comprehensive sources on terrorism around the world and is the source for the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism. The addition of this source thus provides greater context and information on terrorism without biasing the reporting through the addition of information that was not previously available.

While some of the increases in religious restrictions noted in this study could reflect the use of more up-to-date and/or better information sources, Pew Research staff monitor the impact of source information variability each year and have found no evidence of overall informational bias. (For additional discussion, see the “Potential Biases” section in 2014’s report, “Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High.”)

The Coding Instrument

As explained in more detail below, Pew Research staff developed a battery of questions similar to a survey questionnaire. Coders consulted the primary sources in order to answer the questions separately for each country. While the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom generally contained the most comprehensive information, the other sources provided additional factual detail that was used to settle ambiguities, resolve contradictions and help in the proper scoring of each question.

The questionnaire, or coding instrument, generated a set of numerical measures on restrictions in each country. It also made it possible to see how government restrictions intersect with broader social tensions and incidents of violence or intimidation by private actors. The coding instrument with the list of questions used for this report is shown in the Summary of Results starting on page 64.

The coding process required the coders to check all the sources for each country. Coders determined whether each source provided information critical to assigning a score; had supporting information but did not result in new facts; or had no available information on that particular country. Multiple sources of information were available for all countries and self-administering territories with populations greater than 1 million. Most of the countries and territories analyzed by the Pew Research Center were multi-sourced; only small, predominantly island, countries had a single source, namely, the State Department reports.
Coding the United States presented a special problem since it is not included in the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom. Accordingly, Pew Research coders also looked at reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI on violations of religious freedom in the United States, in addition to consulting all the primary sources, including reports by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the International Crisis Group and the U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, many of which contain data on the United States.

The Coding Process

The Pew Research Center employed strict training and rigorous coding protocols to make its coding as objective and reproducible as possible. Coders worked directly under an experienced researcher’s supervision, with additional direction and support provided by other Pew Research Center researchers. The coders underwent an intensive training period that included a thorough overview of the research objectives, information sources and Methodology.

Countries were double-blind coded by two coders (coders did not see each other’s ratings), and the initial ratings were entered into an electronic document (coding instrument) including details on each incident. The coders began by filling out the coding instrument for each country using the information source that had the most comprehensive information. The protocol for each coder was to answer every question on which information was available in the initial source. Once a coder had completed that process, he or she then turned to the other sources. As new information was found, this was also coded and the source duly noted. Whenever ambiguities or contradictions arose, the source providing the most detailed, clearly documented evidence was used.

After two coders had separately completed the coding instrument for a particular country, their scores were compared by a research associate. Areas of discrepancy were discussed at length with the coders and were reconciled in order to arrive at a single score on each question for each country. The data for each country were then combined into a master file, and the answers and substantiating evidence were entered into a database.

The coding procedures used in the latest report varied somewhat from previous years because of the relatively late release of the U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom report, which was made public in July 2014. Prior to the release of the State Department report, Pew Research coders completed the coding procedure for each country using all other available sources. After the State Department released the International Religious Freedom report, the coders went back over each country and updated their coding as necessary.

After data collection for all countries was completed, Pew Research coders and researchers compared the scores from calendar year 2013 with those from the previous year, ending Dec. 31, 2012. They identified scores that had changed and analyzed the substantiating evidence for each year to make sure the change was substantive and not the result of coder error. Throughout this process, the coding instrument itself was continually monitored for possible defects. The questions were designed to be precise, comprehensive and objective so that, based on the same data and definitions, the coding could be reliably reproduced by others with the same results. At the same time, the Pew Research Center has attempted to minimize changes to the coding instrument as much as is possible to ensure all changes between years are the result of actual changes in restrictions and hostilities, not changes in methodology.

Pew Research staff generally found few cases in which one source contradicted another. When contradictions did arise – such as when sources provided differing estimates of the number of people displaced due to religion-related violence – the source that cited the most specific documentation was used. The coders were instructed to disregard broad, unsubstantiated generalizations regarding abuses and to focus on reports that contained clear, precise documentation and factual details, such as names, dates and places where incidents occurred.

Pew Research staff compared coders’ scores for all questions for each of the 198 countries and territories included in the study, computing the degree to which the scores matched. The inter-rater reliability score across all variables was 0.74. Scores above 0.7 are generally considered good.

The data-verification procedures went beyond the inter-rater reliability statistics. They also involved comparing the answers on the main measures for each country with other closely related questions in the data set. This provided a practical way to test the internal reliability of the data.

In previous years, Pew Research staff also checked the reliability of the coded data by comparing them with similar, though more limited, religious restrictions data sets. In particular, published government and social regulation of religion index scores are available from the Association of Religion Data Archives (for three years of data) and the Hudson Institute (for one year of data), which makes them ideal measures for cross-validation. The review process found very few significant discrepancies in the coded data; changes were made only if warranted by a further review of the primary sources.

Restriction of Religion Indexes

The Government Restrictions Index is based on 20 indicators of ways that national and local governments restrict religion, including through coercion and force. The Social Hostilities Index is based on 13 indicators of ways in which private individuals and social groups infringe on religious beliefs and practices, including religiously biased crimes, mob violence and efforts to stop particular religious groups from growing or operating. The study also counted the number and types of documented incidents of religion-related violence, including terrorism and armed conflict.

Government Restrictions Index

Coding multiple indicators makes it possible to construct a Government Restrictions Index of sufficient gradation to allow for meaningful cross-national comparisons. An additional advantage of using multiple indicators is that it helps mitigate the effects of measurement error in any one variable, providing greater confidence in the overall measure.

The Pew Research Center coded 20 indicators of government restrictions on religion (see the Summary of Results). These 20 items were added together to create the GRI. In two cases, these items represent an aggregation of several closely related questions: Measures of five types of physical abuses are combined into a single variable (GRI Q.19), and seven questions measuring aspects of government favoritism are combined into an overall favoritism scale. (GRI Q.20 is a summary variable showing whether a country received the maximum score on one or more of the seven questions.)

The GRI is a fine-grained measure created by adding the 20 items on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low levels of government restrictions on religion and 10 indicating very high levels of restrictions. The 20 questions that form the GRI are coded in a standard scale from zero to one point, while gradations among the answers allowed for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular government restriction being measured. The overall value of the index was calculated and proportionally adjusted – so that it had a maximum value of 10 and a possible range of zero to 10 – by dividing the sum of the variables by two.

A test of whether the 20 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.91 for calendar year 2013. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these 20 items into a single index.

Social Hostilities Index

In addition to government restrictions, violence and intimidation in societies also can limit religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, Pew Research staff tracked more than a dozen indicators of social impediments on religion. Once again, coding multiple indicators made it possible to construct an index that shows gradations of severity or intensity and allows for comparisons among countries. The Summary of Results contains the 13 items used by Pew Research staff to create the Social Hostilities Index.

The SHI was constructed by adding together the 13 indicators based on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low impediments to religious beliefs and practices and 10 indicating very high impediments. The various questions that form the index are coded in a standard scale from zero to one point, while gradations among the answers allow for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular hostilities being measured. The indicators were added together and set to have a possible range of zero to 10 by dividing the sum of the variables by 1.3.

As with the Government Restrictions Index, various types of violence and intimidation were combined. A test of whether these 13 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.89. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these items into a single index.

How Examples Are Coded

Examples of each type of government restriction or social hostility are generally counted in a single measure on the GRI or SHI. For instance, a restriction on proselytizing (sharing one’s faith with the intent of persuading another to join the faith) is not also counted as a restriction on conversion (an individual changing his/her religion). In some situations, however, an individual restriction or hostility may be part of a broader set of restrictions or hostilities. For instance, a mob attack by members of one religious group on an individual of another religion may be an isolated event and counted just under question SHI Q.2: Was there mob violence related to religion? (See the Summary of Results.) However, if such an attack triggers repeated attacks between religious groups, it also might be an indication of sectarian or communal violence, which by definition involves two or more religious groups facing off in repeated clashes. In such a case, the mob attack also would be counted under question SHI Q.3: Were there acts of sectarian or communal violence between religious groups? (See the Summary of Results.)

Effects of Consolidating to a New Database

For the first few years of this study, information on the number, types and locations of incidents of government force and social violence toward religious groups as well as deference to religious authorities in matters of law were coded at the province level. (See example of data coding on pages 45-48 of the December 2009 baseline report.) Each year, the province numbers were summed and put into separate country-level files. Following the publication of the August 2011 report, Pew Research staff created a database that integrated all province- and country-level data on religious restrictions. During this process, Pew Research staff reviewed any discrepancies between province files and the sums that had been transferred to the country files and made appropriate corrections. The adjustments made were relatively minor and had small effects on index scores for countries, on average less than 0.005 points on the 10-point indexes. Consolidating the data into a database also entailed a review of the data on harassment of religious groups. In particular, instances of harassment from the year ending in mid-2007 were stored as open-ended questions, and in a few cases they were recoded to match the categories used in subsequent years.

Beginning in 2013, Pew Research stopped collecting data at the province-level; all data is coded at the country level.

Changing Time Period of Analysis

This is the third time Pew Research has analyzed restrictions on religion in a calendar year. Previous reports analyzed 12-month periods from July 1-June 30 (e.g., July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010). The shift to calendar years was made, in part, because most of the primary sources used in this study are based on calendar years.

Because of the shift in time frame, previous studies did not report directly on incidents that occurred during the period from July 1-Dec. 31, 2010. While this misses some incidents that occurred during the second half of 2010, events that had an ongoing impact – such as a change to a country’s constitution or the outbreak of a religion-related war – were captured by the coding. Researchers for the study carefully reviewed the situation in each country and territory during this six-month period and made sure that restrictions with an ongoing impact were not overlooked.

Religion-Related Terrorism and Armed Conflict

Terrorism and war can have huge direct and indirect effects on religious groups, including destroying religious sites, displacing whole communities and inflaming sectarian passions. Accordingly, Pew Research tallied the number, location and consequences of religion-related terrorism and armed conflict around the world, as reported in the same primary sources used to document other forms of intimidation and violence. However, war and terrorism are sufficiently complex that it is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored. Out of an abundance of caution, this study does not include them in the Government Restrictions Index. They are factored instead into the index of social hostilities involving religion, which includes one question specifically about religion-related terrorism and one question specifically about religion-related war or armed conflict. In addition, other measures in both indexes are likely to pick up spillover effects of war and terrorism on the level of religious tensions in society. For example, hate crimes, mob violence and sectarian fighting that occur in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or in the context of a religion-related war would be counted in the Social Hostilities Index, and laws or policies that clearly discriminate against a particular religious group would be registered on the Government Restrictions Index.

For the purposes of this study, the term “religion-related terrorism” is defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant affects by subnational groups or clandestine agents that have some identifiable religious ideology or religious motivation. It also includes acts carried out by groups that have a nonreligious identity but affect religious personnel, such as clergy. Readers should note that it is the political character and motivation of the groups, not the type of violence, that is at issue here. For instance, a bombing would not be classified as religion-related terrorism if there was no clearly discernible religious ideology or bias behind it unless it was directed at religious personnel. Religion-related war or armed conflict is defined as armed conflict (a conflict that involves sustained casualties over time or more than 1,000 battle deaths) in which religious rhetoric is commonly used to justify the use of force, or in which one or more of the combatants primarily identifies itself or the opposing side by religion.

Changes to Somalia’s Coding

In the latest year studied, researchers changed the way they coded government restrictions in Somalia. In previous years of the study, researchers had coded actions by the al-Shabaab rebel group as government restrictions, largely because the group effectively controlled large swathes of Somali territory. The extent of al-Shabaab control over Somali territory decreased in calendar year 2013, so researchers did not code their actions as government restrictions but rather as social hostilities. This contributed to the drop in Somalia’s GRI score, even though actual practices by the government did not change appreciably.

Potential Biases

As noted earlier, the primary sources indicate that the North Korean government is among the most repressive in the world, including toward religion. But because independent observers lack regular access to North Korea, the sources are unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that forms the basis of this report. Therefore, North Korea is not included on either index.

This raises two important issues concerning potential information bias in the sources. The first is whether other countries that limit outsiders’ access and that may seek to obscure or distort their record on religious restrictions were adequately covered by the sources. Countries with relatively limited access have multiple primary sources of information that the Pew Research Center used for its coding. Each is also covered by other secondary quantitative data sets on religious restrictions that have used a similar coding scheme, including earlier years of coded State Department report data produced by Grim at Penn State’s Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) project (four data sets); independent coding by experts at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Liberty using indexes also available from ARDA (one data set); and content analysis of country constitutions conducted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (one data set). Pew Research staff used these for cross-validation. Thus, contrary to what one might expect, even most countries that limit access to information tend to receive fairly extensive coverage by groups that monitor religious restrictions.

The second key question – the flipside of the first – is whether countries that provide freer access to information receive worse scores simply because more information is available on them. As described more fully in the methodology in the baseline report, Pew Research staff compared the length of State Department reports on freer-access countries with those of less-free-access countries. The comparison found that the median number of words was approximately three times as large for the limited-access countries as for the open-access countries. This suggests that problems in freer-access countries are generally not overreported in the State Department reports.

Only when it comes to religion-related violence and intimidation in society do the sources report more problems in the freer-access countries than in the limited-access ones. However, the Social Hostilities Index includes several measures – such as SHI Q.8 (“Did religious groups themselves attempt to prevent other religious groups from being able to operate?”) and SHI Q.11 (“Were women harassed for violating religious dress codes?”) – that are less susceptible to such reporting bias because they capture general social trends or attitudes as well as specific incidents. With these limitations in mind, it appears that the coded information on social hostilities is a fair gauge of the situation in the vast majority of countries and a valuable complement to the information on government restrictions.

Data on social impediments to religious practice can more confidently be used to make comparisons among countries with sufficient openness, which includes more than nine-in-ten countries covered in the coding. An analysis by Grim and Richard Wike, the Pew Research Center’s director of global attitudes research, tested the reliability of the State Department reports on social impediments to religious practice by comparing public opinion data with data coded from the reports in previous years by Grim and experts at Penn State. They concluded that “the understanding of social religious intolerance embodied in the State Department reports is comparable with the results of population surveys and individual expert opinion.”⁴⁸

Coding Harassment of Specific Religious Groups

As in previous reports, this study provides a summary of the number of countries where specific religious groups faced government or social harassment. This is essentially a cross-tabulation of GRI.Q.11 (“Was there harassment or intimidation of religious groups by any level of government?”) and the first type of religious hatred or bias measured in SHI.Q.1.a. (“Did individuals face harassment or intimidation motivated by religious hatred or bias?”). For purposes of this study, the definition of harassment includes any mention in the primary sources of an offense against an individual or group based on religious identity. Such offenses may range from physical attacks and direct coercion to more subtle forms of discrimination. But prejudicial opinions or attitudes, in and of themselves, do not constitute harassment unless they are acted upon in a palpable way.

As noted above, this study provides data on the number of countries in which different religious groups are harassed or intimidated. But the study does not assess either the severity or the frequency of the harassment in each country. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as gauging which religious group faces the most harassment or persecution around the world.

New Analysis Focused on Religious Minorities

This report includes a new analysis of government restrictions and social hostilities aimed primarily at religious minorities. The analysis relies on new aggregations and calculations of existing measures on the Government Restrictions Index and Social Hostilities Index, as discussed in detail below.

Defining Religious Minorities

For purposes of this analysis, groups that constitute less than 50% of a country’s population are considered religious minorities. This includes subgroups within major religious traditions, such as Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians and Sunni and Shia Muslims. Including subgroups within religious traditions is important for the study of global restrictions on religion because many of the incidents described in the study’s primary sources focus on intra-religious conflicts and hostilities. When no religious group makes up more than 50% of the population – which is the case in countries with several large religious groups – smaller religious groups are considered religious minorities. For example, if a country’s population included three religious groups that each make up about 30% of the population, the groups that make up the remaining 10% would be considered religious minorities.

Unlike other Pew Research studies that examine the size and distribution of the world’s major religions, this study does not count the religiously unaffiliated as a distinct religious group.

Measuring Restrictions and Hostilities Affecting Religious Minorities

Pew Research Center staff identified a set of components of the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index that tend to target religious minorities. While all government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion affect religious minorities to some extent, a few components of the indexes involve policies or hostilities that are specifically directed at groups out of favor with the government and/or members of society. Since these groups are often religious minorities, these measures were selected as proxies for government policies or social hostilities targeting religious minorities.

In the case of government restrictions, the questions chosen represent restrictions whose primary effect is to restrict the faith practices or threaten the existence of religious groups out of favor with the government through active government initiatives. Pew Research identified three questions that fit this category: GRI Q. 12, GRI Q.16 and GRI Q.17. (For full question wording, see text box on page 50.) In the case of social hostilities, the questions chosen represent social hostilities whose primary effect is to disrupt or harm religious groups that others in society do not approve of. Pew Research identified three questions that fit this category: SHI Q.7, SHI Q.8 and SHI Q.10. (For full question wording, see text box on
page 50.)

The selection of the questions used for this part of the analysis was based on researcher expertise and experience using the data Pew Research has collected over the eight years of this study.

Pew Research Center staff reviewed the incidents coded for the selected questions to determine whether or not they disproportionately affected religious minorities. Staff compared the details of the incident — particularly the religious groups affected — with information on religious demography in the country from the U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom Reports, one of the primary sources for the study. (The State Department reports include a detailed section on religious demography for each country.) If the group affected made up less than 50% of the population, staff considered the example of the restriction or hostility as affecting religious minorities. While the coding of these questions captured some incidents that did not involve religious minorities, the majority of the incidents did involve religious minorities, leading us to accept the items as a valid indicator of restrictions and hostilities targeting religious minorities.

Pew Research staff then developed two new variables indicating whether or not a country experienced at least one type of restriction or hostility that tends to target religious minorities. The variable measuring government restrictions is coded as 1 if GRI Q.12, GRI Q.16 or GRI Q.17 is above 0 for that country (indicating the type of restriction was in place). And the variable measuring social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities is coded as 1 if SHI Q.7, SHI Q.8 or SHI Q.10 is above 0 for that country. These two variables thus function in a similar manner as the Government Restrictions Index and Social Hostilities Index; they aggregate multiple specific indicators of religious minorities’ status in a country to measure this concept. The scale reliability coefficient for each aggregate — a measure of the extent to which a set of questions are related — was above 0.7, the acceptable level for reliability.

Limitations of This Approach to the Study of Religious Minorities

This way of measuring the impact of restrictions and hostilities on religious minorities allows the Pew Research Center to do so in a transparent manner, but there are some limitations to this approach. First, this study does not directly measure examples of governments imposing restrictions on religious minorities or social groups committing hostilities against religious minorities. Instead, it focuses on types of government restrictions and social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities. Second, this study does not measure the severity of restrictions or hostilities affecting religious minorities; as a result, any discussion involves analysis of whether or not the restriction or hostility occurred, not how many members of a religious minority it affected. Finally, although the questions used in the two new variables disproportionately affect religious minorities, they may not exclusively affect them; that is, these variables do include some incidents involving groups that are not in the minority.

Other possible approaches would encounter limitations of their own. Coding a new set of variables specifically measuring restrictions or hostilities on religious minorities would require a separate coding effort on the scale of the religious restrictions coding to ensure it is done in a valid and reliable manner. Likewise, it would be difficult to measure the severity or incidents of restrictions or hostilities targeting religious minorities due to issues with information availability. This is similar to the reason the Pew Research Center measures whether or not particular religious groups were harassed in a country, not the extent or severity of the harassment a group faces.

[Restrictions2015-tables_50]

question: Why does the article mention the limitations of the study's approach with regards to religious minorities?

answer:
The reason for this is to justify that their choice in approach is the most optimal one for the study.

The study acknowledges that some of the information presented might be skewed due to some data not being directly measured in favor of focusing on an approach that allows the study to be transparency (with the opposite being that the study will sacrifice transparency in favor of being able to measure possibly sensitive data).

It also acknowledges that other approaches are possible but those would come with their own caveats. Thus, the current approach being used is concluded by the study to be the most appropriate.


split: train

text:
	Mason walked into the classroom, it was the first day of eighth grade, and he was nervous about getting bullied like all the years before. Summer was a blessing to him, a priceless gift that he would never sell. It was his safe haven away from all the bullying and name calling. He may have already ended his life if it wasn't for summer.

	While Mason was calming himself down, Jacob carelessly strolled into the room. Mason tried his best to look away and avoid eye contact with him, but Jacob already spotted him. Jacob walked over to him with a smirk on his face, calling him names like pepperoni face and grease ball, making fun of his acne and exploiting how overweight Mason was. The whole class giggled.

	Jacob continued to annoy Mason. He started pulling at his greasy black hair, and then shoved Mason out of his seat. The teacher walked in right at that moment, but ignored Jacob's constant bullying. Jacob decided to take a seat right behind Mason, and bother him the whole class period.

	Mason couldn't believe what was occurring, Jacob was stabbing him with freshly sharpened pencils, while stealing his school supplies, and the teacher was doing nothing about it. Then the bell rung, his salvation from bullying. When Mason settled down at his next class, Jacob walked right in, and began bullying him again. Mason couldn't believe he had another class with Jacob.

	Mason had no other classes with Jacob, but the bullying did not stop. At lunch Jacob would steal Mason's food, pour milk all over it, or push it onto the floor. It was shocking how no one stopped Jacob, not even a school administrator stopped him. It was like a huge conspiracy against Mason.

	Jacob continuously bullied Mason for the rest of the semester. Other kids started bullying Mason too, and even the teachers were treating him like garbage. During one test, Mason couldn't concentrate with Jacob poking him constantly, so he ended up failing the test. Not only was Mason being bullied by kids at school, his dad started beating him for his bad grades. Coming home in a drunk stupor whipping Mason with his belt.

	Mason started showing up at school with black eyes, scars, and scabs all over him. Still, no one helped him. Mason was at his breaking point, then a rumor started spreading around the school like a plague. People really started to believe the rumors were true, that Mason was gay. This brought even more hate to him.

	A few weeks later, suicide started becoming a more viable option to Mason. Since there was nothing left to lose, Mason decided to tell Hannah he had a crush on her. He walked down the hallway, ignoring all the stares and whispers, seeing Hannah's back to him made him walk a little faster. As he was walking, Mason started to admire Hannah's golden blonde hair, and sapphire blue eyes, playing out a little love story in his head.

	He finally was within arms reach of Hannah, and as Mason reached out his arm to tap Hannah's shoulder, Jacob pulled him away. Jacob pulled Mason to the side, attracting all the attention in the hall making everyone go quiet. Seconds felt like hours, then Jacob spoke, "What are you doing to my girlfriend, faggot?" Mason started sweating, "Girlfriend?" he asked. Jacob replied saying, "Yeah, my girlfriend not yours homo." Mason glanced to his left, looking at Hannah.

	Mason could feel all the blood rush to his face, and started licking the sweat around his lips. Then he looked back at Jacob, right as Jacob brought a fist to his face. Dropping to the floor cringing, Mason looked up just to see a foot come flying at him, hitting him in the neck. Mason started laying in a fetal position, trying to protect himself from Jacob's stomping. Then Mason could feel more feet stomping on him. Other kids were participating in hurting him.

	Mason started crying. He felt the tears go down his face, all dripping onto the floor. As he felt more feet hitting him, he started wailing in agony. Kids with all different kinds of shoes like sneakers, tennis shoes, converse, and even cleats. Every part of his body was being bruised simultaneously, taking a kick to the crotch every once and awhile.

	Eventually he could feel less feet stomping and kicking him, until there were only two feet kicking him. He rolled over to see who the assailants were. It was Jacob, unsurprisingly, and Hannah. Seeing Hannah kicking him broke Mason, she wasn't the angel Mason thought she was.

	A few minutes later and the evil lovebirds were gone, leaving Mason to sulk in a puddle of his own blood and tears. Closing his eyes, Mason remembered his mom, how good things were before she died. Expecting not to open his eyes again, Mason took one last breath and screamed. The loud scream had converted into silence as soon as it was made. Laying in the hallways peacefully, Mason's corpse was stepped on one last time by his father, calling Mason a no good brat.

title: The Bullying (Just a junior high student looking for feedback)

question: Who is the main character?

answer: Mason

question: Why does no one help Mason?

answer: That information can't be found

question: Where is the story set?

answer: Mason's school

question: Who is Jacob's main bully?

answer: Jacob

question: Write a ~4 sentence summary.

answer: Mason starts the eighth grade but is relentlessly bullied by a classmate named Jacob. Mason's dad starts beating him, and Mason decides to kill himself. He tells Hannah he has a crush on her, and Jacob, Hannah, and their other classmates kick Mason to death. After he dies, his dad kicks his body once more.


text:
…”The truth was, none of them would ever quite make it home, and the rest of us would feel just the prudent amount of badly about that for the rest of our self-obsessed little lives.
In fact, in the rare cases in which their bodies might make it home, a certain highly disputed other little piece almost certainly would not.
It can be a fragile thing…
We justified this, I think, by giving ourselves the usual excuses, I don’t know how or if we didn’t know that we were sneaky, lying little rotters who weren’t fit to polish Boggins’ bootlaces.
Or maybe we knew but we just didn’t care less.
Maybe we were thinking of our wives and children.
Right.
Did you know that if there was something wrong with a certain part of your brain, I forget what it’s called, but if you show somebody who’s missing that certain little part, let’s say, a picture of an elephant, he’ll know what it is, but he isn’t able to explain it?
Prize for the worst sentence I’ve ever said, but that was just how Boggins always was, ever since I’d known him.
I’d like to say we were best buddies since kindergarten, you know, but the real thing was, we first saw each other at the haircutters’. I was applying for a job there; he owned the place.
Loeb and Masters were all palsy-walsy, and they came there for a trim occasionally. Together, which we thought was weird, but it’s understandable now. Binstead might have been a friend of a friend, in fact there might have even been another a friend into the bargain, but it didn’t seem to matter, because once he was there, he pretended to fit right in. And we? We faked it ‘til we felt it, like our mama bears told us, the annoying little grub.
So we were there, we had the idea of friendship in mind, and the philosophy; we had our notes, but we still had to sit the practical exam.
And the first two, they were the worst months of my life.
But not for Boggins, he liked things like that. Maybe because he actually had a soul.
He was always vocal about his purpose, though, and he didn’t try to hide from himself or anyone else what he thought he needed to do.
“I’m going to dunk my head in this fountain now, Troy,” said college-Boggins.
Of course the fellow did, and he didn’t even regret the pneumonia that came of it.
But anyway, Boggins, he would always stop what he was doing to tell us that he didn’t know why he was doing it, he just was.
He made us feel like worms; what we didn’t realize was that at the time we didn’t need to, and we swallowed our feelings when they came true. We were young, if twenty five was young; the thirty I am now is mostly considered young, but I am old now.
What follows could be considered the reason why, although if I were told so, I might try to deny it.
I guess when we were all younger, we all thought we had a purpose.
Boggins knew he didn’t, but he thought he did, and we thought he was noble or something for that.
In fact, I remember distinctly wishing I were him, because I was an idiot. Still am, would be the last to deny it. But unfortunately now I’m something worse as well, well, we all are.
We’re craven cowards, you know. And one time we thought we’d take something, that wasn’t ours, you know. You do, right? You know, it’s great to have someone like you, someone who can listen.
And of course Boggins didn’t believe in anyone but himself and his purpose, and he shook his head and said, “You know what? That’s brilliant,” and he came with us to an alleyway in Garden Street…
And there was an apartment there.
Thank you, this is great. Do you brew it yourselves?
So we convinced Binstead, the unlucky gangling child, to climb the windows, and bring out something. We thought we were so original, and I can’t understand it now. But Binstead, he was ever the child of the Bible and all that.
What was curious was Boggins’ moral code; he was fine with stealing something, but not with letting someone else to do it.
He thought maybe he was going to hell anyways, but that was us…

▲                      ▲                       ▲

We waited a long time for the decrepit old young middle aged man to wake up, but he never did.
We weren’t watching what the hell he was drinking, but about an hour after closing time, we shook him and shook him and no deal, you know…
He just wasn’t alive anymore.
It’s a fragile thing…
We buried him in the field back.

title: Again, inspiration strikes when you least expect it..

question: When did the narrator think he had a purpose?

answer: Only when he was younger

question: Where was the narrator applying for a job?

answer: At the haircutters owned by Boggins

question: Why was Boggins fine with stealing something but not with letting someone else do it?

answer: He maybe thought he was already going to hell anyway.

question: Who did Boggins believe in?

answer: He didn't believe in anyone except himself

question: Write a ~2 sentence summary.

answer: The narrator describes being young and living a life of purpose. However now in his thirties, he looks back and thinks how he and his friends were cowards.


text:
FERDINAND BOL (24 June 1616 – 24 August 1680) was a Dutch painter, etcher and draftsman. Although his surviving work is rare, it displays Rembrandt's influence; like his master, Bol favored historical subjects, portraits, numerous self-portraits, and single figures in exotic finery.[1]

Biography

Ferdinand was born in Dordrecht as the son of a surgeon, Balthasar Bol.[2] Ferdinand Bol was first an apprentice of Jacob Cuyp in his hometown and/or of Abraham Bloemaert in Utrecht. After 1630 he studied with Rembrandt, living in his house in Sint Antoniesbreestraat, then a fashionable street and area for painters, jewellers, architects, and many Flemish and Jewish immigrants.[3] In 1641 Bol started his own studio.

In 1652 he became a burgher of Amsterdam, and in 1653 he married Elisabeth Dell, whose father held positions with the Admiralty of Amsterdam and the wine merchants' guild, both institutions that later gave commissions to the artist. Within a few years (1655) he became the head of the guild and received orders to deliver two chimney pieces for rooms in the new town hall designed by Jacob van Campen, and four more for the Admiralty of Amsterdam.

Around this time, Bol was a popular and successful painter. His palette had lightened, his figures possessed greater elegance, and by the middle of the decade he was receiving more official commissions than any other artist in Amsterdam.[4] Godfrey Kneller was his pupil.[5] Bol delivered four paintings for the two mansions of the brothers Trip, originally also from Dordrecht.[6]

Bol's first wife died in 1660. In 1669 Bol married for the second time to Anna van Erckel, widow of the treasurer of the Admiralty, and apparently retired from painting at that point in his life.[7] In 1672 the couple moved to Keizersgracht 672, then a newly designed part of the city, and now the Museum Van Loon. Bol served as a governor in a Home for Lepers. Bol died a few weeks after his wife, on Herengracht, where his son, a lawyer, lived.

Probably his best known painting is a portrait of Elisabeth Bas, the wife of the naval officer Joachim Swartenhondt and an innkeeper near the Dam square. This and many other of his paintings would in the 19th century be falsely attributed to Rembrandt.

Gallery (selected works)

File:ElisabethBas.jpeg%7CPortrait of Elisabeth Bas File:Ferdinand Bol 004.jpg|_Pyrrhus shows his elephant to Fabritius,_ Royal Palace of Amsterdam File:Bol Man in golden helmet.jpg|_Man in golden helmet (Mars)_, National Museum, Warsaw File:Governors of the Wine Merchant's Guild.jpg|_Governors of the Wine Merchant's Guild_, Alte Pinakothek, Munich File:Ferdinand Bol - An Astronomer.jpg|_An Astronomer, National Gallery, London_ File:Portret van een man Rijksmuseum SK-A-43.jpeg|_Portrait of a Man_, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Notes

[1] Ferdinand Bol biography, Getty Museum

[2] Twenty years later visiting Ferdinand, Balthasar was painted by Rembrandt.

[3] Immediate neighbors included Hendrick van Uylenburg, who rented from Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy, and Govert Flinck. Pieter Lastman and David Vinckboons lived across the bridge.

[4] Biography, Getty Museum

[5] Blankert, A. (1976) Ferdinand Bol.

[6] Schwartz, G. (1984) Rembrandt, zijn leven, zijn schilderijen, (= his life, his paintings) p. 206.

[7] Crenshaw, P. (2006) Rembrandt's Bankruptcy. The artist, his patrons and the art market in seventeenth-century Netherlands, p. 40.

title: Ferdinand Bol

question: What can be said of Bol's early works?

answer: His palette was darker and his figures were not elegant. His palette lightened later and his figure became more elegant, giving rise to his success.

question: What prompted Bol to marry his first wife, Elisabeth Dell?

answer: Possibly to further his career.

question: How long was Ferdinand Bol an apprentice before he opened his first studio?

answer: At least 11 years, probably more.

question: Why was Ferdinand Bol's paintings attributed to Rembrandt?

answer: Bol studied under Rembrandt. Rembrandt's influence was evident in Bol's work. They also painted similar subjects like historical subjects and portraits.

question: Why is Ferdinand Bol's surviving work rare?

answer: It could have been lost, misplaced, damaged or destroyed in the years since it was painted.


text:
Image 1 of 7

[Sylvain Chavanel (IAM Cycling)]

Sylvain Chavanel (IAM Cycling) (Image credit: Fotoreporter Sirotti)

Image 2 of 7

[Tiesj Benoot took the young rider's classification]

Tiesj Benoot took the young rider's classification (Image credit: Tim de Waele/TDWSport.com)

Image 3 of 7

[Miguel Indurain wore the first and last yellow jersey of the 1992 Tour de France]

Miguel Indurain wore the first and last yellow jersey of the 1992 Tour de France

Image 4 of 7

[Bryan Coquard at the team presentation]

Bryan Coquard at the team presentation (Image credit: Fotoreporter Sirotti)

Image 5 of 7

[Dutch champion Sebastian Langeveld (Cannondale-Garmin)]

Dutch champion Sebastian Langeveld (Cannondale-Garmin) (Image credit: Tim de Waele/TDWSport.com)

Image 6 of 7

[Byran Coquard (Europcar) gets into the Panda fun at the stage start in ZooParc de Beauval]

Byran Coquard (Europcar) gets into the Panda fun at the stage start in ZooParc de Beauval (Image credit: ASO)

Image 7 of 7

[Jerome Pineau (IAM Cycling)]

Jerome Pineau (IAM Cycling)

IAM Cycling's squad for the 2016 season is due for a shake up with the Swiss team announcing the departure of 35-year-old Sylvain Chavanel. The Frenchman joined the team at the start of 2014, winning five races including the GP Ouest France-Plouay, but with the team looking to focus on sprint success no contract renewal was forthcoming. Jérome Pineau, who joined the team from Quick Step with Chavanel in 2014, is also set to exit the team.

"For next year, we want to have our pack of wolves more compact and prominent at the front of the peloton in order to usher our sprinters to the finish line more effectively. As a result of this reevaluation, we decided not to extend Sylvain Chavanel's contract," the founder of IAM Cycling Michel Thétaz explained. "We are certainly aware of everything that Sylvain has brought to this team. The collaboration has exceeded our expectations. We will never forget his fantastic victory at the GP de Plouay last August, nor his overall qualities as a racer as well as a human being. We have really had two wonderful years together with him. I reiterate my thanks to him for his professionalism and wish him the very best for his future."

The team's sprint options for 2015 include Matteo Pelucchi, Jonas van Genechten and Heinrich Haussler although the trio have just three wins between them and none since the first of February.

In March, Europcar sprinter Bryan Coquard told _L'Équipe_ that the team's future would need to be decided before the Tour de France, explaining "I just now want to develop in a team with riders to support me for the sprints." IAM Cycling, BMC and AG2R have all inquired about the services of the Frenchman although the departure of training partner Pineau may influence his decision to ride elsewhere in 2016.

[]

 CONTRACT EXTENSIONS FOR LANGEVELD AND BENOOT

The immediate futures of Sebastian Langeveld (Cannondale-Garmin) and Tiesj Benoot (Lotto Soudal) are secure with both riders extended their contracts until the end of 2017. Langeveld, who has been with the team since the 2014 season, told _AD.nl_it was an easy decision to renew.

"Immediately after the classics Vaughters indicated that he wanted to keep me," Langeveld said. "That said a lot of [his] appreciation, as obviously it is not [normal] to offer contracts to riders if they are injured. I had already given my word and recently officially signed. I'm really enjoying myself with this team, so I have not considered offers from other teams. In the coming years I will have the same role as I have now, I may have my own way in the classics and other races I'm road captain.

A successful start to the season has seen Benoot, 21, add another year to his contract which was to expire at the end of 2016. Benoot was fifth on his debut at the Tour of Flanders while he recently wore the first young rider's jersey at the Critérium du Dauphiné.

"Of course this recent development gives me a boost," he said. "That the team extends my contract after half a year is a signal that I’m doing well. I’m feeling very good in this team and I’m looking forward to be part of the team the next few years as well. It’s nice to have security for the future. But it’s not only with this extended contract that the team shows it has faith in me. I get opportunities to start in the big races like Tour of Flanders and Dauphiné and can save energy for the finale. I get a balanced programme that isn’t too hard."

YELLOW JERSEYS GALORE

Four different stage winners, time bonus, varied terrain and abandons have see four different leaders of the Tour de France on the first four stages. Rohan Dennis (BMC), Fabian Cancellara (Trek), Chris Froome (Team Sky) and Tony Martin (Etixx-Quick Step) have all worn the yellow fleece so far this Tour. It's the first time since 1992 that there have been four different leaders after four stages. On that occasion the riders were Miguel Indurain, Alex Zulle, Richard Virenque and Pascal Lino.

Lino held the yellow jersey for 11 days before with Indurain reclaimed the race lead and held it all the way to Paris.

[]

_Miguel Indurain wore the first and last yellow jersey of the 1992 Tour de France (Getty) _

question: How old was Sylvain Chavanel at the time this article was written?

answer: 35

question: Why did they not extend his contract?

answer: They want a pack of more compact riders in the front.

question: What is this sport?

answer: Cycling.

question: How old is Benoot?

answer: 17

question: Write a ~1 sentence summary.

answer: Cyclists across Europe are gearing up for their season, with many teams seeing industry-wide changes implemented, some of which resulting in a lack of contract renewal for members like veteran cyclist Sylvaine Chavanel.


text:
BRAZIL–NIGERIA RELATIONS refers to the current and historical relations between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Brazil and Nigeria maintain a traditional and diversified relationship, with a strong Nigerian influence on Brazilian cultural and social formation.[1] Both nations are members of the Group of 77 and the United Nations.

History

During the Atlantic slave trade, Portugal transported many African slaves from Nigeria to Brazil, primarily to the Brazilian State of Bahia.[2] In the 19th century, many emancipated Afro-Brazilians traveled to West Africa to settle. Brazilians in Nigeria became known as _Agudas_ and created a Brazilian quarter in Lagos.[3] A census taken in 1888 by the British colonial government in Nigeria recorded 3,221 Brazilians in Lagos.[4]

In October 1960, Nigeria obtained its independence from the United Kingdom. Brazil was the only South American country invited to Nigeria's proclamation of independence and both nations established diplomatic relations.[5] In 1961, Brazil opened a resident embassy in Lagos and in 1966, Nigeria opened a resident embassy in Brasília.[6] Initially, relations remained relatively basic, centered more on cultural sentiments and historical affinity than on any deep commercial connection.[7]

In 1983, President João Figueiredo became the first Brazilian head-of-state to visit Nigeria. In 2005, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva paid a visit to Nigeria and the Brazilian embassy in Lagos was transferred to Abuja. That same year, President Olusegun Obasanjo became the first Nigerian head-of-state to visit Brazil.[8] There have been several high-level visits between leaders and foreign ministers of both nations.

Brazil and Nigeria continue to maintain close cultural links. There have been joint efforts between Nigeria's Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization and the Brazilian government (through Brazil's Special Secretariat) to promote policies on racial equality.[9] In December 2019, Brazilian Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo paid a visit to Nigeria and met with Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama.[10] During his visit, Foreign Minister Araújo stressed that three fundamental pillars should guide Brazilian-Nigerian cooperation: economy (trade and investment), defense and security, and the enhancement of human relations. Furthermore, both nations cited the potential of agricultural cooperation, with the development of technologies for agribusiness that ensure greater productivity without putting the environment at risk and highlighted the bilateral agricultural development program called _Green Imperative_.[11]

High-level visits

[Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva attending Brazilian Independence celebrations in Brasília; September 2005.] [Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua in Brasília; 2009.] HIGH-LEVEL VISITS FROM BRAZIL TO NIGERIA

-   Foreign Minister Mário Gibson Barboza (1972)
-   Foreign Minister Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro (1981)
-   President João Figueiredo (1983)
-   Foreign Minister Roberto Costa de Abreu Sodré (1986)
-   Foreign Minister Celso Amorim (2005)
-   President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2005, 2006)
-   President Dilma Rousseff (2013)
-   Foreign Minister Aloysio Nunes (2017)
-   Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo (2019)

HIGH-LEVEL VISITS FROM NIGERIA TO BRAZIL

-   Foreign Minister Okoi Arikpo (1974)
-   Foreign Minister Joseph Nanven Garba (1977)
-   Vice President Shehu Musa Yar'Adua (1979)
-   Foreign Minister Ike Nwachukwu (1988)
-   Vice President Atiku Abubakar (2000)
-   President Olusegun Obasanjo (2005)
-   Foreign Minister Oluyemi Adeniji (2006)
-   President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua (2009)
-   President Goodluck Jonathan (2012)
-   Foreign Minister Olugbenga Ashiru (2013)
-   Vice President Namadi Sambo (2013)
-   Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama (2018)

Bilateral agreements

Both nations have signed several agreements such as an Agreement for Cultural and Educational Cooperation (2000); Agreement on Trade and Investment (2005); Agreement on Technical Cooperation (2005); Agreement on Cultural Cooperation (2005); Agreement for Regular Political Consultations (2005); Agreement on Energy Cooperation (2009); Memorandum of Understanding on broad areas of Cross-National Cooperation (2010); Agreement on Defense Cooperation (2010) and a Memorandum of Understanding for the creation of a Bilateral Strategic Dialogue Mechanism (2013).[12][13]

Resident diplomatic missions

-   Brazil has an embassy in Abuja and a consulate-general in Lagos.[14]
-   Nigeria has an embassy in Brasília.

[1] Brasil-Nigéria (in Portuguese)

[2] How enslaved Nigerians in Brazil helped usher in the end of international slave trade in 1835

[3] Is Nigeria's Brazilian heritage under threat?

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] Nigeria and the BRICs

[8]

[9]

[10] Chanceler destaca papel da Nigéria na aproximação Brasil-África (in Portuguese)

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14] Embassy of Brazil in Abuja

title: Brazil–Nigeria relations

question: What does the text say about Brazil and Nigeria before the 1900s?

answer: Many slaves were transported from Nigeria to Brazil by Portugal during the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century, many emancipated Afro-Brazilians traveled to West Africa to settle. Brazilians in Nigeria became known as Agudas, and they created a Brazilian quarter in Lagos. According to a 1888 census, there were 3,221 Brazilians living in Lagos.

question: What does the text say about Brazil and Nigeria in the 1960s?

answer: In 1960, Nigeria obtained its independence from the United Kingdom, and Brazil was the only South American country invited to Nigeria's proclamation of independence. Both nations established diplomatic relations, and in 1961, Brazil opened an embassy in Lagos, and in 1966, Nigeria opened an embassy in Brasilia. Initial relations were centered on cultural sentiments and historical affinity.


text:
About a month ago, my girlfriend asked me for a fake name idea for one of her law school papers because they have to be submitted anonymously so the teachers aren't biased when they grade them. Anywho, I came up with a name and a story to accompany it...

I'm very open to criticism. I'd like to see how it does from people that I don't date.

----

Beefy Bitch...

Cornelius Harberdash VII

While his name might allude to an impressive pedigree, Cornelius comes from a rather rough past. Growing up an orphan is never easy. With a name like Cornelius, it was a matter of time before the other orphans started calling him Corn which then led to Cornbeef which then led to Cornbeef bitch because as we all know, children love simple alliteration especially when it is used to make fun of others. Irony won when a child born "Cornelius Harberdash VII" eventually found himself haunted by the painfully shortened nickname "Beefy Bitch."

Beefy Bitch awoke and began wiping the sand from his eyes.
"How'd ya sleep BB?" said Tom O'Horseraddish. "Okay, I figures" BB grumbled.
Today was one of the best... Grilled Cheese Tuesday. BB loved Grilled Cheeses most of all. More than pudding. More than Oreos. More than Oreos dipped in pudding. He could NOT wait for lunchtime. Hopefully Ms. Wartburger would let him get in line early if finished his chores first. Cleaning the toilets with toothbrushes wasn't that bad - especially if you compared it to THE other chore. The chore that was so horrific and inexplicable that only the worst of the orphans was burdened with its doing. Last month, Tom had been given the chore because he set 5 tacs in my Ms. Wartburger's desk chair. In short, Tom hasn't been the same. He doesn't even like Grilled Cheeses anymore which conveniently enough is great for BB.

"Say O'Horseraddish, you gonna eat yer Grilled Cheese today?" BB said rhetorically. Tom's eyes got puffy and he went silent for a bit after the question...

"NO, it's all yours," Tom spewed as he choked back another gag at the thought of cheese.

The day went on, and BB's passionate for Grilled Cheese fueled the most spectacular toilet cleaning imaginable. One would feel guilty for even breathing on the toilets after seeing their pristine glisten.

BB showed Ms. Wartburger his accomplishments expecting a congratulatory praise.

"Dat shitter looks like shit!" howled the Burger.

"But Ma'am I went through 6 packs of teefbrushes today, and last week Timmy-Bob used only 2." BB pleaded.

"You givin' me lip boy?" bellowed the burger.

"No'am"

"Damn straight, you're not... Now get the hell out of here 'for I change my mind and make you clean 'me again"

BB scurried off hoping to beat the other orphans. His only motivation to keep going was founded in the Grilled Cheese. Without it, he might as well forget how to breath.

As he turned the corner to the kitchen's food-line, he saw something that literally altered his existence.

 "Cornbeef" showed on the Kitchen's Bulletin Board.

To this day, there exists no string of words to describe BB's emotional implosion when his eyes scraped over each letter.

As BB stood there, anger began to culminate. A fury started to swell that is illegal in most moral municipalities. BB's vision faded and his concept of reason dissipated. He took twelve solid steps forwarded and cried, "CORNBEEF?!?!?!"

"Haha what's da matter Beefy Baby Bitch!" mocked Sampson Puddlenut.

"Look er'body, Beefy Baby Bitch is sad bout the Cornbeef."

BB mechanically turned his head and fixated on Puddlenut. He had always picked on BB. However, today was quite possibly the worst day for Puddlenut to toss a snide comment. Puddlenut had essentially signed his own death certificate.

"Dafuq ya say to me?!" BB challenged ferociously.

Puddlenut immediately knew he had made a mistake. Even though he was 3 years older and 2 feet taller, Puddlenut had heard about BB's origin's. Until today, BB's past had seemed to be but fiction. BB's current intensity confirmed the rumors in an instant. Puddlenut couldn't handle the realized folly anymore. He wet himself on the spot - which led to his eventual nickname "Puddlepants" but nevermind that now.

"That's what I thought Puddles, now MOVE OUT OF MY WAY."

The sea of orphans split as BB marched to the front of the line. Nobody had breathed, let alone moved freely in the past 57 seconds due to fear of capturing BB's attention. Movement in the kitchen only corresponded to the inaudible demands made by BB as he cleared the way.

As he scanned the staff for the highest ranking adult he met eyes with none other than his eventual mortal enemy.

----

That's as far as I got before purposefully pulling the "to be continued?!" bullshit. I wasn't sure if I'd keep writing but I thought why not leave it open ended? Cliff Hangers are pretty popular for a reason. Closure can leave the audience satisfied and ready to move on with things.

title: The Legend of Beefybitch

question: How old is BB?

answer: That information can't be found

question: Where does this take place?

answer: An orphanage

question: How did Beefybitch get their name?

answer: Their real name is Cornelius, which led the children at the orphanage to call him "Cornbeef," which led to "Cornbeef Bitch," which finally led to "Beefy Bitch"

question: Who is the narrator?

answer: That information can't be found

question: Write a ~5 sentence summary.

answer: Cornelius Harberdash VII is called Beefy Bitch by the other children at an orphanage. He is excited because grilled cheese will be served for lunch today. He cleans a toilet, but Ms. Wartburger doesn't think he did a good job. He goes to lunch and finds that cornbeef is being served instead of grilled cheese, making him angry. He locks eyes with his eventual mortal enemy.


text:
The proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable is opposed by 56% of the public, with large percentages believing that it will lead to higher prices for cable and Internet service, according to a poll conducted by Consumer Reports.

The online survey, conducted in April, showed that just 11% support the transaction, and 32% of participants have no opinion of the deal.

The survey also showed that 74% agree that the combination will lead to higher prices for everyone, and the same percentage believe that consumers will have fewer choices became smaller companies will not be able to compete with Comcast.

Comcast has said that the benefits of the merger would be greater investments in technology and increased Internet speeds, and that the transaction would not remove any competitor from the market because its service does not overlap with Time Warner Cable.

Nevertheless, the Consumer Reports survey showed that 81% were concerned that Comcast’s increased market share would able it to favor its own programming over its competitors, and there were doubts that it would allow Comcast to operate more efficiently and lower its costs. It also showed that 61% believed it would lead to other mergers among TV and Internet providers. The survey was conducted in April, before the announcement of AT&T’s plans to merger with DirecTV.

Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, has expressed opposition to the merger. The survey sampled 1,573 individuals, with recruitment quotas designed to approximate a nationally representative sample. More results here.

The survey’s release was timed to a hearing on the transaction before the New York State Public Service Commission.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable also have filed an application with California’s Public Utilities Commission, which oversees cable franchises in the state. An administrative law judge has scheduled a pre-hearing conference on July 2 to determine whether there will be hearings on the proposed merger, as well as issues that may need to be studied.

question: What is the public opinion about the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable?

answer: 56% of the public oppose the merger, 11% support, and 32% have no opinion. 74% of all people survey'd agreed that the merger will lead to higher prices for internet and cable, as well as fewer choices in providers, as smaller companies will not be able to compete.

question: What does Comcast say about the merger?

answer: They say the merger will bring greater investments in technology and increased internet speeds. Furthermore, because their service does not overlap with Time Warner Cable, they say they will not edge out any competitor.

question: Do people believe in what Comcast says about the merger?

answer: Consumer Reports say 81% were concerned that the increased market share would allow them to favor their own programming over competitors. People also believed that this would inspire other mergers among TV and Internet providers.

question: Is the proposed merger legal?

answer: Comcast and Time Warner Cable have filed and application with California's Public Utilities Commission. A pre-hearing conference has been schedule to determine weather there will be hearings on the on the proposed merger.

question: Write a ~4 sentence summary.

answer: Comcast and Time Warner Cable have proposed a merger together. The majority of the public is opposed to the merger, and an even larger percentage believes it will only lead to higher cost for internet and cable services, as well as a more limited choice in providers as no one will be able to compete with the conglomerates. Comcast has opposed this point, saying it will lead to technological development and increased internet speed. A pre-hearing has been scheduled to determine if the proposed merger will require a hearing to determine its legality.


text:
I had been waiting for what seemed like an eternity. Looking around, the car was immaculate to the point of obsession. Each item in its appropriate place was just begging to be disturbed. My sister sat beside me, silent and restless, as I fought off an intensifying urge to do something irrational. Our cassette tape had ended long ago and the resulting silence tormented my already listless mind. The cloying smell of antiquated perfume hung stagnant in the air, and the skin on my right arm was baking in the sun and making my blue jeans begin to burn my leg.

For the hundredth time, my eyes scanned the familiar house looming before me. The paint that now peeled and bubbled off the crudely built wooden frame had been pure white at one time, but was now a defiled mushroom beige. Two gaping curtainless windows gazed down at me with an air of secrecy and disgrace. The garage was an open mouth, inviting me to enter and learn its mysteries. I stared and imagined what it would be like inside, having only familiarized myself with its outer shell. And I waited.

My sister and I visited our grandmother, Amma, about once a week. Our usually monotonous visits would sometimes be interrupted by a spontaneous trip to Uncle George’s house. Uncle George was Amma’s brother only by marriage. His wife had recently passed away, however, leaving Uncle George incapable of doing even the most insignificant of domestic undertakings. Amma quickly and readily stepped in to assist the incompetent man at his every request. My sister and I were taken along at instances like these and were given explicit instructions to remain in the car. “I’ll only be a second,” Amma would tell us in an uncharacteristically hurried manner. “Just wait here and I’ll be right back.”

My sister’s foot kept tapping the back of the driver side seat in front of her. Up and down it went, as if this one extremity of hers was the only part of her body that remained alive. Tap, tap, tap, tap it went. My arm seared in the heat. That house was staring, taunting. Tap, tap. The sickly sweet fragrance made it difficult to concentrate. Tap, tap, tap. My overactive seven year old mind was an explosion of troubled anxiety. It had been too long. This was getting ridiculous. How can she expect this from us? Tap, Tap, tap, tap… I turned to my sister and immediately she saw the resolution on my face. She stared open mouthed as I gently opened the car door and stepped out onto the cracked gray driveway. “Don’t worry, I’ll be right back.”

My stomach was a rock within me and at each step my feet felt like lead. I stopped and took one last look up at that grotesque staring face with the gaping mouth, then I entered the garage. I walked slowly, unsurely. Each common object I encountered seemed exotic to my nervous eyes. There was a doorway in the shadows up ahead, painted with the same sour yellowed paint. The entrance into the very bowels of the house. My hand was sweaty on the gold doorknob, but I quietly turned it and entered.

Immediately the odor of dust, unwashed linen, and old age filled my nostrils. Fingers still on the doorknob, my first instinct was to recoil in fear and repulsion. I took a deep, putrid breath. I needed to know what was going on. At the end of the long hallway I saw a thin sliver of harsh florescent light cast onto the wall from the adjacent room. I could hear someone inside. As I walked along the wall, a growing sense of trepidation filled my small body. I shouldn’t be in here. I was going to get caught. I neared the opening from which the glaring light was coming, and hesitantly peered in.

What I saw was a standard laundry room. Lint covered button-down shirts hung from hangers on a clothesline to dry, while neat stacks of folded slacks lined the top of the dingy grey dryer. A blue plastic hamper sat on the cement floor holding a jumble of clothes that I assumed were unclean. The air was moist and smelled of mold and powder detergent.

Standing in the middle of the room, however, was the most alarming sight that I had ever witnessed. My Uncle George was stooped beneath the glaring light, putting on a pair of rumpled black dress socks. Those were the only item of clothing he was wearing. His ghost-white skin was a stark contrast to the bleak surroundings. With a naive terror, I looked up the long, gangly legs and over the flat, drooping buttocks. The backbone protruded under loose skin and my gaze involuntarily traveled upward as if on some skeletal highway. His extended neck was crowned with a mop of disheveled grey hair that sprung greasy from the pale veined scalp. He was arched over, translucent flesh sagging off the wiry frame like some prehistoric amphibious human being. Claw-like hands were ferociously pulling at the sock on his left foot as he struggled to maintain balance. He had not seen me. With my heart pounding so ferociously that I was sure I’d be caught, I bolted. Shaking with unadulterated horror, I retraced my steps as soundlessly as possible.

Safely back in the car, I waited. My sister questioned, but I couldn’t tell her. When Amma finally returned, I hysterically relayed what I had seen. All at once a look came over her worn face that I couldn’t identify. Fear? Insecurity? Anger? She quickly told me that I had seen nothing and warned me never to tell my mother what I had just described to her. She told me that it was going to be alright. That it would be our little secret. And that we were going for ice cream.

Sixteen years later, the story once again surfaced in my memory. As I relayed it to my astonished mother, the truth was deciphered. Unbeknownst to their family, Amma and my Uncle George were having an affair. What seemed like a considerate sister-in-law helping her less than capable brother was, in reality, a covert sexual escapade begging to be uncovered by the unassuming granddaughter. As the situation was discussed, the pieces fell into place like some sort of perverted relational puzzle. To this day, Amma doesn’t know that we’ve uncovered the disgraceful skeleton in her closet.

Or should I say, the naked old man in the laundry room?

title: My childhood monsters weren't only in the closet: A true story.

question: Summarize everything relating to Uncle George.

answer: The narrator's grandmother makes a spontaneous trip to Uncle George's house. He is her brother by marriage and his wife has recently passed away, leaving incapable of doing things on his own. Amma assists him. The narrator goes inside the house to find Uncle George naked save for a pair of black dress socks. Sixteen years later, she realizes she'd discovered that Uncle George and Amma were having an affair.

question: What does the story say about childhood trauma?

answer: The narrator is traumatized by seeing their Uncle George naked save for a pear of black dress socks. She gazes upon him with terror and flees at the sight of him. The memory surfaces again in her mind sixteen years later.

question: What advice does the story give on the subject of doing laundry?

question: Summarize the negative emotions the narrator feels over the course of the story.

answer: The narrator feels a growing sense of trepidation as she walks along the wall. When she sees her naked Uncle George in the laundry room, she is filled with horror.


text:
AVENIDA HOUSTON (ah-veh-NEE-duh) is the name of the neighborhood generally surrounding the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. It is the finished product of the initial phase of Houston First Corporation’s 2025 GRB Master Plan for redeveloping the eastern edge of downtown.

Houston First is a local-government corporation that operates Houston’s convention and performing arts facilities. A local government corporation formed in 2011, Houston First manages more than 10 city-owned buildings and properties and underground and surface parking for nearly 7,000 vehicles. In addition to the George R. Brown, other prominent facilities under HFC management include the Hilton Americas-Houston hotel, Jones Hall for the Performing Arts, Wortham Theater Center an Miller Outdoor Theatre.

Central to the Avenida Houston campus is the newly designed Avenida Plaza in front of the George R. Brown that favors pedestrians over vehicle traffic and allows visitors easy access to Discovery Green park and two convention headquarter-size hotels, the Hilton Americas-Houston (1,200 rooms) and the new Marriott Marquis (1,000 rooms).[1]

A wave of diverse restaurants is being developed in the area, including Grotto Downtown, Bud's Pitmaster BBQ, McAlister's Deli, Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen and Kulture.

In addition, Avenida Houston features unique art installations and programmed events. The most prominent works are Ed Wilson's _Soaring in the Clouds_ and Joe O'Connell and Creative Machine's _Wings Over Water_.

At the north end of Avenida Houston is Partnership Tower, a 10-story office building that opened on September 12, 2016. HFC maintains its corporate offices in Partnership Tower. Other organizations with employees in the building are Greater Houston Partnerhip, Harris County-Houston Sports Authority and the Hotel Lodging Association of Greater Houston.

Nearby, sporting and concert venues Minute Maid Park, Toyota Center and BBVA Compass Stadium are additional attractions for those visiting Avenida Houston.

[1] http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-makeover-setting-stage-for-Super-Bowl-10823359.php

title: Avenida Houston

question: Who/what is Avenida Houston?

answer: A neighborhood in Houston, Texas.

question: Name the restaurants mentioned.

answer: Grotto Downtown, Bud's Pitmaster BBQ, McAlister's Deli, Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen and Kulture.

question: Name the hotels mentioned.

answer: The Hilton Americas-Houston, the Marriott Marquis.

question: What has changed in Avenida Houston?

answer: It has been redeveloped as part of the local-government corporation's plan to redevelop eastern downtown Houston. The changes include the newly designed Avenida Plaza, a wave of diverse restaurants, and art installations and programmed events.

question: What is HFC?

answer: Houston First Corporation.

question: Name the artists mentioned.

answer: Ed Wilson, Joe O'Connell, Creative Machine.

question: Write a ~2 sentence summary.

answer: Avenida Houston is a neighborhood in Houston, Texas, which has been recently redeveloped as part of a plan by the Houston First Corporation. Changes include the newly designed Avenida Plaza, a wave of diverse restaurants, and art installations and programmed events.


text:
The sub-zero wind slices through my jeans and gnaws at my aching fingers. My jacket isn’t lined for warmth, but it breaks the wind—a bit. I pass the grocery bag that I am carrying from one hand to the other, and can feel it tearing from its weight. I quickly shove my freezing left hand into my pocket to thaw out…until the threat of frost bite on my right hand inevitably forces it out again to take its miserable turn.

The bag is full of cans: creamed corn, beef broth, water chestnuts, Alphaghetti, a jar of pickles, and some tomato soup. “We’re running low,” the woman behind the desk grimaced apologetically when she passed the bag to me over the counter.  There was a jar of hot sauce in there too, but I tossed it out. What do I need hot sauce for? Will it warm my hands? What I need is a can opener.

I know He has a can opener, but I can’t go back there. I am never going back there.

It is a damn cold day in Civil City. Traffic is creeping along the snowy streets, but the salted sidewalks are virtually empty—with the exception of the odd Destitute lingering in a doorway that doesn’t belong to them. If you want to be warm in Civil City this time of year, you’ve got to get inside somewhere…but if you’re going to be inside some place, you’d better have a legitimate, productive purpose in that vicinity. The Regime does not look too kindly upon those of us who aren’t wearing a Work Badge.

There are public places that you can warm up in, but not everyone here counts as the “public.” Only Good Citizens are members of the public. Unless you’re a child, you need to be paying taxes to the Regime if you want to count. Only trouble is, for us Destitute, to pay taxes you need to have an income.

I’m on my way to go sit inside the Regime’s public hall. When it’s cold like this outside, the guards will usually let you get away with sitting inside, non-productively, for almost an hour—but you’ve got to be reading something.

Trouble is, when you’ve just sat down after aimlessly walking around Civil City for the past four and a half hours, it’s hard not to nod off. That’s when they get you, you know—when you stop walking, or when you fall asleep. It’s against the law to stand still in Civil City—they call it a Loitering Offence—unless you’re wearing a Work Badge. It’s against the law to fall asleep in public too. That isn’t being productive. You must be productive here.

The speakers outside of the Regime’s public hall interminably blast classical music. The Officers of the Regime believe that classical music epitomizes culture, and that the Destitute don’t like culture. Maybe I’m being presumptuous; perhaps they just don’t want us falling asleep on their doorstep. Regardless, I can assure you that it is not the soundtrack but the team of security guards behind the building’s glass exterior walls that keeps most of us Destitute folk at bay.

As I push the heavy door with my shoulder, I am overcome with relief—I am going to be warm. My relief is tempered by anxiety as I walk past Guard 1. She doesn’t move—but she follows me with her eyes. She can see that I do not wear a Work Badge. The Destitute are constantly under surveillance. In school they taught us to “Be wary the weakest link in the chain.” Civil City is very wary.

I collapse onto a bench at the back of the building, tucked behind a false wall so that no one has to see me, I mean, to look at me. No one here sees me.

A Good Citizen walks around the wall, and spots me. She pulls her child by the hand closer to her hip as they pass me. We make brief eye contact. “I don’t have any coins,” the child sadly whispers to me. Her mother glares, first at me, then at her child, then back at me. “Get a job,” she mutters. They keep walking.

To get a job in Civil City you need an official Residential Shelter Address. Of course, with no job, one cannot pay for shelter. Generously, the Regime offers Productivity Funding to help the Destitute secure shelter and employment. To receive a Productivity Funding shelter grant, you need only to provide proof that you have (1) entered a contract with a Good Citizen who is willing to rent a shelter unit to you and (2) have paid the last month’s rent deposit of no less than 350 soulbits. Of course, the Regime does not provide cash advances. Further, in Civil City, it is against the law to ask anyone for money. That is not how the market works. This is called a Pan-Handling Offence.

Without at least 350 soulbits, you are not getting anywhere in Civil City. That’s why I used to stay with Him.

Guard 1 is coming around the wall, “Miss, you cannot pan-handle here.” Confused, I explain, “I am not p-p-pan-handling, I’m j-j-just reading.” I am not scared of her; the stuttering is a side effect of my medication. Guard 1 rolls her eyes, and widens her stance. “That’s not what the lady with the kid reported,” the Guard stares at me, lips pursed, visibly irritated. This is not a fight that a Destitute can win. I stand up, and grab my bag. The cans finally tear through the bottom of the bag, falling onto the floor. The glass pickle jar smashes. Flustered, I spit out a frantic apology, and run out the exit. I leave the food behind.

An hour later, He opens the door for me.

title: [RF] A Destitute Regime

question: What is the position of the Destitute in this society?

answer: The Destitute are homeless people who cannot find work. Their lives are paradoxically impossible to liberate themselves from. They cannot get a job because they do not have shelter, but they often cannot get shelter because they cannot afford it.

question: What is the genre of the story?

answer: The story is dystopian science fiction. There is a "Regime" and food shortages. Citizens wear "work badges." Food is scarce. Only some people can get employed.

question: What social issue does this story comment on?

answer: Although the story is caste as dystopian science fiction, the situation of the narrator is strikingly similar to situations the homeless find themselves in in our world. In fact, although the story pretends to be science fiction, with a few changes in setting it could easily be a realistic fiction piece about homelessness in our world.