Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The unveiling of former President Barack Obama's official portrait on 12 February 2018 also introduced many Americans to artist Kehinde Wiley for the first time as well, as opening the door to late-breaking controversy over some of Wiley's earlier work. Wiley, who has described his own visual style as "bombastic, syrupy, and garish," is celebrated in the contemporary art world for his large-scale portraits of black and brown men and women striking heroic poses modeled on those of aristocrats in classic European paintings. Two portraits in particular, both of them modern takes on the biblical story ofJudith beheading Holofernes and featuring elegantly-dressed black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, suddenly turned controversial in the context of Wiley's new role as a presidential portraitist. Images of the paintings were shared on social media with comments stating or implying that their content is racist: This what is confusing to me you can't have Confederate flags you take down historical statues because they are racist but the 44th POTUS picks the guy who painted these pictures to paint his presidential portrait and that's just fine? Maybe I'm missing something? #tcot pic.twitter.com/9RhYCGPQK7 Jeannie-ology (@jeanniology) February 12, 2018 So a racist ex-President selects a racist artist to paint his picture. Anyone surprised? Artist Who Painted Obama's Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites https://t.co/JarXVYUQ27 American Real News (@USArealnews) February 13, 2018 In a post on right-wing blog TheGatewayPundit.com, Kehinde Wiley was described as being "known for" and "having a great fondness for" painting black people beheading white people: Both beheading pieces are titled "Judith beheading Holofernes", referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him. Typical artists from the Rennaissance [sic] era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, "a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell." Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils. Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It's hard to imagine, right? Yea, that's because it's disgusting and backward. It is not the case, however, that Wiley was "famous for depicting black people killing white people" before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley's portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. That the strong, couture-clad black females in the paintings are depicted in the immediate aftermath of decapitating white women is not incidental. As with many works of art, this was meant to be provocative ("I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations," Wiley said in a 2015 interview). A 2012article on the web site of the North Carolina Museum of Art (NCMA) supplies some needed context: Known for his monumental portraits of young black men, placed in historical poses and settings appropriated from Old Master paintings, Kehinde Wiley critiques the racism of art history while also commenting on contemporary street culture and masculine identity. Reinventing classical portraiture and questioning who is represented in the portraits found in museums worldwide, Wiley states, "The whole conversation of my work has to do with power and who has it." Judith and Holofernes is from Wiley's most recent body of work and his first series of paintings to feature female subjects. Wiley uses "street casting" to find his models walking city streets and asking ordinary people if they would pose for a portrait. He met the model for this painting, Treisha Lowe, at Fulton Mall, a pedestrian shopping street in downtown Brooklyn. This painting references a specific art-historical work, a 17th-century painting by Giovanni Baglione, Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1608). The subject is taken from the apocryphal Old Testament Book of Judith, in which a Jewish town is under attack by the Assyrian army led by the general Holofernes. Judith, a widow from the town, goes to Holofernes under the pretense of helping him defeat the Jews. After he falls asleep, she cuts his head off with his own sword, and the town defeats the army. Wiley translates this image of a courageous, powerful woman into a contemporary version that resonates with fury and righteousness. "It's sort of a play on the 'kill whitey' thing," Wiley said in a 2012 interview with New York Magazine. The operative word is "play." What is all too easy to miss on a cursory glance is the deeply conceptual nature of these works. We turn again to the NCMA's commentary: Wiley takes obvious artistic license with the story Holofernes is represented by a woman's head, and Judith wears a gown designed by Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy. This new rendition can be interpreted on many different levels, including racial and gender identity and inequity, the representation of women throughout art history, and society's ideals for beauty. In Wiley's words, "I am painting women in order to come to terms with the depictions of gender within the context of art history. One has to broaden the conversation . . . This series of works attempts to reconcile the presence of black female stereotypes that surrounds their presence and/or absence in art history, and the notions of beauty, spectacle, and the 'grand' in painting." In contrast to the blunt literalism of those who prefer to interpret these paintings as a celebration of racial violence, art critic Walter Robinson writes that Wiley's take on Judith and Holofernes "suggests, with a jovial brutality, that Judith would prefer to be done with white standards of beauty." If, as Wiley has said, his intent as an artist is to be provocative, he can consider himself successful. Claim: Kehinde Wiley, the artist who painted former President Barack Obama's official portrait, also produced a pair of paintings depicting black women decapitating white people.
[EX A]: We reached out to Mr. Wiley for comment, but did not receive a reply.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The deal would resolve alleged violations of civil environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, related to the pollution from a company factory in Waynesboro. It would amount to the largest environmental damage settlement in Virginia history and the eighth largest in the nation, officials said. The money would go to projects including wildlife habitat restoration, water quality enhancement and improvements to recreational areas. "In bringing this settlement to a close, we are finally righting a wrong that has impacted the South River and the South Fork of the Shenandoah River for so many decades," Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe said at a news conference announcing the settlement. Wilmington, Delaware-based Dupont Co. used mercury in its process of making synthetic fiber at the plant between 1929 and 1950, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality. Strict storage and disposal regulations weren't in place at the time, and some of the mercury seeped into the South River and flowed downstream to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. DuPont discovered the mercury which accumulates in fish and is especially dangerous to pregnant or breastfeeding women and young children in the facility's soil in 1976, officials say. The pollution impacted over 100 miles of river and thousands of acres of floodplain and riparian habitat, affecting fish, mussels, migratory birds and amphibians, the Department of Justice said in a statement. The pollution also has limited some recreational fishing in Waynesboro, a city of about 20,000 in the Shenandoah Valley. The terms of the settlement are outlined in a proposed consent decree that was filed in federal court in Harrisonburg on Thursday. It is subject to a 45-day public comment period and must be approved by the court. The amount of money proposed is "quite impressive," but mercury is very persistent in the environment and very difficult to remove, said Dr. Thomas Benzing, a professor of integrated science and technology at James Madison University who works with a team of researchers who have been monitoring the mercury levels since 2001. If the settlement goes forward, DuPont would pay slightly more than $42 million toward projects including streamside plantings and erosion control to improve water quality and fish habitat; mussel propagation and restoration; migratory songbird habitat restoration and protection; and recreational fishing access creation or improvement. The company also will pay for renovations at the Front Royal Fish Hatchery to improve production of warm-water fish such as smallmouth bass, at an estimated cost of up to $10 million. "Every dollar is going to be used to clean up the land, the source issues and the water, to where it would have been" if not for the pollution, said Assistant Attorney General John Cruden of the Justice Department's Environmental and Natural Resources Division. No one from DuPont which is awaiting final regulatory approval for its merger with Dow Chemical in a deal to create DowDuPont, a $130 billion conglomerate spoke at the announcement. But Mike Liberati, South River project director for the DuPont Corporate Remediation Group, said in a statement that DuPont "is committed to a long-term presence in the Waynesboro area and to maintaining transparency with its citizens." The first phase of remediation, involving part of the riverbank in Waynesboro's Constitution Park could be complete in February. Soil there containing the highest concentrations of mercury is being excavated and hauled away and replaced by clean topsoil, Liberati said. "It's going to be a long-term project. It's not something that's going to happen overnight," Benzing said. Claim: DuPont to pay $50M over mercury-contaminated Virginia rivers.
[EX A]: Chemical giant DuPont will pay more than $50 million but admit no fault under a proposed environmental settlement after releasing toxic mercury for decades that made its way into Shenandoah Valley waterways, state and federal officials announced Thursday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "With fresh questions being raised about how to configure Iraq's government, Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a proposal that he advocated in 2007. ""You once advocated for a three-way partition of Iraq because you were not confident that Iraq's government was capable of having a strong central government,"" ABC This Week host Jake Tapper said to Biden during a July 18, 2010, interview. Tapper then played a video of Biden speaking from the floor of the Senate on April 24, 2007, in which Biden said, ""The most basic premise of President Bush's approach, that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government headed by Maliki, in fact, will look out for their interests equitably, is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It will not happen in anybody's lifetime here, including the pages."" Asked Tapper: ""Is it possible that you were right back then that it is just impossible to have a centralized government?"" Biden responded by taking issue with the word ""partition"" -- which was often used to describe Biden's plan at the time -- saying it was never about breaking Iraq into three separate countries. ""I don't want to debate history here, but I never called for a partition,"" Biden said. ""I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions."" ""It was to allow them more autonomy,"" Biden said, ""...And so what's happening here is, there is an election that's taken place. And what happened-- there's 325 plus members of what they call their core, their parliament. And no one party won more than 91 seats. The two major parties, one won 89 and one won 91 seats. That's Maliki and Allawi, Iraqiya and the State of Law, they call them. ""They're in negotiations right now to figure out how to allocate the power within that government. In other words, share power. And it is about just that. And it's underway. And it's going to happen. There will be a central government with control of its foreign policy, with control of the military. But you will see that there are going to be significant amounts of autonomy in each of the areas that exist in these provinces. That's what their constitution calls for."" Check the headlines in 2007, and it's clear that the word ""partition"" or ""soft partition"" was often used to describe Biden's proposal, which called for boundaries to be drawn for the country's Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite populations. And so we decided to check his claim that he never called for a partition. Biden's strategy was first outlined in an op-ed piece for the New York Timeson May 1, 2006, which Biden co-wrote with Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations: ""The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."" The plan, they wrote would be to ""establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multisectarian and international police protection."" ""Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing,"" Biden wrote. ""But that's exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves. Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq."" In 2007, Biden and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, successfully shepherded a nonbinding, ""sense of the Senate"" resolutionthat proposed separating Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions with a federal government. The resolution passed the Senate 75 to 23. The resolution called for the U.S. to ""actively support a political settlement among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions."" And last, we point you to the fuller comments Biden madefrom the floor of the Senate on April 24, 2007, when Biden said the idea that the Iraqi people would rally behind a strong central government was ""fundamentally and fatally flawed."" As an alternative, Biden said, ""You make federalism work for the Iraqis. You give them control over the fabric of their daily lives. You separate the parties. You give them breathing room. Let them control their local police, their education, their religion, their marriage. That's the only possibility. ""Change the focus to a limited central government and a federal system that their Constitution calls for. I can't guarantee that my strategy will work, but I can guarantee that the road the president (Bush) has us on leads to nowhere with no end in sight."" Biden addressed the ""partition"" issue head-on in an Oct. 3, 2007 op-ed co-written with Gelb for the Washington Post: ""Our plan is not partition, though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments, with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue."" So is it fair to call Biden's plan a call to ""partition"" Iraq? Certainly Biden advocated carving out three semi-autonomous regions. In that sense, we could see why many characterized Biden's proposal as a ""soft partition."" But the word ""partition"" carries heavy political implications, namely the creation of three separate nations. And that was never Biden's plan. He consistently upheld the idea of one Iraq with a central government, albeit a more modest one responsible for such things as defense, foreign affairs and sharing oil revenues. That's an important distinction." Claim: "I never called for a partition"" of Iraq."
[EX A]:
Joe Biden says he never called for partition of Iraq