text:
Habeas corpus

Habeas corpus (from Medieval Latin, lit. 'that you have the body') is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court order the person's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

The writ of habeas corpus was described in the eighteenth century by William Blackstone as a "great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement". It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official, for example) and demands that a prisoner be brought before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond their authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on their behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called habeas corpus. For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ("protection of freedom").

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. The petitioner must present a prima facie case that a person has been unlawfully restrained. As a procedural remedy, it applies when detention results from neglect of legal process, but not when the lawfulness of the process itself is in question. In some countries, the writ has been temporarily or permanently suspended on the basis of a war or state of emergency, for example with the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 in Britain and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863) in the United States. The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The English jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent must prove their authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Etymology
The phrase is from the Latin habeās, 2nd person singular present subjunctive active of habēre, "to have", "to hold"; and corpus, accusative singular of corpus, "body". In reference to more than one person, the phrase is habeas corpora.

Literally, the phrase means "[we command] that you should have the [detainee's] body [brought to court]"; that is, that the detainee be brought to court in person. The complete phrase habeas corpus [coram nobis] ad subjiciendum means "that you have the person [before us] for the purpose of subjecting (the case to examination)". These are words of writs included in a 14th-century Anglo-French document requiring a person to be brought before a court or judge, especially to determine if that person is being legally detained.

"Praecipimus tibi quod corpus A.B. in prisona nostra sub custodia tua detentum, ut dicitur, una cum die et causa captionis et detentionis suae, quocumque nomine praedictus A.B. censeatur in eadem, habeas coram nobis ... ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo adtunc et ibidem ordinare contigerit in hac parte. Et hoc nullatenus omittatis periculo incumbente. Et habeas ibi hoc breve." "We command you, that the body of A.B. in our prison under your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, by whatever name the said A.B. may be known therein, you have at our Court ... to undergo and to receive that which our Court shall then and there consider and order in that behalf. Hereof in no way fail, at your peril. And have you then there this writ."

Examples
"Victoria by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith,
 * United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

To J.K., Keeper of our Gaol, in the Island of Jersey, and to J.C. Viscount of said Island, Greeting.

We command you that you have the body of C.C.W. detained in our prison under your custody, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained, by whatsoever name he may be called or known, in our Court before us, at Westminster, on the 18th day of January next, to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things which our said Court shall then and there consider of in this behalf; and have there then this Writ."

"United States of America, Second Judicial Circuit, Southern District of New York, ss.:
 * United States of America:

We command you that the body of Charles L. Craig, in your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, you safely have before Honorable Martin T. Manton, United States Circuit Judge for the Second Judicial Circuit, within the circuit and district aforesaid, to do and receive all and singular those things which the said judge shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have you then and there this writ."

Similarly named writs
The full name of the writ is often used to distinguish it from similar ancient writs, also named habeas corpus. These include:
 * Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum: a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more literally to return holding the body for purposes of "deliberation and receipt" of a decision. ("Extradition")
 * Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum (also called habeas corpus cum causa): a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of "receiving" the decision of the superior court and of "doing" what it ordered.
 * Habeas corpus ad prosequendum: a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of "prosecuting" him before the court.
 * Habeas corpus ad respondendum: a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to "answer" to new proceedings before the court.
 * Hercules and Leo Habeas Corpus Order.jpgHabeas corpus ad testificandum: a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of "testifying".

Origins in England
Habeas corpus originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon of 1166, a re-issuance of rights during the reign of Henry II of England in the 12th century. The foundations for habeas corpus are "wrongly thought" to have originated in Magna Carta, but in fact predates it. This charter declared that:"No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land." However the preceding article of Magna Carta, nr 38, declares:

"No legal officer shall start proceedings against anyone [not just freemen, this was even then a universal human right] on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses having been brought for the purpose. - in the original Latin: Nullus balivus ponat aliquem ad legem, simplici sua loquela, sine testibus fidelibus ad hoc aductis"

Pursuant to that language, a person may not be subjected to any legal proceeding, such as arrest and imprisonment, without sufficient evidence having already been collected to show that there is a prima facie case to answer. This evidence must be collected beforehand, because it must be available to be exhibited in a public hearing within hours, or at the most days, after arrest. Any charge levelled at the hearing thus must be based on evidence already collected, and an arrest and incarceration order is not lawful if not supported by sufficient evidence.

William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "[t]he king is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted." The procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous law (the Habeas Corpus Act 1640) had been passed forty years earlier to overturn a ruling that the command of the king was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus. The cornerstone purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to limit the king's Chancery's ability to undermine the surety of law by allowing courts of justice decisions to be overturned in favor and application of equity, a process managed by the Chancellor (a bishop) with the king's authority.

The 1679 codification of habeas corpus took place in the context of a sharp confrontation between King Charles II and Parliament, which was dominated by the then sharply oppositional, nascent Whig Party. The Whig leaders had good reasons to fear the king moving against them through the courts (as indeed happened in 1681) and regarded habeas corpus as safeguarding their own persons. The short-lived parliament which made this enactment came to be known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament – being dissolved by the king immediately afterwards.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner him or herself or by a third party on his or her behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge. Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1772), where the black slave, Somersett, was ordered to be freed. During that case, these famous words are said to have been uttered: "... that the air of England was too pure for slavery" (although it was the lawyers in argument who expressly used this phrase – referenced from a much earlier argument heard in the Star Chamber – and not Lord Mansfield himself). During the Seven Years' War and later conflicts, the writ was used on behalf of soldiers and sailors pressed into military and naval service. The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 introduced some changes and expanded the territoriality of the legislation.

The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorised by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the habeas corpus procedure has in modern times always technically remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention is in accordance with an Act of Parliament, the petition for habeas corpus is unsuccessful. Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts have been able to declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but such a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect unless and until it is acted upon by the government.

The wording of the writ of habeas corpus implies that the prisoner is brought to the court for the legality of the imprisonment to be examined. However, rather than issuing the writ immediately and waiting for the return of the writ by the custodian, modern practice in England is for the original application to be followed by a hearing with both parties present to decide the legality of the detention, without any writ being issued. If the detention is held to be unlawful, the prisoner can usually then be released or bailed by order of the court without having to be produced before it. With the development of modern public law, applications for habeas corpus have been to some extent discouraged, in favour of applications for judicial review. The writ, however, maintains its vigour, and was held by the UK Supreme Court in 2012 to be available in respect of a prisoner captured by British forces in Afghanistan, albeit that the Secretary of State made a valid return to the writ justifying the detention of the claimant.

Precedents in medieval Catalonia and Biscay
Although the first recorded historical references come from Anglo-Saxon law in the 12th century and one of the first documents referring to this right is a law of the English Parliament (1679), in Catalonia there are references from 1428 in the recurs de manifestació de persones (appeal of people's manifestation) collected in the Furs de les Corts of the Crown of Aragon and some references to this term in the Law of the Lordship of Biscay (1527).

Australia
The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia's English law inheritance. In 2005, the Australian parliament passed the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus.

Canada
Habeas corpus rights are part of the British legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law and have been enshrined in section 10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that "[e]veryone has the right on arrest or detention ... to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful". The test for habeas corpus in Canada was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mission Institution v Khela, as follows:"To be successful, an application for habeas corpus must satisfy the following criteria. First, the applicant [i.e., the person seeking habeas corpus review] must establish that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once a deprivation of liberty is proven, the applicant must raise a legitimate ground upon which to question its legality. If the applicant has raised such a ground, the onus shifts to the respondent authorities [i.e., the person or institution detaining the applicant] to show that the deprivation of liberty was lawful."Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred at multiple times. During the October Crisis in 1970, the War Measures Act was invoked by the Governor General of Canada on the constitutional advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who had received a request from the Quebec Cabinet. The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and Ukrainian Canadian internment during the First World War, and the internment of German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The writ was suspended for several years following the Battle of Fort Erie (1866) during the Fenian Rising, though the suspension was only ever applied to suspects in the Thomas D'Arcy McGee assassination.

The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see May v Ferndale Institution). Under the Criminal Code the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised.

France
As a fundamental human right in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen drafted by Lafayette in cooperation with Thomas Jefferson, safeguards against arbitrary detention are enshrined in the French Constitution and regulated by the Penal Code. These safeguards are equivalent to those found under the Habeas-Corpus provisions found in Germany, the United States and several Commonwealth countries. The French system of accountability prescribes severe penalties for ministers, police officers and civil and judiciary authorities who either violate or fail to enforce the law.

"Article 7 of [1789] Declaration also provides that 'No individual may be accused, arrested, or detained except where the law so prescribes, and in accordance with the procedure it has laid down.' ... The Constitution further states that 'No one may be arbitrarily detained. The judicial authority, guardian of individual liberty, ensures the observance of this principle under the condition specified by law.' Its article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and sets forth permissible circumstances under which people may be deprived of their liberty and procedural safeguards in case of detention. In particular, it states that 'anyone deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful'."

France and the United States played a synergistic role in the international team, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, which crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The French judge and Nobel Peace Laureate René Cassin produced the first draft and argued against arbitrary detentions. René Cassin and the French team subsequently championed the habeas corpus provisions enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Germany
Germany has constitutional guarantees against improper detention and these have been implemented in statutory law in a manner that can be considered as equivalent to writs of habeas corpus.

Article 104, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides that deprivations of liberty may be imposed only on the basis of a specific enabling statute that also must include procedural rules. Article 104, paragraph 2 requires that any arrested individual be brought before a judge by the end of the day following the day of the arrest. For those detained as criminal suspects, article 104, paragraph 3 specifically requires that the judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention.

Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article 2 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. In addition, several other articles of the Basic Law have a bearing on the issue. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires a statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law while also guaranteeing judicial review; article 20, paragraph 3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article 3 which guarantees equality.

In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article 19, paragraph 4 of the Basic Law, which provides as follows: "Should any person's right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts."

India
In the Republic of India, the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus, as granted by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively.

"(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by (Part III) is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by (Part III).""(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose."

On December 9, 1948, during a session of the Constituent Assembly, H.V. Kamath, a member, suggested the removal of specific references to writs in Article 32, expressing concern that such references could restrict judges from establishing new types of writs in the future, while Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, emphasized the significance of retaining references to the writs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted that writs, including habeas corpus, are already part of the Indian legal framework, but the existing writs are vulnerable to modifications through legislative changes, whereby the legislature, particularly with a strong majority, can amend the relevant laws, potentially leading to the suspension of writs like habeas corpus. However, following the Constitution's enactment, which includes explicit references to writs, these writs cannot be easily nullified by any legislative body because the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue them.

The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases, has effectively resorted to the writ of habeas corpus to secure release of a person from illegal detention. The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi, so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of habeas relief has expanded in recent times by actions of the Indian judiciary.

Usually, in most other jurisdictions, the writ is directed at police authorities. The extension to non-state authorities has its grounds in two cases: the 1898 Queen's Bench case of Ex Parte Daisy Hopkins, wherein the Proctor of Cambridge University did detain and arrest Hopkins without his jurisdiction, and Hopkins was released, and that of Somerset v Stewart, in which an African slave whose master had moved to London was freed by action of the writ. For example, in October 2009, the Karnataka High Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by the parents of a girl who married a Muslim boy from Kannur district and was allegedly confined in a madrasa in Malapuram town. In 1976, the habeas writ was used in the Rajan case, a student victim of torture in local police custody during the nationwide Emergency in India. On 12 March 2014, Subrata Roy's counsel approached the Chief Justice moving a habeas corpus petition. It was also filed by the Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare, a social activist.

Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, the writ of habeas corpus is available at common law and under the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816.

A remedy equivalent to habeas corpus is also guaranteed by Article 40 of the 1937 constitution. The article guarantees that "no citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law" and outlines a specific procedure for the High Court to enquire into the lawfulness of any person's detention. It does not mention the Latin term habeas corpus, but includes the English phrase "produce the body".

Article 40.4.2° provides that a prisoner, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make a complaint to the High Court (or to any High Court judge) of unlawful detention. The court must then investigate the matter "forthwith" and may order that the defendant bring the prisoner before the court and give reasons for his detention. The court must immediately release the detainee unless it is satisfied that he is being held lawfully. The remedy is available not only to prisoners of the state, but also to persons unlawfully detained by any private party. However, the constitution provides that the procedure is not binding on the Defence Forces during a state of war or armed rebellion.

The full text of Article 40.4.2° is as follows:

"Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law. [italics added]"

The writ of habeas corpus continued as part of the Irish law when the state seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922. A remedy equivalent to habeas corpus was also guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State, enacted in 1922. That article used similar wording to Article 40.4 of the current constitution, which replaced it 1937.

The relationship between the Article 40 and the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816 is ambiguous, and Forde and Leonard write that "The extent if any to which Article 40.4 has replaced these Acts has yet to be determined". In The State (Ahern) v. Cotter (1982) Walsh J. opined that the ancient writ referred to in the Habeas Corpus Acts remains in existence in Irish law as a separate remedy from that provided for in Article 40.

In 1941, the Article 40 procedure was restricted by the Second Amendment. Prior to the amendment, a prisoner had the constitutional right to apply to any High Court judge for an enquiry into her detention, and to as many High Court judges as she wished. If the prisoner successfully challenged her detention before the High Court she was entitled to immediate, unconditional release.

The Second Amendment provided that a prisoner has only the right to apply to a single judge, and, once a writ has been issued, the President of the High Court has authority to choose the judge or panel of three judges who will decide the case. If the High Court finds that the prisoner's detention is unlawful due to the unconstitutionality of a law the judge must refer the matter to the Supreme Court, and until the Supreme Court's decision is rendered the prisoner may be released only on bail.

The power of the state to detain persons prior to trial was extended by the Sixteenth Amendment, in 1996. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the O'Callaghan case that the constitution required that an individual charged with a crime could be refused bail only if she was likely to flee or to interfere with witnesses or evidence. Since the Sixteenth Amendment, it has been possible for a court to take into account whether a person has committed serious crimes while on bail in the past.

Italy
The right to freedom from arbitrary detention is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution of Italy, which states: "Personal liberty is inviolable. No one may be detained, inspected, or searched nor otherwise subjected to any restriction of personal liberty except by order of the Judiciary stating a reason and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by the law. In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and urgency as shall conclusively be defined by the law, the police may take provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to the Judiciary for validation and which, in default of such validation in the following 48 hours, shall be revoked and considered null and void. Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to restriction of personal liberty shall be punished. The law shall establish the maximum duration of preventive detention."

This implies that within 48 hours every arrest made by a police force must be validated by a court.

Furthermore, if subject to a valid detention, an arrested can ask for a review of the detention to another court, called the Review Court (Tribunale del Riesame, also known as the Freedom Court, Tribunale della Libertà).

Macau
In Macau, the relevant provision is Article 204 in the Code of Penal Processes, which became law in 1996 under Portuguese rule. Habeas corpus cases are heard before the Tribunal of Ultimate Instance. A notable case is Case 3/2008 in Macau.

Malaysia
In Malaysia, the remedy of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the federal constitution, although not by name. Article 5(2) of the Constitution of Malaysia provides that "Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him".

As there are several statutes, for example, the Internal Security Act 1960, that still permit detention without trial, the procedure is usually effective in such cases only if it can be shown that there was a procedural error in the way that the detention was ordered.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, habeas corpus may be invoked against the government or private individuals. In 2006, a child was allegedly kidnapped by his maternal grandfather after a custody dispute. The father began habeas corpus proceedings against the mother, the grandfather, the grandmother, the great-grandmother, and another person alleged to have assisted in the kidnap of the child. The mother did not present the child to the court and so was imprisoned for contempt of court. She was released when the grandfather came forward with the child in late January 2007.

Pakistan
Issuance of a writ is an exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction of the superior courts in Pakistan. A writ of habeas corpus may be issued by any High Court of a province in Pakistan. Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, specifically provides for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, empowering the courts to exercise this prerogative. Subject to the Article 199 of the Constitution, "A High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any person, make an order that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without a lawful authority or in an unlawful manner". The hallmark of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is to keep various functionaries of State within the ambit of their authority. Once a High Court has assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter before it, justiciability of the issue raised before it is beyond question. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has stated clearly that the use of words "in an unlawful manner" implies that the court may examine, if a statute has allowed such detention, whether it was a colorable exercise of the power of authority. Thus, the court can examine the malafides of the action taken.

Portugal
In Portugal, article 31 of the Constitution guarantees citizens against improper arrest, imprisonment or detention.

The full text of Article 31 is as follows: "Article 31 (Habeas corpus)
 * 1) Habeas corpus is available to counter misuse of power in the form of illegal arrest, imprisonment or detention. Application for it must be made to the competent court.
 * 2) Application for a habeas corpus order may be made by the person so arrested, imprisoned or detained, or by any citizen in possession of his political rights.
 * 3) Within a time limit of eight days of an application for habeas corpus, the judge shall rule thereon in a hearing that shall be subject to the adversarial principle."

There are also statutory provisions, most notably the Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 220 and 222 that stipulate the reasons by which a judge may guarantee habeas corpus.

The Philippines
In the Bill of Rights of the Philippine constitution, habeas corpus is guaranteed in terms almost identically to those used in the U.S. Constitution. Article 3, Section 15 of the Constitution of the Philippines states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it".

In 1971, after the Plaza Miranda bombing, the Marcos administration, under Ferdinand Marcos, suspended habeas corpus in an effort to stifle the oncoming insurgency, having blamed the Filipino Communist Party for the events of August 21. Many considered this to be a prelude to martial law. After widespread protests, however, the Marcos administration decided to reintroduce the writ. The writ was again suspended when Marcos declared martial law in 1972.

In December 2009, habeas corpus was suspended in Maguindanao as President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo placed the province under martial law. This occurred in response to the Maguindanao massacre.

In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte said he was planning on suspending habeas corpus.

At 10 pm on 23 May 2017 Philippine time, President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law in the whole island of Mindanao including Sulu and Tawi-tawi for the period of 60 days due to the series of attacks mounted by the Maute group, an ISIS-linked terrorist organization. The declaration suspended the writ.

Scotland
The Parliament of Scotland passed a law to have the same effect as habeas corpus in the 18th century. This is now known as the Criminal Procedure Act 1701 c. 6. It was originally called "the Act for preventing wrongful imprisonment and against undue delays in trials". It is still in force although certain parts have been repealed.

Spain
The present Constitution of Spain states that "A habeas corpus procedure shall be provided for by law to ensure the immediate handing over to the judicial authorities of any person illegally arrested". The statute which regulates the procedure is the Law of Habeas Corpus of 24 May 1984, which provides that a person imprisoned may, on her or his own or through a third person, allege that she or he is imprisoned unlawfully and request to appear before a judge. The request must specify the grounds on which the detention is considered to be unlawful, which can be, for example, that the custodian holding the prisoner does not have the legal authority, that the prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated, or that he has been subjected to mistreatment. The judge may then request additional information if needed, and may issue a habeas corpus order, at which point the custodian has 24 hours to bring the prisoner before the judge.

Historically, many of the territories of Spain had remedies equivalent to the habeas corpus, such as the privilege of manifestación in the Crown of Aragon or the right of the Tree in Biscay.

Taiwan
Habeas corpus is explicitly stated in article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, in which guarantees that anyone has the right to request a writ of habeas corpus for himself or any other person that is being detained by any organization or individual other than courts. Also, courts shall not reject the request, nor order the detainer to investigate and report before surrendering the detainee; the detainer must bring the person in question to the court within 24 hours without condition, and the detainee shall be released on the spot if the detention is deemed illegal. The article was further enforced by the Habeas Corpus Act.

United States
The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England, the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".

The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, ex parte proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings are to determine whether the court that imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding.

Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction for some places or types of cases. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside of the jurisdiction of habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court of the United States overturned this action in Boumediene v. Bush.

Biscay
In 1526, the Fuero Nuevo of the Señorío de Vizcaya (New Charter of the Lordship of Biscay) established a form of habeas corpus in the territory of the Señorío de Vizcaya, now part of Spain. This revised version of the Fuero Viejo (Old Charter) of 1451 codified the medieval custom whereby no person could be arbitrarily detained without being summoned first to the Oak of Gernika, an ancestral oak tree located in the outskirts of Gernika under which all laws of the Lordship of Biscay were passed.

The New Charter formalised that no one could be detained without a court order (Law 26 of Chapter 9) nor due to debts (Law 3 of Chapter 16). It also established due process and a form of habeas corpus: no one could be arrested without previously having been summoned to the Oak of Gernika and given 30 days to answer the said summons. Upon appearing under the Tree, they had to be provided with accusations and all evidence held against them so that they could defend themselves (Law 7 of Chapter 9).

No one could be sent to prison or deprived of their freedom until being formally trialed. No one could be accused of a different crime until their current court trial was over (Law 5 of Chapter 5). Those fearing they were being arrested illegally could appeal to the Regimiento General that their rights could be upheld. The Regimiento, the executive arm of the Juntas Generales of Biscay, would demand the prisoner be handed over to them, and thereafter the prisoner would be released and placed under the protection of the Regimiento while awaiting trial.

Crown of Aragon
The Crown of Aragon had a remedy equivalent to the habeas corpus called the manifestación de personas, literally, demonstration of persons. According to the right of manifestación, the Justicia de Aragon, lit. Justice of Aragon, an Aragonese judiciary figure similar to an ombudsman, but with far reaching executive powers, could require a judge, a court of justice, or any other official that they handed over to the Justicia, i.e., that they be demonstrated to the Justicia, anyone being prosecuted, so as to guarantee that this person's rights were upheld, and that no violence would befall this person prior to their being sentenced.

The Justicia retained the right to examine the judgement passed, and decide whether it satisfied the conditions of a fair trial. If the Justicia was not satisfied, he could refuse to hand over the accused back to the authorities. The right of manifestación acted like a habeas corpus: knowing that the appeal to the Justicia would immediately follow any unlawful detention, these were effectively illegal. Equally, torture, which had been banned in Aragon since 1325, would never take place.

In some cases, people exerting their right of manifestación were kept under the Justicia's watch in manifestación prisons, famous for their mild and easy conditions, or under house arrest. More generally however, the person was released from confinement and placed under the Justicia's protection, awaiting for trial. The Justicia always granted the right of manifestación by default, but they only really had to act in extreme cases, as for instance famously happened in 1590 when Antonio Pérez, the disgraced secretary to Philip II of Spain, fled from Castile to Aragon and used his Aragonese ascendency to appeal to the Justicia for manifestación right, thereby preventing his arrest at the King's behest.

The right of manifestación was codified in 1325 in the Declaratio Privilegii generalis passed by the Aragonese Corts under king James II of Aragon. It had been practised since the inception of the kingdom of Aragon in the 11th century, and therefore predates the English habeas corpus itself.

Poland
In 1430, King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland granted the Privilege of Jedlnia, which proclaimed, Neminem captivabimus nisi iure victum ("We will not imprison anyone except if convicted by law"). This revolutionary innovation in civil libertarianism gave Polish citizens due process-style rights that did not exist in any other European country for another 250 years. Originally, the Privilege of Jedlnia was restricted to the nobility, the szlachta. It was extended to cover townsmen in the 1791 Constitution. Importantly, social classifications in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were not as rigid as in other European countries; townspeople and Jews were sometimes ennobled. The Privilege of Jedlnia provided broader coverage than many subsequently enacted habeas corpus laws, because Poland's nobility constituted an unusually large percentage of the country's total population, which was Europe's largest. As a result, by the 16th century, it was protecting the liberty of between five hundred thousand and a million Poles.

Roman-Dutch law
In South Africa and other countries whose legal systems are based on Roman-Dutch law, the interdictum de homine libero exhibendo is the equivalent of the writ of habeas corpus. In South Africa, it has been entrenched in the Bill of Rights, which provides in section 35(2)(d) that every detained person has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released.

World habeas corpus
In the 1950s, American lawyer Luis Kutner began advocating an international writ of habeas corpus to protect individual human rights. In 1952, he filed a petition for a "United Nations Writ of Habeas Corpus" on behalf of William N. Oatis, an American journalist jailed the previous year by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia. Alleging that Czechoslovakia had violated Oatis' rights under the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that the United Nations General Assembly had "inherent power" to fashion remedies for human rights violations, the petition was filed with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The commission forwarded the petition to Czechoslovakia, but no other United Nations action was taken. Oatis was released in 1953. Kutner went on to publish numerous articles and books advocating the creation of an "International Court of Habeas Corpus".

International human rights standards
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights goes further and calls for persons detained to have the right to challenge their detention, providing at article 5.4: "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."

title: Habeas corpus


text:
Prince Henry the Navigator

Dom Henrique of Portugal, Duke of Viseu (4 March 1394 – 13 November 1460), better known as Prince Henry the Navigator (Infante Dom Henrique, o Navegador), was a central figure in the early days of the Portuguese Empire and in the 15th-century European maritime discoveries and maritime expansion. Through his administrative direction, he is regarded as the main initiator of what would be known as the Age of Discovery. Henry was the fourth child of King John I of Portugal, who founded the House of Aviz.

After procuring the new caravel ship, Henry was responsible for the early development of Portuguese exploration and maritime trade with other continents through the systematic exploration of Western Africa, the islands of the Atlantic Ocean, and the search for new routes. He encouraged his father to conquer Ceuta (1415), the Muslim port on the North African coast across the Straits of Gibraltar from the Iberian Peninsula. He learned of the opportunity offered by the Saharan trade routes that terminated there, and became fascinated with Africa in general; he was most intrigued by the Christian legend of Prester John and the expansion of Portuguese trade. He is regarded as the patron of Portuguese exploration.

Life
Henry was the third surviving son of King John I and his wife Philippa, sister of King Henry IV of England. He was baptized in Porto, and may have been born there, probably when the royal couple was living in the city's old mint, now called Casa do Infante (Prince's House), or in the region nearby. Another possibility is that he was born at the Monastery of Leça do Balio, in Leça da Palmeira, during the same period of the royal couple's residence in the city of Porto. Henry was 21 when he, his father and brothers captured the Moorish port of Ceuta in northern Morocco. Ceuta had long been a base for Barbary pirates who raided the Portuguese coast, depopulating villages by capturing their inhabitants to be sold in the African slave trade. Following this success, Henry began to explore the coast of Africa, most of which was unknown to Europeans. His objectives included finding the source of the West African gold trade and the legendary Christian kingdom of Prester John, and stopping the pirate attacks on the Portuguese coast.At that time, the cargo ships of the Mediterranean were too slow and heavy to undertake such voyages. Under Henry's direction, a new and much lighter ship was developed, the caravel, which could sail farther and faster. Above all, it was highly maneuverable and could sail "into the wind", making it largely independent of the prevailing winds. The caravel used the lateen sail, the prevailing rig in Christian Mediterranean navigation since late antiquity. With this ship, Portuguese mariners freely explored uncharted waters around the Atlantic, from rivers and shallow waters to transoceanic voyages.

In 1419, Henry's father appointed him governor of the province of the Algarve.

Resources and income
On May 25, 1420, Henry gained appointment as the Governor of the Military Order of Christ, the Portuguese successor to the Knights Templar, which had its headquarters at Tomar in central Portugal. Henry held this position for the remainder of his life, and the Order was an important source of funds for Henry's ambitious plans, especially his persistent attempts to conquer the Canary Islands, which the Portuguese had claimed to have discovered before the year 1346.

In 1425, his second brother the Infante Peter, Duke of Coimbra, made a diplomatic tour of Europe, with an additional charge from Henry to seek out geographic material. Peter returned with a current world map from Venice.

In 1431, Henry donated houses for the Estudo Geral to teach all the sciences—grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, and astronomy—in what would later become the University of Lisbon. For other subjects like medicine or philosophy, he ordered that each room should be decorated according to the subject taught.

Henry also had other resources. When John I died in 1433, Henry's eldest brother Edward of Portugal became king. He granted Henry all profits from trading within the areas he discovered as well as the sole right to authorize expeditions beyond Cape Bojador. Henry also held a monopoly on tuna fishing in the Algarve. When Edward died eight years later, Henry supported his brother Peter, Duke of Coimbra for the regency during the minority of Edward's son Afonso V, and in return received a confirmation of this levy.

Henry functioned as a primary organizer of the disastrous expedition to Tangier in 1437 against Çala Ben Çala, which ended in Henry's younger brother Ferdinand being given as hostage to guarantee Portuguese promises in the peace agreement. The Portuguese Cortes refused to return Ceuta as ransom for Ferdinand, who remained in captivity until his death six years later. Prince Regent Peter supported Portuguese maritime expansion in the Atlantic Ocean and Africa, and Henry promoted the colonization of the Azores during Peter's regency (1439–1448). For most of the latter part of his life, Henry concentrated on his maritime activities and court politics.

Vila do Infante and Portuguese exploration
According to João de Barros, in Algarve, Prince Henry the Navigator repopulated a village that he called Terçanabal (from terça nabal or tercena nabal). This village was situated in a strategic position for his maritime enterprises and was later called Vila do Infante ("Estate or Town of the Prince").

It is traditionally suggested that Henry gathered at his villa on the Sagres peninsula a school of navigators and map-makers. However modern historians hold this to be a misconception. He did employ some cartographers to chart the coast of Mauritania after the voyages he sent there, but there was no center of navigation science or observatory in the modern sense of the word, nor was there an organized navigational center.

Referring to Sagres, sixteenth-century Portuguese mathematician and cosmographer Pedro Nunes remarked, "from it our sailors went out well taught and provided with instruments and rules which all map makers and navigators should know."

The view that Henry's court rapidly grew into the technological base for exploration, with a naval arsenal and an observatory, etc., although repeated in popular culture, has never been established. Henry did possess geographical curiosity, and employed cartographers. Jehuda Cresques, a noted cartographer, has been said to have accepted an invitation to come to Portugal to make maps for the infante. Prestage makes the argument that the presence of the latter at the Prince's court "probably accounts for the legend of the School of Sagres, which is now discredited."

Henry's explorations
Henry sponsored voyages, collecting a 20% tax (o quinto) on profits, the usual practice in the Iberian states at the time. The nearby port of Lagos provided a convenient home port for these expeditions. The voyages were made in very small ships, mostly the caravel, a light and maneuverable vessel equipped by lateen sails. Most of the voyages sent out by Henry consisted of one or two ships that navigated by following the coast, stopping at night to tie up along some shore. During Prince Henry's time and after, the Portuguese navigators discovered and perfected the North Atlantic volta do mar (the "turn of the sea" or "return from the sea"): the dependable pattern of trade winds blowing largely from the east near the equator and the returning westerlies in the mid-Atlantic. This was a major step in the history of navigation, when an understanding of oceanic wind patterns was crucial to Atlantic navigation, from Africa and the open ocean to Europe, and enabled the main route between the New World and Europe in the North Atlantic in future voyages of discovery. Although the lateen sail allowed sailing upwind to some extent, it was worth even major extensions of course to have a faster and calmer following wind for most of a journey. Portuguese mariners who sailed south and southwest towards the Canary Islands and West Africa would afterwards sail far to the northwest—that is, away from continental Portugal, and seemingly in the wrong direction—before turning northeast near the Azores islands and finally east to Europe in order to have largely following winds for their full journey. Christopher Columbus used this on his transatlantic voyages.

Madeira
The first explorations followed not long after the capture of Ceuta in 1415. Henry was interested in locating the source of the caravans that brought gold to the city. During the reign of his father, John I, João Gonçalves Zarco and Tristão Vaz Teixeira were sent to explore along the African coast. Zarco, a knight in service to Prince Henry, had commanded the caravels guarding the coast of Algarve from the incursions of the Moors. He had also been at Ceuta.

In 1418, Zarco and Teixeira were blown off-course by a storm while making the volta do mar westward swing to return to Portugal. They found shelter at an island they named Porto Santo. Henry directed that Porto Santo be colonized. The move to claim the Madeiran islands was probably a response to Castile's efforts to claim the Canary Islands. In 1420, settlers then moved to the nearby island of Madeira.

The Azores
A chart drawn by the Catalan cartographer, Gabriel de Vallseca of Mallorca, has been interpreted to indicate that the Azores were first discovered by Diogo de Silves in 1427. In 1431, Gonçalo Velho was dispatched with orders to determine the location of "islands" first identified by de Silves. Velho apparently got as far as the Formigas, in the eastern archipelago, before having to return to Sagres, probably due to bad weather.

By this time the Portuguese navigators had also reached the Sargasso Sea (western North Atlantic region), naming it after the Sargassum seaweed growing there (sargaço / sargasso in Portuguese).

West African coast
In 1424 Cape Bojador was the most southerly point known to Europeans on the west coast of Africa. For centuries, superstitious seafarers held that beyond the cape lay sea monsters and the edge of the world. However, Prince Henry was determined to know the truth. He was persistent and sent 15 expeditions over a ten-year period to pass the dreaded Cape. Each returned unsuccessful. The captains gave various excuses for having failed. Finally, in 1434 Gil Eanes, the commander of one of Henry's expeditions, became the first known European to pass Cape Bojador since Hanno almost two millennium before.

Using the new ship type, the expeditions then pushed onwards. Nuno Tristão and Antão Gonçalves reached Cape Blanco in 1441. The Portuguese sighted the Bay of Arguin in 1443 and built an important "forte-feitoria" (a fort protecting a trading post) on the island of Arguin around the year 1448. Dinis Dias soon came across the Senegal River and rounded the peninsula of Cap-Vert in 1444. By this stage the explorers had passed the southern boundary of the desert, and from then on Henry had one of his wishes fulfilled: the Portuguese had circumvented the Muslim land-based trade routes across the western Sahara Desert, and slaves and gold began arriving in Portugal. This rerouting of trade devastated Algiers and Tunis, but made Portugal rich. By 1452, the influx of gold permitted the minting of Portugal's first gold cruzado coins. A cruzado was equal to 400 reis at the time. From 1444 to 1446, as many as forty vessels sailed from Lagos on Henry's behalf, and the first private mercantile expeditions began.

Alvise Cadamosto explored the Atlantic coast of Africa and discovered several islands of the Cape Verde archipelago between 1453 and 1456. In his first voyage, which started on 22 March 1455, he visited the Madeira Islands and the Canary Islands. On the second voyage, in 1456, Cadamosto became the first European to reach the Cape Verde Islands. António Noli later claimed the credit. By 1462, the Portuguese had explored the coast of Africa as far as present-day Sierra Leone. Twenty-eight years later, Bartolomeu Dias proved that Africa could be circumnavigated when he reached the southern tip of the continent, now known as the Cape of Good Hope. In 1498, Vasco da Gama became the first European sailor to reach India by sea.

Origin of the "Navigator" nickname
No one used the nickname "Henry the Navigator" to refer to prince Henry during his lifetime or in the following three centuries. The term was coined by two nineteenth-century German historians: Heinrich Schaefer and Gustave de Veer. Later on it was made popular by two British authors who included it in the titles of their biographies of the prince: Henry Major in 1868 and Raymond Beazley in 1895.

Contrary to his brothers, Prince Henry was not praised for his intellectual gifts by his contemporaries. It was only later chroniclers such as João de Barros and Damião de Góis who attributed him a scholarly character and an interest for cosmography. The myth of the "Sagres school" allegedly founded by Prince Henry was created in the 18th century, mainly by Samuel Purchas and Abbé Prévost. In nineteenth-century Portugal, the idealized vision of Prince Henry as a putative pioneer of exploration and science reached its apogee.

Legacy
Henry is depicted in the Monument of the Discoveries located in Lisbon, featured in the front of the monument.

In 1994, the Prince Henry Society in conjunction with the Portuguese government gifted Prince Henry the Navigator Park in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

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

title: Prince Henry the Navigator


text:
Talk:House of Habsburg

Diplicates in the list of titles
There may be a few duplicates now. 'Count of Holland' appears at least 4 times in the list, for example. 2A02:A462:7C5:1:90C9:2E53:96FF:1776 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think I have managed to trim them all. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Consort Titles be Attributed to the List?
Even though consort titles do not exert the same level of power as suo jure rule, it's still relevant historically, as well as exerting minimal political power by establishing formal alliances, while also cementing the Habsburgs' legacy of various crowns. Nknka (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"one of the most"
It's literally the singularly most important house. Nothing even comes close. The entirrety of early-modern European history revolves around them. 82.59.236.182 (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:House of Habsburg


text:
Human cloning

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue. It does not refer to the natural conception and delivery of identical twins. The possibilities of human cloning have raised controversies. These ethical concerns have prompted several nations to pass laws regarding human cloning.

Two commonly discussed types of human cloning are therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.

Therapeutic cloning would involve cloning cells from a human for use in medicine and transplants. It is an active area of research, and is in medical practice in the world. Two common methods of therapeutic cloning that are being researched are somatic-cell nuclear transfer and (more recently) pluripotent stem cell induction.

Reproductive cloning would involve making an entire cloned human, instead of just specific cells or tissues.

History
Although the possibility of cloning humans had been the subject of speculation for much of the 20th century, scientists and policymakers began to take the prospect seriously in 1969. J. B. S. Haldane was the first to introduce the idea of human cloning, for which he used the terms "clone" and "cloning", which had been used in agriculture since the early 20th century. In his speech on "Biological Possibilities for the Human Species of the Next Ten Thousand Years" at the Ciba Foundation Symposium on Man and his Future in 1963, he said: "It is extremely hopeful that some human cell lines can be grown on a medium of precisely known chemical composition. Perhaps the first step will be the production of a clone from a single fertilized egg, as in Brave New World...

Assuming that cloning is possible, I expect that most clones would be made from people aged at least fifty, except for athletes and dancers, who would be cloned younger. They would be made from people who were held to have excelled in a socially acceptable accomplishment..."

Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Joshua Lederberg advocated cloning and genetic engineering in an article in The American Naturalist in 1966 and again, the following year, in The Washington Post. He sparked a debate with conservative bioethicist Leon Kass, who wrote at the time that "the programmed reproduction of man will, in fact, dehumanize him." Another Nobel Laureate, James D. Watson, publicized the potential and the perils of cloning in his Atlantic Monthly essay, "Moving Toward the Clonal Man", in 1971.

With the cloning of a sheep known as Dolly in 1996 by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the idea of human cloning became a hot debate topic. Many nations outlawed it, while a few scientists promised to make a clone within the next few years. The first hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by Advanced Cell Technology. It was created using SCNT; a nucleus was taken from a man's leg cell and inserted into a cow's egg from which the nucleus had been removed, and the hybrid cell was cultured and developed into an embryo. The embryo was destroyed after 12 days.

In 2004 and 2005, Hwang Woo-suk, a professor at Seoul National University, published two separate articles in the journal  Science claiming to have successfully harvested pluripotent, embryonic stem cells from a cloned human blastocyst using SCNT techniques. Hwang claimed to have created eleven different patient-specific stem cell lines. This would have been the first major breakthrough in human cloning. However, in 2006 Science retracted both of his articles on account of clear evidence that much of his data from the experiments was fabricated.

In January 2008, Dr. Andrew French and Samuel Wood of the biotechnology company Stemagen announced that they successfully created the first five mature human embryos using SCNT. In this case, each embryo was created by taking a nucleus from a skin cell (donated by Wood and a colleague) and inserting it into a human egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The embryos were developed only to the blastocyst stage, at which point they were studied in processes that destroyed them. Members of the lab said that their next set of experiments would aim to generate embryonic stem cell lines; these are the "holy grail" that would be useful for therapeutic or reproductive cloning.

In 2011, scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation announced that they had succeeded in generating embryonic stem cell lines, but their process involved leaving the oocyte's nucleus in place, resulting in triploid cells, which would not be useful for cloning.

In 2013, a group of scientists led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov published the first report of embryonic stem cells created using SCNT. In this experiment, the researchers developed a protocol for using SCNT in human cells, which differs slightly from the one used in other organisms. Four embryonic stem cell lines from human fetal somatic cells were derived from those blastocysts. All four lines were derived using oocytes from the same donor, ensuring that all mitochondrial DNA inherited was identical. A year later, a team led by Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology reported that they had replicated Mitalipov's results and further demonstrated the effectiveness by cloning adult cells using SCNT.

In 2018, the first successful cloning of primates using SCNT was reported with the birth of two live female clones, crab-eating macaques named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)

In somatic cell nuclear transfer ("SCNT"), the nucleus of a somatic cell is taken from a donor and transplanted into a host egg cell, which had its own genetic material removed previously, making it an enucleated egg. After the donor somatic cell genetic material is transferred into the host oocyte with a micropipette, the somatic cell genetic material is fused with the egg using an electric current. Once the two cells have fused, the new cell can be permitted to grow in a surrogate or artificially. This is the process that was used to successfully clone Dolly the sheep (see ). The technique, now refined, has indicated that it was possible to replicate cells and reestablish pluripotency, or "the potential of an embryonic cell to grow into any one of the numerous different types of mature body cells that make up a complete organism".

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)

Creating induced pluripotent stem cells ("iPSCs") is a long and inefficient process. Pluripotency refers to a stem cell that has the potential to differentiate into any of the three germ layers: endoderm (interior stomach lining, gastrointestinal tract, the lungs), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood, urogenital), or ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous tissue). A specific set of genes, often called "reprogramming factors", are introduced into a specific adult cell type. These factors send signals in the mature cell that cause the cell to become a pluripotent stem cell. This process is highly studied and new techniques are being discovered frequently on how to improve this induction process.

Depending on the method used, reprogramming of adult cells into iPSCs for implantation could have severe limitations in humans. If a virus is used as a reprogramming factor for the cell, cancer-causing genes called oncogenes may be activated. These cells would appear as rapidly dividing cancer cells that do not respond to the body's natural cell signaling process. However, in 2008 scientists discovered a technique that could remove the presence of these oncogenes after pluripotency induction, thereby increasing the potential use of iPSC in humans.

Comparing SCNT to reprogramming
Both the processes of SCNT and iPSCs have benefits and deficiencies. Historically, reprogramming methods were better studied than SCNT derived embryonic stem cells (ESCs). However, more recent studies have put more emphasis on developing new procedures for SCNT-ESCs. The major advantage of SCNT over iPSCs at this time is the speed with which cells can be produced. iPSCs derivation takes several months while SCNT would take a much shorter time, which could be important for medical applications. New studies are working to improve the process of iPSC in terms of both speed and efficiency with the discovery of new reprogramming factors in oocytes. Another advantage SCNT could have over iPSCs is its potential to treat mitochondrial disease, as it uses a donor oocyte. No other advantages are known at this time in using stem cells derived from one method over stem cells derived from the other.

Uses and actual potential

Work on cloning techniques has advanced understanding of developmental biology in humans. Observing human pluripotent stem cells grown in culture provides great insight into human embryo development, which otherwise cannot be seen. Scientists are now able to better define steps of early human development. Studying signal transduction along with genetic manipulation within the early human embryo has the potential to provide answers to many developmental diseases and defects. Many human-specific signaling pathways have been discovered by studying human embryonic stem cells. Studying developmental pathways in humans has given developmental biologists more evidence toward the hypothesis that developmental pathways are conserved throughout species.

iPSCs and cells created by SCNT are useful for research into the causes of disease, and as model systems used in drug discovery.

Cells produced with SCNT, or iPSCs could eventually be used in stem cell therapy, or to create organs to be used in transplantation, known as regenerative medicine. Stem cell therapy is the use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition. Bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy. No other forms of stem cell therapy are in clinical use at this time. Research is underway to potentially use stem cell therapy to treat heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Regenerative medicine is not in clinical practice, but is heavily researched for its potential uses. This type of medicine would allow for autologous transplantation, thus removing the risk of organ transplant rejection by the recipient. For instance, a person with liver disease could potentially have a new liver grown using their same genetic material and transplanted to remove the damaged liver. In current research, human pluripotent stem cells have been promised as a reliable source for generating human neurons, showing the potential for regenerative medicine in brain and neural injuries.

Ethical implications
In bioethics, the ethics of cloning refers to a variety of ethical positions regarding the practice and possibilities of cloning, especially human cloning. While many of these views are religious in origin, for instance relating to Christian views of procreation and personhood, the questions raised by cloning engage secular perspectives as well, particularly the concept of identity.

Advocates support development of therapeutic cloning in order to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs, and to stave off the effects of aging. Advocates for reproductive cloning believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to the technology.

Opposition to therapeutic cloning mainly centers around the status of embryonic stem cells, which has connections with the abortion debate. The moral argument put forward is based on the notion that embryos deserve protection from the moment of their conception because it is at this precise moment that a new human entity emerges, already a unique individual. Since it is deemed unacceptable to sacrifice human lives for any purpose, the argument asserts that the destruction of embryos for research purposes is no longer justifiable.

Some opponents of reproductive cloning have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe – for example, the position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science while others emphasize that reproductive cloning could be prone to abuse (leading to the generation of humans whose organs and tissues would be harvested), and have concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.

Members of religious groups are divided. Some Christian theologians perceive the technology as usurping God's role in creation and, to the extent embryos are used, destroying a human life; others see no inconsistency between Christian tenets and cloning's positive and potentially life-saving benefits.

Legal status of human therapeutic cloning maps

In popular culture
Science fiction has used cloning, most commonly and specifically human cloning, due to the fact that it brings up controversial questions of identity. Humorous fiction, such as Multiplicity (1996) and the Maxwell Smart feature The Nude Bomb (1980), have featured human cloning. A recurring sub-theme of cloning fiction is the use of clones as a supply of organs for transplantation. Robin Cook's 1997 novel Chromosome 6, Michael Bay's The Island, and Nancy Farmer's 2002 novel House of the Scorpion are examples of this; Chromosome 6 also features genetic manipulation and xenotransplantation. The Star Wars saga makes use of millions of human clones to form the Grand Army of the Republic that participated in the Clone Wars. The series Orphan Black follows human clones' stories and experiences as they deal with issues and react to being the property of a chain of scientific institutions. In the 2019 horror film Us, the entirety of the United States' population is secretly cloned. Years later, these clones (known as The Tethered) reveal themselves to the world by successfully pulling off a mass genocide of their counterparts.

title: Human cloning


text:
Talk:Hierarchy

Untitled
why the good and bad points of hierarchy not mentioned (UTC) Superscript text
 * I agree the good and bad points of hierarchy should be mentioned. Notice that there is now some mention of sexism. Hyacinth 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing
This sentence...... ''Every member is reachable from any other by following the relationship in either direction, but there is no way of coming back to a particular member by always following the relationship in the same direction. '' makes no sense at all to me. Does this mean that "any category node can be reached from any other category node"?

If so, then this is simply wrong - that's a property of a heterarchy or a neural network. A hierarchy is defined by each descendent having a single parent node (only!) and one or more descendents (or zero descendents at the leaf node level). Any organisational structure where descendent nodes can have more than one parent is not a hierarchy, by simple definition. The wikipedia is definitely not hierarchical in its informational content, otherwise we would not have so many debates about subpages and categorisation. - MMGB

 * I agree; it's a very badly written sentence. I could speculate about its meaning, but I shouldn't have to. -- Mike Hardy

One parent per node
I think the one parent per node idea is too narrow to satisfy all sensible definitions of "hierarchy". This may be how it is defined in, say, Organizational Theory. But Computer Scientists speak of "inheritence hierarchies" in which a node can have multiple "parents". Actually, think about real family trees; it is arguably fruitful to view them as hierarchies, and everyone (i.e. every node) has exactly two parents.

I think we should clarify, however, that some people use hierarchy for the one-parent case and heterarchy for the multi-parent case, if this is indeed true. If this is true, we need to clarify what people/fields use the terminology in this manner. It certainly isn't universal. --Ryguasu

 * I think even the initial example is confusing, with two layered ranking hierarchies and one inherited subset relationship. I dropped by because it suggested this needed some copy editing, which is my craft and avocation, but much more is needed here... That introduction needs some serious restructuring. Shanen 03:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * An interesting use of language: 'inheritance hierachies', as in plural, which underpins the original definition: A hierarchy (singular) is a set of one or more members (cannot be the empty set, 'cause then who is the ultimate superior?), where there is one member that have no superior. All other members are subordinate to one, and only one of the other members. As persons we descend from two hierarchies: The Mother hierarchy and the Father hierarchy. As a parent we have only one descendant hierarchy, namely our children.

 * In applied computer science, we conveniently have many hierarchies with only one parent, for example the file system. Hawkis 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Hawkis

 * I agree: single-parent hierarchies are the norm, and the opening paragraph is very misleading: not every partially ordered set (let alone ordered set) or acyclic graph is called a hierarachy - the least that must be added is a layering of the elements, as far as I have seen. So it must be rewritten. Rp (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Offensive illustration
The diagram on this page seems committed to the POV tenet that "science" is disjoint from "culture". I believe this is untenable. But I don't know how to edit the picture. Can someone essay this task? Michael Hardy 01:19, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * And it's been over a year since I posted this. No one has replaced the illustration with a better one.  I've removed it. Michael Hardy 00:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that the diagram wasn't perfect, but it (imperfectly) illustrated a concept in the article which had nothing to do with whether one subscribes to this perspective or not. You could have improved the diagram (while taking into account the articles which use (link to) the image); instead you just removed it, and even explicitly stated in the article that you didn't care to check whether this leads to problems with the text. This will sooner or later lead to serious pangs of conscience (subconscious or not), unless you draw for us a nice, inoffensive diagram, I can assure you. --Glimz 07:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tell me what software to use to edit this picture and maybe I'll see if I can do something with it. Michael Hardy 20:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Create a new Image:Binary-tree-structure.png from scratch. I'd use xfig on Linux; for Windows — dunno actually, but any paint or diagram tool you try will be able to draw some squares and lines and most probably save as .png. Have a look at Graphics_tutorials if you wish. --Glimz 04:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

See: Hierarchical organization, which I suggest should be merged with and redirected here. Hyacinth 07:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikis
The Wikipedia community is noteworthy for being not overtly hierarchically structured, as no contributor possesses inherently higher standing than another, excepting certain limited "admin" and "developer" powers restricted to a few. However, some would counter that although there is no explicit hierarchy there are social norms which make contributions unequal, as some contributors have more influence because their edits command higher respect.

Those who frequent Wikis might label Wikipedia's organization "wikiarchical".

Note that the content of the Wikipedia (as opposed to the community) is also organized in a fashion that is not overtly hierarchival. For the most part, the relationship between the individual articles does not form any sort of structure.

 * Your joking, right? How about Jimbo, the wikimedia board, the developers, beaurocrats, the arbitration commitee, the mediation commitee, admins, users, new users, anons, known sockpuppets and trolls, and hard banned users.... doesn't that sound like a clear hierarchy to you? Also this ignores completely the general guideline to avoid self references when possible, on top of the POV and factual inaccuracy. 08:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry -- I think you didn't read well. The developers, bureaucrats, admins, etc., are the community, not the content. Michael Hardy 23:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change to Hierarchy names
I changed "Christianity" to "Catholicism" because many of the hierarchies (sins, angels, hell, etc.) found within Catholicism are unique to that church. Most Protestant churches have rejected those doctrines and so cannot necessarily be labeled as "Christian".67.172.153.122 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Feminism and social criticism
I am concerned about the depiction of feminism in this article. First, it depicts feminists as sharing a single concept of the "hierarchy of gender." In fact, people who call themselves feminists have a wide range of ideas concerning gender and the power relationships related to it. Second, it implies that feminists are not interested in power hierarchies that are not based on gender. Many feminists are deeply concerned with issues of race, class, age, (dis)ability, and other sources of inequality, as well as the ways these power imbalances intersect.

Also, I do not understand what is meant by "Feminists do not take issue with hierarchy in the most general definition of the word...."

I think it might be best to remove the text about feminism and social criticism. I am not sure that I am up to the alternative task of writing a concise summary of the relationship of feminism to social hierarchies!

FreplySpang 02:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How does it look now? Hyacinth 02:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That looks pretty good. I'm glad that you found a way to clear it up without having to write a lot of new material. Thanks! FreplySpang 03:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section heading
I changed the heading back to 'general decsription (informal)' from 'mathematical...' because I wrote (most of) that section from a non-mathematical point of view. That's how 'hierarchy' is defined in philosophy and logic rather than in maths, and it applies to real-life hierarchies rather than simply to mathematical ones. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confucianism as a class?
Why is Confucianism listed on this page? its appropriate so........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.41.107 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A hierachy cannot be represented by a tree
At least in my mother language, Spanish, a Tree is not transitive, but exactly the opposite. So a hierarchy can't be represented by a tree. A hierachy is a Partially Ordered Set.

Moved discussion out of article
Hierarchical nomenclatures in the arts and sciences

Information from this section has been merged with the content of a section above called "Examples of Hierarchical Reasoning." Many of the examples cited here were more to do with reasoning than with nomenclature, and they were redundant to those above. (Also, nomenclature is a type of reasoning.) But more work needs to be done.

(written by User:71.198.223.240, moved by me) FreplySpang (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1380?
"Oxford English Dictionary was in 1380": 1380? --Jidanni 2006-04-16

"Some social insect species (bees, ants, termites) depend on matrilineal hierarchies centred on a queen with undeveloped female insects as attendants and workers." Haven't the mathematical geneticists decided that the workers are farming the queen rather than the queen is exploiting the workers? Even if this were not so it would be a trivial hierarchy with one despot and all others level with each other.

More interesting is that the workers seem NOT to be hierarchical in the hymenoptera. In all social species individuals recognise the differential influence of other individuals - and thus a ranked power ordering occurs. But apparently not among the worker bees etc. (And not among drones either.) It would appear that they are like your blood cells: none is more powerful than any other. In short: reference the claim of hymenoptera hierarchy or chop it. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Music

 * (Although this hierarchy suggests male dominance, she [Susan McClary in Feminine Endings] also points out that in order to complete the form by unifying the themes in a single key in the recapitulation, the masculine theme is usually truncated, in a possible metaphor for castration.)

What page? I don't remember this in the book. Hyacinth 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Hierarchical organization into this article
The "Hierarchical organization" article suffers from a number of deficiencies. It was proposed some time ago to merge it into this one. Logically one would reduce "Hierarchical organization" considerably so that it would become a section of this article. Since there is no discussion of hierarchical organization in this article, it would add another dimension to it. Comments? Sunray 08:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to merge Hierarchical organization with Social hierarchy and link from here. Those two article seem a bit at odds with each other.  Anca 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anca, merge Hierarchical organization with Social hierarchy. nirvana2013 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion piece about Hierarchical Organizations
I removed this link from the page:

 * Gerard Fairtlough on hierarchy

Interesting reading, and perhaps we can use the information therein, but it's not purely descriptive. Anca 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Derivation
The article claims the the derivation is from the Greek word for bishop. As far as I know, the most common words for bishop in Greek are episkopos and presbuteros. According to the American Heritage dictionary, hierarchy derives from the Greek for "rule of a high priest" - which seems to make more sense given the meaning "divine order" for hierarchy itself. The Greek for hierarch - hierarkhēs is composed of two parts - hieros = holy and arkhes = arch (in the sense of principal). I guess it could be argued that a bishop is a kind of high priest, but there are differences - for instance, there would typically be only one high priest at any point in time, while there would often be multiple bishops responsible for different areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.161.248 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Definition
The language used in the current definition seems very loaded. Is hierarchy necessarily a ranking? Is the use of the word "subordinate" justified? This seems to imply some sort of value judgement, especially when applied to people. It also doesn't make sense in situations where you have a hierarchy, but one level is not necessarily "subordinate" to the others--take as an example, the biological hierarchy of cells being part of an organism, and the organism being part of an ecosystem. Neither level is really subordinate to the other...but there is hierarchical organization here. I'm going to change the language to try to make it more neutral...I think some suggestion or discussion would be helpful here too. Cazort (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing! Someone needs to correst this! 81.179.194.32 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this article by including paraphrased definitions from OED and a current Webster's unabridged. The problem I had with it was that it said members of the hierarchy had only one element above them; this is not supported by any general definition I could find. There is no doubt that "hierarchy" tpically/usually includes the notion of "subordinate," etc. Cells are "subordinate" parts of organisms, and organisms are "subordinate" parts of ecosystems. It's not a value judgment, it's a way of organizing things. Lou Sander (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"they neglect to explain"
In the subsection titled "Ethics, behavioral psychology, philosophies of identity," the following quote can be found: "However, they often neglect to explain how society will function withouth hierarchical relationships, or to admit that they really just press for the adoption of a new hierarchy with their own particular group (i.e., women, gays, etc.) in a position of dominance within that hierarchy."

Other than the spelling error, I think this is an editorial comment. Many people have explained how society might function in this way. Joshuanorton (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hieraticism
The artcle could maybe mention the concept of hieraticism, which is closely related to the notion of hierarchy. ADM (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scattered info and possible merges
There is significant overlap and confusion between all of the following articles: hierarchy, hierarchy (mathematics), nested hierarchy, hierarchical organization, containment hierarchy and social hierarchy.

Hierarchical organization is the worst by far. I've just tried to organise it a bit, but it's disastrous. It wasn't even ever made clear that it refers to a government/business/social organization and not an "organization" of objects into a hierarchy. Now, I think that that one can be merged into Organizational structure, which it also overlaps significantly with. At the very least, I think it should be called Organizational hierarchy.

The other articles use the same examples over and over again without ever referencing the fact that it might belong to a subset of the hierarchical structure. For example, biological classification is a lengthy example in hierarchy, nested hierarchy and containment hierarchy. (According to the articles) Taxonomies are at least nested hierarchies, if not containment hierarchies; the confusion stems from the fact that there are subsets of hierarchies—a hierarchy of hierarchies!

The big problem here is that there seems to be no distinction made between hierarchy (mathematics) and hierarchy within any article other than hierarchy (mathematics). What is a containment hierarchy, for example???? It starts off with a mathematical description, but then starts listing off examples of hierarchical structures. So, is it supposed to be applied to sets or not? I'm thinking that this terminology was used to get the point across, but it's not actually mathematical. However, according to hierarchy (mathematics), it is a special kind of mathematical hierarchy. HUH??? There is a big difference between a mathematical hierarchy and a "regular" one.

I tried to start organising these all, but I'm completely at a loss. — Skittleys (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose merging organizational hierarchy and propose renaming it back to hierarchical organization. A hierarchical organization is a specific kind of organizational structure and shouldn't be merged. The scope overlap problems with hierarchy, social hierarchy appear to have been fixed. --Pnm (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I concur with Pnm. There are organizational structures that are non-hierarchical (e.g., network and circular structures) so I think it would be inappropriate to merge organizational structure and organizational hierarchy into a single article. Ms. Citizen (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI 10.1007/BF02770830 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely illogical
This article is completely illogical. It is part of WikiProject Mathematics yet talks mainly about human hierarchies. Human history hierarchies are the least interesting and least general type of hierarchy. Because mathematical hierarchies and similar math structures must be generalized as if they were formal proofs, I will be rewriting most of the article soon. --Carrot Lord (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lacks important historical examples within groups of people.
For example, the mafia hierarchical system, a very sophisticated system, that displays the idea of nested child groups that branch off to other sub-groups quite perfectly in my opinion. These two well-written articles on Wikipedia should be referenced in the 'Historical Examples' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristerDaniel (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hierarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://wellservicingmagazine.com/sites/default/files/pdfmag/WSM_MAYJUN09.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903231224/http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/journal/2007/vol02/issue01/shahbaba.pdf to http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/journal/2007/vol02/issue01/shahbaba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hierarchy
English 2600:1700:7971:9D30:9814:865F:2EF2:B0F0 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hierarchy
Hierarchy 2402:3A80:109D:298F:50C2:161E:2FFD:DA02 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Hierachy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hierachy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitions
I find the definitions difficult to understand. What is the difference between an object and a member? Why are words between parenthesis in the definition of member? Member is an element or object: element is not defined. There is a second definition of member and now it can also be a node. Node is not defined. In the second definition a member is a member. The second definition seems to state that a member is a node that has both superior and subordinate members. Ok, so a leaf is not a member, but the node above the leaf also not as the leaf is not a member; but even the node above that is not a member because the node below is not a member. So it seems members don't seem to exist... BartYgor (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Inevitable?
From what I'm reading, hierarchy seems to either inevitable or unneeded. Could someone clarify if we're bound to form social, economic, etc. hierarchies?

If so, does it invalidate egalitarian movements? If we're drawn to inequality, then is it possible to overcome this instinct? Western Progressivist (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hierarchy