text:
Talk:Jandek

Sound Quality
For those familiar with his collection and with some audio engineering knowledge, would you say the albums are professionally recorded and/or mixed and/or mastered? I ask because most home pressings done by non-professionals tend to have a number of noticeable discrepancies between volume control and whatnot. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 * His albums sound like they’re recorded in a studio and always seemed consistently mastered as they were packaged, but this is is just my opinion. In order for this info to be in the article, it must be sourced and cited. Morganfitzp (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discography writing style
While extremely complete and informative, even including album art in most cases the writing style of most of the album articles is in need of serious revision. It is written in an extremely informal non encyclopedic tone, including tons of POV, and other things including words written entirely in caps for added emphasis, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.104.60 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Availability
How was the public first made aware of Jandek back in 1978 if his records were only available through an obscure record label? How did the ball get rolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be best refered to the "Jandek On Corwood" documentary or Seth Tisue's webpage but the short version is that it took a long time! There was a mere trickle of occasional reviews in smaller, non-mainstream publications, he sent copies to college radio stations and other magazines and, in the early days, he is known to have sent boxes of albums to people who had contacted him, asking that they be given away to anyone the recipient thought may be interested. Ac@osr 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Do you (or anyone else) think a sentence explaining this may be pertinent to the article?24.149.203.252 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jandek Photo
Why was the Jandek photo removed? Please restore it.
 * For some unfatomable reason, album covers are not considered "fair use" for artist articles. The nature of how he has chosen to operate means that there are no other public domain photos available. Ac@osr 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the response. Is there a page explaining why the powers-that-be made this decision? 24.149.203.252 —Preceding comment was added at 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Collective
Your picture isn't showing up. -- Zoe

- These Jandek album pages linked from here seem to be taken word for word from http://tisue.net/jandek/discog.html#0770 Has permission been given to add to wikipedia? quercus robur 00:22 17 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Vicki mentioned this to the author, and he replied on her talk page (it's right at the top at present): "Authors have been contacted, and have agreed." For what it's worth, I exchanged a couple of emails with the guy who wrote these articles, and I believe it's all legit, but we could always email the bloke whose webpage that is and get him to put it in writing so we can copy his permission here. --Camembert (who ordered a pile of Jandek albums the other day)

 * Let me know what they are like- I was reading an article in a book recently which wasn't sure if Jandek was trully 'outsider music' or just a mentally unstable socail misfit who was being humoured and exploited for 'freak show' value, the article made the same case about the relationship between Frank Zappa and Wildman Fischer- I can't remember what the book was called, but it had Crass in it as well, and The Raincoats... quercus robur 10:11 17 May 2003 (UTC)

 * The book you're thinking of is "Unknown Legends of Rock & Roll" by Richie Unterberger, who has also written liner notes for the Holy Modal Rounders, among others. (From a newbie who still doesn't know how to format his comments).

Real name?
I have heard it is Sterling R. Smith, is this true?--130.65.240.14 06:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The first ever review of a Jandek album, for Ready For The House in Op magazine, identifies him as Sterling Smith. (See Seth Tisue's site for a copy of that review) So unless theres' evidence to the contrary, I'd say that Sterling R. Smith is about right. -- Cjmarsicano 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Corwood defunct? and Texas Monthly link
Why is Corwood's page in the defunct record label category? they just put out two new CDs this month. and the webarchive link to the interview is broken. 70.229.8.215 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That link to the TM article is iffy. I just removed the defunct record label category from the Corwood article. Thanks for bringing it up Cjmarsicano 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain
Minor point, but was Cobain really a fan? We all know his infamous quote on J-man, but I've never heard anything about him liking the music. He probably didn't mean himself when he called Jandek-fans 'pretentious', right? --Leo44 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The world may never know. Chris Berry 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 * That space in the article needs references.24.155.222.226 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and removed Cobain. The well known quote indicates nothing about whether he liked Jandek's music.--SethTisue 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace?
Is this real, or a fan MySpace?--Fallout boy 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I really doubt that's for real.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Loren Mazzacane Connors
Hi Jandek people - I'm trying to redo out the Connors page (it was mostly cut-and-paste from his website), and one of the things it says (and which I've currently left in the article) is that Jandek and Connors have collaborated. Can anyone confirm or deny? Cheers, Sam Clark 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they've played live together three times. --SethTisue 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Origins of name
From the "Music" section: "Jandek's first album, Ready for the House, though obviously a solo work, was originally credited to a band called the Units. As explained in an interview in the first issue of Spin, Smith was forced to change the name by an identically named Californian group already in possession of a copyright. All reissues of this first album and all subsequent Corwood releases have been credited to "Jandek" (a name combining the month of January and the surname Decker)." There needs to be a citation about that, as I don't believe anyone knows where the name Jandek came from as of yet. Chris Berry 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Jandek does come from a combination of the month January and the surname Decker (or Dekker). Jandek says so himself during the interview with Spin. See the documentary "Jandek on Corwood" for a reference. If you select the audio extras on the DVD of the documentary you can hear the interview in its entirety and Jandek clearly states how he came up with the name. - MW 13:04, 13 February 2007

Concerts
Just a thought, but I think we've reached the end of any usefulness to listing jandek's concerts. It's pretty obvious he is going to continue performing publicly, so what's the point in listing every event? If he'd only performed 10 times such concerts would be noteworthy, but going beyond 30 (as we're about to do) seems absurd. Can't we just say that since October 2004, Jandek has begun to perform publicly? Pinkville 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Good point. We don't need to list them any more, unless individual concerts were in some way important.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree but each performance so far has consisted of previously unheard material and has been performed with different collaborators (I think only his Glasgow and Portland groups have been reconvened). However, as it seems that all of these shows are going to be released on CD and/or DVD, the information can and doubtless will be posted on the album articles, rather than taking up space here. Ac@osr 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A year later, I'm thinking a separate, more organized article might be a better idea. I still think it's valid as he has assembled a different band and played a totally different set at every gig (one correspondent of Corwood Industries has been told that a single song has been repeated) so it can't be compared to the normal touring activites of a normal band/artist. I'll pause for now for comments but I'd be looking at doing this in a month or so if my feelings haven't changed. Ac@osr (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It’s the Wikipedia play-by-play phenomenon: When something unusual happens that’s worthy of great anticipation from fans, editors will add in meticulous details that look laborious in hindsight. Condensing this section by saying when Jandek began playing live, where shows generally happened and who was backing him musically during various time periods would be enough and could be condensed to about four paragraphs. Morganfitzp (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

National Press
I was just reading through this article and I saw a mention that a certain magazine was the first to give Jandek national press. This is untrue, however, as Wire magazine has been reviewing his albums for as long as the publication has been in existence - far before anybody knew the man's name. 149.159.24.28 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think The Wire existed when Op published their first Jandek review...Ac@osr 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Demento
Should the article mention that Dr Demento has played selections from Jandek in his "Vault of Horror" segments?207.251.230.53 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous fanbase
What is the source for this sentence:

 * Some of Jandek's allure stems from his small but devoted fan base that includes Sonic Youth, Bill Callahan, Mike Watt, John Darnielle of The Mountain Goats, Low, Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie, Matt Cameron of Pearl Jam, Bright Eyes and K Records founder Calvin Johnson.

Is it from one of the references already given? Sonic Youth, Bright Eyes and The Mountain Goats can be deduced from the fact that they have covered Jandek on record (as have Jeff Tweedy and Okkervil River) but what about the rest? Lfh (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Calvin Johnson appears in the "Jandek On Corwood" film. Ac@osr (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. We should try and reference each of them. It's an interesting list but these things tend to get out of control unless they're referenced. Lfh (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth Date?
What is the source of Sterling Smith's birth date?

64.242.9.98 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question, especially given that someone changed it from 1945 to 1944 fairly recently.... Ac@osr (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Becoming less elusive
Jandek is becoming more approachable these days, giving informal "interviews" and apparently introducing himself by his real name. The gist of this article was written back when he was more reclusive, and some of it no longer rings true. I'm thinking of sentences like:

"Only a handful of people claim to have successfully contacted Jandek." (he regularly plays with local musicians now) "Corwood never uses the name [Sterling Smith] in connection with Jandek" (it is said that he now does) "Aside from that anecdote, nothing is known about his life." (little, but probably not nothing)

I plan to edit these if nobody objects and I can find good references. Lfh (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the first of these is almost certainly out of date but the others, I think, remain fair. You would need to find evidence of official Corwood correspondence signed "Sterling Smith" rather than his usual "Corwood" - members of the mailing list run from Seth Tisue's site regularly scan notes they have received and if they are signed at all, it is with "Corwood". Certainly, the name "Sterling Smith" has still to appear on any Corwood Industries release or any formal communication (which, even now, still amounts to a typewritten catalogue). I'm quite sure all his contracts with venues, promoters, pressing plants etc are signed with his given name but you'd have to find one. If you wanted to expand on his early pre-Corwood years, you would to provide citations and anything anecdotal, such as blog entires from musicians he has played with, would be dubious under Wikipedia standards. For an artist who has truly left his basement in the last 5 years, he remains elusive and very difficult to Wiki - in particular, he has still to undertake a formal interview, the best information source there is for 99.999% of musicians. Despite an increasingly heavy live schedule and the myriad accounts from the musicians who have participated, there is still little we know for sure. Ac@osr (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The bit about "a handful of people" doesn't need to be removed entirely - rather I would add that it was true before he embarked on a regular playing schedule. Does that sound right?

 * As for using his own name, I retract that, because his use of "Sterling" only appears in blogs quoting him in informal speech, and you are right that we shouldn't rely on that. Should those blogs be discussed in periodicals, that might change things, but I realise WP is not a crystal ball.

 * Hmm. I guess I was too hasty on the third point as well (I certainly don't know anything the whole mailing list doesn't know) - but the one thing I would add is that if he claimed to have been a machinist, then it's not strictly true that we know "nothing" besides the novels anecdote. That sounds sort of pedantic, but "nothing" is an absolute.

 * By the way, as someone involved with this page, do you think the "Original research" tag is still warranted? Is there anything that you think needs sourcing or removing? Lfh (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * A page about Jandek will inevitably receive that tag - what "official" information there is would be confined to a discography and a gig-list. It's not worth worrying about as such...all the evidence as to his identity is circumstantial, however well it adds up, and that's not a Wikipedia-friendly situation (check out The Residents for a discussion of a similar situation). I think "virtually nothing" would do in the section you mention - the Trubee interview added a few details as to how he was opererating at the time as well as the "machinist" detail. However, that interview is 25 years old. Jandek is a difficult subject to write about, by its very nature. And I can't see Corwood's sole representative making life easier any time soon! Ac@osr (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * OK. I'll make a few changes, consistent with what we've said. And I'll keep my eye out for any good sources that could be added here.

 * One other thing - what do you know about this? "For its part, Corwood has stated many times that the listener's impression of Jandek's music is far more important and interesting to the principal performer than his original intent for it." (Not doubting it, I'd just be interested to know!) Lfh (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Apologies if this is not the correct way to post here, but my professor is actually doing a documentary on Jandek which I believe is supposed to come out at Sundance this year. Please let me know if further information would be of interest to anyone. DiagonalDog (talk) 6:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Moscow June 2010 performance
Does anybody know anything about Jandek live performance in Moscow at The Sound & The Fury (Shum i Yarost) fest in June 2010? It isn't mentioned in "Live performances" section, but there are several reports about it in media (mostly in Russian, examples here and here), an announcement was posted on Last.fm in "Evemts" section, there also are some videos on YouTube. Nimbie95 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 * See comments on this talk page under “concerts.” You’re welcome to add to the section and support it with these sources. You’re also welcome to take a crack at condensing that section. Morganfitzp (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD you may wish to know about
See Articles for deletion/Corwood Industries. RadioKAOS –  Talk to me, Billy  22:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Interview in The Wire
So, he finally did a full face-to-face interview and it clarifies quite a few things and obscures one or two others. I'm proposing not to do an update right now - unfair not to give the Wire their chance to properly sell their exclusive (which they are doing over two editions) but it's probably time for a full overhaul, as we now have some detail made clear in the man's own words and it's also time to take the live shows out and into a separate article, I feel; he plays all the time now although the fact that it is always a different set and almost always with different musicians would justify an article, I think. Ac@osr (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that enough time has passed, I think it's fair game to start incorporating things from that fine two-part article into his own article. I'm going to do a couple of things right now along those lines, and anyone (you included, obviously) that wants to go for it can do so. CJ Marsicano (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Just wanted to thank editors for the waiting period between The Wire's publication and WP adding the information. I think this is the first time I've encountered editors showing this particular form of respect toward a publication and its exclusive story. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 * FWIW Jandek has an entire chapter devoted to him in Irwin Chusid's book "Songs in the Key of Z", available here:

 * http://www.amazon.com/Songs-Key-Curious-Universe-Outsider/dp/1556523726/

 * Considering that this book has been available for 15 years, I'm a little surprised that it's not cited for any of the information in the article.

 * And BTW, Jandek's birth name is not "The Representative from Corwood." :)
 * 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

there is a paragraph repeated in the intro section
the paragraph appear twice

This article is beyond saving
This article is a feature-length novel of unsourced claims and needs to be blown up. I would do it myself but I don't want to bother with the inevitable edit wars. People close to the subject seem to be carefully watching this page like a hawk. ili (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the 15 years I've been here, the project's biggest failure is abandoning any sort of real-world sense of what "the sum of all human knowledge" entails in favor of mindlessly repeating cherry-picked sources and attempting to use the mere presence or absence of such to define the knowledge base. This goes far in explaining why "the sum of all human knowledge" has been quantified as containing 100-million-plus articles, while the project has only accomplished slightly more than five percent of that goal in 20+ years.  Looking at this through real-world eyes and existing sources, the utter mystery surrounding Jandek and these recordings constitutes a large part of why people would even care about this topic.  I'm not sure that turning this into yet another mindless exercise of statement-citation-statement-citation-statement-citation while failing to shine any light on the topic would do it justice.  I think the real problem is the intricate detail about live performances and other details of recent years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to respectfully disagree with your pov. I enjoy using Wikipedia for the purposes that it was designed for, which is to gather a quick summary of what news media, books, and articles have published about a given subject. Just the facts, please. Geeky trivia, hearsay, rumors, and crowdsourced press releases is the domain of YouTube video essays, blogs, and "fandom" Wikis. Everything has its time and place. ili (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it all up. RF23 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jandek


text:
And/or

And/or is an English grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more (or even all) of the cases it connects may occur. It is used as an inclusive or (as in logic and mathematics), because saying "or" in spoken language (or writing "or") might be inclusive or exclusive.

The construction has been used in official, legal and business documents since the mid-19th century, and evidence of broader use appears in the 20th century. It has been criticized as both ugly in style—by many style guides, including the classic The Elements of Style (from William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White)—and ambiguous in legal documents—by American and British courts.

Alternatives
Two alternatives have been proposed. The first is to (for just two items) replace and/or with "x or y or both." The second is to simply choose which of and or or to use.

Mutual exclusivity
The word or does not entail mutual exclusivity by itself. The word either can be used to convey mutual exclusivity. "When using either as a conjunction, [it can be applied] to more than two elements in a series." Thus,"'He will eat either cake, pie, or brownies'"

appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive. If the function of or is clear from the context, it is not necessary to use either as a conjunction:

"Person 1: You may select one item for dessert. Person 2: What are my choices? Person 1: You may eat cake, pie, or brownies."

Criticism
References on English usage strongly criticize the phrase as "ugly" and "Janus-faced". William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, in their classic The Elements of Style–recognized by Time one of the 100 best and most influential non-fiction books written in English since 1923, say and/or is "A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity". Roy H. Copperud, in A Dictionary of Usage and Style, says that the phrase is "Objectionable to many, who regard it as a legalism".

Legal criticism
The phrase has come under criticism in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad", an "accuracy-destroying symbol", and "meaningless". In a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion from 1935, Justice Fowler referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor phrase, the child of a brain of someone too lazy or too dull to know what he did mean". The Kentucky Supreme Court has said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers". Finally, the Florida Supreme Court has denounced the use of "and/or", stating "...we take our position with that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use. It is one of those inexcusable barbarisms which were sired by indolence and damned by indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the vernacular of Uncle Remus has in Holy Writ. I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes current. The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English."

Other authorities point out that it is usually quite unambiguous and can be the most efficient way to indicate the inclusive or in some contexts. Kenneth Adams, lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Alan S. Kaye, professor of linguistics at California State University, write, "It does, after all, have a specific meaning—X and/or Y means X or Y or both." However, the authors state that it should not be used in language of obligation.

The legal usage authority Bryan A. Garner stated that use of the term is particularly harmful in legal writing because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits them, the and or the or. Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.

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

title: And/or


text:
Republic of Hawaii

The Republic of Hawaii (Hawaiian: Lepupalika o Hawaii) was a short-lived one-party state in Hawaii between July 4, 1894, when the Provisional Government of Hawaii had ended, and August 12, 1898, when it became annexed by the United States as an unincorporated and unorganized territory. In 1893, the Committee of Public Safety overthrew Queen Liliuokalani, the monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, after she rejected the 1887 Bayonet Constitution. The Committee of Public Safety intended for Hawaii to be annexed by the United States; however, President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat opposed to imperialism, refused. A new constitution was subsequently written while Hawaii was being prepared for annexation.

The leaders of the Republic, such as Sanford B. Dole and Lorrin A. Thurston, were Hawaii-born descendants of American settlers who spoke the Hawaiian language but had strong financial, political, and family ties to the United States. They intended the Republic to become a territory of the United States. Dole was a former member of the Royal Legislature from Koloa, Kauai, and Justice of the Kingdom's Supreme Court, and he appointed Thurston—who had served as Minister of the Interior under King Kalākaua—to lead a lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., to secure Hawaii's annexation by the United States. The issue of overseas imperialism was controversial in the United States due to its colonial origins. Hawaii was annexed under Republican President William McKinley on 12 August 1898, during the Spanish–American War. The Territory of Hawaii was formally established as part of the U.S. on June 14, 1900.

The Blount Report "first provided evidence that officially identified the United States' complicity in the lawless overthrow of the lawful, peaceful government of Hawaii." American officials immediately recognized the new government and troops from the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) were sent by the U.S. Minister to aid in the overthrow. The Queen's supporters claimed that the Marines presence frightened the Queen and thus enabled the revolution. Blount concluded that the United States had carried out unauthorized partisan activities, including the landing of U.S. Marines under a false or exaggerated pretext, to support the anti-royalist conspirators; that these actions were instrumental to the success of the revolution; and that the revolution was carried out against the wishes of a majority of the population of Hawaii.

Establishment of the Republic

In 1887, members of the Reform Party of Hawaii forced the King to accept a new constitution limiting the monarch's constitutional power as defined by the Constitution of 1864. The Constitution of 1887, also called the Bayonet Constitution for the threats used to secure the King's approval, was enacted without legislative approval, leaving the monarch as a figurehead. In 1893, a coup d'état against the monarch was carried out by more than 1,000 armed local men who were led by wealthy sugar planters and businessmen. There was no bloodshed as the royal armed forces did not resist. A temporary Provisional Government of Hawaii was formed by the Committee of Safety. The leaders of the coup, who had strong economic ties with the United States, wanted Hawaii to join the United States, lest the Japanese Empire take control. Annexation was delayed by two petitions with over 20,000 signatures representing over half of the Native Hawaiian population. Because U.S. President Cleveland opposed annexation, the Queen herself took up residence in Washington to lobby for her restoration.

President Cleveland sent an investigator who wrote the Blount Report, which concluded that Minister Stevens had manipulated and orchestrated the revolt. Cleveland decided that the United States should restore the Queen; he asked for Dole's resignation; however, Dole ignored the request. The U.S. Senate held hearings regarding another report called the Morgan Report, which undermined the Blount Report's claims. Public opinion in the United States favored annexation. In May 1894 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution opposing restoration of the Queen, opposing intrusion into the affairs of the Dole government, and opposing American action that could lead immediately to annexation. President Cleveland thereupon dropped the issue, leaving the Republic of Hawaii to effectively fend for itself.

The Provisional Government convened a constitutional convention, limited to Hawaiians, and taxpayers of American or European origins, not including Asians.

Politics
The President of Hawaii was the head of state and head of government of the Republic of Hawaii. The constitution provided that the presidential term of office would be six years and specified that individuals could not be elected to consecutive terms in office. The President had the authority to veto legislation, which could be overridden by two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature, and he was also commander-in-chief of the military. The President appointed, subject to the confirmation of the Senate, members of his Cabinet. Cabinet members were considered users of both houses of the Legislature, they could participate in proceedings, but could not vote as they were not elected members of the Legislature. If the presidency became vacant, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could serve as Acting President until the Legislature voted to elect a successor.

Article 23 of the constitution of 1894 specifically named Sanford B. Dole as the republic's first President. He would also be the nation's only President, as it was annexed by the United States in 1898. Upon annexation, Hawaii became a U.S. territory and Dole became its first Governor.

The republic's Legislature consisted of a senate and a house of representatives. Each had fifteen members with the former having six-year terms and the latter only two with the exception of the first legislature which was constitutionally granted a three-year term. Appropriation bills originated from the Minister of Finance and were delivered to the Senate. The Senate also held the right to confirm presidential appointments and ratify treaties which made it more powerful in every aspect over the lower house. It was possible for legislators to concurrently serve as president, Cabinet minister, or Supreme Court justice.

As royalists had boycotted the republic and refused to take the oath of allegiance to run for office, the American Union Party won every seat in the 1894 and 1897 elections. There was also a property requirement of $1500 net worth to vote for Senators, kept from the 1887 constitution, which ran counter to the prevailing trends of that period. The 1897 election had the lowest turnout in Hawaii's history with less than one percent of the population going to the polls. The new Republic Constitution allowed only men that were natural born citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, or naturalized Citizens of the Kingdom to vote in the new Republic. This eliminated most all Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, and European immigrants from voting. As a result, Native Hawaiians had a two-thirds majority voting block and were the highest represented group in the Republic Legislature. The Speaker of the House of the Republic was also a Hawaiian, John Lot Kaulukoʻu.

Wilcox Rebellion of 1895

Robert William Wilcox was a Hawaiian native revolutionary. In 1889, he led an army of 150 Hawaiians, Europeans and Chinese in rebellion against the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1895, Wilcox participated in another attempt, this time to overthrow the Republic of Hawaii and to restore Queen Liliuokalani to power. Royalist supporters landed a cargo of arms and ammunition from San Francisco, California in a secret Honolulu location. At the location on January 6, 1895, a company of royalists met to draft plans to capture the government buildings by surprise. A premature encounter with a squad of police alarmed Honolulu and the plans were abandoned as the royalists were quickly routed. Wilcox spent several days in hiding in the mountains before being captured. The son of one annexationist was killed. Several other skirmishes occurred during the following week resulting in the capture of the leading conspirators and their followers. The government found arms and ammunition and some potentially evidential documents on the premises of Washington Place, Liliuokalani's private residence, outlining in her own handwriting who she would select for her cabinet after the counter revolution, further implicating her in the plot.

Liliuokalani's trial

The Republic of Hawaii put the former Queen on trial. The prosecution asserted that Liliuokalani had committed misprision of treason, because she allegedly knew that guns and bombs for the Wilcox attempted counter-revolution had been hidden in the flower bed of her personal residence at Washington Place. Liliuokalani denied these accusations.

She was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of $10,000. However, the imprisonment was served in a large bedroom with a piano, bathroom with hot and cold running water bathtub and sink at Iolani Palace where she was allowed two maids in waiting while under guard by military personnel at all times. After eight months she was allowed to go to her Washington Place home and kept under house arrest by President Sanford B. Dole. A year later she was granted a full pardon, including the right to travel, and President Dole gave her a passport to travel to Washington D.C. to visit her friends and in-laws. However, she used that opportunity to lobby the U.S. Senate in 1897 against annexation.

End and annexation of the Republic

Upon the inauguration of William McKinley as the 25th President of the United States on March 4, 1897, the Republic of Hawaii resumed negotiations for annexation, which continued into the summer of 1898. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain, and Republic of Hawaii declared its neutrality. In practice, it gave enormous support to the United States, demonstrating its value as a naval base in wartime, and winning widespread American approval for its non-neutral behavior.

With the opposition weakened, Hawaii was annexed by means of the Newlands Resolution, which required only a majority vote in both houses. Most of the support came from Republicans. It passed the house by a vote of 209 to 91. It was approved on July 4, 1898, and signed on July 7 by McKinley. The transfer of sovereignty over the Hawaiian islands took place on August 12, 1898, with the lowering of the Flag of Hawaii and hoisting of the "Stars and Stripes" flag of the United States over the former royal Iolani Palace in its place. It was renamed from the Republic of Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii, which was formally organized as an organized incorporated territory of the United States two years later.

Popular controversy
The issue of annexation became a major political issue heatedly debated across the United States, which carried over into the 1900 presidential election. By then the national consensus was in favor of the annexation of both Hawaii and the Philippines.

Historian Henry Graff says that in the mid-1890s, "Public opinion at home seemed to indicate acquiescence.... Unmistakably, the sentiment at home was maturing with immense force for the United States to join the great powers of the world in a quest for overseas colonies."

President Cleveland's biographer Alyn Brodsky argues his position was a deeply personal conviction that would not tolerate an immoral action against the little kingdom:
 * Just as he stood up for the Samoan Islands against Germany because he opposed the conquest of a lesser state by a greater one, so did he stand up for the Hawaiian Islands against his own nation. He could have let the annexation of Hawaii move inexorably to its inevitable culmination. But he opted for confrontation, which he hated, as it was to him the only way a weak and defenseless people might retain their independence. It was not the idea of annexation that Grover Cleveland opposed, but the idea of annexation as a pretext for illicit territorial acquisition.

Cleveland had to mobilize support from Southern Democrats to fight the treaty. He sent former Georgia Congressman James H. Blount as a special representative to Hawaii to investigate and provide a solution. Blount was well known for his opposition to imperialism. Blount was also a leader in the white supremacy movement that in the 1890s was ending the right to vote by southern Blacks. Some observers speculated he would support annexation on grounds of the inability of the Asiatics to govern themselves. Instead, Blount opposed imperialism, and called for the U.S. military to restore Queen Liliuokalani. He argued that the Hawaii natives should be allowed to continue their "Asiatic ways."

A vigorous nationwide anti-expansionist movement, organized as the American Anti-Imperialist League, emerged that listened to Cleveland and Carl Schurz, as well as Democratic leader William Jennings Bryan, industrialist Andrew Carnegie, author Mark Twain, and sociologist William Graham Sumner. The anti-imperialists opposed expansion, believing that imperialism violated the fundamental principle that just republican government must derive from "consent of the governed." The League argued that such activity would necessitate the abandonment of American ideals of self-government and non-intervention—ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's Farewell Address and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

However, the Antis could not stop the even more energetic forces of imperialism. They were led by Secretary of State John Hay, naval strategist Alfred T. Mahan, Republican congressman Henry Cabot Lodge, Secretary of War Elihu Root, and young politician Theodore Roosevelt. These expansionists had vigorous support from newspaper publishers William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, whipping up popular excitement. Mahan and Roosevelt took the forging a global strategy calling for a competitive modern navy, Pacific bases, an isthmian canal through Nicaragua or Panama, and, above all, an assertive role for America as the largest industrial power. President McKinley's position was that Hawaii could never survive on its own. It would quickly be gobbled up by Japan—already a fourth of the islands' population was Japanese. Japan would then dominate the Pacific and undermine American hopes for large-scale trade with Asia.

title: Republic of Hawaii


text:
Sanford B. Dole

Sanford Ballard Dole (April 23, 1844 – June 9, 1926) was a Hawaii-born lawyer and jurist. He lived through the periods when Hawaii was a kingdom, provisional government, republic, and territory. Dole advocated the westernization of Hawaiian government and culture. After the overthrow of the monarchy, he served as the President of the Republic of Hawaii until his government secured Hawaii's annexation by the United States.

Early years
Dole was born April 23, 1844, in Honolulu to Protestant Christian missionaries from Maine in the United States. His father was Daniel Dole (1808–1878), principal at Oahu College (known as Punahou School after 1934), and his mother was Emily Hoyt Ballard (1808–1844). His mother died from complications within a few days of his birth. Dole was named after his maternal uncle, Sanford K. Ballard, a classmate of his father's at Bowdoin College who died in 1841. He was nursed by a native Hawaiian, and his father married Charlotte Close Knapp in 1846. In 1855 the family moved to Kōloa on the island of Kauaii, where they operated another school, which Sanford attended.

Dole attended Oahu College for one year and then Williams College in 1866–1867. He worked in a law office in Boston for another year, at this time in the United States admission to the bar was by reading for the bar and thirty years later he would receive an honorary LL.D. degree from Williams, in 1897, in recognition of his service as the first and only elected president of Hawaii.

In 1873 he married Anna Prentice Cate. In December 1880 he was commissioned as a Notary Public in Honolulu. Dole won the 1884 and 1886 elections to the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a representative from Kauai, serving from 1884 to 1887, during which time he was active in securing the constitution of 1887.

Bayonet Constitution
In June 1887 local businessmen, sugar planters, and politicians backed by the Honolulu Rifles forced the dismissal of the cabinet of controversial Walter M. Gibson and forced the adoption of the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The new documents limited voting rights to the literate males of Hawaiian, European, and American descent, while imposing income and wealth requirements to be eligible to vote for the House of Nobles. This effectively consolidated power among the elite residents of the island. In addition, the new Constitution minimized the power of the Monarch in favor of more influential governance by the cabinet. Dole and other lawyers of American descent drafted this document, which became known as the "Bayonet Constitution".

King Kalākaua appointed Dole a justice of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Hawaii on December 28, 1887, and to a commission to revise judiciary laws on January 24, 1888. After Kalākaua's death, his sister Queen Liliuokalani appointed him to her Privy Council on August 31, 1891.

End of the monarchy

The monarchy ended on January 17, 1893, after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii organized by many of the same actors involved in the 1887 revolt. Although Dole declined to officially be part of the Committee of Safety, he helped draft their declaration.

Dole was named president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii that was formed after the coup and was recognized within 48 hours by all nations with diplomatic ties to the Kingdom of Hawaii, including the United Kingdom. His cabinet (called the "executive council") included James A. King as minister of the interior, William Owen Smith as attorney general, and banker Peter Cushman Jones as minister of finance. Dole acted as Minister of Foreign Affairs himself until February 15, 1894. Later Samuel Mills Damon would serve as Minister of Finance.

With Grover Cleveland's election as President of the United States, the Provisional Government's hopes of annexation were derailed for a time. Indeed, Cleveland tried to directly help reinstate the monarchy, after an investigation led by James Henderson Blount. The Blount Report of July 17, 1893, commissioned by President Cleveland, concluded that the Committee of Safety conspired with U.S. ambassador John L. Stevens to land the United States Marine Corps, to forcibly remove Queen Lilikalani from power, and declare a Provisional Government of Hawaii consisting of members from the Committee of Safety.

On November 16, 1893, Albert Willis presented the Queen with Cleveland's request that she grant amnesty to the revolutionists in return for being restored to the throne. This request she flatly refused, stating that the revolutionists should be punished and should have their lands confiscated. According to Willis, she recommended that they be put to death. Though she later denied ever having recommended any such thing, her alleged attitude lost her the goodwill of the Cleveland administration, which thereupon recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.

The Morgan Report of February 26, 1894, concluded that the overthrow was locally based, that it had its origins in monarchical corruption, and that American troops had not tried to bring about the monarchy's collapse: rather, that the troops had acted merely to protect American property and citizens. Not long afterward, the Provisional Government held a constitutional convention. On July 4, 1894, this convention proclaimed the formal establishment of the Republic of Hawaii.

President of the Republic of Hawaii

Lorrin A. Thurston declined to run for the presidency of the Republic of Hawaii, and Dole ran instead, winning election in 1894. Dole would serve as the first and only elected president of the Republic of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898. Dole in turn appointed Thurston to lead the lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., to secure Hawaii's annexation by the United States.

Dole's government secured diplomatic recognition from every nation that had recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii, and weathered several attempts to restore the monarchy, including a January 1895 counter-rebellion led by Robert William Wilcox. After being defeated, Wilcox and the other conspirators were captured and sentenced to death, but had their sentences reduced or commuted by Dole. Queen Liliuokalani abdicated and, under duress, swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii, declaring, "I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawaii is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the late Hawaiian monarchy is finally and forever ended and no longer of any legal or actual validity, force or effect whatsoever." She later provided a more detailed accounting of the events from her perspective in her book, Hawaii's story by Hawaii's queen, Liliuokalani.

State Visit to the United States
As president of the republic, Dole traveled to Washington, D.C., in early 1898 to personally urge annexation of Hawaii by the United States. Dole and his party traveled from Honolulu to San Francisco via steamship, arriving in the Bay on January 16. This marked the United States's fifth state visit by a foreign leader, the first being King Kalakaua's visit to the United States in 1874. After arriving in San Francisco, President Dole stayed in San Francisco's Occidental Hotel, before leaving the city for Washington D.C on January 19. On the President's last day in San Francisco, he was given a tour of the Presidio of San Francisco by General William Rufus Shafter, with the military band playing upon his arrival, and also had a luncheon with San Francisco's mayor James D. Phelan. President Dole and his party took off for Washington D.C via railroad, using a private railcar called "Guadalupe", supplied by Henry E. Huntington.

Dole's travels would eventually take him to Chicago, where he was received by infantry and cavalry troops from Fort Sheridan. Eventually the President would reach his destination of Washington, D.C., on January 26, where he was met by Secretary of State John Sherman, and had a short conversation with President William McKinley. Sanford Dole and his party would leave Washington, D.C., on February 6, towards California, arriving in the city of Riverside on February 12.

Governor and federal judge

On July 4, 1898, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution to annex the Republic of Hawaii. Known as the Newlands Resolution after its sponsor, U.S. Representative Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), it came into effect on August 12, 1898. A formal ceremony marking the transfer of Hawaiian state sovereignty to the United States was held that day on the steps of ʻIolani Palace where the Hawaiian flag was lowered and the American flag raised in its place.

Under the terms of the Resolution, Dole retained the powers he previously exercised as President of Hawaii while Congress developed a new Hawaiian territorial frame of government. Later, when one was established through the Hawaiian Organic Act, President William McKinley appointed Dole as the first governor of the Territory of Hawaii. Dole assumed the office on June 14, 1900, but resigned November 23, 1903, to accept an appointment by President Theodore Roosevelt as judge for the U.S. District Court of Hawaii after the death of Morris M. Estee. He served in that post until his retirement on December 16, 1915, and was replaced by Horace Worth Vaughan.

Dole also served on commissions for Honolulu parks and the public archives. He died after a series of strokes on June 9, 1926. His ashes were interred in the cemetery of Kawaiahao Church.

Family and legacy

Dole's cousin, Edmund Pearson Dole, came to Hawaii to practice law in 1895, and became Attorney General of Hawaii from 1900 to 1903. Another cousin, James Dole, came to Hawaii in 1899 and founded the Hawaiian Pineapple Company on Oahu, which later became the Dole Food Company. James' father Charles Fletcher Dole also came to Hawaii in 1909.

Dole Middle School, located in Kalihi Valley on the island of Oahu, was named after him in April 1956, about a century after his father founded the school in Kōloa. In the film Princess Kaiulani, his role was played by Will Patton.

In Hawaiian, the pale and hair-like Spanish moss is called ʻumiʻumi-o-Dole, meaning "Dole's beard". His wife Anna had the bird species Ciridops anna named after her.

title: Sanford B. Dole


text:
Cupronickel

Cupronickel or copper–nickel (CuNi) is an alloy of copper with nickel, usually along with small quantities of other elements added for strength, such as iron and manganese. The copper content typically varies from 60 to 90 percent. (Monel is a nickel–copper alloy that contains a minimum of 52 percent nickel.)

Despite its high copper content, cupronickel is silver in colour. Cupronickel is highly resistant to corrosion by salt water, and is therefore used for piping, heat exchangers and condensers in seawater systems, as well as for marine hardware. It is sometimes used for the propellers, propeller shafts, and hulls of high-quality boats. Other uses include military equipment and chemical, petrochemical, and electrical industries.

Another common 20th-century use of cupronickel was silver-coloured coins. For this use, the typical alloy has 3:1 copper to nickel ratio, with very small amounts of manganese.

In the past, true silver coins were debased with cupronickel, such as coins of the pound sterling from 1947 onward having their content replaced.

Name
Aside from cupronickel and copper–nickel, several other terms have been used to describe the material: the tradenames Alpaka or Alpacca, Argentan Minargent, the registered French term cuivre blanc, and the romanized Cantonese term Paktong, 白銅 (the French and Cantonese terms both meaning "white copper"); cupronickel is also occasionally referred to as hotel silver, plata alemana (Spanish for "German silver"), German silver, and Chinese silver.

Marine engineering
Cupronickel alloys are used for marine applications due to their resistance to seawater corrosion, good fabricability, and their effectiveness in lowering macrofouling levels. Alloys ranging in composition from 90% Cu–10% Ni to 70% Cu–30% Ni are commonly specified in heat exchanger or condenser tubes in a wide variety of marine applications.

Important marine applications for cupronickel include:
 * Shipbuilding and repair: hulls of boats and ships, seawater cooling, bilge and ballast, sanitary, fire fighting, inert gas, hydraulic and pneumatic chiller systems.
 * Desalination plants: brine heaters, heat rejection and recovery, and in evaporator tubing.
 * Offshore oil and gas platforms and processing and FPSO vessels: systems and splash zone sheathings.
 * Power generation: steam turbine condensers, oil coolers, auxiliary cooling systems and high pressure pre-heaters at nuclear and fossil fuel power plants.
 * Seawater system components: condenser and heat exchanger tubes, tube sheets, piping, high pressure systems, fittings, pumps, and water boxes.

Coinage

The successful use of cupronickel in coinage is due to its corrosion resistance, electrical conductivity, durability, malleability, low allergy risk, ease of stamping, antimicrobial properties and recyclability.

In Europe, Switzerland pioneered cupronickel-based billon coinage in 1850, with the addition of silver and zinc, for coins of 5, 10 and 20 Rappen. Starting in 1860/1861, Belgium issued 5, 10 and 20 Centimes in pure cupronickel (75% copper, 25% nickel, without additional silver and zinc), and Germany issued 5 and 10 Pfennig in the same 75:25 ratio from 1873/1874 (until 1915/1916). In 1879, Switzerland, for 5 and 10 Rappen coins, also adopted that cheaper 75:25 copper to nickel ratio then being used in Belgium, the United States and Germany. From 1947 to 2012, all "silver" coinage in the UK was made from cupronickel (but from 2012 onwards the two smallest UK cupronickel denominations were replaced with lower-cost nickel-plated steel coins). Moreover, when silver prices rose in the 1960s/1970s also some other European countries replaced remaining silver denominations by cupronickel, e.g. the 1/2 to (pictured) 5 Swiss franc coins starting 1968 and German 5 Deutsche Mark 1975-2001. Since 1999, cupronickel is also used for the inner segment of the 1 euro coin and the outer segment of the 2 euro coin.

In part due to silver hoarding in the Civil War, the United States Mint first used cupronickel for circulating coinage in three-cent pieces starting in 1865, and then for five-cent pieces starting in 1866. Prior to these dates, both denominations had been made only in silver in the United States. Cupronickel is the cladding on either side of United States half-dollars (50¢) since 1971, and all quarters (25¢) and dimes (10¢) made after 1964. Currently, some circulating coins, such as the United States Jefferson nickel (5¢), the Swiss franc, and the South Korean 500 and 100 won are made of solid cupronickel (75:25 ratio).

Other usage
A thermocouple junction is formed from a pair of thermocouple conductors such as iron-constantan, copper-constantan or nickel-chromium/nickel-aluminium. The junction may be protected within a sheath of copper, cupronickel or stainless steel.

Cupronickel is used in cryogenic applications. It retains high ductility and thermal conductivity at very low temperatures. Where other metals like steel or aluminum would shatter and become thermally inert, cupronickel's unusual thermal and mechanical performance at these low temperatures facilitate a number of niche uses. Machinery that must perform many duty cycles at continuously low-temperatures and heat exchangers at cryogenic plants are the main industrial destinations of cupronickel in cryogenic applications. Niche applications also exist, for example the alloy's high thermal conductivity at low temperatures has made cupronickel ubiquitous in freeze branding operations.

Beginning around the turn of the 20th century, bullet jackets were commonly made from this material. It was soon replaced with gilding metal to reduce metal fouling in the bore.

Currently, cupronickel and nickel silver remain the basic material for silver-plated cutlery. It is commonly used for mechanical and electrical equipment, medical equipment, zippers, jewelry items, and both for strings for instruments in the violin family, and for guitar frets. Fender Musical Instruments used "CuNiFe" magnets in their "Wide Range Humbucker" pickup for various Telecaster and Starcaster guitars during the 1970s.

For high-quality cylinder locks and locking systems, cylinder cores are made from wear-resistant cupronickel.

Cupronickel has been used as an alternative to traditional steel hydraulic brake lines (the pipes containing the brake fluid), as it does not rust. Since cupronickel is much softer than steel, it bends and flares more easily, and the same property allows it to form a better seal with hydraulic components.

Properties
Cupronickel lacks a copper color due to nickel's high electronegativity, which causes a loss of one electron in copper's d-shell (leaving 9 electrons in the d-shell versus pure copper's typical 10 electrons).

Important properties of cupronickel alloys include corrosion resistance, inherent resistance to macrofouling, good tensile strength, excellent ductility when annealed, thermal conductivity and expansion characteristics amenable for heat exchangers and condensers, good thermal conductivity and ductility at cryogenic temperatures and beneficial antimicrobial touch surface properties.

Subtle differences in corrosion resistance and strength determine which alloy is selected. Descending the table, the maximum allowable flow rate in piping increases, as does the tensile strength.

In seawater, the alloys have excellent corrosion rates which remain low as long as the maximum design flow velocity is not exceeded. This velocity depends on geometry and pipe diameter. They have high resistance to crevice corrosion, stress corrosion cracking and hydrogen embrittlement that can be troublesome to other alloy systems. Copper–nickels naturally form a thin protective surface layer over the first several weeks of exposure to seawater and this provides its ongoing resistance. Additionally, they have a high inherent biofouling resistance to attachment by macrofoulers (e.g. seagrasses and molluscs) living in the seawater. To use this property to its full potential, the alloy needs to be free of the effects of, or insulated from, any form of cathodic protection.

However, Cu–Ni alloys can show high corrosion rates in polluted or stagnant seawater when sulfides or ammonia are present. It is important, therefore, to avoid exposure to such conditions, particularly during commissioning and refit while the surface films are maturing. Ferrous sulfate dosing to sea water systems can provide improved resistance.

As copper and nickel alloy with each other easily and have simple structures, the alloys are ductile and readily fabricated. Strength and hardness for each individual alloy is increased by cold working; they are not hardened by heat treatment. Joining of 90–10 (C70600) and 70–30 (C71500) is possible by both welding or brazing. They are both weldable by the majority of techniques, although autogenous (welding without weld consumables) or oxyacetylene methods are not recommended. The 70–30 rather than 90–10 weld consumables are normally preferred for both alloys and no after-welding heat treatment is required. They can also be welded directly to steel, providing a 65% nickel–copper weld consumable is used to avoid iron dilution effects. The C71640 alloy tends to be used as seamless tubing and expanded rather than welded into the tube plate. Brazing requires appropriate silver-base brazing alloys. However, great care must be taken to ensure that there are no stresses in the Cu–Ni being silver brazed, since any stress can cause intergranular penetration of the brazing material, and severe stress cracking (see image). Thus, full annealing of any potential mechanical stress is necessary.

Applications for Cu–Ni alloys have withstood the test of time, as they are still widely used and range from seawater system piping, condensers and heat exchangers in naval vessels, commercial shipping, multiple-stage flash desalination and power stations. They have also been used as splash zone cladding on offshore structures and protective cladding on boat hulls, as well as for solid hulls themselves.

Fabrication
Due to its ductility, cupronickel alloys can be readily fabricated in a wide variety of product forms and fittings. Cupronickel tubing can be readily expanded into tube sheets for the manufacturing of shell and tube heat exchangers.

Details of fabrication procedures, including general handling, cutting and machining, forming, heat treatment, preparing for welding, weld preparations, tack welding, welding consumables, welding processes, painting, mechanical properties of welds, and tube and pipe bending are available.

Standards
ASTM, EN, and  ISO standards exist for ordering wrought and cast forms of cupronickel.

Thermocouples and resistors whose resistance is stable across changes in temperature contain alloy constantan, which consists of 55% copper and 45% nickel.

Chinese history
Cupronickel alloys were known as "white copper" to the Chinese since about the third century BC. Some weapons made during the Warring States period were made with Cu-Ni alloys. The theory of Chinese origins of Bactrian cupronickel was suggested in 1868 by Flight, who found that the coins considered the oldest cupronickel coins yet discovered were of a very similar alloy to Chinese paktong.

The author-scholar, Ho Wei, precisely described the process of making cupronickel in about 1095 AD. The paktong alloy was described as being made by adding small pills of naturally occurring yunnan ore to a bath of molten copper. When a crust of slag formed, saltpeter was added, the alloy was stirred and the ingot was immediately cast. Zinc is mentioned as an ingredient but there are no details about when it was added. The ore used is noted as solely available from Yunnan, according to the story: "San Mao Chun were at Tanyang during a famine year when many people died, so taking certain chemicals, Ying projected them onto silver, turning it into gold, and he also transmuted iron into silver – thus enabling the lives of many to be saved [through purchasing grain through this fake silver and gold] Thereafter all those who prepared chemical powders by heating and transmuting copper by projection called their methods "Tanyang techniques".

The late Ming and Qing literature have very little information about paktong. However, it is first mentioned specifically by name in the Thien Kung Khai Wu of circa 1637: "When lu kan shih (zinc carbonate, calamine) or wo chhein (zinc metal) is mixed and combined with chih thung (copper), one gets 'yellow bronze' (ordinary brass). When phi shang and other arsenic substances are heated with it, one gets 'white bronze' or white copper: pai thong. When alum and niter and other chemicals are mixed together one gets ching thung: green bronze."

Ko Hung stated in 300 AD: "The Tanyang copper was created by throwing a mercuric elixir into Tanyang copper and heated- gold will be formed." However, the Pha Phu Tsu and the Shen I Ching describing a statue in the Western provinces as being of silver, tin, lead and Tanyang copper – which looked like gold, and could be forged for plating and inlaying vessels and swords.

Joseph Needham et al. argue that cupronickel was at least known as a unique alloy by the Chinese during the reign of Liu An in 120 BC in Yunnan. Moreover, the Yunnanese State of Tien was founded in 334 BC as a colony of the Chu. Most likely, modern paktong was unknown to Chinese of the day – but the naturally occurring Yunnan ore cupronickel alloy was likely a valuable internal trade commodity.

Greco-Bactrian coinage
In 1868, W. Flight discovered a Greco-Bactrian coin comprising 20% nickel that dated from 180 to 170 BCE with the bust of Euthydemus II on the obverse. Coins of a similar alloy with busts of his younger brothers, Pantaleon and Agathocles, were minted around 170 BCE. The composition of the coins was later verified using the traditional wet method and X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Cunningham in 1873 proposed the "Bactrian nickel theory," which suggested that the coins must have been the result of overland trade from China through India to Greece. Cunningham's theory was supported by scholars such as W. W. Tarn, Sir John Marshall, and J. Newton Friend, but was criticized by E. R. Caley and S. van R. Cammann.

In 1973, Cheng and Schwitter in their new analyses suggested that the Bactrian alloys (copper, lead, iron, nickel and cobalt) were closely similar to the Chinese paktong, and of nine known Asian nickel deposits, only those in China could provide the identical chemical compositions. Cammann criticized Cheng and Schwitter's paper, arguing that the decline of cupronickel currency should not have coincided with the opening of the Silk Road. If the Bactrian nickel theory were true, according to Cammann, the Silk Road would have increased the supply of cupronickel. However, the end of Greco-Bactrian cupronickel currency could be attributed to other factors such as the end of the House of Euthydemus.

European history
The alloy seems to have been rediscovered by the West during alchemy experiments. Notably, Andreas Libavius, in his Alchemia of 1597, mentions a surface-whitened copper aes album by mercury or silver. But in De Natura Metallorum in Singalarum Part 1, published in 1599, the same term was applied to "tin" from the East Indies (modern-day Indonesia and the Philippines) and given the Spanish name, tintinaso.

Richard Watson of Cambridge appears to be the first to discover that cupronickel was an alloy of three metals. In attempting to rediscover the secret of white-copper, Watson critiqued Jean-Baptiste Du Halde's History of China (1688) as confusing the term ''paktong'., He noted the Chinese of his day did not form it as an alloy but rather smelted readily available unprocessed ore: "...appeared from a vast series of experiments made at Peking- that it occurred naturally as an ore mined at the region, the most extraordinary copper is pe-tong or white copper: it is white when dug out of the mine and even more white within than without. It appears, by a vast number of experiments made at Peking, that its colour is owing to no mixture; on the contrary, all mixtures diminish its beauty, for, when it is rightly managed it looks exactly like silver and were there not a necessity of mixing a little tutenag or such metal to soften it, it would be so much more the extraordinary as this sort of copper is found no where but in China and that only in the Province of Yunnan". Notwithstanding what is here said, of the colour of the copper being owing to no mixture, it is certain the Chinese white copper as brought to us, is a mixt [sic: mixed] metal; so that the ore from which it was extracted must consist of various metallic substances; and from such ore that the natural orichalcum if it ever existed, was made."

During the peak European importation of Chinese white-copper from 1750 to 1800, increased attention was made to its discovering its constituents. Peat and Cookson found that "the darkest proved to contain 7.7% nickel and the lightest said to be indistinguishable from silver with a characteristic bell-like resonance when struck and considerable resistance to corrosion, 11.1%".

Another trial by Andrew Fyfe estimated the nickel content at 31.6%. Guesswork ended when James Dinwiddie of the Macartney Embassy brought back in 1793, at considerable personal risk (smuggling of paktong ore was a capital crime by the Chinese Emperor), some of the ore from which paktong was made. Cupronickel became widely understood, as published by E. Thomason, in 1823, in a submission, later rejected for not being new knowledge, to the Royal Society of Arts.

Efforts in Europe to exactly duplicate the Chinese paktong failed due to a general lack of requisite complex cobalt–nickel–arsenic naturally occurring ore. However, the Schneeberg district of Germany, where the famous Blaufarbenwerke made cobalt blue and other pigments, solely held the requisite complex cobalt–nickel–arsenic ores in Europe.

At the same time, the Prussian Verein zur Beförderung des Gewerbefleißes (Society for the Improvement of Business Diligence/Industriousness) offered a prize for the mastery of the process. Unsurprisingly, Dr E.A. Geitner and J.R. von Gersdoff of Schneeberg won the prize and launched their "German silver" brand under the trade names Argentan and Neusilber (new silver).

In 1829, Percival Norton Johnston persuaded Dr. Geitner to establish a foundry in Bow Common behind Regents' Park Canal in London, and obtained ingots of nickel-silver with the composition 18% Ni, 55% Cu and 27% Zn.

Between 1829 and 1833, Percival Norton Johnson was the first person to refine cupronickel on the British Isles. He became a wealthy man, producing in excess of 16.5 tonnes per year. The alloy was mainly made into cutlery by the Birmingham firm William Hutton and sold under the trade-name "Argentine".

Johnsons' most serious competitors, Charles Askin and Brok Evans, under the brilliant chemist Dr. EW Benson, devised greatly improved methods of cobalt and nickel suspension and marketed their own brand of nickel-silver, called "British Plate".

By the 1920s, a 70–30 copper–nickel grade was developed for naval condensers. Soon afterwards, a 2% manganese and 2% iron alloy now known as alloy C71640 was introduced for a UK power station which needed better erosion resistance because the levels of entrained sand in the seawater. A 90–10 alloy first became available in the 1950s, initially for seawater piping, and is now the more widely used alloy.

title: Cupronickel


text:
Talk:Endosymbiotic theory

Evidence?
As per a discussion with mav on the Endosymbiont page, I've created this page on the Endosymbiotic Hypothesis, by editing the content of a previous version of the Endosymbiont page (circa late Dec 2002).

Currently, I think the evidence I offer in support of the Endosymbiotic Hypothesis is fairly weak, and much of the evidence seems consistent with a variety of other hypotheses. For example, here's an obvious alternate hypothesis (I'm not saying this is a good one, just that it's an alternative):
 * the ancestor of eukaryotes started to sequester ATP synthesis into certain regions of the cell, e.g. to make the reactions more efficient (I'm no biochemist at all, but I understand there are advantages)
 * eventually a membrane evolved around this ATP synthespropose variations on the (not especially good) hypothesis I just stated, or other alternate hypotheses.

Ideally, this article should cite the evidence that more-convincingly indicates that the Endosymbiotic Hypothesis is probably correct, and other hypotheses (like the one I just made up) are significantly less plausible. Currently the only evidence I offer that gets at this is that phylogenetic evidence indicates that chloroplasts are more closely related to cyanobacteria than anything else. (Well, perhaps we could argue that ancient eukaryotes got DNA from cyanobacteria through horizontal transfer of DNA.) It's certainly my perception that this theory is generally accepted, but I feel I don't have all the arguments.

Another thing that would be nice is a historical discussion of what prompted Dr. Margulis to form the Endosymbiotic Hypothesis.

Finally, I think there might be some overlap with the very extensive (but IMHO not entirely desirably) article on evolution of flagella, but maybe that's something for another day.

Anyway, I don't know much about this theory, so I'm unlikely to be able to do this, but I hope what I've said is motivating to someone who knows more.

--User:zashaw

Thanks for laying all this out. The article as is also looks good - of course much more can and should eventually be written. If I find time I'll brush-up a bit on my cellular evolution and give it a go. --mav 04:05 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I added this: Protista with chloroplasts are often more closely related to forms lacking than to each other, suggesting chloroplasts appeared more than once. This could be expanded on - I think the presence of nucleomorphs in the chloroplasts of cryptomonads and chlorarachniophytes has been considered a spectacular piece of evidence for the endosymbiotic hypothesis, though it shows chloroplasts secondarily derived from eukaryotic rather than prokaryotic ancestors. However, chances are a full discussion of the various sorts of chloroplasts (like the probably confusing blurb I wrote on that page) would simply be distracting. Does anyone have ideas on how this could be worked in?

I've taken the "extensions" part out that's sat without citations for 3 & 1/2 years. It basically did a poor job of trying to punch holes in the theory without any evidence. If someone wants it back in, they can bring citations next time. 129.137.215.236 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubiquituosnewt

Credit for Endosymbiotic Hypothesis
This article states that: "The endosymbiont theory of mitochondria and chloroplasts was proposed by Lynn Margulis." This is not true. The endosymbiont theory of mitochondria and chloroplasts was proposed by scientists in the 19th century (including Russian scientists). Wallin wrote a book in 1927 called Symbionticism and the Origin of Species. yo. Dr. Margulis's role has been to popularize the endosymbiont theory of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

Bob Bloodgood Department of Cell Biology University of Virginia school of Medicine

hello

I just checked. I wrote that. I doubt I invented it, so if what you say is right, I obviously used a source which was putting untrue claims. Please do edit the article accordingly. I will check on my side what I can find on the topic. Anthère

Indeed. I found the name of one of the author C. Mereschkovsky. Would you by any chance know more precisely the nature of this biologist initial claim, so we could see on in which direction Margulis work has been extensive ?

I found a reference, and have changed the page accordingly. It really looks like this page relies heavily on Margulis-based popularizations, and I think it might miss many important ideas. I'm not sure if discussing her ideas about the cooperative biosphere is entirely relevant. Josh

Hi everyone, I'm probably breaking wikipedia protocol or something I've never submitted anything to wikipedia but I'm doing some writing about mitochondria right now and I saw something that might need some minor editing in the "history section". According to the book "mitochondria" by Immo Scheffler, R, Altman propsed that mitochondria were "autonomous, elemental living units, forming bacteria-like colonies in the cytoplasm of the host cell." in a book he wrote in 1890. Granted Altman referred to mitochondria as Elementarorganismen but it does seem to me that Altman described the endosymbiotic theory.

Perhaps Altman should be mentioned in the article as his work precedes Konstantin Mereschkowsky? I won't make the edit since I have no idea how wikipedia functions for editting.

The reference for Altman's work is: Altman, R., Die Elementar Organismen und ihre Beziehung zu den Zellen (Veit, Leipzig, 1890).

Cheers, Guah —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Endosymbiotic Theory
can we redirect this to Endosymbiotic Theory, i have never heard it referred to as a the "hypothesis", the standard term is theory. rhyax 04:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm neutral. Google seems to agree with you:
 * "endosymbiotic hypothesis": 798 hits (includes Wikipedia article & mirrors)
 * "endosymbiotic theory": 1690 hits
 * "endosymbiotic hypothesis" in PubMed: 5 hits
 * "endosymbiotic theory" in PubMed: 16 hits

 * You might want to talk with User:mav, who suggested breaking this article up from the Endosymbiont article I made; he seems to follow evolution stuff, so he may have an opinion.

 * Zashaw 23:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yea, I think it definitely deserves it's own article, I was actually looking for it and couldn't find it due to the name. rhyax 05:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * When I was taught this it was still a hypothesis. But it seems to have gained greater acceptance since then. So yes, move the article. --05:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This quote needs sourcing: "Mitochondria developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales or close relatives)" I find nothing to back up this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.164.233 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If this helps, from a reliable source from the book I use in AP Biology, the idea originated from Russian biologist C. Mereschkovsky and was DEVELOPED EXTENSIVELY later by another scientist, Lynn Margulis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmu1992 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

eucaryotic engulfment leading to endosymbiosis
yes, Life on a Young Planet by Andrew? Knoll has a good summary of how various diatoms,euglenids etc and dinoflagellates etc formed through repeat endosymbioses

minor correction
I changed "Some genes encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle" to "Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle". As you will know, genes are not transported from the nucleus, they are transcribed (structural genes are) to mRNA, translated to proteins outside the nucleus and then the proteins may be transported to their final destination. Those working on this article might find this reference interesting: Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles. By S. D. Dyall et al., Science 304, 253 2004

another minor correction
I removed the external link because it was broken. If this article/page is indispensible, and you know of its new url, please fix it.
 * The Birth of Complex Cells - by Christian de Duve

Safay 07:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Helotry
This word is new to me. I clicked on the Wikipedia link provided but it is only an historical explaination of the Helots. Wiktionary does not have an entry for this word. Mirriam-Webster gives the same historical definition and gives it as a synonym for slavery. Is there any reason not to use the word slavery here, if that's what is meant?

Incidentally, I would argue that this kind of endosymbiosis leading to organelle is not slavery. The host is a habitat. Often endosymbionts are maintained at population levels far above what they could acheive without a host. Once you start to get genomic integration, the individual identities of the two, host and symbiont, get eroded and the holobiont starts to become a new kind of fused individual. I was initially excited about the word "helotry" because I thought maybe it elegantly captured this process, but upon looking it up was dissapointed to discover it only meant slavery.

Safay 08:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
Does anyone feel that pages like Cellular evolution or Evolution of cells should redirect to this page or any others. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?   röck  01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Endosymbiotic theory should be a topic within Evolution of cells, if you ask me.  Safay 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Corrections
Corrected some info re: who came up with what. Fixed the flagella not being thought to result from endosymbiosis (which is false). A lot of the info is only half true or big generalisations, which I might fix later if I can do it without being long winded. One of the big assumptions in this article was that whatever was engulfed and became part of the host needed to have DNA. This isn't really true since something bigger (a multicellular protist that needs to eat other simpler organisms to survive) can engulf a simple photosynthetic algae and take apart that algae and basically reassign the use of the major algae components for whatever it wants. I.e. take off the flagella and use it for locomotion, and keep the photosynethic algae bit in another part, etc. Once it divides only one daughter cell gets to keep the original algae, but the flagella might go to another daughter cell, so then you'd have a protist without any algae inside but with a flagella.--Scyfer 15:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Flagella are closely tied in with the cytoskeleton as a whole, and their structure and arrangement is fairly constant within major groups. In any case, transfers are not the same thing as an endosymbiotic origin, which does require them having DNA-containing ancestors (e.g. spirochaetes, as Margulis suggests). From all the references I can find, this seems to have extremely limited support.

 * Josh, I agree. While the flagellum may have evolved from a spriochete (which there is not much evidence for, or support for as a theory in the scientific community, as far as I am aware) I don't think that there is any evidence or even anyone out there suggesting that endosymbiosis has resulted in a kind of adoption of modular parts of cells, as suggested by Scyfer.  The cell would still need the genetic information somewhere for it to be a structure passed along in the lineage.  When we do have structures like hydrogenosomes that are presumed to come from endosymbiosis events but do not contain DNA, it is thought that indeed the endosymbiont did have DNA, but that DNA was transferred to the nucleus over evolutionary time. Safay 00:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Are here other criteria? If so, suggest editing to show less confdence in DNA as the criterion. DGG 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Viral Eukaryogenesis?
Should this theory (which states that the cell nucleus evolved from a large DNA virus) be included here? It seems to be gaining support as ever larger, more complex DNA viruses (such as Mimivirus) are discovered. archola 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not here, but I've added mention of it to eukaryote under origins, along with several other theories. It's difficult to tell how important the competing hypotheses are.

I've also removed some text from this page. Here's why.

 * In other words, the endosymbiotic theory suggests that eukaryotic cells first appeared when a prokaryotic cell was absorbed into another cell without being digested. Biologists still debate the nature of the cell that acquired mitochondria, and the means by which it did so.  I think we should discuss those things separately from their endosymbiotic origin, which is uncontroversial.  Plastids were definitely acquired by a eukaryotic cell.

 * However in 2005, Okamato & Inouye found a case of a multicellular heterotropic flagellate host engulfing a unicellular photosyntheic green algae; the algae lost its flagella and cytoskeleton and the host gained the ability to photosynthesize and the ability to move toward light. This in vitro result illustrates that endosymbiotic components need not have DNA themselves to become embedded in a host - as components of single celled organisms can be separated and re-assigned functions upon engulfment.  This is a good reference, as far as evidence goes; but it doesn't seem to be evidence that flagella are spirochete-derived, or address the main criticisms of that proposal.

Evolution and natural selection
Did Darwin (or anyone else for that matter) ever say that natural selection "drove" evolution, in any sense of the word?

I thought rather that there was not considered to by any driving force behind evolution, but rather that (1) species came into being purely at random and that (2) species which were better adapted to their environment would simply produce more descendants, while those more poorly adapted would produce fewer. Natural selection would then blindly "select" better species once they had come into existence but had nothing to do with bringing them into existence.

Am I close, or completely misunderstanding the science here, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand evolution. Darwin's writings are not particularly clear to modern readers because he tried to fit evolution into the framework of inheritance that was hypothesized at the time (mostly, blending inheritance, although many contemporary biologists questioned that).
 * Here is the (very simplified) process:

 * mutation is random, causing genetic variation.
 * natural selection works on the genetic variation. This is not entirely random, but is dictated by the environment and genetic variation available.
 * this eventually leads to speciation. The speciation is related to random events (mutation), but is given direction and order by natural selection & the environment.  And don't forget reproductive isolation.
 * Basically, it is very difficult (but not impossible) to have speciation without natural selection. Speciation is the results of many evolutionary forces, including natural selection and mutation, but also including drift, founder effect, migration (and lack of migration), etc. Ted 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems Section
Pretty superfluous section at the moment but I don't have the heart to just delete it, given that I haven't worked on this article before. Points 2,3 and 4 of the current problems sections don't belong here. They are aspects of eukaryote evolution that are being discussed in current research, but not 'problems of the endosymbiont theory'. While they are valid points, they should be in an article about the evolution of eukaryotes and nowhere else. Point 1 isn't actually a problem. The way endosymbiotic relationships go it would require a miracle equal to a divine intervention to get organelles that are able to survive outside the host cell. Not even relatively "new" endosymbionts that have been living inside their host for only 40 million years or so manage to do that anymore.

The Problems section is very poorly written, and lacks any citations. The first bullet states: "Some form of transfer between nuclear and mitochondrial/plastid DNA must have taken place..." [emphasis mine], then goes on to say "...or, alternatively, a mechanism for turning off portions of early proto-mitochondrial/plastid DNA must have been in place in early symbiotes." [emphasis mine] If the first one must have happened, then how could the second be an alternative, which also must have happened? For the second point, I'm not sure any reasonable person can say the problem is "easily accounted for" by stating DNA transfer had to have taken place. I'm not up on all the research in this area, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone give a decent explanation as to how this transfer occurs (retrotransposition has problems, in my opinion). If there is, then it should be cited -- even retrotranspositions, if that's what we have.

More importantly, there are no citations. This is crucial when trying to answer problems with the theory. Right now, this section says, "the reason these problems aren't serious is because it must have happened as indicated." Ted 17:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Removed an incoherent paragraph on chloroplast-mitochondrial cross influences (or at least that's what I think it was about. And the even more absurd one by the same web address, 70.187.235.73, both of which you can see in the history. If it was a joke, it was a rather good one. DGG 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Problems: introns section is incorrect and I am removing it. Organellar introns are of a different type (Group I or II introns) from nuclear eukaryotic introns (spliceosomal introns) and derived from bacterial type introns (eg see Xu et al Science, Vol 250, Issue 4987, 1566-1570), so the the proposed paradox is artificial.--Spamburgler 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Diagram needs a caption
The diagram badly needs a caption. Is this a genuine hypothesis of the evolution of some organism? If so, which? (Or is it just illustrative of the possibilities?) Which organisms are indicated by the letters A to I? What do the numbers 1 to 4 mean? Gdr 11:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Maybe the article should have a diagram that includes alternative hypotheses such as the idea that both prokaryotes and Archaea may have been involved in the origin of eukaryotic cells. The Endosymbiotic theory article could expand on the Hydrogen hypothesis. There could also be mention of other ideas such as the proposal that viral introductions of genes have been important in the origin of eukaryotic cells. --JWSchmidt 14:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Without a caption, the diagram is useless. I have deleted it. TedTalk/Contributions 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Polydnavirus?
Should a link to Polydnavirus be added to the See Also section? It's not precisely an example of endosymbiotic theory, but it is related. Kabu 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

plastid or chloroplast
Why is most of the article usingthe term "plastid", when also saying it is equivalent to chloroplast? Has "plastid" ever been used in a broader sense? Has any other organelle but the chloroplast ever been called a "plastid" If not, chloroplast is the more familiar word. DGG 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Yes Plastid is a broader term. Chloroplast specifically describes green plastids whose main role is photosynthesis.--Spamburgler 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor Correction
I've removed the part in the beginning where it says ",now generally accepted by biologists," because a theory is a hypothesis which has broad acceptance and has withstood the trials of time. I believe to state that the endosymbiotic theory has broad acceptance is saying the same thing twice. Also, I am a biology student in high school (going into university next year) and I have never heard of this being called a hypothesis; it has always been called a theory in all the textbooks I've read. MickeyK 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, the labelling of an hypothesis as a theory does not require that it has general acceptance, the term 'general acceptance' meaning referring to the state of being accepted by the majority. There are many theories which are rejected by the majority. Some examples include the theory that Elvis is still alive, the theory that aliens landed at Roswell, the theory that the ancient Egyptians were black, the theory that human races evolved from seperate species of ape-men, etc, etc. Also, notice the use of the word 'an' rather than 'a' preceding the word 'hypothesis.' Also, if you want to do a biology degree, be prepared to do at least a master's or a PhD. I have a neuroscience degree and now I'm doing a programming degree (double degree, but the neuroscience part finished first). Just the bachelor's degree alone will likely get you nowhere or just working as a research assistant, etc. You should look into it. Holymolytree2

 * A scientific theory is one which is almost unanimously accepted by scientists. "Theory" in common speech is what you are referring to, I believe. MickeyK 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't believe that's true. You can have conflicting theories on the same thing, as long as they are both consistent with the evidence. Holymolytree2 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review javascript
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Originally a result of phagocytosis?
If the pre-mitochondria were Rickettsiales-like, intra-cellular parasites... then, perhaps the first true Eukaryote was formed, through phagocytosis (e.g. Amoeba), when it envoloped & digested infected cells ? 66.235.26.150 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Endosymbiosis not endosymbiotic?
I don't understand why this theory is often referred to as Endosymbiotic Theory, rather than its correct title, Endosymbiosis Theory. Margulis never calls it Endosymbiotic Theory as far as I know, but (Serial) Endosymbiosis Theory. Similarly Dawkins, when he refers to it (quoted in the article). It's incorrect English, isn't it? In other areas of biology, we don't refer to Cellular Theory, but Cell Theory; and it's Chromosome Theory, not Chromosomal Theory. The same is true in other sciences: e.g. in physics, it's String Theory, not Stringy Theory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.37.40 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to Upgrade?
This article has a fantastic list of refs. While it is true that the lists of evidence and problems with the theory might include some inline citations, this article seems better than start to me, and perhaps the banners should be removed or altered to be more specific about what needs to be done. Michaplot (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Who...is Banjo Jim?
...Is this vandalism, or just strange-looking and unexplained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.194.100 (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes
Thanks for the recent changes Dadrepus. I have reverted the edit relating to the claims about organ-specific compartments for two reasons: no reference given; and the claim as written is obscure. What are lytic and organ specific compartments, etc. Please fix these issues and re add your contribution. Also, you might want to create a user page for yourself so we can talk to you directly. Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Merge discussion can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Symbiogenesis --prokaryotes (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposed article merger, because both articles can be combined in one readable page. In any case section could separate both names. Though, the differences seem only minor, such that ET was coined later and varied, was more extensive but was built upon S. I suggest to merge Endosymbiotic theory into Symbiogenesis, since that term is today often used in the literature. --prokaryotes (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree, please merge (and redirect from Symbiogenesis to Endosymbiosis. Peteruetz (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Unanimous decision is to merge. As prokaryotes suggest symbiogenesis is the proper scientific name as introduced my Mereschowsky and adopted even to this day by Lynn Margulis, the two leading proponents. In fact the origin of the phrase 'endosymbiotic theory' is not clear. Chhandama (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 06 October 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close; each of these pages still exists. Merges aren't carried out through the process for requested moves. Please perform content merges through the normal editing processes. Dekimasu よ! 00:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Endosymbiotic theory → Symbiogenesis – Consensus agreement is reached after a 40-days discussion to merge since 'symbiogenesis' and 'endosymbiotic theory' are basically synonymous. Chhandama (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Endosymbiotic theory


text:
Coombs' method

Coombs' method is a ranked voting system popularized by Clyde Coombs. It was described by Edward J. Nanson as the "Venetian method", but should not be confused with the Republic of Venice's use of score voting in elections for Doge. Coombs' method can be thought of as a cross between instant-runoff voting and anti-plurality voting.

Like instant runoff, Coombs' method candidate elimination and redistribution of votes cast for that candidate until one candidate has a majority of votes. However, unlike instant-runoff, each round eliminates the candidate rated last by the most voters (instead of first by the fewest voters).

The method fails most voting system criteria, including Condorcet's majority criterion, monotonicity, participation, and clone-independence. However, it does satisfy the median voter property.

Procedures
Each voter rank-orders all of the candidates on their ballot. Otherwise, the candidate ranked last by the largest number (plurality) of voters is eliminated, making each individual round equivalent to anti-plurality voting. Conversely, under instant-runoff voting, the candidate ranked first (among non-eliminated candidates) by the fewest voters is eliminated.

In some sources, the elimination proceeds regardless of whether any candidate is ranked first by a majority of voters, and the last candidate to be eliminated is the winner. This variant of the method can result in a different winner than the former one (unlike in instant-runoff voting, where checking to see if any candidate is ranked first by a majority of voters is only a shortcut that does not affect the outcome).

An example
Assuming all of the voters vote sincerely (strategic voting is discussed below), the results would be as follows, by percentage:

 * In the first round, no candidate has an absolute majority of first-place votes (51).
 * Memphis, having the most last-place votes (26+15+17=58), is therefore eliminated.
 * In the second round, Memphis is out of the running, and so must be factored out. Memphis was ranked first on Group A's ballots, so the second choice of Group A, Nashville, gets an additional 42 first-place votes, giving it an absolute majority of first-place votes (68 versus 15+17=32), and making it the winner.
 * Note that the last-place votes are only used to eliminate a candidate in a voting round where no candidate achieves an absolute majority; they are disregarded in a round where any candidate has more than 50%. Thus last-place votes play no role in the final round.

In practice
The voting rounds used in the reality television program Survivor could be considered a variation of Coombs' method but with sequential voting rounds. Everyone votes for one candidate they support for elimination each round, and the candidate with a plurality of that vote is eliminated. A strategy difference is that sequential rounds of voting means the elimination choice is fixed in a ranked ballot Coombs' method until that candidate is eliminated.

Potential for strategic voting
Like anti-plurality voting, Coombs' rule is extremely vulnerable to strategic voting. As a result, it is more often considered as an example of a pathological voting rule than it is a serious rule. Coombs' method is extremely sensitive to incomplete ballots, compromising, push-over, and teaming, and the vast majority of voters' effects on the election come from how they fill out the bottom of their ballots. As a result, voters have a strong incentive to rate the strongest candidates last to defeat them in earlier rounds.

This results in a Keynesian beauty pageant that is extremely sensitive to minor variations in the perceived strengths of candidates.

title: Coombs' method


text:
User:Kmccaskey

Katie McCaskey

title: User:Kmccaskey