text:
Talk:German Bundesrat

Lower Saxony
Could someone please update the table and the diagram? Lower Saxony is now governed by a SPD/CDU government.Alektor89 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions
Wiki policy isn't to automatically translate every non-english word into english. It is to use the word used by english-language speakers. If a non-english word is in effect incorporated into english then it isn't translated. For example, Kaiser, Tsar, Taoiseach. Tánaiste, Dáil Éireann for the lower house of the Irish parliament, not House of Representatives, its literal translation.

Also contrary to what was asserted, in bicameral systems, the upper house does not have to approve legislation and does not have to be involved in the selection of a head of government. I have rewritten the relevant section to remove this inaccurate claim. FearÉIREANN 19:53 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Well done. :-) Still, you had a typo when moving the page. It's "Bundesrat", not "Bundestrat"; see my latest on Talk:Politics of Germany. djmutex 19:58 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...shouldn't we discuss the Bundesrat in Imperial Germany? john 05:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I have (effectively) reverted the move by moving this article to Bundesrat of Germany. The argument FearÉIREANN makes above is totally correct. However more importantly Wilfried Derksen didn't try to achieve a consensus before moving even though there was already an objection registered on this page, which isn't on.

 * This isn't exactly a revert but was the best I could do because I don't have administrator access. But the two titles are virtually identical anyway.

 * Iota 03:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The composition section is confusing for English-speakers not familiar with German politics, could we add a brief definition for what a 'Land' is? I'd add it but I'm really not sure what would be the best translation.

I did some rewording, turning this passage

 * A law passed in 2002 with a split vote by the Brandenburg delegation was declared void by the German Constitutional Court.

into:

 * Conflict between delegation members may lead to a split vote, which would invalidate the respective state's entire vote. The delegates (or their leader) are not allowed to reconsider and cast a unison vote. A law passed in 2002 under such circumstances, with the Brandenburg delegation split, caused much controversy and was ultimately declared void by the German Constitutional Court.

I don't know whether this is clearly comprehensible, so I want to explain the situation back then:

In 2002, the Brandenburg votes were decisive in order to let a certain law either pass or to reject it. However, the two coalition partner found themselves on different sides of the fence. Their agreement would have called for abstaining, but the national leadership of both parties pushed the state leaders to move this way or that way: mainly Schröder's SPD pushed the minister-president Stolpe (SPD) to vote in favour of the law, while the CDU was satisfied with abstention, since that would have defeated the bill.

The Bundesrat assembled and the states cast their votes. The President of the house, Berlin mayor Wowereit (also SPD), asked each state for their votes. When he asked Brandenburg, minister-president Stolpe (SPD) answered "Yes!", immediately followed by his deputy Schönbohm (CDU) answering "No!". Wowereit declared that the vote cannot be split and asked a second time. Again Stolpe answered "Yes!", to which Schönbohm added "Mr President, you know my opinion!". Wowereit asked a third time. Again Stolpe answered "Yes!", while Schönbohm remained silent this time. After this, Wowereit declared that Brandenburg had voted in the affirmitive. This caused a row in the assembly, with shouting going back and forth. Then the vote continued, with all other states casting their votes without any difficulty. This way, the bill passed and was refered to the Federal President, who voiced his concerns over the procedure but signed it into law anyway. The CDU opposition, through some the states governed by them, brought the matter to the court, who ruled that the voting procedure was faulty, the Brandenburg vote invalid and hence the law invalid. (Later, a compromise between the parties was reached and a new bill passed without controversy).

If anyone thinks that my edit does not makes this clear, please don't hesitate to improve my wording. Str1977 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not represent the states equally?
The answer is easy: political science knows two systems: A) The Senate Principle - one state one vote B) The Federal Council Principle - votes by population relation The German Federal Council is NO Senate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:607:205:0:0:0:30 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

But the German system is a compromise between THE SENATE PRINCIPLE and THE VOTE BY POPULATION RELATION because the relation is modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.222.105 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the German Government hasn't done a good job by having population as a factor. The Australian Government will under-represent any new state that joins up, just like what's happening with the territories there. (Because the Senate has to have half of the House of Represetatives' membership, I think that the first six states will happily let newer states feed off them. :-)) Also, Washington DC doesn't have any representation in the Senate either. If you want a federation to work out properly, represent everyone equally in the upper house. Scott Gall 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I've found out that the Excel calculation for the number of seats given to each Land is =IF([insert reference here]>7000000,6,IF([insert reference here]>6000000,5,IF([insert reference here]>2000000,4,3))). And if New Zealand became a Land, we'd get 4 seats in the Bundesrat.

 * Population

Bremen 664,000 North Rhine-Westphalia 18,033,000 Both having the same number of vote would not be considered as fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the German Constituion was under heavy influence from the Allies after WWII, so its more or less their fault that the Bundesländer have different numbers of members in the Bundesrat. In a true upper house every state should have one vote...or 2 whatever as long as they are equal. Since the Amount of population is already represented in the Bundestag (the lower house). Of course Northrhine Westphalia sends more people in the Bundestag than Bremen. But why should states with a large population also dominate the upper house. You dont need it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.93.154 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * "true upper house every state should have one vote"
 * 1st whats a "true" upper house
 * 2nd why should it have one for every state/or every state equally represented ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.181 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear 84.164...,
 * I don't think such judgements are none of your business.
 * But to explain, the Bundesrat represents the states - it is needed for that, to to play out representation possiblities. States are NOT represented in the Bundestag which is dominated by national parties. In the Bundesrat, each state is represented according to its population. This is the traditionally German way since 1866 and nothing to do with allies. Also, the larger states do not really dominate the body if they don't agree with each other.
 * And yes, the Bundesrat is not a "true upper house" as it is not an upper house at all. It is a completely separate body, not a house of something else. Str1977 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * For precisely these reasons, I'm rather convinced that the idea was a German one in 1949. As, in fact, the whole constitution was, which can be seen in the fact that it was partly suspended from the beginning (in its reference to Berlin, e. g.). Noone knows whether there might not have been a monarchical confederation (which was, I guess, the stand of most of the 1944 conspirators) without Allied influence (a monarchy would have been totally impossible with them), but other than that and of course the happy fact of the liberation in the first place, Allied influence on the text of the Constitution did not go beyond the one or the other proposal, the one or the other correction, and that it had to be sent for signing. It was then accompanied by a "Occupation Statute" which stipulated other rules for the time being, e.g. no foreign policy (at first), no laws without Allied approval, etc.
 * Now what good is an upper house (well, not really, as Str1977 rightly said, but for convenience's sake) there for with unequal representation of states?
 * To represent them at all.
 * The Bundestag does not represent the states.
 * Other than other countries, we have a proportional election (with some modification to get constituencies on district level - not states - somewhat represented) which are intended to represent the political leaning of the whole German populace. Your attitude that "why else have an upper house at all" seems to stem from the assumption that the lower house comes from majority election too. Then, indeed, a proportional U.S. Senate might be just the House of Representatives all over again (though even then, election by constitutencies and election by the whole state would make a difference), but this is not the case in Germany. --2001:A60:15A0:6801:1F2:EFFD:BEF5:6F86 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the answer is easy germany is a democracy and democracy means that the majority of the people decides, giving all states the same vote is undemocratic and unfair towards the population of the states with high population 2A02:908:4C4:2860:C952:37A6:C64C:1E16 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Has there been a change in the seats allotted?
It has been nearly 30 years since I studied German government, but my memory (which could, of course, be faulty) tells me that no Land had more than five votes in the Bundesrat back then—that it was either 3, 4, or 5 votes each. Now this article says some have six. So I'm wondering:
 * 1. Is my memory of the situation in 1978, per Bundesrat voting, incorrect?

 * 2. If my memory is correct,
 * is the change to the current status the result of an amendment to the Basic Law, or
 * is the change the result of population growth, and some Länder have simply reached the new plateaus allowing them a larger vote,
 * 3. And finally, if this last possibility is true, does the Basic Law allow for a Land to eventually have more than six votes?

I'd love to hear from someone who knows. Unschool (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not shure, but I think they've change it, after the reunification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.182 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Unschool, And if you want to see a reliable source for all that, here it is. T om ea s y T C 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is, it is correct.
 * 1) (a) Yes, it is. Article 51GG was changed. (b) No, this is not the reason.
 * 2) The current article does not allow this. States with more than 7 mio. inhabitants get 6 votes. Such a statement includes states with 100 mio. inhabitants.

Ringsdorff
Harald Ringstorff isn't the President of the Bundesrat. Since Nov 1. 2007 to 31. Oct. 2008 the President of the Bundesrat is Ole von Beust, the fisrt mayor of Hamburg and President of the Senate of Hamburg. Ringstorff is first Vice President of Bundesrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.160.227 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chamber for European Affairs
Should this not be mentioned? I'd add it myself but I'm unclear from this text as to its implications: http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_11006/EN/organisation-en/europakammer-en/europakammer-en-inhalt.html?__nnn=true

Penrose method
The table in the "Composition" section has a column showing vote allocations if the Penrose method had been used. Is there a reason for this, because it seems like potentially original research simply by being analysis? 212.113.145.253 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no response in two months, I am going to remove the column because I think it is OR. 212.113.145.253 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bundesrat met in the same building as the Reichstag and Bundestag from 1871 until 2000?
The following was recently added: Since the Bundesrat didn't exist from 1871 and the Reichsrat was dissolved during the Third Reich, I am not sure what this edit was intended to mean. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Bundesrat met in the same building as the Reichstag and Bundestag from 1871 until 2000, when it moved into the Old Prussian House of Lords in Berlin."
 * A Bundesrat did exist in the German Empire, and was replaced by a Reichsrat only in the Weimar Republic. Though it might here be included in the meaning. In fact, you may rather freely exchange the components "Reich" and "Bund" through much of German history, only you'd need to explain yourselfs to those who don't know that and think you're doing something politically incorrect.
 * I don't know if the original sentence is correct, though.--2001:A60:15A0:6801:1F2:EFFD:BEF5:6F86 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't say you can exchange "Reich" and "Bund". As a general rule, if it's a "Reich" (Reichstag, Deutsches Reich) it is more centralized then if it's a "Bund" (Bundestag, Deutscher Bund, Bundesrepublik) Also up to this day the building where the "Bundestag" (parliament) meets is called "Reichstag[sgebaeude]". On the matter of where the Bundesrat/Reichsrat was seated, it is not entiraly untrue to say it was located in the same building as the Bundestag/Reichstag. During the period of the "Deutsches Reich" (1871-1918) and the Weimarer Republik (1918-1933) it was seated in the "Reichstag". It was then discarded during the "Third Reich" and reopened (1949) in the "Bundeshaus" in the provisional capital of West Germany (Bonn) where it shared it's seat with the "Bundestag". As due to it's non existance in the period of 1933 to 1949 one can say that, when there was a Bundesrat/Reichsrat it was seated in the same Building as the corresponding Bundestag/Reichstag in the period between 1871 to 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.32.20 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first thing is actually wrong. The "Reich" wasn't an empire in theory, but just a federal state or even a confederation, consisting of a bunch of sovereign princedoms, which each had its own head of state, just like it is today in the Federal Repubric. The political system in Germany has in many points not changed since 1867, a centralized system has never been in force in German history (excluding the Nazi time of course).

 * The newly written constitution for the Reich was initially titled "Constitution of the German Confederation" and came into force under this title in 1871. In theory, the "Emperor" wasn't an official emperor either. In theory, the German federal state was formed by all the sovereign monarchs, and one of them (the Prussian King) held the federal presidency (Bundespräsidium) as primus inter pares, which was the same weak ceremonial title we know from the actual German Confederation. That's also why the Bundesrat was the highest political organ of the new German national state, much more important then the Reichstag, as it directly represented the opinion of the individual monarchs. It brought all the delegates from each sovereign territory together, just like in a classical confederation. (Actually, the importance of the theoretically weak little position of Chancellor derives from there, as the Chancellor was only formally presiding over the Bundesrat like a Speaker in English speaking countries, being a relatively unimportant office in theory and not even allowed to propose laws. Laws were proposed by the state/princedom delegates in Bundesrat. However, the Chancellor became very powerful in the end because it was combined with the Prussian Minister-President, who was able to propose laws in his Prussian function).

 * The presidency directly received the solely dynastic and theoretically meaningless title of an Emperor (while the constitution was full of the word Bundespräsidium, while the word Kaiser was only mentioned in one article), though initially he didn't even want that title as he saw himself as Prussian and prefered to be President of a federal Germany. However, Bismarck forced him to take that dynastic title only because the prestige that came with it made German unification much easier. So, the Federal Presidency and the German Confederation were renamed as German Emperor and German Empire – in only one constitutional article of many –, but that didn't change anything of the system of a federal state with equal monarchs – the title of Emperor not even being monarchical but an empty thing that was only filled by the person's position as Prussian monarch. (Proclamating William I to be German Emperor was constitutionally irrelevant – there wasn't even a coronation. Relevant was that he was automatically the head of state in his position as King of Prussia, but had (excluding military) the same rights as any other monarch in the Bundesrat by governing through his Prussian delegation – or rather let Bismarck govern through the powerful delegation and as presiding Chancellor at the same time.)

 * Of course, the things are different when you look at it de facto, and Prussia effectively dominated the federal state, simply because it was so large, but that was a theoretical look at it. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bundesrat of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203220117/http://www.bundesrat.de/cln_161/nn_6898/DE/struktur/struktur-node.html?__nnn=true to http://www.bundesrat.de/cln_161/nn_6898/DE/struktur/struktur-node.html?__nnn=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bundesrat of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611183857/http://www.bundesrat.de/EN/Home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true to http://www.bundesrat.de/EN/Home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Government / Neutral distinction doesn't make much sense
I'll delete the current Government / Neutral / Opposition distinction from the infobox and other spots. It is misleading rather than helpful. had an image showing all the parties in the Länder governments. That was more accurate, but also confusing due to its complexity. From 1949 up until ca. 2000, looking at the Bundesrat as pro or contra the federal government often helped understand or even predict its decisions, but those days are gone. The political landscape has gotten more diverse, largely due to the growth of the Left and the Greens. The Länder that are governed by the same parties (Union and SPD) as the Bund often vote against it anyway. Currently, Union and SPD lead 14 of 16 Länder, and they are part of the government in the remaining two, but that doesn't affect the voting behavior of each Land in the Bundesrat much. It's more complex than a simple government / neutral / opposition scheme. We won't be able to explain the complexities and vagaries of the German political system in the infobox. It's better to have no image of Bundesrat seat shares than a misleading one. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this proposal. I will state my reasons later on, as I am heavily involved in other buisiness at the moment. Please no edits, before a consensus is reached. Alektor89 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide recent (from the last ten years or so) reliable sources that support making this distinction. Otherwise, I will revert your edits. Please also discuss this at de:Bundesrat (Deutschland), where I removed basically the same unsourced and misleading information. -- Chrisahn (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of relevant quotes:
 * "Dennoch ist der Einfluss der Parteien im Bundesrat geringer als im Bundestag. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass es wegen der zwingenden einheitlichen Stimmabgabe der Länder keine Fraktionen gibt. Zudem sind Koalitionsregierungen üblich, bei denen häufig einer der Partner auf Bundesebene im "anderen Lager" steht – nämlich in der Opposition. Weiterhin ist zu berücksichtigen, dass im Bundesrat die Interessen der Länder auf Bundesebene im Vordergrund stehen. Das bindet alle Länder ohne Rücksicht auf parteipolitische Fronten zusammen." -- Official Website of the Bundesrat
 * "Doch hat sich das politische Konfliktpotenzial zwischen Bundesrat, Bundestag und Bundesregierung aufgrund der deutlich veränderten Parteienlandschaft erhöht. Aus dem früheren Dreiparteiensystem – bestehend aus CDU/CSU, SPD und FDP – ist durch das Hinzukommen von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, der Linken und zuletzt der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) ein Parteisystem mit vielfältigen Koalitionsvarianten und -optionen geworden. Das erschwert die Konsensbildung im Gesetzgebungsprozess. Was daraus folgt, ob mehr Blockaden oder Formationen neuer und wechselnder politischer Mehrheiten, lässt sich noch nicht absehen." -- Official website of the Bundestag, 2019
 * "Außerdem haben sich die Mehrheiten im Bundesrat oft als ziemlich wechselhaft erwiesen, weil die Länder bisweilen Interessen haben, die sich nicht decken mit der Strategie der Bundesparteiführungen." -- Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2011
 * "Da aktuell zehn verschiedene Koalitionsmodelle in den Ländern existieren ..., ist die Mehrheitsfindung im Bundesrat in der Regel auf einen komplizierten und langwierigen Prozess des Ausgleichs zwischen den Interessen der verschiedenen Länder, aber auch der im Bundestag vertretenen Parteien gekennzeichnet. ... Auch wenn die Vermutung nahe liegt, dass die Oppositionsparteien des Bundestages auf diese Weise versuchen, die Gesetzgebung der Regierungsmehrheit zu blockieren, so lässt sich eher das Gegenteil beobachten: In der Regel stehen die Interessen der Länder vor denen der Parteien, sodass es auch immer wieder vorkommt, dass Mitglieder der Landesregierungen gegen die Positionen ihrer Parteikollegen auf Bundesebene stimmen. ... Auch an der oben bereits erwähnten Mannigfaltigkeit der verschiedenen Regierungskoalitionen im Bundestag lässt sich exemplarisch erkenn, dass die Zeit klarer Lagerbündnisse („rot-grün“ gegen „schwarz-gelb“) schon seit längerem vorüber ist und sich die Kräfteverhältnisse der Parteien in Deutschland stark verschoben haben." -- Sächsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung
 * "...aufgrund der Großen Koalition im Bund gibt es im Bundesrat jedoch ohnehin keine klassischen Blöcke von Regierung und Opposition." -- Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2014
 * -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to the sources I quoted above, I deleted the content trying to distinguish "government" and "opposition" support in the Bundesrat again. Please do not add it again until there are enough reliable sources supporting that distinction. See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material... The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Thanks. -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Chrisahn! First of all, thank you for your commitment to improve the quality of wiki articles about politics in Germany, something that is urgently needed, even though there is still a lot to do. In this specific case I would like to answer your last message in four parts:

 * 1). About the procedure: If you want to fundamentally change an article, you need a consensus in the community. To reach a consensus it is not enough to suggest a change, wait a day and then edit. We do all of this as a hobby, and it may take some time for a substantive debate. Nobody except you has had anything to say about the current form of the article for a long time, so you have to assume that not everyone immediately agrees with you. Please keep this in mind in the future, otherwise you will, I'm afraid, get into trouble because of edit-warring and that doesn't have to be the case.

 * 2.) You are right in the point that sources are essential for the quality of an article. But let me mention your sources here in the order in which you indicate them: The first source actually says very explicitly that a distinction government/opposition/neutral is still of (some) importance. The second does not contribute anything to the topic, but only says that the formation of a majority in the BR has become more difficult. This may be true (it does not correspond to my impression, see below), but it does not speak against the basic principle of differentiating between government, opposition and neutral. The same applies to the third and fourth sources. Source no. 4 seems(!) to support your assumption, but it basically says (if you read the complete text!) only that the BR not only (!) consists of government and opposition block, but that there is also a considerable neutral block, which is indispensable for a majority formation at the moment(!).

 * 3.) I don't know how intensively you deal with German domestic politics and constitutional theory, and I don't want to play the "teacher" here, but in fact the BR currently functions like this: Due to the different coalition models in the states, federal governments have rarely had a majority in the Bundesrat since the 1990s, but they don't need one either. On the one hand, according to the constitution, a government only needs a majority in the Bundestag (parliament). On the other hand, in practice it is very seldom the case that the government needs a majority in the BR for a concrete law, because since the last federalism reforms only a few laws are "subject to approval". Laws "not requiring approval" are passed if there is no active majority in the BR against (!) them (i.E. if there is no oppositon majority in the BR). If the government wants to pass a law that requires approval (an example that has been relevant several times in recent years is the classification of third countries as safe countries of origin), it usually happens that the state governments of the government-bloc vote in favor and "neutral governments" with one other party are added - in practice, in the last years these have mostly been the Greens in the end, while governments with the participation of the FDP and The Left have tended to play no role. Conversely, the fact that there is no opposition majority in the BR was very important because it is currently almost impossible to block a "law not requiring approval" in the BR. Here again, the distinction between government/opposition/neutral is of considerable important.

 * 4). You will rightly object that my "expertise" (that's what I call it now) is not a source. So I point out the following: In my opinion, the article "Konflikt und Konsens im Bundesrat" by Klaus Stüwe (in: APuZ 2004, https://www.bpb.de/apuz/27910/konflikt-und-konsens-im-bundesrat) is highly instructive for the functioning of the BR - even if the party landscape may have changed again in the last 16 years: The "problem" described by Stüwe has become even more acute as a result, if at all, and has made the distinction between state governments that support the federal government, opposition-delegations that block it and those, who are possibly willing to compromise (as they are neutral) even more important.

 * Conclusion: We can discuss all this here with pleasure and I am also prepared to take a lot of time. But we should wait with the edits until A) we have a consensus and B) ideally even more users have contributed their point of view. Until then I will restore the status quo ante and ask you to refrain from further hasty edits. That would be edit-warring, as I said. Alektor89 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS.: To submit a possible compromise: I could imagine to add a note in the box, stating that the division in Government/Neutral/Opposition is established praxis but unofficial. Would this be acceptable to you? Alektor89 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. The key point is: You have to provide sources for any claim you want to add to the article. Maybe you didn't read WP:Verifiability. Here are the relevant parts again (emphasis mine):
 * In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
 * All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
 * All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
 * Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
 * You should also read WP:No original research.
 * Again: You have to provide sources. If you want to add the claim that Lower Saxony is "pro-government" in the Bundesrat, you have to provide sources for that claim. If you want to add the claim that Saxony is "neutral" in the Bundesrat, you have to provide sources for that claim. Quoting WP:BURDEN again: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (A sixteen year old source making general claims about the Bundesrat is useless in this regard.)
 * Quote: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The burden is on you. You have to provide sources.
 * Quote: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. That's what I did. I followed the rules. You are breaking the rules. Stop it.
 * You seem to think that something can stay in the article when there is consensus among editors that it is true. If you think so, you are wrong. That kind of consensus doesn't matter. Quote: Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Again: You have to provide sources.
 * Please stop breaking the rules. If you want to add these claims about "government" / "neutral" / "opposition" to article, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOURCES THAT CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS.
 * That's all. DO NOT ADD THESE CLAIMS AGAIN WITHOUT SOURCES. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOURCES. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about this source? https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/texte/16/20160518-wahlen-in-rp.html It is from 2016 and the Bundesrat itself and clearly says with respect to the new Rhineland-Palatinate government: "Durch den Wechsel von Rot-Grün zur Ampel-Koalition verbleibt das Land im sogenannten neutralen Block. Dieser umfasst alle Länder, an deren Regierung sich mindestens eine Partei beteiligt, die im Bundestag in der Opposition ist. Die Länder der großen Koalition vereinen derzeit 20 Stimmen im Bundesrat auf sich. Für die absolute Mehrheit sind mindestens 35 Stimmen notwendig." -> "The change from red-green to "traffic light coalition" means that the country remains in the so-called neutral block. This block includes all states in whose government at least one party participates that is in the opposition in the Bundestag. The countries of the grand coalition currently have 20 votes in the Bundesrat. For an absolute majority, at least 35 votes are required." I could link tons of those here. Alektor89 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you give me 1-2 days, I will write a Chapter in the article about the custom of gov/neutr/opp-bloc separation and source it ad nauseam. As of now, the status quo ante was restored. Alektor89 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

'''STOP ADDING UNSOURCED CONTENT. YOU ARE BREAKING THE BASIC RULES OF WIKIPEDIA.''' If you keep adding unsourced content, I will report you at WP:ANI. Thanks for finally providing a somewhat useful source. That's progress. The source is four and a half years old though. I tried very hard to find more recent sources on bundesrat.de making similar claims. I couldn't find any, and I don't think you will be able to find "tons of those", but maybe there are some. I'm looking forward to discussing them. But you have to follow the rules: No disputed content in the article without sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Once again. I don't know how familiar you are with the functioning of german federal politics, but the perception that there are (de facto) a pro-government bloc, a neutral bloc and an opposition bloc (as struturing principle, so to say), is quite common, both in publications of the Bundesrat itself (which I have given an example of) and in the media. Take the following examples (I have only taken examples from the last 10 years):

 * https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/parteien-hintergrund-der-bundesrat-alles-bleibt-anders-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-131127-99-05878 (2013) "Bis zur Abwahl hatte das bisherige Bündnis von Union und FDP 15 Stimmen, das neutrale Lager 18 und das Oppositionslager von SPD, Grünen und Linken eine Mehrheit von 36 Stimmen. Die absolute Mehrheit liegt bei 35 der insgesamt 69 Stimmen in der Länderkammer. Künftig fehlt der Opposition die Möglichkeit zur Blockade durch Überstimmen des Regierungsblockes. Die früheren Oppositionsstimmen kommen nun zum Regierungslager oder gehören zum starken neutralen Block."

 * https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Im-Bundesrat-aendert-sich-einiges-article11803036.html (2013) Title(!): "Neutraler Block wird immer größer", "Die Länder mit großen Koalitionen kommen derzeit auf 18 der 69 Stimmen im Bundesrat. Dazu gehören die jeweils vier Stimmen Berlins, Sachsen-Anhalts und Thüringens sowie die jeweils drei Stimmen von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und aus dem Saarland. Schwarz-Rot könnte aber auch die drei Stimmen des SPD-regierten Hamburgs sowie die sechs Stimmen Bayerns mit seiner CSU-Alleinregierung für sich verbuchen. Somit käme Schwarz-Rot auf insgesamt 27 Stimmen. Für eine Mehrheit in der Länderkammer werden 35 der 69 Bundesratssitze benötigt."

 * https://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article112912167/Mehrheitsverhaeltnisse-im-Bundesrat.html (2013)

 * https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.landtagswahlen-2016-bundesrat-zersplittert-wie-selten-zuvor.bafd19ca-a6df-454a-a879-8924a76e01f5.html (2016) "Nach den Landtagswahlen in Baden-Württemberg, Rheinland-Pfalz und Sachsen-Anhalt dürfte der Regierungsblock im Bundesrat weiter schrumpfen..."

 * In 2013 the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" wrote a text about this (look at the graphic!): https://www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/154340/mehrheit-im-bundesrat-19-02-2013

 * In case you are not yet convinced and want something more scientific, I would recommend
 * Hans-Jörg Schmedes: Der Bundesrat in der Parteiendemokratie. Aufgabe, Struktur und Wirkung der Länderkammer im föderalen Gefüge, Baden-Baden 2019, especially pp. 62-100 (https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845296937/der-bundesrat-in-der-parteiendemokratie?l=de).

 * So, this is what I found in a very quick google-search. How should we proceed? Alektor89 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Most of your sources are seven years old. Only one (Schmedes) is relatively recent.
 * We could proceed by adding a few paragraphs (or a section) to the article explaining that the perception of well-defined blocs in the Bundesrat (government, neutral, opposition) used to be quite common, but currently isn't. Both claims can easily be supported by many reliable sources.
 * The Bundesrat itself changed its stance after about 2016/17. The most recent mention of "neutraler Block" or "Block der Großen Koalitionen" I could find in the Bundesrat's Textarchiv is this: (May 2017, i.e. before the last Bundestagswahl). Since 2017, they generally talk about "diversity of coalitions", "no clear majorities", "the Bundesrat remains colorful" instead, e.g.  (Mar 2017),  (May 2017),  (Oct 2018),  (Oct 2018),  (Aug 2019),  (Oct 2019),  (Nov 2020).
 * Most importantly: Several articles published by the Bundesrat since 2017 explicitly state that there are currently no clear political camps or blocs in the Bundesrat:
 * "Grund ist eine nie dagewesene Koalitionsvielfalt in den 16 Landesregierungen, die eine klassische Lagerbildung im Bundesrat nicht zulässt." (May 2017),  (May 2017),  (Oct 2017)
 * "Die aktuelle Koalitionsvielfalt in den 16 Landesregierungen lässt eine klassische Lagerbildung nicht zu." (Jan 2018)
 * Bereits jetzt sind im Bundesrat 13 verschiedene Regierungskoalitionen der Länder vertreten, die keine klassische Lagerbildung zulassen. (Jan 2019)
 * When the Bundesrat itself clearly states that there currently are no conventional political blocs in the Bundesrat, Wikipedia definitely shouldn't make that claim either.
 * In a nutshell: Adding several paragraphs or a section about this subject would definitely be useful and relevant. But simply stating that there currently are certain Lager or Blöcke in the Bundesrat would obviously be wrong. We could mention that some still make this distinction (e.g. Schmedes), while many others reject it.
 * Here's another source: "Eine irgendwie geartete Mehrheit gibt es in der Länderkammer nicht mehr." (Tagesspiegel, Apr 2016)
 * P.S.: It might be interesting to pin down since when there are no well-defined blocs anymore: 2014 (BPB)? 2016 (Tagesspiegel)? 2017/18 (Bundesrat)? But it's probably not that important. Wording like in recent years might be good enough.
 * P.P.S.: By the way: How familiar am I with German federal politics? Well, I've only lived in Germany all my life and followed poltics closely for almost forty years, so... probably not very familiar. ;-) – Chrisahn (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.P.S.: By the way: How familiar am I with German federal politics? Well, I've only lived in Germany all my life and followed poltics closely for almost forty years, so... probably not very familiar. ;-) – Chrisahn (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, first some thoughts to your interesting points: The thing is that the blocs are of course a bit less relevant, if a Union/SPD grand coalition governs on federal level, as this automatically makes the vast majority of state governments "neutral". So I think, the point in time, the blocs became somewhat less relevant (from today's perspective) was in fact the formation of the 2nd grand coalition unter Merkel in 2013, which was renewed in 2017/18 ( as you know of course, living in Germany like me ;), just for other users potentially following the discussion – the same goes for the following in part... ). The blocs could, not necessarily but possibly become more relevant again, if after the next election in less than one year another coalition is build, which I think, is very likely, as no one in Union or SPD really want's another grand coalition. Let' just take the (in my opinion [I could be wrong]) most likely coalitions and the current composition of state governments (which can of course change, as there are mulitple state elections scheduled for the next year and the year that follows!).
 * Union/Greens/FDP. In this scenario Government: 21, Neutral: 48. Results of state elections next year and in 2022, though, could potentially grant this formation a majority, for example if Union/Green[/FDP]-governments are installed in Berlin [quite likely] (+4), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (+3) [a bit of a long-shot, if we look at the polls, but more likely than in Saxony-Anhalt, and who knows?], Rhineland-Palatinate (+4) [possible], Lower Saxony [2022] [possible] (+6), Saarland [2022] [very likely] (+3) -> this would bring them to 41 [and if not, there are more promising states voting in 2023]
 * Union/Greens (in case, the FDP will not be needed for a "Jamaica-coalition"). In this scenario there would be a pro government bloc holding 11 votes, a neutral bloc with 58 votes and no opposition bloc, but expect the more Union/Green state governments to be in office one year from now, which should grant this coalition 20 or more votes in the BR.
 * More interesting (but maybe a bit less licely): the SPD/Greens/Left scenario: As of now: Government: 14, Neutral: 43, Opposition: 12. A SPD/Left/Greens coalition in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern after the 2021 state election [somewhere between possible and quite likely] would change this to 17–40–12; in 2022 a SPD/Greens-coalition in Schleswig-Holstein could change the balance to 21–36–12.
 * These being the three most likely, there is one formation, which would hold a considerable number of votes in the BR and could even have a path to an outright majority (Jamaica), [something which was rare, even in the "good old days"] ;), one which would likely not need that many states from the neutral bloc (Union/Greens) and one, which would likely see the return of the opposition-bloc (SPD/Greens/Left). But this is of course all guesswork and remains to be seen. I would be content with adding another section in the article, which explains the "blocs", mentions the changing relevance of this distinction (especially during grand coalition-governments on federal level), show the diagram there ~"if the bloc-distinction is adopted, the current majority-position in the BR looks like this..." and leave it out of the "box". OK? Alektor89 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit queries
I'm going through it bit by bit over a week or so. I'm not German, so I rely on experts here to check that I haven't introduced falsehoods. Problem is that the text is often unclear. I'm doing my best, but need your help. Tony (talk)  06:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Title "Deutscher Bundesrat"
Hello, I would like to question the title of the article (and the institution). According to German Wikipedia, the name of the council in German is only "Bundesrat". "Deutscher Bundesrat" was only used officially up to 1952. Maybe some people still call it "Deutscher Bundesrat" because of the analogy "Deutscher Bundestag."

Google tells me that only some newspapers or private citizen once used "Deutscher Bundesrat". Bundeszentrale redirects to "Bundesrat." Therefore, I suggest to change the title of this article. Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment: There are several other institutions also called "Bundesrat", as is evident in the fact that Bundesrat currently is a disambiguation page between them. If the title here were to be changed, that would somehow have to be accomodated. Daranios (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bremen
Bremen is shown both in the parl. diagram and in the table below to be composed of the SPD, Greens and The Left. Yet, on the Bundesrat website (https://www.bundesrat.de/DE/bundesrat/laender/hb/hb-node.html), there are no Left delegates for Bremen directly. So shouldn't the pink stripe on the diagram be removed? Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 * It doesn't matter much who the delegates are All delegates for a given state have to vote the same way. If the Bremen delegates vote against the wishes of the Bremen Left party, this would most likely put an end to the current Bremen state government.
 * In practice, states abstain in case of disagreement between their governing parties. For that reason, it is far more important which parties are in government in a state than which parties their delegates belong to. —Kusma (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seats are not assigned to parties in the Bundesrat. They represent the state government, however its elected and which parties are part of the coalitions. The state government sends its delegates and they all (should) vote the same. Aeroid (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

West German and German Capital City
The article talks about the old "West German" capital being Bonn. This article is about the Bundesrat of the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany). Is there any reason why this country's capital is described as the "West German" capital. West Germany is modern Germany. So, why not just call Bonn the old "German" capital? CicolasMoon (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Because there were two "old" Germanys prior to the "new" Germany!? Germand Democratic Republic (GDR, DDR, "East Germany" -> Captial: Berlin (east)) and Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, BRD, "West Germany" -> Capital: Bonn). "West Germany" not only is correct here, but necessary to not marginalize East German history. From 1949 to 1990 two political systems and two Germanys existed.
 * "Old" Germany could mean MANY polictical bodies in the past 1000 years in west/entral Europe. Berlin hast just been capital in such an entity carrying "German" in its name for about 150 years, including 50 years in the "other old" Germany. Aeroid (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Now there is only the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Democratic Republic no longer exists. What we call Germany is the same country as West Germany. So why refer to the old capital as the old "West German" (FRG) capital when it's just the old German (FRG) capital?
 * This article isn't about the history of the German Democratic Republic. It's about the Bundesrat of the Federal Republic of Germany, so any mention of the old capital of that country should just be called the old German capital. CicolasMoon (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think, when referring to a period in which there were two Germanies, specifying "west" or "east" is a helpful clarification for the reader, even if technically redundant. Furius (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you can have clarification and still be technically correct. A change along the lines of "West Germany era" instead of "West German" would be fine. This shows that Bonn was the capital before unification but doesn't treat this capital as if it were a capital of a previous German state. CicolasMoon (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Formally you are right, the reunification process chose the annexation option and not the merger. Name, flag, law etc are the West German ones. Nonetheleass refering to pre reunified West Germany als "old" is uncommon and confusing with history in mind.
 * As a born West German I would object. Both FRG and GDR from that time don't exist anymore. Most Germans that call our country "BRD" will think of West Germany pre reunification.
 * There is nothing wrong in calling Bonn the "West German capital", if fact it's very acurate.
 * "Old" would be ambiguous and I see no value added by this change. Aeroid (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no need in stating that Bonn was the old capital of Germany, someone has included it, I just find it odd that the only reference to "West Germany" and not just "Germany" in this article is about the old capital.
 * BRD is the abbreviation of the official name of the country. FRG absolutely exists, it is the modern state of Germany. Its territory has expanded but it is the same state.
 * There would be no problem in calling it the West German capital if you were saying this before 1990, but we aren't. West Germany is just called Germany today. I have no problem in referring to Bonn as the "West German/y era capital" as mentioned above.
 * I'm not sure how "old German capital" is ambiguous. The old capital of the country that this legislative body is a part of. CicolasMoon (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bundesrat
Bundesrat and it's formation 39.43.70.179 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:German Bundesrat


text:
570 BC

The year 570 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 184 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 570 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Berlin Kore, from a cemetery at Keratea, near Athens, is begun. It is now at the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Germany.
 * The Satrapy of Armenia is established as a province of the Achaemenid Empire. This is the first polity to bear the name Armenia.
 * Francois Vase, black figure decoration on a volute crater, is made by Kleitias and Ergotimos (approximate date). It is now in a museum in Italy.
 * Amasis II drives Apries from the throne of Egypt.

Births

 * Pythagoras, Samian Greek philosopher and mathematician (approximate year)

Deaths

 * Sappho, Greek lyric poet
 * Ezekiel, Hebrew prophet

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

title: 570 BC


text:
Talk:Bicameralism

No Definition of the term
As a visitor who never encountered the word or term Bicameralism before, there is no definition. The first line "Bicameralism is an essential and defining feature of the classical notion of Mixed Government." doesn't define the term, except by other terms (mixed government - what's that?) Compare with typing Defintion Bicameralism into google, where you get the definition "(bicameral) composed of two legislative bodiese this edit myself, but I'm not a political scientist, and want to make sure it's accurate, so would prefer to defer to an expert. (But could that expert remember to write for the masses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.77.100 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia
Slovenia does not have unicameral legislative system. It has a functional second chamber - the Council of the state (Državni svet). It is a weird institution with little power and calls for its abolition are quite common, but it exists and works. So, I guess that the map seems to be wrong. 213.250.34.175 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Croatia
From 1960 to 2001, Croatia had a bicameral parliament. The second house of the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) was called the Chamber of the Counties (Croatian: Županijski dom). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Parliament. This needs to be updated in the Historical section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

etymology
I would like to see a little etymology. For instance "kamer" is Dutch for "chamber". --MarSch 15:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The term "bicameralism" (along with, I presume, the Dutch word) comes from the Latin "camera", meaning "chamber". (Plus "bi", meaning "two", of course). I'm unclear on the policy regarding etymologies, however — maybe it's better at Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia? I wouldn't really know. -- Vardion 20:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A bicameral legislature gave the people in early North American colonization a chance to raise taxes and make new laws, thus making them (the colonists) more independant as a colony. Therefor, this helped them to become independant and be able to control there own nation with smart governmental decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.105.175 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anglican Diocesan Synods.
Surely, one can also regard the Diocesan Synods in the Anglican Church as being a bicameral system - House of Clergy & House of Laity. As one who has been to a Synod, I know this is definitely the case here in Wellington, New Zealand. - (Aidan Work 06:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

Merge with Senate?
The article Bicamerialism may be merged with Senate. Why? Senate is the most common term for the noble chamber in a bicameral system.82.83.104.114 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)As you've said, not all of them are called Senate and 2)Not every Senate is part of a 'Bicameral System' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.83 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian Parliament
In spite of the common use to consider the Chamber of Deputies as a lower house and the Senate as an upper house by Italian people, these two chambers have same role and power. --80.104.178.112 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism
I noticed some more vandalism in the form of "your mom" jokes on the side legislature panel. Does anyone know what should be in its place?

--xxazurewrathxx 23:11, 01 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan is not a federation
Pakistan has several provinces and representation in the Pakistan legislature is partly based upon those provinces,   but Pakistan is not a Federal country. The text of the article currently implies that it is. In fact the reference to Pakistan should be moved to the following paragraph about South Africa,  which is comparable in that it also has provinces but is no longer a federal country. Eregli bob 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of Austrian Parliament
The name of the Austrian Parliament is just "Parlament" (in German without "i"). "Bundesvesammlung" is a joint session of both houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.109.200 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

European Union
The European Union is no a bicameral system. It has three bodies: the parliament, the commission and the council of ministers. Of them, the only elected body, the parliament, does not have any real law making powers. --86.151.51.48 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The EU is actually bicameral (The Parliament being one part and the European Council/Council of the European Union being the other). The Commission is the Executive, not part of the legislature. It can only initiate legislation, it cannot vote on it. On an unrelated note, which you brought up; the Council is made up of Ministers or heads of State/Government of the Member States, so they have indeed been elected by their citizens. The Commission is proposed by the Member States' Governments (elected officials) and is then voted on by the European Parliament (elected officials). If you are saying that this makes the Commission "unelected" then you should take a look at who actually elects the US President. If you think it's the citizens directly then you're in for a surprise! Finally, the Parliament does have real law making powers. 80% of its proposed ammendments make it through to law; a much higher percentage than in any of the Member States! 143.239.103.212 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

USSR under US?
"Congress in the United States which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives; all of the state legislatures except USSR are also bicameral." Can anyone explain what USSR meant here? Is it a state under US? --Csmth (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Senate
The section on the Senate of Canada implies that legislation cannot originate in the senate, but in fact only money bills have to originate in the Commons. Senators can introduce bills, which are designated with an S. Also, the tone of the section is not very neutral. - Stevebeck (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1st sentence: "compromise bills"?
What does this mean? Discuss and debate bills? Please clarify and fix. Thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Justification of Bicameralism
The Justification of Bicameralism (by William H. Riker) International Political Science Review. This is a very insightful paper that favors bicameralism. Komitsuki (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism by SAMUEL C. PATTERSON AND ANTHONY MUGHAN. This is another insightful resource for bicameralism. Komitsuki (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism by Samuel C. Patterson and Anthony Mughan. I think this would help. Komitsuki (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Upper/lower chambers in the U.S. Congress
After seeing this this discussion, I've tagged the statement that "In the United States both houses of the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no hierarchical relationship between them, although the House is colloquially (and incorrectly) referred to as the lower house, and the Senate the upper house. This is due to their original location in the two-story building that was to house them." as dubious. First, the source supporting this statement does not seem reliable enough for us to use. Second, the reference to the Senate as the upper chamber comes mostly from the powers it has that the House doesn't. Namely, the confirmation of presidential appointees and ratification of treaties. -- Calidum 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The system of two chambers is modeled on the UK, where there is an upper and lower house. The lower house is where money bills begin in both cases.  The term senate means by definition upper house.  Senators have seniority (the two words are related) over representatives, the president of the Senate has seniority over the speaker of the House of Representatives just as the Lord Chancellor had seniority over the speaker of the House of Commons.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of Bicameralism
There is no mention of the purpose of Bicameralism. Why is it chosen against unicameralism? What's the point of having two assemblies?--95.10.139.121 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't confuse the issue with federalism
Federalism and bicameralism are independent of each other, yet much of this article trips over itself trying to create links between the two. It's as if the notion of two-tier sovereignty (federalism) has infected the thought processes involved in discussing two-chamber legislatures (bicameralism).

It seems to me that the only relevance of federalism to bicameralism is that some federal states (most notably the USA) impose upon their federal upper house a responsibility to provide a stronger voice to less populous regions of the federation – which may also serve as a justification for retaining a bicameral legislature in situations where its pertinence is called into question. However, the regional-representation role is hardly fundamental to the existence of bicameralism. Moreover, the true value of a federal state comes from the allocation of jurisdiction between the federal and federated levels: not from the limited role of regional representatives in the federal upper house.

– Justinbb (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Guardian Council vs House of Lords
Surely, at least on paper, the Iranian government appears to be a Bicameral Congress, where the Guardian Council acts as an Upper Chamber, similar to the British House of Lords, US Senate, or Canadian Red Chamber (Senate)? The Expediency Discernment Council is only able to resolve conflicts between the two chambers, the Majlis and the Guardian Council, so it doesn't actually hold any of the legislative powers of a real chamber itself and therefore surely can't be counted as a third chamber, or can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.22.182 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bicameral Soviet parliament
Wikipedia's own article on the Supreme Soviet--the USSR's parliamentary body--lists it as bicameral (the Soviet of the Union, the Soviet of Nationalities). Side from the fact that it's listed under Russia (it should be a historical body, and is arguably not interchangeable with Russia), why is it described as unicameral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.170.210 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicameralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223153410/http://constitution.org.np/userfiles/constitution%20of%20nepal%202072-en.pdf to http://constitution.org.np/userfiles/constitution%20of%20nepal%202072-en.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicameralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705153315/http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Arab_Democracy_TF.pdf to http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Arab_Democracy_TF.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721231024/http://www.news-ro.info/referendum-turnout-5095-7778-said-yes-for-a-unicameral-parliament-8884-voted-for-the-decrease-in-the-number-of-parliamentarians.html to http://www.news-ro.info/referendum-turnout-5095-7778-said-yes-for-a-unicameral-parliament-8884-voted-for-the-decrease-in-the-number-of-parliamentarians.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

History of Bicameralism
I feel like the Roman Senate & Council of the Plebeians, the English/British House of Lords and Commons, and potentially other pre-US legislative bodies are important parts of this history. Does anyone else feel information on this should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npvezeau (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia
Regional Representative Council or Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD) is not the upper house. In fact, it is lower than the powerful one, People Representative Council or Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). DPD and DPR are the constituent of People's Consultative Assembly or Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR). All legislative power vested on DPR and President, there is no legislative power on DPD and MPR. This unique system in Indonesia i think it is more unicameral than bicameral--Tensa Februari (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Potical science
E 27.58.62.17 (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ppp
F bug 2601:548:C101:A040:0:0:0:B796 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Government
Democracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.113.216 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Civic Education
Who should we elect as the president of Nigeria: Peter Obi,Alh.Atiku or Asiwaju Bola Tinubu a.k.a. Jagaban 129.205.124.227 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Arpan
d 64.226.61.66 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

City of London
As I understand it predates the bicameralism of the Westminster government? 90.241.253.125 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion
The proposal as written on Talk:Semi-parliamentary_system.

''This present article Semi-parliamentary system comprises of two sections which each contain information on unique concepts. These concepts are not directly connected; except that certain academics have happened to coin the same term for both concepts. I propose that the section on "Steffen Ganghof's semi-parliamentarism" be merged with the article Bicameralism, as an expansion to the content on imperfect bicameralism for the reasons that I have detailed below.''

''The semi-parliamentary system devised by Maurice Duverger is a distinct form of government such as the presidential or parliamentary system; this system cannot be deemed to be a variation of the parliamentary system as it has several unique characteristics: (a) voters directly elect the prime minister and members of the legislature, (b) the prime minister and the working parliamentary majority are inseparable for the whole duration of the legislature: in case of a vote of no-confidence, forced resignation, or dissolution of the parliament, an early election would be held for both the legislature and the prime minister. Therefore, I believe that this unique topic should warrant a dedicated article.''

''The concept identified by Stefan Ganghof can be deemed to be a subtype of bicameralism under the conditions of a parliamentary system; and therefore, it is not a distinct form of government. This form of bicameralism functions in a manner similar to an independent legislative branch in a presidential system. The relationship between the two chambers of the legislature identified in this section is exhibited in systems used by several countries; it may be implemented in presidential and parliamentary systems, and thus it is not unique to any system of government. I propose that section(s) on the Bicameralism article are created to address the various types of bicameralism in more extensive detail. These sections should contain information on this identified type of bicameralism, and address the concept in an abstract manner which will allow this relationship between two chambers of the legislature to be understood more broadly. I further propose that within these section(s) information from the current section within this article Semi-parliamentary system be included to address the differences and unique features that are inherent in this type of bicameralism within the context of the parliamentary system, such as the power of the confidence chamber to dismiss the prime minister.''

In line with the above, I also propose that that that we should further develop the present article Semi-parliamentary system to focus on this distinct form of government in a similar manner to Parliamentary system and Presidential system, and it should be included in Forms of government which currently is not the case.

Please discuss the merge proposal and how we can best include the identified section in the Bicameralism article. SucculentMango (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bicameralism


text:
Battle of Boroughbridge

The Battle of Boroughbridge was fought on 16 March 1322 in England between a group of rebellious barons and the forces of King Edward II, near Boroughbridge, north-west of York. The culmination of a long period of antagonism between the King and Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, his most powerful subject, it resulted in Lancaster's defeat and execution, ending the Despenser War. This allowed Edward to re-establish royal authority and hold on to power for almost five more years.

Though not a part of the Wars of Scottish Independence, the battle is significant for its employment of tactics learned in the Scottish wars in a domestic, English conflict. Both the extensive use of foot soldiers rather than cavalry and the heavy impact caused by the longbow represented significant steps in military developments.

Background
Edward II was a weak and ineffectual king (made to look the more so by comparison with his father and son, Edward I and Edward III), and his reign was marked by military failure and internal strife. A great number of the barons turned against the King and Thomas of Lancaster eventually became the leader of the opposition. Lancaster was Edward's cousin and next to the King was the richest man in the country. Through a set of regulations known as the Ordinances, Lancaster and his associates had been trying to put restrictions on royal authority, but by the late 1310s Edward was again in full control of central government. The situation was aggravated by the King's ostentatious patronage of his favourite, Hugh Despenser, and Hugh's father by the same name.

In 1319 the King and Lancaster fell out during a failed campaign against Scotland. The next year Lancaster refused to attend a parliament summoned by the King, and later the same year Edward obtained papal absolution from his oath to follow the Ordinances. Meanwhile an inheritance dispute had broken out in the Welsh Marches between the Despensers and certain marcher lords, including Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford. Lancaster now took the initiative with the discontented. In 1321 he summoned two meetings of magnates, one at Lancaster's residence of Pontefract in March and the other at Sherburn in June. The meetings consisted of northern and marcher lords as well as Lancaster's own retainers, but little assistance was forthcoming from the northerners. The marcher rebellion and the threat of civil war forced the King to exile the younger Despenser, but the favourite was recalled within weeks.

Edward now seized the initiative and moved northwards. Lancaster convened one final meeting at Doncaster in November and also entered into an alliance with Robert I of Scotland to strengthen his hand against the King. In January 1322 Edward crossed the River Severn and secured the surrender of several of the marcher lords while Lancaster remained passive. As the royal army crossed the River Trent after the Battle of Burton Bridge Lancaster was forced to flee north. On 16 March Lancaster and his army had reached Boroughbridge by the River Ure, where they were joined by the Earl's Secretary, Sir Robert de Holland, and the force he had raised in Lancashire. There they were cut off by the forces of Sir Andrew Harclay, a veteran of the Scottish wars, who had gathered the levies from the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.

Battle
When Lancaster arrived at the town of Boroughbridge, Harclay was already in possession of the bridge over the river. The rebel forces counted probably no more than 700 knights and men-at-arms against the 4,000 or so soldiers in the royal army. Lancaster initially tried to negotiate but Harclay could not be swayed. Since there was no realistic alternative place to cross the river and with the royal forces in pursuit from the south, the rebels had no choice but to fight. The ensuing battle was short and one-sided.

Harclay had deployed his men on foot to hold the bridge from the northern side. Additional forces were placed at a nearby ford, though contemporary sources do not specify the exact location of this ford. The royal pikemen were deployed in a schiltron formation, a tactic learned from the Scots in the Scottish wars. The formation proved effective against the oncoming cavalry. The rebels divided into two columns; one led by Hereford and Roger de Clifford, attacking the bridge on foot, the other under Lancaster, trying to cross the ford by horse. According to a graphic description in the chronicle the Brut, Hereford was killed as he crossed the bridge by a pikeman hiding underneath, who thrust his spear up through the earl's anus. Clifford was also severely injured, and that column of the army fell into disarray. Lancaster's party fared little better; under heavy archery fire his cavalry was cut off before it even reached the ford, and was forced to retreat. This event shows an early—if not entirely novel—effective use of the longbow against cavalry, a tactic which was to become central to future English military success.

Lancaster negotiated a truce with Harclay, and withdrew to the town. During the night a great number of the rebels deserted, and the next day the sheriff of York arrived from the south with additional forces. Lancaster, now greatly outnumbered and with no chance of retreat, had no choice but to surrender to Harclay.

Aftermath
Thomas of Lancaster was taken to Pontefract Castle, which by then had fallen to the King. There he was submitted to what was little more than a show trial and—in front of a gathering of earls and barons—sentenced to death. On 22 March 1322 he was led out of the castle and beheaded in front of a jeering crowd. Subsequently a cult emerged around the person of the late earl as a martyr and even a possible saint. Lancaster had shown no signs of extraordinary piety nor other personal abilities during his lifetime and the cult has been interpreted as a reaction to the incompetent and oppressive reign of Edward II.

Some thirty of Lancaster's followers were also executed, among these Clifford and the baron John Mowbray. Clifford was hung from Clifford's Tower in York, which is now named after him.

Andrew Harclay was richly rewarded for his loyal and competent performance at Boroughbridge. On 25 March he was created Earl of Carlisle and promised lands worth 1,000 marks yearly. Yet Harclay, who had turned down Lancaster's overtures to join in the rebellion, was no great adherent of the King. As a warden of the Scottish Marches he grew constantly more frustrated with the King's idleness, and eventually negotiated a peace treaty with the Scots. This action on Harclay's part amounted to treason and early in 1323 he was apprehended by the King's men and hanged, drawn and quartered.

As for Edward II himself, his dependence on the Despensers grew only deeper and their transgressions more severe. Lancaster's supporters (including Roger Mortimer, William Trussell and Robert de Holland) found themselves systematically accused of false charges, being imprisoned and having their lands taken over by the Despensers. Mortimer and Trussell eventually fled to Paris, where they were to be joined by Edward's estranged wife, Isabella, who may have become Mortimer's lover.

In 1327 Isabella and Mortimer staged a coup against the King. Edward II was deposed and his son, Edward III, succeeded him.

External sources

 * The Battle of Boroughbridge at The Battlefields Trust.
 * English Heritage Battlefield Report: Boroughbridge 1322

title: Battle of Boroughbridge


text:
MorphOS

MorphOS is an AmigaOS-like computer operating system (OS). It is a mixed proprietary and open source OS produced for the Pegasos PowerPC (PPC) processor based computer, PowerUP accelerator equipped Amiga computers, and a series of Freescale development boards that use the Genesi firmware, including the Efika and mobileGT. Since MorphOS 2.4, Apple's Mac mini G4 is supported as well, and with the release of MorphOS 2.5 and MorphOS 2.6 the eMac and Power Mac G4 models are respectively supported. The release of MorphOS 3.2 added limited support for Power Mac G5. The core, based on the Quark microkernel, is proprietary, although several libraries and other parts are open source, such as the Ambient desktop.

Characteristics and versions
Developed for PowerPC CPUs from Freescale and IBM, it also supports the original AmigaOS Motorola 68000 series (68k, MC680x0) applications via proprietary task-based emulation, and most AmigaOS PPC applications via API wrappers. It is API compatible with AmigaOS 3.1 and has a GUI based on the Magic User Interface (MUI).

Besides the Pegasos version of MorphOS, there is a version for Amiga computers equipped with PowerUP accelerator cards produced by Phase5. This version is free, as is registration. If unregistered, it slows down after each two-hour session. PowerUP MorphOS was most recently updated on 23 February 2006; however, it does not exceed the feature set or advancement of the Pegasos release.

A version of MorphOS for the Efika, a very small mainboard based on the ultra-low-power MPC5200B processor from Freescale, has been shown at exhibitions and user gatherings in Germany. Current (since 2.0) release of MorphOS supports the Efika.

ABox
ABox is an emulation sandbox featuring a PPC native AmigaOS API clone that is binary compatible with both 68k Amiga applications and both PowerUP and WarpOS formats of Amiga PPC executables. ABox is based in part on AROS Research Operating System. ABox includes Trance JIT code translator for 68k native Amiga applications.

Other

 * AHI – audio interface: 6.7
 * Ambient – the default MorphOS desktop, inspired by Workbench and Directory Opus 5
 * CyberGraphX – graphics interface originally developed for Amiga computers: 5.1
 * Magic User Interface – primary graphical user interface (GUI) toolkit: 4.2
 * Poseidon – the Amiga USB stack developed by Chris Hodges
 * TurboPrint – the printing system
 * TinyGL – OpenGL implementation and Warp3D compatibility is featured via Rendering Acceleration Virtual Engine (RAVE) low-level API: V 51
 * Quark – manages the low level systems and hosts the A/Box currently

Ambient
Ambient is the build-in MUI-based desktop environment for MorphOS, the development was started in 2001 by David Gerber. Its main goals were that it should be fully asynchronous, simple and fast. Ambient remotely resembles Workbench and Directory Opus Magellan trying to mix the best of both worlds.

Features
Ambient does not strictly follow the Amiga Workbench interface paradigm but there are still many similarities: while programs are called tools, program attributes are called tooltypes, data files are projects and directories are drawers.

 * support for ARexx scripting language
 * default icon library for hundreds of fileformats
 * fully asynchronous, multi-threaded design
 * fast asynchronous file I/O functions and file notifications
 * support for PNG and other Amiga icon formats
 * built-in icon, workbench and wbstart libraries
 * built-in applications like disk formatting and commodities manager
 * panels which are used as program launchers

Ambient is localised for various languages and while it is an intrinsic part of MorphOS, it is also available separately. There are various visual effects in Ambient that take advantage of hardware accelerated visual effects within MorphOS.

Desktop icons
The native icon format in Ambient is PNG, but there is built-in support for other Amiga icon formats. Ambient introduced a special icon format called DataType Icons where the icon is simply any image file renamed to include the .info extension. Those icons are read using the Amiga DataType system.

Development status
In 2005, David Gerber released Ambient source code under GPL and it is now developed by the Ambient development team.

MorphOS software
MorphOS can run any system friendly Amiga software written for 68k processors. Also it is possible to use 68k libraries or datatypes on PPC applications and vice versa. It also provides compatibility layer for PowerUP and WarpUP software written for PowerUP accelerator cards. The largest repository is Aminet with over 75,000 packages online with packages from all Amiga flavors including music, sound, and artwork. MorphOS-only software repositories are hosted at MorphOS software, MorphOS files and MorphOS Storage.

Bundled applications
MorphOS is delivered with several desktop applications in the form of pre-installed software.

Supported hardware

 * Max. 1.72 GB RAM; virtual memory is not supported.
 * Only Radeon cards have support; Nvidia cards are not supported.

Amiga

 * Amiga 1200 with Blizzard PPC accelerator card
 * Amiga 3000 with CyberStorm PPC accelerator card
 * Amiga 4000 with CyberStorm PPC accelerator card

Apple

 * Mac mini G4
 * eMac
 * Power Mac G4
 * PowerBook G4 (except for 12" aluminum models)
 * iBook G4
 * Power Mac G5
 * Power Mac G4 Cube
 * iMac G5 (only model A1145 – G5 2.1 20" (iSight))

Genesi/bPlan GmbH

 * Efika 5200B
 * Pegasos I G3, II G3/G4

ACube

 * ACube Systems Srl company and their Sam460 series mainboards

A-Eon Technology

 * AmigaOne X5000 mainboard

History

The project began in 1999, based on the Quark microkernel. The earliest versions of MorphOS ran only via PPC accelerator cards on the Amiga computers, and required portions of AmigaOS to fully function. A collaborative effort between the companies bPlan (of which the lead MorphOS developer is a partner) and Thendic-France in 2002 resulted in the first regular, non-prototype production of bPlan-engineered Pegasos computers capable of running MorphOS or Linux. Thendic-France had financial problems and folded; however, the collaboration continued under the new banner of "Genesi". A busy promotional year followed in 2003, with appearances at conventions and exhibitions in several places around the world, including the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

After some bitter disagreements within the MorphOS development team in 2003 and 2004, culminating with accusations by a MorphOS developer that he and others had not been paid, the Ambient desktop interface was released under GPL and is now actively developed by the Ambient development team. Subject to GPL rules, Ambient continues to be included in the commercial MorphOS product. An alternative MorphOS desktop system is Scalos.

On April 1, 2008, the MorphOS team announced that MorphOS 2.0 would be released within Q2/2008. This promise was only kept by a few seconds, with the release of MorphOS 2.0 occurring on June 30, 2008 23:59 CET. MorphOS 3.11 is commercially available at a price of €79 per machine (€49 for the Efika PPC or Sam460 boards). A fully functional demo of MorphOS is available, but without a keyfile, its speed is decreased significantly after 30 minutes of use per session; rebooting the system allows for another 30 minutes of use.

Release history of 2.x/3.x series
MorphOS 2 includes a native TCP/IP stack ("Netstack") and a Web browser, Sputnik or Origyn Web Browser. Sputnik was begun under a user community bounty system that also resulted in MOSNet, a free, separate TCP/IP stack for MorphOS 1 users. Sputnik is a port of the KHTML rendering engine, on which WebKit is also based. Sputnik is no longer being developed and was removed from later MorphOS 2 releases.

title: MorphOS


text:
Café wall illusion

The café wall illusion, also known as the Münsterberg illusion, is a geometrical-optical illusion in which the parallel straight dividing lines between staggered rows with alternating dark and light "bricks" appear to be sloped, not parallel as they really are.

A version of the illusion was first described by Hugo Münsterberg in 1894. It has been rediscovered several times, including under the name kindergarten illusion in 1898 by A. H. Pierce, and under its current name in 1973 by Richard Gregory. According to Gregory, this effect was observed by a member of his laboratory, Steve Simpson, in the tiles of the wall of a café at the bottom of St Michael's Hill, Bristol.

In the construction of the illusion often each "brick" is surrounded by a layer of "mortar" intermediate between the dark and light colours of the "bricks".

In attempts at its deconstruction, the illusion was ascribed largely to the irradiation illusion (apparent greater size of a white area than of a black one), and the image disappears when black and white are replaced by different colours of the same brightness. But a component of the illusion remains even when all optical and retinal components are factored out. Contrast polarities seem to be the determining factor in the tilt's direction.

title: Café wall illusion


text:
Talk:D-block

"D-block (for diffuse) elements consist of the transition metals (group 3-12 on the periodic table) in which the outermost electron shell is the D orbital. D-block elements form at least one stable ion with an incompletely filled electron subshell. "

That's not true, is it! E.g. the 3D-Block is in the fourth period, that means the outermost electron shell is the 4S orbital! I'll correct it. Hope everybody agrees.

Is ther a such thing as "25-block"?

IUPAC-Definition (2005)
New definition:

"The elements of groups 3-12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly refererred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.50.183 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed
A Way to learn 3d elements:

Nice memory trick but it doesn't belong in the article. J IM ptalk·cont 08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jensen who?
Are we supposed to know who this "Jensen" character is? The name is used in this article in 'Einsteinian' fashion. If you read an article about 'atomic orbitals,' I'm sure you would see the name Niels Bohr (with a link to his biography) first, before seeing the mononym 'Bohr.' Try doing a search on "Jensen." 64.180.243.107 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I inserted the mention of Jensen on 4 August 2010. At the end of the sentence containing his name, there is a little [4] which indicates that the source referred to is described in footnote 4. In this case footnote 4 identifies an article whose author is William B. Jensen. He is not further described in Wikipedia as he is not notable enough. However the source article in the Journal of Chemical Education (JCE) identifies him as a professor in the chemistry department of the University of Cincinnati. He has in fact written a number of historical articles in JCE which are useful sources for Wikipedia.
 * This is one standard way of referring to the authors of source articles, not only in Wikipedia but also in scientific articles. Dirac66 (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Prof. Jensen is very well known in the inner circles of professionals who deal with issues pertaining to the periodic system of elements. I've corresponded with him myself, in fact. 69.121.117.192 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

correction suggestion
In following text in the article, shouldn't the "across the periods" replaced by "across the groups"? Because "across the periods" means vertically not horizontally.

In the s-block and p-block of the periodic table, similar properties across the periods are generally not observed: the most important similarities tend to be vertical, down groups. However the d-block is notable in that horizontal similarities across the periods do become important. 111.118.41.122 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "across the periods" means horizontally, although we could replace it with a clearer phrase. Not "across the groups" though, as it seems even less clear. Perhaps "In the s-block and p-block of the periodic table, similarity of properties between the elements of each period is generally not observed; the most important similarities tend to be vertical, down groups. However the d-block is notable in that horizontal similarities between the elements of each period do become important." Dirac66 (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:D-block


text:
Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle

Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle (c. 1270 – 3 March 1323), alternatively Andreas de Harcla, was an important English military leader in the borderlands with Scotland during the reign of Edward II. Coming from a knightly family in Westmorland, he was appointed sheriff of Cumberland in 1311. He distinguished himself in the Scottish Wars, and in 1315 repulsed a siege on Carlisle Castle by Robert the Bruce. Shortly after this, he was taken captive by the Scots, and only released after a substantial ransom had been paid. His greatest achievement came in 1322, when he defeated the rebellious baron Thomas of Lancaster at the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16–17 March. For this he was created Earl of Carlisle.

As one of the main military leaders on the border to Scotland, Harclay became frustrated with Edward II's inactivity, particularly the humiliating English defeat at the Battle of Old Byland on 14 October 1322, which made it clear that the war could not be won. Harclay initiated negotiations with the Scots on his own accord, and on 3 January 1323, he signed a peace treaty with Robert the Bruce. The act was without royal sanction, and amounted to treason. The king issued an arrest order for the earl, and on 25 February Harclay was taken into the king's custody. He was arraigned before royal justices on 3 March, denied a hearing, and executed the same day. He was hanged, drawn and quartered, and the various parts of his body displayed in different parts of the country. His alleged treason, capture and execution is described in the Lanercost Chronicle. Only after five years was he allowed a proper burial, but the conviction for treason was never annulled.

Family and early career
The family name of Harclay derives from Hartley in Westmorland. Though relatively little is known about his early years, Andrew Harclay was probably the eldest son of Sir Michael Harclay and Joan, daughter of the Yorkshire landowner William Fitzjohn. His younger brother was the theologian Henry Harclay, a Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Michael Harclay was a retainer of the Clifford family, and served as sheriff of Cumberland from 1285 to 1296. The first documented appearance of Andrew Harclay was at a Westmorland eyre in 1292, at which point it must be assumed that he was at least twenty-one years old, and therefore born in the early 1270s.

Military career
His military career can be traced back as far as 1304 when he took part in a campaign in the Scottish Wars. In 1309, he received a royal order to assist Robert de Clifford in the defence of the Marches against Scotland. His standing in local affairs was further advanced in 1311, when he was appointed sheriff of Cumberland, like his father had been before him. This was followed by his election as Knight of the Shire in 1312, and in December 1313, he distinguished himself as the leader of the defence against a Scottish invasion. He received further acclaim in the summer of 1315, when he successfully defended Carlisle Castle against a siege by Robert the Bruce. For this he was awarded a gift of 1000 marks from the king.

Late in 1315 or in 1316, Harclay was taken captive by the Scots, who demanded 2000 marks in ransom. His meteoric rise over the previous years had made him some enemies in local society, who now took the opportunity to spread slanderous rumours about him at court. The king nevertheless helped raise the necessary money to secure Harclay's freedom, but for the next few years he seems to have been out of royal favour. It was not until 1319 that he once more was appointed sheriff, and at the same time made keeper of Carlisle and Cockermouth castles, and Warden of the West Marches. In 1321 he also received a personal summons to parliament.

Boroughbridge
Harclay's most prominent achievement came with the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. The battle was the culmination of an ongoing struggle between King Edward II and his most powerful earl, Thomas of Lancaster. The conflict stemmed from disagreement over the handling of the war with Scotland; Lancaster, and many others, found the king's war effort lacking. After failing to incite an insurrection against the king, Lancaster was in March 1322 fleeing northwards from the royal army. Meanwhile, Harclay, as sheriff of Cumberland, was ordered by the king to levy the forces of the northern counties of Cumberland and Westmorland, and move south. His orders were to meet up with the royal army, but while stopping at the town of Ripon in Yorkshire, he received intelligence that Lancaster would arrive at nearby Boroughbridge the next day. Harclay decided to take the initiative, and occupy the bridge that would prevent Lancaster's passage across the River Ure.

Lancaster's army arrived at Boroughbridge on 16 March. The rebels were greatly outnumbered; while Harclay commanded around 4000 men, Lancaster only had some 700 knights and men-at-arms, with followers, in his service. In addition to this, the loyalist forces were highly trained and experienced from the Scottish Wars. Harclay used tactics the English had learned from the Scots in these wars. The Lanercost Chronicle describes how Harclay employed the Scottish schiltron – a compact formation of infantrymen with pikes or spears, highly effective against Lancaster's cavalry-heavy forces. According to The Brut, Lancaster tried to persuade Harclay to join his side, in return for great rewards in land. Harclay had previously been a supporter of Lancaster, possibly also the earl's retainer; in 1318, a general royal pardon for Lancaster and his adherents contained Harclay's name. On this occasion, however, Harclay decided to remain loyal to the king, and turned down the earl's offer.

The engagement was short and one-sided. Lancaster's plan was to charge across a ford in the river, while the Earl of Hereford – one of the few magnates who had remained loyal to Lancaster – crossed the bridge. Hereford was killed on the bridge, his companion Roger de Clifford, 2nd Baron de Clifford was badly wounded, and this advance failed. Lancaster, meanwhile, came under such heavy archery fire that he had to call off his attack. Defections during the night, combined with royal reinforcements, forced him to surrender the next day, and on 22 March he was executed. The king was greatly pleased with Harclay's effort, and rewarded him lavishly. On 25 March, Harclay was created Earl of Carlisle, and given land worth 1000 marks a year. On 15 September, he was also made chief Warden of the Marches.

Treason
On 14 October 1322, the English army was routed by the Scots, under the command of Robert the Bruce, at the Battle of Old Byland in Yorkshire. The English commander, John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond, was taken prisoner. King Edward, who did not take part in the battle, was fifteen miles away at Rievaulx Abbey. When he heard the news he fled to York leaving behind the Great Seal of England and a large amount of treasure. It was the worst defeat the English had suffered in the wars since the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Harclay had received a summons to join the royal army, but had not been able to bring his troops south in time to come to Richmond's rescue. The event convinced him that the war against Scotland could not be won under the leadership of the present king. Instead he entered into direct negotiations with the Scots, without the king's sanction. On 3 January 1323, he signed a peace treaty with Robert the Bruce at Lochmaben.

The treaty recognised Scotland as an independent kingdom. It stipulated that Robert was to pay 40,000 marks to the English, and that Edward should be allowed to choose a wife from his own family for Robert's heir. Implied in the text, however, was an alliance between Robert and Harclay to use force against Edward, if necessary, to implement the terms of the treaty. It seems unlikely that Harclay expected royal clemency for his actions. More likely he contemplated a defection to the side of Robert the Bruce; rumour had it he even planned marrying one of Bruce's daughters, however there is no evidence of this. It is nevertheless likely that his action grew out of genuine concern with the northern situation, and was a desperate attempt to make the best out of a disastrous situation.

Though historians have generally shown understanding for Harclay's actions, it is nevertheless common to refer to the event as "Harclay's treason". In the words of Maurice Keen: "To make a truce, or to indeed to give safe-conducts or make any agreement with the king's enemies without proper grant of powers, again constituted lèse majesté and can be found defined as such in other military cases". Harclay had received such powers in February 1322, but he was considered to have overstepped his prerogative by the 1323 treaty. It is also possible that Edward held a grudge against Harclay for the latter's failure to come to the rescue at Byland, and that this was behind the king's later, severe reaction. There is, however, no evidence that Harclay received the royal letter in time to arrive at the battlefield any earlier than he did.

Death and aftermath
When Edward found out about Harclay's treason, he issued an order for the earl's arrest. As Harclay attempted to garner support for his cause, the king began to fortify the northern castles. The stalemate lasted until 25 February, when Sir Anthony Lucy arrested the earl at Carlisle Castle. Lucy, who acted with only a small force, was clearly trusted by Harclay, so the arrest must have been conducted as a surprise manoeuvre. The enmity between Lucy and Harclay could stem from a dispute over the honour of Papcastle. In 1322, Harclay had also briefly disseised Lucy of his lands after the 1322 rebellion, even though Lucy had taken no part in that event.

On 3 March, Harclay was arraigned before a royal justice in Carlisle, but was denied a proper hearing. He was brought forward apparelled in his robes of estate as a knight and earl. His spurs of knighthood were hewed off, and his sword was broken over his head. He was stripped of his robes, and proclaimed to be no knight, but a knave. He was then convicted as a traitor, and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. He behaved with dignity at his execution, where he maintained that he had acted as he did out of concern for the best interest of the country. After his death, his head was taken to the king at Knaresborough in Yorkshire, before it was hung up on London Bridge. The four parts of his body were dispersed around the country, and displayed in Carlisle, Newcastle, Bristol, and Dover.

Harclay's head was on display in London for five years before it was taken down. His sister petitioned the king to return the various parts of the body for a Christian burial, and in 1328 her request was granted. Further clemencies were not awarded. In the reign of Edward III, Harclay's nephew Henry petitioned to have the charge of treason annulled, but the petition was ignored. As for the peace treaty, the wisdom of Harclay's policy was vindicated after his death. Edward II's inability to win the war against the Scots, combined with his refusal to give up his claim on the Scottish crown, proved untenable in the end. Furthermore, it was Harclay's military skills and well-organised forces that gave what little protection the northern borders had over the previous years. Less than three months after Harclay's execution, Edward agreed on a thirteen-year truce with Scotland.

Harclay in fiction
Harclay's unauthorised negotiations with Robert the Bruce are dealt with in some significant detail in The Price of the King's Peace, the third volume of Nigel Tranter's Bruce trilogy, where he is called "Andrew Harcla".

External sources

 * The Battle of Boroughbridge at The Battlefields Trust.

title: Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle