text:
2004 Washington gubernatorial election

The 2004 Washington gubernatorial election was held on November 2, 2004. The race gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish, among the closest political races in United States election history. Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in a subsequent automated recount, but after a second recount done by hand, Democrat Christine Gregoire took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

Although Gregoire was sworn in as governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage. Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005. Gregoire was re-elected in 2008 in a rematch with Rossi.

Primary elections
The 2004 election cycle was the first in Washington to use a party-line ballot system of holding primary elections. The state had a long tradition of using blanket primaries, where the candidates of all political parties appear together on the same ballot for all voters. In this system, the leading vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. Washington's voters are not registered by party affiliation and a voter could participate in selecting candidates for more than one party, although the voter could only choose one candidate (of whatever party) for each office.

In February 2004 the United States Supreme Court declined to review a lower court decision striking down the blanket primary as unconstitutional, based on it violating the rights of the parties to freedom of association under the First Amendment. Washington was thus forced to devise a new primary election system. The state legislature passed a bill providing that the top two vote-getters for each office in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of which political party they belonged to. Voters would still be allowed to vote for any candidate as before. However, this measure was vetoed by Governor Gary Locke in favor of a Montana-style system that requires voters to choose a ballot for one specific party and vote only on that party's candidates in the primary.

The primary election in 2004 was held using the new system, but a campaign to replace it was already underway. The Washington State Grange, which had helped institute the blanket primary in 1935, filed Initiative 872 to implement the "top-two" primary instead, which would once again allow voters to cross party lines in the primary election but now send the top two vote-getters to the general election. In districts dominated by one party, the top-two system could result in Democrat- or Republican-only general election races. Supporters claimed it would bring back voter choice across party lines and allow independent voters to participate in the primary; opponents said it would exclude third parties and independent candidates from general election ballots, and would in fact reduce general election voter choice. The initiative was put to a public vote in November 2004, and passed with 60% of the vote. The state Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties sued, however, and a federal district court judge ruled in 2005 that the measure was unconstitutional because it too infringed the parties' First Amendment right to select their own candidates. Washington continued with the party-line primary system while appealing the case.

Democratic primary
In July 2003, incumbent governor Gary Locke indicated that he would not seek a third term, opening up the Democratic primary to alternate candidates. Former Washington State Supreme Court justice Phil Talmadge was the first candidate to enter the race for the Democratic primary, challenging Gary Locke before he announced his retirement, but Washington Attorney-General Christine Gregoire quickly became the frontrunner, leading in fundraising and endorsements. King County Executive Ron Sims announced his candidacy, but failed to garner much interest. According to a March 2004, Mellman Group poll, Gregoire would beat both Sims and Talmadge 36% to 11% and four percent in an open primary, and would beat Sims 55% to 17% in a closed primary. On April 29, 2004, Talmadge announced he was withdrawing from the race following the discovery of a benign kidney tumor, citing the likely need for surgery and associated recovery time.

Republican primary
The Washington State Republican Party struggled to find a candidate through most of 2003 when presumed candidate Bob Herbold, a former Executive Vice President and COO of Microsoft, declined to run. They finally recruited Dino Rossi, a relatively obscure political figure who left the state Senate to pursue a gubernatorial run due to state elected officials being prohibited from raising money while the legislature is in session.

Libertarian primary
The Libertarian Party of Washington State race was between Ruth Bennett, former state chair of the party in Washington and Colorado, and Michael Nelson.

Campaign
Both Gregoire and Rossi ran as centrists and promised to change the political landscape in Washington, and both made job and economic growth the centerpiece of their campaigns.

The Rossi campaign presented its own job-growth plan, and stated that 20 years of Democratic governors were to blame for the economic troubles in the state. However, during the general election he was criticized for a strongly conservative voting record that was at odds with his moderate campaign posture. Rossi was also criticized for his long-time professional association with a real estate broker convicted of fraud, and for alleged résumé embellishments. Rossi had worked against Roe v. Wade, attacked opponents for supporting gay rights, and proclaimed that creationism should be taught in public schools. Rossi campaigned on being anti-abortion and in favor of state and federal Constitutional Amendments that would ban certain benefits for gay couples. He downplayed his long history of conservative comments and claimed to be a "fiscal moderate with a social conscience." Rossi would not publicly state his opinion over stem cell research.

The Gregoire campaign promised to boost job growth in the state which had slowed greatly after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, to improve education, and to increase access to health care. It also focused on Gregoire's record of challenging big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies in her tenure as state Attorney General. Gregoire also proposed a major state-led initiative in life sciences, especially stem cell research, where she proposed investing US$500 million of a tobacco settlement the state hoped to receive in 2008. Her economic plan for the state focused on improving state infrastructure and improving the quality of education in the state, which she claimed would attract investors. Gregoire also stated that she believed Washington residents should be allowed to buy prescription medicine from Canada, while Rossi said that he needed to be convinced it "was safe". Gregoire was criticized for being a part of the state government establishment, but tried to counter Rossi's "time for a change" message by saying that she would "blow past the bureaucracy" and bring change herself. This language surprised and disappointed many of her colleagues and supporters, who saw it as a failure to give mention or credit to the efforts and achievements of past Democratic governors.

Gregoire was also strongly criticized in many attack ads for an incident which occurred in 2000, when Gregoire's office failed to file documents on time to appeal a record $17.8 million personal-injury verdict against Washington. Documents from an independent investigation conducted at the time of the incident show that Gregoire's deputies attempted to influence who was listed as responsible for the missed deadline. A further case Gregoire was strongly criticized for occurred in 2002 during a wrongful death lawsuit when Gregoire's office did not detect an error in jury instructions. The state was forced to pay $22.4 million to the plaintiff. While Gregoire was not directly responsible for these offenses, the Rossi campaign claimed that she had already cost Washington taxpayers millions of dollars and was negligent.

Rossi won the endorsement of the Republican Party, the National Rifle Association of America, The Seattle Times, several business and medical associations, and former governor Dan Evans. Gregoire received the endorsement of the Democratic Party, GLAAD, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, abortion rights organizations, and all the previous Democratic governors of the state. However, the Republican Party decided not to fund ads for Rossi in the state as polls leading up to the election date showed Gregoire with a clear lead. Almost all of Rossi's ads were paid for and created by outside sources, although as Gregoire's lead narrowed closer to the election date, the Republican Party ultimately decided to launch a series of advertisements for Rossi.

Ruth Bennett's campaign focused on permitting same-sex marriage in the state and economic liberalization in line with the political philosophy of libertarianism. She also recommended equally dividing the state budget among the counties and allowing the counties to establish tax systems on a county-by-county basis, ultimately leading to a diminished role of Washington's Department of Revenue.

Gregoire led in almost all polls conducted leading up to the election, but Rossi was able to close in on her late in the race and won considerable support from Eastern Washington. He also ran much stronger than expected in Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Gregoire received strong support (nearly a three-to-two margin) from the largest county in the state, King County, which includes heavily Democratic Seattle. During the initial ballot count, the lead changed hands several times.

Candidates

 * Christine Gregoire (D), Attorney General of Washington
 * Dino Rossi (R), state senator
 * Ruth Bennett (L), chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington

Debates

 * Complete video of debate, October 13, 2004 - C-SPAN
 * Complete video of debate, October 17, 2004 - C-SPAN

Initial results
Washington is unusual for a U.S. state in that it only requires that an absentee ballot be postmarked by the day of the election to be valid, while most other states require the ballot to have arrived at the election office by that time. Due to this as well as the state's high number of absentee ballots—more than 60% of all King County voters voted absentee—the initial result of the election was not known until November 17, the last day under state law for election results to be certified by each county's election officials.

The initial result, as reported by Secretary of State Sam Reed, showed Rossi with a lead of 261 votes, well within the margin for an automatic machine recount pursuant to Washington state law (less than 0.5% and less than 2,000 votes). After a statewide recount completed on November 24, Rossi again came away with the lead, this time by 42 votes.

Manual recount
After Rossi was certified as the victor on November 29, the Washington State Secretary of State said that "a manual recount was almost a certainty." This view was shared by the Gregoire campaign, with campaign spokesman Morton Brilliant saying that "if all the ballots aren't counted, we will go through the next four years with one candidate's supporters not believing the winner was legitimately elected." and that it was "worth taking three weeks to have four years of legitimacy, and that's what is at stake."

In Washington, a candidate may request one hand count or machine count, provided that they pay for the estimated cost of the recount up front. If a manual recount overturns the outcome of an election, the state will then refund the money to the candidate. On December 3, the Washington State Democratic Party gave a $730,000 check to the Secretary of State for the statewide manual recount of nearly 3 million ballots. The Secretary of State issued the order for a recount on Monday, December 6. The next day, attorneys for the Democratic Party and the Secretary of State argued before the Washington State Supreme Court over terms for the recount. The Democrats argued for a universal standard to be applied to the manual recount, and for the retabulation of votes over simply recanvassing them. Attorneys for the Secretary of State replied saying that any retabulation of votes would be a violation of state election laws and the Washington State Constitution. Two days later, the Supreme Court issued their opinion and rejected universal standards in the statewide recount.

Discovered ballots
King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips was at a Democratic Party office in Seattle on Sunday December 12, reviewing a list of voters whose absentee votes had been rejected due to signature problems, when to his surprise he found his own name listed. Phillips said he was certain he had filled out and signed his ballot correctly, and asked the county election officials to investigate the discrepancy. They discovered that Phillips' signature had somehow failed to be scanned into the election computer system after he submitted his request for an absentee ballot. Election workers claimed that they had received Phillips' absentee ballot in the mail, but they could not find his signature in the computer system to compare to the one on the ballot envelope, so they mistakenly rejected the ballot instead of following the standard procedure of checking it against the signature of Phillips' physical voter registration card that was on file. The discovery prompted King County Director of Elections Dean Logan to order his staff to search the computers to see if any other ballots had been incorrectly rejected.

Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error. The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.

Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C. There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots. All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.

Chairman of the Washington State Republican Party Chris Vance stated that he was "absolutely convinced that King County is trying to steal this election." The National Rifle Association, which had endorsed Rossi, sent a mass e-mail on December 14 to its members asking for volunteers to go to King County in order to sit in on the county elections office and observe the recount.

The Washington State Republican Party filed a restraining order in Pierce County District Court, requesting an injunction against King County to block the tabulation of the uncounted ballots. The request was granted on December 17, but Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court. On December 22, the court ruled against the Republican Party and overturned the restraining order, allowing King County to count all ballots. The next day, Sam Reed issued a statement explaining the process for certification of the uncounted ballots and the standards for fair voting practices in the state.

After all other counties submitted their recount votes, it was revealed on December 20 that at least five other counties besides King County had included ballots that had been discovered after the initial count. For example, Snohomish County included 224 missed ballots that had been discovered underneath mail trays. The outcome of the State Supreme Court hearing regarding King County's votes could have potentially affected those counties' counts as well.

Final results
The state Democratic party claimed on December 21 that the result of the manual recount, including King County's votes, placed Gregoire ahead by eight votes across the state. Later, on December 22, the preliminary recount results put Gregoire at a ten-vote lead.

Washington state law allows for election officials to evaluate voter intent and correct ballots so that the machines can properly read them. For example, on a Scantron or other optical ballot, an election official might fill in a circle that was not properly marked so that the machine may record the vote. Republicans filed a federal lawsuit to stop the visual examination of ballots, claiming that it is not allowed under federal law (Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment). The Republican Party was contending that the method King County was using was different from that of other counties, therefore treating voters in King County differently from those in others. However, the court ruled that this was not the case, as King County was counting their ballots in a manner similar to that of other counties.

A Pierce County Superior Court judge ruled that ballots should not be counted, but on December 22, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that counties explicitly have the ability to correct ballot consideration errors made during earlier counts. Of those 732 ballots, 566 were accepted as having valid signatures and were added to the existing total on December 23. The final results of the hand count, as of December 23, had Christine Gregoire ahead by 130 votes, which was later revised to 129 when it was discovered that Thurston County had added a vote after certification had been completed. Since the recount results were in favor of the party requesting the recount, the Democrats were reimbursed the recount costs they had advanced to the state.

The Republicans were already preparing for further legal action before the final tally was announced by canvassing Republican voters whose ballots had been rejected. On December 29, Rossi called for a re-vote, saying that "this election has been a total mess" and that a "revote would be the best solution for the people of our state and would give us a legitimate governorship". This solution had been rejected by the Democrats and Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed because Washington's election law contains no re-vote provision, which left a lawsuit the only other option. Reed officially certified the results of the manual recount on December 30, declaring Gregoire the governor-elect.

Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

 * Asotin (Largest city: Clarkston)
 * Island (largest city: Oak Harbor)
 * Kitsap (largest city: Bremerton)
 * Pierce (largest city: Tacoma)
 * Skagit (largest city: Mount Vernon)
 * Clallam (largest city: Port Angeles)
 * Mason (largest city: Shelton)
 * Pend Oreille (Largest city: Newport)
 * Snohomish (largest city: Everett)
 * Clark (Largest city: Vancouver)
 * Klickitat (Largest city: Goldendale)
 * Skamania (Largest city: Carson)
 * Spokane (Largest city: Spokane)
 * Wahkiakum (Largest city: Puget Island)
 * Whitman (Largest city: Pullman)
 * Walla Walla (Largest city: Walla Walla)

Aftermath
Republican leaders in Washington claimed there were enough disputed votes to change the outcome of the election and filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court in order to avoid having the case heard in the more liberal Western Washington counties. King County's election department (the greater Seattle area) was also targeted for how they handled the ballots, including untracked use of a "ballot-on-demand" printing machine. Also, ballots in six counties were discovered after the initial count and included in the recounts, the most being from King County. The judge hearing the lawsuit ruled that the Party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible votes, or for whom they were cast, to enable the court to overturn the election.

Controversy over the election's outcome continued after the certification of the hand recount results. The Washington State Republican Party called into question the discrepancy between the list of voters casting ballots in King County (895,660) and the number of ballots reported in the final hand recount (899,199). They claimed that hundreds of votes, including votes by felons, deceased voters, and double voters, were included in the canvass. As an explanation, election officials claimed that they had yet to finalize the list at the time, and argued that discrepancies in the two numbers are common and do not necessarily indicate fraud. As the election officials had expected, once the two lists were completed on January 5, the two numbers were indeed very close to one another. Also on January 5, 2005, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published an article investigating votes in King County apparently cast by dead people. The PI uncovered eight cases of votes attributed to dead people; these included one administrative error, two ballots cast by the spouses of recently deceased voters (one who voted against Gregoire), one case of a husband apparently voting his dead wife's ballot instead of his own, and a man who legally voted his absentee ballot and then died before election day. One dead woman was marked as having voted in person at the polls.

By law, the result of the election can be contested by any individual who files suit at any time up to 10 days after any inauguration, thereby making January 22 the latest date to have filed any suit. Two private citizens filed challenges to the election on January 6: Daniel P. Stevens of Fall City and Arthur Coday Jr. of Shoreline. The Republican party filed a suit on January 7 in Chelan County claiming that voters had been deprived of their right to a "free and fair election", and demanding a revote by special election. While the evidence focused especially on problems in King County, adjacent Chelan was chosen as the venue because it was more solidly Republican and the GOP questioned the ability of King County judges to rule impartially in such a case.

Neither suit asked for Gregoire's inauguration to be delayed, allowing governor Gary Locke to leave his post as scheduled. Gregoire was inaugurated on January 12. On February 4, Judge John E. Bridges, assigned by Chelan County to preside over the case, ruled that the court did not have the authority to order a re-election. However, in the same ruling, he also rejected the Democrats' argument that only the state legislature, which then had a Democratic majority, and not the court, had the sole authority to decide whether an election was invalid, thereby indicating that he intended to proceed to trial. Both sides declared victory over this early pre-trial ruling.

The Republicans presented data showing discrepancies in absentee ballot counts from 11 King County precincts. In some precincts, the county tallied more mail-in ballots than there were voters recorded as having voted by mail. In others, the opposite occurred—the county recorded more voters than ballots. The proof that ballots were fabricated for Democrats, Republican attorneys argued, is that four of the five precincts with the most excess mail-in ballots backed Gregoire. And as proof that ballots were misplaced or destroyed to harm Republicans, they pointed to the fact that four of the six precincts in which the most mail-in votes cannot be accounted for backed Republican Dino Rossi.

Additionally, the Republicans contended that King County was three days past its federally mandated due date of October 10 to send out its absentee ballots to overseas military personnel, widely considered more likely to vote Republican. The United States Postal Service Bulk Permit #1455 was used to mail 1,605 ballots on October 2, and 28,000 on October 13. The Republicans claimed that the delay may have prevented military service people from voting, thereby skewing the results in King County. On air, local talk radio host Bryan Suits claimed that his vote in particular was not counted while he performed military service in Iraq.

On February 19 Judge Bridges denied the Democratic motion calling for the challengers' burden of proof to include a comprehensive list of disputed ballots cast for each candidate. The Republicans acknowledged that such an exhaustive list would be impossible to complete, but continued to argue that the volume of illegal ballots, and the electoral tendencies of the counties in which they were cast, demonstrated a strong likelihood that the illegal ballots had led to Gregoire's victory. On February 26, as a part of the Republican suit, Rossi's legal team produced a list of 1,135 felons, deceased people, or people who allegedly voted twice, whom attorneys claimed influenced the outcome. A substantial number of the felon-voters were convicted as juveniles and were legally permitted to vote. Conservative columnists suggested that felons were more likely to vote for Gregoire. Most of the felon-voters resided in counties won by Rossi.

As a solution to the problem of the illegal voters, the Republicans proposed a solution of "proportional reduction". Republicans claimed that it should be assumed that illegal votes were cast in the same percentages as other votes in the same precinct. For example, in a precinct where Gregoire won 60% of the vote, it would have been assumed that she received 60% of the illegal vote as well, and those votes would be subtracted from her total for the precinct. The Democrats countered that the Republicans' proposal was statistically invalid, an example of the ecological fallacy, and the best solution would be to call each of the felons into court and ask them to swear under oath which political candidate they voted for, after which time their vote would be removed from the total.

The trial began on May 23, with both sides presenting their evidence of manipulation. On June 6, 2005, Judge John E. Bridges ruled that the Republican party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible -or for whom they were cast- to overturn the election. Judge Bridges noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state, but found that the only evidence submitted to show how those votes had been cast were sworn statements from four felons that they had voted for Rossi. He stated that the judiciary should exercise restraint; "unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the court." Nullifying the election, Bridges said, would be "the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism." He also concluded that according to his interpretation of the Washington Administrative Code, "voters who improperly cast provisional ballots should not be disenfranchised." He also rejected all claims of fraud and the Republican Party's statistical analysis, concluding that the expert testimony of the Republican party was "not helpful" and that the proportional reduction theory was not supported under any law in the state. Striking another blow against Rossi's court case, he stated that "the court is more inclined to believe that Gregoire would have prevailed under statistical analysis theory", rejecting the Rossi campaign's claim that improperly cast ballots led to Gregoire's victory.

Bridges did accept the claim that some people voted illegally in the election, but said there was little proof of which candidate benefited from those votes. He ruled that 1,678 illegal votes should be subtracted from the total number of votes cast. Bridges also removed five votes from the final count for two of the candidates: four for Rossi and one for Ruth Bennett. No evidence was brought before the court of any of the illegal votes benefitted Gregoire. The final margin of victory for Gregoire over Rossi was 133 votes. Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court and the Washington State Republican party settled the case after paying $15,000 in court costs to the Democrats.

Judge Bridges' ruling was seen as a comprehensive defeat for Rossi. The judge admitted nearly every piece of evidence the Republican Party offered and then wrote a thorough, tough opinion rejecting the Republicans' claims (while criticizing the administration of the election, particularly in King County); Rossi was left with very little legal ground for a successful appeal. After receiving such a negative verdict, Rossi declined to appeal to the State Supreme Court, claiming that the political makeup of the Court would make it impossible for him to win, thereby ending all legal challenges to the election of Gregoire as the Governor of Washington.

The 2004 election became a focus of media attention again in early 2007 when news broke that eight federal prosecutors including John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, had been fired. Republicans had hoped that after the election McKay would begin a federal investigation into alleged voter fraud, but he did not; McKay stated afterward that he would not convene a grand jury for purely political reasons and emphasized he had not seen any evidence of voter fraud in the Governor's race.

title: 2004 Washington gubernatorial election


text:
Commute

Commute, commutation or commutative may refer to:

 * Commuting, the process of travelling between a place of residence and a place of work

Mathematics

 * Commutative property, a property of a mathematical operation whose result is insensitive to the order of its arguments
 * Equivariant map, a function whose composition with another function has the commutative property
 * Commutative diagram, a graphical description of commuting compositions of arrows in a mathematical category
 * Commutative semigroup, commutative monoid, abelian group, and commutative ring, algebraic structures with the commutative property
 * Commuting matrices, sets of matrices whose products do not depend on the order of multiplication
 * Commutator, a measure of the failure of two elements to be commutative in a group or ring
 * Commutation matrix, a permutation matrix which is used for transforming the vectorized form of another matrix into the vectorized form of its transpose

Science and technology

 * Commutator (electric), a rotary switch on the shaft of an electric motor or generator
 * Commutation (neurophysiology), how certain neural circuits in the brain exhibit noncommutativity
 * Commutation (telemetry), a form of time-division multiplexing
 * Commutation, a synonym for packet switching in computer networking and telecommunications

Other uses

 * Commutation (law) (of sentence), a reduction in severity of punishment
 * Commutation (finance) (law) to lessen periodic dues (usually rents, fares or tithes) by paying a lump sum
 * Commutation (finance) under a cash option, encashment. The act of a pension member/annuitant who gives up part or all in exchange for a lump sum payment.

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

title: Commute


text:
Dorsal fin

A dorsal fin is a fin located on the back of most marine and freshwater vertebrates within various taxa of the animal kingdom. Many species of animals possessing dorsal fins are not particularly closely related to each other, though through convergent evolution they have independently evolved external superficial fish-like body plans adapted to their marine environments, including most numerously fish, but also mammals such as cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), and even extinct ancient marine reptiles such as various known species of ichthyosaurs. Most species have only one dorsal fin, but some have two or three.

Wildlife biologists often use the distinctive nicks and wear patterns which develop on the dorsal fins of large cetaceans to identify individuals in the field.

The bony or cartilaginous bones that support the base of the dorsal fin in fish are called pterygiophores.

Functions
The main purpose of the dorsal fin is to stabilize the animal against rolling and to assist in sudden turns. Some species have further adapted their dorsal fins to other uses. The sunfish uses the dorsal fin (and the anal fin) for propulsion. In anglerfish, the anterior of the dorsal fin is modified into a biological equivalent to a fishing pole and a lure known as illicium or esca. Many catfish can lock the leading ray of the dorsal fin in an extended position to discourage predation or to wedge themselves into a crevice. Some animals have developed dorsal fins with protective functions, such as spines or venom. For example, both the spiny dogfish and the Port Jackson shark have spines in their dorsal fins which are capable of secreting venom.

Structure
A dorsal fin is classified as a medial, unpaired fin that is located on the midline of the backs of some aquatic vertebrates. In development of the embryo in teleost fish, the dorsal fin arises from sections of the skin that form a caudal fin fold. The larval development and formation of the skeleton that support the median fins in adults result in pterygiophores. The skeletal elements of the pterygiophore includes basals and radials. The basals are located at the base of the dorsal fin, and are closest to the body. The radials extend outward from the body to support the rest of the fin. These elements serve as attachment sites for epaxial muscles. The muscles contract and pull against the basals of the pterygiophores along one side of the body, which helps the fish move through water by providing greater stability. In these types of fish, the fins are made of two main components. The first component is the dermal fin rays known as lepidotrichia, and the endoskeletal base with associated muscles for movement is the second.

title: Dorsal fin


text:
Talk:2004 Washington gubernatorial election

Election date
The election will be held on August 4, 2004.

is thatsupposed to be November 4 or does Wash state hold a seprate election in Aug User:Smith03

 * Yeah, you're right, it's November 4. -- ShadowDragon

 * (I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote the above comment or when I wrote the date in the original article -- ShadowDragon)

Gregiore Campaign Pictures
I added an NPOV tag based on the picutres added to this article. Doesn't the presence of four Gregoire campaign pictures as opposed to one Rossi picture (and one of Bennett give this article the appearance of pro-Gregiore bias? Granted, Rossi did not appeal (which doesn't mean he conceded, it meant he didn't believe he stood a chance @ Washington Supreme Court), but this was a very contested election with the end result being at least dubious.  Four Gregiore campaign pictures give the article, in my opinion, a pro-Gregiore bias, regardless of the editiorial content of the article - especially in today's "sound bite" world.  Is it really necessary to depict Gregiore's inaguration twice, or Democrat/Gregiore lawyers celebrating their court victory? Equinox137 14:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, getting more Rossi pics, if they're available, would clutter the article unncessarily, in my opinion. I feel the Gregoire pics can be scaled down. Equinox137 14:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I would say there's plenty of room for another picture. Especially at the end of the "further legal challenges" section - if we can find one of Rossi speaking about the problems with the election, that would be a great place to put it.  I would recommend removing one of the inauguration pictures and adding a Rossi picture.  3:2 in favor of the winner is reasonable, don't you think?  -- Jonel | Speak 18:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "If they're available" ? Are you blaming the article for being POV because free-use Gregoire pictures are easier to get than Rossi ones? If it bothers you, then feel free to find and upload some Rossi pictures and add them to the article. Popping in an NPOV tag was the lazy thing to do. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] June 28, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, if I can find some, I will add them. However, they way the article appears right now, it seems to have a pro-Gregiore slant.  I won't respond to the "lazy" insult.  Equinox137 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)

 * I disagree strongly with the POV tag being added to this article. There are no Rossi pictures that I can find that are available online. That does not lead to a bias, it is just what is available. A point of view dispute is rewriting an article to represent only one side of the issue, not to have the only photographs available. I am removing it now. Páll 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

 * Same here, I haven't been able to find any Rossi pictures as well - but what I'm saying is that the appearance of four Gregiore pics vs. one Rossi gives the article the appearance of accepting Gregiore as the "legitimate" winner (which is still hotly contested), regardless of what is written in the article. It appears more like a Gregiore campaign article than information on the election. Equinox137 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

 * I'm not aware that poor availability of material for one side is a conventionally accepted argument for removal of content. The primary goal is to present complete, enyclopedic information. Balance is achieved through addition, not by removal. One side should not suffer merely because their opposition refuses to make content freely available. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ July 6, 2005 00:34 (UTC)

 * It makes no sense to resolve this dispute by removing all pictures of all candidates. I saw an earlier version that had two different pictures of Gregoire's swearing in, which is unnecessary duplication.  I'm restoring one such photo.  Gregoire's inauguration reflects the ultimate outcome of the election, so it's not POV to show a photo of that event.  It doesn't imply that Rossi's challenge was incorrect, only that, as a practical matter, it will be Gregoire rather than Rossi who exercises the powers of the governor.  I'm also restoring one photo of each candidate in the section about the respective party primary.  JamesMLane 7 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Fuzzy math
I don't have the correct numbers, but someone might want to take a look at the current vote totals.

 * Yep . . . right now the page suggests that Rossi came out ahead. Funnyhat 03:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, it doesn't. The manual recount took place after the machine recount.
 * Yes that table could use improving (initial machine count tallies, anyone?) but it's so tightly formatted it's a bear to change. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] 06:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

registration by party
Still no such thing in Washington (see especially the Libertarian primary section). Primary voters have to choose the ballot of one of the major parties (in 2004, Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) or an unaffiliated ballot. --Lukobe 07:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, Initiative 892 has now scrapped the partisan primary altogether, replacing it with a top-two "Cajun" system. So 2004 will have been the only election requiring voters to make any kind of partisan choice whatsoever. (Assuming 872 holds up in court.) RadicalSubversiv E 07:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Right you are. That bit in the article is still inaccurate, however... --Lukobe 07:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * the section on primaries goes off on a tangent. I-872 is irrelevant as it was voted on *after* the 2004 gubernatorial primaries. It only needs to be said that due to a Supreme Court ruling, the system changed for the 2004 primary. It doesn't need to go on with the subsequent legislative history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.113.3 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion pages
Seems to me that it's rather POV to have two pages explicitly calling for a revote, and one that did in the past. I thought about linking to a particular SP post about the election, and adding a HorsesAss.org post from a similar time, but that didn't strike me as terribly encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 23:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Please note that SoundPolitics is the only organization that is doing active, verifiable research by posting public documents online. Are they POV? Who isn't? But their evidence is indisputable. Readers who want to be informed on what really happened need to read SoundPolitics. Jgardner 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * ... --SarekOfVulcan 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Including Further Research by Stefan Sharkansky
Why are my contributions citing public documents and admissions by the elections department consistently removed? This is very critical to the debate because it is direct and indisputable evidence of what actually occurred. Stefan has PDFs that are basically photographs of the documents he has. Isn't this important? This isn't original research, it is a verifiable source, and it should be included here. If you think otherwise, please discuss it here. Jgardner 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -
 * "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

 * "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website."

 * "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources."
 * "That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

 * Hopefully this clears things up, I'm going to revert the page accordingly Gheorghe Zamfir 01:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What about PDFs of actual documents? Does that count as first-hand information? Take for instance the most recent letter from the elections director in King County: This isn't opinion, this is well-researched and documented facts. Jgardner 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (re-signed to get name)

 * Stefan has been doing a full-on research of the facts at his own expense and with donations. He's hired people to check documents. He's going through a lawsuit to obtain documents. He's the premier expert on the 2004 WA Gubernatorial Election. No one has done even half the research he has done. This would be one of those rare exceptions because he is the expert in this field, and no one compares. Jgardner 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * But it is still irrelevant. I can start a blog and put anything on it with no fact-checking or accountability. Blogs are not considered a source on Wikipedia except for articles about the blog or author of the blog itself. Other than that, it is fairly irrlevant how much research Stefan has done or not, until it is published in a neutral third party souce it is inneligibile for use on Wikipedia. 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And to the other point, according to the blog, Stefan is a "family man and small business owner." He may have done a lot of research, but its for his own blog, so that research isn't from being a professional in a relevant field, nor is he a professional in a relevant field, nor is he significantly acknowledged in any realm other than his own blog.  So I don't think he qualifies under the limited, rare exception mentioned as "a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field."Gheorghe Zamfir 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And I'll just add that this isn't a matter of whether this research is well done or not, simply that until its acknowledged in a reputable form, its not encyclopedic.Gheorghe Zamfir 01:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Nelson?
Looking at the link for Michael Nelson, I see that it's got nothing to do with the Libertarian candidate - the article is about a British footballer. Being that this is my first time doing anything with editing wikipedia, I wasn't sure if I should edit it right out, or post this first and wait for someone of a higher authority (e.g. someone who has edited this article a lot!) to approve it...

Either way, I believe the link should be removed. --Hoborocks 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You should never worry about making minor edits like that. :-)

I made the correction, and noted your contribution. --Coz

Dino Rossi article
Until recently Dino Rossi had been tagged for cleanup since January of 2005. I tried by best to clean it up, but it still is paltry. Considering this article's featured status, shouldn't his article be a little more substantial? I would appreciate help in this from those who know. — Scm83x talk 04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * the guy's biggest accomplishment was losing an election, which ain't much. he's a tiny historical footnote at this point.  Justforasecond 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "Republicans" and "Democrats"
I don't think that this article makes appropriate NPOV usage of the entities involved. Any instance of "Republicans" should be replaced by "The Republican Party" and any instance of "Democrats" should be replaced by "The Democratic Party". In my opinion, phrasing like "The Republicans did such and such" or "The Democrats did such and such" is too informal to be used, and the more appropriate long form should be used. Opinions? I made changes to the first paragraph before realizing that most of the article had these malapropisms. --Jeff 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Saying (for example) "the Republican Party" filed suit is not the same thing as saying "the republicans" filed suit. The former means specifically that the Republican Party was named in the lawsuit (when, in all likelihood, it was Dino). You are proposing to change it to something which is factually incorrect. Raul654 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not familiar with the intracacies. MAyhaps the instances of "the Republicans" and "the Democrats" should be replaced with the proper noun describing the person whom the sentence depicts, rather than the loose form. --Jeff 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be changed to Dino Rossi and his gang of goons, not left as "the (amorphous entity formerly known as) republicans" Justforasecond 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks in bold part? Explaining "gubernatorial".
I've never seen wikilinks from the bold part of an article, but in this case I expected to see, up front, some explanation of what a US State Governor is, and what and where Washington State is. I've added links from the first use of these terms after the bold bit, but the way the introduction has been written, these links come quite a few sentences into the article. Ideally, the terms would be linked sooner, IMO, but I can't work out how to tweak the wording to do this. Also, I wanted to link the term gubernatorial to an explanation. The best link on Wikipedia that I could find to explain "gubernatorial" was Governor, but again, I can't find a suitable place to put this. Despite the word "gubernatorial" being used in the title, the word is only used twice more in the article, and is not explained at all! For lack of a better place, for now, I've linked the first use of the word "gubernatorial" to the Etymology link I provided above. Maybe a "See also" section should link to Governor and Governor? These were the first questions that I asked on reading this article. I thought this was basic stuff, and was surprised to see such links or explanations missing from a featured article. Carcharoth 09:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, those links had occured earlier, must have gotten lost in the editorial shuffle somewhere. But I don't have any problem with the placement of Governor and Washington links, I think they're immediate enough to serve the purpose. Though I agree in regards to gubernatorial, I would like to see a link for that placed in the intro, if there is a more informative link to be placed.  I didn't turn one up in a quick search, gubernatorial redirects to governor with no explanation on that page, and I don't think that etymology link really explains the term.  Gubernatorial is simply the adjective of governor, gubernatorial is to governor as presidential is to president, I suppose that's a bit that should be on the governor page somewhere, I'm not quite confident enough to determine where to place such a minor note though, I'll leave it up to someone else if its deemed needed. Gheorghe Zamfir 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Just after posting, I thought of checking the page history. Should have checked it first. Earlier versions do include the links. I did find an entry on wiktionary for gubernatorial, though it is essentially the same information as the other link. A link to wiktionary can be done like this, I think gubernatorial, so maybe that could be used instead? Carcharoth 11:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There was also an earlier link to Governor of Washington, which redirects to a list of Governors of Washington. I think the Manual of Style says the entire phrase (here, "Governor of Washington") should be linked if possible, and people can then follow the links for governor and Washington from that list. I'll make the change, and change the link at Governor of Washington to go to the US governors bit of Governor. Carcharoth 11:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Running to get milk?
What does that mean, saying they "ran to the store to get milk?" -Litefantastic 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that anywhere. Must have been some random vandalism. In colloquial American English, it means the speaker was gone for a short time.  Ted 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here come the freepers.
I think that this is a very bad idea to put such a vandal and conspiracy prone article on the front page of Wikipedia. We in Washington State have been listening to the rants and conspiracy theories about our close but legal election for years now and having this article in a high profile and unlocked is going to bring about a whole new wave of vandalism. --8bitJake 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I also live in Washington, and I see no objection to having the article on the front page. I note that, despite much argument, and many hard words, there has been no noticable violence. In how many locations, countrywide and worldwide could that be so? Too Old 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Potentially misleading statement
What is this statement trying to convey?
 * "Conservative columnists suggested that felons were more likely to vote for Gregoire, but most of the felon-voters resided in counties won by Rossi."

It is nice that it has citations, but I still don't follow the logic. I think this is another ecological fallacy, which is ironic. However, the statement that "most of the felon-voters resided in counties won by Rossi" is still useful in the next paragraph because it would be in opposition to the Republican's "proportional reduction" plan (in the argument building up to the ecological fallacy). Or am I just reading this wrong? Burzum 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not even sure the cited source supports the claim that most felons resided in counties won by Rossi.. The Horse's Ass cite says over 900 felons were submitted by the Republicans and the Dems submitted a list of 750ish felons. At most the cite says the margin between Rossi and Gregoire might increase, but that does not mean that most lived in counties Rossi won. Many of those felons could reside in counties Gregoire won, but in precincts she lost. *shrug* All in all, could definitely do with a rewrite. --Bobblehead 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That was an attempt to misdirect people. The Secretary of State removed nearly 1000 felons that they have verified as illegal from the statewide database in June.  More are being further researched for possible deletion. It doesn't matter who you THINK illegal voters voted for, it is the fact that they were allowed to vote, and that the clearly illegal votes were counted, that is the real issue. If that illegal voter was Democrat, Republican, or Independent doesn't matter.  The fact that one party wants to keep allowing them to vote does. --Coz 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
Please explain to me how the following, added as the only edit by, is not linkspam:

 * WA Gov series - day-by-day, county-by-county analysis of the vote count and recounts on DailyKos, by "N in Seattle" (also summarized on his Peace Tree Farm blog)

Thanks. -- Jonel | Speak 13:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The wiki definition at Linkspam: "the practice of deliberately and dishonestly manipulating search engines to increase the chance of a website or page being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a dishonest manner."   I went to the dailykos page -- it seems to be all about the election.   Where's the dishonesty there?  Is this really an attempt to manipulate search engine results?  Justforasecond 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I was using linkspam with the idea of "links that are added to promote a site" in violation of the External links guidelines. Sorry for any confusion over terminology.  In this case, the links are also in conflict with Reliable sources, as unattributed (to a real name), personal, partisan websites.  -- Jonel | Speak 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible move?
I'd like to change the title to conform to what I see as a naming standard for elections like this. My proposed title is "Washington State Gubernatorial election, 2004". Comments? Chadlupkes 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Which naming standard are you referring to? Most other gubernatorial elections have ' gubernatorial election, 2004' In the case of 'Washington State' it seems to be wiki standard to refer to the state as simply Washington and to have other political breakdowns fully written out, such as Washington, D.C., Washington County, Washington, Arkansas, etc. --Bobblehead 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Is there a formal standard, or is this just an adopted convention? Chadlupkes 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll just point you to the Washington discussion page. The topic has gone round and round and referring to the state simply as Washington has won out.--Bobblehead 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

maps
seems like the %ile map is better than the map up top. unlike the presidential election, this isn't winner take all. the %ile map is still flawed, since it doesn't show how many people live in each county, but its better than the other.

Justforasecond 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking both are equally uninformative without the population, but if you want to switch their positioning I don't see why that would be a problem.--Bobblehead 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an error on the percentile map in regards to Island County. Whidbey Island (the large island in the center of Puget Sound) is colored the same dark blue as the islands in San Juan County, which voted heavily for Gregoire. However, Whidbey Island is in Island County, which voted 53% for Dino Rossi. Horologium 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the image creator's talk page. Thanks for noticing the error. --Bobblehead 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

evidence of tampering with touch screen machines
This is one of the more interesting aspects of this election, if you ask me, and it's (a) buried awfully deeply in this article, and (b) there's a sentence inserted in the middle of it all that doesn't make any sense to me whatsover:

 * Furthermore, in precincts with voting machines that were repaired within two weeks of the election, Rossi had a touch screen advantage in 56 out of 58 (96.6 percent). The average margin for Rossi at these polling places was 11.58 percent more favorable than the absentee votes, and averaged 10.8 percent more than Gregoire on Election Day. However, the Republicans countered this by stating that among 90 precincts with no reported machine problems, 44 had touch screen vote counts more favorable to Rossi than the paper ballots from the same precinct, while 46 had a touch screen count that favored Gregoire. This raises serious questions as to whether the machines requiring repairs were tampered with to improperly assign votes to Rossi.

This is the sentence that I can't figure out:

 * However, the Republicans countered this by stating that among 90 precincts with no reported machine problems, 44 had touch screen vote counts more favorable to Rossi than the paper ballots from the same precinct, while 46 had a touch screen count that favored Gregoire.

Even if you grant that this is true, what does it have to do with the main point: How is it a "counter"?. And why is it inserted immediately before this sentence:

 * This raises serious questions as to whether the machines requiring repairs were tampered with to improperly assign votes to Rossi.

The flow of logic in the paragraph is totally disjointed.

-- Doom 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

both sides expected?
I cannot seem to make any sense out of this sentence:

 * "As the early results of the manual recount showed a single-digit vote lead for Gregoire, both sides expected the inclusion of the discovered ballots to increase their respective candidate's lead."

It seems unlikely that the Republicans expected any advantage from more King County votes, and if they did, why did they sue to have those votes restrained? Also, it would be illogical for each party to expect to increase their candidate's lead when only one candidate had the lead. I am inclined to delete the sentence rather than try to repair it. Can anyone defend it?--Geometricks 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Define irony
Rossi suing to get the election overturned, and losing 4 votes in the process -- 12.116.162.162 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced
This article doesn't seem to comply with the featured article criteria any longer, particularly criteria 1c. While this article does have a reference section, 15 inline citations is woefully low and there are large swathes of the article that do not have any references at all. I'm going to start throwing sources in as appropriate and fixing some of the MOS issues, but I could definitely do with some assistance. This article seems to be rather comprehensive in its coverage of the 2004 election, so it would be a shame to have to send it through WP:FARC for something as "minor" as poor sourcing. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

campaign
the campaign section seems to be awfully slanted toward gregoire, especially in the first part of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * You need to provide specific examples of why you feel the section is POV and ideally what you feel would make the section less POV in your opinion. You can't just fling the POV tag on the section and then leave a single sentence saying you thin it is POV. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. 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/20080616084235/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/localnews/2002145420_recount08m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002145420_recount08m.html

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) 04:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. 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/20060525071425/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0523/050608_news_electiondecision.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0523/050608_news_electiondecision.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907012554/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/Results/MeasuresByCounty.aspx?e=a3501711-c318-45f4-8a03-1d926ac839b7&m=372d3436-4b4e-407a-b1b4-30d2288e0566 to http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/Results/MeasuresByCounty.aspx?e=a3501711-c318-45f4-8a03-1d926ac839b7&m=372d3436-4b4e-407a-b1b4-30d2288e0566
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820072352/http://www.thestranger.com/current/city4.html to http://www.thestranger.com/current/city4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724235340/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002108596_webgov03.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002108596_webgov03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619040625/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/politics/webrejectedballots14.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/politics/webrejectedballots14.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211071956/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002128454_canvass23m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002128454_canvass23m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201072212/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002210205_felons17m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002210205_felons17m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706034924/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002319056_webverdict06.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002319056_webverdict06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804125213/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002284497_trialnotes.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002284497_trialnotes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316035454/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003615329_mckay13m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003615329_mckay13m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220043630/http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount_resultsbycounty.aspx to http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount_resultsbycounty.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724161221/http://seattlepi.com/election2004/ to http://www.seattlepi.com/election2004/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180647/http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/election2004/ to http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/election2004/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908092644/http://vote.wa.gov/general/ to http://vote.wa.gov/general/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050819101411/http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/scj/scj1.htm to http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/scj/scj1.htm

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) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dino Rossi Official.jpg


text:
Talk:List of percussionists

Untitled
I'm inclined to question whether, for example, Neil Peart and Buddy Rich really belong on the list of percussionists rather than just on the list of drummers where they both rightly appear as well. There is definitely a difference, and people can be one or the other or both. Evelyn Glennie is a percussionist. Gene Krupa and Keith Moon were drummers, as I'd think was Buddy Rich. I'm less sure about Peart. Vic Firth is both. And it's always a bit subjective, as is the question of who belongs on either list. Hmmmm. I'm reluctant to take anyone off, but I urge thought in adding people. Andrewa 20:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is really a list of percussionists. Most of what links here would be better directed to Percussion... I'm going to be bold and move it. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 05:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of percussionists


text:
Observable

In physics, an observable is a physical property or physical quantity that can be measured. In classical mechanics, an observable is a real-valued "function" on the set of all possible system states, e.g., position and momentum. In quantum mechanics, an observable is an operator, or gauge, where the property of the quantum state can be determined by some sequence of operations. For example, these operations might involve submitting the system to various electromagnetic fields and eventually reading a value.

Physically meaningful observables must also satisfy transformation laws that relate observations performed by different observers in different frames of reference. These transformation laws are automorphisms of the state space, that is bijective transformations that preserve certain mathematical properties of the space in question.

Quantum mechanics
In quantum mechanics, observables manifest as self-adjoint operators on a separable complex Hilbert space representing the quantum state space. Observables assign values to outcomes of particular measurements, corresponding to the eigenvalue of the operator. If these outcomes represent physically allowable states (i.e. those that belong to the Hilbert space) the eigenvalues are real; however, the converse is not necessarily true. As a consequence, only certain measurements can determine the value of an observable for some state of a quantum system. In classical mechanics, any measurement can be made to determine the value of an observable.

The relation between the state of a quantum system and the value of an observable requires some linear algebra for its description. In the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, up to a phase constant, pure states are given by non-zero vectors in a Hilbert space V. Two vectors v and w are considered to specify the same state if and only if $$\mathbf{w} = c\mathbf{v}$$ for some non-zero $$c \in \Complex$$. Observables are given by self-adjoint operators on V. Not every self-adjoint operator corresponds to a physically meaningful observable. Also, not all physical observables are associated with non-trivial self-adjoint operators. For example, in quantum theory, mass appears as a parameter in the Hamiltonian, not as a non-trivial operator.

In the case of transformation laws in quantum mechanics, the requisite automorphisms are unitary (or antiunitary) linear transformations of the Hilbert space V. Under Galilean relativity or special relativity, the mathematics of frames of reference is particularly simple, considerably restricting the set of physically meaningful observables.

In quantum mechanics, measurement of observables exhibits some seemingly unintuitive properties. Specifically, if a system is in a state described by a vector in a Hilbert space, the measurement process affects the state in a non-deterministic but statistically predictable way. In particular, after a measurement is applied, the state description by a single vector may be destroyed, being replaced by a statistical ensemble. The irreversible nature of measurement operations in quantum physics is sometimes referred to as the measurement problem and is described mathematically by quantum operations. By the structure of quantum operations, this description is mathematically equivalent to that offered by the relative state interpretation where the original system is regarded as a subsystem of a larger system and the state of the original system is given by the partial trace of the state of the larger system.

In quantum mechanics, dynamical variables $$A$$ such as position, translational (linear) momentum, orbital angular momentum, spin, and total angular momentum are each associated with a self-adjoint operator $$\hat{A}$$ that acts on the state of the quantum system. The eigenvalues of operator $$\hat{A}$$ correspond to the possible values that the dynamical variable can be observed as having. For example, suppose $$|\psi_{a}\rangle$$ is an eigenket (eigenvector) of the observable $$\hat{A}$$, with eigenvalue $$a$$, and exists in a Hilbert space. Then $$\hat{A}|\psi_a\rangle = a|\psi_a\rangle.$$

This eigenket equation says that if a measurement of the observable $$\hat{A}$$ is made while the system of interest is in the state $$|\psi_a\rangle$$, then the observed value of that particular measurement must return the eigenvalue $$a$$ with certainty. However, if the system of interest is in the general state $$|\phi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$$ (and $$|\phi\rangle$$ and $$|\psi_a\rangle$$ are unit vectors, and the eigenspace of $$a$$ is one-dimensional), then the eigenvalue $$a$$ is returned with probability $$|\langle \psi_a|\phi\rangle|^2$$, by the Born rule.

Compatible and incompatible observables in quantum mechanics
A crucial difference between classical quantities and quantum mechanical observables is that some pairs of quantum observables may not be simultaneously measurable, a property referred to as complementarity. This is mathematically expressed by non-commutativity of their corresponding operators, to the effect that the commutator $$\left[\hat{A}, \hat{B}\right] := \hat{A}\hat{B} - \hat{B}\hat{A} \neq \hat{0}.$$

This inequality expresses a dependence of measurement results on the order in which measurements of observables $$\hat{A}$$ and $$\hat{B}$$ are performed. A measurement of $$\hat{A}$$ alters the quantum state in a way that is incompatible with the subsequent measurement of $$\hat{B}$$ and vice versa.

Observables corresponding to commuting operators are called compatible observables. For example, momentum along say the $$x$$ and $$y$$ axis are compatible. Observables corresponding to non-commuting operators are called incompatible observables or complementary variables. For example, the position and momentum along the same axis are incompatible.

Incompatible observables cannot have a complete set of common eigenfunctions. Note that there can be some simultaneous eigenvectors of $$\hat{A}$$ and $$\hat{B}$$, but not enough in number to constitute a complete basis.

title: Observable


text:
Talk:List of drummers

Untitled
See Talk:Percussionist for discussion of who goes on which list. Andrewa 20:41, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Notability proposal
I propose that the main page should be altered to show that it's a list of notable drummers. I suggest this as a way of stopping the list getting out of control and too large. There is no need for a list of drummers from a bored teenager's rudimentary garage band. WebHamster 11:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Define "notable" - that's the problem. Said teenagers will still add themselves and other minor no-name drummers.  My criteria for inclusion here is that the drummer has their own article, and if so they therefore must comply with our notability policy.  violet/riga (t) 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well notability is hard to define but relatively easy to implement on a case by case basis. Notability is obvious at the extreme ends of the scale, but the awkward ones that fit in the 'middle ground' should be given the benefit of the doubt I reckon. Actually it was the wording I was suggesting we change as it gives the editors more latitude for deleting weekend drummers who have sneaked their own article into Wiki. WebHamster 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rick Marotta Vytal 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John Riley
The link to John Riley links to a disambiguation, none of which have the drummer in the list, click and see for yourself. 59.101.204.161 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray and Andy Question
Lots of my suggestions for this list are reverted so I thought I'd ask: Anyone think Andy Reilly and Ray Fean are notable? They have toured worldwide as Celtic Woman's drummers (among others), although Fean also is a session drummer, and Reilly also plays other Irish percussion? Agree with previous comments that notability is a slippery slope, but having your own page might be a little too strict, as both of these drummers might merit one. This is more of an international perspective than just US or London. Pdecalculus (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if they are notable enough to merit an article, then please WP:Write the article first - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Keith Carlock
I wanted to propose adding Keith Carlock to the list of Notable Drummers. I am citing his Wikipedia page. The only reason this came up was because I couldn't remember his name and reviewed this list thinking I would remember when I saw it and I didn't see it. So, I remembered his name last night and came back to see if I just missed it on the list and noticed it wasn't here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Carlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratamac7 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ratamac7 - as Carlock has an article, and the list is not protected, you could have done it yourself - see WP:Be bold - but, not knowing how regular a visitor you are to this site, I have added him and some of his bands - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unsure about adding him myself. Ratamac7 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ratamac7 - I remember my first edits were to talk pages, but as WP:Be bold explains; as long as your edits are not vandalism, careless or reckless, you should go for it - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of drummers


text:
British Grand Prix

The British Grand Prix is a Grand Prix motor racing event organised in the United Kingdom by Motorsport UK. First held by the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) in 1926, the British Grand Prix has been held annually since 1948 and has been a round of the FIA Formula One World Championship every year since 1950. In 1952, following the transfer of the lease of the Silverstone Circuit to the British Racing Drivers' Club, the RAC delegated the organisation of races held at Silverstone to the BRDC, and those held at Aintree to the British Automobile Racing Club. This arrangement lasted until the RAC created the Motor Sports Association in the late 1970s and it reclaimed organising control of the event. The RAC MSA was renamed Motorsport UK in 2019 when it formally split from the RAC.

The British Grand Prix is currently held at the Silverstone Circuit near the village of Silverstone in Northamptonshire in England. The 2019 event was the 70th time that the race had been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural season in, and the 53rd time that a World Championship round had been held at Silverstone.

The British race is the oldest in the Formula One World Championship calendar as the 1950 race at Silverstone was round one of the first championship season in. It and the Italian Grand Prix are the only two Formula One World Championship Grands Prix that have been staged during every season that the championship has been held. The British Grand Prix was a round of the World Manufacturers' Championship in both 1926 and 1927, but was never held during the existence of the European Championship. It was designated the European Grand Prix five times between 1950 and 1977, when this title was an honorary designation given each year to one Grand Prix race in Europe. All British Grands Prix dating back to 1926 have been held in England, where the British motor racing industry is primarily located.

The event is due to take place at Silverstone Circuit until at least 2034.

Brooklands (1926–1927)
The concrete Brooklands oval was built in 1907 near Weybridge in Surrey, located just outside the British capital of London. It was the first purpose-built motor racing venue, as well as one of the first airfields in the United Kingdom. Grand Prix motor racing first came to Britain in 1926, following the successes of Henry Segrave in winning the 1923 French Grand Prix and the San Sebastián Grand Prix the following year, both in a Sunbeam Grand Prix car, which raised interest in the sport domestically and demonstrated to the AIACR that the advances made in the British motor industry merited the honour of hosting an international grand prix motor race. The first ever British Grand Prix (officially known as the Grand Prix of the Royal Automobile Club) was held at Brooklands on 7 August 1926 and was won by Robert Sénéchal and Louis Wagner driving a Delage 15 S 8. The second Grand Prix of the RAC was also held at Brooklands, on 1 October 1927, and was again won by a Delage 15 S 8, this time driven by Robert Benoist.

Several non-championship races known as the Donington Grand Prix were held at Donington Park in Leicestershire near Derby which attracted the best European teams in 1937 and 1938, where the German Mercedes and Auto Unions dominated the proceedings. The German Bernd Rosemeyer and the Italian Tazio Nuvolari (both driving mid-engined Auto Union cars) won this race in 1937 and 1938, respectively, but as the races were organised by the Derby & District Motor Club rather than by (or on behalf of) the Royal Automobile Club, they are not usually accorded the "British Grand Prix" title.

Silverstone (1948–1954)
Brooklands had been severely damaged by the onset of World War II and the circuit was abandoned. Most new British circuits were being built on disused Royal Air Force airfields, and Silverstone, located on the Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire border in central England equidistant between London and Birmingham (the latter being the capital of the UK production car industry)- was one of those circuits. It staged its first race, the Royal Automobile Club International Grand Prix on 2 October 1948, which was won by Italian Luigi Villoresi in a Maserati. In 1949, the circuit was heavily modified and made very fast; and it remained in this configuration for decades.

In 1950, the World Championship of Drivers was introduced, and the 1950 British Grand Prix was the first World Championship Formula One race ever held, with new regulations and 6 other races in Europe. This race was won by Alfa Romeo driver Giuseppe "Nino" Farina. King George VI was among the attendees of the race. The 1951 race was particularly exciting, as it was the first F1 race not won by an Alfa Romeo; the gas-guzzling Italian cars were beaten by another Italian car- the more fuel-efficient Ferrari of Argentine José Froilán González in what was the famed Scuderia's first ever Formula One victory. For the 1952 event, the original pits between Abbey and Woodcote were abandoned and demolished. A new pit complex was constructed between Woodcote and Copse corners; Alberto Ascari dominated this and the next year's race; González won again in 1954 in a Ferrari.

Silverstone and Aintree (1955–1962)
In 1955, the Formula One circus began to alternate between Silverstone and the Aintree circuit, located on the Grand National horse racing course near Liverpool. Mercedes drivers Juan Manuel Fangio and home favourite Stirling Moss arrived at Aintree expecting to win. They took the lead at the start and the two drivers battled throughout, and Moss passed Fangio on the 26th lap, and he kept the lead for a while; but Fangio fought back and was about to pass Moss on the last corner on the last lap, and all were certain Fangio would pip Moss at the chequered flag. But he didn't, and Moss won his first Formula One race on home soil. Moss later asked Fangio "did you let me through?" and the Argentine replied "No. You were better than me that day." Mercedes romped to the finish 1–2–3–4, with German Karl Kling and Italian Piero Taruffi finishing 3rd and 4th.

The even-numbered years were at Silverstone and the odd numbered and 1962 were at Aintree. 1956 saw Fangio win in a Ferrari, and 1957 returned to see Moss win again in a Vanwall; he took over his ill teammate Tony Brooks's car and stormed through the field to take victory. This was the first Grand Prix victory for a British-built car- Formula One would soon be mostly made up of British teams. 1958 was when Peter Collins won in a Ferrari and Bernie Ecclestone was entered in a Connaught but his car was driven by Jack Fairman, and 1959 and 1960 saw Australian Jack Brabham win in a mid-engined Cooper. The last race at Aintree was in 1962 when Briton Jim Clark won his first of 5 British Grands Prix; Aintree was decommissioned in 1964.

Silverstone and Brands Hatch (1963–1986)
1964 saw the first Formula One race at the southern English circuit known as Brands Hatch, located in ancient woodlands in Kent, just outside London. The track was built in the early 1950s and had been extended in 1960 to include the new Grand Prix course. Silverstone hosted the British Grand Prix in odd-numbered years and Brands Hatch in even-numbered years. Like Silverstone, the circuit was popular with drivers, and unlike the flat Northamptonshire circuit and Aintree, Brands Hatch had many cambered corners and varying elevation. Like the year before at Silverstone, Clark won the 1964 race and the next year's race. 1967 saw Clark take yet another dominant win, and 1968 saw a monumental battle between Swiss Jo Siffert in a Lotus and New Zealander Chris Amon in a Ferrari; Siffert won the race, his first of two victories in F1 on the circuit where he would lose his life in a non-championship race three years later.

1969 saw another big battle between home favourite Jackie Stewart and Austrian Jochen Rindt, that went on for a while; although Rindt had a loose rear wing and had to come into the pits to get it repaired; Stewart took the chequered flag driving a Ford/Cosworth-powered Matra for Ken Tyrrell. Rindt won the 1970 event at the expense of Brabham running out of fuel at the end of the race, and 1971 saw Stewart win again in a Tyrrell (Ken Tyrrell had started building his own cars). 1973, however, saw a huge first lap accident at Woodcote that took out 11 cars, including all three works Surtees cars. Amazingly, there were no deaths or any fires and the worst news was that Andrea de Adamich received career-ending ankle injuries. 1974 saw Austrian up-and-comer Niki Lauda dominate the race in his Ferrari, however, a rear-tire puncture slowed his car and rivals Jody Scheckter and Emerson Fittipaldi passed Lauda to take 1st and 2nd.

1975 saw a chicane added to Woodcote to slow cars going through the very high-speed corner; and this was another race of variables as a rainstorm hit the track and a number of drivers including Scheckter and Briton James Hunt hydroplaned off the track at the same corner; Fittipaldi won the race after it was called short. 1976 also saw changes to Brands Hatch including making the fearsome Paddock Hill bend a bit tamer, South Bank corner more of a left-hand apex rather than a long hairpin and moving Bottom Straight further south so that the pits and paddock area could be expanded. This race proved to be very controversial; as home favourite Hunt won the race but was later disqualified following a protest from Ferrari and other teams about Hunt not completing the first lap of the race; and the victory went to second-placed Lauda. 1977 saw Hunt take victory without any controversy and when F1 returned to Silverstone two years later, Australian Alan Jones lapped the circuit more than 6 seconds inside the lap record in his ground-effect Williams. His teammate Clay Regazzoni won the race, Williams's first F1 victory. 1980 saw Jones win after the Ligiers of Jacques Laffite and Didier Pironi retired; and 1981 saw French rising star Alain Prost thoroughly dominate the first part race in his Renault; and there was an accident involving Canadian Gilles Villeneuve at the Woodcote Chicane which held up Briton John Watson; but Watson passed several cars and won the race; the first for a car with an all-carbon fibre chassis. 1982 saw polesitter Keke Rosberg having to start from the back due to problems with his Williams and he began a charge that brought him far up the field; but he retired, and there was another spectacular showing from Briton Derek Warwick in his underfunded Toleman; he managed to pass Pironi for 2nd, but he also retired with a broken driveshaft; the victory went to Austrian Lauda.

1983 saw Prost win his first of five British Grands Prix and a spectacular performance from Briton Nigel Mansell in his first outing in a turbocharged Lotus, he started 16th and finished 4th. Lauda won again at Brands Hatch in 1984, during which FISA president Jean-Marie Balestre announced that the Tyrrell team was to be excluded from that year's championship for fuel irregularities, and the restarted race after a huge accident at Bottom Bend caused more controversy; Prost and Lauda had passed Brazilian Nelson Piquet on the last lap of the first race, but Piquet started in front of the two McLaren drivers; regulations dictated that the positions were on the grid were to be determined two laps before the restart was called; and an irate Prost made scathing comments about his countryman Balestre.

1985 was to see Keke Rosberg set the all-time Formula 1 qualifying lap record for 17 years after posting a fastest qualifying time for the race with an average speed of 258.983 kph. Silverstone, which was already a very fast circuit, was becoming faster and faster and the cars were lapping the circuit in the low 1-minute range. The race was an exciting one with Brazilian rising star Ayrton Senna making a great start from 4th and taking the lead by the first corner. He led until late in the race when his car was running out of fuel while Prost was pushing him hard; Senna eventually ran out of fuel and Prost went on to take victory. 1986 saw a huge crowd thanks to Mansell being a favourite to win; his newly found fame and place in a competitive team would help the British Grand Prix to see huge crowds for several years. This race saw 42-year-old Jacques Laffite get involved in a first corner accident and slam head-on into the barriers, breaking both his legs and ending his Formula One career. Nigel Mansell, whose car broke at the start of the first race, got into his teammate Piquet's spare car and won the race; although this was the last F1 race at Brands Hatch. A number of people had concerns about the speeds of the cars on the small track; particularly the European Grand Prix held at Brands Hatch the previous year. The southern English circuit was getting to be very fast- now with these 1000 hp-plus, 1180 lb cars, pole sitter Piquet's average qualifying speed was 140.483 mph and his lap time was in the 1 minute 6-second range, compared to the 1 minute 20-second range in 1976. But Brands Hatch's demise was for other reasons: the international motorsports governing body at the time, Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA), had instituted a policy of long-term contracts for one circuit per Grand Prix. Brands Hatch was perceived as a poorer facility, and considering most of the track was located in a very old forest it did have very little run-off and room to expand, something Silverstone had in acres. Silverstone and the BRDC had signed a seven-year contract with Formula 1 and FISA at some point in 1986, to run from 1987 to 1993.

Silverstone's evolution (1987–present)
1987 saw Silverstone modified; the Woodcote chicane was no longer used and a new left-right chicane was built on the Farm Straight just before Woodcote. Silverstone's layout, like Brands Hatch, had changed little since 1949. The circuit was still fast, and it saw Mansell charge after Piquet (who had decided to run the whole race on one set of tyres) and the British driver broke the lap record 11 times, caught and passed Piquet and took victory; the Silverstone crowd broke ranks and ran onto the circuit after the race was over; this was to start a number of dramatic events surrounding Mansell for the next 5 years. 1988 saw Senna win a rain-soaked event, and Mansell finished 2nd after driving very hard and passing many cars to attempt to catch Senna; this was one of Mansell's two race finishes that season. 1989 saw Prost win in a McLaren after his teammate Senna went off at Becketts; Mansell finished 2nd again driving for Ferrari; and sometime after the event, it was decided that Silverstone, the fastest circuit on the Formula One calendar, was to be heavily modified, and the project would be completed for 1991. The 1990 Grand Prix was the last motor race on the high-speed circuit; and Mansell drove hard and led a lot of the race; but gearbox problems eventually forced him to retire, where he threw his gloves into the crowd and announced that he was going to retire, a decision that he would later take back; and he effectively dominated the next two events, driving for Williams. The circuit was now more technical, 15 percent slower and every corner on the circuit except Copse was different. It also included an infield section right before the pits. After 1992, Mansell had retired from F1, and 1993 saw new Williams driver Damon Hill lead much of the race until his engine blew up, and Hill's French teammate Alain Prost took his 50th career Grand Prix win.

After the tragedies of Imola in 1994, a chicane was installed at the flat-out Abbey corner 6 weeks before the event was due to take place and Stowe corner was slowed considerably. Hill won the event, something his double world champion father Graham never did. 1995 saw another British driver, Johnny Herbert, take victory in his Benetton. 1996 saw further changes to the circuit, where Stowe was more or less restored to its 1991 design, and the 1999 event saw double world champion Michael Schumacher crash heavily at Stowe; he broke his leg, missed many races and this put him out of championship contention. There were attempts to bring the British GP back to Brands Hatch for 2002, but this never materialised.

The 2003 event was disrupted by a defrocked priest, Cornelius Horan, who ran onto the Hangar Straight during the race while cars were coming at him at over 160 mph. Marshals were able to get him off the track before he hurt himself or anyone else and he was later arrested; Brazilian Rubens Barrichello won the race for Ferrari. A dispute between Silverstone's owners, the British Racing Drivers' Club (BRDC), and the Formula One authorities in 2003 over the funding of necessary improvements to the track's facilities led to doubts over the future of the race. In October 2004 the British Grand Prix was left off the preliminary race schedule for 2005 because the BRDC refused to pay the race fee demanded by Bernie Ecclestone. However, after months of negotiation between the BRDC, Ecclestone and the Formula One constructors, a deal was made for the Grand Prix to be held at Silverstone until 2009. 2008 saw Briton Lewis Hamilton win in pouring rain for McLaren; Hamilton and Jenson Button's presence and success in Formula One helped to see huge crowds at Silverstone not seen since Nigel Mansell's time in the sport. On 4 July, it was announced that Donington Park had been awarded the contract to host the British Grand Prix for 10 years from 2010. However, Donington failed to secure the necessary funding to host the race, and its contract was terminated in November 2009. On 7 December 2009, Silverstone signed a 17-year contract to host the British Grand Prix from 2010 onwards.

The 2010 race saw a new circuit configuration being used, using the brand new "Arena" layout. For 2011 a new pit complex was built between Club and Abbey Corners, to where the start/finish line was moved. Silverstone is still a very fast circuit- with average speeds up in the 145 mph range for Formula 1 cars; one of the highest average speeds on the F1 calendar. In 2017, home hero Lewis Hamilton achieved his first – and as of 2023, only – grand slam at his home race at Silverstone. The 2019 race saw an intense battle against Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen, which would eventually see Leclerc's teammate Sebastian Vettel join the fray; Vettel locked up, causing him to collide with Verstappen and sending them into the gravel. In 2020, Hamilton brought the car home with a punctured tyre for a sixth British Grand Prix victory. The 2021 installment would see Hamilton collide with polesitter and championship leader Verstappen at Copse corner, sending the Red Bull driver into the wall at 180 mph. The following year would also see another car collide with the barriers in a major incident; this time with Zhou Guanyu's Alfa Romeo down the start-finish straight following an incident involving Pierre Gasly and George Russell. The race also saw Ferrari's Carlos Sainz Jr. win his first race in his Formula One career.

On 11 July 2017, the BRDC, the owners of Silverstone, activated a break clause in their contract meaning unless a new contract was signed, 2019 would be the final year the British Grand Prix took place at Silverstone. However, in July 2019 a few days before the 2019 edition it was confirmed that Silverstone was contracted to host the British Grand Prix until at least 2024.

In September 2022, Silverstone was criticised during the initial sale of tickets for the 2023 British Grand Prix. The track instituted a 'dynamic pricing' model of prices refreshing every 90 seconds based on demand, and then encouraged fans to access its online ticketing system immediately after sales began. The rush of fans led to surges in pricing and crashes to the ticket sales website. Silverstone was forced to suspend sales and apologise to fans.

On 8 February 2024, Silverstone and Formula One extended its contract to host the British Grand Prix until 2034.

At the 2024 British Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton, on his final season driving for Mercedes, won the race for the ninth time. The 104th win of his career, it broke Michael Schumacher's record for most wins at a single circuit.

The Royal Automobile Club Trophy
Since 1950, it has been customary that the winner of the race is awarded the official RAC British Grand Prix Trophy, a perpetual trophy awarded each year and then returned to the Royal Automobile Club, where it is permanently housed. From 1950 until 1972, the official trophy was the Mervyn O'Gorman Trophy, but this was replaced from 1973 by the present gold cup.

Sponsor's Trophy
Since 1952, the winner of the British Grand Prix has generally also been awarded a trophy by the principal sponsor of the race (for 1952, the Daily Express), which is won outright each year and replaced by a new trophy for the following year's event. In some years, it is the sponsor's trophy, rather than the official RAC trophy, which is handed to the winner on the podium, which is why post-race photographs since 1950 have shown many more than the two official trophies that have ever been awarded.

Prize money
Before the institution of a winner's trophy, the only award for being placed in the British Grand Prix was the prize money on offer. For the first two British Grands Prix held at Brooklands, the prize money was £1,000 to the winner, £300 to the second-placed finisher and £200 for finishing third. For the first post-Second World War British Grand Prix in 1948, prize money was offered to the entrants of the top ten finishers, ranging from £500 to the winner to £20 for tenth place, and the amounts awarded changed little over the next few years,  although by 1958 the winner's prize had increased to £750.

A cash prize was also awarded for the fastest lap of the race from 1948, when the prize amounted to £25. By 1953, this prize was no longer offered.

Fred G. Craner Memorial Trophy
In addition to the official winner's trophy, in 1950 the RAC also awarded for the first time a further perpetual trophy, the Fred G. Craner Memorial Car Trophy, for the highest-placed British competitor driving a British car, which was awarded until at least 1972. Fred Craner had been secretary of the Derby & District Motor Club and instrumental in establishing Donington Park as a motor racing circuit and in organising the Donington Grands Prix. The first winner of this trophy was F R "Bob" Gerard driving an ERA, who finished fifth overall. The first occasion on which the winners of the British Grand Prix also won the Fred G. Craner Memorial Trophy was at Aintree in 1957, when the winners were Stirling Moss and Tony Brooks driving a Vanwall.

Chief Mechanic's Award
From 1948 until at least 1953, the chief mechanic of the winning car was awarded a prize. From 1948 the prize was the RAC Plaque, but by 1952 this had become a cash prize of £25.

Sir Arthur Stanley Cup
For the first British Grand Prix in 1926, Sir Arthur Stanley, president of the RAC from 1905 to 1936 presented a cup for the fastest lap of the race, which was won outright by Henry Segrave.

Repeat winners (drivers)
Drivers in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season.

Repeat winners (constructors)
Teams in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season. A green background indicates an event which was part of the pre-war World Manufacturers' Championship. A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

Repeat winners (engine manufacturers)
Manufacturers in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season. A green background indicates an event which was part of the pre-war World Manufacturers' Championship. A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

* Built by Cosworth, funded by Ford

** Between 1999 and 2005 built by Ilmor, funded by Mercedes

*** Built by Porsche

By year

A green background indicates an event which was part of the AIACR World Manufacturers' Championship. A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

title: British Grand Prix