text:
Mind the gap

"Mind the gap" or sometimes "watch the gap" is an audible or visual warning phrase issued to rail passengers to take caution while crossing the horizontal, and in some cases vertical, spatial gap between the train doorway and the station platform edge.

The phrase was first introduced in 1968 on the London Underground in the United Kingdom. It is popularly associated with the UK among tourists because of the particularly British word choice (this meaning of the verb mind has largely fallen into disuse in American English, where the term "watch your step" is more commonly used).

Origin of the phrase
The phrase "Mind the gap" was coined in around 1968 for a planned automated announcement, after it had become impractical for drivers and station attendants to warn passengers. London Underground chose digital recording using solid state equipment with no moving parts. As data storage capacity was expensive, the phrase had to be short. A concise warning was also easier to paint onto the platform.

The equipment was supplied by AEG Telefunken. According to the Independent on Sunday, sound engineer Peter Lodge, who owned Redan Recorders in Bayswater, working with a Scottish Telefunken engineer, recorded an actor reading "Mind the gap" and "Stand clear of the doors please", but the actor insisted on royalties and the phrases had to be re-recorded. Lodge read the phrases to line up the recording equipment for level, and those were used.

While Lodge's recording is still in use, some lines use other recordings. From 2005, the voice of Phil Sayer was heard on the Jubilee, Northern, and Piccadilly lines. When he died in 2016, The New York Times, one of many newspapers worldwide to report his death, said, "Mr. Sayer's was not the only voice cautioning passengers to "mind the gap", but it is arguably the most familiar one." For 15 years before that, the voice on the Piccadilly line was that of Archers actor Tim Bentinck, but is now Julie Berry's. Another announcement was recorded by voice artist Emma Clarke. At least ten stations were supplied with announcers manufactured by PA Communications Ltd. of Milton Keynes. The recorded voice is that of Keith Wilson, their industrial sales manager (May 1990). It can still be heard at Paddington for example. Keith Wilson's voice can be heard in the background of a scene in the Bond film Skyfall.

In March 2013, an old "Mind the gap" recording by Oswald Laurence was restored to the curved northbound platform at Embankment station on the Northern line's Charing Cross branch so that the actor's widow, Dr Margaret McCollum, could hear his voice.

London Underground
Because some platforms on the London Underground are curved, and the rolling stock that use them are straight, an unsafe gap is created when a train stops at a curved platform. In the absence of a device to fill the gap, some form of visual and auditory warning is needed to advise passengers of the risk of being caught unaware and sustaining injury by stepping into the gap. The phrase "Mind the gap" was chosen for this purpose and can be found painted along the edges of curved platforms and heard on recorded announcements when a train arrives at many Underground stations.

The recording is also used where platforms are non-standard height. Deep-level tube trains have a floor height around 20 cm less than sub-surface stock trains. Where trains share platforms, for example, some Piccadilly line (deep-tube) and District line (sub-surface) stations, the platform is a compromise. On London's Metropolitan line, a gap has been created between the train and the platform edge at Aldgate and Baker Street stations. This is due to the phasing out of the old "A" stock trains and their replacement with "S" stock trains, which have low floors to ease accessibility for disabled people.

"Mind the gap" audible warnings are always played on the Central line platforms at Bank, the Northern line northbound platform at Embankment, and the Bakerloo line platforms at Piccadilly Circus. The markings on the platform edge usually line up with the doors on the cars.

While the message is sometimes played over the platform's public address system on some lines, usually it is an arrival message inside the train itself: "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform".

During the coronation weekend of King Charles III in 2023, the message was voiced by the King himself and his wife Camilla. The King says, "My wife and I wish you and your families a wonderful coronation weekend," followed by Camilla, who says, "Wherever you are travelling, we hope you have a safe and pleasant journey," which is ended with the King saying "And remember, please mind the gap." It was played throughout every railway station in the United Kingdom.

Use in Ireland
The phrase "mind the gap" can be heard at each station along Dublin's DART and at all stations in the city centre. The message can be seen in some train stations in the rest of Ireland. On Commuter and InterCity trains, the phrase "Please mind the gap" is accompanied by the Irish "Seachain an Bhearna le do thoil" when pulling into stations.

In trains

Equivalents of "Mind the gap" are used by transit systems worldwide, particularly when stations curve, but most new systems tend to avoid these types of stations.

Europe

 * The French version, which is an Alexandrin, "Attention à la marche en descendant du train" ("Watch your step while getting off the train"), is occasionally written on signs on the platforms in the Paris Métro and can be heard in RER trains. Some newer Métro trains also play this announcement in Italian, English, German, Japanese and Spanish. Another version used by SNCF is "Prenez garde à l'intervalle entre le marchepied et le quai" ("Be careful of the gap between the step and the platform.").
 * In the Athens Metro, the message "Παρακαλούμε προσοχή στο κενό μεταξύ συρμού και αποβάθρας" ("Please mind the gap between the train and the platform") is heard in both Greek and English at the stations of Monastiraki and Agios Nikolaos.
 * In Stockholm's tunnelbana and on Stockholm commuter rail's stations two versions can be heard: "Tänk på avståndet mellan vagn och plattform när Du stiger av", meaning "Mind the distance between carriage and platform when you exit". It is also displayed as text on electronic displays.
 * In Oslo, T-bane trains play a recorded Norwegian warning -- "Vær oppmerksom på avstand mellom tog og platform" (Be aware of the distance between train and platform.) -- followed up by the English "Please mind the gap."
 * In Helsinki, on some commuter rail stations, "Mind the gap" can be heard in English, Finnish, and Swedish.
 * In Hamburg, passengers at the S-Bahn station Berliner Tor are warned with yellow flashing lights and the announcement "Bitte beachten Sie die Lücke zwischen Zug und Bahnsteigkante!" ("Please mind the gap between train and platform").
 * On the Berlin U-Bahn, the phrase "Bitte beachten Sie beim Aussteigen die Lücke zwischen Zug und Bahnsteigkante" ("Please mind the gap between train and platform edge when alighting") is used, followed by the English "Please mind the gap between platform and train."
 * On the Madrid Metro, a recorded warning message can be heard inside the trains when approaching a station with curved platforms: "Atención: estación en curva. Al salir, tengan cuidado para no introducir el pie entre coche y andén." ("Caution: station on a curve. As you exit, be careful not to place your foot between the train and the platform.") No warning messages are heard when arriving at a station with straight platforms.
 * On the Lisbon Metro at the Marquês de Pombal station on the blue line, the announcement "Atenção ao intervalo entre o cais e o comboio" ("Pay attention to the gap between the platform and the train") can be heard.
 * On all of the trains of the Milan Metro network, a yellow sticker on every door is visible with the warning in the Italian language "Attenzione allo spazio tra treno e banchina" (meaning literally "Pay attention to the gap between the train and the platform") and also in English "Mind the gap between the train and the platform".
 * On the Amsterdam Metro, a female voice announces the phrase "Let bij het in- en uitstappen op de ruimte tussen metro en perron." ("Pay attention to the space between the metro and platform during boarding and disembarking.") when approaching some stations, which is then followed in English by: "Please mind the gap between the train and platform."
 * Trains of the Dutch Railways have an announcement that warns passengers to carefully disembark because of high-level difference: "Beste reizigers, let goed op bij het uitstappen. Er is een niveauverschil tussen het perron en de trein." ("Dear passengers, pay attention when disembarking. There is a level difference between the platform and the train.") This is only announced in Dutch.
 * In Warsaw Metro, a sticker over the doors depicting a stick figure falling into the gap with texts below: "Uważaj na odstęp!" in Polish and (in italics) "Mind the gap" in (British) English, both written in Frutiger font (the same as all assets forming Warsaw Public Transport).

Asia

 * On Jakarta's Commuterline (KRL), the train announcement "Perhatikan jarak antara peron dengan kereta." is spoken. This translates as "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform." An English announcement is then played: "Please mind the platform gap."
 * On Singapore's MRT, the phrases "Please mind the platform gap" and "Please mind the gap" are used in announcements in English, played in the trains whenever a train approaches an underground station after the station's name has been announced twice. It is played on underground station platforms just after the train doors open or, sometimes, just as the train approaches the platform. Trains also have stickers pasted on the windows to caution passengers.
 * The phrase can be heard in New Delhi Metro in two languages (English and Hindi): "कृपया दूरी का ध्यान रखें" "Mind the gap".
 * It also can be heard in Chennai Metro in two languages (English and Tamil): "அன்புகூர்ந்து இடைவெளியை கவனத்தில் கொள்ளவும்" "Please Mind the gap".
 * On Hong Kong's MTR, the phrase "Please mind the gap" (請小心月台空隙) is announced in three languages: Cantonese, Mandarin, and English. In recent years, a more elaborate version of the announcement, heard on some East Rail line stations with very curved platforms, says, "Please mind the gap and be aware of the difference in levels between the platform and the train" (請小心空隙及留意月台與車廂地面嘅高低).
 * Several mainland Chinese metro systems use the phrase extensively; on the Tianjin Metro, announcements and stickers on train doors and platforms mention the gap (as well as to "mind the gap") in both English and Chinese. (The Chinese phrase is 小心站台空隙.) The Beijing Subway uses "Mind the Gaps" (note the plural). On lines operated by Beijing MTR Corp., Ltd., the Hong Kong/British influence is prominent, with the English announcement "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform" – having a British pronunciation – being played every time a train arrives. Both the Shanghai Metro and the Nanjing Metro use versions with slightly mutilated grammar ("Caution, Gap" and "Care the Gap", respectively, although the Chinese is the same).
 * On the Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3, a pre-recorded message is played at certain stations reminding passengers to "Watch your step and watch the gap between the train and the platform as you get on and off the train". This is simplified in its Filipino translation, which reminds passengers to be careful when boarding and alighting the train.
 * When approaching Taipei Main Station and Guandu Station on the Red line of Taipei Metro, after the transfer information is announced, the phrase "Mind the gap" (下車時請注意間隙) is announced in Mandarin, English, Hokkien and Hakka.
 * On many trains in Japan, the message "電車とホームの間が広く空いておりますので、ご注意下さい" is spoken. This translates as: "There is a wide space between the train and the platform, so please be careful". The phrase "足元にお気をつけ下さい" is also common, which means "Please mind your step".
 * Mind the Gap MRT Thailand.ogg underground train announcement in Thai and English]] In Thailand, the announcement is used somewhat differently from the London one. On Bangkok underground trains and Airport Rail Link trains, it says, "Please mind the gap between train and platform". Some grammarians argue that as specific and countable nouns, the words "train" and "platform" should be preceded by "the". Also, the Thai language version of the announcement does not refer to a "gap" but translates to "Please be careful when stepping out of the train", and is announced at every station as "โปรดใช้ความระมัดระวังขณะก้าวออกจากรถ" (romanised: bpròht chái kwaam rá mát rá wang kà-nà gâao òk jàak rót). However, in the Bangkok skytrain stations, the Thai announcement mentions the "gap", and is announced quite infrequently as: "ผู้โดยสารโปรดทราบ ในขณะที่เข้าและออกจากรถไฟ โปรดคำนึงถึงช่องว่างระหว่างชานชาลาและรถไฟ ขอบคุณคะ" (romanised: pôo doi săan bpròht sâap, nai kà-nà têe kâo láe òk jàak rót fai, bpròht kam neung tĕung chông wâang rá-wàang chaan chaa-laa láe rót fai. kòp kun ká) and can be translated into: "Attention, passengers, while entering and exiting the train, please mind the gap between the platform and the train. Thank you."
 * Signs on ferry docks in Shanghai render the phrase in Chinglish as "Note that the level of gap".
 * Announcements are made on Seoul Metro trains when arriving at stations with a curved platform, e.g. Myeongdong station on Line 4 and Singil station on Line 1, saying "이 역은 타는 곳과 전동차 사이가 넓습니다. 내리실 때 조심하시기 바랍니다" (which translates as "There is a big gap between the station platform and the train, please be careful when getting off") and "Please watch your step" in Korean and English.
 * The phrase is used in Dhaka Metro's pre-recorded audio announcement in a female voice after stopping at the stations in both Bangla and English. In English, the phrase goes, "Please mind the gap". In Bangla, however, the audio announcement does not explicitly mention or announce the gap; therefore, the phrase goes as "দয়া করে নিরাপদ দূরত্ব বজায় রাখুন" (romanised: Doya kore nirapod doorott(b)o bojaay raakhun) meaning "Please maintain a safe distance".

Oceania

 * At most Sydney Trains stations and on Waratah series train carriages, there is an automated announcement reminding passengers to mind the gap ("Please mind the gap when getting on or off the train") as well as posters informing riders about the number of people who fall down the gap each year.
 * Adelaide Metro trains conclude automated station announcements with the reminder, "Please mind the gap".
 * Many Queensland Rail trains announce "mind the gap" after the station name on arrival at a station.
 * On Transperth trains arriving at Perth Station, the announcement "mind the gap" is used.

Americas

 * In early 2009 the phrase was also being used on Metro Transit (King County) buses in and around Seattle, Washington.
 * At the stations of the São Paulo Metro and CPTM in São Paulo, Brazil the sentence that can be heard is "Cuidado com o vão entre o trem e a plataforma" ("Watch the gap between the train and the platform").
 * At almost all stations of SuperVia, Rio de Janeiro suburban trains, the driver announces "Observe o espaço entre o trem e a plataforma" ("Watch the space between the train and the platform"), and sometimes "Observe o desnível entre o trem e a plataforma" ("Watch the level difference between the train and the platform").
 * On the Rio de Janeiro Metro, the phrase "Observe atentamente o espaço entre o trem e a plataforma – Mind the gap" also can be heard.
 * During the CPTM train trips in São Paulo, the announcer says, before reaching a station, "Ao desembarcar, cuidado com o vão entre o trem e a plataforma – Before leaving, mind the gap between the train and the platform".
 * The New York City-area Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit use signs that read "Watch the gap" on trains and platforms. Because of reports of people falling through the gap, a warning is now played at every station, plus automated announcements on board the trains of all three railroads.
 * The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which operates LIRR and MNRR, retained New York personalities, including Maria Bartiromo and Al Roker, to recite the slogan. The newer trains with automated announcements also announce, "As you leave the train, please watch/step over the gap between the train and platform", to warn passengers to use caution.
 * It is also used on the MTA-operated New York City Subway and the Staten Island Railway – on trains and platforms and in conductor announcements. Newer trains equipped with automated announcements would say, "As you exit, please be careful of the gap between the platform and the train", where applicable after a station announcement is made.
 * New Jersey Transit uses signs on doors on all trains that read "Caution: Watch the gap" and an announcement plays "When leaving the train, please watch the gap" where applicable to warn passengers to remain cautious of the gap.
 * Plaques on Toronto subway station platforms warn riders to "Mind the gap." Platform-edge decals warn passengers, 'Wide gap space, mind the gap when entering.' Similar warnings are affixed to the inside of carriage doors. These warnings are featured alongside a ubiquitous graphic depicting a passenger boarding a carriage. Announcements about the warning on the public announcement system in each station can also be heard intermittently.
 * In the United States, the standard Amtrak conductor announcement when approaching any station stop concludes with "Mind the gap between the train and the platform". This is not strictly adhered to, and the more common American phraseology 'Watch the gap' may be heard instead.
 * On the Buenos Aires Metro, warnings on platform floors and on the door windows in the trains read "Cuidado con el espacio entre el tren y el andén." ("Mind the gap between train and platform").
 * The MBTA in Boston has added "Mind the gap" warnings near the platform edges in the 2016 renovated Government Center Station.

Other uses
Despite its origin as a utilitarian safety warning, "Mind the gap" has become a stock phrase and is used in many other contexts having little to do with subway safety.

It has been used as the title of at least two music albums by Scooter and Tristan Psionic, a film, and a novel, as the name of a movie production company, a theatre company, and a board game. It was also the title of a regional daytime quiz show on ITV, hosted by Paul Ross.

The phrase is used in many video games, including Portal, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Halo, Where's My Water, Temple Run, Quantum Conundrum, Killing Floor, Amazing Alex, Armadillo Run and BioShock Infinite, and in animated series such as The Clone Wars, usually in an ironic context. A soldier in Captain America: The First Avenger says it humorously before they descend via zip-line onto a moving train across snowy mountain peaks. It was a prominent utterance by the subterranean cannibal killer of the 1972 movie Death Line. The phrase is also featured in the soundtrack of the game Timesplitters: Future Perfect in the Subway level.

It is also the title of a Noisettes song on their album What's the Time Mr. Wolf?. The phrase is used in the songs "Deadwing" by Porcupine Tree, "Bingo" by Madness, "Someone in London" by Godsmack, Metal Airplanes by Matthew Good and "New Frontier" by the Counting Crows. Emma Clarke, one of the voices of the London Underground, has released a Mind The Gap single. It features spoof London Underground announcements. The name of the Portuguese hip hop group Mind Da Gap was also inspired by this stock phrase.

The phrase was used as the name for a campaign in December 2010 to lobby the UK Government to allow Gap Year students to defer their university place and not pay the higher tuition fees in September 2012.

The phrase has been used to name a combinatorial optimization problem.

The original Oswald Laurence "Mind the gap" announcement and the current voice-over announcements are also used in electronic music.

title: Mind the gap


text:
John Fitzgerald

John or Jack Fitzgerald, or variants, may refer to:

Military

 * Sir John Forster FitzGerald (1785–1877), Irish soldier, officer in British Army during the Napoleonic wars and Liberal MP
 * John Fitzgerald (soldier) (1817–?), American soldier
 * John Fitzgerald (Medal of Honor) (1873–1948), American Medal of Honor recipient

Nobility

 * John FitzGerald, 1st Baron Desmond (died 1261)
 * John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare (c. 1250–1316), Irish nobleman
 * John FitzGerald, 4th Earl of Desmond (died 1399)
 * John FitzGerald, de facto 12th Earl of Desmond (died 1534)
 * John Fitzedmund Fitzgerald (died 1589), Irish baron
 * John FitzGerald, 18th Earl of Kildare (1661–1707)
 * Lord John FitzGerald (1952–2015), Irish nobleman

UK

 * John Fitzgerald (governor) (fl. 1660s), Irish soldier and governor of Tangier
 * John FitzGerald, 15th Knight of Kerry (1706–1741), Irish MP for Dingle
 * John Fitzgerald (1775–1852), British MP for Seaford 1826–32
 * John FitzGerald, Baron FitzGerald (1816–1889), Irish judge and politician
 * Sir John Fitzgerald (brewer) (1857–1930), Lord Mayor of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, 1914–1915
 * Jack Fitzgerald (1873–1929), founding member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain
 * Jack Fitzgerald (politician) (John Fitzgerald, 1914–1994), Irish Labour Party politician

U.S.

 * John Fitzgerald (Wisconsin politician) (c. 1827–1863), Wisconsin banker and politician
 * John Wesley Fitzgerald (1850–1908), American businessman and politician
 * John C. Fitzgerald (1863–1928), New York politician
 * John F. Fitzgerald (1863–1950), aka "Honey Fitz", mayor of Boston, grandfather and namesake of president John F. Kennedy
 * John J. Fitzgerald (1872–1952), U.S. representative from New York
 * John I. Fitzgerald (1882–1966), American attorney and politician in Massachusetts
 * John Moonan Fitzgerald (1923–2008), U.S. jurist and politician
 * John Warner Fitzgerald (1924–2006), Michigan chief justice
 * John Wesley Fitzgerald, Michigan state representative

Other figures in politics and law

 * John Daniel FitzGerald (1862–1922), Australian politician
 * John Fitzgerald (Australian politician) (1864–1936), member of the South Australian House of Assembly
 * John FitzGerald of Dromana, MP for Dungarvan in the Irish Parliament

Science and medicine

 * John Patrick Fitzgerald (1815–1897), New Zealand doctor, community leader and hospital superintendent
 * John G. FitzGerald (1882–1940), Canadian physician
 * John Fitzgerald (computer scientist) (born 1965), British computer scientist and Chair of Formal Methods Europe

American football

 * John Fitzgerald (center) (born 1948), former Dallas Cowboys center
 * John Fitzgerald (quarterback) (born 1975), former quarterback with the af2's Austin Wranglers
 * John Fitzgerald (offensive guard) (fl. 1998–2000), former University of Central Oklahoma lineman

Association football (soccer)

 * Jack Fitzgerald (footballer) (1930–2003), Irish footballer
 * John Fitzgerald (soccer) (born 1968), Canadian soccer player, businessman & corporate lawyer
 * John Fitzgerald (footballer) (born 1984), Irish footballer

Baseball

 * John Fitzgerald (Rochester Broncos pitcher) (1866–1892), pitcher for the 1890 Rochester Broncos
 * John Fitzgerald (Boston Reds pitcher) (1870–1921), pitcher for the 1891 Boston Reds
 * John Fitzgerald (1950s pitcher) (born 1933), pitcher for the 1958 San Francisco Giants
 * John Fitzgerald (catcher) (fl. 1940s), Negro league baseball catcher

Other sports

 * John J. Fitz Gerald (1893–1963), American turf racing sportswriter
 * Jack Fitzgerald (cyclist) (born 1899), Australian cyclist
 * John Fitzgerald (Australian footballer, born 1961), former Geelong player
 * John Fitzgerald (Australian footballer, born 1901) (1901–1987), Fitzroy player
 * John Fitzgerald (tennis) (born 1960), Australian tennis player
 * John Fitzgerald (pentathlete) (born 1948), American modern pentathlete
 * John Fitzgerald (rugby union) (born 1961), Irish rugby union international player
 * Jack Fitzgerald (rugby league) (1925–1965), Australian rugby league player

Others

 * John Fitzgerald (priest) (fl. 1627–1641), Dean of Cork
 * John Anster Fitzgerald (died 1906), English fairy painter and portrait artist
 * John Driscoll Fitz-Gerald (1873–1946), American scholar and philologist
 * John D. Fitzgerald (1906–1988), American author of children's books
 * John Fitzgerald (poet) (1927–2007), English Carmelite priest and philosopher and Welsh-language poet
 * John D. FitzGerald (born 1952), Irish economist and former director of the Economic and Social Research Institute
 * John S. Fitzgerald, a frontiersman and erstwhile companion to Hugh Glass

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

title: John Fitzgerald


text:
Talk:Berlin Conference

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganmichelotti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Olusoga
Its unclear why the views of David Olusoga are of sufficent import to have a subtitle within the main discussion. As it stands it simply reads as an effort to minimise colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.170.26 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Request Admin rollback to 02:24, 15 July 2009, due to vandalism.

Some history is at Berlin Conference (now a disambig page) --VMAAXT (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My humble apologies - I turned the above original into a disambig before I discovered "Move page" or dared brave its dire warnings of the potential consequences of use. For the record, the article is almost wholly the fine work of MyRedDice - I may have added half a sentence. Graculus 14:30, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks Graculus - though I took most of the text from History of Africa anyway... :) Martin

Translation

 * Article: de:Kongokonferenz
 * Corresponding English-language article: Berlin Conference
 * Worth doing because: At least twice the length of the English article.
 * Originally Requested by: Jmabel 03:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: Done by User:Mpolo
 * Other notes: This is a case where we could fill in some of our under-coverage of African history simply by translating an article. -- Jmabel 03:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

- Jmabel 01:52, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Invitees
quote (source unknown):
 * "Not only did Bismarck seize territory on both sides of the continent, but in October 1884 he joined with France to invite twelve other states to a conference in Berlin"

Not currently reflected in the article. --Dittaeva 13:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Currently in the article:
 * ...while Germany declared Togo, Cameroon and Southwest Africa to be under its protection in 1884.

 * The conference

 * Leopold II was able to convince France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor, called on representatives of the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (union until 1905) and Zanzibar to take part in the Berlin Conference to work out policy.

 * That seems to cover both points in the unattributed quote. Maybe "declared under his protection" is too weak -- someone would have to look that up, obviously. (Since the info in the article came from German WP, it might tend to be more positive toward Germany...) The list of invitees, which includes France, is 13 countries, so corresponding to your info. Mpolo 14:35, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Number of countries who attended and their enumeration
Someone had placed Zanzibar among the attendees. This seems to be wrong (and is also therefore now mirrored all over the net). See. The attendees were His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, Otho, Prince von Bismarck, his President of the Prussian Council of Ministers, Chancellor of the Empire; Paul, Count von Hatzfeldt, his Minister of State and Secretary for Foreign Affairs; Auguste Busch, his Acting Privy Councillor of Legation and Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and Henri von Kusserow, Privy Councillor of Legation in the Department for Foreign Affairs ; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary, Emeric, Count Szechenyi de Sarvari Felsoe-Videk, Chamberlain and Acting Privy Councillor, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Gabriel Auguste Count van der Straten Ponthoz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Auguste, Baron Lambermont, Minister of State, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary ; His Majesty the King of Denmark, Emile de Vind, Chamberlain, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Spain, Don Francisco Merry y Colom, Count Benomar, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; The President of the United States of America, John A. Kasson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Henry S. Sanford, ex-Minister; The President of the French Republic, Alphonse, Baron de Courcel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, Sir Edward Baldwin Malet, her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Italy, Edward, Count de Launay, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Frederic Philippe, Jonkheer van der Hoeven, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, etc., Da Serra Gomes, Marquis de Penafiel, Peer of the Realm, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Antoine de Serpa Pimentel, Councillor of State and Peer of the Realm; His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, Pierre, Count Kapnist, Privy Councillor, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, etc., Gillis, Baron Bildt, Lieutenant-General, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, Mehemed Said Pasha, Vezir and High Dignitary, his Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent states
Is misleading because the Boer states were both annexed shortly after the conference in the Boer wars near the close of the 19th century and early 20th century. I propose to list the info as follows:

 * Liberia
 * Ethiopia (+ extra info already there)

Two otehr states remained independent until annexed by the British Empire:

 * Orange State
 * South African Republic

Ok you guys know what I mean. Lol. Tourskin 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Orange FREE State. The text say those were "Dutch" settlers. It's true that Dutch was used as written language, BUT the people homesteading there were Afrikaners. --105.11.20.182 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Map of agenda proposals
The geographical data covered by the text of "Agenda" would be well represented as a map. matturn (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post the same thing. A map would be very helpful if anyone has the necessary skill to make one. -- Boreas74  You'll catch more flies with honey 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Common Misconception
There seems to be some disagreement, particularly from 70.180.166.231 about the section detailing what is believed to be, by two referenced and well respected scholars on the matter, a misconception about some details in the Berlin Conference agreement. I am not 100% sure what the disagreement is so I have added this section for that disagreement to be more fully explained and elaborated. In the mean time I think it would be best not to edit that section unless those edits are well referenced (some thing that edits that add information to a wiki should be anyway). I would also like to point out that whilst it might be true in this case that "[r]eplacing the word 'pursue' with 'conquer' does not make it any less damning" this is not relevant as the section being referred to here is a direct quotation (in a block quotation format) and as such is, as a quotation, not open to being altered. Only shortened, expanded or removed. Since that section is short enough to be concise and long enough to properly explain the original authors meaning I believe it is not necessary to be expanded to shorted. Since it is a highly relevant quote to this article and is well and very specifically referenced it should remain in the article.--Discott (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerns re: neutrality and original research
Recent major revision has inserted not only new factual content, but quite a bit of apparent editorial matter re: the backwardness of the African culture that was supplanted by European rule. For example:
 * Previous efforts at establishing settlements and civilization by Portugal as in the Kingdom of Kongo, had revealed a grotesque anarchic civilization of witch-craft, cannibalism, and superstition within Central Africa. This older form of living was so powerful that despite Portugal's best effort, the Kingdom which was materialistically and spiritually superior, still succumbed to a series of wars with various Witch Kingdoms, which had just as quickly turned the former state back into a jungle of anarchy and darkness.

 * Armed with vast new weaponry, new medicine, and new technology, the Europeans quickly conquered the Congo and brought a new period of stability and peace to the region. Similarly, the European colonies elsewhere in Africa brought a new and better material living standard which benefited both natives and the European colonial powers and only ended with the abandonment of colonialism under pressure of the United States and the Soviet Union.

 * For the next fifty years, several millions of European settlers moved into Africa, hundreds of thousands of roads and rail-roads were established, the endemic tribal warfare was ended, cannibalism was suppressed, and Christianity was spread to millions of Africans who in turn experienced a rapid but stable growth rate thanks to European medicine, technology, and diet.

None of this is sourced, and given the user's concurrent removal of much uncomplimentary text at Henry Morton Stanley, there appears to be a desire to revise tone in such a way as to justify colonialism. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

unsourced normative statements
"By the early 1800s, the European sovereigns, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as the the United States of America, had developed over the course of several centuries an accepted code concerning the rights, obligations, and liberties of the sovereigns and their subjects in relation to one another, as well as with other foreign powers. Aside from Oriental powers long familiar with the European civilization such as Shah of Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the Indian Princely States, and the Manchu Empire, these customs were held in equality only among the Western Sovereigns. Other states such as the Ottoman Empire, also had their own customs which treated Europeans as inferior, thereby forcing the Europeans into establishing various public limited liability companies to limit losses due to the capriciousness of the foreign sovereigns, as well as providing semi-civil frameworks for representing whites in extra-territorial courts." Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: No move. No agreement that this is not the primary topic, nor that the other suggested titles are superior. Cúchullain t/ c 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Conference → Berlin West Africa Conference – WP:PRECISION - avoid ambiguous title, use name as in Britannica. ChemTerm (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Not sure that precision is necessary.  "Berlin Conference" is the common English name and quite recognizable. While admitting drawbacks with gbooks-searches, a quick gbooks search (omitting wiki, restricting results from 1970), we obtain roughly: 6 pages vs. 53 pages-worth of results. For such a widely-used term, the proposed title promises to surprise & confuse more than clarify. Walrasiad (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This Google-counting makes no sense. The term is ambiguous, external source don't necessarily have the problem of ambiguity, in case they are not a general purpose encyclopedia or a conference guide or so. Much more relevant is what other encyclopedias do and whether the primary meaning of "Berlin Conference" is the Berlin West Africa Conference. ChemTerm (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Berlin West Africa Conference" is a direct translation of the original official German title. It is a technical term which is not commonly found in English language sources.  Moreover, it is confusing - as the conference covered more than "West Africa", as that term is normally understood in English; indeed, given the popular alternate name as the "Congo Conference", readers would assume this was a different one, specialized in a different geographic area.  In short, it has practically zero recognizability, it would constitute a "surprise" to readers, likely to confuse more than clarify.  It is easily the primary topic for this title. I don't see why disambiguation is necessary - there aren't any other "Berlin Conferences", save the minor 1954 one and that is already disambiguated. Walrasiad (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option would be Berlin Conference (1884). ChemTerm (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an attractive option. It began in 1884, and ended 1885, so it is also frequent to denote it 1885. And 1884-85 makes it unnecessarily ugly. I'd say stick with the current title.  Walrasiad (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality
It seems this article is missing information relating to the neutrality clause of the Act - which is to say, that central Africa would remain neutral in the event of war between any of the colonial powers in Europe. This was ultimately rejected by the British after the outbreak of war in 1914, and it led to the African theatre of World War I. Why is this not discussed in the article? It seems to be a rather significant impact of the conference. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Research Assistance
I'd like help on one point. My understanding is that the US was invited to send a representative to the Berlin Conference. This would have been the first US presence at a major power confab dealing with issues outside the western hemisphere. Chester Arthur DID send someone. Is that right? I also understand that Grover Cleveland refused to submit the resulting treaty to the US Senate for ratification, because he wanted to keep the US out of such matters. Again: is that right? There are a lot of questions here. Who did Arthur send? How significant was his participation? What, if anything, did the resulting treaty offer the US that might have induced at least some of the Senators to vote for its ratification, had they had the chance? Is there a good source dealing with these matters in a way that doesn't presume too much prior knowledge> I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. --Christofurio (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Notice of Plagiarism
This article hardly contains any citations... The information in "Early history of the Berlin Conference" does not contain any sources and the information tends to be very one-sided. These views are from a South African viewpoint. a lot of this information was found to be plagiarized from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/berlin-conference. ("can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. ", "Before the conference, European diplomacy treated African indigenous people in the same manner as the New World natives, forming trading relationships with the indigenous chiefs", "By the mid-19th century, Europeans considered Africa to be disputed territory ripe for exploration, trade, and settlement by their colonists").

Morganmichelotti (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistic not cited – “By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control.” Found this exact sentence in A Revised History for Advanced Level & Colleges by Nassoro Habib Mbwana Msonde. Mcmogan (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary Source Documents
This article, for the most part, looks really well done. However, I think it would be good if we could add the original Document signed at the Conference. Among the sources listed I couldn't find anything that included this, and I think it would be a good addition. Cwerth490 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2020 (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) 06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cartoon depicting King Leopold II of the Belgians offering gifts to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.jpg

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) 06:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cartoon depicting King Leopold II of the Belgians offering gifts to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.jpg

The goals of the United States
The article says that the U.S. didn't come away from the conference with any African territory, but the U.S. didn't really want any formal African colony for itself -- it wanted European countries to keep their hands off of Liberia, and relatively free trade... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird sentence in the lede

 * The conference contributed to ushering in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, once made the point that the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was responsible for "the old carve-up of Africa"

This seems to be cobbled together from at least 2 other sentences, but the parts before and after the comma do not seem to belong together. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Berlin Conference


text:
Talk:Communications subsystem

I came here looking for a definition about identifying a subsystem of a quantum system, as needed e.g. for syndrom extraction in quantum error codes (see quantum error correction, which i've seen linked to but doesn't seem to exist yet). See also quantum computer, i guess.

Sorry if this is not yet in a encyclopedia-like shape.

-- Björn

 * Please use the talk pages for further criticism. We appreciate feedback. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

title: Talk:Communications subsystem


text:
Talk:Minority government

Potentially biased statement?
The article describes the SNP’s 2021 victory as a “landslide” but it evidentially was not if they went on to form a minority coalition. Indeed, they won less seats than at the 2011 election and only 1 seats more than in 2016; neither being described as a “landslide”.

Is this potentially weasel wording or bias?

Long Discussion
I removed the following paragraphs. Most of it will surely be made fit, but the totality gave (in my impression) a too incorrect impression, why I propose the wordings are discussed on this talk page first:
 * When in a minority situation the head of the largest party is still asked to form a government.
 * This is surely true for some countries, but not generally.

 * They must then either form a coalition with one or more existing parties, or they must win enough support from the other parties to avoid a non-confidence motion.
 * This is quite simply not generally or absolutely true.

 * Minority goverments are extremely common in proportional representation systems.
 * "Extremely common" - it would be interesting to see some statistics proving this.

 * Countries such as Israel and Germany are always ruled by coalitions.
 * "always" --> "usually" or "as a rule"

 * Under the first past the post system minorities are much rarer
 * Seems plausible, but are there really no better term than "the first past the post system" for what I'd called for instance "one-person's constituencies". ..."less proportional systems" for instance?

 * Minority governments are inherently unstable and often fall before their term is expired.
 * "are" --> "are sometimes" or "are often", but note for instance the Social Democrats in Sweden, who have headed the Cabinet with three brief exceptions since 1932, but as a rule have headed minority cabinets.

 * Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government and prevent and slow changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.
 * It would be nice to see who these critics are. Names, please!

-- Ruhrjung 13:44, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote most of the above text. It is written from a Canadian/Westminster system perspective, and most of the mistakes stem from that. In Canada minority governments virtually never last for there full term, usally falling within two years. Criticism of minority governments is almost universal within Canada's major parties see [], []. Also "first past the post" is the ubiquitous term for Canada's system. Sorry for the mistakes, I'll try to rework it. - SimonP 14:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

That's OK, but please do it here! -- Ruhrjung 15:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy against writing incomplete articles, please stop deleting my additions. I would be much obliged if you would edit the article yourself rather than just reverting it to a stub. - SimonP 16:18, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

If you stop put rubbish in the article, that would be no problem. I've above detailed why I reverted your change, and proposed that you discuss the article on the talk-page, which actually is the meaning of the talk page.

As English is not my mother tongue, I'm not the right person to make quick and good edits, and in this case I showed how each of (or close to each of) your sentences were objectionable. I do, and have done, plenty of edits in English, but that doesn't change the fact that it demands comparably more than edits in a mother tongue.

I must say that I had expected you to comment on the objections instead of putting new rubbish in the article, as for instance the claim on Swedish coalition cabinets which beside being false is in direct contradiction of what I had written above - only a few minutes before.

There is no reason to react aggressively, unless your ambition is Wikipedia vandalism, which I however do not believe.

-- Ruhrjung 17:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any offense, I thought I had made significant changes to the article based on your critiques. I am not an expert but I was under the impression that in Israel Likud or Labour never win more than fifty percent of the seats and thus form coalitions. At least recently, the same has been true in Germany, and will be for the foreseeable future as long as there are four large parties. Perhaps I was wrong on these but please present some evidence.
 * No, I don't think you were wrong. But I question on these points the relevance for an article on minority cabinets ...in addition to the pure nonsence on Swedish coalition cabinets, ...although Swedish minority cabinets in reality might be relevant here - and that as example of stable minority cabinets that don't seem to suffer much from proposed drawbacks. Additionally, it might be questioned if Germany, my country, is such a good example. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More importantly I do not see what is so wrong about my section on the westminster system (which by the way is not a synonym for the first past the post system). For Canada, at least, it is quite accurate, there are probably differences in other westminster countries (Australia's system has been much reformed), but please list these rather than deleting the entire text.
 * If you know the situation specifically in Canada, but not neccessarily otherwhere, then state that you write about Canada, and not about minority cabinets around the world. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In my almost two years here I have never been in an edit war, but I am strongly considering reinserting my section on westminster unless you tell me what is wrong with it.
 * You have done that once already. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also I did present two links to articles outlining the common criticism of minority governments. (a criticism which I do not believe is valid, but it is still very widespread and should be addressed) Please explain why those sources are invalid or will also reinsert that section.
 * I will be very quick to agree with you on this kind of issues, I must however confess that I probably did this without any specifical thoughts on the links in question. I've no recollection of having done this. They surely followed en suite as I made a revertion of all your changes, the reason to which I'd stated above, don't you think? -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not want to seem agressive or confrontational but I do feel that most of what was there was at least somewhat valid. - SimonP 17:47, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's you whou should provide examples and references.

If you make a "sweeping" change, where plenty of inaccuracies can be detected also by the untrained eye, you will have to accept that your credibility is damaged, and that it is you who have to carry the burden of provements. I do not oppose your statement that your assertations were "at least somewhat valid" - my problem is that they were only partially valid, as I've detailed above. And your initial disinterest to discuss the issue (above) didn't give the best impression of your intentions.

I'm sure this discussion will make both this specific article, and tinily the wikipedia project as a whole, improved.

regards! -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding. You seem to not view coalition governments as a form of minority government, which is reasonable since in most of Europe majority government are so rare that politics are through the lens of a coaltion/minority dualism. In the Commonwealth majorities are the norm and we view things as a majority/minority dualism and generally lump coaltions in as a form of minority government. That is why I could carelessly toss Sweden in to the list of coaltion governed states, and why you think the talk of coaltion governments does not belong in an article on minority goverments. This is just a theory, however, maybe I've got it all wrong again. Tell me what you think of my latest effort, I do value your commentary and do think it will lead to a better article. - SimonP 19:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see how a coalition that commands a majority in the parliament can be called a minority government. Majority/minority and one-party/coalition are two different dualisms, and all four combinations are possible. --Wik 19:59, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * True, they are not called minority govenrments, but in Canada you will never here of a coalition being elected, you will here of a minority govenrnment being elected which then might or might not transform into a coaltion.

 * Another example is in the long simmering debate about proportional representation. The disadvantage is always said to be minority governments, when it would, in fact, be coalition governments that result. Minority government is used as a shorthand for anything that is not a majority government.

 * A minority government, with an unofficial arrangement between the parties, and a coaltion, with a more solid arrangement, but one that could still fall apart at any time, are viewed as quite similar when compared with our standard majority goverments with near dictatorial powers.

 * This is all still just a theory and it might be totally wrong, or have nothing to with the debate at hand, however. - SimonP 20:29, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

A coalition cabinet is either a minority cabinet or a majority cabinet. That can't be a "cultural thing" - it's inherently following the definitions. I propose you move your, as far as I can judge, correct statements on coalition cabinets to coalition cabinet.

Regarding your assertion about the rareness of majority cabinets in Europe, I agree that you might have right, although I doubt it very much. Once again I think you make claims without presenting any statistical support. My impression is the opposite, i.e. that majority cabinets have been the rule in the democratic (i.e. with exception for Soviet satelites and dictatures in Portugal, Spain and Greece) part of Europe, at least during my lifetime (I'm born in 1973).

-- Ruhrjung 20:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never said majority cabinets are rare in Europe, I said majority cabinets containing only one party are rare in Europe. To Canadians there is a great difference between a majority cabinet with multiple parties and one with one party, enough of a difference that we often treat cabinets with multiple parties as being very similar to or the same as minority governments. To us coaltion governments and minority governments seem very closely related. Also in Canada a coaltion is very rarely, if ever, refered to as a majority government. For instance the is currently a coalition government ruling Saskatchewan, but it is never refered to as a majority government, even though that is technically the case. - SimonP 21:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I quote from above: ...since in most of Europe majority government are so rare... -- Ruhrjung 21:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But in Canada majority government refers to a government where one party has a majority of the seats. We don't call coalitions majority governments, they are often even considered a form of minority government.

You should understand terms like "majority cabinet" are foreign to us. If you search for "majority cabinet" canada on google all the 47 hits are references to other countries. - SimonP 22:10, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Nothing hinders that you mention this peculiar Canadadisms :-> in a sentence in this article, but as most (if not all) of what you've contributed with actually is about multi-party majority-cabinets, you better remove it from here and inser relevant parts into the article on coalition cabinets - but also there it's highly advicable that you avoid a confusing usage of terms peculiar to Canadians. It's sufficiently confusing with Anglo-Saxon lack of stringence and logic.;->> -- Ruhrjung 22:26, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the non-westminster stuff. I'm fine with a sentence or two directing people to the article on coalition governments. I mostly just included all the non-Westminster stuff because there was some fellow who wanted heaps of evidence for everything I was saying.
 * You must be aware of that in my opinion THAT is what I've done. - Thrice! With the only effect that you put new, similar versions with outlandish assertions into the article. The "heaps of evidence" are yet not presented. Chiefly, you are mixing apples with pears. I don't care about edit wars. My investment on this article has actually been much more than I would have liked, and now I really think it's your responsibility - IF you really care about the credibility of the wikipedia project. -- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Westminster bits, even if some of it is on what you call majority cabinets, should stay as it would still be relevant to most Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc. views on minority governments. - SimonP 22:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you at all have read the first sentence of the article, stating:
 * A minority government, or a minority cabinet, is a cabinet of a parliamentary system which does not represent a majority in the parliament - or in bicameral parliaments, in that chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial.

-- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Key issues
I can see that there are arguments raging back and forth over a number of points on this article. Here are some of the points I would like to add a comment on:

Largest Party
I have changed the sentence on the largest party to "In a minority situation the head of the largest party is usually asked to form a government" since a smaller party could be asked to form a government if it was better equipped to do so ( an example of how that nearly happened in the UK can be seen after the 1974 General Election (February)

First Past the Post
First Past the Post is ridiculous and inaccurate name for the system described. However it is also the commonly accepted name - sometimes English doesn't make sense.

Continental Europe
I am unconfortable with the line "Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." since it is not entirely accurate. Many of the countries in Europe have their own issues: for example the French government usually has a majority in Parliament, but different Presidents and Prime Ministers can lead to a system of "co-habitation" which is very different from coalition / minority government (and has nothing to do with PR). Belgium also has coalition government, but this is largely due to the Flemish and Wallonian parts having completely different political parties. Other countries that I know less about all have their own issues, but blaming it all on PR seems a little bit unfair (as it is often not the culprit).

Coalitions also mean different things in different countries. In Italy for example coalitions are often formed before elections, unlike the UK where they are formed after. (So an Italian coalition is more like a political party)

 * I've moved the line " Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." per the arguments above Captainj 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I have moved these lines to the talk page as they clearly violate Avoid weasel words. Please find someone who has said these criticisms and had them published.

Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government, which prevents and slows changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.

Captainj 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wales
The details about the Labour minority government in the Welsh Assembly is rather out of date now. I've updated the information about the current state of the Assembly and the new Labour-Plaid coalition, for someone with more experience to decide whether it's still worthy of note on this page or not. AlbertSimon 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Value statements

 * However, a minority government tends to be less arrogant because it often requires compromise between the different parties to ensure the passage of legislation.

Arrogance is a value judgement; perhaps another more factual term should be used here. Also, "tends", "often" = weasel words. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 13:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Poorly worded sentence
The following run-on sentence could be improved:
 * There the long governing Social-Democrats have governed with more or, mostly, less formal support from other parties; in the mid-20th century from Agrarians, after 1968 from Communists, and more recently from Greens and ex-Communists, and have thus been able to retain executive power and (in practice) legislative initiative.

Particularly the phrase: ''... governed with more or, mostly, less formal support ...'' 216.16.228.6 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

less arrogant
"less arrogant"? What crappy English  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.3.207 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge hung parliament into minority government
I suggest that be merged into  because "hung parliament" article is UK biased, and this article covers the same territory;  already redirects here.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose: A "hung parliament" can lead to a minority government or a coalition government, so it definitely shouldn't be merged into the former to the exclusion of the latter. I suspect the reason the "hung parliament" article is UK biased is that the term "hung parliament" is only used in the UK. Whether the same issues are considered elsewhere under a comparable label is a pertinent question; but any such defects are for discussion on Talk:Hung parliament; this proposed merger is clearly the wrong way to try to fix them. Obviously the two articles need prominent wikilinks to each other, and duplication of material should be minimised. jnestorius(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose:Different topics--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: a hung parliament is not the same as a minority government. ThinkingTwice  ''contribs 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: Hung parliaments and minority parliaments are not the same thing, but they are part of the same process. I think anyone interested in learning about minority parliaments would want to also read about hung parliaments and vice versa, so it would be better to discuss the two in a coordinated way under one article, so I support a merge of these two articles into a unified explanation of the process while maybe also splitting away all of the examples from specific countries into a separate list article.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as they are not the same thing, a minority government is just one of the outcomes of a HP. Another outcome is a coalition government and another is a new election. However we have a problem in that the content of these two articles is very similar: both should be edited heavily so that each contains only a summary of the material more properly covered in detail by the other. The claim that an MG is "also known as a hung parliament" is blatant POV which I belive should be removed and I will now do so. --Red King (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: A hung parliament is the event which results in these outcomes: a minority government, a coalition government or another general election. Hypothetical point. A flat tyre is an event: do we therefore have a separate articles for all the outcomes: change the wheel, call a break down service, leave the car, take the wheel to a garage etc? No because the event is the flat tyre. Is this therefore any different from having one article regarding a hung parliament which then also explains the outcomes of this event? Seems simple to me!
 * Question: the original prosopal is that "hung parliament" should be merged into "minority government". Your proposal seems to be that (a) "minority government" should be merged into "hung parliament", and (b) "coalition government" should also be merged into "hung parliament". Is that accurate? BTW, we have separate articles flat tyre, spare tyre, and canned tire inflator. jnestorius(talk) 13:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Hung Parliment is the result of an election which has ended up with nether major party winning a majority of seats. It has nothing to do with minority government which only occurs after a deal has been reached with the minority parties or independants and a government is sworn in. They are not the same, but one does usually result in the other occuring. "Hung Parliment" refers specifically to an election result, where as "minority government" refers to a sworn in government that does not have a majority of seats--colliric (User talk:collirictalk) 17:25pm, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Minority government simply doesn't mean the same thing as hung parliament. If only BrE has developed a term for it, then we're stuck with that one. BillMasen (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A hung parliament can be a mere tie result or a complete deadlock when the elections process is working correctly.

(Therefore, no party has a superior claim to be the government.) A minority government though means a group within parliament has found a way to resolve that impasse and obtain a legally acceptable way to form the next government. They are two completely different things. Hung Parliaments can turn into minority governments but if two parties before-hand iron-out a protocol then a Parliament may result in a minority government without first becoming a hung parliament. For example, if an election has three parties A, B and C. If A and B go into the election saying they plan to form a coalition then C could be out of luck once the results of the election were called avoiding the hung parliament situation completely. This situation played out in Trinidad and Tobago's 2010 general election. (The People's Partnership), CaribDigita (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A minority government is only one outcome of a hung parliament, and by no means similar. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Hung Parliament describes the situation of a parliament in which no single party has majority control. It is about the balance of party strength in the legislature.  Minority government is a description of a government that seeks to rule without commanding majority support in parliament.  A minority government could be the outcome of a hung parliament but not necessarily.  A hung parliament may result in various forms of government arises from a hung parliament. Marlarkey (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please discuss other details related to the proposal here

 * Merge. There is no real reason to have separate articles on what is essentially the same thing. If anything, hung parliament can be covered in both the minority government and coalition government articles.Agent 86 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, Sorry, but it ist not the same thing, it is a special thing. And what about a reelection as a third solution? When I try to get informationa about the british governmental system and about the british parliament I look for articles like 'hung paliament'. To merge it would be a loss of information and a worse access to knowledge.--13Peewit (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose They're not the same thing at all. Various outcomes can arise from a hung parliament... one of which is a minority government.  Other outcomes could be a coalition, a confidence and supply agreement, a pact, a general election. Marlarkey (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A hung parliament (no one party has more than half of the seats) is not the same as a minority government (the group forming the government has less than half the seats parliament) in any sense. Indeed, a hung parliament does not always lead to minority government - a coalition could form to create a majority government while the parliament would remain hung. Compare the SNP minority government in Scotland with the Lib/Lab coalition majority government that proceeded it, bot were the result of a hung parliament. So I oppose the merge. Andreww (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Hung Parliament should be as much merged to Coalition Government as it should to this topic. I don't see why this is even being considered for discussion. Hung Parliament is a predecessor condition for both types of government and therefore worthy of a topic in its own right. If this came up as a subheading in either topic then I'd rightly expect to see it split so that a detailed article bridging the two would be formed. It's also more useful as a basis for listing historical hung parliaments that may have ended up with either form of government. The whole point of splitting a topic covered in more than one article is to maintain consistency.--Topperfalkon (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Quite clearly, to merge "hung parliament" into "minority government" would be an error since the latter is merely one of several possible outcomes of the former and (furthermore)"hung parliament" is a term that is only relevant in "first past the post" electoral systems whereas "minority government" is a universal possibility.

 * Alternative Suggestion: Indeed minority government and hung Parliament are different. Bug isn't "hung Parliament" a British term not used anywhere else? Having lived in both Canada and UK, I suspect that non-British people are trying to find the equivalent of the term "hung Parliament" in their countries. Probably the closest term used commonly in those countries is this "minority government". Hence this merger being suggested. At least that's what I feel having regularly listened to CBC Radio which through out the election consistently told the listeners that British "hung Parliament" is the equivalent of their "minority government". Shouldn't "hung Parliament" in the UK be considered a special case of legislatures which most likely results in minority government or coalition government? Shouldn't it be called "minority parliament" or something rather than "hung parliament"? What we should have is the article that describes such legislatures in general, under a title that everyone would find adequate. Call it "minority parliament", not "hung Parliament", and let the hung Parliament be its British name. That should settle down those who found the term "hung parliament" uncomfortable to describe their legislature like current Canadian parliament. --Ippei (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The IP's specific suggestion makes no sense since a hung parliament and a minority government are quite distinct entities. Indeed, one does not necessarily imply the other. A hung parliament might result in a minority government or it might result in several other forms of government or even a new election. A minority government might be formed after an general election results in a hung parliament or it might be formed for different reasons, e.g. "In bicameral parliaments, the term relates to the situation in the chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial". Information about the latter situation should be included in this article therefore and the other article should also be expanded to cover non-UK hung parliaments. Frankly, both articles are a mess and I am not surprised the IP is somewhat confused. I am not sure if "minority parliament" is a viable alternative since that term is not widely used --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to depend on where you live. The .uk term is "minority government", the .ca term is "minority parliament" (I infer from the discussion - am I right??). It certainly seems to be the case that "hung parliament" is a UK term for the period that begins with the election result that no party has a majority, and ends with the formation of a minority government or a coalition government or another election. Did the .au press use this term recently?  --Red King (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose per others. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Would a list such as this make it clearer?
It just needs the rest of the Parliamentary systems added. This was moved from the First Past The Post discussion page.

This may convey it in simplest terms.

Essentially. If you know the total # of seats within the lower chamber, divide by two, and that is the "post". Any party which obtains seats greater than the "post" number (i.e. 50%+1) would be a majority government. If a party with the greatest number of seats however has lower than the "post", then it is a minority government. To this day I still hear people in utter confusion with the UK election. This breaks it down in simplest terms. CaribDigita (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I think this chart would be useful elsewhere, perhaps at a page for Westminster style parliaments. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Minorities without plurality
In Canada, there is an example of a party winning fewer votes than another party, in the 1925 election, but staying in power. The incumbent Liberal government of Mackenzie King was reduced to 101 seats in the House of Commons, while the opposition Conservatives actually took the most seats (116). All others won 26 seats, 24 of them won by the Progressives. King chose to carry on in government and face the new Parliament seeking its confidence. From January to July 1926, King’s government sustained such confidence with the support of most of the Progressives (although in many cases only by one or two votes). King was forced to resign when he lost the confidence of the House in 1926. (See Federal minority governments in Canada).

The point is that no party would be able to sustain power without a coalition unless it at least had the most seats of any party. Someone tried to put in an edit that even with less seats a party could retain power, but that is misleading, as it requires a coalition, not just the one party alone. --Skol fir (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * there is still a minority government in canada
 * hwt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.56.127 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 June 2011

Table of current (sic!) minority governments? Is this wise?
Wikipedia generally doesn't like the c word because what is current today is history tomorrow. Which of us guarantees forever to keep this list in its entirety up to the minute accurate? WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I suggest strongly that the table be deleted as unmaintable. Meanwhile, I will prefix it with template:as of. --Red King (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ireland
Is ireland not currently a minority government? Himynameisslimshadyspuppy (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Minority government