text:
Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers

The Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers (until 1937 the Worshipful Company of Stationers), usually known as the Stationers' Company, is one of the livery companies of the City of London. The Stationers' Company was formed in 1403; it received a Royal Charter in 1557. It held a monopoly over the publishing industry and was officially responsible for setting and enforcing regulations until the enactment of the Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act of 1710. Once the company received its charter, "the company's role was to regulate and discipline the industry, define proper conduct and maintain its own corporate privileges."

The company members, including master, wardens, assistants, liverymen, freemen and apprentices are mostly involved with the modern visual and graphic communications industries that have evolved from the company's original trades. These include printing, paper-making, packaging, office products, engineering, advertising, design, photography, film and video production, publishing of books, newspapers and periodicals and digital media. The company's principal purpose nowadays is to provide an independent forum where its members can advance the interests (strategic, educational, training and charitable) of the industries associated with the company.

History
In 1403, the Corporation of London approved the formation of a guild of stationers. At this time, the occupations considered stationers for the purposes of the guild were text writers, limners (illuminators), bookbinders or booksellers who worked at a fixed location (stationarius) beside the walls of St Paul's Cathedral. Booksellers sold manuscript books, or copies thereof produced by their respective firms for retail; they also sold writing materials. Illuminators illustrated and decorated manuscripts.

Printing gradually displaced manuscript production so that, by the time the guild received a royal charter of incorporation on 4 May 1557, it had in effect become a printers' guild. In 1559, it became the 47th in city livery company precedence. At the time, it was based at Peter's College, which it bought from St Paul's Cathedral. During the Tudor and Stuart periods, the Stationers were legally empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set down by the Church and state; its officers could bring "offenders" before ecclesiastical authorities, usually the Bishop of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury, depending on the severity of the transgression. Thus the Stationers played an important role in the culture of England as it evolved through the intensely turbulent decades of the Protestant Reformation and toward the English Civil War.

The Stationers' Charter, which codified its monopoly on book production, ensured that once a member had asserted ownership of a text or "copy" by having it approved by the company, no other member was entitled to publish it, that is, no one else had the "right to copy" it. This is the origin of the term "copyright". However, this original "right to copy" in England was different from the modern conception of copyright. The stationers' "copy right" was a protection granted to the printers of a book; "copyright" introduced with the Statute of Anne, or the Copyright Act of 1710, was a right granted to the author(s) of a book based on statutory law.

Members of the company could, and mostly did, document their ownership of copyright in a work by entering it in the "entry book of copies" or the Stationers' Company Register. The Register of the Stationers' Company thus became one of the most essential documentary records in the later study of English Renaissance theatre. (In 1606 the Master of the Revels, who was responsible until this time for licensing plays for performance, acquired some overlapping authority over licensing them for publication as well; but the Stationers' Register remained a crucial and authoritative source of information after that date too.) Enforcement of such rules was always a challenge, in this area as in other aspects of the Tudor/Stuart regime. Works were often printed surreptitiously and illegally, and this would remain a subject of interest to both the Company and the government into the modern period.

In 1603, the Stationers formed the English Stock, a joint stock publishing company funded by shares held by members of the company. This profitable venture gave the Company a monopoly on printing certain types of works, including almanacs, prayer-books, and primers, some of the best-selling works of the day. By buying and holding shares in the English Stock (which were limited in number), members of the company received a nearly guaranteed return each year. The English Stock at times employed out-of-work printers, and disbursed some of the profit to the poor and to those reliant on the Company's pensions. When a printer or bookseller who held a share passed away, it might often pass to another relation, most often his widow. In 1606, the company bought Abergavenny House in Ave Maria Lane and moved out of Peter's College. The new hall burnt down in the Great Fire of 1666, along with most of its contents, including a great number of books. The Company's clerk, George Tokefeild, is said to have removed a great number of the Company's records to his home in the suburbs—without this act, much of the Company's history before 1666 would have been lost. It was rebuilt by 1674, and its present interior is much as it was when it reopened. The Court Room was added in 1748, and in 1800 the external façade was remodelled to its present form.

In 1695, the monopoly power of the Stationers' Company was diminished by the lapsing of their monopoly on printing, allowing presses to operate more freely outside of London than they had previously. This blow was compounded when in 1710 Parliament passed the Copyright Act 1709, the first such act to establish copyright as the purview of authors, not printers or publishers.

In 1861, the company established the Stationers' Company's School at Bolt Court, Fleet Street for the education of sons of members of the Company. In 1894, the school moved to Hornsey in north London, eventually closing nearly a century later in 1983.

Registration under the Copyright Act 1911 ended in December 1923; the company then established a voluntary register in which copyrights could be recorded to provide printed proof of ownership in case of disputes.

In 1937, a royal charter amalgamated the Stationers' Company and the Newspaper Makers' Company, which had been founded six years earlier (and whose members were predominant in Fleet Street), into the company of the present name.

In March 2012, the company established the "Young Stationers," to provide a forum for young people (under the age of 40) within the company and the civic City of London more broadly. This led to the establishment of the Young Stationers' Prize in 2014, which recognises outstanding achievements within the company's trades. Prize winners have included novelist Angela Clarke, journalist Katie Glass, and professor of journalism Dr Shane Tilton.

The company's motto is Verbum Domini manet in aeternum, Latin for "The Word of the Lord endures forever;" which appears on their heraldic charge.

In November 2020 Stationers' Hall the home of the Stationers' Company were granted approval to redevelop their Grade 1 listed building to bring modern day conference facilities, air-cooling and step free access to its historic rooms. It reopened in July 2022 for live events, weddings, and filming.

Trades
The modern Stationers' Company represents the "content and communications" industries within the City of London Liveries. This includes the following trades and specialisms:

 * Archiving (including librarian, curators, and book conservation)
 * Bookselling and distribution
 * Communications (including advertising, marketing, and PR)
 * Digital media and software
 * Newspapers and broadcasting
 * Office products and supplies
 * Packaging
 * Paper
 * Print machinery
 * Printing
 * Publishing (including digital publishing and design)
 * Writing (including journalism, broadcasting, and authorship)

Hall
Stationers' Hall is at Ave Maria Lane near Ludgate Hill. The site of the present hall was formerly the site of Abergavenny House, which was purchased by the Stationers in 1606 for £3,500, but destroyed in the Great Fire of London, 1666. The current building and hall date from circa 1670. The hall was remodelled in 1800 by the architect Robert Mylne and, on 4 January 1950, it was designated a Grade I listed building.

Stationers' Hall hosts the Shine School Media Awards, where students compete in the creation of websites and magazines.

Notable liverymen

 * Edward Allde
 * John Cleave
 * Thomas Cotes
 * George Eld
 * Edmund Evans
 * George Faulkner
 * Richard Field
 * Augustine Matthews
 * George Mudie (Owenite)
 * Rupert Murdoch
 * Thomas Cautley Newby
 * Nicholas Okes
 * Peter Short
 * William Stansby
 * John Trundle
 * Sir Christopher Meyer
 * William Hague

Court
Below are lists of officials who either sat on the Stationer's Company Court of Assistants, or who worked for the Company in another official capacity (Beadle, Treasurer, and Clerk) from the time the Company was first granted a charter in 1556 to the present day. As with most London livery companies, the Master of the Company was elected yearly, along with the Wardens. For the Stationers, this election day always took place in late June, the day before St. Peter's Day (June 29). Thus, a Master's term would run effectively from July to July. The dates below reflect the year a Master was elected and began a term of service. Upper and Under Wardens were elected at the same time, while Renter Wardens (those two wardens charged with collecting dues from members of the Company annually) were chosen for the following year in March, on or around Lady Day. The roles of Beadle and Clerk were likewise elected positions, filled whenever they came open, but were often held by the same members for years or even decades. The Treasurer of the Company/English Stock was elected annually in March along with the Stockeepers, and again, was often held by the same person for years.

The master oversaw Company "courts," meetings of the Assistants and sometimes the Livery and wider membership where Company business was discussed and resolved. These courts were usually held monthly but could be held more or less frequently. Although official company positions were historically always held by men until the twentieth century, women have always participated meaningfully in the life of the Company, at certain times even holding a controlling interest in the Company's joint stock venture, known as the English Stock.

The first woman elected master was Helen Esmonde, who held the position in 2015.

Young Stationers' Prize

The "Young Stationers' Prize" is an annual prize awarded by the Young Stationers' Committee to a young person under 40 years of age who has distinguished themself within the company's trades. Launched in 2014, the prize is a pewter plate (donated by the Worshipful Company of Pewterers) onto which each winner's name is engraved.

List of Young Stationers' Prize winners
As of December 2019 there have been seven winners of the Young Stationers' Prize: Katie Glass, journalist, 2014; Angela Clarke, novelist, playwright, and columnist, 2015;  Ella Kahn and Bryony Woods, founders of Diamond Kahn & Woods Literary Agency (awarded jointly), 2016; Ian Buckley, managing director of Prima Software, 2017; Shane Tilton, academic and professor of multimedia journalism, 2018; Amy Hutchinson, CEO of the BOSS Federation, 2019.


text:
HandMade Films

HandMade Films was a British film production and distribution company. Notable films from the studio include Monty Python's Life of Brian, Time Bandits, The Long Good Friday and Withnail and I.

Foundation
HandMade Films was formed by former Beatle George Harrison and business partner Denis O'Brien in 1978 to finance the controversial Monty Python film Life of Brian. Harrison had been introduced to O'Brien by actor Peter Sellers in 1973. Soon afterward the two went into business together. The HandMade logo was drawn by Python's animator Terry Gilliam.

When the original financiers of Brian, EMI Films, pulled out of the project less than a week before filming was to commence, the creators had to find other financing. Harrison, a friend and fan of the Pythons, mortgaged his home in order to finance the feature. Eric Idle of the Pythons later called it "the most anybody's ever paid for a cinema ticket in history". Life of Brian grossed $21 million at the box office in the US.

Harrison explained: "The name of the company came about as a bit of a joke. I'd been to Wookey Hole in Somerset ... [near] an old paper mill where they show you how to make old underpants into paper. So I bought a few rolls, and they had this watermark 'British Handmade Paper' ... So we said ... we'll call it Handmade Films."

First film and growth of productions
The first film distributed by HandMade Films was The Long Good Friday (1980), and the first it produced was Time Bandits (1981), a co-scripted project by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin. The film featured a new song by Harrison, "Dream Away", in the closing credits. Time Bandits became one of HandMade's most successful and acclaimed efforts; with a budget of $5 million, it earned $35 million in the US within ten weeks of its release.

Harrison served as executive producer for 23 films with HandMade, including the Oscar-nominated Mona Lisa, Shanghai Surprise and Withnail and I. He made several cameo appearances in these films, including a role as a nightclub singer in Shanghai Surprise, for which he recorded five new songs. According to Ian Inglis, Harrison's "executive role in HandMade Films helped to sustain British cinema at a time of crisis, producing some of the country's most memorable movies of the 1980s." In 1987, HandMade Films made an agreement with independent motion picture distributor Island Pictures to distribute four films for limited theatrical release from 1987 to mid-1988: The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, Track 29, The Raggedy Rawney and Bellman and True.

Changes of ownership and recent history
Following a series of box office bombs in the late 1980s and excessive debt incurred by O'Brien, which was guaranteed by Harrison, HandMade's financial situation became precarious. The company ceased operations in 1991 and was sold three years later to Paragon Entertainment Corporation of Toronto, Canada. Afterward, Harrison sued O'Brien for $25 million for fraud and negligence, resulting in an $11.6 million judgment in 1996.

New owner Paragon Entertainment Corporation restarted production under the HandMade name in 1996–1997. The company's most notable release of that era was Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). In 1999, Patrick Meehan and Cartier Investments acquired HandMade from Paragon.

In June 1999, The Equator Group plc became the exclusive distributor and manager of the HandMade Films library, and attempted to purchase the company from Cartier outright, but negotiations were unsuccessful until a reverse takeover agreement with Hand Made Holdings Ltd announced on 15 May 2006.

The Equator Group reincorporated as HandMade Plc on 8 June 2006 and the new company was traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) stock exchange (changing its ticker symbol from EQG to HMF). Trading of HandMade plc shares was suspended several times, notably June to October 2009, after the company failed to provide 2008 audit results to shareholders.

On 29 April 2010, Almorah Services Ltd tendered a takeover bid, priced at £0.01 per share in cash and HMF was delisted from the AIM on 29 June 2010. HandMade plc was re-registered as HandMade Limited, a private company, on 2 February 2011. Handmade Limited entered administration on 11 July 2012, liquidation on 24 April 2013, and was dissolved on 22 February 2018.

In 2016, Park Circus purchased distribution rights to the HandMade film library.

In 2017, following an investigation by the Insolvency Service, three HandMade Limited directors were disqualified from acting as a director of a company: Patrick Anthony Meehan for 13 years, David Bernard Ravden for five-and-a-half years, and Peter William Parkinson for four years. The directors misused funds to "pay off relatives" and "on matters undisclosed to advisers, shareholder or potential investors".

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

title: HandMade Films


text: User:Chris Jones

title: User:Chris Jones


text:
Samut Sakhon province

Samut Sakhon (สมุทรสาคร, ) is one of the central provinces (changwat) of Thailand, located along the coast of the Gulf of Thailand. In 2019, it had a population of 584,703, and an area of 872 km², making it the 33rd most populated province whilst being the 4th smallest. Neighboring provinces are (from the southwest clockwise) Samut Songkhram, Ratchaburi, Nakhon Pathom, and Bangkok. Samut Sakhon is part of the Bangkok Metropolitan Region.

Toponymy
The word samut originates from the Sanskrit word samudra meaning 'ocean', and the word sakhon from Sanskrit sagara meaning 'lake'.

Geography
Samut Sakhon is at the mouth of the Tha Chin Klong River, a distributary of the Chao Phraya River, to the Gulf of Thailand. At the coast are many salt pans used for harvesting sea salt. The total forest area is 42 km² or 4.9 percent of provincial area.

Climate
Samut Sakhon province has a tropical savanna climate (Köppen climate classification category Aw). Winters are dry and warm. Temperatures rise until May. The monsoon season runs from May through October, with heavy rain and somewhat cooler temperatures during the day, although nights remain warm. Climatological data for the period 1981–2010: Maximum temperature is 39.7 °C (103.5 °F) in April and May and the lowest temperature is 12.0 °C (53.6 °F) in December. The highest average temperature is 35.4 °C (95.7 °F) in April and the minimum average temperature is 22.0 °C (71.6 °F) in December. Mean annual rainfall is 1648 millimeters. The maximum daily rainfall is 248 millimeters in May. Mean rainy days average 130 days per year.

History
The oldest name of the area is Tha Chin ('Chinese pier'), probably referring to the fact that it was a trading port where Chinese junks arrived. In 1548 the city Sakhon Buri was established, and was renamed Mahachai in 1704 after the Khlong Mahachai which was dug then and connected with the Tha Chin River near the town. King Mongkut gave it its current name, but the old name Mahachai is still sometimes used by locals.

It was established by the Act Establishing Changwat Samut Prakan, Changwat Nonthaburi, Changwat Samut Sakhon, and Changwat Nakhon Nayok, Buddhist Era 2489 (1946), which came into force on 9 May 1946.

Economy and environment
Formerly an agricultural- and fisheries-based province, Samut Sakhon in 2020 has more than 6,000 factories, most of them small, employing fewer than 50 workers, and too small to warrant much attention from Thailand's Pollution Control Department (PCD). Small firms lack the budgets to install the environmental gear that would help protect the environment. As a result, Samut Sakhon is one of the most polluted provinces in the nation.

Soil and water samples from the industrial area of Mueang District were found to be contaminated with high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, copper, and nickel. High levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPS), byproducts of industrial processes, were present in eggs from free-range chickens. An egg tested by researchers was found to have 84 nanograms per kilogram of dioxins and furans, a level 33 times higher than the safety limit observed by the European Union.

The most polluted air in Thailand in 2018 was found to be in Samut Sakhon province. According to the PCD, the level of PM2.5 in the provincial atmosphere in 2019 was unusually high, measuring as high as 195 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m3). During the air pollution "season" of 2018–2019, PM2.5 levels exceeded the PCD's safe threshold of 50 μg/m3 for 41 days.

Samut Sakhon is a leading sea salt producer. According to a survey in 2011, 12,572 rai of salt pans were managed by 242 families in Samut Sakhon.

Health
Samut Sakhon Hospital is the main hospital of Samut Sakhon province, operated by the Ministry of Public Health. The ministry also operates a general hospital, Krathum Baen Hospital in Krathum Baen district.

Ban Phaeo is served by Ban Phaeo General Hospital, the only hospital public organisation in Thailand.

Transportation
Samut Sakhon is along the Maeklong Railway, operated by the State Railway of Thailand and is served by Mahachai railway station on the east bank of the Tha Chin River and Ban Laem railway station on the west bank.

Symbols
The provincial seal shows a Chinese junk in front of the coast, with a factory and a smoking chimney in the background. Both refer to the old trading tradition as well as the local industries.

The provincial flag is horizontally divided pink/light blue/pink (1:3:1) the provincial seal in the middle.

The provincial brand is a picture of a white factory, a fishing boat, a fish and blue water and a green leaf.

The provincial tree is commonly called blackboard tree or devil's tree (Alstonia scholaris).

The provincial aquatic animal is Pholas orientalis, a bivalve that found in the Gulf of Thailand and Tha Chin estuary especially in the area of the province.

The provincial slogan is "Fishing city, factory town, agricultural ground, historic site".

Provincial government
The province is divided into three districts (amphoes). The districts are further subdivided into 40 subdistricts (tambons) and 290 villages (mubans).
 * 1) Mueang Samut Sakhon
 * 2) Krathum Baen
 * 3) Ban Phaeo.

Local government
As of 19 December 2019 there are: one Samut Sakhon Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) (ongkan borihan suan changwat) and fifteen municipal (thesaban) areas in the province. The capital Samut Sakhon and Om Noi have city (thesaban nakhon) status. Two have town (thesaban mueang) status and eleven are subdistrict municipalities (thesaban tambon).

The non-municipal areas are administered by 22 Subdistrict Administrative Organizations (SAO) (ongkan borihan suan tambon).

Human achievement index 2022
Since 2003, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Thailand has tracked progress on human development at sub-national level using the Human achievement index (HAI), a composite index covering all the eight key areas of human development. National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) has taken over this task since 2017.

title: Samut Sakhon province


text:
Talk:Samut Sakhon province

Untitled
There are two contradicting listings of the provincial tree: I choosed the first one, as TAT and the Ministry of Interior are the better sources andy
 * Alstonia Scholaris - according to, a (no longer online) list of the Thai tourist authority, and also displayed in
 * Thespesia populnea - according to and

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samut Sakhon Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150601212705/http://www.tourismthailand.org/destinationguide/list.aspx?provinceid=59 to http://www.tourismthailand.org/destinationguide/list.aspx?provinceid=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Samut Sakhon province


text:
William C. Durant

William Crapo Durant (December 8, 1861 – March 18, 1947) was a leading pioneer of the United States automobile industry, founder of General Motors and co-founder of Chevrolet. He created a system in which a company held multiple marques – each seemingly independent, with different automobile lines – bound under a unified corporate holding company. Durant founded General Motors and co-founded Chevrolet with Louis Chevrolet. He also founded Frigidaire.

Biography
Durant was born in Boston, Massachusetts on December 8, 1861. He was the second child of William Clark Durant and Rebecca Folger Durant (née Crapo), who was born to a wealthy Massachusetts family of French descent. His mother, Rebecca, was the daughter of Michigan governor Henry H. Crapo, who was also of French descent. Durant's family moved to Flint, Michigan after his father abandoned the family in 1869. They lived with Rebecca's sister, Rhoda, and her husband James Wilson. William dropped out of high school to work in his grandfather's lumberyard. He started out as a cigar salesman in and eventually founded his own carriage company.

In 1886, Durant partnered with Josiah Dallas Dort and founded Flint Road Cart Company, eventually transforming $2,000 ($0 in dollars ) in start-up capital into a $2-million company with worldwide sales ($0 in  dollars ). By 1890, the Durant-Dort Carriage Company, based in Flint, had become a leading manufacturer of horse-drawn vehicles and by the start of the 20th century, was the largest in the US.

Durant was highly skeptical of automobiles, feeling that the bad smell of burnt fuel, along with the engines' loud sounds, made them inherently dangerous to the point where he would not let his daughter ride in one. By 1900, public outcry over weak government regulation of gasoline-powered horseless carriages was significant. Durant noticed the general public's anger at this situation, and rather than relying on government regulations to improve their safety, he saw it as an opportunity to create a company which could improve the safety of this new class of transportation.

To begin this massive endeavor, Durant first set out to purchase Buick, then a local car company with few sales and large debts.

Durant conceived the modern system of automobile dealer franchises.

Buick
From his holdings in Durant-Dort Carriage Company, Durant was a millionaire. On November 1, 1904, he assumed control of the troubled Buick Motor Company and used the financial and manufacturing resources of Durant-Dort to correct Buick's course. With Durant pushing  and marketing the Buick name, the company was able to become the best-selling automobile in America, outperforming earlier leaders Ford Motor Company, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile, and despite having no manufacturing line and only a few extant cars,  orders tallied over 1100 - all of this by the time of the 1905 New York Automobile Show. Durant and Samuel McLaughlin, McLaughlin's being the largest carriage manufacturer in Canada, signed a 15-year contract to build Buick power trains at cost-plus pricing.

General Motors
With Buick as a base, Durant envisioned creating a large automobile company that would manufacture several makes and control subsidiary component-making companies, much as Durant-Dort had done in the carriage-making world. Durant founded General Motors Holding Company on September 16, 1908 and exchanged a large parcel of Buick stock for a matching parcel of McLaughlin stock making McLaughlin one of General Motors' biggest shareholders. On November 12, 1908, Durant purchased Olds Motor Works (Oldsmobile).

Durant consolidated 13 car companies and 10 parts-and-accessories manufacturers under the new holding company's control in 1908. In 1909, Durant's GM bought Cadillac, and Oakland Motor Car (eventually replaced by Pontiac), along with many parts-manufacturing companies, paint and varnish companies, and other accessory manufacturers owned by General Motors. By 1910, the rapid-fire acquisitions Durant had made caught up with the business, which caused Durant and the corporation to have become grossly overextended with so many imprudent acquisitions. The corporation faced a cash shortage, and in the aftermath, Durant was forced out of the company.

But Durant would not be bowed, and he backed Louis Chevrolet's eponymous company in 1911, with J. Dallas Dort as the vice-president and director of the company. In 1913, Dort stepped down as vice-president of Chevrolet, and in 1914 Durant disposed of his share of the Durant-Dort Carriage Company. By 1916, Durant had leveraged Chevrolet's sales to regain control of General Motors, and he went on to lead GM until 1920.

Other acquisitions
On October 26, 1909, General Motors Holding acquired the Cartercar Company, founded four years earlier in Jackson, Michigan, by Byron J. Carter. In explaining the reason he purchased Cartercar, Durant said:

"They say I shouldn't have bought Cartercar. Well, how was anyone to know that Carter wasn't to be the thing? It had the friction drive and no other car had it. How could I tell what these engineers would say next?" By the time Durant had regained control of General Motors in 1916, the GM board had already decided to discontinue the Cartercar, largely because sales never approached the 1000-2000 annually that Durant had predicted. The GM board decided to use the factory instead to produce the Oakland.

Durant had arranged an $8 million deal to buy Ford in 1909, but the bankers turned him down and the board of directors of General Motors dismissed him.

Both Durant and rival Henry Ford foresaw the automobile becoming a mass-market item. Ford followed the course of the basic Model T, and had said "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." Durant, however, drawing on his experience in the carriage business, sought to create automobiles targeted to various incomes and tastes. This brought about his plans to merge Buick with various other companies for this purpose.

Chevrolet
When Durant became financially overextended and banking interests assumed control, forcing him out of GM Holding, in 1910, he immediately set out to create "another GM", starting with the Little car, named after its founder, William H. Little. His initial intention was to compete with the Ford Model T, which was beginning the start of its impending popularity. Unsatisfied with this approach, he dropped it. In Canada, on 30 September 1910, after obtaining a loan of $52,935.25 ($0 in  dollars ) (cosigned by R S McLaughlin), went into partnership with Louis Chevrolet in 1911, starting the Chevrolet company. In 1914, a disagreement with Louis Chevrolet resulted in Durant buying out his partner. Durant went to McLaughlin in 1915 to put Chevrolet in Canada and with the shares being bought up at 5-to-1 and 7-to-1, McLaughlin and Durant with other shareholders had enough stock to reclaim Durant's old job. McLaughlin had no problem with his friend back at the helm; he went on building Chevrolet and built his Buicks in Canada without conflict with his Buick contract. General Motors Corporation was started at this time with Durant putting Pierre du Pont in charge, with McLaughlin Director and Vice President of the newly incorporated General Motors Corporation in 1918.

The venture proved highly successful for Durant, and he was able to buy enough shares in GM to regain control, becoming its president in 1916. During his presidency (1916–1920), Durant brought the Chevrolet product line into the corporation (1919), as well as Fisher Body and Frigidaire. In 1920, he finally lost control of GM to the DuPont and McLaughlin shareholders, paying out $21,000,000 ($0 in dollars ) back to his friends.

Following the US entry into World War I in 1917, Durant, who detested war, declared that GM would not participate in defense work. He ran afoul of Cadillac founder Henry Leland, who was an ardent patriot and eager to assist in the US war effort. Leland left GM and founded the Lincoln Motor Company, which received contracts to build Liberty aircraft engines.

While in charge of Chevrolet, Durant created other companies, including Republic Motors, mainly to produce Chevrolet.

He was inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame in 1968.

Vertical integration
Drawing on experience  gleaned in the carriage-making business 20 years earlier, Durant  assembled a collection of parts and components manufacturers (Hyatt Roller Bearing, New Departure Manufacturing, Dayton Engineering Laboratories (later Delco Electronics Corporation), Harrison Radiator Corporation, Remy Electric, Jaxon Steel Products, and Perlman Rim) into a new  company; United Motors Company, making Alfred P. Sloan of Hyatt Roller Bearing Company the president. In 1918, United Motors was sold to General Motors for $44,065,000 ($0 in dollars ). Sloan rose to president of GM in the 1920s, going on to build the company into the world's largest automaker.

Durant Motors
In 1921, Durant established a new company, Durant Motors, initially with one brand. Within two years, it had several marques (including the Durant, Star (also called Rugby), Flint, and Eagle), rivalling the range offered by General Motors. Part of the new empire included a factory in Leaside, Ontario, for Canadian production.

As he had with General Motors, Durant acquired a range of companies whose cars were aimed at different markets, and therefore, levels of affordability and luxury. The lowest ('entry' tier) was the Star, aimed at the person who would otherwise buy the Ford Model T. Durant cars were mid-market, and the company's entire structure was purposefully very similar with GM; the Princeton line (designed, prototyped, and marketed but never produced) competed with Packard and Cadillac, the ultra-luxurious Locomobile  being top of the line. Durant was unable to duplicate his former success, and the financial woes of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression ultimately proved to be insurmountable, and the company failed in 1933.

Wall Street and later years
In the 1920s, Durant became a major "player" on Wall Street and on Black Tuesday joined with members of the Rockefeller family and other financial giants to buy large quantities of stocks, against the advice of friends, to demonstrate to the public their confidence in the stock market. His effort proved costly and failed to stop the market slide. By 1936, Durant was bankrupt.

After the fall of Durant Motors, Durant and his second wife, Catherine Lederer Durant, lived on a pension provided by R. S. McLaughlin, and Messrs. Marr and Dupont as arranged by Alfred P. Sloan at $10,000.00 ($0 in dollars ) a year on behalf of General Motors. He then opened a bowling alley/fast food restaurant in Flint, Michigan, working the kitchen in person. Durant predicted that family-friendly entertainment venues would be big business in the coming years and he hoped to expand to a chain of 30 bowling alleys. In 1942, Durant traveled to Goldfield, Nevada, to open up a cinnabar mine, hoping the US government would subsidize it through defense contracts, although this ultimately proved a pipe dream. The 80 year old Durant made an exhausting climb on foot to the mine entrance to inspect it and after returning to Flint a few days later, he suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed. He was forced to move with his wife to an apartment in New York City, where he spent his remaining days. At the end of WWII, Durant predicted an economic boom and that the possibilities for consumer goods were almost limitless. The final moneymaking scheme he backed before his death was a hair tonic venture. Although Durant's mental faculties were unimpaired to the end and he attempted to work on his memoirs, complications from the stroke gradually robbed him of his ability to speak coherently. He attempted to travel back to Flint in 1946, but his health had deteriorated to the point where this was impossible. He became comatose on March 13, 1947, and died a few days later. By the time of his death, the Durants were bankrupt and had to sell off most of their collection of paintings and other valuables to pay for his medical expenses. He was interred in a private mausoleum in Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx, New York City. He was inducted into the Junior Achievement U.S. Business Hall of Fame in 1996.

Durant Park in Lansing, Michigan, is named after him, as is Waterford Durant High School in Waterford, Michigan. Likewise, Durant Square in Deal, New Jersey, where he maintained a summer home, is named after him.

Durant's Castle
During the late 1920s, Durant's son, Russell Clifford (Cliff) Durant and his third wife, Lea Gapsky Durant, started construction on a personal castle and private airstrip in Roscommon, Michigan, along the south branch of the Au Sable River. The 54-room mansion burned to the ground under mysterious circumstances on February 6, 1931. The Durants never inhabited it. Arson was suspected, allegedly at the hands of trade unionists, whom Durant had refused to recognize.

After Lea's mysterious disappearance in 1934, and Cliff's death in 1937, Cliff's fourth wife, Charlotte Phillips Durant, sold the land to George W. Mason (of Nash Motors), an automotive executive. Upon his death, it was bequeathed to the State of Michigan as a nature preserve, the Mason Tract, which covers a portion of the Au Sable State Forest. All that remains of the castle and private airstrip are the old foundation works. Today, a canoe landing and short history of the castle are on the site.

title: William C. Durant


text:
Talk:Partial fraction decomposition over the reals

This needs some work (by me); some of it isn't quite right, and the notation is awful. Revolver

I think the sketch proof of existence on the partial fraction page is essentially OK.

Charles Matthews 08:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even see the partial fraction page. Revolver

nice
This is a quite nice and useful page; I don't dare to say "stub", but lots of things could be added. I'm just hesitating whether to but an (of course never) "exhaustive" list of such methods before or behind the examples, on in between the simple and the complicated example.

I'm rather against the "merging" blob. It's nice to have this "application" page corresponding to 1st yr calculus university needs, which may soon grow to a quite respectable size, separately from a more algebraic partial fraction page.

Links to this page may be useful on basic pages of integration (I mean 'finding primitives'), where the algebraic background would be completely irrelevant and a hurdle for many readers to make their way up to the stuff presented here, while in turn this is completely irrelevant for more theoretical considerations like existence etc.  — MFH: Talk 18:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Colonial Secretary

The Secretary of State for the Colonies was the British Cabinet minister who headed the Colonial Office, commonly referred to as Colonial Secretary.

Colonial Secretary may also refer to:
 * Chief secretary (British Empire), originally colonial secretary, the official in many British colonies who headed the day-to-day functions of the colony's government, deputy to the governor, including:
 * Australia
 * Colonial Secretary of New South Wales from 1821 to 1959 when the role was renamed to Chief Secretary
 * Colonial Secretary of South Australia, from 1836 to 1856 when the role was renamed to Chief Secretary
 * Colonial Secretary of Tasmania, from 1856 to 1873, previously Colonial Secretary of Van Diemen's Land from 1826 to 1856
 * Colonial Secretary of Western Australia, from 1828 to 1924
 * Other colonies
 * Chief Secretary (Hong Kong), renamed from the Colonial Secretary in 1976
 * Chief Secretary, Singapore, renamed from the Colonial Secretary in 1955
 * Colonial Secretary of Ceylon, one of six offices that held a seat in the Executive Council of Ceylon
 * Colonial Secretary (New Zealand), the chief administrator of New Zealand from 1840 to 1907

title: Colonial Secretary


text:
Talk:Simon–Ehrlich wager

Peter Thiel
I took out the quote from Peter Thiel discussing the years after the wager. It wasn't even presented as a quote, but stated in this article as a fact. I do not believe Peter Thiel by himself can be considered a reliable source for claims about economics in the 1990s. It isn't even his specific field of formal education, and I don't think he was even investing in the 90s. Regardless, I don't see how one could consider him saying something about the economy in the 90s as sufficient to state it as a fact in this article. BenjaminMan (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

old comments
I think Paul Ehrlich was also a member of the 'Club of Rome', which wrote "Limits to Growth", also a famously wrong set of predictions.

The current revision of the article is written as an apology for Ehrlich. It needs to be made more balanced.

Done.

I want to know whether he would have won the bet which looked outside the normal boundaries of economics. Does anyone know where I could find that sort of statistical set?

His argument's analogy is flawed - life is not a sport, and there are factors outside raw economics which do matter, despite the views of economists - and I would definitely like to know if his style of economics and predictions is able to succeed outside its own proclaimed purveyance, as the 'invisible hand' would have us believe should happen.

 * Simon would have very much agreed that much in life is driven by values rather than economic calculation. In fact, he worked to expose that, in many cases, what people presented as matters of fact, of which denial was forbidden, were in fact statements about their personal values which the rest of us are not compelled to adopt. Please sign posts. Cutler 11:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Done.

For the second wager, does anyone know which of the predictions turned out to be true? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Timing
Ehrlich possibly may have been ahead of his time in the prediction about scarcities and metal prices... What about the trend now, since China and India are coming strongly into the picture? Steel prices (the value-added product) have certainly gone up internationally. What about price tends with copper, tin, nickel? Are we sure this topic is handled in an up to date way in the wager article and in the Paul R. Ehrlich article? - M. Coral
 * If someone wants to compile a list of current metal prices to match the wager it might be interesting, but we should avoid drawing any surmises from it on our own. -Will Beback 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Increased scarcity in the short-term is what drives Simon's theory. 'The aftermath' section was wrong, short-term price in increases in oil are not contrary to Simon's theory. Whoever wrote it misses the whole point, oil costs more so people invest in alternatives such as ethanol, so we use less oil. This is starting to happen now. - WGM

 * The graph in the article implicitly draws conclusions. Many of these minerals are now at much higher prices than in 2002, having increased by hundreds of percents in some cases - the graph is no longer indicative of long term trends. Whether they'll be replaced with alternatives and the price will drop is still a matter of debate of course.... I think it should go. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * When I created the graph for Wikipedia (2006), it was current. It is apparent that it is becoming increasingly out-of-date, and I will be happy to revise it to include the latest data available. It may take several weeks to complete; please be patient. —Aetheling (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

 * Also see peak oil and oil price increases since 2003 (from <$20/bbl to >$100/bbl in 2008). It may be worth mentioning that Richard Rainwater has profited handsomely by essentially betting against Simon in the futures market since the late 1990's. See: Richard Rainwater. Peakniks such as Matthew Simmons predict oil at $300/bbl within five years after world oil production peaks, and the peak may have occurred in 2005 or 2006. Oil production has been approximately flat since then, despite a sharp run-up in price. This is the first time in history that world oil production was unable to increase in response to rising prices in the absence of any major supply disruptions. --Teratornis (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about trashing this page with my last edit. My computer rebooted in the middle of my editing session, and then I got distracted with a phone call. I'm not sure what happened. I've never seen something like that before, the blanking of everything outside the section I was editing. --Teratornis (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It's now 2012, and the graph has still not been updated, so I removed it. Quark7 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Resources
Why doesn't anyone bet on worldwide kilocalories of food intake per human per day? Instead of only betting on sections of the eco-system that already rape 80% of the earth to enhance their 20%? Any fourth grader can tell you comparing an Olympian to an average human is like comparing an aircraft to a car. They take more resources to maintain, repair, and operate than an average person, and hence betting on the Olympics as opposed to betting on an average human, is the way Simon won on the first bet.

He took economies of scale and used it to argue that things were getting better. How about using average number of hours worked as a scale? In 1960 in America, one wage earner could support a family of 4. In the year 2000 2 wage earners were the norm.

--Lee Wells 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, but their real income was much greater -- that is average household real income was greater, and hence per capita real income was also higher. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hydroponics
Everyone please forgive my ignorance concerning the talk page protocol if I'm doing this incorrectly...this is my first one! In the second to last paragraph it is implied that advances in energy generation and hydroponics may result in less of several listed items. The language may be a little confusing, how could an increase in hydroponic agriculture decrease the amount of fertile soil? Similarly, does rice consumption automatically decline due to the adoption of a western lifestyle? I think I see the point, but I think that if it stays with the article, and is considered by the author to be important, that the causality should be defined more clearly. Thoughts? --thanks-- Jasnorth 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the entire paragraph is an attempt at synthesis and is original research -- and a bit confused. Remove it and just let Simon's words speak for themselves. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fashion
The article says that it became "fashionable" to argue .... Seems non encyclopedic/NPOV to attribute motive without documentation of that motive. Were people really going around saying, "I don't think this will happen, but it makes my butt look smaller."?

I'd also argue about the loaded "anti-industrial", but it's always possible to nut-pick someone like Ted Kaczynski and pretend that lone wackos are representative of a larger trend. Balance is a lost cause when people are willfully stupid. Mykej (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Too POV!
This article is now blatantly POV in favor of Simon and against Ehrlich. It needs to be rewritten for objectivity and balance. Just the facts--stop being cheerleaders for your "cause" and start being Wiki-scholars! 173.16.125.178 (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Two useful papers on the subject :

- Lawn P. (2010): On the Ehrlich-Simon bet: Both were unskilled and Simon was lucky. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2045-2046 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.009.

- Kiel K., Matheson V. & Golembiewski K. (2010): Luck or skill? An examination of the Ehrlich-Simon bet. Ecological Economics 69(7): 1365-1367 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.007

 * The problem is that Ehrlich was utterly wrong about nearly everything. In the 70s it was still, barely, possible to believe that we were near the limits. Now, when we can look at the Green Revolution in the light of hindsight and can begin to understand the potential of biotech for crops, there is no reason whatsoever to think so beyond mistaking the limits of our current economy (essentially dependent on century-old fossil-fuel technology) for some kind of theoretical limit. 128.194.250.117 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems heavily biased in favor of Simon. I've begun revising some of the more flagrant examples of this. It strikes me that the section title "Analysis of why Ehrlich lost" places undue emphasis on Ehrlich's status as "loser." Couldn't it be changed to just "Analysis"? --74.96.103.19 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree. Done

Quark7 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I would like to see: the actual amounts of the five materials bet on, in 1980 and in 1990, and the inflation adjustor they agreed to use as well. It should be possible, then, to ask Google "what is the price of a pound of tin in dollars," get a number, then ask "what is a dollar in 1980 worth now?" and get a range of websites providing a list of inflation adjustors. (Or just link a website doing whatever inflation adjustor they agreed on.) Then, anybody could plug in the numbers, inflation-adjust, and see whether the bet would still be true now. But to make that possible, the reader needs to know the specifics of the original bet. I'm sure they were written up in a paper, and I thought the Wikipedia article a few years back included the specifics, but apparently not.

That would be far superior to quoting from Grantham's newsletter. That's an appeal to authority--as far as I can tell the actual newsletter referenced does not actually contain details of how the bet would look in 2011, just a statement about it--when through the magic of Google the plain information itself is available. Grantham's views could be included as the viewpoint from a commodity investor's point of view, but not inserted as the final word on whether bet still holds.

The bet continues to be of great interest, and both participants (and partisan fans still do) felt that no matter the specific outcome at the ten year mark, their side would dominate in the long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.193.153 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-renewable v non-energy v recyclable
There's some discussion, buried in the last subsection, titled, Other Wagers, of the meaning or analytic significance of the original wager, and its outcome to date, to the emerging understanding of the economic implications of global resources limits on global economic growth. It might be worthwhile to pull out this analytic discussion, including the quotations illustrating later reflections on the significance of the wager for emerging views.

The original Simon-Ehrlich wager involved the prices of five commodity metals. The costs of these recyclable resources can reasonably be expected to respond differently to the pressures of global population and economic growth than will the prices of fossil fuel energy resources, subject to depletion, or the prices of commodities derived from the biosphere (farmland, fisheries), which may be subject to congestion effects or the risk of ecological collapse.

The Wikipedia articles on "Renewable resources" and "Non-renewable resources" do not make clear into which category, a recyclable metal falls, so that terminology might be better avoided. The stock of recyclable metals, however, is not used up in current production; new production only adds to the available stock-in-use, and metals are often significantly cheaper to recycle, in energy terms and enviornmental impact, than to extract in mining operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceW07 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lam
I have deleted the last 5 sentences in the "Other wagers" section, which were added some time ago by an unsigned user. These are the deleted ones:

''However, Simon would have won $200 if the bet had ended in 2009. According to Lam "the big picture is that these important non-energy, recyclable resources cost about the same today as they did 50 years ago, despite the addition of 4 billion people." About commodities in general, Lam adds: "The big picture in commodity prices has something for both optimists and pessimists. For pessimists there is the fact that non-energy prices more than doubled since 2000. For optimists we have the fairly amazing fact that while world population doubled from 1960 to 2000 the price of non-energy commodities fell almost 50%. These two facts roughly offset each other, with the price of non-energy commodities in 2009 almost exactly at their 1960 level. "''

I see two issues with this:

1. The reference given for this quote was published in 2001 -

David Lam, How the World Survived the Population Bomb: Lessons from 50 Years of Extraordinary Demographic History, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, Report 11-743, 2001.

, and 2. Claims of 2009 commodities prices being anywhere near 1960 prices are factually inaccurate (and very much so). Belsavis (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not directly related?
99.109.127.141 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Are you arguing that it should, or should not be included in the article? I wouldn't be opposed to including it in a "similar wagers" or "context" section. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Grantham
''Asset manager Jeremy Grantham wrote that if the Simon–Ehrlich wager had been for a longer period (from 1980 to 2011), then Simon would have lost on four of the five metals. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to "all of the most important commodities," instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost "by a lot." He concluded, "So, please "Cornucopians," let's not hear any more of the Ehrlich-Simon bet ... Ehrlich's argument was right (so far)."[12]''
 * The link provided still doesn't work. Even if the link works, there is just but one problem with the source: Saying that Simon would have lost in a longer period does not prove anything and is quite irrelevant to the wager in question. The wager was set in 1980 and ended in 1990, if Simon had agreed to extend the wager by 20 years then this would be a different story but he didn't. The article already mentions this under the section "Aftermath" with a much better source (the Economist) and a more NPOV description. Jeremy Grantham certainly didn't prove "Ehrlich's argument was right", he was just taking cheap shot at Simon who clearly didn't (and couldn't since he was long dead) bet on the prices of 2011.203.145.192.245 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is quite easy to find copies of the letter online (fx. ). I disagree that it is irrelevant. If you read the letter he explains why:

"The essence of the bet was that Ehrlich believed that compound growth could not be sustained in a world of fi nite resources, and therefore the real price of raw materials would rise. Simon argued that, regardless of the rate of growth, real prices would fall. Of course, the spirit of this bet has no time limit – 40 years is better than 10, and 100 is better than 40. But a bet like this between humans of middle age is one that both would like to collect on. So, the bet was set at 10 years and fi ve commodities9 were chosen by mutual agreement. Here again, all commodities would have represented the spirit of the bet better than fi ve, but fi ve was easier to monitor. Simon won all fi ve separate bets fair and square at the 10-year horizon. But let’s admit that this is a very unsatisfactory time period for the rest of us who are really interested in this contest of ideas. So, let’s take an equally arbitrary but much more satisfactory bet: from then, 1980, until now, and include all of the most important commodities. Simon would have lost posthumously, and by a lot!"

So, not really sure what your point is, unless you think we shouldn't include any context to the bet in the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's not point in adding discussions about a bet that didn't happen. It's like betting, "The Yankees will win more world series from 1980-1990 than the [fill in the blank]" and then having the Wikipedia article say, "If the bet had been extended forever, the outcome would have been different." Stick to the topic--the bet, the terms of the bet, the results of the bet. The rest is sour grapes from the losers. Don Williams (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem with the Grantham point is that 2011 was in the middle of a precious metals crunch. Since then, the prices of all the metals have tumbled to the point where Simon would have won again. I'm not sure that this adds much to the discussion since his point is only true at a very very specific time frame. 71.58.109.49 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Simon–Ehrlich wager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806074911/http://www.overpopulation.com:80/faq/people/julian_simon.html to http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simon–Ehrlich wager. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5Xuoqlqvo?url=http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/web/bet.html to http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/web/bet.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Simon–Ehrlich wager


text:
Talk:Honorary citizenship of the United States

Jun Fujita
I was brought to the Honorary Citizenship article via link from the article on Japanese-American Jun Fujita, which said that he received an Honorary Citizenship by an act of Congress, but his name is not included on the list in the Honorary Citizenship Article. Rgleon9986 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Old comments
Its Seven people and not six,Lata Mangeshkar singer from indiaa has also been given the Honorary Citizen of the United States.

REF:1987-Honorary Citizenship of USA in Houston, Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.92.2 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Six people, yes, not five. Thanks. :-) Chris Roy 22:32, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the immigration category appropriate? Only two of these people lived in the States. Pcb21| Pete 09:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Since citizenship is gained through a naturalization process, which is under immigration, this article fits into the cateogry. I suppose that an "honors" category might be a closer fit. BTW, the article should make some distinction between these rare honorary citizenship, and the common "private bills" granting citizenship to individuals, which are also acts of congress. Willmcw 09:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sakharov
I came here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov where is mentioned that he got this degree, but he isn't mentioned here Tbc2 04:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. As far as I can tell, a bill to make Sakharov an honorary citizn was introduced with a measly 8 co-sponsors in 2002 and died in committee. I can't find any evidence that the bill was ever voted on in the House, much less the Senate, much less signed by the president. [Winnie and Nelson Mandela didn't make it either]. I've commented-out the item in the Sakhoarov article, pending a reference. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it a "Real" Citizenship?
Is honorary U.S. citizenship a "real" U.S. citizenship - does it carry the right to a U.S. passport or a right of abode in the United States? JAJ 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, so far as I can tell. However since it has only been awarded to living people twice, and neither recipient was likely to change nationality, it hasn't come up, I'm sure. -Will Beback 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't make this clear. There must be somewhere to find info on the question. --Hyphen5 16:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This file contains the original resolution, which says that it posthumously grants "full rights of citizenship" in the case of the Penns. I'm not sure what those rights would be posthumously.-Will Beback 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This link from the State Dept says there's no eligibility for a U.S. passport. So the strong evidence is that "honorary" U.S. citizenship is not a form of United States nationality Details (pdf) JAJ 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would make sense that this is an honorarium, not an immigration status change. Of course there could be an interesting case on this if it every came to litigation.Mneumisi 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if it is indeed an actual form of citizenship, the whole dual-citizenship issue arises where the honour may ultimately have to be refused if the honoree's country of citizenship does not allow dual citizenship. 118.90.61.181 (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a lawyer, the answer is clearly no. There is no legal status or rights attached to the title. Curiously Lafayette was declared an honorary citizen though he was already a US citizen!119.224.91.84 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

2002?
This article says that the Marquis de la Fayette was given honorary citizenship in 2002. Yet Jules Verne's novel From Earth to the Moon mentions la Fayette receiving citizenship, and that book was published in like 1870. Someone should verify that fact.
 * Verne's novel is obviously a piece of fiction. is clear evidence of the actual date of the honor. However it's possible that some early president made an unofficial statement, before that law was passed, calling LaFayette a "citizen". -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He was made an honorary citizen when he visited the U.S. in 1824 by a proclamation of Congress, here http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0104/lafayette_legacy.html confirmed on the Library of Congress website. It was again bestowed on him in 2002. It's really symbolic in both cases. Lafayette was entitled to full U.S. citizenship because of his military service, just as it was granted to Tadeusz Kościuszko and Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben shortly after the war. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this would be the opposite of being only a us national and not a us citizen, being a citizen and not a national67.84.178.0 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why he was given the honor twice. Did the 1824 award cease to be valid at some stage? The later one would seem to be irrelevant, since he already was an honorary citizen. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * he was honored so many times because of the considerable acclaim and esteem, every time he traveled after the revolution he was mobbed, and showered with honors (the fact he was already an honorary citizen wouldn't have stopped them doing it again). Pohick2 (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2002 proclamation says:
 * ''Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was conferred the honor of honorary citizenship by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland;
 * ''Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was the first foreign dignitary to address Congress, an honor which was accorded to him upon his return to the United States in 1824;
 * I'm wondering if the author of "Lafayette's Travels in America Documented" on the LOC website might be wrong. Perhaps she is conflating the state citizenships and the address to US Congress. Since the article is signed, I'll try to contact her and see if she has any more information.   Will Beback    talk    03:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent a letter to the library asking them for more info. Also, I looked at this book, which discusses LaFayette's 1824 visit on pages 199-202. It mentions the honorary state citizenships and the address to Congress, but no honorary U.S. citizenship. I think the LOC article may be in error.    Will Beback    talk    04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move. Until yesterday, Winston Churchill's article said he was he first honorary US citizen. I've changed it to second, to be consistent with this article. But maybe he really was the first after all. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've received a reply from the researcher at the Library of Congress who wrote the article. It's complicated, as she says. Since the material is not personal, I'll quote the main part of the response:

 * I'm still pondering about how to untangle this in our article.   Will Beback    talk    23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would create a section just for this and replace the dates at the top with some sort of blurb referring the reader to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be necessary, but it would be better to fix what we have too. The Kennedy speech seems to thread the issue precisely: LaFayette was the first honorary citizen, and Churchill was the first honorary citizen proclaimed by Congress. The currect text is:
 * General Lafayette, a Frenchman who was an officer in the American Revolution (1824; and again in 2002, posthumously)[1]
 * Maybe something more like this:
 * General Lafayette, a Frenchman who was an officer in the American Revolution, is recognized as being the first honorary citizen of the U.S. He first received it from Maryland in 1783, which made him a national citizen under the Articles of Confederacy. He was made an honorary citizen of Maryland again in 1823, as well as of Connecticut the same year. He was also recognized as an honorary citizen in a 2002 joint congressional resolution.
 * How does it that seem? I can get the Idzerda book from a local libary to confirm the date.   Will Beback    talk    08:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd change "He first received it from Maryland in 1783" to "He was made an honorary citizen of the state of Maryland in 1783". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll go ahead and add it to the article.   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet more on Lafayette
After having the text of the 1784 Maryland statute pointed out to me, here are my conclusions, which I've incorporated into this article and the one on the Marquis de Lafayette himself:
 * Maryland made Lafayette (And his male heirs until the end of time!) "natural born Citizens." I don't know what Connecticut and other states did, but the language in the Maryland resolution is clear.
 * This made Lafayette a natural born citizen of the United States once the Constitution was ratified. Yes, this means that Lafayette would have been eligible for the Presidency. (And yes, before you ask, Alexander Hamilton was eligible too.)
 * Thus, while we can call Lafayette an honorary citizen of the United States from 1784 on (since the granting was an honor), his is the one case in which an honorary citizenship unambiguously granted all legal rights and privileges of a non-honorary citizenship. Since the ratification of the Constitution and consequent grandfathering of all (non-symbolic) state citizenships into "natural born citizen"ship was a one-time thing, other honorary citizens a) are ineligible for the Presidency and b) may or may not have other rights of citizenship such as voting. As the article notes, they can't carry US passports. YLee (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * in addition, in 1784, Lafayette and his family were made honorary citizens of Connecticut (Clary, Adopted Son p. 369); note that later in 1795 Adrienne de Lafayette and the children were issued American passports. Pohick2 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, in the same vein, is that he was also offered the governorship of Lousisiana (I *think*) at some point. If memory serves, then-President Jefferson made the offer (I believe by appointment, at the time, as this was a territory). Lafayette turned it down in order to tend to simmering French affairs. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ( well he was fomenting a little dissent to Charles X of France), i wish you all wouldn't say six people, since you would have to add Adrienne de Lafayette, Georges Washington La Fayette, Anastasie, and Virginie. Pohick2 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have the legal citation of the Connecticut conferral of citizenship? I've been trying to pull it off of Westlaw with no luck. Pohick, do you still have the Clary book - Clary might provide a primary source citation? I returned it to the library over a year ago, and now want to find the text of the CT act. Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no footnote, on the sentence at Connecticut, but in the passage he's citing from Lafayette's letters: Laf to GW Oct 8, 1784 Idzerda, Lafayette in the Age of Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 5:266-267, 276-277 it would be in Washington letters also. hmm, letters are not quite good enough, wonder if the state archives would have the law? "Microfilm: 1776-1839 microfilmed as part of Records of the States of the United States. See #8 of Bibliography. - On the Web: Not yet." - microfilm might be at LOC, might check next time i swing by. Pohick2 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I think we might have to remove Lafayette from this article completely. (Or, at least, move him down the list.) I recently found two newspaper articles, from 1963 and 1973. They both point out that Churchill, not Lafayette, was the first honorary citizen of the United States since a) it was the individual states, not Congress, that made Lafayette an honorary citizen, and b) since Lafayette's citizenship of the United States is covered under Article Two (as I mention above) and is thus "real", it really shouldn't at all be called "honorary" with the "not real" implication that adjective carries. (If anything the Maryland resolution ought to be seen as a private bill to give him citizenship, and as the article already points out private bills shouldn't be seen as honorary.) Of course, since the newspaper articles were written Congress has indeed said that Lafayette is an honorary citizen of the United States, but not until the 2002 resolution.

So, I propose to do the following:
 * Put Churchill first in the list of honorary citizens
 * Decide whether a regular citizen of the United States can be also an "honorary citizen." Either delete Lafayette completely if the answer is "no," or move him to just ahead of Pulaskin in the list if the answer is "yes." I will withhold my answer for the time being and see what the consensus is. In the meanwhile, I am going to add a curious postscript, not directly related to the subject, to the article. YLee (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't delete him. Congress and the State Department both say he's an honorary citizen. I'd put him before Pulaski with an explanation of the complications and contradictory sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the article to correct for Lafayette, and updated the Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, Winston Churchill, and Honours of Winston Churchill articles accordingly. Other honorary citizens' articles may also need adjusting if they say something like "third to receive the honor." YLee (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Churchill an American Citizen By Birth?
His mother was American, so unless she waived her American citizenship before his birth, he should be an American citizen. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC))
 * We can't assume that citizenship laws, especially those concerning dual citizenship, are the same today as they were over a hundred years ago.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They were different. He could have claimed U.S. citizenship, but would have to renounce being a British subject. Now he would have dual citizenship at birth. I just found this out. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

Ferguson
I've removed the section on Ferguson. That section was nothing more than trivia in disguise. I'm posting this here since it seems that section has been tolerated for 2 years or so. My reasons were in the edit summary. --64.85.216.176 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Link doesn't work
The link to the Public Laws about US Honorary Citizenship DOES NOT WORK. Please update it. Thank you.

Eugen Craciun aka Rudolph Aspirant aka roamsk

¿What About Gerald BULL?
¿What About Gerald BULL? Yes, he later had problems, but he did receive such citizenship.174.25.142.178 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC) A REDDSON

 * He became an American citizen the normal everyday way, certainly not by act of Congress. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Clarityfiend, your statement is incorrect. Gerald Bull indeed did become an American citizen by an Act of Congress.TL36 (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Penn and wife honorary citizens? Why?
Interesting article, with valiant (and successful) battle to describe Lafayette's timing accurately! Well done. But why was William Penn (who d. 1718) made an honorary citizen of the USA? He died 58 years before the "United States" came into existence. How can one be an honorary citizen of a country one never knew? It's akin to making Neil Armstrong an honorary citizen of the Republic of the Moon in the year 2969. What was Congress's rationale for so honouring Penn? And second wife too? According to Penn's Wiki-biog she only visited America for 2 years and preferred England! Penn himself was only on American soil for about 4 years (1681-1684 and Dec 1699-1701). I'm not questioning his right to honours - as a mass landowner, he was a benevolent dictator, and a good Quaker who deserved greater reward in later life. But what was the rationale for making him an honorary citizen of a country that (for him) never existed... exactly how was it justified? in 1984? Under Reagan? Without some explanation, there's a danger it can make 'honorary citizenship' seem bizarre, and attract derision. Perhaps a quote from the award citation (I assume there was one) should be included to throw some light. Pete Hobbs (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point of posthumous citizenship anyway? You're right that some explanation would help. The bill that authorized it has a bunch of 'whereas' statements, but none of them really explain why the matter was taken up. I found a short New York Times about it, which includes this text:
 * ''The matter had been considered but never acted upon by previous sessions of Congress, which rarely approves posthumous citizenships. Representative Bill Goodling, a Pennsylvania Republican who guided the resolution through the House last week, argued that Penn's involvement in development of this country and his longstanding desire to make America his home warranted such special recognition. William Penn "spent a lifetime promoting peace and liberty and helped to establish the foundation for our great country," Mr. Goodling said. "It is only appropriate that we pay this one last tribute to him: citizenship in the United States of America."
 * My guess is that Goodling simply decided that this was an important issue and pushed it through.   Will Beback    talk    22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Honorary citizen of the United States. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/reneacute-de-chambrun-640100.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honorary citizen of the United States. 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/20120722013614/http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm to http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.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) 19:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Renaming
This new title is very clumsy. "Citizenship of the United States"? IMO, it should be restored to Honorary citizen of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


text:
User:Chantral

Age: about 300 in dog & cat years. Whew...Let's just say I am over 21...Okay? Location: Southwestern USA Stumbled upon Wikipedia around: Oct 14, 2003

Credentials: Electronic Engineering; Computer Support Design and Forecasting; Quality Auditing; Aerospace Support Design Engineering; Application Engineering; Blah Blah... (Many other experiences I prefer not to go into.)

Interests: bisexual, transsexual, hormones for gender reassignment, shemale culture, adult industry, fetish culture, psychology, magic, occult, melanoma, Atkins diet, computers, programming, e-commerce, cooking, and many more.

Sorry, if I made a fiery entrance. Sometimes the wealth of public stupidity and prejudice I encounter gets the better me.

I'm a new user of the Wikipedia. I love the idea and foresee it becoming a much better source of information in the future...not that it isn't already.

title: User:Chantral


text:
Tall Cedars of Lebanon

The Tall Cedars of Lebanon International is a side degree of Freemasonry in certain Grand Jurisdictions, open to Master Masons in good standing in a regular Masonic Lodge. Its motto, "Fun, Frolic, & Fellowship," is indicative of this social bent. Its members are distinguished by the pyramid-shaped hats they wear at their functions. The name is derived from the cedars of Lebanon that King Solomon used to build his Temple.

History
The origin of the degree originated before the establishment of the formal organization. Some historians trace it as far back as the 1840s. The awarding of the degree apparently involved a deal of roughhousing. This degree was conferred on Master Masons after their Blue Lodge meeting closed. This degree was conferred by traveling Masons throughout the East Coast. This original group of Tall Cedars, called their degree the "Ancient and honorable right of humility". The Ancient Order of Tall Cedars continued until 1902. The Tall Cedars of Lebanon of the North America was founded in 1902 in Trenton, New Jersey. Glassboro forest #1 was the first charted forest. The organization adopted its present official name in 2023 now known as Tall Cedars of Lebanon International. The organization now has forest in Mexico, El salvador and brazil.

Organization
Cedars meet in groups called "Forests," each headed by a Grand Tall Cedar. These forests most often meet at the local Masonic hall. The Tall Cedars claim 6,300 members, mostly in the eastern United States. Its center of activity was, and is the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania; the Tall Cedars' national governing body, The Supreme Forest, is headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The current Supreme Tall Cedar — the TCL's highest-ranking officer — is Jim Marion, of San Pierre, Indiana.

There are two further side degrees with the group - the Royal Court and the Sidonian. There is also a marching band called the Royal Rangers.

Charitable activities
The Tall Cedar Foundation exists as the body's charitable arm, supporting research into muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular diseases. In 1951, it became the first organization to join with the Muscular Dystrophy Association in sponsorship. The Tall Cedars have now redirected their efforts in 2023 to supporting children and families afflicted with nero muscular diseases or Muscular dystrophy and a local level.

title: Tall Cedars of Lebanon


text:
Talk:Tall Cedars of Lebanon

Comment
Yeah i was gonna bold that when i figured out how :) Justin  22:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You add bold by surrounding the text with three single quotes blah becomes blah. Secretlondon 22:53, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Justin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tall Cedars of Lebanon


text:
Theodore S. Wright

Theodore Sedgwick Wright (1797–1847), sometimes Theodore Sedgewick Wright, was an African-American abolitionist and minister who was active in New York City, where he led the First Colored Presbyterian Church as its second pastor. He was the first African American to attend Princeton Theological Seminary (and any United States theological seminary), from which he graduated in 1828 or 1829. In 1833 he became a founding member of the American Anti-Slavery Society, an interracial group that included Samuel Cornish, a Black Presbyterian, and many Congregationalists, and served on its executive committee until 1840.

Wright founded and helped develop the American Anti-slavery Society, the Union Missionary Society, and the American Missionary Association. Wright was a prominent activist, and in contributing to these organizations gave frequent speeches and was successful in his endeavors, contributing greatly to the anti-slave movement. At age 50, Wright died from possible exhaustion. He was an influential person who was passionate about the development of youth, first-rate education, spreading the gospel, and abolishing slavery.

Early life and education
Theodore Sedgwick Wright was born about 1797 to free parents in Providence, Rhode Island. He is believed to have moved into New York City with his family, where he attended the African Free School. At the age of 28, he was admitted to American Institute of higher learning, becoming the second man of color ever to be admitted to the institute.

With the aid of Governor DeWitt Clinton and Arthur Tappan of the New York Manumission Society, and men from Princeton Theological Seminary, Wright was aided in his studies at the graduate seminary. He described his time at the seminary as a "dark and gloomy period" for race relations, in which the white faculty and students were united behind the American Colonization Society's efforts to remove free Black and enslaved Black Americans to Liberia. When John Brown Russwurm in Freedom's Journal combatted Wright's professor Archibald Alexander's support of colonization, Wright said the "united views and intentions of the people of color were made known, and the nation awoke as from slumber". In 1829, Wright was the first African American to graduate from the seminary, and the first to complete theological studies at any seminary in the United States.

Career
Before 1833, Wright was called as the second minister of New York's First Colored Presbyterian Church and served there the rest of his life. (It was later known as Shiloh Presbyterian Church and the successor congregation is now St. James Presbyterian Church in Harlem. ) He followed the founder, Samuel Cornish.

In 1833 Wright was a founding member of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which had an interracial membership and leadership. He served on the executive committee until 1840. That year he left with other moderate members, including Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and helped found the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. They disagreed with some of William Lloyd Garrison's proposals, including his insistence on having women in leadership positions.

In 1837, at a national Colored Convention, Wright opposed a resolution advocating black self-defense as "un-Christian." Wright supported activities of other black communities in the state; for instance, in 1837 he spoke at the dedication of the First Free Church of Schenectady, the first black church in the city, and praised its founding a school for its children.

For years Wright acted as a conductor for the Underground Railroad in New York City and used his house at 235 W. Broadway as a station. He served on New York's Committee of Vigilance, established to try to help fugitive slaves evade slave catchers and resist their being returned to the South.

Later years
By 1843 Wright had changed his views on violent rebellion to end slavery. At that year's National Negro Convention in Buffalo, he supported Henry Highland Garnet's call for a slave uprising. His proposal was opposed by Frederick Douglass and narrowly defeated by the members of the convention.

Marriage and family
In 1837 Wright married Adaline T. Turpin from New Rochelle, New York. On March 25, 1847, Theodore Sedgwick Wright died in New York City.

Wright at Princeton Theological Seminary in the 20th and 21st Centuries
The only book-length work on Wright is the 2005 Princeton Theological Seminary master's thesis by Daniel Paul Morrison. Titled, Theodore Sedgwick Wright (1794-1847): Early Princeton Theological Seminary Abolitionist, the theses reconstructs the biography of the man and offers insight into Wright struggle with the faculty of Princeton Seminary and the American Colonization Society which all of the faculty supported. Morrison's work was cited in James H. Moorhead's 2012 Princeton Theological Seminary in American Religion and Culture.

In October 2021, as part of a "multi-year action plan to repent for [its] historical ties to slavery," Princeton Theological Seminary renamed its library the Theodore Sedgwick Wright Library.

title: Theodore S. Wright


text:
World Fantasy Award—Novel

The World Fantasy Awards are given each year by the World Fantasy Convention for the best fantasy fiction published in English during the previous calendar year. The awards have been described by book critics such as The Guardian as a "prestigious fantasy prize", and one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo and Nebula Awards (which cover both fantasy and science fiction). The World Fantasy Award—Novel is given each year for fantasy novels published in English or translated into English. A work of fiction is defined by the organization as a novel if it is 40,000 words or longer; awards are also given out for pieces of shorter lengths in the Short Fiction and Novella categories. The Novel category has been awarded annually since 1975.

World Fantasy Award nominees and winners are decided by attendees and judges at the annual World Fantasy Convention. A ballot is posted in June for attendees of the current and previous two conferences to determine two of the finalists, and a panel of five judges adds three or more nominees before voting on the overall winner. The panel of judges is typically made up of fantasy authors and is chosen each year by the World Fantasy Awards Administration, which has the power to break ties. The final results are presented at the World Fantasy Convention at the end of October. Winners were presented with a statue in the form of a bust of H. P. Lovecraft through the 2015 awards; more recent winners receive a statuette of a tree.

During the 48 nomination years, 171 authors have had works nominated; 50 of them have won, including ties. Five authors have won twice: Gene Wolfe, out of eight nominations; Tim Powers, out of five; Patricia McKillip, out of four; Jeffrey Ford, out of three; and James K. Morrow for both of his nominations. Wolfe has the most nominations for an author who has won at least once, while Stephen King has the most nominations without winning, at nine, followed by Charles L. Grant at six and Jonathan Carroll at five.

Winners and nominees
In the following table, the years correspond to the date of the ceremony, rather than when the novel was first published. Each year links to the corresponding "year in literature". Entries with a blue background and an asterisk (*) next to the writer's name have won the award; those with a white background are the other nominees on the shortlist.

* Winners

title: World Fantasy Award—Novel